This is not an attack, but it is pointless to argue/discuss with religious believers.

Remove all ads!

I've edited and reposted this as a new topic, because so many topics throughout the BOM seem inevitably to evolve and polarise rapidly into Religious viewpoint V Humanist Rationalist viewpoint.

The Pointlessness of Arguing with Religion

Two tribes go to war.

If you are attempting to sway by rational discourse the mindset of someone who operates from, and totally embraces, a faithbased belief system, you are wasting your time.

Because? because they already have the incontrovertible truth, and anything else is in error.

They fall back (when pressed) to the Knowledge of the Word. and the Word is law and all else (all other viewponts) are in error.

Surely you rationalists out there can see, that anyone who can embrace a faithbased belief system, cannot be argued around to changing their position.
FAITH based by definition means that it cannot, (and doesn't need to) be proven.

So essentially you rationalists out there are attempting to rationalise with people who can embrace (and know with absolute fanatical certainty and zealous enthusiasm) a Delivered Truth, that has and needs no connection to a provable reality.

My joke saying (brings tears to my eyes, not thru laughter but weeping) is
SUPERSTITION BRINGS BAD LUCK.

How much bad luck, that human creature had a questioning and pattern recognising brain before he had empirical tools to answer the Why? How? questions, and so asking How? Why? was left with no option than to adopt the faithbased belief system that the Sun is God. Oh mighty Ra!

It doesn't matter that most religions do seem to be a structure on which to hang and promulgate worthy humanist laws/outlooks attitudes.
Religions' ability as tools of delivery of laws of behaviour to human creatures is as effective and subtle and controlled as a chainsaw in a blindchild's hands.

How much more bad luck, that the great and glistening organ the brain is by it's fundamental pattern recognition and questioning glory, so needy of, so automatically disposed to, and so capable of generating and accepting faithbased answers.
Then the poor dumb sad human creature demands that all others believe in exactly the same thing, because their individual faithbased belief is The One and Only Correct One. Can you not see they cannot even stand in a position to begin any real discourse for they are fully informed of the incontrovertible Truth before any discussion commences.

how much bad luck? that the world/universe is abig scary empty place, and the human creature is a self referencing small entity in comparison. Being able to see the stars, didn't necessarily bring comfort to the human race. It is much easier to accept a Delivered safety net of Religion than to stand alone saying "not quite sure what its all about, but it sure is big, and then you die."

Literal rationalists have to come from a one and only one position, that being that the first statement they must make in regards to any of the big questions. Is the preface..."I'm not sure but....

Anyone who states THEY KNOW The TRUTH!!! should be, by default, suspect.

While faithbased belief systems are the major safety net of the human creature, there is absolutely no chance of a peaceful world. There is absolutely no chance of unity, and there is absolutely no chance of even starting a conversation toward humanist rationalist behaviour being adopted as The Law by choice not by rule of force.

Religion divides

SUPERSTITION BRINGS BAD LUCK

PS to all you religion believers out there, understand that I am not saying you and your ilk are bad people, sad maybe. What I am saying is, that the capability/ability of unquestioningly embracing a faithbased belief system is not a real world survival trait for the human race.

And when the giant blue hand of god reaches down from the clouds to inscribe Unbeliever in flaming letters on my forehead, then I'll be asking him or her, just what the FLICK they were thinking with the random savage unjust suffering of the innocents on this beautiful and dismaying planet?

I titled this as "not an attack" if my dismay and passion at the capability of humans to "believe, as opposed to think" comes across as an attack, I don't care, because I find the general worldwide acceptance that a religious belief is normal/acceptable/REASONable is just further proof of Humans willingness to not to have to think. And this goes a such long way to totally making this world so much less of the paradise on earth that it could be, that I find it a continuous relentless personal attack.

If I came outa the desert now, after being lost for 40days and nights, saying "I'd heard voices and I'd seen visions, and God told me to tell the world that.... " they'd look at me kindly and take me to some gentle hospice somewhere to repair my ravaged mind. And this is the kinda thing that these ancient and (for their humanist truthful laws) worthy religions are based on.


I'm still waiting for that big blue hand from the clouds.

 

As a person who considers herself somewhere in between the two waring camps I can only say that I disagree with both extremes. Religion has its place in this world and has made many positive contributions. No one whether a hard-core fundamentalist or a dedicated rationalist has the right to force me to believe what they believe.

They can argue as much as they like but IMO they are wasting their breath or typing skills.

 

I wouldn't say that faith makes people hard to reason with. For example, many of the intellectuals who find Science to be cold, hard fact are just as difficult to deal with as, say, a fundamentalist Christian, simply because they hold an extremist viewpoint in high regard. No offense, but you come off as very ignorant when you dismiss an entire fellowship with a sweeping negative stereotype. Not all religious types are fundamentalists, just as not all scientists see Science as absolute. And as a parting note:

Religion exists as the means to an end, not as the primary solution. By itself, a belief in unity under God does not feed the poor; rather, it inspires those with the means lend assistance to do so.

 

Totally true Nakia,
..a dedicated rationalist however would not claim the right to force you to believe anything. I think I covered that point by the

And I would go as far as to say that "the two extremes" is a bit excessive.

Dedicated Rationalism rarely if ever generates fanatical zealotry, and again rarely if ever (show me to be wrong if I am) holds a position where-in you are automatically Targeted ( gods' will) if you do not agree with it.

I think religion is a human construct, that perhaps has brought some good to the world, but has brought more and continuing illwill.
And whatever perceived good (social laws) it may have brought as part of that human construct (religion) no doubt would've been brought into existence anyhow, outside of religion. And we'd not have the inheritance of religious extremism that exist only because religions exist.

 

@kin hell, point taken. My comment came from the fact that I have seen statements on this Board that I find extreme. I do not know what the correct name is for those who do go to the extreme of declaring religion unequivocally stupid, dumb, even evil. Religion is none of those except when taken to extremes and that is the fault of the believers.

In my extensive studies of religion I find that most (if not all) major religious beliefs include love and tolerance in their creed. The intent is to try and make people better human beings. True religion is to care for the sick, the orphan, the widowed, the needy. Faith without works is dead. That sort of thing.

I think that extreme or excessive attitudes would exist with or without religion. It is naturally for me to believe that what I believe is right. It is wrong of me to believe that I have the right to force those beliefs on others. Try to persuade them fine but force, no. And force can include using insulting, abusive speech. Words have power.

 

Yes BlckDeth

Yes I seem to have made a sweeping statement or three, and thank you I haven't taken offense.

But you have, I believe, failed to recognise the main premise of my conjecture.

Which is fundamentally, that whilst all and every religious believer may be the best of all humans, in thought and deed, the pure fact that they are capable of embracing a Delivered Faith-Based Belief Structure as a Known Truth, means they are in essense capable of believing anything that plucks their faith/heart strings.

It is this easy belief capability that allows religions to drift away from their worthy original social laws premise into the sad and truly scary extremist distort positions.

I am always amazed that the constant perception implied here is that humans donot/cannot, look after their own without a religion directing them.
Being witness to others misfortune is more often than not, enough trigger to truly humanitarian response. People can and are more often than not automatically good by nature.
This is not a personal attack, but charity/aid/caring from a rationalist viewpoint seems so much more worthy in its selflessness, than a religiously inspired/ordered act that has supposed rewards already built in.

I question.. how did the human race survive before and up until the current organised religions became into existence?

Ahhh! I find myself attempting to rationalise with you. No offense I wish you well in your fellowship, but we can never share common ground on which to have a discussion, for I (not personal attack) can never really trust you to be capable of not just succumbing to Faith.

Faith ...what an unbelievably potent and infectious construct! The required tool to be able to believe, as the 'one and only truth', something that can never be proven. And the sneaky and insidious bonus? If one has Faith then the believed Delivered truth need never be proven, or even questioned.

Meaning, I can claim any knowledge I like, for any reason at all, and say it is the Delivered will of god and not one believer can prove different, and if the believer has and claims true faith, They're mine.
And here's the sad fact there is a strong chance that the perceived and very real atrocious acts of fundamentalist extremeism were perpetrated by fundamentaly potentially good people whose capability to embrace a FaithBased Delivered Truth as the primary set of liferules, played straight into the hands of others who get up and say they Know The Truth ...it is the word of god!

BlckDeth no doubt you are a good human, but it is the existance of the human capability of faith, that allows religion to exist, which in turn allows god-swill fundamental extemeism to exist.

I'm not sure, but from my perspective, we invented god, as a extremely young race, unfortunately we've never had a chance to live on this planet, without that invention having a continual and all pervasive effect.(Don't bother bringing up the good that religion does please, I have addressed that concept throughout already.)

It is not the individual believer, that I decry, it is the capabilty of humans enmasse to shirk the responsibilty to their own lives/thoughts/actions/meanings in exchange for an ancient and messy rule-set, that is so incapable of giving proof of it's purported knowledge that its first requirement is that you give up an inquiring position and just have faith.

@Nakia


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is wrong of me to believe that I have the right to force those beliefs on others. Try to persuade them fine but force, no. And force can include using insulting, abusive speech. Words have power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure, but do you think I have used insulting, abusive speech? Is that how I should read this? ...you're right, on re-reading my original post I see I did call believers sad. That was an emotive and demeening path for me to walk down. I do sincerely apologise to all believers out there to whom I was abusive or insulting.

I donot however shy from the premise of this thread. Namely that whilst humans can accept and act from Faith, they cannot be trusted to hold up their side of a rational discussion. And there is nothing they or anyone else can do about it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my extensive studies of religion I find that most (if not all) major religious beliefs include love and tolerance in their creed. The intent is to try and make people better human beings. True religion is to care for the sick, the orphan, the widowed, the needy. Faith without works is dead. That sort of thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to repeat myself, but while I'm not sure, I strongly suspect that the good displayed by any and all religions, would exist anyway, even if god and religion had not been invented.

Unfortunately we have inherited an earth where that posit can never be tested.

Faith as a construct is the implied acceptance of superstition as a rule/behaviour giver.

Superstition Brings Bad Luck.

[ April 09, 2007, 07:56: Message edited by: kin hell ]

 

Any confirmation of the truth of our faith is personal and given privately after study, prayer, obedience and even testifying of it. As we do this, we find our faith increases. I find that many detractors are unwilling to do all of those things and thus never get that faith themselves.

Ironic, but true. Some people do ridiculous things believing it will change their fortunes. Like crossing their fingers on a random dice roll or coin toss, or having a figurine on display when they play bingo hoping it will influence which balls come out of the chute when...

Actually, if religion predates humanistic doctrines, then humanism used rational means to re-invent the wheel so to speak and didn't get it quite right. Christianity teaches that pride is dangerous, but humanism exalts humanity above all else. Is that not pride in humanity? Is not the worship of God inducing humility (the opposite of pride) in your life?

Because faith is not as simple as you make it out to be. The doctrines atre long and complex. To live by that faith requires study and thought to understand it and how to live by those principles.

Point of order, that sounds like an attack. I'll grant you that may not have been your intent, but the result is there.

Is a sence of prespective that bad? Again, looking to God, the Creator of all things for guidance is a key point to religion. It's a textbook of ethics for life...

I hold you to that standard. Infact, I WANT people to put my methodology to test, by doing as I say that I have done (start with study, pray and obey) to see if you don't get that confirmation of faith before you tell me I'm wrong.

I disagree. If everyone bought into the same set of rules and followed them to the best of their ability, there would be more peace than we see in the world today.

Stating contempt or disrespect as opposed to actual hatred. I understand that.

Trials are given that we may grow from them. Be they temptation to greivous sin that must be resisted or illness or disaster. We also need others around us in need that we may actually obey and help them.

And that end is the salvation of the human soul from sins and to make the world a better place.

By it's nature, it contradicts that statement. Religion believes it to come from God, as a means of worship and a guide to how He wants us to live.

That's the part of religion that most people tend to forget when pressed. Further, according to the religious world view, by trying to get the world to reflect our laws will make the world a better place...

I don't think that's correct. Many can't accept evolution, or cling to a misrepresented version of it and rail against it. I find it hard to get accurate information on that topic without the "anti-religious" craop that many try to use it to prove...

Actually, some religions teach that they were there from the beginning...

 

Religion is like a gun. Depending on who holds it and how it is used, it can be a tool of destruction and terror, a tool that protects the innocent and weak, a thing of ugliness, or a thing of beauty. It all comes down to how is is used and why.

Regarding reasoning with Faith-Based types....I'm going to have to disagree with you. While I agree that many who embrace one religion or another will check their brains in at the door, I also believe that it is possible to both accept a religious standpoint and think for oneself. Those who allow faith to displace their reasoning can and often do regain their reasoning later on.....but usually only if someone steps up and forces them to examine their own beliefs by challenging them. When I debate with someone of the religious persuasion, I am not aiming to change his mind.

I am intimately familiar with and have studied the new and old testaments, the Quran, the Baghavad Gita, the book of Mormon and even Dianetics and I know that the moral requirements set within such ancient tomes (well, Dianetics isn't so ancient) are absolute. I don't want to change the moral outlooks of believers. In truth, I could really care less what they believe. I want to challenge the notion that it is OK to force their moral outlooks onto others who do not share them....or have a moral outlook diametrically opposed to their own. In other words, I want them to be free to proselytize, to try to bring others over to willingly live by their faith, but they have no right to force others to live by their faith by passing its edicts into law. When people try to pass their religious convictions into law, they go too far and must always be challenged. It's too important an issue to let slide. I, for one, have no desire to live in a theocracy.

 

I agree with what you said (minus the rant). You simply can't convince someone who is devoted to his/her faith to change their opinion.

 

Firstly: kin hell, I apoligize if I came across as including you with being offensive. I did not find your post offensive and actually agree to a certain extent with the premise that it is pointless to argue with religious believers. I do think a discussion (such as this one) is possible.

I must add that I also think it would be pointless for. say Gnarf, to argue with you. He cannot prove why he feels the way he does. Gnarf or I could tell you of experiences we have had but that won't prove anything. A spiritual experience is a personal experience which leads one to other experiences and really can't be explained with words.

As anyone who has been on the Board for the last couple of years could tell you, Gnarf and I don't agree as to where these experiences lead. I have rejected organized religion but not spiritual experience.

Secondly: I think Drew's post is an excellent one.

Thirdly: We do not know and can only conjecture based on studies what the first humans thought but I do believe that religion was mankind's attempt to explain an incomprehensible world.

My favorite scenario is this:

Gog steps out of his cave into a thunder and lightening storm. Lightening from the sky strikes a tree and sets it on fire. Gog immediately assumes that something in the sky sent that lightening. Walla! Religion is born.

Now Magog, being a woman and therefore practical looks at the fire feels the heat and thinks "Warm, good. Something has sent this gift to us." She proceeds to get a burning branch and take it home. Aha, religion and science now exist hand in hand. Unfortunately things began to get complicated after that.

The point is that humans need to explain things, to understand things.

Yes, Gnarf, I know you believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon were given to mankind by God but I don't. This is just how I see things and where my experiences have lead me.

 

@Gnarfflinger

How do you see your reply as rebutting the quoted premise? Fuzzy logic immediately applied in your first utterance.
I state that Faithbased by definition...etc above, and you answer that if you have enough faith, your faith increases. Can your not see that from a position of not having faith, your suggested method of finding faith/increasing faith is an absurdity.
Immediately you show me the accuracy of my initial post title ...including this is not an attack.

Please dont tell me after that, that you pray to or worship a crucifix (I'm sorry if I've displayed a religion stereotyping if you are a member of some other religion)

Ah! these endless circular logics, what I can't workout is whether you cannot see the illogic of this confused/confusing sttement or if you can, but continue to assert it anyway.

Firstly who's to say religion predates humanism, I didn't, and I donot delegate you the authority to make such a claim.

I'm not sure, but there is every possibility that an incipient humanist awareness was parasitised and/or colonised by the invention of religion. that humanist ideas and social mores and justicebalances are an automatic growth of an evolving self awareness. Religion may have just sucked them up as part of its own evolution.

Let me suggest, that humanism doesn't exalt humans. Humanism doesnt lay claim to godhood for humans, humanism doesnt lay claim to a Delivered version of the One and Only Truth, humanism doesnt require worship, or anything else, apart from a rational appraisal of where we are as humans. Humans just are, and if you are not beguiled by the illusion and soulsease of Faithbased belief systems, ones humanist approach is to get on with living as happily helpfully and harmlessly as possible, one would hate to think that thought predates "do unto others as you've have done unto yourself".


Lastly how can you possibly think that I as a humanist can be proud of a race, that is capable, in the majority of bowing down and embracing faithbased belief systems?

