Well said G. bodhi (did not mean to insinuate that all religious people are Schizoid - just the ones who claim to converse with the unseen....meaning pray all you want, but when you claim the unseen is talking to you - then it could be a mental condition)
Galactic_bodhi: I do not require divine interpretations in order to give my life meaning. I could argue for eternity as adam says regarding my own views on this. However to insinuate people of faith are insane is stretching the boundaries of good taste. Irrational, maybe, but as much as I take offense at people saying liberalism is a mental disorder, I likewise take offense at people suggesting religious belief is insane. People believe all kinds of things that can't be proven right or wrong one way or the other. But we must all accord each other a modicum of respect and civility that comes with common courtesy or be proven hypocrites. My belief in an atheist viewpoint is my own, and I will defend my right to believe that. As long as it doesn't enter the public or political arena, I will likewise defend my opponents right to his personal view, and suggest a level of discourse that lends itself to mutual respect accorded speech or communication with another living being.
That is all I have to say on the matter. End of Rant.
GoodHeartforYou: Well said G. bodhi (did not mean to insinuate that all religious people are Schizoid - just the ones who claim to converse with the unseen....meaning pray all you want, but when you claim the unseen is talking to you - then it could be a mental condition)
Thats called the argument from personal experience.
"Argument from Personal Experience a.k.a. I feel the presence of God - I know he's real, Naked assertion
Premise:
I know god exists because I can feel him. I know it in my heart; he talks to me; I feel his strength and existence flow through every fiber of my being. Critique:
The problem with the Argument from Personal Experience is that it's personal. Whatever you feel is not something that anyone else can feel. Therefore it is meaningless and inconclusive. I can find somebody who thinks he saw Elvis in Starbucks last week. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. It means he was deluded. Any claim that cannot be tested or subjected to some sort of independent verification is not a meaningful, legitimate claim. I have no doubt you feel the presence of god, but this can also be explained rationally from a psychological perspective via various concepts such as the power of suggestion, lucid dreaming, hallucinations, mental disorders, etc. Personal "feelings" are not evidential."
This does not however, give anyone the right to feel superior to another because they don't share that personal experience. To do so is also a mental disorder called "delusions of grandeur".
trish123: Thats called the argument from personal experience."Argument from Personal Experience a.k.a. I feel the presence of God - I know he's real, Naked assertion
Premise:
I know god exists because I can feel him. I know it in my heart; he talks to me; I feel his strength and existence flow through every fiber of my being. Critique:
The problem with the Argument from Personal Experience is that it's personal. Whatever you feel is not something that anyone else can feel. Therefore it is meaningless and inconclusive. I can find somebody who thinks he saw Elvis in Starbucks last week. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. It means he was deluded. Any claim that cannot be tested or subjected to some sort of independent verification is not a meaningful, legitimate claim. I have no doubt you feel the presence of god, but this can also be explained rationally from a psychological perspective via various concepts such as the power of suggestion, lucid dreaming, hallucinations, mental disorders, etc. Personal "feelings" are not evidential."http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Galactic_bodhi: This does not however, give anyone the right to feel superior to another because they don't share that personal experience. To do so is also a mental disorder called "delusions of grandeur".
Of course, that goes without saying but it also works on both sides of the divide too and I find the 'great commissioners' more than a little irritating in this respect.......
I think their is belief, faith and expectation. We probably should not run amuck with those terms. People tend to throw them around very often.
Faith: Faith is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. It is also used for a belief, characteristically without proof.
Belief: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Expectation: In the case of uncertainty, expectation is what is considered the most likely to happen. An expectation, which is a belief that is centred on the future, may or may not be realistic.
galaxy15: There are many things that can not be proven by facts at all - yet we believe them none the less. Western science has compartmentalised all study of everything - even emotion or the mind. Rationally you would not say that your mind exists, because it cannot be measured by any instrument known to man or beast! (thats just one) Air, is another! You can't see it, you can't smell it, you can't hold it in your hand - does it exist? Have you ever seen air?
Im' not religious myself, but, scientifically speaking - belief cannot be measured - so the question is moot, and, by the way unanswerable. cheers
In response to: I know god exists because I can feel him. I know it in my heart; he talks to me; I feel his strength and existence flow through every fiber of my being. Critique:
I’m perfectly fine with individual "beliefs" and people making these kinds of statements without justification. If they feel it in their heart to be real, then it’s real enough to them.
Where my point of contention lies is that BECAUSE a person may hold their beliefs with such unwavering conviction that they might actually kill for them in the name of their individual god de jour. In fact it is the absence of morality that can potentially accompany such devotion that can be quite destructive as we have witnessed historically.
krimsa: I’m perfectly fine with individual "beliefs" and people making these kinds of statements without justification. If they feel it in their heart to be real, then it’s real enough to them.
Where my point of contention lies is that BECAUSE a person may hold their beliefs with such unwavering conviction that they might actually kill for them in the name of their individual god de jour. In fact it is the absence of morality that can potentially accompany such devotion that can be quite destructive as we have witnessed historically.
I actually agree with you here.
And as far as the Bible. I'm not a bible toting "Christian" by any stretch of the imagination. I think the bible is a book that gives comfort to many, and who am I to deprive anyone of that comfort? Because I personally don't give the bible credence, doesn't make me superior in any way to someone who leans upon it for comfort and strength.
At best, the most that any of us have is theory anyway. God or lack of God to an individual is extremely personal.
Whatever blows your skirt up I say, because whether we believe something or not doesn't change a damn thing in the end does it? (yes, I know many Christians would adamantly disagree with this "theory")
And as far as the Bible. I'm not a bible toting "Christian" by any stretch of the imagination. I think the bible is a book that gives comfort to many, and who am I to deprive anyone of that comfort? Because I personally don't give the bible credence, doesn't make me superior in any way to someone who leans upon it for comfort and strength.
At best, the most that any of us have is theory anyway. God or lack of God to an individual is extremely personal.
Whatever blows your skirt up I say, because whether we believe something or not doesn't change a damn thing in the end does it? (yes, I know many Christians would adamantly disagree with this "theory")
This analogy doesn't jibe with me. Belief = Air = The mind
Air can be measured and seen. we know air is approximately 21% O2 and 78% Nitrogen, and less than one percent CO2 and other elements
The mind created electric pulses and such that are measured, we have seen Neurons at work.... I am not a physiologist or Neurologist so will not attempt more...
Cheers goodheartforyou
I never constructed any formula that equated air to mind to belief. Not everyting is a formula/mathematical/rational. Incidentally I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your response.
The question inferred in my response really is - have you seen air? Who told you it consisted of blah, and blah, and blah?
As for the analogy - Those hypotheses that are not disproved can be believed to be true until disproved.
I don't know about you - but I don't remember being born - apart from photographs, family stories and my place in a family; that I was born is debatable - in a strictly philosophical sense!
We all believe things, and even science is based on a whole set of beliefs. It's based on a belief that all things are understandable and that by using our minds (read, random electrical impulses shooting around, inside an organic container) and the measurement (using 'the new improved model' measuring device) of (perhaps) inadequate descriptors, we will some day come to know it all.
I really see no difference between science and religion, in this sense! They are both based on the faith that what we know 'is true'!?
galaxy15: This analogy doesn't jibe with me. Belief = Air = The mind
Air can be measured and seen. we know air is approximately 21% O2 and 78% Nitrogen, and less than one percent CO2 and other elements
The mind created electric pulses and such that are measured, we have seen Neurons at work.... I am not a physiologist or Neurologist so will not attempt more...
Cheers goodheartforyou
I never constructed any formula that equated air to mind to belief. Not everyting is a formula/mathematical/rational. Incidentally I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your response.
The question inferred in my response really is - have you seen air? Who told you it consisted of blah, and blah, and blah?
As for the analogy - Those hypotheses that are not disproved can be believed to be true until disproved.
I don't know about you - but I don't remember being born - apart from photographs, family stories and my place in a family; that I was born is debatable - in a strictly philosophical sense!
We all believe things, and even science is based on a whole set of beliefs. It's based on a belief that all things are understandable and that by using our minds (read, random electrical impulses shooting around, inside an organic container) and the measurement (using 'the new improved model' measuring device) of (perhaps) inadequate descriptors, we will some day come to know it all.
I really see no difference between science and religion, in this sense! They are both based on the faith that what we know 'is true'!?
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
(did not mean to insinuate that all religious people are Schizoid - just the ones who claim to converse with the unseen....meaning pray all you want, but when you claim the unseen is talking to you - then it could be a mental condition)
That is all I have to say on the matter. End of Rant.