Is it moral/justifiable to make the leap of faith?

Is it moral/justifiable to make the leap of faith?
Figureitout
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2013

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 142
#261 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 15, 2013 - 1:26 AM:

Frankleeseaux wrote:
It was my Christian parents who fed me these lies, even though they knew them to be lies at the time, because they knew such a belief would serve to reinforce and strengthen my belief in God. And yes, as Christian children, they believed them too. But, you don't find atheist and non Christian people of any age believing these myths.


So in other words when you found out that Santa Claus wasn't real your life pretty much ended at that point? What happened when you found out the tooth fairy wasn't real? lol

Frankleeseaux wrote:
That is a bull shit argument because I am regularly having productive conversaation with people who disagree with me. The only people i seem to have any real problem with are those who either, due to some communication gap are not grasping what i'm getting at, or whose arguments I'm having difficulty in following, or those who are unreasonable, and unfamiliar with the proper application of logic and reason.


In other words the problem is with everyone else... not you. Seems to me that our conversation is similar to many others on this forum.

Frankleeseaux wrote:
I could tell you of all the death threats I recieved from Christians in up front and personal conversations before the advent of the internet, and one of two things would likely happen on your end... 1) abject and thoughtless denial, or 2) internal justification.

Instead of being appalled that your fellow Christians would behave in such a manner you would seek some way of mitigating its effect, in and on your way of thinking.


I've received death threats because of racial prejudice; however, I don't make sweeping generalizations on the basis of few... although I could.

Frankleeseaux wrote:
Good question... Equally good and relevant question... Why are we talking about my use of metaphores?


Answering a question with a question. In other words you have no answer. Holidays are irrelevant to our conversation and yet you seem that they are relevant somehow.





FrankLeeSeaux
Pronounced "frankly so"

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2012
Location: In the Ether

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 3210
#262 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 15, 2013 - 10:21 AM:

Figureitout wrote:


I've received death threats because of racial prejudice; however, I don't make sweeping generalizations on the basis of few... although I could.


It's easy, and comforting to believe it is a sweeping, or hasty generalization. I've gotten racially motivated death threats as well. And, I've even had my life threatened because people perceived me as gay... One girl accused me of raping... crazy shit. But, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about in every single instance where I told someone I know in person, I was greeted by verbal violence, threats of physical violence, and structural violence. There is a very big difference between everyone of a given grouping conducting a same or similar action, and the occasional similarity across cultures.

Also, it is well known and stated that atheists are the least trust. most reviled people on the planet, being placed below rapists and murderers on the trust scale. Mitigate that one away.
FrankLeeSeaux
Pronounced "frankly so"

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2012
Location: In the Ether

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 3210
#263 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 15, 2013 - 10:25 AM:

Figureitout wrote:



Answering a question with a question. In other words you have no answer. Holidays are irrelevant to our conversation and yet you seem that they are relevant somehow.


The POINT was, that my question was no more relevant than yours. In fact, when you raised the issue of my usage of metaphores, I recognized the lack of relevance and allowed my response to drift into the irrelevant intentionally to demonstrate the point that it was irrelevant. Now, here we are, still discussing irrelevant shit, for no relevant reason.
FrankLeeSeaux
Pronounced "frankly so"

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2012
Location: In the Ether

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 3210
#264 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 15, 2013 - 10:43 AM:

In fact, since the start of this thread, I've yet to see an actual justification for making a leap of faith. Of course, I'll grant that I haven't read every single post, but still, no justification forth coming that I can see.

Furthermore, it seems to me that a leap of faith is distinguished by its lack of justification, and by the lack of requirement of justification in the people who employ leaps of faith.

So, if we define a leap of faith as an assumption without deference to evidence, then we have decribed a lack of justification in reasoning.

Assumptions, however, can be conditional, or contingent upon evidence.

A reasonable and considerate person, therefore, may make, or allow an assumption for sake of argumentaion/consideration. This is then a conditional arrangement, and may become contingent. In other words, if the assumption is "proven" by evidence and argumentation to a sufficient degree, then it may be adopted as contingently true/false, whereas it was previously accepted only as a condition of the argument.consideration.

So, I, as an atheist, conditionally accept the existence of a God with a given set of necessary characteristics. If this conception proves incoherent, and or logically impossible, then I can freely reject the notion thereafter. If, however, it proves coherent, then I must, as a reasonable person, accept the notion thereafter contingently.

So, if I were a theist, trying to justify my belief in a God, in conversation with an atheist, I would then attempt to define God in a way which is necessary, and coherent. I certainly wouln't be making an appeal to faith.
derrend
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2013
Location: UK

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 35
#265 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 19, 2013 - 3:56 PM:

Lol, just checked back to see how the thread was going, Sorry I haven't been contributing but I started trying to learn php about the same time I started this but it was taking away from my learning time so I had to give it a rest.

I've been thinking and I'm only going to be alive about 70-80 years so I really don't have time to debate this (if I'm honest) complete and utter blatant nonsense.

I pointed out to a religious friend of mine that microbial life might soon be found on Mars and how that would affect his religious view? He told me that life would never be found anywhere other than Earth because that is what the bible said. I asked him to indulge me though and pretend that life had been found. He said that the bible might possibly be reinterpreted to mean that there is microbial life elsewhere but not intelligent life and that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life.

Suddenly I realised that there was nothing in the world that could get through to him. He had fallen into a pit of ignorance that he would never get out of. Every disproof I provided would be distorted to somehow fit his world view. He had stopped evolving which is ironic since he denies evolution.

The short time I have in this life is too precious to spend it arguing in circles because at the end we may as well have just stood in silence.

You may think I'm being closed minded and that all debate is progress in some form or another but when the topic is a magical imaginary dictator who after creating all of existence decided to commit semi-suicide by being nailed to wooden boards (which was a good thing somehow) so that he could go back to heaven and author the occasional book. Not to mention the incestuous implications of impregnating your own mother, cowardly acts of giving your sins to others (which absolves absolutely no responsibility on any ones part I might add) vicarious redemption is disgusting and immoral once again and simply a waste of every ones time.
And this is all before pointing out that Jesus was supposed to return in the lifetimes of those who saw him die but never did or that he never said a word about electricity, DNA, the world being round, what causes disease, etc.
Even after his death when he returned to his writing studio in the sky he still never mentioned it in any books.
Not one word of the bible or any other 'holy' <-- full of holes, book for that matter introduces any new information that wasn't known at the time, isn't that just amazing?

Look at me I'm off again,
My deepest genuine sympathy to everyone out there suffering this evil fallacy.
Good luck.

Edited by derrend on Mar 19, 2013 - 5:17 PM
crunchy
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 257
#266 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 20, 2013 - 1:00 AM:

derrend wrote:


It seems then to be a requirement of the faith based knowledge to turn off your rational defences and ignore the inconsistencies within itself and all the other knowledge I currently possess (which didn't have to dodge the logical scrutiny test to be allowed in by the way) in order to be assimilated. Also my world view would have now gone from being adaptive and dynamic to static.

But how can this be justified? How can it be considered moral to potentially allow corrupt knowledge into your mind on purpose? And how can you justify trusting anyone that has done it themselves and then advises you to do it, after all they may be corrupt now yes?


All input appreciated.


1. Faith is not static. See: the history of theology and the constant reinterpretation of any religion throughout time. the constant seeking of truth.

2. One does not require oneself to "turn off one's rational faculties" to make a leap of faith. Reason can often bring you there, if it didn't the original question you posed would not even make sense. And further, the whole idea of a leap of faith wouldn't make sense. That's why it's called a leap of faith.

3. Potentially corrupt knowledge? If knowledge is not true it is not knowledge. There is no such thing as potentially corrupt knowledge. But I suppose you are saying "something that could be false," but there is a "danger" with that for anything you believe. You could only watch Fox news for instance.

4. I don't see how having "the ability to have a false belief" makes a person corrupt. You are conflating things. And someone alluded earlier that then you are saying any person throughout all of history is corrupt because they believe something that is potentially false. That sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?

in short, No, making a leap of faith does not make you corrupt.

peace!
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Feb 27, 2013 - 9:05 AM, Mariner replied internally to Mariner's Nah, no one shou....
On Feb 26, 2013 - 11:49 PM, 180 Proof replied internally to hughsmith23's "180 Proof respond....
On Feb 26, 2013 - 3:56 PM, 180 Proof replied internally to Mariner's Nah, no one shou....

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.