WTF? The mind of a fundy exposed

[Chmee]

I've always found this argument to be paper thin. What you 'lose' following this version of Christianity is little things like the ability to think critically, rational analysis of the world around you, and freedom from constrictive medieval dogma. You lose a LOT by rejecting rationality in favor of blind adherence to canon.

Worshipping God =/= abandoning reason and becoming a raving fundie lunatic.

Good thing I never said it did ....

But being a fundie absolutely means that there are essential statements about the history of the universe and the origin of Man which you will refuse to analyze rationally, and which no amount of evidence can persuade you to alter your view on. Truth is not discovered, it is Revealed and immutable. This is a non-rational view of the universe, and anybody who bases their entire life on rejecting rational and critical analysis of their surroundings is giving up something that I would certainly never be willing to give up.

[Captain Cyran]

No, but it does mean you're unwilling to apply logic and reason to your faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that by believing in God you are at the same time not willing to apply logic and reason to your own personal faith? While for some yes this is true, for most Christians, including myself, this is dead wrong.

[dworkin]

Speaking strictly theoretically I don't see how you'd really loose that much. The basic behavioral guidelines of most religions are things we all have to do anyway if we're to function in human society (i.e. not kill, not lie, not cheat etc.).

They are also the basic guidelines for any society. Why do I have to tack god-belief onto it?

I mean, theoretically would having to go to church for half an hour on sunday or praying five times a day really all that majorly fuck up your schedule?

Gaia's Jugs, what church do you go to? Last service I went to took four hours if you include transit time and tea/biscuits afterwards.

Speaking theoretically I don't see how worshipping a diety that doesn't exist would harm you, but as far as a free society is concerned you're mostly correct.

As a RPG playing, rock loving, girlfriend bonking teacher of biology who likes a sleep in on Sunday could you explain to me what I could concievably get to keep if I started worshipping YHWH and all his little wizards? Or mabye I could just lie through my teeth to the other churchgoers about who I am? As an atheist, I value my integrity.

[Firefox]

I probably should have clarified it to mean most Christians, especially of the fundamentalist variety. I'm not sure about yours, however. Could you summarize your beliefs?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that by believing in God you are at the same time not willing to apply logic and reason to your own personal faith? While for some yes this is true, for most Christians, including myself, this is dead wrong.

But you are not applying logic and reason to the single most decisive factor, whether the God you are worshipping exists at all, never mind whether his supposed acts are moral. Unless there is a logical argument for the existence of God, or even deities in general.

[Captain Cyran]

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that by believing in God you are at the same time not willing to apply logic and reason to your own personal faith? While for some yes this is true, for most Christians, including myself, this is dead wrong.

But you are not applying logic and reason to the single most decisive factor, whether the God you are worshipping exists at all, never mind whether his supposed acts are moral. Unless there is a logical argument for the existence of God, or even deities in general.

But that is not the point that is being argued, don't change the subject. He asked if you can believe in God and still look at your own faith rationally, not if it was rational to believe in God.

[Captain Cyran]

I probably should have clarified it to mean most Christians, especially of the fundamentalist variety. I'm not sure about yours, however. Could you summarize your beliefs?

The fundies definately don't look at their faith objectively to see both the good and the bad of what they believe in. They just blindly follow the carrot grinning like dumbasses. Most Christians I encounter definately have their own opinions of what they believe. Most people, especially of my age bracket, can have their faith summed up in "Yeah, I believe in God." and that's about it. Many of the older Christians I know (I most assurdly cannot speak for most) also look at their own faith very objectively.

Personally, I fall rather far on the radical side with having openly stated that belief in God does take ignorance on some level as there is no proof of God's existance, I also believe much of the bible can be attributed to metaphor and tales getting blown out of proportion by word of mouth.

[Firefox]

Ahah, thanks for the clarification.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

But that is not the point that is being argued, don't change the subject. He asked if you can believe in God and still look at your own faith rationally, not if it was rational to believe in God.

That's not the way I read that particular part, but never mind. The ultimate logical result of looking at a faith rationally would lead to the destruction of the faith, because faith by definition is irrational.

However, if you want to ask whether once you have assumed your basic faith is a fact, that you can look at particular details of your chosen religion and criticize it rationally, I'd agree you can do so.

[Uraniun235]

I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but that isn't really a bad argument. An atheist has nothing to loose by worshipping/obeying God if He doesn't exist, but if God and the afterlife does exist then he does have something to loose by not worshipping Him. I'm just saying this theoretically, I'm not endorsing Ms. O'Dell or her beliefs.

This is a well-known argument referred to as Pascal's Wager.

And, okay, I'll play along. I'm an atheist. Let's say I want to buy into this argument.

What flavor of Christianity should I buy into?

[Imperial Overlord]

Uranium, don't jump the gun. Why Christianity instead of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etcetera?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I have seen the argument on many forums devolve into "well, you hve a 50/50% chance that something will either happen or it won't."



To some, there is a better chance that one of the many religion smight be right, therefore you should randomly pick one of them over picking nothing, because by doing nothing, you knowingly will get nothing.

[NecronLord]

Aren't you more likely to offend Quatzecoatl by becoming a christian than not though?

[Enforcer Talen]

worship alexander the great, he doesnt mind being shared.

[Nick Lancaster]

I have seen the argument on many forums devolve into "well, you hve a 50/50% chance that something will either happen or it won't."

To some, there is a better chance that one of the many religion smight be right, therefore you should randomly pick one of them over picking nothing, because by doing nothing, you knowingly will get nothing.

But why presume that an omnipotent being will discard those who said, "I don't believe in you," over those who affirmed their belief but used it to their own ends?

As the Gospel according to Matthew goes, "Not all who cry, 'Lord, Lord!' will be saved, only those who do the Will of my Father in Heaven. They will protest, 'Did we not do great works and drive out demons in your name?' And I will say to them, 'Away from me, you evildoers! I know you not!'"

So while you have to make a wager to win, Pascal's Wager is nonetheless based on a binary valuation as set forth by a finite, human mind, and has nothing to do with who you really are.

[Junghalli]

They are also the basic guidelines for any society. Why do I have to tack god-belief onto it?

You don't, that's the beauty of a free society. However, my point was that theoretically if there was a chance that there was a God and He would get mad at you for not worshipping Him they you'd simply be covering all your bets by worshipping Him and wouldn't really be loosing all that much for it.

Gaia's Jugs, what church do you go to? Last service I went to took four hours if you include transit time and tea/biscuits afterwards.

Not exactly being the most avid churchgoer myself I'll take your word for it.

As a RPG playing, rock loving, girlfriend bonking teacher of biology who likes a sleep in on Sunday could you explain to me what I could concievably get to keep if I started worshipping YHWH and all his little wizards?

Just in case there is a God and He gets mad at those who don't worship Him you've got all your bases covered. Of course, then you get into the fun part of deciding which of all the numerous dieties out there is most likely to be the real deal. So your odds would still be millions to one against true salvation.

[General Zod]

I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but that isn't really a bad argument. An atheist has nothing to loose by worshipping/obeying God if He doesn't exist, but if God and the afterlife does exist then he does have something to loose by not worshipping Him. I'm just saying this theoretically, I'm not endorsing Ms. O'Dell or her beliefs.

This is a well-known argument referred to as Pascal's Wager.

And, okay, I'll play along. I'm an atheist. Let's say I want to buy into this argument.

What flavor of Christianity should I buy into?

alternatively, pascal's wager is silly for more than one reason. suppose i were to take his wager one step further. christianity and god might be correct, but what if other faiths are correct and god/christianity are wrong?

by pascal's reasoning, i should worship all faiths just to be safe. unfortunately many faiths have the problem of condemning people who worship other 'false' faiths to hell/purgatory/gehenna/etc., so either way i'm basically screwed. thus, it's safer to not worship any faiths at all.

[Molyneux]

I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but that isn't really a bad argument. An atheist has nothing to loose by worshipping/obeying God if He doesn't exist, but if God and the afterlife does exist then he does have something to loose by not worshipping Him. I'm just saying this theoretically, I'm not endorsing Ms. O'Dell or her beliefs.

This is a well-known argument referred to as Pascal's Wager.

And, okay, I'll play along. I'm an atheist. Let's say I want to buy into this argument.

What flavor of Christianity should I buy into?

alternatively, pascal's wager is silly for more than one reason. suppose i were to take his wager one step further. christianity and god might be correct, but what if other faiths are correct and god/christianity are wrong?

by pascal's reasoning, i should worship all faiths just to be safe. unfortunately many faiths have the problem of condemning people who worship other 'false' faiths to hell/purgatory/gehenna/etc., so either way i'm basically screwed. thus, it's safer to not worship any faiths at all.

Pascal's wager is more than silly, it gives a good insight into those who would accept it.

If there is a God who would send someone to a place of eternal torment, solely for not believing in Him and following the set of rules that He created - then what authority does that God have, other than that of being the biggest bully on the playground? If the only compelling reason to worship a deity is "He'll send you to Hell if you don't", then wouldn't it be a moral imperative to NOT worship him, regardless of the consequences?

[Darth RyanKCR]

This is a well-known argument referred to as Pascal's Wager.

And, okay, I'll play along. I'm an atheist. Let's say I want to buy into this argument.

What flavor of Christianity should I buy into?

alternatively, pascal's wager is silly for more than one reason. suppose i were to take his wager one step further. christianity and god might be correct, but what if other faiths are correct and god/christianity are wrong?

by pascal's reasoning, i should worship all faiths just to be safe. unfortunately many faiths have the problem of condemning people who worship other 'false' faiths to hell/purgatory/gehenna/etc., so either way i'm basically screwed. thus, it's safer to not worship any faiths at all.

Pascal's wager is more than silly, it gives a good insight into those who would accept it.

If there is a God who would send someone to a place of eternal torment, solely for not believing in Him and following the set of rules that He created - then what authority does that God have, other than that of being the biggest bully on the playground? If the only compelling reason to worship a deity is "He'll send you to Hell if you don't", then wouldn't it be a moral imperative to NOT worship him, regardless of the consequences?

If you want the Biblical answer to what authority God has then that would be that he created us. Parents make rules for their children. Are they bullies to make their children follow them?

[dworkin]

If you want the Biblical answer to what authority God has then that would be that he created us. Parents make rules for their children. Are they bullies to make their children follow them?

God can first submit to a paternity test to prove his parentage.

[General Zod]

If you want the Biblical answer to what authority God has then that would be that he created us. Parents make rules for their children. Are they bullies to make their children follow them?

most parents don't condemn their children to an eternity in firey pits for refusing to stroke their ego and other miscellaneous body parts 24/7.

[Enforcer Talen]

a parent with child abuse issues maybe.

crucified his son, and sent everyone else to ovens? bleh.

[Molyneux]

alternatively, pascal's wager is silly for more than one reason. suppose i were to take his wager one step further. christianity and god might be correct, but what if other faiths are correct and god/christianity are wrong?

by pascal's reasoning, i should worship all faiths just to be safe. unfortunately many faiths have the problem of condemning people who worship other 'false' faiths to hell/purgatory/gehenna/etc., so either way i'm basically screwed. thus, it's safer to not worship any faiths at all.

Pascal's wager is more than silly, it gives a good insight into those who would accept it.

If there is a God who would send someone to a place of eternal torment, solely for not believing in Him and following the set of rules that He created - then what authority does that God have, other than that of being the biggest bully on the playground? If the only compelling reason to worship a deity is "He'll send you to Hell if you don't", then wouldn't it be a moral imperative to NOT worship him, regardless of the consequences?

If you want the Biblical answer to what authority God has then that would be that he created us. Parents make rules for their children. Are they bullies to make their children follow them?

I like Zod's reply...but I'd like to add that in any healthy family, the parent eventually withdraws their constant support and forces their child to stand up on their own. Rules are made in order to keep the child from harming him/herself until it is feasible for the child to take care of itself.

Besides which, even in a parent-child relationship, the parent is obligated not to make rules or punishments arbitrarily - in my house, "Because" never stood up as a reason, whether I used it or my parents did.

[Rye]

Speaking strictly theoretically I don't see how you'd really loose that much.

I, for one, don't really want to live a lie based on an irrational epistemology. Since I can go without irrationality and have as much chance of getting into a nice afterlife as a christian following some crazy-ass story about an ekimmu in the middle east, there's no reason to worship anything.

The basic behavioral guidelines of most religions are things we all have to do anyway if we're to function in human society (i.e. not kill, not lie, not cheat etc.).

So? I'll follow them by coincidence, more than anything.

And how much time and money would you actually loose by having a religion (well, I think being a good Muslim you would have to give a certain amount of your income to the poor, but isn't that a noble act anyway?)? I mean, theoretically would having to go to church for half an hour on sunday or praying five times a day really all that majorly fuck up your schedule?

It would, without question make me cranky to wake up on sundays to go to a thing I don't believe in in order to pay lip service to a deity that may cause me to go to the same hell I'm there to avoid. Going to church is just as likely to send me to an eternal hell as not.

Speaking theoretically I don't see how worshipping a diety that doesn't exist would harm you, but as far as a free society is concerned you're mostly correct.

Going to gay fetish bars and getting pissed on isn't likely to harm you either, but you're not going to do it to escape eternal torture that there's no way to establish actually exists, are you?

Of course, the gay fetish bar is unlikely to be as repellant as some of christianity's dogma.

Fear of punishment/lust for rewards are not logically justified reasons to mentally accept an argument. It's merely a threat and a bribe.