The Problem with Religious Moderates

[Husker_x]

And that's your judgement, that doesn't make you right or wrong. It's your personal judgement.

 

It is not my judgement that the vast majority of religious people are theists, or more specifically monotheists, who make claims of exclusivity for their deity––it's a fact. Of those, a sizable portion claim various types of personal experiences––which are by definition anecdotes––that they feel either prove or at least validate their beliefs. A minor point, but we're not two sentences in and we don't seem to be on the same page.

 

Again, the very definition of the word of faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or belief that is not based on proof. You chose to swing it into the religious rhelm, faith is a word that can be associated with religion, but it doesn't have to be. I am not trying to prove to you that God exists, I am just making the point that just as I cannot prove he exists, you cannot prove he doesn't exist. And obviously annoying you buy claiming that you, just as theists do, operate on faith.

 

The reason it's annoying is because it's a false statement. I have never and do not claim to be able to prove that God does not exist. That position is a subset of atheism called 'strong atheism' which is not what I hold, and it isn't the position the majority of atheists hold. Saying that I do not believe in a god is not the same thing as saying there is no god. It's very important that you understand this, because if you are a religious person and claim that there is a god, the burden of proof is entirely upon you to support your claim. It is neither my job or within my capabilities with a finite brain to prove a negative. In short, I agree that I cannot prove there is no god. This does not make my lack of belief in one a faith claim, as it is neither a claim or based on faith.

 

Show me where I claimed mine was the only one, you chose to believe that neither of our experiences are genuine. Yet you cannot prove they are not genuine, can you? So what is that belief is not faith since it is not based on evidence?

 

I have no idea how to decode that first sentence. As for the rest of it, again it isn't my job to prove your faith claims aren't true. It's your job to prove that they are, at least if you're interested in convincing other people to hold to your position. If you're not, this is all a wash to begin with.

 

Again, your opinion that just as I cannot prove false, you cannot prove true. If God doesn't exist (and obviously, since we are discussing "God", at a minimum the concept of God exists). And yes, the concepts of the unicorn, boogeyman and everything else exists also. That doesn't mean that I am arguing they are real, I take it on faith that they aren't, just as you do, even if you won't admit it.

 

I don't take it on faith that they aren't real. Once more, it is not my job or within the capacity of myself or any other homo sapien to prove a negative. If someone wants to say that leprechauns, unicorns, Santa, or God is real, the burden of proof falls upon them to present their case. The default position for each of these is one of unbelief. The larger problem you also have set yourself up with is that if your base position is accepting God on faith as you've defined it––belief without proof––then you are in no position to dismiss anything on any subject. Logic is dead to you, and you necessarily fall prey to any supernatural or superstitious claim because you a priori take all second hand information on faith. By what means do you even establish anything resembling reality if you equivocate reason and faith?

 

Let me answer as follows, imagine two families that have children, one family choses to tie their children up, and restrict them from leaving, they force the children to love them. Family two teaches the children as they know best, they allow their children the opportunity to make a decision whether they love them or not.

 

Which parents feel more rewarded if their children tell them they love them?

 

The answer is free will, and it lacks no appeal to me.

 

Your analogy fails because God being an active part of my life does not preclude my decision making ability any more than finding out a cake is poisoned precludes my ability to chew and swallow it. If God were to descend from the heavens presumably I could still choose to want nothing to do with him. The problem is we're not even that far along the road. If there's one thing we can conclude about this God fellow it's that he has no interest in presenting his creation with any reasons at all to suspect he's there in the first place, much less deduce what he wants from us.

 

The acquisition of verifiable knowledge about a deity does not have anything to do with your free will. The only problem you have with free will is the concept that God created you foreknowing every action you were ever going to take before you take them.

[HuskerNMO]

It is not my judgement that the vast majority of religious people are theists, or more specifically monotheists, who make claims of exclusivity for their deityit's a fact. Of those, a sizable portion claim various types of personal experienceswhich are by definition anecdotesthat they feel either prove or at least validate their beliefs. A minor point, but we're not two sentences in and we don't seem to be on the same page.

Obviously we aren't on the same page, i'm pretty certain we never will be though, you?

 

The reason it's annoying is because it's a false statement. I have never and do not claim to be able to prove that God does not exist. That position is a subset of atheism called 'strong atheism' which is not what I hold, and it isn't the position the majority of atheists hold. Saying that I do not believe in a god is not the same thing as saying there is no god. It's very important that you understand this, because if you are a religious person and claim that there is a god, the burden of proof is entirely upon you to support your claim. It is neither my job or within my capabilities with a finite brain to prove a negative. In short, I agree that I cannot prove there is no god. This does not make my lack of belief in one a faith claim, as it is neither a claim or based on faith.

Definition of evidence, one who bears witness.

 

Have I not provided my personal witness, which by definition is evidence? Are you not dismissing my evidence? What says I have to prove my evidence? If your children say they love you do you make them prove it to you? It's up to you to discern if my evidence is factual if you feel like it. But since you cannot prove either way the truth of my evidence, or any other testimony, you are basing your decision on a word that you want to avoid.

 

But you admit you hold a belief that there is no God, that is not supported by evidence. Again, we're diving into that word you want to avoid.

 

I have no idea how to decode that first sentence. As for the rest of it, again it isn't my job to prove your faith claims aren't true. It's your job to prove that they are, at least if you're interested in convincing other people to hold to your position. If you're not, this is all a wash to begin with.

 

It's not my job, I present my ideas with my personal testimony, I know I can't offer empirical truth, so why waste my effort to do so?

 

I don't take it on faith that they aren't real. Once more, it is not my job or within the capacity of myself or any other homo sapien to prove a negative. If someone wants to say that leprechauns, unicorns, Santa, or God is real, the burden of proof falls upon them to present their case. The default position for each of these is one of unbelief. The larger problem you also have set yourself up with is that if your base position is accepting God on faith as you've defined itbelief without proofthen you are in no position to dismiss anything on any subject. Logic is dead to you, and you necessarily fall prey to any supernatural or superstitious claim because you a priori take all second hand information on faith. By what means do you even establish anything resembling reality if you equivocate reason and faith?

 

The burden falls on you to make a judgement on their evidence (testimony) that they present. You may choose to disregard their testimony as unprovable, or hide behind terms like unbelief all you want. You are passing judgment and forming an opinion one way or another; unless you're admitting you cannot discern without empirical proof so you're in the corner, hiding and unable to make a decision through your own human perception and experiences.

 

Your analogy fails because God being an active part of my life does not preclude my decision making ability any more than finding out a cake is poisoned precludes my ability to chew and swallow it. If God were to descend from the heavens presumably I could still choose to want nothing to do with him. The problem is we're not even that far along the road. If there's one thing we can conclude about this God fellow it's that he has no interest in presenting his creation with any reasons at all to suspect he's there in the first place, much less deduce what he wants from us.

 

The acquisition of verifiable knowledge about a deity does not have anything to do with your free will. The only problem you have with free will is the concept that God created you foreknowing every action you were ever going to take before you take them.

You can acquire verifiable knowledge about a diety? Please show how.

 

You dodged the question and formulated what you felt was my agenda through the question. I have no problem with that, I can accept things upon faith and accept that my human reasoning is flawed and unable to understand everything. I don't pretend to know any more of the nature of God than that which has been shown to me through my experiences. And while some people believe in the concept that God knows every action, not all do, thanks for assuming I do though.

 

Want to keep going? I'm sure we could keep this up for a while if you want.

[rawhide]

Jeez,

 

complaints about religious moderates, what next.... extremists.. damn tough crowd

 

 

may sharia law fly up your nose with a rubber hose

 

 

guess that's better than pvc and a gerbil.....just spitballin' here

[WCHusker]

Just imagine if this was about the hardcore kooks & fruits

 

How many more days is it?

[huskerjack23]

Personal experience has never been quantifiable or demonstrable and is not and will never ever be a valid form of evidence.

 

For one, the human brain is very easily fooled. Optical illusions for instance. Under the influence of drugs, made by the human body or externally.

 

Also, why should I unaccept something on faith? It doesn't exist in the first place. I don't need to unaccept it on faith. You need me to do that. Should I also unaccept the boogeyman on faith? Children believe in the boogeyman and they swear that they saw him but I have faith that it doesn't exist because I can't prove that he doesn't.

 

Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

 

Then a majority of science is out the window since it is defined and refined by human observation and the human brain. What other way to you have to interpret the world other than through your personal experiences? Other people's personal experiences?

 

Sounding dumb or not, by definition or the word faith, that's exactly what it is. You cannot prove the boogeyman, or unicorns or other concepts don't exist, but without proof that they don't exist, you are relying on faith that they don't. Again, if you want to get hung up on the religious association of the word faith, that's your business, that doesn't make it less true though.

The majority of science isn't defined by personal experience. It's defined by repeatable experimentation, data gathering, and peer review. There's nothing personal about that. You seem to be equating the scientific method with faith in the human experience to understand such concepts. You fail to realize that it's not faith. It's calculated risk. You would call me trusting my car's brakes not to fail, faith. I would call it calculated risk. I have observed brakes work to it's intended purposes time and time again and because I have observed and basically tested brakes for myself, I understand the probability of success or failure.

 

Where that differentiates with faith in a god is that there is no observable phenomena of your god or any gods that can't already attributed to the natural world. No proof. None.

 

You have faith. I take calculated risk. That's the difference.

 

It's just so very insulting that you would say that I don't believe something exists based on faith. Yes none of us know that unicorns and the boogeyman don't exist, but the probability is so incredibly low, based on the fact that nobody has concrete evidence, why should I believe it exists?

[huskerjack23]

Also, I'd like to point out, if you had the personal experience of knowing God's presence, why hasn't he shown himself to me? And all of the rest of the non-religious? Or native peoples who know nothing beyond their small strips of jungle? This experience always seems to have a caveat of having a bible around.

 

Secondly, which God made himself known to you? If it was the God of the bible, do you totally dismiss a muslim's personal experience of seeing allah and mohammed? Of someone seeing Thor? Zeus? Ra?

 

If personal experience was a legitimate basis for existence, then Allah exists. The frickin Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and you best not tell me he doesn't. He personal touched me with his noodly appendage and I saw the light in the sauce.

[HuskerNMO]

The majority of science isn't defined by personal experience. It's defined by repeatable experimentation, data gathering, and peer review. There's nothing personal about that. You seem to be equating the scientific method with faith in the human experience to understand such concepts. You fail to realize that it's not faith. It's calculated risk. You would call me trusting my car's brakes not to fail, faith. I would call it calculated risk. I have observed brakes work to it's intended purposes time and time again and because I have observed and basically tested brakes for myself, I understand the probability of success or failure.

 

Where that differentiates with faith in a god is that there is no observable phenomena of your god or any gods that can't already attributed to the natural world. No proof. None.

 

You have faith. I take calculated risk. That's the difference.

 

It's just so very insulting that you would say that I don't believe something exists based on faith. Yes none of us know that unicorns and the boogeyman don't exist, but the probability is so incredibly low, based on the fact that nobody has concrete evidence, why should I believe it exists?

 

All things are done through the human mind and perception, our perception and world view clouds everything we do and believe.

 

You are basing your calculations on your experiences, from your brain which is self admittedly easily fooled. What makes your calculation any more valid than mine? You base your risk on experience, as do I. What makes your experiences more valid than mine other than your own perception? Nothing. And I know that the reverse is true as well. Have I ever argued that you should believe it exists? So you're saying your own existence has no faith attributed to it? You can honostly say that every single belief you have is rooted in concrete evidence? Is the very definition of faith not the belief in something without proof? If science cannot ever completely prove itself, then what can (including religion)?

[huskerjack23]

The majority of science isn't defined by personal experience. It's defined by repeatable experimentation, data gathering, and peer review. There's nothing personal about that. You seem to be equating the scientific method with faith in the human experience to understand such concepts. You fail to realize that it's not faith. It's calculated risk. You would call me trusting my car's brakes not to fail, faith. I would call it calculated risk. I have observed brakes work to it's intended purposes time and time again and because I have observed and basically tested brakes for myself, I understand the probability of success or failure.

 

Where that differentiates with faith in a god is that there is no observable phenomena of your god or any gods that can't already attributed to the natural world. No proof. None.

 

You have faith. I take calculated risk. That's the difference.

 

It's just so very insulting that you would say that I don't believe something exists based on faith. Yes none of us know that unicorns and the boogeyman don't exist, but the probability is so incredibly low, based on the fact that nobody has concrete evidence, why should I believe it exists?

 

All things are done through the human mind and perception, our perception and world view clouds everything we do and believe.

 

You are basing your calculations on your experiences, from your brain which is self admittedly easily fooled. What makes your calculation any more valid than mine? You base your risk on experience, as do I. What makes your experiences more valid than mine other than your own perception? Nothing. And I know that the reverse is true as well. Have I ever argued that you should believe it exists? So you're saying your own existence has no faith attributed to it? You can honostly say that every single belief you have is rooted in concrete evidence? Is the very definition of faith not the belief in something without proof? If science cannot ever completely prove itself, then what can (including religion)?

 

My calculations are more valid than yours because you choose to believe in something without proof. Your god experience also isn't repeatable so it's not valid scientifically, which makes them less valid as well.

 

I'm not saying that every single belief I have is rooted in concrete evidence. I'm saying that I won't have a staunch belief until the proofs for it are legitimate and based in logic. The god of the bible is illegitimate and illogical.

[Husker_x]

Obviously we aren't on the same page, i'm pretty certain we never will be though, you?

 

It remains to be seen.

 

Definition of evidence, one who bears witness.

 

More like, ‘that which bears witness’. You’ve shifted the definition to imply only an agency attests to the reality of every claim. That would be wrong.

 

Have I not provided my personal witness, which by definition is evidence? Are you not dismissing my evidence? What says I have to prove my evidence? If your children say they love you do you make them prove it to you? It's up to you to discern if my evidence is factual if you feel like it. But since you cannot prove either way the truth of my evidence, or any other testimony, you are basing your decision on a word that you want to avoid.

 

As a matter of fact, you haven’t. You have not detailed a single thing that would admit of a conclusion concerning anything about gods or their existence. Continuing in the paragraph further convinces me that there is a fundamental problem in your approach to assessing claims––namely, you seem to think that all of them are created equal, that claiming ‘It snowed last winter’ is the equivalent of ‘Aliens abducted me,’ or that ‘I love you’ is the equivalent of ‘God loves you.’ Love is a phenomena I also personally experience and the preponderance of evidence has led me to believe nearly the totality of the human race experiences. It can be directly linked to neurological activity in the brain and behavioral patterns within a subject. God is an ill-defined supernatural entity whose very nature is the subversion of natural order. The first is commonplace, the second is extraordinary. The first is a claim easily identified as a part of the natural world and human experience, the second is anything but.

 

But you admit you hold a belief that there is no God, that is not supported by evidence. Again, we're diving into that word you want to avoid.

 

Once again, I make no claim whatsoever that there is no God. I feel I’ve been very clear on this point.

 

I lack a belief in God ≠ There is no God.

I lack a belief in aliens ≠ There are no aliens.

 

In both cases the first sentence is a response to a claim, not a claim to the contrary. In both instances I am in a position of not knowing. I admit the possibility that they might or might not exist.

 

It's not my job, I present my ideas with my personal testimony, I know I can't offer empirical truth, so why waste my effort to do so?

 

If you want to convince others to believe your faith claim, it is your job. Faith is not the evidence of things unseen. Bald assertions concerning magical beings do not constitute sufficient evidence for magical beings. If you don’t care to convince others, your time in this thread is indeed a waste.

 

The burden falls on you to make a judgement on their evidence (testimony) that they present. You may choose to disregard their testimony as unprovable, or hide behind terms like unbelief all you want. You are passing judgment and forming an opinion one way or another; unless you're admitting you cannot discern without empirical proof so you're in the corner, hiding and unable to make a decision through your own human perception and experiences.

 

When someone makes a claim I am under no compulsion whatever to make a counter claim. I am free to entertain a number of possibilities, settle on one, settle on a combination, or settle on none at all. If you told me you were abducted by aliens, I would not be forced to conclude ‘the claim is true’ or ‘the claim is false and aliens do not exist.’ The only question I have to answer myself is, “Does the claim come with sufficient evidence to alter my perception of reality to now include beings from other worlds and an abduction account?” I apply logic to do this, not blind faith. In your case, you have made a claim, not supplied evidence. A claim is not itself evidence. Anyone can claim anything for any reason. If no one can substantiate their claims with reasons, the world of the intellect is reduced to chaos, because no means are available to determine truth from falsehood on any subject, gods included. The claims of science are not equivalent to the claims of the supernatural. Science is based in the natural world and has the delightful bonus of being repeatable and verifiable; the supernatural by definition does not pertain to the natural world where reason is relevant and cannot be verified as its alleged effects are indistinguishable from the natural world.

 

You can acquire verifiable knowledge about a diety? Please show how.

 

If your God possesses a personality and a means of communication, as well as supernatural powers, he would be more than capable of demonstrating his existence and repeatedly at that. In no way would any of these demonstrations impede my free will to love, hate, follow or reject his will.

 

You dodged the question and formulated what you felt was my agenda through the question. I have no problem with that, I can accept things upon faith and accept that my human reasoning is flawed and unable to understand everything. I don't pretend to know any more of the nature of God than that which has been shown to me through my experiences. And while some people believe in the concept that God knows every action, not all do, thanks for assuming I do though.

 

And thank you for not clarifying in the slightest what your perception of God or his role in free will. It was your non sequitur to begin with, don’t blame me for it. Was it your human reasoning that led you to conclude that human reasoning was flawed, or is that faith as well? Personal testimony is the evidence, but faith requires no evidence. It must be an interesting world where you can say anything, claim anything, believe anything, and it doesn’t matter in the slightest if your beliefs have a toe in reality or not. I can’t say I envy your position. That kind of epistemology is both functionally useless and inherently dishonest.

[HuskersNow]

I have a question for you, jliehr, how old do you think the universe is? Due to the fact that you questioned the validity of carbon-14 dating would lead me to believe that you think it is less than 60,000 years old. Am I correct on that account?

[Husker_x]

I have a question for you, jliehr, how old do you think the universe is? Due to the fact that you questioned the validity of carbon-14 dating would lead me to believe that you think it is less than 60,000 years old. Am I correct on that account?

 

NOOOOOO!

 

Creationism debate in 5...4...3...2... Initiate ignorance. Initiate ignorance. Meltdown. Meltdown.

[zoogs]

There are scientific reasons why you might think carbon dating is imperfect (and really, what methods are?). And then there's "latching on to any criticisms of anything that doesn't agree with what I faithfully believe."

 

But carbon dating and other scientific methods rely completely on faith that the scientists are right. How can you claim truth in dating an object as thousands of years old by a technique that is only 60-65 years old?

 

By that measure, carbon dating would have to be a technique that is thousands of years old to be 'truth'? Oy...

 

Scientific methods don't rely on faith, they rely on experimentation. We think they are right, and we have reasons to believe they are - but just like the Bohrs model of the atom, or Newton's laws of gravity, they may turn out to be either wrong, or incomplete or inaccurate models or methods. After which, newer models or laws or methods - discovered or developed on the same scientific principles - supersede them. It is not claiming truth, but rather "This is what we reasonably think to be the case." To attempt to trivialize or marginalize these as 'beliefs' based on 'faith' is simply misrepresentation.

 

The bottom line is, there are reasons to be skeptical of say, carbon dating processes. But 'It doesn't match with my beliefs' isn't a particularly good one. In science, when you come upon something that defies explanation, you attempt to explain it, or reconsider prior knowledge that may not be rendered outdated or incorrect. You don't dismiss it because it's not what you believe in. That's where the difference lies. To have to personally verify all the claims of science yourself is an absurd requirement.

[HuskersNow]

In response to jliehr:

I don't think that carbon-14 dating is perfect, but that doesn't mean that it should be scrapped. Also, there are more ways to date objects than just the radiocarbon method. I noticed that one method you didn't mention is called rubidium-strontium dating. The interesting thing about this method is that it uses halflifes of 49 billion years, which is significantly longer than the carbon-14 halflife and is thus used to date objects billions of years old.

[HuskerNMO]

There are scientific reasons why you might think carbon dating is imperfect (and really, what methods are?). And then there's "latching on to any criticisms of anything that doesn't agree with what I faithfully believe."

 

But carbon dating and other scientific methods rely completely on faith that the scientists are right. How can you claim truth in dating an object as thousands of years old by a technique that is only 60-65 years old?

 

By that measure, carbon dating would have to be a technique that is thousands of years old to be 'truth'? Oy...

 

Scientific methods don't rely on faith, they rely on experimentation. We think they are right, and we have reasons to believe they are - but just like the Bohrs model of the atom, or Newton's laws of gravity, they may turn out to be either wrong, or incomplete or inaccurate models or methods. After which, newer models or laws or methods - discovered or developed on the same scientific principles - supersede them. It is not claiming truth, but rather "This is what we reasonably think to be the case." To attempt to trivialize or marginalize these as 'beliefs' based on 'faith' is simply misrepresentation.

 

The bottom line is, there are reasons to be skeptical of say, carbon dating processes. But 'It doesn't match with my beliefs' isn't a particularly good one. In science, when you come upon something that defies explanation, you attempt to explain it, or reconsider prior knowledge that may not be rendered outdated or incorrect. You don't dismiss it because it's not what you believe in. That's where the difference lies. To have to personally verify all the claims of science yourself is an absurd requirement.

 

If you "think" they're right, and you "have reasons to believe" they are. Do you have proof? Again, belief without proof is faith by definition is it not?

 

I'm not arguing if carbon dating is valid or not, it very well may be. But there's no way currently you can go back to the beginning and prove it, right?

[HuskerNMO]

I have a question for you, jliehr, how old do you think the universe is? Due to the fact that you questioned the validity of carbon-14 dating would lead me to believe that you think it is less than 60,000 years old. Am I correct on that account?

 

I make no presumptions as to the date of the creation of the universe, it's older than I am, that's for sure. I don't believe creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, sorry to dissapoint.