Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

O.

Is that MTV?.........Masochistic Television?

[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.

Is this why you haven't settled the coming/going dilemma?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#465

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.

When some of the atheists here use thinking for yourself, this is what is happening:

thinking for yourself
Reasoning based on an assumed position; a position that needs no justification yet is assumed to be true, therefore makes deductions about opposing arguments (euphemistically called falsifications/rebuttals)

[Nearly Sane]

#465
When some of the atheists here use thinking for yourself, this is what is happening:

thinking for yourself
Reasoning based on an assumed position; a position that needs no justification yet is assumed to be true, therefore makes deductions about opposing arguments (euphemistically called falsifications/rebuttals)

Is it? Show that? Other than lazily assert something from an unevidenced quote.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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?

No I wasn’t. I was making a claim abut most religions. Here it is again in fact:

“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?”

The extent to which religious people take the faith parts of their religions seriously is unknowable, but it seems to play a significant part in the three Abrahamic faiths at least.

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

It’s not such thing, and it’s not what I said in any case. Again, here’s what I actually said:

“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".”

It’s got nothing to do with “don’t agree with me” and everything to do first with whether the arguments they attempt when they don’t rely on faith are logically cogent, and second whether they have a logically cogent argument to think faith to be any more reliable than guessing when they do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

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.

There seems to be a nasty case of the Vlads breaking out here. Here’s what I actually said:

“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.”

First, as you were silent on the matter can I take it that you agree that finding something “worth accepting” tells you nothing about its objective truth?

Second, and leaving aside your tu quoque, while some atheists may well make unqualified assertions we also have the signal advantage of logic and reason – specifically, whenever an AB, a Sword, a Vlad etc attempt a logically false argument all that’s necessary is to identify why it’s false. By and large the non-religious here at least do that a lot I’d say, frankly because we can. 

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?

No. To the contrary, I suspect that a lot of them do think them to be true. The point rather was that, when the assertions rely on faith, they have no means to validate them.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

...apparently there's a difference.

Could someone have a go at explaining what it might be please?

Thanks.

Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.

Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.

In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.

Those who understand truth is defined outside of that for which it applies tend to adopt the first approach. So e.g. the various religions exist because the position adopted is not provable, so different approaches are taken to try and explain certain observations.

Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false, they continue to maintain it, and accuse those of a religious belief of not thinking for themselves

[Shaker]

Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.

You might find Occam's Razor useful here.

Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.

Ah: now we're moving into the sphere of religion.

In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.

That approach works correctly as logic intends when it is fallacious. Or you may be of an Alan Burns bent and regard logic as a subjective personal opinion akin to liking/not liking Marmite, of course.

Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false

You appear to have omitted to provide evidence for this assertion of falsity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

When some of the atheists here use thinking for yourself, this is what is happening:

thinking for yourself

Reasoning based on an assumed position; a position that needs no justification yet is assumed to be true, therefore makes deductions about opposing arguments (euphemistically called falsifications/rebuttals)

That’s very poor. Logic is logic, regardless of the desirability or otherwise of where the argument happens to lead. There is no “assumed position”, and there’s nothing euphemistic about discounting arguments that are logically false. If, say, someone attempts an argument from personal incredulity, or a shifting of the burden of proof, or a post hoc ergo propter hoc then the argument is just wrong.

For a long time Vlad especially tried to argue that the outcome mattered – thus in his head “leprechauns” was ridiculous but “God” wasn’t, therefore the same argument that led to each should be treated differently in each case but it doesn’t work. The characteristics of the outcome cannot somehow reach back into the argument that produced it to change it from a bad argument to a good one.

To put it another way, even if I desperately wanted “God” to be true, a bad argument would no more validate it than it would validate anything else.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.

You’re confused. If you have “faith” what need have you of evidence, and vice versa?

You also have your terminology askew. It’s not that naturalistic models are “provable” in some absolute sense, but rather that they most closely accord with experience. The “assumption” is in other words a working assumption in the absence of any cogent reason to think otherwise that’s functionally useful. 

Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.

What “proof” could there be for “no God”, or indeed for “no leprechauns”?

In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.

Those who understand truth is defined outside of that for which it applies tend to adopt the first approach. So e.g. the various religions exist because the position adopted is not provable, so different approaches are taken to try and explain certain observations.

Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false, they continue to maintain it, and accuse those of a religious belief of not thinking for themselves

As you’ve gone so badly off the rails here I’ll leave you to it.

[Maeght]

Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.

Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.

In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.

Those who understand truth is defined outside of that for which it applies tend to adopt the first approach. So e.g. the various religions exist because the position adopted is not provable, so different approaches are taken to try and explain certain observations.

Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false, they continue to maintain it, and accuse those of a religious belief of not thinking for themselves

Where have those definitions come from?

[Gordon]

Faith: Based on what the person applying it would consider as evidence. The framework used by the individual to interpret the evidence is not provable, e.g. religious belief, or the assumption that only natural causes are responsible.

If you have this 'faith' then surely you have no need of evidence.

Blind faith: Based on what the person does despite proof to the contrary.

Super: so about this proof there is no god?

In the latter case, there are various constructs to get round it. For example, one could hold to a belief and when something is suggested that would contradict that belief, turn round and say that their approach is fallacious.

Only if you didn't fully understand fallacies....

Those who understand truth is defined outside of that for which it applies tend to adopt the first approach. So e.g. the various religions exist because the position adopted is not provable, so different approaches are taken to try and explain certain observations.

Those who think that truth (as well as life) can create itself from nothing adopt the latter approach. Despite being clearly false, they continue to maintain it, and accuse those of a religious belief of not thinking for themselves

....which is why you, again, seem to be using fallacies in many of your posts.

[Owlswing]

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 wand is of no religious significance whatsoever!

It is a working tool of a witch and has no releveance to paganism! Or any other religion that I know of either!

[Outrider]

Is that MTV?.........Masochistic Television?

Comedy Central. You know, because he's apparently not funny. I think what that is, actually, is 'market forces' - what with humour being an aesthetic judgment, and all, and enough people finding it funny so as to make it worthwhile that someone employs him.

Not so much that millions of people can't be wrong as millions of people were too busy smiling to care for a half-hour or so that they were willing to put up with the adverts.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

That’s very poor. Logic is logic, regardless of the desirability or otherwise of where the argument happens to lead. There is no “assumed position”, and there’s nothing euphemistic about discounting arguments that are logically false. If, say, someone attempts an argument from personal incredulity, or a shifting of the burden of proof, or a post hoc ergo propter hoc then the argument is just wrong.

For a long time Vlad especially tried to argue that the outcome mattered – thus in his head “leprechauns” was ridiculous but “God” wasn’t, therefore the same argument that led to each should be treated differently in each case but it doesn’t work. The characteristics of the outcome cannot somehow reach back into the argument that produced it to change it from a bad argument to a good one.

To put it another way, even if I desperately wanted “God” to be true, a bad argument would no more validate it than it would validate anything else.       

Since I've known Hillside he has moved heaven and earth, definition and category to get our minds to equate Leprechauns with God. And yet, most recently he has treated us to the spectacle of trying to argue that an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe is not the same as an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe.

The issue here is not whether God is unqualified or overqualified as creator of the universe but whether Hillside deserves some kind of medal for God avoidance.

[SusanDoris]

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.

Atheists like myself used to believe in a God/force/power when young because that was the ethos of the time. It was considered the height of bad manners even to bring up the subject of religion in conversation, so natural-born sceptics like myself did not hear of it until later. I consider myself fortunate that I believed only in a God, all the rest was allegory etc.
Once I erased that God belief, nothing or nobody could ever persuade me to return to a belief which relies on faith alone. It makes no sense at all logically, rationally, or any other similar adverb - not to me anyway.

[Sebastian Toe]

Hillside deserves some kind of medal for God avoidance.

..since you have brought up medal awards then you should consider for your good self medals for,

Avoiding answering questions
Most posts about making it on stage
Excrement "humour'
Greatest fixation with Dawkins
Most words redefined
Word soup champion

... I think a new thread is needed.... just for you.......?

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since I've known Hillside he has moved heaven and earth definition and category to get our minds to equate Leprechauns with God.

And as a dog returns to its vomit, so Vlad returns to one of his favourite lies. Wearily and yet again, the only “equating” is not of the outcomes but is of the arguments that lead equally to each of those outcomes…

…the arguments.

Perhaps if you wrote it down a hundred times or something?   

And yet, most recently he has treated us to the spectacle of trying to argue that an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe is not the same as an intelligent creator of the universe who is independent of the universe.

And that’s two lies in quick succession. You’re on a roll here old son.

I set out several times the grand Canyon-sized gap between the conditions necessary for SU and the conditions necessary for theism, and there you go again just pretending it hadn’t happened.

What do you get out of your trolling?

What though?

The issue here is not whether God is unqualified or overqualified as creator of the universe but whether Hillside deserves some kind of medal for God avoidance.

And he scores the hat trick of dishonesty. Fantastic! You know perfectly well the next bit, and no doubt in the not-too-distant future you’ll just pretend again that it hasn’t been explained to you but, for what it’s worth and yet again…

…you cannot avoid something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place.

Let me know if ever that sinks in won’t you.

[SusanDoris]

NS

That post was supposed to be in response to one of Gabriella's - sorry about that. I'll try and find which one and then perhaps you could do some editing, please?

[Nearly Sane]

NS

That post was supposed to be in response to one of Gabriella's - sorry about that. I'll try and find which one and then perhaps you could do some editing, please?

Of course, though I an intrigued by the phrase you used, 'natural-born skeptics'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know someone who committed himself to Jesus after a period where he said he knew Christianity was true but continued to argue against it all the same. This contradictory behaviour is not unknown vis evangelical pastors who eventually come out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And as a dog returns to its vomit, so Vlad returns to one of his favourite lies. Wearily and yet again, the only “equating” is not of the outcomes but is of the arguments that lead equally to each of those outcomes…

…the arguments.

Perhaps if you wrote it down a hundred times or something?   

And that’s two lies in quick succession. You’re on a roll here old son.

I set out several times the grand Canyon-sized gap between the conditions necessary for SU and the conditions necessary for theism, and there you go again just pretending it hadn’t happened.

What do you get out of your trolling?

What though?

And he scores the hat trick of dishonesty. Fantastic! You know perfectly well the next bit, and no doubt in the not-too-distant future you’ll just pretend again that it hasn’t been explained to you but, for what it’s worth and yet again…

…you cannot avoid something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place.

Let me know if ever that sinks in won’t you.

Goodness, Hillside you must know what your doing by now?

A person who is dodging something is dodging something. You gave that away during discussions about SU and then, layered on top of that is the contradictory behaviour of trying to get us to equate Leprechauns and God.

I see no use in you trying to brow beat.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Goodness, Hillside you must know what your doing by now?
What I'm interested in is your self justification for it.

Calling you out on your lying? Well, I suppose the "justification" is that honest and interesting discussion is a worthwhile thing, and when you pollute the MB with relentless mendacity and trolling it gets in the way of that.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A person who is dodging something is dodging something.

Yes they are, but not when there's not reason think there's a "something" to be dodged.

You gave that away during discussions about SU and then, layered on top of that is the contradictory behaviour of trying to get us to equate Leprechauns and God.

Why are you persisting with these lies? What do you get out of it?