[split] Do you think religious arguments are dumb?

[Potato]

"I suggested that people can be less "dumb" as a result of faith in Christ (as opposed to religion or church teachings)."

faith in Christ fits the definition of religion perfectly. so your suggestion is complete bullshit.

"From what I see, there is a relationship between Western civilization abandoning Christianity and an increase in group dumbness."

FALSE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity...telligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LynnHa...igence.svg

you should take this test http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf because from what i see, you're experiencing what they call the Dunning–Kruger effect, maybe knowing your own iq will help you get over it.

[Ky]

(12-27-2012 07:28 PM)Potato Wrote:  "I suggested that people can be less "dumb" as a result of faith in Christ (as opposed to religion or church teachings)."

faith in Christ fits the definition of religion perfectly. so your suggestion is complete bullshit.

Faith in Christ is the beginning of divine fellowship, not a synonym for sacrament-laden religious practices. He's not bullshitting, but just claiming that walking with God is a means of becoming less foolish as opposed to listening to the indoctrination of denominational churches.

[Potato]

^bullshit. religion mean faith in or worship of a supernatural deity. so faith in christ is a religious practice, no different from faith in Muhammad, faith in Santa, or faith in Zeus. faith simply means belief without evidence. nothing is more foolish than faith in my opinion.

[SoulRiser]

Let's please not turn this thread into ANOTHER religious argument.

[Ky]

(12-28-2012 04:38 PM)Potato Wrote:  ^bullshit. religion mean faith in or worship of a supernatural deity. so faith in christ is a religious practice, no different from faith in Muhammad, faith in Santa, or faith in Zeus. faith simply means belief without evidence. nothing is more foolish than faith in my opinion.

Faith has to do with more than just religion. Faith is belief without evidence, right? Well, how could one formulate a hypothesis, devise their own theories, or accept any political ideology without some degree of it? Heck, believing that there's nothing more foolish than faith requires a leap of faith, considering you don't have all the answers.

Faith is the beginning of innovation. It is the faith humanity has possessed in their endeavors that has led us so far along, and I have enough faith in humanity to assert that we aren't dumb.

[Potato]

"Faith has to do with more than just religion."

so what? religion is the most common form of faith, and it makes sense because people want to believe that they can survive death.

"Faith is belief without evidence, right?"

that's what the word is used for.

"Well, how could one formulate a hypothesis"

you don't form a hypothesis while making up your mind to believe that it is correct no matter what. that's why it's a hypothesis and not a faith.

"Faith is the beginning of innovation."

wtf would have happened if all the people who developed the airplane just decided to have FAITH that you can fly on brooms after reading it in some children's story.

faith is what you have when you decide to believe in the less likely alternative explanation. if you think there is a pile of money on your bed when the lack of evidence suggests that there isn't, then you are having faith and ignoring the evidence, because the more likely explanation of there being no evidence of anything on your bed, is that there isn't anything there. faith is just plain denial of reality.

here is one of dictionary.com's definition of it "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

[Ky]

First off, lrn2quote. Now...

(12-29-2012 07:05 AM)Potato Wrote:  so what? religion is the most common form of faith, and it makes sense because people want to believe that they can survive death.

I wouldn't call religion the most common form of faith, considering people have faith in various truths (or falsehoods) that are understood but not proven. Anyway, saying people want to "survive death" (which is an oxymoron) is a bit of a generalization...you could at least say people want to see something after it.

(12-29-2012 07:05 AM)Potato Wrote:  you don't form a hypothesis while making up your mind to believe that it is correct no matter what. that's why it's a hypothesis and not a faith.

Part of creating a hypothesis is coming up with a predicted outcome, which requires the foresight of faith (especially if you actually want your hypothesis proven). Thinking of a theory as an axiom is certainly a strong degree of faith, but faith can be as simple as a mere assumption that something could be true.

(12-29-2012 07:05 AM)Potato Wrote:  wtf would have happened if all the people who developed the airplane just decided to have FAITH that you can fly on brooms after reading it in some children's story.

...That's just it. Why did the Wright Brothers succeed in making a working airplane despite the "evidence" to the contrary? It's simple; despite whatever nay-saying may have occurred, they didn't let it interfere with their faith that their idea could work. Faith is indeed the beginning of innovation.

As for someone believing that they can make brooms into flying devices, I say good luck to them on figuring out how.

(12-29-2012 07:05 AM)Potato Wrote:  faith is what you have when you decide to believe in the less likely alternative explanation. if you think there is a pile of money on your bed when the lack of evidence suggests that there isn't, then you are having faith and ignoring the evidence, because the more likely explanation of there being no evidence of anything on your bed, is that there isn't anything there. faith is just plain denial of reality.

here is one of dictionary.com's definition of it "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Your first sentence is true, and that is why faith is so compelling - it's a means of rooting for the little guy.

If you think there is money on your bed without evidence, but are not currently looking at your bed to be found wrong, it is possible that someone could have indeed planted money on your bed, so it doesn't hurt to go check. There can come a time where faith becomes foolishness, but it certainly isn't always so.

Faith is not the denial of reality, but the acceptance of things that haven't been proven to be a part of reality. Sometimes, these things actually are real...and sometimes, they're not. It's kind of a gamble considering it's not based on proof.

I have faith in God. I'm not going to use that faith to hurt anyone, and I'm inspired by it to carry on. I'm currently benefiting from my faith despite not having proven it. And even if He's not real (which I doubt), what exactly do I lose?

[SoulRiser]

Apparently you guys didn't see my request to not turn that thread into a religious argument. Split.

[Ky]

It's not a religious argument - we're debating the merits of faith of any kind.

[Potato]

"...faith can be as simple as a mere assumption that something could be true."

no, faith is the assumption that something IS true. logic is believing that the team with the best record is a sports league will win the championship, faith is believing that your home team WILL win. and they'll probably end up losing.

"Your first sentence is true, and that is why faith is so compelling - it's a means of rooting for the little guy."

there is a difference between rooting for something, and believing in it.

"..That's just it. Why did the Wright Brothers succeed in making a working airplane despite the "evidence" to the contrary?"

they never had faith that their designs were going to work, they knew that they might work. probabilities are not the same as certainties. they would have been stuck on their first model if they went in having faith that it would work.

[Ky]

(12-30-2012 08:22 AM)Potato Wrote:  "...faith can be as simple as a mere assumption that something could be true."

no, faith is the assumption that something IS true. logic is believing that the team with the best record is a sports league will win the championship, faith is believing that your home team WILL win. and they'll probably end up losing.

The assumption that something is true without any proof or reason is blind faith. Blind faith is always faith, but faith is not always blind faith.

Your last "sentence" (more of a fragment, really) contains faith.

(12-30-2012 08:22 AM)Potato Wrote:  "Your first sentence is true, and that is why faith is so compelling - it's a means of rooting for the little guy."

there is a difference between rooting for something, and believing in it.

Why not believe in something you're rooting for?

(12-30-2012 08:22 AM)Potato Wrote:  "..That's just it. Why did the Wright Brothers succeed in making a working airplane despite the "evidence" to the contrary?"

they never had faith that their designs were going to work, they knew that they might work. probabilities are not the same as certainties. they would have been stuck on their first model if they went in having faith that it would work.

They had faith that they'd come across a working design, and although they had evidence and reason that one of them would work, they didn't have proof. Also, instead of maintaining faith in a failed first model, they instead had faith in the next because it was an improvement upon the former.

Faith isn't always baseless - it's just never based in proof, by definition. The Bible, my church, and my loved ones all say God exists. Can they prove it? No, but there's circumstantial evidence. That's enough of a basis for faith, but not enough to prove it as fact. This goes for many religions (and counter-religions - atheists can assert that God doesn't exist because they don't see Him and their contacts say He doesn't. Can they prove it? Not really; the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.)

Faith is what you can't prove - it's assumption, and it's belief. Without this, actions would be performed with only logic; no risks would be taken unless a probability could be calculated for said risk (and even then...). Our world would be too small without it.

[Potato]

"The assumption that something is true without any proof or reason is blind faith. Blind faith is always faith, but faith is not always blind faith."

my definition of "faith" has been identical to your definition of "blind faith" and it is not synonymous to "belief" or "hope," it is specifically unreasonable belief, or belief that requires the rejection of logic, and i'm going to keep representing this unique concept with the same word that other people do, which is "faith"

"Why not believe in something you're rooting for?"

i can root for my favorite team, but thinking that they will (as opposed to thinking that there is a possibility that they will) win the championship makes me a retard who's most likely going to be proven wrong.

"They had faith that they'd come across a working design"

no, they had hope that they would, and they had reasonable belief that it's possible to construct a working aircraft, because birds fly. it would have been easier to have faith that they could just grab a broom and fly, why go through the trouble of building an airplane? because blind belief, or faith, doesn't do shit.

"the absence of proof is not the proof of absence."

there is no "proof of absence" but "absence of proof."

[IamNoone]

Yes because neither side ever gives in ever.

[AtheistLGBTQAnarchist]

It doesn't matter if you have a religion or what is your religion, end of story.

[Ky]

Lol at above two posts.

(12-30-2012 05:08 PM)Potato Wrote:  "The assumption that something is true without any proof or reason is blind faith. Blind faith is always faith, but faith is not always blind faith."

my definition of "faith" has been identical to your definition of "blind faith" and it is not synonymous to "belief" or "hope," it is specifically unreasonable belief, or belief that requires the rejection of logic, and i'm going to keep representing this unique concept with the same word that other people do, which is "faith"

Well, get a new definition, then, because it's a very broad term. Faith is belief, trust, or confidence. Your version of faith extends to unreasonable belief, misplaced trust, and complete confidence. I have faith that this difference of definitions is the fuel for this debate.

(12-30-2012 05:08 PM)Potato Wrote:  "Why not believe in something you're rooting for?"

i can root for my favorite team, but thinking that they will (as opposed to thinking that there is a possibility that they will) win the championship makes me a retard who's most likely going to be proven wrong.

I assure you, there are plenty of die-hard sports fans out there that would disagree with you. When a particular favorite team of mine actually did win the championship a couple years back, I wasn't surprised - I had faith in them, and it wasn't misplaced. Even when it looked like they were losing, I said, "Nope. They're going to win" despite all evidence to the contrary. Thrilling match, too - I'd tell you which team, but you're the last person who needs to know where I live.

(12-30-2012 05:08 PM)Potato Wrote:  "They had faith that they'd come across a working design"

no, they had hope that they would, and they had reasonable belief that it's possible to construct a working aircraft, because birds fly. it would have been easier to have faith that they could just grab a broom and fly, why go through the trouble of building an airplane? because blind belief, or faith, doesn't do shit.

The difference between faith and hope is a tricky one. Hope encompasses doubt, and, while I'm sure they doubted each individual design, they would have had faith in their ability to find one that works. Acting on faith requires a great deal more effort than wishing for something...hopping out of the window with a broom in hand would be a leap of false hope, not faith, on their part.

Rarely does blind faith work, but it isn't completely unreliable. You could bet on something that has the lowest non-zero statistic of occurring without any evidence that it will work and be right...it's just a reckless idea.

(12-30-2012 05:08 PM)Potato Wrote:  "the absence of proof is not the proof of absence."

there is no "proof of absence" but "absence of proof."

That's where I agree. There is no solid proof to determine whether God does or does not exist, although there is evidence to support either side. This evidence does not constitute proof, however.

[Potato]

words can have multiple meanings that can be dependent of the context in which they are used. "faith" in the context of "religious faith" means "unreasonable belief," because most people use and interpret it in that sense. that's why religious people say things like "i don't need evidence to believe in God, that's why it's called faith"

[Ky]

(01-05-2013 11:36 AM)Potato Wrote:  words can have multiple meanings that can be dependent of the context in which they are used. "faith" in the context of "religious faith" means "unreasonable belief," because most people use and interpret it in that sense. that's why religious people say things like "i don't need evidence to believe in God, that's why it's called faith"

Well, you had a point, and then you kind of lost it.

Faith in a god is not unreasonable. While it may not be inherently logical to presume that something created the universe and everything in it, it is the only commonly believed explanation so far of how matter and energy were introduced despite the laws of conservation governing them. Even the commonly cited Big Bang Theory does not explain how there came to be matter and energy enough to cause the vast expansion of the universe.

Furthermore, religious people have plenty of evidence to believe in God, although a lot of it is, admittedly, shaky. The largest and most important piece of evidence (in the case of Christianity) is the Bible, a book written by many authors across multiple languages, yet, when compiled together into one, reads as though it were written uniformly. Many also claim to bear witness to God's miracles, and think that the scientifically unexplained can be divinely explained...and I'd be one of them, in some cases.

[Potato]

"Faith in a god is not unreasonable."

If you don't think it's unreasonable then stop calling it faith. stop trying to confuse the vocabulary.

"While it may not be inherently logical to presume that something created the universe and everything in it, it is the only commonly believed explanation so far of how matter and energy were introduced despite the laws of conservation governing them."

even if you could take that as evidence for a prime mover, it still doesn't prove religion.

"a book written by many authors across multiple languages"

-centuries after the death of Christ and his gang, I've read from christian scholars. and across what languages?

"reads as though it were written uniformly."

how much of it have you read?

"Many also claim to bear witness to God's miracles, and think that the scientifically unexplained can be divinely explained"

hallucinations and liars are common.

[Ky]

(01-05-2013 10:38 PM)Potato Wrote:  "Faith in a god is not unreasonable."

If you don't think it's unreasonable then stop calling it faith. stop trying to confuse the vocabulary.

That's the term most commonly used to explain a belief in God. Christians have been calling it faith for far longer than you've called faith unreasonable, so drop the petulant whining about vocabulary at the door.

(01-05-2013 10:38 PM)Potato Wrote:  "While it may not be inherently logical to presume that something created the universe and everything in it, it is the only commonly believed explanation so far of how matter and energy were introduced despite the laws of conservation governing them."

even if you could take that as evidence for a prime mover, it still doesn't prove religion.

You're right. It's not proof, but evidence. That's why so many people buy into it.

(01-05-2013 10:38 PM)Potato Wrote:  "a book written by many authors across multiple languages"

-centuries after the death of Christ and his gang, I've read from christian scholars. and across what languages?

The early Bible was written in Hebrew; most of the New Testament, in Greek. I believe there was a third language some books of the Bible were written in another Middle Eastern language, although I don't remember which one off the top of my head. Also, these "christian scholars" you speak of are mistaken.

(01-05-2013 10:38 PM)Potato Wrote:  "reads as though it were written uniformly."

how much of it have you read?

I've read bits and pieces from nearly every book contained within, but it all seems to use the same literary tone of voice. (Also, I'm aware of your tricks when it comes to quoting it. Why do you think there are multiple English versions? Translating is a very hit-and-miss process.)

(01-05-2013 10:38 PM)Potato Wrote:  "Many also claim to bear witness to God's miracles, and think that the scientifically unexplained can be divinely explained"

hallucinations and liars are common.

You can try to explain miracles away, but there is always the possibility that my fellow Christians are not hallucinating (although I'm aware of plenty of liars, like the guy who claims to have taken a tour of heaven without having died).

You know, you could pretend to be a Christian and capitalize off a "miracle" by making it up, contacting a large religious organization, and writing a book about it. Plenty of people hijack the religion in that way.

[greywolf]

Yes they are because religion vs religion arguments are both unfalsifiable faiths. At least the 3 modern Abrahamic ones are. They are structured in such a way that the concept of faith enables the religions to be protected at all times, given that the persons faith persists of course

[Ky]

Sometimes, religious arguments don't make sense. I mean, one could argue with another for years over the specific meaning of a Bible verse. Comparing the definition of divinity between Judaism and Hinduism could very well become a heated discussion, but well-lined with fact.

What doesn't make sense is when someone uses the premise of a religion to bash another. If a Christian were to openly mock and ridicule others for praising "false gods" above his own, he'd be relying on an idea rooted (and very vaguely so, I might add) in his own religion to reject the validity of all other religions without any further evidence. That is sheer lunacy (not to mention disrespectful), considering people of other religions could very easily do the same to him. If everyone did this, we'd all be split into factions filled with people too stubborn to change their beliefs under any circumstances, and there would be no one left to convert into a faction. It is preferable that we tolerate other ideas and perhaps even accept them, if they are determined by us to have validity.

Christianity makes the most sense to me, personally, as other forms of belief or disbelief make the most sense to others. I will gladly defend my beliefs, and attempt to convince others to share them, but not at the expense of attacking, debunking, or otherwise outright rejecting theirs.