Faith vs UnFaith IV

[Lord Mord]

the silent speaker,

You wrote:

OK, let me try again.

P="A just God exists".

Q="There exists an X that seems unjust."

Your contention is Q<-->~P.

My counter is that in fact P-->Q, and therefore ~(Q<-->~P).

I'm not sure I understand how you can possibly get the conclusion that if there is a just god, this somehow in itself necessitates there will occur to me an experience which seems unjust. I should think that if any implications at all were inherent in the existence of a just god, they would be rather the reverse.

How did you arrive at your assumption?

[the silent speaker]

the silent speaker,

I'm not sure I understand how you can possibly get the conclusion that if there is a just god, this somehow in itself necessitates there will occur to me an experience which seems unjust. I should think that if any implications at all were inherent in the existence of a just god, they would be rather the reverse.

How did you arrive at your assumption?

(1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and just. (hypothesis)

(2) You're not. (observed)

(3) There exist situations known to God but incomprehensible to you. (1&2)

(4) In those situations, God knows what is just and is right, while you think you know what is just but are wrong. (1&3)

(5) God acts on Whose knowledge. (1)

(6) God's actions appear to you to be unjust. (4&5)

:.

[devotee]

OK, so you don't believe in any kind of divine divinity, and you don't see the logic behind people who do.

What makes it important to you to disprove them? You really should recognize you are debating on different levels, even if you just are trying to coerce believers into admitting they are using one specific source as their only facts.

As probably can be deduced, I am of the atheist persuasion. Still, I really don't care if others believe I am going to slowly roast until well done for the rest of Eternity. To me, trying to argue about personal faith is bound to be fruitless as faith rests on the principle of faith. And you don't argue faith.

Now, disregard my statements, they are really just placeholder randomness. Discuss as you did previously. Good luck. :fencing:

Edit: Lol, I did appearantly notice the IV thread, but I somehow saw this as a closed thread. Anyway, I think mine is cooler.

[TrueMetis]

OK, so you don't believe in any kind of divine divinity, and you don't see the logic behind people who do.

What makes it important to you to disprove them? You really should recognize you are debating on different levels, even if you just are trying to coerce believers into admitting they are using one specific source as their only facts.

There are 3 situations were I care. 1) when its an evangalical asshole who pushes their faith, even if they aren't pushing it on me these assholes prey on the ignorant I don't like that, and most of them are after money I like that even less. 2) When they support ignorance, ie creationism then your just asking for it. 3) When they want to debate like this thread, sometimes they want to test their faith, sometimes there are elements of 1, and sometimes it is just because people like to debate, but then it is usually more friendly than 1 or 2. If it is not any of those I leave it alone.

I don't like religion but I realize it is neccessary for some people, and I'm happy knowing that more and more people are rejecting theism. So I don't worry about it.

ETA spelling and grammar.

[Eponine]

OK, so you don't believe in any kind of divine divinity, and you don't see the logic behind people who do.

What makes it important to you to disprove them? You really should recognize you are debating on different levels, even if you just are trying to coerce believers into admitting they are using one specific source as their only facts.

As probably can be deduced, I am of the atheist persuasion. Still, I really don't care if others believe I am going to slowly roast until well done for the rest of Eternity. To me, trying to argue about personal faith is bound to be fruitless as faith rests on the principle of faith. And you don't argue faith.

devotee-

Why do you think that it's important to any of us who are non-religious that we disprove religious people? (I assume that you're speaking about our personal intentions rather than why any atheist would try to do so).

For me, there are currently three levels of religious discussion. The first is mostly in the past and was a discussion with myself. I was raised in a devoutly Christian environment, and as I began to disbelieve, it was personally important for me to investigate the claims of Christianity and theism. During my own deconversion, I never tried to disprove another person, in fact, I tried to avoid confrontation. What I had to disprove were my issues.

More recently, my father has written me a lengthy letter in which he attempts to "prove" theism to me. I feel that it is the right thing to do at this point to respond to him, particularly as this is the first open communication that we've had about the subject since it came out that I was a non-believer. While it is not my intent to explicitly to disprove his beliefs, I want to be clear about why I arrived at my conclusions as well as sharing why his proofs of theism are not beyond a reasonable doubt for me. With this in mind, I have brought my thoughts about the writing to the religion thread.

And thirdly, on this thread, I consider religion to be just one of many opinionated discussions about many topics that I've had on the board. My goal is conversation, not convincing anyone else to deconvert. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, and I do not take it personally if they do not.

[The Stranger]

Per the thread's title itself, my answer:

It is not important to me that I disprove faith. I am a very 'soft' atheist in that I leave room for people to believe in anything they want (though I might think it's ridiculous) and I myself am willing to entertain all kinds of weird occult ideas. What matters to me is when someone's faith is so unwavering they attempt to make everything else in the world conform to their cosmology, and we all feel the ramifications of their zeal.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatev. None of these categories matter to me unless it makes someone ban evolution, blow up airplanes, or advocate nuking arab capitals, respectively. then, and only then, do I feel like wading into the muck: if someone shoves their fervor into the public sphere and attempts to make others conform to the parameters of this zeal, their faith should be drug into the street and shot.

[devotee]

devotee-

Why do you think that it's important to any of us who are non-religious that we disprove religious people?

Yeah, that was what I asked.(Hm, if you repeated my question in a more understandable manner, then disregard this). I am not sure, and that was my query, to gather intentions.

For conversations sake, I understand it.

Speaking of the third, for personal sake, I guess I understand why one would want input in a transition phase, but I have always been faithful to my unfaithedness. I applaud you for going against the grain of the family and taking a stand on your beliefs instead of conforming. That is strength defined.

On the second, however, I got the answer I was looking for. It seems, you answer it not for yourself, but for you fathers sake. Not now, obviously, but the initial way you thought about the matter was to find a way to answer him. Again, it's not a bad thing, and I am impressed by those who go by this route. Externalizing a "villain" even though you don't see him as harmful makes a good tool for coping with the idea for oneself. Personally, your arguments are not nessecarily anti-father, but from what you said, that is the starting point from which you express anti-religious opinions.

Please excuse the pretentious and overtly Psych 101 stuff in this post. I do mean it, but am afraid it comes off as rather obnoxious. :cheers:

[Eponine]

Yeah, that was what I asked.(Hm, if you repeated my question in a more understandable manner, then disregard this). I am not sure, and that was my query, to gather intentions.

[snip]

On the second, however, I got the answer I was looking for. It seems, you answer it not for yourself, but for you fathers sake. Not now, obviously, but the initial way you thought about the matter was to find a way to answer him. Again, it's not a bad thing, and I am impressed by those who go by this route. Externalizing a "villain" even though you don't see him as harmful makes a good tool for coping with the idea for oneself. Personally, your arguments are not nessecarily anti-father, but from what you said, that is the starting point from which you express anti-religious opinions.

Ok I wasn't clear about my question to you, as it just sounded like I was repeating your question. Let me rephrase: What makes you think that any of us are actively trying to disprove religious people?

I think you misunderstand. I'm not externalizing a villain for my own psychological exercise. My father actually wrote me a letter LAST WEEK.

[Lord Mord]

As long as there were no overt problems that arose from a belief in God, then I couldn't care less that you believe.

Problem: many -- though bless them, not all -- religious people defend bullshit political and personal decisions with "God wants it that way." As if the Bible or any book, or the word of any earthly authority figure could possibly justify their attempt to claim such Absolute knowledge.

It's not terribly important to me to prove that having faith is wrong. It is important to me, however, that the religious should own their god's prejudices as their own. They cannot know what is God's will -- they choose to believe the bible because it suits what they already think.

I just take exception to the idea that such a self-serving attitude about God entitles them to tell other people they're condemned to hell. How fortunate they are that the popular god just happens to already like everything about who they are. If he's cool about who I am, or at least enough so that on that basis he isn't telling his followers to make my life more difficult than it need be, then I've no gripes against him or them.

[devotee]

The idea of the whole debate seems inherently based on conversion. It's either that or a mental showdown, whose rhetoric kicks the most ass. Or you just tell people how you feel without taking any other post or viewpoint into account. Again, not a specific @ Eponine reply.

In any case, it seems that way to me. I am usually wrong, and even when I am right, I somehow manage to phrase it so that I come of as wrong. Hah. But really, if one side argues X and another argues Y, are you saying you argue a Y which doesn't contradict X?

Actually @ Eponine - So you havn't discussed anything in this thread before last week then? Ì gathered you were speaking of experience in regards to the letter, but you are still sort of arguing against what he is stating, not purely arguing from your own beliefs. I would think, anyways, and I am probably wrong =)

Edit: Structural stuff

[Eponine]

The idea of the whole debate seems inherently based on conversion. It's either that or a mental showdown, whose rhetoric kicks the most ass. Or you just tell people how you feel without taking any other post or viewpoint into account. Again, not a specific @ Eponine reply.

In any case, it seems that way to me. I am usually wrong, and even when I am right, I somehow manage to phrase it so that I come of as wrong. Hah. But really, if one side argues X and another argues Y, are you saying you argue a Y which doesn't contradict X?

Actually @ Eponine - So you havn't discussed anything in this thread before last week then? Ì gathered you were speaking of experience in regards to the letter, but you are still sort of arguing against what he is stating, not purely arguing from your own beliefs. I would think, anyways, and I am probably wrong =)

I've learned a lot from this thread, not all of it religious. None of it has converted me but that doesn't mean that gaining new ideas wasn't beneficial. A lot of threads here are debates of one sort or another, but I don't come here primarily to convince other people about things or to have my mind changed or my own beliefs bolstered. I believe that simply absorbing multiple ideas and viewpoints enhances my ability to think clearly about anything and everything. My discussion in this thread prior to last week was first for support toward Crazydog and then for discussion. Other times that I've brought up religion have been in regards to seeking advice for my personal problems and not convince anyone else of my correctness.

I am certainly arguing against what my father is stating, because he has said that he can prove Christianity/theism true beyond a reasonable doubt. How can we converse if I do not respond to what he has already said? I know that it seems like semantics, but there's a great difference in motive between actively trying to prove someone wrong and responding to their attempt to reconvert me by explaining why their proofs don't convince me.

[Daemrion]

Problem: many -- though bless them, not all -- religious people defend bullshit political and personal decisions with "God wants it that way." As if the Bible or any book, or the word of any earthly authority figure could possibly justify their attempt to claim such Absolute knowledge.

1. The Bible is God's Word. God has absolute knowledge. And he's pretty clear about certain things.

2. Who defines what is a bs political/personal decision? You??

It's not terribly important to me to prove that having faith is wrong. It is important to me, however, that the religious should own their god's prejudices as their own. They cannot know what is God's will -- they choose to believe the bible because it suits what they already think.

I disagree with this statement. I don't always agree with what the Bible says (eg. abortion - especially in cases where the mother is in danger of dying), but I know that I may not have full understanding of everything and absolute wisdom that I may know why God has said what he has said. I don't claim to know everything.

I know however, that I should trust God.

After all, isn't the official motto of the USA, "In God We Trust"?

[Lord Mord]

Daemrion,

1. The Bible is God's Word. God has absolute knowledge. And he's pretty clear about certain things.

Emphasis mine.

So you say. What proof is there of that?

I show you a note. I say my Uncle Marty wrote it. You don't even know that my uncle Marty exists, let alone that he wrote any notes, let alone that he wrote this one, let alone that I or someone between my uncle Marty and me didn't edit it.

If the note tells you to stop eating beef, I doubt you're going to do a damn thing on that basis until I at least establish those facts, yeah?

2. Who defines what is a bs political/personal decision? You??

Well, I'm certainly not going to take anyone else's word for it, and why should I?

I disagree with this statement. I don't always agree with what the Bible says (eg. abortion - especially in cases where the mother is in danger of dying), but I know that I may not have full understanding of everything and absolute wisdom that I may know why God has said what he has said. I don't claim to know everything.

I know however, that I should trust God.

How do you know what God has said? I don't recall the Bible ever being explicit about abortion, nor even on where life begins. Even if it were -- you don't know that it's God word and that it hasn't been altered.

After all, isn't the official motto of the USA, "In God We Trust"?

Cute :) But I'm sure you'll agree that other people's mistakes, if mistakes they be, are hardly an encumbrance on what I should do.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

1. The Bible is God's Word. God has absolute knowledge. And he's pretty clear about certain things.

While together the first two may stand within reason theologically speaking, when you put all three together, especially with the last premise, then it does not add up.

[The Stranger]

1. The Bible is God's Word. God has absolute knowledge. And he's pretty clear about certain things.

on point 3, most definitely: cross-dressing, lobster, and rayon-cotton blends are what come immediately to mind.

2. Who defines what is a bs political/personal decision? You??

invoke not Relativism, lest ye be forced to be a Relativist.

I don't always agree with what the Bible says (eg. abortion - especially in cases where the mother is in danger of dying), but I know that I may not have full understanding of everything and absolute wisdom that I may know why God has said what he has said. I don't claim to know everything. I know however, that I should trust God.

I'm legitimately curious about the biblical passage in question here. I tried to do a little research, and the clearest example seemed to be Jeremiah 1:4-5, but even that is iffy regarding the action itself, being instead a comment on the notion of personhood, and not about abortion.

the last bit is just circular.

After all, isn't the official motto of the USA, "In God We Trust"?

as of a 1956 congressional vote, yes.

[Falagar]

Hope I'm not hi-jacking anything, but currently reading Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed and, as there are a lot of knowledgable people around here, was wondering if anybody knows what its status is among more text oriented Bible scholars?

[Ser Greguh]

1. The Bible is God's Word.

Logically unworkable as there is no evidence of any sort of god. Argument defeated. See how this works?

After all, isn't the official motto of the USA, "In God We Trust"?

If you're wishing to pass this off as evidence of early cold war politicians' willingness to ignore the first amendment out of a desire to distance oneself from the soviets, you might have a point. Otherwise, I'm curious as to what you think this proves.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Hope I'm not hi-jacking anything, but currently reading Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed and, as there are a lot of knowledgable people around here, was wondering if anybody knows what its status is among more text oriented Bible scholars?

I am undoubtedly over-complicating the question, but are you asking whether or not the book is good by biblical scholar standards or are you asking whether or not the ideas in the book are controversial for "text oriented" Bible scholars?

[awesome possum]

The thread title doesn't make sense. It's impossible to disprove faith, because faith is a belief. You can't disprove a belief. You can attempt to disprove what a person has faith in, but you can't disprove the faith itself.

[sologdin]

Jeremiah 1:4-5, but even that is iffy regarding the action itself, being instead a comment on the notion of personhood, and not about abortion.

my position is that the hebrew scripture cuts the other way on abortion, jeremiah being irrelevant.

the argument for "why abortion is biblical" is here; i always post it when this issue comes up here.