Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
For our atheist friends; A summer camp for kids
Topic Started: Jul 23 2009, 05:31 AM (799 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Mikhailoh
Jul 24 2009, 07:03 AM
There have been a couple very interesting threads now on this subject, no flame wars. That's refreshing.
**** you, you ****.

Agreed.


( :P )
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
That ain't even a spark, Bikewreck Boy. :lol:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Great post, Quag.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Jul 24 2009, 07:06 AM
That ain't even a spark, Bikewreck Boy. :lol:
:lol2: Bikewreck Boy.....I love it! :lol2:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Sam you might find one these philosophy/critical thinking classes very interesting because i think they deal with the kinds of (good) questions that you are asking.

Quote:
 

My point, if it isn't clear, is that most everything we do in life is based on total faith.


Well if someone really doesn't have any reason at all for thinking something then surely they shouldn't think it - if they proclaim both to think something but also not to have any reason for thinking it then they are really claiming both that they don't think X is likely (there is no reason to believe X) and that they think X is likely (I believe in X).

Quote:
 

I have never seen, personally, evidence that the American Civil War happened. I take it on total faith that my teachers, book authors, researchers, et al are correct when they say that it happened.


But do you have any reason for thinking that it is more likely that your teachers, authors, researchers etc. are broadly correct than broadly incorrect? Try and weigh the two hypothesis A) civil war happened, and B) civil war didn't happen against what you know of the observable world (including the history books and the various museums etc.) how could you end up with the stuff you have seen if you assumed A was right and how could you end up with the stuff you see if you assumed B was right? Try to mentally paint sets of pictures of the various scenarios. Then see if you have any reason for thinking one set of pictures more likely than the alternative.

I think you will find that Occam's razor will give you the answers that you buy into because you will need a conspiracy in order to match B to your own experiences of the world. Put another way there will be more that doesn't make any sense and runs contrary to your experiences if you assume B than if you assume A.

The same holds for the moon landing or the other situations you invoke. Thus I suspect that you do infact have reasons for thinking that these situations are more likely than the alternative hypothesise. Hence i'd put it to you that the beliefs you mention of are not blind faith but can be defended.

Presumably those who believe in supernatural or paranormal phenomena would want to make a similar case for their beliefs in gods/spirits/demons/UFOs/etc. indeed if they make this case then they do not have blind faith and instead have a set of reasons for what they think is true however in these cases I think there exists additional information that undermines the reasons offered up.

Edit: oops Quag beat me to it.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
pianojerome
Jul 23 2009, 09:44 PM
kenny
Jul 23 2009, 07:23 AM
To me atheism is only accepting what you can be reasonably sure of.

It is the opposite of faith.
But, I would guess that most atheists have never actually dug into the ground and sought out the fossil record; they just take it on faith that the scientists who tell them about it are correct. I'd guess that most atheists haven't actually run tests on the fossils to see how old they are; they just take it on faith that the scientists who told them how old the fossils are, are correct.

I'd guess that most atheists will fly on an airplane without ever checking to be sure that the pilot has his license, without checking to make sure that the airplane is in proper functioning order, and without checking all of the passengers to be sure that nobody is carrying a weapon. Nevertheless, I'd guess that most atheists would get on the plane anyway - taking all of these things on total faith. (Even - believe it or not - those who have never flown before, and therefore are basing their faith not on past experience but on the testimony of others.)

I'd guess that most atheists, when they're hungry, will go to the supermarket and buy a box of food - without actually seeing what's inside the box (taking on total faith that the label is correct), without actually going to the factory and overseeing the process of making the food (to make sure that health checks are in balance), and without test-tasting it first (taking on total faith that they'll like it).

My point, if it isn't clear, is that most everything we do in life is based on total faith.

I have never seen, personally, evidence that the American Civil War happened. I take it on total faith that my teachers, book authors, researchers, et al are correct when they say that it happened.

I have never, personally, stepped foot on the moon, nor have I ever been in a space shuttle, nor did I witness any space shuttles ever taking off. Nevertheless, I take it on total faith that man has walked on the moon - because I take it on faith that my sources are correct.

Does that mean that I am not reasonably sure that these events took place? Does that mean I can't reasonably sure that the plane will get me where I want to go safely, that the food I buy will be healthy and tasty, that the fossil record really is as old as scientists say it is? Surely, in all of these cases, I - and, I'd guess, most everyone else, too - have absolutely nothing to grasp on for personal evidence, except for the testimony of others and my subjective experiences. And yet, these are so commonly taken for granted - on faith - that I - and most others - never even question them.

Should we question them all? Should we stop getting on airplanes, buying food, believing that the Civil War happened, until we have seen and judged for ourselves the proper evidence?

Imagine if our teachers K-12 told us: don't believe anything you are taught in school; go and do the experiments and decide for yourself on everything. We'd never learn anything. We learn, because our teachers tell us. Later, we question certain things as we become specialized in our own areas, and if others in other specialized fields question other things, we choose -- without any reasonable credentials for ourselves -- to have faith (or not) that those specialists are correct.
I said "reasonably" sure of.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3