Why faith is an impossible argument - Page 2

Urban Ranger · May 21, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger
Faith is illogical, but so what? You can't live life by logic alone. (Or maybe you could, but why would you want to?)

Not everybody wants to be drunk all the time.

Lord Merciless · May 21, 2003, 23:55

Indonesia should be nuked, cleaned up by the survivors, and then repopulated.

Urban Ranger · May 21, 2003, 23:58

Wrong thread

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

Faith is illogical, but so what? You can't live life by logic alone. (Or maybe you could, but why would you want to?)

We aren't robots. We require emotions to be human, and we have faith that are emotions are true.

Urban Ranger · May 22, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Faith is illogical, but so what? You can't live life by logic alone. (Or maybe you could, but why would you want to?)

We aren't robots. We require emotions to be human, and we have faith that are emotions are true.

True as in what? That the chemicals inducing these emotions are actually coursing through your veins?

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:09

True as in this is what we actually feel in our minds and souls. We have faith in a wide variety of things. Faith that our opinions are correct. Faith that we are alive and living beings.

Those who are only logical, or attempt to be are truely boring beings. They have no emotion, no passion, and are a real snooze.

When you love, do you believe it is simply chemicals and thus nothing to get worried over, or do you believe your feelings to be true and meaningful?

Sava · May 22, 2003, 00:09

It is possible to be logical and still have emotion.

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:13

Sava: Yes, if you rely on both logic and faith. But if you simply wish to rely ONLY on logic, there is no room for emotion. Because, put it simply, emotion is like faith, it is irrational. We have faith that the emotions we feel are important, when logically they really aren't.

This shows itself in the movie cliche: Save your girl or save the 100 other people. Logically you go for the 100, Emotionally you go for the girl. Of course in the movies, you save both

.

Sava · May 22, 2003, 00:23

I disagree Imran. I don't see how it would be logical to save more lives. The importance of life is based upon emotion. Logically, death is the same state as before you were born. I cannot recall that state as being bad. So logically, death wouldn't be bad.

I'm not suggesting people rely solely on logic. You simply can't do that. I think a proper balance is necessary. When you rely too much on faith (religious or otherwise), it's bad. Likewise with logic.

I also don't understand why emotion is regarded as illogical. Human beings are emotional creatures. Chemicals and hormones are responsible for our emotions. Granted, I can't imagine not having emotions (say in some sort of spiritual existence). But in terms of the human experience, emotions are logical. They serve distinct purposes; survival and mating being the two most important that I can think of.

Urban Ranger · May 22, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
True as in this is what we actually feel in our minds and souls.

Isn't this circular? Or rather, a tautology? Aren't emotions what you feel in your mind?

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We have faith in a wide variety of things. Faith that our opinions are correct. Faith that we are alive and living beings.

How are these faith items? What is faith to you?

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Those who are only logical, or attempt to be are truely boring beings. They have no emotion, no passion, and are a real snooze.

Oh boy. Emotions are not the same as faith, even though both have characteristics that are the same.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When you love, do you believe it is simply chemicals and thus nothing to get worried over, or do you believe your feelings to be true and meaningful?

"Meanings" are artificial constructions. Things only have meanings that we attach to them. However, there is a purpose to love.

Let me ask you, what is the "meaning" of love?

Lorizael · May 22, 2003, 00:26

The problem is that we don't know enough about human psychology to always be able to divine the source of our emotions, making them appear to be irrational and illogical.

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

I don't see how it would be logical to save more lives.

Perhaps it is because throughout all your posts, you have shown that you don't think logically

.

Quote:

Logically, death is the same state as before you were born. I cannot recall that state as being bad

Would you rather be alive in the world or not be born yet? I'd take the former.

Quote:

I think a proper balance is necessary.

That is what I was saying.

Quote:

I also don't understand why emotion is regarded as illogical.

For the simple reason that logic is that which we have tested out and found evidence for and decided based on that evidence. The logical answer is that which is reasoned out. Emotion is never tested. It can never be reasoned out. It is exact OPPOSITE of being reasoned out. It simply exists and is there. It cannot be logical.

Those we consider most 'logical' are those that make their arguments devoid of emotion.

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:32

Quote:

What is faith to you?

Faith is that which is a belief that does not rest on logical grounds. Emotion is the same. A feeling, something that does not rest on any logical grounds.

Quote:

Let me ask you, what is the "meaning" of love?

I cannot define it. There is no logical explination for it. It is simply something we feel. It is illogical, but still important.

ranskaldan · May 22, 2003, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
True as in this is what we actually feel in our minds and souls. We have faith in a wide variety of things. Faith that our opinions are correct. Faith that we are alive and living beings.

Those who are only logical, or attempt to be are truely boring beings. They have no emotion, no passion, and are a real snooze.

When you love, do you believe it is simply chemicals and thus nothing to get worried over, or do you believe your feelings to be true and meaningful?

I think we need to make a distinction here. The distinction is between what I like and what really exists.

For example, I'd like it if Santa Claus existed. My subjective feelings and preferences are a part of emotion.

However, I don't think Santa Claus exists based on realworld evidence. My objective perceptions of the world should be based on logic.

"Faith" is the application of subjective feeling ("what I feel") onto objective perception ("what therefore is"). For example, if I really like Santa Claus and I conclude that hence HE MUST EXIST, that is "faith". And as you can see, it is nuts.

Hence "faith" is illogical as a concept.

Sava · May 22, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Would you rather be alive in the world or not be born yet? I'd take the former.

The question is impossible to answer. Nobody knows what non-existence is like, whether there are alternate states of reality, perception, or existence. For all we know, our consciousnesses could be free roaming spirits that get trapped in bodies. Perhaps death and pre-birth are purely divine states and we are stuck in this existence until we die. Nobody knows. And anyone who says they do is full of sh1t.

I'm a very logical person... but as with any human, my emotions cause me to be irrational.

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:43

Quote:

The distinction is between what I like and what really exists.

Not really. If I have faith in you, to be a good leader (say) and there is no real evidence how you are as a leader, is that what I like or what really exists? You could say it is what I like, but not really. If I have faith in my feelings, to tell me what path I should take in life, that doesn't fit either.

Quote:

Hence "faith" is illogical as a concept.

No one is arguing that. What we are arguing is whether just because faith is illogical, does that mean it is always wrong and to be cast aside.

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Nobody knows what non-existence is like, whether there are alternate states of reality, perception, or existence.

Very true. So in this instance wouldn't you take it on faith, since you don't know about the other world, that it is preferable to be alive?

ranskaldan · May 22, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The distinction is between what I like and what really exists.

Not really. If I have faith in you, to be a good leader (say) and there is no real evidence how you are as a leader, is that what I like or what really exists? You could say it is what I like, but not really. If I have faith in my feelings, to tell me what path I should take in life, that doesn't fit either.

If you have faith in someone as a good leader, you better damn well know him well and have reasons for believing so.

Quote:

Hence "faith" is illogical as a concept.

No one is arguing that. What we are arguing is whether just because faith is illogical, does that mean it is always wrong and to be cast aside.

Well, alright, let me rephrase. It is utterly crazy and should be cast aside.

Imran Siddiqui · May 22, 2003, 00:50

Quote:

If you have faith in someone as a good leader, you better damn well know him well and have reasons for believing so.

What if there is little time to decide and someone must be forced into the position? I would have faith in the person to be a good leader.

Quote:

It is utterly crazy and should be cast aside.

I totally, 100% disagree. Emotions and Faith are just as important as Logic. They make us human. Compassion and caring come from our emotions and our faith in humanity, not our logic. Our logic would say that as long as 80% (or so) are eating and happy, we are in little danger, even though 20% are starving and unhappy.

ranskaldan · May 22, 2003, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What if there is little time to decide and someone must be forced into the position? I would have faith in the person to be a good leader.

That's more a matter of having no choice. I would definitely support this person as a leader, but I certainly wouldn't have "faith" that because of the circumstances he will automatically be "good".

Quote:

I totally, 100% disagree. Emotions and Faith are just as important as Logic. They make us human. Compassion and caring come from our emotions and our faith in humanity, not our logic. Our logic would say that as long as 80% (or so) are eating and happy, we are in little danger, even though 20% are starving and unhappy.

Once again, you are confusing emotions and faith. I'll explain it again:

emotions: hormones firing off in your brain that causes you to have a preference for a certain decision

faith: hormones firing off in your brain that causes you to believe in something that you cannot objectively control

The first is the reason why you would love someone or have compassion. The second is the reason why some people believe they are the reincarnation of Ramses. The second one, and not the first one, is faith. And the second one is crazy.

Sava · May 22, 2003, 01:12

The illogical nature of faith (religious) isn't what makes it wrong IMO. It's the presumption that the faith is based upon. This isn't about debating the existence of God. It's about the validity of any human being's claim of this knowledge in this state of existence. In terms of God, the only thing I can say about anyone who has ever lived and their knowledge of the existence of God, is that, they do not know. Ignorance of the truth is the only thing that is true.

In order to understand this, I think one has to step back and look at religion as a phenomenom. I went through two states of knowledge before coming to my conclusion.

1. I grew up being taught about God and Orthodox Christianity. I wasn't exposed to any other information, so that's what I accepted as truth. This is how many people gain their religious faith. And it is the main method of passing religion down through generations.

2. I began to notice inconsistencies in the teachings and began to apply my knowledge of the world to the concept of God, Jesus, and religion. I concluded that God didn't exist and it was all a lie.

3. But then, as I grew older, learned more, and studied the subject; I came to my current state of belief that I don't know anything. So... the assertion "There is no God" is equally as invalid as "There is a God". The only truth we can be sure of is "I don't know if there is a God or not". IMO, it's wrong to preach anything other than this.

Other people learn about God, or find God, later in life. Usually this is the case after a significant, highly improbably event. This is more a psychological phenomenom than a true revelation. But that's another topic. If someone wants to, I'll discuss this in another thread.

Sava · May 22, 2003, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Nobody knows what non-existence is like, whether there are alternate states of reality, perception, or existence.

Very true. So in this instance wouldn't you take it on faith, since you don't know about the other world, that it is preferable to be alive?

I don't fear the unknown. I'm a rather curious person. Most people fear death as being bad. I instead assert that it's impossible to know. I don't really fear what I don't know. I just accept my ignorance and move on. I also accept that there are forces that I cannot control. I can just hope to live my life and hope for a painless death. If anything, whatever fears of death I have are more about two things: suffering and death's effect on the living.

1. Pain is bad. Well... good for sensing injuries, but bad in the sense that it isn't comfortable. The last thing I want is to suffer. This is also why I tend to think that doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill people is a good thing and should be legal.

2. Death has a negative effect on the living. I am more concerned about how my death would affect others rather than myself. I can't control what the next state of existence is. Some religions have formed theories about heaven and hell so as to create a level on control and reinforce the idea of accountability. But it's more for dealing with the living and scaring people into behaving. Personally, I disagree with it. People shouldn't have to be scared into being good. I think the person that just behaves because they fear accountability isn't necessarily good. As for the effect on the living, coping and mourning are very important things for the people that knew you. There's initial shock, and then a sense of missing that people feel. Religion plays a part in this, too. People use religion as a coping mechanism in the sense that they reassure themselves their departed loved one is in a better place.

Zero · May 22, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I didn't say program, I said provide evidence.

i know. I wasnt quoting ur word there.

Sava · May 22, 2003, 01:45

Still though, Zero. I thought about this some more. Why would a God require vilification of his/her goodness? What value would the opinions of some insignificant beings be? And knowing what the Judeo-Chrisitian commandments are, they are based upon an existence on Earth, and not any sort of higher level concept of right and wrong. What difference does it make to an all powerful God if I covet my neighbor's ass (donkey)? If God is good, then why would a God allow evil to exist in the first place?

I get two conclusions. The concept is false and there is no God as Judeo-Christianity teaches. God is not good. And frankly, I wouldn't care to worship a deity that isn't good.

This also is related to the proof issue. How can God hold us accountable for actions without directly setting the ground rules? Even if you assume the commandments are truly God's law, how can God expect us to believe them without any reassurance or proof of his existence in the first place? And what about the humans that aren't exposed to those teachings? Am I to believe that every person that ever lived who wasn't exposed to Christianity should somehow know about it psychicly?

Sects of Christianity that focus on the lack of divinity in humanity bother me also. Some believe that humans are born sinned... that we are somehow responsbile for Adam and Eve's sins. And we must praise Jesus because he sacrificed his life in order to pay for our sins. If God is good and fair, why would God lay such an unfair burden upon newborn humans?

These are the primary reasons I concluded that Judeo-Christianity was obviously flawed and the product of human beings... not any God. Nobody taught this to me... these are my own conclusions based upon experience and critical thought. This also is the cause for my concern about the intelligence of the truely devout believers. As dumb as I am, if I can figure this out, why can't the billion-plus Jews and Christians realize this?

Zero · May 22, 2003, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Still though, Zero. I thought about this some more. Why would a God require vilification of his/her goodness? What value would the opinions of some insignificant beings be?

I explained this. It doesnt take a christian to realize that God prefers worship out of free choice. Is having sex with a sex slave same thing as ur girl friend who willing gives you rights to out of love? God or some deity probably does prefer a relationship out of free will over relationship that is created.

And since God is omnipotent, he has every right to destroy whatever he sees as unfit (the ones that chooses not to return his wishes by worshipping him) and he can justifiably do so. That is different from creating a being that only knows how to obey his will VS creating a being who can choose for themselves and wiping out the others who choose the alternatives.

Having said that, even if god exists, I defy God because if u think about it, righteousness is whatevr God is. And that is subjective and meaning of righetousness changes if God for example loved hatred instead of love.

But I guess hes the boss and its his house his rules.

Sava · May 22, 2003, 01:59

With the threat of eternal damnation, God isn't giving humanity free will to make a decision. To use your sex analogy: It's like having a girlfriend willingly love you, but you'll rape and kill her if she doesn't.

Zero · May 22, 2003, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
With the threat of eternal damnation, God isn't giving humanity free will to make a decision. To use your sex analogy: It's like having a girlfriend willingly love you, but you'll rape and kill her if she doesn't.

not really. because lets say ur girlfriend will comply just because u are ready to rape and kill her. She will be raped and killed anyway because she is not doing it out of free will. Christians who believe for sake of saving themselves will goto hell.

Nubclear · May 22, 2003, 02:43

JOIN THE MORMON CHURCH OR ELSE YOUR GOING TO HELL

Zylka · May 22, 2003, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
What difference does it make to an all powerful God if I covet my neighbor's ass (donkey)?

I like this portion the most!

Lincoln · May 22, 2003, 07:36

Did I read somewhere in this thread that someone does not believe in God now because of the writings of Richard Dawkins? That shows a complete lack of ability to logically analize his obviously flawed reasoning. His famous "biomorphs" and "me-thinks-it-is-a-weazel" experiments are only two examples of the frauds he perpetuates in the name of science. Dawkins should be called an intelligent design advocate.