Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Ok, re: OP . . . I'm an ex-theist. And please forgive if someone has already replied with a similar response, because I'm really short of time at the moment, so I haven't read it all!
I think that most theists cling to their "club" and their "belief" because they were raised in it. They have been conditioned from birth that THIS is the only true belief, and that they really shouldn't question it. Not only that, but they are surrounded by like-minded people. And they have not had enough contact with people who hold different beliefs to be curious about those beliefs - in fact, they are trained to dismiss those beliefs as wrong. (I once worked with a devout Christian who worked with a Buddhist, a Muslim, an Agnostic, and a Hindu. She claimed to love every one of them - "what a great team! We have such great people!". When I told her about a comparative religion discussion I had with a co-worker from Bangladesh, however, she was horrified. "You shouldn't talk about religion! He's not a Christian, he's not saved! It might make you curious about his beliefs, and he's deluded!". Wowza.) Just reading about "other" beliefs, for some of these people, is a dangerous path. It's a slippery slope. They might find other religions interesting, and that CANNOT HAPPEN. They'll go to hell.
--Fuzz
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(April 24, 2017 at 10:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think I answered this before. You seem to be attempting to make a distinction between the why and force it into a feelings thing. Cannot I feel a need for, and the why be the same thing?
In the beginning for me, however; it was the history behind Christianity, that convinced me, that it was true. The Bible is primarily a historical book, which contains theological teachings, rather than a Theology book or instruction manual. Also when comparing to other religious beliefs, it is going to be the historical aspect, that I look to. Since then, I would also point to scientific or philosophical evidence and arguments, which point to something like God. This doesn't get to specifics, but every argument doesn't need to.
When I was a non-believer, I didn't feel a need to search for God, and I wasn't looking to change my life. I was fairly content. It wasn't that I felt a need to do anything. Also, I'm not a Christian, because it particularly suites me or because that system sounded the best to me. In that regard, Buddhism actually seems to be fairly appealing, or why not just make up my own for that matter. We could go new age, and have a subjective god, made in your own image.
With that being said, I do understand some believers talking about the completeness and wholeness, that comes with belief. It's not entirely intellectual; but, for me, this came after (and I wouldn't have understood it before).
Now, if this doesn't answer your question, then I think that the questions can be applied to your own beliefs as well. Why should I buy what you are selling?
It is about mere feelings otherwise you could answer without trying to point to your particular club and writings.
It is about mere feelings otherwise you would not be afraid of a neutral lab where it isn't trying to point to anything.
"When you were a non-believer" yep, you were still not armed with enough. I could not care less what you were prior, once you start trying to point to a particular club/writing your are back in the same position as if you were raised with a club.
Humans move from one position to another, that is not an argument.
You, "It's not entirely intellectual" ........I wouldn't put it quite like that. I have seen very elaborate apologies from followers of every label worldwide. Don't falsely equate the human ability to make up or swallow elaborate false claims as the claim being true itself. Shakespeare''s plays are also complex but that does not make the characters real.
Men popping out of dirt is not intellectual, Muslims pointing out claims of rivers of milk and wine, also not intellectual, spinning prayer wheels in front of a Buddhist temple, also not intellectual, on top of the fact that the first depictions of the Buddha mythology has him being born of royalty and also avoiding the birth canal.
You certainly can be intelligent AND WRONG. Bernie Madoff scammed rich people and college educated people out of lots of money. Every religion has followers who either fall for or create and sell elaborate apologies.
Neutrality is the only thing in scientific method that works. If you want neutral intellect and not personal bias, that is the only thing that works. I am sure you might think you are being "intellectual" but complexity of a naked assertion and trying to call it philosophy and or trying to reach back in time after the fact to try to square it to modern science is not being intellectual, it is merely falling for someone's vivid imagination.
Christians have left to become Muslims, Muslims have left to become Christians, Christians have left to become Buddhist, and some leave all of them. The fact you fell back into one of them only means you fell back into one.
Your first sentence here, is ridiculous. Basically, if I am understanding correctly, you ask for an answer about one belief over another, but then reject anything trying to point to that belief. Second, a science lab is not appropriate, for all claims of truth. I'm not afraid of a neutral lab, where it is applicable.
I would also be curious as to how you are defining neutrality here. It appear to me, that you are just rejecting anything from anyone who believes what they are proclaiming (however I assume you wouldn't do the same when what is proclaimed aligns with what you are selling). The only question is what is the belief based on. From whom the information comes from, doesn't matter. What you feel are their motives... doesn't matter. Once again, I would encourage you to lay out, what these principles you are putting forth are, and we will examine them neutrally, and see where they go (although note, not in a science lab, as that would be a category error and inappropriate to test this type of assertion).
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(April 24, 2017 at 12:53 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Ok, re: OP . . . I'm an ex-theist. And please forgive if someone has already replied with a similar response, because I'm really short of time at the moment, so I haven't read it all!
