Tweet
Re: Atheism - A Life Without Imaginary Friends
j_y:
depends on your definition of 'faith'...what do you define as 'faith'?
JC:
Faith is belief without proof.
j_y:
"talking down"?
JC:
Not talking down but eliminating the waste of time that debating faith usually involves. Those who believe regardless of fact or logic will not be swayed by long-winded and deep philosophical insights to NOT believe.
Why waste everyone's time? IMO getting to a few quick and pithy points is sufficient.
If the most effective points of an argument do nothing to change the thinking of your opponent in a debate, I doubt that longer and more involved material would make any difference.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no need to go into deep thinking and obscure philosophical points or to argue at great length with wit and humor as Christopher Hitchens does against the idea of God especially given the fact that those of faith do not, cannot factor in logic in discussing faith. </div></div>
j_y,
can not? i think that may be a bit extreme.
Not at all extreme IMO.
Those of faith considering at length the points made by someone like Hitchens would have their faith shaken and it is not in the nature of believers to either listen to someone like Hitchens for an entire debate nor read his entire book because they are not interested in disproving what they believe.
A similar condition exists with those who are right wingers politically. Recent studies show that they also only look, read and consider things IN DEPTH in which they already believe. When factual and incontrovertible evidence that contradicts their core beliefs is presented to them, they not only are not swayed but go ever more firmly back into what they already believe.
So for that reason I say believers CANNOT seriously consider evidence that belies the existence of God and all they have believed all their lives. It threatens what they feel is their basic person and that cannot be done. A wall comes up at first threat to that necessary part of their makeup that makes any argument or debate a waste of time for the atheist.
j-y:
so do you define 'faithist' as anyone who believes in a greater power in the universe than ourselves? or just as someone who has imaginary friends?
JC:
Yes to both. Imaginary friends extends to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy that children believe in and then to the gods that adults believe in.
All invisible, all imaginary.
As Hitchens said in one of his debates with Faithers, God did not create man. Man has always created gods throughout humanity's existence. And... Man always creates gods that have the failings of man, the emotional instability of man, the cruelties of man that an omniscient and omnipotent god would not possess.
j_y:
depends on your definition of 'faith'...what do you define as 'faith'?
JC:
Faith is belief without proof.
j_y:
"talking down"?
JC:
Not talking down but eliminating the waste of time that debating faith usually involves. Those who believe regardless of fact or logic will not be swayed by long-winded and deep philosophical insights to NOT believe.
Why waste everyone's time? IMO getting to a few quick and pithy points is sufficient.
If the most effective points of an argument do nothing to change the thinking of your opponent in a debate, I doubt that longer and more involved material would make any difference.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no need to go into deep thinking and obscure philosophical points or to argue at great length with wit and humor as Christopher Hitchens does against the idea of God especially given the fact that those of faith do not, cannot factor in logic in discussing faith. </div></div>
j_y,
can not? i think that may be a bit extreme.
Not at all extreme IMO.
Those of faith considering at length the points made by someone like Hitchens would have their faith shaken and it is not in the nature of believers to either listen to someone like Hitchens for an entire debate nor read his entire book because they are not interested in disproving what they believe.
A similar condition exists with those who are right wingers politically. Recent studies show that they also only look, read and consider things IN DEPTH in which they already believe. When factual and incontrovertible evidence that contradicts their core beliefs is presented to them, they not only are not swayed but go ever more firmly back into what they already believe.
So for that reason I say believers CANNOT seriously consider evidence that belies the existence of God and all they have believed all their lives. It threatens what they feel is their basic person and that cannot be done. A wall comes up at first threat to that necessary part of their makeup that makes any argument or debate a waste of time for the atheist.
j-y:
so do you define 'faithist' as anyone who believes in a greater power in the universe than ourselves? or just as someone who has imaginary friends?
JC:
Yes to both. Imaginary friends extends to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy that children believe in and then to the gods that adults believe in.
All invisible, all imaginary.
As Hitchens said in one of his debates with Faithers, God did not create man. Man has always created gods throughout humanity's existence. And... Man always creates gods that have the failings of man, the emotional instability of man, the cruelties of man that an omniscient and omnipotent god would not possess.
I can only speak to my own experience ... about 4 years ago I experienced some tough times in my career that was ego-crushing. <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Some of you may go ahead and scoff now</span></span> as that being 'tough' but it was for me and I fell into despair after hurt, anger, injustice, etc.
and I appreciate that we all worship the same god -- gosh, that sounds trite ... and I don't mean to be.
Comment