What a mammoth arrogant waste of time, Hamby. I posted those links to support my claim that people believe in god on contingence, I didn't even read them, I just googled spiritual seeker cause I knew I would get a bunch of links as evidence that they exist.

I'm not even going to try to defend the views or ideas of random seekers i plucked from google to prove their existence. You're completely on a tangent Hamby, one that is just not relevant.

I admit it was my mistake that you misunderstood the purpose of those links, I should have deleted your remark about providing evidence of god. However, I should think you will take some responsibility for completely ignoring my repeatedly saying in that same post "I do not have to prove the existence of god to support my argument because its irrelevant" clearly, I was not intending to do that.

deleted excess post

"Each and every moderate is partially responsible for the fundamentalists precisely because he does not repudiate the very foundation of fundamentalism"

I don't think you can make that claim unless you've actually met each and every moderate.  you can't label an entire group unless you've met them all.

perhaps moderate isn't the best word.  there are moderates but then there are really liberal theists as well. look at Nancy Pelosi and others like her. I think we need to make a distinction between moderates and liberals.

while it's true that churches do influence voting patterns, almost half the country voted for Kerry in the last election. that wasn't all atheists; there aren't enough of them. so obviously there are liberals/moderates who DO vote the same as non-theists.

 moderates and liberals attack fundies on the issue of faith all the time. how often do they fight over "you're not living your faith the right way"?  and different religious liberals interpret faith in different ways.  look at religious humanists like Spong. there are plenty who DO stand up for separation of church and state.  to say that everyone one of them contributes to fundies when there are plenty of organizations who fight against them and some that even work with atheist organizations to fight against them sounds ridiculous. talk about sweeping generlizations. I agree that not enough is done. but that doesn't mean "everyone tacitly supports them".

oh really? does that include deists, weak agnostics (some do believe in a higher power), pandeists, pagans, and pantheists too?  Everyone of which has at one time or another been harrassed by the fundies, and many of which spoke out against religion having too much power? Are you actually trying to say that just by existing they all lend tacit support to fundies? Many of our founding fathers who insititued separation of church and state where deists. are they "culpable" too?   I'm a deist and I've gotten involved in quite a few organizations against theocracy. would you actually say I tacitly support fundies just by existing? I really hope not.   I certainly don't think blind faith (as much of it is, unfortuantely) is a virtue. It really seems you are making generalizations, and I have to say, if I'm reading it right (if I'm wrong please tell me how) then it comes across as rather ignorant. what's with the blanket statements?

it was more than some, but okay. and who cares? as long as they support separation of church and state, or are against the fundies I really don't care what they believe in on the side. what's with the whole "they're either with us or against us" bit?

Exactly. What's so hard about this? The reason they can't come to any agreement is that there's no way to establish a logical line between faith and reason.

I'm baffled as to why people keep bringing this up. I know. I know. I know. Please review my posts. I've addressed this repeatedly.

Not real pantheists. They just rename the universe, and call it God. The rest of them, yes. (Although I'd quibble over the definition of agnostics.)

Yes.

They propogate the myth that faith is valid. They need faith to believe what they believe, too.

To a lesser degree, yes. If you ask most deists, they'll tell you that they have their interpretation of god, and other people have theirs.

Let me make this extraordinarily simple. Anyone within any religion or belief system that requires faith as a premise is culpable.

You're trying to make a distinction between blind faith and faith, and it's going to fail eventually. At some point, you're going to have to say that there's no evidence for some aspect of your god belief, and you simply believe anyway.

If you can show me a single example of belief in a supernatural god that is contingent, I'll recant. I have yet to see one. Please cure me of my ignorance. I'm not being sarcastic.

Magilum, you haven't let me down yet.  That's a very good explanation of my argument.

One more thing that I may not have made completely clear.  I'm not saying that there would be no fundamentalists without moderates.  Fundamentalists would probably exist, in fact.  However, without moderates (and all other ilk of non-fundie theists) there would simply not be a reasonable likelihood of public debate about any fundie related issues.  They would be marginalized and disregarded.

This is the only option that makes any sense to me.  Clearly, they could not say anything about their god, and god would effectively be taken out of public discourse while we wait patiently for the proof.

Eloise, you asked how moderates legitimize faith in general as a basis for reasoning. As far as I can tell, your argument with it was that it assumes that religious faith is non-contingent, which you don't agree it is. I'd argue that, since outside of the private subjective experience--which can deceive even the individual experiencing it--religious claims haven't been demonstrated, there is only non-contingent religious faith thus far. However, I don't think this is essential to the issue, which I don't think (necessarily) delves into finer theological points, or the specific behavior of moderates themselves. Rather, I think the key points are:

1. Number of people identified as 'faithful.'

2. Common understanding of the term 'religious faith.'

All a moderate has to do to lend credibility to faith as a basis for reasoning is to have it. Technically, answer anything beyond 'agnostic' in a survey. The moderates, in poll numbers, are just an undifferentiated mass with some general approval of the virtue of faith. Since we don't know, and possibly can't know, what is an invalid expression of faith, it makes it harder to see fundamentalists as being marginal; as lone voices in the wilderness, when they're able to invoke a majority of people who agree with the foundation of their reasoning, but diverge in ways not supported by that same reasoning.

I don't know whether this is so, but it makes a certain sense to me unless actual data will contradict it.

I saw some stats from Pineapple on the importance of religion to Canadians, religious identification and voting patterns (which aren't important to this particular part of the argument... and I also have to add that this issue has come up many times, so I could be combining different threads from Cpt at this point), but I don't recall anything about the dominant understanding of the word 'faith.' What'd I miss?

In your second paragraph, which was in response to my statement, "All a moderate has to do to lend credibility to faith as a basis for reasoning is to have it.," I think you misunderstand me, as my only point referred to moderates in their contribution to aggregate data on acceptance of 'faith' (leaving out for the moment what that word means). The actions of moderates don't enter into this particular point, since it is only the statistical view of a single data point (god belief/faith) that is necessary to give apparent credibility to faith positions (including fundamentalism). It would be different if Pat Robertson was stuck saying ten percent of Americans professed a belief in god -- which is a scenario offered only for contrast, to show how much more potent the Moral Majority looks when it can claim a majority. In these cases, the raw numbers don't exactly jump up and say, "Hey, I don't agree with your interpretation!" And then there's the question of the legitimacy of moderate dissent from a scriptural standpoint I mentioned previously.

To recap, this particular part of the argument (as I understand it), which is the validation of faith as a legitimate basis for reasoning by moderates (though not necessarily the utilization of faith as a basis for reasoning by moderates) has only to do with demographics and the common understanding of the word 'faith' (which I see you're disputing). The main point I'm getting across for this one thing is that moderate actions aren't relevant to it -- it's faith, but not works, you might say.

I'm baffled. You just agreed with magilum when he explained to you that it's the faith, not the actions, and now you're talking about actions again.

Fundamentalism hides its true agenda in America, too. I'm not going to bother to find all the stories. Just trust me. It's easy enough to believe, since you see it in Australia, right?

Once again, the actions of fundamentalists are not in any way relevant to my argument. You keep saying it must be part of it, but you have failed to demonstrate any connection. If we disagree on the definition of faith, then we shouldn't even still be talking about this. I've given you a clear, concise way to refute me: Demonstrate contingent faith in the supernatural. Show me faith in the supernatural with reliable natural evidence.

If you can't do this, then we're at the impasse we've been at from the beginning.

With regard to the main point, which seems so incredibly obvious that I can't believe I'm still restating it, I'll state it in the most painfully detailed way I can do it.

IF non-contingent faith is the foundation of belief in the supernatural, AND moderates believe in the supernatural AND fundamentalists believe in the supernatural THEN moderates and fundamentalists have the same foundation.

IF moderates and fundamentalists have the same foundation THEN moderates implicitly and explicitly approve of the foundation of fundamentalists.

