NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd say it's just a matter of how much blindness one is willing to accept rather than whether or not there is "blind faith". I don't believe my faith is blind, but my personal experiences and God given vision, won't convince you, most likely. You will probably have to find some portion of it on your own at the very least.

Of course, on the flip side, consider the things you actually believe, is there an element of blindness in any of that faith?
I find it interesting that people become theists for irrational reasons, like feelings and such. Yet, people become atheists for strictly rational reasons. Those who claim to be "atheists" due to an emotional event almost always revert back to religion, which means they were never atheists to begin with, but simply angry theists.

What do I 'believe'?

You are probably right, though... what convinced you isn't convincing to me...

To be honest, I often wonder, but at the very least, I'd say you believe that the typical and even non-typical Christian interpretation of the "Bible" is incorrect. I'm sure you believe a few more things, but I'll stop there.

I find it interesting that people become theists for irrational reasons, like feelings and such. Yet, people become atheists for strictly rational reasons. Those who claim to be "atheists" due to an emotional event almost always revert back to religion, which means they were never atheists to begin with, but simply angry theists.

While this is often true, it isn't always true. The reasons people become religous/theist and a-religous/atheist are many and varied. I'd hate to box anyone into a set of causal rules. Actually, it looks like many of the folks here that state that they are atheist or ignostic have gone down that road for primarly emotional reasons, the abuses suffered at the hands of professed Christians who were not living up to the title.

If you try hard enough, you can come up with a logical agrument in favor of just about anything and will I believe it is important to have a rationale for what one believes that has at least some tie to logic, logic does not compose every manner in which knowledge or truth can be discovered. It just happens to be the one that dominates Western society at the present time. (those darn Greeks :rolleyes: :p ;) )

While this is often true, it isn't always true. The reasons people become religous/theist and a-religous/atheist are many and varied. I'd hate to box anyone into a set of causal rules. Actually, it looks like many of the folks here that state that they are atheist or ignostic have gone down that road for primarly emotional reasons, the abuses suffered at the hands of professed Christians who were not living up to the title.

No, that stuff happened AFTER we became atheists. The atheism came by strictly for strictly rational reasons. Losing my theism was very difficult and painful. I didn't want to become an atheist, but I wasn't going to continue lying to myself either. I want to know the world as it is, not as I pretend it to be.

"If you try hard enough, you can come up with a logical agrument in favor of just about anything and will I believe it is important to have a rationale for what one believes that has at least some tie to logic, logic does not compose every manner in which knowledge or truth can be discovered. It just happens to be the one that dominates Western society at the present time. (those darn Greeks :rolleyes: :p ;) ) "

You cannot make the illogical logical. Do you understand what logic is? It is a mathematical construct composed of axioms. A few of the laws of logic are the law of identity (A=A), the law of non-contradiction (a thing may not simultaneously posess contradicting attributes). You cannot take an illogical thing, apply logic and end up with something logical. All you can do is describe that illogical thing and explain why it is not logical. The only "proof" you can come up with is a clever sounding (and flawed) argument that sounds convincing to the feable minded. In which case, you would be manipulating people for your own ends.

Every truth we (the human race) currently have is because of logic. Why do you think naturalistic explainations ALWAYS replace supernatural explainations, while a supernatural explaination has NEVER replaced a naturalistic one?

No, that stuff happened AFTER we became atheists. The atheism came by strictly for strictly rational reasons. Losing my theism was very difficult and painful. I didn't want to become an atheist, but I wasn't going to continue lying to myself either. I want to know the world as it is, not as I pretend it to be.

"If you try hard enough, you can come up with a logical agrument in favor of just about anything and will I believe it is important to have a rationale for what one believes that has at least some tie to logic, logic does not compose every manner in which knowledge or truth can be discovered. It just happens to be the one that dominates Western society at the present time. (those darn Greeks :rolleyes: :p ;) ) "

You cannot make the illogical logical. Do you understand what logic is? It is a mathematical construct composed of axioms. A few of the laws of logic are the law of identity (A=A), the law of non-contradiction (a thing may not simultaneously posess contradicting attributes). You cannot take an illogical thing, apply logic and end up with something logical. All you can do is describe that illogical thing and explain why it is not logical. The only "proof" you can come up with is a clever sounding (and flawed) argument that sounds convincing to the feable minded. In which case, you would be manipulating people for your own ends.

Every truth we (the human race) currently have is because of logic. Why do you think naturalistic explainations ALWAYS replace supernatural explainations, while a supernatural explaination has NEVER replaced a naturalistic one?

The issue of logic is one we can debate for hours. In every logical argument, there is an "If". Also we know that there are things in existance that hold contratictory properties, but that doesn't negate their existance.

You may not have had a traumatic experience with religion. That is fine. That is why I said boxing people with a set of attributes is dangerous. You may believe your beliefs to be entirely logical, still you will run into the problem that all belief is based on assumptions. Assumptions can always be flawed. Only if you believe in nothing can you avoid this problem, but to believe in nothing makes everything pointless, to the point of questioning ones own existance in reality and essentially leads to insanity as well.

The reality is, most of us chose to believe what we do for what appears to us to be logical, evidentially based reasons from our personal experience. I can't invalidate your experience logically, but neither can you invalidate mine.

The issue of logic is one we can debate for hours. In every logical argument, there is an "If". Also we know that there are things in existance that hold contratictory properties, but that doesn't negate their existance.

A thing cannot hold contradictory properties at the same time, that does directly against the logical low of non-contradiction. If you say they can, then give me an example.

You may not have had a traumatic experience with religion. That is fine. That is why I said boxing people with a set of attributes is dangerous. You may believe your beliefs to be entirely logical, still you will run into the problem that all belief is based on assumptions. Assumptions can always be flawed. Only if you believe in nothing can you avoid this problem, but to believe in nothing makes everything pointless, to the point of questioning ones own existance in reality and essentially leads to insanity as well.

Who said I believe in nothing? That's a belief, and I don't have beliefs. Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.

The reality is, most of us chose to believe what we do for what appears to us to be logical, evidentially based reasons from our personal experience. I can't invalidate your experience logically, but neither can you invalidate mine.

Most of us aquire our beliefs one of two ways.

1. Environmental. Those born and raised in Iran tend to be muslims. Those born and raised in America tend to be christian. This is also why you don't find people following religions they've never heard of. If it is true, why wouldn't they? Why won't Jesus reveal himself to someone who has never heard of christianity?

2. Emotion. Most people who gain a belief later in their life do so for emotional reasons. Something happens and they look for meaning. They end up taking up religion for emotional reasons rather then rational reasons. I have yet to meet a christian who went through the rational process of deciding on what to believe the way an atheist goes through the rational process of deciding not to believe.

To be honest, I often wonder, but at the very least, I'd say you believe that the typical and even non-typical Christian interpretation of the "Bible" is incorrect. I'm sure you believe a few more things, but I'll stop there.

I don't believe that the bible is (as one entity), literally TRUE...

I don't go so far as to say that I actively BELIEVE that the bible (as an entity), is FALSE.

At the moment, I am in a middle ground - the translations into English are clearly 'weakened' at least, and maybe even 'flawed'.

And, I don't necessarily believe that the message people draw from the scripture is ACTUALLY what was written IN to scripture.

I don't have many 'beliefs'... not really any, that I can shape into solid, definable form... what I tend to have is 'ideas'. I think the point at which an idea becomes a belief, is the same point at which it becomes impossible to change.