Faith-based beliefs

[William]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding as to the purpose of my first thread on this subject due to the nature of some members making personal comments about other members in their posts, comments which were not directly related to the thread topic, and as a result the thread was locked.

I was using a disclaimer another member often uses, as a means of example - which is not contrary to any of the forum rules - not as a means of personal attack - which is contrary to the forum rules.

Certainly - as can be clearly seen, the OP does not make any such thing as a personal comment/attack or debate against any individual member.

The way I see it, debating is a form of schooling, in which the participants are both teaching and learning, whereas proselytizing clearly has no intention of learning, and in that is not teaching so much as preaching.

Is it fair that individuals use such a platform as a debate forum to preach from, when it is clear that their intention is not to debate at all, but to consistently spam the forum with their particular brand of organised religious indoctrination?

It is clear that the forum rules allow for some proselytizing to occur as a matter of 'par for the course', but when it is clear that individuals are not interested in any actual debate - especially in regard to their own particular sect - and even go to lengths to make disclaimers in order to avoid having to. Does this contravene the rules sufficiently to be dealt with in the same manner as any other type of rule breaking is dealt with?

Faith-based beliefs...Are they debatable?

What do you think?

PS - please don't use the OP question as an opportunity to make personal unrelated comments against other members. Just answer the question the OP is asking.

Thanks.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

You're certainly free to define atheism for yourself as you wish.

You are right. That is why I define it properly hoping that some will come to a accurate understanding.

Oddly, many have a compulsion to redefine atheism in a way that doesn't represent my clear words in any way.

I'm glad to see you admit that redefining my words is a fallacy. I wish more would reach that proper conclusion.

All they need to do is read your signature ....

Not difficult really.

BUT ...

Your signature says what a LOT of folks of faith don't want to hear.

MANY folks of faith HAVE to understand that we say "There is no God" ...

Otherwise, their position crumbles ...

And the spotlight stays on the angels and virgins and talking donkeys and their god-man with his extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers.

And they can't have that. They know it is a losing proposition.

Instead they create a straw man and attempt to topple it. It reminds me of the name of a local band from my old hometown; "The Quixote Project".

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 48 by mrhagerty]

mrhagerty: It's an error to propose that faith cannot prove that what is believed is true.

brunumb: Given that faith can allow one to believe something that is patently false, it is hard to reconcile your claim. Care to elaborate?

mrhagerty: I don't agree that Christian faith is demonstrably false. Having no material or scientific evidence doesn't mean there is only one other alternative - that it is false.

Where did I claim that Christian faith is false? You have created a straw man argument. Please read again what is in bold above. Now, explain your claim that it is an error to propose that faith cannot prove that what is believed is true.

If you are of the mind that it's impossible for faith to provide evidence, you've tainted the assessment from the start.

Explain how faith provides evidence. Faith merely allows you to believe anything. There is no evidence necessary. You can reach a position of faith without evidence because that is exactly how childhood indoctrination produces the vast majority of faithful believers. What evidence does faith then subsequently produce?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 52 by brunumb]

Explain how faith provides evidence. Faith merely allows you to believe anything. There is no evidence necessary. You can reach a position of faith without evidence because that is exactly how childhood indoctrination produces the vast majority of faithful believers. What evidence does faith then subsequently produce?

To the very core of the topic.

Short, sharp and precise.

I would like to see it answered in a short, sharp, precise manner.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 45 by Tcg"

mrhagerty: You're certainly free to define atheism for yourself as you wish.

You are right. That is why I define it properly. .

No, tcg, you actually don't. Very few atheists, if any, say they merely believe there is no god, or they have no belief that there are gods. The rest proclaim with verve that there is no god.

You see that as a statement devoid of belief, so you argue that atheists don't have a belief. But you ignore that they also say there is no god as if it is a fact.
And that is where a positive statement of belief is hidden. You even agree that where one can't prove a claim, they are making a statement of belief.

Oddly, many have a compulsion to redefine atheism in a way that doesn't represent my clear words in any way.

You're acting as if you're the clearing house for atheistic definitions, when you're only a clearing house for yourself.

I'm glad to see you admit that redefining my words is a fallacy.

But I don't admit that. I admitted that redefining the universal position of atheists is a fallacy.

MANY folks of faith HAVE to understand that we say "There is no God" ...

And there it is, tcg. Your agreement with a claim that atheists state "There is no God." Yet you think me wrong when I say that atheists profess this as a fact.

Pick a lane, tcg.

And the spotlight stays on the angels and virgins and talking donkeys and their god-man with his extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers.[

And they can't have that. They know it is a losing proposition.

I'm OK with the above, talking donkey and all. I have many intelligent, well-read friends and associates who are OK with it. I know of hundreds of folks in the churches I've been in who are OK with it.

