Which alleged flaws, contradictions and unintentionally false statements are you referring to?
That would make for very interesting separate topic/thread.I'm willing to bet you might not find too many??? I'm also willing to wager that the more atheists contest their faith here in this forum, the more their 'faith' may become strengthened???
According to an article posted from Psychology Today, lists 5 reasons one may believe in their chosen god. I've added to them a bit below..... Is this the be-all-end-all list, of course not
1) The believer possesses a need for control. The uncertainty or presented possible finality for the concept of death demonstrates lack in control. Since the government, police, or any other associated authority, has no control in preventing death, the believer feels a need for control and applies faith to their chosen god.
2) The person feels a need to cope with death. Repeated reminders of one's mortality increase people's belief in the supernatural and also prayer. Continued and repeated readings from the Bible or community gatherings in churches both assert the possibility to life after death, which appears to reduce psychological distress for many. Repetition is key. Re-reading the Bible, while also receiving affirmation from selected authority, via church leaders, offer added comfort and assurance, especially when in doubt or during trying times.
3) Unexplained suffering increases the belief in their proposed god. Ironically enough, suffering often actually increases the tendency for belief in god. The more unexplained the tragedy, the higher the probability the believer will associate the act as god's will. Meaning, a tornado killing an innocent child may be viewed as god's will. Alternatively, someone loosing their job may be from their own accord and is fully explainable; not being necessarily linked to a divine plan.
4) The believer feels the need for justice. Many feel a higher sense for morality if they believe a cosmic deity is watching over all. They also have less tendencies or less of a need to require earthly punishment. Believers feel a higher authority will settle the score in god's chosen time.
5) The battle between experimental thinking versus logical thinking drives many to belief in god. Experimental thinking is associated with the individual in which relies upon their 'gut' feeling in rendering decisions, and is classified as a more emotional decision. The logical thinker more-so makes decisions in a 'matter of fact' manor, void of any personal bias or emotional feelings of any kind. The logical thinker assesses the evidence presented, to determine if the evidence leads to a demonstrated and directly fitting conclusion.
They haven't lied to me yet. Give some examples........
Ahhh, now who is ducking.
Sounds like you are throwing down the proverbial gauntlet.....bring it on...........
They haven't lied to me yet. Give some examples........
Ahhh, now who is ducking.
It is you who is apparently not paying attention and deflecting, as you are the one that brought up the subject and about "ducking out" if questions got too tough.
Sounds like you are throwing down the proverbial gauntlet.....bring it on...........
... You expect me to 'show' the contrast between Alchemy and Christianity? I'm not going to waste my time here and attempt to write a treatise in order to refute Sam Harris' false attributions of congruence between alchemical aspirations and the making of one's Christian Faith, but I will briefly say that while some historians point out the following bits as a small corrective to Harris' 'historical' assessment...
... I'm just adding some additional 'value' to the discussion.
So yeah, his first premises are questionable at best, and I think, false.I guess I could since I found the following link to a portion of his book. Still, it's not as good as having the paper copy I have sitting on my desk.
I'm kind of old fashioned like that.Oh, I'm sure I'm in desperate need of practice to show the invalidity of Harris's premises. That's why I have several thick books on Logic to help me out, as well as other folks around me who can always give me pointers.
Grand gesture?
I didn't redact it. I'm purposely decimating it so I can take it in bite-size chunks.
... I'm just adding some additional 'value' to the discussion.
Fine.
Harris' opening statements imply that the Christian Faith or firm beliefs in the applicability of the book of Revelation "must," like false pseudo-paths in Alchemy, go the way of the Dodo Bird or else we'll make humanity remain open and susceptible to disastrous consequences.
The fact is, there is no strong, direct, correlation in his concern between people holding Christian Faith on the whole, on the one hand, and "bad, humanly caused outcomes" for the world, on the other. No, it would be MORE ACCURATE for him to say that without better interpretive methods, then SOME Christians could very well contribute to social, moral and maybe environmental problems if they don't learn to interpret their Sacred Library quite a bit better than they have, or they don't learn to get their libidos and political fears under control.
I guess I could since I found the following link to a portion of his book. Still, it's not as good as having the paper copy I have sitting on my desk.
Oh, I'm sure I'm in desperate need of practice to show the invalidity of Harris's premises. That's why I have several thick books on Logic to help me out, as well as other folks around me who can always give me pointers.
Grand gesture?
I didn't redact it. I'm purposely decimating it so I can take it in bite-size chunks.
