Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

There is a difference between belief and the faith described in Hebrews 11. Faith is evidence on a personal level for the one who has it, like some kind of mystical insight, and belief is just ordinary belief. It is true that belief is a prerequisite for faith, though.

Anyhow, is "blind belief" really blind if it agrees with one's reason? Personally I don't find it particularly hard to believe in something that makes sense to me, even if I have no proof. God made sense to me, so I had no problem believing in him. Eventually this belief (which was just a belief like any other) became Faith, though, and then God became reality to me.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

There is a difference between belief and the faith described in Hebrews 11. Faith is evidence on a personal level for the one who has it, like some kind of mystical insight, and belief is just ordinary belief. It is true that belief is a prerequisite for faith, though.

And faith in turn a prerequisite for closeness with god, and the prerequisite for entry to heaven....

Belief is the prerequisite to the evidence.

Quote:

Anyhow, is "blind belief" really blind if it agrees with one's reason?

Depends on the reasoning.

Quote:

God made sense to me, so I had no problem believing in him. Eventually this belief (which was just a belief like any other) became Faith, though, and then God became reality to me.

Almost anything, believed for long enough becomes the individual's reality.

This is one reason that the step to belief should be taken more carefully. As the belief itself can be self-propagating.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Derevon wrote:
Anyhow, is "blind belief" really blind if it agrees with one's reason?

Depends on the reasoning.

How so?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Almost anything, believed for long enough becomes the individual's reality. This is one reason that the step to belief should be taken more carefully. As the belief itself can be self-propagating.

Beliefs are only strengthened if they withstand the tests of time, i.e., are not refuted, and seem to fit into one's view of the world. Believe me, though, when I say that Faith is nothing like a belief coming gradually into acceptance. In fact, it's nothing short of a revelation. It's absolute certitude about the reality of God, separate from logical deduction and reasoning.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Derevon wrote:
Anyhow, is "blind belief" really blind if it agrees with one's reason?

Depends on the reasoning.

How so?

Some 'reasoning' is blind.

Quote:

Beliefs are only strengthened if they withstand the tests of time, i.e., are not refuted, and seem to fit into one's view of the world. Believe me, though, when I say that Faith is nothing like a belief coming gradually into acceptance. In fact, it's nothing short of a revelation. It's absolute certitude about the reality of God, separate from logical deduction and reasoning.

I know what you mean. I've believed in god before and your last sentence reminds me a lot of another belief I held (that I was a cheetah).

Ultimately I realized that beliefs "separate from logical deduction and reasoning" have little other than imagination as a limiting factor.

0 Replies

Yes - but what would DISPROVE your faith?

The thing with faith, is that, by its very nature and definition, it is not rational, and is not subject to rational processes. Yoo see this as a positive thing - I see it as often very negative. Look at how many awful things "faith" has propmpted humans to do - eg - faith in the veracity of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - faith in the rightness of a particular brand of christianity, and therefore in the rightness of the extirpation of other "faiths" and their upholders.

Humans are wonderfully selectively perceiving creatures, and once we have taken on a view, we are well able to see its confirmation all around us - this builds our faith even as our faith determines what we shall see - a possibly very negative spiral, no?

0 Replies

Now you're confusing belief with Faith. When I talk about Faith, I'm referring to some kind of mystical insight, that I can feel is from God himself in a way that I'm utterly at loss to explain. This kind of Faith doesn't deal in particulars. It doesn't tell me to invade Iraq, or that a certain book is right; it makes me perceive the reality of God, and his loving nature in a very tangible (to me), but yet ineffable way. I really don't believe anything could make me disprove of the reality of that Faith.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

In fact, it's nothing short of a revelation [i.e., faith--a word which might be capitalized were this German, but as it is English in which we write, the capitalization is unnecessary and incorrect]. It's absolute certitude about the reality of God, separate from logical deduction and reasoning.

The thread inquires why people find it necessary to refute christianity. A great many people responding here have noted that they only do so to the extent that christian belief is foisted upon them. Given that you describe faith as separate from logical deduction (and one might assume, induction as well) and reasoning, it becomes even more important in a secular, pluralistic society to resist the insertion of what is, by the definition you provide, superstition into the deliberations of the polity. Your very definition provides all the justification anyone needs to assert that such belief has no place in the crucial deliberative fora of the political arena; and the explanation for why many people, while not necessarily providing any refutation (none is needed), object to these beliefs informing decisions about law and standards in our society.

(Edit: my remark about capitalizing the word faith is a case in point; the significance of your belief is such that you abandon consensual practice to emphasize what you consider important. I don't allege that it matters much that you capitalize the word; i do assert that it is the willingness to overturn the conventions which are recognized for good reason as promoting understanding among members of society which is the danger inherent in unquestioning belief--which dangers threatens you, as well as me, whether or not you understand it. The casual aberation which you practice becomes, in the fanatical, a willingness to overturn serious matters of law and of individual liberty among us all.)

0 Replies

Belief is not separate from logical deduction, and it is a prerequisite for Faith.

I capitalise Faith only to emphasise that I'm referring to faith as in revelation, and not to faith as in trust or belief. I know very well that nouns aren't normally capitalised in English.

0 Replies

I'm sure you do. And i would like it to be recognized that your petty and insignificant willingness to abandon society's convention in your zeal translates in the fanatic into a willingness to abandon more serious convention--such as bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors who perform abortions. But how fortuitous of me to have provided you an insignifcant matter with which you could divert attention from the important issue i was examining.

Derevon wrote:

It's absolute certitude about the reality of God, separate from logical deduction and reasoning.

Derevon also wrote:

Belief is not separate from logical deduction, and it is a prerequisite for Faith.

Either your faith is derived from logical deduction--whether or not you make a meaningless distinction between faith and belief in this context, neither is more than speculation in the religious realm--or it is not. You're trying to have it both ways here, and you're attempting to make a distinction which is not real. Your emotional response to that of which you have convinced yourself is certaintly a distinction in the degree of your enthusiasm; in a discussion of religion, there is absolutely no distinction between belief and faith, for however much you want to pretend there is. Ontological arguments to support a belief in god are the quintessence of faith, in that they are in no way referential to demonstrable reality.

0 Replies

The second part of my previous post was written before I read your edited post above and was thus not an attempt to avoid the issue.

I felt that the distinction between faith as in revelatory faith and faith as in trust or belief was necessary based on Craven de Kere's quote from Hebrews 11, about "faith being evidence", as belief obviously isn't evidence.

As for my capitalisation of the word 'faith', well, I'm sorry if you were offended, but don't you think that comparing a capitalisation for the sake of clarity to bombings and killings is a bit exaggerated? Wink

0 Replies

You are free to can the winking emoticon, i'll have none of you smirking contempt thank you. You couldn't trip yourself faster with your own words if you had help:

Derevon wrote:

Belief is not separate from logical deduction, and it is a prerequisite for Faith.

But then Derevon wrote:

I felt that the distinction between faith as in revelatory faith and faith as in trust or belief was necessary based on Craven de Kere's quote from Hebrews 11, about "faith being evidence", as belief obviously isn't evidence.

So, if "belief is not separate from logical deduction" as you allege, and given that you've tried repeatedly to suggest that belief can have a rational origin, but not faith (once again, you make a meaningless distinction when the topic is religion)--to then state that belief is not evidence, while using both faith and belief interchangably in the above quoted passage, suggest that you are either not thinking clearly, or you are simply trying to wiggle out of the meaninglessness of your contention of any distinction between faith and belief. Do you actually propose to contend that faith is indeed evidence?

As for the remark about capitalizing the word faith, i made clear enough already that it is not different from murder alleged to be committed in the name of god, insofar as it a decision on your part to depart from convention based upon a claim of special meaning. The crackpot with a bomb also claims that their faith has a special meaning, and their means of asserting as much is to bomb a clinic. The point is that the religiously motivated use their belief/faith as a justification for special pleading, for special behavior, for exemption from that which otherwise obliges us all in society. And that point i wished to make from that is that in the context of the subject of this thread, those of us who do not make belief an excuse for departing from convention feel the need to speak out against the imposition of religion upon a secular and pluralistic society. The word faith, whether or not capitalized, and the word belief neither one constitute evidence of anything more than the preferred self-delusion of the speaker, absent any supporting evidence.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

OK, question:

If some here feel compelled to refute Christianity because of the 'mind-control' aspect, which accompanies religion--why do you protect Islam?

It is the fastest growing religion... and possesses the same 'mind-control' over its' adherents.

Sophia, Help me out as in let me know who it is here that you think is protecting Islam. Perhaps you have missed the few threads here that dealt with Islam. For beginners you can start with Islam Miracles or this one Why Islam? Fastest Growing Religion in America. Granted there are few topics devoted to Islam, but that is due to the lack of proponents not due to Islam getting a free ride. Let me guess...you think GW is teriffic....right?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You are free to can the winking emoticon, i'll have none of you smirking contempt thank you. You couldn't trip yourself faster with your own words if you had help:

Derevon wrote:
Belief is not separate from logical deduction, and it is a prerequisite for Faith.

But then Derevon wrote:
I felt that the distinction between faith as in revelatory faith and faith as in trust or belief was necessary based on Craven de Kere's quote from Hebrews 11, about "faith being evidence", as belief obviously isn't evidence.

So, if "belief is not separate from logical deduction" as you allege, and given that you've tried repeatedly to suggest that belief can have a rational origin, but not faith (once again, you make a meaningless distinction when the topic is religion)--to then state that belief is not evidence, while using both faith and belief interchangably in the above quoted passage, suggest that you are either not thinking clearly, or you are simply trying to wiggle out of the meaninglessness of your contention of any distinction between faith and belief. Do you actually propose to contend that faith is indeed evidence?

As for the remark about capitalizing the word faith, i made clear enough already that it is not different from murder alleged to be committed in the name of god, insofar as it a decision on your part to depart from convention based upon a claim of special meaning. The crackpot with a bomb also claims that their faith has a special meaning, and their means of asserting as much is to bomb a clinic. The point is that the religiously motivated use their belief/faith as a justification for special pleading, for special behavior, for exemption from that which otherwise obliges us all in society. And that point i wished to make from that is that in the context of the subject of this thread, those of us who do not make belief an excuse for departing from convention feel the need to speak out against the imposition of religion upon a secular and pluralistic society. The word faith, whether or not capitalized, and the word belief neither one constitute evidence of anything more than the preferred self-delusion of the speaker, absent any supporting evidence.

I don't hold you in contempt. I just think you're overreacting. Please calm down.

I contend that faith, as in revelatory faith, is indeed personal evidence to the one who experiences it, and that it's from God himself. No, I can't prove it, so you can disregard it as delusion if you like.

I realise that what I said about belief not being separate from logical deduction and reason, and faith being apart from these, may seem strange and illogical to those who haven't experienced this kind of faith I'm talking about themselves. To clarify things a bit:

That belief is related to reasoning and logical deduction should be obvious. We believe what we understand. If an idea makes sense to us, and is agreeable with our already existing views, we will quite likely believe in it, and incorporate it into our view of the world. If the idea does not make sense, we will in all likelihood reject it.

I also said that belief is a prerequisite for faith (revelatory). What I meant by this is that God doesn't reveal himself to those who don't believe in him. Again, I cannot prove this, so feel free to ignore it.

I then said that faith (as in revelatory faith), is separate from logical deduction and reason. I'm not saying that this faith is contrary to reason or belief in any way, I'm just saying that it exists separately from such reason in a way that is for me at least, impossible to describe. It's like knowing without knowing or perceiving (at a most fundamental level) the truth of something for which one has no rational evidence. Of course, I cannot prove this either.

0 Replies

Don't advise me to calm down, you're the one getting exercised about all of this. Your tone is haughty and condescending, so you shouldn't be surprised if i reply with resentment of your contempt.

That you cannot prove it, that "It's like knowing without knowing or perceiving (at a most fundamental level) the truth of something for which one has no rational evidence"--is precisely the reason why those not caught up in the excellence of their ability to know the unknowable are opposed to such "knowing of the unknowable" being a basis for any part of the social contract. I could care less how you delude yourself, i simply don't intend either to swallow any of it, nor to let it be a part of society in the aggregate, if i am at all able to oppose it.

0 Replies

Concerning the exchange between Setanta and Derevon....the absurdity of faith becomes much more obvious once you bring the discussion down to the level of the documents which are the basis for it all. Whether it be the Torah, Bible, or Koran, none can stand sunlight.

0 Replies

I consider Islam fully as worthy of refutation as christianity. And would be doing so if people were pushing it here.

0 Replies

Setanta,

I'm sorry if you perceived my posts as haughty and condescending. That was absolutely not my intention.

Anyhow, as I've said, I only see faith as personal evidence. I don't expect anyone else to take my experiences as evidence for anything. I fully understand that most people will see them as delusions, and completely respect their right to dismiss anything I've said that I cannot prove.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I consider Islam fully as worthy of refutation as christianity. And would be doing so if people were pushing it here.

How about hopping over to the Islam Miraclestopic and have at it. You hereby have my permission to take the place of "Mesquite" in Qkids offer. I have already had my turn at conversing with a post and I am anxious to pass the baton. Laughing

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know