belief on faith

make a case

Originally posted by @apathist
make a case

I suggest this discussion be about the pros and cons of fideism.

It's interesting how the Christian ideology of faith makes excuses for its substance being far fetched, convoluted and incoherent by claiming it's like that in order to accommodate free will.

This is as opposed to making the revelation clear and straight forward which would apparently deprive people of free will.

This relies so heavily on the psychologically bogus notion that people can somehow choose to believe in claims made about specific supernatural phenomena even if they (and, indeed, most people) find them unbelievable, even more so when offered no evidence, let alone proof.

As I have argued many times before, people can't just decide to do this. And free will is not just about whether one is permitted to make a decision, it's necessary for there to be credible options about which to make that decision.

It seems like an ill-thought out mechanism scribbled on the back of an envelope rather than something divinely inspired or real.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's interesting how the Christian ideology of faith makes excuses for its substance being far fetched, convoluted and incoherent by claiming it's like that in order to accommodate free will.

This is as opposed to making the revelation clear and straight forward which would apparently deprive people of free will.

This relies so heavily on the psychologi ...[text shortened]... mechanism scribbled on the back of an envelope rather than something divinely inspired or real.

Not only is this 'first-strike' diatribe ill-thought-out, it's simply not true.

Why is it that important to you to try to get people to disbelieve people who have faith? Simply because you do not? There must be more to it than that. Is this about you seeking a validation for your own morally-deficient beliefs?

Psychologically bogus, indeed. And completely in-credible, yes. As well as "scribbled on the back of an envelope", of course, perhaps on the train to Jakarta.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Not only is this 'first-strike' diatribe ill-thought-out, it's simply not true.

Why is it that important to you to try to get people to disbelieve people who have faith? Simply because you do not? There must be more to it than that. Is this about you seeking a validation for your own morally-deficient beliefs?

Psychologically bogus, indeed. And c ...[text shortened]... As well as "scribbled on the back of an envelope", of course, perhaps on the train to Jakarta.

I can't find any on-topic substance in this post of yours. Is there anything in particular regarding the issues I raised ~ about revelation and free will ~ that you have a response to?

Originally posted by @fmf
It's interesting how the Christian ideology of faith makes excuses for its substance being far fetched, convoluted and incoherent by claiming it's like that in order to accommodate free will.

This is as opposed to making the revelation clear and straight forward which would apparently deprive people of free will.

This relies so heavily on the psychologi ...[text shortened]... mechanism scribbled on the back of an envelope rather than something divinely inspired or real.

"... it's necessary for there to be credible options about which to make that decision."

Could you provide an example from the secular world of a situation in which there are credible options. I am thinking of something like global warming being due in part to human activity. What makes an as yet unproven option credible or not credible? Then can we return to the topic of religion and see if the distinction carries over.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's interesting how the Christian ideology of faith makes excuses for its substance being far fetched, convoluted and incoherent by claiming it's like that in order to accommodate free will.

This is as opposed to making the revelation clear and straight forward which would apparently deprive people of free will.

This relies so heavily on the psychologi ...[text shortened]... mechanism scribbled on the back of an envelope rather than something divinely inspired or real.

The fact that you don't seem to find 'the revelation clear and straight forward' doesn't mean that it isn't. It could alternatively be your warped vision that is at fault.

Originally posted by @js357
Could you provide an example from the secular world of a situation in which there are credible options.

Could you explain this request? Surely there are all manner of credible options that people can opt for in the secular world. I'm not sure I understand what kinds of examples you want.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The fact that you don't seem to find 'the revelation clear and straight forward' doesn't mean that it isn't. It could alternatively be your warped vision that is at fault.

Your first sentence: OK, fine. Second sentence: OK, if you say so. But your perspective doesn't really address what I have said about revelation and free will. Obviously, the supposed revelation of Jesus was not clear or straight forward enough to convince any more than a minority of human beings; no one thinks that almost all human beings think Jesus etc. is real but have merely exercised "free will" in rejecting it. That is the point that you need to address. Commenting on how you happen to believe the revelation was clear and straight forward, or that you think I may be "warped" in some way, doesn't address what I have put forward and therefore doesn't advance the conversation.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your first sentence: OK, fine. Second sentence: OK, if you say so. But your perspective doesn't really address what I have said about revelation and free will. Obviously, the supposed revelation of Jesus was not clear or straight forward enough to convince any more than a minority of human beings; no one thinks that almost all human beings think Jesus etc. is r ...[text shortened]... ome way, doesn't address what I have put forward and therefore doesn't advance the conversation.

Firstly would I be correct in assuming that when you were a Christian before, you had free will and found the revelation of Jesus straight forward and convincing?

Secondly, how do you know that those who reject the revelation of Jesus don't do it by choice?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Would I be correct in assuming that when you were a Christian before you had free will and found the revelation of Jesus straight forward and convincing?

'Before I had free will'? What are you on about?

Originally posted by @fmf
'Before I had free will'? What are you on about?

When you were a Christian you had free will and you found the revelation of Jesus straightforward and convincing, so the question really is what are you on about?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
When you were a Christian you had free will and you found the revelation of Jesus straightforward and convincing, so the question really is what are you on about?

I lost my faith. I explained that before.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Secondly, how do you know that those who reject the revelation of Jesus don't do it by choice?

Well there are 7.5 billion people in the world, and only 2.2 billion of them are Christians. If you, as a Christian, believe that your god figure/Jesus has "revealed" himself to the other 5.3 billion, and you think they believe the story is credible, find it to be true, and therefore believe it, but have nevertheless rejected it for some peculiar reason - bearing in mind how clear and straight forward you think that revelation was, and your travels around the world have confirmed this in your mind, then fair enough. It's not been my observation at all.

Originally posted by @fmf
I lost my faith. I explained that before.

And you will be required to do so again,......and again.