Why are there religious people?

[TheBarrd]

The one word I hate the most is "religion!" There are a little over 2000 religions around this planet of which, Atheism is one. You can stamp your feet, gnash your teeth and yell till the cows come home, but the truth is the truth. "Study to show thyself approved."

If we focus on those who believe in a God and those who deny His existance, then we have a real subject and not one whereby one religious belief system is compared to another.
The simplicity of mathematics has been flawed in the analysis of Christianity falling versus atheism on the rise. If we take two people who have opposite belief systems and one dies then we could honesly say that one of the belief systems is the major at that point. Multiply that by the number to people who are baby boomers (of which I am one) and you have most of your problem solved. Even the U.S. government is shaking by the mere fact that so many of us are now collecting social security that the bank might just finally break. The hospitals are heavy with us and the majority will have passed on shortly.
The other side of the equation is similar to the grand emergence that the gay community has recently enjoyed. In the 50's and 60's I dare say that very few real Atheists would have admitted in public about their lack of a belief system in a higher authority. You will note, that especially in politics it is an absolute taboo for one to admit to being an Atheist. The atheistic front still has a long way to go in it's quest of coming out of the closet, but the numbers are gaining and are more proclaiming their lack of belief than ever before.

In order for a correct analysis to take place one must have ALL of the facts. Not just some whimsical documentary bent on skewing the facts in an attempt to derail an already speeding train of trust, humility and belief. Who took the poll regarding "intelligent" people and God? They didn't ask me nor any of the people I associate with in the intellectual society I belong to, to enter our statements. (Mensa wasn't polled either.....I asked a friend of mine who belongs to that particular intellectual society)

The statement was made that Christians do not look at the facts or reality. Here I am. IQ above 160 and a meak but not weak Christian. I do belive that when one adds 2+2 he should site the answer to be 4, and not a supposed 5. God Bless All of You Mightily......

P.S. Why are so many new churches planted every year if a faith in God is diminishing?

Now you went and told them the truth...


(I miss the old smileys)

 

[TheBarrd]

But it's not a stance based on faith. I don't believe because I have no good reason to believe. What aspect of this requires faith?.

Your lack of belief is not based on hard physical evidence. It is not falsifiable. In short, you have not met the criteria you have set for those who have chosen to believe.
So, Mr. Gander, you are simply being held to the same standards as Miss Goose.

I'm still waiting for you to address the two Greeble examples from earlier in the discussion.

I already told you...Greeble doesn't live on Pluto. He has a small cottage on one of the moons of Jupiter....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your lack of belief is not based on hard physical evidence. It is not falsifiable. In short, you have not met the criteria you have set for those who have chosen to believe.
So, Mr. Gander, you are simply being held to the same standards as Miss Goose.

My lack of belief is based on there being no good reason to believe. Once again, you seem unable to distinguish a lack of belief from a belief. You are treating one the same as the other. This is why I gave you the example of the Greeble on Pluto. There's a difference between being unconvinced that there is a Greeble on Pluto and being convinced that there is no Greeble on Pluto.

In short, you have not met the criteria you have set for those who have chosen to believe.

The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. If you claim there is a Greeble on Pluto, then that's you. Demanding that I disprove your claim is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I already told you...Greeble doesn't live on Pluto. He has a small cottage on one of the moons of Jupiter....

You're obfuscating. Address my comments or concede that you were wrong.

 

[TheBarrd]

Merriam-webster:

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Now, can the atheist prove that there is no deity? Of course not.
Thus, according to your own definition from Merriam Webster, the atheist's stance is based on his/her faith.

Waddaya know?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Now, can the atheist prove that there is no deity? Of course not.
Thus, according to your own definition from Merriam Webster, the atheist's stance is based on his/her faith.

Waddaya know?

No. Again, you are confusing faith for lack of faith. Besides which, that definition isn't entirely accurate. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. They may either be unconvinced that there is a god or they may be convinced that there is no god.

 

[TheBarrd]

My lack of belief is based on there being no good reason to believe. Once again, you seem unable to distinguish a lack of belief from a belief. You are treating one the same as the other. This is why I gave you the example of the Greeble on Pluto. There's a difference between being unconvinced that there is a Greeble on Pluto and being convinced that there is no Greeble on Pluto.



The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. If you claim there is a Greeble on Pluto, then that's you. Demanding that I disprove your claim is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.



You're obfuscating. Address my comments or concede that you were wrong.

See post #684 below.
Then you can go and ask Merriam Webster to concede that they are wrong.
Meantime you can scream and stomp your feet all you want.
If you don't behave, I'll sic my little buddy Greeble on you...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

See post #684 below.
Then you can go and ask Merriam Webster to concede that they are wrong.

Dictionary definitions are often imprecise or vague, as is the case here.

Meantime you can scream and stomp your feet all you want.

You won't address my Greeble comments because you can't, because I've shown you that you're wrong, and I'm calling you on it. So either put up or shut up.

 

[TheBarrd]

No. Again, you are confusing faith for lack of faith. Besides which, that definition isn't entirely accurate. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. They may either be unconvinced that there is a god or they may be convinced that there is no god.

So, go argue with the dictionary. Honestly, I think I've had enough.
There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this conversation. No matter how much you try to twist the words around, ultimately you cannot change the truth.
And it does seem as if you are getting incredibly emotional about the whole thing, when there is no need.
Just calm down, take a few deep breaths, and realize that it's okay if other people don't agree with you.

 

[TheBarrd]

If it will make you happy, I will concede...I do not believe there are any aiiens named Greeble living on Pluto.

Of course, I've never been to Pluto....
Have you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If it will make you happy, I will concede...I do not believe there are any aiiens named Greeble living on Pluto.

Neither do I. I don't believe it because there is no good reason to believe it. So what aspect of that requires the exercise of faith?

 

[TheBarrd]

Neither do I. I don't believe it because there is no good reason to believe it. So what aspect of that requires the exercise of faith?

I've never been to Pluto. I understand that it is not a planet, it is some kind of huge block of ice or some such thing orbiting out there. It's a good guess that nothing is living there...but it is a guess. There is no hard, physical, falsifiable evidence.
I'd say that I don't believe there are any aliens there...but since I can't be sure, I'm "taking it on faith."
Honestly, there is nothing wrong with faith.
It amazes me that a person who is cool with legalizing sexual perversion...even murder...has such a huge problem with the term "faith".
Surely, you are swallowing camels, and straining at gnats!!

 

[quatona]

I've never been to Pluto. I understand that it is not a planet, it is some kind of huge block of ice or some such thing orbiting out there. It's a good guess that nothing is living there...but it is a guess. There is no hard, physical, falsifiable evidence.
I'd say that I don't believe there are any aliens there...but since I can't be sure, I'm "taking it on faith."

Except that there´s no definition of "faith" that matches your use of this word here.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with faith.

I agree. Personally, I do take some things on faith.

It amazes me that a person who is cool with legalizing sexual perversion...even murder...

Hang on there, you´re beginning to fly off the handle.

has such a huge problem with the term "faith".

I don´t have a problem with the term "faith". I don´t even have a problem with faith.
I have a problem with false equivocations, that´s all.

Surely, you are swallowing camels, and straining at gnats!!

Well, there are indeed bigger fish to fry than an anonymous poster on the internet using terms wrongly, but this thing seems very important to you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've never been to Pluto. I understand that it is not a planet, it is some kind of huge block of ice or some such thing orbiting out there. It's a good guess that nothing is living there...but it is a guess. There is no hard, physical, falsifiable evidence.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." – Christopher Hitchens.

I'd say that I don't believe there are any aliens there...but since I can't be sure, I'm "taking it on faith."

Again, you're making the basic error of confusing the state of being unconvinced that there is a Greeble on Pluto for the state of being convinced that there is no Greeble on Pluto.

You seem to think that the person who rejects the claim because of insufficient evidence is exercising "faith" in the same way as the person who insists the claim is true despite insufficient evidence. This is where you confuse faith for lack of faith. It doesn't require faith to reject a claim for which there is no good evidence. One can reject the claim because there is no reason sufficient to warrant its acceptance, and one can do so without exercising faith.

It amazes me that a person who is cool with legalizing sexual perversion...even murder...has such a huge problem with the term "faith".

Poisoning the well is no substitute for a cogent argument. It's particularly pernicious in this case because it's also untrue; I don't endorse the legalisation of sexual perversion or murder. The fact that you would claim this is outrageous and reeks of desperation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... You seem to think that the person who rejects the claim because of insufficient evidence is exercising "faith" in the same way as the person who insists the claim is true despite insufficient evidence. This is where you confuse faith for lack of faith. It doesn't require faith to reject a claim for which there is no good evidence. One can reject the claim because there is no reason sufficient to warrant its acceptance, and one can do so without exercising faith.

Yes - this may be a problem with relying on a particular dictionary definition intended for general rather than technical use. An atheist has no belief in a god or gods, consequently there are several varieties of atheist, from those who have never heard or thought about gods (innocent atheists?), those who just don't know or don't think it can be known (agnostics), and others, to those who assert (believe) there is no god or gods. The last, 'Strong Atheists', do have a belief, and could be said to therefore have faith that a god or gods don't exist; they might argue that, although absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, their stance is the more justifiable for being consistent with what we do know of objective reality, whereas god concepts, in so far as their properties & attributes are defined, tend to contradict what we know of objective reality. YMMV.

Poisoning the well is no substitute for a cogent argument. It's particularly pernicious in this case because it's also untrue; I don't endorse the legalisation of sexual perversion or murder. The fact that you would claim this is outrageous and reeks of desperation.

Perhaps it's from frustration, but it's deplorable and it certainly doesn't help the argument.

 

[TheBarrd]

Except that there´s no definition of "faith" that matches your use of this word here.


I agree. Personally, I do take some things on faith.

Hang on there, you´re beginning to fly off the handle.

I don´t have a problem with the term "faith". I don´t even have a problem with faith.
I have a problem with false equivocations, that´s all.

Well, there are indeed bigger fish to fry than an anonymous poster on the internet using terms wrongly, but this thing seems very important to you.

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>


Do you have a "firm belief" that there are no aliens called Greeble living on Pluto?
If so, you have faith according to this definition of the term.

"doh"

 

[bhsmte]

Your lack of belief is not based on hard physical evidence. It is not falsifiable. In short, you have not met the criteria you have set for those who have chosen to believe.
So, Mr. Gander, you are simply being held to the same standards as Miss Goose.



I already told you...Greeble doesn't live on Pluto. He has a small cottage on one of the moons of Jupiter....

His lack of belief is based on this very lack of objective evidence to confirm the existence of something.

If there is no objective evidence to confirm the existence of something, someone would need to believe it based on something other than evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>


Do you have a "firm belief" that there are no aliens called Greeble living on Pluto?
If so, you have faith according to this definition of the term.

"doh"

No, I don't have a firm belief that there are no Greebles on Pluto. I've already made that clear on multiple occasions. By your own definition then, I don't have faith.

 

[TheBarrd]

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." – Christopher Hitchens.



Again, you're making the basic error of confusing the state of being unconvinced that there is a Greeble on Pluto for the state of being convinced that there is no Greeble on Pluto.

You seem to think that the person who rejects the claim because of insufficient evidence is exercising "faith" in the same way as the person who insists the claim is true despite insufficient evidence. This is where you confuse faith for lack of faith. It doesn't require faith to reject a claim for which there is no good evidence. One can reject the claim because there is no reason sufficient to warrant its acceptance, and one can do so without exercising faith.



Poisoning the well is no substitute for a cogent argument. It's particularly pernicious in this case because it's also untrue; I don't endorse the legalisation of sexual perversion or murder. The fact that you would claim this is outrageous and reeks of desperation.

Then you do not support gay marriage or abortion? In that case, I do owe you an apology.

 

[bhsmte]

I've never been to Pluto. I understand that it is not a planet, it is some kind of huge block of ice or some such thing orbiting out there. It's a good guess that nothing is living there...but it is a guess. There is no hard, physical, falsifiable evidence.
I'd say that I don't believe there are any aliens there...but since I can't be sure, I'm "taking it on faith."
Honestly, there is nothing wrong with faith.
It amazes me that a person who is cool with legalizing sexual perversion...even murder...has such a huge problem with the term "faith".
Surely, you are swallowing camels, and straining at gnats!!

Every once in a while, the chip on your shoulder and the hate related to the same comes out. This does not help your argument.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then you do not support gay marriage or abortion? In that case, I do owe you an apology.

I support same-sex marriage and reproductive rights. I do not support the legalisation of sexual perversion or murder, so yes, you do owe me an apology. But I suspect this is an attempt to sidetrack the discussion so that you can avoid having to address the relevant points.