Religious Tolerance

[Danoff]

Since you have stated over and over that "you will no longer tolerate people's lack of logic, and their stupidity when it comes to religion", (or something along that line), please tell me, what is your "logical" thought when it comes to the universe?

That we don't know the answer to the question.

So why/how do you call people fools for believing in something?

First of all, I don't. Second of all, believing in something you have no rational reason to believe is silly. You'd think so if I worshiped the flying spaghetti monster, zeus, or Ra, why not Jesus?

Why do you find it necessary to use only one, specific form of reasoning to make all decisions?

I routinely make decisions on less than pure logical proof. I make decisions on less than inductive reasoning, or even much of anything. Sometimes I make decisions on emotion alone. Important decisions like... what to have for breakfast, or what to wear today.

Or do you really (pardon the pun) believe that everything needs to be proven by logic before it can be accepted?

Accepted, no. Believed? Absolutely. But logic isn't even ironclad, because we don't know that we live in a logical universe.

P.S. Who said I have faith? All I've said is that a belief in God is not necessarily unlogical. (I'll get into specifics later)

Not quite true. You've said that belief in God is logical. There's a difference.

Just because something cannot currently be dealt with by logic, does not make it un logical, does it? If there is no logical answer, is it automatically defaulted to un logical?

If there is no logic to support the conclusion, the conclusion is not logical (seems pretty simple to me).

There are plenty of things people use inductive reasoning for to believe in God, and it doesn't make them stupid, or irrational.

I use inductive reasoning every day and rely heavily on it. So why would I call someone stupid for using inductive reasoning? Only if you use inductive reasoning to obtain a conclusion that you consider to be absolute truth have you made a mistake.

And then their's the rules everybody appreciates, such as the ten commandments. almost everyone in the world supports most or all of these, regardless of race, religion, or any other factor.

My favorite commandment:

Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

In closing, it may seem to some people that religious people are "wackos" or "un sensible", or "irrational".

Who is calling them wackos? unsenible or even irrational? I called a belief irrational, and illogical - not a person. A person can have an irrational belief and still be a generally rational person.

 

[LewyMan]

This was sent to me on hotmail earlier, it's quite valid, I certainly agree with it....

Explanation
This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering ~ It's an explanation other people will understand.
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard
trimmed.

As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
"I don't believe that God exists." "Why do you say that?" asked the customer.. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to
realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the
customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkept.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he
said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist." "How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!" "No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."
"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

 

[Duke]

Cute little homily.

Please do explain, then, why there is pain and suffering among the faithful?

 

[livemusic]

Cute little homily.

Please do explain, then, why there is pain and suffering among the faithful?

My thoughts exactly, but I didn't think it was worth asking.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Cute little homily.

Please do explain, then, why there is pain and suffering among the faithful?

The only way for us to answer that is with adam eating the apple. Their woudn't have been pain and suffering. As of that moment the world was not and never going to be a pain free existance. Faithful or not thats just the way it is and it is up to us in returning to the place that is perfect. Its not that deep or technical but from the bible that's the only way for us to explain pain and suffering.

 

[Duke]

But if anybody who goes to the barber can get a haircut, why can't anyone faithful get access to the pain-free world?

 

[UnoMOTO]

You can....you just have to die to get there.

edit: SWIFT could give you a more in depth answer to this also.

 

[Duke]

Let me rephrase that:

If it's a matter of coming to Jesus and living a good life to overcome the Original Sin, why don't you get a pain-free life if you are successful at it?

Or are you falling back on the "no human is ever good enough" bit?

 

[UnoMOTO]

Let me rephrase that:

If it's a matter of coming to Jesus and living a good life to overcome the Original Sin, why don't you get a pain-free life if you are successful at it?

Or are you falling back on the "no human is ever good enough" bit?

Ok...in that case what is your definition of pain free? Just to make a broad stroke of my brush I would say that people with somekind of faith based life I see to be much happier and have less financial troubles. I would call being happy with life a measure of success. Pain-free just might be a term that is state of mind and not a condition. This is my general observation and exceptions may apply.

 

[Swift]

Let me rephrase that:

If it's a matter of coming to Jesus and living a good life to overcome the Original Sin, why don't you get a pain-free life if you are successful at it?

Or are you falling back on the "no human is ever good enough" bit?

Did Jesus live a pain free life? He had to see his earthly father die, Mother treated poorly, brothers not follow him and of course the whole crucification thing.

I can show you lots of scriptures that talk about the rain falling on the just and unjust. However, Jesus did come to give us life and life more abundantly. So, take that for what you will.

 

[Danoff]

While the notion that life on earth is not just - that even the faithful live tragic lives - does not refute the existance of a god (or even the Christian god), it does completely demolish LewyMan's "cute little homily".


Edit: Basically, there are better ways for the faithful to explain earthly suffering.

 

[Duke]

While the notion that life on earth is not just - that even the faithful live tragic lives - does not refute the existance of a god (or even the Christian god), it does completely demolish LewyMan's "cute little homily".

This is what I was getting at.

 

[UnoMOTO]

The bible from nearly the begining does tell us that are earthly life is going to be hard and painful sometimes. LewyMan's comments shouldn't be taken as some sort of argument for the existance of god, It was ment as a thought provoker. It was about observation and how wrong you can be with it. It showed that the barbers logic wasn't correct. Am I getting that part right danoff? A-man with long hair, B-no barbers = false logic

 

[Danoff]

Am I getting that part right danoff? A-man with long hair, B-no barbers = false logic

Yea that part is wrong. But this part:

That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.

...is also very easily defeated.

 

[LewyMan]

Everyone, please note that I did not write this up, someone sent it to me, and I simply thought it was an interesting topic/debate/argument. Also, I am definately not a good debater, but I will try my best to answer what I can.
I am not devout, but I'm certainly not an atheist.

 

[Deathclown66]

Sorry it is NOT the same psychology.

Confronted with the statement "We don't know exactly how X happened...", a logical/rational/scientific person says, "...yet!" A religious/nonlogical person says "...and we can't know, because God did it, and He works in mysterious ways!"

That's a pretty findamental difference in psychology: one type of person accepts some risk of 'not knowing' in exchange for relying on natural explanations. The other type of person eliminates all risk of 'not knowing' at the cost of unilaterally answering the question with a supernatural explanation and defining it as 'unknowable'.

I never said that the belief in a god is the same psychology as believing that we don't know the origins of the universe.

I said: The psychology behind the radical muslims actions in the middle east are the same as yours would be if you went to war over noblemen claiming rights to have sex with all new brides.
because you believe that rape is wrong.

let me ask you. why is murder wrong, from a non-religious standpoint?
human rights? why do humans have rights? what grants these rights?
How about murder? is murder wrong? what gives anyone the "right" to live?
the 5-year old with AIDS has no "right" to live, what makes the disease free have the "right"?


@-Swift - A belief in God is not faith if one determines that the evidence they see in day-to-day life is enough to prove it.


@-Danoff -
A. = you Know that your parents will not lie to you.
B. = you Know that they Know the Bible is correct and true.
C. = you Know that the Bible is correct and true.

A logical belief in God.

That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.

...is also very easily defeated.

Is this an implication that if everyone followed the bible the world would still suffer?
Or is it a statment that death happens, proving that God would never end suffering?

 

[Sage]

let me ask you. why is murder wrong, from a non-religious standpoint?
human rights? why do humans have rights? what grants these rights?
How about murder? is murder wrong? what gives anyone the "right" to live?

Social Contract.

 

[Zrow]

the 5-year old with AIDS has no "right" to live,

Quick question - who says this?

 

[ledhed]

This is for the spelling nazis and is totally off topic ...but I can actually read this so it could be a miracle..

And that would be on topic..

Ask God he will say it is so .

Cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs rpsoet it.


Strange..isn't it? =)

 

[livemusic]

lol

 

[UnoMOTO]

Leave it to lehed to come up with that. How many adult beverages did you consume before kicking that one out?👍

 

[Danoff]

let me ask you. why is murder wrong, from a non-religious standpoint?
human rights? why do humans have rights? what grants these rights?
How about murder? is murder wrong? what gives anyone the "right" to live?
the 5-year old with AIDS has no "right" to live, what makes the disease free have the "right"?

If you examine the reason why humans have rights and animals do not, you'll understand the answer to that question. We have a thread on it started by yours truly where Swift proved that human rights exist independent of religion.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77925&highlight=Human+rights

@-Danoff -
A. = you Know that your parents will not lie to you.
B. = you Know that they Know the Bible is correct and true.
C. = you Know that the Bible is correct and true.

A logical belief in God.

My parents lie to me all the time. They also misjudge when others are lying to them, so they might not have known when their parents were lying to them. More importantly, people get convinced of God by coincidence in their lives and emotions. These things aren't proof, but they can prompt someone to think they know the truth and pass it on to their kids. So they may not be purposefully lying.

Furthermore, how do you know your parents would not lie to you (intentionally or otherwise)? Inductive reasoning. How do THEY know that the bible is true? Similar logic?

To continue our destruction of your (weak) point. Let's consider Jewish children? How about muslim children? What about Hindu children? Or Atheist children? Their parents would surely not lie to them right? It's not that Jewish people eventually figure out that Judaism is false and just figure they'll lie to their kids because they were lied to...

Your premises (A and B) are false, and so your conclusion (C) is false.

 

[///M-Spec]

1. I did not present a false dilemma, I stated that Logic will only take you as far as your knowledge.
2. I did not claim only a certain amount of choices, I claimed a certain amount of knowledge.
3. I never once "attacked logical reasoning" in any way, shape, or form.

Care to show where I did? Or are you just blowing smoke?

P.S. Thanks for the link, made this only take 2 minutes or less

So where is the proof that I misquoted you? I'm still waiting for it.


M

 

[ledhed]

Religous Tolerance


I see plenty of religion but not much " tolerance ".

A simple morphine drip induced observation.


Wheeeeeeeee....bye bye....back to dream land......

 

[Deathclown66]

If you examine the reason why humans have rights and animals do not, you'll understand the answer to that question. We have a thread on it started by yours truly where Swift proved that human rights exist independent of religion.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77925&highlight=Human+rights



My parents lie to me all the time. They also misjudge when others are lying to them, so they might not have known when their parents were lying to them. More importantly, people get convinced of God by coincidence in their lives and emotions. These things aren't proof, but they can prompt someone to think they know the truth and pass it on to their kids. So they may not be purposefully lying.

Furthermore, how do you know your parents would not lie to you (intentionally or otherwise)? Inductive reasoning. How do THEY know that the bible is true? Similar logic?

To continue our destruction of your (weak) point. Let's consider Jewish children? How about muslim children? What about Hindu children? Or Atheist children? Their parents would surely not lie to them right? It's not that Jewish people eventually figure out that Judaism is false and just figure they'll lie to their kids because they were lied to...

Your premises (A and B) are false, and so your conclusion (C) is false.

very good. the premises are false.
that is the very point I was making this whole time.
Parents can be wrong, and they can lie, but many children do not know this at the young age they get taught their religious ways.
And also, most people do not investigate their religion, simply because they believe it is correct, and they have no motivation to look farther into it.
I'm sure we could find more logical conclusions to believe in a god, based on false premises, if we really want to.

It's not a weak point, it's a strong point that belief in a god does not have to be unlogical.

So where is the proof that I misquoted you? I'm still waiting for it.

M

We know that you did not put anything of mine into "quote" form to misquote me.
You simply took the easier road, retorting in response to thoughts I never had, things I never said, very strongly implying that I did say them. So if you'd like to be technical, you can say that you did not lie about anything I said. But you did use deception, whether intentional or not, and you have no arguement against that, and I've already shown you where, so isn't it about time we let this go?

 

[Danoff]

very good. the premises are false.
that is the very point I was making this whole time.
Parents can be wrong, and they can lie, but many children do not know this at the young age they get taught their religious ways.
And also, most people do not investigate their religion, simply because they believe it is correct, and they have no motivation to look farther into it.
I'm sure we could find more logical conclusions to believe in a god, based on false premises, if we really want to.

It's not a weak point, it's a strong point that belief in a god does not have to be unlogical.

We know that you did not put anything of mine into "quote" form to misquote me.
You simply took the easier road, retorting in response to thoughts I never had, things I never said, very strongly implying that I did say them. So if you'd like to be technical, you can say that you did not lie about anything I said. But you did use deception, whether intentional or not, and you have no arguement against that, and I've already shown you where, so isn't it about time we let this go?

Faith is inherently illogical. As is the beleif that your parents would not lie to you (based on inductive reasoning). In short, there is no way you can logically come to the conclusion that God (especially the Christian variety) exists. You have yet to provide me with an example to show otherwise.

 

[Deathclown66]

yes I did.
to a 5 year old, it is logical.
because they know they can trust anything their parents tell them to be 100% true and accurate.
The reason it may never be questioned, is because they have no reason to question it.
you have no reason to question a known fact, unless some evidence shows otherwise, right? And if they never see any evidence showing otherwise, they have no reason to look.

Faith is inherently illogical. As is the beleif that your parents would not lie to you (based on inductive reasoning).

So something can be illogical (or logical) based on inductive reasoning?

 

[///M-Spec]

We know that you did not put anything of mine into "quote" form to misquote me.

Please reference the definition of the the word "misquote".

You simply took the easier road, retorting in response to thoughts I never had, things I never said, very strongly implying that I did say them. So if you'd like to be technical, you can say that you did not lie about anything I said. But you did use deception, whether intentional or not, and you have no arguement against that, and I've already shown you where, so isn't it about time we let this go?

So you want to accuse me of deception, then ask me to let the whole thing go?

Nah. I think I'd rather respond when someone calls me a liar. Gosh, imagine that.

Here is the post I responded to.

anywho, I'll put it in your own words, since mine seem to far for you.... or to simple.

A is b.
b is c.
So a must be c.

But what logic will not tell you, is that d exists. a is actually f. but since logic doesn't tell you what options exist, and you only discovered a,b, and c, you'll never know about d, e, or f, the latter being the truth.

I stated this example was a False Dilemma. It was (and still is) my opinion. I happen to believe my opinion on this matter is correct.

If someone believes they are right about something, it's not deception. It is only deception if they know the truth and claim the contrary.

So what are you trying to say? That someone who has a difference of opinion with you is trying to assert something they already know is untrue?

It would make it quite easy to argue with people, doesn't it? Instead of concentrating on the argument itself, you can make it personal by saying "if you don't agree with me, you must be lying." Hey, that's a slam dunk. Talk about taking the easy road.


Why don't you play the ball instead of the player?

You state that logic doesn't tell you what options exist. I'm going to respond by saying that the proper use of logic creates new options for you.

Danoff had a very good example of this in his post on Dec 18th.

I would like you to respond to that, if you think I'm lying about this, please explain how. Then we can get to the issue of what a False Dilemma is and isn't.


M

 

[Danoff]

So something can be illogical (or logical) based on inductive reasoning?

If you use inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion, the conclusion is not a logical one. You might call it "probable" or "circumstantial" or even "unlikely", but calling it "logical" wouldn't be correct.

 

[Deathclown66]

Faith is inherently illogical. As is the beleif that your parents would not lie to you (based on inductive reasoning).

But this states that something can be illogical based on inductive reasoning.
Now, if something cannot be logical based on inductive reasoning, than it surley cannot be illogical based on inductive reasoning, no?