Personal Importance of Religion

[Obloquium]

So you simply believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus.

I believe in Jesus and that my faith is important. The end.

[Alyeska]

Atheists don't have Faith. Atheists have Confidence.

Which reduces to faith in the principle of induction.

Incorrect. Faith is irrational belief without evidence. Confidence is rational believ bassed on evidence and observation.

[Robert Walper]

I honestly don't grasp the "emotional need" for religion. Any and all emotions I'm aware of can be satisfied by reality and things that actually exist rather than make believe stories.

Two points.

One, Fiction. You gain pleasure, emotion from fiction.

True, but that doesn't refute my point that any and all emotions can be satisfied by reality.

Two, to many people, their religion IS reality.

Pretty scary shit really.

[Obloquium]

Incorrect. Faith is irrational belief without evidence.

Correct if redundant. An irrationally held belief is unjustified, whatever evidence associated with it is irrelevant.

Confidence is rational believ bassed on evidence and observation.

And the principle of induction--you know, the mechanism which takes you from evidence to justification--which is taken on faith.

[Kuroneko]

And the principle of induction--you know, the mechanism which takes you from evidence to justification--which is taken on faith.

I'm not at all convinced that induction needs to be elevated to the status of principle in the first place. If falsifiability is embraced fully, then what we have are working hypotheses that have not yet been falsified. Truth becomes redundant, as what we would have instead are models not shown to be false, so a 'principle' of induction becomes unnecessary--it becomes a short-hand for saying that a particular model fits the requirements. Characterized in this way, science would not deal in truth per se, or more precisely not in the absolutist sense of truth that many are so fond of (as in 'there is only one truth'), but instead in facts. The distinction is subtle, but important. Of course, another way to do so is to loosen requirements for truth to make it into something that could be empirically satisfiable by making truth explicitly co-extensional with justification (as in 'X is more true than Y', etc.), but many would cry foul at such a move.

[Pick]

Atheist, but personally thankful there's Catholics in my area, since my Catholic school is the nicest place I've ever frequented.

[Broomstick]

Atheists don't have Faith. Atheists have Confidence. Confidence bassed on observations of reality. I don't have faith the sun will rise, I have confidence it will rise because I know the scientific workings (somewhat) behind how we orbit the sun, and because I know historicaly it has risen, and will continue to rise long after I die.

And are you implying that anyone of any religious bent whatsoever is somehow incapble of this "confidence"?

I don't need faith to know the sun will "rise" - even better, I know it's not the sun rising but the Earth turning that brings the day. To me, that has nothing whatsoever to do with faith, or religion So I would claim that I, too, have this Confidence of which you speak, because MY religion does not dispute the powers of observation nor the scientific method.

The major problem I have with discussing my religion is that, for most people in the west, we don't even have a common starting point or vocabulary. My religion is NOT the islamo-christian monotheism you all are so familar with, yet you try to argue as if it is.

[Obloquium]

I'm not at all convinced that induction needs to be elevated to the status of principle in the first place.

I think you mean that confidence need not rely on inductive reasoning, which I of course contend. The principle of induction is axiomatic regardless of how confidence is justified.

If falsifiability is embraced fully, then what we have are working hypotheses that have not yet been falsified. Truth becomes redundant, as what we would have instead are models not shown to be false, so a 'principle' of induction becomes unnecessary--it becomes a short-hand for saying that a particular model fits the requirements. Characterized in this way, science would not deal in truth per se, or more precisely not in the absolutist sense of truth that many are so fond of (as in 'there is only one truth'), but instead in facts. The distinction is subtle, but important. Of course, another way to do so is to loosen requirements for truth to make it into something that could be empirically satisfiable by making truth explicitly co-extensional with justification (as in 'X is more true than Y', etc.), but many would cry foul at such a move.

Two issues here. The empirical foundation to science may concern itself with some theory of truth (i.e., coherence, foundational) or not (instrumentalism), but science itself isn't concerned with truth at all--it is concerned with methodological justification.

Second, regardless of whether you're interested in truth or justification, the empirical foundation will ultimately boil down to inductive reasoning or some higher assumption. The ethical imperative to concern yourself only with what is empirically knowable or the basic belief that a system of empirical propositions corresponds with reality (a map of coherence [or confidence for Alyeska's positive approach] to truth) ultimately depends on the belief that past experience (facts and other truthmakers) is meaningful (inductively) in making justified statements.

[Obloquium]

And are you implying that anyone of any religious bent whatsoever is somehow incapble of this "confidence"?

From an empirical perspective, yes. The supernatural experience defies falsification. Therefore, "God exists" and all consequent propositions are unempirical and are irrelevant insofar as coherence justification is concerned.

I don't need faith to know the sun will "rise" - even better, I know it's not the sun rising but the Earth turning that brings the day. To me, that has nothing whatsoever to do with faith, or religion.

Then you are either equivocating on the definition of faith or incorrectly asserting that confidence does not rise from inductive reasoning.

So I would claim that I, too, have this Confidence of which you speak, because MY religion does not dispute the powers of observation nor the scientific method.

That's pretty much where I stand. An atheist has further requirements to justify belief, including falsifiability and parsimony. And empirically speaking, "God exists" and all other supernatural claims are unnecessary and unfalsifiable propositions.

[Alyeska]

Atheists don't have Faith. Atheists have Confidence. Confidence bassed on observations of reality. I don't have faith the sun will rise, I have confidence it will rise because I know the scientific workings (somewhat) behind how we orbit the sun, and because I know historicaly it has risen, and will continue to rise long after I die.

And are you implying that anyone of any religious bent whatsoever is somehow incapble of this "confidence"?

I don't need faith to know the sun will "rise" - even better, I know it's not the sun rising but the Earth turning that brings the day. To me, that has nothing whatsoever to do with faith, or religion So I would claim that I, too, have this Confidence of which you speak, because MY religion does not dispute the powers of observation nor the scientific method.

The major problem I have with discussing my religion is that, for most people in the west, we don't even have a common starting point or vocabulary. My religion is NOT the islamo-christian monotheism you all are so familar with, yet you try to argue as if it is.

You have Faith in your religion, you have confidence in the real world.

[Obloquium]

You have Faith in your religion, you have confidence in the real world.

And you have faith that reality maps to your empirical understanding of it.

The distinction between religious and empirical knowledge is that the former is not revealed empirically. Beyond that, the propositional systems are structurally identical. A series of normative and positivist claims that boil down to the principle of induction or some other basic belief.

[Captain Cyran]

Atheists don't have Faith. Atheists have Confidence. Confidence bassed on observations of reality. I don't have faith the sun will rise, I have confidence it will rise because I know the scientific workings (somewhat) behind how we orbit the sun, and because I know historicaly it has risen, and will continue to rise long after I die.

And are you implying that anyone of any religious bent whatsoever is somehow incapble of this "confidence"?

I don't need faith to know the sun will "rise" - even better, I know it's not the sun rising but the Earth turning that brings the day. To me, that has nothing whatsoever to do with faith, or religion So I would claim that I, too, have this Confidence of which you speak, because MY religion does not dispute the powers of observation nor the scientific method.

The major problem I have with discussing my religion is that, for most people in the west, we don't even have a common starting point or vocabulary. My religion is NOT the islamo-christian monotheism you all are so familar with, yet you try to argue as if it is.

Out of curiousity Broomstick, what is your religion?

[Darth Wong]

You have Faith in your religion, you have confidence in the real world.

And you have faith that reality maps to your empirical understanding of it.

The distinction between religious and empirical knowledge is that the former is not revealed empirically.

That is just another way of saying that there is not a shred of objective evidence whatsoever for any religious belief.

Beyond that, the propositional systems are structurally identical. A series of normative and positivist claims that boil down to the principle of induction or some other basic belief.

Depending on the sample number, induction can have a far greater logical probability of truth than random guessing, yet you are trying to reduce it to the level of random guessing. This is nothing more than Hume's "I can't logically conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow" argument.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article48

PS. Your ridiculous claim that science and religion operate in the same manner once you get past their respective forms of evidence is both stupid and wrong. Show me one religion which explicitly defines methods of falsification.

[DPDarkPrimus]

So you simply believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus.

I believe in Jesus and that my faith is important. The end.

What I said.

[General Zod]

So it's a lack of belief rather than an affirmation of belief. As I said, it's part of a spectrum.

er. no it's not. as per the definition faith requires belief in something that may or may not exist. atheism requires no belief whatsoever.

Acknowledge there is no God? What, you stand up before the multitudes and spout something like "There is no God, Mohammed was not his profit, Jesus died and is still dead, and you New Agers over there are all fucking nutcases"?

my point is that the only thing atheists have in common is that none of them believe in higher powers. automatically lumping all atheists in the same category and as the antithesis of theists is a gross generalization.

it would be akin to taking people that don't believe in santa, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy and labeing their lack of belief as a faith. unlike the religious or faithful atheists have no single unifying belief or religious tradition.

Nor can one atheist be said to speak for all. There are plenty who simply do not believe and go their own way. There are others who insist everyone else must join them in their disbelief, and try to impose their world view on everyone else. They may not be religious in anything like the ordinary sense, but they sure as hell act like Fundie Missionaries(TM) Atheism in the US, at least, is heavily tainted with the Christian/Islamic attitude of "my way is the only way".

as i said before. there isn't anything tying atheists together save a lack of belief in higher powers. it's perfectly possible to have atheists that follow religions without deities, as is atheists that believe in bigfoot, the loch ness monster and ghosts. save for one thing there is nothing that atheists normally have in common by being atheists.

[Obloquium]

That is just another way of saying that there is not a shred of objective evidence whatsoever for any religious belief.

Exactly. But that's not at issue here, is it?

Depending on the sample number, induction can have a far greater logical probability of truth than random guessing, yet you are trying to reduce it to the level of random guessing.

Yes, which takes the well ordered set the axiom and renders induction a proposition arising from it. Of course proving the set is well ordered circularly depends on induction. So you picks your principle and stick with it.

This is nothing more than Hume's "I can't logically conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow" argument.

Right, to which he responded "what the fuck, it rises." The point is that there are beliefs reasonable people are forced to hold without justification, and those beliefs form the basis for a system with which to justify other propositions.

PS. Your ridiculous claim that science and religion operate in the same manner once you get past their respective forms of evidence is both stupid and wrong.

Or it would be, if I ever made the claim that science and religion operate in the same manner once you get past their "respective forms of evidence" or whatever the hell that means. I assume by your falsification remark that I was comparing religious and scientific theories of justification. Since I've already stated that religious beliefs are not arrived at empirically, it would be remarkable for me to claim that they are this late in the game.

[Obloquium]

So you simply believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus.

I believe in Jesus and that my faith is important. The end.

What I said.

Pretty much.

[The Silence and I]

Why is it important to you to have a religion?

For me it is not important that I do or do not. I feel the universe is a much larger place than science has so far described; it may yet be described with science, but I personally doubt this. You could say I have a certain faith in this larger understanding, as I lack empirical evidence, but in the end this is simply something that makes sense to me. It has little importance to me, but I still hold it to be true.

What does your religion do for you, if anything?

All my belief does for me is make me excited about the possibilities of our future. My larger world belief is very loosely defined, but emphasizes the importance of intent, and the perception of reality.

And lastly, why do you believe your religion is the only true one?

I would not call it a religion. I believe my beliefs (in so far as they are defined, or can even be defined) describe the "truth," and that all other religions and beliefs are inspired by this concept of a larger world of intent. Freaky things can happen in my world and these can be thought of as gods by many. In the end it matters little to me how anyone goes about their life--so long as they don't show up at my door with pamphlets

Your friend has what I consider a flawed viewpoint, I do not feel there is an all powerful (or even somewhat powerful) god anywhere, and ascribing to one is mere fiction. But the message of that religion--and all religions--is fundamentally a good one. While I think the idea of gods is flawed I do not hold my belief "superior" because belief through a god can still achieve everything that is important to us as human spirits. Different paths to the same end.

[Darth Wong]

Depending on the sample number, induction can have a far greater logical probability of truth than random guessing, yet you are trying to reduce it to the level of random guessing.

Yes, which takes the well ordered set the axiom and renders induction a proposition arising from it. Of course proving the set is well ordered circularly depends on induction. So you picks your principle and stick with it.

Yet again, you are ignoring the fact that logical probability increases with increasing sample size and trying to reduce it to your "proof/nonproof" false dilemma. Why the fuck do you have to "prove" that the set is well-ordered in order to show that logical probability increases with an increasing number of predictable responses?

Why should the proposition "this is the most accurate model of the available data" be continually converted into "this is absolutely proven true" in your mind so that you can knock down a strawman? Are you stone deaf, deliberately deceptive, or just plain stupid? I suppose I should lean toward the latter, given your moronic gangsta bragging about beating up miscreants with your friends in da hood.

This is nothing more than Hume's "I can't logically conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow" argument.

Right, to which he responded "what the fuck, it rises." The point is that there are beliefs reasonable people are forced to hold without justification, and those beliefs form the basis for a system with which to justify other propositions.

Yet again, you treat anything less than a logical probability of 1.0 as being equally without justification, which is bullshit. Hume was wrong, as Popper and others have shown. The idea that "the Sun will rise tomorrow" is just as faith-based as a religious proposition is sheer idiocy of the highest order.

PS. Your ridiculous claim that science and religion operate in the same manner once you get past their respective forms of evidence is both stupid and wrong.

Or it would be, if I ever made the claim that science and religion operate in the same manner once you get past their "respective forms of evidence" or whatever the hell that means. I assume by your falsification remark that I was comparing religious and scientific theories of justification. Since I've already stated that religious beliefs are not arrived at empirically, it would be remarkable for me to claim that they are this late in the game.

Hey dumb-fuck, learn to read. I was not disputing that religious beliefs are not empirical. Of course they're not empirical. I was disputing your idiotic belief that once you get past this fact, the two systems work the same way. Even as a thought experiment, operating purely in the philosophical realm with no physical inputs, Christianity still provides no mechanism whatsoever for falsification. Even within its own moronic realm where "personal revelation" counts as evidence, there is no such thing as a personal revelation, dream, or voice in your head which could meet any kind of litmus test for falsifying the beliefs.

[Obloquium]

Yet again, you are ignoring...

Blah, blah, blah, I'm ignoring nothing. I don't see anyone ranting for or against empirical methods besides yourself.

Why the fuck do you have to "prove" that the set is well-ordered in order to show that logical probability increases with an increasing number of predictable responses?

Because in order to move from the method of justification to proving the theory you have to show that you're inference is justified on the evidence. That's an inductive process.

Why should the proposition "this is the most accurate model of the available data" be continually converted into "this is absolutely proven true" in your mind...

You find me where I've ever said such a thing and I'll get back to you.

Hey dumb-fuck, learn to read. I was not disputing that religious beliefs are not empirical. Of course they're not empirical. I was disputing your idiotic belief that once you get past this fact, the two systems work the same way.

No you weren't, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up your stupid falsification point. I'm done with you.

[Obloquium]

This should read: "Because in order to move from the method of justification to proving a theory of truth you must show inference is justified by the evidence. That's an inductive process."

Additionally, its also a subjective process and in order to be persuasive parties must be agree on the reference priors. A regress of that condition will run into an axiom.

[Broomstick]

Out of curiousity Broomstick, what is your religion?

At present: NeoPagan Eclectic Solitaire

(I suppose you will be asking for an explanation of what those words signify next?)

[Darth Wong]

Yet again, you are ignoring...

Blah, blah, blah, I'm ignoring nothing. I don't see anyone ranting for or against empirical methods besides yourself.

In other words, you're not going to answer the point.

Why the fuck do you have to "prove" that the set is well-ordered in order to show that logical probability increases with an increasing number of predictable responses?

Because in order to move from the method of justification to proving the theory you have to show that you're inference is justified on the evidence. That's an inductive process.

Yet again, you ignore the point of differentiating between absolute truth and logical probability.

Why should the proposition "this is the most accurate model of the available data" be continually converted into "this is absolutely proven true" in your mind...

You find me where I've ever said such a thing and I'll get back to you.

The part where you claim that anything not "justified", ie- proven true via purely deductive logic can be regarded as equally untrue, fucktard. And how about your insistence that induction is no different from bald-faced religious belief, asshole? Yet again, I demonstrated that there is more justification for inductive conclusions than religious beliefs: a point which you have studiously ignored by saying "well, it's still not justified according to me" (the word "justified" being used as a binary on/off condition, thus being effectively used in place of "absolutely proven" because you figure people won't notice that you're basically using it as a synonym).

Hey dumb-fuck, learn to read. I was not disputing that religious beliefs are not empirical. Of course they're not empirical. I was disputing your idiotic belief that once you get past this fact, the two systems work the same way.

No you weren't, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up your stupid falsification point.

I like the way you refused to quote or address the rest of that paragraph because you have no answer for it, fucktard. You claimed that the two systems function identically once you get past their respective forms of evidence. I showed how this is completely untrue with an example: falsification, which is used in science but is not found in religion. You chose to first strawman and then simply ignore that point.

I'm done with you.

No, you're done with this board, asshole. If you're not revprez, you're channeling his idiocy (and frankly, I'm certain that you are revprez, since I doubt two different people could behave so identically and write so similarly, which means that you're evading a ban). And you're loudly, proudly ignoring points you can't handle, which was revprez's signature technique, along with his stream of rhetorical bullshit. Good fucking bye.

[Broomstick]

You have Faith in your religion, you have confidence in the real world.

And you have faith that reality maps to your empirical understanding of it.

The distinction between religious and empirical knowledge is that the former is not revealed empirically.

That is just another way of saying that there is not a shred of objective evidence whatsoever for any religious belief.

And this is precisely what I never argue the existance of God with Mr. Wong - I can't possibly produce evidence that he would consider acceptable.

Frankly, I admit to having doubts as to the existance of God(s) on occassion - most religious folks who are both honest and self-aware would do likewise.

Like I said, though - I have no problems agreeing to disagree.

[Broomstick]

So it's a lack of belief rather than an affirmation of belief. As I said, it's part of a spectrum.

er. no it's not. as per the definition faith requires belief in something that may or may not exist. atheism requires no belief whatsoever.

I say you're splitting hairs... you say you're defining terms.

Where do agnostics fit into all this?

Acknowledge there is no God? What, you stand up before the multitudes and spout something like "There is no God, Mohammed was not his profit, Jesus died and is still dead, and you New Agers over there are all fucking nutcases"?

my point is that the only thing atheists have in common is that none of them believe in higher powers. automatically lumping all atheists in the same category and as the antithesis of theists is a gross generalization.

Does no one have a sense of humor around here? Ah, nevermind, perhaps it was my delivery....

However, just as atheists have many differences, so do folks with religions.. Lumping all people who practice a religion, or have a belief in God, all togehter is as much a gross over-generalization and lumping all atheists together. The rabid, frothing, fanatical religion nutcase is just as much a minority as any obnoxious variety of atheist you care to name.

it would be akin to taking people that don't believe in santa, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy and labeing their lack of belief as a faith. unlike the religious or faithful atheists have no single unifying belief or religious tradition.

See above paragraph.

The "religious or faithful" do NOT have a single unifying belief or religion tradition. There are thousands of religions, cults, sects, and belief systems that we know about, and no doubt others than have vanished into history.

as i said before. there isn't anything tying atheists together save a lack of belief in higher powers. it's perfectly possible to have atheists that follow religions without deities, as is atheists that believe in bigfoot, the loch ness monster and ghosts. save for one thing there is nothing that atheists normally have in common by being atheists.

And just as you can have irrational atheists, you can have rational theists. Not every religion is incompatible with reason and science. Just limiting it to Christianity - not every form of Christianity requires literal belief in the Bible, and to characterize EVERY Christian as a Fundamentalist of that sort is a charicature.