Recently in a friends blog, I have seen an on-going discussion. Where it goes is easily predictable. It's a discussion about gay-rights, but it could be any one of many similar discussions.
The truth of the matter is that you can not argue any point with someone when the argument, to them is a matter of faith. There are a few reasons for this.
1.) There does not need to be a logical basis for their argument beyond my faith tells me so. I'm not saying this is 'wrong', it's simply a mechanic of faith. Not everything need be logical as faith defies logic.
2.) When you argue against something that someone considers a matter of faith, you aren't just discussing the argument at hand anymore. You're calling into question that person as well. Their identity is based on their beliefs, their beliefs shaped by their faith. When you call their viewpoint, which is based on their faith, into question, you are also questioning that person's identity for themselves. This immediately turns the discussion or argument into an emotional attack.
When you see these two points, you understand that once you go down the road of discussing a faith-based stance, you have already lost unless you can defend your viewpoint in terms that the audience (your religious opponent for instance) recognizes as legitimate. More then likely, their own holy text.
This is something a lot of atheists lose sight of. Religions continuously drum their messages out. The followers agree with most of these messages at face value. It is this united stance and the receptive nature of the audiences that makes the religious groups in America an extremely formidable opponent. They stand virtually unanimous on a huge number of issues. Their views are nearly identical on many major issues. A huge percentage of them vote.
This unity, their consistent voting turnout and the ease at which their votes can be decided (is the candidate pro-abortion or against) makes them an on-going political party (one of the most powerful at that) in-and-of themselves.
Theocracy here we come.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Faith-Based Bloc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Some people need to be happily deluded about the world to function. Props to them for being happy with themselves. Religion is just a mechanism for brainwashing people into unquestioning happiness. Nothing wrong with that. If everyone is happy then good.
True, to a point. When these same people begin using their joint voting power to drive their religion into my government (and subsequently attempt to displace all other faiths), they are just happy being religious.
There trying to 'brainwash Washington' into their happy delusion as well. That is the rub. Be religious - I don't care. But leave your religion out of my government.
What you fail to realize is that you want your religion - Secular Humanism - in 'your' government.
Neutrality is a myth.
(My site flagged your blog, cause you used my button).
Cheers,
Sye
I have no faith in anything except the scientific principle of evidence before belief.
I allow my beliefs to be challenged, refuted, and disporved, if the evidence indicates as such.
This flies in the face of religion. Religion is belief without evidence.
I do not cater to such non-sense.
Alright, what is the 'evidence' that your ability to reason is reliable? (And how do you know that the reasoning with which you interpret that evidence, is itself reliable?)
My reasoning is derived from my observations and colored by my experience. I accept my own reasoning as reliable as, if I did not, it would be illogical.
Perception feeds observation. Observation feeds experience. Experience feeds reason, expectation, and, in the end, perception.
Such is the loop of all human minds.
In most things, I apply the axiom:
The solution which requires the fewest assumptions is most likely correct.
As I suspected, zero evidence, just an axiom which you accept on blind fatih.
Arguing over evidence for reason is like arguing over evidence that 1 + 1 = 2.
It is abstract, undefinable by itself, but it is given substance by the association of observation.
I have no more evidence that my reasoning is reliable then I have that you are real.
I suppose in this sense, you could very loosely say, I have faith. Though making the leap that I believe my brain functions is a far cry from believing an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible being exists, but provides me no evidence nor clue as to who/what/where he is.
At least my brain follows certain mechanics, albeit we are still trying to understand them all.
"At least my brain follows certain mechanics"
How do you know? You have to FIRST have FAITH in the reliability of your reasoning in order to make that determination.
"I have no more evidence that my reasoning is reliable then I have that you are real."
Like I said - zip.
"but provides me no evidence nor clue as to who/what/where he is"
Your very ability to reason, is evidence that God exists, for you see, you have zero evidence to account for it otherwise.
I am more certain that I am God then that God is real.
I consider both to be extremely unlikely.
Believing that my ability to reason somehow proves there is a God doesn't seem to mesh.
How does my ability to think prove that anything else exists? I concede it proves I have faith in something, but doesn't prove God exists.
My thoughts are fueled by synapses. My synapses feed both memory and response.
Even if you somehow convinced me I had a soul, which I also don't believe in, it doesn't mean that God exists. These are massive leaps that I don't follow.
I am more certain that I am God then that God is real.
Certainty is not measured in degrees, either you are certain of something, or you are not. Perhaps you could tell me how it is possible for you to know ANYTHING for certain, according to your worldview.
I consider both to be extremely unlikely.
With reasoning, that you accept as valid, on blind faith.
Believing that my ability to reason somehow proves there is a God doesn't seem to mesh.
Sure it does, by the impossibility of the contrary. The existence of God accounts for universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic, the backbone of reasoning, whereas nothing else does.
How does my ability to think prove that anything else exists?
Again, by the impossibility of the contrary. No other account can be made to satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.
I concede it proves I have faith in something,
It shows that you have faith in God, but are ‘suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.’ (Romans 1: 18-21)
but doesn't prove God exists.
How do you know? You obviously believe in the concept of ‘proof,’ how about you tell us how ‘proof’ of ANYTHING is possible according to your worldview?
My thoughts are fueled by synapses. My synapses feed both memory and response.
The concept, and validity of which, you accept on blind faith.
Even if you somehow convinced me I had a soul
Proof does not equal persuasion. It is not my job to convince you of anything.
which I also don't believe in, it doesn't mean that God exists. These are massive leaps that I don't follow.
Well, lets see who takes the massive leap, please tell us how you know that your ability to reason is valid.
Cheers,
Sye
Alright Sye,
I can't prove I can think anymore then I can prove that I am awake. By the same logic, you can't prove that I am not God.
In the end, using this logic, nothing can be proven or disproven, as by removing the very starting point of the discussion (the ability to perceive and reason) everything is questionable.
I have made assumptions, simple ones.
1.) I do exist
2.) The world I perceive is real
3.) I can think and reason
From these assumptions, we have studied and developed laws based on the behavior of our environment.
These are laws inherent to matter as it is constructed in this universe, such as gravity, the constant of the speed of light, the conservation of energy, etc. There may be laws we are not yet aware of, and our current laws may be flawed.
We will revise them when evidence collected using the first 3 assumptions dictate the necessity to.
I am not going to say God exists because I can think. The impossibility of the contrary means nothing, it's double speak. Nothing is impossible, there are only varying levels of probability.
No one knows enough about anything to say that anything is impossible.
Anyone who claims something is impossible has already proven their ignorance.
I admit, I slip sometimes and say 'impossible.' I do not mean it.
Furthermore, the inability to explain something does not justify a supernatural explanation.
Just because I don't know how big the universe is does not mean it is infinite. Just because I do not know how man came to be does not mean God created us.
A child does not know why a car runs when his parent turns a key. However, if the child said that the car was alive and that's why it moved when it did, he would be wrong.
The unknown does not require an explanation - it requires study.
The unknown does not require an explanation - it requires study.
I'm not asking you about the unknown, I'm asking how it is possible for you to know ANYTHING according to your worldview, did you miss that question, or are you conceding that you do in fact not know anything?
If you cannot know anything, then you certainly can't know what can or cannot be proven, what is or is not 'inherent to matter,' or that you even exist. If you can know ANYTHING, according to your worldview, please tell me how this is possible.
Cheers,
Sye
I did respond to you.
Here's the repeat:
Quote of Me:
In the end, using this logic, nothing can be proven or disproven, as by removing the very starting point of the discussion (the ability to perceive and reason) everything is questionable.
I have made assumptions, simple ones.
1.) I do exist
2.) The world I perceive is real
3.) I can think and reason
I did respond to you.
Well, then I can only assume that your avoidance of my question is intentional. Far be it from me not to give you the benefit of the doubt, however. Please tell me if you know anything, and if so, how this is possible according to your worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
As I have said now many times, according to your logic, I know NOTHING.
I don't even know that I exist.
Because, using your logic, nothing is proven or can be proven.
I'm not avoiding your question, you just don't like my answer.
As I have said now many times, according to your logic, I know NOTHING.
Problem is, I am asking how it is possible for you to know anything according to YOUR worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
When you go down the path of saying 'your reason is not reliable as it can not be proven accurate' nothing can be proven.
Therefore, I know nothing. Therefore, I do not know anything.
Beyond that, we are arguing semantics.
Until the assumption is made that reason is reliable, nothing can be proven or disproven. Nothing is known.
I have answered that same question now several times.
Therefore, I know nothing. Therefore, I do not know anything.
Alright, let's recap. The title of this thread "The Faith-Based Bloc;" Your statement about faith "faith defies logic." Now we see that YOU claim that you in fact do not know anything, which makes everything you say a statement of BLIND faith. (Not to mention the self-refuting aspect of making a knowledge claim that one does not know anything).
My faith in God accounts for my ability to reason, and know things. We both make knowledge claims, it should be obvious who is living consistently with their professed worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
And here, we do not agree, as I do not agree with your premise.
I can reason. It is self-evident. It is one of my assumptions. You also assume you can reason - you attribute it to God, though you have no evidence your reasoning is sound either.
Secondly, the 'Faith-based Bloc' is using a slightly different meaning of faith, as it uses the connotation of Faith - to be religious.
I rather, have faith in nothing that I do not perceive or that I can derive based on my perceptions.
Mind you, and I said this repeatedly, 'Using your logic...' I could prove nothing and believe in nothing. But same your same logic, either can you. It's a nihilist argument, from which there is no solution.
If I can quantify it in physical measurements, it is real. If it has measurable energy and/or mass - it is real. If it has a known location in the 3-dimensional plane in which we reside - it is real. All else is imagined and is therefore most likely false.
It is possible that God exists and he created us. It is IMMENSELY more likely that we evolved. It is even more likely that we were created by aliens then that God did it.
Because the other two solutions require fewer assumptions.
You debated one assumption, from which you made the massive leap that everything else you believe in is true because your nihilist argument of 'nothing is proof' is always, technically true.
I live in the world of perception. What I perceive is real, what I do not perceive, or can derive from my perception, is not. I can logically derive from my own perception that you are more then likely a person - therefore you exist, though specifics of your existence, I do not know.
In the end, I do not 'know' anything, however, because I assume what I perceive is real, I will call it truth, and it is most likely I am correct.
Next time, though, please use a better argument then the laughingly comical ones I can find in 'God the Evidence' (which is a farce of psuedo-science).
I recommend reading the 'Demon Haunted World' which provides much better arguments.
Have a pleasant evening.
And here, we do not agree, as I do not agree with your premise.
Well, again, I asked how you can know anything according to YOUR worldview, you claim that you cannot.
you have no evidence your reasoning is sound either.
Pardon me, but how do you know?
Secondly, the 'Faith-based Bloc' is using a slightly different meaning of faith, as it uses the connotation of Faith - to be religious.
Again, how do you know?
I rather, have faith in nothing that I do not perceive or that I can derive based on my perceptions.
How do you know that the senses with which you perceive, and the reasoning with which you interpret your perceptions are reliable? You don’t, you have blind faith in them.
Mind you, and I said this repeatedly, 'Using your logic...'
And I repeatedly asked how you can know anything according to YOUR worldview, not mine.
But same your same logic, either can you.
Sure I can, by revelation, but still, how do you know what I can know?
It's a nihilist argument, from which there is no solution.
How do you know?
If I can quantify it in physical measurements, it is real.
How do you know?
If it has measurable energy and/or mass - it is real.
How do you know?
If it has a known location in the 3-dimensional plane in which we reside - it is real.
How do you know?
All else is imagined and is therefore most likely false.
How do you know?
It is possible that God exists and he created us. It is IMMENSELY more likely that we evolved. It is even more likely that we were created by aliens then that God did it.
How do you know?
Because the other two solutions require fewer assumptions.
Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed. (Paul Manata)
You debated one assumption, from which you made the massive leap that everything else you believe in is true because your nihilist argument of 'nothing is proof' is always, technically true.
That is not my argument. My argument is that apart from God, proof is impossible.
I live in the world of perception. What I perceive is real, what I do not perceive, or can derive from my perception, is not. I can logically derive from my own perception that you are more then likely a person - therefore you exist, though specifics of your existence, I do not know.
Again, the validity of your perceptions and reasoning you accept on blind faith. Also, how do you account for the laws of logic which you appeal to?
In the end, I do not 'know' anything, however, because I assume what I perceive is real, I will call it truth, and it is most likely I am correct.
How do you know what you perceive is at all correct?
Next time, though, please use a better argument then the laughingly comical ones I can find in 'God the Evidence' (which is a farce of psuedo-science).
Huh? I’m not an ‘evidentialist,’ I’m a presuppositianalist.
I recommend reading the 'Demon Haunted World' which provides much better arguments.
Um, how do you know?
I realize that those questions are irritating, and I apologize for that, but I am merely driving home the point that you say you cannot know anything, and make numerous knowledge claims.
Cheers,
Sye
Well, again, I asked how you can know anything according to YOUR worldview, you claim that you cannot.
I claim nothing can truly be known until you make certain assumptions. I told you what my assumptions were. You ignored them. You spout your assumptions as fact with NOTHING to base them on.
You can not prove God is real - therefore you can not prove that you have any capacity to reason. That is, you can't without using the SAME assumptions I posted up already.
I have already answered all of your questions. Read previous posts. If you can not see my answers there, then we're done here.
I've made my point already. Beyond that, I'm speaking to the deaf.
It's worth noting this here:
The very point of this blog post was 'The discussion about the reality of God is impossible to discuss with a Christian because they have structures their entire identity around God.'
I don't accept my perceptions and reason 'on Blind Faith.' I have evidence of my perceptions - I see, I smell, I hear. These perceptions are my reality. From them I have developed my reason.
Your arguement, I believe, is, 'Without believing that some greater being gave me the ability to perceive and reason, I have no exterior evidence that anything I perceive is real.'
My rebuttal is: While my perceptions are the evidence of my reason, I do not perceive God. Since my evidence list does not include God, he therefore, more then likely does not exist. My reality IS what I perceive. It's quite simple.
We can go back and forth from this point on - but this is the end ground. You have clearly demonstrated the very point to this post. Thank you.
I don't accept my perceptions and reason 'on Blind Faith.' I have evidence of my perceptions - I see, I smell, I hear. These perceptions are my reality.
And how is it that you know that your perceptions, or the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? You don't. You accept them on BLIND FAITH.
Cheers,
Sye
No, there is a difference, between blind faith and evidence.
Perception yields evidence - that which is perceived, blind faith does not.
You accept God on Blind Faith. You have no evidence.
And in your persistence of this point, again, you prove the very topic of the post.
It's worth noting something here fundamental to this entire discussion.
Science does not seek to prove.
Rather, it seeks always to disprove. Science never focuses on providing evidence, science is critical review of a proposition.
When all attempts to logically debunk a theory fail (through trials), the theory is embraced. If the theory can not sustain its evidence through this process, it is dismissed or revised.
It is, in this sense, impossible to 'prove' atheism. Atheism is the acceptance that all theories of divinity exist without evidence. These theories are therefore, incorrect until evidence that can be repeated, tested, and reviewed can be performed.
Some religious matters survive this review, but very few. One of the notable ones is meditation, which has many of the benefits that those who practice it as a religious rite attested that it would. These results have been proven.
God has yet to be proven. The pariah, Intelligent Design, was instantaneously the laughing stock of the scientific community - as it is just Creationism formatted as a theory.
This is the reality of atheism. I am real. My perceptions, which yield testable evidence, are real (when I touch the ice that I see, it is indeed cold).
Nothing about faith has this evidence.
Now, Sye - I have evidence of my perceptions. My perceptions are the basis of my reasoning.
You have yet to prove anything about faith because you have shown no evidence.
Address the point. Prove God exists.
My perceptions are the basis of my reasoning.
Alright, what is the evidence that your perceptions, and the reasoning with which you interpret them, are valid?
Address the point. Prove God exists.
I have, on the website from which you took the graphic for this thread www.proofthatgodexists.org .
You obviously believe in the concept of proof, or you would not be able to make a determination that I have not provided any. You also admitted that you cannot prove ANYTHING. This shows the inconsistency of your worldview, and makes MY point.
Cheers,
Sye
You repeat yourself and ask the same questions again.
The answers have not changed.
It's simply a case of 'Ramen' and 'Varelse' - I think I'm spelling those right, their Norwegian terms.
*they're - typo
The answers have not changed.
That's right you have zero evidence that your perceptions, or the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid, SO, when you assume that they are valid, you do so, on, you guessed it, BLIND FAITH.
Call it what you will, the point is well made.
Cheers,
Sye
I have evidence of my perceptions. I stated that and explained.
I also explained the difference between assumptions and blind faith.
We have utterly belabored this point beyond any recognition.
You refuse to accept my reasoning, I refuse yours. This discussion is over here.
Post a Comment