Atheism and Faith

[Saitia]

Saitia offered a post critical of atheists' attitudes. Tormod responded thus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tormod:

"To be frank, your post reeks of self-rightousness."

That was a much clearer and concise response

than the one I was formulating as I read Saitia's attack.

 

 

My my; people hemmorage around here from a slight breeze!

 

:phones: :)

[Eclogite]

Saitia,

your original post crticised the subjectivity, myopia, narrowmindedness and prejudice of athiests. It did so with the deliberate use of emotional language, implicit insults and explicit hyperbole. I think it was appropriate to characterise that as reeking of self righteousnessas Tormod did.

 

You must have been aware of the inflammatory tone of your post, yet you chose to proceed with it. You could have made the same points of substance in a balanced, objective manner. Instead you allowed what seems to be a powerful distaste for athiests to degenerate into a visible and intentional display of disgust and disrespect.

 

In these circumstances is it surprising that your attack was met with dismissive condemnation?

[Saitia]

Hello Eclogite,

 

Saitia,

your original post crticised the subjectivity, myopia, narrowmindedness and prejudice of athiests. It did so with the deliberate use of emotional language, implicit insults and explicit hyperbole.

 

All quite demonstrably untrue, especially the latter. You continue to ignore the fact there was an explicit request to address "arrogance" as a root cause of atheism, which I did without ANY unnecessary adjectives or other emotional language. Since you are one who has no qualms about deliberately expounding your "elitist and patronizing view" that belief in God is "dumb," perhaps you'd be good enough to quote my "implicit insults" and explicit hyperbole" from your point of view, and I'll gladly take another look.

 

 

 

I think it was appropriate to characterise that as reeking of self righteousnessas Tormod did.

Not according to the rules this forum publishes for its use; it's a rude and derogatory ad hominem, quite unlike the general statement I made about some characteristics atheists share with religionists which reflect my personal experience with them, which I expressed with both honesty and fairness.

 

 

 

You must have been aware of the inflammatory tone of your post, yet you chose to proceed with it.

 

How is my post any more "inflammatory" than your own remarks quoted above that my belief in God is "dumb"?

What is inflammatory" about mentioning the arousal of my sense of compassion to reach out to atheists??

Or clear self-effacement in allowing it could be my fault for being unskilled in my attempts to find understanding with atheists?

 

 

You could have made the same points of substance in a balanced, objective manner.

In a few paragraphs,

I pointed out that atheists must often deal with obtuse religionists;

I drew reference to the fact that religionists, like atheists, also fossilize their facts and thereby kill truth;

I pointed out that the extremes of philosophy produce both "insufferable religious fanatics," as well as "atheistic boors."

Just how much more "balance and objectivity" do you require in a single post??

 

Instead you allowed what seems to be a powerful distaste for athiests to degenerate into a visible and intentional display of disgust and disrespect.

 

More of your own subjective nonsense-- and every bit as much an "attack" on me and my words as you feel mine were.

 

In these circumstances is it surprising that your attack was met with dismissive condemnation?

 

 

It's never a surprise to me that any criticism of atheists— no matter how worded— is met with "dismissive condemnation"; it's precisely my point.

 

There are numerous examples across these boards of intolerance and "dismissive condemnation" by atheists of "believers" in particular. The very rules of the Theology Forum (written by an atheist, I believe) are quite remarkable in that they demonstrate, to use your characterizations, the very "subjectivity, myopia, narrow-mindedness, and prejudice of atheists" I'm talking about.

 

To wit, the Theology Forum rules begin by remarking on what it is not— a forum for "preaching the word of God." We can rightly assume he uses "preaching" in its derogatory meaning, but it's still rather condescending to assume those wishing to discuss theology must first be warned about "preaching," when numerous examples of atheists can be found on these boards "preaching" what amounts to Scientism.

 

The Notes go on to warn the theology forum is "not the place to explain why your religion"— your personal theology— is "much better" than the "alternatives." Whawwwwt!?

 

The expression of my religious thought— my theology— must not attempt to explain why it's "better" than, say, science?

 

Even if you can figure out a way to talk about your personal theology that doesn't violate that rule, in closing, we're informed the Theology Forum is a place which "first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it."

 

Holy Sh:shocked:t!! :)

 

So yeah, clueless losers, go ahead; talk about your "theology stuff"-- just make sure it's first and foremost about science, and even though religion and spirit is the realm of faith and can't be remotely meaningful without it, uh, you can't talk about faith.

 

But he saved the funny for last:

"Note that posts made in this forum do not show up in the "Lastest topics" bar in the right column, because most topics here tend not to be of a scientific nature.":lol: :) :lol: :eek: :cup: BBWWAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!

 

:umno: Thank you for helping pound science into my head

 

--Saitia

[Saitia]

Wow! I must have read that twenty times,and I still don't know what it means.

Isn't that weird? What is it about reading things over and over that makes us think it will help?

 

 

What is the"essence of faith insight?"

I can tell you what I think it is; your mileage may vary.

To discover the essence of faith through insight requires

a few important attitudes. Deep reflection on universe

meanings. Sincere self-criticism. And real moral consciousness.

Real faith has the power to open the mind to spiritual insight.

 

But without the use of faith, truth can not become a

personal possession because a person's thoughts, wisdom,

ethics, and ideals will never rise higher than their faith.

 

 

 

Why can't(shouldn't) knowledge be "little more than a peculiar form of protoplasmic memory material?"If that's what it is.

 

It can be. But mere knowledge-- without the insight of faith--

cannot discover the means of eternal survival. So if 50, 60,

70, or 80 years is all you want, you're cool; forgettaboutit.

 

 

Where does"the essence of faith insight" come in to play with ones knowledge of say, the internal combustion engine? Perhaps I'm taking the sentence out of context,but it seems it can stand alone.

 

I once bought a weird little Japanese car called the "Prince" on the island of Guam for $50 bucks; it wouldn't run. We bought it to drive to the beach from the naval base. I set the points by eyeballing them, and I'll be damned if it didn't fire right up! But faith insight didn't have a thing to do with that; it was luck. Faith insight is the method of spirit, short and simple. Human things must be known before they can be loved. But spiritual things must be loved before they can be known. And that takes faith.:umno: :) :)

 

Cheers,

—Saitia

[C1ay]

But without the use of faith, truth can not become a

personal possession because a person's thoughts, wisdom,

ethics, and ideals will never rise higher than their faith.

What a prejudiced point of view. If that's what faith does to people then I'm glad I don't have any.

[Rsade]

your original post crticised the subjectivity, myopia, narrowmindedness and prejudice of athiests. It did so with the deliberate use of emotional language, implicit insults and explicit hyperbole.

 

 

yeah so? I happen to agree with that post...wanna' fight about it?

 

just kidding couldnt resist.

[Saitia]

What a prejudiced point of view. If that's what faith does to people then I'm glad I don't have any.

 

Gosh; another open-minded, objective, insightful, unprejudiced senior editor weighs in. . .:) :) :) :( :rolleyes: :)

 

"Prejudice" is a pre-conceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience; my point of view is based on reason, experience, and faith; having been agnostic and atheistic in my past, I know it was in no way "pre-conceived." How then is it "prejudiced"?

 

Your forum info says you're involved with "fluid power systems," C1ay;

if you would, apply that knowledge to the social stream of ideals in culture; how do you make that stream rise higher than it's source? What kind of pressure or control will elevate ideals above their current highest level?

 

And a pleasant how-do-you-do to you too.

 

—Saitia

 

 

Nothing in life is more wonderful than faith— the one great moving force which we can neither weigh in the balance nor test in the crucible. —Sir William Osler, Research Scientist

[Queso]

Nothing in life is more wonderful than faith— the one great moving force which we can neither weigh in the balance nor test in the crucible. —Sir William Osler, Research Scientist

 

 

Thus I just don't like that quote.

How can you say that there's ONE great moving force that cannot be weighed or balanced, then say that that one great moving force is faith?

That's absurd, and just sounds pretty.

Pretty stupid, if you ask me, which you didn't, but i felt the urge to chime in my opinion here.

 

"Sir," Thus egotistical,

thus delusional.

[C1ay]

"Prejudice" is a pre-conceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience; my point of view is based on reason, experience, and faith; having been agnostic and atheistic in my past, I know it was in no way "pre-conceived." How then is it "prejudiced"?

You have a prejudiced opinion that faith is required for truth and made the blanket statement that individuals cannot know the truth without faith. How can you say that I cannot know truth without faith? You lump everyone without faith in one basket with your stereotypical brush. That's prejudice.

[Rsade]

What a prejudiced point of view. If that's what faith does to people then I'm glad I don't have any.

 

See my new thread Science Faith and Religious Fact.

[Rebiu]

Where is your evidence?

Already answered please reread my previous posts.

[Saitia]

Hello C1ay,

 

You have a prejudiced opinion that faith is required for truth

I'd be amazed if our respective definitions of faith or truth were remotely similar;

that being so, you're simply not able to know my definitions until I tell you;

by insisting it's prejudice anyway, i.e., judging without reason or experience—

it looks more like an attempt to smear my opinion rather than understand it.

 

and made the blanket statement that individuals cannot know the truth without faith. How can you say that I cannot know truth without faith?

Because Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect

that is conscious of knowing God; not the material sphere of knowledge

of the fact-discerning mind. Truth, therefore, is an experience of the soul;

knowledge is a possession of the mind.

 

Do you believe in the soul? Do you claim to know some truth without the exercise of faith?

As someone who is glad they don't "have any," how do you

explain the fact that you must assume the reality of at least three

things-- life, matter, and motion-- before you can make any sense of the universe?

You lump everyone without faith in one basket with your stereotypical brush. That's prejudice.

I don't believe anyone is without some degree of faith assumption;

even though they may be unwilling to admit that life, matter, and

motion can't be proven "real" any other way.

So the fact is there's only "one basket" in which I lump everyone,

whether they think they have faith or not; that basket is the universe.

 

 

Cheers,

—Saitia

 

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.

—Aldous Huxley (1894 — 1964)

[questor]

who are the angry ones here? why would an atheist be angry and demeaning toward someone with faith? do they know the ultimate answers? do they have the truth? have they been blessed with better minds?

[cwes99_03]

Because Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect

that is conscious of knowing God; not the material sphere of knowledge

of the fact-discerning mind. Truth, therefore, is an experience of the soul;

knowledge is a possession of the mind.

 

Do you believe in the soul? Do you claim to know some truth without the exercise of faith?

As someone who is glad they don't "have any," how do you

explain the fact that you must assume the reality of at least three

things-- life, matter, and motion-- before you can make any sense of the universe?

 

I don't believe anyone is without some degree of faith assumption;

even though they may be unwilling to admit that life, matter, and

motion can't be proven "real" any other way.

So the fact is there's only "one basket" in which I lump everyone,

whether they think they have faith or not; that basket is the universe.

 

Satia, don't take this as discouragement or character assasination, but..

 

Truth is one thing. Hypothesis and faith are a bit separated. Those who say from a religious standpoint that they belong to the truth, say so because they have faith in their rendering of the scriptures, and have not had anyone point out a flaw in their hypothesis. In much the same regard, many scientists use the word truth to define SR and GR though no absolute proof of either has been set forth in stone.

 

I believe you are actually pointing to the idea that nothing can be absolutely set in stone without knowing everything in the universe, and therefore truth can be treated relatively.

 

Please PM me for further discussion though of what you believe to be truth and I'll be happy to debate some topics as to how they relate to a true understanding of the Bible. :hihi:

[questor]

Cwes, you said it nicely. the only problem about arguing the Bible is that one is arguing about statements which may be parables, exaggerations, myths, or faulty translations of events which may never have happened.

[questor]

I wonder if the atheists main problem is disbelieving the Bible, and in doing so cannot conceive that an intelligent creator exists?

[InfiniteNow]

It's funny how each side of the argument seems to see the other as having a problem.

 

"I wonder why it is he's so wrong..."