Author Topic: Faith vs blind faith  (Read 4361 times)

bluehillside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #350 on: October 10, 2017, 06:51:50 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
The sound of barrels being scraped augmented by greatly amplified sound of James last and his barrel scraping orchestra playing Rollout the barrel from there hit album Swinging scraping barrels vol 5 in quadrophonic with the speakers propped up on barrels.

So no actual attempt at a counter-argument then.

Oh well.
"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

'andles for forks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20079
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #351 on: October 10, 2017, 06:59:54 PM »
Vlad,

So no actual attempt at a counter-argument then.

Oh well.
I put two identical statements and you altered them to make them unequal in order to show they were not identical. You've rather rather made an argument in my favour haven't you Hillside. That's another fine fucking mess you've gotten yourself into.
I like the ''made up in the fourth century'' hypothesis but I also like Bart Ehrman. There's only one way to sort this out. Use contradictory evidence as it suits your argument wheeeeyyyyy!

bluehillside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #352 on: October 10, 2017, 07:08:41 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
I put two identical statements and you altered them to make them unequal in order to show they were not identical.

Corrected actually – otherwise you may as well just have typed, ”apples and oranges are identical”. Theism has a different status (asserted fact) from SU (conjecture) and it piles all sorts of additional claims on top that SU doesn’t entail. They’re fundamentally different.

Re-defining theism so it’s closer to deism to make a point (which still fails by the way) is just dishonest of you.

Mind you, if you want to start a new type of theism in which the claims are only conjectures, the “creator” need only do the initial creating but nothing more etc by all means give it a go.   

Quote
You've rather rather made an argument in my favour haven't you Hillside. That's another fine fucking mess you've gotten yourself into.

Er no (see above), and (as ever) the “fucking mess” is entirely yours. Deal with it.
"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

'andles for forks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20079
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #353 on: October 10, 2017, 07:15:54 PM »
Vlad,

Corrected actually – otherwise you may as well just have typed, ”apples and oranges are identical”. Theism has a different status (asserted fact) from SU (conjecture) and it piles all sorts of additional claims on top that SU doesn’t entail. They’re fundamentally different.

Re-defining theism so it’s closer to deism to make a point (which still fails by the way) is just dishonest of you.

Mind you, if you want to start a new type of theism in which the claims are only conjectures, the “creator” need only do the initial creating but nothing more etc by all means give it a go.   

Er no (see above), and (as ever) the “fucking mess” is entirely yours. Deal with it.

No new theology from me Hillside just standard stuff that's been out from before Descartes. Nick Bostrom, and NDG Tyson were a twinkle in their old men's trousers.
I like the ''made up in the fourth century'' hypothesis but I also like Bart Ehrman. There's only one way to sort this out. Use contradictory evidence as it suits your argument wheeeeyyyyy!

bluehillside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #354 on: October 10, 2017, 07:23:04 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
No new theology from me Hillside just standard stuff that's been out from before Descartes. Nick Bostrom, and NDG Tyson were a twinkle in their old men's trousers.

You think theism that deals only in conjectures awaiting investigation, a god who only needed to wind up the clock but not to show any interest after that etc is still theism rather than deism?

Well that’s different. 

Just so we know, the next time you refer to theism could you also let us know whether you mean "old" theism or "Vlad's new revised version of theism" please?

Ta.
"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11060
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #355 on: October 10, 2017, 11:31:08 PM »
Ok we could go with your crass generalisations.

Your crass generalisation is my viewpoint from the outside, it would seem.

Quote
On the other hand that would mean ignoring the evidence that various people have spent many years studying the history of the period and the etymology of words in their original language as used in religious texts.

And yet they've come up with massively differing interpretations and justifications, just like their less-informed brethren.

Quote
That your blind faith in your beliefs require you to dismiss their research doesn't surprise me.

You can keep throwing around 'blind faith' as much as you'd like, but when there are 'expert scholars' of Christianity, Judaism and Islam who can't agree on the meaning of various verses from various testaments, how is it 'blind faith' to conclude that their personal prejudices are probably colouring their interpretations?

Quote
I don't see anything surprising about people having different opinions on history or custom after a period of study, but what I find surprising is your naive assumption that every person talking about scripture has actually spent any time studying the history or etymology before forming an opinion.

It doesn't surprise me, either. What surprises me is the conviction with which they claim that they have the right interpretation, the actual truth, despite there being nothing outside of the questionable books to support any of it. I don't think that everyone talking about scripture is an 'expert', I just think that if there's no consensus amongst the experts and no evidence to support any of it, being an expert at it doesn't amount to very much. Many Emperor's with different coloured no clothes on don't actually make the thing any more believable.

Quote
If that's what you really believe then I have this bridge I would like to sell you.

Is it a magic, invisible, intangible bridge that leads to salvation that I can have for free (but I have to give the cleaner ten per cent of my income for life and let him tell me I'm a bad person in the meantime)?

Quote
You are absolutely right that there are many people who claim to be scholars or claim to know what is correct but who only interpret religion or ethics or morals or laws to serve their particular agenda.

But there's only one true Scotsman, right?

Quote
Much as I would advise anyone trying to buy a bridge or trying to join an army to kill for their country, it makes sense that theists should think about the motives of every politician, intelligence agency operative, ill-informed person or con artist who crosses their path rather than be influenced to make decisions that could hurt other people.

Reasonable advice for anyone, theist or atheist.
 
Quote
I think you are not explaining your poorly thought out metaphor about the two hands of religion.

I think you're over-reaching with a throwaway metaphor that wasn't intended to be read as deeply as you're trying... now where have I come across that tendency before...

Quote
If you applied your poorly thought out, fervent metaphor to other concepts you would end up with you, as a man, being a veneer of respectability that masculinity waves with one hand to hide behind whilst the other carries out mass shootings in Vegas and subjugates women.

So because I rightly point out that some theists are terrorists whilst others aren't, you think I'm of the same ilk as a recent mass-shooter? You think I subjugate women, when this started out because I objected to the unnecessary segregation of a crowd based on their sex?

Quote
So to use your words - what about men who don't commit mass murder and subjugate? They're an example of the sort of apparently harmless innocuous situations that allow more immediately harmful ideas to survive.

Really? Which ideas are those? Which ideas are the ones that I hold that support subjugation and mass-shooting?

Quote
Don't worry - I'm not holding my breath that you will see how inappropriate your metaphor was, because you are unlikely to permit anything to contradict your beliefs or blind faith about the evils of religion, because you can't face the world without clinging onto this belief of yours.

And there we go with the 'well you're just as bad as we are' attempt at an argument. There's no blind faith here - I might even be wrong, it's a possibility, but it's a chain of reason from the phenomena to a conclusion, not from 'but magic sky man says' to 'therefore segregation and pipe bombs'.

Quote
It might be a common literary tool - doesn't mean you have a clue in how to use it correctly.

But it does, apparently, mean that you don't know when to stop using it.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6283
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #356 on: October 11, 2017, 08:24:45 AM »

If you take out what we think we know, which includes what we think by implication, and what is true, there doesn't seem to be much left?
Personally, I don't want to take it out because I find it interesting to discuss what people think they know or what they think is right or good or bad. I interact with lots of different people and they hold very diverse views on many topics and I find it interesting to try and understand their views even if their world view or perspective on a topic is not one I want to adopt.

I tend to adopt a view that works for my life - for example I don't see looking older or dying as a problem because it doesn't make sense to me to adopt a view that looking older or dying is a problem as we are all either going to look older or die and feeling bad about either seems a waste of mental and emotional energy. But I can appreciate that other people might have a different view that works for them.

This forum allows posters to discuss/ assert different views without any requirement for anyone to change their views based on these discussions or assertions.

'andles for forks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20079
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #357 on: October 11, 2017, 08:29:19 AM »
Vlad,

You think theism that deals only in conjectures awaiting investigation, a god who only needed to wind up the clock but not to show any interest after that etc is still theism rather than deism?

Well that’s different. 

Just so we know, the next time you refer to theism could you also let us know whether you mean "old" theism or "Vlad's new revised version of theism" please?

Ta.
Hillside You cannot escape an intelligent creator outside of the universe it creates in SU conjecture. Intelligent Creators of that type are the stuff of theism and Deism but are argued against in atheism and naturalism.

There is therefore nothing in SU to help atheism or any argument which states that theism cannot be a candidate for SU.

Also if one can argue for a creator who is independent of the universe it creates one cannot argue that a god or gods cannot have those characteristics since that is special pleading.

Happy to put you straight.
I like the ''made up in the fourth century'' hypothesis but I also like Bart Ehrman. There's only one way to sort this out. Use contradictory evidence as it suits your argument wheeeeyyyyy!

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6283
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #358 on: October 11, 2017, 08:37:14 AM »
NS,

Probably not, but I do see a difference between using pejorative prefixes with no further comment as if the claim was thereby established and also taking the time to explain why the comment is wrong, dishonest, whatever. Thus on the "Searching for God" thread Vlad has fallen over by claiming the simulated universe conjecture and theology to be identical, and I've told him not only that he's wrong but also why he's wrong about that.   
In relation to the comments I made to Outrider, I think I did explain why his generalisations showed a lack of intelligence, were naive and inappropriate etc. You can choose not to accept those explanations and make assertions abut my posts - but then we're back to something I've mentioned before on here - that some posters will challenge posts because they are written in a different way from how they prefer to write them and therefore they make unwarranted assumptions about  the poster's meaning or intention.

I see that in a lot of your exchanges with Vlad - he is talking apples and you are talking oranges and you keep demanding he speaks orange too but he wants to discuss the apple perspective so he refuses and it just goes round and round in circles - for me it gets quite boring but other people might enjoy reading it. People enjoy different things.

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14152
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #359 on: October 11, 2017, 08:56:58 AM »
I see that in a lot of your exchanges with Vlad - he is talking apples and you are talking oranges
Not really apples; something spherical, certainly.
Porn gives young people wholly unrealistic ideas about how quickly a plumber will get to your house.

Floo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19125
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #360 on: October 11, 2017, 09:02:45 AM »
Not really apples; something spherical, certainly.

 ;D
"When I die I hope I will be remembered with humour by my nearest and dearest."

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6283
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #361 on: October 11, 2017, 09:52:17 AM »
It doesn't surprise me, either. What surprises me is the conviction with which they claim that they have the right interpretation, the actual truth, despite there being nothing outside of the questionable books to support any of it. I don't think that everyone talking about scripture is an 'expert', I just think that if there's no consensus amongst the experts and no evidence to support any of it, being an expert at it doesn't amount to very much. Many Emperor's with different coloured no clothes on don't actually make the thing any more believable.
I don't think anyone talking about religion is an 'expert' either, if by 'expert' you mean someone whose views are infallible or whose views you have to accept as right.

I don't generalise the way you do about religion or religious people claiming to be experts because I have come across many people who are seen as Islamic scholars who do not claim conviction or certainty about their interpretations and make it clear they are just giving their opinion and their 'expertise' merely consists of breaking down why they hold the opinion that they do using etymology, history, knowledge of nomad Arab culture in the 7th century, traditions etc but do not claim to "know" for certain because that would be impossible. 

I agree there are people who do claim certainty. It's up to theists to not unquestioningly follow the opinions of such people, depending on the consequences of following those opinions. That there are some people among theists who accept what they are told is not unique to theists, otherwise there would not be so many non-religious victims of financial scams and fraud.

Quote
Is it a magic, invisible, intangible bridge that leads to salvation that I can have for free (but I have to give the cleaner ten per cent of my income for life and let him tell me I'm a bad person in the meantime)?
If you think the bridge is magic and leads to salvation if you do charitable acts, give money to help people in need or share what you own to be helpful to the poor and needy - I don't see the problem.

Quote
But there's only one true Scotsman, right?
In what sense? Are you suggesting there is a scholar who is infallible? That's not a belief I hold.

Also, if someone did hold the belief that there was an infallible scholar, how would they know how to identify this infallible scholar who teaches the 'truth' out of any of the scholars who make that claim - maybe they will pick the wrong person to follow unless they themselves are also claiming infallibility.

Quote
I think you're over-reaching with a throwaway metaphor that wasn't intended to be read as deeply as you're trying... now where have I come across that tendency before...
A throwaway metaphor that seemed to say that religion is a special case that leads to terrorism and moreover that law-abiding theists allow theist terrorists to continue their criminal activities by providing a respectable face of religion rather than abandoning religion because some theists are terrorists. Rather than going for this convoluted assertion, the simpler explanation that is seen in many situations is that some people think criminal behaviour is justified to achieve certain political or religious goals. Or some people who hate others are capable of mass murder.

Quote
So because I rightly point out that some theists are terrorists whilst others aren't, you think I'm of the same ilk as a recent mass-shooter? You think I subjugate women, when this started out because I objected to the unnecessary segregation of a crowd based on their sex?
The segregation thread is on the Muslim board - I wasn't referring to it on this thread. What you pointed out was a particular link between theists who are terrorists and those who aren't based on them both identifying as religious - the two hands metaphor imply they belong to the same body and are controlled by one brain.

What I pointed out in response was that your view is as irrational as linking an abusive man or a mass murdering man with a man who doesn't abuse women or commit mass murder, simply because they both identify as, or are identified as, masculine.

Quote
And there we go with the 'well you're just as bad as we are' attempt at an argument. There's no blind faith here - I might even be wrong, it's a possibility, but it's a chain of reason from the phenomena to a conclusion, not from 'but magic sky man says' to 'therefore segregation and pipe bombs'.
I am not attempting an argument - I am making an observation about humans holding certain beliefs or views that are based on their limited experiences and knowledge and values that do not incorporate a religious story.

If you look on the Segregation thread I have given my reasons for supporting segregation in certain circumstances rather than banning it. The 'magic sky man' did not feature in my explanation so you are being dishonest in the way you are presenting a view you disagree with.


bluehillside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #362 on: October 11, 2017, 11:14:55 AM »
Quote
Hillside You cannot escape an intelligent creator outside of the universe it creates in SU conjecture.

No-one suggests that you would need to ‘escape” that part of the SU conjecture.

Quote
Intelligent Creators of that type are the stuff of theism and Deism but are argued against in atheism and naturalism.

First, you just elided theism with deism there. That’s cheating.

Second, divine “creators” aren’t argued against, but rather arguments attempted for them are argued against (ie, falsified) by atheism. 

Third, you conflated a coherent proposition (the creator of SU about which nothing more need be said) with the “God” of theism that’s incoherent because of the contradictions inherent in its description. 

Fourh, you ignored the difference between a conjecture (SU) and a claim of fact (theism).

Fifth, you ignored the difference between a “creator” about which nothing need be said (SU) and a creator about a great deal more has to be said (theism).

Sixth, you ignored the fact that SU requires only a localised creator of the universe we appear to observe, whereas theism requires a creator of everything.

Seventh therefore, you ignored the difference between a necessary condition and sufficient conditions. "A creator" is necessary and sufficient for SU; "a creator" (or rather the creator) is necessary but not sufficient for theism.

Eighth…

…well, surely you get the idea by now that they the SU conjecture and theism are not “identical” as you claimed at all.

The best you could possibly have would be to say that SU isn’t incompatible with theism, though nor is it incompatible with leprechaunism, Morris dancing or topiarism. Why you think that would be helpful to you though is anyone’s guess.     

Quote
There is therefore nothing in SU to help atheism or any argument which states that theism cannot be a candidate for SU.

“Atheism” doesn’t need to be “helped”. Rather all that’s needed is for claims made by theists to be falsified – that SU and theism are “identical” for example (see above).

Quote
Also…

You can’t have an “also” when your prior argument has collapsed. See above.

Quote
…if one can argue for a creator who is independent of the universe it creates one cannot argue that a god or gods cannot have those characteristics since that is special pleading.

Wrong again. First, the SU idea is just a conjecture – you can’t argue for or against it in any terms other than it being a possibility.

Second, SU requires only a creator of a universe; theism on the other hand asserts the creator of the universe.

That is, there’s no special pleading here because the two positions are fundamentally different.

Quote
Happy to put you straight.

Likewise.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 01:27:26 PM by bluehillside »
"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11060
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #363 on: October 11, 2017, 12:21:44 PM »
I don't think anyone talking about religion is an 'expert' either, if by 'expert' you mean someone whose views are infallible or whose views you have to accept as right.

I think I've obviously failed to make the point strongly enough - I'm not sure how you can be an 'expert' on something when there's not enough information to form a coherent picture.

Quote
I don't generalise the way you do about religion or religious people claiming to be experts because I have come across many people who are seen as Islamic scholars who do not claim conviction or certainty about their interpretations and make it clear they are just giving their opinion and their 'expertise' merely consists of breaking down why they hold the opinion that they do using etymology, history, knowledge of nomad Arab culture in the 7th century, traditions etc but do not claim to "know" for certain because that would be impossible.

I generalise at times about religious people because sometime the point isn't about an individual claim or a particular viewpoint, sometimes it's just about 'religion'. There are differences of specific claims and styles and histories within the religions, and within each religion there are differences of creed and custom and theology. Sometimes those differences are irrelevant to the point, which is about religion: we have the word because it's a concept that covers all of those subsets. 

Quote
I agree there are people who do claim certainty. It's up to theists to not unquestioningly follow the opinions of such people, depending on the consequences of following those opinions.

That's your take on religion; for them, that certainty is sometimes a deliberate choice on their part - they feel they have to be absolutely convinced - and sometimes it's a front to cover for their doubts, I suspect.

Quote
That there are some people among theists who accept what they are told is not unique to theists, otherwise there would not be so many non-religious victims of financial scams and fraud.

The difference with a fraud or a scam is that, in most instance, you're actually given some sort of reason to think that there's some truth to the claims.

Quote
If you think the bridge is magic and leads to salvation if you do charitable acts, give money to help people in need or share what you own to be helpful to the poor and needy - I don't see the problem.

You mean apart from the fact that there's no bridge, no need for salvation? Be charitable, by all means, give money to the needy and the poor, but do it because it's a good thing to do, do it out of sympathy for your fellow man, don't do it to appease a mythic tyrant and secure a non-existent afterlife.

Quote
A throwaway metaphor that seemed to say that religion is a special case that leads to terrorism and moreover that law-abiding theists allow theist terrorists to continue their criminal activities by providing a respectable face of religion rather than abandoning religion because some theists are terrorists.

I'm not saying theists should abandon theism because other theists are terrorists, I'm saying that theists should abandon theism because it's baseless. The problem with theists being theists if they're otherwise harmless is that they lend theism a respectability; as it's baseless, as there's no actual facts to challenge, no actual information to proffer, individual interpretations are equally as valid or invalid.

Quote
Rather than going for this convoluted assertion, the simpler explanation that is seen in many situations is that some people think criminal behaviour is justified to achieve certain political or religious goals. Or some people who hate others are capable of mass murder.

Yet we see time and again that, because religion is predicated on the existence of an absolute authority, these people believe (in at least some instances) that what they do in the name of their religion is not a crime at all, or that temporal authority and punishment is some sort of religious scourging they have to go through to prove their worthiness. They're demented, yes, but the specifics of their belief can't be challenged, because there are no 'facts' with which to challenge them, and the nature of religion can only be challenged if you're going to challenge all of it.

Think of it, perhaps, as the secular version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner'.

Quote
The segregation thread is on the Muslim board - I wasn't referring to it on this thread. What you pointed out was a particular link between theists who are terrorists and those who aren't based on them both identifying as religious - the two hands metaphor imply they belong to the same body and are controlled by one brain.

Yes. And that brain is blindly fumbling in the absence of any actual information, leaving the hands to wander where they will and do what feels right at the time.

Quote
What I pointed out in response was that your view is as irrational as linking an abusive man or a mass murdering man with a man who doesn't abuse women or commit mass murder, simply because they both identify as, or are identified as, masculine.

Except that we can prove if someone's a man, we can run tests and examine and inspect and determine if something is an inevitable consequence of biological sex. We can also investigate gender orientation, and make cultural studies to see what being 'masculine' in a particular culture means; we look at religion and there are no facts, there is nothing to inspect, there are some old opinions which have been elevated to sacred status, and innumerable divergent opinions about them and their meaning.

Quote
I am not attempting an argument - I am making an observation about humans holding certain beliefs or views that are based on their limited experiences and knowledge and values that do not incorporate a religious story.

If you make observations in response to someone else's observations, making  contrary points line by line, you're making an argument, even if it wasn't your intention.

Quote
If you look on the Segregation thread I have given my reasons for supporting segregation in certain circumstances rather than banning it. The 'magic sky man' did not feature in my explanation so you are being dishonest in the way you are presenting a view you disagree with.

I'm accepting of the fact that there are times when separating the sexes is appropriate: the instance that started that thread was not one of those circumstances, and it was entirely about a religious interpretation.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

'andles for forks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20079
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #364 on: October 11, 2017, 01:42:52 PM »
No-one suggests that you would need to ‘escape” that part of the SU conjecture.

First, you just elided theism with deism there. That’s cheating.

Second, divine “creators” aren’t argued against, but rather arguments attempted for them are argued against (ie, falsified) by atheism. 

Third, you conflated a coherent proposition (the creator of SU about which nothing more need be said) with the “God” of theism that’s incoherent because of the contradictions inherent in its description. 

Fourh, you ignored the difference between a conjecture (SU) and a claim of fact (theism).

Fifth, you ignored the difference between a “creator” about which nothing need be said (SU) and a creator about a great deal more has to be said (theism).

Sixth, you ignored the fact that SU requires only a localised creator of the universe we appear to observe, whereas theism requires a creator of everything.

Seventh therefore, you ignored the difference between a necessary condition and sufficient conditions. "A creator" is necessary and sufficient for SU; "a creator" (or rather the creator) is necessary but not sufficient for theism.

Eighth…

…well, surely you get the idea by now that they the SU conjecture and theism are not “identical” as you claimed at all.

The best you could possibly have would be to say that SU isn’t incompatible with theism, though nor is it incompatible with leprechaunism, Morris dancing or topiarism. Why you think that would be helpful to you though is anyone’s guess.     

“Atheism” doesn’t need to be “helped”. Rather all that’s needed is for claims made by theists to be falsified – that SU and theism are “identical” for example (see above).

You can’t have an “also” when your prior argument has collapsed. See above.

Wrong again. First, the SU idea is just a conjecture – you can’t argue for or against it in any terms other than it being a possibility.

Second, SU requires only a creator of a universe; theism on the other hand asserts the creator of the universe.

That is, there’s no special pleading here because the two positions are fundamentally different.

Likewise.
A lot here which is non sequitur to any argument about SU vis the differences between Theism and Deism or whether a theistic or deistic God is presented as a hypothetical or as an assertion.
We can take these up on separate threads and I would be happy to do so.
I like the ''made up in the fourth century'' hypothesis but I also like Bart Ehrman. There's only one way to sort this out. Use contradictory evidence as it suits your argument wheeeeyyyyy!

bluehillside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #365 on: October 11, 2017, 02:14:25 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
A lot here which is non sequitur to any argument about SU…


That’s not what non sequitur means. If you’re trying to say something like “not relevant” though, then you’d be wrong in any case – it’s precisely relevant because it explains the fundamental differences between SU and theism, thereby falsifying your claim that they are “identical”.

Quote
…vis the differences between Theism and Deism or whether a theistic or deistic God is presented as a hypothetical or as an assertion.

These (and other) differences are what detonate your claim of “identical”. If I was in a generous mood I’d say the most you could possibly argue is that each proposition has the word “creator” in it, albeit of very different necessary types (ie, parochial vs universal) but after that they head off in different directions entirely.   

Quote
We can take these up on separate threads and I would be happy to do so.

Knock yourself out. You would though actually have to engage with the arguments rather than just repeat “creator” over and over.
"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

'andles for forks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20079
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #366 on: October 11, 2017, 02:54:36 PM »
Vlad,
 

That’s not what non sequitur means. If you’re trying to say something like “not relevant” though, then you’d be wrong in any case – it’s precisely relevant because it explains the fundamental differences between SU and theism, thereby falsifying your claim that they are “identical”.

These (and other) differences are what detonate your claim of “identical”. If I was in a generous mood I’d say the most you could possibly argue is that each proposition has the word “creator” in it, albeit of very different necessary types (ie, parochial vs universal) but after that they head off in different directions entirely.   

Knock yourself out. You would though actually have to engage with the arguments rather than just repeat “creator” over and over.

Not so. SU proposes an intelligent creator independent of the universe it creates. Theism proposes an intelligent creator independent of the universe it creates.
These statements are identical.

There is no fundamental difference between them because the fundamentals of SU are theistic propositions.
And you cannot argue for those fundamentals for one entity and then deny them.

Therefore your argument is, as Bertrand Russell might have put it, fucked,it's fucked,it's fuckety fuckety fucked. 
I like the ''made up in the fourth century'' hypothesis but I also like Bart Ehrman. There's only one way to sort this out. Use contradictory evidence as it suits your argument wheeeeyyyyy!

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6283
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #367 on: October 11, 2017, 03:07:49 PM »
I think I've obviously failed to make the point strongly enough - I'm not sure how you can be an 'expert' on something when there's not enough information to form a coherent picture.
A coherent picture of what? I do wish you would finish your sentences or be a bit less vague.

Ok, you're free to dismiss whoever you want as not being an expert. I disagree with you - because as I explained I think it's possible for a person to be an expert on Arab dialects, etymology, history, traditional stories and therefore is able to explain their particular translation and interpretation of an Arabic text. There may well be disagreement - as other experts may think a particular tradition is given undue emphasis or may disagree with the etymology or historical narrative.

Quote
I generalise at times about religious people because sometime the point isn't about an individual claim or a particular viewpoint, sometimes it's just about 'religion'. There are differences of specific claims and styles and histories within the religions, and within each religion there are differences of creed and custom and theology. Sometimes those differences are irrelevant to the point, which is about religion: we have the word because it's a concept that covers all of those subsets.
Yes I get it - you have an irrational  phobia about religion.

Quote
That's your take on religion; for them, that certainty is sometimes a deliberate choice on their part - they feel they have to be absolutely convinced - and sometimes it's a front to cover for their doubts, I suspect.
In which case it makes sense to stop generalising about all theists based on the behaviour of some theists.

Quote
The difference with a fraud or a scam is that, in most instance, you're actually given some sort of reason to think that there's some truth to the claims.
I disagree -  in lots of cases of fraud and scams people are given very flimsy reasons and no evidence other than someone telling them a story they they would like to believe to be true. So it is not some particular phenomenon for some theists to believe in other people's certainties.

Quote
You mean apart from the fact that there's no bridge, no need for salvation? Be charitable, by all means, give money to the needy and the poor, but do it because it's a good thing to do, do it out of sympathy for your fellow man, don't do it to appease a mythic tyrant and secure a non-existent afterlife.
I'm still not seeing a problem. The end result is charity work, which is not harmful. If you find the charity work of lesser value because it involves belief in an afterlife - your opinion is not my concern.

No one knows or can predict the future - as far as I'm concerned it's not very different to working to secure a future that you believe or hope for but cannot guarantee because life is unpredictable and you or your spouse could get a debilitating illness, your spouse could cheat on you, any manner of unpredictable events could happen.

Quote
I'm not saying theists should abandon theism because other theists are terrorists, I'm saying that theists should abandon theism because it's baseless. The problem with theists being theists if they're otherwise harmless is that they lend theism a respectability; as it's baseless, as there's no actual facts to challenge, no actual information to proffer, individual interpretations are equally as valid or invalid.
Theists are theists because it works for them - so no it's not baseless - people tend to continue behaviours and beliefs that they perceive as improving their life in some way. Theists who behave respectably are treated with respect, as is their interpretation of their religion. If you have a problem with that, I think you are wasting your time trying to convince theists to abandon theism if theism works for them - there is no incentive to abandon theism.  You might have more success trying to convert all the people who treat us with respect and respect our practices to adopt your view. Good luck.

Quote
Yet we see time and again that, because religion is predicated on the existence of an absolute authority, these people believe (in at least some instances) that what they do in the name of their religion is not a crime at all, or that temporal authority and punishment is some sort of religious scourging they have to go through to prove their worthiness. They're demented, yes, but the specifics of their belief can't be challenged, because there are no 'facts' with which to challenge them, and the nature of religion can only be challenged if you're going to challenge all of it.
Again you seem to be arguing that religion is a special case. Even with a law and a judicial system people believe in some instances that what they do in the name of their particular non-religious cause is not a crime at all, or that temporal authority and punishment is some sort of badge of honour to prove their commitment and worthiness. Where they consider the laws unjust, they are celebrated for not submitting to authority.

Quote
Yes. And that brain is blindly fumbling in the absence of any actual information, leaving the hands to wander where they will and do what feels right at the time.
That's why I thought your metaphor was incorrect. There is not one brain. There are individual brains - and they all reason morals differently when arriving at what they think is a good or bad act. You can assert that theism is a special case all you want - you may even be really, really convinced in the truth of your assertions - but I see no evidence or reason to adopt your beliefs.

Quote
Except that we can prove if someone's a man, we can run tests and examine and inspect and determine if something is an inevitable consequence of biological sex. We can also investigate gender orientation, and make cultural studies to see what being 'masculine' in a particular culture means; we look at religion and there are no facts, there is nothing to inspect, there are some old opinions which have been elevated to sacred status, and innumerable divergent opinions about them and their meaning.
I am not talking about biological sex. Masculinity is a cultural construct. Different people have different interpretations of what being masculine means to them. What's the objective truth of masculinity in all of this.

Quote
If you make observations in response to someone else's observations, making  contrary points line by line, you're making an argument, even if it wasn't your intention.
Ok sure - we'll call exchanging observations, assertions and beliefs making arguments. What was the point you were trying to make by giving the argument a special name. Are you about to go through my posts and name every observation and assertion I make - that could get a little boring in place of an actual observation or assertion in response to the point made in my observation or assertion. 

Quote
I'm accepting of the fact that there are times when separating the sexes is appropriate: the instance that started that thread was not one of those circumstances, and it was entirely about a religious interpretation.
We already finished discussing this on that thread so no point continuing it on here. I disagree with where you think it inappropriate for the reasons I stated on that thread.



bluehillside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #368 on: October 11, 2017, 03:09:36 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
Not so. SU proposes an intelligent creator independent of the universe it creates. Theism proposes an intelligent creator independent of the universe it creates.

These statements are identical.

And one of them is untrue. Not sure why you keep ignoring the arguments that undo you, but if you’re not actively lying now you’re awful close to it.

For the final time: theism asserts (“not proposes”) the (not “a”) intelligent creator independent of the universe as a whole (not just the one a particular creator happens to create). Just re-defining it to look the same SU is dishonest.

A conjecture about a creator of a universe are the necessary and sufficient conditions for SU; they're not though necessary and sufficient for theism.

I really don’t know how to explain this in simpler terms for you.
 
Quote
There is no fundamental difference between them because the fundamentals of SU are theistic propositions.

Of course there is – see above.

Quote
And you cannot argue for those fundamentals for one entity and then deny them.

Of course you can – see above.

Quote
Therefore your argument is, as Bertrand Russell might have put it, fucked,it's fucked,it's fuckety fuckety fucked.

No, yours is – see above.

Perhaps if you worked out the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" it would help prevent you falling off this same cliff again in future?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 03:12:43 PM by bluehillside »
"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Sassy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10765
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #369 on: October 11, 2017, 03:19:06 PM »
In 2008 an international collaboration of scientists created what was then determined to be the roundest object in the world: http://tinyurl.com/n9aaxef

It has lost the crown to the most circular thing in the world:

Take that, sciencey scientismist scienceists!

How does the created determine the creator?

You my friend will live and die and what will your life be rated or valued at?

Is there a purpose to your life and will your reasoning live on after you die?

The Word of God... of all the books in the world which book has lasted and is still published among men the best seller, ever in the History of Man?  Was it not said that if everything Christ did in the three years he ministered was written down the amount of books would be?

King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


The bible has Christ saying: Heaven and earth may pass away but my words will never pass. Today, 2,000 years on his words still with us. Lot's of people whether religious or not know about his words. They know them off by heart and the words of God in the OT. But no one pays attention to the scientist that they can remember the words of their teachings off by heart in such vast numbers and more scientist names have been forgotten than are remembered.

Your comments will be long forgotten when this board ceases to exist and when indeed the people posting here also cast of their earthly coil. But the words of God and Christ go on. Science never really gives an answer does it to the creation or existence of the world. Could it be because everything begins and ends with God?

At the end of the day what do you take away from science that actually changes anything in the process of your life?
ZERO! Believers in Gods word have something which makes a difference now and gives a greater hope after death.

Sometimes hearing words and knowing the person who speaks them makes all the difference.


We know we have to work together to abolish war and terrorism to create a compassionate  world in which Justice and peace prevail. Love ;D   Einstein
 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Floo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19125
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #370 on: October 11, 2017, 03:20:15 PM »
How does the created determine the creator?

You my friend will live and die and what will your life be rated or valued at?

Is there a purpose to your life and will your reasoning live on after you die?

The Word of God... of all the books in the world which book has lasted and is still published among men the best seller, ever in the History of Man?  Was it not said that if everything Christ did in the three years he ministered was written down the amount of books would be?

King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


The bible has Christ saying: Heaven and earth may pass away but my words will never pass. Today, 2,000 years on his words still with us. Lot's of people whether religious or not know about his words. They know them off by heart and the words of God in the OT. But no one pays attention to the scientist that they can remember the words of their teachings off by heart in such vast numbers and more scientist names have been forgotten than are remembered.

Your comments will be long forgotten when this board ceases to exist and when indeed the people posting here also cast of their earthly coil. But the words of God and Christ go on. Science never really gives an answer does it to the creation or existence of the world. Could it be because everything begins and ends with God?

At the end of the day what do you take away from science that actually changes anything in the process of your life?
ZERO! Believers in Gods word have something which makes a difference now and gives a greater hope after death.

Sometimes hearing words and knowing the person who speaks them makes all the difference.

Thus spake Sass! ;D ;D ;D
"When I die I hope I will be remembered with humour by my nearest and dearest."

'andles for forks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20079
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #371 on: October 11, 2017, 03:26:54 PM »
Vlad,

And one of them is untrue. Not sure why you keep ignoring the arguments that undo you, but if you’re not actively lying now you’re awful close to it.

For the final time: theism asserts (“not proposes”) the (not “a”) intelligent creator independent of the universe as a whole (not just the one a particular creator happens to create). Just re-defining it to look the same SU is dishonest.

A conjecture about a creator of a universe are the necessary and sufficient conditions for SU; they're not though necessary and sufficient for theism.

I really don’t know how to explain this in simpler terms for you.
 
Of course there is – see above.

Of course you can – see above.

No, yours is – see above.

Perhaps if you worked out the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" it would help prevent you falling off this same cliff again in future?
There has been no redefinition Hillside.
The theological ''sufficiency'' of that statement is irrelevant to whether it is a theological statement. More red herring served than Rick Stein's of Padstow.


 
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 03:32:21 PM by 'andles for forks »
I like the ''made up in the fourth century'' hypothesis but I also like Bart Ehrman. There's only one way to sort this out. Use contradictory evidence as it suits your argument wheeeeyyyyy!

Sassy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10765
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #372 on: October 11, 2017, 03:42:05 PM »
Sassy,

But again, what makes you think they are “truths” in any objective sense rather than strongly held personal opinions?

The results of believing in them and then the promised results from God coming to pass.

Quote
You have experienced certain events. “God” as a causal explanation for them is a narrative you find persuasive, but there are others. Why then, if not for “faith”, do you opt for the former and dismiss out of hand the latter?   


The argument you present in itself does not and cannot define the truths and power of God. Nor can it contain an answer
to the actual events which come to pass. Need new arguments the one you bring to the table outdated.

Quote
That’s called circular reasoning: “I know a book is true because that book says it’s true” etc.


Circular reasoning cannot raise the dead. Circular reasoning cannot heal the sick... Are you sure you are not brain washed
and hiding behind words because you don't understand the persons God, Christ and the Holy Spirit? Circular reasoning in no way
can explain who they are individually or the works men have done because of them. Circular reasoning is redundant you are wearing the altogether as far as the kings new clothes.

Quote
No - see above. For that to be true you’d have to show that there is a “God”, that he had made “promises”, that those promises had been recorded accurately in a book, and that they had been “kept” rather than naturalistic explanations being the real ones.That’s a lot of “ifs”.


You see above the circular reasoning is man made and did not exist till after God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. You explain God,
Christ and the Holy Spirit without using someone elses reasoning or words. The truth is you cannot which means you are not in a
position to make judgements about things you cannot reason for yourself.

Quote
No – I would just find it impossible to abandon reason in favour of guessing is all.


You don't have a reasoning... You cannot even explain who God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, are. You cannot even reason for yourself
you use stupid and unintelligent words like 'circular arguments' because you are ignorant of the truth
about the subjects at hand.

Quote
So you say, but the question rather is about how these Christians you cite know they have found truths rather than made mistakes in their thinking. "I know that my faith is correct because my faith is correct" doesn't help you at all. What in other words makes their faith that there is a “God” not blind?

Your last paragraph is just stupid.  The rest of your post is you just trying to reflect your own beliefs about subjects (you know
absolutely nothings about) on to them. You use 'man-made' arguments without any real understanding of them and think somehow it proves your disbelief. Nothing really blinding there.

The end and beginning is God. The only circular argument which is a circular argument that begins and ends on a truth. The greatest proof that God exists and always will whatever you believe that existence to be, is that no one has managed to do away with the belief.
The reason for that, is no science and no man can disprove his existence. It isn't a fallacy and therefore it exists because it is
the only circular reasoning which is based on truth. A truth your writing about him acknowledges he will always exist.

Being clever is not about what you think you know. It is about what knowing what you know about whom you know. @ Sassy.
We know we have to work together to abolish war and terrorism to create a compassionate  world in which Justice and peace prevail. Love ;D   Einstein
 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

bluehillside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #373 on: October 11, 2017, 03:44:48 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
There has been no redefinition Hillside.

Of course there has. Your re-written to suit version of theism has nothing to do with what theism actually entails (the creator of the universe, still around, personally interested in you, willing and able to intervene when it suits etc). SU by contrast requires none of that. 

As the basic logic is lost on you, here's an example:

Proposition 1: a conjecture about a fish

Proposition 2: bouillabaisse.

Are they "identical" in your opinion?

Why not?

Quote
The theological ''sufficiency'' of that statement is irrelevant to whether it is a theological statement. More red herring served than Rick Stein's of Padstow.

Wrong again – see above.
"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Floo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19125
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #374 on: October 11, 2017, 03:50:28 PM »
Sass The greatest proof that God exists and always will whatever you believe that existence to be, is that no one has managed to do away with the belief.

So in other words no proof at all! ::)
"When I die I hope I will be remembered with humour by my nearest and dearest."