Simple Faith or Rigorous Examination of Evidence?

[MineralMan]

Which is easier? Answer that and you'll know why a majority in this country is still religious and believes in powerful, invisible, undetectable deities.

One is bone simple; the other requires hard work and a willingness to change, based on evidence.

One can be held by even a young child; the other requires reason and education.

One is accepted without questioning; the other demands questions and answers.

One pretends to explain everything; the other knows what it does not yet know.

I'll take the second road. It's not boringly the same all the time.

[zipplewrath]

1. Actual faith

Actual faith can be very hard. It demands a certain kind of self discipline that most people can't handle.

Declaring faith is rather easy.

Studying ones faith and/or religion can take a lifetime.

[MineralMan]

3. Well, justifying faith can take a lot of work, for sure.

Circular logic and all that.

[zipplewrath]

4. Practicing it

Actually practicing it can involve a large amount of self discipline.
Trusting it can actually be very hard, especially in difficult times.
Truly knowing it, including its uncertainties, can take a lifetime.

[Bretton Garcia]

15. Since it is "uncertain"?

That suggests that it doesn't work reliably.

Or no one understands how to make it work.

Suggesting it may be unworkable.

Or that It may be simply. .. wrong.

[trotsky]

5. Who defines "actual faith"?

Sounds kind of like No True Scotsman.

[zipplewrath]

6. Reality

If you profess to believe or follow a set of beliefs, ones behavior and choices should reflect that, not conflict with it.

It's the "I'll disagree with what you say but fight to the death to allow you to say it". You actually have to be prepared to fight to the death. For most it is a nice idea. For others they actually mean it.

[Voltaire2]

16. For most people it appears to go the other way.

They use the entirely plastic nature of faith based beliefs to justify whatever they happen to be doing.

[zipplewrath]

54. Yup

I don't think I was every discussing "most" people. Quite the opposite, it is fairly rare to find people that are anywhere close to "true" to their faith. Heck, most folks barely know the basic tenets of the faith they claim to adhere.

[trotsky]

18. But who defines the beliefs?

I've pointed this out many times: a lot of conservative Christians DO think that we should help the poor, but they don't think government is the way to do it. Now those Christians get ragged on a lot here on DU - many people even claim they aren't really Christians. But they are following their beliefs, so by your definition they have "actual faith," just like you.

[zipplewrath]

51. Did I ever say I had faith

Especially anything that might be considered "true".

[trotsky]

55. Totally irrelevant to my question.

Who defines the beliefs?

[zipplewrath]

56. It was to your response

But they are following their beliefs, so by your definition they have "actual faith," just like you.

The OP's original assertion that faith was "easy". All I am suggesting that regardless of where those articles of faith originate, it can be extremely difficult to live by them, much less understand them. And that is the opposite of the original assertion.

[trotsky]

57. Good grief. Then strike the last three words of that sentence....

and answer the question.

[zipplewrath]

58. I believe I did

I said, that regardless of where they originate, living to them is difficult.

[trotsky]

59. But it isn't.

If everyone defines their own beliefs, then some people might define a very simple-to-follow set. Bam, done. Simple faith.

[zipplewrath]

60. Right answers are simple

The simple answers can be hard.
You can try that, but the natural contradictions will soon surface.
Just look at political beliefs. Look at our constitution. It can be very hard to actually follow a set of tenets before the "exceptions" start rearing their heads as soon as it cost one something, or puts one at risk.

Heck, look at something as self serving as "America First". Pretty soon it becomes difficult to even know what that means.

[trotsky]

61. But just because beliefs are complex doesn't make them right, either.

Look at the 9/11 truthers, for instance.

[zipplewrath]

62. I wasn't discussing "right"

I was discussing hard. Creating or finding a set of life philosophies that are consistent AND have the ability to be followed is hard. Quite the opposite of what the OP was suggesting.
It's even hard if it has nothing to do with a deity. It's even harder if it is based upon some ancient set of texts that are intended to be interpreted and studied for a lifetime.

[trotsky]

63. We're still talking past each other.

"Creating or finding a set of life philosophies that are consistent AND have the ability to be followed is hard."

No it's not. It's quite easy. Look at the philosophies of right-wing Christians, for instance. The parts of the bible they believe say that the "poor will always be among us" and that "if a man will not work, he shall not eat." Very simple, and very easy to follow.

[zipplewrath]

64. Until they become poor

Or sick. Or their children do. Hypocrisy is a common problem in faith.
My old joke is about how to turn a democrat into a republican, rob 'em.
How to turn a republican into a democrat, fire 'em.

The problem with almost all faith systems is they are "easy" until your situation changes significantly.
It is why situational ethics are so common. It's the "got money, turned republican" effect. And look at right wing Christians now and their embrace of Trump. They have "sold out". Hard core ethics are easy, until it cost you something.

[trotsky]

65. Ah, but you made a blanket statement.

Looping back to put conditions on it, you would also appear to agree your statement was too general.

"Actual faith" isn't hard at all.

[zipplewrath]

66. Generally speaking it is

I suppose if you create some concept of a highly static, unchanging life, one can make it easy.

[trotsky]

67. No, now you've changed your position again.

Lots of people life a life free of *enough* challenges where any kind of faith is easy. Your straw man argument of a "highly static, unchanging life" is not appreciated.

[zipplewrath]

68. Name three

Really, think of almost anyone you've known "their whole life" so to speak. Divorce, infidelity, job loss, disease, loss of spouse, child, war... I just think of my parents lives and all they saw within it. Life is anything but static. Just look at the changing morals of life today and how fast they are coming. I tell the wife all the time, "every 20 years, everything changes". You can try to establish a philosophical set of values when you are 20, but it is very unlikely they are going to go unchallenged for 60 years.

[trotsky]

69. Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Dick Cheney. Want more?

But again - you are drastically shifting your argument into a whole different statement. A statement that is a response to a straw man that YOU presented.

Your initial claim was "Actual faith can be very hard." I disputed that statement, and gave my reasons. You didn't respond but instead chased down this rabbit hole.

Life is anything but static.

Literally no one here has claimed otherwise. Dump the straw man, please. Stay on topic.

[zipplewrath]

70. I'd hardly say any of those succeeded

Especially Chaney who had a constantly shifting ethic depending upon the circumstances.

[trotsky]

71. But his actual faith was quite easy.

That's the point.

You're attempting to shift this into an argument that is more favorable to your new position which is that "everyone experiences change in life" - which is a response to the straw man you constructed. ("highly static, unchanging life" )

You believe that when you achieve agreement with your new position, you will have supported your original statement, which you haven't, because the two aren't related.

Since you refuse to address your original statement anymore, I'm done. Feel free to drop the straw man if you want to continue this dialog, otherwise, see ya.

[zipplewrath]

72. No, it wasn't

Which is why it constantly had to be adjusted to his new situations. It was anything but consistent or "true" but in fact was fungible.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Oh, that's nonsense.

True belief does not necessarily entail corresponding behavior. You can believe very much in the tenets of your religion and still be bad at the practice of it. People don't pack into churches because they're already perfect, for crying out loud.

[zipplewrath]

53. Yes, that's what makes it "easy"

Someone who asserts belief but doesn't practice it can hardly be defined as having anything like "true". But the pursuit of it can be very difficult, unlike the assertion of the OP.

[Bretton Garcia]

27. Does faith work - if only you totally follow it?

In the whole wold of people around me, I don't see a single person walking on water.

So either 1) faith doesn't work.

Or 2) no one on earth - even priests and our holiest men - has been able to have enough faith to make it fully work.

Suggesting that it's useless, again.

[zipplewrath]

52. Depends how one defines "works"

I'd suspect many people of faith don't define it the way you do.

[MineralMan]

2. Images

[mitch96]

28. Where did you find my 8 th grade picture???

I like the king james version of faith.. Hebrews 11-1
Substance of things hoped for.. Evidence of things not seen... poof...
m

[MineralMan]

32. LOL! Mine, too.

[ollie10]

7. More false dichotomies.....yawn

It never ceases to amaze me how some people just don't get it that some religious people have a faith that requires hard work, a willingness to change, and a lifetime of study....and which reflects an education and uses reason....and asks good questions, and doesn't always find easy answers.....doesn't pretend to explain everything, marvels at the complexity of creation......

It must be reassuring to think of religious people in such simplistic ways.....it is a whole lot easier to brush religious people off and create a fictional world where all religious people are how you perceive them to be, rather than what they are in reality.

Good luck in your journey.

In another thread you talked about atheists just don't believe. Yet, that is not what I see here. You don't just not believe, you seem to make it your call to put down religious people.

[AZ8theist]

8. one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on DU

People of faith require "hard work"?? "a willingness to change?" and a "lifetime of study"??

For what?

To come to the same conclusion they started with?

And for your information, atheists are not about "belief". They are about EVIDENCE. If any of the "faith" people can produce a single shred of verifiable, testable EVIDENCE of their sky fairy, then perhaps atheists might change their outlook. Until then, yes, some of us will continue to mock your "faith" as bullshit.

Excuse me now, I have to continue my search for the Easter Bunny....

[ollie10]

10. I see you are disrespectful

So no particular reason to reply other than to point out that if you want to get into respectful discussions you might want to be more respectful.

Nevermind. As you were

[Voltaire2]

17. Respectful discussion rarely starts out

with “More false dichotomies.....yawn”.

[ollie10]

19. neither does it start out with false dichotomies

and/or insulting religious people by calling faith bullshit

[Voltaire2]

21. Fair enough, but don't whine about disrespect

when you are engaging in it.

[AZ8theist]

25. This is the problem with "Faith based" religion...

No one can ever call bullshit.

Someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed, and Islamic nut bags all over the world riot and kill each other.

Some ignorant traitor moves an embassy in Israel, and Jewish soldiers murder dozens of arab women and children protesting.

Some jerk off on the TV calls a doctor a "baby killer", and one of his followers then murders said doctor.

I never said YOUR faith was bullshit. Hell, you can believe anything you want. We have loads of imbeciles who think the earth is flat. More think the position of stars dictate what will happen in their future. More so think drinking diluted water will cure their cancer.

FAITH itself is bullshit. At least in the religious sense. But it never, NEVER ceases to amaze me how sooo very INSULTED they become when you call bullshit on their bullshit.

[ollie10]

34. So you are really saying that all faith is bullshit?

Wowsy......laughable.

Why can't you simply speak for yourself without being so disrespectful? There isn't an ounce of difference between calling faith bullshit and a right wing evangelical calling you a sinner for being unfaithful.

Many great people....like martin luther king jr.....had faith. I find it repulsive you can insult him in this way, as well as millions of other people of faith.

[Lordquinton]

36. You often go on the offensive

Rather than defend your points. You have a lot in common with the theists here. You share the fondness for logical fallacies as well, I see.

[ollie10]

38. thanks for going on the offensive and not defending points

[Lordquinton]

40. Nah, I called you out

Theists around here are predictible and boring.

[ollie10]

41. Much easier to have everyone attack theists, isnt it?

[Lordquinton]

42. Holy non-sequitors Batman!

[Mariana]

37. And yet, the right wing evangelicals call us sinners

every day, on their own radio and teevee networks, in their private religious schools, in their hundreds of publications and who knows how many websites, and in their hundreds of thousands of churches. They do this because their faith tells them it's true.

Yet, here you are, angry that in this one little group, we freely express our negative opinions of this widespread divisive and destructive behavior, and of the reason for it. Maybe you should stop worrying about the speck in your brother's eye, Ollie.

[ollie10]

39. the point is that the evangelicals aren't the only ones being disrespectful

Last edited Sat May 26, 2018, 03:25 PM - Edit history (3)

specks and logs, you know

It might be a good idea to distinguish the narrow minded religious people from the religious people who are not narrow minded. That is, unless you want to be narrow minded yourself

[Mariana]

49. I already distinguished them, Ollie.

You said: "It might be a good idea to distinguish the narrow minded religious people from the religious people who are not narrow minded." I already did that in the post to which you responded.

You see, I very specifically spoke of "right wing evangelicals". It's right there in the headline of my post, Ollie. Just to make sure we all understand each other clearly, "right wing evangelicals" does not refer to all religious people, but to a very specific group of narrow-minded religious people.

Can we agree on this? "Right wing evangelicals" does not refer to all religious people. "Right wing evangelicals" are a very specific group of narrow-minded religious people. We agree on this, yes?

[ollie10]

50. Yes, we agree on that

[AZ8theist]

45. You're right..I CANNOT speak for myself....unable....I am a group of Russian bots.

PUUUULLLLLLLEASE............

Get a grip.

"Faith" in imaginary deities IS BULLSHIT. You know it. Everyone knows it. Faith in other humans, certain institutions, your favorite sports team winning their next game, the sun coming up tomorrow, etc....is founded in REALITY. FACTS. Observable, possibly predictable. Read a dictionary once in awhile.

"Faith" in an omnipotent sky-fairly is ...How you say? Oh yeah, "Wowsy...laughable"

The entire point of the OP. But those snowflakes of "faith" get all "disrespected" when someone, ANYONE criticizes their nonsense.

See George Carlin for reality:

'nuff said..........

[ollie10]

46. So it is like this....

Some start out with the idea that they are superior, due to their great knowledge, analytical ability and ability to pontificate. A real intellectual. So they start out with conceit and arrogance. Or maybe it is insecurity.

But that isn't enough for them. Not by a long shot.

They have to look down your snoot at other people whom they think are not so smart, Whom they think don't have their great knowledge, analytical ability or pontification ability.

Do you want to be like them? Why would anyone want to?

[AZ8theist]

47. never fails to crack me up..

when you don't conform to someones silly beliefs, they always come up with "THINK FOR YOURSELF"!!!

None of what you say is true or even relevant.

[ollie10]

48. Thanks for illuatrating, once again

You just can't help it, can you?

[AZ8theist]

73. Yup, I just ILL -ATRIATED'

whatever the fuck your religion colored glasses told you to say...


pathetic.

[ollie10]

74. Thanks for another illustration

[Mariana]

22. Is there a plank in someone's eye? nt.

[Major Nikon]

11. I think you seriously undervalue the work involved

Imagine how hard it must be to convince yourself a book filled with stories of talking snakes, donkeys, and bushes is non-fiction.

[The Genealogist]

12. Come now, you're not going to take those parts literally, are you?

I'm sure they are allegories or something. The inconvenient and weird parts are not to be taken literally, dontchaknow!

[AZ8theist]

44. LOL!!!

[marylandblue]

13. Well I understand what you mean

Last edited Fri May 25, 2018, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe I'll write an OP about my take on it someday.

[HopeAgain]

26. Think of all the people the OP puts in the child-like catagory

Albert Einstein
Mahatma Gandhi
Martin Luther King
Carl Jung
Georges Lemaitre
Louise Pasteur
Max Plank
and on and on...

Yet it is the Religious folk who have a simplistic view of things...

[guillaumeb]

30. Indeed. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

35. Their religious side was simplistic, relative to the rest.

Gandhi doesn't seem simple at first. But his India is possibly the world's poorest major democracy today.

[NeoGreen]

14. Well given that the operative words are "Simple" and "Rigorous"...

...the answer to the question "which is easier" is provided within the question.

It's simple, no analysis is necessary.

[ollie10]

20. It depends

You could be religious by simply not giving it much thought. Similarly you could be an atheist by not giving it much thought. There is nothing inherent for either side that you are giving it much thought, or not giving it much thought. Some people, religious or non-religious, simply don't think much....and likewise, some people, religious or nonreligious, think a lot. Prejudiced and bigoted (and thoughtless) people on both sides think the other side is entirely thoughtless....and that sucks

[AZ8theist]

24. Guess what?

Every human is born an atheist. It takes a LOT of planning, coercion, and indoctrination to become religious.
And your religion is based nearly entirely on where you were born and who your parents are.

[ollie10]

33. Do you know what an over-generalization is?

Not exactly scholarly or scientific.

[AZ8theist]

43. neither is yours..

[guillaumeb]

29. I read the simplicity of the argument.

I considered it to be lacking rigor.

[MineralMan]

31. Did you, now?