So where do you get this bit that we "can't have that" ?

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 51 by brunumb"

Where did I claim that Christian faith is false? You have created a straw man argument. Please read again what is in bold above. Now, explain your claim that it is an error to propose that faith cannot prove that what is believed is true.

It's an error to propose this when one is speaking from no experience in Christian faith, and therefore has never been able to test it personally.

It's not a matter of saying with tongue in cheek "OK for the next 10 minutes I'll say I believe in God." You'll get the lack of proof you're expecting because you would be ingenuous.

The truth of the matter is that atheists in general have never exercised the faith that counts before God, and God will not be mocked. Hence, there is no obligation on His part to convey "the evidence of things not seen."

The knowledge that His claims are true comes from God. He gives and withholds as He wishes. What determines His choice to withhold is His sense that a person is playing a game, putting God to the test, or other mindsets that betray ingenuous motives.

So it's a losing proposition as long as one remains an atheist. God is not obligated to talk you out of your atheism. You chose the position. You won't get any cooperation from God until you become a sincere individual who at the very least wants there to be a God. And one must keep in mind that He is an excellent judge of the false and insincere.

Explain how faith provides evidence. Faith merely allows you to believe anything.

Your tag along above indicates that you have a rather rudimentary understanding of how Christian works, and seem to be maintaining the rather silly caricatures we find in movies and TV, from producers and directors who simply perpetuate their own pitifully poor understanding of it.

Genuine Christian faith places the believer on the receiving end of a transfer of knowledge from God. This is beyond the comprehension of folks looking in from outside. What they expect is that suddenly physical material evidence that has been missing before will suddenly be discoverable. That, again, is a parochial view of how this works.

What happens is intensely intimate with our powers of comprehension about knowledge. It's identical to when you have an experience by which you know that a thing is true. The knowing part doesn't review the evidences; it just knows.

A mother can't explain how, but only that she knew the moment her son was killed in battle. Attempts to bring that knowledge down into the science lab will fail, and you will declare she merely guessed. But you then have to explain what made her guess at that exact moment in the absence of any other indicators or warnings.

You can dismiss that as not a real case of knowing, but you really don't have the authority to rule on it. She can tell you the moment the thought came to her. The military can tell you the moment he was killed. It is a case of knowing for which there is no evidence perceived beforehand.

There is no evidence necessary. You can reach a position of faith without evidence

Belief in the Greco-Roman gods of mythology would be a case of having faith in things that are ultimately shown to be false. Atheists try to put Christianity in the same category but it doesn't succeed except in their own biased minds.

Christianity was never on the same footing as the myths because there were always circumstances available to moved it to a case of reliable historical reporting.

1 - you have more than one eyewitness to most events. In myths, the actions of the gods in primordial time have no witnesses who are relating events to the authors.

2- the witnesses were available to folks reading the accounts. One could check to see if things were fabricated or real. In myths, there is no one to interview

(Now you might complain that you yourself have no access to any NT witnesses or the writers. But all that's necessary is that the authors wrote in an environment where interviews and validation was possible. Because once published, those same people would speak out against false claims.

And that's precisely why we don't use that complaint about Tacitus, Suetonius, Dion Cassius, and others. They published when many of the folks who were present for the events are still alive.)

3- the accounts are disseminated in the presence of hostile witnesses. By that I mean not just folks who would declare false reporting, but people who had a vested interest in seeing the accounts discredited. The Pharisees. Yet they made no such noise about the accounts. The accounts were accurate. They didn't rail against the rendering of what was said and done, but against the claims in what was said.

If I said that an alien space craft landed in my back yard, you might question whether what I said really happened. For you lot in relation to the Bible, you're back at the point of questioning whether I really said it. And that part of the problem has been settled for any honest student.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 54 by mrhagerty]

Very few atheists, if any, say they merely believe there is no god, or they have no belief that there are gods. The rest proclaim with verve that there is no god.

Could you please supply the data source from which you were able to establish your sweeping claim. If it is just a gut feeling or based on a handful of people, don't bother.

tcg: MANY folks of faith HAVE to understand that we say "There is no God" ...

mrhagerty: "And there it is, tcg. Your agreement with a claim that atheists state "There is no God."

Not what tcg was implying at all. Note the word "HAVE". Replace it with "NEED" and you will perhaps have a better understanding of what tcg meant.

tcg: And the spotlight stays on the angels and virgins and talking donkeys and their god-man with his extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers.

mrhagerty: I'm OK with the above, talking donkey and all. I have many intelligent, well-read friends and associates who are OK with it. I know of hundreds of folks in the churches I've been in who are OK with it.

