Religion...Bitch slapped...
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:57
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 4 of 10
Quote:yes. They say : I believe as I believe and leave it at that.
Have you encountered serious religious believers who you would say aren't beset by "a snake's nest of contradictions"?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I hate to quibble on such a minor point, but philosophically speaking "belief" isn't holding an idea for which there is no evidence and despite knowledge to the contrary. Philosophically speaking, belief is the cognitive acceptance of some proposition as true. For instance, I believe that the world continues to exist when I have my eyes closed--and I could provide quite a good deal of evidence for that proposition via my other senses. I believe that 1 and 1 make 2 and that the Earth orbits the sun. All those things are beliefs of mine which are both supported by evidence and for which (as far as I know) no evidence exists to the contrary.
Also, I have to strenuously disagree that science is the only way to have true knowledge (although I can't really tell if that's your position). That line of thinking is a legacy of the Logical Positivism movement in philosophy, a movement that lost nearly all support over 50 years ago because it was entirely unsupportable philosophically. Claiming that science is the only path to real knowledge (which, again, I can't tell if you're asserting) is a stunning example of epistemological imperialism. It certainly seems to be the case that there are things that are accepted nearly unanimously as being true (e.g. the law of contradiction or the Uniformity Principle) which are not provable "scientifically."
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, it doesn’t. It does no injustice to belief or science. It’s just irks you because he holds a religious opinion you don’t agree with. So you follow him around on this board and attack his beliefs because you feel some need to change the way he believes. You want to purge him of his “contradictions” and force him to repent his “pseudoscience,” don’t you?
Originally posted by SignyM:
I added to my post above to detail those contradictions, but to try to make myself clear....
if Anti truly believes as s/he believes, then why attempt to rationalize those beliefs with some sort of pseudoscience? Anti's beliefs contradict the evidence, and endlessly trying to make the evidence conform to belief does injustice to both belief and to science.
Quote:Of course. As long as they keep their mouth shut you’re fine with them.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:yes. They say : I believe as I believe and leave it at that.
Have you encountered serious religious believers who you would say aren't beset by "a snake's nest of contradictions"?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:yes. They say : I believe as I believe and leave it at that.
Have you encountered serious religious believers who you would say aren't beset by "a snake's nest of contradictions"?
Is it the case, then, that such people ought not make any attempts to provide rational arguments for their beliefs? I'm trying to clearly see the difference between saying, "I believe as I believe" and leaving it at that, and what you take Anti to be doing.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Come on now Rue, Anti is having a hard enough time in this thread as it is without you misrepresenting his/her argument. I believe Anti was refering to after death, don't you think?"
Anti was claiming that the only consequences are enternal, supernatural ones. I was pointing out that there are completely natural (and eternal) consequences that don't involve (a) god(s). In other words, I was debating the claim. That's what a debate is about. Savvy?
***************************************************************
Only bland acceptance is allowed if you're Rue or SignyM.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"So you follow him around on this board and attack his beliefs"
WAIT ! Say it's not so ! SignyM debated religion in a thread about ---- gasp RELIGION. How simply awful.
***************************************************************
Only bland acceptance is allowed if you're Rue or SignyM.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anti was claiming that the only consequences are enternal, supernatural ones. I was pointing out that there are completely natural (and eternal) consequences that don't involve (a) god(s).
Claiming that actions have eternal consequences (as Anti did) is different than the claim that actions have only eternal consequences. Anti said, "Our actions have eternal consequences." This seems pretty clearly to be a claim of the first sort, not the second. Anti would have had to have said more than he did to make it a claim of the second type. I know you're keen on making Anti look like a fool, but the fact is that he didn't say anything about the question of whether or not human actions have temporal consequences. That wasn't his point. His point was that they have eternal ones. And the having of eternal consequences does not entail the not having of temporal ones. He didn't claim that actions have no temporal consequences, nor do his arguments (on my reading) suggest that he believes that. So unless you can justify that with something other than a false entailment, you're still going to be vulnerable to the charge of misrepresenting him.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"(He) didn't say anything about the question of whether or not human actions have temporal consequences" Actually, in a round-about way he did. What he said was that without eternal consequences there is no guide for human law - that it beomes a matter of whim and circumstance. What I was pointing out was that there are REAL consequences to actions that are unavoidable, and they can be a good guide to human action.
***************************************************************
Only bland acceptance is allowed if you are Rue or SignyM.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Is it the case, then, that such people ought not make any attempts to provide rational arguments for their beliefs? I'm trying to clearly see the difference between saying, "I believe as I believe" and leaving it at that, and what you take Anti to be doing.
Beliefs are not necessarily irrational because they may be internally consistent. (Irrational, definition: a. Not endowed with reason. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment)
The purview of science is "how": How did life being? How do electromagnetic waves propagate through space? But there are areas of thought and feeling where science has no insight: beauty, morality, purpose. Religion can provide insight where science cannot. But what Anti is doing is irrational. S/he is trying to ram religion and science together in areas where they are mutually exclusive.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes FINN, the method of science is to make the data fit the hypothesis. And the path of faith is an endless quest for proof.
and endlessly trying to make the evidence conform to belief does injustice to both belief and to science.= signy
No, it doesn’t. It does no injustice to belief or science= finn
Quote:I've had many interesting conversations with deeply religious people. We talk about morality, about the purpose of life, about the end-state that our differing beliefs will lead to. (Yes, science is based on assumptions. In addition, I have deeply held beliefs of my own. Funny that no one should think to ask me about them!) Strangely, we wind up agreeing on many things. On others, we agree to disagree.
As long as they keep their mouth shut you’re fine with them.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME