• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Doubt, faith and denial

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When ever I talk to religious types there is very quickly a common thread in the way they debate. The normal exchange of ideas with you taking turns to think about the other guy's point then respond to it is replaced by the showering of preconceived statements. The clearest give away of this is when the language shifts from their usual vocabulary to something much more intellectual sounding. The statements also do not relate to the discussion so far. The scope of the subject is widened to avoid actually getting to any sort of resolution as well.

This avoidance of thinking about the ideas which undermine your chosen belief says it all.

I was listening to radio4 the other day (British talk radio, bit posh, respectable rather than confrontational), they were talking about faith. The speaker talked about being taught in school of Doubting Thomas. When a classmate said that Thomas was skeptical the teacher had jumped on him saying that Thomas had doubt! That there was a big difference between doubt and skepticism. Doubt was the situation of having decided what you believed but having a problem reconciling some of the evidence.

I get the impression that the religious have made a conscious choice to "believe" a clearly wrong idea. That the more clearly wrong it is the more they must profess it. That arguing with the likes of me here is an exercise in demonstrating to themselves their commitment to this idea to this group.

That they don't actually believe any of it is just a justification of the lies they tell in the rest of their lives. That they can thus have a new family and do anything they can get away with. All can be repented, if you have been boringly nice make something up and repent that! The show must go on!

Is that too harsh or am disappointingly right?
 
I personally believe it is a mistake to take all the religious, and place them into the same narrowly defined box, just as it is a mistake to make a sweeping generalization about all the non-religious.
 
You're right, you've figured out our secret, all us religious people are secretly atheists, and we're just pretending not to be. Seriously, get over yourself.
 
Paleocon said:
You're right, you've figured out our secret, all us religious people are secretly atheists, and we're just pretending not to be. Seriously, get over yourself.
Click to expand...

Hey you were born atheist until your legal guardians indoctrinated you in to their faith. Unless of course breasts can be considered gods, then babies worship gods.
 
Tim the plumber said:
When ever I talk to religious types there is very quickly a common thread in the way they debate. The normal exchange of ideas with you taking turns to think about the other guy's point then respond to it is replaced by the showering of preconceived statements. The clearest give away of this is when the language shifts from their usual vocabulary to something much more intellectual sounding. The statements also do not relate to the discussion so far. The scope of the subject is widened to avoid actually getting to any sort of resolution as well.

This avoidance of thinking about the ideas which undermine your chosen belief says it all.

I was listening to radio4 the other day (British talk radio, bit posh, respectable rather than confrontational), they were talking about faith. The speaker talked about being taught in school of Doubting Thomas. When a classmate said that Thomas was skeptical the teacher had jumped on him saying that Thomas had doubt! That there was a big difference between doubt and skepticism. Doubt was the situation of having decided what you believed but having a problem reconciling some of the evidence.

I get the impression that the religious have made a conscious choice to "believe" a clearly wrong idea. That the more clearly wrong it is the more they must profess it. That arguing with the likes of me here is an exercise in demonstrating to themselves their commitment to this idea to this group.

That they don't actually believe any of it is just a justification of the lies they tell in the rest of their lives. That they can thus have a new family and do anything they can get away with. All can be repented, if you have been boringly nice make something up and repent that! The show must go on!

Is that too harsh or am disappointingly right?
Click to expand...

People are free to believe as they want and to express that belief.

I really wish the Philosophy forum was used for philosophy discussion, not religious brouhaha.
 
Ikari said:
People are free to believe as they want and to express that belief.

I really wish the Philosophy forum was used for philosophy discussion, not religious brouhaha.
Click to expand...

People who express a "belief" which they wish to believe are lying. You do not get to choose what you believe.

The reason this is in the philosophy section is that, unlike other section on this debate forum, the religious section is protected from anyone who disagrees with the God squad.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Hey you were born atheist until your legal guardians indoctrinated you in to their faith. Unless of course breasts can be considered gods, then babies worship gods.
Click to expand...

Newborns don't believe either way about God, so they can hardly be considered atheists.
 
I think Tim is projecting.
 
Paleocon said:
Newborns don't believe either way about God, so they can hardly be considered atheists.
Click to expand...


the default position versus any claim is non belief
whether that claim be gods exists or that gods don't exist

atheists by and large do not claim that gods do not exist, they just do not believe theistic claims about gods. Babies not have the capacity to believe thus they are atheistic by default.
 
RogueWarrior said:
the default position versus any claim is non belief
whether that claim be gods exists or that gods don't exist

atheists by and large do not claim that gods do not exist, they just do not believe theistic claims about gods. Babies not have the capacity to believe thus they are atheistic by default.
Click to expand...

Are babies ontological nihilists?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Ikari said:
I really wish the Philosophy forum was used for philosophy discussion, not religious brouhaha.
Click to expand...
The reason this is in the philosophy section is that, unlike other section on this debate forum, the religious section is protected from anyone who disagrees with the God squad.
Click to expand...
I just want to quote that. For reasons.
 
Tim the plumber said:

People who express a "belief" which they wish to believe are lying. You do not get to choose what you believe.

The reason this is in the philosophy section is that, unlike other section on this debate forum, the religious section is protected from anyone who disagrees with the God squad.
Click to expand...

You actually do get.to choose what you believe. And even if not and they are lying...who cares? So long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, then they are free to do as they like.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Answer the rest of the question.
Click to expand...

Ontological nihilism is the belief that nothing exists, the ultimate null position. If you're going to claim that atheism is the position of all infants, then ontological nihilism would be as well.
 
Paleocon said:
Ontological nihilism is the belief that nothing exists, the ultimate null position. If you're going to claim that atheism is the position of all infants, then ontological nihilism would be as well.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can make that connection. You are making a strawman argument. Atheism is the null position regarding a single claim, not all claims or all knowledge.
 
RogueWarrior said:
I don't see how you can make that connection. You are making a strawman argument. Atheism is the null position regarding a single claim, not all claims or all knowledge.
Click to expand...

Is an infant any more conscious of the fact that he exist than he is of the fact that God does?
 
Paleocon said:
Is an infant any more conscious of the fact that he exist than he is of the fact that God does?
Click to expand...

Well that is a leading question.
Yes he is more conscious of his existence. He is, after all, experiencing it. Sights, sounds, touches, boobies...
 
RogueWarrior said:
Well that is a leading question.
Yes he is more conscious of his existence. He is, after all, experiencing it. Sights, sounds, touches, boobies...
Click to expand...

So he is actually conscious of it?
 
RogueWarrior said:
He/she may not understand what the sounds mean, what the colors or movement means or anything else but he/she is experiencing them.
Click to expand...

And he also doesn't understand what any of it means but he is experiencing God's creation.
 
Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, "Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
 
Paleocon said:
Are babies ontological nihilists?
Click to expand...

This is the kind of thing which illustrates the point.

In order to intellectually justify the position of belief in the super-silly psudo-natural big words are brought out to make the argument sound clever. The more the discussion moves away from anything which is likely to be unavoidable on an simple emotional level the better. It's not about winning the argument in a way which is going to persuade the non-believer but if the worshiper has batted the words away and sounded clever whilst doing it he has succeeded within his own mind and thus can congratulate himself that reality has been beaten again by the power of GOD!!
 
Tim the plumber said:
When ever I talk to religious types there is very quickly a common thread in the way they debate. The normal exchange of ideas with you taking turns to think about the other guy's point then respond to it is replaced by the showering of preconceived statements. The clearest give away of this is when the language shifts from their usual vocabulary to something much more intellectual sounding. The statements also do not relate to the discussion so far. The scope of the subject is widened to avoid actually getting to any sort of resolution as well.

This avoidance of thinking about the ideas which undermine your chosen belief says it all.

I was listening to radio4 the other day (British talk radio, bit posh, respectable rather than confrontational), they were talking about faith. The speaker talked about being taught in school of Doubting Thomas. When a classmate said that Thomas was skeptical the teacher had jumped on him saying that Thomas had doubt! That there was a big difference between doubt and skepticism. Doubt was the situation of having decided what you believed but having a problem reconciling some of the evidence.

I get the impression that the religious have made a conscious choice to "believe" a clearly wrong idea. That the more clearly wrong it is the more they must profess it. That arguing with the likes of me here is an exercise in demonstrating to themselves their commitment to this idea to this group.

That they don't actually believe any of it is just a justification of the lies they tell in the rest of their lives. That they can thus have a new family and do anything they can get away with. All can be repented, if you have been boringly nice make something up and repent that! The show must go on!

Is that too harsh or am disappointingly right?
Click to expand...

Avoiding the generalities that you've presented, let me just say that you're on to it but have really screwed the pooch.

How so?

I'm glad you asked.

First, the good part, yes, believing just like everything else you do in your life is a choice. You must choose whether you want to be a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, et al. Choose to be it, and then live it authentically. Their fault lies here, be it they are too weak, too idealistic, too.....what have you.

Now, the wrong-headed part.

Who is to say that it is a "clearly wrong idea"?

Kierkegaard has a quote I'm quite fond of and have posted it frequently here on this site;

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."

This I believe handles one aspect of your statement, the other would be a reiteration of the question I previously posed -- Who is to say it is a clearly wrong idea?

You, who are you in relation to what that person thinks, feels, believes? You're insignificant. I'm not being insulting when I say this I am being quite literal. You're idea of what is right and wrong as it regards what others choose to believe is of no importance. Just as they are of no importance to you and what you believe. To question their genuineness is an open door invitation for one to question yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom