Faith vs blind faith

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

I acknowledge a world and experience the things you may not look into. Sometimes we do have to look beyond what we individually believe is the obvious to find truths which are not so.

But again, what makes you think they are “truths” in any objective sense rather than strongly held personal opinions?

Experience... If we have experienced Gods presence how do you refer back to personal faith without acknowledging that we actually know what the presence of God feels like? I am not sure you can actually lose your virginity and go back to knowing what it was like before as if it never happened. It is experienced and the once the unknown has now become the known you cannot return to unknowing it.

You have experienced certain events. “God” as a causal explanation for them is a narrative you find persuasive, but there are others. Why then, if not for “faith”, do you opt for the former and dismiss out of hand the latter?   

The Word of God, the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Christ all validate the presence of God.

That’s called circular reasoning: “I know a book is true because that book says it’s true” etc.

You see we don't jump we experience the truth of God keeping his promises.

No - see above. For that to be true you’d have to show that there is a “God”, that he had made “promises”, that those promises had been recorded accurately in a book, and that they had been “kept” rather than naturalistic explanations being the real ones.

That’s a lot of “ifs”.

The way to God is plain but people like yourself never seek it.  Your disbelief won't allow you. Your pride in your own beliefs and what you feel will not allow you. Who really is ruled by their feelings and not by what is actual truth?

No – I would just find it impossible to abandon reason in favour of guessing is all.

Christians have a love of truth and so do most who come to God as having been really strong and ardent atheists.  I believe tactics do not play in the reality of God. Only truth.

So you say, but the question rather is about how these Christians you cite know they have found truths rather than made mistakes in their thinking. "I know that my faith is correct because my faith is correct" doesn't help you at all. What in other words makes their faith that there is a “God” not blind?

[Outrider]

The thing is though Outrider, you don't strike me as someone who knows much about religious context. Fervent metaphors that don't make sense is more your area of expertise.

I don't think anyone 'knows' about religious context - they seem to decide fairly arbitrarily on 'context' that suits their purpose after the fact in order to justify the bits of the scripture that support what they want, and to ignore the bits that they've decided they don't. It's why you get such an enormously wide range of entirely scripturally-based opinions of what's 'true' Christianity and Islam and Judaism.

I was talking about your blind faith about religion that was outlined in your strange metaphor about hands.

I think you're carrying a figure of speech way, way further than it should have been taken... almost like you're trying to find a context that suits your purpose...

Does your faith

What 'faith' would that be, then?

...include believing that these two hands are controlled by a shared brain or are they two disembodied hands that aren't connected to each other, in which case why pick hands?

It's a common literary tool to ascribe activities to notional 'hands', because as humans that's largely how we achieve things - with our hands. In this instance it worked particularly well, because we have two hands (in the main), and there were two different examples of activity to refer to. As with any metaphor, if you try to take it further than it can reasonably go, it starts to fall over - there was never a need for a consideration of whether there was a brain involved (or eyes, or feet, or gloves, or wedding rings, or fingerprints...)

People kill in the name of words in numerous places around the world.

In the name of words? Really? Right now there's a significant number of situations where people are killing in the name of their religion - perhaps the 'word' there is god?

We could apply your metaphor to  the two hands of language:  Pretty words like "People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” is just an apparently harmless innocuous situation that allows more immediately harmful ideas to survive, such as a formal declaration of war by a nation state.

Apart from the questionable veracity of 'loves comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite' - is 'love' the opposite of 'hate', or is 'apathy'? Do people love more easily than hate, that's not my experience of life.

Of course, maybe this "two hands of language" does not form part of your particular beliefs or world view?

By Jove, I think she's got it!

You might just like to stick to the two hands of religion belief. Bit like some people finding a belief in Islam more appealing than Christianity.

A bit like thinking mustard is 'more true' than ketchup...

O.

[floo]

WRONG. I have actual knowledge from experience.

You equate your experience with knowledge, but that doesn't mean it has any veracity. For instance, as I have mentioned before, my husband had an experience whilst in a coma which verified his belief that there is no god or afterlife. No doubt that experience was as 'valid' as yours.   

[Owlswing]

Your choice of alcoholic spirits is your own personal choice and for that matter nothing to do with God.

Alcohol does not resemble not can it compete with the experience of God.

If you cannot answer in relation to the actual contents of a post, do you think discussing matters you are not experienced in is actually a wise move (with or without the liqeur)?  You get aggressive and potty mouthed when you cannot give an answer which actually shows a balanced thought out argument. Maybe you should refrain from drinking on a Saturday night if it leads you to write the above.

Considering the nature of your advertising campaign for the "One True  Faith" it is no wonder that you arouse such negative reactions to your posts.

You don't like potty-mouthed, you ain't seen nothing of my potty-mouth as I do not intend to get banned - in another analogy - your load of old Christian cobblers is enough to make a Saiint kick a hole in a stained-glass-window.

I would give an answer which actually shows a balanced thought-out argument if I were trying to answer a balanced thought-out argument, but since you are congenitally incapable of posting a balanced thought out argument due to your wearing of the huge blinkers of your religion . . .

[Dicky Underpants]

Vlad, meet Sassy.


I dont recall anyone calling Sassy an atheist before.

Maybe you can explain yourself?

Odd that these two should be snuggling up - maybe it's a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Vlad, however - "driving in the fast lane" - seems to have suddenly crashed as a result of Sassy's comments. Maybe it just occurred to him that Sassy believes a modern version of the Arian heresy (that Christ is not God, but only the Son of God), and that he had commented on the ignominious death of Arius "That's what happens sometimes when people talk through their arse".*
At any rate, Sassy's claim that they both have met God and no atheist could understand them until they had had a similar encounter is made to look more than a little ridiculous when this 'God' appears to have given them so divergent information on his relationship with his "Son".

*#152 & #153 "Who created the Deity?" thread

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Odd that these two should be snuggling up - maybe it's a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Vlad, however - "driving in the fast lane" - seems to have suddenly crashed as a result of Sassy's comments. Maybe it just occurred to him that Sassy believes a modern version of the Arian heresy (that Christ is not God, but only the Son of God), and that he had commented on the ignominious death of Arius "That's what happens sometimes when people talk through their arse".*
At any rate, Sassy's claim that they both have met God and no atheist could understand them until they had had a similar encounter is made to look more than a little ridiculous when this 'God' appears to have given them so divergent information on his relationship with his "Son".

*#152 & #153 "Who created the Deity?" thread

NUURRSSE!!!! Skidmark thinks he's back in 325 AD again

[Sebastian Toe]

NUURRSSE!!!! Skidmark thinks he's back in 325 AD again

...where were we?
Oh yes we were 43 miles down the fork in the road that avoids Sassy's comments (aka a Christian's comments) that blind faith is a thing. Not only that,  it is backed up by scripture.

Now, regarding your claim about blind faith and only seeing athiests etc...is an update required?

[wigginhall]

Oh come on, Seb, that was two whole days ago.  Since then Vlad has gone through brain scans and simulated universes, he can't be expected to keep up with his own posts.

[ippy]

Who and where do I say I expect people to accept any knowledge I claim to have about God?  Surely, it is common sense that if a person seeks knowledge they inspect and search all avenues regarding their subject. As you cannot feel the pain of another or see through their eyes you cannot make accurate assumptions as to what they actually feel and see. You have to take their word. It is the same with many aspects of everyday human life. The point is being humble enough to see your own eyes and feelings are not really the only proof you have to experience the truth others experience but you do not.

You continually assert these god things as though they're facts without confirming any of your assertions so until you can confirm the things you say are truths forget it Sass, you've got no more idea than I have about any of your fanciful ideas/truths.

ippy

[floo]

You continually assert these god things as though they're facts without confirming any of your assertions so until you can confirm the things you say are truths forget it Sass, you've got no more idea than I have about any of your fanciful ideas/truths.

ippy

Of course she hasn't, but when has that ever stopped her spouting her version of the 'truth'.

