Am i the only one thats seeing Religion destroy the world?

[licec]

Religion isn't destroying the world. It's humans who allow their religion to rule over their consciousness who are destroying the world.

 

[JStar King]

The United Nations and all the governing bodies are destorying the world, because they're corrupt along with the leaders of every corporation. Instead of banning together to stop all this war and foolishness, everybody likes to point fingers. A great man once said "Either we come together and live in peace as brothers.......or we will parish as fools.

 

[V h o]

Nope, it is people. Always is/was people interpreting and acting on their interpretations that cause these negative outcomes.

 

[Ripple Hole]

Nah, at least not generally, plenty of religion allow for behavior of the exact opposite
of what you described.

 

[Hawker]

You must be registered for see links

strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs

You must be registered for see links

1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

________

Acts 17:1-3

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."

Quran 16:25

"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. "

Why would you post dictionary descriptions for those words? I know fully well what they mean.

Your point is?

That asking someone to die and rise from the dead is reasoning?

Okay and the word "argue" has been mentioned in Quran. Great. I guess that dismisses the fact that the whole existence of islam is based on taking your thoughts and morals from a 1000 year old book

 

[Scooby Doo]

Why would you post dictionary descriptions for those words? I know fully well what they mean.

Apparently not. You said faith means believing smtg without evidence. Dictionaries disagree with you.

Your point is?

My point is that faith or being religious doesn't mean you give up your reasoning.

That asking someone to die and rise from the dead is reasoning?

I didn't say that. Strawman argumentation is what you're doing.

Okay and the word "argue" has been mentioned in Quran. Great. I guess that dismisses the fact that the whole existence of islam is based on taking your thoughts and morals from a 1000 year old book

It certainly disproves the claim that faith means giving up your reasoning, and no, it didn't say all your thoughts are taken from a book.

I didn't address your moral argument, so that's a non sequitur.

 

[Hawker]

Apparently not. You said faith means believing smtg without evidence. Dictionaries disagree with you.

Are you serious right now? Just because the dictionary doesn't use the exact words I'm using doesn't mean it's a totally different thing. It's called faith and belief because the only situation you have to resort in either of them is when you don't know for certain, when you don't have evidence. It's pretty self explanatory what faith is, don't you think?

My point is that faith or being religious doesn't mean you give up your reasoning.

You're right about that, but you didn't deliver that point well with those examples. Just because you say you argue, doesn't mean you really do it. We have two sentences in a book that says they argued, but it does not provide examples of this conversation. The first example is inherently wrong as it did not happen and the whole "arguing" was based on superstition. In another words: that wasn't arguing. It was based wholely on faith, don't you see?

I didn't say that. Strawman argumentation is what you're doing.

Then don't use it as an example in favour for arguing.

It certainly disproves the claim that faith means giving up your reasoning, and no, it didn't say all your thoughts are taken from a book.

I never said faith means giving up reasoning as a whole. I meant that it's the root cause for people failing in rational thought.
People of science can be religious, thus they use reasoning quite much when they are dealing with science. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that they forgot the reasoning in other parts in their life.
For example one of the minister from my country is a doctor and the representative of the Christian Democrats. A year back the parliament had a vote for equal marriage rights for homosexuals. The christian democrats and this doctor minister were against it based on their faith that god meant marriage as the union between man and a women. They completely ignored all the constitutional and human rights factors. That is what I mean that faith is evil. It leads doctors like her to deny joy from certain people based on a 1000 year old book.

 

[veggetta13]

Apparently not. You said faith means believing smtg without evidence. Dictionaries disagree with you.


My point is that faith or being religious doesn't mean you give up your reasoning.


I didn't say that. Strawman argumentation is what you're doing.


It certainly disproves the claim that faith means giving up your reasoning, and no, it didn't say all your thoughts are taken from a book.

I didn't address your moral argument, so that's a non sequitur.

I like your approach. Now, that´s A BASIC MERRIT´S dictionary definition, the sort of granted to kids and adolescents. A wider definition of religion does include the concept of the institutionalization of a dogma. This is important as an integral part at least I know of for e.g. Catholicisim or Islamism, do require to prioritize the dogma and its interpretation -one given and lacking argumentation as God as far I know ain´t taking any phone calls-

In a sense the traditional meaning of the action of embracing a religion does include giving up your reasoning on certain issues such as the creation of the universe and the rise of life on Earth. However reasoning is meaningless when I notice some people give their best actions by not reasoning at all in an un-interested fashion.


I see the chat KK so far, everyone seems Koolaid-cool

 

[Scooby Doo]

Are you serious right now? Just because the dictionary doesn't use the exact words I'm using doesn't mean it's a totally different thing. It's called faith and belief because the only situation you have to resort in either of them is when you don't know for certain, when you don't have evidence. It's pretty self explanatory what faith is, don't you think?

I am, are you? You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. You were shown from legit sources that faith or belief doesn't mean you have no arguments or evidence.

No it's not self explanatory apparently, because otherwise you wouldn't have used the word incorrectly. It's not self explanatory either because it can have more than one meaning.

People can't know everything for certain, we all resort to faith sometimes. You don't have to know something for certain: that'd be proof. Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

" A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition."

You must be registered for see links

Proof means certainty. Pieces of evidence are to reach that certainty.

You're right about that, but you didn't deliver that point well with those examples.

You said: "If you believe it without evidence which is what faith is, then you don't argue the case. "

The examples from the Bible and the Quran shows that yes, christians and muslims do argue their cause.

Just because you say you argue, doesn't mean you really do it. We have two sentences in a book that says they argued, but it does not provide examples of this conversation.

Then read the whole Bible and the whole Quran. There are several conversations in them between believers and non-believers. F.e Jesus vs the pharisees, muslims vs pagan Meccans.

The first example is inherently wrong as it did not happen and the whole "arguing" was based on superstition. In another words: that wasn't arguing. It was based wholely on faith, don't you see?

You don't seem to know what argumentation is. To form a valid argument, it doesn't mean it coincides with reality, or that it covers the truth.

Forming an argument means that you have premises and you reach a conclusion. You can reach a false conclusion from true premises (facts), and you can reach a correct conclusion based on false premises.

You must be registered for see links

Even if men don't rise from the dead, it doesn't mean that riligous people didn't have an argument, or didn't have evidence. It just means their argument was fallacious and you have managed to demonstrate that by better arguments.

Then don't use it as an example in favour for arguing.

I didn't say that asking someone to die and rise from the dead is reasoning. Reasoning is to argue and show evidence that happened, and that's the example the Bible is talking about.

I never said faith means giving up reasoning as a whole. I meant that it's the root cause for people failing in rational thought.

The root cause is ignorance, which is not unique to religious people. It just so happens that the majority of the world is religious, so apparently ignorant people are more likely to come from that cluster.

Also, you said that with faith you can justify anything, you don't have to argue. Anything implies as a whole. It's a universal quantor.

People of science can be religious, thus they use reasoning quite much when they are dealing with science. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that they forgot the reasoning in other parts in their life.

But they don't necessarily forget reasoning when it comes to religion, even on YT you can find plenty of debates between scientists arguing for their faith, using their science.

For example one of the minister from my country is a doctor and the representative of the Christian Democrats. A year back the parliament had a vote for equal marriage rights for homosexuals. The christian democrats and this doctor minister were against it based on their faith that god meant marriage as the union between man and a women. They completely ignored all the constitutional and human rights factors. That is what I mean that faith is evil. It leads doctors like her to deny joy from certain people based on a 1000 year old book.

And that's anecdotal evidence.

 

[Hawker]

I am, are you? You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. You were shown from legit sources that faith or belief doesn't mean you have no arguments or evidence.

No it's not self explanatory apparently, because otherwise you wouldn't have used the word incorrectly. It's not self explanatory either because it can have more than one meaning.

I didn't use the word incorrectly. You don't seem to realise that when talking about religious faith it is inherently believing something without evidence. You're sources are just fine, but the way you use them is not.

Nor am I suffering from cognitive dissonance as I agree with the dictionary explanation. It just doesn't go in full detail on what faith is.

"strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs" <--- it's self explanatory 'cause you don't have evidence of God's existence therefore the dictionary example is an example of not having any evidence. They just simplify it.

"Faith is belief in the absence of evidence." Richard Dawkins

People can't know everything for certain, we all resort to faith sometimes. You don't have to know something for certain: that'd be proof. Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

Yes and so do scientist, but it's not what I'm talking about in here.

" A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition."

You must be registered for see links

Proof means certainty. Pieces of evidence are to reach that certainty.

Yes? And?

You said: "If you believe it without evidence which is what faith is, then you don't argue the case. "

The examples from the Bible and the Quran shows that yes, christians and muslims do argue their cause.

Why is this so hard for you? If you believe in god, then you don't argue the case. You base everything solely on a book and hearsay. That is not the basis for intelligent argument. Faith has a huge influence over a religious person in those conversations.

Christians in your example argued over a different case. And the muslims just said they were arguing.

Then read the whole Bible and the whole Quran. There are several conversations in them between believers and non-believers. F.e Jesus vs the pharisees, muslims vs pagan Meccans.

I don't need to as I've talked with plenty of religious people. You just don't get the point which is that faith is inherently evil. In religious communities it's emphasized when they form laws based on faith.

Like I already f*ucking said, sure you can be religious and be able to argue, but the basic principals in your life are based on faith. That's just how it is.

You don't seem to know what argumentation is. To form a valid argument, it doesn't mean it coincides with reality, or that it covers the truth.

Forming an argument means that you have premises and you reach a conclusion. You can reach a false conclusion from true premises (facts), and you can reach a correct conclusion based on false premises.

You must be registered for see links

Even if men don't rise from the dead, it doesn't mean that riligous people didn't have an argument, or didn't have evidence. It just means their argument was fallacious and you have managed to demonstrate that by better arguments.

Lol...ofcourse you can "argue" with religious people that how God created the earth or what does he think of homosexuals, but in the end they always reach the conclusion that is based on their faith. They do not retreat from it. Like I already said. You can't argue with religious people when they use their book as a source for facts. Therefore they are invulnerable to criticism when they blindly believe everything written in that book.

But let me clarify for you: we are talking about forming a valid argument. Not discussion (aka in this case forming somekind of a ridiculous argument). You're really making a simple thing complicated.

I didn't say that asking someone to die and rise from the dead is reasoning. Reasoning is to argue and show evidence that happened, and that's the example the Bible is talking about.

That was a one sided street. "This is my belief and you have to do as I say, because I believe so". There's nothing reasonable in that example.

The root cause is ignorance, which is not unique to religious people. It just so happens that the majority of the world is religious, so apparently ignorant people are more likely to come from that cluster.

Also, you said that with faith you can justify anything, you don't have to argue. Anything implies as a whole. It's a universal quantor.

Ignorance goes hand in hand with blind faith aka religious faith.
Don't know what quantor is , but yes with faith you can justify anything. Let me give you an example. I believe I am god. Therefore it must be true. No dumb atheist can prove I'm not. Which proves I am. I'm sending any non believers to hell.

But they don't necessarily forget reasoning when it comes to religion, even on YT you can find plenty of debates between scientists arguing for their faith, using their science.

Like I said it's different when talking about faith for methods that have already been proven to be trustworthy. Religious people however just don't have anything backing up their faith.

And that's anecdotal evidence.

Who cares?We're not in a courtroom. I gave you an example of what I meant. It's not a new thing that faith influence in the decision making of the so called "rational people". Just look at the republicans in US.

 

[The Great Second Hokage]

"Won't be it's deciding factor"? :/

What's happening in the Middle East is just one of the examples.

Youre right ONE example and its been happening for at least a hundred years and won't stop anytime soon. Religion will not be the deciding factor the nature of man or greed will be imo.

 

[YowYan]

Well, it sure does its work as a tool of stupification and centralizing+expanding power.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I didn't use the word incorrectly. You don't seem to realise that when talking about religious faith it is inherently believing something without evidence. You're sources are just fine, but the way you use them is not.

And you think that saying that you didn't use it incorrectly, or that I didn't use them 'finely', is an argument. It's not. You showed nothing to explain how am I using it incorrectly, or how did you use it correctly.

While I showed to you from legit sources that it's not true that faith/belief means that you give up argumentation.

It's really simple, and I don't understand why you keep being in denial. You gave a definition of faith: that it means believing without evidence. I showed you that's not the meaning of it. The only thing you could argue for, as you actually renewed your postion in the following, is that there are certain types of faith -which is called blind faith- when you accept something without evidence or arguments. But it doesn't mean that's the only type of faith, nor does it mean that peopel of faith have no argumetns. I'm religious. I'm arguing with you. I present you pieces of evidence. So this conversation itself is the living proof that your initial claim is simply not true.

Nor am I suffering from cognitive dissonance as I agree with the dictionary explanation. It just doesn't go in full detail on what faith is.

"strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs" <--- it's self explanatory 'cause you don't have evidence of God's existence therefore the dictionary example is an example of not having any evidence. They just simplify it.

Funny how you complain that the dictionary doesn't go into full details, when you quoted only 2 meanings, while I quoted more than 2 meanings.

You quoted that faith is (as per one definition) 'belief in the existence of God'. But again, belief does mean in its full definition, as I already quoted but here it is again:

3 conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

You must be registered for see links

The only thing you could possibly defend here is that this evidence is not empirical.

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

You must be registered for see links

But again, to form a legitimate argument, you don't need to have "factual certainty". Which also means you can't disprove that God exists.

"Faith is belief in the absence of evidence." Richard Dawkins

I didn't know that Richard Dawkins is a walking dictionary or a linguicist.

"Faith is a commitment based on evidence." /John Lennox

Yes and so do scientist, but it's not what I'm talking about in here.
Sm220Q5wks4

But even when it comes to science, you rely on axioms, for example. 1+1=2. Why? Just because. Does it work out? Sure. Does it have contradictions? Actually, yes. See Gödel's theorems.

You should have watched the video more carefully. RD literally said faith 'in a sense'. So he was talking about a certain kind of faith.

Also, this is the same Richard Dawkins that wrote in his bok 'The God Delusion' that 'in the bottom line, thre is no good or evil, the universe doesn't care, we are just dancing to the music of our DNA'.

So how can you argue that faith is evil as per RD when he said that ultimately there is no good or evil?

And that's why that a naturalistic/materialist worldview can also be used to justify anything. I want to kill someone. Why? Coz life is about the survival of the fittest. Violence is in human nature. Nature is neutral. There is no good or evil. A lion is neither good nor evil for killing the cubs when he takes over the group. And humans are just animals with a more developed brain.

Yes? And?

You took it out of context. The whole point is that, as I already said, to form a legit argument, you don't need proof. Evidence is enough. And it doesn't necessarily mean empirical evidence either. So, yes, religious people can make a legit argument without emprical evidence.

Why is this so hard for you? If you believe in god, then you don't argue the case. You base everything solely on a book and hearsay.

No offense but that's probably the most ignorant statement you made today. There are many people -theists or deists- that don't belong in a certain denomination, who don't practice any specific religion, they don't have any book, yet they still believe in God/gods.

You are also ignoring thousands of years of theology and apologetics, tons of literature on the arguments for the existence of God.

That is not the basis for intelligent argument.

But when you claim that religious people don't argue their cause, and yet I show from their holy books that they do, then it seems intelligent enough to disprove your claim. And again, I'm religious too, and I'm not just saying that I believe in God so shut up I'm right. Yet, I've seen you several times saying that the stats/news you post are facts that can't be disproved or argued, so people shouldn't even try arguing it coz facts can't be argued and so they lose. This is not an intelligent approach either, it undermines any form of constructive conversation.

Faith has a huge influence over a religious person in those conversations.

And again, faith is a belief in God, or a set of beliefs, but belief means that you examine the evidence and so you become convinced. So I don't see the problem of faith having a role in conversations, as long as it includes evidence. Of course blind faith is a different issue, of course I agree that thre are religious people who just accept things without questioning, but that doesn't mean faith has no evidence. maybe those persons are just ignorant, lazy, or simply don't feel like expressing and explaining themselves. Of course saying that 'I'm right because God says so', is not an argument. But it's not an argument either that faith is evil because you say so. Faith has its reasons, and beliefs have evidence- I believe in the same God millions of others believe in, millions who can't always formulate legit arguments, but it doesn't mean that their/our faith has no evidence, as there are millions of others who c a n and d o make legit arguments.

Christians in your example argued over a different case. And the muslims just said they were arguing.

What different case? Jesus' death? That's different compared to what? The existence of God? Who said that's the only argument in question? You said that religious people don't argue, because they can't argue as faith has no evidence. You generalized.

No, the Quran was/is talking about arguing in the best way.

I don't need to as I've talked with plenty of religious people.

So you are judging books based on what others say? Wow, what a brilliant approach.

I've talked to and met hundreds of religious people personally, so it doesn't mean anything.

You just don't get the point which is that faith is inherently evil.

And you just don't get it isn't *shrug*

Funnily, if you are a naturalist, then you probably believe in evolution (not that I deny it, but it's irrelevant now), so it means that you most probably accept that natural selection formed the human brain and whatever we believe or know, is subject to and dependant on evolution, that is, a natural process, so if you say faith -which is also a product of evolution- is inherently evil, then you say that evolution produced smtg evil.

In religious communities it's emphasized when they form laws based on faith

You're straying further and further away from the point, now we are talking about legislation...

Again, faith means a set of beliefs, and beliefs imply relying on evidence, so I don't see what's the problem with basing laws on evidence.

Like I already f*ucking said, sure you can be religious and be able to argue, but the basic principals in your life are based on faith. That's just how it is.

So you admit that I have arguments for my faith? So you admit that you were wrong that religious people don't just give up providing arguments?

And what are the basic principles of my life, tell me, Mr.

At the same time you should think again that faith does have its pieces of evidence.

Lol...ofcourse you can "argue" with religious people that how God created the earth or what does he think of homosexuals, but in the end they always reach the conclusion that is based on their faith.

Apparently not, or else people wouldn't change their religion, or religious people wouldn't become atheists...

Again, faith has its pieces of evidence, so the conclusion they make is also based on evidence.

Also, debating homosexuality, for example, is not necessarily a religious matter. Even atheist scientists argue if it's something you're born with, if there is a 'homosexual gene' or not.

Also, you made the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You say people are religious, so whenever they make a conclusion, it's based on their religious faith. Whilst you ignore that in order to become religious, first you have to examine the evidence.

Basically you're saying that people become religious just like that. That one day they wake up and say, 'yayy from now I believe in God, I don't know why but I just do'. But that's not how it is.

They do not retreat from it.

Maybe the ones you met, didn't, but it's not my fault that you met ignorant people (after all, similis simile gaudet), nor it is my fault that those people are ignorant. Also, you saying that they didn't retreat is no proof. No way to confirm it.

Like I already said. You can't argue with religious people when they use their book as a source for facts.

1) But religious people don't always have book, and even if they do, they don't necessarily have to use it.

2) You are making the genetic fallacy. You say that just because it's a 'religious book', everything that people argue from it, is not legit.

3) If you say that religiosu books contain no facts, well, that's just not true.

Therefore they are invulnerable to criticism when they blindly believe everything written in that book.

But again, this is blind faith, which is not the only type of faith, and I never really met two religious people who agree in everything in their religious book. All texts are up to interpretation, which requires reasoning.

But let me clarify for you: we are talking about forming a valid argument. Not discussion (aka in this case forming somekind of a ridiculous argument). You're really making a simple thing complicated.

I quoted you what argumentation is. It's really simple, yes. It's not so hard to understand that to form a valid argument, you don't necessarily have to have empirical evidence, and even from emprical evidence that provides factual certainty, it's possible to draw wrong conclusions. So even based on 'scientific facts', you can make an invalid argument. F.e, evolution is a fact so God does not exist. That's a non sequitur argument.

That was a one sided street. "This is my belief and you have to do as I say, because I believe so". There's nothing reasonable in that example.

That was not what I said, so you misquoted it. Which is strawman argumentation, again. Apparently even atheists liek you make invalid arguments.

Ignorance goes hand in hand with blind faith aka religious faith.

See you are making the mistake of identifying blind faith with religious faith in general. But I did show you several times now that faith is evidence based. Sure, blind faith ignores the evidence, but take for example, the letter to Romans which says that the existence of God is evident from the creation, so there is no excuse for atheists- and if actually there is a God and you'll have to face God in the afterlife, you'll turn out to be the ignorant one. So it's a two-way street, my friend.

Don't know what quantor is , but yes with faith you can justify anything.

1) This is a non sequitur again: the second half of your sentence is unrelated to the first one.

2) If you don't know, you could have just googled it, just as you could have googled the meaning of faith and belief, then you would have known that it does have evidence.

3) Universal quantors are everything,anything, nothing, never, always...etc. You said that you never said faith means giving up reason as a whole, but previously you had said that religious people don't argue and have no evidence so they can justify anything- anything is a universal term. So you were implying that by faith you can justify even the ignorance of facts, so, for example, a religious scientist could just ignore that objects are made of atoms, saying 'coz God says so'.

You could say now that religious people give up their reason only when it comes to matters related to God and holy scripts, but as you said before that the principles of our lives as religious people are based on faith, you'd end up in a self contradiction: if faith determines the principles of our lives, and faith means you have no arguments or evidence, then you imply that in all areas of our life we give up reason. And you are still yet to explain that, and you are still yet to understand that blind faith and faith are not the same- which should be obvious based on the fact that blind faith ahs an adjective.

