Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[dharveymi]

Nothing is proven.  Things can only be, as they say, established beyond a reasonable doubt.  If I decide to cross the road when the light has turned red for oncoming traffic, I don't know that somebody isn't going to drive right through the intersection and hit me anyway.  What I am applying is inductive reasoning, which is the kind of reasoning that deals with probabilities.  I am applying the general to the specific, in this sense:

1. Every time I've crossed the road at a red light for my entire life (and that's a lot of times), oncoming traffic has stopped and not hit me.
2. I am now crossing the road at a red light.
3. Therefore, oncoming traffic will stop and not hit me now.

Is #3 necessarily true?  No-- no conclusion of an inductive argument is necessarily true.  But it is justified, and if you deny my conclusion you may be mistaken or confused or just plain stupid, but you are not a bad person. 

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Do people with faith not use inductive reasoning?  Because you use inductive reasoning, you don't have faith that drivers will stop?  My faith is based on deductive reasoning, insanity is the alternative.  I have reasons for my faith.  I have evidence for what I believe.  Inductive reasoning is not solely reserved for atheists.

[The Muslim Agorist]

My belief in God is reasonably based on argument or evidence, so I guess I cannot be a man of faith anymore...
[/quote]

By terms of this thread I have never been a man of a faith, but a man of reason.

[dharveymi]

Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.

I can understand "allows," but "requires"?  Are you honestly suggesting that all people with faith are thinking, questioning people?

Yes!  Or they don't really have faith.  It's something thy simply call faith.

[Rillion]

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Do people with faith not use inductive reasoning?

I am saying that what you are calling "faith" is actually inductive reasoning.

My faith is based on deductive reasoning, insanity is the alternative.  I have reasons for my faith.

Then you're being inconsistent in your terminology.  If faith means simply believing what is unproven, then a) all kinds of thinking are faith, because nothing is really proven, or b) faith can't be deductive, because deduction is proving. 

And by "proving" in the second sense, I mean that if the premises are true and the argument is sound, then the conclusion must  be true.  For example:

1. If A, then B
2. A
3. Therefore, B

is a deductive argument.  It's not an argument that B is likely  to be true.  It's an argument that B is  true. 

I can understand "allows," but "requires"?  Are you honestly suggesting that all people with faith are thinking, questioning people?

Yes!  Or they don't really have faith.  It's something thy simply call faith.

But again, people believe all kinds of unproven things without really thinking about or questioning them.  So faith can't simply mean "unproven belief" in that sense, either. 

[dharveymi]

Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.

Bullshit, you're conflicting with the biblical definition ("Things unseen but hoped for..."). So I won't deal with you if you can't accept that the common definition is as it stands.

I'll try again.  The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no imperical evidence that one would.  Faith was the evidence that he used to begin his efforts to build a skyscraper.  If he had no faith in his own abilities, he would not begin the process and would simply give up, or start another project.  I have no faith in inner-stellar travel with existing terrestrial technology, so I haven't started an inner-stellar travel agency.  If I had faith in somebody who was beginning to implement this kind of technology, I might start one.  You have faith.  I don't know how many ways to say it, but "Nevertheless, it's round."

[dharveymi]

I am saying that what you are calling "faith" is actually inductive reasoning.

No.  Faith is evidence for something you can't or won't  prove.  I have faith that my mother had parents.  That the news is mostly factual. That someone will respond to this post.  That I'm not color blind.  That the people in the Bible were real.  That they are relating experiences that they had or believed to be true.  That for thousands of years people have found inspiration and meaning in these accounts.  That I can too (actually, that one I've proven.)

[BKO]

I would have bought the fable as a child if the scam was marketed to me as the Mighty Morphin Jesus Rangers.

If the church is ever going to continue to control the minds of men and keep using them to pump out willing servants to die for a lie by the millions, then they need to get with the times, Yo. New bible time. Dianetics and the Church of Scientology might beat them out in a few decades if these Christians don't get the ball rolling...perhaps all the Muslims and Christians will kill each other off.

Wouldn't that just be tragic?

[dharveymi]

Many people are called by the name, but that doesn't make them followers of Christ or Mohamed.  Jesus said that to be his follower, one must do as he says.  I would think that was obvious.  If a person is not doing what He said, he is not a Christian, no matter what he says.  Undoubtedly, many have killed and been killed in the name of one who never wanted any to perish.  Christianity is a free society.  We do nothing to enforce the name, that does not mean that everyone is is Christian.  Libertarians are having the same problem.  A lot of people are calling themselves libertarians who are not.  That doesn't make libertarianism bad.

[markuzick]

I think you mean that they were never consciously chosen.

The word "choice" implies that it is conscious. 

That's obviously wrong, as most choices are made intuitively.

Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

Haven't you ever heard of a "knee jerk" conservative. Or any one of numerous examples of acquired beliefs, opinions and tastes and their corresponding values as being the basis of our intuitive reactions?

I think we've already agreed that there is a distinction to be made between hard wired instinct and intuition. Morality refers to a code of values that, at some level, is chosen.

Again, you've given no reason why I should accept this as true.  It is not intrinsic to the definition of morality that it be chosen.  If there is a genetic (that is, evolved) reason why, for example, people are likely to view incest as wrong, then that would be a moral judgment which is emphatically not  chosen.

Why confuse an inherited behavioral trait with morality? Aren't you able to make distinctions, or is it some personal agenda that forces you to turn a blind eye to such an obvious distinction? Are you proposing that we create two categories of morality; one based on hard wired instinct and the other based on acquired values? Your whole approach to this strikes me as obfuscatory.

Genetic instinct refers to a code of values which are hard wired, that can, at most, be repressed, but never changed.

The instincts may not be changed, but the behavior resulting from them can be.  If you are sufficiently persuaded (through argument or fear of punishment, or both) that something you have an instinctive desire to do is wrong, then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to refrain from doing it.

Isn't that what I said, but with fewer words?

[BKO]

Yeah, I dunno. The whole Jesus story has beauty to it, which aids in acquiring loyal subjects. The whole love story about Jesus dying for humanity and turning the other cheek is a nice touch. I mean, the Jews don't even recognize the fellow to this day, yet there they are still. 'Tis a beautiful story, I must admit. Sad too, did I mention sad? Just horribly sad. Man, I bet when people are down and depressed, all they need is a good 'ol bible to cheer them up. New Testament, that is -or else the old version might make their symptoms worsen. Hmm... I wonder what would happen if a great big UFO or three landed and these little dudes came out and dropped off a few copies of a new book? I bet we have enough technology now to pull off a hoax like that. I think that would be kinda cool. They can be like: "woops, we forgot to mention last time we were here that you were supposed to burn the cross dresser so that some silly folks don't take it upon themselves to actually concoct a story about raising from the dead." The new book can teach people how to pray to a new prophet, amiably named "Barney". And all that Barney wants is for humanity to give him their money. This is because God needs MONEY. Lots and lots of MONEY. With all the UFO craze these past 60 years or so, I wouldn't doubt that some kind of strange event may unfold like that. Who would deny a real, recorded UFO prophecy deliverance? We can make MoOOvies after it and everything!!

I'm just blabbering, nevermind me.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I would have bought the fable as a child if the scam was marketed to me as the Mighty Morphin Jesus Rangers.

If the church is ever going to continue to control the minds of men and keep using them to pump out willing servants to die for a lie by the millions, then they need to get with the times, Yo. New bible time. Dianetics and the Church of Scientology might beat them out in a few decades if these Christians don't get the ball rolling...perhaps all the Muslims and Christians will kill each other off.

Wouldn't that just be tragic?

Well, by your example, someone could go off and murder 1 million people "in the name of Brokor" and I then would be justified in blaming you for all those deaths.  We can only hang you once though...

[dharveymi]

No offense to the UFO guys, but the Bible is a bit more substantial.  I understand your objections, and I can appreciate them, but the Bible wasn't written by one person, or in one time.  The Bible was written over centuries, by people in various walks of life.  It references works of authority to the people of that day.  It was never the intention of the authors to put it over on unsuspecting people, if it was they did a pretty poor job.  From my reading, the authors were being sincere.  Yes, they may have been sincerely crazy, but then they all were, kings, farmers, fishermen, rabbis, regents.  They didn't believe they were writing fiction (fiction is a rather new invention, by they way.)  They might have all been lying, but they might have crafted a better lie, been a little more "consistent", etc.  Your argument just doesn't ring true.

I'm not trying to make a Christian out of you, but if you want to be critical of the Bible, you should try harder than comparing it to the Easter Bunny or the Power Rangers.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.

Bullshit, you're conflicting with the biblical definition ("Things unseen but hoped for..."). So I won't deal with you if you can't accept that the common definition is as it stands.

The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no imperical evidence that one would.  Faith was the evidence that he used to begin his efforts to build a skyscraper.

An alternative reality exists where he builds a skyscraper not out of faith, but as an experiment. Assuming a given theory and a material experiment he tests a hypothesis that a sky scraper can exist. The same experiment can be applied to interstellar travel without faith… however I wouldn’t open an agency until I had results.

I would have bought the fable as a child if the scam was marketed to me as the Mighty Morphin Jesus Rangers.

If the church is ever going to continue to control the minds… 

 

The essence of every divine religion is the emancipation of man’s control of man, and the freedom to worship his creator. The use of corrupted religious teachings to control the minds of men is a divorce from their original teachings. Scientology however, I believe, was corrupt in it’s first inception.

Like Christianity, not all Muslims in name are Muslims in deed. And like Libertarianism, the actions of a misguided minority should not mean that Islam is bad.

I mean, the Jews don't even recognize the fellow to this day…
 

Of course they don’t… if they did they would categorically be Christian… namely, Jews for Jesus. A group that does exist. Similarly, Muslims accept Jesus as Christ, but if a Christian accepts Muhammad he is categorically a Muslims. And some Jews accept all of these, namely, the Jews for Allah, another group which does exist.

But the word "faith" doesn't even exist in Arabic as a blind acceptance of the improvable. The closest approximation is "iman" which refers to believes held through reason and evidence.

[ladyattis]

I'll try again.  The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no empirical evidence that one would.

Nope, s/he can deduce it from earlier buildings. And from observing even termite hills, which seem to have similar features to modern buildings, and recognize that if a termite hill requires X properties to stand up from its base [underground], then it follows a similar structure made of wood, stone, concrete, steel, and etc would require similar features. Also, much of the basis of skyscrapers are based on other things such as distributing stress loads, which can be measured even in arches, so just that alone would have been sufficient for any architect to conceive of the next step. So your argument loses just on the fact that all things being non-contradictory, then all things must start from an axiom that is deduced [e.g. the termite hill]. [ ]

-- Brede

[dharveymi]

I'll try again.  The person who wants to build a skyscraper, but has never seen one, hoped that one would exist.  He had no empirical evidence that one would.

Nope, s/he can deduce it from earlier buildings. And from observing even termite hills, which seem to have similar features to modern buildings, and recognize that if a termite hill requires X properties to stand up from its base [underground], then it follows a similar structure made of wood, stone, concrete, steel, and etc would require similar features. Also, much of the basis of skyscrapers are based on other things such as distributing stress loads, which can be measured even in arches, so just that alone would have been sufficient for any architect to conceive of the next step. So your argument loses just on the fact that all things being non-contradictory, then all things must start from an axiom that is deduced [e.g. the termite hill]. [ ]

-- Brede

These are simply reasons for his faith.  They are not proof.  Until the first one was built, it was simply faith, based on reason, but faith nonetheless.  An ant hill is not a skyscraper, any more than the Bible is God.