GameOver22 said: Runa216 said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man How is the OP a straw man?  Sounds like a pretty accurate representation of religion to me.  perhaps not all religious people, but by the sounds of it, it seems like that the OP is only complaining about the types of religious people described in the OP.  The repeated insistences of "you can believe what you want" would indicate that, as long as you're responsible about your faith you should be allowed to practice it without fear of persecution.  Sounds to me like the complaint is specific to people who try to use God as an argument to hate, judge, or restrict something.  In which case, the argument is sound.  Generally, if you want to criticize someone's argument, you take the strongest form of their argument and criticize it.....if you don't, you committ a straw-man fallacy because you are criticizing a weaker form of the argument. As you said, not all religious people subscribe to the views expressed in the OP, and the gay rights argument that is presented is clearly a straw-man.....because some religious people accept gay marriage and others who don't support gay marriage just don't utilize that argument, which really limits the validity of this claim: "The issue is that religious arguments require so many leaps of faith and sometimes flat out faulty logic to get to the conclusion they do. Take the gay rights argument" As I said in a previous post, taking a non-literal translation of the Bible actually solves most of the OP's criticisms of the gay rights argument (except #4,#5, and #8)......and interestingly, the fundamentalist strains of Christianity are relatively new. People as far back as Thomas Aquinas advocated for non-literal translations of the Bible, and these interpretations tend to provide better representations of religion. The OP fails to take this into account. That's why its a straw-man argument.

I may be mistaken, but Im pretty sure the OP wasn't going for "you can't prove gay is bad through the bible", more like "You can't use the bible to prove anything, here's an example."  The argument wasn't against the gay debate, it was against the idea of using the bible as evidence, and simply using the gay debate as an example.  

In which case, it's not a strawman at all. 

Runa216 said: GameOver22 said: Runa216 said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man How is the OP a straw man?  Sounds like a pretty accurate representation of religion to me.  perhaps not all religious people, but by the sounds of it, it seems like that the OP is only complaining about the types of religious people described in the OP.  The repeated insistences of "you can believe what you want" would indicate that, as long as you're responsible about your faith you should be allowed to practice it without fear of persecution.  Sounds to me like the complaint is specific to people who try to use God as an argument to hate, judge, or restrict something.  In which case, the argument is sound.  Generally, if you want to criticize someone's argument, you take the strongest form of their argument and criticize it.....if you don't, you committ a straw-man fallacy because you are criticizing a weaker form of the argument. As you said, not all religious people subscribe to the views expressed in the OP, and the gay rights argument that is presented is clearly a straw-man.....because some religious people accept gay marriage and others who don't support gay marriage just don't utilize that argument, which really limits the validity of this claim: "The issue is that religious arguments require so many leaps of faith and sometimes flat out faulty logic to get to the conclusion they do. Take the gay rights argument" As I said in a previous post, taking a non-literal translation of the Bible actually solves most of the OP's criticisms of the gay rights argument (except #4,#5, and #8)......and interestingly, the fundamentalist strains of Christianity are relatively new. People as far back as Thomas Aquinas advocated for non-literal translations of the Bible, and these interpretations tend to provide better representations of religion. The OP fails to take this into account. That's why its a straw-man argument. I may be mistaken, but Im pretty sure the OP wasn't going for "you can't prove gay is bad through the bible", more like "You can't use the bible to prove anything, here's an example."  The argument wasn't against the gay debate, it was against the idea of using the bible as evidence, and simply using the gay debate as an example.   In which case, it's not a strawman at all.

Maybe....if it was, it was quite unclear because there are quite a few times where the OP is making a broad-brush strokes, such as in the title of the thread, where it says "this is why I don't like debating religion".....which applies to religion in general, not just a fundamentalist conception of it.

There is also at least one time in the thread where the OP just flat-out accused someone of being a Biblical literalist with no real justification.....where she was subsequently corrected. It kind of raises the question of whether she recognizies the difference between religious belief and fundamentalist religious belief.

Jay520 said: ManUtdFan said: Jay520 said: No. Atheism/theism is completely different from being agnostic/gnostic. Atheism and theism deals with what a person believes. Agnosticism deals with what a person knows (or at least what s/he think he knows).  If a person thinks he knows something, then he believes. Knowing something to be true doesn't necessitate it being fact - it depends on what a person's beliefs are. Facts have nothing to do with anything.

Beliefs and knowledge, at least in respect of religion, are essentially the same thing. Jews/christians for instance believe that knowledge of their god comes from reading the bible. But they can only know this to be true if they believe it - both to the same degree. One cannot know the essence of God without reading the bible and believing it to be true. So facts do play their part. e.g. They believe it is a fact that God/Moses parted the Red Sea. Therefore they know it to be true. Non-believers don't recognise this as fact so for them it isn't knowledge either. 

True theists aren't agnostic, because there can be no room for doubt. Similarly, true atheists aren't actually agnostic, why? because they too leave no room for doubt. They are certain of their belief that no god or gods exist. As I explained earlier, Richard Dawkins is 90% certain there is no God and 10% unsure. There is a distinction between agnosticism and atheism, and both can be on the same spectrum. The video wrongly illustrated this point. The extent to which someone lacks theism or atheism viewpoints is the extent to which they're agnostic. 

Rath said: ManUtdFan said: All three terms - atheistic, theistic, agnostic are mutually exclusive. If the video claims it's possible to be both agnostic/theistic, or agnostic/atheistic to the same degree, then it's fudging the issue of belief and non-belief with oxymoronic statements. To summarize the terms' real meanings... Atheistic - certain non-belief in a divine creator, supreme being(s), god or gods. Theistic - certain belief in any of the above (encompasses polytheistic as well as monotheistic faiths) Agnostic - belief related to anything divine/supernatural is unprovable and unfactual, and therefore limited to subjective experience. A good case in point. Richard Dawkins when asked in an interview how convinced he was that there isn't a god (any god for that matter), on a scale of 1 to 10, replied with '9'. Therefore it could be said he is 90% atheist, 10% agnostic. The three terms atheist, theist, agnostic can be considered on a sliding scale or pendulum, rather than an on-off switch. They are interchangeable, but not in the way the video described.     You simply lack knowledge of the meaning of the word. According to the Oxford dictionary online.   Definition of agnostic noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. adjective relating to agnostics or agnosticism. (in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:until now I’ve been fairly agnostic about electoral reform [usually in combination] Computing denoting or relating to hardware or software that is compatible with many types of platform or operating system: many common file formats (JPEG, MP3, etc.) are platform-agnostic     As you can see - in a religious context the video was entirely right and that while theism and atheism have to do with belief agnosticism has to do with knowledge.This isn't something we can really debate about, you simply have the definition of the word wrong.

 

Actually, my interpretation of the meaning of the word 'agnostic' was perfectly fine. According to dictionaryreference.com...

'agnostic' - noun

a person who believes that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

...which is no different than what I said by 'unfactual/unprovable' - because it is only related to a person's own experience and cannot be empirically, objectively tested by others. Again you jumped to the wrong conclusion.  

Further, explain to me how belief and knowledge are essentially different within a religious/philosophical context? 

As Rath said, this isn't debatable. Believe what you want.

ManUtdFan said: Jay520 said: ManUtdFan said: Jay520 said: No. Atheism/theism is completely different from being agnostic/gnostic. Atheism and theism deals with what a person believes. Agnosticism deals with what a person knows (or at least what s/he think he knows).  If a person thinks he knows something, then he believes. Knowing something to be true doesn't necessitate it being fact - it depends on what a person's beliefs are. Facts have nothing to do with anything. Beliefs and knowledge, at least in respect of religion, are essentially the same thing. Jews/christians for instance believe that knowledge of their god comes from reading the bible. But they can only know this to be true if they believe it - both to the same degree. One cannot know the essence of God without reading the bible and believing it to be true. So facts do play their part. e.g. They believe it is a fact that God/Moses parted the Red Sea. Therefore they know it to be true. Non-believers don't recognise this as fact so for them it isn't knowledge either.  True theists aren't agnostic, because there can be no room for doubt. Similarly, true atheists aren't actually agnostic, why? because they too leave no room for doubt. They are certain of their belief that no god or gods exist. As I explained earlier, Richard Dawkins is 90% certain there is no God and 10% unsure. There is a distinction between agnosticism and atheism, and both can be on the same spectrum. The video wrongly illustrated this point. The extent to which someone lacks theism or atheism viewpoints is the extent to which they're agnostic.

Oh and there is a clear distinction between belief and knowledge. Knowledge is like a further extreme of belief. You are right that knowing something requires you to believe something. But when someone believes something, that doesn't mean they know it, or think they know it. This is where agnostic atheists and agnostic Theists come in. They believe or don't believe in a deity, but they acknowledge that they don't know. I'm not sure where you're getting your definition of "true atheists" or "true atheists" because plenty of the ones I know acknowledge that they don't know for sure - they just have their beliefs, which they know could be false.

happydolphin said: Dodece said: Marucha said: Dodece said: Look there is nothing wrong with having faith in things. As long as you are honest with yourself. If you are making a choice to believe in something that isn't supported by fact or reason. There isn't something insidious about copping to what you are doing. If you have an emotional need for something, and embrace something to give your life some greater meaning. I don't think anyone is particularly troubled by that. The real problem is when people decide to be disingenuous about what they are doing.  I have been avoiding your remarks because I feel your comments come under the pressure of wanting to force an opinion, not to reason with... the only thing I have to say is you're making a mistake by assuming other people's reasoning and state of mind with your comments. You have asked for something that is very reasonable and respectable (the underlined), but then suddenly you are telling people that when they do, they are doing it out of emotional need. You have determined their purpose for them. This is your assumption based off of an observation... it's not proven fact, but you've disguised an opinion as fact. I do believe there is greater purpose in life than just doing things out of simple emotional need. These are my values. It's not as cut and dry for me as I do it out of emotional need. Many things have happened in my life that have altered the way I perceive things and how I view the spiritual. Your opinion may completely differ and that's fine, I totally respect that and hats off if your life has taken you somewhere else... but your request is a trap to get people to conform to your point of view of religion/spirituality. It's not reasonable. It comes with strings attached that are borderline demeaning to someone who truly has a different take on life than you. Edit: I edited some. All choices are fundamentally emotional in nature. If not in the immediate act. Most assuredly in the root cause. To deny this is to deny your very nature. This is the reality of our lives. We do things to make ourselves feel good, and avoid things that make us feel bad. The only reason we make choices or take actions is to further this goal. This is our primary motivator imparted on us by nature to perpetuate our existence, and the existence of our species. Without emotional need we wouldn't do anything at all. We would just lay down on the ground and die. Unless you can provide some evidence that your choice of faith isn't imbued with a emotional context. Then your argument doesn't have any merit. You believe in a god, because it fosters good feelings in you, and it is most likely that you don't acknowledge the opposite as being very possible, because that idea would cause you dread, dispair, sadness, and depression. I don't know why it is such a hard concept to grasp. That people of faith draw solace from having a faith. Faith isn't some force that compells you to suspend your free will. It is a choice you make for yourself. You are right in that what I said is a trap, but the fact that you sidestepped it entirely. Only proves you were scared to confront said trap, and in doing so you only prove my point. Even if you are too scared to face up to the truth that your feelings blind you to reality, because you don't want to get hurt. You know there is nothing wrong with admitting that you are scared. That is all I am fundamentally asking you to do. Admit that you are too scared to leave that feeling of security. Copping to what you are doing is the only way you can rationally move forward, because unless you are willing to evaluate your emotional motivations. You will never discover any other outlooks on life. By the way life doesn't need a meaning. I think it is pretty apparent that the meanings we decide to attach to our lives. Are entirely of our own devising. Would you care to continue on without sidestepping this issue. This is the place where innocense goes to die. So I will understand if you bow out. I am ready to face your questions. What should he be scared of, and what if his emotional attachment is to truth. What then, when truth and emotion meet, and his one and only desire is to seek what truly lies behind the fog?

What he is probably afraid of is literal death, or a form of Thanatophobia. Religious thinking is equal parts placebo and opiate. It dulls the rational mind, offers up a type of euphoria, and convinces the user that use will cure them of their ailment. Basically it is like getting stoned, and thinking you are better off for doing it in the first place. If he admits that he is taking a drug to deal with a problem. Then not only will the drug stop working, but the problem he was self medicating away will resurface with a vengeance.

If he admits that his faith is brought about by a emotional need, and has no basis in reality. He must also admit that the choice he made had a ridiculously low chance of success. Given that humanity has generated tens of thousands of religions, and it isn't guaranteed that even one of them is right. Well let us just say it would be the height of hubris, and a megalomaniacal vanity. For him to assume he through sheer dumb luck found the right answer. He would probably reach the most rational conclusion, and that is he is fallible, and because something feels right. It doesn't equate out to it being right.

There is a difference between searching for what you want, and searching for genuine understanding. If you have already redefined a fact to serve your own purposes then you are just being disengenuous, and you are actively engaged in self deception. Death is death. It takes a leap of genuine desire to redefine it as a fog of ignorance. When the apparent nature of what happened is painfully simple. Namely a living person is no long alive. You can argue for a fog of ignorance if something happens for a unknown cause, or if something counter intuitive takes place, but people dying is a mundane fact of life. The only reason someone would label death as a fog is, because they desperately want there to be more.

So seeing as you took me up on my offer. Let me ask you was your choice based upon a emotion, and are your emotions fallible, and if you agree to those two. Isn't it reasonable that you say you could be wrong, and are probably wrong. In other words can you say that your god is probably a lie.

I believe in God, I believe next Zelda games will be great, and I believe someday I will die. Life is too short for debating religion, which is already take centuries, blood, and grudge to prove which religion is the "right one".
That's why I don't debate religion "anymore".

sepoer said: I believe in God, I believe next Zelda games will be great, and I believe someday I will die. Life is too short for debating religion, which is already take centuries, blood, and grudge to prove which religion is the "right one". That's why I don't debate religion "anymore".

I actually think this is a pretty common sentiment. Truth is, people just have more important things to do.

Dodece said: What he is probably afraid of is literal death, or a form of Thanatophobia. Religious thinking is equal parts placebo and opiate. It dulls the rational mind, offers up a type of euphoria, and convinces the user that use will cure them of their ailment. Basically it is like getting stoned, and thinking you are better off for doing it in the first place. If he admits that he is taking a drug to deal with a problem. Then not only will the drug stop working, but the problem he was self medicating away will resurface with a vengeance. If he admits that his faith is brought about by a emotional need, and has no basis in reality. He must also admit that the choice he made had a ridiculously low chance of success. Given that humanity has generated tens of thousands of religions, and it isn't guaranteed that even one of them is right. Well let us just say it would be the height of hubris, and a megalomaniacal vanity. For him to assume he through sheer dumb luck found the right answer. He would probably reach the most rational conclusion, and that is he is fallible, and because something feels right. It doesn't equate out to it being right. There is a difference between searching for what you want, and searching for genuine understanding. If you have already redefined a fact to serve your own purposes then you are just being disengenuous, and you are actively engaged in self deception. Death is death. It takes a leap of genuine desire to redefine it as a fog of ignorance. When the apparent nature of what happened is painfully simple. Namely a living person is no long alive. You can argue for a fog of ignorance if something happens for a unknown cause, or if something counter intuitive takes place, but people dying is a mundane fact of life. The only reason someone would label death as a fog is, because they desperately want there to be more. So seeing as you took me up on my offer. Let me ask you was your choice based upon a emotion, and are your emotions fallible, and if you agree to those two. Isn't it reasonable that you say you could be wrong, and are probably wrong. In other words can you say that your god is probably a lie.

Yeah, my emotions led me to reply to you, under the reigns of reason, since I don't like being wrong. So my emotions, though fallible, are often under the robust supervision of my reason. As such, my emotions are fallible but not incapable of benefit. They drive me, since I am a passionate person, but my reason keeps them in the realm of truth as I'm also very adamant about being right and logical.

I could be wrong, of course, and yes that is a reasonable saying. I will agree with you that God is, if you included a 1 chance in infinity, could be false, but as for me I don't believe God is probably a lie. He is possibly a lie, in a very, very, very minute possibility, which amounts to zero chance in the real world, but I can't say he is certifiable by any means. I just personally believe the odds of us coming to being from nothing (abiogenesis) is virtually impossible. The only other option I see is special creation. As of that point, truly the only option that makes sense to me is the God of the bible, given his awesomeness, but I agree that some portions of the bible make me doubt the integrity of his description throughout the book, and as such he, as a specific God, may be a lie. But I would tend to think that I'm misunderstanding him more than anything.