Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

Glad you agree with me.

BTW, what you've just been posting is known as Argumentum ad verecundiam: argument or appeal to authority.

No I wasn't. I was just countering your claim that no critical thought happens on the part of believers, that they "roll over and believe whatever [the pope] says."

I provided a short list of people who spent their lives critically thinking and still believe.

You are wrong.

That's not really what I said, however, the vast majority of believers don't critically examine their beliefs, accepting the belief of their parents. In fact, they are discouraged from doing so.

I certainly wouldn't have included Ben Franklin in that list, anyway.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Nah, the theologians just need to prove their claims.

But they can't - they'll just keep on making those claims, telling the flock that uncritical belief is the most important thing, all the while reaping the benefits.

Actually, theologians generally don't need to prove their claims.
Any logic arguement starts with axioms, and when theologians write their papers, they accept certain things that you may not.

If what they accept is false, then obviously anything based upon it falls apart. But theologians generally write to people who accept the initial claims on faith.

If they want me to accept them, they'll have to provide more than just testimony.

Their desire is to convert people to their faith, is it not?

robco wrote:

For a lot of people, religion is cultural or traditional.  You grow up with it.  Some continue to go through the motions (see how packed churches get on Easter Sunday and temples on Yom Kippur).

But most Catholics I've met (granted, liberal left cost Catholics) use birth control, eat meat on Fridays and have no issues with the whole gay thing (or are gay themselves).  The Pope does his thing, but a lot of Catholics decide for themselves.  Most realize that a group of virgins who really don't live in the real world probably aren't the best people to be making determinations about how everyday folks should be conducting their marriages, relationships, etc.

It does puzzle me how they can so completely discard so much of their ideology and still maintain that it must be true and useful.

However, this discussion about what believers believe is just a sidetrack to my primary point about how the Christian god has no more proof than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods or the ancient Greek gods. It's easier to attack my less important point.

I think calling it "Faith" doesn't make it any less foolish. I know there's a deafness there and I wouldn't care at all except for the people insisting that we base our laws on that nonsense.

Unfortunately, they're all too eager to use many many modern technologies such as firearms, explosives, etc.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Nah, the theologians just need to prove their claims.

But they can't - they'll just keep on making those claims, telling the flock that uncritical belief is the most important thing, all the while reaping the benefits.

Actually, theologians generally don't need to prove their claims.
Any logic arguement starts with axioms, and when theologians write their papers, they accept certain things that you may not.

If what they accept is false, then obviously anything based upon it falls apart. But theologians generally write to people who accept the initial claims on faith.

If they want me to accept them, they'll have to provide more than just testimony.

Their desire is to convert people to their faith, is it not?

Sometimes their desire is to convert people to their faith.
Notice the word I put in bold.

There are different ministries, and not all theologians are evangelists.
Most evangelists (with a few exceptions) that are good at it are not theologians. They know basic theology but the finer points bore them.

Theologians often help shape the growth of christians, and not just new christians - old christians as well.

A child must have milk before he can eat meat. But the child needs meat to properly grow, which is what a lot of theologians provide.

Really - proper indocrtination is a complicated process