Such statements are what confirm my conclusion that religious beliefs are essentially the result of the indoctrination of vulnerable minds. You don't come to accept talking donkeys and living inside fish etc. through logic and reason. You get force fed the religious belief first and afterwards you have to accept all the ridiculous trappings that come with it.
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" - Anatole France.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

This is just so much wriggling on the hook. You're certainly free to define atheism for yourself as you wish. That doesn't define it for everyone else.

Right back atcha.

You say "lack of belief in gods." Which means ONLY one of two things, logically:

1) you have a lack of belief because you're certain there are no gods. You don't need to believe if there aren't any,

or 2) you have a lack of belief because you haven't seen evidence yet and you can't go further and prove there are no gods.

It's as if you think those are the only two groups who don't believe in gods. That's pretty weird.

What about people like me, who believe there are no gods but are not certain. We don't fit in either of your groups.

What about people who have some evidence for believing in gods, but also have some evidence against?

What about people who may have enough evidence to decide, but who haven't haven't yet taken the time to make up their minds?

You aren't doing anybody any favors by taking little slices of the populations described by the words "atheist" and "agnostic" and applying those words to your own little peculiar little slices.

You're doing exactly what you accused Tcg of, defining "atheism" for yourself alone.

The first is atheism. The second is agnosticism.

There are popular definitions of those words. Your definitions are just weird, personal to you.

Agnosticism remains a belief that there are no gods.

No it doesn't. I don't know of anyone else who thinks that.

Consider these three groups:

A. People who believe that gods do exist.
B. People who believe that gods do not exist.
C. All other people, the ones who don't believe either way.

The two most popular systems of nomenclature call group B either "atheists" or "strong atheists." You're calling them "agnostics."

You are alone in this. You are supported neither by dictionaries nor common usage. You are an outlier.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 55 by mrhagerty]

So it's a losing proposition as long as one remains an atheist. God is not obligated to talk you out of your atheism.

Of course he is. Any benevolent deity has the responsibility of ensuring that he does whatever is necessary to make you a believer before he condemns you to eternal suffering for failing to do so.

You chose the position.

Actually, I didn't. I cannot make myself believe something that my brain is convinced is not true. No one can honestly just choose to believe something. You are either convinced that something is true or you are not. Try choosing to sincerely believe that there are blue Smurfs living on Mars.

You won't get any cooperation from God until you become a sincere individual who at the very least wants there to be a God. And one must keep in mind that He is an excellent judge of the false and insincere.

I doubt that you are in any position to speak for what God does or does not think. That just stems from your imagination. Who are you to suggest that I don't want there to be a God? Unfortunately, wishful thinking does not necessarily conform to reality.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 56 by brunumb"

Could you please supply the data source from which you were able to establish your sweeping claim. If it is just a gut feeling or based on a handful of people, don't bother.

I haven't forgotten this request. I'll get back to it.
In the meantime . .

Such statements are what confirm my conclusion that religious beliefs are essentially the result of the indoctrination of vulnerable minds. . .

Jesus was hardly a vulnerable or indoctrinated mind, yet He fully accepted the book of Jonah as genuine and as Scripture. He also accepted as historic fact the episode of Balaam and his donkey. If you would be foolish enough to conclude through your maxim that he just must have been, please quote the accounts that show him attending the schools of the Pharisees where he would have received said indoctrination. In fact, the accounts we have state clearly and loudly that He did NOT attend any such school, nor any school of human standing, but amazed the Pharisees that He came ready-made to contend with them, having not learned in their own schools. Matthew 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

But I'm sure there will be replies following this that go right ahead and assert your indictment above, despite having no demonstrable idea who He was or what His doctrine taught.

Yet another example in modern times. C. S. Lewis will have outgunned you in terms of any scholastic accolades you could ever muster in the institutions of America of the late 20th century, yet he believed each of the things you ridicule above as genuine accounts of things that actually happened. Again, you would expose a very foolish mind were you to conclude that Lewis at Oxford was a weak and vulnerable mind easily subject to indoctrination from his church. Especially since he was a flaming atheist for most of his early adult life.

You don't come to accept talking donkeys and living inside fish etc. through logic and reason.

Lewis did. Martin Luther did. Josh McDowell does. Neither of these men are slouches with respect to logic and reason.

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" - Anatole France.

Depends on the character of the fifty million.

If two thousand men of outstanding ability in logic and reason say a foolish thing, you rethink your haste in calling it a foolish thing.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 59 by mrhagerty]

Jesus was hardly a vulnerable or indoctrinated mind, yet He fully accepted the book of Jonah as genuine and as Scripture.

Or so the story goes. The belief in the Bible and its contents as true is perpetuated by indoctrination. It is the same for all religions. There is no getting away from that.