IF faith has been accepted, THEN faith trumps reason in at least one thing. (It must, or there would not have been non-contingent faith in the first place, as it trumps reason by definition.)

IF faith trumps reason in one thing, either A) faith only trumps reason in one thing, or B) faith trumpst reason in more than one thing.

Faith's claim, namely that some things are valid and true logically but false in reality (along with the converse of that statement) cannot offer a valid and true reason for there being only one instance in which faith trumps reason because that reason would be logical (and subject to the trump of faith) or faith based (and necessarily subjective). By the very definition of the claim that faith makes, we can only know that we can't know. (Although this is uncertain, as well. You see how faith breaks everything down immediately?) We must accept that faith trumps reason in at least some things, possibly all things. (Except that at this point, the rest of the argument breaks down because it's logically true and valid, and we have established the invalidity of logic.)

I have to interject at this point that I've destroyed logic. The rest of my proof is irrrelevant if faith is valid. This is another argument entirely, as Eloise has not granted the validity of non-contingent faith. Rather, she seems to be asserting that god-belief is contingent and that my original premise is wrong. Clearly, my argument does not grant validity to faith, but only grants the belief in it as extant.

IF faith trumps reason in potentially all things, THEN reason becomes invalid for determining validity and certainty.

IF reason is invalid, truth is completely subjective.

IF truth is completely subjective, THEN moderates have no logical recourse to argue against the actions of fundamentalists.

Combining points, we get:

IF moderates approve of the foundation of fundamentalism, THEN they have no logical recourse to argue against the actions of the fundamentalists.

Going back to the beginning, we get the main point of the debate:

IF moderates have faith THEN they have no logical recourse to argue against fundamentalists.

IF moderates have no logical recourse to argue against fundamentalists THEN they are rationally powerless against them.

IF they are rationally powerless, THEN non-rational means are the only option left.

IF non-rational debate/politics/etc, are employed, there is a high likelihood of a non-rational conclusion.

THEREFORE, Moderates, by having faith, condone, permit, and promote non-rational debate and conclusions.  (I.e. they promote fundamentalist political victories.)

Ok, now before you go jumping all over me about this, I'm demonstrating how in any given circumstance, irrationality can win over rationality because of the faith of the moderates. Just so you won't talk about the actions of moderates any more, I'm trying to head you off. Sometimes both fundies and moderates come to very rational conclusions. If they didn't they would be locked up and given very powerful drugs for the rest of their lives.

I have not ever argued for an all or nothing conclusion. Please don't try to force one into my opinion. I am, after all, not using faith, and I must reasonably conclude that faith doesn't always trump reason in practice. However, as you've attested, as I've clearly demonstrated, and as even Pineapple will admit, sometimes faith DOES trump reason in public debate. When it does, the moderates are responsible, for without their implicit support, the fundamentalists would have to resort to reason, logic and science, and would lose, or they would resort to lies, manipulation, and subterfuge, and we could prosecute them like other criminals. As it is, they get to bask in their moral superiority because no one will challenge them on their faith.

So, please explain how deists believe in a god? Do they have empirical evidence, or is it non-contingent?

(I prefer to stay away from agnosticism. It's my personal opinion that it's pretty much a meaningless term. We can quibble over it if you like. I'm not particularly interested.)

I believe I waffled a bit on deists earlier. If I didn't put it to print, I at least thought about it. I agree that deists are normally pretty damn aggressive about their non-knowledge of specific traits of god.

In any case, if you can demonstrate contingent belief in a deity, I will happily retract my statement about deists.

I am aware that everyone who doesn't think they're part of the problem resents being informed that they are. I'm not clear on whether that has any bearing on the reality of the situation.

I'm also aware that all theists see me as a problem. I simply can't find any contingent belief in any god. If you can provide me with one, I'll happily retract my statements.

I hope to be less of a minority in the future, unless someone can prove me wrong. Would you like to try?

 P.S. I believe I said pantheists were ok.