Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 79 of 277 (497670)
02-05-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Phat
02-04-2009 6:25 PM


I have priorities beyond simple curiosity
Phat writes:
They may even say that the GOD that I experience is nothing more than a product of my imagination. I don't find a need to correct them, for IF what I believe IS true and IF Who I believe in IS real, HE will find a way to interact with them at some point in time.
IF not, it does not really matter any more anyway, right?
It only "does not really matter any more anyway" if you do not hold certain values as a priority.
I hold the value "try my best not to cause harm to others" as a priority.
I hold that value as a higher priority than any and all of my other "internal feelings, confirmations, and beliefs."
One side says that if only folks would consider the possibility that God exists without any evidence, God will cease giving them the cold shoulder and will pour oodles of evidence and confirmation into their starving souls!
But, you see, my priority of trying not to harm others prevents me from considering the possibility that God exists without any evidence.
If there is no evidence... and I consider the possibility of God, and this "God" reaches me, and all the "oodles of evidence and confirmation" that this "God" pours into my starving soul ends up causing me to harm others unintentionally... then I was not very responsible.
There is more at stake then just me and mine. I need to consider how my actions affect those around me. Those I love, and those who are simply innocent. I cannot take actions (like considering the possibility that God exists) without considering the results of my actions on those around me.
If there is evidence of the results of those actions... I can then make a judgement on whether or not such results will be beneficial, harmful, or benign. If the result is actually harmful, then I certainly don't want to do the action.
With no evidence, I cannot make any reasonable judgement at all. If I cannot make a reasonable judgement that the action is not going to result in harm to others, I find it very irresponsible to go and do that action.
With no evidence, I'm afraid that I hold the priority of "trying not to harm others" above my own personal curiosity.
Attempts to goad me with "C'mon... I assure you it's going to be good..." isn't enough for me to risk the wellbeing of those I care about, or even those who are innocent.
But, you are right, if you do not hold certain values as high-priorities, then it certainly "doesn't matter anyway."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 02-04-2009 6:25 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 02-05-2009 3:26 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 81 of 277 (497692)
02-05-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Phat
02-05-2009 3:26 PM


Re: I have priorities beyond simple curiosity
Phat writes:
Hold up. Lemme see if I have this right....are you saying that unless you know for sure that any action or belief that you take in life is not going to harm others, you don't take the action or spread the belief?
No, Phat. I'm saying exactly what I said:
quote:
With no evidence, I cannot make any reasonable judgement at all. If I cannot make a reasonable judgement that the action is not going to result in harm to others, I find it very irresponsible to go and do that action.
What you're talking about is something else entirely:
the majority of the time we cannot know the effects of our actions overall
The majority of the time we are dealing with reality, and we certainly do have verifiable evidence enough to make reasonable judgements. With the existence of God, we have no evidence. There cannot possible be "evidence enough" in a situation where we have "no evidence."
My problem with your approach is that you are putting too much faith in your own ability to not only uphold but to direct and control rationality.
My approach is simply to require something beyond that which we cannot tell is different from imagination before taking risks which could potentially endanger me or my loved ones.
Are we able to tell the difference between evidence we have on God and things from our imagination? -No, we are not.
Does allowing a being (here, "the most powerful being in the universe") to influence some of (all of?) my decisions have a signficant potential to cause actions which harm me or my loved ones? -Yes, it most certainly does.
Such a thing requires very good evidence that the being is:
1. Real
2. Benevolent
Otherwise, I'm not being very responsible.
Inaction is an action. How do you know that not taking a stand or directing a belief/action may itself harm others?
No one ever said I'm taking inaction on everything.
I only said I'm taking inaction on those actions for which there is no evidence (and therefore could be potentially dangerous), and they have a high-possibility for affecting my loved ones.
It's a simple risk analysis of the scenario, and believing in God with no evidence to do so is extremely high risk to me and my loved ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 02-05-2009 3:26 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 02-06-2009 6:04 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 91 of 277 (497814)
02-06-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Phat
02-06-2009 6:04 AM


No Evidence = Results Unknown
Phat writes:
On the average, however, I fail to see why you have this idea that belief is an irresponsible position or why it endangers your family in any appreciable way.
I think you are confusing what I'm trying to tell you with something that you want me to be saying. You keep placing certain ideas into my arguement that simply do not exist. I didn't say that "it endangers my family in an appreciable way." There would need to be some evidence for me to say such a thing, and I agree with you that there is no evidence. I said that without any evidence, it is unknown if it may endager my family in an appreciable way. Therefore, it would be irresponsible to act. Here, again, is what I said:
Stile writes:
Are we able to tell the difference between evidence we have on God and things from our imagination? -No, we are not.
Does allowing a being (here, "the most powerful being in the universe") to influence some of (all of?) my decisions have a signficant potential to cause actions which harm me or my loved ones? -Yes, it most certainly does.
Such a thing requires very good evidence that the being is:
1. Real
2. Benevolent
Otherwise, I'm not being very responsible.
I assume you agree with the first point, since you already seem to acknowledge that there is no verifiable evidence for God.
But perhaps I have the second point wrong.
Are you saying God is not powerful?
Are you saying God will not have any influence at all on the decisions I make for my life and those around me?
I thought it was you who said that, once I believed, God would "pour oodles of evidence into my soul." That sounds, to me, like this God is going to have a very large impact on my life and those around me. I'm afraid I find it simply irresponsible to jump into something that's going to have a large impact without any sort of evidence as to what that impact is going to be like.
You can say there is evidence that the impact is beneficial... but there really isn't. Unless you can show that there actually is something beneficial, and real, that God-believers have that is unavailable to non-God-believers. If you can't do this, then there is no evidence. And you won't be able to do this, because (as you already know) there is no evidence.
And, with no evidence, I cannot risk a large impact on my life and those around me. That doesn't sound very responsible at all.
Unless you're saying that God really isn't going to have a big impact? Is God rather impotent, perhaps? In which case, without any evidence (again), I don't see why I should attempt to believe in something that is insignificant.
Edited by Stile, : Extra line here and there, because it's fun to edit things. Weeeee!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 02-06-2009 6:04 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 02-06-2009 9:27 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 96 of 277 (497861)
02-06-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Phat
02-06-2009 9:27 AM


Re: No Evidence = Results Unknown
But if this God is real, and if it is somehow foreknown that one or more of your family members may one day answer a call, there is little if anything you will be able to do to prevent it.
Why do you think I'm attempting to prevent understanding God?
I am, in fact, trying very hard to understand God.
It just so happens, though, that there is NO EVIDENCE for me to use to understand God. You agree that there is no evidence. You seem to imply that I should be persuaded by no evidence. Why is that?
Are you saying that I am personally at fault because there is no evidence of God?
I agree with you completely that IF God is real, and IF God is benevolent, then all sorts of good things might happen. But you seem to keep forgetting that there is no evidence. That means that God not being real or God being very harmful is also possible.
I am simply trying to be responsible and ensure the safety of myself and those around me as much as I can.
Fact: We cannot tell the difference between "God" and "imagination"... that is, there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of God or His intentions.
Fact: Those who suggest others should believe in God strongly state that there will be large changes in their lives. They strongly assure me that my entire life will be different.
Fact: Big changes are expected, no evidence for those changes being good or bad.
Fact: This is a big-risk decision.
Fact: Big risk, nothing to say which way the risk goes (good or bad), since there is no evidence... equals a decision to avoid if I prioritize the safety of myself and those around me.
Which of those facts is untrue?
Why do you not understand that this is simply a responsible decision I'm making in order to protect the safety of myself and those around me to the best of my abilities?
Are you suggesting that it would be a wise thing to risk the safety of myself and my family on huge decisions in which there is no verifiable evidence that it could turn out beneficial or harmful?
These are all things you've told me:
-There is no verifiable evidence
-God can pour oodles of unverifiable evidence into my soul so that I will be convinced
Without any verifiable evidence that the "convincing" God can do to me is going to be good rather than bad... isn't jumping into such a huge, life-changing decision a big risk? Do you really not see this?
There are lots of people who say they've made this decision and their lives turn out very nice and good, very similar to how my life is now.
There are lots of people who say they've made this decision and their lives turn out very bad and evil, committing incredibly horrific attrocities.
There is no verifiable evidence to say that if I make this decision, which way I'm going to go. Looking at the available, verifiable evidence:
The "positive" route seems like there isn't any advantage over my life now.
The "negative" route seems incredibly horrible indeed.
Why would I choose to take such a rediculous gamble, with only the notion of "unverifiable good things" as a dangling carrot?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 02-06-2009 9:27 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Phat, posted 02-06-2009 10:38 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 11-08-2014 1:48 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 115 of 277 (499647)
02-19-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by John 10:10
02-19-2009 3:01 PM


Harry... what were you thinking?
John 10:10's quote of Harry Blamires writes:
Christianity is supernaturally grounded, revealed not manufactured, imposed not chosen, authoritative, objective and irresistible ..... No human being invented the Christian faith. It was God's idea. If you think it a bad idea, you'd better blame God ..... He gave us this Christianity. We can accept it. We can reject it. But we can't tamper with it as though it were something put together by human hands or human brains.
Supernaturally grounded - sure.
Revealed and not manufactured - if you say so.
Imposed, not chosen - I'll take your word for it.
Authoritative - okay.
Objective - absolutely not. It's kinda laughable if Harry actually thought he could slip this one in here. Seriously, this quote should be in the humour section.
Irresistable - perhaps.
Christianity most certainly is not objective. If it was objective, then it would be easy to show it to others and show them how it is different from imagination.
Unless you weren't talking about Christian faith? Maybe about things like churches and pews and alters and candles? I certainly agree that those things are objective... but they're hardly supernaturally grounded, or "revealed" or "imposed" or authoritative or irresistable.
The quote only makes sense if it's talking about the basis of Christianity's faith... and that is absolutely not objective by any means. Faith is the anti-objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by John 10:10, posted 02-19-2009 3:01 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by John 10:10, posted 02-21-2009 6:49 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 120 of 277 (500296)
02-24-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by John 10:10
02-21-2009 6:49 PM


Re: Harry... what were you thinking?
John 10:10 writes:
Christianity is objective because it's centered in the Person of the Lord Jesus.
But being "centered in the Person of the Lord Jesus" is not what makes anything objective.
Things are objectively true if you're able to show them to be true independent of yourself or any others.
Christinaity may very well be great, grand, the-most-awesomest-thing-ever, and "centered in the Person of the Lord Jesus", but if you cannot show that to be true independent of yourself or others... then it most certainly is not objective.
Either He is exactly who He proclaimed Himself to be and He does precisely what He says He will do for His born again children, or He doesn't.
This is correct. Christianity is either true, or it is false. But this doesn't say anything about it being objective.
Christianity is objectively true, or it isn't. Since you have not (yet?) shown Christianity to be true independent of yourself or others, this is false. Christianity is not objectively true. It still may be theoretically, possibly true. But it's certainly not objective unless you can show it to be so independent of yourself and others.
For unbelievers who reject who Jesus is and what He says He will do for His children, how can you possibly know and understand what Christianity is all about?
I never claimed to know anything about Christianity. Neither do I claim to reject who Jesus is or what He says He will do for His children. I only claim to know about objective-ness, and if things are objective or not. This has nothing to do with knowing anything about Christianity.
Example:
I also don't claim to know anything about black-holes. But, I know they're objectively true, because Mr. Hawking can show them to be true independent of himself and others, and he has done so.
You cannot do so, or at least have not yet done so, for Christianity. Until you do, Christianity will not be objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by John 10:10, posted 02-21-2009 6:49 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 145 of 277 (741037)
11-09-2014 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Phat
11-08-2014 1:48 AM


Re: No Evidence = Results Unknown
Phat writes:
Lots? I doubt whether lots of people have had this "bad and evil" experience that you claim.
North American jails are full of lots of people who say they've turned their life to God and their lives turn out very bad and evil, committing incredibly horrific atrocities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 11-08-2014 1:48 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Phat, posted 11-09-2014 5:47 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 147 of 277 (741159)
11-10-2014 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Phat
11-09-2014 5:47 PM


Re: No Evidence = Results Unknown
Phat writes:
If it was proven that there is no discernable difference between converts and the general population, one could rightly question any merit behind conversion or power from same.
What do you mean "if"?
This has been proven many, many, many times in the past. It continues to be proven over and over again with every new study on religious affiliation in regards to society.
If you think there is some discernible difference, might you be able to state one?
Here's a few examples (I think you may have heard of them as well):
Divorce Rates:
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Variation in divorce rates by religion
And Prisons:
Religion % of Inmates
Catholic 31%
Born-again Christians 28%
None/Atheist/Unknown 20%
Possible Recent Statistics For a Fraction of U.S. Prisoners
I don't intend for this data to show you that atheists are better than Christians or anything like that.
I do, however, think that it's quite sufficient to show you that there are studies that are done on such things, and those studies overwhelmingly show us that "that is no discernible difference between converts and the general population."
If there was a difference... more people would be Christian.
Just like we can see a difference in owning a car... therefore, more people own cars. Because cars make a discernible difference.
Being a Christian just doesn't make a discernible difference.
Please feel free to show a difference if you think otherwise, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Phat, posted 11-09-2014 5:47 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Phat, posted 12-12-2015 9:13 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 156 of 277 (774330)
12-16-2015 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Phat
12-12-2015 9:13 AM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational
Phat writes:
You seem to me to be more of an agnostic than a staunch atheist, Stile.
Sure
Other people have every right to make up their minds about how I seem to act.
As far as I'm concerned... I don't particularly stick with any single label.
There are things I don't believe in.
There are things I believe in.
I try not to let any particular belief prevent me from learning the truth, though.
Any 2015 thoughts to add to our 2009-2014 dialogues?
I probably would update my wording on certain things
But my sentiments remain roughly the same.
I still don't see any significant difference pertaining to Christianity or Muslims or any particular religion.
There doesn't seem to be any religiously-related group of people that has a monopoly on any aspect of human achievement. This lends credence to the idea that it really doesn't matter what religion (or none at all) you belong to in an overall-average sense.
However, in a personal, specific sense.
There is a very high significant difference in people who feel safe and secure, people who have confidence and conviction and those who are lacking such values.
Therefore... if any particular group of people speaks more to your particular personality in order to grant you such things... safey, security, confidence, conviction... I would recommend that you should spend your time with those people and develop such values within yourself.
That only includes one caveat... that throughout such an ordeal, you (and the group of people you want to join) are not hurting other people.
For the record, I applaud the recent decision by the RCC--through Pope Francis--to stop trying to convert Jews. Oddly, most charismatic/fundamentalists that I know think its a terrible move and not only unbiblical but unwise.
To me, I would only worry about what "trying to convert Jews" entails.
Does it entail mutually-desired dialogue and accepting any curious person into the group and honestly explaining what Christianity is about?
If so.. then I think Christianity should continue to convert Jews and anyone else who is interested in the ideas.
Does it entail any nagging, or abuse, or aggressive tactics or hurting other people?
If so... then I think Christianity should stop trying to convert Jews or anyone else and entirely disband their system of cult-like behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Phat, posted 12-12-2015 9:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Phat, posted 12-30-2015 2:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(4)
Message 227 of 277 (791929)
09-27-2016 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Phat
09-27-2016 10:18 AM


Stubbed Toe
Phat writes:
quote:
Is there anything that would distinguish the God you believe in from a deity that doesn't exist?
...and my answer was that ones own belief...ones freewilled belief, opinion, or spirituality is what distinguishes existence vs non-existence of a Deity.
Have you ever stubbed your toe, Phat?
You know. You're walking along, certainly fully believing that every step you take is going to be on solid ground. I mean, if you didn't believe such a thing... you'd take some caution to look, right? So off you go, in fully 100% committed belief that the ground you're walking on is just fine. You believe so much, you don't even have to think about it, even. And then... blam! Your toe catches a part of the ground you didn't notice and you stub your toe.
Therefore, your freewilled belief, opinion or 100% acceptance did not distinguish existence vs. non-existence of solid ground beneath your feet.
If your freewilled belief and opinion alone isn't enough to keep you from stubbing your toe, what makes you think it alone is good enough to save you from Hell?
The fact is, Phat... you're falling into the very pitfall you try to put everyone else in.
The devil's best trick is to convince you that he doesn't exist.
His second best trick is to convince you that you're on the "right" path, when all you have to do is actually look around to see the darkness you've led yourself into.
If God's good and real, He has no use for tricks or subterfuge.
The fact that you're insisting that God must remain hidden in order to believe in Him... is a fact that shows nothing other than you being on a non-Godly path. It's the path of a trickster who wants you to be on that path and stop thinking about getting onto the right path.
What trickster?
Maybe the devil.
Maybe some bad people.
Maybe yourself.
But that really doesn't matter.
What does matter, and is very clear, is that a path without verification is a path of gullibility. A real, good God would not create such a path where His loyal followers could so easily be taken unawares by any other trickster.
Stop being led blindy by who-knows-what is guiding you.
Use your God-given talents to follow God when you know He's there.
Follow love, friendship, and honour.
Stop wasting time on tradition, unknowns, and idolatry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Phat, posted 09-27-2016 10:18 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 09-27-2016 11:43 AM Stile has not replied
 Message 238 by Phat, posted 09-27-2016 11:57 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 249 of 277 (791952)
09-27-2016 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Phat
09-27-2016 11:57 AM


Re: Stubbed Toe
Phat writes:
So about verification....Who Do You Represent?
I try to represent love, friendship and honour.
But I stub my toe a lot
Why do you think this label is important?
No one can show you who they "Do" represent.
People can only tell you who they represent.
Sometimes people are mistaken.
Sometimes people change.
Sometimes people lie.
If I fill my life with love, friendship and honour... does it matter if I say I represent God, or Satan, or Stile, or Thor, or The Great Gazoo?
If I fill my life with confusion and frustration... does it matter if I say I represent God or Satan, or Stile, or Thor, or The Great Gazoo?
Therefore, the only way to know the answer to this question... is to get to know the person you'd like the answer from. You'd have to spend time with them, you'd have to spend a lot of time with them... to understand the sorts of characteristics they fill their life with.
Once you spend that time, you won't even need to ask the question.
So, again, why do think such a label is important?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Phat, posted 09-27-2016 11:57 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024