“Yes, but they’re both still ‘blind’, as you’ve admitted.”

You could say that theism and atheism are blind in that way but I’d suggest it would be more meaningful to maintain the dichotomy.

The problem is that you seem to be adopting Dawkins unrealistic definition of faith that he uses to set up a straw man so that he can compellingly get up the nose of his Southern Baptist readers (with a few anti-theists perhaps like you).

A more realistic definition is “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods” with the proviso that some anti-theists and theists hold a blind faith.

”Saying you’ve had some sort of personal revelation might be sufficient reason for you yourself to believe, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good reason for anyone else to believe. It would also beg the question as to why you are so special that the evidence has been personally delivered to you, while it is hidden from the rest of us.”

I’m Catholic not Pentecostal and not some type of mystic.

“<<However have you considered that some exceptions destroy the whole point of the rule?>>

Could you give an example? I’m not sure I know exactly what you’re getting at here.”

The idea of respecting peoples’ right to believe what they want to seems to be a courtesy derived from an ideal of respecting other people and their autonomy. Many people form beliefs without much evidence. To limit your observation of that courtesy to only respecting people’s beliefs when they are based on evidence seems to result in an awful number of people and their beliefs being excluded. To me this defeats the purpose. You might as well not respect people’s right to believe but instead only accept people’s beliefs that you know are evidence based. There isn’t much difference. I also noted your inclusion of the word “real”. That hangs over it ominously as a further limitation and I expressed my suspicion as to what you might mean by it.

CONT

”<<But the belief that anyone who forms a belief in God is being irrational appears to be dogma for TBC and you.>>

…an observation of mine that has remained consistent despite seeing many different cases.”

Well hopefully these types of discussions will change that.

”Again, you’ve never explained your reasoning, so I can only go by experience and assume ..”

Okay so you are just expressing your bias. That is fair enough.

“ Who knows, you may even fulfill your obligation to be a fisher of men.”

A man much wiser than me once said that if someone isn’t open to the idea of divinity then someone could return from the dead and they still wouldn’t believe. You really don’t seem to be someone who would change belief simply because of evidence to the contrary or reasoning to the contrary. I simply want you to adopt a more balanced view being that both theists and anti-theists reason and consider evidence.

”… argument that the big bang could have been the act of a god is not a good reason to think that a god may exist - especially if one is going to let their life be guided by such a belief - since it’s fallacious.”

But taking that evidence to keep an open mind doesn’t entail guiding one’s life. Unless there is a positive belief that God exists why would you assume that people would guide their life?

If I were to point to that evidence alone then it would be a fairer comment.

”… I’ve never said anything about certainty and neither does atheism, as you originally thought...”

Nb. “it’s fallacious” “haven’t earned respect by being based on any sort of real evidence” “untenable beliefs”

That is true of atheism in the sense of a mere absence of theism but certainly not the anti-theism that is often described as atheism.

I don’t believe it is realistic to dogmatically subscribe to the idea that your opinion is rational but opposing opinions cannot be the result of rational thinking in a topic such as this.

mjpb,

I certainly hope you weren’t waiting until the ‘Having been started’ setting on the ‘General discussions‘ index page needed to be switched to ‘One quarter back’ before you responded so that I couldn’t see the response. Dan S de Merengue was caught out doing that once before. Anyway...

<<You seem to think that a sound byte summary should do the job of demonstrating reasoning and that anything more is sophistry.>>

Not at all. Here’s what I actually said:

“If you can’t list these “facts” in a few minutes, then they’re probably not really facts. Facts can be rattled off rather quickly, if not, then it’s usually just sophistry.”

“Facts”, not “reasoning”. Note that I also said “usually”.

Speaking of sophistry though, sophistry is the use of deliberately invalid arguments that display ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone, and that is exactly how what you’ve said above appears.

We’re not off to a good start here, and it gets worse unfortunately...

<<Sound bytes seem to be a way of avoiding reasoning rather than replacing it.>>

Not only did I not say anything about sound bites, but you’ve deliberately left your point very open-ended by using the term “sound bites” without defining what exactly you mean.

<<Please feel free to copy and paste my quotes and your reply into the other thread to add to our discussion there and put an end to the replication in here.>>

If you want to present your “facts” that support the existence of god on the other thread, then by all means, go for it. I’ll keep an eye out for them. But I’m, still intrigued as to why it’s taking so long to mention them. This is starting to feel like one of those dreams you have where you’re trying to get somewhere, but no matter how hard you try, you just can’t seem to get there.

<<You could say that theism and atheism are blind in that way...>>

No, atheism cannot be blind because theists are yet to demonstrate that anything like what they’re suggesting exists.

Continued...

...Continued

<<The problem is that you seem to be adopting Dawkins unrealistic definition of faith that he uses to set up a straw man so that he can compellingly get up the nose of his Southern Baptist readers...>>

I’ve never actually heard Dawkins use the definition I used for faith at all. In fact, I don’t recall how exactly Dawkins defines faith.

<<A more realistic definition is “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods”...>>

How is that more realistic?

Faith is a term applied to beliefs that don’t have any justification for being held. Put more crudely and bluntly, faith is simply belief for no good reason.

<<...with the proviso that some anti-theists and theists hold a blind faith.>>

I demonstrated to you several times before that atheists don’t hold any faith. Changing your target to the more overt “anti-theists” doesn’t change what I said.

The onus is still on the believers to provide the evidence. That’s the bottom line.

<<I’m Catholic not Pentecostal and not some type of mystic.>>

I’m not sure how you differentiate between Catholic and Pentecostal then. Both would usually say their reasons for believing are due to personal revelation.

As for mystics though, I’ve found Catholics to be the most mystical of all the denominations. Take their acceptance of evolution and the resultant (and necessary) mystifying of god (as opposed to the Pentecostal’s ‘bearded old man’ version of god) as just one example.

Then there’s the “mystery” they always speak of. I’m amused to hear how many times the word “mystery” is mentioned in Catholic mass. What Catholics don’t realise though, is that you can’t answer a mystery with a mystery.

<<Many people form beliefs without much evidence. To limit your observation of that courtesy to only respecting people’s beliefs when they are based on evidence seems to result in an awful number of people and their beliefs being excluded.>>

There’s a lot more to the respect I pay than whether or not they’re based on any real evidence.

Continued...

...Continued

There’s the resulting affect these beliefs have had up until now (in conjunction with the lack of evidence) that is the real clincher here. My Bill Maher quote spread over the following two links explain very well why religious beliefs don’t deserve respect...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178700
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178701

<<I also noted your inclusion of the word “real”. That hangs over it ominously as a further limitation and I expressed my suspicion as to what you might mean by it.>>

Something that is demonstrable, measurable and verifiable.

<<Okay so you are just expressing your bias. That is fair enough.>>

I was expressing an observation, but you’ve used the term “bias” to imply that I am unable to see otherwise. Well, all I can say is that I had a strong Christian bias at the time of the majority of my observations. So any implication that I can’t see past my own biases is just plain silly.

<<A man much wiser than me once said that if someone isn’t open to the idea of divinity then someone could return from the dead and they still wouldn’t believe.>>

Firstly, considering there are no reliable accounts of anyone rising from the dead, what this supposedly wise man said was nothing more than a bald-faced assertion. How on Earth could he possible know that?

Secondly, atheists will often say that all it would take for them to believe is evidence. Compare that to the fact that theists often say that no amount of evidence would stop them believing.

This man you speak of certainly doesn’t sound wise to me at all.

<<I simply want you to adopt a more balanced view being that both theists and anti-theists reason and consider evidence.>>

Considering there is no evidence for god and that no one has ever presented me with some reasoning that wasn’t sophism or fallacious, I think my view is very balanced. It would actually be unbalanced of me to give any sort of credit to a position that has never been justified.

Continued...

...Continued

<<But taking that evidence [that the big bang was triggered by god] to keep an open mind doesn’t entail guiding one’s life. Unless there is a positive belief that God exists why would you assume that people would [use it to] guide their life?>>

I didn’t. Note the words “especially if”.

<<If I were to point to that evidence alone then it would be a fairer comment.>>

Well unfortunately it’s not even evidence to begin with. It’s an argument from ignorance and thus fallacious.

<<[Atheism not saying anything about certainty] is true of atheism in the sense of a mere absence of theism but certainly not the anti-theism that is often described as atheism.>>

Anti-theism doesn’t mean certainty either. It is simply a staunch position taken against something that is perceived to be very harmful.

I’m not sure what the “NB” was about either. If you’re implying that they are certainties of atheism/anti-theism, then you’re mistaken. They are not intrinsically tied to atheism, but merely my opinions.

<<I don’t believe it is realistic to dogmatically subscribe to the idea that your opinion is rational but opposing opinions cannot be the result of rational thinking in a topic such as this.>>

“Have not yet shown themselves to be the result of rational thinking”, would be a better way of putting it.

With that correction in place, I think I’ve more than adequately demonstrated that it is realistic.

Anyway, I’ll keep a keen eye out for these long-awaited facts on the other thread.