Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion Refutes Itself

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Religion refutes itself and here's why:

1. Religion is faith-based
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Conclusion: Either you continue to have faith in said religion and acknowledge that there's no evidence to support it or you provide evidence for it and thus, destroy faith.

So religion loses no matter what and no argument for religion will ever suffice.

However, this argument only works against the validity and truth value of religion, not it's philosophy. The philosophy of religion is most certainly a debatable topic, but not so much the veracity.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 1:51:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw, this is my own original argument I devoloped. If it hasn't been done before, perhaps I'll name it and formalize it after I flesh it out a bit.

Any thoughts? Flaws? Is it effective?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:04:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion refutes itself and here's why:

1. Religion is faith-based
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Conclusion: Either you continue to have faith in said religion and acknowledge that there's no evidence to support it or you provide evidence for it and thus, destroy faith.

So religion loses no matter what and no argument for religion will ever suffice.

However, this argument only works against the validity and truth value of religion, not it's philosophy. The philosophy of religion is most certainly a debatable topic, but not so much the veracity.

.


My faith says what you believe in is a delusion which God is allowing to happen, see Dr Scott Johnson.

Religion alone is a waste of time, but when you have a saviour who claims to be God, from the other side, opposite to sin, to this world who has affected the lives of Christians (see my forum post 'A Christian, a true one.') you have to ask, who is Jesus Christ. Faith based? Yes, meaningless faith? No.

The faith we have in Christ is much more worthly and meaninful than those of religion. We trust in Christ, not in our selves. It is faith in Christ, not faith in our selves, big, big difference. Ask your self how one can exchange faith from self to Christ.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:09:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion refutes itself and here's why:

1. Religion is faith-based
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

this seems to be what you think.
proof then faith comes after you get proof.
its really faith then you get proof.
Conclusion: Either you continue to have faith in said religion and acknowledge that there's no evidence to support it or you provide evidence for it and thus, destroy faith.

If you have faith and follow the principles proof will come.

So religion loses no matter what and no argument for religion will ever suffice.

However, this argument only works against the validity and truth value of religion, not it's philosophy. The philosophy of religion is most certainly a debatable topic, but not so much the veracity.

.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:13:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 2:04:08 PM, GodSands wrote:

My faith says what you believe in is a delusion which God is allowing to happen, see Dr Scott Johnson.

Religion alone is a waste of time, but when you have a saviour who claims to be God, from the other side, opposite to sin, to this world who has affected the lives of Christians (see my forum post 'A Christian, a true one.') you have to ask, who is Jesus Christ. Faith based? Yes, meaningless faith? No.

The faith we have in Christ is much more worthly and meaninful than those of religion. We trust in Christ, not in our selves. It is faith in Christ, not faith in our selves, big, big difference. Ask your self how one can exchange faith from self to Christ.

GodSands, I don't care what you call your belief in Christ. You can call it a relationship, spaghetti, an affair, whatever it doesn't matter. I'm calling it a religion because I prefer to use the English language properly to deliver clear points. You also went off topic as usual and failed to address my argument.

Any other takers?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:19:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 2/10/2010 2:13:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/10/2010 2:04:08 PM, GodSands wrote:

My faith says what you believe in is a delusion which God is allowing to happen, see Dr Scott Johnson.

Religion alone is a waste of time, but when you have a saviour who claims to be God, from the other side, opposite to sin, to this world who has affected the lives of Christians (see my forum post 'A Christian, a true one.') you have to ask, who is Jesus Christ. Faith based? Yes, meaningless faith? No.

The faith we have in Christ is much more worthly and meaninful than those of religion. We trust in Christ, not in our selves. It is faith in Christ, not faith in our selves, big, big difference. Ask your self how one can exchange faith from self to Christ.

GodSands, I don't care what you call your belief in Christ. You can call it a relationship, spaghetti, an affair, whatever it doesn't matter. I'm calling it a religion because I prefer to use the English language properly to deliver clear points. You also went off topic as usual and failed to address my argument.

Any other takers?


