• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Legitimacy of believing

^I think he is just dead set on believing what he wants to believe and honestly thinks that anybody who doesn't have the same opinion is ignorant.

That and he has been reading a little too much Richard Dawkins :)

Don't get me wrong I tend to side with his side of the argument but I agree he is being a little close minded.
 
That's what makes that issue non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific as a hypothesis, which is my biggest problem with Richard Dawkin's stance, because I'm pretty sure he knows this fact, yet he still goes out on TV and writes books talking about how there's no evidence and blah blah blah. I mean...idk everyone's gotta make money, but a physics professor at a community college was the one who taught me about the idea that God isn't a falsifiable hypothesis and necessarily non-scientific, so if that guy knew about that idea, then Dawkins must've come across that argument before as well, and chose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

I think people like Richard Dawkins and this so called "new-atheism" shouldn't be called atheists anymore but antitheists in that they are opposed to the belief of a god. An atheist on the other can still wish for the existence of god but not believe in it. Antitheism is the direct opposition of theism.
 
Lazyscience said:
so the best reasons for the legitamacy of belief being offered here are arguments from ingnorance - saying that god cant be disproven or, just because science doesnt have the answers, then god is a legitimate explanation. for me, its not very convincing.
Click to expand...

All arguments stated here seem to have different aims. I'm not denying science in any degree, but merely observing that god's existence cannot be established by holding up a magnifying glass to anything at all in the universe if you deny the possibility in the first place. Arguments from ignorance imply that you are trying to use god to explain the world around you, which I'm not trying to do, I'm trying to explain, or simply comprehend, the complexities of the inner world more than anything, and how that affects everything else. God, higher power, tao, these are just words that don't do it justice. It's not about the flying spaghetti monster making the world around us...not for me anyways...

EDIT: My final point, argumentation is the wrong way to talk about faith if you want to establish it on any objective grounds because it has nothing to do with objectivity, that's not to say it's illegitimate, but its legitimacy in the eyes of another person isn't important. This isn't a public policy debate where you must provide reasons and evidence for your stance, it's talking about someone's inner mind and life, which atheism or nihilism seems bent on eliminating, which is why I find that train of thought distasteful.
All the things you talk about like god existing where science has not yet firmly established are secondary, just as it's secondary to talk about people dying and killing in the name of a certain or religion or something. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand on a fundamental level, sure there are correlations between political events and religious beliefs, just as there are correlations between spirituality and religion, but that's secondary to faith as a mindset in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
If religion is wishful thinking, then so is the idea of a world much better off without religion. Keeping in mind, I think wishful thinking is highly underrated, and let's admit it, we all do it.
 
I believe that religion was made to control people, well my opinion at least. People leading their lives with their eyes closed...
 
That and he has been reading a little too much Richard Dawkins

Don't get me wrong I tend to side with his side of the argument but I agree he is being a little close minded.
Click to expand...
yeah youre probably right. its just so hard for me to see both points of view in this for some reason. im about to read the hitchens book so now so that should be fun.
 
I believe faith is where we fall. You can't make faith the answer to everything. There is an answer, and I believe we're on this earth to figure it out. Religion is the opium of the people.
 
badfish45 said:
I believe faith is where we fall. You can't make faith the answer to everything. There is an answer, and I believe we're on this earth to figure it out. Religion is the opium of the people.
Click to expand...

so you have faith that "we're on this earth to ..."
and you have faith that "faith is where we fall"
and you say that "You can't make faith the answer to everything. " and then you follow it with " There is an answer" that you came up with based on faith ?

and if "Religion is the opium of the people." does that make it good or does that make it bad ? most people seem to have a good time with opium but some end up with a addiction so it all depends right ?
and since this is a druggie board i guess you believe that people should be allowed to take opium if they want because they should be allowed to make their own decision for themself as long as they dont arm others right ?
and that there is no reason to look down upon people who choose to use opium even those who get addicted right ?
 
ninjadanslarbretabar said:
and since this is a druggie board i guess you believe that people should be allowed to take opium if they want because they should be allowed to make their own decision for themself as long as they dont arm others right ?
and that there is no reason to look down upon people who choose to use opium even those who get addicted right ?
Click to expand...

This made me chuckle. Well played, sir.
 
i think its a good comparison to make with religion and opiate addiction. it would be perfectly ok for people to be addicted to opiates provided it had no impact on society for the rest of us, just as with religion.
 
The difference is, of course, that opioid users generally don't consider killing all the non-opioid users.
 
^ And the resemblence is, of course, that non-opioid users are generally full of stereotypes about opioid users, even though they are secretely using some socially acceptable drug themselves.

Anyways, I see this thread going nowhere... very little arguments or intentions for an open discussion are brought for. Some people are just trying to be provocative, have no intention whatsoever to open up to new views, and are decided in advance to stick to their own original view. Is there really no other way of dialogue?
 
Last edited:
ninjadanslarbretabar said:
so you have faith that "we're on this earth to ..."
and you have faith that "faith is where we fall"
and you say that "You can't make faith the answer to everything. " and then you follow it with " There is an answer" that you came up with based on faith ?

and if "Religion is the opium of the people." does that make it good or does that make it bad ? most people seem to have a good time with opium but some end up with a addiction so it all depends right ?
and since this is a druggie board i guess you believe that people should be allowed to take opium if they want because they should be allowed to make their own decision for themself as long as they dont arm others right ?
and that there is no reason to look down upon people who choose to use opium even those who get addicted right ?
Click to expand...

I can believe in something and not put my whole hearted faith into it. I can have a hypothesis, and not claim myself right or wrong.

Religion is either way. I'm just saying that it appeals to people, because the question of life is so mysterious we force ourselves to have an answer, and we let that answer become our only reality. People fall when they decide what is right or wrong. I have faith in what I say, yes, but I don't bet that it's the only answer, because nobody can know the answer for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top