Just A Reminder About Religious People

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]

If it's true, why would it need to be restated over and over again. The fact that posters don't start off stating that premise would indicate -
a) they don't think it is true
b) they think it's a given. "grass is green."
c) one of the above is true but it's not relevant to their post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the most common reason: d) they don't stop to consider the implications of the different kinds of belief.

If the majority of theists are coming to their beliefs through faith and personal revelation, than picking on them for being illogical is completely misguided, akin to saying that a fish is defective because its gills don't work on dry land.

If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I disagree. I have read the recent posts about intuition and logic. The problem which was addressed regarding the valid uses of intuition do not extend to being touched by god. We can use intuition to arrive at better conclusion's then with logic when the topics are knowable, and then only after a great deal of study.

The claims that are made with regard to god are unknowable. We must indeed use logic to determine that what is presented to us as the word of god is indeed fabricated to at least some extent. Mistranslated or dileberately enhanced after the fact. You cannot know the authenticness of Bible in your heart, with out first having great understanding of lit.

Moverover, there can be no experts on religion, perhaps religious studies. But the very nature of religion means it's out of grasp of what is knowable.

[VarlosZ]

What do you mean by "knowable"?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "knowable"?

[/ QUOTE ]I mean a couple things, first the deeper meaning: that if it's typical to believe in Allah in your culture those touches by god come from allah, if it's Jesus that you grew up with then it's jesus that touches you, demons, aliens, ghosts it's all the same. The feelings are of course real, but they are agnostic, they are non exclusive to the meanings that we subscribe to them.

And the lessor meaning is that anyone who claims to have special knowledge of God is a liar.

[tame_deuces]

If religion isn't knowable, then I sit and wonder how come religious people know so much about it.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I disagree. I have read the recent posts about intuition and logic. The problem which was addressed regarding the valid uses of intuition do not extend to being touched by god. We can use intuition to arrive at better conclusion's then with logic when the topics are knowable, and then only after a great deal of study.

The claims that are made with regard to god are unknowable. We must indeed use logic to determine that what is presented to us as the word of god is indeed fabricated to at least some extent. Mistranslated or dileberately enhanced after the fact. You cannot know the authenticness of Bible in your heart, with out first having great understanding of lit.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess i don't see what (what we are talking about) has to do with intuition vs. logic. i agree with the jist of what you are saying, but i don't think it applies. the "believer" is not trying to reach a logical conclusion through intuition. he is STARTING OUT with an assumption that whatever he believes is true. you do the exact same thing when you believe that the world is exists outside of yourself and that what you see and hear and smell and taste and feel the touch of is indicative of reality.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I disagree. I have read the recent posts about intuition and logic. The problem which was addressed regarding the valid uses of intuition do not extend to being touched by god. We can use intuition to arrive at better conclusion's then with logic when the topics are knowable, and then only after a great deal of study.

The claims that are made with regard to god are unknowable. We must indeed use logic to determine that what is presented to us as the word of god is indeed fabricated to at least some extent. Mistranslated or dileberately enhanced after the fact. You cannot know the authenticness of Bible in your heart, with out first having great understanding of lit.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess i don't see what (what we are talking about) has to do with intuition vs. logic. i agree with the jist of what you are saying, but i don't think it applies. the "believer" is not trying to reach a logical conclusion through intuition. he is STARTING OUT with an assumption that whatever he believes is true. you do the exact same thing when you believe that the world is exists outside of yourself and that what you see and hear and smell and taste and feel the touch of is indicative of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]It has to do with intuition because people are saying that they feel God's work, or plan, or hand, or noodley appendage. Starting with the assumption that FSM's noodley appendage touched him is an act of logic. But feeling the al dente is intuition.

We can discuss it both way's. Just let me know which one. Are we talking about assuming the FSM exists, or are we talking about sensing the touch of the al dente appendage? Or something entirely different?

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
. But feeling the al dente is intuition.

[/ QUOTE ]
i don't know if intuition is the right word. maybe it is. i guess i've never felt "the noodle", so i wouldn't know. either way, it's a trivial distinction. you can percieve reality through your senses or percieve it through your "intuition" or through some other means - but you can never know that what you experience is more "real" than what someone else experiences. that is my only point.

if we take for granted the 'standard' model of the world, then of course i agree that science is right and faith is wrong. the problem is that the religious faithful probably don't the accept the standard model, even if they don't realize it.

edit: "the standard model of the world" is a phrase i just made up meaning: the model of the world where one reality exists, time and space exist, and consciousness is either separate from the material world, or is created by the material world.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: "the standard model of the world" is a phrase i just made up meaning: the model of the world where one reality exists, time and space exist, and consciousness is either separate from the material world, or is created by the material world.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please make a post that is true in all respects to the concept that the 'standard model' as you present it is false.

luckyme