Faith vs blind faith

[Shaker]

Well dine me.

[SusanDoris]

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

Theists may be thinking for themselves, but they are thinking from the standpoint of a faith belief, so are not working to find an objective fact somewhere.

[Nearly Sane]

Theists may be thinking for themselves, but they are thinking from the standpoint of a faith belief, so are not working to find an objective fact somewhere.

Show that's an objective fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Apparently Jim Jefferies was due to do a gig but couldn't go on stage because he felt 'a little bit funny''. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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?

I'm not a Christian but I thought believing in the resurrection was based on reports of supposedly eye-witness testimony that Jesus died, his body was stuck in a cave behind a rock for a few days and then reappeared looking alive to several people? Some people thought about this improbable story and decided they believed it and added various themes and philosophies around it. Not really sure why you picked the resurrection - what point are you trying to make - because I'm not really seeing how people believing in the resurrection shows people not thinking for themselves. They are presumably thinking when they decide whether they are going to believe the story, despite its improbability.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently Jim Jefferies was due to do a gig but couldn't go on stage because he felt 'a little bit funny''. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off.

The let's get Vlad to do the 'little bit funny' line dance and sacrifice of forty virgins has worked! Huzzah! Huzzah! You can sleep tonight, my daughters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 know that declaring this prevents further use of the phrase ''Atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods? You do? great, I don't want to issue a reminder.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

You're not showing any evidence of this extensive reading. Your reading seems on par with your thesis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The let's get Vlad to do the 'little bit funny' line dance and sacrifice of forty virgins has worked! Huzzah! Huzzah! You can sleep tonight, my daughters.

shhhhhhh! I think this is all new to Outrider, the new atheist comic routine that is.

[Shaker]

You're not showing any evidence of this extensive reading. Your reading seems on par with your thesis.

The content of the reading, certainly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I'm not a Christian but I thought believing in the resurrection was based on reports of supposedly eye-witness testimony that Jesus died, his body was stuck in a cave behind a rock for a few days and then reappeared looking alive to several people? Some people thought about this improbable story and decided they believed it and added various themes and philosophies around it. Not really sure why you picked the resurrection - what point are you trying to make - because I'm not really seeing how people believing in the resurrection shows people not thinking for themselves. They are presumably thinking when they decide whether they are going to believe the story, despite its improbability.

The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves. 

[ippy]

Theists/religionists that take up science seriously would also need two hats?

Perhaps a Deer Stalker for science and one of those conical type hats, with diagrams of stars, planets and mystical numerals on it, oh yes and carrying a wand in one hand would be good too, for the theist/religionist.

ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The content of the reading, certainly.

Sure - keep it to yourself though. Wouldn't want to see even a smidgen of evidence to support your thesis on here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves.

What is a faith belief?

[Shaker]

Sure - keep it to yourself though. Wouldn't want to see even a smidgen of evidence to support your thesis on here.

Absolutely no need - I let the likes of you and "Crashes and" et hoc genus omne do it for me, while I crack on with Penny Dreadful and what have you.

[Nearly Sane]

Gabriella,

The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves.

And do all religious people do that? To be honest the idea of 'thinking for yourself' seems undefined and those making pontifications about it doing so from a position of not even understanding what they assert.

[Outrider]

Apparently Jim Jefferies was due to do a gig but couldn't go on stage because he felt 'a little bit funny''. His manager told him to get on stage quickly before it wore off.

But instead he went to the US and got a syndicated show that's just been renewed for two further series...

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

The point rather was that the moment people agrees to accept a proposition as true because it's a faith belief is also the moment they accede to not thinking for themselves.

If theists agree to accept - they are thinking it is worth accepting. Not thinking for themselves would involve someone telling them they have to agree to accept something they disagree with or haven't thought about either because someone has undue influence over them or forces them on pain of death.

Are you assuming that all theists agree or disagree with something without thinking about it, trying the experience and continuing with it if the experience is beneficial, much like the way morals work about what is good or bad, right to wrong?

Is there a special definition of "thinking" that you are using here? 

[Shaker]

If theists agree to accept - they are thinking it is worth accepting. Not thinking for themselves would involve someone telling them they have to agree to accept something they disagree with either because someone has undue influence over them or forces them on pain of death.

Which has nothing to do with religion, obvs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And do all religious people do that?

My knowledge of religions isn't encyclopaedic enough to know whether every one of them has a faith basis, but I'd have thought that most do. What then is "faith" for if not to fill the gap when the thinking runs out?

To be honest the idea of 'thinking for yourself' seems undefined and those making pontifications about it doing so from a position of not even understanding what they assert.

I'd have thought something like "consistent with logically cogent principles" would be fine for that purpose. If not for logic and reason, surely anything goes doesn't it - especially if it's wrapped in a comfort blanket called "faith".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

If theists agree to accept - they are thinking it is worth accepting. Not thinking for themselves would involve someone telling them they have to agree to accept something they disagree with or haven't thought about either because someone has undue influence over them or forces them on pain of death.

Are you assuming that all theists agree or disagree with something without thinking about it, trying the experience and continuing with it if the experience is beneficial, much like the way morals work about what is good or bad, right to wrong?

Is there a special definition of "thinking" that you are using here?

Whether something is "worth accepting" tells you nothing about whether it's true. The addition of "faith" to the mix bridges the gap from assertion to fact with no logic to take you there. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

My knowledge of religions isn't encyclopaedic enough to know whether every one of them has a faith basis, but I'd have thought that most do. What then is "faith" for if not to fill the gap when the thinking runs out?

I'd have thought something like "consistent with logically cogent principles" would be fine for that purpose. If not for logic and reason, surely anything goes doesn't it - especially if it's wrapped in a comfort blanket called "faith".

So you know how some approx 2.5 billion people on the planet think in order to make your statement? Impressive! Obviously not as impressive as Shaker who knows how 5.5 billion (roughly) think but still good.


And then you beg the question of what thinking for yourself means by shipping in a conclusion that they have to agree with you on religion. Odd!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So you know how some approx 2.5 billion people on the planet think in order to make your statement? Impressive! Obviously not as impressive as Shaker who knows how 5.5 billion (roughly) think but still good.

That's so far from what i said it's a Vladdism.

And then you beg the question of what thinking for yourself means by shipping in a conclusion that they have to agree with you on religion. Odd!

And so's that. What I "shipped in" was, but for reason, then there's no means to distinguish the truth of any faith claim from that of any other.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That's so far from what i said it's a Vladdism.

And so's that. What I "shipped in" was, but for reason, then there's no means to distinguish the truth of any faith claim from that of any other.

In what way? You were making a claim about most religious people. That's at least about 5 billion people so allowing even a Brexit majority the 2.5 billion is surely reasonable?

The second bit is you indulging in a No True Scotsman - if people don't agree with me they aren't reasonable

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Whether something is "worth accepting" tells you nothing about whether it's true. The addition of "faith" to the mix bridges the gap from assertion to fact with no logic to take you there.

Assertions is your evidence of not thinking for yourself? Given the number of assertions made on here by atheists, that means no one thinks for themselves.

As for assertions to fact - are you suggesting that all the posters on here who make assertions don't really believe them to be true?