4) Even from a naturalistic worldview, or any other worldview for that matter, you can justify anything if you're trying hard enough.

Let me give you an example. I believe I am god. Therefore it must be true. No dumb atheist can prove I'm not. Which proves I am. I'm sending any non believers to hell.

1) Why would you believe you are god?

2) This is a strawman argument: you are mispresenting what religious people say. I never met a christian or a muslim who said that they are gods so they are right.

So the only thing you should possibly argue for is that some religious people say 'God said so, I don't need evidence, so I'm right'. But then again, don't generalize. And don't be ignorant to the difference between the definition of faith and blind faith.

3) Go ahead and believe you are god, I won't mind, so why do you bother with religious people if they have no argument? I'm a religiosu person, so if according to your definition I have no legit arguments, why are you wasting hrs talking to me?

Like I said it's different when talking about faith for methods that have already been proven to be trustworthy. Religious people however just don't have anything backing up their faith.

And by what are you backing up this claim of yours? 'Like I said' is not proof.

Who cares?We're not in a courtroom. I gave you an example of what I meant. It's not a new thing that faith influence in the decision making of the so called "rational people". Just look at the republicans in US.

So you don't care that you make an invalid argument just because it's not a courtroom? I thought you are serious. Why did you ask me then if I am serious, if you are not?

 

[veggetta13]

And that's the genetic fallacy.


I know, but that's not what the argument is about. He said faith always means giving up argumentation, because it means you have no evidence. If someone denies that a phenomenon exists, it's enough for me to show just one example to disprove the claim. Of course he can re-form the point, but it doesn't dismiss the fact that his original claim was fallacious.

Also, institutionalizing a dogma still doesn't mean you give up reasoning.




Again, I just showed from the Bible and the Quran that you should argue and give evidence for the existence of God, to non-believers.


I disagree. It's exactly because you use your reason, that you conclude that God exists, and that's why you accept a religion. And after that, some people may leave the religion if upon further research they change their minds.

I f.e used to be an atheist but now I'm religious. And I still didn't give up my reasoning, I'm open to evolution, but tbh it doesn't affect my life much.


Yes there are people who just say 'this is what my religion says, and I don't care about anything else', but it doesn't mean that's a necessary part of the definition of religion.

Briefly. I am aware I can embrace whatever religion suiting my spirit will not automatically dispose my brains by self-imploding. Being honest you and I know freaking free-thinkers, liberals or wikipeia junkies are not well-accepted or let´s say given a speech space where to express ideas different to the Old Testament or the Mahabbaratha inside or next to their temple.


As positive as I´d like to be about the earlier we know argumentation finds no ground in religion, simple reason why it just divorced itself from it between the 16th and 18 th centuries. As much as i´d like to speak about science i can´t because I´m ignorant. But the same troubling or path without benefit was found by the philosophers, Kant for eg was Cristianity´s last Union´s - -philosopher .


i do believe persons can take both their Faith -RELIGION and their works being a Math teacher or an architect, but it´s clear you´re being everything but impartial while being spiritually drawn-ed in or pushed. By nature religion and thinking are antagonists. Now we are speaking about how "religion" implies . i respect your thought as you´ve been patient enough to type it but conclude you yourself ain´t then what sort of flock is expected to land upon temple.

I´m cool with religious passion, and belief, and hope but I KNOW will not be seeing you arguing why you find -dunno- Monica Bellucci´s body as a whole a vibrating model of passion and life (All of these spoken let´s say outside your synagogue, or church or mosque)

yes, it´s ridiculous, but I´m an artist and just sometimes would urge to speak as freely as I´d like to wherever, whenever cause I´ve been very loved and very tolerated and impulsed to speak my soul.

Religion is not that free ground at all. This speech item you´re trying to defend is more your personal yoga

 

[Scooby Doo]

Briefly.

You call that briefly?

yes, it´s ridiculous, but I´m an artist and just sometimes would urge to speak as freely as I´d like to wherever, whenever cause I´ve been very loved and very tolerated and impulsed to speak my soul.

Religion is not that free ground at all. This speech item you´re trying to defend is more your personal yoga

I hope you're aware that putting a smiley after saying that it's just my 'personal yoga', is not an argument.

It's not my personal yoga to define the meaning of a word. The guy gave a definition without sources: I provided sources to show that's not whta faith means, notwithstanding that it's undeniable that there are religious people whose blind faith stops them from questioning things or being critical thinkers. But that's still not what faith means.

With the same effort you could also tell me how is it possible that atheists like communists believed it's ok to persecute religions, or how comes that guys like Hawker say things that 'what I post is fact so don't even try to argue coz you can't win'. Seems like bigotry to me. Talking about free thinking.

You would also be welcome to explain how comes I was an atheist and I'm religious now.

I am aware I can embrace whatever religion suiting my spirit will not automatically dispose my brains by self-imploding. Being honest you and I know freaking free-thinkers, liberals or wikipeia junkies are not well-accepted or let´s say given a speech space where to express ideas different to the Old Testament or the Mahabbaratha inside or next to their temple.

And what does that have to do with the definition of faith?

As positive as I´d like to be about the earlier we know argumentation finds no ground in religion, simple reason why it just divorced itself from it between the 16th and 18 th centuries.

Yet apologetics is flourishing today.

i do believe persons can take both their Faith -RELIGION and their works being a Math teacher or an architect, but it´s clear you´re being everything but impartial while being spiritually drawn-ed in or pushed.

We are all biased to an extent.

There was a scientist who said follow the evidence wherever it leads. And there are atheist scientists who became religious following the discoveries they made.

By nature religion and thinking are antagonists.

Why?

I´m cool with religious passion, and belief, and hope but I KNOW will not be seeing you arguing why you find -dunno- Monica Bellucci´s body as a whole a vibrating model of passion and life (All of these spoken let´s say outside your synagogue, or church or mosque)

And would you argue for the existence of God? No? Why not? Are you not open minded to that possibility?

 

[Hawker]

...

Lol so you're religious. Should've known. I stopped reading half through your posts 'cause you just argue over semantics, you don't get what has been said to you, you make assumptions and put words in my mouth. Also you write too f*ucking much. Typical.

I'm not going to reply to that unbelievable long rant about a simple matter, but I picked up a few main points which I'll reply shortly:

-I'll make this real simple to you: 1) you gave me a definition of faith and belief. That didn't contradict what I said about faith. Thus it didn't dismiss my definition. 2) I agree with that definition and I don't need to correct you 'cause you used it right. 3) Faith when it comes to religion is believing without evidence as is the case with every religion on earth. That's why it's called believing and faith, and not knowing.

especially when based on examination of evidence

...but not in the case of religion. That part doesn't apply to you, or any other religious person.

.

You are also ignoring thousands of years of theology and apologetics, tons of literature on the arguments for the existence of God.

Yes I am because you have 0 evidence for your faith, your religion and your god.

-You don't know what a strawman argument is (don't post the dictionary explanation) or you just don't know how to use it right in a discussion. Me giving you an example of how ridiculous faith is not a strawman argument. It's just what faith is. Believing. Without evidence. Like in your case. My faith to me being god does not differ from your faith. Both have 0 evidence for their claim.
Also why would you believe there is a god? Why would you know the mind of a god? By what right do you claim to know the mind of a god?

-

"You say people are religious, so whenever they make a conclusion, it's based on their religious faith.

I never said that. You're testing my patience here with your unwillingess to understand simple points and putting words in my mouth.
--> I said: faith is the source of evil. When religious people argue over religion or some moralities that are based in their holy books (f.e homosexuality) they resort to their faith. But like I f*ucking already said there are religious people who are rational like scientist, just not when it comes to the most important questions of life like I don't know evolution theory?

-Also my original comment about faith being the source of evil is the actual quote from Richard Dawkins. So you also clearly misunderstood what he said.

-When John Lennox says faith is commitment based on evidence, he is lying. Also he is christian, not a scientist, so he's bias unlike Dawkins. Provide evidence for your faith and then claim that. Otherwise it's nonsense.

-Lastly you like to showcase using lot of big words, but you fail to use them right. My example of the minister was not an invalid argument. It public information that she is a doctor, christian, minister and that she objects homosexual marriage. So you failed again.
Next time you want to continue such discussion, summarise what you want to say. Now you just write 10 sentences for every sentence I write.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Lol you're religious..that explains alot. I stopped reading half through your posts 'cause you just argue over semantics, you don't get what has been said to you, you make assumptions and put words in my mouth. Also you write too f*ucking much. Typical.

And you start insulting others when you run out of points. Typical.

I'm not going to reply to that unbelievable long rant about a simple matter, but I picked up a few main points which I'll reply shortly:

-I'll make this real simple to you: 1) you gave me a definition of faith and belief. That didn't contradict what I said about faith. Thus it didn't dismiss my definition. 2) I agree with that definition and I don't need to correct you 'cause you used it right. 3) You're simple minded for not understanding. Faith is believing without evidence as is the case with every religion on earth.

The definition I gave you actually does contradict you. You said faith means believing without evidence. One of the meanings in the dictionary is that belief is conviction that smtg exists especially upon examining the evidence. It clearly contradicts that belief has no evidence.

Then funnily you agree with this definition yet you say I use it incorrectly, but your initial definition was not this, so how could you have used a contradictory meaning correctly? Again, if you mean blind faith, sure, blind faith means believing without having any argument to back it up, but then don't confuse the two.

...but not in the case of religion. That part doesn't apply to you, or any other religious person.

Why? Because you say so?

.

Yes I am because you have 0 evidence for your faith, your religion and your god.

Funny, because even atheist philosophers and scientists recognize that there are pieces of evidence and reasons to believe in God.

In this debate, RD actually admits that Lennox could possibly convince him that a deistic god exists.

[video=youtube;J0UIbd0eLxw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw[/video]

-You don't know what a strawman argument is (don't post the dictionary explanation) or you just don't know how to use it right in a discussion. Me giving you an example of how ridiculous faith is not a strawman argument. It's just what faith is. Believing. Without evidence. Like in your case. My faith to me being god does not differ from your faith. Both have 0 evidence for their claim.

1) You won't tell me what to do

2) Strawman argument is when X makes a point (A), and Y attacks another point (B) which is a mispresentation/distortion of X's point. Y may refute point (B), and may look triumphant, but that's not a refutal of point (A)

My point was that faith does have arguments, for the existence of God, and so it doesn't mean you give up giving argument or providing evidence, and I quoted from the Bible and the Quran that christians and muslims are told to provide arguments.

You say that you were just giving an example of how ridiculous faith is because you can even justify that you are god: but that's exactly a mispresentation of my points, quoting from the Bible and the Quran. Christians, jews and muslims
believe in one God (although they may diffr on the nature and attributes of God), so how could a christian, a jew or a muslim justify saying that they humans are themselves gods?

Also, ridiculing the opponent's point is exactly what strawman argumentation is about: to distort their views. As I said, my faith is based on evidence, I posted you the definition which agrees with me, so for you to argue how I don't have evidence because that's what my faith is, is mispresenting my faith. My faith and the faith you are talking about, are apparently not the same. You are talking about blind faith. Had you used that phrase from the beginning,consistently, I wouldn't have bothered arguing. Because I agree there are people who have blind faith.

Also, there are spiritual people, like your friend Yowyan, who believe that we are all gods.

3) You said with faith you can justify anything- then you said later that you never said faith means giving up reasoning as a whole. But anything implies that. You also said that faith governs our principles of life, which also implies that we give up our reasoning in our lives altogether.

Also why would you believe there is a god? Why would you know the mind of a god? By what right do you claim to know the mind of a god?

Why would I believe there is a God? Maybe because I concluded that the best explanation for our world is a Creator, and I'm convinced that He revealed Himself to humans? If you only accept empirical evidence, obviosuly I can't show you God in a laboratory. But noone showed Him to me either, so I advise you that if you want to see concrete evidence, pray honestly to God to reveal Himself to you too.

- I never said that. You're tasting my patience here with your unwillingess to understand simple points and putting words in my mouth.

"You just don't get the point which is that faith is inherently evil. "

^ Apparently you said that.

It's you who doesn't get the simple point that your worldview holds no more value than a religious one, especially because if nature is neutral, then by what do you support your claim that faith is evil? And while it's true that you also said that faith is the source of , it still doesn't make much difference, because in a naturalistic worldview, nature is still neutral, so define evil as per nature. But that will be just an arbitrary definition which binds noone else.

When religious people argue over religion or some moralities that are based in their holy books (f.e homosexuality) they resort to their faith.

Not necessarily. As there are scientists who say that homsexuality is not something you're born with, even from a non-religious pov you can argue that issue. Also, there are religious people nowadays that actually use the Bible or other holy scripts to say that homosexuality is ok.

But like I f*ucking already said there are religious people who are rational like scientist, just not when it comes to the most important questions of life like I don't know evolution theory?

What are you talking about? There are religious scientists who have no problem with evolution, if i'm not mistaken even the Vatican accepted it. And there are atheist scientists who refuse evolution.

-Also my original comment about faith being the source of evil is the actual quote from Richard Dawkins. So you clearly misunderstood what he said also.

In the video you posted, he talks about a certain faith 'in a sense'. he literally says that, and you didn't quote him saying that religion is the source of evil. Anyway there is a video with him titled Religion is the root of all evil, but I've read that was not his own idea but the makers'.

And I'm quite sure that communists were atheists.

-When John Lennox says faith is commitment based on evidence, he is lying.

Or you are lying *shrug*

Also he is christian, not a scientist, so he's bias unlike Dawkins.

Lennox is a math professor at Oxford, where RD teaches as well.

Or Richard Dawkins is the one being biased. I even posted a debate in which he actually admits that maybe there is a deistic god.

Provide evidence for your faith and then claim that. Otherwise it's nonsense.

What's nonsense about believing in a creator? The universe has either always existed for which there is no emprical evidence either, or it had a beginning. If it had a beginning (as most probably it does), it either popped into existence from nothing (for which again there is no empirical evidence), or it had a transcendental cause- as I think so, because it's the best explanation.

-Lastly you like to showcase using lot of big words, but you fail to use them right.

Are you talking about yourself?

My example of the minister was not an invalid argument.

It's anecdotal evidence, which is a fallacy, even though it's true. And that's why I tried to teach you what argumentation means, I even linked you wikipedia. You can reach a false conclusion even on true premises, and vice versa.

It public information that she is a doctor, christian, minister and that she objects homosexual marriage. So you failed again.

Failed again at what?

Has it ever occured to you that there are other reasons for rejecting homosexual marriage? I for one used to be an atheist, I'm a law student, but I agreed with our secular constitutional court when it said that homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. (Inbefore you point out, yes my own example is just an anecdotal evidence too, but your claim is anecdotal evidence too so I still thought I'd share this).

Next time you want to continue such discussion, summarise what you want to say. Now you just write 10 sentences for every sentence I write.

Next time you wanna have a discussion, be prepared for long replies, or are you trying to confine my freedom of speech? Tsk tsk.

Because there are so many self-contradictions and fallacies in your posts that it takes a while to explain that to you.

 

[Hawker]

Look I'm not going to waste my time writing the same responses over and over again. Again you over simplify some of my replys. You clearly don't get what I'm saying to you. It's tiresome. I'll probably watch that debate tomorrow when I have time, but if you want my reply, provide your main points in a short reply on your next comment or don't. I won't lose sleep over it.

​

 

[veggetta13]

You call that briefly?



I hope you're aware that putting a smiley after saying that it's just my 'personal yoga', is not an argument.

It's not my personal yoga to define the meaning of a word. The guy gave a definition without sources: I provided sources to show that's not whta faith means, notwithstanding that it's undeniable that there are religious people whose blind faith stops them from questioning things or being critical thinkers. But that's still not what faith means.

With the same effort you could also tell me how is it possible that atheists like communists believed it's ok to persecute religions, or how comes that guys like Hawker say things that 'what I post is fact so don't even try to argue coz you can't win'. Seems like bigotry to me. Talking about free thinking.

You would also be welcome to explain how comes I was an atheist and I'm religious now.




And what does that have to do with the definition of faith?



Yet apologetics is flourishing today.




We are all biased to an extent.

There was a scientist who said follow the evidence wherever it leads. And there are atheist scientists who became religious following the discoveries they made.


Why?




And would you argue for the existence of God? No? Why not? Are you not open minded to that possibility?

I don´t feel compelled to do so. Suddenly you think I might be but I assure I am not. I could invest having such topic of conversation with my lover but we are speaking semantics and these little details -of what i call your personal yoga- such as inviting me to handle such topic -the existence of God- or assuming your listener -me- do not carry any spiritual values as I´ve told you there is an implicit renunciation in having a religion in which theology isn´t required but Humanism to vow for it, which I do not. Specifically the way religious knowledge is communicated or ought t be interpreted if not just read by its flock.


You´re so full of opinion yet want to be read somehow objective. I´ve drawn an argument, let´s see yours instead of those flash-replies with a book on your hand. I use smileys as a mean of being polite, demagogy is impolite, you took a defensive position right away after I implied this is an adult´s topic, adults are not kids that chew definitions out of dictionaries, neither people that quote them but neglect to make them part of the argument. I´m sure I will not be taking a medical dictionary to a Lovecraft´s antique books convention . You expect adults to follow the lead of a dictionary used in elementary schools. The context shall change the depth, extent of the subject.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I don´t feel compelled to do so. Suddenly you think I might be but I assure I am not. I could invest having such topic of conversation with my lover but we are speaking semantics and these little details -of what i call your personal yoga- such as inviting me to handle such topic -the existence of God- or assuming your listener -me- do not carry any spiritual values as I´ve told you there is an implicit renunciation in having a religion in which theology isn´t required but Humanism to vow for it, which I do not. Specifically the way religious knowledge is communicated or ought t be interpreted if not just read by its flock.

Suddenly I think what?

You do know that humanism is rooted in the re-discovery of antique philosophy, right? And you do know that antique philosophers like Plato or Aristotle believed in God/gods, right?

So to be honest I don't get what your point is here.

You´re so full of opinion yet want to be read somehow objective.

If I post external sources - not even religious ones- to back up my claims, then I'm still more objective than someone who keeps calling me a child, then he complains I'm getting defensive. I'd have every right to be offended, but I forgive you.

It's just your previous post was not really the pinnacle of eloquent English, so maybe I misunderstood you.

I´ve drawn an argument, let´s see yours instead of those flash-replies with a book on your hand.

Flahs replies? What flash replies?

And unless I misuderstood it- in which case sorry, please explain it again-, your argument was that religion and thinking are antagonistic. You didn't really prove that, apart from claims that we both know that free thinkers wouldn't be welcome at temples- but that's just generalization. Also, religious people, even priests, contributed much to science, and humanism.

Apart from that, anecdotal evidence is just that. I have no way to confirm your experience, but apparently we see things differently, which is most probably due to our different past and circumstances.
Other than that, if you say things like my faith is against thinking, then this statement in itself kinda contradicts that you respect my opinion. Because apparently my opinion is connected to my faith -which is not exactly the full picture but never mind-, so if my faith lacks rational thought, basically you are implying that my opinion is just some nonsense blabbering. Don't expect me to take you seriously, then.
Unlike you and many others, I don't say things like all atheists are like this or that, I do acknowledge- as a former atheist- that atheists have their reasons too, and that's why I'm open to conversation, but when you or others are asking me to drop my faith or else you won't admit my arguments are legit, then it's you who kill the meaning of constructive discussion. I didn't try to force my beliefs on you, all I was trying to do is to show that faith doesn't mean you have no evidence whatsoever. Just like scientists have hypotheses that lack empirical evidence, yet noone ridicules them or calls them irrational for that.

I use smileys as a mean of being polite,

Smileys can come off as a sign of sarcasm you know.

demagogy is impolite, you took a defensive position right away after I implied this is an adult´s topic, adults are not kids that chew definitions out of dictionaries,

What does demagogy have to do with getting defensive?

What does age have to do with definitions? Seriosuly, man. I could define idiot as someone who calls others kids, and then you'd fit the definition of an idiot, so how's that? We can play that game if you wish.

I posted definitions to clarify what we mean by our words, or else we can't understand each other. If you use the word gender in the sense of having genitals, and someone else used the word in the sense of social roles, then the two won't reach any constructive common grounds to build up a conclusion from that, unless they define what they mean by the word. If it turns out they were using the word in different meanings the whole time, then obviosuly it was like a conversation between two walls.

neither people that quote them but neglect to make them part of the argument.

And who says so? You? And I think adults realize when they make a fallacy and admit they were wrong. When you refuse a definition simply based on the source I linked it from, saying that it's just some kids' dictionary, then it's a fallacy. You have to show me that it's really just an unreliable source and you have to give me better ones. Unless you do that, you are noone to talk about adults and how they make them part of their argument.

I think I was quite clear. Faith doesn't mean you don't have evidence at all. You didn't show me any definition that says so. Notwithstanding that I know there is this thing called blind faith.

Also, arguments are presented through language. Language is up to interpretation. Which itself requires logic.

Also, if you don't know what argumentation means, how are you gonna argue ?

I´m sure I will not be taking a medical dictionary to a Lovecraft´s antique books convention . You expect adults to

No, I expect you- if you are an adult- to show me that faith has no evidence or arguments. For which first you have to tell me what you mean by faith, evidence, and arguments, and don't just keep saying how it's kids dictionary. Then tell me which dictionary to use, sir?