People who believe in God are "NOT" broken

[Iggy]

 

Because it links explanation (the nature of religious belief) to observed trends (how religious groups are distributed) in a way that makes sense and leads to one logical conclusion, and renders your original question of why, redundant anyway.

 

Sorry, man. Genetic fallacy

[zapatos]

Because it links explanation (the nature of religious belief) to observed trends (how religious groups are distributed) in a way that makes sense and leads to one logical conclusion...

No, it doesn't lead to one logical conclusion. It leads to one possible logical conclusion.

You're being crafty by avoiding my reasoning, instead repeatedly make vague references to a part of my style of approach towards the topic...

Can you please point out how I just did that? From my perspective I am simply not accepting your reasoning.

 

and attacking it with your opinion...

Can you please point out where I just did that?

 

I've explained why, just not in the way you're demanding, in a non-scientific way, in an unanswerable way, in a way that manages to avoid admitting something that we all know to be evident,

Wow. And you complain about me being non-scientific?

i.e. when it comes to subscribing to a religion, there's no rational reason for doing so, therefore to claim to believe for any reason other than indoctrination, isn't really possible, because there is no reason to believe it, because there's no evidence. It's belief for the sake of belief, so even if you truly think that you're religious for any reason other than indoctrination, or thoughtless belief, that reason is invalid, because its not a reason, because reasons involving reasoning, which purely faith-based beliefs do not do.

Well, case closed. I guess we can shut down this topic.

 

On a side note, if you are changing font size for parts of your post, can you please stop doing so? It makes it difficult to respond without formatting errors. Thanks.

[Thorham]

therefore to claim to believe for any reason other than indoctrination, isn't really possible

There are plenty of atheists who have converted and who were most certainly not indoctrinated.

 

because there is no reason to believe it

There are for the people who converted, or they wouldn't have converted.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Thorham

[Iota]

There are plenty of atheists who have converted and who were most certainly not indoctrinated.

 

 

There are for the people who converted, or they wouldn't have converted.

 

Oh well, if the fact that atheists do convert to theism, somehow indicates an actual reason for doing so, I'm yet to hear about one that isn't just faith based, but actually based on hard evidence. Something I view has having significance.

 

 

 

Sorry, man. Genetic fallacy

 

 

 

Wow. And you complain about me being non-scientific?

 

And black-or-white fallacy, if I'm being honest. I shouldn't have touched this question with a 10 mile long stick, it's more of an argument for its own sake than one whose purpose is to try understand anything IMO. I agree I've discredited my own argument, so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

 

 

 

On a side note, if you are changing font size for parts of your post, can you please stop doing so? It makes it difficult to respond without formatting errors. Thanks.

 

I wasn't intentionally changing fonts, it probably occurred when I was adding quotes to my post.

[Thorham]

Oh well, if the fact that atheists do convert to theism, somehow indicates an actual reason for doing so

It's pretty obvious they have reasons to convert. An atheist doesn't wake up one day and think 'Today, I'm going to became a Christian." out of nowhere.

 

I'm yet to hear about one that isn't just faith based, but actually based on hard evidence. Something I view has having significance.

Those reasons don't have to be good reasons, of course. People do things for bad reasons sometimes.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Thorham

[Iggy]

And black-or-white fallacy, if I'm being honest. I shouldn't have touched this question with a 10 mile long stick, it's more of an argument for its own sake than one whose purpose is to try understand anything IMO. I agree I've discredited my own argument, so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

Well... the post got +2, and iNow went out of his way to say "good argument, and well focused on the point..." so, hopefully our nitpicking isn't too unmitigated.

 

Myself... if you put 'rational' in front of 'conclusion' the statement would be alright by me,

 

The reality is: that to come to the [rational] conclusion of theism isn't really doable in the first place, because to come to a real [rational] conclusion, you need evidence combined with reasoning to do so. With religion you believe it because you want to -for whatever non-evidence driven reason that may be- not because of a rationale.

 

Sorry, that really is nitpicking. I've been trying to win the pedantry award

 

 

*** note to self *** Fill out application for pedantry award in triplicate -- proof, sign, date, and notarize submission... and... find out if there is such a thing as a pedantry award

[Iota]

 

So by that right, you are also saying that the military seeks to control its members. I choose to follow Christian values, not because I had been raised that way, but because those are in line with my own beliefs that I have formed in my adult years.

 

If you already formed those beliefs, by yourself, what's the need of adopting the Christian version of those beliefs, or a deity for that matter? Christianity relies on absolute moral values, surely you would want to continue forming your values based on rationale and experience, rather than outdated absolutes? I just don't see the logic in that, especially with the way which Christianity contradicts its fundamental values countless numbers of times, and considering the immorality of some of the values it teaches.

 

 

Well... the post got +2, and iNow went out of his way to say "good argument, and well focused on the point..." so, hopefully our nitpicking isn't too unmitigated.

Myself... if you put 'rational' in front of 'conclusion' the statement would be alright by me,

 

Sorry, that really is nitpicking. I've been trying to win the pedantry award

 

 

*** note to self *** Fill out application for pedantry award in triplicate -- proof, sign, date, and notarize submission... and... find out if there is such a thing as a pedantry award

 

 

Not at all, the pointers are appreciated and useful. I just felt I'd made my point already, and it reached the point where I was tripping myself needlessly and at the expense of my original argument. The debate became more a contest of arguing skills rather than whose point was more logical and evidence supported, IMO.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Iota

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have split off a huge chunk of posts rehashing the very old and well worn topic of inconsistencies - both moral and historical - within the bible. Please note; the fact that thread is on religion or if someone mentions that they are a believer, have faith, or follow certain values is not free rein to drag up all your favourite problems with their chosen religious books. Please either concentrate on the OT - or use a different thread.

 

[Didymus]

If you already formed those beliefs, by yourself, what's the need of adopting the Christian version of those beliefs, or a deity for that matter? Christianity relies on absolute moral values, surely you would want to continue forming your values based on rationale and experience, rather than outdated absolutes? I just don't see the logic in that, especially with the way which Christianity contradicts its fundamental values countless numbers of times, and considering the immorality of some of the values it teaches.

 

Contradictions within churches aren't the same as contradictions within scripture or the faith itself. Christianity is most definitely not black and white. The overarching message is summed up in the book of Matthew where someone asks which commandment is the greatest (im an attempt to trap Jesus in some dichotomy that could then be disproven, thus calling him into question. Jesus' responce was that two commandments were the foundation of all law. Love God and love your fellow man. All Christian law is based upon these guidelines and are subjective.... Only these two laws take priority over all other things.

 

Sure, there are people who go against this teaching in the name of that teaching.... That makes them wrong.... Not the scripture they misuse. Likewise, there are people who use good science to support ridiculous claims because they've taken reasonable evidence and distorted it to the extent of claiming that the earth is hollow or flat, etc. These people with whom most would disagree don't invalidate science itself.... Only that they've misinterpreted science.

 

Same logic applies for people who takes a scripture about love and uses it as an excuse to breed hatred.

[Iota]

Look at the mod's note; if you want to talk to me about contradictions, here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78451-hijack-endless-rehash-of-contradictory-bits-of-the-bible/page-2 would be the place to do it. Although I've resigned from discussing that, anyway.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Iota