When it comes to religion, are you a hypocrite?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The problem is that when they asked the question, they didn't set any limit or definition of "God." Some people define God in bizarre ways, after all.

yes there is no limit on how u can define god. but I don't find all definitions of god equally palitable. like I already pointed out. ppl hide things in their definitions.

[Spiffor]

I bit one bullet. No direct hit.

You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.

Indeed, I think the rapist thinks he did the right thing. However, the "right thing" is only determined by God, i.e the irrelevant little voice in the rapist's head.
The rapist's belief in as justified/injustified as any belief which comes from little voices in one's head. That's precisely why I believe in a social code of morals, with which the political system comes up with arbitrary yet society-wide acknowledged rules.[/spoiler]

[Edan]

I think some people (even those who agreed with me) aren't even reading the atheist question correctly.
While I agree that their logic is poor even if the question were worded correctly, the problem is more fundamental. Here is the question:

As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

ie, If there is no evidence that god does not exist, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.

From what I can tell, people are reading the question as if it said: If there is no evidence that god exists, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Edan
I think some people (even those who agreed with me) aren't even reading the atheist question correctly.
While I agree that their logic is poor even if the question were worded correctly, the problem is more fundamental. Here is the question:



ie, If there is no evidence that god does not exist, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.

From what I can tell, people are reading the question as if it said: If there is no evidence that god exists, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.

thats absurd. this example has been used in religious arguments to death. but u can not claim something, then demand that the person u r trying to convince go find evidence it doesn't exist! and certainly not something u can define away from all evidence!

its an absurdity to lay this down as a logical argument.

[Edan]

Originally posted by yavoon


thats absurd. this example has been used in religious arguments to death. but u can not claim something, then demand that the person u r trying to convince go find evidence it doesn't exist! and certainly not something u can define away from all evidence!

its an absurdity to lay this down as a logical argument.

Huh? I'm not trying to argue anything in that post, just point out that I think some people aren't reading the question correctly.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Edan


Huh? I'm not trying to argue anything in that post, just point out that I think some people aren't reading the question correctly.

yah my response was pretty much a reflex reaction anyway=[

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The Loch Ness monster question, in particular, was pretty stupid. One would think that an omnipotent deity might be a little more skilled at avoiding detection that a prehistoric lizard trapped in some Scottish lake.

Are you that ignorant that you don't know of Nessie's invisibility ? There's a reason he avoided detection for so much time now


I think the test is generally consistent. You anti-Nessies should have a look at the site's FAQ, for it adresses the question quite well.

Actually, I have taken the "limited god" route, i.e I don't rule out the existence of God entirely, but I don't believe God is omni-anything, and multiple limited gods are about as likely to exist as one omnipotent god (i.e none is proven, and none is disproven). Hack, the belief in Bozo The Great Rabbit ( )as the one and only superior being is as valid as any religious claim.

[Edan]

Thanks for the pointer, Boris.

IMO, they make a major flaw when they get to this point:

Well, imagine yourself confronted by a Nessie non-existence sceptic. They're part of some Nessie worshipping cult (and remember that many people do believe truly bizarre things, so this is not entirely gratuitous)! And they say to you: "Sure, Nessie is a physical entity, but it has the rather extraordinary (indeed unique - and possibily mystical) ability to remain forever beyond detection."

They start changing around the definition of the Loch Ness Monster after asking the question - that seems like a very poor way of making a logical argument - why, it's as bad as making square circles.

I also think the argument still fails. If I do a good scientific search of Loch Ness and don't find nessie, that gives me a good (ie, rational) reason not to believe in Nessie. It's not bullet proof, but it is rational.

On the other hand, if all I know is that there is no evidence or arguments that nessie doesn't exist (and I know nothing about any attempts to prove that nessie does exist) - ie, you have no evidence to suggest one thing or the other, than there is no good (rational) reason to think that nessie does not exist (nor is there a good (rational) reason to believe that nessie does not exist). The rational thing would be to say I don't know.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Are you that ignorant that you don't know of Nessie's invisibility ? There's a reason he avoided detection for so much time now


I think the test is generally consistent. You anti-Nessies should have a look at the site's FAQ, for it adresses the question quite well.

Actually, I have taken the "limited god" route, i.e I don't rule out the existence of God entirely, but I don't believe God is omni-anything, and multiple limited gods are about as likely to exist as one omnipotent god (i.e none is proven, and none is disproven). Hack, the belief in Bozo The Great Rabbit ( )as the one and only superior being is as valid as any religious claim.

what good does believing in a limited god do? doesn't it instantly beg the question what created him? if the universe needs a maker then surely a limited god needs one as well. so u've done nothing.

[Spiffor]

Yavoon:
I do not believe in any kind of god.

I just don't rule out the possiblity of his / their existence.

I am not interested in achieving anything with religion, so your problem is not mine.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Edan
Thanks for the pointer, Boris.

IMO, they make a major flaw when they get to this point:



They start changing around the definition of the Loch Ness Monster after asking the question - that seems like a very poor way of making a logical argument - why, it's as bad as making square circles.

I also think the argument still fails. If I do a good scientific search of Loch Ness and don't find nessie, that gives me a good (ie, rational) reason not to believe in Nessie. It's not bullet proof, but it is rational.

On the other hand, if all I know is that there is no evidence or arguments that nessie doesn't exist (and I know nothing about any attempts to prove that nessie does exist), than there is no good (rational) reason to think that nessie does not exist (nor is there a good (rational) reason to believe that nessie does not exist). The rational thing would be to say I don't know.

are u implying no1 has searched for god?

even when u take that back. creating something that can't be disproven doesn't move it into the "I dont know " category. cuz there's no compelling reason to lend weight to random crap. we would truly be a disastrous civilization if we lended as much weight as u suggest we should to everything that hasn't been disproven.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yavoon:
I do not believe in any kind of god.

I just don't rule out the possiblity of his / their existence.

I am not interested in achieving anything with religion, so your problem is not mine.

the problem is not a matter of belief but of logic. u suggest a limited god. I point out the uselessness of such a being.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
the problem is not a matter of belief but of logic. u suggest a limited god. I point out the uselessness of such a being.

Absolutely. Who said God had to be useful ?

[Pekka]

One direct hit and ate one bullet.. ouch!

this is what I got:

"You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!"

Yeah!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Absolutely. Who said God had to be useful ?

the point is that once u created a limited god u'd instantly have the question "who created him." U've done NOTHING. I know this is repeat but I'm not sure u understand.

u r implying that one could logically believe in a limited god and be satisfied that that would solve the issue. but indeed it would not affect the issue in the slightest.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
the point is that once u created a limited god u'd instantly have the question "who created him." U've done NOTHING. I know this is repeat but I'm not sure u understand.

I understand very well (besides, that's the question I ask anytime I'm talking about the Judeo-Christian Genesis, but I must be too stupid to fathom omnipotence). But doing nothing is not a problem to me. I am not worshipping or even acknowledging these limited gods. I merely do not rule out their existence.

u r implying that one could logically believe in a limited god and be satisfied that that would solve the issue. but indeed it would not affect the issue in the slightest.

I did not imply that. I was merely stating that the inexistence of any kind of God or other imaniary being has not been proved. As such, I cannot rule out the existence of any form of God(s), no matter how "theologically unsatisfying" they are. After all, I'm not the one worshipping this kind of things, so it is not my problem. Heck, I cannot even rule out the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

I merely assume, thanks to the rationality mechanisms I have been taught, that these imaginary beings are very unlikely not to exist. Also, from my understanding of reality, I have never seen God's power. It leads me to assume it's highly likely God hasn't as much power as his zealots pretend.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I understand very well (besides, that's the question I ask anytime I'm talking about the Judeo-Christian Genesis, but I must be too stupid to fathom omnipotence). But doing nothing is not a problem to me. I am not worshipping or even acknowledging these limited gods. I merely do not rule out their existence.

Quote:

u r implying that one could logically believe in a limited god and be satisfied that that would solve the issue. but indeed it would not affect the issue in the slightest.

I did not imply that. I was merely stating that the inexistence of any kind of God or other imaniary being has not been proved. As such, I cannot rule out the existence of any form of God(s), no matter how "theologically unsatisfying" they are. After all, I'm not the one worshipping this kind of things, so it is not my problem. Heck, I cannot even rule out the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

I merely assume, thanks to the rationality mechanisms I have been taught, that these imaginary beings are very unlikely not to exist. Also, from my understanding of reality, I have never seen God's power. It leads me to assume it's highly likely God hasn't as much power as his zealots pretend.

I don't know why you think ur aetheism allows u to hold warped logical views. I've never come across that sentiment. kinda like logical apathy I suppose.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
I don't know why you think ur aetheism allows u to hold warped logical views. I've never come across that sentiment. kinda like logical apathy I suppose.

Indeed, I don't believe in absolutes.
However, I believe in the sociel usefulness of "absolutes" (for example, morals) decided arbitrarily by human beings.

I have thought about our misunderstanding in this thread, and I think I have found a comparison.
Me : "Crop rotation was how farming was done in the past"
Yavoon : "Crop rotation sucks today, because we can fertilize our lands enough"
Me : "Maybe. It doesn't make any less true that crop rotation was how farming was done in the past"
Yavoon : "I'm repeating myself, but crop rotation sucks terribly with today's technology"
And so on...

My point is that we didn't talk about the same things nor the same concerns.

[tinyp3nis]

It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

It is not.

The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

OK, he HAD a firm inner conviction. That is not justified. Because he had it, he was justified in believing.
I think he is not justified having the inner conviction, but if he has it he is justified to think that god made him do it.
No contradiction but they make me take the bullet.

It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.

Same here.

Anyone agree?

[Spiffor]

Oh, and answer #2

Originally posted by yavoon
I don't know why you think ur aetheism allows u to hold warped logical views.

My atheism allows me to consider anything divine as irrelevant. I couldn't care less about the lack of logic within a religion, because religion as a whole escapes logic whenever it wants.

If I was talking about an illogic faerie tale (without believing in it), would you criticize me because of the lack of logics within the faerie tale ?

Now, if you understand that I think of religions as nothing more than organized and pretentious faerie tales, do you see where I'm coming to ?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Indeed, I don't believe in absolutes.
However, I believe in the sociel usefulness of "absolutes" (for example, morals) decided arbitrarily by human beings.

I have thought about our misunderstanding in this thread, and I think I have found a comparison.
Me : "Crop rotation was how farming was done in the past"
Yavoon : "Crop rotation sucks today, because we can fertilize our lands enough"
Me : "Maybe. It doesn't make any less true that crop rotation was how farming was done in the past"
Yavoon : "I'm repeating myself, but crop rotation sucks terribly with today's technology"
And so on...

My point is that we didn't talk about the same things nor the same concerns.

meh ur apathy wins. I've lost interest in exploring what your actually saying.

[Shi Huangdi]

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice:

This is not a contradiction. God doesn't want us to be sinful, but we can choose to sin through free will. God does not want what is sinful, as the poll suggests, rather it is tolerated with thim because out of love he gives a choice to obey him or not.

Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!

It isn't right to ignore the world in making up your philosophy. But no matter what forms your consicence, even if it is errant, you are obliged to follow it.

That is to say, their are right ways to form a belief, and wrong ways to form a belief. But no matter how well or how poorly have formed your beliefs, you have to follow them.


"In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet."

No. This test posed a hypothetical on whether God could change the reality. Based on omnipotence, yes. But God hasn't done such a thing and has been relatively consistent in providing a logically understandable universe, and so we can work with that.

"Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!"

You said beliefs as in plural earlier. It is wrong to base all your beliefs on faith and inner conviction, but doesn't it mean it is never right to base your beliefs on faith of inner conviction.

Me thinks the author this test should take an introductory logic course.

[Edan]

Originally posted by yavoon
are u implying no1 has searched for god?

A rigerious scientific examination? Absolutely, because we wouldn't know where to begin. And even if god were "proveable" with a scientific examination - something I disagree with - we'd barely have started. It would be on par with saying it's irrational to believe that life could exist in the rest of the universe based on the tiny miniscule evidence we've gathered.

Yes, there are people who've made "logical" arguments as to why god definatly exists (or definatly doesn't exist) - and that does give some degree of rationality to those who agree with those arguments. But those arguments usually use faulty logic or faulty premises.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


This is not a contradiction. God doesn't want us to be sinful, but we can choose to sin through free will. God does not want what is sinful, as the poll suggests, rather it is tolerated with thim because out of love he gives a choice to obey him or not.



It isn't right to ignore the world in making up your philosophy. But no matter what forms your consicence, even if it is errant, you are obliged to follow it.

That is to say, their are right ways to form a belief, and wrong ways to form a belief. But no matter how well or how poorly have formed your beliefs, you have to follow them.


"In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet."

No. This test posed a hypothetical on whether God could change the reality. Based on omnipotence, yes. But God hasn't done such a thing and has been relatively consistent in providing a logically understandable universe, and so we can work with that.

"Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!"

You said beliefs as in plural earlier. It is wrong to base all your beliefs on faith and inner conviction, but doesn't it mean it is never right to base your beliefs on faith of inner conviction.

Me thinks the author this test should take an introductory logic course.

which introductory logics course tells me when it is logically good to base my decisions on inner conviction and when it is logically bad to do so? Sounds like an odd course.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

Actually, I have taken the "limited god" route, i.e I don't rule out the existence of God entirely, but I don't believe God is omni-anything, and multiple limited gods are about as likely to exist as one omnipotent god (i.e none is proven, and none is disproven).

That was the route I took, I said I don't know if God exists and I refused to define God as all-powerful or all-knowing. I took no hits/bullets...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Edan


A rigerious scientific examination? Absolutely, because we wouldn't know where to begin. And even if god were "proveable" with a scientific examination - something I disagree with - we'd barely have started. It would be on par with saying it's irrational to believe that life could exist in the rest of the universe based on the tiny miniscule evidence we've gathered.

Yes, there are people who've made "logical" arguments as to why god definatly exists (or definatly doesn't exist) - and that does give some degree of rationality to those who agree with those arguments. But those arguments usually use faulty logic or faulty premises.

why wouldn't we know where to begin!? we sure argue about him enough. infact almost everyone here appears to have a logically consistent view of who god is. now sometimes they define themselves away from being able to look. but for those who don't you could hardly say we don't know where to begin if we have this huge logically consistent foundation to work off of.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
which introductory logics course tells me when it is logically good to base my decisions on inner conviction and when it is logically bad to do so? Sounds like an odd course."

Pay closer attention. The first questioned asked about beliefs plural, in the sentence it would be meant as all your beliefs. Such would encompass beliefs on whether the sky was blue, whether the grass is green, etc. Therefore, you do not want to make the statement it is ok to base your beliefs on inner conviction, since when you say "your beliefs" it generally is thought to mean all your beliefs.

Now, at the same time you feel it is ok to make Certain beliefs without outside evidence , such as the existence of a God. If that were the case with you, your belief singular there would be made without evidence. But on most of your beliefs you would still require evidence, so you couldn't say your beliefs plural were made without evidence.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"
which introductory logics course tells me when it is logically good to base my decisions on inner conviction and when it is logically bad to do so? Sounds like an odd course."

Pay closer attention. The first questioned asked about beliefs plural, in the sentence it would be meant as all your beliefs. Such would encompass beliefs on whether the sky was blue, whether the grass is green, etc. Therefore, you do not want to make the statement it is ok to base your beliefs on inner conviction, since when you say "your beliefs" it generally is thought to mean all your beliefs.

Now, at the same time you feel it is ok to make Certain beliefs without outside evidence , such as the existence of a God. If that were the case with you, your belief singular there would be made without evidence. But on most of your beliefs you would still require evidence, so you couldn't say your beliefs plural were made without evidence.

question still stands. why is it ok to make some beliefs w/o evidence and not others? and why is this logical? I mean surely if u ask him to take a logics course than u can answer my question.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by yavoon


question still stands. why is it ok to make some beliefs w/o evidence and not others? and why is this logical? I mean surely if u ask him to take a logics course than u can answer my question.

Degree of evidence available. In some questions, such as whether evolution is true, we have of evidence to help us draw our conclusions. Presently, scientific evidence proving either the existence or non-existence of God(of course it is impossible to prove a negative in the case), without as much to work with we are forced to rely more on reason. It depends on the amount of evidence available.

[Neutrino]

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.


A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

IMO, current evolutionary theory is sufficiently valid to explain the general progression of species and diversity; there isn't sufficient evidence of any existence or non-existence of any deities.