Comments on: Discussion and Logic (and lack thereof) http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/ Just the thoughts of some Lutheran guy. Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:19:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brock_the_Lutheran http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Brock_the_Lutheran Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:18:56 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-44 Sorry however you are wrong when you say that these actions do not support the Christian faith. Loving your neighbor as yourself is a central to the Christian faith. This is not to say that you must accept Christianity in order to love others. To truly be a Christian one must practice love of others. Christianity does have a claim over these values although it is a claim that we share with our brothers and sisters of other faiths (including your secular humanist faith). I will pray for you, that you may do God's Will. As Christians we are called to love all people. This is a task that we work at daily.<br><br>May the Grace of Christ be with you,<br>BTL Sorry however you are wrong when you say that these actions do not support the Christian faith. Loving your neighbor as yourself is a central to the Christian faith. This is not to say that you must accept Christianity in order to love others. To truly be a Christian one must practice love of others. Christianity does have a claim over these values although it is a claim that we share with our brothers and sisters of other faiths (including your secular humanist faith). I will pray for you, that you may do God's Will. As Christians we are called to love all people. This is a task that we work at daily.

May the Grace of Christ be with you,
BTL

]]> By: SomeAtheistGuy http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-43 SomeAtheistGuy Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:43:18 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-43 You can use theistic faith to support these actions, but these actions do<br>not support theistic faith. Mercy, love, and service to others are not<br>theistically inspired values. They are certainly not evidence of any deity.<br> These are simple human values that no ideology has much claim over. They<br>aren't christian values, islamic values, judaic values,...., or atheistic<br>values. Many faiths chose to embrace these values - but the values were<br>there before the faith in any particular religion.<br><br>If you're curious why I do love my neighbor, serve others, and act with<br>mercy and love - do a bit of reading on "secular humanism". Wikipedia has a<br>nice entry. People have equal potential to love or harm others with or<br>without a theistic philosophy. You can use theistic faith to support these actions, but these actions do
not support theistic faith. Mercy, love, and service to others are not
theistically inspired values. They are certainly not evidence of any deity.
These are simple human values that no ideology has much claim over. They
aren't christian values, islamic values, judaic values,…., or atheistic
values. Many faiths chose to embrace these values – but the values were
there before the faith in any particular religion.

If you're curious why I do love my neighbor, serve others, and act with
mercy and love – do a bit of reading on “secular humanism”. Wikipedia has a
nice entry. People have equal potential to love or harm others with or
without a theistic philosophy.

]]> By: Brock_the_Lutheran http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-42 Brock_the_Lutheran Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:40:10 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-42 There is a reason for theistic faith, however that reason is a very different form of logic than that of modern science. It is a logic based not upon cold facts, but upon love. Love your neighbor and you can see God. Serve others and Christianity makes sense. It is a logic beyond this world, it follows the logic of love. God can be seen through those we show mercy, and love towards others. Sorry I did not get back to you for so long, I haven't used this e-mail for months. <br>God Bless<br><br><br><br>________________________________ There is a reason for theistic faith, however that reason is a very different form of logic than that of modern science. It is a logic based not upon cold facts, but upon love. Love your neighbor and you can see God. Serve others and Christianity makes sense. It is a logic beyond this world, it follows the logic of love. God can be seen through those we show mercy, and love towards others. Sorry I did not get back to you for so long, I haven't used this e-mail for months.
God Bless

________________________________

]]> By: SomeAtheistGuy http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-35 SomeAtheistGuy Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:03:56 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-35 It's been over a month and a half since the last blog post and over a month since the last comment. Is this blog going the way of the dinosaurs and unicorns when they didn't make it to Noah's ark? If you need a topic, how about addressing how rude atheists can be when addressing stories about giant boats and global floods, or magic trees and talking snakes, or virgin births and zombies - er, dead men rising from the grave. Is it wrong that we're so critical, or should we all just believe whatever stories we're told? If that's not an appropriate topic, write about your experiences in youth and family ministry or the latest discussion at "Theology on Tap/And Also with Brew". It's been over a month and a half since the last blog post and over a month since the last comment. Is this blog going the way of the dinosaurs and unicorns when they didn't make it to Noah's ark? If you need a topic, how about addressing how rude atheists can be when addressing stories about giant boats and global floods, or magic trees and talking snakes, or virgin births and zombies – er, dead men rising from the grave. Is it wrong that we're so critical, or should we all just believe whatever stories we're told? If that's not an appropriate topic, write about your experiences in youth and family ministry or the latest discussion at “Theology on Tap/And Also with Brew”.

]]> By: SomeAtheistGuy http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-32 SomeAtheistGuy Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:59:54 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-32 I understand you're point philosophically, but practically, I disagree that there's much of a similarity between what you are calling my "faith" and your faith. I agree that nothing can be disproven completely. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, but because there is no reliable evidence that they do exist, the logical position is that they do not exist. Disbelief is the logical position until appropriate evidence warrants belief. That's the difference between our "faiths". You have unwarranted, unjustifiable, foundamental faith in something you have no reasonable defense for. I don't believe god exists because there is no reason to believe he does. My position is flexible in that given new evidence, I would have no problem changing my conclusions. I see your faith as a fundamentalist position, you believe fundamentally that something is true and I doubt any logic, reason, or evidence (or lack there of) would ever change your mind. I understand you're point philosophically, but practically, I disagree that there's much of a similarity between what you are calling my “faith” and your faith. I agree that nothing can be disproven completely. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, but because there is no reliable evidence that they do exist, the logical position is that they do not exist. Disbelief is the logical position until appropriate evidence warrants belief. That's the difference between our “faiths”. You have unwarranted, unjustifiable, foundamental faith in something you have no reasonable defense for. I don't believe god exists because there is no reason to believe he does. My position is flexible in that given new evidence, I would have no problem changing my conclusions. I see your faith as a fundamentalist position, you believe fundamentally that something is true and I doubt any logic, reason, or evidence (or lack there of) would ever change your mind.

]]> By: SomeAtheistGuy http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-31 SomeAtheistGuy Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:59:54 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-31 I understand you're point philosophically, but practically, I disagree that there's much of a similarity between what you are calling my "faith" and your faith. I agree that nothing can be disproven completely. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, but because there is no reliable evidence that they do exist, the logical position is that they do not exist. Disbelief is the logical position until appropriate evidence warrants belief. That's the difference between our "faiths". You have unwarranted, unjustifiable, foundamental faith in something you have no reasonable defense for. I don't believe god exists because there is no reason to believe he does. My position is flexible in that given new evidence, I would have no problem changing my conclusions. I see your faith as a fundamentalist position, you believe fundamentally that something is true and I doubt any logic, reason, or evidence (or lack there of) would ever change your mind. I understand you're point philosophically, but practically, I disagree that there's much of a similarity between what you are calling my “faith” and your faith. I agree that nothing can be disproven completely. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, but because there is no reliable evidence that they do exist, the logical position is that they do not exist. Disbelief is the logical position until appropriate evidence warrants belief. That's the difference between our “faiths”. You have unwarranted, unjustifiable, foundamental faith in something you have no reasonable defense for. I don't believe god exists because there is no reason to believe he does. My position is flexible in that given new evidence, I would have no problem changing my conclusions. I see your faith as a fundamentalist position, you believe fundamentally that something is true and I doubt any logic, reason, or evidence (or lack there of) would ever change your mind.

]]> By: Brock_the_Lutheran http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Brock_the_Lutheran Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:32:00 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-30 Epistemologically, I can know nothing (except perhaps that I exist). We must have faith at some point. Do you have faith that I exist, probably. Do you have faith in science, once again I am going to assume that you do. These seem to be pretty logical assumptions, however nothing can be proven without a doubt. Better arguments can be made that increase the probability that something is true. <br>So to get to your point, no faith can not be justified. Faith is a belief that cannot be proven so a lack of belief requires a faith as well. For one cannot prove that God does not exist either. We have faith in God, you have faith in the absence of a god.<br><br>In short even atheists rely on faith even if they do not realize it. Epistemologically, I can know nothing (except perhaps that I exist). We must have faith at some point. Do you have faith that I exist, probably. Do you have faith in science, once again I am going to assume that you do. These seem to be pretty logical assumptions, however nothing can be proven without a doubt. Better arguments can be made that increase the probability that something is true.
So to get to your point, no faith can not be justified. Faith is a belief that cannot be proven so a lack of belief requires a faith as well. For one cannot prove that God does not exist either. We have faith in God, you have faith in the absence of a god.

In short even atheists rely on faith even if they do not realize it.

]]> By: SomeAtheistGuy http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-29 SomeAtheistGuy Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:35:25 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-29 Reason doesn't allow you to build something structurally sound on uneven foundations. The best you might hope for is a bit of circular logic that is completely self-sufficient.<br>Do you think it's possible to create a consistent way to address scripture with logic and reason? Further, though you claim it's off-topic, do you think there is a consistent way to justify faith? Reason doesn't allow you to build something structurally sound on uneven foundations. The best you might hope for is a bit of circular logic that is completely self-sufficient.
Do you think it's possible to create a consistent way to address scripture with logic and reason? Further, though you claim it's off-topic, do you think there is a consistent way to justify faith?

]]> By: Ray J Gentry http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Ray J Gentry Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:17:59 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-28 I guess I more wanted to address our willingness, as believers, to be logical and consistent in how we address scripture with logic and reason - not so much the faith (or lack of reason) that we have to put stock in scripture. For many people, the problem isn't that someone has faith in something, but how that faith is built and the rationality of the structure. Having the faith isn't the problem, but the implementation of it. When someone's doctrine pits "us against them," the underlying faith often is solely to justify the worthiness of the person as others' expense. I guess I more wanted to address our willingness, as believers, to be logical and consistent in how we address scripture with logic and reason – not so much the faith (or lack of reason) that we have to put stock in scripture. For many people, the problem isn't that someone has faith in something, but how that faith is built and the rationality of the structure. Having the faith isn't the problem, but the implementation of it. When someone's doctrine pits “us against them,” the underlying faith often is solely to justify the worthiness of the person as others' expense.

]]> By: SomeAtheistGuy http://somelutheranguy.com/2009/11/18/discussion-and-logic-and-lack-thereof/comment-page-1/#comment-27 SomeAtheistGuy Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:35:52 +0000 http://somelutheranguy.com/?p=66#comment-27 Ray, this is exactly the type of illogical argument that nonbelievers will point out. In the SAME paragraph you say doubts and questions arise because we are sinful, finite beings - and then you say doubt and questions lead to a stronger more mature faith. You also state that Luther's interpretations were certainly beneficial. From you're stance as a lutheran they were beneficial, but they certainly aren't intrinsically beneficial just because they happen to benefit your sect. This just goes to the root of us-vs.-them religion that isolates individual groups based on perceived superiority.<br>None of your statements are grounded in logic. You don't doubt that scripture is how god speaks to us, through the holy spirit - but why not? What do you have to logically justify the position? If you say you want to be logical about it, here's a chance to explain your logic. Ray, this is exactly the type of illogical argument that nonbelievers will point out. In the SAME paragraph you say doubts and questions arise because we are sinful, finite beings – and then you say doubt and questions lead to a stronger more mature faith. You also state that Luther's interpretations were certainly beneficial. From you're stance as a lutheran they were beneficial, but they certainly aren't intrinsically beneficial just because they happen to benefit your sect. This just goes to the root of us-vs.-them religion that isolates individual groups based on perceived superiority.
None of your statements are grounded in logic. You don't doubt that scripture is how god speaks to us, through the holy spirit – but why not? What do you have to logically justify the position? If you say you want to be logical about it, here's a chance to explain your logic.

]]>