Fortigurn promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
It’s been started already.
viewtopic.php?f=110&t=98155[/quote]
Excellent, thank you. Let me know how it works out for you.
My guess is that you will read it at least.
The whole point of the thing is that it’s impossible.
God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.
The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.
Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.
If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.
OK, got it?
The fact that people have faith is evidence that there is something to have faith in. You can’t see what they have faith in. You can’t see what they have faith in, you can’t understand (because you can’t see) why they have the faith, but you can see that they have the faith. That’s not a difficult concept to me.
And I’ve never seen anyone with a faith in a clown that orbits a planet, or whatever it was that Chris was talking about. His point that anyone can have faith in anything by trivializing God in this way is just silly.
In the first place, no on has faith in this way. No one has faith in something rediculous and trivial. That’s not what faith is for, and not how it works.
To place faith in something, or someONE that you can’t see takes no small amount of daring.
Hell, it takes a lot of daring simply to think critically about the subject without the comfort of the confines of the scientific process. And don’t get me wrong–science is great! Understanding and critical thought are wonderful. When I was a kid, and even up to year two of univeristy, I was planning to become a scientist. That didn’t mean I didn’t have my faith in Christ, though.
But there’s a much greater sense of saftey in thinking like a scientist searching for proof, than thinking like a brave heart searching for truth.
But you have to allow yourself that much freedom. Many people can’t do that. They don’t have the courage to think this way because they’re afraid of what they might figure out. And what if they come to a conclusion that they can’t subject to the scientific process in the first place, much less prove through scientific evidence? THEN what would they say to their buddies?
This faith stuff takes daring, and courage, and imagination.
Of course I read it. What would you like me to do about it?
Not in any rational way! So, if a little boy believes in Santa Claus, that is evidence that there is a Santa-like being out there somewhere? Obviously not.
[quote=“BigJohn”]God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.
The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.
Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.
If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.
OK, got it?[/quote] Yeah, I got it: straw man argument.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“BigJohn”]God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.
The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.
Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.
If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.
OK, got it?[/quote] Yeah, I got it: straw man argument.[/quote]
Not actually a straw man argument. A straw man argument is the misrepresentation of an opponent’s view, with a view which is easily refuted. The argument BJ quotes is a combination of different fallacies, mainly various subgroups of the non sequitur (an argument in which the conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise):
-
God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea: argumentum ad populum (argument from appeal to what many people believe), and fallacy of the appeal to consequences (‘it feels good therefore it is true’); both non sequiturs
-
The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is: argumentum ad populum; a non sequitur
-
Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible: illegitimate argument from authority (there is a form of argument from authority which is legitimate; this isn’t it)
-
If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree: non sequitur
[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“BigJohn”]God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.
The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.
Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.
If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.
OK, got it?[/quote] Yeah, I got it: straw man argument.[/quote]
Oh really? I don’t think so at all. You’re just tossing the straw man thing without offering any value to the discussion. Which of the above points do you believe to be incorrect? Why do you believe so?
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“BigJohn”]God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.
The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.
Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.
If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.
OK, got it?[/quote] Yeah, I got it: straw man argument.[/quote]
Not actually a straw man argument. A straw man argument is the misrepresentation of an opponent’s view, with a view which is easily refuted. . . .[/quote]
That’s the part that jumped out at me, the misrepresentation part–misrepresentation as to me, and I strongly suspect that it misrepresents a lot of people’s beliefs.
But I’ll just stick with me. One by one:
The assertion that I believe that God exists because people tell me he does and because it feels like a nice idea, while it may in part apply to me, does not apply anywhere near adequately.
Two parts–first, that he exists because people tell me so.
I accept the existence of a lot of things because people tell me they exist–for example, quarks. I accept the former existence of a lot things and people, because people tell me–for example, Thomas Paine, Alexander the Great, the dodo bird. The reasons I have for accepting those things could fill a book, if I could recount them all. And they would amount to a kind of map of part of the human psyche.
But there’s a lot more to my particular belief in a greater being than having been told that he exists. For one thing, as I’ve stated elsewhere, more than once, I did pretty nice-sized tour of duty as an atheist. My returning to belief at the age of twenty-five, as far as I can tell, had virtually nothing to do with what people were saying. In fact, by then I had a general skepticism that was much greater and more acute than the skepticism that I had when I became a fifteen-year-old atheist.
Second, it feels nice. No. Once in a while it feels nice, but there’s a downside. One of the reasons I became an atheist was that if felt much nicer than belief felt. Belief, in my case at least, is accompanied by some unpleasant stuff.
Next, the idea that the Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.
I do not know whether the Bible is, in its entirety, a holy book. And the parts that I think contain holy (sacred) matter, I do not attribute to this thing called the Bible. I don’t think I even have to reach the issue of whether I have those notions because of what people say.
Next, whether I believe Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.
First, my belief in the resurrection flickers and wavers. I have a fairly complex set of thoughts about that. I feel a little bad about that, but I think I’m in pretty good company. From reading a Biblical account (and accepting it as true for purposes of analysis), I don’t think the apostles believed in the resurrection until they saw him alive after having been crucified. (When he came to them in disguise and asked them why the long face, one of them said that they were sad because a great prophet had died–just a great prophet, not the Messiah, etc.) Besides, the Bible reports the opinion that it was fake. That is, the Bible relates the opinions of those who believed that the resurrection was a sham.
I’ve read a pretty nice amount of words in my life, and I didn’t fall off the turnip wagon yesterday, contrary to what it’s convenient for the anti-religious crowd to believe.
And now to, “If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.”
It had nothing to do with that. To the anti-religious: Do you wander into the middle of the Mazu procession and try to convince people that there’s no such thing as Mazu? It’s really about how to behave among human beings. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but if I say goodbye, I don’t want to be told that it originally meant “God buy you,” or “God be with you,” and that there is no God, blah, blah, blah. Same thing with adios, adieu, and fi aman Illah.
Now, I’ve been slow to mature, and I still have some work to do, but I had that deal down by about age thirteen. One of my brothers used to tell me, “Act like ya got some fetchin-ups!” I think that’s good advice for lots of people.
[quote=“housecat”]But you have to allow yourself that much freedom. Many people can’t do that. They don’t have the courage to think this way because they’re afraid of what they might figure out. And what if they come to a conclusion that they can’t subject to the scientific process in the first place, much less prove through scientific evidence? THEN what would they say to their buddies?
This faith stuff takes daring, and courage, and imagination.[/quote]
I always like reading this kind of stuff because it gives me insights into the minds of the faithful. But of course, not being a believer myself, I disagree. 
Not sure where to start, especially with the idea that faith takes courage, for I feel living with uncertainty and indifference is a far bolder enterprise. Christians often say things like, ‘God is love’, which strikes me as the very opposite of challenging. Any representative survey of one’s own existence surely tells you that this is not the case. We do not live in a universe of love*. If we are honest with ourselves we will also not accept the conceit that our hearts are full of love - there is a whole lot of other stuff in there too, pre-eminently our own self-interestedness. We care about ourselves more than other people and, dovetailing in precisely with what evolutionary theory would predict, parents especially love their own children. A Christian will never say, ‘My child died because of God’ - when, if you subscribe to a universal God this is patently the case. But instead, the child is, ‘now with God’ and, again, ‘God is love’. This strikes me as psychological support rather than courage.
I cannot speak for other atheists, but I live with the conviction that I am very, very unimportant in the scheme of things. The universal forces, such as they are, have no particular interest in me or my future. I plan to approach death in this manner - honestly and with no afterlife in mind, aside from the knowledge that my consciousness will soon surrender its tiny scrap of universal fabric. Euthanasia interests me, as it would seem to be the ultimate expression of individualism and confidence. I don’t want a tombstone or any plaques or anything like that, but I would like a tree, somewhere alone, and I would like people to be nice to my tree 
. Perhaps something from the genus Corymbia with scruffy bark around the base of the trunk, clean limbs and stylish nuts. Now that is a comforting deathbed thought - stylish nuts in the afterlife.
I think my mind is so heavily dominated by rationality that I cannot possibly imagine or feel any God in the Christian sense, but that is ok. I’m sure for people like Housecat he, or she, or it, exists. I always like people with strong beliefs, whether I fully understand them or not.
*Although, I must confess, I haven’t seen Jimi Presley’s video collection.
My apologies, I see what you mean now. You were saying BJ’s representation of the typical arguments used in favour of the existence of God, was itself a straw man.
In order for your post to be relevant, you bear the burden of evidence to demonstrate that these are the arguments typically made by Christians in favour of the existence of God. I believe you would be hard pressed to do that. If you agree with CJ that these arguments are not typically used by Christians in favour of the existence of God, then there’s nothing more to say.
Uh, faith necessitates living with uncertainty. That’s why the Bible is full of expressions of doubt from the faithful; from Job, right through to Christ himself.
My child died because of the way God chose to make the universe. My child isn’t ‘now with God’, he’s in a hole in the ground and that’s where he’s going to stay. Wanna talk about it?
[quote=“antarcticbeech”]
I think my mind is so heavily dominated by rationality that I cannot possibly imagine or feel any God in the Christian sense, but that is ok. I’m sure for people like Housecat he, or she, or it, exists. I always like people with strong beliefs, whether I fully understand them or not.[/quote]
My my my, aren’t you a special little snowflake!
How thoroughly condescending.
I’ll make sure and pat her on her empty little irrational little head for you next time I see her.
As for the rest of your cereal-box grade “observations”, I think the Mod is better equipped than I to respond.
I am very sorry to hear that Fortigurn.
Only If it pleases you for I don’t wish you any pain in return for my education. In my past experiences with death and Christianity I have never seen such intellectual honesty as yours.
[quote=“antarcticbeech”][quote=“housecat”]But you have to allow yourself that much freedom. Many people can’t do that. They don’t have the courage to think this way because they’re afraid of what they might figure out. And what if they come to a conclusion that they can’t subject to the scientific process in the first place, much less prove through scientific evidence? THEN what would they say to their buddies?
This faith stuff takes daring, and courage, and imagination.[/quote]
I live with the conviction that I am very, very unimportant in the scheme of things.[/quote]
I, and other people like me, might reserve the right to agree with people like Antarcticbeech.
I, and other people like me, do understand and respect your lack of understanding and respect. And you’re welcome to post as you wish. No one is asking you to understand or respect anything at all.
Good thread, eh? 
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
In order for your post to be relevant, you bear the burden of evidence to demonstrate that these are the arguments typically made by Christians in favour of the existence of God. [/quote]
No, they need not be. They are my interpretation of what those arguments - and other causes for belief - boil down to.
- God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.
a) People in different cultures believe in different gods, cosmic essences, etc, because they are told to. Are you saying that most people born in a Hindu region do not grow up and remain Hindu? Are you seriously suggesting that this is NOT because they are brought up this way?
b) Belief in God is a great comfort to many people. If belief in God was an onerous burden it would IMHO opinion be much less popular. One can cry angst over the obligations, but life after death, a universe that makes sense, the rapture of prayer etc are huge comforts. My mom would have fallen to bits after my dad died if not for her failth.
-
The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.
Once again, why is the Bible considered holy in Christian cultures, while the Quran is considered holy in Muslim cultures? Different climate? Different DNA? No, of course, it’s because this belief is inculcated. People tell you it is so. -
Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.
I doubt many people would seriously belief that someone else other than Jesus had risen from the dead if that fact was not in the Bible. -
If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.
Try saying any of the above in many modern Christian settings and see how far you get in life in terms of public office, promotion etc. It’s a bit more accepting here on the Flob than in “the real world” especially in the US. This last point is not as strong as the first 3, but still valid nonetheless.
Oh, and watch out for religous mods!
AntarcticBeech, lovely name by the way - lovely tree, at least the arctic varieties I’ve seen, terrible for building a cabin though as they have very soft & porous wood, presents something I have noted in many, not all, of those who make the claim to atheism.
That is they are of the opinion that life centers around them. In their sphere there is nothing higher, nothing more infinite nor more intelligent that is worthy of their adulation, respect or praise.
Now I know, some of the atheistic inclination will give something resembling praise or adoration to “nature” or some nebulous “universal” spirit thingy. But really, it seems to me at least, that their ego just simply does not allow their mind to delve into the concept that there is a higher power. Something that exists outside the realm of human existence that is the creator of all this potpouri we know as life its ownself.
This does seem to manifest itself in derision and condescension when in discussions about, and with those who do profess to believe, in religion and a higher life than their own. Rather self-limiting I think.
Thanks, I honestly appreciate that. 
It’s fine with me mate, I’m substantially over it. My family is no stranger to death, and theologically I accept that it’s a natural, inevitable, and even necessary part of the overall scheme of things. As for intellectual honesty, you’ll find that my view is the standard position in my Christian sect, and I’m hardly unique in this regard.
I must say it’s working out even better than I had hoped. Strangely, bob still isn’t contributing to the two threads which were set up precisely to encourage people to post (as frequently as possible), the very statements he still claims are forbidden here. I suppose him posting them here would make it difficult for him to maintain his claim that these threads don’t exist. 
Well great, in that case we’re free to take no notice of them. Unless they’re demonstrably mainstream or typical Christian arguments, they’re irrelevant to the Christians here.
I agree (Cicero already made this point almost 2,000 years ago, and he wasn’t the only one), just like people in different cultures are atheists because they are told to be.
Not in the least. Why would I say something so silly? As for the rest of what you write, you’re now conflating two separate classes of statements. The statements you made originally are phrased as arguments Christians make in justification for their belief. But the new statements you’re making are your interpretation of why people believe Christianity. If you could choose one set of statements to stand by (or even both), I’d be happy to respond to them.