What's wrong with finding comfort in religion?

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Quote:
PS: did anybody se ER last night? Great example of how religion can be good and bad.

No...what was it about?

One of the female doctors finds her real mother after being adopted as a newborn. She had her when she was 15 and they are now meeting for the first time. So they are talking getting along great. The doctor totally understands why she was given up for adoption. The mother wanted a better life for her child.

The problem was that the mother had become a harcore bible thumping christian. The doctor is a lesbian and had a child with her partner. Her adopted parents died before she could tell them and her partner died also. Her real mother is now her only family left(besides her child). The mother said she would always love her but wouln't accept the fact that she is gay. The doctor said she doesn't need love without acceptance.

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Quote:
No, it would frankly be rather unintelligent and highly illogical to defend a belief in something extremely specific like that based only on the fact that it couldn't be disproven.

And it would be equally unintelligent and highly illogical to attack a belief in something extremely specific like that based only on the fact that it couldn't be proven.

No. I am not attacking the belief based on the fact that it can't be proven. Not at all. I am attacking the idea that the fact that something can't be disproven is sufficient reason to believe it is true.

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Quote:
To be logically justified in believing that there is an alien spacecraft......units from the sun and observing us, you would have to have some kind of evidence.

And to be logically justified in not believing that there is an alien spacecraft...units from the sun and observing us, you would have to have some kind of evidence.

No, you are wrong. To be logically justified in believe that something is not true, I would need evidence. I do not need evidence to merely not believe that it is true. I do not need evidence to believe that there is insufficient evidence that something is true to justify a reasonable belief in it.

This is a perfect example of the bad logic that I alluded to earlier. You are just playing word games with me, quickly scanning my posts and turning the words around without actually thinking about what you are saying.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Greyfan wrote:
Well put. The key, as in most things, is in the interpretation. Religion is not inherently evil; neither is its absence.

But the belief that a God exists is either true or false, once one defines "God." For myself, I don't believe it is possible to construct a logically sound argument that one probably exists.

Brandon, we don't agree on much, but I agree with you here.
A good read, and a fantastic attempt at logically ascertaiting that God in fact exists, is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica,
Not a light weekend volumed set to hunker down to in a rainstorm, but, nevertheless, an interesting read.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Greyfan wrote:
Well put. The key, as in most things, is in the interpretation. Religion is not inherently evil; neither is its absence.

But the belief that a God exists is either true or false, once one defines "God." For myself, I don't believe it is possible to construct a logically sound argument that one probably exists.

Brandon, we don't agree on much, but I agree with you here.
A good read, and a fantastic attempt at logically ascertaiting that God in fact exists, is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica,
Not a light weekend volumed set to hunker down to in a rainstorm, but, nevertheless, an interesting read.

I remember being taugh St. Thomas Aquinas's proof of the existence of God in school. The teacher discussed the flaw in the logic and said, "...and if you don't believe that, you'd better make your peace with the Lord." Thanks for the reference

0 Replies

Yeah, I spent a summer wading through it...and wrote a paper on it in University.
Dude had lots of time to piece that together...much respect for such a large work.

0 Replies

Quote:

No. I am not attacking the belief based on the fact that it can't be proven. Not at all. I am attacking the idea that the fact that something can't be disproven is sufficient reason to believe it is true.

That's nice-- except that my entire point was that belief in Christianity is not based entirely on the fact that "it can't be disproven". Same with the whole alien thing-- my basis for my belief wasn't that it couldn't be disproven, but that it's my logical retort against claims that "it can't be proven". See?

Quote:

No, you are wrong. To be logically justified in believe that something is not true, I would need evidence.

That's what I just said! To be logically justified in not believing something (in this case it was your alien example), you would, and I quote myself, "have to have some kind of evidence."

You just said I was wrong, then repeated what I said. So who's just scanning who's posts without thinking about what they're saying? Wink

Quote:

This is a perfect example of the bad logic that I alluded to earlier.

Except that I'm not using bad logic.

Quote:

You are just playing word games with me, quickly scanning my posts and turning the words around without actually thinking about what you are saying.

Okay, now that's bad logic. What is your basis for that assumption? I'm not "quickly scanning your posts" at all-- in fact, I've been careful to keep all of your quotes in context and with their original meaning intact to avoid the situation I had with Eryemil earlier. If you feel I've "turned your words around" in any way, please feel free to point out the instances in a post.

And indeed I am "thinking about what I am saying", considering I continue to hold this discussion with you, despite the fact that you're making assumptions about me and contradicting yourself.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, you are wrong. To be logically justified in believe that something is not true, I would need evidence.

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

That's what I just said! To be logically justified in not believing something (in this case it was your alien example), you would, and I quote myself, "have to have some kind of evidence."

You just said I was wrong, then repeated what I said. So who's just scanning who's posts without thinking about what they're saying?

What I said is not at all what you said. You are a very annoying person. This is what you said:

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

And to be logically justified in not believing that there is an alien spacecraft...units from the sun and observing us, you would have to have some kind of evidence.

This is what I said:

Brandon9000 wrote:

To be logically justified in believe that something is not true...

There is a difference between:

believing that something is not true

and:

not believing that something is true.

The former requires evidence, the latter does not. You are reading my posts very carelessly.

0 Replies

Quote:

You are a very annoying person.

As are you. I suppose that means it's a draw.

Quote:

The former requires evidence, the latter does not. You are reading my posts very carelessly.

Both require evidence, whether it be physical evidence or not. To not believe something is true means that you do not believe in the justification used to prove that something. And for it to be logical, you must have some reason for not believing in that justification-- thus, you need evidence that that justification is not true. Otherwise, your own reasoning is illogical.

Which is exactly what I said. And exactly what you've been denying. Quite carelessly, at that.

And please, don't try to dodge the other subject-- in your next response, I would ask you again to point out the instances in which I've, as you put it, "turned your words around". Again, I've been careful to keep all of your quotes in context and with their original meaning intact to avoid the situation I had with Eryemil earlier.

0 Replies

Oh, my. How much clearer can I make this?

To believe affirmatively that there is definitely no God requires evidence.

To merely not believe that there is a God does not necessarily require evidence. The person may simply feel that he has insufficient evidence to have an opinion. Someone does not require evidence to support the lack of a belief. I do not need to show evidence to back up my lack of conviction that there are little aliens orbiting the Earth etc. I would need to show evidence to back up an assertion that they are definitely not there.

I am distinguishing between believing that something is false and simply having no belief that it is true. The former requires evidence; the latter does not.

If you don't get it this time, I don't think we have much to discuss.

0 Replies

I agree with Brandon. His argument is sound.

0 Replies

almach1 wrote:

Eorl,
Your response is great. What is funny is that, athiests in a way have their own personal religion. Religion is nothing but a bunch of beliefs and values.

Thankyou almach1. However I disagree with your assertion that atheists have their own personal religion. I propose that what is happening here is that people who are accustomed to thinking along religious lines tend to see atheism (and science) in a similar way to religion. Atheism is not a bunch of beliefs and values, it is merely the lack of a belief in gods. A scientific view on life (such as I hold) has no room at all for faith, every aspect of scientific knowledge is open to criticism and attack, every effort is made to DISPROVE every assertion a scientist makes. The result, for the most part is a collection of facts that cannot or have not yet been proven false.

Religion on the other hand, demands that I accept many things without proof and without question. Thus we have two distinct kinds of reasoning..."faith" based reasoning and "fact" based reasoning. The two are not alike...not at all.

Oh and Brandon is correct, his reasoning is sound Smile