What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2011, 01:59 AM
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
(23-12-2011 01:16 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(22-12-2011 10:50 PM)unsapien Wrote:  Testing the theory:
Then we ask a group of people to look up and ask what they see. most say that they see a blue sky, but some say that the sky is white or grey. The majority confirm the theory that the sky is blue.

...The christian says that the sky is red.

A mass poll is really not scientific. You have to define "blue", and then come up with an objective way of comparing the sky to that definition.

But the worst part is that the christian isn't making a bold-faced false claim ("I see a red sky"), but rather a claim that there's something there that we don't see ("The sky is blue but feels red"), and that's harder to disprove. In fact, it's impossible to disprove... all you can prove is a total lack of evidence, and try to convince people to stop believing in hypotheses that lack evidence.

If you insist... But then I hope we can all be able to agree that the wave length of the perceived blue light is about 475 nm, you feel red, I see blue, but we all see the wave length of 475 nanometres.

"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life." - Captain Jean Luc Picard

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Jean Luc Picard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2011, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2011 10:40 AM by calmblueocean.)
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
(19-12-2011 09:55 AM)Malleus Wrote:  It's logical, but not irrefutable. They will answer that god cannot be experienced like you experience an apple. It's beyond our material touch.

A better approach is to show them an empty hand and to make them prove that you *don't* have an apple there.

...

If you can't disprove something as simple as an apple just because it's immaterial and invisible, despite the fact that you actually know what an apple is, how large it is, where it is and all, how am I supposed to disprove your god? Not to mention that if I want to sell you my apple, it's my job to convince you that it exists, not yours to pay me and then disprove it to get your money back.

Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it.

This makes me smile, as do the follow-up posts about marketing these invisible apples and starting a worldwide phenomenon. Sadly, the reference to the Bible trumps most logical arguments in my experience. "The book says so, and I believe the book, so end of story." Would that invisible apples could open the closed minds of the world...
(22-12-2011 06:42 PM)Organon Wrote:  Robert Ingersoll wrote: "The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'"
Just grabbed a copy of Ingersoll's work on archive.org. I skimmed the first couple pages and am intrigued. More reading for me!

"The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. ... So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." -- Lawrence Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2011, 10:26 PM
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
Why the need to prove Christians wrong?

(I'm aware that this is similar to one or two responses I've made in similar threads tonight, I'm not trying to troll or incite anger. I'm simply trying to come to the 'black or white' conclusion that the introduction of atheism has pushed upon society but can't. So don't take this personally.)

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!"

-Yoda-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 12:18 AM
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
(28-12-2011 10:26 PM)Bairny Wrote:  Why the need to prove Christians wrong?

(I'm aware that this is similar to one or two responses I've made in similar threads tonight, I'm not trying to troll or incite anger. I'm simply trying to come to the 'black or white' conclusion that the introduction of atheism has pushed upon society but can't. So don't take this personally.)

This is an atheist site. We're not here to prove anything, but we like to exercise our minds over questions of religion. This is just another such exercise. Since we are largely atheists, a lot of the arguing will be from an atheist point of view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 06:08 AM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2011 06:39 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
(22-12-2011 03:17 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um... could you, though, point out to me a situation when it is reasonable for a theist to ask me for proof in a debate? And proof of what? 'Cos I mean... proofs per se are hard... that's why we mostly deal in probabilities... For the purposes of answering the question you may assume that I am the most troglodyte atheist who ever lived, steeped in ad hominems and fallacious argument.

Makes me wanna draw up some shit and spout some geometry... show that angle ABC is congruent to angle DEF. Big Grin

Proof? Start at eighty; Stolichnaya lets say... man, you're not debating Christians, are you, morondog? You can always give them the sola fides shuffle. If they start asking for proof that god does not exist, you could just say - I have faith that god does not exist. Wink

I'm evil - which means I'm not troubled by the ethical positions I take in such debate - so the 4 play makes me victorious in Christian encounters. That 4 goes like this: Satan - me - Christian - God. There's some unholy algebra for ya, if ya wanna be evil about it. Muah-ha-ha-ha...

What I mean is, allow them the identity of God; a.k.a. their "right to speak for God." The way I see it, this is congruent with the First Commandment - thou shalt have no god before me, therefore you are god - simple naive philosophy that kicks ass. Wink

In the 4, above, it's all peace, love and small furry animals if the Christian can stand thusly, in front of God; but from experience, give 'em rope, and they'll swing - they inevitably stop speaking for god and start speaking as god - that's where Satan comes in. And this is solid theology - having accepted the Holy Spirit, the Christian is supposed to be in a place equal to the Holy of Holies; you cannot talk about evil, or hell, or Satan in the fucking Holy of Holies - that's just retardation. Big Grin

So in the simple geometry of reductionism, me and Christian become Satan and God - from my perspective, if You are God, then I am Satan - that's a pair of Ts on the truth table. If you go with Adam - a duality of breath and earth which is symbolically God - says so in Genesis - and Satan - says so in Job; then a human being can manifest either God or Satan with equal truth, no? So where does the Christian inevitably get himself morally screwed? Denial of Satan. Works every time. Wink

But if you're of the "lack of belief" school of atheism, this kind of theological chicanery is likely to be morally repugnant. I can understand how an atheist would question my ethical standard without having to go ballistic and spouting nonsense like - that's cause you're not a true atheist! Big Grin

I don't care because I call it as I see it - evil - willful application of deceit. I don't pull the "4 play" unless the Christian is already manifesting a greater evil - see how that works? And I don't pull any kind of shit on a person of simple faith for the simple reason that I know faith as a valuable resource. See where moral alignment makes simple strategy complicated? Many atheists dismiss faith altogether - in my terms such a dismissal is incorrect but less incorrect than religion - so fuck it. I thought about "making a religion," and have constructed vector atheism for just such a purpose; if it is not necessary, I ain't gonna complain.

The naive philosophy of Pauline Israelite is the "good" alternative - that's how I get to socialize with "decent Christians." Then they are my brothers in Christ - that kinda language doesn't sound too atheistic, does it? Yet it is logically consistent with the original Greek definition of the term atheism in that Paul, who named himself apostle rather than prophet, was definitly thus indicating, "I don't believe in your god" in reference to the Jews. But the Christ is none other than a portal to YHWH - the only way to the father is through the son - which says nothing on the Eternal scale of things and everything on the mortal scale. That Christianity is somehow the "true" religion. We know that's hogwash. Atheism is the true religion - it must be - the only possible justification for sect of any kind is what? Atheism - when somebody said the old gods no longer satisfy. I just have a more functional definition of atheism than "lack of belief," which to me is dysfunctional.

Not wrong. If you're a logical, positivistic sort functioning off of the scientific method, then my naive philosophy only applies if one considers that I have used the scientific method to derive it. It works for me because of faith and experience - when I say "evil," I don't mean I'm fucking Beelzebub; I mean that I define myself in terms of "point object truth/ local entropic minima" that are equivalent to "evil" in a certain theological sense. "Evil for evil's sake" always ends up being a downward spiral of self-absorption and madness; this sense is where the Left-Hand Path is a self-regulating religious perspective. Wink

So let's be atheists who posit that evil does not exist, yeah? That evil is simply selfish, short-sighted, gluttony that becomes seen as evil because no rational person would be that stupid... sounds fair enough. Because that kind of thinking gives the atheist "the mantle of Lucifer," a conceptual design to run roughshod over all theists in general. What you don't want, however, is to let the "mantle of Lucifer" to lead you into committing immoral acts. Lemme explain how this works - theists in general believe in good - therefore it is the "reality of evil" that gets them all - but the trick is to not give evil its own reality, dig?

But the commonality of religion is exclusionism - there's always going to be absolutes that can be picked apart - but in order to do the picking, you must know your own moral will. And if I was going to "guru" this shit and sell it on DVD for 19.959995, I would begin the class with instruction in faith... yeah, huh? But where faith is invaluable for an atheist asshole such as myself, I can always tell which sheep need shearing. You may not know this (or even credit it as knowledge) but one of the worst things a person can do to another is smash their faith.

As this is Thinking Atheist forum, this post is simply Doc HoC claptrap if it doesn't resonate. If I ever feel the need to "go the guru route," it'll be tao, I'll be the Sage, shit'll be free - I do strategy. Wink

So the question is improperly phased as I understand the terms. Faith of existence is not illogical but rather a tool of philosophical utility. I have faith Hoc exists, I have faith morondog exists; as we are not "here" sharing this locality in Phoenix, what is illogical in this assessment? I have faith no god is greater than Gwyneth Paltrow - as crazy as it sounds, that's the philosophical Ace of Spades up my sleeve. The simplest tool of utility against the faithful is - faith - sola fides, baby. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Wink

I fail to see what is wrong with the atheist having faith that the universe exists - and using such faith as a "greater god" consideration for theological romp 'em stomp 'em. But if the atheist doesn't see the harm in religion, then I can understand where such deceit becomes morally questionable.

I just don't believe in lie - I believe in truth. Thus deceit is something I consider evil. This is based on the past three months of testing zero-state morality, and having concluded that evil is indeed a tool of utility; there is no need for me to create euphemisms as I am of tao and balance is key - not these extremes which only are useful in contrast. What I offer you is naive philosophy that I call deceit in anticipation of typical skepticism - so that anybody who reads these words need not fear that they are being sold down the river by Lucifer (I did claim that entitlement Wink ) Not just no but hell no. You are a human being and inherently good. You try some Doc HoC mojo and it feels wrong - then it's just fucking wrong, period. My self-entitlement has nothing to do with some kind of whack long-term strategy to devour the souls of humanity and everything to do with transparency. Once upon a time, the creator of the universe named me Prophet of the End of Time; and in exploring that local insanity there came a point when I was forced to consider - should I keep secrets?

The answer was no; and why is that? Because science doesn't keep secrets. And now the creator of the universe works for me. Wink

(28-12-2011 10:26 PM)Bairny Wrote:  Why the need to prove Christians wrong?

(I'm aware that this is similar to one or two responses I've made in similar threads tonight, I'm not trying to troll or incite anger. I'm simply trying to come to the 'black or white' conclusion that the introduction of atheism has pushed upon society but can't. So don't take this personally.)

Because they are wrong. When you say, Christian; I remember this book I found in the dumpster one time. Like some kind of "Christian manifesto." One that requires to things - the existence of hell, the spreading of the gospel. These two things are patently incorrect. The gospels, according to my calculations, are straight fiction. So too is hell.

But like on this forum is the Calvinist KC? Ain't gotta prove him nothing, in my book. So specifically "Christians?" There is no need; rather that Christianity is wrong, in the simplest terms.

Yet your terms are "black or white conclusion that the introduction of atheism has pushed on society" which indicates a bias that atheism is cause whereas I see it more like effect. Before August of 2005 I was agnostic and fine with it because I considered the whole lot fiction. Then god showed up on the jobsite... and six years later I'm a flaming atheist. That's what's "black and white" to me; personal experience. If I'm Lucifer bringing the light - they must be in the dark. Wink

But they're not wrong in the sense of my being right - they're wrong in the sense that they know they're wrong - which I kinda illustrate in my above rant to morondog. It's not "black and white" from my perspective, it is completeness.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
29-12-2011, 07:00 AM
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
HoC I am in love. That was some fine stuff you said. Sola fides shuffle... Bahahaha Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
29-12-2011, 09:24 AM
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
(29-12-2011 07:00 AM)morondog Wrote:  HoC I am in love. That was some fine stuff you said. Sola fides shuffle... Bahahaha Smile

I'm reading and rereading this post. A nice juicy long one too...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 10:36 AM
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
(28-12-2011 10:26 PM)Bairny Wrote:  Why the need to prove Christians wrong?

(I'm aware that this is similar to one or two responses I've made in similar threads tonight, I'm not trying to troll or incite anger. I'm simply trying to come to the 'black or white' conclusion that the introduction of atheism has pushed upon society but can't. So don't take this personally.)

The simple answer is that if they can believe that, they can believe anything.

This is also true of astrology, homeopathy, energy healing, ghosts, psychic powers, and all the other woo-woo. It is often dangerous for people to believe this stuff - usually to themselves, sometimes to me.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 03:12 PM
RE: What is the simplest analogy to show "faith" of existence is illogical?
(29-12-2011 06:08 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Because they are wrong. When you say, Christian; I remember this book I found in the dumpster one time. Like some kind of "Christian manifesto." One that requires to things - the existence of hell, the spreading of the gospel. These two things are patently incorrect. The gospels, according to my calculations, are straight fiction. So too is hell.

But like on this forum is the Calvinist KC? Ain't gotta prove him nothing, in my book. So specifically "Christians?" There is no need; rather that Christianity is wrong, in the simplest terms.

Yet your terms are "black or white conclusion that the introduction of atheism has pushed on society" which indicates a bias that atheism is cause whereas I see it more like effect. Before August of 2005 I was agnostic and fine with it because I considered the whole lot fiction. Then god showed up on the jobsite... and six years later I'm a flaming atheist. That's what's "black and white" to me; personal experience. If I'm Lucifer bringing the light - they must be in the dark. Wink

But they're not wrong in the sense of my being right - they're wrong in the sense that they know they're wrong - which I kinda illustrate in my above rant to morondog. It's not "black and white" from my perspective, it is completeness.

Such a well crafted response.

I eat my words, Sir.

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!"

-Yoda-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: