Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

You came to understand that you think what you believe is not dogmatic. Religion, as an organized belief system, is by definition dogmatic. It must be dogmatic because if it isn't there is no organized system of belief. Without tenants for the believers to follow (dogmas) you have a random group of people. Religion is dogma in a specific form.

All religion had inside-wars, exactly for the reason religion is dogmatic. Look at xianity before the protestanism. All rival sect (denomination) was persecuted (punished by death). Because of dogma.

Especially that religion, religious belief by dictionary-definition is: "belief with lack of, or in spite of evidence".
Which is actually the same definition as MADNESS has.
As religion has no use or connection to reality, it must be dogmatic, else it will just disappear (and it should, given religion is organised madness).

Especially that religion, religious belief by dictionary-definition is: "belief with lack of, or in spite of evidence".
Which is actually the same definition as MADNESS has.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be purposefully provocative or insulting, but neither of these definitions is correct. Interestingly, within the Philosophy of Religion, religion itself turns out to be pretty difficult to define (or, more properly put, to analyse).

One of the fundamental disagreements between theists and atheists is actually what counts as evidence. Now, if you can show that theistic belief does, in fact, lack evidential support - then you've got something. I think you can use that result to show that theistic belief is epistemically irrational. But I haven't seen an argument of this sort (and I've run quite a few myself) that doesn't ultimately beg the question against the theist.

You posted that as a direct response to my statement regarding the relationship between laws and theories, and aspects of theories that make me highly critical of them. If the "aspects" you were talking about weren't theories then I'm a little confused as to why you brought it up.

I was providing cases in which science does not know everything and cannot be taken as irrefutable fact, as well as the role of religious people in the history of science.

Of course it is. But some things are at least for today's thinking minds obvious. Obviously god didn't cry for 40 days in a form of rain which wiped out nearly everything but Noah's Ark. Obviously the tree of knowledge was no apple. Obviously snakes don't talk.

As I am sure you know, according to Christianity, it was mankind's fault. The entire concept of Christianity is based on re-establishing spiritual contact with god.

Like @Ishtaron said before about Christianity, every religion compells believers to act and think in their own way.

I was raised as a Christian. Not once, ever, was I told to think critically about religion. I was asked leading questions in Sunday School (where I would be told the "right" answer after "thinking"), and sermons tried to get me to think in the way they wanted.

Of course. But, in the first case, the way I get it, that WAS always what it meant.

Just a minor mistake: the holy Trinity is part of Christianity, not just Catholicism.

If that was the case with you, I feel sorry for you. I was raise as a christian but with a very liberal approach. Even in school, the teachers were open minded and available for a discussion.

Which is actually the same definition as MADNESS has.

One of the fundamental disagreements between theists and atheists is actually what counts as evidence. Now, if you can show that theistic belief does, in fact, lack evidential support - then you've got something.

Evidence has a dictionary definition, and you can not deviate from that. Evidence is a verifiable data/measurement.

What can count as evidence you may ask, but first let's check the dictionary definitions of "belief" in relation to "evidence", as there are more than one definition, and it is important to the topic:
#1: religious belief: belief without or in spite of evidence. Here is a quotation for you from wikipedia: "Religious beliefs, being derived from ideas that are exclusive to religion". This tells religion is based upon itself, it is a circular logic, and because the particular religion is only accepted by its members, and never any other - unlike science -, it tells "religion is nonsense".
#2: belief for a trustable person in the field explaining you the phenomena
#3: belief for personal convinction, BECAUSE YOU PERFORMED THE EXPERIMENT.

Now can come the question of evidence. Evidence is a number of collected data from which a theory can be made.
So by definition evidence is something that can be measured, and can be reproduced in the right conditions with 99.99999% accuracy (bad can happen, that's why some minor fault-margine is left in).

The evidence can come from 2 sources:
- hard facts collected
- oral evidence.

Hard facts are hard to dismiss, and are always stronger than oral evidence, will explain in a moment why.
Any theory based on the datas is only accepted if it explains at least the majority of the related datas, AND works with the least unbased assumptions (= Occam's Razor).
Eg. You can explain the world with or without a god with full consistency. We'll only accept the explanation which does not include that god, because that assumption is unnecessary.

Now the only "evidence" (in quotation-marks with reason) are oral evidence. No hard proof was ever produced.

Oral evidence always come from "humans" (I use the word in the meaning as sentient beings, but don't mind that).
What do we know of humans' talk's connection to relaity?
- we know humans can lie. Even infants lie (scientific fact). Animals lie too, but don't mind that now.
- we know that humans can have delusions.
- we know that human organs can misfunction.
- we know that the human body is accustomed to certain environment, and thus what it senses can be different from what actually happens (becasue the event is too slow, because the mind is focused to something else too much, because a recognition-pattern kicks in when it shouldn't (like at instances confusing twins).
Because all this oral evidence is far from trustable.

And we get back to the factor of trustable repeatable results.
Religion has absolutely zero trustable repeatable result despite its innumerous claims of having them. Actually the only "evidence religion can offer is how the members "feel, act, thinks or perceive."

Lastly, just to not forget, the definition of "madness:

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability)

Oral evidence applies only to something that is spoken (hence the "oral" modifier). What theists use as evidence for their faith is not what scientists use as evidence for their findings. That is exactly why there is disagreement on what qualifies as evidence.

Lastly, just to not forget, the definition of "madness:

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability)

Gravity is not "just a theory".

I agree that his statement was absolute gibberish, but your argument wasn't really correct on a number of points. That's why it was challenged.

The specifics that you say weren't correct have been argued back and forth in this thread for pages. They also aren't purely things of my creation, both the link I posted and Freakenstein countered Moe's stance on the relationship between theory and law. If they weren't so off topic we could continue arguing those specifics for days without coming to an agreement or providing enough evidence to conclusively prove our side. The challenges were largely a reactionary response to a statement that challenged to something you guys believe to be true, which is why they continued to come up pages after the initial statement was made.

Um, yes, but "Young Earth" creationists (an unseemly large group of people) still believe that all of this literally, actually, honest-to-God-ly happened.

And all Christians literally, actually, honest-to-God-ly believe in an omnipotent deity that could easily disregard the laws of physics and make it happen. I'm not taking a stance on YE or OE because the way the Earth was created isn't a fundamental part of my faith, but telling a Christian that an omnipotent being can't do something is like telling a doctor that a disease can't kill someone. It makes no sense and has no affect on what they see as the truth.

Like Ishtaron..

Could people quoting this take the time to remove the @ sign? I keep getting email notifications about posts that aren't actually directed at me and I'd appreciate it if they stopped without me changing my notifications to a setting that would prevent people from getting my attention when they're trying to.

If by "in their own way" you mean "in the way prescribed by their faith", yes. Every religion compells believers to act and think in their own way.

Same here, except without the sunday school.

I can guarantee that this is not actually true. Certainly, they will answer questions, but as soon as you get into the controversial subjects, such as the problem of evil, you tend to find them reeling off dismissive non-answers to avoid further discussion.

I'm sorry if this was your experience, but as I said earlier it's not really the norm. The average Catholic priest doesn't spend his days fondling choir boys in the back room, he's usually at the church comforting members going through hard times or feeding the poor or visiting shut-ins. The teachers aren't there to strap kids down and brainwash them, they're there because they love teaching and they have a firm faith in God. The majority of people who go into careers in the clergy or as teachers in private schools aren't doing it for the money (this is especially true outside of Catholicism where most church's barely receive enough money to keep the lights on) or out of some desire to create an army of brainwashed slaves. They do it to help people. They believe that their faith is the way to heaven/nirvana/etc and they want to spread that faith in order to save peoples souls. But only the most extreme fanatics and bigots actually try to force their beliefs on others and that's true regardless of what you believe. Even atheists have their extremists trying to force atheism on others until they accept it or choke on it.

No, it isn't. Madness is expecting completely different results from an exactly repeated procedure... Or believing that you are Napoleon.

So I'm not Napoleon? But I have the big hat and the overwhelming desire to conquer all of Europe. Does this mean I can wait until Summer to attack Russia? Winters are brutal over there.

And all Christians literally, actually, honest-to-God-ly believe in an omnipotent deity that could easily disregard the laws of physics and make it happen.

[...] telling a Christian that an omnipotent being can't do something is like telling a doctor that a disease can't kill someone. It makes no sense and has no affect on what they see as the truth.

The average Catholic priest doesn't spend his days fondling choir boys in the back room, [...]

The teachers aren't there to strap kids down and brainwash them, they're there because they love teaching and they have a firm faith in God.

The majority of people who go into careers in the clergy or as teachers in private schools aren't doing it for the money (this is especially true outside of Catholicism where most church's barely receive enough money to keep the lights on) or out of some desire to create an army of brainwashed slaves.

Even atheists have their extremists trying to force atheism on others until they accept it or choke on it.

Sorry, but I don't see how any part of your response relates to what you quoted.

Sorry, but I don't see how any part of your response relates to what you quoted.

It's relevant because you said this.

If by "in their own way" you mean "in the way prescribed by their faith", yes. Every religion compells believers to act and think in their own way.

You're claiming the same thing Kasic is, that religion demands complete obedience to a dogma.

Sorry for the double post, wanted to come up with a proper response on this one.

Omnipotence, itself, makes no sense, and some diseasses can't, but I fail to see what this has to do with the fact that some people do, in fact, believe that all of that happened, contrary to Doombreed's claim.

Omnipotence is just another form of infinity. You claimed that infinity is an easy concept to understand, so why is it suddenly nonsense? And all diseases can kill. Some do not because our immune system can fight them and some are harmless enough that vaccines or prior exposure aren't necessary to develop an immunity. But without that immune system even a seemingly harmless disease can prove lethal which is what makes immune disorders and AIDS so dangerous.

Regardless, the disease matter was merely a simile to clarify the absurdity of stating that an omnipotent God can't do something. You scoff at the idea that anyone could take the Bible as a literal statement of how the Earth was created but you're ignoring the fact that those people believe in an omnipotent creator. Omnipotence, being a form of infinity, is limitless and trying to argue that that power has limits is pointless.

You'll have to enlighten me on specifically which denomination(s) of Christianity don't believe God is omnipotent. I'm having trouble finding one and there's literally thousands that I'm not interested in combing through to prove your claim for you.

You're claiming the same thing Kasic is, that religion demands complete obedience to a dogma.

Omnipotence is just another form of infinity.

And all diseases can kill.

You scoff at the idea that anyone could take the Bible as a literal statement of how the Earth was created but you're ignoring the fact that those people believe in an omnipotent creator.

You'll have to enlighten me on specifically which denomination(s) of Christianity don't believe God is omnipotent. I'm having trouble finding one and there's literally thousands that I'm not interested in combing through to prove your claim for you.

Um, yes, but "Young Earth" creationists (an unseemly large group of people) still believe that all of this literally, actually, honest-to-God-ly happened.

So what? And another unseemly large group of people believes the Earth is flat. Just because a group believes doesn't make it true. And tHe evidence to support that is in the bible in Ancient language (not translated or at least translated directly).

Which is a definition of mental disorder; not madness.

What theists use as evidence for their faith is not what scientists use as evidence for their findings.

Oral evidence applies only to something that is spoken

No, actually, not all Christians believe in divine omnipotence.

The teachers aren't there to strap kids down and brainwash them, they're there because they love teaching and they have a firm faith in God.

Doombreed said that [the Bible] is all metaphor and not meant to be taken literally.

Utter lie #2. Evidence is evidence. You can't change the definition of the word just to support your own cause.

You can only teach verified real things.

"Mental disorder" is merely the professional term for "madness.

Utter lie #2. Evidence is evidence. You can't change the definition of the word just to support your own cause.

Yes, and your point exactly is? That's how we get how a believer "feels". They CLAIM, and SPEAK it. They might not actually feel anything.

They should, as that's part of their religion.

And their teaching the firm belief in "God" IS strapping down and brainwashing the kids. You can only teach verified real things. God is not one of that.

And he did it wrong, because the Bible specifies the parts which are not to be taken literally.

Just a few things to add.

Here is a quotation for you from wikipedia: "Religious beliefs, being derived from ideas that are exclusive to religion". This tells religion is based upon itself, it is a circular logic

This is not at all what that quote means. It's saying that religious beliefs are beliefs about religion. In order to charge those beliefs with being circular, you'd have to show that the beliefs are ultimately justified by themselves (or something along those lines).
To put this another way, Dog beliefs are beliefs that are ultimately concerned with and exclusive to dogs. Same with beliefs about oranges, Game of Thrones, and bicycles. The fact that beliefs are what they're about doesn't mean they're circular.

Evidence is a number of collected data from which a theory can be made.
So by definition evidence is something that can be measured, and can be reproduced in the right conditions with 99.99999% accuracy (bad can happen, that's why some minor fault-margine is left in).

This definition of evidence doesn't work. In fact, reproducibility turns out to be too strong a requirement. While it is an important feature in the empirical sciences, there is plenty of everyday evidence that isn't reproducible. (It's worth noting that the degree of precision you're demanding is far too high as well, but I'll leave that aside.)
But here's a case of a belief for which I have evidence that isn't reproducible. I was just outside and saw a black dog walk past. I formed the belief that a black dog walked past my office at 3:00 pm GMT. I have evidence for this belief - after all, I just saw it. But I can't reproduce these conditions. And this goes for a ton of our ordinary beliefs.

What we're talking about is precisely the sort of evidence that falls outwith the scientific realm. To be fair, what counts as evidence in science is also a difficult notion. But the notion of evidence in epistemology is still an unsettled question. In other words, what counts as evidence in favour of a belief isn't agreed upon.

But suppose my belief in God is based upon a deep spiritual experience I've had - one that was life-changing. This kind of experience certainly seems to be evidence in favour of my belief in God. But there's other kinds of evidence out there as well. In philosophy, the cosmological argument is still one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of God. And this argument recognises certain features of our universe as evidence for the existence of God. Now, to simply dismiss these considerations in favour of a definition of evidence that, quite frankly, doesn't work is question-begging plain and simple.