Question for religious DUers: If faith is a virtue, how is thinking Saddam did 9/11 wrong?

[ddbaj]

Now, I think that anyone who says Saddam did 9/11, or Saddam had WMDs, or that the US media is a tool of the democratic party, or that gay marriage is going to destroy America, or any of those silly claims we hear from right-wingers is wrong. Why? Because I know the facts and the facts say they're wrong. I use logic and facts. However, religious folks, in defense of their belief in God, say that they use faith not logic. Dictionary.com defines faith as " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

So my question is, if you're allowed to overrule logic on the question "Is there a supernatural power?" why can't people call upon faith and believe Saddam did 9/11 or that he had WMDs? I mean, just like you can't disprove God with 100% certainty, there's a chance there is some great conspiracy to cover this fact up by the liberal media. Of course, the odds of that being true, based on facts and logic, are so small it's silly.

So yeah, why are people who think Saddam had WMDs and the liberal media is covering it up idiots, backwash, etc, but people who use the exact same logic on a different question are simply displaying the virtue of faith and we're not to challenge their beliefs?

[CTD]

1. True. If you're into believing false things, why not add another to the lsit?

I see no real difference. Either you're into reality or you're not.

[ddbaj]

2. I'm not comparing religious DUers to right-wingers

who spit out this garbage, I am just saying it seems to me they have no room to talk.

[wryter2000]

4. Excuse me, but you are

As long as you lump all people of faith in one group, you are comparing DUers with fundies.

[wryter2000]

3. Apples and oranges

Intelligent people of faith don't depend on their faith to understand the physical world. They have faith that there's something beyond the physical realm. Something that isn't available to the senses or the scientific method.

Other disciplines besides religion rely on non-physical truths as well. Aesthetics and ethics are two. Let me ask you to prove with the laws of science the following statement. William Shakespeare was a great writer.

You can't prove that scientifically, but I doubt there's a scientist or atheist in the world who'd disagree with it.

What I'd like to know is why people here feel so threatened by the idea of the divine.

And I'm an agnostic, btw.

[ddbaj]

6. Well...

I can't prove that Shakespeare was a great writer, since that is a matter of opinion, but there is EVIDENCE that suggests it is highly likely. Look at how much his works have been read and re-printed, how they're taught in schools, the impact they've had, etc, so though I can't prove it is true, it is a reasonable claim and thus I intelligent people can have a variety of opinions on it. Remember, THE BURDEN OF PROOF DEPENDS ON HOW UNLIKELY THE CLAIM IS.

Now if you said Shakespeare raised from the dead, I'd need a little more evidence if you are to think this is true, it's not just a matter of opinion.

As for being threatened by the divine, I am not. I think the idea of a God is silly, there is not only no proof for it, but it makes no sense if you apply logic. I can understand a deist, but to believe in a chrsitian god or a muslim god or any other specific god is so... arbitrary.

To quote the famous saying, all of us are atheists to thousands of gods, Zeus, Poseidon, etc... some of us go one god further.

[kiahzero]

8. That famous saying is wrong. (n/t)

[ddbaj]

If you believe in every god ever created by man

The greek gods, norse gods, etc, then the statement does not apply to you. It applies to monotheists only. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[kiahzero]

13. Monotheists are a bare majority today, and a minority over the course of history

Yet arguments against religion generally almost always come down to arguments against a monotheistic religion that asserts that it is the one true religion.

[ddbaj]

14. Actually, no.

The arguments against monotheism are just a small portion of the vast ammount of very solid arguments against religion. I admit that multitheistic religion makes a lot more logical sense than monotheistic, if you simply believe that they're multiple interpretations of a supreme being.

However, this still doesn't eliminate the total lack of evidence for any God, the fact remains it is an amazing claim to say there is a supernatural intelligence out there, and requires mounts of evidence to even be considered by a rational person.

[wryter2000]

43. I'm a psychologist by training

So, that kind of proof is something that comes naturally to me. I doubt it's anything a physicist or a mathematician would accept at proof.

[MADem]

27. Interesting remark....

....why people here feel so threatened by the idea of the divine


I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's like the 'favorite fight of the week!'

So long as folks aren't in my face, ringing my doorbell at the crack of dawn, or incessantly forcing their beliefs on me, I say live, and let live.

If you want to believe that a fat puppy with four belly buttons rules over the world while balancing the heavens on his stubby little tail, fine with me. Enjoy!!! Just don't ask me to donate to your cause!

Other than that, so long as you aren't causing harm to people or animals, whatever floats your boat....

[wryter2000]

41. Exactly n/t

n/t

[PunkPop]

5. Makes sense to me.

Of course, I'm an atheist.

I suppose you could argue that the existence of God doesn't lend itself to the same standard of facts and logic that pertains to mundane, worldly things such as Saddam did 9/11, or Saddam had WMDs, etc...

Belief in God is spiritual. You can't apply your puny concept of facts and logic to such a "lofty" subject.

[Hosnon]

7. Is there any evidence that God doesn't exist? I can understand relying on faith when there

is no solid evidence either way.

That is not the case with Saddam and 9/11.

[ddbaj]

9. There is evidence for a natural world

To those who want to add God on to the natural world, the enormous burden of proof is on them.

To use your logic, there is "no solid evidence either way" that there is a giant invisible unicorn on the moon. We just know we have no evidence of such a being and until there is evidence to the contrary, we can safely assume there is no unicorn!

[Hosnon]

17. The existence of a natural world doesn't lend itself to either side.

Yes, the burden is on the religious to prove the additional element but that doesn't change the fact that faith in the existence of God is different from faith in the notion that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

There is good reason to believe that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. As to your counter-example, based on what we know about the requirements for life and "invisilibity", there is strong circumstantial evidence that there is no such unicorn. But sure, if there was no evidence either way, I can understand believing in such an animal - humans have believed crazier things.

As was pointed out up-thread, the nature of God as outside of the physical world places faith in his existence in a completely different category.

We can go back and forth regarding the proper "standard" but I think most people see the difference.

[ComerPerro]

40. actually, using religious logic, we should assume there is a unicorn on the moon

until it is proven otherwise

[ComerPerro]

39. I've got news for you, there is no evidence that WMD didn't exist either

Most DUers should know that the burden of proof is on those making the claim of something's existence, since it is impossible to prove a negative

[ddbaj]

42. Thank you.

I thought it was a given that proving a negative with 100% certainty was impossible, but thanks for pointing out that point which I forgot to make.

[Hosnon]

44. Of course you can't prove a negative but you can get close by proving a contrary

principle.

Have we proved that invisible strings aren't what keep us tethered to the earth? No, but we have gone very far in proving that mass and spacetime warping have a lot to do with it.

If you claim I have drugs in my apartment and then search it inside and out, does that mean there were no drugs? No, but it is highly unlikely.

You can't prove a negative but I am talking about evidence of, not proof of, a claim.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. In the Epistle of St. James

He says that faith is the belief in things unseen.

That doesn't mean the disbelief in that which is obvious.

[ddbaj]

11. I think it's pretty obvious that there is no God if you use logic.

For example, it explains a complex system (the universe) by introducing a more complex being (god) without explanation. It makes no logical sense to believe in God if you use logic and facts.

[kiahzero]

15. Begging the question

You assume that theists insert divinity into their ontology without explanation to prove that they do not have justification for inserting divinity into their ontology.

[ddbaj]

18. Okay, it was sloppy. However...

If a theist believes God created the universe, he better be prepared to explain who created God. Simply saying "He exists outside of time" or another general argument does not work.

[kiahzero]

20. Why? (n/t)

[ddbaj]

26. I assume you mean why do general arguments not work.

If you can say "God did it and he exists outside of time" then I can say "I did it and I exist outside of time!" with the exact same ammount of evidence. You could say the FSM did it, you could say just about anything if you use an argument that overrules basic natural laws.

[kiahzero]

30. Which is an argument about the nature of divinity, not its existance. (n/t)

[Jack Rabbit]

29. If one contemplates the difference between time and eternity

. . . then such a positivist world view become an intellectual straightjacket.

I took mine off.

[Hosnon]

21. Many people throughout history have tried to use logic to either prove or disprove

God.

An "obvious" answer has not been found yet and I tend to believe that logic is not suited for the task.

[ddbaj]

32. How about this.

Can we agree that the claim of god's existance is one, if not the, greatest claim ever made by humans? If so, then shouldn't we have mountains of evidence for this great claim to even be considered, much less followed as a belief?

"My logic" is to follow facts. Maybe following facts is not obvious to you, and I guess we can disagree there.

[Hosnon]

35. Sure, I can tentatively agree that it is one of the greatest claims.

But that doesn't necessarily mean there should be mountains of evidence in order to believe it. I fail to see why the one necessitates the other.

And logic, strictly speaking, has little to do with facts. It is about structure. One of the foundational principles in logic is ~(P & ~P). Perhaps God is not bound by that principle. If so, inquiries into his existence using logic based on non-contradiction are inherently flawed.

[JacksonWest]

12. Faith is a small part of Christianity or any religion.

Religion, by nature, is less a faith based system then a method and instruction book on how to live your life and relate to other people. The basic messages of all religions contain: Respect for your neighbor, forgiveness, and helping the less fortunate.

Faith is required to believe in what cannot be seen-God. However, a source of faith can be drawn from following Gods commandments and word-and reaping the rewards. By being Christ-like-or following the prophet-pr abiding by the torah- your life will be enriched. This enrichment will nourish your faith. It's a reciprocal relationship. Or-karma. The bible does not ask it's followers to do anything crazy. The basic tenets are common sense and universal. Usually, it's a church or solitary man that requests the unfathomable.

So, the question you have to ask yourself is-how would faith in Saddam committing 9/11 reward those that believed it?

If you live your life according to the golden rule-and your life benefits-would that give you faith in God? Would it justify someone else's?

Ultimately, religious people who do wacko things-they aren't rewarded in any sense of the word. Death, imprisonment, scandal, and humiliation typically follow.

Be careful in diminishing faith. It's a wonderful thing, and not regulated to just religion. Everyone on this board has faith-predicated on experience-that a Democrat majority will be a boon ot this country.

Remember faith isn't blind. It isn't supposed to be. One could almost supplement the word faith with logic.

[ddbaj]

16. Faith IS blind.

I believe Wesley Clark would be a better president than George W. Bush. This is not faith, I base this on facts (I live in GW's America and I know of Clark's ideas) and logic (by taking Clark's ideas to their logical conclusion against Bush's).

Now, I could be wrong, but based on the facts and on logic it is a reasonable claim.

Compare this to saying that there is an all-powerful God that is everywhere, can do anything and created the universe. This is a MUCH bigger claim than "Clark is better than Bush" and requires a ton more evidence to even be considered.

Also, I am not against the non-supernatural aspects of religion. But do we really need religion to be good people? If you're only helping the poor or the sick because it says so on some old book, then I question your morality. I am a solid progressive because I think it's right and I value human life and the less fortunate, no need for a god or a book or a religion to tell me so.

[Bluerthanblue]

19. many of the most important steps we take in life are based

on faith- NOT fact.

Even the most logical minds use faith. My father was a PHD. Rutgers University class of '52 "rocket scientist"- A mind that astounded most people who knew him. Yet, he had 'faith' in the most absurd things.
Like the notion that the human race actually COULD learn, and progress beyond our most base instincts. The thought that we might actually understand that if violence, vengeance and overpowering those we feel wronged, or threatened by, is not only not the 'best answer'- but it is self defeating.

He also said, any person who studied science in depth couldn't help but believe that there are forces at work that are beyond our 'present' understanding. And to believe the universe and all that is, is a result of 'random chance' or 'creative chaos' takes more faith than he could muster.

I personally DON'T believe Saddam did anything any worse than many of our own leaders have done, and are doing. All actions have an equal and opposite 're- action'. I can't see the force that acts on ferrous metals, but I can see the results of it. I can't see the wind, but it still blows. I cannot hear sounds my dog can hear, but that doesn't make those sounds 'not exist'.

To believe that humans experience and understand all the many in's and out's of all that exists, and that everything not only can, but must be 'proven to our satisfaction' is not only foolish, it is arrogance at its finest.

Belief in what could not be proven, is how we have 'advanced' beyond the flat earth- beyond the notion that the universe revolves around the earth, to speculate that what cannot be seen, or currently known, can still 'exist'.

"If a tree falls in the forrest and there is 'no one' there to hear it, does it still make a noise?"

(There are many many atheist republicans and conservatives- including many who 'play church' and pretend to embrace beliefs that they clearly do not hold. If you ask me, it took a hell of alot of faith to believe that my going to vote in this last election was not just an exercise in futility- 'logic' and 'statistical data' would have said otherwise- but logic would have not only have been 'wrong'- it would have been self-fulfilling disaster, if we had expected the 'logical results' that we have had to wrestle with the long last 6 yrs.)

peace,
blu

[ddbaj]

23. Several things wrong with your post, with all due respect...

First of all, thinking that human beings can progress is an opinion and you could present some evidence to back it up. Comparing old civilizations to modern ones, etc. Now, to say there is a god is a much bigger claim so one would expect a lot more evidence to even begin to consider it.

Also, the origins of the universe are indeed a mystery. But to add a supreme intelligence only makes it more complex! We go from "How did the universe begin?" to "How did God begin?". God, however you define it, is a more complex system, since he/she/it was able to create the universe, so it takes an even bigger explanation to account for God. So it makes no sense to say it takes more faith to believe in a natural universe than in a supernatural intelligence.

You need to be careful that you don't confuse faith with reasonable opinions. Reasonable opinions are based on SOMETHING, faith is based on its own sake.

[aquart]

22. Witless sophistry.

Is this supposed to pass for cleverness?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

24. Subwitless ur-flamebait.

[ellacott]

25. This shouldn't include Religious DUers

I don't think your question is logical or fair.

All religious people don't believe in the same thing or in the same way. There's a great gulf between Chrstians and Non-Christians and it is so evident here.

I wouldn't say it's their faith in God that makes them believe those things. It's their faith in Bush. There are also many Non-Christian republicans who also believe this.

[ddbaj]

28. I want to see one theist view that doesn't depend on faith.

Until then, I think it's fair to lump theists into a simple group when it comes to matters of faith, as they all depend on it. Granted, some more than others, but still they do.

[ellacott]

36. That makes no sense

I'm sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges. Every Christian does use faith in God to believe that Sadam had WMds. That makes no sense. They had faith in Bush.

If anything it tells you not to put your faith in man. Yes, the Bible is based on faith. A simple definition of faith is: believing in the testimony of another.

Christians are also taught that you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. There are many examples where christians are exhorted to reason and common sense and not to led away by every wind of doctrine.

[fishwax]

31. I don't get the connection you're making at all

Faith is, by the definition you provide, a belief that does not rely on logical or material proof. That's not the same as a belief that actively resists logical or material proof. Sometimes those who believe in god can certainly cross that line, but they aren't inherently equivalent.

[ddbaj]

34. I think it is inherently equivalent.

You seem to assume that I (or atheists in general) need to provide some proof that god doesn't exist. That will never happen. Just like you will never provide me with proof that there isn't a giant invisible unicorn on the moon right now, controlling everything that goes on in our dear planet. I can't disprove an invisible being who remains hidden. I can, however, point out that due to the nature of the claim, the lack of evidence for the claim and the fact that alternate claims do a MUCH better job at explaining what theism seeks to explain, the existance of god is highly, highly, highly, unlikely. As likely as the existance of the unicorn on the moon.

If you can believe something that is as likely as a clearly stupid and false claim such as an invisible unicorn on the moon, you're going to turn around and bash those who believe another stupid claim such as "Saddam did 9/11"? Seems pretty equivalent to me.

[wulfwolf]

33. ....

~Now, I think that anyone who says Saddam did 9/11, or Saddam had WMDs, or that the US media is a tool of the democratic party, or that gay marriage is going to destroy America, or any of those silly claims we hear from right-wingers is wrong. Why? Because I know the facts and the facts say they're wrong. I use logic and facts. However, religious folks, in defense of their belief in God, say that they use faith not logic. Dictionary.com defines faith as " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". ~

Well, if you want to get semantic/technical,etc...he did have WMDs. They may not have been "mighty and powereful destructive weapons," as Bush said, but none-the-less, there have been found such items like...ricin, mustard gas, and some other things. Yes, they are technically WMDs.

Speaking of logic....Science requires faith, correct? Faith in the system, faith in that the scientific process continues to work, and that there isn't a breakdown, a faith in that there will be answers to our questions, etc...


~So my question is, if you're allowed to overrule logic on the question "Is there a supernatural power?" why can't people call upon faith and believe Saddam did 9/11 or that he had WMDs? I mean, just like you can't disprove God with 100% certainty, there's a chance there is some great conspiracy to cover this fact up by the liberal media. Of course, the odds of that being true, based on facts and logic, are so small it's silly.~


Anyone can believe anything they want, there is no "mind/thought police," thank God. It may be small, but doesn't mean it isn't possible. I personally don't believe it, but i keep my mind open to....maybe...just maybe...that .000000000000001% chance of it being true, comes across.


~So yeah, why are people who think Saddam had WMDs and the liberal media is covering it up idiots, backwash, etc, but people who use the exact same logic on a different question are simply displaying the virtue of faith and we're not to challenge their beliefs?~

Arrogance, Ignorance, etc......perhaps?

I see a fight going on between Faith, and Logic / Religion and Science.

They're both arrogant, and neither is willing to admit it.

[ddbaj]

38. Science does not require faith, with respect.

Science simply observes, makes predictions then tests those predictions. It's not faith to follow facts.

I do not have faith that if I drop a penny it will hit the ground, I make a (very) reasonable assumption based on a lot of evidence. If you want to call such a thing faith, go ahead, but that's very different from the type of faith I am talking about. The type that ignores facts and logic.

[Beam Me Up]

37. "Belief" and "faith" are not the same thing.

Most people do not know how to ask these questions about "religion." There really is more to this than meets the eye. There are a couple good books I can recommend on the subject of the history of science and its relationship to metaphysical principals. This is from the Forward to Jacob Needleman's The Sword of Gnnosis.

That {science's} pragmatic successes soon led it to construct a sub-human metaphysics ought not to blind us to the sacred impulse that originally fed it: the wish to know reality for oneself. I take all true skepticism to be the search for a quiet center within the mind that can resist the pull of subjective opinion, mechanical logic, and authoritarian belief. Nearer to that center of the mind, it seems that a double certainty appears--the certainty that it is humanly possible to know reality directly and the certainty that there are infinitely higher levels of being to be served beyond and within the human frame. Thus does a form of faith arise alongside the rejection of belief. By faith I mean a miraculous quality of certainty. --Jacob Needleman, The Sword of Gnosis pp16

Here is another interesting quote from Needleman, this time from his A Sense of The Cosmos; The Encounter of Modern Science and Ancient Truth:

Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness. All definitions, no matter how profound, are secondary. Even the formulations of ancient masters on this subject can be a diversion if I take them in a way that does not support the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

The point being that our ordinary consciousness, the one you and I are using to tap our fingers and cause little shapes to appear on computer monitors which our brains, by association, somehow, manage to translate into meaningful words, phrases, sentences and concepts, may NOT be the full consciousness possible for human beings. Something more, deeper, more profound that is not pre-verbal but direct and experiential may be possible. However, to know this, something is required of us -- and this is what modern religion has utterly lost sight of.

Another interesting book to look into is Brain, Symbol and Experience, by Charles D. Laughlin, Jr., et al.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

45. I'm going to lock this.

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator