People who believe in God are "NOT" broken

[zapatos]

Is there any doubt that democrats or republicans exist, though? Do we lack evidence that there is a thing called government and that we often disagree with those in power within it? No, of course not.

Since it is so obvious I am unsure why you are mentioning it.

 

How is it that you think disagreeing with a political viewpoint is somehow equivalent to pointing out the flaws in the reasoning of someone who accepts an extraordinary claim as valid and true in the absence of (and often in direct contradiction to) available evidence?

I don't.

 

I think that it is quite common for an Israeli (Palestinian) to point out the flaws in the reasoning of a Palestinian (Israeli) who accepts an extraordinary claim as valid and true in the absence of (and often in direct contradiction to) available evidence.

 

I see debates on this very site where both sides seem incredulous that the other side can be such a complete dolt.

 

Now you're trying to equate opinions with beliefs.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

There is no doubt that democrats, republicans, Israelis and Palestinians exist. We know they are real. Our opinions on their ideologies vary but that has no bearing on their existence.

I am unsure why you need to point out that democrats and the others exist.

 

OTOH, there is zero evidence to support as fact the existence of deities, leprechuans, unicorns, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities. But surely that is no surprise to you as deities are supernatural and science does not address the supernatural.

As far as unicorns and the like I am unsure why you bring them up. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are real.

 

It is understandable that misled children believe in these things but adults should know better and their ability to think rationally should be questioned if they believe any of these things are real.

Yes, you've already pointed out that it is not possible for an adult to conclude that a God exists.

[Moontanman]

Since it is so obvious I am unsure why you are mentioning it.

 

I don't.

 

I think that it is quite common for an Israeli (Palestinian) to point out the flaws in the reasoning of a Palestinian (Israeli) who accepts an extraordinary claim as valid and true in the absence of (and often in direct contradiction to) available evidence.

 

I see debates on this very site where both sides seem incredulous that the other side can be such a complete dolt.

 

Yeah, pretty much.

 

 

I am unsure why you need to point out that democrats and the others exist.

 

Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities. But surely that is no surprise to you as deities are supernatural and science does not address the supernatural.

As far as unicorns and the like I am unsure why you bring them up. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are real.

 

Yes, you've already pointed out that it is not possible for an adult to conclude that a God exists.

 

 

Well um... unicorns have to be real, the bible says they are...

[doG]

As far as unicorns and the like I am unsure why you bring them up. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are real.

I see no difference in the lack of evidence for the existence of deities or unicorns and no reason to treat beliefs in them differently. Unicorns could be labeled supernatural just as some beliefs in deities but that doesn't make the belief in either any more rational.

 

I'll additionally point out that it is one thing to theorize that maybe the supernatural could exist and that maybe that there are deities that are supernatural but that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the declaration as fact that deities do exist without any evidence and that is what's irrational, including any claims that their existence is a fact but we can't prove it because they're supernatural. In fact I see that as even more irrational since it's a claim that the supernatural exists without evidence. That's using one unsupported claim to support another unsupported claim.

Edited August 24, 2013 by doG

[zapatos]

Well um... unicorns have to be real, the bible says they are...

Well I stand corrected. There is someone here who believes in unicorns.

 

 

I see no difference in the lack of evidence for the existence of deities or unicorns and no reason to treat beliefs in them differently. Unicorns could be labeled supernatural just as some beliefs in deities but that doesn't make the belief in either any more rational.

I didn't say you should treat the lack of evidence for unicorns and deities differently. I said no one here is advocating belief in unicorns. I have no desire to debate unicorns.

 

I'll additionally point out that it is one thing to theorize that maybe the supernatural could exist and that maybe that there are deities that are supernatural but that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the declaration as fact that deities do exist without any evidence...

Just for the record, when you say "without any evidence" you mean "without any evidence" that you will accept.

 

... and that is what's irrational, including any claims that their existence is a fact...

Is that what happens? All theists claim his existence is a fact? There are no agnostic theists?

 

but we can't prove it because they're supernatural. In fact I see that as even more irrational since it's a claim that the supernatural exists without evidence. That's using one unsupported claim to support another unsupported claim.

So you won't be happy until there is 'scientific' evidence that the supernatural exists? Don't hold your breath.

If you are talking of evidence that is acceptable to the average theist I think you will find plenty.

[Enviro0801]

It seems to me that this concept of "broken" is analagous to the absence of a sense of belongingness. This is a basic, emotional need for all human beings. That is why people tend to form groups/societies/social circles and arguably religions. Often times people seek out, or readily accept religion because this is lacking in their life. Using christianity as an example, not only does the person feel like the belong among their church group, but they convince themselves that they belong to a much higher order. This is often refered to as "feeling the presence of God", and it's an eternal belongingness. It's a seductive notion, especially to those who need to feel like they belong. Those that are born and raised into it have that emotional need fullfilled already, and that only reenforces their faith.

I always find it interesting and a bit funny when people say to me "I feel the presence of the lord". Obviously this feeling is not based on the 5 senses. It refers to a sort of imagined feeling. A person must imagine what God is, and then associate a feeling to that idea. I always wonder what it is they are imagining when they do that. Maybe they imagine that quentissential picture of God, with the long white beard and robe? Maybe it's just bright light? Maybe it's purely emotional, and there is no specific figure. Whatever it might be, I sometimes wonder if what they are feeling is not an external God that exists in a metaphysical world of wonder and light, but an internal God, i.e. themselves. That quite literally, God is created to give substance to their own conciousness (the observer). All of the rhetoric and dogma is just a distraction from finding what's been there all along. Perhaps even the devils work, as his best trick is to convince the world he doesn't exist right? I ask you this: What better way of doing that than concealing himself within the dogma of religion? This extremely powerful, clever fallen angel gets cast down here, and he tricks the whole world into believing religion. He convinces the christians that the almighty God sent his only begotten son down to the sinners, in order to die for those sins by the hands of his own people, and then to be forgiven by HIMSELF... Wow.

[doG]

Just for the record, when you say "without any evidence" you mean "without any evidence" that you will accept.

 

Evidence is only evidence if it is unquestionable, not speculative.

 

Is that what happens? All theists claim his existence is a fact? There are no agnostic theists?

 

Theism is the belief that one or more deities exist, not a theory that they might exist. Theists with doubt are not-theists, i.e. atheists. Yes there are agnostic theists. As theists they belief that the existence of deities is a fact and as agnostics they also believe that man can never know the absolute truth.

[iNow]

Just for the record, when you say "without any evidence" you mean "without any evidence" that you will accept.

Empirical evidence, basically. In much the same way that thunder is not evidence of Thor and waves in the ocean are not evidence of Poseidon, the existence of love or a flowering plant or a near escape from a car accident are not evidence of Yahweh (or any other god(s) invented by human imagination or laying dead in the graveyard of our mythology).

 

 

 

I always find it interesting and a bit funny when people say to me "I feel the presence of the lord". Obviously this feeling is not based on the 5 senses. It refers to a sort of imagined feeling. A person must imagine what God is, and then associate a feeling to that idea.

This is a very good point.

Edited August 24, 2013 by iNow

[zapatos]

Evidence is only evidence if it is unquestionable, not speculative.

Again, that is what it means to you, and to men of science. That is what it takes for you to believe it. That view of evidence is not universal. A quick conversation with theists will quickly convince you that they do not necessarily view evidence in the same way that you do.

 

 

Yes there are agnostic theists. As theists they belief that the existence of deities is a fact and as agnostics they also believe that man can never know the absolute truth.

That sounds contradictory. How does one know something for a 'fact', and at the same time feel you 'can never know the absolute truth'? If it is a fact, isn't it by definition also true? At least in the mind of the person who knows that fact?

 

Regardless, my point was that some people believe in God but recognize that they could be mistaken.

 

Empirical evidence, basically. In much the same way that thunder is not evidence of Thor and waves in the ocean are not evidence of Poseidon, the existence of love or a flowering plant or a near escape from a car accident are not evidence of Yahweh (or any other god(s) invented by human imagination or laying dead in the graveyard of our mythology).

Right. Empirical evidence is what is required for you and something you will never get from theists. Empirical evidence is not required for everyone. I'd wager that half the theists in the world couldn't tell you what empirical evidence was if their lives depended on it.

[doG]

Again, that is what it means to you, and to men of science. That is what it takes for you to believe it. That view of evidence is not universal. A quick conversation with theists will quickly convince you that they do not necessarily view evidence in the same way that you do.

 

Theists don't get to define the meaning of evidence, it's in the dictionary. Yes, theists want you to accept things like the bible as evidence even though the whole book is nothing but hearsay and wouldn't be allowed as evidence in a court of law. For them, evidence is whatever they say it is regardless if it is speculation or not. They need to find a new word because 'evidence' isn't it, it's already taken and it means something other than what they want.

 

That sounds contradictory. How does one know something for a 'fact', and at the same time feel you 'can never know the absolute truth'? If it is a fact, isn't it by definition also true? At least in the mind of the person who knows that fact?

 

Not at all. Theism is about the belief in one or more deities. It is not about knowing they exist, just about believing. That belief is based purely on faith, not knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Agnostics believe that mankind can never know the absolute truth about things like the supernatural. Most theists that believe in a supernatural deity are agnostic theists in that their belief in a deity is based on faith while believing at the same time that their deity is beyond the realm of knowledge. Contrast them with gnostic theists whom claim to know there is a god.

 

Perhaps you'll enjoy this post from the past.

[John Cuthber]

 

Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities. But surely that is no surprise to you as deities are supernatural and science does not address the supernatural.

There are two problems with that, the first is that there is no evidence of the supernatural.

The second is that the truth is not just "Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities. " but that there is no evidence of any sort to support the existence of deities.

 

There are old books and mistaken or deluded people- but those aren't evidence.

 

If you really think that there is evidence of any sort for the existence of God the present it and we will (I'm willing to bet) show that it's not evidence ofanything

[iNow]

Empirical evidence is what is required for you and something you will never get from theists. Empirical evidence is not required for everyone. I'd wager that half the theists in the world couldn't tell you what empirical evidence was if their lives depended on it.

Or, to say the same thing in shorthand, broken.

[Didymus]

"You asked what sort of hate I was referring to.... While demonstrating it. "

Who do you think I hate and do you really think that I'd not notice?

Are you acting under the delusion that you know my mind better than I do?

How broken is that?

Or is it just some bit of dogma you have picked up somewhere?

For the record, I'm laughing at the irony. On the other hand, you seem so riled that you can't type properly. Might be hate, might be anger, might be something else, but it's not helping you put a message across.

 

 

" This happens for many reasons, and is not caused by religion. "

Yes it is caused by religion, that's well documented.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23729684

Ignoring such evidence is, shall we say, "broken".

Thinking that this

"Some people also take too many drugs and suffer as much. "

has anything to do with the question isn't rational either.

 

"First you have a false dichotomy that assumes people must choose between prayer and medicine."

Nope, the pastor does that.

 

" Second, id bet you ignore any evidence to support prayer "

Show me some and we can find out.

Better yet, show these people and get a million dollars.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

 

Similarly, if you have any evidence then please provide it, otherwise this "If you can't pray for God to pop up on your terms, you assume it to be evidence that prayer has no effect. Thing is, God's a bit smarter than you and doesn't have to give you what you want how you want it when you want it. " is pointless drivel.

.

 

First, yes. People displaying their hatred very often don't see it as such. Racists and bigots of all sorts don't believe themselves full of hate.... They feel justified in one way or another and can't see it as hatred, although it's quite obvious to everyone else. When you say you're demonstrating how broken everyone is with a different faith than you because of some rumor you heard about how evil people who believe differently are..... All your demonstrating is the trauma you must have gone through to build Such a phobia.

 

As for your opinion that pastors mandate people reject all medical treatment and solely pray... You'd have to prove that.... I'm quite religious, raised by a quite religious Emt and nurse. Hard to reject medicine when that's the profession of both parents. ... If the. Hutch frowned upon the medical field, should they not have been reprimanded? Yes, a few extremists reject health care for medical reasons. There's also plenty of people out there that refuse to vaccinate their kids due to all sorts of irrational fears.... Religion not being one.

 

Your "religion kills children" claim is pretty much dead. Next.

To be honest I'm not sure I can answer that question, I know my own beliefs took many years to gel and quite a bit of skeptical inquiry, I know in my younger days I waffled back and forth to some degree but ultimately I just couldn't drink the kool-aid. I know many theists who will not even look at the evidence preferring a cocoon of ignorance rather than the hardness of reality. The vast majority of people who think that way rarely stray far from their roots... although I do know of many who have spiraled down the hole of fundamentalism from a more moderate background and some like me that started out being taught fundamentalism but by a young age had begin to see the emperor had no clothes...

Likewise, while there are people blindly going go church out of habit (giving everyone a bad name), there are also plenty of people who were taught the basics, questioned things.... Perhaps found a more logical congregation.... Questioned things more, then came upon the conclusion for themselves that they found the existence of a God the most logical option, based on everything they've seen.

 

Science has no explanation for what caused the big bang to happen.... Yet, the mainstream scientific community take it on faith that something they can't begin to explain (without violating physics) must have. They can't begin to explain the first steps of evolution.... Biogenisis.... Yet science takes it on faith that this impossible thing is more likely to have happened without a cause than with one. ... There are millions of dollars in grants right now cor research on bow to most effectively use "exotic material" as a fuel source cor spacecraft.... Taking on faith that some magical material exists that has certain conflicting properties.... We have no idea if it can exist or .... But based on faith, people are throwing away fortunes.

[doG]

Science has no explanation for what caused the big bang to happen.... Yet, the mainstream scientific community take it on faith that something they can't begin to explain (without violating physics) must have. They can't begin to explain the first steps of evolution.... Biogenisis.... Yet science takes it on faith that this impossible thing is more likely to have happened without a cause than with one. ... There are millions of dollars in grants right now cor research on bow to most effectively use "exotic material" as a fuel source cor spacecraft.... Taking on faith that some magical material exists that has certain conflicting properties.... We have no idea if it can exist or .... But based on faith, people are throwing away fortunes.

 

Not exactly. When you ask scientists what caused the big bang or evolution they answer 'we don't know'. Scientists freely admit there's lots of thing we don't know. Science draws no conclusion on any cause of the things we've yet to understand. What it objects to is those who want to declare a made up answer like 'god did it' when there is zero evidence to support any such conclusion. Not only do such people want to declare some unsupported made up answer as the answer they want everyone to think it is some unquestionable truth as they do. The only real truth to many of these questions is 'we don't know' and rational thinkers realize this. The irrational accept made up answers to fill in the blanks without question and they are fooling no one but themselves with their delusion.

[Moontanman]

First, yes. People displaying their hatred very often don't see it as such. Racists and bigots of all sorts don't believe themselves full of hate.... They feel justified in one way or another and can't see it as hatred, although it's quite obvious to everyone else. When you say you're demonstrating how broken everyone is with a different faith than you because of some rumor you heard about how evil people who believe differently are..... All your demonstrating is the trauma you must have gone through to build Such a phobia.

 

As for your opinion that pastors mandate people reject all medical treatment and solely pray... You'd have to prove that.... I'm quite religious, raised by a quite religious Emt and nurse. Hard to reject medicine when that's the profession of both parents. ... If the. Hutch frowned upon the medical field, should they not have been reprimanded? Yes, a few extremists reject health care for medical reasons. There's also plenty of people out there that refuse to vaccinate their kids due to all sorts of irrational fears.... Religion not being one.

 

Your "religion kills children" claim is pretty much dead. Next.

 

Likewise, while there are people blindly going go church out of habit (giving everyone a bad name), there are also plenty of people who were taught the basics, questioned things.... Perhaps found a more logical congregation.... Questioned things more, then came upon the conclusion for themselves that they found the existence of a God the most logical option, based on everything they've seen.

 

Science has no explanation for what caused the big bang to happen.... Yet, the mainstream scientific community take it on faith that something they can't begin to explain (without violating physics) must have. They can't begin to explain the first steps of evolution.... Biogenisis.... Yet science takes it on faith that this impossible thing is more likely to have happened without a cause than with one. ... There are millions of dollars in grants right now cor research on bow to most effectively use "exotic material" as a fuel source cor spacecraft.... Taking on faith that some magical material exists that has certain conflicting properties.... We have no idea if it can exist or .... But based on faith, people are throwing away fortunes.

 

 

We don't know yet is not the same as goddidit... As for the rest if you think religion doesn't kill children I suggest you look a little deeper. No, all religions or religious denominations advocate no doctors or medicine but sadly a significant portion do and both adults and children die and yes this is the result of believing a bronze age mythology to be the truth about something called god...

 

Yes the steps of evolution can be explained, if you do a little bit of searching here on this site you will find many such conversations.

 

And yes biased on faith people do throw away fortunes, literally 600 billion a year to an imaginary friend in the sky who is all powerful but needs your money...

 

And yes as a matter of fact abiogenesis does have a considerable amount of data, no where near as much as evolution but still it not a complete unknown as you try to insinuate...

There are millions of dollars in grants right now cor research on bow to most effectively use "exotic material" as a fuel source cor spacecraft....

 

 

Yes, I guess we could give all that money to the church so they can spread the lies and deceit and build ever bigger mega churches so more people can give money to further the cause of religion... Gee just think how wonderful the world would be if science just didn't exist, no more money down that rat hole that only feeds clothes and heals everyone on earth, lets bring back that wonderful gift of god, small pox, yes and stop making new vaccines, who cares, god will save us all...

[John Cuthber]

All your demonstrating is the trauma you must have gone through to build Such a phobia.

 

As for your opinion that pastors mandate people reject all medical treatment and solely pray... You'd have to prove that....

 

Your "religion kills children" claim is pretty much dead.

 

 

Stop making up stuff about me like previous trauma, hatred and phobia. Everyone reading this thread knows that you don't know me and you are not in a position to make those claims.

You just look silly.

Re "As for your opinion that pastors mandate people reject all medical treatment and solely pray"

Your claim is a strawman.

 

Did you not realise that putting the word "all" into it meant that it was no longer what I had said? (and, BTW, that's "bearing false witness")

 

What I actually did say was supported by this

"The doctors and health professionals reported a variety of cases:

• Some said they had dealt with parents who felt under pressure to stop giving their young children their HIV medicine - and some had actually done so"

from the web page I cited earlier

 

The two children mentioned here are much more dead than the assertion that religion kills children.

 

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/24/faith-healing-parents-arrested-after-second-child-dies-from-lack-of-medical-care/

[Didymus]

For "exotic material" and the big bang and evolution.... How it started is, infact, an important part of thé theory. Pop-science uses the excuse all the time that these aren't matters of faith..... yet they know something happened for which there is no explanation. Sorry.... But that's faith, just like any religion. And inherently less logical because whether the universe began in a magical, physics defying explosion with a source or without a source.... No matter how mystical the source is, "nothing" causing something is less logical.

 

And john, I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you as a person. I know nothing about you. But it's a pretty reliable rule that when people go out of their way to harass and insult other entire groups solely based on misinformation about those groups.... There is generally something personally traumatic about that person's past. It's beyond disagreement and has turned into a personal vendetta where certain people feel they need to attack and insult anyone with a different belief structure.... Since their belief structure is so obviously superior and unquestionable that any who question it must hate freedom and kittens.

 

We disagree... So, have a debate. Don't personally attack people cor thinking differently.... Then call foul when someone points out bow transparent your attacks are.

 

Judge not, lest Ye be judged.

Typos to be blamed on tiny phone keyboard. Camping in Oregon. My son's first campout, first amtgard event, and he took his first steps. Woot!

[John Cuthber]

"And inherently less logical because whether the universe began in a magical, physics defying explosion "

It doesn't defy physics- it's just that we don't yet fully understand that physics.

So " But that's faith, just like any religion."

is wrong, because the science wants to change and get better but faith refuses to change.

You need to accept that difference

 

"And john, I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you as a person. "

 

Then don't.

I know nothing about you. But it's a pretty reliable rule that when people go out of their way to harass and insult other entire groups solely based on misinformation about those groups.... There is generally something personally traumatic about that person's past. It's beyond disagreement.

OK, but

I didn't go out of my way, this is a science site and Crispy Bacon turned up and made an unevinced assertion.

I'm not insulting anyone- just pointing something out.

I'm not peddling misinformation. I am not the one who said "Your "religion kills children" claim is pretty much dead. "

I'm not the one drawing up strawmen.

I'm not the one who says "Since their belief structure is so obviously superior and unquestionable that any who question it must hate freedom and kittens."

 

"Then call foul when someone points out bow transparent your attacks are."

I didn't do that- it's another of your strawmwen.
I pointed out that you had made a logical error- use of a strawman.

You, on the other hand, keep making unsubstantiated allegations about hatred, phobias etc.

Unless you can prove it (and you won't because it's wrong) you are talking nonsense.

Get yourself a mirror

[Moontanman]

For "exotic material" and the big bang and evolution.... How it started is, infact, an important part of thé theory. Pop-science uses the excuse all the time that these aren't matters of faith..... yet they know something happened for which there is no explanation. Sorry.... But that's faith, just like any religion. And inherently less logical because whether the universe began in a magical, physics defying explosion with a source or without a source.... No matter how mystical the source is, "nothing" causing something is less logical.

 

 

 

So you use pop science to base your notions of science? How droll... No one, says nothing caused something, no one really knows is the correct answer but so far the evidence points to everything originating from an expansion 13.7 billion years ago... more or less.... the problem of where that expansion came from or what caused it is being looked at but to say a magical sky fairy did it in the face of total lack of evidence for this is less than honest... in fact I would say it is the desperate attempt by broken people to dishonestly defend the last gasp of the gap left for god to exist in undetected...

[zapatos]

Theists don't get to define the meaning of evidence, it's in the dictionary. Yes, theists want you to accept things like the bible as evidence even though the whole book is nothing but hearsay and wouldn't be allowed as evidence in a court of law. For them, evidence is whatever they say it is regardless if it is speculation or not. They need to find a new word because 'evidence' isn't it, it's already taken and it means something other than what they want.

You hit the nail on the head when you said "evidence is whatever they say it is". That is my point. You are complaining they are not following the rules and they don't even know there is a rule book.

 

Not at all. Theism is about the belief in one or more deities. It is not about knowing they exist, just about believing. That belief is based purely on faith, not knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Agnostics believe that mankind can never know the absolute truth about things like the supernatural. Most theists that believe in a supernatural deity are agnostic theists in that their belief in a deity is based on faith while believing at the same time that their deity is beyond the realm of knowledge. Contrast them with gnostic theists whom claim to know there is a god.

 

Perhaps you'll enjoy this post from the past.

Very nice; both your comment and that old post. It is annoying to me that I've talked about these three little words probably 20 times and I still confuse the subtleties.

 

There are two problems with that, the first is that there is no evidence of the supernatural.

The second is that the truth is not just "Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities.

" but that there is no evidence of any sort to support the existence of deities.

 

There are old books and mistaken or deluded people- but those aren't evidence.

 

If you really think that there is evidence of any sort for the existence of God the present it and we will (I'm willing to bet) show that it's not evidence of anything

The problem as I see it is that you are failing to recognize the reality of how a great many theists think. You are looking at the world in terms of the rules that you understand, but are failing to recognize that they are not working under those same rules.

 

It doesn't matter if you show me that there is not really any evidence of God. You have to show it to the theist who believes that the sudden tingle on the back of his neck, that caused him to pause and not step out into the street thus avoiding being hit by a car, was not really the hand of God reaching out and keeping him safe. Until someone explains that to him, then determines whether or not he has adjusted his thinking, you cannot conclude that he is broken.

 

Or, to say the same thing in shorthand, broken.

You have no more evidence to conclude that they are broken based on that statement than they have that God exists. It is like concluding that someone has failed at being a mechanic when you don't know if they have ever seen a wrench or tried to work on an engine.

 

I think where the three of you are going wrong is that you are judging others based on your standards. You are educated, critical thinkers who have debated the existence of God in terms of clear rules of logic, historical records, philosophy, empirical evidence, an understanding of the significance of the scientific method, a background in the natural sciences, an understanding of physics/biology/chemistry, a working knowledge of evolution, etc.

 

And you are concluding that some illiterate goat herder in the mountains of Afghanistan is 'broken' because while dodging the Taliban and trying to find enough food to feed his family tonight, his musings on the universe have not made it obvious to him that belief in God is illogical.

 

Reaching the point where you can conclude that what you've been taught all your life is wrong, takes some level of intelligence, education, skill and effort.

 

I would be interested in seeing what empirical evidence you have that simply having 'a belief in God', without controlling for other factors, has allowed you to conclude that a person who believes in God is 'broken'.

[John Cuthber]

The problem as I see it is that you are failing to recognize the reality of how a great many theists think. You are looking at the world in terms of the rules that you understand, but are failing to recognize that they are not working under those same rules.

But the rules I'm working to are called logic.

In most areas of life, if you start ignoring the rules of logic you will quickly get thought of as "broken".

If you can claim "an old book says so" is evidence then you can write something down and it's veracity will start off as zero but rise to the point of being "revealed truth" with time.

But truth doesn't work that way.

 

The rules of scientific evidence pretty much coincide with the legal definitions; both of them are broadly based in the rules of logical inference.

But religion is allowed to simply ignore them and, by proxy, to ignore logic.

That's a pretty broken way to think.

[zapatos]

But the rules I'm working to are called logic.

The rules of logic must be applied to something. In your case, physics, chemistry, biology, the scientific method, and all the others I mentioned. In the case of the goat herder, he gets to apply logic to none of those things.

 

In most areas of life, if you start ignoring the rules of logic you will quickly get thought of as "broken".

If you can claim "an old book says so" is evidence then you can write something down and it's veracity will start off as zero but rise to the point of being "revealed truth" with time.

But truth doesn't work that way.

He cares for his goats, he feeds his family, he doesn't spit into the wind, and he don't mess around with the Taliban. I feel confident that the goat herder is not thought of as broken by his fellow goat herders.

 

The rules of scientific evidence pretty much coincide with the legal definitions; both of them are broadly based in the rules of logical inference.

Unknown and therefore irrelevant to the goat herder.

 

But religion is allowed to simply ignore them and, by proxy, to ignore logic.

That's a pretty broken way to think.

Religion doesn't think. People do.

 

Would you mind addressing the goat herder specifically and tell me why he is broken?

 

And since so many people keep bringing up evidence (or lack thereof) as a key component to the conclusion that people who believe in God are broken, I really would like to see what empirical evidence you have that simply having 'a belief in God', without controlling for other factors, has allowed you to conclude that a person who believes in God is 'broken'.

[John Cuthber]

"Would you mind addressing the goat herder specifically and tell me why he is broken?"

I would, but I'm sure it was discussed earlier and I don't want to make this thread longer than it needs to be.

 

The point is that the goatherder isn't posting here so, no, he's not broken- just the victim of fraud (directly or by proxy).

 

"Religion doesn't think. People do."

Thinking religiously is a pretty broken way to think.

[iNow]

And you are concluding that some illiterate goat herder in the mountains of Afghanistan is 'broken' because while dodging the Taliban and trying to find enough food to feed his family tonight, his musings on the universe have not made it obvious to him that belief in God is illogical.

 

Reaching the point where you can conclude that what you've been taught all your life is wrong, takes some level of intelligence, education, skill and effort.

Just because it's easier to empathize with the circumstances that led to his being broken and to cut him some slack for his style of thinking, that does not mean the conclusion regarding him having a broken style of thinking suddenly changes in any meaningful way.

 

 

I would be interested in seeing what empirical evidence you have that simply having 'a belief in God', without controlling for other factors, has allowed you to conclude that a person who believes in God is 'broken'.

To be honest, the term "broken" kept coming into my mind when interacting with theists online... I'd read their arguments in support of their belief position and just kept thinking of how ridiculous most of it was... how broken it all was. Broken arguments, broken logic, broken replies to criticisms, broken ability to accurately comprehend the posts of others, broken openness to new information... They were just consistently broken across several domains, some people more than others, but all of them broken in some way in context of reason and rationality.

So, I created a thread to talk about it and see how people would react to the idea. It's turned into a very interesting and lasting conversation, and IMO has been a very successful discussion.

[zapatos]

Just because it's easier to empathize with the circumstances that led to his being broken and to cut him some slack for his style of thinking, that does not mean the conclusion regarding him having a broken style of thinking suddenly changes in any meaningful way.

Damn. If empathy is all I was able to convey in that post then I am going to give up debate.

 

It's turned into a very interesting and lasting conversation, and IMO has been a very successful discussion.

Without a doubt. Edited August 25, 2013 by zapatos

[Didymus]

John... You're comfortable with saying that the big bang "doesnt defy physics, we just don't understand it yet".... But people are inherently foolish/broken for applying the same logic to a different source of a universal explosion of creation?

 

Do you see the fundamental flaw?

 

Also, you say that the goal of science is to change.... And I tend to disagree. Science is to find the correct answer.... Perhaps in order to find more questions.... But "change" isnt the end goal for the sake of change. Religion's purpose is to constantly increase our understanding of the source of creation... Exactly like true science. Only difference is religion has an idea about where to find the correct answer. Not to unquestioningly believe something to avoid change.... But to constantly learn from the source of all knowledge. In the words of Einstein.... Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. The point of both is to seek truth.