WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

What exactly are you saying?

Based on that description it sounds like you're saying that you can't take the Bible at face value; That any part of the Bible may just be an allegory, therefore it's completely open to interpretation until further clarification. Which part then, do you put the onus on in the interim? The love thy neighbour part, or the I have come to bring a sword part? The goodwill towards men part, or the slavery and misogyny parts?

You didn't debunk anything. What you said was:

"I believe what I believe because I have personally experienced it, I have tested it, I have found it to explain adequately and consistently the world as I know and experience it, and I have found it to withstand the scrutiny of logic and reason."

First of all, every sentence began with "I" so it's entirely subjective, not objective.
Secondly your personal experience isn't proof of god: As Nexxo said earlier, the brain strives for cognitive coherence over accuracy.
Thirdly, if you've found that it withstands logic and reason you're not doing a very good job of articulating that.

As for more general theist circular reasoning, it usually goes like this:

I believe in the Bible because it says [verse] in the Bible, and this an allegory for [something]
In other words - I believe in X because it says in X that this is true.

I'm eager to discredit religion because it is the Milgram experiement writ large as can be written.

Science at least has the humility to admit that it isn't entirely accurate, and strives for greater understanding. Religion, on the other hand, is stagnant and actively resists other arguments e.g. Creationism. In fact in Missouri right now there's a bill seeking to redefine the State's legal definition of the words "science" and "hypothesis" to allow Creationism to be taught alongside Evolution. - This is another reason that religion needs to be discredited.

And here is yet an other - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...s-not-make-you-love-your-neighbour-study.html

 

Religion fosters tribal dynamics? Who would have thunk?

 

So does sports.

 

Absolutely. Turns out we're human beings after all.

 

Yes, but some of us rely a little less on that frontal lobe and more on that Chimp brain than probably should.

 

Sports clubs don't exert considerable political clout. I believe that's were many peoples problem with religion lies.

 

Of course you can't take the Bible at face value - like any other historical document you can't hope to explore its meaning without historical context and philological insight. I really don't see what your argument is - I said simply that it's possible to read the Bible and get the wrong idea from it. As Kayin said, misunderstanding certain parts of the Bible does not undermine the validity of its content.

But your objection is that theism is circular, not that it is subjective.

All well and good, but I wasn't attempting to prove God's existence.

Let's revisit your claim: "Theism presents itself as a possible solution ... but on closer examination relies on circular logic"

Theism doesn't rely on circular logic; you are just being very selective in your examples of theistic thinking by citing only what meets your criteria of circular logic. You have been presented with a coherent non-circular approach to theism, thus your claim has been debunked.

This has already been discussed, and what you're doing here has also already been discussed - using crazy people to discredit a philosophy is a fruitless endeavour.

Back on topic, you openly admit that you want to discredit the Bible based purely on your opinion that religion is akin to an experiment. Can you demonstrate this rather than just declare it baselessly?

 

This thread is almost 100 pages long. You keep saying that this has already been discussed, and that has already been discussed; That you've debunked this, and debunked that...You make ambiguous statements about your subjective evidence for the existence of god without stating exactly what that is.

How about you quit with the diversion tactics and give a clear and concise, non-circular reason for belief in the existence of god.

 

I think that VipersGratitude is looking at religion from the framework of a scientific hypothesis. In that context it is an untestable belief. You of course argue that you reason from a spiritual framework and that this is as real and relevant as a scientific one; what we experience mentally is, phenomenologically speaking, as real and relevant to us as what goes on in the physical universe. No argument from me there.

As such I think that it is a bit pointless to argue about what belief is "right". Marmite: love it, or hate it? Who's right? In the end all that really matters is how your beliefs help you function and live happily and meaningfully. And that is very personal.

The problem is that some people won't stop there. They now feel the need to impose their very personal beliefs and values onto everybody else (you're not one of them, and this is not limited to those with religious beliefs, just to make that clear). That is of course inevitably going to meet with resistance out of pure psychological reactance alone. At some point we have to come to terms with the fact that the outside world does not necessarily conform to, or take account of our beliefs, values, needs and wishes. It's called being an adult.

 

It's not me who's using diversion tactics - just look at your (decidedly infantile) misquote of my response above, by virtue of which you eschew my counterarguments and elude proper debate. If you want to cry out that "The thread is 100 pages long and I still don't believe in God," that's fine, but I'm afraid that it's not quite the same as saying "I have demonstrated that theism relies on circular logic and is therefore unreasonable." What exactly is it that you are trying to do here, apart from throw stones at theism and religion?

I have given a very clear and concise, non-circular reason for my belief in God; unless you can demonstrate its circularity, your claim of theism relying on circular logic is spurious. And regarding subjective evidence for the existence of God, I'm not sure I follow - evidence can't be subjective. All I've claimed is that there are compelling reasons to believe in God, but these compelling reasons are always taken subjectively, hence why some people do not consider them compelling.

True, but I'm not arguing what's right and what's wrong; I'm just presenting very simple counterarguments to common claims that theism is X, Y and Z. Much like God is a real possibility, the counterarguments that I present are also real possibilities. A lot of the time people just react badly to being challenged because such claims about theism come not from well reasoned or properly informed thinking but from fundamentalist ignorance. Your comment about psychological reactance is most insightful and I hope you see it on both sides of the fence as I do.

The real enemy to debates like this is immaturity. Let's please keep it civil, no matter how fiercely the anti-religious and/or anti-theistic fires burn inside. I openly admit that I've learned (and continue to learn) a lot from this thread alone.

 

That isn't what I'm crying out. I'm simply asking you to restate your argument that theism does not rely on circular logic, as the thread is 100 pages long and I have no idea which page you might be referring to, let alone which post.

uhuh...

 

Post #1821 (top of this page), you presented a three-point rebuttal to my argument (which you quoted).
Post #1827, I addressed your first two objections individually, showing them to be irrelevant; the third objection wasn't even worth responding to as it didn't actually challenge anything.
Post #1828, you substituted my entire post with "Oh lord Jesus, it's a fire" and proceeded not to engage any of my counterarguments in post #1827.

Ball's still in your court - you have yet to demonstrate that my argument employs circular reasoning.

 

You didn't make an argument, you simply made ambiguous statements. Let me quote you again:

"I believe what I believe because I have personally experienced it,

How have you experienced god?

I have tested it,

How have you tested it?

I have found it to explain adequately and consistently the world as I know and experience it, and I have found it to withstand the scrutiny of logic and reason."

Please demonstrate how these tests and experiences gave you reason to believe that you tasted the divine, without resorting to circular logic and reasoning.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

Actually I did - my response was posted as a counterargument to your claim in post #1793 that "I believe what I believe merely because it says so in a book." I showed that my reason for my belief is not only because it says so in a book, therefore I showed your claim to be spurious.

You have yet to demonstrate why these reasons together employ or rely on circular logic. And I have no idea why you think the following are ambiguous concepts - they seem perfectly clear to me:

1) personal experience
2) testing (putting into practice)
3) relevance and suitability
4) logic and reason

So where is the circular logic?

 

It is the connection between those 4 points, and how they lead you to the conclusion that there is a god, that the ambiguity lies. Please extrapolate.

 

It's really simple - it's the combination of different ways of perceiving and experiencing something that fortify it as a belief, especially a belief as fundamental as a worldview. My belief in God was based on experience first and foremost, but (naturally) I had doubts until I could test it by living as if it were true -- e.g. praying, joining a church etc. Although it made sense (to me) to live as though it were true, and it made sense to perceive the world, people, life, ethics etc from that standpoint, I still needed to dig deeper and scrutinise it philosophically before I could be satisfied that it was true - which I've been doing for the past fifteen years. Don't mistake any of this as an argument for God, which it is not; it's an explanation of my personal reasons for believing in God as I do today.

Incidentally, I honestly find theism a paltry leap from atheism; the crux for me is getting from theism to biblical Christianity, which is a comparatively enormous leap philosophically. It's very easy to argue circularity for Christianity because at the heart of the Christian faith is the authority and inerrancy of the Bible which it claims itself, but in reality Christians trust the Bible least of all because it says that it should be trusted; like me they will have tested it, lived by it and experienced its influence perhaps for many years before they finally yield to it.

 

Sounds an awful lot like the placebo effect.

Faiths a funny business.

 

All our thinking is a placebo (or nocebo) effect. It's why we developed science as a discipline.