Is Faith Blind?

[Norsefire]

Because I have never attempted genocide. I have never murdered someone. I have never deceived millions of people or advanced my agenda through propaganda.

Good for you........and? You're assuming you're better for not doing these things.

And don't get me wrong, IMO you are. However as I said this isn't a fact or some "grand design of god's universe".

Here's where you are confused: The idea that oppressing people in any way protects them. Society does not corrode when women are allowed to show their faces, or allowed to vote. Society does not crumble when homosexuals are allowed to walk the streets rather than hanged by the neck from cranes in the streets.

True, but then again, apparantly they still don't want to show their faces and want to hang homosexuals. Oh well. That's what they want.

i.e, what you're effectively saying is not only do you need to be moral, but everybody has to agree with your moral code specifically or else they are wrong.

The idea that these leaders are somehow protecting their people or society is patently false; Hitler was protecting no one through his crusade against the Jews. The Iranians are protecting no one by hanging homosexuals in the street.

They're protecting culture in their perspective, and culture is considered desirable.

Therefore although they are engaging in intolerance and violence, they perceive it as for the "protection" of tradition and culture, therefore they are "moral".

Yes, it is their opinion that they are doing God's work, and in some cases they may believe they are saving the world, but it does not make them right

I'm not saying they are right, I'm just saying they're not wrong. Not ultimately.

Perhaps they think American culture is absurd, stupid, and wrong.

We have different cultures. You must understand this. And there will be practices you do not approve of; but don't think you're somehow more entitled, and "superior" to them just 'cause.

Just because you can't see that doesn't mean you're right, Norse.

What I'm saying doesn't have to do with being "right". I'm saying that differnet cultures exist, some more tolerant and less violent than others, but there is no one "correct" culture and it's very conceited and narrow minded to think there is.

In fact, I have yet to meet someone on this forum who agrees with your perspective. Even if you ignore all of what I've just said, don't you think at some point you'd see that nobody agrees with you and maybe say "Gee, maybe they're onto something, and I've been wrong...maybe I should reconsider"? Why has that thought never crossed your mind?

Agree with me on what? I'm not saying anything beyond the simple and obvious truth: people have different cultures and you're no more right than they are.

Again you need to see it from the perspective of the fundamentalists: stoning homosexuals is beneficial to society because it eliminates a problem (a) protects tradition (b) and culture (c) as well as eliminating an undesirable group of people (d)

Now you can proceed to debate them on why you disagree, you can even fight them if you wish......just don't assume that somehow you are "more right" than them beyond your ability to fight them politically and perhaps militarily.

We're also making another assumption: that we have to be tolerant.

If Iran took over the world tommorow, what you and I think will not matter one bit, and guess what, it will be WE that are evil, wrong, and stupid.

 

[Balerion]

Good for you........and? You're assuming you're better for not doing these things.

And don't get me wrong, IMO you are. However as I said this isn't a fact or some "grand design of god's universe".

But it IS a fact. It wouldn't be built into us if it weren't!


[qu]teTrue, but then again, apparantly they still don't want to show their faces and want to hang homosexuals. Oh well. That's what they want.[/quote]

No, it's not an "oh well" issue. For you, it clearly is, but that's because you severely lack the ability to feel empathy. But for the vast majority of the world, hanging people based on their sexuality is a crime against humanity.

i.e, what you're effectively saying is not only do you need to be moral, but everybody has to agree with your moral code specifically or else they are wrong.

Again, no, that's not what I'm saying. Please try to follow along. If you need me to slow down, just tell me. I'm trying to make you understand this. It's not MY moral code we're talking about.

They're protecting culture in their perspective, and culture is considered desirable.

But they're wrong. Protecting one's culture is fine, so long as it does not come at the expense of the greater good of humanity. Oppressive regimes like North Korea and Iran are not serving the greater good of humanity, and are therefore objectively wrong.

Therefore although they are engaging in intolerance and violence, they perceive it as for the "protection" of tradition and culture, therefore they are "moral".

No, they are wrong. That's what you don't understand. Just because they feel and say they are moral doesn't not make them moral. Using your logic, I can say 1+1=4 and still be right because it's my subjective perception that 1+1=4.

I'm not saying they are right, I'm just saying they're not wrong. Not ultimately.

But they are. As are you.

Perhaps they think American culture is absurd, stupid, and wrong.

That they may. And some aspects of American culture are absurd and stupid and wrong. But people in American culture are free, and that's more than can be said for people in those countries. Our women can show their faces in public, and--gasp!--show ankle skin!

We have different cultures. You must understand this. And there will be practices you do not approve of; but don't think you're somehow more entitled, and "superior" to them just 'cause.

It's not "just 'cause" though, you dolt. And nobody's talking about different cultures! We're talking about murder, Norse. We're talking about oppression and murder, and the fact that you've bought into the sociopath's propaganda that they're just protecting their society. Bullshit. Bullshit on a flaming stick.

What I'm saying doesn't have to do with being "right". I'm saying that differnet cultures exist, some more tolerant and less violent than others, but there is no one "correct" culture and it's very conceited and narrow minded to think there is.

Wrong. You're wrong. That's all there is to it. I've demonstrated this to you time and again, as have others. James R put it most eloquently, and you promptly ignored him.

 

[Norsefire]

But it IS a fact. It wouldn't be built into us if it weren't!

There are two problems with this

1) just because we have some natural instinct doesn't mean we have to obey it and
2) indeed, as I said Saudi Arabia is a moral society. They're going off their own perception of their in-built, God-granted morality

No, it's not an "oh well" issue. For you, it clearly is, but that's because you severely lack the ability to feel empathy. But for the vast majority of the world, hanging people based on their sexuality is a crime against humanity.

Again with assumptions; you assume we have to be tolerant. No we don't.

Also the "vast majority" of the world, I would think, is not pro-gay marriage.

Again, no, that's not what I'm saying. Please try to follow along. If you need me to slow down, just tell me. I'm trying to make you understand this. It's not MY moral code we're talking about.

Then who's code? My code is different than yours; I do not measure "goodness" by how tolerant we are

But they're wrong. Protecting one's culture is fine, so long as it does not come at the expense of the greater good of humanity. Oppressive regimes like North Korea and Iran are not serving the greater good of humanity, and are therefore objectively wrong.

They are in their opinions. Why isn't what they are doing the "greater good"? The greater good is survival; thus even Hitler served the greater good. The greater good of humanity isn't happiness, it's efficiency and survival and health. Therefore freedom and tolerance are irrelevant.

No, they are wrong. That's what you don't understand. Just because they feel and say they are moral doesn't not make them moral. Using your logic, I can say 1+1=4 and still be right because it's my subjective perception that 1+1=4.

They are immoral in my opinion; however in their opinions they are moral.

The key problem is you seem to associate "good" with freedom, although freedom is irrelevant to the "greater good"

But they are. As are you.

Yes, in your opinion; I might disagree with you on my favorite color, too. Mine is green. What's yours?

That they may. And some aspects of American culture are absurd and stupid and wrong. But people in American culture are free, and that's more than can be said for people in those countries. Our women can show their faces in public, and--gasp!--show ankle skin!

Again freedom is not the "greater good"; it's important to individual happiness but who says individual happiness is necessary to fulfill the "greater good"?

It's not "just 'cause" though, you dolt. And nobody's talking about different cultures! We're talking about murder, Norse. We're talking about oppression and murder, and the fact that you've bought into the sociopath's propaganda that they're just protecting their society. Bullshit. Bullshit on a flaming stick

.
They are from their perspective

Again the key problem is that you think that in order for a society to be good, it must be tolerant and free. There is no obligation for a society to be tolerant or free.

Wrong. You're wrong. That's all there is to it. I've demonstrated this to you time and again, as have others. James R put it most eloquently, and you promptly ignored him.

I addressed him, actually. Although, arguing with James is more constructive as James, although he disagrees with me, still realizes that it's his opinion.

 

[Balerion]

/conversation

 

[Norsefire]

Good reply!

I feel I have brought up a good point, however: who says that freedom and tolerance have anything to do with the greater good? Freedom is not required for human survival and neither is tolerance.

 

[Lori_7]

Verifiable and replicable experience. That is particularly needed when the experience is of extrordinary things no one else is finding.

All you have to do is have god verify that and I'll be satisfied.

"I" have to have god verify that? why do "I" have to do that? you think god takes orders from me? you think he can't handle you himself?

truth is that other people have and do find what i have found. our experiences are not exactly the same, but we are all very different individuals, who have come to the same conclusion via spiritual interaction with god.

there is absolutely no need for verifiable and replicable experience to be provided as evidence. my experience is mine, and is all the evidence i need. why don't you get your own? to satisfy your hollow request here.

the fact is, that you don't want to know god, or to have a relationship with him. otherwise you would. what happened to me is not some special privilege granted arbitrarily to some and not others. i asked god to prove his existance to me if he was in fact real. i chose to have a relationship with him. this is something that i sincerely wanted, regardless of the consequence, which is enormous. the thought of this consequence is most likely what is keeping you from seeking him.

seek and you will find. knock and the door will be opened. you're not going to find in in a box, or in the passenger seat of my car, or under a microscope. do you think it is "I" who open the door?!

no one should believe in god just because someone else has experienced him and tells of it. you don't have to believe me, but to call me a liar is very telling. it says you have your mind made up. now why would you seek god, if your mind is already made up?

 

[Cris]

Lori,

I" have to have god verify that? why do "I" have to do that? you think god takes orders from me? you think he can't handle you himself?

Remember gods aren’t real things. This is purely your imagination at work.

truth is that other people have and do find what i have found.

No, they haven’t found anything and neither have you. The god meme has been around for thousands of years and has morphed into many variations dependent on human imagination. Your match with others is purely because of similarly shared fantasies.

our experiences are not exactly the same, but we are all very different individuals, who have come to the same conclusion via spiritual interaction with god.

Right, you simply share the same fantasy ideas.

there is absolutely no need for verifiable and replicable experience to be provided as evidence.

Yes there is if you want to ensure that what you believe is not just fantasy. Without independent evidence there is no way to distinguish between your beliefs and fantasy.

my experience is mine, and is all the evidence i need.

Except that you don’t know that what you experience is something real or a product of your brain. That’s the fundamental problem with delusion. The sufferer has no way to tell if it is real or not and they tend to believe what they feel. This is the key role of independent evidence. And of course those who have similar delusions tend to group together for mutual support and that further feeds the strength of the delusion.

the fact is, that you don't want to know god, or to have a relationship with him.

I have never quite understood this bizarre perspective of those who believe in such a personal god that others would not want the same thing. If such beings did exist and granted immortality etc, then of course we would want to share that.

what happened to me is not some special privilege granted arbitrarily to some and not others. i asked god to prove his existance to me if he was in fact real. i chose to have a relationship with him. this is something that i sincerely wanted, regardless of the consequence, which is enormous. the thought of this consequence is most likely what is keeping you from seeking him.

You still cannot show that what you feel so strongly is not just pure delusion. Complex, and deeply emotional, no doubt, but still just pure fantasy and delusion.

seek and you will find. knock and the door will be opened.

Especially if you are emotionally and psychologically inclined to believe in baseless fantasies. Those of us who prefer to know if something is actually true need something that can be differentiated from fantasy.

 

[swarm]

"I" have to have god verify that? why do "I" have to do that?

Because you claim to have this relationship to some deity and to proove your claim is true it is necessary to have god verify it. Otherwise you just seem crazy.

you think god takes orders from me? you think he can't handle you himself?

If you ask, will he not answer? So far I don't seem to be on the god line like you are, but I'm willing to let you show that there is more to it than empty claims.

via spiritual interaction with god.

So interact me.

there is absolutely no need for verifiable and replicable experience to be provided as evidence. my experience is mine, and is all the evidence i need. why don't you get your own? to satisfy your hollow request here.

If you can't pony up then how do I know you aren't just some whacko making empty claims?

This is why we use verifiable and replicable experience to show that we can back up our claims.

the fact is, that you don't want to know god, or to have a relationship with him. otherwise you would.

If I hand you something actual it doesn't matter if you want to know it or not.

I'm willing to give you the opprotunity to show there is something actual to your claims. That seems fair to me.

now why would you seek god, if your mind is already made up?

Its called being open minded. I'm willing to give you an opprotunity to come through and make good on your claims instead of dismissing you out of hand.

 

[swarm]

however: who says that freedom and tolerance have anything to do with the greater good? Freedom is not required for human survival and neither is tolerance.

Then how do you explain your continued existence?

 

[swarm]

The thing about religion is that it is very irrational, however the basis, the core concepts are not and in fact are the product of logical thought.

nope.

The universe had a beginning; now, logically either it occured without intelligent cause or with it.

False dilemma.

And the latter isn't necessarily absurd in and of itself, so it remains a very real possibility.

Actually it is completely absurd and no possibility.

 

[(Q)]

truth is that other people have and do find what i have found. our experiences are not exactly the same, but we are all very different individuals, who have come to the same conclusion via spiritual interaction with god.

Take a group of people, say everyone on the planet, for example. Each person is searching for a god. A very small minority of people claim to have had interactions with a god. What makes those people so special, Lori, that them and only them have had those interactions with a god?

why don't you get your own? to satisfy your hollow request here.

Your god refuses to reveal himself to everyone else. You are the only one of a small group who he does reveal himself too, according to you.

the fact is, that you don't want to know god, or to have a relationship with him. otherwise you would.

With that statement, you lose credibility with your argument that there is a god for all mankind, and instead that YOU are special over everyone else. Is that the case, Lori, or can everyone on the planet interact with god?

i asked god to prove his existance to me if he was in fact real. i chose to have a relationship with him.

Everyone on the planet has asked god the same thing, but nothing has ever happened to them, why is the Lori? And, please don't use any excuses that would make you out as being special over everyone else.

seek and you will find. knock and the door will be opened.

No amount of seeking or knocking on doors has ever revealed a god, Lori. Where is he?

now why would you seek god, if your mind is already made up?

My mind isn't made up, Lori. I'm here waiting, right now, Lori.

WHERE IS THIS GOD, LORI?

 

[Jethro Tull]

Faith (the conviction that something is true without any evidence), is simple stupidity.

The bridge to knowing is the discovery of evidence.

Don't you have to have faith in the evidence to discover it?

 

[Balerion]

Don't you have to have faith in the evidence to discover it?

Obviously not. What would give you that idea?

 

[swarm]

Don't you have to have faith in the evidence to discover it?

It would not be evidence if it required your faith.