NationStates Jolt Archive

Humanity needs consistency in order to operate. We can't have judges sentencing one man to death and letting a different man go for exactly the same type of crime. Our entire society would fall to pieces. Yet we see people worshiping a God who's existence is in question, we see many unlucky people with terrible lives saying "It's ok. God has a plan." This is faith. It's accepting something as fact even though there isn't enough evidence to support it. What type of precedent is this setting? To be consistent, if we were to have faith in God it would mean that we would also have to say "Let's just skip the trial, you say you're innocent, so we'll believe you."

Why do people have faith in God, but not in every other person as well? Is humanity a bunch of hypocrites?

Humanity needs consistency in order to operate. We can't have judges sentencing one man to death and letting a different man go for exactly the same type of crime. Our entire society would fall to pieces. Yet we see people worshiping a God who's existence is in question, we see many unlucky people with terrible lives saying "It's ok. God has a plan." This is faith. It's accepting something as fact even though there isn't enough evidence to support it. What type of precedent is this setting? To be consistent, if we were to have faith in God it would mean that we would also have to say "Let's just skip the trial, you say you're innocent, so we'll believe you."

Why do people have faith in God, but not in every other person as well? Is humanity a bunch of hypocrites?

Not necessarily hypocrites, but often irrational and inconsistent. People would go for anything if the perceived payoff is large enough. More people would spend $1 for a one in a billion chance to win a million bucks, than spend $1 for a one in ten chance to win $5.

Having Faith is a greeting-card way of saying you can't be bothered.

*Edit: in a total-abdication-of-personal-responsibility kinda way.

Why do people have faith in God, but not in every other person as well? Is humanity a bunch of hypocrites?


Religion is not inherently evil. It is those who interpret religion to suit their own agendas that are evil and hypocritical. This is not a new issue, this debate has been going on as long as religion has existed.

Blind faith in a god or religion is wrong and idiotic. You must learn to question everything and make up your own mind, formulate your own ideas and opinions and not allow others to do so for you. No matter what faith you are, the weakest members are the most easily influenced. :cool:

Do you really think it's that inconsistent to have faith in some things and not in everything else?

Consistency is the last resort of the incompetent.

Consistency is the last resort of the incompetent.
Actually, the quote goes (properly), "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

Do you really think it's that inconsistent to have faith in some things and not in everything else?
It is inconsistent to have faith in "everything" and not in some things. That is in essence what faith in God is, after all.

Humanity needs consistency in order to operate. We can't have judges sentencing one man to death and letting a different man go for exactly the same type of crime. Our entire society would fall to pieces. Yet we see people worshiping a God who's existence is in question, we see many unlucky people with terrible lives saying "It's ok. God has a plan." This is faith. It's accepting something as fact even though there isn't enough evidence to support it. What type of precedent is this setting? To be consistent, if we were to have faith in God it would mean that we would also have to say "Let's just skip the trial, you say you're innocent, so we'll believe you."

Why do people have faith in God, but not in every other person as well? Is humanity a bunch of hypocrites?


Why does humanity need consistency?
After all, we're a wonderful bunch of irrationals.

Sidenote: what is fact and what we believe is settled by jury, by majority decision.
Ditto with politics: in civilised countries we decide things by majority.
Fact don't matter all that much.

Second sidenote: Consistency: I can't wear a raincoat today ( it is raining ) because I did not wear one yesterday.

It is inconsistent to have faith in "everything" and not in some things

Ahh....What?

Why does humanity need consistency?
After all, we're a wonderful bunch of irrationals.

So you're saying hypocrisy is a good thing?

So you're saying hypocrisy is a good thing?


What hipocrisy?

Ahh....What?
God. Omnipotent omnipresence (or so is the common interpretation) personified. Faith in that without faith in everything else is inconsistent.

What hipocrisy?

Well they expect consistency in our legal system, in the amount of money they get paid. Yet don't have blind faith in humanity. That's hypocrisy from my point of view.

God. Omnipotent omnipresence (or so is the common interpretation) personified. Faith in that without faith in everything else is inconsistent.

Oh, yes. Yes it is.

Well they expect consistency in our legal system, in the amount of money they get paid. Yet don't have blind faith in humanity. That's hypocrisy from my point of view.

Your point of view.
Not mine.
I don't even expect consistency - I just expect things to turn out as we voted for.

I dont know that this is all that hipocritical. Having faith in a supreme being that may or may not have created the universe (i dont want to turn this into a debate about the existance, or non existance, of god) is a lot different to having faith in a murderer or theif or whatever.
Andd i dont often go to church, but i have a friend who is fairly devout. And i dont think it is about the existance, as much as it is about the help and social side of things. For example, there was just a mission to the Phillipines, and now all this money is weekly donated to a bunch of orphaned kids who live on a dump (trash pile.. not.. excrement)
BUt back to the topic at hand, people lie. Whether religion is built on it or not is irrevelant, but people know that if we went around freeing every criminal who said they were innocent, things would get very chaotic. At the same time, if religion was abolished, things may get worse (dont laugh this off, think about it)

Sorry about the dodgy grammer, id like to say I dont speak english well.. but thatd be a lie, i just cant be arsed

Reading back over this, i might have missed the point of the article..

Reading back over this, i might have missed the point of the article..

What did you think the point was?

Comparing peoples blind faith in god to their lack of faith in people

Comparing peoples blind faith in god to their lack of faith in people

Yeah, that was the point.

Cool
*goes back to Cheech and Chong*

How often has God done you a bad turn?
*shrug* innocent till proven guilty and all that.

How often have human beings done you a bad turn?
*shrug* guilty as charged...


Humans are evil. To believe in their innocence is kinda silly.

How often has God done you a bad turn?
*shrug* innocent till proven guilty and all that.

How often have human beings done you a bad turn?
*shrug* guilty as charged...


Humans are evil. To believe in their innocence is kinda silly.
Humans are an innate reflection of God's will; God's interaction with the world is the beings within it. To dub them evil is to do likewise for him.

Humans are an innate reflection of God's will; God's interaction with the world is the beings within it. To dub them evil is to do likewise for him.

Try proving that, dude.

I mean, I believe in God, yet I can't even prove He exists.

Nah man, we are born evil.. it isnt nice to say, but the bible talks about having to overcome urges if we want to live as good people
its in that section about anger.. near the back..

How often has God done you a bad turn?
*shrug* innocent till proven guilty and all that.

How often have human beings done you a bad turn?
*shrug* guilty as charged...


Humans are evil. To believe in their innocence is kinda silly.

How on earth would you know if God has done something bad to you? He very well could be an evil bastard.

Try proving that, dude.

I mean, I believe in God, yet I can't even prove He exists.

Do you believe ghosts?

How on earth would you know if God has done something bad to you? He very well could be an evil bastard.

Possibly( for the sake of this argument ), yet isn't He innocent till He's been proven guilty?

Councillor, that is your POV, not mine.

Sorry, I just realised that my post made little to no sense.

Sorry, I just realised that my post made little to no sense.

*nods*

What I meant to say, Bogmarsh, is that people still have faith in him despite overwhelming evidence against him. We have death, pain, suffering, natural disasters, mass murder, etc, yet the christians still have faith in god. They come up with this 'free will' which is a load of nonsense to try to defend him. He's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Yet people still trust him. Why not do the same for people.

Try proving that, dude.

I mean, I believe in God, yet I can't even prove He exists.
In as much as the definition for a single God is laid down, the dependency on reality being a manifestation of His will is an immediate deduction. Omnipotency, Omnipresence, Creator, Transcendent, both Within and Without... All of these can only be fulfilled if existence and God's will are directly equivilent.

What we have here is the endemic problem of theology of all kinds in general.
There are stark limits as to what you can fruitfully say about a theo-retical phenomenon that can neither be intersubjectively proven nor disproven.

A fully rational man ( not me! ) would be agnostic.

It always arouses my myrth when pronounced atheists ( no, it did not happen in this thread! ) think they are indeed rational.
Ditto for theists like me, I suppose.

What I meant to say, Bogmarsh, is that people still have faith in him despite overwhelming evidence against him. We have death, pain, suffering, natural disasters, mass murder, etc, yet the christians still have faith in god. They come up with this 'free will' which is a load of nonsense to try to defend him. He's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Yet people still trust him. Why not do the same for people.

You can't even prove He exists!
So how can He be found guilty?

You can't even try Him without the presupposition of His existence!

In as much as the definition for a single God is laid down, the dependency on reality being a manifestation of His will is an immediate deduction. Omnipotency, Omnipresence, Creator, Transcendent, both Within and Without... All of these can only be fulfilled if existence and God's will are directly equivilent.

How is that?

You've just given me a dictionary definition of say, a snark.
required: evidence that the snark you claim to be holding in your hands, matches the definition of the snark from the dictionary.

You can't even prove He exists!
So how can He be found guilty?

You can't even try Him without the presupposition of His existence!

Yeah. I know. This has nothing to do with me though. This is about christians, who apparently 'know' that God exists.

How is that?

You've just given me a dictionary definition of say, a snark.
required: evidence that the snark you claim to be holding in your hands, matches the definition of the snark from the dictionary.
Provided: Snark. Dictionary with blank entry under "snark". Pen.

The name "God" represents the concept we assign it to; nothing more or less.

Consistency is the last resort of the incompetent.Actually, the quote goes (properly), "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

Seems to me like a miscegenation of that one and consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Yeah. I know. This has nothing to do with me though. This is about christians, who apparently 'know' that God exists.


In that case, you are trying to manipulate someone else's POV.
Which is a mug's game, cobber.

Do I start threads trying to debunk or show as inconsistent or hypocritical atheists?

What I don't get - for the love of God - is why anyone would even try to.
Any such attempt can, after all, be turned upon itself.
And that goes for all POV's.

Provided: Snark. Dictionary with blank entry under "snark". Pen.

The name "God" represents the concept we assign it to; nothing more or less.

The concept we assign to it.
It don't have to match reality.
*shrugs*

In that case, you are trying to manipulate someone else's POV.
Which is a mug's game, cobber.

Do I start threads trying to debunk or show as inconsistent or hypocritical atheists?

What I don't get - for the love of God - is why anyone would even try to.
Any such attempt can, after all, be turned upon itself.

Ahh that's how it's done. You take somebody elses point of view and find a contradiction or inconsistency in it. That's how you show someone that they're wrong.

And whether you do it or not is irrelevant, because other people certainly do.

That's how you show someone that they're wrong.
Oh god, if only it was that easy.
Some people dont know when theyre beaten.

Ahh that's how it's done. You take somebody elses point of view and find a contradiction or inconsistency in it. That's how you show someone that they're wrong.

And whether you do it or not is irrelevant, because other people certainly do.

Bulcrap!
You presuppose consistency and rationality.

Not only is it stupid, but it is bad manners. If you try to debunk people and get on 'em, you can't blame if they start taking potshots ( of the .303 variety ) at you.

A rational man would be agnostic.

Bulcrap!
You presuppose consistency and rationality.

Not only is it stupid, but it is bad manners. If you try to debunk people and get on 'em, you can't blame if they start taking potshots ( of the .303 variety ) at you.

A rational man would be agnostic.

I am agnostic. It's not bullcrap. I make the assumption that God exists and attempt to find a proof by contradiction in a persons argument. A person is wrong if there is a contradiction in their argument, and I go on NS General because I like to do find these contradictions. If you don't like it then bugger off.

I am agnostic. It's not bullcrap. I make the assumption that God exists and attempt to find a proof by contradiction in a persons argument. A person is wrong if there is a contradiction in their argument, and I go on NS General because I like to do find these contradictions. If you don't like it then bugger off.

*shrug*
Are you agnostic, or atheist?

If you are agnostic, you must assume that evidence for or against any religion can't ever be conclusive, and that therefore, the attempt is stupid.

The concept we assign to it.
It don't have to match reality.
*shrugs*
But the concept is the reality - that's why we give it a name at all. God is whatever we assign to the name, and in doing so we assure its reality. Whether or not God itself has a physical existence is another question, but God is conceptually real as the definition we assign to it, and ultimately this is all that matters in discussions of theoretical concepts such as this one on Faith.

When we wish to argue on matters of God, we must argue on the defined conceptual conventions that the name God includes. If there are no such conventions that must be held within the frame of what God is then God is nonexistent as a concept (save as a concept of a concept that is not a concept, of course).

But the concept is the reality - that's why we give it a name at all. God is whatever we assign to the name, and in doing so we assure its reality. Whether or not God itself has a physical existence is another question, but God is conceptually real as the definition we assign to it, and ultimately this is all that matters in discussions of theoretical concepts such as this one on Faith.

When we wish to argue on matters of God, we must argue on the defined conceptual conventions that the name God includes. If there are no such conventions that must be held within the frame of what God is then God is nonexistent as a concept.


Too much Marshall McLuhan, and too much Presupposition.
The whole thing smells of the lamp, and of sophistry...
*turns the page*
What makes you assume that arguing about God has meaning or purpose?
If I were to go to 10 different people around here ( who believe ) I frankly doubt I would agree with more than 3 of 'em as to what this God-concept actually is.

Alright, closing down for today.

The short of it is, DC, that when I apply the same test on your own views, yours don't come out too well either. *grin* the part where you said that your post didn't make much sense...

ANYONE's views can be debunked. For humanity ISN'T consistent or rational.

Therefore, tests of consistency and rationality are practically meaningless.

Too much Marshall McLuhan, and too much Presupposition.
The whole thing smells of the lamp, and of sophistry...
*turns the page*
What makes you assume that arguing about God has meaning or purpose?
If I were to go to 10 different people around here ( who believe ) I frankly doubt I would agree with more than 3 of 'em as to what this God-concept actually is.
Sounds like scope for a new thread there. I reckon that there is at least some degree of basic conventional agreement as to what God is conceptually, regardless of whether or not people agree with the concept.

And don't diss the sophists. They rock, in spite of the bad press they get.

Provided: Snark. Dictionary with blank entry under "snark". Pen.

The name "God" represents the concept we assign it to; nothing more or less.

Ah, but with snarks there is always a danger that they could turn out to actually be boojums.

Ah, but with snarks there is always a danger that they could turn out to actually be boojums.
However, before boojums and snarks are established as separate, it is entirely possible that you could, on first naming, call a boojum a snark and a snark a boojum. There isn't anything wrong with that; it's just calling a boojum a boojum for a given definition of boojum.

<_<

However, before boojums and snarks are established as separate, it is entirely possible that you could, on first naming, call a boojum a snark and a snark a boojum. There isn't anything wrong with that; it's just calling a boojum a boojum for a given definition of boojum.

<_<

Indeed, but the fact remains that one is believed to be more dangerous than the other. Even if we do not actually directly encounter the snark or the boojum, the very fact that some of us believe in its existence means that their actions are affected.

It seems to me that people assign too much importance to the omnipotence of God. What it comes down to is God's influence in one's life is limited by one's capacity for faith. Compared to a 9 volt battery, a nuclear bomb would seem infinitely powerful, but without the proper conditions, one can't use the power of a nuclear bomb to power even a flashlight.

I suppose when you get down to it, faith in the power of God is pretty useless. If there's any faith that is worth developing, it would be one's own faith in being able to make a difference in the world.

Yeah. I know. This has nothing to do with me though. This is about christians, who apparently 'know' that God exists.

Not all Christians claim to know that God exists. I'm not even sure that most do.

Humanity needs consistency in order to operate. We can't have judges sentencing one man to death and letting a different man go for exactly the same type of crime. Our entire society would fall to pieces. Yet we see people worshiping a God who's existence is in question, we see many unlucky people with terrible lives saying "It's ok. God has a plan." This is faith. It's accepting something as fact even though there isn't enough evidence to support it. What type of precedent is this setting? To be consistent, if we were to have faith in God it would mean that we would also have to say "Let's just skip the trial, you say you're innocent, so we'll believe you."

Why do people have faith in God, but not in every other person as well? Is humanity a bunch of hypocrites?
*Shudders*

People have a tendancy to lie and it has been proven that they do.
If 'God' choses to do something questionable or supposedly doing nothing at all then TS.
It is why there is a Heaven otherwise earth would be Paradise.
A Paradise lost.