• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it?

JetLeg said:
I think that the whole idea of faith in religion is that you can decide issues about god & metaphysics based upon your emotions. The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

Not even remotely. Whatever you think or feel about god has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's true.
 
JetLeg said:
Some philosophic ideas can be given for nc-immaterial beings. For example, the onthological argument can be phrased as an argument for an nc-immaterial-perfect being. Whether it is a good argument or not, is another question, the point is that it is based upon philosophic considerations, without evidence.
Click to expand...

The ornithological argument states that the whole idea of an nc-immaterial-perfect being is for the birds.
 
I think he means ontological argument.

However, Christians would be quite dismayed if there was a solid ontological argument for an inconsequential immaterial perfect being as it would preclude the existence of their God. Given that there is no possible way that an inconsequential being can interact with the universe, I don't think there are any ontological arguments that one must exist.

So JetLeg, do you believe that you have an ontological argument that an inconsequential perfect being exists? As it would likely disprove the Christian God, I'd sure love to hear it!

-Bri
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
Do you agree that this is a large part of what the theistic religions are about?
Click to expand...

Operating a mental system which rejects the possibility of error? Yes, I think a large section of theistic religion is about that. Or the attempt to do that, anyway. Thankfully it doesn't always take.

Do you think that such a large percentage of humanity is simply delluded?
Click to expand...

Yes I do.
 
Seismosaurus said:
Operating a mental system which rejects the possibility of error? Yes, I think a large section of theistic religion is about that. Or the attempt to do that, anyway. Thankfully it doesn't always take.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree that a large section of theistic religion is about rejecting the possibility of error. I think that the vast majority of theists admit that their beliefs are faith-based rather than fact.

Although I agree that if there are theists who claim their beliefs to be fact using faulty logic such as "if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true," they are indeed deluded.

JetLeg said:
Do you agree that this is a large part of what the theistic religions are about? Do you think that such a large percentage of humanity is simply delluded?
Click to expand...

No, most theistic religions don't hold that "if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true." The belief in God is usually based on faith, not based on faulty logic.

Most theists admit that their belief in God is based on faith, not fact.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
So JetLeg, do you believe that you have an ontological argument that an inconsequential perfect being exists? As it would likely disprove the Christian God, I'd sure love to hear it!

-Bri
Click to expand...

My point was that you can give some arguments for inc-imm-beings that would not be based on evidence.

For example,

Imagine the most perfect im-inc-being
Existance is included within perfection
Therefore he exists.

But I feel that if we go into it, we will diverge from the topic. All I wanted to say is that you can try to prove im-inc-beings with reason, without evidence, as in the argument above. I do not think that the argument above is a good one, but it does show that such type of discussion is possible.

There is a category of proofs which try to proove that something exists, merely by analyzing the ideas we have about reality, without evidence. Descartes' proof of god was another example of such an attempt.
 
slingblade said:
Don't you think it is arrogant of you to accuse someone of being arrogant simply for answering your question?
Click to expand...

That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.
 
slingblade said:
I feel that reading Harry Potter books makes me happy.
Therefore, Harry Potter is real.
Click to expand...

It is a deeper issue, it is about bringing meaning to someone's life.

And I never said anything about reading a book.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.
Click to expand...

You know, at some point in the past hundred years, the majority of the human race thought that disease was caused by evil spirits and bad air. That may even still be true, depending upon how far modern medicine has made it into the bush. The word "malaria" shows its heritage.

I don't think I'm arrogant for holding to the germ theory of disease in the teeth of massive ignorance and superstition.

In 2002, most of the United States believed that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons. I looked at the evidence then and found it unconvincing. I don't consider it arrogant of me to have held to the evidence-based conclusion -- and further events more or less proved me right.
 
drkitten said:
You know, at some point in the past hundred years, the majority of the human race thought that disease was caused by evil spirits and bad air. That may even still be true, depending upon how far modern medicine has made it into the bush. The word "malaria" shows its heritage.

I don't think I'm arrogant for holding to the germ theory of disease in the teeth of massive ignorance and superstition.

In 2002, most of the United States believed that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons. I looked at the evidence then and found it unconvincing. I don't consider it arrogant of me to have held to the evidence-based conclusion -- and further events more or less proved me right.
Click to expand...

Off-topic : What was your reasoning with the nuclear weapons? I did believe it.

But religion is not something as simple as lack, or existance of nuclear weapons, it is a more complex issue. So in such a case holding opinions contrary to most humanity is arrogance.
 
JetLeg said:
Off-topic : What was your reasoning with the nuclear weapons? I did believe it.
Click to expand...

No credible sources were betting the over; the neutral sources (such as the UN observation team and the Iraqi-watching think-tanks) were flatly denying it. There was also no credible case about how Iraq would have produced the stuff, and the Dr. Strangelove scenarios that the Bush administration was presenting would have embarrassed Rube Goldberg. (You're going to put an isotope separator onto trucks?)

But religion is not something as simple as lack, or existance of nuclear weapons, it is a more complex issue. So in such a case holding opinions contrary to most humanity is arrogance.
Click to expand...

Er, no, it isn't. It works out, actually, to pretty much the same situation. No credible sources exist for the existence of God, the neutral sources (e.g., the "I had no need of that hypothesis" natural scientists) seem to be pretty firmly against it, and there's no credible case about how He interacts with the world.

On the other hand, there are lots of incredible cases -- let me see, an omnibenevolent God doesn't care enough about people to stop small children from starving to death or from being put to death by the thousands by genocidal dictators, but will nevertheless tie his His panties in a knot if I sleep with a person of the wrong gender? He promised that "ask and it shall be given," but won't cure my grandmother's stroke?
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Er, no, it isn't. It works out, actually, to pretty much the same situation. No credible sources exist for the existence of God, the neutral sources (e.g., the "I had no need of that hypothesis" natural scientists) seem to be pretty firmly against it, and there's no credible case about how He interacts with the world.
Click to expand...

I still think that natural scientists are biased. If there were a god, there would be consequences for them. One of them is that they should obey his will, which they do not want to. Another, is having to say that there is something bigger than you, which one might not want out of arrogance. Another is changing your way of life. They are biased with relationship to god.
 
JetLeg said:
No.

Reason is cold - emotion is warm. If you reject emotion, and act on reason, then you are a cold person.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If you act on reason it is not necessarily a rejection of emotion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom