Define Crazy
<<
prevnext
>>
Hires, the problem with not taking the Bible literally is that then you have to justify why you take some parts literally and not others.
Yoda the last part I posted showed that their are more types of evidence than just scientific proofs, and that the events I detailed may happen to a wide group of people. And I didn't change your definition of faith, I was simply giving you examples of how that definition doesn't apply to true religion (but would more specifically apply to a cult). And yes there are many cults out there parading around as religions. My point about the bible is simply this, some things in the bible simply do not mesh with well with scientific evidence, which is okay because the bible was written by humans. Humans have been continuously working to get closer and closer to true knowledge (though we can never fully grasp and "true knowledge") and therefore some things in the bible could be attributed to an exaggerating overzealous storyteller. Anything that the bible offers that can advise us on morality I feel is a good thing, sure it isn't a science as to what examples should be taken literally and which should not, but really Christianity has always been a very personal faith and it is okay if it differs from person to person. That's part of what makes its unique.
@Yoda, your argument against Solopsism, only pushes me further into another circle about the necessity of faith. I don't feel like you've made any ground with me, and you probably don't feel like I've made any whatsover either. Therefore, this whole discussion "feels" like a stalemate to me, but I do respect each of your viewpoints to the utmost degree.
@Yoda, your argument against Solopsism, only pushes me further into another circle about the necessity of faith. I don't feel like you've made any ground with me, and you probably don't feel like I've made any whatsover either. Therefore, this whole discussion "feels" like a stalemate to me, but I do respect each of your viewpoints to the utmost degree.
BTW you never argued how faith in one's self is a bad thing.
Oh and I was replying to angrybeaver's comment about all religious members lacking philosophical sophistication...My fault for not consistently including the names of each person I am responding to, but last night I was quite sleepy. My Buddhist comment was not directed at you, Yoda.
I'll break this down as far as possible:
1 - If the faith you describe HAS evidence, provide it.
2 - If unjustified claims are considered valid, what is your methodology for deciding what is true and false?
"BTW you never argued how faith in one's self is a bad thing."
You missed it, then. Believing you can literally fly is likely to get you killed.
1 - If the faith you describe HAS evidence, provide it.
2 - If unjustified claims are considered valid, what is your methodology for deciding what is true and false?
"BTW you never argued how faith in one's self is a bad thing."
You missed it, then. Believing you can literally fly is likely to get you killed.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileNo, as in always a bad thing.
I wouldn't argue it would work out to always be a bad thing. You could have faith that you'll win the lottery, then actually win it, in which case it was a good thing in that you wouldn't have bought the ticket otherwise. In reality, though, the faith was realistically a bad idea and you lucked out.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileDo you believe I'm a millionaire nuclear physicist? No? Is that a religion?
Do you believe there's an old man calling you an idiot from 786 lightyears away? Is not believing that a religion?
If you call any of these "religion" then the word no longer holds any value. A religion has a dogma and tenets, there are no such things with regard to not believing a claim.
Atheism by all means shouldn't even be a word. We don't have words for not believing anything else, such as aoldmanyellingatmeist.
Do you believe there's an old man calling you an idiot from 786 lightyears away? Is not believing that a religion?
If you call any of these "religion" then the word no longer holds any value. A religion has a dogma and tenets, there are no such things with regard to not believing a claim.
Atheism by all means shouldn't even be a word. We don't have words for not believing anything else, such as aoldmanyellingatmeist.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileI should also clarify terminology:
Atheist means without theism - without a belief in the divine. This is not an assertion.
By contrast, agnosticism is without gnosticism - without a knowledge of the divine.
Atheist means without theism - without a belief in the divine. This is not an assertion.
By contrast, agnosticism is without gnosticism - without a knowledge of the divine.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Haruhism
Believe in the supreme ruler. Haruhi Suzumiya.
Believe in the supreme ruler. Haruhi Suzumiya.
I know exactly what Atheism means, but I don't understand how its not a dogma. Your examples are moot in that they are in no way shape or form related to the word Atheist. Atheist like the abrahamic religions chose to view things a certain, and live their lives a certain way based on unfounded reasons...There is no evidence that suggests that their isn't a god, just as their isn't that suggests their is a god.
Getting back to faith for the last time, if I remember correctly you said in one of your posts that faith is never a good thing or that it doesn't have any practical applications...Success for the most part, depends on a person having faith in themselves, for example every successful sports figure.
Getting back to faith for the last time, if I remember correctly you said in one of your posts that faith is never a good thing or that it doesn't have any practical applications...Success for the most part, depends on a person having faith in themselves, for example every successful sports figure.
No, you clearly don't know what atheism means.
A dogma is something hold up as an definitive authority. Saying you haven't been given a good reason to believe something isn't a dogma. My examples aren't moot because they're all the equivalent -- they reject a claim because there's no justification for believing them.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
See: Burden of proof.
There are also no "rules of atheism."
Every successful sports figure has a good reason to believe they will succeed.
At any rate, I've covered that earlier, and ultimately I don't really care because whether something is positive or negative doesn't affect whether or not it's true.
A dogma is something hold up as an definitive authority. Saying you haven't been given a good reason to believe something isn't a dogma. My examples aren't moot because they're all the equivalent -- they reject a claim because there's no justification for believing them.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
See: Burden of proof.
There are also no "rules of atheism."
Every successful sports figure has a good reason to believe they will succeed.
At any rate, I've covered that earlier, and ultimately I don't really care because whether something is positive or negative doesn't affect whether or not it's true.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileThere are only positives and negatives, there are no real truths.
Something is either true or it isn't. Whether we find out or not is irrelevant. That's also entirely tangental and pointless to state.
You never actually addressed what makes believing in a god or gods is any more valid than any other unsubstantiated claim. Similarly, it's unclear why, by the logic of unknowns you keep going back to, how you'd choose to believe in the god of Christianity over the gods of Hinduism or the spirits of Shintoism. Seems as though you'd have to believe in all of them.
You never actually addressed what makes believing in a god or gods is any more valid than any other unsubstantiated claim. Similarly, it's unclear why, by the logic of unknowns you keep going back to, how you'd choose to believe in the god of Christianity over the gods of Hinduism or the spirits of Shintoism. Seems as though you'd have to believe in all of them.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileAnd of course there wouldn't be a problem with that *wink wink* if one had faith that logical contradictions can be true. What's wrong with that? 
Alright I concede I'm crazy guys, I'm batshit insane! Because I believe in transcendence, and you guys don't. And yes I did answer your question about what makes religion different than any other unsubstantiated claim, remember that whole thing I detailed about about their being more to evidence than merely scientific "degrees" of truth. Experience is king in this world.
@At angry what is this bologna your spouting about logical contradictions, you can't just pop in here erratically and cosign on everything Yoda's saying.
@At angry what is this bologna your spouting about logical contradictions, you can't just pop in here erratically and cosign on everything Yoda's saying.
If you have something that you interpret as a religious experience, fine, but that's not evidence to anyone else (though I am curious as to what was enough to convince you).
So, what is the difference between faith and belief by your definition? Mine was reason, typically by evidence. You say you have evidence by personal experience, yet have faith. What, by your definition, is the difference?
You believing by the sake of something personal, I have no problem with, though I think it is more likely that a personal revelation is a misinterpretation of what actually happened.
What I do have a problem with are logical fallacies and moving the goalposts. First you argued the "uncaused cause" which is essentially special pleading resulting in an infinite regression. That was not only not plausible, it was logically fallacious. Not done and the prior premise pointless, suggesting "atheism is a religion." That corrected, onward we go while throughout argue solipsism or similar such then by offering alleged evidence, go entirely contradictory to the point. Oh, and the fact that personal revelation still hasn't differentiated religious belief from mental delusion.
So I would suggest that before snapping at a snarky remark about logical contradictions that you get your own in order.
I hope I can clarify, in angry_beaver's stead, what logical contradictions he may have had in mind.
Corinthians 12:31
Covet earnestly the best gifts.
Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
1 John 4:8
God is Love.
1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear
Leviticus 25:17
Thou shalt fear thy God
Mt.7:8, Luke 11:9-10
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Proverbs 1:28
Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early but shall not find me.
(And I'm aware that despite your objections to the idea of believing logical contradictions that you also stated prior that the Bible was written by man. No one disagrees.)
Sorry that I've become more blunt, but I made a prior blog post that you didn't see that was related. However, I included pre-written responses to repetitive arguments. You've argued 3/6.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak at length about a topic of interest, and respect you as a person for doing so. Your beliefs are not subject to such respect. I will clarify no one called you crazy, I called faith -- by my definition of belief without reason -- blurs the definition of crazy to the point that it eliminates the criterion for claiming an assertion is crazy.
I have one last question: given your justification for belief is personal experience, is it then correct for someone who has NOT had such an experience to reject that religious claim?
So, what is the difference between faith and belief by your definition? Mine was reason, typically by evidence. You say you have evidence by personal experience, yet have faith. What, by your definition, is the difference?
You believing by the sake of something personal, I have no problem with, though I think it is more likely that a personal revelation is a misinterpretation of what actually happened.
What I do have a problem with are logical fallacies and moving the goalposts. First you argued the "uncaused cause" which is essentially special pleading resulting in an infinite regression. That was not only not plausible, it was logically fallacious. Not done and the prior premise pointless, suggesting "atheism is a religion." That corrected, onward we go while throughout argue solipsism or similar such then by offering alleged evidence, go entirely contradictory to the point. Oh, and the fact that personal revelation still hasn't differentiated religious belief from mental delusion.
So I would suggest that before snapping at a snarky remark about logical contradictions that you get your own in order.
I hope I can clarify, in angry_beaver's stead, what logical contradictions he may have had in mind.
Corinthians 12:31
Covet earnestly the best gifts.
Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
1 John 4:8
God is Love.
1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear
Leviticus 25:17
Thou shalt fear thy God
Mt.7:8, Luke 11:9-10
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Proverbs 1:28
Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early but shall not find me.
(And I'm aware that despite your objections to the idea of believing logical contradictions that you also stated prior that the Bible was written by man. No one disagrees.)
Sorry that I've become more blunt, but I made a prior blog post that you didn't see that was related. However, I included pre-written responses to repetitive arguments. You've argued 3/6.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak at length about a topic of interest, and respect you as a person for doing so. Your beliefs are not subject to such respect. I will clarify no one called you crazy, I called faith -- by my definition of belief without reason -- blurs the definition of crazy to the point that it eliminates the criterion for claiming an assertion is crazy.
I have one last question: given your justification for belief is personal experience, is it then correct for someone who has NOT had such an experience to reject that religious claim?
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileI think you're right, they have faith, while I merely believe there is a god.
As far my experience, I won't get into specifics, but I think I'd definitely liken it to the first time that you knew you were in love...You do believe in love, right Yoda?...I'm talking about something beyond merely our hormonal responses.
As far my experience, I won't get into specifics, but I think I'd definitely liken it to the first time that you knew you were in love...You do believe in love, right Yoda?...I'm talking about something beyond merely our hormonal responses.
Sorry for snapping at Angry, but I just felt like he was slacking, and I've realized that I need more time to prepare and think about my own arguments...@Yoda I seriously concede victory to you at the moment, but I'm sure I'll have more to add in just a little while.
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
I think they're completely wrong in their spiritual beliefs, if that's what you mean. Gotta like a religion with no god, though
"having faith in one's self is indeed a good thing"
Again, changing the definition of a word I use (and specifically describe my usage thereof multiple times) doesn't make me wrong--by that token I could say religion means "I am wrong" therefore you're wrong. Believing you can do something with which you have no justification for beliving is a terrible idea. I believe I can literally fly?
angry_beaver, I understood your point about the people described in the Bible perfectly. I was just adding in addition that such things would be good reason to believe now.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile