Faith is Born from Fear

[AtheistBuddah]

I agree with the sentiment of that statement I do, but still, does it seem fair to be expected to live by the tenets of a religion that I think is fake? What if Scientologists were getting laws passed that forced their views on everyone.

Is it fair to declare that the religion you refuse to believe in is the only religion that exists? Is it remotely possible that, if you actually sat down and talked to someone who understands their own beliefs, and all the arguments both for and against their beliefs, you might find yourself admitting you are wrong?

I refuse to believe all religions. And I started out as a Christian so while I would humor the conversation I doubt it would end in my reconversion. Also I would like to point out that I have the right to be wrong so long as I don't hurt anyone in the process.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

But you just admitted that you talk to a supernatural being. That's a positive claim.

Funny, I don't recall using the word supernatural, maybe you are confusing me with those voices in your head. Even if I did, it is not actually a positive claim, it is just me saying I talk. The only way you can insist I made a claim is if I also claimed that my talking produces positive results. Since I did not say that, all you have is me talking to myself.

You, on the other hand, have made claims. Can you prove them or not?

Newsflash, I never made a claim, thus I have no burden of proof. You, on the other hand, have openly claimed that the God I talk to does not exist, so feel free to prove it.

One minute you make the positive claim to be talking to a God and the next you are denying it. You are simply backpedaling and thinking that it somehow makes us look foolish and makes you look intelligent and hard to pin down or understand. It makes you cowardly and dishonest. Nothing more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I refuse to believe all religions. And I started out as a Christian so while I would humor the conversation I doubt it would end in my reconversion. Also I would like to point out that I have the right to be wrong so long as I don't hurt anyone in the process.

Yet you selected a user name that includes a religion.

Interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One minute you make the positive claim to be talking to a God and the next you are denying it. You are simply backpedaling and thinking that it somehow makes us look foolish and makes you look intelligent and hard to pin down or understand. It makes you cowardly and dishonest. Nothing more.

Do facts confuse you?

I made no positive claim, I just said I talk to something that you insist does not exist. I am under no obligation to you, or anyone else, to prove that whatever I talk to has any value to you, or anyone else.

You, on the other hand, made multiple claims in this thread, not one of which you have supported. All you have done is try to insist that I am under an obligation to prove something to you that I never claimed.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I refuse to believe all religions. And I started out as a Christian so while I would humor the conversation I doubt it would end in my reconversion. Also I would like to point out that I have the right to be wrong so long as I don't hurt anyone in the process.

Yet you selected a user name that includes a religion.

Interesting.

I admire the Buddha and value his teachings. Buddhism can be treated as a philosophy as well as a religion. Don't read more into things is really there.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

One minute you make the positive claim to be talking to a God and the next you are denying it. You are simply backpedaling and thinking that it somehow makes us look foolish and makes you look intelligent and hard to pin down or understand. It makes you cowardly and dishonest. Nothing more.

Do facts confuse you?

I made no positive claim, I just said I talk to something that you insist does not exist. I am under no obligation to you, or anyone else, to prove that whatever I talk to has any value to you, or anyone else.

You, on the other hand, made multiple claims in this thread, not one of which you have supported. All you have done is try to insist that I am under an obligation to prove something to you that I never claimed.

You claimed that you talked to God, therefore you indirectly make the claim that there in fact is a God to talk to in the first place. That is by definition a positive claim. You don't have to prove it if you don't want, I can't force you, but saying "Nope, I don't believe that" is not a positive claim on my part. It's merely a lack of belief in what you are claiming.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[ Theism, in and of itself, is predicated on reason.

Woah, that's a good one. Like, eating cornflakes prevents you from masturbating.

And, see, that's the problem. There are good reasons the greatest philosophical, scientific and theological minds in history before and since the Classical Era have held that God must be, reasons you've obviously never considered, given your flippant remark. It's one thing to believe that God doesn't exist in spite of the objectively apparent reasons it makes sense to believe that He does or must. I can respect that, though, I would implore a person who is respectfully cognizant of those reasons and, notwithstanding, still believes that God is not, to think again, to reconsider or at the very least to keep his mind open. It's quite another thing to make baby talk in the face of those reasons. The only thing your comment tells me is that you're not cognizant of those reasons, for a sensible person wouldn't be so dismissive.

And so behold "the new atheism": thoughtless, pseudo-intellectual chatter. Even the likes of Hawking, Krauss and others have said or written the most incredibly stupid things about theism. They've raised objections that were overthrown centuries ago, showing those of us who know both sides of the argument just how incredibly ignorant they are outside of their fields. Indeed, they've asserted things that are inherently contradictory, self-negating. Silly. Risible. Yet their seriously flawed logic flies right over their heads.

How can people so brilliant in other respects make such statements? Simple. They’ve never seriously considered the great works of philosophy and theology. More to the point, they've never even bothered to bear down on what is readily self-evident to all.

Their minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

[ Theism, in and of itself, is predicated on reason.

Woah, that's a good one. Like, eating cornflakes prevents you from masturbating.

And, see, that's the problem. There are good reasons the greatest philosophical, scientific and theological minds in history before and since the Classical Era have held that God must be, reasons you've obviously never considered, given your flippant remark. It's one thing to believe that God doesn't exist in spite of the objectively apparent reasons it makes sense to believe that He does or must. I can respect that, though, I would implore a person who is respectfully cognizant of those reasons and, notwithstanding, still believes that God is not, to think again, to reconsider or at the very least to keep his mind open. It's quite another thing to make baby talk in the face of those reasons. The only thing your comment tells me is that you're not cognizant of those reasons, for a sensible person wouldn't be so dismissive.

And so behold the "new" atheism: thoughtless, pseudo-intellectual chatter. Even the likes of Hawking, Krauss and others have said or written the most incredibly stupid things about theism. They've raised objections that were overthrown centuries ago, showing those of us who know both sides of the argument just how incredibly ignorant they are outside of their fields. Indeed, they've asserted things that are inherently contradictory, self-negating. Silly. Risible. Yet their seriously flawed logic flies right over their heads.

How can people so brilliant in other respects make such statements? Simple. They’ve never seriously considered the great works of philosophy and theology. More to the point, they've never even bothered to bear down on what is readily self-evident to all.

Their minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door.

The amount of people who hold a belief is not a signifier of that belief's value or plausibility. But you are right. There are many reasons for people, intelligent people, to hold such beliefs. Many of those reasons are enumerated in my op and I'm sure you will likely disagree with all of them but they are the truth. Intelligent people, like Newton and Kepler only ever mentioned God in their writings when they hit the limit of their understanding. As they recorded their progress and scientific discovery they made no mention of the Almighty but once they hit a wall and were stumped they evoked the complexity and wisdom of God to have created something so far beyond their understanding. But while dealing with things they could understand God never entered their minds. That is likely because it is part of the human condition to seek answers and to not be satisfied with the lack there off so in the face of no answers most of us choose to fill that empty space with God.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Putting an even finer point on the point in the above. Hawking is famous—or is it infamous?—for claiming that "[p]hilosophy is dead." Yet the work in which he makes that amazingly obtuse claim is in fact pure philosophy, scientifically unfalsifiable assertions regarding the metaphysics of ontology. Dude! But then the philosophers of the new atheism are notoriously bad thinkers and utterly unaware of the fact that the historical cannon of ideas rendered their "new" objections to theism moot centuries ago. LOL!

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Putting an even finer point on the point in the above. Hawking is famous—or is it infamous?—for claiming that "[p]hilosophy is dead." Yet the work in which he makes that amazingly obtuse claim is in fact pure philosophy, scientifically unfalsifiable assertions regarding the metaphysics of ontology. Dude! But then the philosophers of the new atheism are notoriously bad thinkers and utterly unaware of the fact that the historical cannon of ideas rendered their "new" objections to theism moot centuries ago. LOL!

The only thing that got rendered moot centuries ago were apologetic arguments like Pascal's Wager.

 

[Hollie]

Putting an even finer point on the point in the above. Hawking is famous—or is it infamous?—for claiming that "[p]hilosophy is dead." Yet the work in which he makes that amazingly obtuse claim is in fact pure philosophy, scientifically unfalsifiable assertions regarding the metaphysics of ontology. Dude! But then the philosophers of the new atheism are notoriously bad thinkers and utterly unaware of the fact that the historical cannon of ideas rendered their "new" objections to theism moot centuries ago. LOL!

Putting a “finer point” on a bankrupt argument will not save the argument. I guess we must put it in the same category as failed “pwoofs” of your imaginary philosophical, scientific and logical pwoofs for your gawds; A vacuous claim that you were unable to actually support.

Why would any qualification in philosophy or theology be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical or theological. The natural world (to exclude such supernatural inventions as your partisan version of gawds) is entirely a scientific issue. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect., tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[ Theism, in and of itself, is predicated on reason.

Woah, that's a good one. Like, eating cornflakes prevents you from masturbating.

And, see, that's the problem. There are good reasons the greatest philosophical, scientific and theological minds in history before and since the Classical Era have held that God must be, reasons you've obviously never considered, given your flippant remark. It's one thing to believe that God doesn't exist in spite of the objectively apparent reasons it makes sense to believe that He does or must. I can respect that, though, I would implore a person who is respectfully cognizant of those reasons and, notwithstanding, still believes that God is not, to think again, to reconsider or at the very least to keep his mind open. It's quite another thing to make baby talk in the face of those reasons. The only thing your comment tells me is that you're not cognizant of those reasons, for a sensible person wouldn't be so dismissive.

And so behold the "new" atheism: thoughtless, pseudo-intellectual chatter. Even the likes of Hawking, Krauss and others have said or written the most incredibly stupid things about theism. They've raised objections that were overthrown centuries ago, showing those of us who know both sides of the argument just how incredibly ignorant they are outside of their fields. Indeed, they've asserted things that are inherently contradictory, self-negating. Silly. Risible. Yet their seriously flawed logic flies right over their heads.

How can people so brilliant in other respects make such statements? Simple. They’ve never seriously considered the great works of philosophy and theology. More to the point, they've never even bothered to bear down on what is readily self-evident to all.

Their minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door.

The amount of people who hold a belief is not a signifier of that belief's value or plausibility. But you are right. There are many reasons for people, intelligent people, to hold such beliefs. Many of those reasons are enumerated in my op and I'm sure you will likely disagree with all of them but they are the truth. Intelligent people, like Newton and Kepler only ever mentioned God in their writings when they hit the limit of their understanding. As they recorded their progress and scientific discovery they made no mention of the Almighty but once they hit a wall and were stumped they evoked the complexity and wisdom of God to have created something so far beyond their understanding. But while dealing with things they could understand God never entered their minds. That is likely because it is part of the human condition to seek answers and to not be satisfied with the lack there off so in the face of no answers most of us choose to fill that empty space with God.

That's not an appeal to authority. The reasons for believing that God is have absolutely nothing to do with the supposed God in the gaps fallacy, which is just another example of the new atheism's thoughtless misapprehension of things. In truth, there's no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy, and there never has been.

You're assertion that God never entered their minds with regard to those aspects of the cosmos' physics they understood is utterly false. These men, both of whom were accomplished theologians as well, by the way, did not hold that God is because the universe is beyond human comprehension.

(By the way, are you operating under the illusion that something has changed in that regard? It remains beyond human comprehension and always will. The more we learn, the less we know. Each new discovery uncovers innumerable new questions.)

Our inability to comprehensively grasp reality is just another facet of the same reality, though the fact that reality is staggeringly complex hardly supports an atheistic notion of origins. LOL!

No. In addition to (1) the readily apparent facts of human consciousness, the absolute rational forms and logical categories thereof, (2) the axioms regarding ontological origination and (3) the marvelously rational nature of existence in general: it was the nature of the things they did grasp, not the unknown, that underscored their absolute certainty that God is. That's the icing on the cake, the coup de grâce. The unknown, the yet to be discovered or deciphered, for them or for any other sensible person, had absolutely nothing to do with the price beans in heaven.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I admire the Buddha and value his teachings. Buddhism can be treated as a philosophy as well as a religion. Don't read more into things is really there.

You admire the concept of reincarnation, yet declare that faith is based on fear.

Interesting.

I am not reading anything into anything, I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning, or lack there of. For instance, Christianity is also a philosophy, yet you reject it out of hand because of your personal bigotry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You claimed that you talked to God, therefore you indirectly make the claim that there in fact is a God to talk to in the first place. That is by definition a positive claim. You don't have to prove it if you don't want, I can't force you, but saying "Nope, I don't believe that" is not a positive claim on my part. It's merely a lack of belief in what you are claiming.

Damn, you really do have a problem with facts.

I talk to cats, dogs, doors, cars, and even people. Do I now have to prove that I can talk just to show you how stupid your insistence that I made a positive claim is?

You claimed that faith is based on fear, yet provided nothing in the way of evidence other than confused babbling. Would you like to tell me again that you didn't make a claim?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Putting an even finer point on the point in the above. Hawking is famous—or is it infamous?—for claiming that "[p]hilosophy is dead." Yet the work in which he makes that amazingly obtuse claim is in fact pure philosophy, scientifically unfalsifiable assertions regarding the metaphysics of ontology. Dude! But then the philosophers of the new atheism are notoriously bad thinkers and utterly unaware of the fact that the historical cannon of ideas rendered their "new" objections to theism moot centuries ago. LOL!

The only thing that got rendered moot centuries ago were apologetic arguments like Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager has no direct bearing on the axioms of human consciousness, ontology or design. It's a theological proposition regarding the concerns of faith subsequent to these objectively identifiable axioms. It presupposes the latter, and while I consider it to be of little value relative to what ultimately matters, it certainly has not been rendered moot to those who properly understand it's order in the consideration of things.

What are you talking about?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Putting an even finer point on the point in the above. Hawking is famous—or is it infamous?—for claiming that "[p]hilosophy is dead." Yet the work in which he makes that amazingly obtuse claim is in fact pure philosophy, scientifically unfalsifiable assertions regarding the metaphysics of ontology. Dude! But then the philosophers of the new atheism are notoriously bad thinkers and utterly unaware of the fact that the historical cannon of ideas rendered their "new" objections to theism moot centuries ago. LOL!

Putting a “finer point” on a bankrupt argument will not save the argument. I guess we must put it in the same category as failed “pwoofs” of your imaginary philosophical, scientific and logical pwoofs for your gawds; A vacuous claim that you were unable to actually support.

Why would any qualification in philosophy or theology be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical or theological. The natural world (to exclude such supernatural inventions as your partisan version of gawds) is entirely a scientific issue. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect., tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

Sadly, Hollie, trying to have a discussion about this stuff is often like trying to play chess with a rooster. The rooster will just kick all pieces off the board and crow in triumph every time.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I admire the Buddha and value his teachings. Buddhism can be treated as a philosophy as well as a religion. Don't read more into things is really there.

You admire the concept of reincarnation, yet declare that faith is based on fear.

Interesting.

I am not reading anything into anything, I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning, or lack there of. For instance, Christianity is also a philosophy, yet you reject it out of hand because of your personal bigotry.

You read into my sentence that I admire reincarnation when no such words can be found in it. And then go on to say that you are not reading anything into anything. Ironic. I admire Buddhism for its non supernatural teachings. Such as the emphasis on humility, mindfulness, and non violence. I think reincarnation is just as unlikely as the Christian afterlife.

And no I don't reject the Christian philosophy out of hand because of my own personal bias. I reject it because it has little to nothing of value that can't also be found elsewhere without the additional baggage.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

You claimed that you talked to God, therefore you indirectly make the claim that there in fact is a God to talk to in the first place. That is by definition a positive claim. You don't have to prove it if you don't want, I can't force you, but saying "Nope, I don't believe that" is not a positive claim on my part. It's merely a lack of belief in what you are claiming.

Damn, you really do have a problem with facts.

I talk to cats, dogs, doors, cars, and even people. Do I now have to prove that I can talk just to show you how stupid your insistence that I made a positive claim is?

You claimed that faith is based on fear, yet provided nothing in the way of evidence other than confused babbling. Would you like to tell me again that you didn't make a claim?

Claiming things like that don't require proof because they are with the realm of everyday occurrences. Now if you said that the cats, dogs and cars were talking back you would then have to give proof if you wanted anyone to believe you. Again, in the technical sense, you can't be forced to do anything you don't want to. But to gain the belief of others you must convince them with proof..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sadly, Hollie, trying to have a discussion about this stuff is often like trying to play chess with a rooster. The rooster will just kick all pieces off the board and crow in triumph every time.

It is nice that you see what your arguments amount to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You read into my sentence that I admire reincarnation when no such words can be found in it. And then go on to say that you are not reading anything into anything. Ironic. I admire Buddhism for its non supernatural teachings. Such as the emphasis on humility, mindfulness, and non violence. I think reincarnation is just as unlikely as the Christian afterlife.

And no I don't reject the Christian philosophy out of hand because of my own personal bias. I reject it because it has little to nothing of value that can't also be found elsewhere without the additional baggage.

FYI, mocking you is not reading anything into your sentence, it is simply mocking you.

What about treating other people as you want to be treated is distasteful to your sensibilities? Would it prohibit you attacking people based on their beliefs? Is that why you started a thread about being met with hostility every time you attack someone?