Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Recent Posts


Which Fictional Realm/Pla...
Today at 03:11 AM

I can't sleep!
Today at 02:39 AM

Discussion about "My Orde...
Today at 02:31 AM

Dawahman banned for homop...
Today at 02:06 AM

❀ What do you believe?
Today at 02:05 AM

Anyone who rebels is call...
Today at 01:36 AM

My Ordeal With The Quran ...
Yesterday at 11:23 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 11:17 PM

Cosmology in Islam
Yesterday at 10:26 PM

Linguistic miricle
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:43 PM

Israel for the Jews Only
Yesterday at 06:25 PM

Arabs without God - new e...
Yesterday at 05:28 PM

Donations

Kitty is lost

Theme Changer

 Topic: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!

 (Read 1833 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #30 - May 16, 2012, 10:10 PM

    How do you figure that?

    If you think your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #31 - May 17, 2012, 06:47 AM

    Because I can't see how its relevant?

    Just forget it. This is getting tedious.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #32 - May 17, 2012, 07:18 AM

    Er, i know muslims that are good at analytic thinking yet have a strong faith.

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #33 - May 17, 2012, 09:40 AM

    ^ ^

    But deliberately lying to themselves that they know the ultimate truth, how can u be good at analytic skills when u think an Angel talked to Mohammed in a cave and he split the moon in two pieces and a bunch of other stuff Huh? if u had good analytic skills u would most probably be an agnostic.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #34 - May 17, 2012, 10:11 AM

    I get your point but its not all binary i.e. Either you are religious or analytical, i think there was discussion about this once raised by strangestdude(i think). I cant recall the actual name of the thread...anyway my point is that you cant fully assert one has to be an agnostic to have a good analytical skills

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #35 - May 17, 2012, 12:57 PM

    ^ ^

    Of course no one is 100% analytic, I am well aware of that, no matter how much u try you can't always be 100% analytic, we are naturally intuitive and I think it would be weird if we didn't use our intuition BUT people strive to be analytic as much as possible, so Agnostics, Skeptics and Irreligious people usually are more analytic, you can't call a person who believes in flying donkeys, moon splittings, talking ants, resurrections and virgin births analytic, those people have by definition a self-deceptive mind set.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #36 - May 18, 2012, 07:26 AM

    Been thinking about this $1.10 trick a bit more. Seems to me it's basically about demonstrating arrogance.

    The trick is to present a problem that, at a glance, appears to be so simple that no thought is required. If it seems that way then, since most people have at least some tendencies towards laziness and arrogance, no thought will be applied. Result: you get tricked.

    This led to an interesting possibility. Stupid people may be less vulnerable to this trick.

    If you take someone who can barely struggle through the simplest mental arithmetic, but can still just make it after a massive effort, then when you present them with this trick their first reaction might be "Ummmmmmmmmmm".

    After that first reaction, they might actually start thinking. Really really hard. The result could be that they get it right the first time, purely by virtue of being dumber than you are. grin12

    If you think your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #37 - May 18, 2012, 09:29 AM

    ^ ^

    LOL, I don't think even the dumbest ones will find this trick hard, even they can add 1+1, I think what u talking about is border-line retarded people.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #38 - May 18, 2012, 09:33 AM

    Yeah that's what I mean. People who are really dumb and only just smart enough to get it. Cheesy

    If you think your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #39 - May 18, 2012, 09:38 AM

    -

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #40 - May 18, 2012, 01:42 PM

    ^ ^

    Of course no one is 100% analytic, I am well aware of that, no matter how much u try you can't always be 100% analytic, we are naturally intuitive and I think it would be weird if we didn't use our intuition BUT people strive to be analytic as much as possible, so Agnostics, Skeptics and Irreligious people usually are more analytic, you can't call a person who believes in flying donkeys, moon splittings, talking ants, resurrections and virgin births analytic, those people have by definition a self-deceptive mind set.


    I don't think that's necessarily true at all. Secular people are every bit as capable as religious people of being indoctrinated or just adopting recycled opinions that they get from elsewhere. Of how many people could it truly be said that they subject their pet beliefs to extensive self-criticism and scrutiny?
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #41 - May 18, 2012, 02:00 PM

    @ Zabedee:

    I think I already touched upon that issue, I said no one can be 100% analytic, as you said even secular Irreligious people can be indoctrinated sometimes, communists are an example but still even in that case they tend to get indoctrinated more towards some kind of quixotic philosophy than the usual religious nonsense of raising from the grave, splitting the moon, talking ants, flying donkeys and Jins and Angels made of fire and light which is ridiculous.

    I will say it one more time, secular irreligious people are not immune from indoctrination and intuition it is just that religious people are WAY more indoctrinated and prone to believe silly stuff than secular irreligious people.

    I mean come on, flying donkeys and Jins made of smokeless fire which u can't see.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #42 - May 18, 2012, 02:27 PM

    Quote
    it is just that religious people are WAY more indoctrinated and prone to believe silly stuff than secular irreligious people.


    Again, I disagree. Communism is a perfect example; a salient case of one of its absurd doctrines is the notion that the establishment of a dictatorial government and the abolition of individual rights will yield a more just society. The forms of the belief are different, but they are equally absurd. I would simply summarise my position by stating that I think it is highly tenuous to make any kind of generalisation along the lines of 'religious people = less analytical, non-religious people = more analytical.'
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #43 - May 18, 2012, 05:04 PM

    Again, I disagree. Communism is a perfect example; a salient case of one of its absurd doctrines is the notion that the establishment of a dictatorial government and the abolition of individual rights will yield a more just society. The forms of the belief are different, but they are equally absurd. I would simply summarise my position by stating that I think it is highly tenuous to make any kind of generalisation along the lines of 'religious people = less analytical, non-religious people = more analytical.'


    From what i have read about Communism, i never come across a part where it states that the establishment of dictatorial government and abolition of individual rights is part of the doctrines

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #44 - May 18, 2012, 06:06 PM

    Again, I disagree. Communism is a perfect example; a salient case of one of its absurd doctrines is the notion that the establishment of a dictatorial government and the abolition of individual rights will yield a more just society. The forms of the belief are different, but they are equally absurd. I would simply summarise my position by stating that I think it is highly tenuous to make any kind of generalisation along the lines of 'religious people = less analytical, non-religious people = more analytical.'


    It is good that you disagree but I think you are very wrong, first of all read what Cato said, the forms of beliefs are not the same but very similar, they are not totally different and you could easily set against communism to religions, religions who rely on an unseen, invisible, omniscient, timeless, omnipotent being, at least communists strive to be analytic and adopt to a degree, look at China for more info and how Communism changed, of course there is North Korea but then again it is more of a dictatorship and keeping people in fear than letting people have their own choice and decide for themselves, at least Communism is fallible, it got proven wrong and failed miserably thus we don't have communism anymore with the exclusion of North Korea, anyways as u said Communism and Religion in the end are not that different, both are dogmas with a bit of different views, regardless if they believe in an Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being they have the dictator or the dogma in lieu of a deity.

    Dogmatic people are not as rational as irreligious people, I will call communists pious because they, just like Theists, have something they worship regardless if it is something or someone with all those omnis I named.

    In the end when we look at it, we can freely say that irreligious people strive to be more analytic whereas pious people strive to be more delusional and strengthen their faith.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #45 - May 19, 2012, 12:37 AM

    From what i have read about Communism, i never come across a part where it states that the establishment of dictatorial government and abolition of individual rights is part of the doctrines


    Well, of course its not worded like that in the Communist Manifesto but when you consider that communism requires the centralisation of power into the hands of a one-party central government which then proceeds to 'redistribute' the wealth of the populace because property rights must be abolished for the sake of an equitable society, then one can clearly see all the beginnings of a dictatorial government. The 'one-party' thing tends to be quite a problem too because it results in the suppression of dissenters and deviant opinions. And of course to keep everyone in the right requires a sizable volume of propaganda that must be administered by force to the prols, nevermind the re-education that is required of dissenters.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #46 - May 19, 2012, 12:42 AM

    Oh, but Marxist analysis sounds so good in theory. What could possibly go wrong? grin12

    If you think your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #47 - May 19, 2012, 01:07 AM

    @sturmgewehr

    Quote
    It is good that you disagree but I think you are very wrong, first of all read what Cato said, the forms of beliefs are not the same but very similar, they are not totally different and you could easily set against communism to religions, religions who rely on an unseen, invisible, omniscient, timeless, omnipotent being


    We might say the same of any ideology, whether its strictly religious or not. It all depends on the degree of fervor to which the doctrines are held by someone. The more invested in them the person is, the less likely they are to be amenable to reason and impartiality.

    Quote
    at least communists strive to be analytic and adopt to a degree


    And religious believers don't?

    Quote
    anyways as u said Communism and Religion in the end are not that different, both are dogmas with a bit of different views, regardless if they believe in an Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being they have the dictator or the dogma in lieu of a deity.


    Sure, they're different ideologies but they have their idols just the same. And similar may be said of the presently prevailing ideologies of secularism, scientism, 'new atheism,' etc. In any case, whatever the flaws of any of the above secular and religions belief systems, my original point was simply an objection to your generalisation that religionists are necessarily less analytical in their thinking.

    Quote
    Dogmatic people are not as rational as irreligious people


    I'm not sure what you mean by this.

    Quote
    I will call communists pious because they, just like Theists, have something they worship regardless if it is something or someone with all those omnis I named.


    Like I wrote, people tend to 'worship' something, in one way or another. Maybe it's God or the Revolution or reason or analyticity. Maybe all idols are not equally misleading or pernicious, but essentially, everyone submits to something.

    Quote
    we can freely say that irreligious people strive to be more analytic whereas pious people strive to be more delusional and strengthen their faith.


    Er, no we can't. The fact that someone is irreligious does not at all entail that they positively strive to be more analytical in their thinking, even if they pay lip service to such an approach. And your statement that 'pious people strive to be more delusional' is frankly ridiculous. I'd hardly call myself pious but I believe in God and I can easily say that I do not strive to delude myself, even if I do delude myself.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #48 - May 19, 2012, 01:10 AM

    Oh, but Marxist analysis sounds so good in theory. What could possibly go wrong? grin12


    Does it?  wacko
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #49 - May 19, 2012, 01:17 AM

    Some people think so. I was being sardonic.

    If you think your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #50 - May 19, 2012, 01:53 AM

    I see.  Smiley
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #51 - May 19, 2012, 03:12 AM

     We might say the same of any ideology, whether its strictly religious or not. It all depends on the degree of fervor to which the doctrines are held by someone. The more invested in them the person is, the less likely they are to be amenable to reason and impartiality.


    It is not like that, the degree of fervor amongst Theocrats is different from that of Communists and the degree of fervor of Theocrats and Communists is different from that of Libertarians.

    I did agree that it all depends on how invested someone is in a doctrine and religious people are the most invested in it, that is A FACT.

    Libertarians are not as invested in their ideology as are religious people or communists even though I think religious people are far more invested in their dogma then communists, I was born in communist Yugoslavia and I know many commnusts, my grandfather is one but u can't compare it to the religious people I know are WAY more invested than communists.

    And religious believers don't?


    No they don't, whenever reason and logic kicks in they open the Quran or bible, read some verses to strengthen their deen which by definition is deceiving your own self, they strive to be more deluded.

     Sure, they're different ideologies but they have their idols just the same. And similar may be said of the presently prevailing ideologies of secularism, scientism, 'new atheism,' etc. In any case, whatever the flaws of any of the above secular and religions belief systems, my original point was simply an objection to your generalisation that religionists are necessarily less analytical in their thinking.


    nonsense, what kind of Idols does Secularism have Huh? What is the idol of Scientism  or New Atheism ?


    Like I wrote, people tend to 'worship' something, in one way or another. Maybe it's God or the Revolution or reason or analyticity. Maybe all idols are not equally misleading or pernicious, but essentially, everyone submits to something.


    No they don't, you seem to have a very skewed definition of worship in this case.


    Er, no we can't. The fact that someone is irreligious does not at all entail that they positively strive to be more analytical in their thinking, even if they pay lip service to such an approach.  


    they actually do strive to be more analytic.


    And your statement that 'pious people strive to be more delusional' is frankly ridiculous.


    No it is not, whenever you doubt God open the holy book and read a chapter in order to kick out reason and critical thinking.


    I'd hardly call myself pious but I believe in God and I can easily say that I do not strive to delude myself, even if I do delude myself.


    you have already deluded yourself, believing is thinking something is real without any reasonable argument, proof or evidence.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #52 - May 19, 2012, 04:29 PM

    Gu-FFAW @ the above post!

    Quote
    It is not like that, the degree of fervor amongst Theocrats is different from that of Communists and the degree of fervor of Theocrats and Communists is different from that of Libertarians.


    Yet you acknowledge the religiosity of communism, and again, this all depends on the particular religionist, communist, libertarian, etc. Again with the generalisations.

    Quote
    religious people are the most invested in it, that is A FACT.


    Lol, no it's not! Again, it entirely depends on the specific believer and whatever other ideologue it may be. There are people who are lukewarm in their faith or ideology and those who are fanatical about it, and the fanatics and the moderates do not fit neatly into the religious and non-religious categories, respectively.

    Quote
    No they don't, whenever reason and logic kicks in they open the Quran or bible, read some verses to strengthen their deen which by definition is deceiving your own self, they strive to be more deluded.


    Well, they're not striving to be deluded if they genuinely believe the words of the Bible or Qur'an to be true, are they? And how do you know who's deluded and who isn't? Isn't it possible that these scriptures, at least in some places, contain perfectly valid teachings that any person, religious or not, can appreciate and all without being deluded?

    Quote
    nonsense, what kind of Idols does Secularism have  What is the idol of Scientism  or New Atheism ?


    Well, scientists, science, 'reason,' to name a few. At the same time I should say though that these are broad categories, and so my accusations cannot apply to all secularists, atheists, etc., but I will say that these particular things are generally held in, even excessively, high regard among secular ideological circles.

    Quote
    No they don't, you seem to have a very skewed definition of worship in this case.


    Well, even modern enlightened secular minds submit their judgments, beliefs, assertions, etc. to the consensus 'reality' or to society, or science, or to the dictates of their reason. In this sense, they 'worship' them, in that they submit to them and make them the bases of their actions and thoughts. Given the extensive influence of these ideas over the minds of people, I don't think it is terribly hyperbolic to say that people who accept these pervasive influences simultaneously 'worship' them.

    Quote
    they actually do strive to be more analytic.


    So I see that your response has descended into little more than making assertions. I have said that this will surely depend on the particular individual. Some secular people will care about being analytical, and some will not because thinking critically doesn't even play a large part in their lives. On the flip side there are religionists who will try to be analytical in their thinking, for whatever reason, even if only for arguing for the existence of their god.

    Quote
    No it is not, whenever you doubt God open the holy book and read a chapter in order to kick out reason and critical thinking.


    Well, of course! Because they couldn't possibly have a point, could they? Surely their faith is nothing but a perverse effort to mislead themselves and others in the face of a wholly uncongenial reality that is forever eroding their erroneous beliefs?

    Quote
    you have already deluded yourself, believing is thinking something is real without any reasonable argument, proof or evidence.


    Er, no. I think you will find that most of the things people think they 'know' they really only believe. Unless of course they've personally gone to the trouble of verifying first hand every claim that they accept as being true. But who really does that? In any case, your definition of belief is flatly incorrect. You can believe something with reasonable argument, or evidence of some kind, but still not 'know' it.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #53 - May 19, 2012, 04:43 PM

    *enjoying this debate going on* popcorn

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #54 - May 19, 2012, 05:34 PM

    Gu-FFAW @ the above post!


    what does that mean ?

    Yet you acknowledge the religiosity of communism, and again, this all depends on the particular religionist, communist, libertarian, etc. Again with the generalisations.


    And yet you don't realize that communism just like mainstream religions have something in common, they are both dogmas.

    Lol, no it's not! Again, it entirely depends on the specific believer and whatever other ideologue it may be. There are people who are lukewarm in their faith or ideology and those who are fanatical about it, and the fanatics and the moderates do not fit neatly into the religious and non-religious categories, respectively.


    It is.

    Why do believers always have to refer to others as believers Huh? what kind of nonsense is that ??

    When it comes to political views I define my self as Libertarian but I don't believe in Libertarianism or whatever the hell it is, can religious people take off their Jesus or Allah Glasses for a second and look at things a bit differently.

    I have yet to meet someone that believes in Libertarianizm or worships Libertar the God of Libertarianizm LOL.

    Fanatic Libertarians Huh? really Huh? Are libertarians trying to impose you something??? I think that will be against everything a Libertarian stands for.

    Well, they're not striving to be deluded if they genuinely believe the words of the Bible or Qur'an to be true, are they?


    No, they are not, they are already deluded.

    And how do you know who's deluded and who isn't?


    If you tell me that you believe in Odin or Zeus just because Hercules could lift a 3 Tons rock on his shoulders and that Achillies heel was the only vulnerable place where you could kill him then you are surely deluded.

    If you believe in Flying donkeys with faces of humans, people splitting the moon and the sea and shit like that then you are by definition deluded.

    Isn't it possible that these scriptures, at least in some places, contain perfectly valid teachings that any person, religious or not, can appreciate and all without being deluded?


    It is, stuff like don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, oh well you can rape but then u will have to suffer the consequences and marry the victim  Roll Eyes

    I do acknowledge that there are some valid teachings in those scriptures but saying that those teachings are the work of an invisible omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being is a bunch of nonsense and trying to use this valid teachings as an argument for the divinity of any scripture is deceptive and dishonest.

    Well, scientists, science, 'reason,' to name a few. At the same time I should say though that these are broad categories, and so my accusations cannot apply to all secularists, atheists, etc  


    People believe in scientists Huh?? I didn't know that, this is the first time I hear it.

    Reason, well that is laughable because u have no choice, reason is your ONLY tool or way into deciding what is right and what is wrong, there is no other way, reason by definition is the basic way or tool which people use to come to conclusions and function in everyday life, why didn't you say OUR BRAIN, maybe that would be more valid since it is a physical entity and can be observed and seen in many different ways.

    Besides, who the hell believes or worships reason Huh? how do you do that Huh?

    We know how to worship Allah and Jesus but we really don't know how people worship reason and science ??

    Worshiping science is the same as worshiping eating a chocolate, by your definition everyone in the world then is a polytheist, someone that loves to eat chocolate is a chocolate worshiper.

    as I said you have a very skewed definition or idea of worship.

    Basically by your definition we could freely say that we worship everything we do every day or once in a while which of course doesn't make sense because then the word worship will totally lose its freaking meaning.

     I will say that these particular things are generally held in, even excessively, high regard among secular ideological circles.


    Holding something in high regards doesn't mean you worship it, besides that stuff can change over night, it is not the same with religion, you can't question the God of your religion and even if u do for a split second u better hurry up and open the bible or the Quran to read some verses in order to strengthen your faith = delude yourself whereas it is not the same thing with Libertarians where you can freely do and question whatever you want and you are free to do so.

    Well, even modern enlightened secular minds submit their judgments, beliefs, assertions, etc. to the consensus 'reality' or to society, or science, or to the dictates of their reason.


    Why do you have to put science in the same bag with Political or Philosophical ideas??

    Secular scientists do submit their judgement and assertions to reality, I don't know about beliefs and I don't care much about them but judgement and assertions must be submitted to reality, the reality which can be tested and proven with evidence, facts and experiments, I think I know what will be your next argument after this, I will wait and see if I am right or wrong.

    To the Dictates of their reason Huh? what are those ?

    In this sense, they 'worship' them, in that they submit to them and make them the bases of their actions and thoughts.


    No they don't, this is nonsense.

    I don't think this even makes any sense at all, having facts and proofs as the bases of your thoughts and actions is by definition dealing with reality and being rational and reasonable whereas making your intuition and illogically or unscientific fairy tales of the 7th century Arabia the basis of your thoughts and actions is self delusion.

    Given the extensive influence of these ideas over the minds of people, I don't think it is terribly hyperbolic to say that people who accept these pervasive influences simultaneously 'worship' them.


    of course this is another illogical argument, you don't need to listen to the scientists in order to "believe" Gravity exists or the theory of evolution is true or the bonding of 2 molecules is true, all u have to do is get some books, study hard, take a look at the evidence and facts, do and repeat the experiment and bring conclusions, that is not worship that is the rational scientific process BUT in the other hand if we apply the same thing to religion it will of course make no sense because you can't prove god, you can't prove Mohammed split the moon, you can't prove Moses split the sea, you can't prove the global flood, talking ants, flying donkeys, jins made of smokless fire, angels made of light or whatever the hell it means, you simply can't put these things into practice or test them and if u try to test them I assure you, you will fail terribly, all these things have to be taken by faith, you HAVE to lie to yourself that these things are true and if your reason and logic tells u BEEP BEEP THIS IS NONSENSE then u have to consult the local imam or priest and read a chapter of the holy book.

    So I see that your response has descended into little more than making assertions.


    No it hasn't, I am actually demonstrating it with good examples and analogies.

    Some secular people will care about being analytical, and some will not because thinking critically doesn't even play a large part in their lives. On the flip side there are religionists who will try to be analytical in their thinking, for whatever reason, even if only for arguing for the existence of their god.


    I already agreed on this BUT in general Religious people are less Analytic than Secularists, I am well aware that there are a bunch of intuitive and dumbass secularists out there, you still have to look at the big picture and the foundations of a philosophy, process or ideology, if the foundations of an ideology are fairy tales, belief and faith then you can FREELY assert that these people are not being analytic because the foundation of their ideology or process or whatever is flawed from the beginning but in the other side if you say that facts, proofs and experiments are the foundations of an ideology then you can freely say that these people will be more analytic and are more analytic because the foundation of their ideology or process is evidence and not delusion or faith which is not different from delusion.

    Well, of course! Because they couldn't possibly have a point, could they?


    I think they have a point but it is invalid, the comfort blanket called religion must by any means not be questioned and should be held sacred, it must by no means be criticized or put to the test, they have to DELUDE themselves that their religion is the word of GOD otherwise what kind of belief would that be ?? I would say DEISTIC.

    Surely their faith is nothing but a perverse effort to mislead themselves and others in the face of a wholly epistemological reality that is forever eroding their erroneous beliefs?


    I fixed that for you.

    Er, no. I think you will find that most of the things people think they 'know' they really only believe.


    I don't think so.

    Unless of course they've personally gone to the trouble of verifying first hand every claim that they accept as being true.  


    They don't have to, they can simply say I DON"T HAVE ANY IDEA and hold an agnostic position regardless if we are talking about 2 Molecules bonding, producing antibiotics, evolution or rock formations.

    You don't have to hold any position, why do you have to Huh?

    In any case, your definition of belief is flatly incorrect. You can believe something with reasonable argument, or evidence of some kind, but still not 'know' it.  


    and that is not belief, that is knowledge, if you have facts, evidence, proofs and experiment to prove it then u can freely say you KNOW it is so.

    You can only believe things that you don't have any evidence or proofs for.

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #55 - May 19, 2012, 05:36 PM

    Jeebus, how do you people write so much...and coherently

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #56 - May 20, 2012, 07:03 PM

    Quote
    what does that mean ?


    Quote
    guf·faw /gəˈfô/

    Noun:     A loud and boisterous laugh.


    Quote
    And yet you don't realize that communism just like mainstream religions have something in common, they are both dogmas.


    I don't know how you could have possibly inferred that I don't know that given that my previous post was all about ideologies and doctrines with specific reference to communism and religion.

    Quote
    It is.


    Ooook, if you say so.

    Quote
    Why do believers always have to refer to others as believers  what kind of nonsense is that ??


    Well, because even non-religionists likewise believe in things? The term 'believer' is somewhat inadequate in that it assumes non-religionists are not believers, but this is just the way the word has come to be used. Do not think that this merely conventional linguistic usage truly expresses the realities of both the religionist 'believer' and the non-religionist.

    Quote
    When it comes to political views I define my self as Libertarian but I don't believe in Libertarianism or whatever the hell it is, can religious people take off their Jesus or Allah Glasses for a second and look at things a bit differently.


    Depends on the religious person, doesn't it? I suppose I too am a 'religious' person but I am still reasonably capable or looking at things from an atheistic perspective.

    Quote
    Fanatic Libertarians  really  Are libertarians trying to impose you something??? I think that will be against everything a Libertarian stands for.


    Well, you nevertheless may find libertarians who are so blinkered by their beliefs that they refuse to accept that, for example, laissez-faire and *actual* freemarket capitalism aren't the economic panaceas that some of them seem to think. Or indeed they may refuse to acknowledge that maybe some degree of social security is good rather than merely part of the fetters of a socialist government. I'm not interested in debating these ideas, I sympathise with some ideas of libertarianism, but the above are just examples of where libertarians might hold biases on account of their beliefs.

    Quote
    No, they are not, they are already deluded.


    According to your belief.

    Quote
    If you tell me that you believe in Odin or Zeus just because Hercules could lift a 3 Tons rock on his shoulders and that Achillies heel was the only vulnerable place where you could kill him then you are surely deluded.

    If you believe in Flying donkeys with faces of humans, people splitting the moon and the sea and shit like that then you are by definition deluded.


    According to your definition of 'deluded,' which seems to be the belief in any notion that you personally find incredible, regardless of whether its some caricature of a particular religious idea/concept/event or the belief in God itself.

    Quote
    but saying that those teachings are the work of an invisible omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being is a bunch of nonsense and trying to use this valid teachings as an argument for the divinity of any scripture is deceptive and dishonest.


    I don't think that's necessarily a bunch of nonsense. One would expect a book authored by a profoundly wise and benevolent being to contain wisdoms, parables and proverbs. And I wouldn't say using this as an argument is dishonest unless the person making the argument does not believe it themselves, and I wouldn't say it's necessarily 'deceptive,' although it may be an unsound inference.

    Quote
    People believe in scientists ? I didn't know that, this is the first time I hear it.


    The discussion was about the 'idols' of secularism, and scientists, I believe, are among them.

    Quote
    Reason, well that is laughable because u have no choice, reason is your ONLY tool or way into deciding what is right and what is wrong, there is no other way, reason by definition is the basic way or tool which people use to come to conclusions and function in everyday life, why didn't you say OUR BRAIN, maybe that would be more valid since it is a physical entity and can be observed and seen in many different ways.


    Depends how broad your definition of 'reason' is, but if it's taken to mean one's conscious ability to infer and use deductive reasoning then one is left also with intuition, moral sentiment, etc., with which to make specific kinds of judgments. But of course, most importantly, human reason is of course fallible, and it is this which must always be borne in mind. The 'secularist' assertion of the primacy of reason (asserted as if religionists eschewed reason, no less) is, when it's not uttered simply as a vacuous slogan, the idolising of the highly useful but necessarily limited human faculty.

    Quote
    We know how to worship Allah and Jesus but we really don't know how people worship reason and science ??


    I've already explained how I believe people 'worship' these non-religious concepts. When one makes a particular idea or belief system, religious or not, the basis of all of one's thought and action then the subsequent pervasive influence of that idea or belief system on that person's psyche will surely be observable. In this sense, 'worship' isn't just doing sujood in the direction of the Qiblah, it is the more subtle notion of 'prostrating' oneself to any doctrine and giving it the power to dictate one's thoughts and actions. If anyone holds to a particular idea, whether religious or secular, with such devotion, is it wrong to equate it with worship given the influence it has over the individual?

    Quote
    Why do you have to put science in the same bag with Political or Philosophical ideas??


    Because the premises of science are philosophical, not empirical. We may say that because these premises, when adopted as the basis of one's epistemology, yield productive results that therefore the premises (the scientific method) are sound and confirmed by empirical observation, but even so the premises are distinct from any empirical confirmation of their soundness, as they cannot themselves be examined/analysed empirically, being strictly conceptual.

    Quote
    Secular scientists do submit their judgement and assertions to reality


    Ideally yes, and the same will be the case with religious scientists. But scientists are fallible human beings too and are every bit as likely as anyone else to have their own biases and predilections. They are human beings, and they are not, and cannot be expected to be, agnostic and skeptical scientists with respect to every belief they have and in all parts of their lives.

    Quote
    I don't know about beliefs and I don't care much about them


    Even now accepted scientific theories must have began their lives as beliefs, hypotheses that were submitted to testing, some parts of which will have been correct and other parts false. But of course, it would be absurd to think that, for example, Darwin truly knew that the theory of evolution was correct before he, at least in part, verified its accuracy (assuming it is accurate). He had a belief, a presumably correct inference, at least in part, but he did not know it before fully verifying it, and indeed much has been learned since his time.

    Quote
    To the Dictates of their reason  what are those ?


    Well, they vary from person to person. For a secularist they may be that God does not exist because science has superseded it as an explanatory hypothesis, God is just the defunct explanation of people who didn't know any better. On the other hand, a religionist may be convinced that there is a God because the physical world requires a creator and designer, which is God. Whatever the merits of these inferences, these are the kinds of things that people surmise on the basis of their reason.

    Quote
    of course this is another illogical argument, you don't need to listen to the scientists in order to "believe" Gravity exists or the theory of evolution is true or the bonding of 2 molecules is true, all u have to do is get some books, study hard, take a look at the evidence and facts, do and repeat the experiment and bring conclusions


    M-hm. And how many people ever could nevermind actually do this? Could you personally verify everything, empirical or analytical, that you accept as being true? And even then, having to educate yourself enough to conduct valid experiments and to look for specific phenomena would itself require that one be educated by other people who know the subject matter, so you'd still be dependent on the knowledge of others. Yes, 'all you have to do' to be truly epistemologically autonomous is personally verify every single thing you accept as being true completely by yourself. What could be simpler?

    Seriously, just look at what you wrote. You write you don't have to 'listen to scientists' and then in the same sentence you state that you just have to refer to 'some books,' which would of course have to be written by scientists. To paraphrase MAB, you could march a horse-drawn carriage through the holes in your argumentation.

    Quote
    BUT in the other hand if we apply the same thing to religion it will of course make no sense because you can't prove god, you can't prove Mohammed split the moon, you can't prove Moses split the sea, you can't prove the global flood, talking ants, flying donkeys, jins made of smokless fire, angels made of light or whatever the hell it means, you simply can't put these things into practice or test them and if u try to test them I assure you, you will fail terribly, all these things have to be taken by faith, you HAVE to lie to yourself that these things are true and if your reason and logic tells u BEEP BEEP THIS IS NONSENSE then u have to consult the local imam or priest and read a chapter of the holy book.


    There are no doubt quite a few events that happened in the past, of both historical and naturalistic phenomena, that cannot be verified, but this does not mean that they never happened. Even the scientific search for purely empirical phenomena that occurred both in the past and that continue to happen today is limited in terms of what it is capable of confirming. And yet past events like the Tunguska event or the subatomic phenomena being researched at CERN are both real and yet highly mysterious in terms of what is known about them, and perhaps even what can be known.

    Quote
    I already agreed on this BUT in general Religious people are less Analytic than Secularists, I am well aware that there are a bunch of intuitive and dumbass secularists out there, you still have to look at the big picture and the foundations of a philosophy, process or ideology, if the foundations of an ideology are fairy tales, belief and faith then you can FREELY assert that these people are not being analytic because the foundation of their ideology or process or whatever is flawed from the beginning but in the other side if you say that facts, proofs and experiments are the foundations of an ideology then you can freely say that these people will be more analytic and are more analytic because the foundation of their ideology or process is evidence and not delusion or faith which is not different from delusion.


    Well, again it depends. If the person adopting the 'scientific' and 'evidence-based' ideology is only doing so on account of social conditioning then it hardly qualifies them as being analytical thinkers really, does it? But yes, faith is not an analytical process, though a person may also take an analytical approach to their own religion and to God, as believing rationalist philosophers have done in the past. And to characterise faith as delusion is a crass simplification. The word simply means 'trust' as one might trust that the word of a particular book is inspired with a numinous message or as one may trust in the veracity of certain claims made by scientists or philosophers. But it's true that faith is used particularly within a religious context and is not simply an epistemological credence given to a set of particular religious ideas.

    Quote
    I don't think so.


    Well, I've given the reasons as to why I think people believe most things they hold as true, rather than know them. It's a complicated debate anyway and I don't care to attempt to resolve it now.

    Quote
    They don't have to, they can simply say I DON"T HAVE ANY IDEA and hold an agnostic position regardless if we are talking about 2 Molecules bonding, producing antibiotics, evolution or rock formations.

    You don't have to hold any position, why do you have to


    You don't have to but most people do, don't they? You don't just take an agnostic position with regards to evolution or the approximate age of the earth or universe, do you? Nevermind the question of whether the Bible or Qur'an are divinely inspired.

    Quote
    and that is not belief, that is knowledge, if you have facts, evidence, proofs and experiment to prove it then u can freely say you KNOW it is so.

    You can only believe things that you don't have any evidence or proofs for.


    Again, I'm not interested in getting into great detail about this. It will simply suffice to state at this point that it is possible to believe something, on the basis of evidence, and yet still be mistaken, and therefore one cannot be considered to know that evidence-based belief, because of course a person cannot know something that is false. Here's an example of a certain kind of crystal thought to be impossible, on the basis of evidence:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16393296

    Presumably, the scientists concerned only believed that this phenomenon was impossible, but they did so on the basis of evidence. So a belief can be evidence-based but knowledge requires that the thing that is believed in be true or correct.

    My point is simply that 'belief' is a complicated thing, and again I'm wary about making generalisations concerning it and other things.

    In any case, that's far more than I wanted to write on this subject. Those are my views, respond as you will, take them or leave them.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #57 - May 21, 2012, 01:02 PM

    @ Zabedee:

    Before I start replying to your post I want to thank you for engaging in a civilized and well mannered discussion Smiley

    Quote
    I don't know how you could have possibly inferred that I don't know that given that my previous post was all about ideologies and doctrines with specific reference to communism and religion.


    OK, so the dogmatic ones and the ones who take authority from some kind of daddy figure are irrational, especially the pious.

    Quote
    Well, because even non-religionists likewise believe in things? The term 'believer' is somewhat inadequate in that it assumes non-religionists are not believers, but this is just the way the word has come to be used. Do not think that this merely conventional linguistic usage truly expresses the realities of both the religionist 'believer' and the non-religionist.


    Yes, even non-religious people are believers, they believe in something sometimes but that is totally different from being RELIGIOUS or being a religious believer, being a non religious believer like waking up in the morning and believing u will have a good day is not the same as believing homosexuals are an abomination or there are Jins made of smokeless fire and an Angel made of light called Jibril(Gabriel) came to Mohammed in a cave and whispered him in his ear the holy words of god.

    Besides the non-religious beliefs can change in a couple of hours and we are free to doubt them and test them whereas the religious beliefs can't be questioned, you can't question God, you can't say what if there is another God because u are committing Shirk, you can't doubt the Quran or the Bible, it the word of God, religion and faith encourages u to not question it and claims with an "accuracy" of 100% that it is the word of God, that means it makes u delude urself, and if u take a deeper look into it u will see that people who believe their holy books are the work of an Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being have no rational explanation about that, they will throw the usual argument, it is the word of god because it is written right here in my holy book, a bunch of circular arguments.

    And as you said we are talking about Religious Believers with dangerous set of beliefs, not I believe I will have a coffee this morning.

    Quote
    Depends on the religious person, doesn't it? I suppose I too am a 'religious' person but I am still reasonably capable or looking at things from an atheistic perspective.


    So you saying you are religious???

    If you are religious then u must believe all the stuff written in the Quran or Bible depending if u r a Muslim or a Christian.

    If you associate yourself with a religion then you must believe one of those books was introduced to the prophet by a burning bush, angel, talking snake, God or whatever.

    So you look at the things from an Skeptic's perspective and u are still a religious??? you still came to the conclusion that your holy book is the infallible word of God ?

    That is irrational.

    Quote
    Well, you nevertheless may find libertarians who are so blinkered by their beliefs that they refuse to accept that, for example, laissez-faire and *actual* freemarket capitalism aren't the economic panaceas that some of them seem to think.


    I don't think they refuse to accept that there are holes in their ideology and the way of dealing with social problems, I think u have mistaken it, I think u are mixing the disagreement of a Libertarian when they tell u this is the right way to deal with a problem and not necessarily meaning that it will always be the right way and that they are not aware of their foibles and defects and they will never accept to change if something doesn't work with the claims or the pious telling u that there is NO OTHER WAY EXCEPT GOD'S WAY which wrote this infallible unchangeable book.

    At least Libertarians won't impose anything on u since it will be totally against their ideology, they won't claim to know the truth 100% and if they do they are stupid Libertarians, in the other hand even the most intelligent religious people will tell u that they know the absolute truth which is not the case with intelligent Libertarians.

    Quote
    I'm not interested in debating these ideas, I sympathise with some ideas of libertarianism, but the above are just examples of where libertarians might hold biases on account of their beliefs.


    It is not about belief, it can be tested and if that shit fails we will change the rules, you can't do that with religious people, no matter what u tell them, they will still regress and find some other type of logical fallacy to "support" their argument.

    Also how is it a belief? If he thinks that Libertarianism is the right way to deal with socio-economic issues it doesn't mean he is telling u that Libertarianism is infallible and perfect, it simply means that Libertarianism is the right way to deal with socio-economic issues even though it has its own flaws and problems where people will strive to deal with them whereas in the other hand religious people tell u that this is it, IT HAS TO BE LIKE THIS, this is the perfect way, it is the word of god and if u follow it u can't go wrong and whenever u go wrong it is because of ur ego, shaitan(devil) or other nonsense.

    Quote
    According to your belief.


    according to reasonable arguments.

    Quote
    According to your definition of 'deluded,' which seems to be the belief in any notion that you personally find incredible, regardless of whether its some caricature of a particular religious idea/concept/event or the belief in God itself.


    I find delusion as a belief in any notion which is based on logical fallacies or contradictory assertions.

    Quote
    I don't think that's necessarily a bunch of nonsense. One would expect a book authored by a profoundly wise and benevolent being to contain wisdoms, parables and proverbs.


    I think it is, it is nonsense because you ( not personally you ) are willfully imputing an unnecessary divine author to something that most probably has a way more naturalistic and rational explanation, that is one thing, another thing is that it is not just an unnecessary attribution but also a dishonest one because you have no basis at all whatsoever to prescribe a scripture to a contradictory divine deity.

    Quote
    And I wouldn't say using this as an argument is dishonest unless the person making the argument does not believe it themselves, and I wouldn't say it's necessarily 'deceptive,' although it may be an unsound inference.


    I wouldn't say it is dishonest if the person making the assertion was a low IQ douchebag, then he would have an excuse, but if the person is someone with normal mental capacities then it would be dishonest for him to deliberately make such assertions.

    I recede my argument about it being deceptive, I should have used a better terminology.

    Quote
    The discussion was about the 'idols' of secularism, and scientists, I believe, are among them.


    No they are not, at least not in the sense of the idols that religious people worship, first of all no one worships scientists, looking up to them doesn't mean worshiping them, maybe you could say they are some kind of role models who we look up to but not Idols, I think the word Role model would be more fit to describe the situation.

    Personally I don't worship I don't either believe in scientists, I admire their work, it wouldn't make any difference to me who the scientist is or what he is, I admire their work and effort.

    Quote
    Depends how broad your definition of 'reason' is, but if it's taken to mean one's conscious ability to infer and use deductive reasoning then one is left also with intuition, moral sentiment, etc., with which to make specific kinds of judgments. But of course, most importantly, human reason is of course fallible, and it is this which must always be borne in mind


    My personal definition of reasonable human being would be someone that bases his decisions and knowledge on proofs, facts and evidence, of course there is no one 100% reasonable as I already mentioned before.

    We decide what is moral and not on basis what works for us, what is profitable for us, what is not deleterious to ourselves and people around us.

    What if human reasoning is fallible ?? tell me something infallible, except your notion of the invisible omnipotent sky idol.

    Quote
    The 'secularist' assertion of the primacy of reason (asserted as if religionists eschewed reason, no less) is, when it's not uttered simply as a vacuous slogan, the idolising of the highly useful but necessarily limited human faculty.


    I understand but then in the end human faculties are the ONLY thing we have which help us come to reasonable judgments based on facts, proofs and evidence.

    Quote
    I've already explained how I believe people 'worship' these non-religious concepts. When one makes a particular idea or belief system, religious or not, the basis of all of one's thought and action then the subsequent pervasive influence of that idea or belief system on that person's psyche will surely be observable. In this sense, 'worship' isn't just doing sujood in the direction of the Qiblah, it is the more subtle notion of 'prostrating' oneself to any doctrine and giving it the power to dictate one's thoughts and actions. If anyone holds to a particular idea, whether religious or secular, with such devotion, is it wrong to equate it with worship given the influence it has over the individual?

     

    You did explain except that as I said before your definition of worship seems to be basically everything we see or come into contact with, which of course is not. Again you are mixing some stuff up here, you can make ideas based on intuition and faith and you can make an idea based on observable logical and sound proofs and evidence, two different things, you seem to put them in the same bag. I think you are trying to narrow down the definition of worship so you have a lot of leverage to encompass everything as a form of worship, belief or intuition, that is not the case though, ideas and any system of thoughts based on sound, logical, tangible and observable facts and proofs is not prostration or worship, it is simply how we work, you can't say I worship the sky because I know the sky is here and if someone argued that it is not there I would do everything possible within my abilities to show him every single argument, fact, proof that the sky exists and this doesn't mean I am religious and worship the sky just because I am arguing there is a sky which I CAN ACTUALLY PROVE and I can observe it and whatnot, that is what reality is like, of course our faculties are fallible but then everything we know if pretty much fallible except my invisible underwear gnomes who dwell in black holes and create universes.

    I don't know if I am making myself clear enough.

    Quote
    Because the premises of science are philosophical, not empirical. We may say that because these premises, when adopted as the basis of one's epistemology, yield productive results that therefore the premises (the scientific method) are sound and confirmed by empirical observation, but even so the premises are distinct from any empirical confirmation of their soundness, as they cannot themselves be examined/analysed empirically, being strictly conceptual.


    So??? Are you trying to tell me that the only right way to deal with things is to start from the ex nihilio starting point???

    of course those premises can't be examined because we could be brains in a tube or plugged into some kind of matrix, I think you have to assume in the beginning that your faculties are at least sometimes or most of the times accurate otherwise we can't even talk about anything then, it would be useless to discuss anything if we didn't assume that we exist and out faculties are sometimes or most of the times accurate.

    Those type of assumptions are done even by religious people, how would a religious person know that his brain is right??? or that he can actually read, see and touch his holy book, he has to assume his senses are right as well, doesn't matter if u are religious or not, you still have to assume these things otherwise we can't say anything about being real or not real.

    What is illogical, is to make a COLOSSAL leap of assumptions and assume there is a God and that you know it because a 7th century arab or prehistoric Jewish Shepherds told u it is so, that is illogical and irrational.

    Quote
    Ideally yes, and the same will be the case with religious scientists.

     

    I don't think there is ANY difference at all between secular and religious scientists, all scientists use the scientific method to come up with judgments and conclusions which are testable and observable.

    I have never heard any scientist to come up with any kind of theory based on the Assumption that an Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god exists.

    Quote
    But scientists are fallible human beings too and are every bit as likely as anyone else to have their own biases and predilections.


    Of course.

    Quote
    They are human beings, and they are not, and cannot be expected to be, agnostic and skeptical scientists with respect to every belief they have and in all parts of their lives.


    I don't care if a scientist is Agnostic, Muslim, Christian, Deist, Satanist, Santanist, Atheist or Nihilist, all I care about is his work and all I care about is if he used the scientific method to come up with his theory or invention.

    Quote
    Even now accepted scientific theories must have began their lives as beliefs, hypotheses that were submitted to testing, some parts of which will have been correct and other parts false.


    I will correct u here, all accepted scientific theories we know were begotten as ideas which in a scientist's brain based on observable facts and proofs who already exist out there and can be detected by our fallible faculties, still the basis of every hypothesis is a set of facts which can be tested whereas religious people don't base their hypothesis like that, I won't even call them hypothesis in the first place, religious people ONLY assume that there is an all powerful and all knowing god that has always existed uncaused and is perfect and doesn't require space, time or anything which of course is a bunch of untestable and illogical infallible nonsense.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

    Quote
    But of course, it would be absurd to think that, for example, Darwin truly knew that the theory of evolution was correct before he, at least in part, verified its accuracy (assuming it is accurate). He had a belief, a presumably correct inference, at least in part, but he did not know it before fully verifying it, and indeed much has been learned since his time.


    The theory of evolution is way older than Darwin's one, Darwin just established it as a scientific theory based on a heap of facts and arguments and today it is stronger than ever with the coming of genetics and so on, i assume we won't be discussing evolution now.

    The idea that living animals and species change over time is very old, that idea is based on observable phenomena.

    Quote
    Well, they vary from person to person. For a secularist they may be that God does not exist because science has superseded it as an explanatory hypothesis, God is just the defunct explanation of people who didn't know any better.


    I don't think any reasonable Atheist would make an assertion that God does not exist because then the onus would be on him, they simply don't believe in God due to the lack of proof and evidence.

    Quote
    On the other hand, a religionist may be convinced that there is a God because the physical world requires a creator and designer, which is God.


    Not really, it does not require any creator or designer. We know based on empirical data that humans were not created by any designer neither was earth neither was the sun, if they were we would simple be able to detect the "fingerprints" of the designer, all we know is that every existing star, planet and organism is the result of a long process guarded by different laws, like the law of natural selection in evolution and so on, no where in the universe we see ANYTHING that has been designed, as I said every existing thing leads us to a process that caused it to exist under different set of laws of nature, I know you might be mentioning the Big Bang but I am not willing to discuss that since I am not a qualified Quantum Physicist and I think it would be a waste of time if u wanted to discuss Quantum physics with me even though I know something about it, but I am still no expert.

    Quote
    Whatever the merits of these inferences, these are the kinds of things that people surmise on the basis of their reason.


    Except that those inferences are textbook assumptions based on intuition.

    Quote
    M-hm. And how many people ever could nevermind actually do this? Could you personally verify everything, empirical or analytical, that you accept as being true? And even then, having to educate yourself enough to conduct valid experiments and to look for specific phenomena would itself require that one be educated by other people who know the subject matter, so you'd still be dependent on the knowledge of others.


    hmmm, not too many. I could possibly not verify everything in order to accept them to be true but at least I can read something about it, recently I read 2 Books on Evolution, I have one more to go and I got 2 books on Genetics, of course that will not make me anywhere near an expert or qualified but at least I will have the idea, I will read and try to understand the empirical analysis they used to come to those conclusions, I will try to examine their arguments and how sound they are, if I find them illogical or nonsensical I might go even deeper into the issue if I have the will and time to do so and if not then I will just shrug my shoulders and try to leave it for some other time, are you by any chance insinuating that if we don't know it then God did it ?? what if we don't know it, the only thing we have to know is that the premises and arguments of the theists for their God are a bunch of nonsense and even if u r a believer, even if u happen to believe in God will u just go around and claim that God makes it rain, God makes the sun rise and so on Huh? there are many Religious Scientists and I don't think they would dare to claim that.

    Quote
    Yes, 'all you have to do' to be truly epistemologically autonomous is personally verify every single thing you accept as being true completely by yourself. What could be simpler?


    Hmmmmm yes, otherwise you will have to say I DON"T KNOW and that is who I am, I am an I don't know person ( Agnostic ), it is way more honest than strutting around and acting like u know it.

    Quote
    Seriously, just look at what you wrote. You write you don't have to 'listen to scientists' and then in the same sentence you state that you just have to refer to 'some books,' which would of course have to be written by scientists.

     

    You got it all wrong, I never said I was referring to the scientist, maybe that is how it seems but it's obviously not what I meant, since I have been constantly bragging about facts and evidence you could have easily assumed that the thing I wrote meant that someone did a research, gathered evidence and proofs, examined it, experimented, verified it and u can read and try to understand based on what u know what the scientist did, I referred to the work of the scientist which is based on empirical analysis and experiments and so on and forth, I also said take a look at the evidence I never said BELIEVE THE ALMIGHTY DAWKINS.

    Quote
    There are no doubt quite a few events that happened in the past, of both historical and naturalistic phenomena, that cannot be verified, but this does not mean that they never happened. Even the scientific search for purely empirical phenomena that occurred both in the past and that continue to happen today is limited in terms of what it is capable of confirming.


    Of course, I can't say that Alexander the great never had anal sex, I don't even have any way to prove it, it is HIGHLY possible and quite logical and sound that Alexander the Great loved taking it up in the ass, it is physically and logically possible, if you told me Alexander the great could shoot laser rays out of his eyes while flying with his unicorn I would call u crazy because there is simply no evidence whatsoever for such kind of phenomenon and it is in the same time illogical but there is evidence of people taking it up in the a-hole and it is logically possible.

    Quote
    And yet past events like the Tunguska event or the subatomic phenomena being researched at CERN are both real and yet highly mysterious in terms of what is known about them, and perhaps even what can be known.


    They are real at least and they are being tested and verified, of course there is a lot of mystery but that does not mean my Unicorn did it, does it ?? What you are referring is the God of the Gaps Argument.

    Quote
    Well, again it depends. If the person adopting the 'scientific' and 'evidence-based' ideology is only doing so on account of social conditioning then it hardly qualifies them as being analytical thinkers really, does it? But yes, faith is not an analytical process, though a person may also take an analytical approach to their own religion and to God, as believing rationalist philosophers have done in the past.


    Referring to your question, yes.

    I don't know any rationalist believing philosopher that proved the existence of God in the past, I like Kant, as far as I know he is one of those few who were believers who never took the Ontological Arguments seriously and said:

    Quote
    "It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof."

    - Immanuel Kant

    Source: "Transcendental Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. 2011-02-25. Retrieved 2011-10-22.



    Quote
    And to characterise faith as delusion is a crass simplification. The word simply means 'trust' as one might trust that the word of a particular book is inspired with a numinous message or as one may trust in the veracity of certain claims made by scientists or philosophers. But it's true that faith is used particularly within a religious context and is not simply an epistemological credence given to a set of particular religious ideas.


    I don't think it is, even if we say Faith is Trust which is not we are still left with a reasonable trust and unreasonable one.

    The difference between the claims of a scientist and the religious is the fact that scientists rely their judgement and knowledge on empirical analysis and evidence whereas the religious reply it on sheer assumptions and circular arguments.

    Quote
    Well, I've given the reasons as to why I think people believe most things they hold as true, rather than know them. It's a complicated debate anyway and I don't care to attempt to resolve it now.


    yeah I know, I understand what u saying, I think u have many valid points, I am also trying to express myself and why I say the things I write here.

    Quote
    You don't have to but most people do, don't they? You don't just take an agnostic position with regards to evolution or the approximate age of the earth or universe, do you? Nevermind the question of whether the Bible or Qur'an are divinely inspired.


    yeah most people do, maybe they are to arrogant maybe there is some other reason they claim to know, who knows.

    And no I don't because I have read and studied many concepts of evolution and the universe, I really don't have any Idea how did they come up with the 4.5 Billion years old Earth though, I am planning to read something on that matter soon or in the future, I never engage in any discussion about the age of the earth, I could engage in some discussions about Evolution because I have read about it, I am not an expert of course but I know the basics of it, I read how did they come up with the theory, why does it work like that and so on, of course I am not the one who will teach u evolutionary biology but what I have read is enough to convince me that it is true, we should mind the question if the bible or the quran are divinely inspired because it is very serious stuff, it wouldn't make any difference if evolution was true or not, it wouldn't affect my life at all but the religious scriptures have the potential to affect the lives of people and society and it does matter a lot, especially when u are trying to restrict me from doing something I wanna do based on your holy scripture.

    Quote
    Again, I'm not interested in getting into great detail about this. It will simply suffice to state at this point that it is possible to believe something, on the basis of evidence, and yet still be mistaken, and therefore one cannot be considered to know that evidence-based belief, because of course a person cannot know something that is false.


    Yes but at least u have some proof and evidence and u have the chance to fix it later, you have no proof of the Quran being divinely inspired or that Mohammed talked to Gabriel or that Moses split the sea and in the other hand Mohammed split the moon and so on and forth.

    Quote
    Here's an example of a certain kind of crystal thought to be impossible, on the basis of evidence:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16393296

    Presumably, the scientists concerned only believed that this phenomenon was impossible, but they did so on the basis of evidence. So a belief can be evidence-based but knowledge requires that the thing that is believed in be true or correct.

    My point is simply that 'belief' is a complicated thing, and again I'm wary about making generalisations concerning it and other things.


    Ouch, sorry, too lazy to go through that now.

    Quote
    In any case, that's far more than I wanted to write on this subject. Those are my views, respond as you will, take them or leave them.


    Thanks for engaging in this discussion, I appreciate it Smiley

  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #58 - May 21, 2012, 07:37 PM

    Yes, well, likewise. And as I say, those are my views and there's no point in going back and forth, but I'll just answer these few things:

    Quote
    So you saying you are religious???

    If you are religious then u must believe all the stuff written in the Quran or Bible depending if u r a Muslim or a Christian.


    'Religious' yes, that is, I believe in God.

    And no, I don't necessarily believe everything in the Qur'an and Bible, though I think those books do contain truthful ideas, wisdoms, parables and parallels. Aside from that, there are different kinds of religion and different approaches to the understanding of scripture.

    Quote
    are you by any chance insinuating that if we don't know it then God did it ??


    No, and the same goes for your 'God of the Gaps' allusion. I do not see God as being an explanatory hypothesis.
  • Re: Religious Faithfuls reject analytic thinking!!!
     Reply #59 - May 21, 2012, 08:02 PM

    Quote
    Yes, well, likewise. And as I say, those are my views and there's no point in going back and forth, but I'll just answer these few things:

    'Religious' yes, that is, I believe in God.

    And no, I don't necessarily believe everything in the Qur'an and Bible, though I think those books do contain truthful ideas, wisdoms, parables and parallels. Aside from that, there are different kinds of religion and different approaches to the understanding of scripture.

    No, and the same goes for your 'God of the Gaps' allusion. I do not see God as being an explanatory hypothesis.

     
    Again, I disagree. Communism is a perfect example; a salient case of one of its absurd doctrines is the notion that the establishment of a dictatorial government and the abolition of individual rights will yield a more just society. The forms of the belief are different, but they are equally absurd. I would simply summarise my position by stating that I think it is highly tenuous to make any kind of generalisation along the lines of 'religious people = less analytical, non-religious people = more analytical.'





    some how this discussion sounds like this


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=91U8ntQ5fNE

    I am not sure why., may be I am not reading it properly

    Freedom of Expression is a Fundamental Right  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »