Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hating Faith, the illogical Bias

GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 2:10:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is there to like about the deity featured in the Bible?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 2:13:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 2:10:40 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is there to like about the deity featured in the Bible?

What is not to like?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 2:15:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The guy taught mercy, do not judge, patience, kindness, humility... yeah, let's hate that guy.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 2:40:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 2:15:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
The guy taught mercy,

Global flood, S and G, etc etc.

do not judge,

And yet that is exactly what happens for you to get into heaven.

patience, kindness, humility... yeah, let's hate that guy.

Being the creator of all, he had to "teach" us the other stuff too.

Fair is a state of being win which rules are applied WITHOUT mercy. God can't play favorites if He honestly wants His rules to be followed. You can be merciful or fair, not both.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 2:52:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 2:13:58 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:10:40 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is there to like about the deity featured in the Bible?

What is not to like?

Everything, it is the epitome of all that is evil, Satan could be no worse!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 3:09:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege

What exactly is the special privelege again. I know no people of faith who "play the faith card" as a magical covering. I know people of faith who are sickened when they do unwell and then watch them try to change the behavior feeling "moved" to do so. Anything less isn't faith in the first place.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 3:17:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 3:09:46 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege

What exactly is the special privelege again. I know no people of faith who "play the faith card" as a magical covering. I know people of faith who are sickened when they do unwell and then watch them try to change the behavior feeling "moved" to do so. Anything less isn't faith in the first place.

Have you really reached such a ripe old age with the paucity of knowledge you project in your posts and threads?
Amazing.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 6:14:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 3:09:46 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege

What exactly is the special privelege again. I know no people of faith who "play the faith card" as a magical covering. I know people of faith who are sickened when they do unwell and then watch them try to change the behavior feeling "moved" to do so. Anything less isn't faith in the first place.

The dogmatic special privilege I refer to is when we use the usual critical thinking to put various religious propositions through scrutiny just like we would any other proposition.

When various problems emerge the "faith" card can be played in order to trump all that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:07:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 6:14:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/25/2015 3:09:46 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege

What exactly is the special privelege again. I know no people of faith who "play the faith card" as a magical covering. I know people of faith who are sickened when they do unwell and then watch them try to change the behavior feeling "moved" to do so. Anything less isn't faith in the first place.

The dogmatic special privilege I refer to is when we use the usual critical thinking to put various religious propositions through scrutiny just like we would any other proposition.

When various problems emerge the "faith" card can be played in order to trump all that.

Similar to the faith in evolution despite never seeing it in its process and having no answer for "and how did that happen?" Atheists have "faith" in science as it is politically manipulated, bought, and has no answer for anything. That is faith that should move mountains.
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:33:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 6:14:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/25/2015 3:09:46 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege

What exactly is the special privelege again. I know no people of faith who "play the faith card" as a magical covering. I know people of faith who are sickened when they do unwell and then watch them try to change the behavior feeling "moved" to do so. Anything less isn't faith in the first place.

The dogmatic special privilege I refer to is when we use the usual critical thinking to put various religious propositions through scrutiny just like we would any other proposition.

When various problems emerge the "faith" card can be played in order to trump all that. : :

Pardon me but faith isn't the same thing as belief. The faith that God's servants called prophets and saints had has nothing to do with belief. The prophets and saints heard the voice of God speak into their minds and had them write and speak for Him. This is how the original prophecies were written. Their faith in God was the connection they needed to obey all of God's commands. They all knew God personally.

Most of God's chosen believers have never heard the voice of God but they were forced to believe in him through miracles and thoughts that enter their minds that make them believe in him. Once they hear the gospel that God's saints preach to them, they know it is the voice of God, but only through their belief, not through faith, which is only known to those who have heard his voice and speak for Him.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:44:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 2:13:58 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:10:40 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is there to like about the deity featured in the Bible?

What is not to like?

let's see, the god of the bible is an evil, sadistic, racist, misogynistic, infanticidal , slaver. other than those characteristics, he's just an arse.
maybe someday you will read the bible and see that for yourself
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:46:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:44:14 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:13:58 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:10:40 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is there to like about the deity featured in the Bible?

What is not to like?

let's see, the god of the bible is an evil, sadistic, racist, misogynistic, infanticidal , slaver. other than those characteristics, he's just an arse.
maybe someday you will read the bible and see that for yourself

Examples? Or am I to just take an Atheist's word for it on what the Bible actually says?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:51:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:44:14 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:13:58 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:10:40 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is there to like about the deity featured in the Bible?

What is not to like?

let's see, the god of the bible is an evil, sadistic, racist, misogynistic, infanticidal , slaver. other than those characteristics, he's just an arse.
maybe someday you will read the bible and see that for yourself

It seems that you leaped the New Testament completely, took no notion as to how the OT relates to the NT, closed your eyes and headed for the OT of the Jews because that is the canned Atheist way of rebutal. Since you are one tract minded directly to the Old Testament, go ahead and have at it. We'll have a little common sense 101 when you are finished. This path leads Atheists to nowhere. I'll go there again just for giggles. Ever heard of Jesus? Pick him apart while you are at it. Christians are cannibals and god wants to divide us right? I'll rebutal once you put the work into ur next response. The floor is yours.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 6:49:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:07:53 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/25/2015 6:14:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/25/2015 3:09:46 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege

What exactly is the special privelege again. I know no people of faith who "play the faith card" as a magical covering. I know people of faith who are sickened when they do unwell and then watch them try to change the behavior feeling "moved" to do so. Anything less isn't faith in the first place.

The dogmatic special privilege I refer to is when we use the usual critical thinking to put various religious propositions through scrutiny just like we would any other proposition.

When various problems emerge the "faith" card can be played in order to trump all that.

Similar to the faith in evolution despite never seeing it in its process and having no answer for "and how did that happen?" Atheists have "faith" in science as it is politically manipulated, bought, and has no answer for anything. That is faith that should move mountains.

Then I suggest you look up the process of how a theory becomes a scientific theory and compare that to say various DOGMANS of religion and there process.........or lack of.

One of them starts with facts, it comes up with various explanations, it tries to test these various explanations, and never does it say that no evidence ever can never ever refute it (in other words it leaves the door open it might be wrong)

The other starts with this is the "truth" it must be made compatible with any and all things and any other proposition that contradicts it, no matter its merits must be rejected.

I will leave you to decide which operates which way regarding religious dogma vs science.

Oh and never ever ever think that just because there is a question that there is no answer for that therefore justifies your particular God. It doesn't, nor does it justify the wizard of oz.

Keep that in mind you hear the following things uttered.........

Science can't explain.............

If there is no God/wizard of oz how do you explain..........

The atheists has no answer for.............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
joopy
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:33:47 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/25/2015 6:14:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/25/2015 3:09:46 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 10:49:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Because people do all kinds of sh*t they can't justify the usual way then they play the "God/faith" card.

I think that is a reason people hate faith..........

Dogmatic special privilege

What exactly is the special privelege again. I know no people of faith who "play the faith card" as a magical covering. I know people of faith who are sickened when they do unwell and then watch them try to change the behavior feeling "moved" to do so. Anything less isn't faith in the first place.

The dogmatic special privilege I refer to is when we use the usual critical thinking to put various religious propositions through scrutiny just like we would any other proposition.

When various problems emerge the "faith" card can be played in order to trump all that. : :

Pardon me but faith isn't the same thing as belief. The faith that God's servants called prophets and saints had has nothing to do with belief. The prophets and saints heard the voice of God speak into their minds and had them write and speak for Him. This is how the original prophecies were written. Their faith in God was the connection they needed to obey all of God's commands. They all knew God personally.

Most of God's chosen believers have never heard the voice of God but they were forced to believe in him through miracles and thoughts that enter their minds that make them believe in him. Once they hear the gospel that God's saints preach to them, they know it is the voice of God, but only through their belief, not through faith, which is only known to those who have heard his voice and speak for Him.

Thank goodness, someone who backs up their statements with reasoning! I haven't been on DDO very long and I am already dog-tired of reading sarcastic responses from people who don't back up their statements. Thank you.
However I disagree that God's believers are "chosen;" I believe anyone can accept the Good News, and I disagree that people are forced to believe in God by miracles and/or thoughts. Yes, if one observes a miracle and believes it is a miracle, the logical conclusion is that God must exist - however no-one is forced to use logic, as I'm sure you can see if you read some of these forums.
Cheers,
Joopy
I don't rant, I debate
joopy
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:51:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 6:49:07 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Then I suggest you look up the process of how a theory becomes a scientific theory and compare that to say various DOGMANS of religion and there process.........or lack of.

One of them starts with facts, it comes up with various explanations, it tries to test these various explanations, and never does it say that no evidence ever can never ever refute it (in other words it leaves the door open it might be wrong)

The other starts with this is the "truth" it must be made compatible with any and all things and any other proposition that contradicts it, no matter its merits must be rejected.

I will leave you to decide which operates which way regarding religious dogma vs science.

Oh and never ever ever think that just because there is a question that there is no answer for that therefore justifies your particular God. It doesn't, nor does it justify the wizard of oz.

Keep that in mind you hear the following things uttered.........

Science can't explain.............

If there is no God/wizard of oz how do you explain..........

The atheists has no answer for.............

I have a book for you; "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis. It is not, I admit, scientific; Lewis uses philosophy, however it does not step away from logic or reason in proving the existence of God. It makes for an interesting read.
Cheers,
Joopy
I don't rant, I debate
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 8:02:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:51:46 AM, joopy wrote:
At 10/26/2015 6:49:07 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Then I suggest you look up the process of how a theory becomes a scientific theory and compare that to say various DOGMANS of religion and there process.........or lack of.

One of them starts with facts, it comes up with various explanations, it tries to test these various explanations, and never does it say that no evidence ever can never ever refute it (in other words it leaves the door open it might be wrong)

The other starts with this is the "truth" it must be made compatible with any and all things and any other proposition that contradicts it, no matter its merits must be rejected.

I will leave you to decide which operates which way regarding religious dogma vs science.

Oh and never ever ever think that just because there is a question that there is no answer for that therefore justifies your particular God. It doesn't, nor does it justify the wizard of oz.

Keep that in mind you hear the following things uttered.........

Science can't explain.............

If there is no God/wizard of oz how do you explain..........

The atheists has no answer for.............

I have a book for you; "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis. It is not, I admit, scientific; Lewis uses philosophy, however it does not step away from logic or reason in proving the existence of God. It makes for an interesting read.
Cheers,
Joopy

Yes I have seen many people claim various religious propositions claimed they are quite "logical" and sure I get they are sincere but lets face it the religious person who is looking for more justification for their prior religious belief isn't going to look as hard as say the skeptic who isn't going to pull any punches eh ?

Chances are I am not going to read the entire book of mere Christianity is there some part of it that you think by gosh this is rock solid logic, full of wisdom if so present it, if I can find error I guess that will end that, if I can't it's more probable I will look more into it....

So why don't you hit me with your best shot, fire away............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
joopy
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 8:41:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 8:02:14 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2015 7:51:46 AM, joopy wrote:
At 10/26/2015 6:49:07 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Then I suggest you look up the process of how a theory becomes a scientific theory and compare that to say various DOGMANS of religion and there process.........or lack of.

One of them starts with facts, it comes up with various explanations, it tries to test these various explanations, and never does it say that no evidence ever can never ever refute it (in other words it leaves the door open it might be wrong)

The other starts with this is the "truth" it must be made compatible with any and all things and any other proposition that contradicts it, no matter its merits must be rejected.

I will leave you to decide which operates which way regarding religious dogma vs science.

Oh and never ever ever think that just because there is a question that there is no answer for that therefore justifies your particular God. It doesn't, nor does it justify the wizard of oz.

Keep that in mind you hear the following things uttered.........

Science can't explain.............

If there is no God/wizard of oz how do you explain..........

The atheists has no answer for.............

I have a book for you; "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis. It is not, I admit, scientific; Lewis uses philosophy, however it does not step away from logic or reason in proving the existence of God. It makes for an interesting read.
Cheers,
Joopy

Yes I have seen many people claim various religious propositions claimed they are quite "logical" and sure I get they are sincere but lets face it the religious person who is looking for more justification for their prior religious belief isn't going to look as hard as say the skeptic who isn't going to pull any punches eh ?

Chances are I am not going to read the entire book of mere Christianity is there some part of it that you think by gosh this is rock solid logic, full of wisdom if so present it, if I can find error I guess that will end that, if I can't it's more probable I will look more into it....

So why don't you hit me with your best shot, fire away............

OK, I will do my best. I'm in a hurry, so let me know if I need to clarify a point and I will do so tomorrow.
1. Humanity, by and large, knows and understands a moral law, that separates right and wrong.
2. Humanity, by and large, does not keep to said law; we all do things that are morally wrong.
3. A common objection to the Law being a Law is that surely it is our primeval herd instinct; the desire to do what is best for our species and so help one another. However, suppose you hear a cry from a man in danger of falling off a cliff - you will feel two desires, one to help the man (the herd instinct), the other to stay away and keep yourself safe (self-preservation instinct.) However there is a third thing present, a decider which tells you to help the man, encouraging the herd instinct and suppressing self-preservation. Any force which suppresses one instinct and encourages another cannot be one of the instincts itself and so is not an instinct. The Moral Law is "above" our instincts and decides between them.
4. Now, this is where humanity is different from the rest of Nature. Nature follows its laws, i.e. trees grow according to their genes and the environment, stones fall to the ground when thrown into the air - so the Laws of Nature are just another way of saying "what Nature, in fact, does." But is you look at the Moral Law, it is not "what humans, in fact, do," it is what humans should do and do not. In other words, when you look at humanity, there is something there above and beyond the actual facts. To quote the book; "In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story. But men behave in a certain way and that is not the whole story, for all the time you know that they ought to behave differently."
5. To sum up; Nature follows Laws based on facts we can observe, but in the case of humans, it is different. The Moral Law, the Law of Right and Wrong, must be above the actual facts we can observe. Besides the actual facts, there is a Law which we did not invent and we know we should obey.
6. Now, what does this say about the Universe? (I know, that was a subject jump; it links in, don't worry.) There are two common views on the Universe; first that it was formed by chance, in accordance with the Laws of Nature - the way matter behaves, and second that it was created by some God-like being. The religious view, by and large, argues that whatever is behind the Universe is more like a mind than anything else; it has preferences, and a purpose. We want to find out which is correct.
7. To quote; "The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe" no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves."
8. To sum up, we can identify God's existence because of the Moral Law's presence in our minds, which is not there because of the Laws of Nature, because it stands above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour, which therefore indicates a mind-like presence behind the Universe, as this force clearly has preference for one thing over another. This Something can only be described as God, therefore God exists.

That's a hurried summation of the first four chapters, and I am certain that I will have missed something of importance. However, I am late and must be off so let me know where the logic doesn't quite make sense and I will fill you in.
Cheers,
Joopy
I don't rant, I debate
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 8:45:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is religious faith?

Is it a position:
* that puts the good of man above its own authority?
* transparent about any weakness in evidence for its claims?
* that will promptly accept and acknowledge falsifying evidence?
* able to transparently separate objective proof and subjective conviction?
* accountable for its ignorance, error and failed methods?
* able to distinguish dogmatic sanctimony from moral and intellectual accountability?
* that accepts no more privilege for its dogma than it can offer independent evidence?
* that respects alternative metaphysical views as potentially valid, in the recognition that the truth may yet be undecided?
* that defers pronouncing on reality until it can independently demonstrate its knowledge?
* that respects and upholds pluralism, secularism and equal justice?
* renowned for putting the pursuit of peace and justice above its own pursuit of wealth, power and privilege?
* welcoming of independent and informed critique about its methods?
* that accepts the possibility of its own corruption, and diligently and transparently opposes it?
* known for its opposition to intolerance, zealotry, and fanaticism, even with respect to its own dogma?

If the answers to these questions are not all strongly 'yes', then there is reason to be concerned about dogma that demands credulous submission more than compassionate and critical thought.

And there may be reason to be appalled by some of its claims and methods as corrupt and immoral, and deplore some of its effects as cruel, cynical and needlessly ignorant.

That doesn't require a hatred of any metaphysical entity, Gritty, or even a belief in such a being.
pakicetus
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 8:48:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:07:53 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Similar to the faith in evolution despite never seeing it in its process and having no answer for "and how did that happen?"

1) Natural selection and speciation have been observed (I'd offer sources, but you can just look it up yourself, it's not exactly a poorly documented topic)
2) "and how did it happen?" Answer is "via natural selection".
3) Tu quoque fallacy

Nice try, better luck next time.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 10:15:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 8:41:29 AM, joopy wrote:
At 10/26/2015 8:02:14 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


So why don't you hit me with your best shot, fire away............

OK, I will do my best. I'm in a hurry, so let me know if I need to clarify a point and I will do so tomorrow.
1. Humanity, by and large, knows and understands a moral law, that separates right and wrong.
2. Humanity, by and large, does not keep to said law; we all do things that are morally wrong.
3. A common objection to the Law being a Law is that surely it is our primeval herd instinct; the desire to do what is best for our species and so help one another. However, suppose you hear a cry from a man in danger of falling off a cliff - you will feel two desires, one to help the man (the herd instinct), the other to stay away and keep yourself safe (self-preservation instinct.) However there is a third thing present, a decider which tells you to help the man, encouraging the herd instinct and suppressing self-preservation. Any force which suppresses one instinct and encourages another cannot be one of the instincts itself and so is not an instinct. The Moral Law is "above" our instincts and decides between them.
4. Now, this is where humanity is different from the rest of Nature. Nature follows its laws, i.e. trees grow according to their genes and the environment, stones fall to the ground when thrown into the air - so the Laws of Nature are just another way of saying "what Nature, in fact, does." But is you look at the Moral Law, it is not "what humans, in fact, do," it is what humans should do and do not. In other words, when you look at humanity, there is something there above and beyond the actual facts. To quote the book; "In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story. But men behave in a certain way and that is not the whole story, for all the time you know that they ought to behave differently."
5. To sum up; Nature follows Laws based on facts we can observe, but in the case of humans, it is different. The Moral Law, the Law of Right and Wrong, must be above the actual facts we can observe. Besides the actual facts, there is a Law which we did not invent and we know we should obey.
6. Now, what does this say about the Universe? (I know, that was a subject jump; it links in, don't worry.) There are two common views on the Universe; first that it was formed by chance, in accordance with the Laws of Nature - the way matter behaves, and second that it was created by some God-like being. The religious view, by and large, argues that whatever is behind the Universe is more like a mind than anything else; it has preferences, and a purpose. We want to find out which is correct.
7. To quote; "The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe" no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves."
8. To sum up, we can identify God's existence because of the Moral Law's presence in our minds, which is not there because of the Laws of Nature, because it stands above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour, which therefore indicates a mind-like presence behind the Universe, as this force clearly has preference for one thing over another. This Something can only be described as God, therefore God exists.

That's a hurried summation of the first four chapters, and I am certain that I will have missed something of importance. However, I am late and must be off so let me know where the logic doesn't quite make sense and I will fill you in.
Cheers,
Joopy

I think you have touched upon a few different subjects and maybe are not as precise as you could be since you are trying to interwove different subjects so I am going to deal with one at a time.

I think your main train of thought has to do with morality and seeing this is in reference to CS Lewis apparently from what I hear that was his main argument.

I think one of your major points can easily be summed up in the famous David Hume distinction, is/ought.

Here is the world as it is (fact/is) here is the world as it should be (ought).

Straight of the bat you claim how humans know morality/right from wrong. Okey well lets look at that in detail, a common example I see done by some christians to atheists.......If God does not exist, who are you to say what the Nazi's did was wrong ? it's just your human opinion vs theirs...........

But notice what (most) of us recognize in such examples such as nazi's, what they did and how they operated had consequences, consequences detrimental to well being.

Killing, torture, oppression, etc etc these are detrimental to well being and in principle have nothing to do with the existence of a God.

It seems to me once you have some kind of intelligence like us and that intelligence recognizes that not all states are equal in regards to its well being it will thus seek those states it thinks is better suited to its well being.

We have some idea of the world as it is (is) we have some idea if the world was different it would be better for our well being (the should/ought)

No God needed....................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 10:16:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 2:51:07 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/26/2015 2:44:14 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:13:58 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:10:40 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

What is there to like about the deity featured in the Bible?

What is not to like?

let's see, the god of the bible is an evil, sadistic, racist, misogynistic, infanticidal , slaver. other than those characteristics, he's just an arse.
maybe someday you will read the bible and see that for yourself

It seems that you leaped the New Testament completely, took no notion as to how the OT relates to the NT, closed your eyes and headed for the OT of the Jews because that is the canned Atheist way of rebutal. Since you are one tract minded directly to the Old Testament, go ahead and have at it. We'll have a little common sense 101 when you are finished. This path leads Atheists to nowhere. I'll go there again just for giggles. Ever heard of Jesus? Pick him apart while you are at it. Christians are cannibals and god wants to divide us right? I'll rebutal once you put the work into ur next response. The floor is yours.

it's interesting that you reject the old testament, do you reject the 10 commandments and tithing as well?
morality doesn't change, what was moral yesterday will be right tommorow.
an all knowing god should have known that.
if you think your god is so moral and good, then i have some questions for you.
what do you think hell is like?
how old does a person need to be to deserve to go to hell? 12 years old? younger?
did your god create hell?
did your god create the rule to determine who goes to hell?
is your god able to forgive people after they are sent to hell?
do you believe in an "all knowing" god?
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 1:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

No one I know hates faith.
Faith is not a "messenger" in any sense of the word.
Atheists do not hate God.

You continue to show ignorance and impreparation to enter the debate- You present claims for which you advance no evidence and no reasoning whatsoever.

Business as usual.
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:21:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

Beliefs and faiths represent a type of mental activity that produces an unnecessary and dangerous false sense of trust and wrongful information (thinking coupled with the feeling of 'truth'). Faith rarely agrees with the world around us. History has shown that beliefs and faith, of the most intransigent kind, have served as the trigger for tragic violence and destruction and sustained the ignorance of people. Replacing beliefs with predictive thoughts based on experience and evidence provide a means to eliminate intransigence and dangerous superstitious thought.
Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world. All things we know about the world, we can express without referring to a belief. Even at its most benign level, beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding.
I present a very simple observation at the limits of ignorance and knowledge: If you don't know about something and you submit it to nothing but belief, it will likely prove false; if you know about something, then you don't need to believe it, because you know it. Between ignorance and knowledge you have the uncertainties about the world, and the best way to handle uncertainties involves thinking in terms of probabilities. So what use does belief have?
If you have awareness of abstracting, you can then begin to replace believing with thinking. Instead of owning beliefs, we can utilize hypothesis, theory, and models to make predictions about things in the world. In its semantic form, we can replace "belief" words with "thinking" words which better describes the formation of our ideas. We can use our imaginations to create new hypothesis towards desired goals. The wonder of the universe gives us a powerful feeling of inquisitiveness. Certainly we will fail sometimes, but disowning beliefs allows us to correct our mistakes without submitting our ideas to years or centuries of traditional time consuming barriers. Theory coupled with imagination can yield inventive thoughts and points of views. By further understanding our language and eliminating unworkable essence words, we can communicate without resorting to preconceived ideas based on past beliefs. Our feeling of wonder about the universe provides us the fuel for exploration; how much more magnificent the results from useful thoughts than ones based on belief or faith.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 2:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I hate faith... I hate its consequences. I hate that the faith of JWs can result in denying life-saving blood transfusions. I hate the faith of Catholics can result in disasterous unwanted pregnancies, even in the case of of rape. I hate the excesses of radical Islam, and I hate the hatred, death and war that differences over faith has brought over centuries.

Nothing is more dangerous than a man who is sure he is right because believing one is right gives licence for any crime. The torturers and witch burners of the Spanish Inquisition, the 9-11 criminals all believed they were doing right because of faith.

Steven Weinburg said "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." But that isn't quite true. It isn't Chrisitanity or Islam that makes good people do bad things - it is their faith in Christanity or Islam that makes them do bad things by replacing the human kindness in their hearts with mindless dogma, believed not for its truth but 'through faith'.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 3:12:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 2:40:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:15:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
The guy taught mercy,

Global flood, S and G, etc etc.

do not judge,

And yet that is exactly what happens for you to get into heaven.

patience, kindness, humility... yeah, let's hate that guy.

Being the creator of all, he had to "teach" us the other stuff too.

Fair is a state of being win which rules are applied WITHOUT mercy. God can't play favorites if He honestly wants His rules to be followed. You can be merciful or fair, not both.

And why was there a flood? Why were Sodom and Gamorah destroyed? Look it up. I would have showed less mercy.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 1:10:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 3:12:32 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:40:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/24/2015 2:15:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
The guy taught mercy,

Global flood, S and G, etc etc.

do not judge,

And yet that is exactly what happens for you to get into heaven.

patience, kindness, humility... yeah, let's hate that guy.

Being the creator of all, he had to "teach" us the other stuff too.

Fair is a state of being in which rules are applied WITHOUT mercy. God can't play favorites if He honestly wants His rules to be followed. You can be merciful or fair, not both.

And why was there a flood? Why were Sodom and Gamorah destroyed? Look it up. I would have showed less mercy.

Yes, which means He killed plenty of innocents along the way to do them (the flood and S and G), along with endorsing a host of other atrocities for His special group, and has a favored collection of people for which He is willing to engage in this clearly biased approach of governance. Secondly ,the global flood? Did you not read where the origin of that came from? His little spat with His first born and their ouster was the cause of that.

So of course, drown the non-puissant creatures of the planet, the animals, the unborn, etc.

Real "Fair", am I rite? Look, I don't mind Him being called a host of things, but "Just", "Fair", and "Merciful" should never be used together when describing something that is to have supreme authority. It makes said authority wishy-washy.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 1:16:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:06:20 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Let us pause and comprehend why someone would hate faith. Perhaps they hate "God" and direct that hate towards the messenger...

If you apply the arguments for why people hate faith, they perfectly fit the same exact arguments for why someone would hate government. I always am suspicious when someone says they hate god, but are not anarchists.