Of course faith is not simple, unless the believer is/was simple (observation not attack).
For any sort of intellect, Faith has to be the most complex of positions they'll ever hold. I mean the little voice of reason so insiduously whispering in their head every time a question of faith arises.
When every other position they hold is based on some application of rationality, Faith them becomes the greatest structure they'll try and build in their lives.
Don't get me wrong, Faith brings many jewels to the deal, never being alone in this universe, the good are rewarded, bad people get punished, there is a reason in the world,you too can be a member of this tribe etc etc etc.
And having embraced it, dedicated so many relentless man/womanhours to its existence and function, who on earth would willingly freely give up so much investment and for what? The lonely humanist outlook that we're here ...alone just get on with it, I dont think so.
So faith is the trade you make, and because it is the intangible rickety construct that it is, of course it aint a simple thing.

The doctrines are long and complex. discussed as above.

"to live by the Faith...etc"
Are you suggesting to live outside of faith is (a) easy
(b) lacking in principle
(c) lacking in selfawareness and/or considered behaviour?

You are right I've already apologised in an earlier post.

Let me stress Gnarfflinger, that if you ever misleadingly quote me out of context again I will never bother to discuss anything with you again!
What I actually said in its complete and full meaning and intent was as follows

You will note, within the text that you failed to include in the quote, that I have already positted that your God is an easy fallback position in a lonely universe. And there you were suggesting the very thing back at me. I'm sorry, but it's a farce trying to bridge that logic inconsistency.

Ah the sheer presumption that others haven't travelled that route and ended up holding a different truth than you.

It seems that my perceived previous attack "sad human creature demands all others believe in exactly the same thing," had some validity afterall.

Do you really think that I came to my conclusions without decades of consideration? That somehow with no taint or touch of the infection of faith and its requirements, that I have the knowledge of it's nature and process and requirements?
Unlike some, I don't claim to any great Delivered store of knowledge handed down from the clouds, I had to reason to get to this.

Yeah Gnarfflinger I know, it's Your godgiven only one truth set of rules.
How many other religions are there out there all saying the same.Can you not see the idiocy of your comment as a rebuttal to my statement?
I could say I'm incredulous as to how you cannot see how your comments only strengthen my statements/position, only then I would be denying the original premise of this thread which was that it is pointless to argue/discuss the like with religious believers.

Elsewhere I have already apologised for this, but your positioning and points above are pushing into feeling somewhat this way towards, either, your lacklustre logic, or your displayed contempt for logic.

Yeah tell that to child murder rape torture victims.
Given any sorta chance I think you'd find they'd pass.

Gee it's working so far.

Yeah mate, and because it's so vehemently believed it must be real.
The world is flat.
The moon is cheese.
Pigs might fly. oh god where did I put my hat.

I am not trying to win any point here, but I truly donot understand what you are saying. Are you agreeing with me?

Yeah and of course they have no self interest in being omniscient and omnipresent.
PS plus you failed to address the question


@ Drew and Bahir the Red

My contention is that the ability to adopt a faith based belief system, seems to imply an inherent acceptance of superstition.

It seems to indicate that the believer by saying, "I have Faith." is actually saying, 'my need to believe is stronger than my need for proof'.

I have never stated that I thought it acceptable to demand that anyone believe as I do, only that it is impossible/pointless to attempt to hold a rational extensive meaningful discussion with religious believers.

Does that stop me from trying? No, see the above
as witness.

@Drew

I have to ask, what are you debating them for then?
I think the intent of any debate is to influence the thinking of the other.
I will go so far as to say in regard to amount of religious knowledge that you've obviously pursued, good on ya, but I am suspicious that societies embracing of religion as a normal thing, is in fact a symptom of the fact that we have just not evolved enough to 'get" the social rules, and feel comfortable in the big universe without the inherited godfigure in the background.

Why should a politicians perceived religious leanings serve him positively in the polls and voting booths? In fact religion becomes a convenient flag for he/she to robe themselves in. A statement that their behaviour is dictated by the rules of their belief structure. Oh what fabulous shorthand " vote for me, for you can trust me, I believe in god therefore I must be of good character!". The implication being of course that anyone who is seen not to believe, is not worthy of just such trust as to their character.

What if religion is a mass halucination? and there is nothing to prove it isn't, then what chance have we, from within, of breaking out of this socially acceptable neurosis.

Worse still. Let's conjecture.
What if there IS a universal truth?
One small unifying truth out there.
It's small and understated, it ain't loud or demanding of notice, it's just the truth.

I fear in this world of instant gurus and those who relentlessly stand up and claim to Know (only to often display some human-stain-underbelly that their self-raised lofty position exposes),
I fear if any unifying truth is to be found, the sheer amount of noise, and the extreme resentment and reluctance to relinquish the investment already made in these tottering towers of Faith , I fear the truth may just not get heard.

But what do I know?

Don't get me wrong, I don't know any truth, I've just got good at recognising bulls**t when I step in it.

[ April 09, 2007, 11:16: Message edited by: kin hell ]

 

It is not pointless as it helps to understand religious believers if one cares to take them serious, and explain alternative views in return.

It is pointless insofar as attempting to make them commit being wrong, or to convert them, is concerned.

And that easily applies to every faith based field beyond religion.

 

I thought I made that quite clear when I said

My goal isn't change their religious beliefs, but simply to get them to understand that they don't have the right to force other people to live by them.

 

@Nakia

Gog and Magog eh? I like it, very old testament isn't it?.

For me it's always been Gog approaching the waterhole one evening notices the animals he'd like to eat drinking at that same waterhole.

And da da da daaaah! he Thinks! "if Gog (self referencing) comes back to the waterhole tomorrow early (pattern recognition and differentiation of now and another time) Gog could probably jump on one of those animals and eat it". (accepting a future, prediction, hope, or one could say ...Faith)
And suddenly you've engaged a questioning organ.

let me say I have total room for those who say "I don't know, but it feels as though there must be something more to existence than just this".

Who's to say?

What I do know, it is every Certainist (no I didn't mean creationist , I meant Certainist) that I resent, despair of, and wholeheartedly oppose.

Certain of their direct connection to the One and Only Truth.
Certain that they and they alone have the Truth.

My position is that even if they Know in their very Heart and Soul, they don't know.

Where are these interventionist gods?
If we were made in their likeness which likeness are we talking about. Arabic African Asian Indian etc etc.

HERE is the kicker for me and the idea of free will, cause I defy anyone out there to tell me we shouldn't have freewill. (general comment Nakia not aimed at you)

If your god is omnipotent and omniscient, knows everything from before the beginning of time to the end of time, and further and causes it all.
By definition, your god knows before you are born exactly who you will be, exactly what you will do, exactly what you will believe or not believe throughout your life up until your death, and knowing all this your god gives you, your life the nod.
You are born you live and you die exactly as your god knew you would.

Now your god tells the fable of everybodys' freewill, and because it(your god) has given you freewill it can also reward or punish your behaviour with the various paradises or hells out there in the religion supermarket.

Not a hair falls from your head that your god doesn't already know about.

Now lets talk about the human failure, some seedy sad deranged aberrant violent sexual predator perhaps (this seems to be a popular subject of dissension on these boards) . We'll call him Ugly to avoid tainting anyones real name.

Your god knew before Ugly's birth that Ugly, even with the best of education and devout upbringing was going to choose the savaging path of violent sexual predation spreading nothing but harm and pain and torment throughtout his long and affective life. Then he dies. Gets judged and goes to hell forever.

Ugly, is your omniscient just and merciful god's construct.
You could argue that he had freewill all the way through his life. But your god knew before his(Uglys) birth Ugly's path through life. (Otherwise your god is not omniscient at all) and still Ugly was created destined with your god's foreknowledge to follow an inevitable path to eternal damnation and torment.

Where is the freewill in that?

I again suggest, If anyone say They Know, they are automatically suspect in their statement.

Truthfully how many of you have interacted in a real (as opposed to emoted or dreamed or felt or heard voices, had a vision no-one else saw) way with your god?
At least you can truly be blinded when you gaze upon the real lightbringer, old sol.

@Drew
Fair enough mate, I understand what you mean, I agree with you completely and I suspect that you are probably a much nicer human than I am, cause there is a hypocritical part of me (while recognising the personal space right of each and everyone of us)that actively desires the Faith capabilty to be switched off, and an end put to this particular irrationality.

@Ragusa

I'm sorry I may be being a bit slow here, but I've sat here wondering what other faithbased fields you meant. I mean I am truly curious please explain? thanks

[ April 09, 2007, 13:29: Message edited by: kin hell ]

 

Is there a natural corollary here? If you can't argue with religious people because their "faith" gets in the way, then doesn't it seem true that you can't argue with non-religious people because their "facts" get in the way? I'm thinking along the lines of "Can't see the forest because there are all these trees in the way"

 

That almost seemed correct The Great Snook, until I realised that none of my arguments or comments require a real leap of faith.

For me to state a realist humanist position and defend it, is to my mind in regards to any rational logic based discussion, a lot more defensable, than any argument that requires a leap of faith, an acceptance of an intangible as real, or a willingness to embrace a Delivered truth as the only truth.

Also a rationalist hasn't got a limitless fallback position of Faith if the discussion gets too incisive and his stand is being cut down, the true rationalist will be able to embrace a change of belief if his belief or position is proven incorrect.
This adaptive capability is just not countenanced by the rigours of standard Faithbased Belief systems, they cannot tolerate close and testing inspection.

Now of course if you (not you personally The Great Snook) didn't feel the need to base your discussion in any rational logic based framework, then really you just reinforce this thread's original title's premise.

 

TGS, my thoughts exactly.

/me raises eyebrow. Old testament, how so? Did the lightening speak to Gog or Magog?

Oh goody, just the opening I needed. A story I have to tell. I was a grade school teacher (private) and mathematics was my love. Modern Math came into being and was touted as the greatest thing since Einstein. I studied it and loved it and so I taught it and the children loved it. Then the public schools heard about this new and wondrous thing. "Aha", said the powers-that-be, "We must include this great Modern Math in our curriculum." So they did. Unfortunately the public school teachers could not understand or accept the concept of Modern Math. It was too revolutionary for them. They had to bind it to the old math. So they tossed in a few sets and Base Two. Alas, Modern Math died for lack of freewill and free form.

It can be very hard to change any one's viewpoint on just about anything they hold near and dear to themselves. Just try and persuade me to eat cauliflower and you'll see how hard it is.

 

@Nakia
I am happy to be corrected if this is wrong, but aren't Gog and Magog the two opposing teams who face off in the lead up to armageadon in
?revelations?.
As I said correct me please I am not speaking from or as an authority.

and Nakia I must be starting to mouthbreathe as I cannot get the connection between " I'm sorry I may be being......" and your newmath tale. I understand the seeming impossibility of changing entrenched and heavily invested-in positions, but am I missing something about this being another faithbased field or what? pardon my thickness.

 

Well, not to pick on any one person, but I'll use this as an example. The dreaded Global Warming Threads. I believe that many people are making a huge leap in faith that global warming is man-made. People are taking on faith computer models that can't tell us what the weather is going to be like in 48 hours and extrapolating that to an SUV is causing the Earth's destruction.

I'm not 100% convinced that your rationalists do not have fallback positions. It isn't like science hasn't been wrong in the past. How many legitimate scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, or that the Earth was flat? Heck, doctors used to bleed sick people or attach leeches to them. We currently believe E=MC squared and that the speed of light is impossible to reach. We take these things on faith as they are the best our current science can prove to us.


/me humbly requests we try not to turn this into another Global Warming Thread.

 

@ TGS
OK I'm with you I donot want a conversation re: global warming.

Re fallback positions, science and specific scientists of course have been wrong in the past.
Interestingly like investments in faith, positions promulgated and invested in by scientists, can often be held way past rationality.
Not because the scientist is a rationalist but exactly the reverse. At that moment, in defense of an indefensible, that individual failed as a rationalist.
They disallowed scientific proof, (as opposed to faith), for reasons that had nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with status, emotion, stubbornness, and even in some cases I imagine the blind and unshakable Knowledge that they Know the Truth and every body else is wrong.
My point is, that taking the leading edge of science on faith, is not so great a leap of faith as you imply.
To the best of our abilities these dissemminated informations have been subject to repeatable stringent test.
We can only know scientifically what we can repeatably test to destruction, all else is conjecture, illusion , and/or faith based.

Being able to accept and adapt to changing knowledge is the hallmark of an un-chained mind. It is a requirement of the practice of a rationalist humanist.
As far as the current controversies of weather for instance, I will again state what has been repeatedly themed throughout this thread.
Until the evidence is in (and given the massive chaotic system we are not talking about, I personally don't believe all the evidence is in yet)
anyone Who claims To Know The Complete Truth, is automatically suspect on all levels.

So my application/tool to determine the acceptability of grand statements of knowledge, is capable of being applied in real-world senario as well as the unreal and totally conflicted irrationalists paradise of religious faith based systems.