I don't understand either of these answers:

Do you disagree that 'god' is an extraordinary claim? I used that term because I'm sure you'll be familiar with it. Is there anything that can be compared, like for like, with religion? People often compare it to politics but a politician is not a god and a political party or system did not create the universe and control everything in it etc etc, they're really not the same thing. Nothing is.

Also, it seems theists want it both ways on this issue. On the one hand god is unique, the most special thing possible. On the other hand when I try to treat the belief in, and worship of that god, as something unique and special then I'm committing some kind of fallacy?

I really don't get this. Faith is required for religion, I thought it even said as much in the bible (specifically for Christianity, obv) and yet many theists claim to have evidence, evidence that shouldn't be required if faith is being used. I hear things like 'I don't believe just because of 'blind' faith'. There are different kinds of faith? Blind faith and what, informed, supported by evidence faith?

I am pretty sure, how is this still coming up? I don't get what you don't understand.

How do you figure that? I said 'if I had to commit'. I was simply demonstrating at which end of the spectrum my position lies. I think it's unreasonable to say 'I'm certain' about something that I don't think anyone can be certain about. Do you?

Okay I'll try and clarify. Firstly you were trying to draw a distinction between stuff you sense and perceive and an empirical point of view. Empirical evidence is precisely that information that is available to the senses. You seem to be making a distinction that isn't there.

The rest may be better answered in relation to the below

You'll notice it's not just theists that pull you up when you make a claim about the uniqueness of religion. It's your approach, the question is why should religion and religious beliefs be treated differently, why is the way in which we understand them different? Theists may make claims about the uniqueness of faith and you are welcome to challenge them when they do what you should try to avoid is placing religious beliefs in a category that suits you.

I have faith in medicine based on evidence, you want religious evidence to be treated separately, we take things on faith all the time it's you that wants again to distinguish religious faith and experience.

Remember the discussion were you suggested that you were going to seek advice on evidence, evidence may exist irrespective of whether it proves the claim it is cited in support of.

Why is religion unique and special?



Its almost like you are reading a totally different post to what I wrote (or that my posts are unclear, I guess). As I mentioned in my previous post, the truth or not of religion is irrelevant to my point. I am not trying to prove religion true by pointing out biases. I have never denied that biases are part of the influence that "cause" religion.





What? I have no idea where you got this from? This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted. What a christian or muslim would say about god is totally irrelevant.


I have posted the same stuff multiple times now, and you are coming in with non sequiteurs, you seem to be reading stuff into my posts that simply isnt there. Maybe what I am trying to say is unclear, I dont think I can make it any clearer.

That's exactly how I feel about your posts, perhaps we're just talking past each other.

Vive la france!

Haven't you got a TL;DR to write?

.

Ok i thought you said you had no uncertainty here. But i guess im just misreading.

Still you said it wasnt much of a choice so you seem pretty certain. But meh...

Yes you did but I can see how that could have happened, I meant 'or strong doubts or strong uncertainty' but didn't want to use the word strong twice (bad grammar?) and thought the lack of a comma between them would make the meaning clear. I suppose I could have written 'my doubts or uncertainty aren't strong', but that seems clunky.

Now I'm getting that thing where words lose all their meaning, with the word 'strong', just looks like a bunch of random letters, do you get that?

I've been using faith as the belief of something you can't prove with certainty.
With that said, there are obviously degrees of faith, but my point is since there is almost nothing you can prove 100%, you will use some degree of faith in your life.

Am I saying that believing in God is the same thing as believing you have a physical body? No, but you do use some faith in the world you perceive because sensations and perceptions are fallible, and because of the nature of truth.

You can't prove that your perceptions are accurate, you believe they are. You employ faith in the world around you. You "have faith" that what you think is real, is actually real.

The problem is that since these things don't affect us, we can ignore them. It's of no consequence to us if we have a physical body or not, just as long as our lives continue to function the way we expect, so the fact that we aren't 100% sure doesn't matter, so we treat it like we are 100% sure. This is a fallacy just as it is to say that we don't use faith.

Don't worry about being clunky. Worry about being clear and accurate. That's the root of many of your problems when it comes to communicating with others.

Every time I read your posts...

No i really dont get your position. But thats ok.

What? Is this a level? I don't think gods are real but I could be wrong, that's it. Really simple.

No no level.

In fact looking back to the other thread i think i read that right in the first place. What ya going to do...

I don't use faith because I have good reason to believe what I believe, and for everything else, I keep an open mind and admit that I don't know.

The things that I 'believe', e.g. that if I drop something it will fall to the ground, are supported by empirical observation, testing and plenty of obvious and uncontested evidence. Since god can't be tested, observed and there's absolutely no uncontested evidence for his existence (or that of any other gods that people do, or have in the past, professed to exist) you must use faith to achieve your belief in manner quite different to how I achieve belief.

What is the difference between your faith and wishful thinking, and if you accept that your belief may be the result of environmental influences, cognitive biases or a mental illness/condition, then how can you commit to it and that seem reasonable to you?

Statements like this ring completely hollow when everyone has been telling you for months things like "You should treat religion as a special category" and other consistent criticisms of your position, yet you persist in making such arguments.

As far as I know, you still have me on ignore for the following post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=91

Then we have the 200+ post discussion about "indoctrination" versus "marketing" (it starts even before 195, but that's where it really comes into focus):

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=195

Or we have the famous Thales of Miletus claim which you have YET to recant as an error (Thales of Miletus is pre-Jesus, so could not have been persecuted by Christians):

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6&postcount=24

Even ITT, we have a clear statement of your axiomatic disdain for religion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=116

...

It's not reasonable. When both atheists and theists are telling you you're wrong, the odds are good that you're wrong. But you never seem to get it.

All your beliefs are also a result of environmental influences, cognitive biases, or a mental illness/condition.

I still disagree that you don't use faith. Not to get too philosophical, but just because you have empirical data telling you that when you drop something it will fall, doesn't imply that the object exists to begin with. Sure that's very philosophy101 so to speak, but we can't know that the world is real and not only in our minds. we can't "know" it by definition.

I commit to my belief in God the same way that I commit to believing that the object I drop actually exists. I can't "know" that God exists. I can't "know" anything. I can't ignore my own perceptions, even if it's not the traditional data that can be seen and touched, which does not provide certainty either.

I believe there is common ground here, but you're not willing to accept it. What makes you so certain that the earth is a real physical thing and not just an illusion in your mind? How can you know it? Why is my belief in God through my own perceptions that much different just because you haven't experienced it?

Obviously it is different because not everyone attests to these perceptions. Obviously these specific perceptions aren't scientific and wouldn't hold up in court. But there is a shade of similarity which you won't recognize. If you began to perceive a deity communicating with you what would you do?

And?

I interpret your argument as 'you can't know that anything is real, therefore you can't tell me that my god isn't real'. Am I right?

If so, I currently have no answer to that, I'm used to debates in which some things at least can be assumed to be real. Trying to argue that everything isn't an illusion in order to be able to discuss anything just seems a bit futile, and if I'm honest, it seems insulting to people who have been killed or whose lives are full of suffering because of religions. I can't imagine telling them 'hey, it might all just be an illusion in your mind', however, that's not an actual argument. You talk about common ground, can we meet on ground where we accept that something is real, and work from there?

then how can you commit to it and that seem reasonable to you?

I don't know that I have an argument per se, I'm just pointing out that to know the truth with certainty is not possible.

To say the nature of truth is insulting or unfair to people who suffer seems somewhat irrelevant. The fact that people don't assume anything when speaking philosophically is why there are so many different philosophies to begin with, and how a lot of progress was made.

When it comes to God, I don't presume for you to believe in God because of any method of doubt I present, but you're really quick to dismiss any "perceptions" I admit to having simply because they are not trust worthy. I admit they are not trust worthy, and I'm not trying to compare them to empirical evidence, i'm only saying that even empirical data is questionable to a degree. And in believing such data without absolute certainty means that we employ a degree of faith, even if just a trivial amount.

As for accepting reality. I can accept that life is probably what it seems, yes.
I can accept the possibility that my mind creates God and it is all in fact an illusion, and God doesn't really reveal Himself to me. It is a possibility. Can you accept the possibility that there is a God and He does reveal Himself to me, and maybe that He could reveal Himself to you as well?