Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

[Luddly Neddite]

No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead!

Sure nuff - There it is

This is where the rubber leaves my road:

It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

For me, the answer is, NO.

What others choose is their business.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You may have just taken a direct hit!

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

Except that there is a mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution (and global climate change) but nothing that even hints at some super being in charge of this planet.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I got an honorable discharge but no medal.

 

[Amelia]

Why do people believe that their god does not like suffering while watching him/her/it cause enormous suffering?

Why is that?

Cause suffering?

The God of my faith doesn't like suffering but allows it to happen. I guess he indirectly caused it by putting us on a planet with natural events and with people who exercise their free agency in negative ways.

We're here to make choices.

 

[Amelia]

The bullet I bit was about the serial rapist. Does anyone have the exact wording of that question? I don't want to go back and retake the test now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Problem with the questions is each one had two correct answers - one for believers and one for non.

IOW, it was rigged.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The bullet I bit was about the serial rapist. Does anyone have the exact wording of that question? I don't want to go back and retake the test now.

The other questions had the same dichotomy.

If "you" are Peter, you are right AND have the right to rape.

I suppose that's what rapists believe.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why do people believe that their god does not like suffering while watching him/her/it cause enormous suffering?

Why is that?

Cause suffering?

The God of my faith doesn't like suffering but allows it to happen. I guess he indirectly caused it by putting us on a planet with natural events and with people who exercise their free agency in negative ways.

We're here to make choices.

Not up for an argument or discussion but that is the crux of every argument for/against believing in a god.

Choices.

Yes, we are in agreement.

 

[Amelia]

The bullet I bit was about the serial rapist. Does anyone have the exact wording of that question? I don't want to go back and retake the test now.

The other questions had the same dichotomy.

If "you" are Peter, you are right AND have the right to rape.

I suppose that's what rapists believe.

Yeah, I seem to remember the word used was "justified". So I said that Peter was justified in acting according to what he believed God wanted. And that was called biting a bullet because what Peter thought God wanted is unpalatable to society.

But Peter is justified in doing what he feels is right.

And society is justified in locking him up because he's a menace.