it's pointless to present this argument to anyone who already believes in god, because they don't need proof of his existence: "well how come soooo many people followed jesus then??? he must have been the son of god for people to die in support of him" they might call it proof but it is obviously faith...you are right in saying that the normal standards of logic do not apply.
when i get into religious debate with religious people, i try to assume god exists. it gives me the opportunity to understand them more. besides, how can we prove or disprove his existence? there will never be the definitive beat-you-over-the-head proof (which christians say is completely arrogant of us to expect...god owes us nothing)
ps they are most definitely NOT catholic. i have no respect for catholics. they are born-again christians, and i do value their genuine desire to be good people...and compared to most catholics i've known, they spend a lot more time thinking about their faith and are more willing to explain it than shroud it in secrecy. catholicism is dead.
you said that religious people are often naive, and i agree. but there are some very intelligent people who believe. i think these are the people who seek more meaning in their lives, who realize that life is inherently empty...and since you can't prove or disprove a religion, why is it wrong to have faith in something that leaves you deeply fulfilled? oh god, i hear the oliver truth vs. happiness debate rolling in.
in presenting this to someone who already believes in god, you might be assuming that i'm trying to convince them that they need proof of his existance. that is extremely far from my intentions, and i think i made it clear probably 10 times too many in my post. i don't assume god exists, and i don't assume he doesn't exist. when i talk to someone about their religious beliefs, at no point do i allow my (potentially) conflicting ideas to get in the way of understanding their ways. i'm not trying to convince anyone that they are wrong, that would be incredibly unreasonable. i don't like it when people try to rub their religious beliefs on to me, and in turn, i refuse to do that to anyone else. i am in full agreement that anyone is free to believe in their religion in whatever way they need to. the main point that i seem to have been driving at with my post is that there seems to be a seemingly non-coincidental correlation between faith and ignorance, at least to some noticable degree. it could be any religion. faith is something that you can't have taken away from you by force or failure, nor should it be something that could. it's something to hold on to that nothing can ever make you let go of. granted, some people lose faith due to various events and circumstances, but that's entirely based on the persons experiences. it's a decision that is made out of what the person believes to be adequate reasoning. doesn't that seem to imply that blind faith is associated with variable amounts of irrationality? there are four different catagories that ALL people can be classified into: consciously competent, unconsciously competent, consciously incompetent, and unconsciously incompenent. now, unconsciously competent isn't important here, nor is consciously incompetent. a unconsciously incompetent person is not aware, nor do they tend to have the capacity to be aware of the fact that they are incompetent. a stupid person does not realize they are stupid, because they cannot comprehend a higher level of enlightenment. a consciously competent person is more or less self-explanitory in opposition to an unconsciously incompetent person. mind you, competency is not a guarentee of intelligence, or so i would believe for the most part. having all of this laid out now, which category would you expect that i would place someone with blind faith? i'm willing to believe that the only positive kind of blindness is the kind that justice should exhibit, regardless of that actually being the case. blind faith is just that. it's clearly a type of faith that is not questioned in any way, and in the case of just about all religions, is ignorant. a large decision such as living your life by something (of which you don't even attempt to calculate the validity) that has no factual evidence is clearly unconsciously incompetent. these kinds of people haven't tried to figure it out for themselves. it may work for them, and that is fantastic, and may it continue to work out for them. you obviously can't change what you are. if you are stupid, well, ignorance is bliss. you've got nothing to worry about, because you don't know to worry about anything that you don't already. if you are smart enough to question the validity of something that provides no rational credentials, then you will make the decision that works for you.
i agree, catholisism is a joke. much of it makes no sense. that is their problem, and they don't seem to have one about it. sure, whatever works for you does work for you. at the same time, you might be submitting to nonsense and not even realizing it. no religion is right, they are likely ALL entirely wrong. the fact is: people should think about their religion instead of ignorantly just going along with it. What good is faith if you don't know what kind of sense is being made out of what you are unquestionably believing in?
when i get into religious debate with religious people, i try to assume god exists. it gives me the opportunity to understand them more. besides, how can we prove or disprove his existence? there will never be the definitive beat-you-over-the-head proof (which christians say is completely arrogant of us to expect...god owes us nothing)
ps they are most definitely NOT catholic. i have no respect for catholics. they are born-again christians, and i do value their genuine desire to be good people...and compared to most catholics i've known, they spend a lot more time thinking about their faith and are more willing to explain it than shroud it in secrecy. catholicism is dead.
you said that religious people are often naive, and i agree. but there are some very intelligent people who believe. i think these are the people who seek more meaning in their lives, who realize that life is inherently empty...and since you can't prove or disprove a religion, why is it wrong to have faith in something that leaves you deeply fulfilled? oh god, i hear the oliver truth vs. happiness debate rolling in.
Reply
i agree, catholisism is a joke. much of it makes no sense. that is their problem, and they don't seem to have one about it. sure, whatever works for you does work for you. at the same time, you might be submitting to nonsense and not even realizing it. no religion is right, they are likely ALL entirely wrong. the fact is: people should think about their religion instead of ignorantly just going along with it. What good is faith if you don't know what kind of sense is being made out of what you are unquestionably believing in?
Reply
Leave a comment