Mickey Mouse thinks religious belief is.............

by wobble 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cofty

  There is also personal evidence - hearing, understanding, strength, courage, peace, patience... all of the things promised; that are granted to me and others. There are also answered prayers (which again is personal evidence, but no less evidence, at least for me). Asking and receiving.

  As a christian I thought the same. As an atheist I have even greater strength, courage and peace in my life. Good things and fortuitous coincidences happen to me now just as when I was a believer as does lifes setbacks. It's wishful thinking that a supernatural being makes any of it happen. I have just been diagnosed with cancer, it would have happened just the same if I was still a christian - in fact I know for certain the tumour was in its earliest stages when I was still a christian. The difference now is I don't waste time and energy wondering why. There is no purpose to it - shit happens. I wont waste energy on prayer and thank god for every sign I am getting better or find reasons if I am not. Its a much healthier outlook.

  Personal evidence counts for zero - it just emphasises the irrationality of belief.
• 

  tec

  I did read your post. I was not, however, talking about the argument failing or succeeding... but rather comparing the similar reasoning on behalf of some atheists. (believers - you don't believe because you're hard-hearted, whatever... atheists - you just believe because you're superstitious, gullible, lack critical thinking, whatever). Not all atheists/theists think like this. But in the case of those who do, both sides are putting the fault on the other party for their belief or lack of belief.

  You brought the point out against believers, and I just wondered if you saw that atheists do the same thing in their arguments.

  As to the Filchers... what makes these reasons an authority on what constitutes a good argument? Just curious. I don't really have a problem with them, but they seem to be geared MORE toward proof, over evidence.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  The above was meant for Xchange; oops.
• 

  sizemik

  On that basis Size, are you a Fundamentalist Atheist (and therefore a bigot) ?

  On that basis I guess I am . . . but on any other, no I am not. This whole "believer v atheist" thing is a false dichotomy, as has been pointed out. Nevertheless, divisions between the two get drawn around these two non-existent poles. Hence my request for definition (as you rightly picked).

  It doesn't take long for the semantics and definitives to cloud and confuse rationality and devalue intelligence . . .

  Faith is belief without evidence. . . . [statement]

  Perhaps without proof. But not without evidence. There is evidence for my faith. It might not be enough for some people... [rebuttal]

  Unless the definitions being used carry a reasonable degree of commonality . . . it's just another circus ride.

  How do you quantify this statement under those definitions?

  I tell atheists this: Just because God hasn't appeared to them or isn't talking to them, doesn't mean he isn't appearing and talking to others. But that is also a moot point. God proves himself to those he wants to know him, but doesn't bother with those he doesn't want to prove himself to at this point. Per Bible prophecy, Jehovah will make a name for himself at Har-mageddon, but until then, the reality of God depends on whom he wishes it upon. The logic and "reality" of the elect is different than that of the non-elect. . . . Lars

  For once Lars has said something with a smidgen of truth in it . . . Logic and reality are totally different depending on whether you are a believer or not. There's no answer for that.

  Do I think religious belief is irrational and unintelligent? . . . absolutely . . . of that I've never been more sure.
• 

  wobble

  "Do I think religious belief is irrational and unintelligent?" I am with you Size, unintelligent may sound harsh, but intelligence is to do with problem solving, and religious belief has not done much to solve human problems in the last 30,000 years or so.

  You and I both, I believe, are not saying that the believer is "Irrational and unintelligent" as a person, just that their belief is. And by the same token, it is the belief that atheists attack, not the whole person, and to attack a belief, showing it to be irrational and unintelligent, does not make one a bigot.
• 

  cedars

  I've read what everyone has said so far, and I take the point that it is belief in a creator that fundamental atheists find irrational and unintelligent, and not necessarily the persons who believe this, which is much better than what appeared to be said at the beginning of the thread. I therefore assume that people agree with me that to call those who believe in an intelligent designer "unintelligent" and "irrational", or indeed "lazy" by definition is both unkind and unwarranted, in just the same way as it would be for creationists to use such terms to generalize against atheists.

  What I fail to understand is why the 'burden of proof' seems to be on creationists to provide undeniable evidence of the existence of an intelligent creator? I would counter that argument by asking atheists to issue undeniable evidence that the universe or basic elements thereof definitely and undeniably could not possibly have resulted from intelligent intervention of any kind, or that the chances of these things happening are prohibitive in comparison with the chances of their happening spontaneously. I don't insist on atheists coming to me with this information, although they are most welcome to if it is available to them. I am merely highlighting how easy it is to get dogmatic about things to which there is no clear answer. I'm in no rush to form an opinion either way. Having only just escaped one form of "religious dogmatism", I'm in no hurry to go running into the arms of another, however comparitively benevolent it may be.

  I hope I haven't offended anyone. I have the highest regard for all of you that have so far commented. I'm already regretting participating in this thread!

  Cedars
• 

  N.drew

  Religious belief is irrational (lacking usual mental clarity) and unintelligent (not questioning) surely! Most religions cause that.

  I wonder why sizemik calls belief/atheim false dichonomy.

  Believing is not wise for some people because it slips too easily into religious belief.

  Instead of the person being master over what he believes, he allows the belief to be master over him.

  I have a theory about what "mammon" means. It means "treasure" which can be someone's faith belief that a person puts their trust in. So even if the person's faith is for God, if they allow that faith to take over to lead them, then they become distant from the True God's lead.

  The beginning of understanding each other, I think, is to be carefully aware of how words can bring the mind hither and thither.

  The theory of atheism I'm developing (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm pretty sure you will!) is the lack of belief in intelligence without matter. If Science will invent something (like a transporter) then the atheist's mind can grasp intelligence without matter.

  Believers are they that accept the world is not as simple as it seems. Along with the physical world, there is a spiritual one. A real world without matter. That is the world that my God is most concerned with because without that world being fixed, god would just become the janitor and then grave digger. The signs are everywhere, even with the non-believers.
• 

  cofty

  Along with the physical world, there is a spiritual one. A real world without matter.

  Saying it over and over isn't a substitute for evidence.

  This life is all we get, make the most of it.
• 

  TheUbermensch

  What I fail to understand is why the 'burden of proof' seems to be on creationists to provide undeniable evidence of the existence of an intelligent creator?

  It's called an "argument from ignorance".

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

  However, if I or anyone else is arguing a positive item, I am the one that must provide evidence for it's existence.

  For instance

  THEISM

  a = the physical world

  b = God

  c = religious belief

  a+b=c

  ATHEISM

  d= no belief, only natural world

  a = d

  Being that theism is proposing something that is surplus to physical existence, they are the ones that have the burden of showing us proof of b, so that we might come to conclusion c.

  It's incredibly difficult for theists to understand this for some reason... semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit or "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges/claims"

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

  And yet again (I think the 5th time, the other 4 times it has been ignored by the theists of this forum) I will post Martin's argument of acceptable disbelief

  A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if

  (1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate; and

  (2) X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then there is a presumption that would be evidence adequate to support the view that X exists; and

  (3) this presumption has not been defeated although serious efforts have been made to do so; and

  (4) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and

  (5) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists.
• 

  PSacramento

  This life is all we get, make the most of it.

  How you read this Cofty?

  Life After Death: The Evidence by Dinesh D'Souza (Nov 2, 2009)