Reply
Thu 19 Jan, 2006 12:01 pm
A somewhat different angle than the usual burden of proof threads . . .
Question
What point is there in arguing against religious beliefs, and how affective can such arguments possibly be?
Granted, there is a certain level of entertainment to be enjoyed while watching people scramble to justify the unjustifiable. Yet other than that, what point? Religion, by it's very nature, is bullet-proof against successful reasoning. As an example, if one points out that no one has 'seen' God, the automatic response is 'You must have faith that he exists.'
Now what kind of argument can you make to such an answer? You can call it 12 shades of ridiculousness, yet since you can't prove that God does, in fact, NOT exist you haven't a leg to stand on.
In order for an argument to be resolved, one or the other sides must be open to accepting a prospect that they currently do not. That most of those professing belief in a religion do so without any real factual evidence dictates that they will not relent their belief due to fact or logic. So the only side that could feasibly 'lose' such an argument would be the non-christian.
Thoughts?
Yes--thousands of people come here to read, and never post. For sake of that public attention, it is important that nonsensical views and superstition always be challenged.
To the individual who states unequivocally that their beliefs rest on faith, and faith cannot be proven, there IS no argument. No matter how illogical the premise, by using faith as their "bottom" line, there is the closing of any logical thought.
Once in awhile, when I am in a discussion with a "true believer", I do get a sense that the person is examining his/her own thoughts. I appreciate that a person is willing to look into himself for answers, even if the answers conflict with mine.
Often though, the "proof" offered, is nothing more than a regurgitating of some biblical passage, or a link to some religious website. In other words, beyond the recitation of the "it is so because I believe it, and I believe it because the bible says it", there is nothing more offered.
In this case, to me, what we are indulging in on these threads is little more than intellectual masturbation. And to tell the truth, I am quickly wearying of the nonsense that is being passed off as thoughtful discussion.
Like Setanta I think it is the intellectual duty of atheists to challenge religion at every opportunity.
It may be true that many religionists do not examine their positions as a result, and that some even relish the rewards of arguing with "Satan", but today's potentially global consequences of "faith dependence" imply the need for constant vigilance. It is not a matter of winning arguments...it is a matter of survival.
I am trying very hard not to do the "we" and "they" thing here. But, it seems that is already being done? I am having a hard time understanding why so many seem to think that others should meet "their" standards and not seem to accept "our" standards?
If there are those that cannot understand or accept how there are those that accept by faith, well, then they don't understand or accept it. I see no reason to think they are less than intelligent because they have faith or don't have faith. It's difficult for some to understand why others don't have faith. That's just the way it is. It does not make any of us superior to another in any way. It doesn't make any of us less than another in any way.
I can certainly accept the dissention about mixing church and state, but these are just discussions we are having. Just discussing different opinions, views, and beliefs.
So, why do "we" have to meet "their" standards and "they" don't have to meet "ours?"
Momma- No one is obliged to meet anyone else's standards. But if a person wants to discuss a point of belief with another indivudual, having faith is NOT a reasonable rationale for the belief. If that were so, one could postulate ANYTHING, and expect others to accept the premise.
For instance, I could say that we all came from another planet, and settled the earth because our planet was dying. If someone questions the veracity of my concept, I could easily say. "I have faith that that is how it happened, and one cannot question faith". See what I mean?
Phoenix,
Yes, I do understand what you mean. But, I don't think you understand what I mean.
You make the statement ....having faith is NOT a reasonable rationale for the belief. That may be your opinion, view, etc., but it is certainly not mine, and I would imagine there are others that feel the same way.
It just seems that a decision is made even before the discussion has begun. I completely agree that you cannot argue reason and logic and faith. It just doesn't happen. Apples and oranges? More like cherries and watermelons.
Phoenix32890 wrote:fresco wrote:Like Setanta I think it is the intellectual duty of atheists to challenge religion at every opportunity.
Yes, and I do. But what I am finding on A2K, is that there is a small group of atheists/agnostics arguing with a small group of extreme religionists.
After awhile, I began to feel like a rat chasing his tail. I hear the same old ridiculous religious arguments over and over again, and nothing is ever really accomplished.
If someone new came to A2K with an intelligent religious perspective, I would certainly be in there pitching, but as things stand now, I see this all as a waste of time.
What if someone had written.. After awhile, I began to feel like a rat chasing his tail. I hear the same old ridiculous
atheist/agnostic arguments over and over again, and nothing is ever really accomplished.
If someone new came to A2K with an intelligent
atheist/agnostic perspective, I would certainly be in there pitching, but as things stand now, I see this all as a waste of time
Do you see what I mean?
Momma- I understand EXACTLY what you mean. The funny thing, is that you have made the statement many times that I don't understand what you mean. But I always have understood.
Faith is belief that is not based on logical proof or material evidence. In other words, faith is what a person says that he believes in. By that standard, no matter what a person says, by your definition, if they "believe" has to be taken as true, in spite of no logical proof.
I completely agree that you cannot compare reason and logic with faith. That is why I wrote that I felt like a rat chasing his tail. One cannot reason with the unreasonable.
Momma Angel wrote:I am trying very hard not to do the "we" and "they" thing here. But, it seems that is already being done? I am having a hard time understanding why so many seem to think that others should meet "their" standards and not seem to accept "our" standards?
If there are those that cannot understand or accept how there are those that accept by faith, well, then they don't understand or accept it. I see no reason to think they are less than intelligent because they have faith or don't have faith. It's difficult for some to understand why others don't have faith. That's just the way it is. It does not make any of us superior to another in any way. It doesn't make any of us less than another in any way.
I can certainly accept the dissention about mixing church and state, but these are just discussions we are having. Just discussing different opinions, views, and beliefs.
So, why do "we" have to meet "their" standards and "they" don't have to meet "ours?"
Because there is such a thing as being objectively correct or incorrect. I may believe that I should base my investments on the alignment of the stars, but it's objectively nonsense. Your statement above seems to carry the implicit misconception that there is no such thing as incorrect or correct reasoning.
Intrepid- You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint!
As are you. However, you did not answer my question.
Intrepid- In that case, if you believe that the atheists/agnostics amongst us have not offered anything new and useful lately in terms of ideas, if I were you, I would wait until someone came up with something different and thought provoking. Makes sense to me!
In my own humble opinion, I find the lack of tolerance on both sides to be so mired in foolishness and totally unenlightened as a species that I rarely participate in any of the so-called spiritual/religious threads.
Let those who believe believe and let those who don't don't.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Intrepid- In that case, if you believe that the atheists/agnostics amongst us have not offered anything new and useful lately in terms of ideas, if I were you, I would wait until someone came up with something different and thought provoking. Makes sense to me!
Then this would mean that all communication between religionists and atheists/agnostics would probably cease because I merely replaced your religion reference with atheist/agnostic.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace