Would A Photo Like This Be Cringy?
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Do religious people....
94 Answers
have a problem with reasoning?
I have a few folk that I'm in contact with (of the religious persuasion) and it seems that any mention of a reasoned discussion is out of the equation. Bring reason into the disscusion and it always turned out that 'God' knows best.
I'm very interested in the spiritual/religious side of life but we have to be reasonable as well surely?
I have a few folk that I'm in contact with (of the religious persuasion) and it seems that any mention of a reasoned discussion is out of the equation. Bring reason into the disscusion and it always turned out that 'God' knows best.
I'm very interested in the spiritual/religious side of life but we have to be reasonable as well surely?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"if someone posts a response to a question on a website that has been specifically designed to facilitate debate then it's rather contrary to qualify that post by claiming that they never debate..."
Birdie.....
it isn't designed for just that though, its designed also to ask and answer questions, which may lead to a debate, subject to the persons debating it...
Birdie.....
it isn't designed for just that though, its designed also to ask and answer questions, which may lead to a debate, subject to the persons debating it...
@Rozia - “... As of now, i will not take part in this.” and, "... its designed also to ask and answer questions, which may lead to a debate, subject to the persons debating it..."
But why post to a question entitled, “... Do religious people....have a problem with reasoning?” if you're not prepared to take part in the debate? It seems like quite an odd thing to do to me.
But why post to a question entitled, “... Do religious people....have a problem with reasoning?” if you're not prepared to take part in the debate? It seems like quite an odd thing to do to me.
Unfortunately it is not possible to have a reasoned debate about religion with believers. They have made a leap of faith and what they consider to be true cannot be backed up by anything outside of their head and they need a book to tell them what to think and how to behave.
I actually quite like most believers, plenty of them are decent people and their beliefs don't hold them back in life, in fact it helps some of them but it is pointless trying to have a sensible chat about their beliefs.
I actually quite like most believers, plenty of them are decent people and their beliefs don't hold them back in life, in fact it helps some of them but it is pointless trying to have a sensible chat about their beliefs.
^ Agreed. It does seem odd to me that people who profess to live their lives by religious teachings seem unwilling or unable to quantify or qualify their beliefs. One could conclude that the unwillingness to allow the application of logic to their beliefs suggests that the foundations upon which they are built are not as robust as they would have us believe.
Put simply, logic is to religion what garlic is to vampires.
Put simply, logic is to religion what garlic is to vampires.
I doubt whether fundamental beliefs of fact in any religion stand up to scrutiny or logic. That doesn't really matter to anyone.it doesn't matter if someone thinks Christ walked on water or was the son of God and not of a humans only or whether a man called Smith found gold tablets and so founded a true religion, or they don't.
The practices and beliefs ordained by the leaders of that religion are susceptible and subject to scrutiny and logic and often change in consequence. That's why Jews don't stone adulteresses or blasphemers to death nowadays, though it was once their practice. And nobody has fought anyone over Jerusalem on purely religious grounds for....oh...at least a few years!
The best hope of persuading an adherent on 'reasoned' grounds rests in questioning those. That's what other adherents do. The result is often the division of the religion into different sects but sometimes the practices and dictates ordained by the hierarchy are changed throughout the religion.
But why bother, as an outsider, to try what you term reasoned argument to attack anyone's beliefs? If the practices or beliefs break the law, we have a remedy. If they don't, why set about upsetting people?
The practices and beliefs ordained by the leaders of that religion are susceptible and subject to scrutiny and logic and often change in consequence. That's why Jews don't stone adulteresses or blasphemers to death nowadays, though it was once their practice. And nobody has fought anyone over Jerusalem on purely religious grounds for....oh...at least a few years!
The best hope of persuading an adherent on 'reasoned' grounds rests in questioning those. That's what other adherents do. The result is often the division of the religion into different sects but sometimes the practices and dictates ordained by the hierarchy are changed throughout the religion.
But why bother, as an outsider, to try what you term reasoned argument to attack anyone's beliefs? If the practices or beliefs break the law, we have a remedy. If they don't, why set about upsetting people?
@FredPuli43 - “... The best hope of persuading an adherent on 'reasoned' grounds rests in questioning those [scriptural laws that can/do change]...”
I agree. It's a shame that those very same people seem unwilling to engage in debate – on this thread at least.
“... But why bother, as an outsider, to try what you term reasoned argument to attack anyone's beliefs? If the practices or beliefs break the law, we have a remedy. If they don't, why set about upsetting people?”
I am not trying to upset anyone. Also, I'm not attacking anybody. I am attempting to question the rationale and motives for someone's belief.
I agree. It's a shame that those very same people seem unwilling to engage in debate – on this thread at least.
“... But why bother, as an outsider, to try what you term reasoned argument to attack anyone's beliefs? If the practices or beliefs break the law, we have a remedy. If they don't, why set about upsetting people?”
I am not trying to upset anyone. Also, I'm not attacking anybody. I am attempting to question the rationale and motives for someone's belief.
Do religious people have a problem with reasoning? I certainly believe so.
One longtime family friend has lost two grandchildren in the last three years and when asked if she honestly believed this is what God wanted, she answers with a smile that the events were already planned when they were born and this fulfills God's plan for him/her. They were fortunate to be so close to the Lord now.
It is beyond me how this disillusioned woman who is quite intelligent in other fields, can be so gullible. On the other hand, if believing this aids her grieving than it has to be a good thing!(?)
One longtime family friend has lost two grandchildren in the last three years and when asked if she honestly believed this is what God wanted, she answers with a smile that the events were already planned when they were born and this fulfills God's plan for him/her. They were fortunate to be so close to the Lord now.
It is beyond me how this disillusioned woman who is quite intelligent in other fields, can be so gullible. On the other hand, if believing this aids her grieving than it has to be a good thing!(?)
It is certainly the right of any person to adopt a belief on faith without having to justify their choice to anyone.
However it is not their right to presume that their choice has any validity in decisions on public policy unless they are willing to actively defend their position in a rational debate. "God said" does not constitute a reasonable defence and hence their otherwise unfounded assertions should not be considered relevant in the debate on any policy decision.
Nor should they expect to promulgate their beliefs in any circumstance without their position being actively criticised and countered.
Unfortunately the religious have long demanded that their irrational beliefs prevail in every public policy. Ten of thousands of those who dared defy their authority have been murdered and this policy continues today in many religious jurisdictions.
However it is not their right to presume that their choice has any validity in decisions on public policy unless they are willing to actively defend their position in a rational debate. "God said" does not constitute a reasonable defence and hence their otherwise unfounded assertions should not be considered relevant in the debate on any policy decision.
Nor should they expect to promulgate their beliefs in any circumstance without their position being actively criticised and countered.
Unfortunately the religious have long demanded that their irrational beliefs prevail in every public policy. Ten of thousands of those who dared defy their authority have been murdered and this policy continues today in many religious jurisdictions.
In order to consider the question we must first establish the definition of 'reason'. The OED defines it thus: 'think, understand, and form judgements logically'. Since books containing demonstrably false information form the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths, it is illogical to believe they are flawless. Therefore those who claim allegiance to any of these faiths are sanctioning a false philosophy - and that is just as irrational as claiming 'God knows best' when there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any God.
As has been said, faith is a personal choice - but if it affects others then the assertion that it is 'personal' is no longer valid. Whether the faithful realise it or not, their belief does affect others - not least their children. Added to that, the philosophy they embrace has far wider reaching implications to people in the rest of the world. Although the believer may tell himself that he rejects the negative aspects of his religion, it is an unjustifiable claim because simply by labelling himself as an adherent to one particular belief system, he is, by default, condoning the doctrine and the actions of that system.
Looking at the books, it would be far more rational to believe that the Book of Mormon takes precedence over the bible and the koran - which both contain undeniable inaccuracies - as the epitome of truth. At least there we have witnesses who lived within fairly recent history and who, when adding their names to a written testimony, swore that they had seen the mysterious plates from which the Book of Mormon is reputed to have been translated - but that testimony, is of course, unacceptable to the members of other Christian denominations, and to Jews and Muslims alike.
As has been said, faith is a personal choice - but if it affects others then the assertion that it is 'personal' is no longer valid. Whether the faithful realise it or not, their belief does affect others - not least their children. Added to that, the philosophy they embrace has far wider reaching implications to people in the rest of the world. Although the believer may tell himself that he rejects the negative aspects of his religion, it is an unjustifiable claim because simply by labelling himself as an adherent to one particular belief system, he is, by default, condoning the doctrine and the actions of that system.
Looking at the books, it would be far more rational to believe that the Book of Mormon takes precedence over the bible and the koran - which both contain undeniable inaccuracies - as the epitome of truth. At least there we have witnesses who lived within fairly recent history and who, when adding their names to a written testimony, swore that they had seen the mysterious plates from which the Book of Mormon is reputed to have been translated - but that testimony, is of course, unacceptable to the members of other Christian denominations, and to Jews and Muslims alike.
"Bring reason into the disscusion and it always turned out that 'God' knows best. "
can you give an example of one of these conversations that you've actually had? most religious people i know are happy to discuss reasoning and logic as much as they like discussing football and what they watched on tv.
can you give an example of one of these conversations that you've actually had? most religious people i know are happy to discuss reasoning and logic as much as they like discussing football and what they watched on tv.
@Old_Geezer
Hardly! The statement that, “God knows best” is not a reasonable response to any question I can think of. According to Biblical scripture, for every good deed that He does, He undoes it ten-fold by His capriciousness and sheer blood-lust.
A murderer does not automatically become a 'nice' person because he remembers his grandmother's birthday and loves his cats – he is still a murderer and should be judged as such. Similarly, when discussing God's credibility as a good and honest entity (and thereby His ability to arbitrate as one who 'knows best'), we should judge Him by His actions. When we do so, we find the God of the Bible sorely wanting. In the words of Richard Dawkins, “... [God is] jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Given God's recorded actions in the Bible, I don't think that He's qualified to judge what's 'best' for anyone in any situation.
Hardly! The statement that, “God knows best” is not a reasonable response to any question I can think of. According to Biblical scripture, for every good deed that He does, He undoes it ten-fold by His capriciousness and sheer blood-lust.
A murderer does not automatically become a 'nice' person because he remembers his grandmother's birthday and loves his cats – he is still a murderer and should be judged as such. Similarly, when discussing God's credibility as a good and honest entity (and thereby His ability to arbitrate as one who 'knows best'), we should judge Him by His actions. When we do so, we find the God of the Bible sorely wanting. In the words of Richard Dawkins, “... [God is] jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Given God's recorded actions in the Bible, I don't think that He's qualified to judge what's 'best' for anyone in any situation.
"God knows best" is only a reasonable response for the faithful to explain the fact that their God is astonishingly cruel. It saves them having to face the illogicality of the belief.it is hardly a reasonable response in itself. One child dies in a hurricane, his brother survives. That is not because there is no God or because He is indiscriminating.No, it's a 'miracle' that one survives. it is, of course ,no miracle that one dies. That child dies because God knows best.
God's son cured lepers. God did not tell us how to do that without his son doing it for us. If he liked us, instead of killing thousands of believers by diseases , he could have vouchsafed the cures instead of waiting nearly two thousand years for doctors to find them.(In that he may be "thick" OG) He did not require the doctors to be Christians or believers and many were neither. This is just one of difficulties which the learned men of the Church have struggled to attempt to explain. If we had all said "God knows best" we might never have advanced medicine or science and, indeed, the Church was long against dissection and the investigation of such matters as electricity because these enquiries were against God, touching upon what only he knew. Yes "God knows best", indeed.
God's son cured lepers. God did not tell us how to do that without his son doing it for us. If he liked us, instead of killing thousands of believers by diseases , he could have vouchsafed the cures instead of waiting nearly two thousand years for doctors to find them.(In that he may be "thick" OG) He did not require the doctors to be Christians or believers and many were neither. This is just one of difficulties which the learned men of the Church have struggled to attempt to explain. If we had all said "God knows best" we might never have advanced medicine or science and, indeed, the Church was long against dissection and the investigation of such matters as electricity because these enquiries were against God, touching upon what only he knew. Yes "God knows best", indeed.
i do not have a problem with reasoning, hence why i debate on here as i want to get all types of answers back, logical or not. However what i find really amusing is how a lot of people put threads up judging religious people saying is this true, what about this etc, however you rarely see any threads questioning atheism, and if there is you do not get any real answers and sometimes they even change it to a religious topic.
so overall i have no problem however i believe many other people, religious or not, do.
so overall i have no problem however i believe many other people, religious or not, do.
Latest Posts
Technology2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
International Hummus Day Today.
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Sunday Express Skeleton 12Th May
Crosswords34 mins ago