I think that most theists cling to their "club" and their "belief" because they were raised in it. They have been conditioned from birth that THIS is the only true belief, and that they really shouldn't question it. Not only that, but they are surrounded by like-minded people. And they have not had enough contact with people who hold different beliefs to be curious about those beliefs - in fact, they are trained to dismiss those beliefs as wrong. (I once worked with a devout Christian who worked with a Buddhist, a Muslim, an Agnostic, and a Hindu. She claimed to love every one of them - "what a great team! We have such great people!". When I told her about a comparative religion discussion I had with a co-worker from Bangladesh, however, she was horrified. "You shouldn't talk about religion! He's not a Christian, he's not saved! It might make you curious about his beliefs, and he's deluded!". Wowza.) Just reading about "other" beliefs, for some of these people, is a dangerous path. It's a slippery slope. They might find other religions interesting, and that CANNOT HAPPEN. They'll go to hell.
--Fuzz
Yes, most of the world's population simply buy the club because their parents sold it to them at a young age before they could formulate adult critical thinking skills.
But even for someone who might not get raised in one but adapts one as an adult might simply have liberal parents but also not taught critical thinking skills. "Find your own path" sounds nice, but you don't simply say "sample it all", you still have to have a neutral method to apply everything you might look at.
I said in my prior post, you can be intelligent and wrong at the same time. You can be intelligent and fall for very complex arguments that are still nothing more than an elaborate apology.
In the end anything you might want to claim, if it is going to be universally accepted beyond your own personal bias has to be subject to both an accepted method and neutral independent peer review.
There is no such thing as Buddhist science even if their are Buddhists with science degrees. There is no such thing as Christian science even if there are Christians with science degrees. There is no such thing as Muslim science, even if there are Muslims with science degrees. There is no such thing as Jewish science even if there are Jews with science degrees. There is no such thing as Hindu science even if there are Hindus with science degrees.
There is only one neutral concept of scientific method that all scientists use beyond their own personal beliefs.
(April 23, 2017 at 11:51 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The need is out of purpose called "Love".
True loved searches for truly what out to be loved and sees what ought to be loved with the highest form of love.
The name of God is that connection of fabrics of love through the channels of his love.
I would elaborate, but you guys been witnessing when I became Deist to when I became inclined to be Muslim to when became Deist again, then Atheist, then Deist, then Muslim.
You are not interested in knowing why I believe, you are simply interested in dismissing my reasons and mocking it.
None of the things you just said are reasons, MK. Do you just make this shit up as you go along?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
April 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm (This post was last modified: April 24, 2017 at 1:13 pm by Valyza1.)
Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing? People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary. But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing. Likewise, it may be that some religious people are never able to answer the question of why they believe. Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(April 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing? People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary. But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing. Likewise, it may be that some religious people never are able to assert the question of why they believe. Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.
Not in any human rights or legal context no. Their right to believe in that context is not in danger. But if one really wants to know if they are on the right track, that is a very important question to know if it is more than your own personal bias. When something is really beyond your own personal bias, it can be tested and falsified and then that data and method can be handed over to others and they will be able to come to the same conclusions you did.
If you are not willing to ask yourself why you feel the need to cling to a position, then you unwittingly or deliberately corner yourself into a box and that will not ever become a fact universally accepted.
Yes we knew breathing was a requirement long before scientific method found out the scientific biological explanation as to why. As a result of now knowing why, we have lung doctors and even environmental regulations that require the air we breath to be clean. Or, I should say, regulations that should be used and put first before profit.
Not everyone has to be a PHD scientist no, but the more humans have the basics the better they can view the world. I cant do a fraction to save my life. But I accept science because I use it every day. Much like I understand how to drive a car but can't build one from scratch. I also know the basic concept of how a combustion engine works, and still cant build a car from scratch.
I cant write computer code in machine language, but I do know what a bite is. I do know and accept that all machine language are based on 0s and 1s and positive and negative charges.
(April 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing? People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary. But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing. Likewise, it may be that some religious people are never able to answer the question of why they believe. Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.
If they can't express why they believe in it, they should stop claiming their beliefs are the truth and stop trying to convince others to believe. And breathing isn't a belief.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
(April 24, 2017 at 12:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You certainly can be intelligent AND WRONG. Bernie Madoff scammed rich people and college educated people out of lots of money. Every religion has followers who either fall for or create and sell elaborate apologies.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(April 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing? People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary. But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing. Likewise, it may be that some religious people are never able to answer the question of why they believe. Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.
If they can't express why they believe in it, they should stop claiming their beliefs are the truth and stop trying to convince others to believe. And breathing isn't a belief.
Agreed.
Breathing isn't something you have to "believe" in, it is demonstrably provable and observable. If you stop breathing long enough you die, no belief required in that. We constantly observe what happens when people stop breathing long enough.
I don't think anyone can legally stop anyone from making absurd claims no, nor do I think you can or should force any religion out of existence. But again, I would say that if you are not willing to ask yourself that question, then you are not being objective.
