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

[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.