God & the Fairy Tree

Obviously not. I've seen plenty of examples of religious people making desperately silly arguments to justify their faiths to themselves and the world (there are a few on this thread), but not one single example of one of them really challenging his or her own faith.Otherwise, I would've witnessed another conversion to non-belief, by definition.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

if your definition of challenge requires that the hypothesis be trashed, then you have a faulty definition of challenge. just because you're sure that belief is faulty, doesn't mean it is.

You call yourself Catholic Scientist. Are you telling me that you singlehandedly invented Catholicism ... again?What do you suppose your belief would have been if you had been raised in Afghanistan? India? A remote tribe of Amazon Indians?It was an accident of birth that caused you to believe in the Judeo-Christian god. You were born into a Judeo-Christian society that taught you mainly about this particular god. You may have chosen for the Catholic version, but you were taught about it nonetheless.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

My definition of real challenge is built simply on knowing many people who have actually challenged the religion that they were brought up in, and seeing that the result is invariably that they no longer believe in it. Not one of the world's faith based religions can stand up to scrutiny and a real challenge without seeming ridiculous in the eyes of the challenger. If your religion doesn't seem ridiculous to you, then that means you've never really challenged it. Religious faith is just a form of self-deception, so why not be honest with yourself, and try challenging yours?

Damn, I was going to say that 'being taught' could explain my particular flavor of theism, but the belief in god, itself, is of its own accord.But then I thought that you meant what you typed when you said "believe in god" and not that you meant whatever specific religion. I mean, you did just say "belief in god" and that's what I thought you meant. Now you're changing it.I guess it just goes to show that you should never leave anything out. Sure, but I have concluded that god exists on my own through my own experiences (after I was an atheist for a while). I even go as far as to claim that I "found Jesus" on my own too. But as far as Catholicism, yeah, that just because that's the way I was raised and that's what my family and friends are (and that it was Confirmed).But that is just a label. All else being the same, why wouldn't I take the same label as my group?But anyways, my claim still stands:

I don't have time for a response now, CS. But I want you to know that I appreciate your honesty. Talk to you later.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

ah. the fallacy of anecdotes.but since you've never spoken to me before, i suggest you turn your accusations elsewhere.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Thanks for pointing out your ignorance of what faith is

Just don't tell Shraff that you poor deluded insane brain-washed comfort-seeker.Apparently we can't string a sentence together without our religion having preached it to us.

You mean my "self-deception" description? You're welcome. Would you like to try and give us your preferred view of what religious faith is without practising self-deception while doing so?

Please get back to discussing the topic and argue the position, not the person.Take the chit chat to the chat room.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

I don't know that it's precluded, but in practice, is it ever exhibited? What with nearly every single religious person adopting the same basic religion as everyone else around them?I think there's a pretty extensive burden of evidence for anyone trying to assert that religion is something people come to through a process of independent thought.

Let's compare:Faith Delusion Faith, being a belief not based on proof, is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Hell, just take a look at some of the debates on this very board. The ongoing Great Debate between Simple and RAZD is an excellent example.Certainly, fundamentalists and literal Creationists are an extreme example, and I certainly don't mean to paint all people of faith with the same brush I would apply to Simple. But, as the OP of this thread tries to make clear - to an outside observer, blind faith in the supernatural, be it in the Christian God or Zeus, is indistinguishable from belief in fairies, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Certainly, there may be some bit of evidence in a person's life that, to that specific individual, signifies the existence of the supernatural. But to those who do not already believe in such things, those personal stories are looked upon with skepticism - they never constitute real evidence, in the way of a photograph or reproducible event. Nothing that can be shown to be anything other than a coincidence, or a person's mind playing tricks in a traumatic situation, or some other such easily, naturally explained phenomenon.Case in point: my grandfather was a devout Christian fundamentalist. He was injured as a young man, and was unable to walk. Doctors told him his condition was likely permanent. He prayed, and within a matter of months, he was able to walk, and eventually to run as if nothing had happened.Obviously, he attributed this to a miracle, his prayers being answered by God, and grew to become a Christian educator at a religious school.But he already believed in God. The truth is, if he hadn't gotten better, he would have attributed that, too, to God's will - obviously, he had simply scared the fairies away.His position was exactly the same as a child who is convinced there are, in fact, fairies in the fairy tree. There is no evidence. Those who have faith, believing already, will continue to believe in God even when their prayers are not answered, and when events seem to deny the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful deity. Those who have faith, and believe in fairies, will continue to believe fairies exist and live in the tree even when they look for themselves and find nothing.To a person who has faith, the words of the neutral outside observer comparing their faith to a self-delusion are blatantly offensive. The defensive posturing of the faithful while obviously being unable to see what the neutral observer sees is similarly frustrating.Really coming eye-to-eye on the matter is next to impossible - we're talking about challenging a person's entire worldview. It's uncomfortable, insulting, and puts them immediately on the defensive even if no offense is meant. I remember how I felt during my own deconversion. The "your belief is ridiculous" approach may be valid, and it works for Atheists like Dawkins who aren't addressing the fundies they debate, but rather the fence-sitters in the audience, but it doesn't work very well if the goal is to actually have a meaningful conversation with someone of faith.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You posted But then you made a major jump. How is that supported based on your supplied definitions?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Although you may believe this, it is not conclusive. We could observe religious preferences based on heritage and popularity. Likewise, we have a great number of people who discovery their own path independently. - I think its safe to say that generalization is rarely if ever the method to accurate results when it comes to faith, even though, it appeals to those in need of added reassurance.Truth is, we have people of various faiths across all of the nations. Furthermore, while some would nonchalantly downplay the level of independence tied into ones faith, they rarely acknowledge and recognize that all religions share a common historical path down history.Alas, people of faith are not *all mindless drones as we had hoped, but rather independent persons with a determination to get more out of life. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.