What do you do when people mock/criticize your religion?

[Firefly]

Im merely asking the most simplest of questions, "why do you believe what you do" and you cant answer it. Saying you believe in god but not being able to answer 'why', other than "its just what I believe", sounds to me like you're believing in something blindly.

I believe in what I do,because I do honestly believe that there IS God,and I believe,FROM THE BIBLE, that his son was sent here to wash away our sins.< This makes the second time I have told you,and yet it still isn't good enough for you to be consider 'an answer'. Now,if my answer doesn't 'satisfy' you,then I suggest you get off my back.

[Rowan]

I believe in what I do,because I do honestly believe that there IS God,and I believe,FROM THE BIBLE, that his son was sent here to wash away our sins.< This makes the second time I have told you,and yet it still isn't good enough for you to be consider 'an answer'. Now,if my answer doesn't 'satisfy' you,then I suggest you get off my back.

So you believe in god because of the bible? and you think thats sufficient evidence to justify your belief in god and devotion to christianity? Is the bible an accurate representation of his character? You think god is okay with slavery, genocide, human sacrifice? because its all in there.

[grims sakura]

I haven't had people mock me for my religion, as I don't parade about shouting it at everyone. Even my mother knew I am a Pagan, yet I didn't leave my things about so I didn't make her uncomfortable.

I also haven't really been mocked to my face. The worst I've gotten so far is Christians coming to my door to shove their word down my throat. I usually let them have their say, then say good day. The one time I tried to explain that I didn't want to hear it, especially at my door as early as that, they jumped at the chance to 'convert the non-believer'.

As to what I would do if I were openly mocked, I'd probably just sit there and smile, then walk away. I don't have the courage or the quick-wit to think of responses on the spot. =/

[Heartless Angel]

Actually if all you want is an explanation, that would be relatively simple. An argument may require solid evidence that the belief true, but an explanation for having a belief could be as simple as having been raised to believe it.

However if you do want an argument, there are a few. One of the most compelling would be Aquinas' cosmological argument, though I personally do not accept it.

There are multiple definitions of truth, one of which that makes most beliefs perfectly logical is the coherent theory. This suggests that when we say something is true or false, we are saying it fits in logically with other beliefs (or facts) we have (we know).

Everything everyone knows is ultimately based on a leap of faith, that we percieve and understand the world and some the most fundamental concepts. Why then, do we claim to know anything, when some of these fundamental concepts which we base our entire lives around are unprovable? Simply, because we could not function in the world without some logical understanding of it. We can't prove the fundamentals of existence, but without them, we can't know anything else, so we take a leap of faith, and accept what we seem to know, but can't prove beyond all doubt, and build a web of beliefs that cohere to it. However we don't all have the same fundamental beliefs (though most are relatively similar), which leads to different beliefs about other things.

Here's a fun one to confuse people with, how can you prove logically, that your concept of logic is logical? The very instant you try, you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question and lose. Even the rules of logic are ultimately just a belief based on some observation. But if we don't accept it, we can't really know anything, so we take a leap of faith to make the world we live in make sense.

[Rowan]

Actually if all you want is an explanation, that would be relatively simple. An argument may require solid evidence that the belief true, but an explanation for having a belief could be as simple as having been raised to believe it.

However if you do want an argument, there are a few. One of the most compelling would be Aquinas' cosmological argument, though I personally do not accept it.

There are multiple definitions of truth, one of which that makes most beliefs perfectly logical is the coherent theory. This suggests that when we say something is true or false, we are saying it fits in logically with other beliefs (or facts) we have (we know).

Everything everyone knows is ultimately based on a leap of faith, that we percieve and understand the world and some the most fundamental concepts. Why then, do we claim to know anything, when some of these fundamental concepts which we base our entire lives around are unprovable? Simply, because we could not function in the world without some logical understanding of it. We can't prove the fundamentals of existence, but without them, we can't know anything else, so we take a leap of faith, and accept what we seem to know, but can't prove beyond all doubt, and build a web of beliefs that cohere to it. However we don't all have the same fundamental beliefs (though most are relatively similar), which leads to different beliefs about other things.

Here's a fun one to confuse people with, how can you prove logically, that your concept of logic is logical? The very instant you try, you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question and lose. Even the rules of logic are ultimately just a belief based on some observation. But if we don't accept it, we can't really know anything, so we take a leap of faith to make the world we live in make sense.

You're getting far too philisophical for this subject. I like talking philosophy, but for this particular topic I dont think its relevant. Im talking about what's practical, and by practical I mean whats useful to us.

I have spoken and asked numerous times why people believe in god and while most tend to just ignore and splatter obscene nonsense such as "its just what I believe" and "theres no evidence to prove hes not real" I remind them that my question still remains, "Why do YOU believe in him?"

noone has been able to provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims and beliefs. The idea of "faith' being reason enough to believe is a copout. As I've stated, faith is believing something without a good reason (or a logical one, at that).

As far as arguments and explanations ago, I reiterate:
Im asking 'why' people believe what they do, based on evidence or any proof that they can provide and I will quote the bible "peter 3:15 be ready to provide logical evidence for the faith that you have" if they turn their heads away from me.

If by mentioning perceptions and definitions, you are asking me what I base my beliefs on, I will tell you. I base my beliefs on evidence and scienfific method. Anything that has shown to be functional and work I will believe because I can count on it and I've seen it happen. It doesnt it mean it always will, but it has credability. Science gives us testability and repeatability. We have only know of pluto for about 70 years, but we know that it takes 200 years to orbit the sun. We know this based on math even though we havnt even known about it long enough for that to happen.

So my question still stands. Give me a logical reason for your belief in god and religion.

[Firefly]

So you believe in god because of the bible?

*sigh* I believe in God because I believe there is something greater than all of us.I,for two,believe in him because my grandparents have brought me up that way since I was 4.

you think thats sufficient evidence to justify your belief in god and devotion to christianity?

I admit,I am not as devoted to Christianity (spiritually)as I should be,but I still go to the Church of Christ every Sunday,and listen to the preacher,and try to learn the word of God.I believe,"some" of what is in the Bible,and I also believe what I think is real and right. God,IMO,is real.And I can already hear your next question," Where's your proof?" Actually I have no physical proof of God,except unless you count the Bible as physical proof and Jesus.

Is the bible an accurate representation of his character?

I honestly don't know.God is Patient,Caring,and Loving,in my view.

You think god is okay with slavery, genocide, human sacrifice?

IMO,no he is not.He doesn't make bad things happen,he ALLOWS them to happen.

....Also,why aren't you questioning anyone's beliefs? Why am I your prime target?

[Heartless Angel]

Actually, I'm not religious. From where I stand, the denial of the divine is every bit as illogical as its acceptance. The fundamental purpose of logic is to infer truths from other truths. The only absolute truth to be inferred here, is that nobody has concrete proof of anything about the origin of the universe, meaning we know nothing.

Science is all well and good, I like science myself, but even in science we base alot on faith. Faith that our tests have given us reliable data, and that our observations have discovered all the relevant information. Quite often, they do not. For example, it was observation and implementation of the scientific method that lead people to believe the earth was the center of the universe. Because their observations were incomplete, their conclusion was wrong. Someone then came by with much better observations and calculations, and he 'proved' that the sun was the center of the universe. At least until someone proved him wrong too. Even scientific theories are only 'true' for as long as they fit in with the other things we think we know. Every belief anybody has is based entirely on the assumption that we percieve things correctly. We have no evidence to support this. In fact given how often we've come back later and proven ourselves dead wrong, we in fact have good reason to believe the exact opposite.

Nobody's beliefs are perfectly logical, the only real difference between people is how far they try to go with reason before they finally say "screw it" and take the leap of faith.

If you're into what works, I'll pose a pragmatic argument for you.

Let us assume that all religions are equal just for the purpose of this, so I can eliminate complexities unnescessary for the sake of this argument. To be more precise, you're either religious, or athiest, no sub divisions. Most of them share the primary focus of my point anyways.

Your goal is that our belief be practical and useful. So I'll make a truth table with that as my conclusion.

The two premises and attempted conclusion are as follows

I am Religous, My beliefs are Correct, My beliefs Acomplish something for me. My beliefs were Useful

R C A U
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F

These are all the possible ways the two premises can occur, and their effect on the conclusion.

Argument 1: If I follow this religion, and am correct, I go to heaven. Therefore the belief was useful and did me good.

Argument 2: If follow this religion, and am incorrect, I decompose after burial and am consumed by worms. Therefore the belief did not do me any good.

Argument 3: If I do not folow this religion, but it was the truth. I now rot in Hell for all eternity. Therefore the belief definitely did no good.

Argument 4: If I do not follow this religion, and was right in not doing so, I decompose after burial and am consumed by worms. Therefore the belief still did me no good.

The only argument which lead to the conclusion that the belief was useful, was the first, in which you picked a religion and happened to be right.

[Rowan]

Actually, I'm not religious. From where I stand, the denial of the divine is every bit as illogical as its acceptance. The fundamental purpose of logic is to infer truths from other truths. The only absolute truth to be inferred here, is that nobody has concrete proof of anything about the origin of the universe, meaning we know nothing.

Science is all well and good, I like science myself, but even in science we base alot on faith. Faith that our tests have given us reliable data, and that our observations have discovered all the relevant information. Quite often, they do not. For example, it was observation and implementation of the scientific method that lead people to believe the earth was the center of the universe. Because their observations were incomplete, their conclusion was wrong. Someone then came by with much better observations and calculations, and he 'proved' that the sun was the center of the universe. At least until someone proved him wrong too. Even scientific theories are only 'true' for as long as they fit in with the other things we think we know. Every belief anybody has is based entirely on the assumption that we percieve things correctly. We have no evidence to support this. In fact given how often we've come back later and proven ourselves dead wrong, we in fact have good reason to believe the exact opposite.

Nobody's beliefs are perfectly logical, the only real difference between people is how far they try to go with reason before they finally say "screw it" and take the leap of faith.

If you're into what works, I'll pose a pragmatic argument for you.

Let us assume that all religions are equal just for the purpose of this, so I can eliminate complexities unnescessary for the sake of this argument. To be more precise, you're either religious, or athiest, no sub divisions. Most of them share the primary focus of my point anyways.

Your goal is that our belief be practical and useful. So I'll make a truth table with that as my conclusion.

The two premises and attempted conclusion are as follows

I am Religous, My beliefs are Correct, My beliefs Acomplish something for me. My beliefs were Useful

R C A U
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F

These are all the possible ways the two premises can occur, and their effect on the conclusion.

Argument 1: If I follow this religion, and am correct, I go to heaven. Therefore the belief was useful and did me good.

Argument 2: If follow this religion, and am incorrect, I decompose after burial and am consumed by worms. Therefore the belief did not do me any good.

Argument 3: If I do not folow this religion, but it was the truth. I now rot in Hell for all eternity. Therefore the belief definitely did no good.

Argument 4: If I do not follow this religion, and was right in not doing so, I decompose after burial and am consumed by worms. Therefore the belief still did me no good.

The only argument which lead to the conclusion that the belief was useful, was the first, in which you picked a religion and happened to be right.

I appreciate you posting. I've seen a lot of your posts and I like the way you put forth arguments and bring information to the debates.
having said that I think you might have missed something.

Theres nothing illogical about denying something based on lack of evidence. If anything, that is the perfect logical thought process.

"god exists"
-"okay! i believe"

the default position for thinking SHOULD and always should be 'prove it' and not to just accept something because it is.If i say "ive got a fire in my pocket" you dont just say 'okay, i believe you' you would want evidence and proof that the fire was actually in my pocket because you could not see it and therefor have reason to question if there actually was a fire in my pocket.

I mentioned scientific method, but I didn't think I made myself clear. In no way am I claiming to know the origins of the universe, for i do not. I mentioned scientific method because science gives us testability (we are actually able to prove things in a PRACTICAL way) and repeatability (we are able to do them over and over again successfully). Based on these 2 things, we can make informed deicisions that give us results. Science is results based and therfor making it practical and useful. Science is not faith based, we dont believe in avenues for no good reason, we take roads based on tests and results that give us the information to make informed decisions about what we are trying to do, they are not based on faith. Of course certain risks are involved in areas, but they are in the interest of results and based on tests that have credability. They've nothing to do with faith.

Your diagram on how one lives thier life based on religion is interesting, but seems a little redundant.

and to firefly, im not targetting you. You are the only one whos responded to my question yet still failed to give me a logical answer. Believing in god because of a book and a person who supposedly existed all those centuries ago, is not justification enough for me. Bible does not count as physical proof as it has been re-editioned countless times and edited out so many versus its unbelievable. If you were a true christian you would only be allowed to wear the clothes of animals you have killed yourself and would not be allowed to have sex unless it was for reproduction only.

also, you say that god is loving and caring in your eyes but you also say that he ALLOWS death and slavery and sacrifice to happen. That is the most hypocritical statement I've heard all month. Where do you get these ideals of his character from if you can acknowledge that hes a immoral god who allows death, destruction, slavery and sacrifice? Im more moral than your god because I would not allow anything like that to happen. I wouldnt care about people believing in me, id rather them be happy and living their lives isntead of praying to me everyday.

[Alpha]

Rowan, you don't seem to understand hiw anyone could possibly think differently to you. That's a sign of arrogance, in my opinion.

I accept anyone's beliefs, and I don't challenge them, unless they are hypocritical. If someone tells you they believe in the Judeo-Christian God "just because", then that reasoning is sufficient to me because I understand that it is somebody else's reasoning.

I think what HA is that, ultimately, we all believe something. Nobody's personal views/beliefs can be challenged, at a very fundamental level. So I tend to go with "live and let live". If you tell me you believe in mermaids and leprechauns, I nay find it silly, but I'll keep that to myself; your views aren't doing me any harm, and they're probably giving you some comfort. Personally, I think that's enough

If someone does challenge my beliefs/views, I'll hear them out. They nay be smarter than me. But if they aren't challenging them, but rather degrading them, I'll block them out on the basis that they're an arrogant ****. So Rowan, shh.

[Firefly]

You are the only one whos responded to my question

Umm...FYI,I did not respond to your question. I responded to the topic of " What do you do when people mock/criticize your religion?" The question you asked,I paid no attention to. I guess you must have mistaken my answer to the thread,for an answer to your question . Anyways,I am done trying to prove my point(which I wasn't even planning on doing in the first place). I am done with this thread. I hope that someday you find the answer your looking for.

[Heartless Angel]

I appreciate you posting. I've seen a lot of your posts and I like the way you put forth arguments and bring information to the debates.

Thanks =]

Theres nothing illogical about denying something based on lack of evidence. If anything, that is the perfect logical thought process.

I'm affraid I must disagree with you there. In fact, that's so illogical, it's been defined as a formal fallacy. Argumentum ad Ignorantium to be exact, the lack of proof for a conclusion, does not prove its opposite. That is sufficient reason not to accept the conclusion as true, but not to accept it as false. Again, the only thing logic proves here, is that we've proven absolutely nothing, and can only have a belief if we base it on faith.

the default position for thinking SHOULD and always should be 'prove it' and not to just accept something because it is.If i say "ive got a fire in my pocket" you dont just say 'okay, i believe you' you would want evidence and proof that the fire was actually in my pocket because you could not see it and therefor have reason to question if there actually was a fire in my pocket.

The only possible proof here would be to turn out your pockets... or for the rest of your pants to catch fire. In this case, all possible evidence can be examined in a matter of seconds, and the conclusion can be inferred immediately from that evidence. When conflicts are this simple to resolve, one belief is ultimately defeated by another, and nobody continues to hold on to the original belief. Problem here, is that the evidence is no more concrete than the theories, neither conclusion can be proven true to defeat the other, so both stay on the table as reasonable conclusions. To deny one conclusion because the opponent failed to prove it with no evidence for either side is more akin to taking a thimble to the atlantic ocean, getting a scoop of water, looking at it with a magnifying glass, and concluding that fish do not exist; than to your fire in the pocket analogy.

When you say somebody is wrong when they say there is God, regardless of the strength of their evidence, you are immediately implying that the reverse is true, at which point you're the one making the positive claim, so the burden of proof shifts to you. You unfortunately can't prove it isn't true, so if that line of reasoning is valid, we've got a paradox here. You can always say their argument was insufficient to convince you, but never that the conclusion was not true because of it. So again I'm left with the recurring conclusion that the only truly logical answer is, "I don't know."

I mentioned scientific method, but I didn't think I made myself clear. In no way am I claiming to know the origins of the universe, for i do not. I mentioned scientific method because science gives us testability (we are actually able to prove things in a PRACTICAL way) and repeatability (we are able to do them over and over again successfully). Based on these 2 things, we can make informed deicisions that give us results. Science is results based and therfor making it practical and useful. Science is not faith based, we dont believe in avenues for no good reason, we take roads based on tests and results that give us the information to make informed decisions about what we are trying to do, they are not based on faith. Of course certain risks are involved in areas, but they are in the interest of results and based on tests that have credability. They've nothing to do with faith.

My previous statement stands. No matter how many times unenlightened people looked at the night sky before we invented telescopes, we always appeared to be at the center of the known universe. It was repeatable, hell you can repeat their primative experiment and get the same results right now. It was an informed belief. The information happened to be limitted, and because of the information we lacked proving the opposite, wrong. The next guy could run his calculations as many times as he likes, with the empirical data he's been able to gather, he'll conclude that the universe is heliocentric every single time. Repeatable, got closer to the truth than the guy before him, still wrong. Tests only have credibility as long as our data does, and our data only has credibility as long as it's the extent of our knowledge. Unless you'd actually be arrogant enough to say that we humans currently know everything, and will never be proven wrong by better observations and more data again, because we're awesome enough to have already observed everything and gathered all data, you can't say anything science has inferred has actually been proven. Science deals with fact, philosophy with truth. Fact is contingent entirely on our perceptions, and calculations about other facts, which coming from flawed beings are concievably flawed themselves. Truth is contingent only on the truth. In that regard, philosophy is superior when it comes to truly proving anything.

Your diagram on how one lives thier life based on religion is interesting, but seems a little redundant.

Not really, in fact in the sense that this limitted (that's my euphasmim for me being too lazy to construct a much much larger more precise truth table) argument can, I have proven that the only useful, practical, belief, is that there is a God who's going to let you into awesomeland for believing in him. Unless you have a different definition for practical than that which acomplishes something, which is actually fairly likely, since I was cutting corners with this argument and dumbing it down alot, primarily due to laziness. Anyhoo, conclusion, the only logical belief, is that all beliefs are illogical.

[Rowan]

Rowan, you don't seem to understand hiw anyone could possibly think differently to you. That's a sign of arrogance, in my opinion.

I accept anyone's beliefs, and I don't challenge them, unless they are hypocritical. If someone tells you they believe in the Judeo-Christian God "just because", then that reasoning is sufficient to me because I understand that it is somebody else's reasoning.

I think what HA is that, ultimately, we all believe something. Nobody's personal views/beliefs can be challenged, at a very fundamental level. So I tend to go with "live and let live". If you tell me you believe in mermaids and leprechauns, I nay find it silly, but I'll keep that to myself; your views aren't doing me any harm, and they're probably giving you some comfort. Personally, I think that's enough

If someone does challenge my beliefs/views, I'll hear them out. They nay be smarter than me. But if they aren't challenging them, but rather degrading them, I'll block them out on the basis that they're an arrogant ****. So Rowan, shh.

You're completly wrong. I know people can think differently to me, its just the idea of religion and god is comepletly absurd and everytime I ask for the evidence which is stated in the bible that every christian must provide, noone can give me anything worthy of an argument. You think its arrogant that someone challenge your beliefs with sound argument. You dont want to explain your beliefs even though the bible states you must, just makes you even more of a hypocrite than what you think.

Just because someone says "its just what I believe" is good enough for you, then going by your logic, then you are the arrogant one that cant understand why someone might not accept that answer.

[Alpha]

No one can give YOU an argument you accept. Therefore YOU Choose not to believe. Have you considered that the test of one's beliefs is not whether or not Rowan accepts them as permissible?

Would you go to an indigenous society, and tell them to abandon their cultural systems and metaphysical beliefs on the basis that THEIR OWN REASONS are not sufficient for YOU to accept the sane things?

Sorry for all the caps lock. I'm on my iPod, so it's easier than italics. This also explains the spelling.

[Rowan]

No one can give YOU an argument you accept. Therefore YOU Choose not to believe. Have you considered that the test of one's beliefs is not whether or not Rowan accepts them as permissible?

Would you go to an indigenous society, and tell them to abandon their cultural systems and metaphysical beliefs on the basis that THEIR OWN REASONS are not sufficient for YOU to accept the sane things?

Sorry for all the caps lock. I'm on my iPod, so it's easier than italics. This also explains the spelling.

I understand what you mean. But if you think "just because" is a logical reason to devote your life to beliving something without any evidence or proof, then good on you. In fact, if you think logical reasons arnt warranted to believe in something then you are a fool. We've established that you accept that and I dont. But what you're trying to say is that because I dont accept that, im at fault. Which is where YOUR arrogance bleeds through. I only ever asked questions (one question as a matter of fact) and apparantly she was very offended. And that was because she couldn't justify her beliefs. Dont make me quote the bible again.

[Alpha]

No, I thought I stated quite clearly that it is not logical. I agreed with HA in saying that everything, ultimately, is illogical.

Because I accept that, I allow beliefs about things that I can't prove or disprove to slide. I don't care, it doesn't harm me, and it benefits them. By leaving people to their devices, we all win. If they are themselves are motivated to investigate their beliefs good on them -- as I hope we all have at some stage

I just understand why people get so in your face about it. To ne, atheists are just as guilty of proselytisation as any Christian or Buddhist I've ever met.

Live and let live.

[Rowan]

No, I thought I stated quite clearly that it is not logical. I agreed with HA in saying that everything, ultimately, is illogical.

Because I accept that, I allow beliefs about things that I can't prove or disprove to slide. I don't care, it doesn't harm me, and it benefits them. By leaving people to their devices, we all win. If they are themselves are motivated to investigate their beliefs good on them -- as I hope we all have at some stage

I just understand why people get so in your face about it. To ne, atheists are just as guilty of proselytisation as any Christian or Buddhist I've ever met.

Live and let live.

Im okay with most of that.

to put it simply,

I cannot prove god doesnt exist, nor am I here to.
I believe that due to a lack of evidence, theres no reason to believe a god exists. I asked a question and wasnt provided with any evidence. Only with a 'just because' which I found to be a poor reason. It is a poor reason.

one thing ill never understand, is why you think everything is illogical. Philosophically, yeah I guess you can say that. But really, thats not practical at all and seems like a last resort at making an argument.

Its along the same lines as "well how do you know its REALLY air you're breathing?"

In which I would respond to "what we have classified as oxygen, allows us to sustain our brains and bodies and is recognized in mathematical terms and equations that are (i will reiterate once again) both practical and useful. Testability, repeatabiliy. Nothing else would allow us to live. We have proof of this.



Edit:

I think its worth mentioning that I dont deal in absoloute certaincies, I deal with proof and the LOGICAL option.

[Heartless Angel]

I cannot prove god doesnt exist, nor am I here to.
I believe that due to a lack of evidence, theres no reason to believe a god exists. I asked a question and wasnt provided with any evidence. Only with a 'just because' which I found to be a poor reason. It is a poor reason.

However, ultimately there is no real reason to believe anything at all. The only purpose it serves is give an individual a sense of understanding of the world and one's place in it. For some this is science, for others religion and spirituality. If you're into pragmatics, there's the ultimate reason for you. Without our beliefs, whatever they may be, none of us would be able to function.

one thing ill never understand, is why you think everything is illogical. Philosophically, yeah I guess you can say that. But really, thats not practical at all and seems like a last resort at making an argument.

Actually, it's among the most difficult of all arguments to make. You yourself take the first step into it, but you don't continue. Somebody poses an opinion to you you disagree with, your first question is, "why?". This is appropriate, and is the correct first step. However from there, you simply accept or reject the argument. To reach the conclusion that all is illogical, one must repeat the process and look at the premises for the argument given and ask, "Why?". Another argument will be presented for these premises, still can't pass judgement, we need to understand more about why we think what we think. You keep asking why long enough, and keep breaking down each and every belief, and figuring out what other beliefs they need to stand on, eventually you reach the fundamental levels of a person's beliefs. This is when we hit the particularly nasty questions such as, "Well then, what is existence?", "How did the universe begin?". No data from within the entity we know as the material universe can ever explain concepts that lie outside of it. We run out of empirical data to base these fundamental beliefs on, because all empirical data is contingent on their answers. Even if we found a logical conlusion for them, I can turn around and whip out the "Logically, what makes your understanding of logic correct?", which is literally logically unanswerable. There are things which we can't ever know, we can only believe, because without these beliefs al of our other beliefs and the things we accept as truth fall apart around us, and we become lost. To seek truth, and find that the only truth is, we can't grasp the truth, is among the most diffifult conclusions to accept as a critical thinker.

I think its worth mentioning that I dont deal in absoloute certaincies, I deal with proof and the LOGICAL option.

This is perfectly illogical. As the very definition of logical proof demands that premises make the conclusion nescessarily true. You only have proof if you can establish absolute certainty. If you can't establish proof through deduction, the other options is establishing evidence through induction. Induction can NOT prove a conclusion, it can suggest and support it, but never establish certainty. Without that certainty, to accept the conclusionas true (which is an absolute) anyways relies on faith. If you do not have absolute certainty, you must have faith, or you have nothing more than believing it because it suits you.

[Rowan]

However, ultimately there is no real reason to believe anything at all. The only purpose it serves is give an individual a sense of understanding of the world and one's place in it. For some this is science, for others religion and spirituality. If you're into pragmatics, there's the ultimate reason for you. Without our beliefs, whatever they may be, none of us would be able to function.



Actually, it's among the most difficult of all arguments to make. You yourself take the first step into it, but you don't continue. Somebody poses an opinion to you you disagree with, your first question is, "why?". This is appropriate, and is the correct first step. However from there, you simply accept or reject the argument. To reach the conclusion that all is illogical, one must repeat the process and look at the premises for the argument given and ask, "Why?". Another argument will be presented for these premises, still can't pass judgement, we need to understand more about why we think what we think. You keep asking why long enough, and keep breaking down each and every belief, and figuring out what other beliefs they need to stand on, eventually you reach the fundamental levels of a person's beliefs. This is when we hit the particularly nasty questions such as, "Well then, what is existence?", "How did the universe begin?". No data from within the entity we know as the material universe can ever explain concepts that lie outside of it. We run out of empirical data to base these fundamental beliefs on, because all empirical data is contingent on their answers. Even if we found a logical conlusion for them, I can turn around and whip out the "Logically, what makes your understanding of logic correct?", which is literally logically unanswerable. There are things which we can't ever know, we can only believe, because without these beliefs al of our other beliefs and the things we accept as truth fall apart around us, and we become lost. To seek truth, and find that the only truth is, we can't grasp the truth, is among the most diffifult conclusions to accept as a critical thinker.



This is perfectly illogical. As the very definition of logical proof demands that premises make the conclusion nescessarily true. You only have proof if you can establish absolute certainty. If you can't establish proof through deduction, the other options is establishing evidence through induction. Induction can NOT prove a conclusion, it can suggest and support it, but never establish certainty. Without that certainty, to accept the conclusionas true (which is an absolute) anyways relies on faith. If you do not have absolute certainty, you must have faith, or you have nothing more than believing it because it suits you.

You say theres no real reason to believe anything, thats asinine! why do you bother going to school? why do you bother learning at university? its all just lies and shit, quit now and devote your life to something that doesnt need proof!

since when did proof mean something was absolutly correct? if you insist, I shall add 'viable' to the word proof.

There is faith which is believing something without a good reason and VIABLE proof. an example would be the pluto statement. We have only known about it for 70 years but we know that it orbits the sun once every 200 years.

We dont have faith that it orbits every 200 years, what we have is scientific evidence. Just because its not 100 percent certain (although our equations tell us this, it could explode for some reason before then) we have evidence, the testability and repeatabality of our respective models.

that is not such a hard thing to understand

no reason=faith
testabality+repeatability=proof(viable)

i wont continue until this is acknowledged.

[Heartless Angel]

That's a simple question to answer. Because we choose to. We choose to look for a asense of order, and a place we belong in this world. It is that that gives us the illusion of purpose. In reality, we have none. We exist by mere coincidence, and the universe wouldn't care at all if we didn't. We have no purpose. There is no reason for anything we think or do. If everybody percieved everything in another way entirely, and everything we thought we knew was turned upside down, the truth would remain constant regardless, the universe doesn't care, we serve no purpose.

You seem to be misisng the point I attempted to make. You look only at the argument at hand. For your pluto example, you look nly at the numbers and data about pluto you have. Not even once do you question why you believe those calculations are correct, what time is, why math is correct, whether what you know about Pluto is actually true. Without those beliefs (which would generally be called facts), your calculations mean nothing. Those beliefs you don't question are also not independant, why do you beleive whatever you believe about them? Everything we believe stands on other beliefs. Without those beliefs, everything we know means nothing. If even one of those beliefs is wrong, every belief standing on top of it also falls apart. What I'm saying, is the very most fundamental belief, our very definition of reality is beyond proof. Nothing that stands on that assumption can be certain, because that assumption itself is uncertain. We can only "know" things in terms of other things we "know", but really we don't know them at all, we believe them. We trust our senses. We do this for no better reason than that it seems right to us.

Faith is simply bridging the gap between what you know, and what you accept. Proof is certainty. Evidence is support. That support can get you close to certainty, but between the limit of your evidence and the conclusion is a gap. Logically, you have no reason to cross that gap, because there is insuffiecient reason to jump to that conclusion. You bridge that gap and reach the conclusion with faith. Faith in your observations, your experiences, the sum of your knowledge. They have not been proven to be true, you only accept them as such based on correspondance of evidence, which requires faith to accept.

To accept with absolutely no reason at all is blind faith. Blind faith does us no good, but with no faith at all, we would know nothing.

It seems we will not be continuing this, as you demand that I accept a definiton of proof that is not correct before we do. The definition of proof is other truths that establish the certainty of a conclusion. That we see it the same way every time does not mean we see it correctly. It doesn't even suggest it. It means the experiment was consistent, but to accept the conclusons we can draw for it, we ultimately have to believe that our undamental perceptions of reality were correct. We have no reason to do this. You cannot test existence itself without relying on your own assumptions of it, by your own definition, your very most fundamental belief can not be proven, nor can any that rely on it.

You deal in the limits of human observation, I deal in truth. You can not observe God, so you do not believe God. I do not know the truth, I accept that I do not know the truth, and do not do something so arrogant as assuming I do. I believe nothing, the only conclusion a lack of evidence can ever support.

[Rowan]

You say that proof is absolute certainty, yet you say there is no absolute certainty therefor, you believe that there is no such thing as proof. You also say that everything is illogical and speak only in paradoxes.
Im done with this shit.

****, IM SAYING I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD BASED ON LACK OF ****ING EVIDENCE YOU ****!

edit:
im not really angry =D

[Heartless Angel]

MY GOD I THINK HE GETS IT! Yes, there is no absolute proof that can stand entirely on its own. The only 'proof' that exists, are 'proofs' based in assumptions that in themselves are not absolutes. We can only understand the universe in terms of our own subjective perceptions of it. 'Proof is entirely contingent upon the truth of the premises in an argument. These premises are also not absolutes, and are entirely contingent upon other premises. And those premises upon others. We do not have absolute certainty in our most fundamental beliefs, without with, we could not understand anything. The base of everything we know is NOT absolute, therefore we can NEVER prove anything absolutely. We can only 'prove' that things cohere to our other beliefs, all of which ultimately rely on something that can never be proven as an absolute, something that we could never accept if we were to function on logic alone, because there is no way to prove it. We all ultimately rely on a measure of faith in the most fundamental beliefs we have as human beings, without which we could not understand anything. Without faith, there is no knowledge. The paradox here IS logic. It is impossible to prove anything based on logic alone, because logical proof alone deals in absolutes, which can not be established logically. Logic itself cannot be established logically. We have no purely logical reason to even accept the concept of logic. Logic only functions in conjuncture with a degree of faith. Without either of these, we can not understand anything. We can not know anything. We can not function.

And I'm saying that everything you believe about anything is ultimately based in something that can never be proven. If you believe that accepting something without proof is illogical, everything IS illogical.

[Rowan]

I absolutly believe that... or do I?
o_O ParaDoX

[Judge Magistrate]

Rowan, I don't want you bothering Firefly about her beliefs anymore, PERIOD. She was absolutely right, this is what you do when people mock your religion, not the explain to Rowan why you believe thread.

As a Catholic I'll try to answer your stupid questions though.

Why Believe?- I believe becasue it is commanded by a higher power, God. You say that other religions have god, but that doesn't make them anymore real than The God. There is only one God, but I can't force you to believe that. I don't descriminate other religions or people because of their beliefs, but you attacking Firefly, I won't stand for it.

Let's have this thread return back to the original topic that it was meant to have.

[Judge Magistrate]

I don't want people to take my post in the wrong way. The posts by Rowan though seemed to me to be a form of persecution. I can't make Rowan believe what Catholics and Christians believe,and I don't think it's right of her to ask if she doesn't like the explanation.

[Sasquatch]

Let's see ... what do I do when people mock or criticize my religion?

Usually?

I laugh.

Because the vast majority of people criticizing my religion have absolutely no understanding of it. Of course, some do -- but those are the more civil, "this is why I disagree with you, and this is what I believe instead" ones. The "you're stupid and wrong and I'm right and you're stupid" ones are a special combination of ignorant and arrogant. Some may try quoting the religious texts of the religion they're attempting to argue against, but (much) more often than not, they either misquote, quote out of context, misinterpret, or completely manipulate the passage they attempt to present.

The last point, we have seen in this thread.

[smurphy]

I dont have a problem with people criticizing my religion, because I dont have one. What I do have is frustration with the way atheism is portrayed in certain media circles and the response from over zealous atheists who want to portray being an atheist as somehow superior. I would like people to respect the fact that I had choices, and that I decided I would take none of them.

I hate those pricks who decide that atheism is a lifestyle choice, to be flaunted at every damned oppurtunity. They are making the same mistake as the religious zealots, which is that they allowing themselves as humans to be defined by their faith, or lack thereof. I dont like the fact I get sneered at by some people for being atheist. I didnt decide to be atheist. It is that I decided that I would be nothing else.

But the only way I can react is with frustration. Theres no point being angry about my lack of faith being derided, as I decided I would not let that define me as a person. A person faiths is not a problem. It is only when that faith affects who you are and what you do that bad sh*t happens. Look at the muslim fundamentalists.

[Fluffles]

My religious beliefs aren't widely known, aren't very popular and are generally stigmatized by the media and popular culture in general. So, most people who would mock what I believe simply don't understand it in the first place and so what they say doesn't bug me any.

I'm also the type to keep it to myself, for plenty of reasons, and I tolerate other religions as long as they're not trying to butt into my life and as long as they stay out of politics (as what happens in the political area will, generally, affect my life if some idiotic law is created).

Even if someone were to openly mock my belief system, I wouldn't pay them much attention. Odds are, if they're rolling with mockery, they're just not intelligent enough to hold a civil discussion of the matter and, likely, haven't even looked up what it is.

[Judge Magistrate]

I dont have a problem with people criticizing my religion, because I dont have one. What I do have is frustration with the way atheism is portrayed in certain media circles and the response from over zealous atheists who want to portray being an atheist as somehow superior. I would like people to respect the fact that I had choices, and that I decided I would take none of them.

I hate those pricks who decide that atheism is a lifestyle choice, to be flaunted at every damned oppurtunity. They are making the same mistake as the religious zealots, which is that they allowing themselves as humans to be defined by their faith, or lack thereof. I dont like the fact I get sneered at by some people for being atheist. I didnt decide to be atheist. It is that I decided that I would be nothing else.

But the only way I can react is with frustration. Theres no point being angry about my lack of faith being derided, as I decided I would not let that define me as a person. A person faiths is not a problem. It is only when that faith affects who you are and what you do that bad sh*t happens. Look at the muslim fundamentalists.

You get it, it's not right to attack people for their beliefs. Everyone is given free will to decide everything themselves, if that's what you choose, let it go.

[Rowan]

Rowan, I don't want you bothering Firefly about her beliefs anymore, PERIOD. She was absolutely right, this is what you do when people mock your religion, not the explain to Rowan why you believe thread.

As a Catholic I'll try to answer your stupid questions though.

Why Believe?- I believe becasue it is commanded by a higher power, God. You say that other religions have god, but that doesn't make them anymore real than The God. There is only one God, but I can't force you to believe that. I don't descriminate other religions or people because of their beliefs, but you attacking Firefly, I won't stand for it.

Let's have this thread return back to the original topic that it was meant to have.

you think my questions are stupid? then F*** you , you're just the example of an ignorant christian then. If asking 'why' is 'uncivil' and 'offensive' then you're obviously living in a box.

I think you'll find my questions (why) to not only be civil, but my quotations of the bible to be incredibly accurate as i was viewing it asI quoted it. Just because this thread entitles 'what do you when people mock your religion' it doesnt mean that im mocking your religion. I'm asking a justified question at which according to the bible, you are responsible for answering to anyone who asks you.

Just for the record, my questions are neither stupid nor offensive and if you believe that, then you clearly dont have the justification for your beliefs and "just because" and "its a commandment from god' ARE poor reasons because in my eyes, thats not a good enough justification. But after all, thats only my opinion. And if you think im arrogant for thinking that, then obviously im arrogant for having an opinion different to yours. Good on you.

[Unknown Entity]

Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe. That doesn't make them stupid or arrogant for believing differently. What makes someone arrogant, and I've seen it multiple times in this thread in the last day or so, is the inability to grasp that by thrusting their beliefs on to someone and telling them why they're wrong.

No one is wrong in what they believe. I don't believe in God, but my friend could believe in Him. I'm not going to call them out on bullshit, because they're free to believe it and whatever the **** they want; if they believe in unicorns and fairies, then all the more for them. I can say that I don't agree and why that's the case, and that's all I can really say. Because I don't believe that they're wrong.

They'd only be wrong if they tried to push it on to me, and tell me why I'm wrong. I don't think God would be happy if people pushed their beliefs on to everyone, because you're supposed to come to him through faith - not by order.

Meier isn't here yet, so I'd also like this thread to go back to a sense of normality before he comes back and opens an epic can of whoop-ass. No more flaming. Dunno what that is? Go and read the rules again. Please?