RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. My contact details are here.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[split] GODS NOT REEL
Author Message
brainiac3397 Offline
Machiavellian Amoeba

Posts: 9,823
Joined: Feb 2013
Thanks: 20
Given 1983 thank(s) in 1428 post(s)
Post: #31
My way, as a Christian, to deal with the homophobes in the Church.

The cookie god is displeased with your blasphemy. Sugar-free oat cookies will be your punishment.

Personality DNA Report
(06-14-2013 08:02 AM)Potato Wrote:  watch the fuq out, we've got an "intellectual" over here.

Hidden stuff:
[Image: watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme-240x180.png]
Brainiac3397's Mental Health Status Log Wrote:[Image: l0Iy5HKskJO5XD3Wg.gif]
06-06-2014 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #32
RE: My way, as a Christian, to deal with the homophobes in the Church.

(06-06-2014 09:52 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  The cookie god is displeased with your blasphemy. Sugar-free oat cookies will be your punishment.

Sugar free is a fate worse than death.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
06-06-2014 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #33
My way, as a Christian, to deal with the homophobes in the Church.

(06-06-2014 09:52 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  The cookie god is displeased with your blasphemy. Sugar-free oat cookies will be your punishment.

At least they aren't raisin.
06-06-2014 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoulRiser Offline
Site Founder

Posts: 18,240
Joined: Aug 2001
Thanks: 2673
Given 1978 thank(s) in 1208 post(s)
Post: #34
My way, as a Christian, to deal with the homophobes in the Church.

It was to be expected that this would get derailed. ... Razz

But, I'm pleasantly surprised that it's remained civilized. Congratulations, SS!

"If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them." - Dalai Lama
Help & Support - Get help with leaving school, unsupportive parents, and more.
Click here if school makes you depressed or suicidal

Support School Survival on Patreon or Donate Bitcoin Here: 1Q5WCcxWjayniaL92b8GfXBiGdfjmnUNa2
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - André Paul Guillaume Gide
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." - Albert Einstein
"I'm pretty sure there's a lot of beauty that can only be found in the mind of a lunatic." - TheCancer
EIPD - Emotionally Incompetent Parent Disorder

Push Button for Collection of Useful Links:
Hidden stuff:
06-07-2014 12:34 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ky Offline
Shadow

Posts: 5,201
Joined: Aug 2012
Thanks: 1795
Given 1468 thank(s) in 972 post(s)
Post: #35
[split] My way, as a Christian, to deal with the homophobes in the Church.

I was tempted to act uncivilly in the face of dogmatic assertions, but that would have been irrational.

Public Service Announcement: First world problems are still problems.
06-07-2014 07:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: SoulRiser
KFC Nyan Cat Away
suck 360 blazeit hooks

Posts: 1,034
Joined: Feb 2013
Thanks: 491
Given 244 thank(s) in 167 post(s)
Post: #36
[split] My way, as a Christian, to deal with the homophobes in the Church.

Wake me up when the religious debates end.

City YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/kfcnyancat
City Tumblr: http://kfcnyancat.tumblr.com (no longer operational due to personal issues)

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Donald Rumsfeld

For anyone who remembers me going on an archive binge: Thank you all. I know I ended it being a drama queen, I don't really agree with the ideology anymore, and I'm really not the same person I was (I went through a neopagan phase!) but still this site was the first online community I was in. I graduated from school and turned 18. Time flies. KFC Nyan Cat, June 20, 2019.
06-07-2014 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #37
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

(06-07-2014 07:00 AM)DoA Wrote:  I was tempted to act uncivilly in the face of dogmatic assertions, but that would have been irrational.

The ever so dogmatic assertion that faith is irrational?

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
06-07-2014 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ky Offline
Shadow

Posts: 5,201
Joined: Aug 2012
Thanks: 1795
Given 1468 thank(s) in 972 post(s)
Post: #38
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

Your assertion:

(06-04-2014 02:03 PM)W Kuts Wrote:  
(06-04-2014 01:48 PM)Cianna200 Wrote:  Logic is extremely important, faith without open mindedness can lead to absurdities.

