Blessings

+David

That seems a touch too strong. The fact that something is believed by everyone is obviously insufficient for it to not require warrant.

Nor is it the case that non-universally held beliefs must be proven.

What critics seem to be trying to get at is the notion that there are commonly accepted notions of proof, some of which are defeasible. For example, knowing whether someone else is in pain.

So one might say that there is no need to prove every belief, even if that belief is non-universally held, but that there is a need for all such beliefs to be provable in some commonly accepted method to count as rational (given our ordinary use of that word). The argument is then not that religious beliefs are not proven, but that they are not provable.

To answer the above assertion, from another point of view: so what? Just because something appears irrational at first glance, doesn’t make it false.

Many who try to prove an idea irrational are doing so only because they then assume it would make it false. This is not so, and that step must also be proved.

I’d also suggest that back in the 18th century and earlier, the more we learned about the order and design of life and the world around us, the more rational it would be to believe in some sort of creator. Nowadays the argument might be more rich – the design is evident, the reasons many, It seems God is still a good bet, although some prefer to believe in the God of chance.
.-= My last blog-post ..Tsunami warning – not really [UPDATED] =-.

As non religious person I fail see what pleasure any individual can get from putting the boot to another person or group of people at such a time as the tragedy in Samoa. I even find it hard to understand why anyone would take pleasure in trying to destroy someone’s faith if it helps them get through some difficult times and often lead to them being more productive members of society.

One example would be people with drug and alcohol problems. If belief in a higher power and the fellowship with similar people helps them lead a better life then it should be encouraged not ridiculed. Another example would be criminals. One thing that leads to recidivism is once released they hang around with the same crowd. Peer pressure is a major thing that affects behaviour – maybe even more than fear of punishment. If these people can stay out jail and become productive members of society this should be encouraged but not forced on someone.

Just as there is a wide range of behaviour amongst sceptics these is amongst Christians. Many Christians like to believe that Christians almost always are more honest, caring and have more other positive attributes than non Christians. They do a disservice to other Christians who are a little more thimble.

My only problem with religion is when a small militant minority try and sometimes succeed in forcing law changes that affect everyone. I cannot think of any recant examples as the liberal seem to be in control.

Chuck

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/09/classic-3.html#comments

MyNameIsJack (1170) Vote: 7 31 Says:

September 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Its not trolling, its stating a F A CT !, something the religious try to hide from.

I can guarantee you that the churches will be full of wailing, ignorant natives, pleading to a god who so obviousluy despises them.

That god, if he existed, would be a cunt of the first degree. Since he doesn’t, it is those who should know better, who encourage this false hope, simply to enrich themselves, that are the true cunts.

And Murray, fairytales are for kiddies.

[DPF: And that is 50 demerits. 20 for continuing to troll and 30 for the c word. This is not the appropriate thread to mock people who have just died for believing in God. If you do not get that, well go elsewhere]

Philonz (41) Vote: 6 1 Says

September 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm

Jack, you seem to think all Christians are simpletons who believe that God is a bloke with a white beard creating disasters and occasionally talking to people with a booming voice. I’m not religious myself but acknowledge that theology is incredibly complex and I suspect you know that. Your argument is simplistic and not appropriate for this thread. FAIL.

Over the coming days the church and religion are going to play a very important part in how many of those affected by this disaster cope with it. You might think they’re foolish but if it helps them to cope with their grief and provide the strong sense of community required to rebuild their villages and lives then it’s all good. Basically Jack, you should piss right off!

(And they might have actually read the the piece)
.-= My last blog-post ..Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith =-.

No atheist could have put it better.

But I still like the cathedrals, and the music. And in its humanist moments, the Church (broadly defined) has made some great contributions to social justice.