Religion: Real or Fake

[Robert]

RP: So everything that goes without proof is 'blind'.
That's ridiculous. There's a lot of space between following something 'blindly' and knowing something full proof.

Please feel free to list any kind of proof.

I married my wife because I had faith that my life would be more happy with her then without her.
I had no full proof that it would, but it was not as if I blindly started my marriage.

Everytime I start to work somewhere I decide to go to work on incomplete knowledge about that company and my future there. Yet it's not as if I blindly step into some job, based on no rational thinking.

You have doubts because you have no proof. And being impressed by the bible isn't exactly what I would toss out in terms of proof.

Of course, if I had full proof, I had no doubts.
Did I ever say that I had proof?
All I am saying is that your statement that anything that lacked proof could only be followed blindly.

Hardly knowing you has no impact on the general OPINION that I stated "I've always equated faith with "follow blindly". You're the one taking it personally.

Wouldn't you take it personal if I would say: "I've always equated being american with 'being stupid'".
And it's not just you. It's something I hear more and more people say, always based on ignorance (and examples of blind faith, since yes, there's a lot of blind faith).

Yes, maybe you don't have 100% proof but you're basing it on a track record with your friends. If they've never screwed you, you're more likely to trust them. I think track record should be taken into account since it's better than just randomly deciding if you you should trust them. And believing things like democracy is better than tyranny is something that you can rationally determine from looking at examples in history. Others may come up with different conclusions. And yes, I realize that the winners write the history so you have to be skeptical. So yes, if you trust blindly, it's likely you're not doing your job.

Christianity also has a track record. And so does my life with God so far.
The Bible is full of texts and claims. It's a track record I can value (or not).
If a friend of me says a lot of things that make sense, and are mirrored by (what I see of) reality, then I will trust him, and it will not be considered to be 'blind trust'. (especially not if I despite my trust continue to rethink everything he says)
Then why can I not believe the Bible if what's in it makes sense to me and it is mirrored by (what I see of) reality. Why is such a faith suddenly blind.

It's not as if some guy Hank suddenly shows up and tells me to kiss his ass and he will reward me.
And it's also not as if some guy tells me there's a flying spaghetti monster out there.
(the problem is that those funny comparisons, often started just for fun, are now believed by many people to be good analogies of christianity and the believe in God). (in fact it comes down to the well known sophism; make a caricature of the idea, then mock the caricature, then reject the original idea based on the mocking of the caricature)

I do agree that religion had one positive aspect, which is providing a moral code, but a moral code need not be the product of religion to be good.

My faith is not based on moral codes and no moral codes come out of it (apart from 'love the other as yourself', which is indeed a moral code).
And, like I said, many religions aren't based on moral codes. Buddhism isn't, in example.

As a matter of fact I'd say that moral codes have often been a very negative outcome of religions.
Men have dominated women based on moral codes, to just name an example.

In fact Christianity says that moral codes will not help man.
It even starts with saying that the basic problem of evil is that every man want to uphold his own moral code.

[Robert]

That's an awful argument. If you believe that something is 70% likely to be true, then you can doubt that it actually is true while still firmly believing that the odds are 70%. That's not inconsistent at all.

Plomp: You should make logic courses a requirement for posting here.

I'd have to ban myself

[MikeH]

Christianity is not about conforming to rules. (though it has evolved into that way through the ages).
If you read the New Testament, it's most of the time about Jesus saying that the rules are too tight (made up rules of the pharisees) and Paul who says that we should not live by the laws anymore.

I have said many times that I think the general feelings, themes in the new testament, love, forgiveness, equality are very good ones. It's a shame organised religion can't follow them. And that so many Christians still look at things in the Old Testament that Jesus told them to ignore.

[MOBIUS]

That's an awful argument. If you believe that something is 70% likely to be true, then you can doubt that it actually is true while still firmly believing that the odds are 70%. That's not inconsistent at all.

Plomp: You should make logic courses a requirement for posting here.

I have my faith and I believe you are wrong, despite any convincing evidence that you might have to the contrary.

[Lorizael]

That's intellectual dishonesty, not inconsistency.

[MOBIUS]

Which is exactly my point about people who believe in religion explaining their beliefs to others...

[Lorizael]

Er. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not inconsistent to doubt your own beliefs.

[MikeH]

Yes it is.

I think. Hmm. I'm not sure.

[rah]

I married my wife because I had faith that my life would be more happy with her then without her.
I had no full proof that it would, but it was not as if I blindly started my marriage.

I hope that decision was made based on your track record with her.
Any track record is better than nothing.

Everytime I start to work somewhere I decide to go to work on incomplete knowledge about that company and my future there. Yet it's not as if I blindly step into some job, based on no rational thinking.

you keep equating incomplete knowledge with no proof. Making decisions on incomplete proof is better than no proof.

Of course, if I had full proof, I had no doubts.
Did I ever say that I had proof?
All I am saying is that your statement that anything that lacked proof could only be followed blindly.

No ALL I SAID was, I equated FAITH with following blindly. The definition of faith is believing without proof.
You have provided 0 proof that god exists. You take it on faith.

Wouldn't you take it personal if I would say: "I've always equated being american with 'being stupid'".

Actually no since I hope your opinion would be based on your track record with americans. If you had no track record, I'd say you were taking it on faith.

Christianity also has a track record. And so does my life with God so far.
The Bible is full of texts and claims. It's a track record I can value (or not).
If a friend of me says a lot of things that make sense, and are mirrored by (what I see of) reality, then I will trust him, and it will not be considered to be 'blind trust'. (especially not if I despite my trust continue to rethink everything he says)
Then why can I not believe the Bible if what's in it makes sense to me and it is mirrored by (what I see of) reality. Why is such a faith suddenly blind.

Again offer any proof of the existence of god. I have no problem if you take god and the bible on faith. But be fair and say it's on faith.

It's not as if some guy Hank suddenly shows up and tells me to kiss his ass and he will reward me.
And it's also not as if some guy tells me there's a flying spaghetti monster out there.
(the problem is that those funny comparisons, often started just for fun, are now believed by many people to be good analogies of christianity and the believe in God). (in fact it comes down to the well known sophism; make a caricature of the idea, then mock the caricature, then reject the original idea based on the mocking of the caricature)

I see no difference actually. And that's without mocking the caricature. I can still reject the original idea.

My faith is not based on moral codes and no moral codes come out of it (apart from 'love the other as yourself', which is indeed a moral code).
And, like I said, many religions aren't based on moral codes. Buddhism isn't, in example.

moot point, i wasn't referencing you in particular, it was just a generic comment about moral codes.

[Robert]

I've never said that I believe in God based on proof.
That's something you continue to put into my mouth

I'm not arguing that I I full proof for my believes. I am arguing that my faith is not blind.

I hope that decision was made based on your track record with her.
Any track record is better than nothing.

My faith is based on a track record.

No ALL I SAID was, I equated FAITH with following blindly. The definition of faith is believing without proof.
You have provided 0 proof that god exists. You take it on faith.

There's no full proof. I've never argued that.
I'm arguing against your statement that it's blind.
The fact that there's no full proof doesn't make it blind.

So again I ask: is anything without proof blind?
Then you answer: 'no, not if it's based on a track record"
Then I say: "There is a track record."

Now it's upon us to decide how much of the track record we consider valuable and if the track record is strong enough to base faith upon.
For you that apparently is 'no' and for me it's 'yes'.
Now it's not as if my decision is more or less blind then yours.

The definition of faith is believing without proof.
You have provided 0 proof that god exists. You take it on faith.

The definition of 'faith' in the christian sense is more based on trust.
It would not matter much if I would have full proof that God/Jesus existed or not. Even if I have full proof, then still I need faith to trust that he will be good for me.

As with my wife.
I have full proof that she exists.
Yet it's still faith that she will make me happy.
Full proof doesn't change much, except that it would make my doubts and questions go away.
I wish I had full proof.

Again offer any proof of the existence of god. I have no problem if you take god and the bible on faith. But be fair and say it's on faith.

It's on faith.
Now be fair and admit that you can't say it's blind faith.
Well, admit that you can say it, but it would be a silly statement. (everybody is allowed though to make silly statements )

I see no difference actually. And that's without mocking the caricature. I can still reject the original idea

You see no difference between the story about Hank and the Spaghetti monster and the faith in God?
Of course you can reject the original idea. I would never say that everybody who rejects God does it blindly.

[DaShi]

Wait? Plomp has an imaginary wife?

[giblets]

I didn't know the Netherlands legalized imaginary marriages.

[giblets]

I think this is a threat to traditional marriages between a real man and a real woman.

[giblets]

I just don't think we should encourage that sort of thing.

[giblets]

Soon the imaginary agenda will start pushing to teach their filth in school. Telling real kids it's okay to have sex with an imaginary partner.