Faith is not logical, or open minded. Mencken defined it aptly as "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." No rational arguments can penetrate it. No logic can surmount it. No evidence can sway it.

Bluntly put, faith itself is an absurdity.

Mencken's definition is at best tongue-in-cheek and at worst an inaccuracy; Oxford Dictionary defines the faith you're thinking of as a "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Further definitions along this line read "a system of religious belief" and "a strongly held belief or theory." As you've indicated, there is indeed a lack of concrete proof and the indication of spiritual belief, yet this definition is made impartially; subjective arguments regarding logic or probability are not introduced and are saved for the observation of the viewer. Why?

There are varying faiths. The fallacy of composition arises when you consider that faith, as a whole, must be entirely illogical given the improbable nature of many faiths. You have asserted that faith itself is an absurdity when there is no evidence to suggest that strongly held belief in general is absurd simply because some beliefs are, to us, quite absurd indeed. (Interestingly, you've said that faith is to assert things without evidence. Would you not be following your own definition of faith by making such an assertion?)

Indeed, there isn't a rational justification for assuming faith, which, in itself, is not innately logical, to be irrational as a result of its reason-neutral nature. To indicate that all faith is flawed will result in unreasonable conclusions about faiths in general, including faiths in scientific theories, for one, that you yourself may possess and exhibit. (Not to mention the strongly held belief - faith - that having faith is irrational.)

I also find it humorous that you alluded to Matthew 7:24-27 with one of the arguments you made. Props.

Of course, I doubt my argument will have penetrated anything; my previous one certainly didn't.

Public Service Announcement: First world problems are still problems.
06-07-2014 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I Must Enter a Username Away
DoApocalypse Survivor

Posts: 321
Joined: Mar 2014
Thanks: 91
Given 69 thank(s) in 59 post(s)
Post: #39
[split] GODS NOT REEL

Has anyone here watched the movie God's Not Dead? (I have, my parents have took me to see it.)

Interestingly, one of the first things the philosophy professor, Jeffrey Radisson, did was namebomb some people (who are all supposed to be assumed to be considered atheist by the movie audience, I think Russell was actually agnostic) to the class on the whiteboard, which included Michel Foucault, Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, George Santayana, Denis Diderot, John Stuart Mill, Richard Dawkins, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russell, Bertolt Brecht, Ayn Rand, Democritus, David Hume, Albert Camus, and Sigmund Freud.



Watch on YouTube

Here's an article that I've partially read through that seems to decently summarize the movie:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logi...philosophy
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2014 02:13 PM by I Must Enter a Username.)
06-09-2014 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brainiac3397 Offline
Machiavellian Amoeba

Posts: 9,823
Joined: Feb 2013
Thanks: 20
Given 1983 thank(s) in 1428 post(s)
Post: #40
[split] GODS NOT REEL

GODS NOT REEL

GODS DIGITAL

Personality DNA Report
(06-14-2013 08:02 AM)Potato Wrote:  watch the fuq out, we've got an "intellectual" over here.

Hidden stuff:
[Image: watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme-240x180.png]
Brainiac3397's Mental Health Status Log Wrote:[Image: l0Iy5HKskJO5XD3Wg.gif]
06-10-2014 12:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ky Offline
Shadow

Posts: 5,201
Joined: Aug 2012
Thanks: 1795
Given 1468 thank(s) in 972 post(s)
Post: #41
[split] GODS NOT REEL

That's what I thought. "Faith itself is an absurdity" is not only a dogmatic assertion, but I'm of the opinion that it is practically indefensible. Unless, of course, someone can assert that without having faith in said assertion.

Public Service Announcement: First world problems are still problems.
06-10-2014 04:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #42
[split] GODS NOT REEL

An absurdity is something that is unreasonable, illogical. To have faith is to believe in something without recourse to reason, logic, or evidence. If there was any evidence or logic behind faith, then it wouldn't be faith. Absurdity has a definition and faith has a definition, and faith's definition fits perfectly within the category of absurd (some Christian philosophers have even admitted this: see Kierkegaard). There's my reasoning. I could be wrong. It is not dogma (and I could also be wrong about it not being dogma, but I could be wrong about everything I think I'm right about too).

On the other hand I'm only defending a position of agnostic weak atheism. I'm not even defending the statement that "God is not real" (which is known as strong atheism). I am merely saying, "I do not believe in God" (atheism) and that, under the current circumstances, there's no way of knowing if God is or isn't real (agnosticism). There's no faith involved.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
06-10-2014 05:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cianna200 Offline
Pariah

Posts: 948
Joined: Oct 2013
Thanks: 2
Given 366 thank(s) in 210 post(s)
Post: #43
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

Why are my posts here?
06-10-2014 05:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ky Offline
Shadow

Posts: 5,201
Joined: Aug 2012
Thanks: 1795
Given 1468 thank(s) in 972 post(s)
Post: #44
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

(06-10-2014 05:53 AM)Cianna200 Wrote:  Why are my posts here?

Another thread was split into this one.

(06-10-2014 05:47 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  An absurdity is something that is unreasonable, illogical. To have faith is to believe in something without recourse to reason, logic, or evidence. If there was any evidence or logic behind faith, then it wouldn't be faith. Absurdity has a definition and faith has a definition, and faith's definition fits perfectly within the category of absurd (some Christian philosophers have even admitted this: see Kierkegaard). There's my reasoning. I could be wrong. It is not dogma (and I could also be wrong about it not being dogma, but I could be wrong about everything I think I'm right about too).

On the other hand I'm only defending a position of agnostic weak atheism. I'm not even defending the statement that "God is not real" (which is known as strong atheism). I am merely saying, "I do not believe in God" (atheism) and that, under the current circumstances, there's no way of knowing if God is or isn't real (agnosticism). There's no faith involved.

Isn't that a false dilemma?

Because something is innately done independently of reason and logic, it must be unreasonable and illogical by its very nature - that's what you're saying, right? If so, I would like to point out that your argument is rather extreme; you can have faith in something regardless of whether it makes sense, but that doesn't mean no faith makes sense. There can be moderation within faith - Cianna asserted earlier that having faith but not having reason can lead to problems, after all, which is a moderate way of considering it.

And, yes, there are some pretty absurd faiths out there - there is no denying that, and the assertion that any of these faiths are indeed absurd is certainly more defensible. Again, I'm imploring you to consider that not all faith is absurd.

It's nice to see that you're considering that you might be approaching this the wrong way, but I don't see why you have to change the subject in order to point that out.

Agnosticism is certainly defensible; it is not a faith, as you say, and even if it is a faith (for instance "I believe a god or gods may or may not exist, and am undecided as to which or what"), it is one of the most grounded in reason and logic (perhaps rivaled only by a belief in facts that could be considered immutable, for instance one's faith in their own existence). Since the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods cannot be objectively proven - so far, at least - it would be rational to believe that one or more, then, may or may not exist. That's a logical conclusion, indeed, and I understand. I appreciate, in fact, that you're standing up for agnosticism.

This appreciation dulls considerably when you attack every faith that isn't agnosticism (or soft atheism, or apatheism, I suppose) on the grounds that since they are not derived from reason or logic, they cannot be anything other than unreasonable or illogical. Consider that members of many faiths seek a more objective understanding of why they think the way they do and what sense can be found within their faith. I, for one, am not content with my limited knowledge of God - indeed, I can only affirm His existence by subjective observation - and seek more valid answers. To paraphrase what Cianna said earlier in this discussion, problems arise not as a result of being a follower of a faith, but a blind follower of a faith.

Dogma tends to make things even worse; often it is the blind leading the blind.

Public Service Announcement: First world problems are still problems.
06-10-2014 06:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #45
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

(06-10-2014 06:30 AM)DoA Wrote:  Isn't that a false dilemma?

It is if there's a third option. Can one come to a conclusion via means that are neither rational/reasonable or irrational/unreasonable? But the definition of irrational is something without reason and without rationality, so I don't see how that's the case when faith is believing in something without a rational reason to believe.

Quote:Because something is innately done independently of reason and logic, it must be unreasonable and illogical by its very nature - that's what you're saying, right?

Yes. When someone comes to a conclusion, one goes through a process. Correct? That process is either rational or irrational. Either one uses the methods of reason to come to the conclusion or one uses methods that are outside that realm (like faulty arguments or faith). I guess it's possible one could come to a correct conclusion via irrational means, but I would presume there is a separate rational means of coming to the conclusion (our knowledge might just be too limited to reach it under the current circumstances).

Quote:If so, I would like to point out that your argument is rather extreme; you can have faith in something regardless of whether it makes sense, but that doesn't mean no faith makes sense. There can be moderation within faith - Cianna asserted earlier that having faith but not having reason can lead to problems, after all, which is a moderate way of considering it.

If it makes sense, is it faith? If something makes sense in that it is rational, reasonable, then is it faith? No, it's not. Faith by its definition doesn't have to make sense, and is belief independent of something making sense.

Now, it is entirely possible that someone can have faith in something that can be demonstrated via reason. Someone might have faith that 2+2=4 without ever doing the math. But, in that case, faith is not needed to believe that thing, and faith could just as easily be used to justify 2+2=5.

I also don't think the extremeness of an argument has much bearing on its truth.

Quote:And, yes, there are some pretty absurd faiths out there - there is no denying that, and the assertion that any of these faiths are indeed absurd is certainly more defensible. Again, I'm imploring you to consider that not all faith is absurd.

It's nice to see that you're considering that you might be approaching this the wrong way, but I don't see why you have to change the subject in order to point that out.

I wasn't entirely changing the subject, just trying to make the point via juxtaposing my views with a faith based view.

Quote:Agnosticism is certainly defensible; it is not a faith, as you say, and even if it is a faith (for instance "I believe a god or gods may or may not exist, and am undecided as to which or what"), it is one of the most grounded in reason and logic (perhaps rivaled only by a belief in facts that could be considered immutable, for instance one's faith in their own existence).

How is making the statement "I believe a god or gods may or may not exist, and am undecided as to which or what," which effectively boils down to "I don't know," in any way faith based? If someone holds up a closed box and asks you what's in the box, is "I don't know" a faith based answer? No, based on the fact you can't look inside, "I don't know" is the only reasonable answer to give until you have more information.

That metaphor is also applicable to a belief in God.

And how can faith be grounded in reason and logic? Reason and faith are fundamentally exclusive. Faith is believing something without a rational reason to do so.

Quote:Since the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods cannot be objectively proven - so far, at least - it would be rational to believe that one or more, then, may or may not exist. That's a logical conclusion, indeed, and I understand. I appreciate, in fact, that you're standing up for agnosticism.

It is rational to say one or more gods may or may not exist, but it is not rational to believe any of them exist.

Quote:This appreciation dulls considerably when you attack every faith that isn't agnosticism (or soft atheism, or apatheism, I suppose) on the grounds that since they are not derived from reason or logic, they cannot be anything other than unreasonable or illogical.

The faith itself is irrational, by its very nature. Their conclusions may or may not be true, but the method of faith (if it can be called a method) they used to arrive to these conclusions could just as easily be used to support contradictory statements.

As an aside, apatheism is really more of an attitude of apathy toward religion than anything else. I wouldn't consider myself one.

Quote:Consider that members of many faiths seek a more objective understanding of why they think the way they do and what sense can be found within their faith. I, for one, am not content with my limited knowledge of God - indeed, I can only affirm His existence by subjective observation - and seek more valid answers.

If people are attempting to think rationally about their religious beliefs, then how is that faith? People trying to prove the existence of God via logical proofs or physical evidence are at least attempting to use reason, and are certainly moving beyond faith.

Quote:To paraphrase what Cianna said earlier in this discussion, problems arise not as a result of being a follower of a faith, but a blind follower of a faith.

Dogma tends to make things even worse; often it is the blind leading the blind.

The problem is, with faith as one's guide it doesn't matter what reason has to say. One can justify being a blind follower by appealing to faith-based arguments, and these arguments are no less valid than any other faith based argument. One can justify religious dogma with faith just as easily as one can justify openness and inclusiveness with faith.

The things reason cannot explain, maybe faith can explain them? But, all you have to say is, "I have faith these things are true" for those things, whatever they are, to be justified via faith. If that's the case, then anything can be justified through faith.

It's certainly possible to hold a sort of faith that pays deference to reason on certain issues, but isn't that just the "God of the gaps?" One might believe in the scientifically informed narrative of the formation of the universe, but insist that God sparked the Big Bang. But what happens when we find out what happened before the Big Bang (if there is a before)? Well, maybe God caused that, and so on and so forth. But someone else, using faith as their support, could just as easily claim another being or device or substance did it.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
06-10-2014 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ky Offline
Shadow

Posts: 5,201
Joined: Aug 2012
Thanks: 1795
Given 1468 thank(s) in 972 post(s)
Post: #46
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  It is if there's a third option. Can one come to a conclusion via means that are neither rational/reasonable or irrational/unreasonable? But the definition of irrational is something without reason and without rationality, so I don't see how that's the case when faith is believing in something without a rational reason to believe.
That's the thing; faith is not innately rational - as evidenced by irrational faiths - but it can be; and, in such cases as faith in your own existence, is indeed reasonable. For example, surely there is no logical reason for one to dismiss faith in one's own existence as illogical, right? That is, indeed, just one example of faith and reason coming to a compromise.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  Yes. When someone comes to a conclusion, one goes through a process. Correct? That process is either rational or irrational. Either one uses the methods of reason to come to the conclusion or one uses methods that are outside that realm (like faulty arguments or faith). I guess it's possible one could come to a correct conclusion via irrational means, but I would presume there is a separate rational means of coming to the conclusion (our knowledge might just be too limited to reach it under the current circumstances).
It seems to me that we've both used rational and irrational processes when it comes to this very argument.

Blind faith might get you somewhere - after all, a stopped clock is right twice a day - but it will more often lead to disappointments and religion-related mistakes, and that's part of what I've been saying. Faith, however, need not be blind; you can believe something and still hold that something under careful scrutiny just to make sure it is legitimate. In fact, that's the very thing I'd suggest to anyone practicing any faith, including my own.

In any case, I would like to affirm that faith is not rational in and of itself, but can be depending on what it is - for instance, faiths that can be proven, like well-substantiated scientific theories and wealth-generating economic models. I believe in those too, after all.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  If it makes sense, is it faith? If something makes sense in that it is rational, reasonable, then is it faith? No, it's not. Faith by its definition doesn't have to make sense, and is belief independent of something making sense.

Now, it is entirely possible that someone can have faith in something that can be demonstrated via reason. Someone might have faith that 2+2=4 without ever doing the math. But, in that case, faith is not needed to believe that thing, and faith could just as easily be used to justify 2+2=5.

I also don't think the extremeness of an argument has much bearing on its truth.
Correct - it does not have to, but my argument, again, is that it can.

Faith should not have to be justified - it is, after all, a human invention - and in turn it should not also justify. I keep bringing up the word "dogma" because it best defines what happens when such an idea is ignored; while there is little harm in believing the unbelievable, dogmatic assertions do greater damage by attempting to prove, to others, the unprovable. In cases of logic, reason is indeed your best bet; that should not stop you from having your own personal faiths, whether dependent on or independent of reason.

Indeed, someone can have faith that two plus two equals four after having done the math to verify it.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  I wasn't entirely changing the subject, just trying to make the point via juxtaposing my views with a faith based view.

That sounded more like doubt to me, and even more like some sort of straw man. Either way, I wouldn't count on sarcasm to hammer any point home in this instance.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  How is making the statement "I believe a god or gods may or may not exist, and am undecided as to which or what," which effectively boils down to "I don't know," in any way faith based? If someone holds up a closed box and asks you what's in the box, is "I don't know" a faith based answer? No, based on the fact you can't look inside, "I don't know" is the only reasonable answer to give until you have more information.

That metaphor is also applicable to a belief in God.

And how can faith be grounded in reason and logic? Reason and faith are fundamentally exclusive. Faith is believing something without a rational reason to do so.
"I don't know" could be a faith in multiple possibilities, but I'll admit that's a bit of a stretch. In any case, it's a valid answer, at least, and one that is rationally made.

In terms of the metaphor, there is at least the capacity for an educated guess; if the box looks like a shoebox, and you're pretty sure (have faith) that it has shoes in it, you would answer "shoes," would you not? If the box has a picture of a television on it, and looks to be about the size and shape of the television it advertises, and it seems about as heavy as that television, it would be both reasonable and faithful to say that there's a television in there, right?

That's the way I feel about God; it is clear to me, at least, that He exists, but I can't exactly verify it without "opening the box." As long as I don't do anything stupid in defense of this faith that I hold, and act reasonable in other respects, what harm does this belief do?

And what if the box feels and sounds empty? It would be reasonable to suggest that there's nothing in there, wouldn't it? You can believe there's nothing in there without opening the box to check, but it isn't exactly unreasonable to say "Nothing." Certain faiths are indeed oblivious to reason (for instance, asking "What's in the box?" and getting the answer "42") but faith and reason are not polar opposites nor are they mutually exclusive.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  It is rational to say one or more gods may or may not exist, but it is not rational to believe any of them exist.
Beliefs don't have to be rational - they can be, but they don't have to be. I would prefer it if assertions were well-substantiated and logical, of course, but people can (and do) believe whatever they want, and are likely to express and assert their beliefs, in any case.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  The faith itself is irrational, by its very nature. Their conclusions may or may not be true, but the method of faith (if it can be called a method) they used to arrive to these conclusions could just as easily be used to support contradictory statements.

As an aside, apatheism is really more of an attitude of apathy toward religion than anything else. I wouldn't consider myself one.
Right variables, wrong conclusion; faiths would indeed be irrational if they were a means of reaching a conclusion and nothing more, but believing in a conclusion does not mean using the belief itself to prove it. Using it as a method can be destructive, as methods aren't quite the same as guides or hypotheses, which faiths more closely resemble.

I was merely pointing out that your argument can be used to defend apatheism; no distinction has been made between "I don't know" and "I don't know and I don't care," nor, I think, does there need to be, considering they both express the rational conclusion of not knowing.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  If people are attempting to think rationally about their religious beliefs, then how is that faith? People trying to prove the existence of God via logical proofs or physical evidence are at least attempting to use reason, and are certainly moving beyond faith.
Blind faith is inadvisable, especially as a method; it makes it all the harder to hear people tell me to "walk by faith and not by sight".

But, see, that's the thing; being able to move beyond faith (as I'm trying to do) does not discount the role faith itself has played. I would like to know God better, and I am indeed incorporating faith into my approach, but it is not my only approach. As Cianna said, it would preferably be tempered with logic as well.

(06-10-2014 09:11 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  The problem is, with faith as one's guide it doesn't matter what reason has to say. One can justify being a blind follower by appealing to faith-based arguments, and these arguments are no less valid than any other faith based argument. One can justify religious dogma with faith just as easily as one can justify openness and inclusiveness with faith.

The things reason cannot explain, maybe faith can explain them? But, all you have to say is, "I have faith these things are true" for those things, whatever they are, to be justified via faith. If that's the case, then anything can be justified through faith.

It's certainly possible to hold a sort of faith that pays deference to reason on certain issues, but isn't that just the "God of the gaps?" One might believe in the scientifically informed narrative of the formation of the universe, but insist that God sparked the Big Bang. But what happens when we find out what happened before the Big Bang (if there is a before)? Well, maybe God caused that, and so on and so forth. But someone else, using faith as their support, could just as easily claim another being or device or substance did it.
When one attempts to justify their faith by using the faith itself as the justification, then, yeah: It doesn't matter what reason has to say, in that case. I'd like to quote Proverbs 23:9 (New Living Translation) by saying "don't waste your breath on fools, for they will despise the wisest advice" - if someone really won't accept reason, then don't bother reasoning with them.

I think we'll both accept reason, to a degree.

The things reason can't explain...I believe the scientific community refers to that as conjecture. There's a time and a place for that, I think, and it is indeed an environment that would be more receptive to faith-based claims. Still, I doubt even that which lies beyond our knowledge should be so easily hand-waved away by dogma when it can be investigated by both faith and reason - or just reason, if you'd prefer.

Well, when you can't tell what's in the gaps through reason, then perhaps God is in there somewhere. Rather, a specific being or device or substance. That's a discussion reserved for people of specific faiths, though.

In short, there are many ways that faith can go wrong, and there are many ways that faith can be unreasonable and illogical; I won't even try to deny that, because I know that such a position is also indefensible. What I'm saying is that not all faiths - and not faith itself - are like this. There is indeed a time and a place for it, and it can work both in accordance with and neutrally separated from reason just, as you've stated, it can rally against it. If you believe in anything, you probably know for yourself the truth of my argument.

Public Service Announcement: First world problems are still problems.
06-10-2014 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brainiac3397 Offline
Machiavellian Amoeba

Posts: 9,823
Joined: Feb 2013
Thanks: 20
Given 1983 thank(s) in 1428 post(s)
Post: #47
[split] GODS NOT REEL

I'm disturbed by your lack of faith.

Personality DNA Report
(06-14-2013 08:02 AM)Potato Wrote:  watch the fuq out, we've got an "intellectual" over here.

Hidden stuff:
[Image: watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme-240x180.png]
Brainiac3397's Mental Health Status Log Wrote:[Image: l0Iy5HKskJO5XD3Wg.gif]
06-10-2014 10:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ky Offline
Shadow

Posts: 5,201
Joined: Aug 2012
Thanks: 1795
Given 1468 thank(s) in 972 post(s)
Post: #48
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

(06-10-2014 10:19 AM)Darth Vader Wrote:  I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Intredasting

Public Service Announcement: First world problems are still problems.
06-10-2014 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WalterScottDempsey Offline
Renegade

Posts: 82
Joined: May 2014
Thanks: 1
Given 51 thank(s) in 31 post(s)
Post: #49
[split] GODS NOT REEL

[Image: Je4PkxI.gif]
06-10-2014 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ky Offline
Shadow

Posts: 5,201
Joined: Aug 2012
Thanks: 1795
Given 1468 thank(s) in 972 post(s)
Post: #50
[split] GODS NOT REEL

Walter, where did you get my hat and why is it in space?

Public Service Announcement: First world problems are still problems.
06-10-2014 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brainiac3397 Offline
Machiavellian Amoeba

Posts: 9,823
Joined: Feb 2013
Thanks: 20
Given 1983 thank(s) in 1428 post(s)
Post: #51
RE: [split] GODS NOT REEL

(06-10-2014 10:34 AM)DoA Wrote:  Walter, where did you get my hat and why is it in space?

Houston, we have a problem.

Personality DNA Report
(06-14-2013 08:02 AM)Potato Wrote:  watch the fuq out, we've got an "intellectual" over here.

Hidden stuff:
[Image: watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme-240x180.png]
Brainiac3397's Mental Health Status Log Wrote:[Image: l0Iy5HKskJO5XD3Wg.gif]
06-10-2014 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #52
[split] GODS NOT REEL



Watch on YouTube

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
06-13-2014 06:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Challenge: Disprove the Gods Geeksta 18 2,862 04-08-2011 12:00 PM
Last Post: Negative
  Dancing Gods and spirituality. the forgotten 4 1,254 05-24-2009 05:50 AM
Last Post: the forgotten

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication