Which do you think is harder:

[Lobo]

Well, clearly it is necesary as religion isn't just a personal thing. I agree that it should be, but it takes its own 'truths' to seriously and goes political with them. That's when the problem starts, and that's when religion deserves to be under attack.

I don't agree with seeing religion as an entity in itself, because behind religion there are always individuals. That to me is the problem, because the beliefs of a particular group of people within a religion end up being applied to all through association.

If you told a stranger on the street that you had a brother, but could not bring up any evidence to support your claim, he would be justified in not believing you. Why not get the evidence that your brother exists first, before you try to convince random strangers that he exists? Furthermore, you shouldn't be surprised that if you were to ostracize this person that they themselves would go on the attack from your uncalled-for actions.

Taken from what you wrote: "the absence of evidence is not evidence," and I completely agree with that statement. Based on this, how is it then justified to not believe me? Just because I don't have evidence, it doesn't mean that it is evidence in itself that what I am saying is not true. Btw, in the example I didn't mention anything regarding forcing people to believe, or even convincing, I personally hate it when people do that.

Not really, because you're ignoring the issue of divine revelation. Christians today may have adopted their belief from their parents or church, and so on and so forth back into history. But sooner or later you reach a finite point where revelation comes from the Bible. To have faith in Christ you need to believe that Christ existed, and the belief that Christ exists was not snatched out of thin air - it comes from the Bible.

So you are saying that the existence of Jesus is only based on the Bible? It is outside my comprehension how a small group of ordinary Jews would/could create a fabrication involving a man who did not embody what the Jews at the time even considered the Messiah to be like, and whose message was that of peace, instead of violence considering that they were under the opression of the Roman Empire. Why go through all that trouble really? Then again, that's just what comes to my mind.

Of course. But to pretend the beliefs and traditions of the Catholic church originated in a void is nonsensical. In fact, having a written document was so important to the church that, as you're well aware, they had a big ho-down about it in the 4th or 5th century. So clearly the Holy Book does play some role of importance.

Yes it does have importance, but like I said, the Bible should be read a certain way.

Not entirely sure that I am... as a theist, you're going to be a lot more forgiving of gaps in evidence. As an atheist, I value fundamentals such as, "the absence of evidence is not evidence". There is a tendency for the religious to point to gaps in scientific knowledge and exclaim, "aha, God!" whereas the non-theist just say, "who knows?" It's worth pointing out that over the past 200-300 years more and more of these gaps are disappearing.

I agree with that as I mentioned before. Just because there is a tendency for the religious like you say to fill in gaps, it does not mean that a theist necessarily does that. Personally, I never fill in gaps, only think of a possibility in place of those gaps. It doesn't seem that you have encountered intellectual theists, or at least your image of theists seems to underestimate their capacity for such things . I have no proof whatsoever that there is a God that I could show someone, and I certainly don't fill in gaps and claim them as proof. My concept of God is even only minutely defined and personal.

However, something tells me that there is truth in this, and that is enough for me to have faith that there is something at work that is above my understanding. I feel like I'm actually being a better person whenever I am in accordance to what a Christian should be like, in terms of treating other people as equals, helping those in need, developing the virtues, etc., and these are things that do not have foundation with an atheistic faith (even if it's paradoxical to have an atheistic faith). I mean, how can you justify all these things without referring to some kind of higher purpose? Why is there a need for a scientific observation or explanation to justify that something "fulfills" you in a way that can simply be explained by it feeling completely as how it should be?

Do you believe that people get possessed by supernatural beings, and that exorcists have a legitimate skill set to get rid of them? Do you think most people that we would use the word 'reasonable' to describe believe such things?

The fact that it is believed by many people is more than reason enough for me to take it under consideration, regardless if it seems reasonable or not. There is nothing to lose in looking into it, and in the end you become more knowledgeable of what the truth is. In my way of thinking, I am more concerned towards discovering the truth than to first question how reasonable it is.

[mikemex]

Socionics has several linked properties and one can't single out a function and "blame" it for a certain behavior.

In the case of SLIs, for example, I think that they find it easier to reach their goals because of the strong Se (convergent thinking - single minded) but difficult to set their own goals due to weak Fe. SLIs are always uncertain about their own feelings/emotions and if you think about it, the word "motivation" is closely related, if not a synonym, of "emotion".

So, the theory presented before about intuitives and sensors is valid but only to certain degree. I think that all intuitives struggle to reach their goals and all logicals struggle to find motivation. Sensors may or may not lack motivation depending on whether they are ethical or logical.

[Minde]

going after what you want, or knowing what you want in time?

Both can be difficult for me, but I think the second one is harder. Or... I don't know. I can know what would be nice to have, but sometimes I'm not sure how much it would cost. So I have trouble deciding whether or not it would be worth it.


As for the other conversation, I like how Sereno puts it all.

This line stuck out at me:
"In my way of thinking, I am more concerned towards discovering the truth than to first question how reasonable it is."

Yes, reality is bigger than my brain. So something not making sense to me doesn't mean it can't be true. Anyway, that's a tangent, I suppose...

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[dbmmama]

The 'in time' part is throwing me. In time for what? In time to go after it?? I don't know, neither one seems like a difficult thing. There are generally more obstacles to go around/past/remove in finally achieving what you want than are likely to be in knowing what you want, but still, that 'in time' part, could you explain what you mean by that?

Generally speaking though, isn't that what everyone just naturally does throughout life, decide what you want and then work towards it? I don't quite get how you could consider either thing hard. Sure, things get thrown in your way, and you may have to divert course, and the road isn't always smooth and flat, but all of that is just part of life, to be expected. And as for knowing what you want, perhaps the answer isn't glaring in front of you all the time, but you can find it if you look. I suppose that actually may be the more difficult of the two at times. Like when your self is a bit lost.

There was one time, that, and this sounds maybe a little weird, but I had just reached a reprieve from a lot of stress, and it was like there was suddenly a vacancy, an opening, empty and looming, where I could take any direction, and only needed to know what I wanted to fill that space with. So, I asked myself (outloud and repeatedly) what I wanted until an answer sprang from my lips and I considered it, and tested it in my mind against what I knew of myself, to decide if it was actually what I wanted. And deciding it was, the void was filled, and I had somewhere to go again.

diana, i asked the same question. that threw me as well. and i also ask myself until the answer *pops* into my mind. it was there all along, i just need to *ask* until it presents itself into my conscious awareness. and those obstacles along the way...a change in perspective helps me to deal with them and sometimes they disappear right before my eyes. cool.

i use to muscle my way through those obstacles, just like my mom still does. but, now, i've learned to use my power within to cut through them. it's given me more peace within and room (just like that space needing to be filled) to fill it with fun stuff instead of grief and anger from forcing everything on the outside. then, the rollercoaster ride of life is fun instead of scary. ARMS UP!!!! WHEEEEEEE!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[force my hand]

Sorry for the late reply Sereno. I was about to post this the other day when the supposed hack-attack attempt happened and the board was shut down.

I don't agree with seeing religion as an entity in itself, because behind religion there are always individuals. That to me is the problem, because the beliefs of a particular group of people within a religion end up being applied to all through association.

There are always individuals in a group, but the individuals don't always act like indviduals. The group lends legitimacy to individual actions that might not have otherwise taken place. An example is the defense, "I was just following orders," or, in a potentially counter-intuitive sense, the bystander effect.

Groups within groups can often be isolated. For example, no atheist believes that Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" group is indicative of Christianity as a whole. Yet their ideology is based on their beliefs (obviously). This is a clear cut example where religion is not personal, and should be 'figuratively' attacked. And indeed, most mainstream Christians wouldn't have a problem with that, because they see Phelps' crew as the 'other'. We're Not Like That, they would say.

But what happens when normally moderate Christians go on the attack? Earlier on in the year, blogger PZ Myers threw a consecrated host, a Qur'an, and a copy of The God Delusion in the garbage and posted pictures on his blog. The outrage from Catholics was fucking ridiculous. He even got death threats. Personally, I don't know how to separate Catholics from Catholics. However, I do know that a) faith is personal, and b) free speech is a constitutional right in the US not limited by hate legislation, so therefore, these people are way out of line.

Taken from what you wrote: "the absence of evidence is not evidence," and I completely agree with that statement. Based on this, how is it then justified to not believe me? Just because I don't have evidence, it doesn't mean that it is evidence in itself that what I am saying is not true.

This is where the logical fallacy, 'the argument from ignorance" comes in. It is not logically justifiable to state that your brother does not exist because of the fact that you cannot provide evidence of his existence. This is akin to saying that a god created the universe because scientists don't understand how it began. However, it is perfectly justifiable for me to lack belief that your brother exists when you have have not offered evidence, just as it is acceptable to lack belief that the Big Bang really happened if you think the evidence is lacking.

Consider Russell's Teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

From this example we can see both that the burden of proof and the argument fom ignorance are closely involved. The speaker enacts the latter fallacy by assuming the inability to disprove his assertion therefore, in fact, proves it. The speaker also fails to realize that he had the responsibility to provide the evidence or 'proof' in the first place, as the burden of proof states. Shifting the burdern of proof onto the one not making the assertion is clearly in error.

So you are saying that the existence of Jesus is only based on the Bible?

There may be sources independent of the Bible which speak of Jesus' existence. However, the supernatural characteristics attributed to Jesus only come from the Bible (I could be wrong about that, but I can't think of any examples at the moment). Even in the case where there are contemporaneous sources independent of the Bible, they need to be substantiated in their own right. At which point, if shown 'true', are only afforded the same security that any scientific knowledge enjoys; that is, 'plausibly true until shown otherwise".

It is outside my comprehension how a small group of ordinary Jews would/could create a fabrication involving a man who did not embody what the Jews at the time even considered the Messiah to be like, and whose message was that of peace, instead of violence considering that they were under the opression of the Roman Empire. Why go through all that trouble really? Then again, that's just what comes to my mind.

This is actually the argument from ignorance fallacy itself, believe it or not. That it is outside your comprehension does not in any way affect the truth of what actually happened. There are many cases of human behaviour that I don't understand (like flying jets into skyscrapers), but it lying outside my comprehension doesn't disprove its occurrence.

Yes it does have importance, but like I said, the Bible should be read a certain way.

According to you. I'm being sincere when I say I'm not sure why your interpretation should be taken over, say, Phelps', just because it's less threatening.

I agree with that as I mentioned before. Just because there is a tendency for the religious like you say to fill in gaps, it does not mean that a theist necessarily does that. Personally, I never fill in gaps, only think of a possibility in place of those gaps. It doesn't seem that you have encountered intellectual theists, or at least your image of theists seems to underestimate their capacity for such things .

No, I'm recognizing that for any discussion to take place, some generalizations and simplifications have to take place. I've debated a lot of wiggle theists who will argue but never actually claim a position of their own. "I'm not like that", or "many Christians don't believe that" are common refrains. Well, a lot of people are like that and many Christians do believe that, therefore it's fair game.

(I've had theists bring up the Stalin example of atheism gone wrong. Before I actually thought about it, I wanted to do blank denial. Then I realized that any worldview taken as ideology and paired with the barrel of a gun is going to cause some serious shit. And I think other atheists are wrong for not coming to the same conclusion.)

And the number of intellectual theists I've encountered is very low. I live in a small 'city' of about 10,000 people which is literally the most religious place in Canada. Steinbach, Manitoba has the most churches per capita of anywhere in North America, and up until 2 or 3 years ago, was the last dry town in Canada. When they held the liquor referendum, organizers rented buses to ship old Mennonites to the polling stations to vote against it. I worked for a local window manufacturer for 6 years that held a chapel service every Tuesday morning during work hours, and had religious wording in its mission statement.

The point is, living here I've met a shit-load of Christians. And pretty much every single one that's tried to debate me has been hopelessly ignorant - as pleasant, hard-working, and fundamentally good that the vast majority of them were. I've only come across intellectual theists online.

However, something tells me that there is truth in this, and that is enough for me to have faith that there is something at work that is above my understanding. I feel like I'm actually being a better person whenever I am in accordance to what a Christian should be like, in terms of treating other people as equals, helping those in need, developing the virtues, etc., and these are things that do not have foundation with an atheistic faith (even if it's paradoxical to have an atheistic faith). I mean, how can you justify all these things without referring to some kind of higher purpose? Why is there a need for a scientific observation or explanation to justify that something "fulfills" you in a way that can simply be explained by it feeling completely as how it should be?

First of all, there's no atheistic faith just like there is no ateapotistic faith. Please try to understand a lack of belief means. Second, I hate to say it and don't want to sound offensive in saying it, but you're on the verge of slipping into some of the worst cliches that I hear in debate. Things like, 'atheism is a religion', 'morality only comes from God', etc. Treating others, for example, as you yourself would be treated has its most obvious foundation in rational self-interest. We have a tendency to make human morality sound more noble than it really is.

The fact that it is believed by many people is more than reason enough for me to take it under consideration, regardless if it seems reasonable or not. There is nothing to lose in looking into it, and in the end you become more knowledgeable of what the truth is. In my way of thinking, I am more concerned towards discovering the truth than to first question how reasonable it is.

This is very close to another type of logical fallacy, the argument from numbers, or the idea that something must be true if so many people believe it. I think this can also be applied to notion that something must be good or worthwhile because a lot of people are into it. I don't agree, and I'm also skeptical that you would consider something regardless of whether it sounds reasonable or not. If God Hates Fags were to enjoy a massive jump in numbers, would you check out the group? You might check it out on the curiousity of why so many people joined up, but that's much different than actually taking their beliefs under consideration.

[Lobo]

There are always individuals in a group, but the individuals don't always act like indviduals. The group lends legitimacy to individual actions that might not have otherwise taken place. An example is the defense, "I was just following orders," or, in a potentially counter-intuitive sense, the bystander effect.

Groups within groups can often be isolated. For example, no atheist believes that Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" group is indicative of Christianity as a whole. Yet their ideology is based on their beliefs (obviously). This is a clear cut example where religion is not personal, and should be 'figuratively' attacked. And indeed, most mainstream Christians wouldn't have a problem with that, because they see Phelps' crew as the 'other'. We're Not Like That, they would say.

But what happens when normally moderate Christians go on the attack? Earlier on in the year, blogger PZ Myers threw a consecrated host, a Qur'an, and a copy of The God Delusion in the garbage and posted pictures on his blog. The outrage from Catholics was fucking ridiculous. He even got death threats. Personally, I don't know how to separate Catholics from Catholics. However, I do know that a) faith is personal, and b) free speech is a constitutional right in the US not limited by hate legislation, so therefore, these people are way out of line.

Ok, so what's a "normally moderate Christian"? And although I disagree with that of giving death threats, which to me (as a side comment) is not in the true spirit of being Christian, what makes you think that these people are "way out of line"? Isn't that a value statement?

Also you're making assumptions that I don't agree with, and it's done to support your arguments. For example: "This is a clear cut example where religion is not personal, and should be 'figuratively' attacked." So if I understand correctly, Christianity should be attacked because a group of people say that "God Hates Fags"? Why "should"?

The main thing I don't understand is if being an atheist means lack of belief, then your arguments will always have to be supported by claiming that they are the logical and reasonable choice when that to me is subjective in itself, therefore, it is a belief rather than a truth. For example, this:

This is where the logical fallacy, 'the argument from ignorance" comes in. It is not logically justifiable to state that your brother does not exist because of the fact that you cannot provide evidence of his existence. This is akin to saying that a god created the universe because scientists don't understand how it began. However, it is perfectly justifiable for me to lack belief that your brother exists when you have have not offered evidence, just as it is acceptable to lack belief that the Big Bang really happened if you think the evidence is lacking.

It's perfectly justifiable? Based on what? logical fallacy? I don't see how this is not related to a belief that logical fallacy always leads to "truth." Even those concepts as the "burden of proof" actually don't make sense to me. Why do people have to provide proof for anything? I see all of this as being subjective.

There may be sources independent of the Bible which speak of Jesus' existence. However, the supernatural characteristics attributed to Jesus only come from the Bible (I could be wrong about that, but I can't think of any examples at the moment). Even in the case where there are contemporaneous sources independent of the Bible, they need to be substantiated in their own right. At which point, if shown 'true', are only afforded the same security that any scientific knowledge enjoys; that is, 'plausibly true until shown otherwise".

Ok, but again, using falsifiability is also a belief to me, regardless if I agree or disagree with using that as a way to build on scientific knowledge.

No, I'm recognizing that for any discussion to take place, some generalizations and simplifications have to take place. I've debated a lot of wiggle theists who will argue but never actually claim a position of their own. "I'm not like that", or "many Christians don't believe that" are common refrains. Well, a lot of people are like that and many Christians do believe that, therefore it's fair game.

Based on what exactly? "reason"? Someone will come off like an ass if they do this, but really, if I just ask questions about an argument, it will come to a point that the argument will be shown as a belief rather than a proof. Ultimately, we even believe that the Earth is not flat, because we have yet to see it otherwise. I think that the scientific community considers that to be a falsifiable statement.

So claiming that atheism is purely based on science and logic and all that doesn't do it for me. We always choose to believe in something that is considered supposedly "true," and therefore that is subjective, as coming from the subject.

And the number of intellectual theists I've encountered is very low. I live in a small 'city' of about 10,000 people which is literally the most religious place in Canada. Steinbach, Manitoba has the most churches per capita of anywhere in North America, and up until 2 or 3 years ago, was the last dry town in Canada. When they held the liquor referendum, organizers rented buses to ship old Mennonites to the polling stations to vote against it. I worked for a local window manufacturer for 6 years that held a chapel service every Tuesday morning during work hours, and had religious wording in its mission statement.

The point is, living here I've met a shit-load of Christians. And pretty much every single one that's tried to debate me has been hopelessly ignorant - as pleasant, hard-working, and fundamentally good that the vast majority of them were. I've only come across intellectual theists online.

I don't believe you, I need proof . Regardless if that's being an ass, I think you would agree in that it's a "reasonable" response.

First of all, there's no atheistic faith just like there is no ateapotistic faith. Please try to understand a lack of belief means. Second, I hate to say it and don't want to sound offensive in saying it, but you're on the verge of slipping into some of the worst cliches that I hear in debate. Things like, 'atheism is a religion', 'morality only comes from God', etc. Treating others, for example, as you yourself would be treated has its most obvious foundation in rational self-interest. We have a tendency to make human morality sound more noble than it really is.

Where's the proof in that if it's so obvious? I don't see philosophy as proof of something however.

This is very close to another type of logical fallacy, the argument from numbers, or the idea that something must be true if so many people believe it. I think this can also be applied to notion that something must be good or worthwhile because a lot of people are into it. I don't agree, and I'm also skeptical that you would consider something regardless of whether it sounds reasonable or not. If God Hates Fags were to enjoy a massive jump in numbers, would you check out the group? You might check it out on the curiousity of why so many people joined up, but that's much different than actually taking their beliefs under consideration.

I never said that it was true, good, or worthwhile. I'm simply saying that it is something that I personally would be interested in considering to see if it's true or not, and finding out about it. As to why the amount of people into that would "catch my eye," I don't have an answer.

[force my hand]

Ok, so what's a "normally moderate Christian"? And although I disagree with that of giving death threats, which to me (as a side comment) is not in the true spirit of being Christian, what makes you think that these people are "way out of line"? Isn't that a value statement?

It could be a value statement, but what's the relevence? If saying, 'murder is way out of line' because murder is against the law in the US and our shared system of morality, is that a) a value statement, and b) therefore incorrect? Uttering death threats is 'way out of line' because it contravenes both the target's inherent right to life and what society considers to be acceptable behaviour.

A normally moderate Christian is one who typically keeps faith issues personal, but in this specific context when faced with something that offends them, allows their sensibility to trump their reason. The bulk of PZ's email was descriptions of the hell he was going to, prayers for his soul, and themes of that nature. I see that as unwarranted, even if completely expected. PZ did not personally email each of these individuals with a description and images of the act, yet they took it upon themselves to fill his inbox with their judgements. I believe he had every right to therefore 'attack' their reasoning on his blog.

And the people in the previous example are self-identified Catholics. If you want to contest that and their beliefs, go ahead - I will provide the links to the blog posts in question, several of which containing email addresses, if you have a desire to question them - but I'm not going to defend them further.

Also you're making assumptions that I don't agree with, and it's done to support your arguments. For example: "This is a clear cut example where religion is not personal, and should be 'figuratively' attacked." So if I understand correctly, Christianity should be attacked because a group of people say that "God Hates Fags"?

Dude... I clearly wrote, "no atheist believes that Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" group is indicative of Christianity as a whole." I have to ask, are you willingly trying to miscontrue my position? The 'reasonable' Christianity that does not tread into public discourse and make a nuisance of itself 'should' not be attacked. The Christianty representative of groups like Phelps', or perhaps evangelical Christians who want to push creationism in school 'should' be attacked.

Why "should"?

Because it has been taken out of the private realm - i.e. personal faith - and displayed in the public, political realm. People have no problem with overstepping this line when it matches their personal beliefs, but hypothetically, if the US decided that all women were to wear burkas in public because someone's private faith dictated public action, then people would be justified in trying to dismantle ('attack') the supposed legitimacy of Islam. We would clearly recognize that without hard, factual evidence that Allah exists, and the Qur'an is 'true', that we would not be obligated to put up with religious attacks on our rights.

The main thing I don't understand...

(quote shortened to fit character limit)

I really don't know how to phrase it any differently, then. You're essentially telling me that concepts like 'cause precedes effect' are subjective. How can I respond? 2 + 2 = 4 is not 'subjective'. A or not-A is not subjective. Circular reasoning is not subjective. Argument from numbers is not subjective. If you cannot understand and accept these concepts, then I have to question why you're bothering to debate in the first place?

Ok, but again, using falsifiability is also a belief to me, regardless if I agree or disagree with using that as a way to build on scientific knowledge.

It's a 'belief' that has afforded humankind many concrete advancements which religion has failed to provide on its own. I seriously question the good faith in anyone's actions contesting this idea.

Really, what difference does it make if indeed it is a 'belief'? The fact is, most scientists don't actually care about philosophy, believe it not. I'm serious - they don't. They come up with an idea, gather some data, and submit it to the circus for review and criticism. When it's been beaten up for a couple years, and engineer comes along and makes something with it. That's it in a nutshell. There is no navel-gazing on philosophical grounds - "gee, is my study on cation exchange in uraninite deposits epistomologically sound?" - or anything like that. They don't really care because they are used to the idea of knowledge being transient. Put something forward that is plausible, and don't get married to your ideas.

It's in that light that science is a method, not an ideology, belief, or faith.

Based on what exactly? "reason"? Someone will come off like an ass if they do this, but really, if I just ask questions about an argument, it will come to a point that the argument will be shown as a belief rather than a proof. Ultimately, we even believe that the Earth is not flat, because we have yet to see it otherwise. I think that the scientific community considers that to be a falsifiable statement.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you're ignoring to some degree the fact that our 'reason' - which does not require rigorous definition - can evaluate the relative strengths of two separate beliefs. Our reason often employs the principles Occam's Razor, which you've undoubtedly come across at one point or another - the simplest explanation is the most likely.

If just washed some laundry and you're missing a sock, do you conclude that a) you miscounted the number of socks from the start, or b) sock gnomes came and stole it. Both both are beliefs, yet one is much more substantial than the other. With the facts at hand, such as, 'it is easy to miscount the number of socks', or more importantly, 'no good evidence exists for gnomes despite the claims of Gaelic mythology', our logic and reason can eliminate poor beliefs in favour of better ones.

And you know what, maybe you dropped the sock as you were walking down the hall, so that neither (a) nor (b) were correct. But does the absolute truth of (c), even if we don't know it, make (a) a poor conclusion over (b)?

Let me tell you right now that religious belief suffers greatly in this regard.

So claiming that atheism is purely based on science and logic and all that doesn't do it for me. We always choose to believe in something that is considered supposedly "true," and therefore that is subjective, as coming from the subject.

"Doesn't do it for me" is not deserving of an argument, because I don't care what does it for you. As pointed out earlier, we don't choose our beliefs - we are convinced by the evidence at hand. It's a person's exposure to, and ability to evaluate the evidence that leads to different beliefs.

[force my hand]

I don't believe you, I need proof . Regardless if that's being an ass, I think you would agree in that it's a "reasonable" response.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...dry-towns.html
http://www.city-of-steinbach.com/churches.html

Based on the official list of churches, Steinbach has 240 churches per 100,000 people. I've tried to find some stats on that, but have come up short. Most likely, it just seems that with 240 churches per 100,00 people it has the highest per capita in North America.

http://www.loewen.com/home.nsf/about/mission

"We create distinctive windows and doors of exceptional quality. We are a dynamic team focused on creating a unique customer experience. We are guided by our understanding of Christian principles."

As for creating a list of every Christian I've ever worked with, that's possible - this page references the fact that Loewen houses 1500 employees - but beyond the scope of my willingness to substantiate my argument.

The point in all this is that two out of four claims have been proven true. Reason suggests that a third also true. Only one of four may be in question, but is plausible based on the high number of churches per capita.

Now, do I think you asking this is reasonable? Not really. It's like contesting that New York exists, or that the Mississippi River exists. It applies juvenile skepticism to claims that aren't really important, and do not merit scrutiny in the first place. I wasn't making an argument, I was describing my interactions with Christians. With 70-90% of people in Canada and the US having theistic beliefs, it should not be surprising to you that 7-9 out of every 10 people I meet everyday are theists, and that because Christianity is statistically dominant in our countries, that they would, in fact, be Christian.

Thus, our reason can show where skepticism can be applied. As indicated, this is not really one of them.

Where's the proof in that if it's so obvious? I don't see philosophy as proof of something however.

Rational self-interest is thinking and acting in certain ways, and acknowledging certain principles that support an ideal that you would like to have applied to yourself. For example, treating your neighbour as you would like to be treated. The two phrases are semantic equivalents and the two concepts are closely linked, much the way that 'Honda civic' and 'car'' are closely linked.

I never said that it was true, good, or worthwhile. I'm simply saying that it is something that I personally would be interested in considering to see if it's true or not, and finding out about it. As to why the amount of people into that would "catch my eye," I don't have an answer.

I try not to read too much into people's words, but that was the implication - if I may, that group A is somehow 'lesser' than group B simply for not considering group C regardless of very real and relevent attributes of group C.

[Lobo]

I don't have much time right now, so the rest I will address later.

It could be a value statement, but what's the relevence? If saying, 'murder is way out of line' because murder is against the law in the US and our shared system of morality, is that a) a value statement, and b) therefore incorrect? Uttering death threats is 'way out of line' because it contravenes both the target's inherent right to life and what society considers to be acceptable behaviour.

It is very relevant to me in what we are talking about, because I do not believe that atheists are without the same type of beliefs that they themselves use as "proof" against religion.

A normally moderate Christian is one who typically keeps faith issues personal, but in this specific context when faced with something that offends them, allows their sensibility to trump their reason. The bulk of PZ's email was descriptions of the hell he was going to, prayers for his soul, and themes of that nature. I see that as unwarranted, even if completely expected. PZ did not personally email each of these individuals with a description and images of the act, yet they took it upon themselves to fill his inbox with their judgements. I believe he had every right to therefore 'attack' their reasoning on his blog.

Even with this you have yet to truly answer my question what a "normally moderate Christian" is. What exactly do you mean by "typically" and "keeping faith issues personal"? I doubt you will be able to answer these questions, because they are not falsifiable, and they are based on your own personal perspective, and your own personal understanding of "typical" for instance. If we are going to be strictly logical, everything in the argument has to be clearly defined including these things. (Not that I want to because then I would need some Advil).

And the people in the previous example are self-identified Catholics. If you want to contest that and their beliefs, go ahead - I will provide the links to the blog posts in question, several of which containing email addresses, if you have a desire to question them - but I'm not going to defend them further.

I find no reason to contest them though, but not because I don't agree with what they did.

Dude... I clearly wrote, "no atheist believes that Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" group is indicative of Christianity as a whole." I have to ask, are you willingly trying to miscontrue my position? The 'reasonable' Christianity that does not tread into public discourse and make a nuisance of itself 'should' not be attacked. The Christianty representative of groups like Phelps', or perhaps evangelical Christians who want to push creationism in school 'should' be attacked.

Well, right after that you wrote: "Yet their ideology is based on their beliefs (obviously). This is a clear cut example where religion is not personal, and should be 'figuratively' attacked." I guess I understood it wrongly then. To me it reads like you are defending that they should be figuratively attacked.

Because it has been taken out of the private realm - i.e. personal faith - and displayed in the public, political realm. People have no problem with overstepping this line when it matches their personal beliefs, but hypothetically, if the US decided that all women were to wear burkas in public because someone's private faith dictated public action, then people would be justified in trying to dismantle ('attack') the supposed legitimacy of Islam. We would clearly recognize that without hard, factual evidence that Allah exists, and the Qur'an is 'true', that we would not be obligated to put up with religious attacks on our rights.

I don't see how this is not an example of morality, but I really don't want to get into a discussion into explaining morality as something scientifically logical and reasonable, which is probably what you are going to be saying. That's where I draw a line .

I really don't know how to phrase it any differently, then. You're essentially telling me that concepts like 'cause precedes effect' are subjective. How can I respond? 2 + 2 = 4 is not 'subjective'. A or not-A is not subjective. Circular reasoning is not subjective. Argument from numbers is not subjective. If you cannot understand and accept these concepts, then I have to question why you're bothering to debate in the first place?

We weren't talking about anything quantitative though. An argument is in no way quantitative. You were mentioning philosophical concepts, such as the "burden of proof." Btw... Even if it's not an issue right now, why do I have to understand and accept these concepts in order to debate? I think that's a bold statement, or you just got frustrated.

It's a 'belief' that has afforded humankind many concrete advancements which religion has failed to provide on its own. I seriously question the good faith in anyone's actions contesting this idea.

This is faith in falsifiability...

Really, what difference does it make if indeed it is a 'belief'? The fact is, most scientists don't actually care about philosophy, believe it not. I'm serious - they don't. They come up with an idea, gather some data, and submit it to the circus for review and criticism. When it's been beaten up for a couple years, and engineer comes along and makes something with it. That's it in a nutshell. There is no navel-gazing on philosophical grounds - "gee, is my study on cation exchange in uraninite deposits epistomologically sound?" - or anything like that. They don't really care because they are used to the idea of knowledge being transient. Put something forward that is plausible, and don't get married to your ideas.

It's in that light that science is a method, not an ideology, belief, or faith.

But you still need faith in the method as well. When you try to explain something scientifically, you always have faith that the method you're using will give you the type of results you want. I honestly don't believe that there is such a thing as a human that is atheist, as in having no beliefs, and then assuming that they are in the side of the "truth" without that being a belief.

Right now I have to go, but I'll try to get to the other things you wrote later, unless you don't really mind if we keep that as it is, because my main gripe is really in what I'm mentioning in this post.

Btw, I don't mean all these things as an attack to you, but towards the concept of "having no beliefs." There are bigger fish to fry in real life .

[iAnnAu]

Sereno, you don't even sound like you're debating the significant points made - you sound to me like you're nitpicking certain wordings. You're caught up in arguing about falsifiability being a kind of faith? What is that even getting at? I think you made your point to those who are on your wavelength; now you just sound to me like you won't let FMH have the last word.

FMH, I have understood everything you've said in this thread. I don't know why you're not getting through to Sereno, but it's pretty obvious it ain't happening. I think you should probably let it go before things devolve, and let people reading this thread judge each person's words through their own perspectives.

/pathetic attempt at mediating

[Lobo]

I don't believe that you are trying to mediate, so you didn't have to mention that bit in the end so as to apply chocolate fudge over it, because it just tastes like fake chocolate .

Regardless, I had a long response to this but unfortunately it got erased by accident... But basically, I'm not involved in this discussion to see who wins, because I don't see this type of thing as having winners and losers, considering that we are talking about things that have a lot of impact in people's lives. There is something that I have clear in my mind that I don't seem to be communicating effectively about this topic, and it will have to stay that way unfortunately. In reality, to me this discussion was not really against atheism or christianity, but in the validity of "belief" in something that is not explained scientifically or through logic. For one, "atheism" means the "belief that there is no God," and "Christianity" means the belief of Jesus as God (the monotheistic Judeo-Christian one) or following the doctrine of Jesus. So you could say that in no way I have provided an argument against atheism in its actual meaning.

My original intention for all of this was to serve as testimony that one finds "fulfillment" in having faith (as in a religion). In no way was I involved in this to impose or to force people to believe in anything. I don't know if that's what came off to people reading it though. Also, I simply do not believe that there is such a thing as someone being on the side of the truth, especially claiming that it is the universally logical and reasonable choice.

I started to nitpick also because in a logical discussion, all terms need to be understood as meaning the same thing to both parties, and that's just how it works though. How else can two people from different backgrounds and culture, but speak the same language, are able to argue effectively? It just doesn't work. I know how the argument should be carried out, but I honestly despise these types of arguments because they are very tiring. So I don't mind if FMH gets the last word really .

[iAnnAu]

I don't believe that you are trying to mediate, so you didn't have to mention that bit in the end so as to apply chocolate fudge over it, because it just tastes like fake chocolate .

Actually, I honestly regret posting that, but I'm not gonna go back & delete it. I should have kept my personal comments out of it and just mentioned that the two of you had been going back and forth for so many posts that it seemed apparent that you were talking past each other. And there have been so many times that I've seen such occasions devolve into personal attacks or at the very least boring repetition. The former hadn't happened, and perhaps wouldn't, but the latter already seemed to be creeping into the responses of each of you. So I thought it was a good time to stop. I recognized it was my own opinion, that's why I put the comment at the end. But I could have just mentioned what I mention in this post.

[dbmmama]

I started to nitpick also because in a logical discussion, all terms need to be understood as meaning the same thing to both parties, and that's just how it works though. How else can two people from different backgrounds and culture, but speak the same language, are able to argue effectively? It just doesn't work. I know how the argument should be carried out, but I honestly despise these types of arguments because they are very tiring. So I don't mind if FMH gets the last word really .

Amen! I do that too and my mom and sis always said I was too "serious" about "nitpicking" too! But, I did/do it for the same reason you are saying here.

[dattebayo]

going after what you want, or knowing what you want in time?

both are equally easy/hard: They are pretty much the same as one usually implies the other. Either way. Well for me at least