To the Christians here...

ned flandas said:
I'm not offended by any kind of bashing, its just that there seems to be a lot of mindless insults which is a bit of a waste of time.

If someone wants to bash my faith in order to make me rethink what I beleive then thats absolutely fine. I think its healthy to do that and many Christians should do or otherwise they are brainwashed and that is when the problems occur.
Click to expand...

Please provide links to these 'mindless insults' so I can see what you're talking about.
 
ned flandas said:
not really.
Click to expand...
This, you see, is the "fundamental" problem that most nonbelievers have with believers. If you cannot conceive of any way you might be wrong about God, then you are as much as saying "I cannot be wrong", because if you admit you could be wrong, then you must be able to envision some scenario where you could change your mind. I can think of several that would convince me I am wrong about atheism, but they haven't happened yet.

ned flandas said:
Can you?
Click to expand...
Well, I used to be a Christian. For me, the beginning was the continued observation that there seems to be no pattern of goodness in the world and no difference in the "goodness" received by Christians versus anybody else. Also, prayers seemed to make no difference in anything.

As time went by, the logic of a god who would punish you just for believing the wrong thing seemed to be in direct contradiction to the concept of a loving God. It stopped making sense. It was a slow process though. I didn't become an unbeliever overnight.

I changed my mind, but I can envision scenarios that would change it back.
 
I'm here because I'm interested in how agnostics/atheists think...because I'm skeptical of skepticism...and so I can more completely identify and comprehend common problems that y'alls have with religious belief, and formulate how I would respond, often time by doing exactly that of course.

This is all incredibly beneficial to me, in other words. Whether this is helpful to the forum community at large is totally irrelevant. I only care about myself, and all of you can go to hell.

bwah hah

-Elliot
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
Martin Gardner, a founder member of CSICOP and, through his writings, in many ways a standard bearer of modern scepticism, is a theist.

His defence for his belief in god? "Because it comforts me."

Such a defence completely skirts the epistemological issues surrounding god's existence, and instead applies a utilitarian motivation. Such is, I think, the most rational approach.

'Luthon64
Click to expand...

Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power. Desiring that, and utilizing that, is quite rational. No doubt I couldn't get you to accept that.

-Elliot
 
elliotfc said:
I'm here because I'm interested in how agnostics/atheists think...because I'm skeptical of skepticism...so I can more completely identify and comprehend common problems that y'alls have with religious belief.

-Elliot
Click to expand...
LOL. Double negative. Being skeptical of skepticism is saying, "I won't accept without evidence that not accepting things without evidence is a correct mindset."

However, my position is that everybody is skeptical of some things and not of others. By calling myself a skeptic, I declare that I am actively trying to be skeptical of more things.
 
elliotfc said:
Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power. Desiring that, and utilizing that, is quite rational. No doubt I couldn't get you to accept that.

-Elliot
Click to expand...
It has great explanatory power for the question of "why", but it doesn't do so hot on the question of "how". And as any parent with kids will tell you, having someone ask "why" to each answer given must eventually get to the point to where you can only answer, "because I say so", or in the theist case, "because God says so". I find that explanation unsatisfying.
 
Personally, since ned flandas is asking, I worked out two things.

First, there is no process which happens in the universe that requires the hand of a God to proceed. The universe works on its own.

Second, all religions are equally convinced that they have the "right" answer, and that all the other religions are "wrong". I feel that it's far more likely for all of them to be wrong than for one out of the multitude to be exactly right.

Edit: Sorry if it wasn't an open question. Tell me to shut up and I will :)
 
elliotfc said:
Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power. Desiring that, and utilizing that, is quite rational.
Click to expand...
"Great explanatory power"? Yes : because you can explain anything you choose by supposing the intervention of an invisible being of unlimited power with entirely obscure motivations. God, space aliens, magic pixies, TEH CONSPIRACY ... yes, great "explanatory power".

And no predictive power --- which is the very hallmark of irrational belief.
 
Tricky said:
This, you see, is the "fundamental" problem that most nonbelievers have with believers. If you cannot conceive of any way you might be wrong about God, then you are as much as saying "I cannot be wrong", because if you admit you could be wrong, then you must be able to envision some scenario where you could change your mind.
Click to expand...

I can conceive of a very particular way that I might be wrong about God, but I can't appreciate that idea because tit would only be fully grasped after my shelf-life is expired and oblivion awaits.

The "I cannot be wrong" thing is irrelevant to me. I guess it's relevant to you. If I'm wrong, who cares? I certainly don't, and I don't know why anyone else would.

I do think there are ways that I could seriously question by entire faith in God. If abiogenesis just started to happen all of the time, like it was the most natural thing in the world, I'd be very shaken by that. My theism has a lot to do with origins.

My Christianity is, in many respects, distinct from my theism. I can certainly conceive of ways in which I could be wrong about Christianity, because I rejected Christianity many years ago, and could very well do it again.

I'm too attached to creativity, meaning, and notions of objective morality perhaps. If I were less enthralled by such things, be more matter of fact about them, that could also shake my theism.

I can accept that yours is a fundamental problem, but it is entirely subjectively personal, and I must say that I probably don't appreciate the problem as much as you think I ought to. In addition, even if the most fervent believer couldn't think of a way that could prove them wrong, he/she could still believe that there is a way that could prove them wrong that they can not conceive, but could exist.

-Elliot
 
Tricky said:
Well, I used to be a Christian. For me, the beginning was the continued observation that there seems to be no pattern of goodness in the world and no difference in the "goodness" received by Christians versus anybody else.
Click to expand...

As the Bible doesnt seem to promise that there is a pattern of goodness in the world, this wouldn't affect my faith.
 
Tricky said:
LOL. Double negative. Being skeptical of skepticism is saying, "I won't accept without evidence that not accepting things without evidence is a correct mindset."
Click to expand...

Thank you for identifying the intended humor. ;)

I think anyone can be skeptical. I think that I am skeptical. Skepticism, as constructed by those who proclaim to be a "skeptic" as I would proclaim to be a Catholic, is, let's say...and institutionalized and insular form of skepticism, driven by personal (pathological? arf arf) needs. I say that I'm skeptical of skepticism because of the preponderance of dogma I see proclaimed in this forum.

Skepticism, I think, has more (or should have more) to do with understanding that absolute knowledge is unattainable, than to do with worrying about what to accept and what amount of evidence enables acceptance. I don't think it should be used as a way to enable one to do what, in my opinion, is what is truly sought after. A way to enable dogmatic assertions which classify a select few as rational, enlightened, and intelligent, and the masses as lacking in such regards. In this way I am suggesting that skepticism is a useful, yet transparent, means to an end.

If I saw more detached skepticism I'd retract by judgment. Perhaps the detached skeptics just keep to themselves.

-Elliot
 
Tricky said:
It has great explanatory power for the question of "why", but it doesn't do so hot on the question of "how". And as any parent with kids will tell you, having someone ask "why" to each answer given must eventually get to the point to where you can only answer, "because I say so", or in the theist case, "because God says so". I find that explanation unsatisfying.
Click to expand...

Not if you accept contingency and limitation. In the case of parent/child, the child will, or can, become a parent. I can understand creativity and the sphere in which I exist, and I can accept that God's creativity can not be explained anymore than a tree can explain how we humans do things.

This is not problematic to me, and I have yet to have anyone convince me why this ought to be problematic to me.

If it is problematic to others, I can accept that. We all have to live with our own personal motivations and needs.

-Elliot
 
arthwollipot said:
First, there is no process which happens in the universe that requires the hand of a God to proceed. The universe works on its own.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of proceeding. Yes, the universe works on its own. That doesn't explain the origin of the universe, or the origin of how the universe works on its own. Now, if you think that the universe doesn't have an origin, or doesn't need one, that's different. But you're talking about proceeding, and I agree that what has happened can be understood to continue to happen, and you don't *need* any belief to accept that. To that extent I agree.

Second, all religions are equally convinced that they have the "right" answer, and that all the other religions are "wrong". I feel that it's far more likely for all of them to be wrong than for one out of the multitude to be exactly right.
Click to expand...

I think that most religions think they are the closest to the truth, while the others are mostly right, or only just a little bit right. It's not as black and white as you suggest, in most cases.

-Elliot
 
Dr Adequate said:
"Great explanatory power"? Yes : because you can explain anything you choose by supposing the intervention of an invisible being of unlimited power with entirely obscure motivations. God, space aliens, magic pixies, TEH CONSPIRACY ... yes, great "explanatory power".
Click to expand...

Good. We agree then.

And no predictive power --- which is the very hallmark of irrational belief.
Click to expand...

If you say so. This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least. But you've decided that there is one. This is why I have a hard time taking y'all seriously. You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you.

-Elliot
 
elliotfc said:
I don't think it should be used as a way to enable one to do what, in my opinion, is what is truly sought after. A way to enable dogmatic assertions which classify a select few as rational, enlightened, and intelligent, and the masses as lacking in such regards. In this way I am suggesting that skepticism is a useful, yet transparent, means to an end.
Click to expand...

Elliot, what is your proposed alternative to skepticism, and how exactly would you reconcile this alternative with science as we know it?
 
elliotfc said:
Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power.
Click to expand...
Not if you have the least bit of intellectual courage and integrity, it doesn't. It presents a Band-Aid to those who would pretend unblemished and complete knowledge. The logical, epistemological and empirical difficulties that encumber it in my view far outweigh whatever patch job it can do wherever our knowledge is presently inadequate. I'd rather face the truth and say, "I don't know. Yet. Perhaps I never will."


elliotfc said:
Desiring that, and utilizing that, is quite rational.
Click to expand...
Yes, which utilitarian desire is why science continues to adapt to new knowledge and thereby make forward strides, unlike the stasis and sterility inherent in uncritical belief. Moreover, knowledge for its own sake can be an end in itself.


elliotfc said:
No doubt I couldn't get you to accept that.
Click to expand...
Which part?

'Luthon64
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom