Comments on: Don't Respect my Beliefs

By: reverendjw

reverendjw — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:53:57 +0000

Quite right, and elegantly put.

I would also add to the conversation the following:
-Do not assume I am less intelligent that you for my beliefs.
-Do not assume that your beliefs may not be wrong.

By: Don't Respect My Beliefs | Brian Sapient

Don't Respect My Beliefs | Brian Sapient — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:45:43 +0000

[…] Bitbutter » Don't Respect my Beliefs Don't Respect my Beliefs Posted by bitbutter on August 16, 2007 […]

By: revscrj

revscrj — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:33:44 +0000

Personally, I am a Gnostic and do not see the scientific model of the universe as conflicting in any way to a divinely created one. The method of debate described is invaluable to moving toward higher truths, and it is one I use and appreciate having used on me. Its refreshing to hear someone vocalize it- thank you.

Of note: I would just like to point out a pitfall in many atheistic arguements. Most that I have read/heard assume that 'creationism' equals 'Christianity'. Granted that the religion which split into Judaism, Islam, and Christianity DO cover a vast amount of the population's beliefs, they are not the only posibilities. If one is to construct an arguement to prove one's beliefs or at least to defend them in a better way, they should consider more broadly the realm of possiblity. It often frustrates me when I say that I believe in a divine source that immediately a vast number of traits are heaped on to me due to the stygma of Christianity.

No offense or provokation intended, just a pattern I've noticed.

-revscrj

By: Felix028

Felix028 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:52:55 +0000

What I like to tell people (this provides both my beliefs, my faith that their belief is inaccurate as well as ends the conversation before it gets started) is that my belief is that of an Orthodox Agnostic…..

I don't know…..AND NEITHER DO YOU!

By: Solonian Journal

Solonian Journal — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:42:44 +0000

First words…

Today I chanced upon a video that conveys the spirit of critical rationalism. I found it through Salahudin, a Towelian, who adds a critique of his own, thereby exhibiting a spirit of pancritical rationalism. How about that? A real world example!!…

By: bitbutter

bitbutter — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:38:22 +0000

@Bdox: I think Felix was talking about the beliefs atheists unavoidably do have, even though atheism itself doesn't imply any.

An atheist might believe in the supernatural. All we learn from the label is that they don't believe in gods.

By: Bdox

Bdox — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:07:19 +0000

Felix: An atheist is defined by not accepting supernatural beliefs, not by believing "in" something.

By: bitbutter

bitbutter — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:30:07 +0000

@felix: In the many cases where I don't seek out first hand evidence, to say that I take things 'on faith' is to equivocate. When I provisionally take things 'on faith' I'm actually relying entirely on evidence; the evidence I have that my sources are trustworthy. If I later learn that the evidence doesn't support the claim after all, I'll reject it.

On the other hand faith in a metaphysical proposition is belief independent of evidence. If decent evidence was available, it would no longer be faith. Accordingly it sounds strange to talk about a 'provisional faith' because faith deals in certainties and cannot, in principle, be touched by anything we might learn about the world.

Please be clear that to take things 'on faith' is something quite different than faith of the metaphysical variety which is a mechanism that bypasses the only reliable method we have of evaluating a truth claim; by looking at the evidence.

By: felix

felix — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:06:49 +0000

by the way, why do you think the earth is round? Is it evidence gathered with your own senses and reasoned with your own mind or is it because your teacher told you?

This is a question that my maths teacher once put to me and its stuck with me as a reminder that much of what athiests (such as myself) believe is in fact taken on pure faith.

By: Tuba Terry

Tuba Terry — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:20:38 +0000

Shaggy: from any arbitrary reference point, it can appear as though things revolve around us. (I'm going to try this analogy out, I don't know how well it will work, bear with me!) If you were stuck spending your entire life in your back yard, you could just as easily call the back door the front one, even though the rest of the neighborhood calls it the back door.
Eh, not so good…
The point is, your vantage point has nothing to do with the reality around you. The sun is the center of gravity in our solar system, even if it looks like it's spinning around us. "Hard to tell" does not mean "impossible" and "not with current technology" doesn't mean "impossible" either.

As for Darwin's Black Box, I can't say anything specific, as I haven't read it. I've had this conversation with a friend of mine before, though. For some reason, when it comes to Evolution, people seem to think any inconsistency in the theory invalidates the entirety of it. They also seem to think that the inconsistency and subsequent invalidation of the theory constitutes solid evidence for creationism.
Even if Evolution was proven entirely wrong, it would not prove creationism right. The evidence currently available points to evolution being pretty accurate. There is no evidence for creationism. For some creation myths, the only way to find out if they're true (aside from dying and having your god explain it all to you) would be taking a time machine back and watching some cosmic entity say "Hey, check this out!"