What do you mean, proper English language? Wasn't I using propber English? So Christianity is ruled out here then.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:20:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Any believer who tries to provide evidence for their religion would deny your definition of faith. And any that don't wouldn't try to provide any anyway.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:25:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 2:09:07 PM, Kahvan wrote:

this seems to be what you think.
proof then faith comes after you get proof.

Nope.

its really faith then you get proof.

No, it's faith or proof. If you have proof for your beliefs, it is no longer called faith. You can't have both.

If you have faith and follow the principles proof will come.

Bare assertion, and this doesn't apply to religious apologetics which is what I'm mainly targeting.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:36:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion refutes itself and here's why:

1. Religion is faith-based
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Conclusion: Either you continue to have faith in said religion and acknowledge that there's no evidence to support it or you provide evidence for it and thus, destroy faith.

So religion loses no matter what and no argument for religion will ever suffice.

However, this argument only works against the validity and truth value of religion, not it's philosophy. The philosophy of religion is most certainly a debatable topic, but not so much the veracity.

.

not all religions have faith as an absolute virtue. you also have revelation, logic if you like thomas aquinas (though his arguments mainly fail to hold water...), personal experience of god, etc

anyways, point is, you can have some sketchy, suggestive evidence and combine it with faith to close the gap- thats why its called a leap of faith.

furthermore, the faith of the religious is not just in regards to the existence of god. one could believe they have proof of god's existence (that at least satisfies them) and then have faith in his plan, or in his infinite goodness or something.

i think you've oversimplified too much.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 2:53:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 2:36:04 PM, belle wrote:

not all religions have faith as an absolute virtue. you also have revelation, logic if you like thomas aquinas (though his arguments mainly fail to hold water...), personal experience of god, etc

As with most arguments against theism/religion, my argument is aimed at Western religion.

As far as Aquinas, he is not a religion itself, he is using logic as a form of Christian apologetics. My argument basically is against such an attempt to even prove Christianity.

anyways, point is, you can have some sketchy, suggestive evidence and combine it with faith to close the gap- thats why its called a leap of faith.

furthermore, the faith of the religious is not just in regards to the existence of god. one could believe they have proof of god's existence (that at least satisfies them) and then have faith in his plan, or in his infinite goodness or something.

My argument is against all beliefs and truth claims of religion. As I specified in my initial argument, that's all it is attacking. It does not refute the philosophy of religion (though, maybe I'll develop a formal argument against that too.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 3:13:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 2:53:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

My argument is against all beliefs and truth claims of religion. As I specified in my initial argument, that's all it is attacking. It does not refute the philosophy of religion (though, maybe I'll develop a formal argument against that too.)

and my point is that its not all or nothing. you can have some evidence and take the rest on faith.

for example, take a religious experience. it is evidence of something. faith extends it to be evidence of god.

anyhow, i really doubt religious people are too worried about "proving" their religion- most seem pretty proud of their ability to have faith even in the face of conflicting evidence :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 4:12:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 3:13:49 PM, belle wrote:
At 2/10/2010 2:53:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

My argument is against all beliefs and truth claims of religion. As I specified in my initial argument, that's all it is attacking. It does not refute the philosophy of religion (though, maybe I'll develop a formal argument against that too.)

and my point is that its not all or nothing. you can have some evidence and take the rest on faith.

But the point of religion is to have faith.
In fact, they're nearly synonymous.

Specifically, we can apply this to God. If God wants you to believe in him out of virtue of faith rather than evidence, intelligent design arguments for God would defy his request for faith.

Which is the point I'm making. You lose either way. If there's no evidence for religion, then it's not valid, not credible, and undeserving of belief. If there is evidence, then it is no longer religion. It becomes history, science, etc.

for example, take a religious experience. it is evidence of something. faith extends it to be evidence of god.

Evidence of something, sure. But not evidence for a particular religion. The "religious experience" argument is one that gets on my nerves too. People see a miracle, have a spiritual sensation, out of body experience, etc. and then claim it's proof of their religion. This is purely a non-sequitur. Out of body experience is evidence that consciousness survives without a biological body. It doesn't prove Christ died for our sins, it doesn't prove heaven or hell, it doesn't prove anything.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 4:15:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Nope. That certainly isn't any type of faith I hold to.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 4:21:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 4:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Nope. That certainly isn't any type of faith I hold to.

Do you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence? Because if you believe something based on evidence, it's not faith. This is why if you provide evidence for your beliefs, you know longer have faith because evidence convinces you to believe.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 4:25:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 4:21:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/10/2010 4:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Nope. That certainly isn't any type of faith I hold to.

Do you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence? Because if you believe something based on evidence, it's not faith. This is why if you provide evidence for your beliefs, you know longer have faith because evidence convinces you to believe.

No, I would reject your definition of "faith".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 4:34:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 4:25:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2010 4:21:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/10/2010 4:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Nope. That certainly isn't any type of faith I hold to.

Do you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence? Because if you believe something based on evidence, it's not faith. This is why if you provide evidence for your beliefs, you know longer have faith because evidence convinces you to believe.

No, I would reject your definition of "faith".

Then please define it. Though my definition is probably the academically accepted definition. I know GodSands has his own definition of Christianity, but it's not valid.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 5:06:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 2/10/2010 4:34:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/10/2010 4:25:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2010 4:21:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/10/2010 4:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Nope. That certainly isn't any type of faith I hold to.

Do you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence? Because if you believe something based on evidence, it's not faith. This is why if you provide evidence for your beliefs, you know longer have faith because evidence convinces you to believe.

No, I would reject your definition of "faith".

Then please define it. Though my definition is probably the academically accepted definition. I know GodSands has his own definition of Christianity, but it's not valid.


Geo you are correct in your definsion of faith. But Christianity is not like the other faiths. Like other faiths we do not have faith in our selves but in Christ, explain how ones faith which is of them self is transfired to faith in Christ? Who they have not seen.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 7:35:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Faithful person's encounter with God

God: Howest thou have come to believe in me?

Christian: I had faith, just as your best-selling book commanded me to.

God: Very well. You may enter the gates of Heaven.

Rational person's encounter with God

God: Howest thou have come to believe in me?

Rationalist: I have come to the conclusion that you existed base on the logical syllogism of Kalam's Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument. To further convince myself, I carefully examined the Shroud of Turin to see if it was authentic. Finally, after carefully examining all the historical and archaeological evidence for Biblical events, I came to the conclusion that you exist.

God: So you didn't have faith in me?

Rationalist: No, of course not. No belief is warranted without evidence.

God: Go to Hell.

At 2/10/2010 4:25:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, I would reject your definition of "faith".

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Dictionary.com
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 7:47:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
hmmm... conflating proof and evidence? not based on proof is different from completely lacking evidence. not all evidence is conclusive. so there is still "room" for faith, even though you think you've found evidence towards god's existence.

you can also *believe* without faith. the rationalist still believes in god even though he doesn't do so from a standpoint of faith.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts, 16:31)
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 8:14:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 7:47:21 PM, belle wrote:
hmmm... conflating proof and evidence? not based on proof is different from completely lacking evidence. not all evidence is conclusive. so there is still "room" for faith, even though you think you've found evidence towards god's existence.

There's evidence for a historical Jesus, but it requires faith to believe he rose from the dead.

Plus anything that we have proof/evidence for falls under history, science, etc. (Which is why the historicity of Jesus can be found in History texts, while the resurrection of Jesus can be found in Religious texts.)

you can also *believe* without faith. the rationalist still believes in god even though he doesn't do so from a standpoint of faith.

But then it becomes historical/scientific fact that he exists. It's no longer a religious claim.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 9:20:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion refutes itself and here's why:

1. Religion is faith-based

agreed.

2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Conclusion: Either you continue to have faith in said religion and acknowledge that there's no evidence to support it or you provide evidence for it and thus, destroy faith.

Disagree. There is no logical reason why you can't continue to say that you have faith in a religion and acknowledge that there is some evidence to support it. If you were to say that some scientific evidence is what convinced you more than anything else to believe in a certain religion, you would then be infringing on the faith part, which is what I think you are getting at. However, if you have faith FIRST, there is absolutely nothing contradictory in finding or acknowledging some evidence that supports your religions beliefs. Having faith and acknowledging evidence for your belief CAN coexist, as long as the faith came first.

It is also plausible that hearing an argument for, say, young earth Creationism, could convince you to look into Christianity more and talk to people about what the Bible says and come to have faith. The evidence that you heard could be indirectly responsible for your faith, as it caused you to search and ask questions with an open mind. But you still based your faith off of the Bible (or whatever), which is fine.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
INTJ
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 9:36:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion refutes itself and here's why:

1. Religion is faith-based
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Conclusion: Either you continue to have faith in said religion and acknowledge that there's no evidence to support it or you provide evidence for it and thus, destroy faith.

So religion loses no matter what and no argument for religion will ever suffice.

However, this argument only works against the validity and truth value of religion, not it's philosophy. The philosophy of religion is most certainly a debatable topic, but not so much the veracity.

.

GeoLaureate8, I like your argument. But, I liked your elaborations on it more than the succinct version above. So, I think it would be better if you added those as enumerated premises there with 1. and 2. above--if you contrasted and explained with more premises how clearly different confirm-able reality is from religious theories of reality, and the inverse relationship faith has with verifiable statements.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 9:38:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 9:20:56 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Disagree. There is no logical reason why you can't continue to say that you have faith in a religion and acknowledge that there is some evidence to support it. If you were to say that some scientific evidence is what convinced you more than anything else to believe in a certain religion, you would then be infringing on the faith part, which is what I think you are getting at. However, if you have faith FIRST, there is absolutely nothing contradictory in finding or acknowledging some evidence that supports your religions beliefs.

Bingo! This is the first strong rebuttal. However, I expected that someone would use this rubuttal, and I was hoping no one would because I have yet to think of a counter-argument, lol.

Anyways, let's see if I can address this.

First of all, the entirety of Christian apologetics is geared towards getting others to believe what they believe, not based on faith, but based on evidence and logical proof. So this argument completely dismantles the entirety of Christian apologetics.

Second of all, once convincing evidence is found, it is no longer necessary to have faith.

For example, you have faith that Jesus existed 2,000 years ago. Later, evidence is discovered which proves the existence of Jesus. Faith then becomes pointless because it is now a historical fact.

Same could be said for micro-organisms. Someone could have faith that tiny little creatures exist, but when science proves they exist under the microscope, it would be nonsensical to say you have "faith" that micro-organisms exist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 10:06:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I basically believe what Thomas Aquinas espoused.

"Aquinas sees reason and faith as two ways of knowing. "Reason" covers what we can know by experience and logic alone. From reason, we can know that there is a God and that there is only one God; these truths about God are accessible to anyone by experience and logic alone, apart from any special revelation from God.

"Faith" covers what we can know by God's special revelation to us (which comes through the Bible and Christian Tradition). By faith, we can know that God came into the world through Jesus Christ and that God is triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These truths about God cannot be known by reason alone." [1]

[1] http://www.jcu.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 10:17:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 9:38:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/10/2010 9:20:56 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Disagree. There is no logical reason why you can't continue to say that you have faith in a religion and acknowledge that there is some evidence to support it. If you were to say that some scientific evidence is what convinced you more than anything else to believe in a certain religion, you would then be infringing on the faith part, which is what I think you are getting at. However, if you have faith FIRST, there is absolutely nothing contradictory in finding or acknowledging some evidence that supports your religions beliefs.

Bingo! This is the first strong rebuttal. However, I expected that someone would use this rubuttal, and I was hoping no one would because I have yet to think of a counter-argument, lol.

Wow. I appreciate the honesty. I guess there really are people on DDO who disagree with me and aren't just stubborn mules. Lol.

Anyways, let's see if I can address this.

First of all, the entirety of Christian apologetics is geared towards getting others to believe what they believe, not based on faith, but based on evidence and logical proof. So this argument completely dismantles the entirety of Christian apologetics.

There are certainly many Christians who have some fundamentals about Christianity/God wrong, even some of those in active ministry and apologetics. The faith vs. good works issue is one that is often misunderstood, for example.

However, I don't think it is fair to say that the entirety of Christian apologetics is geared towards getting others to believe based on evidence and not faith. I would more accurately describe it as removing the barriers. I'm sure there are some who believe that the YEC evidence they are presenting is enough to make open minded people come to Christ (which is wrong, one needs faith), but I think the vast majority are just trying to remove the barriers. The whole "science has already proved the Bible wrong" thing has undoubtedly stopped many from even considering Christianity.

Apologetics is geared towards responding to the evidence against the Bible with evidence for it so that at the very least, both can be given equal consideration by the inquiring mind. Evidence for the Bible might (and does) encourage many people to consider Christianity whereas they may not have before. Apologetics helps to open the door, but should not (and usually doesn't) shove anyone through that door.

Second of all, once convincing evidence is found, it is no longer necessary to have faith.

I don't know that I've ever said it on DDO, but I am on the record elsewhere as saying that I do not believe Christians will ever "prove" that God exists. We can provide evidence, but not proof. If we could prove that God exists, then people would only believe in Him because it is the only logical thing to do, not because they have faith (the Bible kinda talks a lot about that F word). On that we agree.

Anyways, I think that even if one is presented with evidence for God that one personally finds to be "convincing" (thus in one sense removing the necessity for faith) that this person can still come to have faith. Regardless of the evidence, one can still choose to believe in God based on based on how the Holy Spirit may move you when you read the Bible or talking to your Christian friend. These ways of experiencing God are much more real than reading about some scientific evidence for Him, although these experiences take faith.

I'm afraid I may not have described that too well but I hope you get he point. Basically, I don't think that if someone believes in God because of evidence presented to them that they can never go to Heaven because they will be completely unable to possess the necessary faith. I think they can still get this faith. Especially because an argument like ID simply points to a creator, but not specifically to the God of the Christian Bible. To come to know Him personally is something that practically by definition takes faith, something that no amount of scientific evidence could ever do.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:04:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 1:36:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion refutes itself and here's why:

1. Religion is faith-based
2. Any attempt to prove it's claims or provide evidence for it, destroy "faith." (Faith: belief without evidence)

Conclusion: Either you continue to have faith in said religion and acknowledge that there's no evidence to support it or you provide evidence for it and thus, destroy faith.

So religion loses no matter what and no argument for religion will ever suffice.

However, this argument only works against the validity and truth value of religion, not it's philosophy. The philosophy of religion is most certainly a debatable topic, but not so much the veracity.

.

Everything is faith based; getting out of bed in the morning, marrying someone, choosing a career etc.

we put our faith in things based on the evidence before us.
I believe the Gospels and the disciples believed Jesus on exactly the same premise that you cite.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:12:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why is religion faith based?

Because most of it's adherents can offer no justification or evidence for it. In actual fact ancient religion, medieval religion and most of the world's historical spiritual leaders did offer evidence or some empircal standard by which religion could be evaluataed. It is for these reasons that many religions refute themselves, we were never meant to believe with blind primitive obedience.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ryft
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:15:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Faith: belief without evidence

Unless you can support this definition from an academic Christian source, your shotgun argument left Christianity unscathed (by reason of Straw Man fallacy). And I'll save you the trouble: no academic Christian source defines faith in that way. Faith is defined as a concert of notitia (knowledge), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust). Go back to "the academically accepted definition" you made reference to and notice the first definition you had to skip over in order to reach yours: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." With a little intellectual honesty your argument would not have been such a fallacious corpse.

GeoLaureate8 wrote:

The entirety of Christian apologetics is geared towards getting others to believe what they believe.

False. That describes evangelization. Apologetics (Gk. apologia) is geared towards defending the faith; evangelization is geared towards getting others to believe.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 1:36:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let me put it this way. You can know things based on evidence, you can be convinced based on evidence, you can even believe based on evidence, but you CANNOT have faith based on evidence no matter how you define it.

Whether it be confidence or trust in God, belief without evidence, or hopeful that something is true; none of that is based on evidence because otherwise you would say "I know this is true" or "I am convinced that this is true." You would not say you have "faith" that it is true. And this is what defines religion. Unwarranted, baseless belief. If it were established fact or a compelling theory based on evidence, it no longer falls under the category of religion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat