Oh silly theists, dont you see the big picture!!!

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh silly theists, dont you see the big picture!!!

THE BIG PICTURE!!! 

            Discussion after discussion, debate after debate, theists defend their absurd beliefs over and over using their ridiculous holy books. We (rational atheists) only scrutinize the small issues in the bible because you theists actually use that comical joke of a teaching book as the pillar of your belief system. We would much rather use our independent free minds to discuss worldview issues, but instead are forced to mentally demote ourselves to the level of these holy book preachers if we are one day to change the world and rid it of the immoral, irrational, illogical beliefs that will continue to inhibit us as we progress as a species.

 
Now this is such a massive problem when it comes to logical debate, we rationalists know that believing in one holy book over another is simply arrogant, irrational, and stupid in all senses of those words. How you continue to use scripture to prove scripture, illogical concepts to justify other illogical concept is so taxing to us. To the rational atheist any theist conforming to one religion as if it were more rational or logical than another is proof of their idiocracy, and delusion. We are all apostates to some religion, i am to all, but even YOU the theist are an apostate, just not in your own diluted mind.
 
            Dawkins says it well, you are by pure LUCK born into a culture predominantly based in a certain faith, you could have been born to many other faiths with many other gods and you would have asserted their existence with the same amount of conviction. From the first time man looked up and said WTF am i doing here, their has been some form a religion/god . We can only assume that their have been many of unknown/barely known gods/religions over the years on top of all the ones recorded. I just can’t for the life of me understand how someone can logically state, "It’s not a fluke that I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, it is because he is, it says so in the gospels." I mean seriously? Do you theists not see that with this statement you have committed intellectual suicide? The battle has already been won and we haven’t even got started. You spend your whole life dissecting the words in your holy books trying to make them logical and moral to your standards, I pity you, and this must be very tiring. We the independent minded intellectuals in the world KNOW that u are in a lower state of mental awareness to make such an arrogant statement as you found the right religion, and you and your religion are special.
 
What I see in the world today is the emerging of THE GREAT WAR!!!. The great war between the largely outnumbered independent minded rationalists, and the people who want to hold on to arrogant, immoral, and so obviously ridiculous beliefs. Why are we outnumbered? Well its simple, in the present and past common minded men (the majority) like to think they know it all, they like to get together with other no it alls who tell them what to know, so they feel in the know, so they can puff out their chests and tell other people what to know about thing they couldn’t possibly know. This is a internal disease based in insecurity, we the rational folk claim nothing with absolute conviction more than we can prove, and have absolutely no problem saying WE DONT KNOW IT ALL!!! . Anything that can’t be proven should only to be discussed civilly not asserted arrogantly, including the existence of god.
 
            Our winning of this battle inevitable, that to us is obvious. Its just a matter of how long the growing snowball of rationalism will take to spread to all the corners of the earth and not only force u out of all positions of power, but leave u on the margins of society, although with a secular right to practice your faith, you will be taken as seriously as someone who believes in the reptilian race cover-up, and treated accordingly with a pat on the head and a ball given to play with "now you go on you".   We know their are only 2 general outcomes of this war:
 
 1)-The theist will be backed into a corner of their own ignorance, with the rising number of rationalists who oppose them some will use other methods than verbal ones to fight back, and "the crazies" will do something apocalyptical in an attempt to save their beliefs.
 
2)-The world will inevitably evolve past this arrogant way of thinking without being destroyed by one of "the crazies". The world will agree on one basic religious law: anyone claiming absolute truth on the issue is a complete nut job, and should be regarded as so. 
 
            Complete separation of religion and government is an absolute must in attaining a secular global society. And so in conclusion I’d like to first make a bold statement to all theists, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST!!! We rationalists are ahead of the evolutionary curve of the common man, we can see it coming, we know this shift in global enlightenment in inevitable, its just whether you do something catastrophic enough to stop its natural occurrence, which of course is our biggest fear, that the crazy's blow up the planet before the rationalists can save it. And to Rationalists of all kinds I’d like to make this statement, WE'VE ALREADY WON!!! This global enlightenment in inevitable with time, it’s just a matter of how long its takes us. This is of course determined by how hard we work to change it.
 
 
"SAVE THE WORLD, ONE MIND AT A TIME!!!" 

 

(post cleaned up then featured on Homepage, Digg, and Stumbleupon by Brian Sapient)


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
First, when you discuss,

First, when you discuss, say, biblical issues with a Christian, you *are* discussing "worldview issues."

Second, it's absurd to claim that "all religions" are somehow equally irrational, and that therefore to choose one over the other is "proof of idiocracy or dellusion (sic)."

Third, Dawkins's claim, as you've presented it, is as clear an instance of the genetic fallacy as any I've seen.

"The great war between the largely outnumbered independant (sic) minded rationalists, and the people who want to hold on to arrogant, immoral, and so obviously rediculous (sic) beliefs. Why are we outnumbered? Well its (sic) simple, in the present and past common minded men (the mojority (sic)) like to think they know it all, they like to get together with other no it alls (sic) who tell them what to know, so they feel in the know, so they can puff out their chests and tell other people what to know about thing (sic) they coudn't (sic) possibly know. This is a (sic) internal disease based in insecurity, (sic) we the rational folk claim nothing with absolute convistion (sic) more than we can prove, and have absolutely no problem saying WE DONT KNOW IT ALL!!!. Enything (sic) that cant (sic) be proven should only to (sic) be discussed civily (sic) not asserted arrogantly, including the existence of god."

Apparently rational, informed, intelligent independent thinkers are blind to irony.

Your (1) and (2) so obviously present a false alternative that I wasn't going to comment, but...

"Complete seperation (sic) of religion and governent(sic) is an absolute must in attaining a secular global society."

Tautologies are so informative...

"And so in conclusion id (sic) like to frist (sic) make a bold statement to all theists, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST!!!"

Wow, this doesn't in any way contradict your earlier precept that what can't be proven should be civilly discussed, not arrogantly asserted. That aside, if you're representative of the atheists we're 'losing' to, I'm not very pessimistic...

"We rationalists are ahead of the evolutionary curve of the common man..."

You mean there is direction and progress in evolution?

"This global enlightement (sic) in inevitable with time, its (sic) just a matter of how long its takes us. This is of course determined by how hard we work to change it."

Given the grammatical and logical content of your post, I'd say you're still a long way from the "global enlightenment."

Now I apologize if my response sounds a bit harsh, but come on, look at what I was responding to!

Edejardin


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
We sure are a long way from

We sure are a long way from it, id wish it wasnt so long.  And if you think your camments are harsh, your a pussy.  Yet another guy attacking my grammar/spelling, yes im more concerned about the message and could do mush better in that area, ill work on it, in the meantime...  I never said that one religion cant be more rational than another, i said that it is obvious that all organized religion is irrational and that one adopting a faith simply because he is convinced of the teachings in a certain holybook is arrogant, and irrational.  What i find funny is that no-where do i say that the belief in god is irrational, only that the belief in a certain religion is.  The belief in god is an entirely different sudject from the belief in man made religions.  

 

  As to my statement that thiests have already lost contradicting mystatement of not claiming absolute truth.  This is not a faith based statement, it is a conclusion based on the general defeat of other out dated irrational beliefs such as racism, a flat earth, slavery, or hatred for homosexuals.  It is obvious to me, than any rational inteligant man of good moral understanding could have predicted the end of slavery in due time with absolute certainly, depending ofcoarse on the fact that humanity continued to evolve and exist on this planet, in time it was inevitable.  I think we can all agree on that.  I see no diference with the belief in hell, eternal torture of innocent people, and other rediculous immoral beliefs.   They are illogical and immoral, and the world is waking up to it.

 

  Now i assume that you are representing one of these faiths, most likely christianity.  Well its pretty simple, if christianity in no way claimed all the things it does like eternal torture in hell, i would not assert that one day it will cease to hold any power.   This is because i would have no rational reason to predict the falling of something that wasnt morally dated.  But because these holy books are so obviously morally outdated like people who agreed with slavery, I can say with strong conviction that those outdated morals will hold no relevance in the future world. Se the personal belief in god is one thing, something i dont find harmful in its purest form, the belief that you are special and going to heaven, I to hell along with the billions of people who refuse Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour  to be tortured for eternity makes you insane.  Thier is simply no other way of slicing it, so wheather you believe that or not, that belief is immoral and insane, and will either be irradicated, or the world was not allowed to progress as it is doing now by some catasprophic event.  

 

So if you got from my post that i think the future world will only have atheists in power, then you are very mistaken.  What i said is that people believing in such insane things like eternal torture wil not, and will be ridiculed, as they certainly should be.

 

Anyways thanks for the reply always nice to hear from another angry thiest  picking apart my grammar missing the issue entirey, i love it.

 

"ONE MIND AT A TIME"


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
also i am human and ofcourse

also i am human and ofcourse not without error.  In light of your reply i agree i should change the way i stated my concluding statement to theists.  I should have said based on the ongoing slow destruction of immoral/irration beliefs in the world, i give 99.9% chance possibility that the world will eventually agree that these beliefs are obviously outdated immoral, and will ban together to make them irrelevant.  As for the remaining .1%, i guess you could say it is possible that the world goes against all previous patterns, de-evolves, and keeps immoral beliefs like that in hell relevant.  Yup ill give it to you, it is possible, we could all possibly reject cars and emails  in the future as well and go back  to horses and letters.  You make a great point! haha


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I should have said

Quote:

I should have said based on the ongoing slow destruction of immoral/irration beliefs in the world, i give 99.9% chance possibility that the world will eventually agree that these beliefs are obviously outdated immoral, and will ban together to make them irrelevant.

 

Good, point, it's not like Christianity/religion has been around for thousands of years or anything.

 

 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
so true 

so true

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Dawkins says it well, you are by pure LUCK born into a culture prodomenanty based in a certain faith, you could have been born to many other faiths with many other gods and you would have asserted their existance with the same amount of conviction.

Many theists (and atheists too!) see right past this sort of arguments, as it is falacious. To suppose that one is believes a certain things because one born into a culture where some faith is predominant is a genetic fallacy--that is to say, "You're a theists because your parents were theists" If this is true, much could be said for atheists as well were atheism is the predominant view of gods. One would say, "You're an atheists because your parents were atheists". This would make many atheists, atheist for the same reasons others are theists.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

From the first time man looked up and said WTF am i doing here, their has been some form a religion/god .  We can only assume that their have been many of unknown/barely known gods/religions over the years ontop of all the ones recorded.  I just cant for the life of me understand how someone can logically state, "Its not a fluke that i believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, it is because he is, it says so in the gospels."  I mean seriously?

This is a straw man...I'm not saying that some theists don't believe like this, but most apologist I've met do not.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

What i see in the world today is the emerging of THE GREAT WAR!!!...Enything that cant be proven should only to be discussed civily not asserted arrogantly, including the existence of god.

Is this civil to declare it a "war" and flamebait people into a discussion?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

2)-The world will innevitably evolve past this arrogant way of thinking without being destroyed by one of "the crazies".  The world will agree on one basic religious law.  That anyone claiming absolute truth on the issue is a complete nutjob, and should be regarded as so.

Watch the South Park episodes "Go God Go" and "Go God Go XII"....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
thnks for the reply, sorry

thnks for the reply, sorry im new to this and dont know how to quote properly so ill just copy and paste.

 

you said:

"Many theists (and atheists too!) see right past this sort of arguments, as it is falacious. To suppose that one is believes a certain things because one born into a culture where some faith is predominant is a genetic fallacy--that is to say, "You're a theists because your parents were theists" If this is true, much could be said for atheists as well were atheism is the predominant view of gods. One would say, "You're an atheists because your parents were atheists". This would make many atheists, atheist for the same reasons others are theists."

 

I in no way said what you are describing here.  I said nothing along the lines that theists come from theists and athiest from athies.  That wasnt the argumant at all.  It was that based on the culture you are a raised in, you are certainly more predisposed to its beliefs.  What i mean is that people born in india rarely become christians or vise versa for example.  That if you were born in africa 5000 years ago im certain you wouldnt have been a christian, or a muslim, you would have most likely believed the common norm in that coulture at the time.  To be honest i dont really understand your argument with this statement at all!!!  Although i fully agree that just because your born into theism does not mean you will grow up to be one, but this i never said, so why exactly did you???

 

 

you said:

 

"Is this civil to declare it a "war" and flamebait people into a discussion?"
 

 

I dont think so, perhaps i should have added that i mean a non-violent war of philosophy and progressive thinking.  Ofcoarse i thought this would have been obvious given my stand on basic morality.  I still consider it a war, but one that should be fought without weapons.  And im certainly not trying to flame-bait anyone into discussion, although i am inviting anyone to discussion.  I ment the word "war" in a much more poetic sense not literally, i think thats pretty obvious.  But i am soon realising that even refering to war in a non tradition sense and using the word not so literally more poetically can obviously be miscontrude or taken seriously, and for that i am sorry and will continue to do my best to use the right words to properly arcticualte my thought.  Like i said im not without error, but this one i dont really see as much of an error, just a misunderstanding.

 

Thanks   

 

 

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Dawkins says it well, you are by pure LUCK born into a culture prodomenanty based in a certain faith, you could have been born to many other faiths with many other gods and you would have asserted their existance with the same amount of conviction.

Many theists (and atheists too!) see right past this sort of arguments, as it is falacious. To suppose that one is believes a certain things because one born into a culture where some faith is predominant is a genetic fallacy--that is to say, "You're a theists because your parents were theists" If this is true, much could be said for atheists as well were atheism is the predominant view of gods. One would say, "You're an atheists because your parents were atheists". This would make many atheists, atheist for the same reasons others are theists.

I will agree some atheists are atheists because there parents were. that is part of the argument really... but I supose many atheists have been theists at some point or were not brought up by atheists. etc.  It is not saying because your parentd were this you are this. It is saying because you live in a society that is pedomenantly christian you will likely be a christian , had you been brought up in a society that was predomenantly muslim then it is likely you would be muslim and no matter witch of the two you would still of believed yourself correct. Its about the culture around you, it influances witch religion you would chose, if any.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Thank you tapey, you have

Thank you tapey, you have perfectly re-explained what i meant in Dawkins statement to the lego darthvador or whatever it is, its not really his anyways he's just a famous guy that said the obvious.  The obvious being that their are so many religions and coultures you could have been born to, that believing in one over others and especially the one you were raised in is arrogant.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:To

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
To be honest i dont really understand your argument with this statement at all!!!  Although i fully agree that just because your born into theism does not mean you will grow up to be one, but this i never said, so why exactly did you???


What I'm getting at is that suggesting that theists are theists because they were born in a particular region is fallacious. Predisposition to a particular set of beliefs is does seem to make it more likely that one will follow those beliefs. I thought this is what you were saying in the OP with, "you could have been born too many other faiths with many other gods and you would have asserted their existance with the same amount of conviction." Sorry if I miss read it.
 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I will agree

Tapey wrote:

I will agree some atheists are atheists because there parents were. that is part of the argument really... but I supose many atheists have been theists at some point or were not brought up by atheists. etc.  It is not saying because your parentd were this you are this. It is saying because you live in a society that is pedomenantly christian you will likely be a christian , had you been brought up in a society that was predomenantly muslim then it is likely you would be muslim and no matter witch of the two you would still of believed yourself correct. Its about the culture around you, it influances witch religion you would chose, if any.

Predispositions towards one's parents' beliefs increases the chances the one might be believe as their parents did, but it is not the reason one believes as their parents did--that's what I was getting at. Many will reject their parents' beliefs, even if their parents were atheists.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
i am new to the site, am

i am new to the site, am learning to take more care in the exact way i articulate my thoughts.  The people on this site are very diligent in their disecting your every word, and so for the most part they should be.  I sumed up what dawkings said in response to a question it was actually  something more along the lines of.

 

"It is by pure luck that you were born into a prodomonotly Judao Christian society and therefore hold that belief to be true.  If you were born in Denmark in the 1600s you would believe in thor, in ancient Greese Zeus and Apollo,  or ancient Africa The great JuJu up the mointain"

 

check it out at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

 

 

I simply used this well articualted clip to express my feelings that people who believe in a certain man-made religion over another man-made religion are just obsurd to me, because religions by nature all contradict eachother and say their all right, its sooooooo obviously rediculous!!!  I just cant for the life of me find how they get to this logic.  Like i always say, the belief in god in its purest form is one thing and should be discussed civily, the belief in obvious man-made religious doctrines full of rediculous/immoral teachings and believing you got it wright is an entirely other thing, one that doesnt require my respect.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:"It

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

"It is by pure luck that you were born into a prodomonotly Judao Christian society and therefore hold that belief to be true.  If you were born in Denmark in the 1600s you would believe in thor, in ancient Greese Zeus and Apollo,  or ancient Africa The great JuJu up the mointain" 

This is precisely what I was getting at as a fallacy. To say one is more likely to believe something because he or she is predisposed to something is not fallacious, but to say, as Dawkins does, that one believes a particular set of beliefs because one was born in a particular time and place is a genetic fallacy.

I could say, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..."

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

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Do explain why please and

Do explain why please and not just assert it as general fallacy and end your reply, i am new the the debate, and i am always looking to be enlightened.  I just cant see how it is a fallacy to state that if you were born in Denmark in times of Thor their is a massively larger chance than 1 in (however many religions their are) that you would have excepted Thor as your god.  This does not mean you would have for certain, but i cant see how you can argue that you wouldnt be more predisposed to the belief in Thor as apposed to Buddha if you lived in denmark in those times, id like to hear of a story of a Viking who reasearched Bhuddism and became a buddhist in his time.  I cant see that at all, so please enlighten me how the statement above is a fallacy?  


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
I could say, "It is by pure

wait now im confused


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
I could say, "It is by pure

I could say, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..."

 

 

What????

 

Now i must entirely disagree.  Athiesm has existed longer than religion, (before belief in a god their was no belief in a god) it has always been around.  Although religion has been around a long time it has taken countless forms and shapes that contradict eachother, athiesm has not changed a bit.  To say that your quote equals mine is rediculous.  Athiesm is simply the lack of belief in a diety, making athiesm the lack of belief in the hundreds if not thousands of religions that have existed.  In every coulture that has ever existed since the history or mankind one can only assume their has always been atleast 1 athiest in every group/city/culture that has ever existed, can you say the same about every religion in every country in all of history, WWWHHHAAATTT???.  How dare you compare being an athiest in any country ever, to lets say believing in Zeus in modern day Costa Rica.  Are you saying that if you were born before Christianity it is potentially possible to be a christian, or more reasonbly if a person were born in Ireland, you would put money an the fact they might turn out muslim?  I get your analogy although its that i consider to be false. 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Now i must entirely disagree. Athiesm has existed longer than religion, (before belief in a god their was no belief in a god) it has always been around. Although religion has been around a long time it has taken countless forms and shapes that contradict eachother, athiesm has not changed a bit. To say that your quote equals mine is rediculous. Athiesm is simply the lack of belief in a diety, making athiesm the lack of belief in the hundreds if not thousands of religions that have existed. In every coulture that has ever existed since the history or mankind one can only assume their has always been atleast 1 athiest in every group/city/culture that has ever existed, can you say the same about every religion in every country in all of history, WWWHHHAAATTT???. How dare you compare being an athiest in any country ever, to lets say believing in Zeus in modern day Costa Rica. Are you saying that if you were born before Christianity it is potentially possible to be a christian, or more reasonbly if a person were born in Ireland, you would put money an the fact they might turn out muslim? I get your analogy although its that i consider to be false.

I was contending that both my statement,  "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..." and Dawkins' statement are both fallacious.

It is not the same things to say, "If one is born in a Christian nation, then one is likely to be a Christian" and "One is a Christian because he or she was born in a Christian nation." Do you see the difference? The latter is the fallacy. Substitute any ideology for "Christian"

"If one is born in an atheist nation, then one is likely to be a atheist" and "One is a atheist because he or she was born in an atheist nation."

"If one is born in a communist nation, then one is likely to be a communist" and "One is a communist because he or she was born in a communist nation."

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Tapey

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Tapey wrote:

I will agree some atheists are atheists because there parents were. that is part of the argument really... but I supose many atheists have been theists at some point or were not brought up by atheists. etc.  It is not saying because your parentd were this you are this. It is saying because you live in a society that is pedomenantly christian you will likely be a christian , had you been brought up in a society that was predomenantly muslim then it is likely you would be muslim and no matter witch of the two you would still of believed yourself correct. Its about the culture around you, it influances witch religion you would chose, if any.

Predispositions towards one's parents' beliefs increases the chances the one might be believe as their parents did, but it is not the reason one believes as their parents did--that's what I was getting at. Many will reject their parents' beliefs, even if their parents were atheists.

I 100% agree, because someones parents believe something isn't the reason for the child believing it, except at a young age i suspect. Thats why I find it is better to refer to the culture you have been exposed to. While it is not impossible for someone who grew up and lives in a christian nation and neighbourhood to not be christian but rather muslim it is far less likely then them chosing christianity if they decided to believe in god. I mean if any of you have been theists before why did you chose that religion? Im sure you felt at the time that it is beacuse you just felt it or somthing but looking back im sure you can see that isnt the case. i think this must be what Dawkins means (never heard him saying this stuff though) so i cannot be sure.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
i believe i get it now, all

i believe i get it now, all you are saying is that at birth, the mind is free and it makes no difference where you are born or at what time, at that moment you are predisposed to nothing untill further knowledge is taught to you by the coulture..  Ok, gotcha.  I have no problem agreeing with that, my problem is that you pickked the smallest insignificant little minute point to argue about my statement, which you can really only argue by picking apart my sentenced to find where i perhaps could have used a better, or a certain way it was phrased may indicate i was saying what you think, you know i wasn't, you know the issue i put forth is still true, and thats the real issue not pointing out a small insigficant fallacy that really doesnt have much to do with the big picture of what i said anyways.  If you were just trying to enlighten me, ok fallacy noted.  But if this was your actual argument to my statement im deeply dissapointed.    Like if a said theirs a bomb headed you way, and your response was, "what colour is it" as if that has anything to due with the relevance or power of the bomb itself.  But indeed, fallacy noted.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
i believe i get it now, all

i believe i get it now, all you are saying is that at birth, the mind is free and it makes no difference where you are born or at what time, at that moment you are predisposed to nothing untill further knowledge is taught to you by the coulture..  Ok, gotcha.  I have no problem agreeing with that, my problem is that you pickked the smallest insignificant little minute point to argue about my statement, which you can really only argue by picking apart my sentenced to find where i perhaps could have used a better, or a certain way it was phrased may indicate i was saying what you think, you know i wasn't, you know the issue i put forth is still true, and thats the real issue not pointing out a small insigficant fallacy that really doesnt have much to do with the big picture of what i said anyways.  If you were just trying to enlighten me, ok fallacy noted.  But if this was your actual argument to my statement im deeply dissapointed.    Like if a said theirs a bomb headed you way, and your response was, "what colour is it" as if that has anything to due with the relevance or power of the bomb itself.  But indeed, fallacy noted.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:i

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

i believe i get it now, all you are saying is that at birth, the mind is free and it makes no difference where you are born or at what time, at that moment you are predisposed to nothing untill further knowledge is taught to you by the coulture..  Ok, gotcha.  I have no problem agreeing with that, my problem is that you pickked the smallest insignificant little minute point to argue about my statement, which you can really only argue by picking apart my sentenced to find where i perhaps could have used a better, or a certain way it was phrased may indicate i was saying what you think, you know i wasn't, you know the issue i put forth is still true, and thats the real issue not pointing out a small insigficant fallacy that really doesnt have much to do with the big picture of what i said anyways.  If you were just trying to enlighten me, ok fallacy noted.  But if this was your actual argument to my statement im deeply dissapointed.    Like if a said theirs a bomb headed you way, and your response was, "what colour is it" as if that has anything to due with the relevance or power of the bomb itself.  But indeed, fallacy noted.

 

Precision is important when one is discussing things, and I'm guilty as anyone of not being clear. I'm of the sort that will spend more time defining what I am talking about then actually arguing my point...at least I hope I do this.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:i

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

i believe i get it now, all you are saying is that at birth, the mind is free and it makes no difference where you are born or at what time, at that moment you are predisposed to nothing untill further knowledge is taught to you by the coulture..  Ok, gotcha.  I have no problem agreeing with that, my problem is that you pickked the smallest insignificant little minute point to argue about my statement, which you can really only argue by picking apart my sentenced to find where i perhaps could have used a better, or a certain way it was phrased may indicate i was saying what you think, you know i wasn't, you know the issue i put forth is still true, and thats the real issue not pointing out a small insigficant fallacy that really doesnt have much to do with the big picture of what i said anyways.  If you were just trying to enlighten me, ok fallacy noted.  But if this was your actual argument to my statement im deeply dissapointed.    Like if a said theirs a bomb headed you way, and your response was, "what colour is it" as if that has anything to due with the relevance or power of the bomb itself.  But indeed, fallacy noted.

 

Precision is important when one is discussing things, and I'm guilty as anyone of not being clear. I'm of the sort that will spend more time defining what I am talking about then actually arguing my point...at least I hope I do this.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:i

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

i believe i get it now, all you are saying is that at birth, the mind is free and it makes no difference where you are born or at what time, at that moment you are predisposed to nothing untill further knowledge is taught to you by the coulture..  Ok, gotcha.  I have no problem agreeing with that, my problem is that you pickked the smallest insignificant little minute point to argue about my statement, which you can really only argue by picking apart my sentenced to find where i perhaps could have used a better, or a certain way it was phrased may indicate i was saying what you think, you know i wasn't, you know the issue i put forth is still true, and thats the real issue not pointing out a small insigficant fallacy that really doesnt have much to do with the big picture of what i said anyways.  If you were just trying to enlighten me, ok fallacy noted.  But if this was your actual argument to my statement im deeply dissapointed.    Like if a said theirs a bomb headed you way, and your response was, "what colour is it" as if that has anything to due with the relevance or power of the bomb itself.  But indeed, fallacy noted.

 

All he is saying is that if you use absolute statements in your language then pedantic debaters will call you on it and cost you valuable time arguing semantics.  For an example, look at this very thread Smiling

Your point, and Dawkins point, is still valid and he is not disagreeing with you.  Religion is not 'special', it is just like any other social idea or philosophy.  All Dawkins does is show the absurdity of treating religious thought like it is somehow unique.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
I don't think the nature of

I don't think the nature of the genetic fallacy has been properly elucidated in this thread.

First, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy. This may sound trivial, but it's in fact extremely important because far too many people forget that only arguments can be fallacious, *by definition*. So, if X isn't an argument, X can't be fallacious (in the sense of committing such and such a fallacy). So, to use a common example, an insult during a debate is not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy *unless* it's part of an argument.

Second, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy of relevance. How I acquired a belief has no bearing on the truth or falsity of that belief. In other words, the genetic fallacy involves judging one's history (you believe X because you were raised in a nation where belief in X is predominant) or one's psychology (you only believe X because you fear what non-X entails) or one's source (you believe X because S told you X, and X is unreliable) to be dispositive with respect to a belief's truth value. You may indeed be able to explain how I acquired a belief, but by doing so you haven't said anything about whether my belief is true or false.

One caveat: The origin of a claim isn't always irrelevant if we're considering whether it should count as *evidence* for a claim (as opposed to considering whether it's *dispositive*, i.e. whether it determines the truth or falsity of the issue, which is where the fallacy is committed). For example, if S is known to be highly unreliable, I do have grounds for doubting S's claims, but I don't have good grounds, based on S's unreliability alone, for concluding that S's claims are false.

So, the genetic fallacy is committed when one argues from the origin or source of a belief to its truth or falsity, i.e. when one confuses why one believes X to be true or false with why X is true or false.

Edejardin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:I don't

edejardin wrote:
I don't think the nature of the genetic fallacy has been properly elucidated in this thread. First, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy. This may sound trivial, but it's in fact extremely important because far too many people forget that only arguments can be fallacious, *by definition*. So, if X isn't an argument, X can't be fallacious (in the sense of committing such and such a fallacy). So, to use a common example, an insult during a debate is not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy *unless* it's part of an argument. Second, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy of relevance. How I acquired a belief has no bearing on the truth or falsity of that belief. In other words, the genetic fallacy involves judging one's history (you believe X because you were raised in a nation where belief in X is predominant) or one's psychology (you only believe X because you fear what non-X entails) or one's source (you believe X because S told you X, and X is unreliable) to be dispositive with respect to a belief's truth value. You may indeed be able to explain how I acquired a belief, but by doing so you haven't said anything about whether my belief is true or false. One caveat: The origin of a claim isn't always irrelevant if we're considering whether it should count as *evidence* for a claim (as opposed to considering whether it's *dispositive*, i.e. whether it determines the truth or falsity of the issue, which is where the fallacy is committed). For example, if S is known to be highly unreliable, I do have grounds for doubting S's claims, but I don't have good grounds, based on S's unreliability alone, for concluding that S's claims are false. So, the genetic fallacy is committed when one argues from the origin or source of a belief to its truth or falsity, i.e. when one confuses why one believes X to be true or false with why X is true or false.

 

The point is not to directly prove theism is wrong, it is to demonstrate that it is just another viral meme.  Many theists think that they believe what they believe because it is big T "Truth" and these examples show that, statistically, religious ideas are inherited through family and social groups regardless of what the actual validity of belief is.  If religion was a matter of a genuine informed choice, theistic strains would not be so geographically localized.

Is that always the case?  Of course not, I left theism after being raised in a very religious environment.  But for the majority it does apply and that can be shown empirically.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"The point is not to

"The point is not to directly prove theism is wrong, it is to demonstrate that it is just another viral meme."

If this is the point, then there is no fallacy. But I fail to see how this could be the point, for the simple reason that it does no work in this thread. That is, it's a point without a point. Could you tell me how this advances the discussion if it's not meant to provide an undercutting defeater for theism? After all, one could make the same point about memes: there's this viral 'meme' meme, and it has a rather clearly delineated line of descent from Semon to Dawkins to readers of "The Selfish Gene" and so on. However, if I leave it at that, I've done nothing but provide a way of thinking about how ideas are transmitted. Now, since the issue of how religious beliefs originate was raised in a thread titled, "Oh silly theists, don't you see the big picture?" I think one is justified in concluding that it wasn't raised to discuss how we can think about the spread of ideas, but about whether the ideas so spread are true/false, justified/unjustified, etc.

Edejardin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

"It is by pure luck that you were born into a prodomonotly Judao Christian society and therefore hold that belief to be true.  If you were born in Denmark in the 1600s you would believe in thor, in ancient Greese Zeus and Apollo,  or ancient Africa The great JuJu up the mointain" 

This is precisely what I was getting at as a fallacy. To say one is more likely to believe something because he or she is predisposed to something is not fallacious, but to say, as Dawkins does, that one believes a particular set of beliefs because one was born in a particular time and place is a genetic fallacy.

I could say, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..."

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

 

Dawkins hasn't commited a genetic fallacy in that clip. As edejardin has already explained a genetic fallacy is a fallacy of relevence concerning the truth value of a claim, because the epistemic justification for a belief and its truth are unrelated. It takes the form:

   X is believed for non-justifying reasons.
   therefore, X is false.

Dawkins was attempting to show the irrelevance of a question that was asked which was "What if you're wrong?" by pointing out that we could be wrong about lots of other gods and we're not exactly losing any sleep over it. But he doesn't say anything that approaches "Religious beliefs are a result of cultural indoctrination therefore they are false".
 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
The point was when someone

The point was when someone claims their religion as true over all others it seems  completely rediculous to the rationally minded given the fact all theist seems to think they are representing the true faith and others are false. We can then  only conclude they are all wrong and claiming truth is flamboyantly arrogant, and an asserion of a metally less aware person given all the religions contradicting eachother in the world.  Thats it.  We can cut it up into a bunch of small discussions, but thats the pont.  The Dawkins quote was just used to illustrate what i feel is the absurdity of claiming truth in the religion you are most prodomenantly surronded by (not like claiming any other would have been any better), it may be "fallacious", but its still true, i dont care how much you slice it up. 


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"The point was when someone

"The point was when someone claims their religion as true over all others it seems completely rediculous to the rationally minded given the fact all theist seems to think they are representing the true faith and others are false."

So, you mean it's ridiculous to believe that P if others believe not-P? Hmm, given this reasoning, you must not be an atheist -- or an advocate for democracy, women's rights, an opponent of racism, etc. In fact, you must not hold anything at all to be true.

"We can then only conclude they are all wrong"

Now that's a whopping non sequitur. Can you see why?

"and claiming truth is flamboyantly arrogant, and an asserion of a metally less aware person given all the religions contradicting eachother in the world. Thats it."

Are all truth claims arrogant, or only religious ones? Aren't you making a truth claim here -- "claiming truth is flamboyantly arrogant...given all the religions contradicting each other in the world." -- that not everyone would agree with? Does that make you flamboyantly arrogant?

Edejardin


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:ubuntuAnyone

Gauche wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I could say, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..."

Dawkins was attempting to show the irrelevance of a question that was asked which was "What if you're wrong?" by pointing out that we could be wrong about lots of other gods and we're not exactly losing any sleep over it. But he doesn't say anything that approaches "Religious beliefs are a result of cultural indoctrination therefore they are false".

His answer was the many-gods objection to Pascal's Wager.

Per his statement that NoMoreCrazyPeople highlighted, I think he does. He's saying that, "you believe x because your were brought in a culture that believes x." the reasons for one's beliefs then, have to do with their culture of origin, not the content of their beleifs. That's why I think it is a fallacy. As I said, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..." If this is true, such atheists would not be atheists on the grounds of rational rejection of theism.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:The

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
The point was when someone claims their religion as true over all others it seems  completely rediculous to the rationally minded given the fact all theist seems to think they are representing the true faith and others are false. We can then only conclude they are all wrong and claiming truth is flamboyantly arrogant, and an asserion of a metally less aware person given all the religions contradicting eachother in the world.

If all religions are mutually exclusive, then at most, only one can be correct. They are not necessarily all wrong.

How is claiming truth "flamboyantly arrogant?" I could claim that the Earth revolves around the sun. It wouldn't mean that I'm arrogant, merely that this is the conclusion I have reached. Do you mean that assuming your belief system is true based on faith is arrogant? That would certainly be intellectually bankrupt, but I'm not sure if that's necessarily arrogant either; it could be. 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Thats it.  We can cut it up into a bunch of small discussions, but thats the pont.  The Dawkins quote was just used to illustrate what i feel is the absurdity of claiming truth in the religion you are most prodomenantly surronded by (not like claiming any other would have been any better), it may be "fallacious", but its still true, i dont care how much you slice it up. 

Well, it's only fallacious if we turn it into some kind of deductive argument. I mean, we can't say, this person believes X; this person's parents believe X; therefore, this person is simply following his/her parents; therefore, this person is a sheep; therefore, this person is wrong.

Edit: The individual's parents might be an important factor in many cases or even most cases, but certainly not every single time. Every situation is unique and complex. 

However, it is an interesting concept that people should think about. It shows that the vast majority of people aren't nearly as open-minded as they think they are, but are simply following familiar beliefs and cultures. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The point is

mellestad wrote:

The point is not to directly prove theism is wrong, it is to demonstrate that it is just another viral meme...If religion was a matter of a genuine informed choice, theistic strains would not be so geographically localized.

There is a strong correlation between one's beliefs and one's culture's beliefs, but this does not mean that one beleives something because their culture believes it. Even atheism is strongly localized. If this is the case, then it too would be "just another viral meme".

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:His

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

His answer was the many-gods objection to Pascal's Wager.

Per his statement that NoMoreCrazyPeople highlighted, I think he does. He's saying that, "you believe x because your were brought in a culture that believes x." the reasons for one's beliefs then, have to do with their culture of origin, not the content of their beleifs. That's why I think it is a fallacy. As I said, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..." If this is true, such atheists would not be atheists on the grounds of rational rejection of theism.

 

My problem with evoking the genetic fallacy in that broader sense is that I can say that there's not a connection between the epistemic justification for a claim and it's veracity; clearly there are disconfirming instances. People believe things that are true without justification sometimes.

But I can't say there are no connections between any aspect of the nature of a thing and its origins in any sense. When you extend it out that far it doesn't work so well and you see that in many cases the reasoning is actually appropriate.

I think we can be pretty comfortable assuming that it's a position a little more nuanced than "you believe x because your were brought in a culture that believes x." There were other people in the room who were brought up in the same culture who didn't believe x.

It seems pretty obvious that there are some cultural influences at play here and to say that people are subject to the cultural influences in the region in which they reside is not any kind of fallacy that I'm aware of.
 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:mellestad

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

mellestad wrote:

The point is not to directly prove theism is wrong, it is to demonstrate that it is just another viral meme...If religion was a matter of a genuine informed choice, theistic strains would not be so geographically localized.

There is a strong correlation between one's beliefs and one's culture's beliefs, but this does not mean that one beleives something because their culture believes it. Even atheism is strongly localized. If this is the case, then it too would be "just another viral meme".

 

Yes, it is just another viral meme to many people (See China).  Human ideas do not arise in a vacuum, that is the point.  Environments are typically where people get their ideas from.  I fully accept that strong atheism is no different from theism in that regard, assuming the human making the choice is aware of the theistic alternatives and at some point considers theism a valid alternative.  There is a somewhat important difference though, since atheism obviously is the rejection of belief.  However, most cultures are so steeped in religion that I won't argue the premise for the sake of this discussion.

Once we accept that all these ideas are on equal footing we can debate them on their merits, free from the assumption that a particular dogma is true by default, no matter how irrational it may be.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:So, you mean

edejardin wrote:

So, you mean it's ridiculous to believe that P if others believe not-P? Hmm, given this reasoning, you must not be an atheist -- or an advocate for democracy, women's rights, an opponent of racism, etc. In fact, you must not hold anything at all to be true.

Hmmm, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!  These are terrible comparissons.  Ok 1)-Atheism is not a belief, it is not just another choice of religion, it is the lack of a choice of religion, and the lack of a belief in any god.  2)-Democracy, someone who supports democracy does not believe that everyone who doesn't is not going to enjoy the same eternal life as them.  I can go on and on about how terrible these comparisions are.  Also none of these things you mentioned envolk faith, or belief in invisible deities.  I mean these comparisons are way off, next!  

edejardin wrote:
 

" Are all truth claims arrogant, or only religious ones? Aren't you making a truth claim here-- "claiming truth is flamboyantly arrogant...given all the religions contradicting each other in the world." -- that not everyone would agree with? Does that make you flamboyantly arrogant?

The terrible comparison king strikes again.  Claiming truth in something it is impossible to prove (like your god) is flamboyantly arrogant, claiming the sky is blue is not, it is proovable by scientific method.  Claiming you have a special connection with god when others in other religions who believe just as much as you dont is flamboyantly arrogant.  Claiming absolute truth that can be proven is NOt arrogant.

Nice try though!!!   


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:My problem with

Gauche wrote:

My problem with evoking the genetic fallacy in that broader sense is that I can say that there's not a connection between the epistemic justification for a claim and it's veracity; clearly there are disconfirming instances. People believe things that are true without justification sometimes.

But I can't say there are no connections between any aspect of the nature of a thing and its origins in any sense. When you extend it out that far it doesn't work so well and you see that in many cases the reasoning is actually appropriate.

I think we all believe some things without justification. But for whatever reason or lack thereof one gives for a particular belief, one cannot peg it on someone's place of origin. Only the adherent to the particular belief could say such things, such as "I'm a Chistian because my grandma was a Christian."

Gauche wrote:

I think we can be pretty comfortable assuming that it's a position a little more nuanced than "you believe x because your were brought in a culture that believes x." There were other people in the room who were brought up in the same culture who didn't believe x.

It seems pretty obvious that there are some cultural influences at play here and to say that people are subject to the cultural influences in the region in which they reside is not any kind of fallacy that I'm aware of.

Sure, that's what I was getting at by saying, "It is likely that a person brought up in a culture that believes X will believe X." But this does not assert the cultural beliefs as the epistemic mode of justification, which is why I do not think it is a fallacy.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:How is

butterbattle wrote:

How is claiming truth "flamboyantly arrogant?" I could claim that the Earth revolves around the sun. It wouldn't mean that I'm arrogant,

Oh no, another terrible comparison, but wait theres more!!!

butterbattle wrote:

 

 Do you mean that assuming your belief system is true based on faith is arrogant? That would certainly be intellectually bankrupt, but I'm not sure if that's necessarily arrogant either; it could be. 

Ofcoarse i ment truth based on faith, were talking about religion here not biology, the statement is "I have found the right faith/god and im going to heaven and your not", the statement isn't "Both dobermans and pitbulls are in the k-9 family".  2 people on this thread have compared claiming absolute truth in a religion to claiming absolute truth in something proovable (earths rotation around the sun), bad form.  Believing you are part of some "chosen" group (no proof) that is in gods (no proof of god) good graces (no proof), and that all other people are not (no proof) is pure arrogance. 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I think

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I think we all believe some things without justification. But for whatever reason or lack thereof one gives for a particular belief, one cannot peg it on someone's place of origin. Only the adherent to the particular belief could say such things, such as "I'm a Chistian because my grandma was a Christian."

Well, a person's place of origin tells you what cultural influences they were likely exposed to. The cultural influences they were exposed to play a major part in the formation of their beliefs. So I think the connection is rather clear and uncontroversial.

 

Quote:

Sure, that's what I was getting at by saying, "It is likely that a person brought up in a culture that believes X will believe X." But this does not assert the cultural beliefs as the epistemic mode of justification, which is why I do not think it is a fallacy.

The genetic fallacy in the form that I stated it is a fallacy because the cause of my belief has no bearing on the truth of my belief. I could believe that the seasons will change because of the earth's proximity to the sun in its elliptical orbit. My belief that the seasons will change would be true but not justified.

What you're saying is entirely different. You're saying that your place of origin doesn't determine your beliefs. Which is obviously the case or else everyone in a particular region would have the same beliefs. But it's not true that your place of origin has no bearing on your beliefs. As I said using the term in that broader sense of inferring something about the nature of some topic based on its origins, you experience the problem that many times the reasoning is actually appropriate. On ask.com they give the example of using the make of an automobile as an indicator of its likely quality.

You can actually have the last word on that I don't think I want to have too long of a discussion about what constitutes a fallacy and probably you don't either.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Well, a

Gauche wrote:



Well, a person's place of origin tells you what cultural influences they were likely exposed to. The cultural influences they were exposed to play a major part in the formation of their beliefs. So I think the connection is rather clear and uncontroversial.





Sure. No contest on that. The distinction I was making was saying that person believes a certain way because they were born in some culture, which is not the same thing.



Gauche wrote:



What you're saying is entirely different. You're saying that your place of origin doesn't determine your beliefs. Which is obviously the case or else everyone in a particular region would have the same beliefs. But it's not true that your place of origin has no bearing on your beliefs. As I said using the term in that broader sense of inferring something about the nature of some topic based on its origins, you experience the problem that many times the reasoning is actually appropriate. On ask.com they give the example of using the make of an automobile as an indicator of its likely quality.





As I stated, I was getting at cause. I'm not contesting that common cultural beliefs do not influence one's beliefs. In Central America, one will probably affirm Christianity, but this is not necessarily because he was born there. He may believe because he thinks the claims of Christ are true, but at the same time, he may have never heard of the JuJu on the mountain. He very well could have rejected the claims of Christ and started a quest to find something more tenable. If one day he did hear of the JuJu and found such truth claims to be more compelling than his Christian beliefs, he may change his beliefs. His reasons for his beliefs have to do with the content of the truth claims, not the fact that he was born in a particular culture.


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Hmmm, NOT EVEN

"Hmmm, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!"

Really? Let's look at what you said:

"The point was when someone claims their religion as true over all others it seems completely rediculous to the rationally minded *given the fact* all theist seems to think they are representing the true faith and others are false."

The logic of this is clear: if you believe that P while others believe not-P, you're ridiculous. You *now* want to qualify your thesis, so that:

(1) It's ridiculous to believe that P if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) that belief is faith based, (b) you claim that others with similarly faith based beliefs hold false beliefs, and (c) your belief entails negative consequences for those who don't accept it.

Wow. That's even less sensible than your first claim. At least your first claim invoked a real problem, viz. contradiction. So, how precisely is (1) ridiculous? (Of course, I could go on to explain that you've presented irrelevant dis-analogies, that you obviously have no idea what the term 'faith' means, that you have no idea about the role of arguments and evidence in various faith traditions, etc. but I won't.)

"Claiming truth in something it is impossible to prove (like your god) is flamboyantly arrogant, claiming the sky is blue is not, it is proovable by scientific method."

First, please prove to me that the sky is blue using the scientific method. This claim betrays an appalling ignorance of science (and philosophy: cf. 'inverted qualia'), and is made all the more so given your persistent declarations of your own rationality. Further, I could name a number of things you undoubtedly believe to be true that you could never prove -- indeed, that you could never even in principle provide a scrap or evidence for. Again, your ignorance of the basics of the debate is appalling. You must tone down the "Look at me, I'm so rational, you stupid theists" nonsense and take the time to inform yourself; you haven't earned the right to be arrogant.

"Claiming you have a special connection with god when others in other religions who believe just as much as you dont is flamboyantly arrogant."

Why? Since when is the intensity of a belief even relevant to its truth value? You believe strongly that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists, right? Well, others believe just as strongly that there are good reasons to believe that god exists. Are you therefore arrogant for holding a belief you no doubt can't prove? Or would you claim to have a proof that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists? Hint: it's no proof to claim that you haven't yet seen any good reasons. At one time no one had ever seen a non-white swan; it didn't follow that there were no non-white swans (as we learned when we saw black swans in Australia). So, either concede your arrogance or provide your proof.

"Claiming absolute truth that can be proven is NOt arrogant."

Would you say it's arrogant to claim truths that cannot be proven? If P is true, it's not arrogant to claim that P, whether one can prove it or not. For example, let's say you're accused of a crime for which you have no alibi, and for which you had a motive. Further, let's assume that all the available evidence pointed to you. However, you're innocent. You know this because you were taking a walk, in the vicinity of the crime scene, when the crime was committed. Now, all the evidence is against you, and you cannot prove that you're innocent, even though you are. Would it be arrogant of you to speak the truth -- "I'm innocent" -- even though you can't prove it? Of course not.

Edejardin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:that you

edejardin wrote:
that you obviously have no idea what the term 'faith' means,

Hmmm, I define faith as belief without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. How are you defining it?

edejardin wrote:
First, please prove to me that the sky is blue using the scientific method. This claim betrays an appalling ignorance of science (and philosophy: cf. 'inverted qualia'), and is made all the more so given your persistent declarations of your own rationality.

Well...it's too ambiguous and subjective, but if we attach qualifiers and definitions to it, then we could 'prove' it in the colloquial sense. We could say that the light from the sky often has a wavelength between 450 and 495 nm. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"I define faith as belief

"I define faith as belief without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. How are you defining it?"

This is one of the most prevalent misconceptions among atheists. Before I provide a definition, I'll make a few quick points:

(1) Faith is a way of knowing. Its objects concern those beyond the reach of reason. But, since faith is a way of knowing, it cannot be reduced to 'belief without evidence,' for this is obviously no way to attain knowledge.

(2) Conclusions reached by faith cannot contradict truths attained by reason. Hence, again, faith cannot be identified with 'belief without evidence,' since there are all sorts of things I can believe without evidence that do contradict truths arrived at by reason.

(3) Since faith and reason differ, we cannot judge one by the criteria of the other, just as we cannot judge mathematical arguments by scientific criteria, though both lead to truths.

(4) Faith is consistent with belief without evidence, but it is not reducible to it, for (a) it is also consistent with belief on the basis of the evidence, and (b) faith cannot be explained in terms of belief alone, but requires other elements.

(5) The evidence that supports faith is almost always one of the following: (a) such that it, attained through reason, incontrovertibly points in the direction of the conclusion of faith, though it doesn't get you all the way there; (b) such that it provides reasons for trusting authority concerning issues you cannot verify (which is *not* an instance of the ad verecundiam fallacy, since it doesn't involve an appeal to *misplaced* authority; however, I'll certainly concede that appeals to legitimate authorities, though not at all fallacious, are also not the strongest forms of argument); and (c) it appeals to a pre-modernist conception of evidence, in which aesthetic and 'sense-of-life' considerations are more strongly weighted. (There are others, but these are the main categories, and will do for now.)

(6) A good way to think about the nature of faith is not in terms of assent to the truth of a proposition, but in terms of trusting another person. Often, you can only get to know another person by trusting him. What you come to know this way won't contradict any truths of reason. This trust involves belief, but is not reducible to it, since it also involves commitment, steadfastness, etc. This trust may be based on evidence, but it can also be based on no evidence at all. And so on. (Now, this analogy isn't perfect, of course; it's merely intended to serve as a simple example to illustrate some of the profound differences between faith as (educated) Christians understand the term, and faith as you've defined it.)

Now we can move on to a definition of faith. (I do not want to turn this thread into a "what is faith" or "does faith make sense" thread; I'm only answering your question about how I -- and most informed Christians -- define faith, and trying by way of this to show you how uninformed, simple minded and and inadequate Dawkins's definition is.)

Faith is defined by Aquinas as "the *act* of the *intellect* assenting to a *Divine truth* owing to the movement of the *will*, which is itself moved by the *grace of God*." There is *a lot* to unpack there, and I doubt that if I were to go through it (I'm not) most of it will be clear at first (especially if your theological background is such that you swallowed Dawkins's definition of faith!), but the important point is that faith so defined is obviously not antithetical to evidential support, and is not reducible to propositional belief. (Now, it's *also* consistent with belief without evidence, but this isn't relevant to our discussion, since it's not *reducible* to your definition; however, if you reflect upon it for a moment, you'll see that its consistency with both evidentialism and fideism makes the faith very democratic: it's accessible to the most learned among us, on intellectual grounds, *and* to the simplest among us, who may lack the capacity to understand philosophy and theology.) Indeed, Aquinas is most famous for his arguments for God's existence (which I have *never* seen a single atheist who is not a professional philosopher evince the slightest understanding of; in fact, few professional philosophers who don't specialize in the study of Aquinas understand them), arguments which would be pointless if faith were to be understood as you suggested.

So there's my mini essay on the definition of faith. All I hope to achieve by it is to disabuse you of the notion that faith is 'belief without evidence, or in spite of the evidence.'

"if we attach qualifiers and definitions to it, then we could 'prove' it in the colloquial sense. We could say that the light from the sky often has a wavelength between 450 and 495 nm."

I agree, but there is no reason to think that this is what NoMoreCrazyPeople meant. Do you honestly think he implicitly intended to distinguish between qualia and the wavelength of blue light on the electromagnetic spectrum?

Edejardin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"I define

edejardin wrote:
"I define faith as belief without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. How are you defining it?" This is one of the most prevalent misconceptions among atheists. Before I provide a definition, I'll make a few quick points: (1) Faith is a way of knowing. Its objects concern those beyond the reach of reason. But, since faith is a way of knowing, it cannot be reduced to 'belief without evidence,' for this is obviously no way to attain knowledge. (2) Conclusions reached by faith cannot contradict truths attained by reason. Hence, again, faith cannot be identified with 'belief without evidence,' since there are all sorts of things I can believe without evidence that do contradict truths arrived at by reason. (3) Since faith and reason differ, we cannot judge one by the criteria of the other, just as we cannot judge mathematical arguments by scientific criteria, though both lead to truths. (4) Faith is consistent with belief without evidence, but it is not reducible to it, for (a) it is also consistent with belief on the basis of the evidence, and (b) faith cannot be explained in terms of belief alone, but requires other elements. (5) The evidence that supports faith is almost always one of the following: (a) such that it, attained through reason, incontrovertibly points in the direction of the conclusion of faith, though it doesn't get you all the way there; (b) such that it provides reasons for trusting authority concerning issues you cannot verify (which is *not* an instance of the ad verecundiam fallacy, since it doesn't involve an appeal to *misplaced* authority; however, I'll certainly concede that appeals to legitimate authorities, though not at all fallacious, are also not the strongest forms of argument); and (c) it appeals to a pre-modernist conception of evidence, in which aesthetic and 'sense-of-life' considerations are more strongly weighted. (There are others, but these are the main categories, and will do for now.) (6) A good way to think about the nature of faith is not in terms of assent to the truth of a proposition, but in terms of trusting another person. Often, you can only get to know another person by trusting him. What you come to know this way won't contradict any truths of reason. This trust involves belief, but is not reducible to it, since it also involves commitment, steadfastness, etc. This trust may be based on evidence, but it can also be based on no evidence at all. And so on. (Now, this analogy isn't perfect, of course; it's merely intended to serve as a simple example to illustrate some of the profound differences between faith as (educated) Christians understand the term, and faith as you've defined it.) Now we can move on to a definition of faith. (I do not want to turn this thread into a "what is faith" or "does faith make sense" thread; I'm only answering your question about how I -- and most informed Christians -- define faith, and trying by way of this to show you how uninformed, simple minded and and inadequate Dawkins's definition is.) Faith is defined by Aquinas as "the *act* of the *intellect* assenting to a *Divine truth* owing to the movement of the *will*, which is itself moved by the *grace of God*." There is *a lot* to unpack there, and I doubt that if I were to go through it (I'm not) most of it will be clear at first (especially if your theological background is such that you swallowed Dawkins's definition of faith!), but the important point is that faith so defined is obviously not antithetical to evidential support, and is not reducible to propositional belief. (Now, it's *also* consistent with belief without evidence, but this isn't relevant to our discussion, since it's not *reducible* to your definition; however, if you reflect upon it for a moment, you'll see that its consistency with both evidentialism and fideism makes the faith very democratic: it's accessible to the most learned among us, on intellectual grounds, *and* to the simplest among us, who may lack the capacity to understand philosophy and theology.) Indeed, Aquinas is most famous for his arguments for God's existence (which I have *never* seen a single atheist who is not a professional philosopher evince the slightest understanding of; in fact, few professional philosophers who don't specialize in the study of Aquinas understand them), arguments which would be pointless if faith were to be understood as you suggested. So there's my mini essay on the definition of faith. All I hope to achieve by it is to disabuse you of the notion that faith is 'belief without evidence, or in spite of the evidence.' "if we attach qualifiers and definitions to it, then we could 'prove' it in the colloquial sense. We could say that the light from the sky often has a wavelength between 450 and 495 nm." I agree, but there is no reason to think that this is what NoMoreCrazyPeople meant. Do you honestly think he implicitly intended to distinguish between qualia and the wavelength of blue light on the electromagnetic spectrum?

  Is faith still legitimate for discerning truth if faith leads one not to Christianity, but to Islam ? 

Would you discount the utility of faith if it leads one to discover a non-christian "truth" ?   

  IOW, is your definition of faith/truth sectarian ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
As I said, I'm not going to

As I said, I'm not going to let everyone derail this thread and turn it into a "what is faith" thread. It suffices that my definition and explanation belies the simple minded 'belief without evidence' caricature.

However, I'll briefly respond.

"IOW, is your definition of faith/truth sectarian?"

I would've thought that the answer to this question is obvious, given the definition. Look at Aquinas's definition of faith again, and take note of some of the important -- indeed, essential -- theological elements. In this sense, of course it's sectarian. For example, it is inconsistent with non-theistic religions, is inconsistent with deism, and is inconsistent with, say, Islam's conception of grace.

As for your other questions, you must remember that faith cannot contradict a conclusion of reason. So, if you mean to ask whether faith can lead to a non-Christian truth that is consistent with reason, I'd have to ask, (1) *how* do you propose faith leads to this conclusion (a good test to see if you understood the definition), and (2) by a non-Christian truth, so you mean (a) a truth not taught by Christianity but that doesn't necessarily contradict any of the claims of Christianity (a literal rendering of 'non-Christian'), or (b) a truth not taught by Christianity that contradicts a claim of Christianity?

Edejardin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:All I hope

edejardin wrote:
All I hope to achieve by it is to disabuse you of the notion that faith is 'belief without evidence, or in spite of the evidence. 

Thanks for taking the time to write your mini-essay (no, I'm not being sarcastic), but no, you achieved no such thing.

Guess I'm either not "educated" or "simple" enough to get it.

People who claim faith contradict each other. Am I going to hell or not ? Depends on who I ask. But they all have faith.

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Faith is typically used in

Faith is typically used in the context of justifying belief in deity, or having faith that said deity has some sort of plan that makes sense in some context.

By your definition, this is useless...you cannot intellectually prove god, and you especially cannot inellectually prove a specific god, so most of your definitions are invalid to start with.

Your other examples are typical theist cop-outs.  Faith is about knowing that which we cannot know!  Sure, that makes sense.  If there is something that faith can 'prove' then it must manifest in the real world, if it manifests in the real world it can be studied within the context of reality.  You know, the invisible and non-existent often appear similar?

I am glad you listed the real justification of faith and theology though..."(c) it appeals to a pre-modernist conception of evidence, in which aesthetic and 'sense-of-life' considerations are more strongly weighted."  Ding-ding-ding-ding!  Faith is about justifying emotion, plain and simple.  I don't see how you have done anything to counter his definition of faith.

 

I did get a chuckle at your last point though...the teachings of Aquinas are just sooooo advanced that we poor, simple minded atheists cannot possible comprehend what he is saying.  After all, if we really did understand, we would agree with him!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Thanks for taking the time

"Thanks for taking the time to write your mini-essay (no, I'm not being sarcastic), but no, you achieved no such thing."

Of course I did. (1) Is a concept that involves much more than belief reducible to belief? No. (2) Is "belief without evidence" consistent with a concept that clearly allows belief premised on evidence? No. (3) If "belief without evidence" is consistent with holding beliefs that contradict truths of reason, then can a conception of faith that rests on the unity of truth be reduced to 'belief without evidence'? No. I could go on and on. Clearly, I've shown that they're not the same as a matter of simple logic. Think about it this way: If X can be identified with Y, then it follows that for every property P that X possesses, Y possesses those, and only those, properties. In this very post I opened with three properties that distinguish my definition from Dawkins's definition; hence, they cannot be the same. QED Again, this is a matter of simple logic.

Edejardin


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Faith is typically used in

"Faith is typically used in the context of *justifying* belief in deity"

It is? It's used to *justify* belief in a deity? By whom?

"you cannot intellectually prove god, and you especially cannot inellectually prove a specific god, so most of your definitions are invalid to start with."

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote if you think a necessary condition of faith is "intellectual proof."

"Faith is about knowing that which we cannot know!"

Um, where did I say that? Hint: knowing what cannot be known by way of reason is not the same as knowing what cannot be known. I hope the blatantly contradictory nature of the latter is apparent to you, and that the non-contradictory nature of the former isn't.

"I am glad you listed the real justification of faith and theology though..."(c) it appeals to a pre-modernist conception of evidence, in which aesthetic and 'sense-of-life' considerations are more strongly weighted." Ding-ding-ding-ding! Faith is about justifying emotion, plain and simple. I don't see how you have done anything to counter his definition of faith."

Wow, you do have a serious reading comprehension problem, now, don't you? I said rather clearly that that is *one* of the ways evidence is used to support faith -- one among three rather distinct examples I provided. Also, you're displaying an ignorance of modern science here. Have you never heard elegance and beauty -- aesthetic criteria -- appealed to by scientists as criteria by which to judge competing theories?

"I did get a chuckle at your last point though...the teachings of Aquinas are just sooooo advanced that we poor, simple minded atheists cannot possible comprehend what he is saying."

Prove to me that you understand Aquinas. Here are a couple of basic questions:

1. The first way is an analysis of motion in terms of potency and act. Explain “potency” and “act”, and explain what Aquinas is doing when he gives an account of motion that makes it neither an act as such nor a potency as such.

2. What does Aquinas mean by “to take away the first cause, is to take away intermediate causes”. How does this relate to Aquinas starting his proof by not arguing from efficient causes as such, but from the order of efficient causes?

Edejardin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:  As for

edejardin wrote:
  As for your other questions, you must remember that faith cannot contradict a conclusion of reason. So, if you mean to ask whether faith can lead to a non-Christian truth that is consistent with reason, I'd have to ask, (1) *how* do you propose faith leads to this conclusion (a good test to see if you understood the definition), and (2) by a non-Christian truth, so you mean (a) a truth not taught by Christianity but that doesn't necessarily contradict any of the claims of Christianity (a literal rendering of 'non-Christian'), or (b) a truth not taught by Christianity that contradicts a claim of Christianity?

    I mean an instance where Christianity itself is the conclusion, not a tangent. 

Seriously, no offense, but perhaps you should avoid over-analyzing a simple question and make an effort to answer them at face value. If you are really  unclear as to what I "mean" then go back and re-read my question; there was no attempt on my part to obfuscate.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

,...