"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

[Telstra]

People claiming to speak with authority in areas that aren't their fields of study are open to severe criticism for not thinking clearly.

But religious leaders claiming to speak for "god" all the time and they need to be challenged by other thinkers.
Nothing wrong with that.

 

[nurseboy269]

Anyone who refuses to question his faith likely has a shallow one.

Not at all. Actually, I think the opposite is true. A faith so easily questioned is no faith at all. It is not the faith that should be questioned, it is what "adds" to your faith that should be. I have faith that there is a God: the beliefs (or lack thereof) that an Atheist has that there is not, does not make me question, nor does it diminish my faith. What I so question, is His nature. Questions are good. They add to, but do not diminish: only further your faith and understanding.

 

[mightbe]

You've confused questioned with questionable. They're not the same. If you're willing to challenge your faith (what is meant by the former in context), you are likely to be a stronger believer, both before and after the inquiry.

You seem to ignore the bigger picture. It's not the existence of the other the respond to; it's their arguments that led them to that conclusion. That's what one of faith should concern themselves with.

The Jesuits were created explicitly for that purpose; to bring people back to the Catholic Church by answering Protestant arguments and to curtail its spread. And they were successful on the latter portion. Every country where the Jesuits arrived before the Protestants remained Catholic. They didn't take back Northern Germany or any of the other newly Protestant areas, but they restored some of the legitimacy of the Church.

 

[ludolfo]

you cannot 'debate' here, it seems, without being CENSORED!

 

[palbert]

you cannot 'debate' here, it seems, without being CENSORED!

It's probably part of the conspiracy.

 

[ludolfo]

It's probably part of the conspiracy.

yes, exactly!

 

[bankside]

Not at all. Actually, I think the opposite is true. A faith so easily questioned is no faith at all. It is not the faith that should be questioned, it is what "adds" to your faith that should be. I have faith that there is a God: the beliefs (or lack thereof) that an Atheist has that there is not, does not make me question, nor does it diminish my faith. What I so question, is His nature. Questions are good. They add to, but do not diminish: only further your faith and understanding.

My understanding that there is no god is greatly enhanced by admitting the possibility that there could be one, and trying to work out what that would actually be like if that were so. Saying "I could be entirely mistaken" is the responsible thing to do as part of validating one's own conclusions about these things.

 

[kallipolis]

My understanding that there is no god is greatly enhanced by admitting the possibility that there could be one, and trying to work out what that would actually be like if that were so. Saying "I could be entirely mistaken" is the responsible thing to do as part of validating one's own conclusions about these things.

Well said...for you're owning up to being human....therefore, fallible.

 

[nurseboy269]

You've confused questioned with questionable. They're not the same. If you're willing to challenge your faith (what is meant by the former in context), you are likely to be a stronger believer, both before and after the inquiry.

You seem to ignore the bigger picture. It's not the existence of the other the respond to; it's their arguments that led them to that conclusion. That's what one of faith should concern themselves with.

The Jesuits were created explicitly for that purpose; to bring people back to the Catholic Church by answering Protestant arguments and to curtail its spread. And they were successful on the latter portion. Every country where the Jesuits arrived before the Protestants remained Catholic. They didn't take back Northern Germany or any of the other newly Protestant areas, but they restored some of the legitimacy of the Church.

I do not think I am mistaken; however, I do think that our opinions on what is questionable and/or what should be questioned are different. The aspects of what defines my faith and the path I choose to reach a conclusion may not be the same as another, nor should it. Faith is personalized. One owns their own faith, otherwise, it is just adopting the opinion of another.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not at all. Actually, I think the opposite is true. A faith so easily questioned is no faith at all. It is not the faith that should be questioned, it is what "adds" to your faith that should be. I have faith that there is a God: the beliefs (or lack thereof) that an Atheist has that there is not, does not make me question, nor does it diminish my faith. What I so question, is His nature. Questions are good. They add to, but do not diminish: only further your faith and understanding.

A faith that is never questioned is just a magical opinion. It has to be able to stand up to examination.

 

[TX-Beau]

"Faith," there's another one of those fuzzy words. I'd be far more inclined to consider a religious argument if the religious could come to some kind of agreement on any of this.

 

[nurseboy269]

A faith that is never questioned is just a magical opinion. It has to be able to stand up to examination.

Why should my faith have to stand up to anyone's argument? I'm not trying to convince anyone that "I'm right/your wrong"... I accept (as far as their right to have it) one's opinions, "faith", view point, etc regardless if I agree with it or not.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why should my faith have to stand up to anyone's argument? I'm not trying to convince anyone that "I'm right/your wrong"... I accept (as far as their right to have it) one's opinions, "faith", view point, etc regardless if I agree with it or not.

If your faith is beyond questioning, then it's something you just magically pulled out of the air. It has no relationship to reality. It's the kind of "faith" that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" foolishness rightfully mocks -- utterly without substance.

It has nothing to do with convincing anyone else -- it has to do with actually believing/trusting in something. If that something can't be argued to reasonably deserve trust, then what you have isn't faith after all, just a pipe dream.

 

[bankside]

Why should my faith have to stand up to anyone's argument? I'm not trying to convince anyone that "I'm right/your wrong"... I accept (as far as their right to have it) one's opinions, "faith", view point, etc regardless if I agree with it or not.

I got excited at the potential for humanity when they invented airbags. If you suspect you're right about something like whether there is a god or not, why wouldn't you try to explain it to other people? It's the sort of thing where other people's insight, either agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, is likely to spark overwhelming curiosity, wouldn't you think?

 

[Spensed]

If one believes in it, faith is a function of grace. Some people, who don't want faith, have it and some people, who want to believe, don't. Obviously, questioning and doubt about faith come into the picture and does "reality". If one has faith that the bus isn't going to knock one down and it does, then one has to revisit one's faith.

But a couple of observations. As an earlier poster said, faith doesn't need to convince other people. Don't like it, don't keep involving oneself in it. It's a metaphysical construct that, if it works, works for each individual or group of individuals who have it.

Secondly, it's a subjective attribute that may, or may not, reflect an objective reality. God, or whatever notion one wants to use, either exists objectively or doesn't. Whether he exists or not is not dependent on one's belief or lack of belief. So sure there is an element of delusion or illusion about faith. If one wanted to organize one life around one's faith in Greek Gods and that worked for one on some level or another, the objective fallacy of what one believes in isn't really relevant to the quality of one's faith.

Leaving aside the poetic or metaphorical aspects of that kind of faith, I happen to think that faith in the scientific method is more reliable, a step up from older ideas of reality. But, even then, on the edges of science there are vast unknown areas, where one simply doesn't know if the same rules apply. I'm not positing an equivalency between religious faith and scientific faith, as the latter can be verified in ways the former can't, but I don't think that one need presume that science as we know it is the end of the story.

As for why folk can't talk about these subjects without losing their cool, one only has to look at the nature of the posts to see that its people attacking their fears and self-doubts about their own beliefs. If one's lucky, they may have read the post they're replying to, but, as often as not, it's clear that they've made no effect to understand or empathize with any argument that contradicts their own preconceptions or faith.

 

[bankside]

Most people consider their faith to give them insight into an objective reality. That gives the rest of us standing to comment. Their faith has to work for the rest of us, not just them. And if their faith doesn't give them the insight they think they have, it isn't even working for them anyway.

 

[Spensed]

^Who says "most people consider their faith them insight into an objective reality?" By its nature, belief is subjective and anyone who thinks about it knows that God, or whatever label one wants to use, exists or doesn't exit independently of their belief in him. I would say that "most" religious people I've come across believe their faith is valid for them. As I say, an objective element comes into it, if it clearly clashes with what one believes in, but "most" believers rationalize their way around that.

Obviously, anyone has "standing to comment", but, equally obviously, their faith doesn't need to work for people who don't have it. If one believes that one should love one's neighbor as oneself, what the neighbor believes in is irrelevant.

Sure one can point out deficiencies in people's purported insights. But it's like taking science to poetry or art or music. One can only take it so far because different sensibilities and perspectives are in play and metaphysics doesn't need to deal with scientific reality. A case in point is the Catholic belief that the host and wine really becomes the body and blood of Christ during mass. Unless one's delusional, no-one thinks that the host physically turns into a bloody and raw human steak. But, for those who believe in it, they understand and perceive a real change in substance, in their reality. If one believes in it, it's true, just as the contradictions in a poem can be true. If one doesn't believe in it, it's nonsense.

Maybe with the further progress of science, knowledge and material well being, people will conform to one belief in what makes their view of the world tick. I just think one has to be open to religious and non-religious differences and to accept that not everything can be known. It sounds like I'm backing into a need to believe in something by default, but one doesn't need to take that further step.

 

[Kulindahr]

^Who says "most people consider their faith them insight into an objective reality?" By its nature, belief is subjective and anyone who thinks about it knows that God, or whatever label one wants to use, exists or doesn't exit independently of their belief in him. I would say that "most" religious people I've come across believe their faith is valid for them. As I say, an objective element comes into it, if it clearly clashes with what one believes in, but "most" believers rationalize their way around that.

Who says? You just said that faith is an insight into an objective reality.

 

[Spensed]

^ I did not say that "faith is an insight into an objective reality." That was the point I was countering.

I don't think faith necessarily provides such an insight because of the subjective nature of faith. Objective reality may, however, impact one's faith unless one can rationalize one's way around it.

What I'm saying is a commonplace truth, unless one confuses subjective faith with objective reality, which, unfortunately, many believers do.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I did not say that "faith is an insight into an objective reality." That was the point I was countering.

I don't think faith necessarily provides such an insight because of the subjective nature of faith. Objective reality may, however, impact one's faith unless one can rationalize one's way around it.

What I'm saying is a commonplace truth, unless one confuses subjective faith with objective reality, which, unfortunately, many believers do.

Your words I put in bold say exactly what you're denying.