Faith vs blind faith

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

#397 is the justification.

The existence of anyone who thinks that an ancient text comprised of the maunderings of people who didn't know where the sun went at night is the last word in guidance for life is the justification.

If my pronouncements are as tedious as you assert, the remedy is simple: ignore them.

I would but I'm thinking of the long game and therefore need to log on to dismiss your tedious pronouncements and assertions. 

[Nearly Sane]

He asserted this time round.

You think it's an assertion that grammar doth not maketh the argument? Really? So you want to go down the route of criticising a lack of a capital  as some how getting you out of your continual use of fallacies? Oh and just for the record there is a good argument grammatically that it wasn't about the lack of capital but either a semi colon or comma that would have been the problem.

Anyway do you want to actually make a case that no religious person thinks for themselves or just continue with your fallacies and grammatical diversions?

[Shaker]

Anyway do you want to actually make a case that no religious person thinks for themselves or just continue with your fallacies and grammatical diversions?

I'm still awaiting evidence of one doing so to prove my thesis wrong at least to the tune of one, but so far nothing doing.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm still awaiting evidence of one doing so to prove my thesis wrong at least to the tune of one, but so far nothing doing.

NPF

[Shaker]

BBQ.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

"There are plenty of religious people who are no more and no less misogynistic or homophobic than atheists...

But isn't the point that, first, when those people think a "holy" text mandates those behaviours they have one more reason than atheists to behave that way and, second, when they're convinced that "faith" is an inerrant means of validating truths there's no possibility of persuading them otherwise? Does anyone think that Justin Welby wouldn't be in such an intractable mess about equal marriage if not for his religious beliefs for example? 

...so clearly there are religious people who are able to think for themselves...

Clearly, though again how would that be compatible with the status of "faith" when they're thinking about religious matters specifically? Doesn't faith remove (or at least significantly reduce) the ability to think for yourself when it's faith that underpins the validity of the belief? 

...and interpret their scriptures in a way that is compatible with cultural changes."

But then what's the point of "scripture" rather than, say, an early and crude attempt at moral philosophy? If scripture is supposed to be the revealed thoughts of a necessarily correct god, what use is it if you can just re-interpret it as societal norms change?

[Nearly Sane]

BBQ.

Aw how cute. Trying to ignore that you know that you were using the Negative Proof Fallacy in its shorthand because you have no answer to your use of it. Or in its shorter version, FFS!

[Shaker]

Or ITV.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm still awaiting evidence of one doing so to prove my thesis wrong at least to the tune of one, but so far nothing doing.

Your thesis consists of you arbitrarily defining "thinking for yourself" as not being a theist, without providing evidence or justification, therefore it's easily dismissed.

[Shaker]

Your thesis consists of you arbitrarily defining "thinking for yourself" as not being a theist, without providing evidence or justification, therefore it's easily dismissed.

If you think it's arbitrary, however long your forum profile states you've been here, you can't have read much.

[Nearly Sane]

Or ITV.

Evasion by TLA.

[Shaker]

I think you mean KLM.

[Outrider]

Wouldn't that involve replacing people like Ricky Gervais and Marcus Brigstocke with comedians?

Humour is an aesthetic judgment, surely? I'm not a Gervais fan, myself, but I don't mind Marcus Bridgstocke. I'd rather Jim Jefferies, John Oliver or Tim Minchin, mind... horses for courses and all that.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

If you think it's arbitrary, however long your forum profile states you've been here, you can't have read much.

This reads as my assertion is right because I asserted it, so another fallacy you have used. Are you doing this for a bet?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

But isn't the point that, first, when those people think a "holy" text mandates those behaviours they have one more reason than atheists to behave that way and, second, when they're convinced that "faith" is an inerrant means of validating truths there's no possibility of persuading them otherwise? 

Clearly, though again how would that be compatible with the status of "faith" when they're thinking about religious matters specifically? Doesn't faith remove (or at least significantly reduce) the ability to think for yourself when it's faith that underpins the validity of the belief? 

But then what's the point of "scripture" rather than, say, an early and crude attempt at moral philosophy? If scripture is supposed to be the revealed thoughts of a necessarily correct god, what use is it if you can just re-interpret it as societal norms change?

You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?

[Nearly Sane]

I think you mean KLM.

Are you saying you are in Amsterdam and you have partaken of fallacy tobaccy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Your thesis consists of you arbitrarily defining "thinking for yourself" as not being a theist, without providing evidence or justification, therefore it's easily dismissed.

Was he suggesting the theists can't think at all – eg, they'd need "green side up" instructions when turf arrived – or just in respect of matters theological?

If it's only the latter, then I'd have some sympathy for that as atheism rests on identifying where the arguments of theists for their theism are wrong.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you think it's arbitrary, however long your forum profile states you've been here, you can't have read much.

Ok. If you think all theists can't think for themselves then you can't have read much.

[Nearly Sane]

You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?

As, of course, has the definition of what we mean by freedom or equality. Sometimes people will quote old books, I quite often use Paine and Mill, for those two.

[Shaker]

You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?

Which in no way addresses bluey's prior question:

If scripture is supposed to be the revealed thoughts of a necessarily correct god, what use is it if you can just re-interpret it as societal norms change?

The situation you describe ("multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons") is the zeitgeist changing for extra-religious reasons and some religionists taking up gymnastics to bend and twist the scriptures around the new landscape.

Which is cool beans and all, but isn't much of a prop for the idea of divinely-ordained text.

[Shaker]

Ok. If you think all theists can't think for themselves then you can't have read much.

Actually I have - that's where the thesis comes from, to a large degree.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You do know that over the centuries religions have gone through multiple interpretations, different opinions, schools of thought, discussions and add-ons to cover new and evolving situations that weren't covered in the basic scripture right?

You do know that many (most?) of them hold certain of their faith beliefs to be inerrantly correct because various gods told them so right? What happens if, say, you "re-interpret" the resurrection as only metaphorical?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Was he suggesting the theists can't think at all – eg, they'd need "green side up" instructions when turf arrived – or just in respect of matters theological?

If it's only the latter, then I'd have some sympathy for that as atheism rests on identifying where the arguments of theists for their theism are wrong.

You'll have to ask Shaker what he meant by his assertion. I wouldn't hold your breath - he seems to be currently trying for a record number of fallacies in the shortest number of posts. Maybe when he's got his medal he'll elaborate to explain his assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

Gabriella,

Was he suggesting the theists can't think at all – eg, they'd need "green side up" instructions when turf arrived – or just in respect of matters theological?

If it's only the latter, then I'd have some sympathy for that as atheism rests on identifying where the arguments of theists for their theism are wrong.

Ni (oh no, a typo, that will set him off on another irrelevancy) he's asserting that no religious person (not theist) thinks for themselves and using a The Big AlanBurns Compendium of fallacies to do it

[Nearly Sane]

Actually I have - that's where the thesis comes from, to a large degree.

Is there a fallacy of dressing up an assertion in sparkly clothing and calling it an assertion? Argument by ornamentation? If not, well dine, you just invented a new fallacy.