Is Faith Moral?

[jnkyrdoff6]

I just think religious people are illogical when things are said like "Well, how do you know that God didn't do that?"

 

A thought process like that is immature. That is not how our reasoning is based, nor would that kind of logic stand up to any legal scrutiny. Stating a random and totally unsubstantiated claim cannot solve any problem in a rational or logical manner. As in, you can't claim definitively that there is a God - without any evidence - simply because there isn't any absolute answer for the contrary.

 

That's true, but if you want to prove something isn't real, you have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[Husker_x]

I just think religious people are illogical when things are said like "Well, how do you know that God didn't do that?"

 

A thought process like that is immature. That is not how our reasoning is based, nor would that kind of logic stand up to any legal scrutiny. Stating a random and totally unsubstantiated claim cannot solve any problem in a rational or logical manner. As in, you can't claim definitively that there is a God - without any evidence - simply because there isn't any absolute answer for the contrary.

 

That's true, but if you want to prove something isn't real, you have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

Which is exactly the thing no one is trying to do. Manhattan's point still stands. I can't disprove Santa Clause, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot, Aliens, Time Traveling Shadow People, Mole People, or God. I also have yet to see a compelling piece of evidence that demonstrates any of them actually exist. The theist attempts to say that my inability to disprove the last one makes it reasonable to accept it, but seems to think that believing in all the others on the list is absurd.

 

Funny how that works.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I just think religious people are illogical when things are said like "Well, how do you know that God didn't do that?"

 

A thought process like that is immature. That is not how our reasoning is based, nor would that kind of logic stand up to any legal scrutiny. Stating a random and totally unsubstantiated claim cannot solve any problem in a rational or logical manner. As in, you can't claim definitively that there is a God - without any evidence - simply because there isn't any absolute answer for the contrary.

 

That's true, but if you want to prove something isn't real, you have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

Which is exactly the thing no one is trying to do. Manhattan's point still stands. I can't disprove Santa Clause, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot, Aliens, Time Traveling Shadow People, Mole People, or God. I also have yet to see a compelling piece of evidence that demonstrates any of them actually exist. The theist attempts to say that my inability to disprove the last one makes it reasonable to accept it, but seems to think that believing in all the others on the list is absurd.

 

Funny how that works.

 

The thing is with the exception of Santa and the Spaghetti Monster, which we know are made up, all of the things you listed could be real. That's the point you were making. I guess we just have different views on how to deal with that. To you, I guess, if it seems unlikely, but can't be completely disproven, it's as good as disproven. To me though, I put the idea on a kind of a shelf, and just don't think about it anymore, because to me there's no point. I'm just saying that I know people who think like me exist, and to disprove the existence of God to them, you're going to need to completely disprove it.

 

We've got different view points somewhere. I can't reach into your brain and see how you think, but I think a lot of the things you listed are possible. The existence of Big foot is slightly possible, maybe a .01% chance, and the existence of aliens somewhere in the universe is extremely possible, >50%. That's how I feel at least. It might just be that to believe something might exist you have to have overwhelming evidence. That's not how I feel. If someone makes a claim, I believe it's possible until proven otherwise. If I didn't know the Spaghetti Monster was made up, I'd deem it possible.

 

I just think that when people are presented with cases of visions and claims of God talking to them, it's all possible. Until proven otherwise, a lot of people will continue to feel that way. I also think that, for the majority of people, life is too hard to live without the belief in a higher power. A lot of people need a purpose or a cause to go on living because they think that little of the lives they currently live.

[Husker_x]

I just think religious people are illogical when things are said like "Well, how do you know that God didn't do that?"

 

A thought process like that is immature. That is not how our reasoning is based, nor would that kind of logic stand up to any legal scrutiny. Stating a random and totally unsubstantiated claim cannot solve any problem in a rational or logical manner. As in, you can't claim definitively that there is a God - without any evidence - simply because there isn't any absolute answer for the contrary.

 

That's true, but if you want to prove something isn't real, you have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

Which is exactly the thing no one is trying to do. Manhattan's point still stands. I can't disprove Santa Clause, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot, Aliens, Time Traveling Shadow People, Mole People, or God. I also have yet to see a compelling piece of evidence that demonstrates any of them actually exist. The theist attempts to say that my inability to disprove the last one makes it reasonable to accept it, but seems to think that believing in all the others on the list is absurd.

 

Funny how that works.

 

The thing is with the exception of Santa and the Spaghetti Monster, which we know are made up, all of the things you listed could be real. That's the point you were making. I guess we just have different views on how to deal with that. To you, I guess, if it seems unlikely, but can't be completely disproven, it's as good as disproven. To me though, I put the idea on a kind of a shelf, and just don't think about it anymore, because to me there's no point. I'm just saying that I know people who think like me exist, and to disprove the existence of God to them, you're going to need to completely disprove it.

 

We've got different view points somewhere. I can't reach into your brain and see how you think, but I think a lot of the things you listed are possible. The existence of Big foot is slightly possible, maybe a .01% chance, and the existence of aliens somewhere in the universe is extremely possible, >50%. That's how I feel at least. It might just be that to believe something might exist you have to have overwhelming evidence. That's not how I feel. If someone makes a claim, I believe it's possible until proven otherwise. If I didn't know the Spaghetti Monster was made up, I'd deem it possible.

 

I just think that when people are presented with cases of visions and claims of God talking to them, it's all possible. Until proven otherwise, a lot of people will continue to feel that way. I also think that, for the majority of people, life is too hard to live without the belief in a higher power. A lot of people need a purpose or a cause to go on living because they think that little of the lives they currently live.

 

I could play the game and say, "Yeah, but how do you really KNOW the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up, huuuh?" and while it would probably make the point, it would more probably be nothing but a distraction. The real point of the matter is we're not talking about proof or disproof or absolute certainty. Do aliens exist? I don't know. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it. Am I going to actively promote the idea that they do exist, donate ten percent of my income to an organization that promotes their existence, base my morals and ethics on their existence, or vote in pro-alien candidates for public office over otherwise more qualified individuals? No. And neither should anyone.

 

I am a skeptic. I would rather believe true things than false things. Since I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of ANY god (much less a theistic one) or any tangible evidence that he/she/it is active in the world that can't be chalked up to the laws of probability and large numbers, I don't feel the need to actively promote or combat the idea. The problem comes when people pretend that they ARE certain, that they do know beyond a shadow of a doubt, and feel that they have some special role in morality or social policy.

 

There is more tangible evidence for aliens than for any religion I know of. I can actually talk to alleged 'eye witnesses' of abductions, and in droves. Do I believe them? Do the religionists believe them? Why not? I can't prove they aren't right, but in any reasonable, practical sense, taking up the cause of alien abductions on something as flimsy as eye witness testimony is inadvisable.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I didn't really have anything to disagree with here. I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression; for the most part I'm on Husker_x's side.

 

I just thought I'd add a few closing thoughts from my side, as you've had yours from your side. I imagine this will be the last post from this conversation, because it's hard to retort to someone who agrees with you.

 

I could play the game and say, "Yeah, but how do you really KNOW the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up, huuuh?" and while it would probably make the point, it would more probably be nothing but a distraction. The real point of the matter is we're not talking about proof or disproof or absolute certainty. Do aliens exist? I don't know. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it. Am I going to actively promote the idea that they do exist, donate ten percent of my income to an organization that promotes their existence, base my morals and ethics on their existence, or vote in pro-alien candidates for public office over otherwise more qualified individuals? No. And neither should anyone.

I'm not going to debate that. I don't personally believe anyone should do any of those things to promote their religion. In some ways I feel it's wrong because I don't believe our government should be influenced religiously, but at the same time I can understand where they're coming from too. I do think it's stupid in a way though to do those things, but it's just my opinion. After getting sodomized by politicians many times in the past why continue it? I guess that's just not my idea of a good way to spend my time and money. In my mind, you and I see religion in the same way, it's just that you treat it differently than I do.

 

I am a skeptic. I would rather believe true things than false things. Since I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of ANY god (much less a theistic one) or any tangible evidence that he/she/it is active in the world that can't be chalked up to the laws of probability and large numbers, I don't feel the need to actively promote or combat the idea. The problem comes when people pretend that they ARE certain, that they do know beyond a shadow of a doubt, and feel that they have some special role in morality or social policy.

 

Pretty much sums up how I feel too, but, again I just think I look at it differently. It's more of a "I don't really care", rather than a "I have a problem with that" kind of attitude.

 

There is more tangible evidence for aliens than for any religion I know of. I can actually talk to alleged 'eye witnesses' of abductions, and in droves. Do I believe them? Do the religionists believe them? Why not? I can't prove they aren't right, but in any reasonable, practical sense, taking up the cause of alien abductions on something as flimsy as eye witness testimony is inadvisable.

 

As far as the first part of the paragraph is concerned, I know what you mean. There is a lot of narrow-mindedness in this world. As far as the second part is concerned, that's exactly what religion is "eye witness testimony."