(September 24, 2020 at 12:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 24, 2020 at 9:31 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: When something is based on evidence and reason, I find that I need not exert any will to believe it.

Provided the evidence and reasons meet your personal threshold. And of course, your biases against a proposition undoubtedly raise your acceptance threshold, and biases in favor lower it.

So please tell us what in the Christian proposition has met your personal threshold to allow you to accept it.

And what is it about your threshold that allows Christianity to clear the bar, but rejects all other very similar claims?

From someone who is outside ALL of all religious beliefs, all of them would fail to meet my threshold based on the exact same criteria. I don't have specific thresholds for different religions, yours fails to clear the bar for all the exacts same reasons that: Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc, do.

Quote:The forum seems unaware that people's thresholds differ; and they judge another's threshold by contrasting it to their own. To use a potentially wrong analogy: for some people the existence of Black Holes is reasonable based solely on the math; for others it is reasonable only when gravitational waves are measured; and still others find it unreasonable until a Black Hole is observed directly.

I think we are all well aware that people's thresholds differ. But the problem is, when someone has differing thresholds for the same categories of claims.

Quote:When it comes to God: for some people, existence alone is sufficient to make the proposition reasonable;

The only way to get from: existence>therefore a god, is to be guilty of flawed and fallacious thinking. How else would one get from existence>therefore a god, except by appealing to a god of the gaps fallacy? "I can't think of a reason how the universe exists, so it must have been a god".

So, if claims that appeal to fallacies pass your threshold, your epistemology is flawed.

Quote:As such my only concern is not to convince anyone here that God exists, but getting them to see how someone else might find it reasonable, and to respect that.

I respect believer's freedom to believe it is reasonable, but I don't respect their belief that it actually is reasonable.

(September 24, 2020 at 9:31 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: When something is based on evidence and reason, I find that I need not exert any will to believe it.

It may be that in your case, reason and the emotions are in perfect alignment. This would make you very rare, I think.

As has been described several times on this thread, faith comes into play when the emotions differ from reason.

So for example, a person may know perfectly well that air travel is safe. Yet when the plane takes off, he has the urge to scream. Faith (in the plane) is an act of will which prevents the person from screaming, because despite the emotion at the moment, he knows through reason that it's safe. 

A jealous husband may have suspicious thoughts every time his wife gets a phone call. Yet he knows through reason that he has no cause to doubt her. Faith (in the wife) is an act of will through which he suppresses his irrational jealousy and doesn't demand proof of her honesty at every moment. 

You of course think that faith of this type is not warranted for God. But what we're talking about here is what faith consists of. 

In people unlike you, whose reason and emotion are not in perfect alignment, faith is useful.

---

(September 24, 2020 at 10:06 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(September 21, 2020 at 8:28 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: A great example of the atheist definition of faith lol.

faith, n., A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof. (Aron Ra)

That certainly makes more sense than the way you define it.

Anybody who has faith in what Aron Ra has to say hasn't been paying attention.

https://historyforatheists.com/2020/07/a...nds-badly/

It looks as though some people dislike religion so much that they will put their faith in absolutely anyone who says bad things about it. This faith is frequently misplaced.

(September 24, 2020 at 5:49 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 24, 2020 at 9:31 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: When something is based on evidence and reason, I find that I need not exert any will to believe it.

It may be that in your case, reason and the emotions are in perfect alignment. This would make you very rare, I think.

I don't think it is as rare as you think. I have the exact same feelings as Mister Agenda.

One of my main motivations in life, is to hold as many true beliefs, and to eliminate as many false beliefs, from my mind, as possible.

The single best method EVER discovered by humanity, as a reliable path to truth, is to base one's beliefs on: demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

If someone is able to prove I have a belief that is not based on the above criteria, you know what I'll do? Stop believing it. No matter how emotionally attached I am to it, or no matter how much of a hit to my ego it is. That's how intellectual honesty works!

That plane you claim one has 'faith' in, our extended life spans (double in just a bit over a 100 years), the computer and networks you are using right now, etc, etc, etc, are all due to using the above method.

Quote:As has been described several times on this thread, faith comes into play when the emotions differ from reason.

Please let us know, how this 'method' of relying on emotion that differ from reason, has ever shown to be a reliable path to truth. After all, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, etc, all use the same 'method', and they all get to different conclusions.

(September 24, 2020 at 5:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I think we are all well aware that people's thresholds differ. But the problem is, when someone has differing thresholds for the same categories of claims.

It all depends how you place the boundaries between categories. Through one lens Christianity and Hinduism fall under the same category (religion); but under a different lens they do not (monotheism vs. polytheism).

Most religious people are theists first and foremost. Which is to say all theistic religions meet their theistic threshold. A Christian agrees that what Zeus represents in terms of a deity is correct; but the specifics of Zeus fails to satisfy other thresholds that Christianity apparently does.

There's hardly such a thing as an objective category. They are subjective; and they might be divided up differently depending on the person.

P.S. to anyone reading: I've moved past the faith discussion. These latest posts are about people's beliefs in God's existence, not about faith.

(September 24, 2020 at 6:01 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: If someone is able to prove I have a belief that is not based on the above criteria, you know what I'll do? Stop believing it.

Right. As I've said many times, you feel that faith in God is unwarranted, while the beliefs you have are warranted. That's not in question.

If by some rare chance you did have a moment of weakness, and the idea popped into your mind that the spooky noise in your house came from a ghost, the faith that you have in science would suppress this silly idea, as a reason-based exercise of will.

(September 24, 2020 at 6:29 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Most religious people are theists first and foremost. Which is to say all theistic religions meet their theistic threshold. A Christian agrees that what Zeus represents in terms of a deity is correct; but the specifics of Zeus fails to satisfy other thresholds that Christianity apparently does for them.

O rly? And down that slippery path of "logic", you'll eventually arrive at Gnostic Christianity, where the previous god is a demiurge.

I think I'll just worship the Sun instead, seems to give life to this rock more than your demiurge. /s

(September 24, 2020 at 6:29 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 24, 2020 at 6:01 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: If someone is able to prove I have a belief that is not based on the above criteria, you know what I'll do? Stop believing it.

Right. As I've said many times, you feel that faith in God is unwarranted, while the beliefs you have are warranted. That's not in question.

If by some rare chance you did have a moment of weakness, and the idea popped into your mind that the spooky noise in your house came from a ghost, the faith that you have in science would suppress this silly idea, as a reason-based exercise of will.

Nope.

I would never have the idea that the 'spooky noise' in my house was actually due to a ghost, anymore than I or a Christian would have the idea that the 'spooky noise' in their house was due to a Jinn (being from Islamic culture). There is nothing that I would need to suppress in order to disbelieve it was a ghost.

I don't even know how a ghost is a candidate explanation for any noise, anywhere. I do not have to rule out a ghost as an explanation for the noise, I need justification to rule it in.

Hell, I don't even know if a ghost is a possible explanation. Possibility has to be demonstrated, as does impossibility. And just because something is not logically impossible, does not mean it is possible.

Just like I do not have to consciously rule out gods as an explanation for the universe, I need justification to rule it in.

(September 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Just like I do not have to consciously rule out gods as an explanation for the universe, I need justification to rule it in.

That's not how we do science ironically enough, quite the opposite.

(September 24, 2020 at 5:49 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

---

(September 24, 2020 at 10:06 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: faith, n., A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof. (Aron Ra)

That certainly makes more sense than the way you define it.

Anybody who has faith in what Aron Ra has to say hasn't been paying attention.

https://historyforatheists.com/2020/07/a...nds-badly/

It looks as though some people dislike religion so much that they will put their faith in absolutely anyone who says bad things about it. This faith is frequently misplaced.

Fine example of the Genetic Fallacy on your part. Instead of making ad hominem remarks about Aron Ra's character, how about telling us what you think is wrong with his definition of faith.

(September 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I would never have the idea that the 'spooky noise' in my house was actually due to a ghost

By focusing on the specific example I used, you manage to avoid the main point.

There is something you hold, very strongly, to be true. Some idea comes into your mind that contradicts this strongly-held conviction. But in fact reason tells you that the doubt is unreasonable. Your faith in the strongly-held conviction means that you dismiss the unreasonable doubt through an act of will. 

Maybe this never happens to you. Maybe you're a robot.

---

(September 24, 2020 at 8:59 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: how about telling us what you think is wrong with his definition of faith.

That's been addressed over and over on this thread.