[Dicky Underpants]

NUURRSSE!!!! Skidmark thinks he's back in 325 AD again

Razz clat and kiss my sharries. What a drongo! I don't give a monkey's toss about the Arian heresy per se - I'm merely pointing out the fact that Sassy professes a modern version of it; as do the thoroughly contemporary (unfortunately) Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians. If you want to claim these odd-balls as your bed-fellows simply because they are theists, then that's well and truly your problem. I should point out that Anchorman is not so phlegmatic on these matters.
I suppose you clammed up because Seb Toe pointed out that a believer had completely contradicted you, and since to you it was unthinkable that your assessment of atheist thinking might be a bit awry, you swiftly decamped to vent your obsessions elsewhere.
It's really odd that such words as 'atheist' and 'Dawkins' provoke such Pavlovian responses in you (the result being a torrent of your familiar logorrhoea), but then your understanding of how people came to their various views on religious matters has always been about as subtle as a dog-faced baboon in rut.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think anyone 'knows' about religious context - they seem to decide fairly arbitrarily on 'context' that suits their purpose after the fact in order to justify the bits of the scripture that support what they want, and to ignore the bits that they've decided they don't. It's why you get such an enormously wide range of entirely scripturally-based opinions of what's 'true' Christianity and Islam and Judaism.

Ok we could go with your crass generalisations. On the other hand that would mean ignoring the evidence that various people have spent many years studying the history of the period and the etymology of words in their original language as used in religious texts. That your blind faith in your beliefs require you to dismiss their research doesn't surprise me.

I don't see anything surprising about people having different opinions on history or custom after a period of study, but what I find surprising is your naive assumption that every person talking about scripture has actually spent any time studying the history or etymology before forming an opinion. If that's what you really believe then I have this bridge I would like to sell you.

You are absolutely right that there are many people who claim to be scholars or claim to know what is correct but who only interpret religion or ethics or morals or laws to serve their particular agenda. Much as I would advise anyone trying to buy a bridge or trying to join an army to kill for their country, it makes sense that theists should think about the motives of every politician, intelligence agency operative, ill-informed person or con artist who crosses their path rather than be influenced to make decisions that could hurt other people.

I think you're carrying a figure of speech way, way further than it should have been taken... almost like you're trying to find a context that suits your purpose...

I think you are not explaining your poorly thought out metaphor about the two hands of religion.

If you applied your poorly thought out, fervent metaphor to other concepts you would end up with you, as a man, being a veneer of respectability that masculinity waves with one hand to hide behind whilst the other carries out mass shootings in Vegas and subjugates women. So to use your words - what about men who don't commit mass murder and subjugate? They're an example of the sort of apparently harmless innocuous situations that allow more immediately harmful ideas to survive.

Don't worry - I'm not holding my breath that you will see how inappropriate your metaphor was, because you are unlikely to permit anything to contradict your beliefs or blind faith about the evils of religion, because you can't face the world without clinging onto this belief of yours.

It's a common literary tool to ascribe activities to notional 'hands', because as humans that's largely how we achieve things - with our hands. [In this instance it worked particularly well, because we have two hands (in the main), and there were two different examples of activity to refer to. As with any metaphor, if you try to take it further than it can reasonably go, it starts to fall over - there was never a need for a consideration of whether there was a brain involved (or eyes, or feet, or gloves, or wedding rings, or fingerprints...)

It might be a common literary tool - doesn't mean you have a clue in how to use it correctly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Outy can more than look after himself, but you do realise that just pre-fixing your comments with pejorative adjectives like, “crass”, “blind faith”, “naïve”, “ poorly thought out”, “fervent”, “inappropriate” etc doesn’t thereby actually make any of those assertions true don't you?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Outy can more than look after himself, but you do realise that just pre-fixing your comments with pejorative adjectives like, “crass”, “blind faith”, “naïve”, “ poorly thought out”, “fervent”, “inappropriate” etc doesn’t thereby actually make any of those assertions true don't you?

Of course  - I also presumed that when you assert pejorative adjectives in relation to other posters, including Vlad, you also realised that it doesn't thereby actually make any of those assertions true. Glad we're on the same page with this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Of course  - I also presumed that when you assert pejorative adjectives in relation to other posters, including Vlad, you also realised that it doesn't thereby actually make any of those assertions true. Glad we're on the same page with this.

The difference being that, by and large, when I point out what he did I also take the time to explain why. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

The difference being that, by and large, when I point out what he did I also take the time to explain why.

BHS - I don't want to make this personal to you, as there are a variety of posters on this board who make assertions. Having said that the above just seems to  be another assertion on your part. You point out what you think he did...and you provide an explanation of why you think he did what you think he did.

As to whether it's sometimes or by and large - fair enough, I don't intend to argue that assertion with you as I don't intend to count your posts or produce some kind of evidence to arrive at an informed conclusion one way or the other.

[Nearly Sane]

BHS - I don't want to make this personal to you, as there are a variety of posters on this board who make assertions. Having said that the above just seems to  be another assertion on your part. You point out what you think he did...and you provide an explanation of why you think he did what you think he did.

As to whether it's sometimes or by and large - fair enough, I don't intend to argue that assertion with you as I don't intend to count your posts or produce some kind of evidence to arrive at an informed conclusion one way or the other.

Qq, is there a poster on the board who doesn't make assertions?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Qq, is there a poster on the board who doesn't make assertions?

In my opinion, no.

I would think it would be difficult/ impossible to not assert when many of these discussions involve using terms like "good" or "bad" or "harm" or in relation to what we think we know or what is true. I was surprised that BHS asked the question about whether I thought my assertions were true.

[Nearly Sane]

In my opinion, no.

I would think it would be difficult/ impossible to not assert when many of these discussions involve using terms like "good" or "bad" or "harm" or in relation to what we think we know or what is true. I was surprised that BHS asked the question about whether I thought my assertions were true.

If you take out what we think we know, which includes what we think by implication, and what is true, there doesn't seem to be much left?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Qq, is there a poster on the board who doesn't make assertions?

Probably not, but I do see a difference between using pejorative prefixes with no further comment as if the claim was thereby established and also taking the time to explain why the comment is wrong, dishonest, whatever. Thus on the "Searching for God" thread Vlad has fallen over by claiming the simulated universe conjecture and theology to be identical, and I've told him not only that he's wrong but also why he's wrong about that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Probably not, but I do see a difference between using pejorative prefixes with no further comment as if the claim was thereby established and also taking the time to explain why the comment is wrong, dishonest, whatever. Thus on the "Searching for God" thread Vlad has fallen over by claiming the simulated universe conjecture and theology to be identical, and I've told him not only that he's wrong but also why he's wrong about that.   

Doubly Deluded.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Doubly Deluded.

Only in you head Vladdo, only in your head...

Se the "Searching for God" discussion for the explanation of why the SU conjecture and theism are not "identical" as you claimed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only in you head Vladdo, only in your head...

Se the "Searching for God" discussion for the explanation of why the SU conjecture and theism are not "identical" as you claimed.

Look do I have to go through it again.
SU says simulator has created a universe of which it is independent of and outside. Theology says God has created a universe of which it is independent of and outside.
It is the two ideas which are identical.

In other words which one is not theological. Show your working.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look do I have to go through it again.
SU says conjectures simulator has created a universe of which it is independent of and outside. Theology says asserts as fact God has created a the universe of which it is independent of and outside.

Corrected it for you.

I haven't bothered with the other contradictions (creator only vs interventionist god, necessary vs sufficient conditions etc) as these alone are sufficient to falsify your claim.

It is the two ideas which are identical.

Not even close.

In other words which one is not theological.

The second one. You'd have been on slightly safer (though still wrong) ground if you'd confined yourself to a comparison with deism, but you overreached.

Show your working.

I have. Several times.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Corrected it for you.

The sound of barrels being scraped augmented by the greatly amplified sound of James last and his barrel scraping orchestra playing Roll out the barrel from their hit album Swinging scraping barrels vol 5 in quadrophonic with the speakers propped up on barrels.