Morality of the religious without faith

[RootsBooster]

You think all theists are closed mind and irrational?

 

With regards to their theism, yes. By definition.

 

To be fair, I've met plenty of theists who are open to the possibility that their beliefs may be wrong (agnostic theism)

 

Then again, I've met plenty who are indeed closed minded. I don't think it can be argued that supernatural beliefs aren't irrational.

[janie48]

To be fair, I've met plenty of theists who are open to the possibility that their beliefs may be wrong (agnostic theism)

 

Then again, I've met plenty who are indeed closed minded.I don't think it can be argued that supernatural beliefs aren't irrational.

It can if you are the Irish scientist Prof John Lennox.

http://www.thinkchristianly.org/is-belief-in-the-supernatural-irrational-with-john-lennox-video/

[flamingjimmy]

Lol I love how you've given him his title, I've never seen you do that before.

 

Weird how when you mention other academics you ignore their titles but when you find one that's religious suddenly he's 'Prof'.

 

Also, he's not a scientist, he's a mathematician.

 

I've seen him talk before, not very impressive.

[janie48]

Lol I love how you've given him his title, I've never seen you do that before.

 

Weird how when you mention other academics you ignore their titles but when you find one that's religious suddenly he's 'Prof'.

 

Also, he's not a scientist, he's a mathematician.

 

I've seen him talk before, not very impressive.

That's your opinion. I've seen him debate with Prof Richard Dawkins twice, and I know who impressed me the most.

Don't watch the video if it offends you.

[Guest]

Yes, but they don't use it to further understand their faith. Whatever science they use is kept carefully separate from their faith based belief system, lest it destroy it.

 

I think I see your point here-basically I agree 100% that scientifically verified truths should be accepted-there should be no argument here.

 

However if you asked if the belief of mine is scientifically verifiable, I would say that the scientific method, since it only deals with the material world, cannot be invoked to determine the matter at hand.

 

 

With regards to their theism, yes. By definition.

 

I disagree here on the basis that there are many rational people who can equally hold belief in science and in a faith- not all religions have a conflict with science- some may do, which gets picked out because it simply does not correlate with scientific discoveries.

[flamingjimmy]

That's your opinion. I've seen him debate with Prof Richard Dawkins twice, and I know who impressed me the most.

Richard Dawkins is absolutely terrible at debates so that's not really saying much.

 

He should stick to being a scientist, he is terrible at communicating science to laymen.

 

Watching a debate between those two sounds like the most boring thing ever!!! and you watched 2! Wow that's almost impressive!

 

It is telling though, that's the first time I've ever noticed you refer to Richard Dawkins as a professor.

Don't watch the video if it offends you.

Who said anything about offense? I'm not offended in the slightest by John Lennox, or his video.

 

I won't be watching his video because I've seen him before and am already aware that his video will be unconvincing and boring, so I'll not be wasting my time with it thanks.

[janie48]

Richard Dawkins is absolutely terrible at debates so that's not really saying much.

 

I disagree I rather like to see him debating.

When is he going to be debating with William Lane Craig? that should be entertaining! the a-atheism blog needs updating.

 

http://aatheism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/dawkins-attacks-john-lennox-in-latest.html

[flamingjimmy]

I disagree I rather like to see him debating.

When is he going to be debating with William Lane Craig? that should be entertaining! the a-atheism blog needs updating.

 

http://aatheism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/dawkins-attacks-john-lennox-in-latest.html

 

You seem to be a little obsessed with atheists, and don't presume that showing Richard Dawkins in a bad light bothers me, I have no time for the man myself. His books are ok but he's not very good at interacting with other humans in the flesh.

 

Jonh Lennox may be boring and unconvincing, but at least he isn't a coward like William Lane Craig.

 

He pretty much only ever debates people in front of a friendly crowd, he never lets his opponents speak first, and he bombards about 50 things in his opening speech and demands that his opponents respond to all of them, in a very childish fashion.

 

At least he's not boring like Dawkins and Lennox, but what is he is is a coward who is too afraid to enter into a properly independently moderated debate, and uses nothing but underhand and devious tactics when he is engaged in one. At least Lennox and Dawkins have a modicum of integrity.

[janie48]

You seem to be a little obsessed with atheists, and don't presume that showing Richard Dawkins in a bad light bothers me. I have no time for the man myself. His books are ok but he's not very good at interacting with other humans in the flesh.

 

Jonh Lennox may be boring and unconvincing, but at least he isn't a coward like William Lane Craig.

 

He pretty much only ever debates people in front of a friendly crowd, he never lets his opponents speak first, and he bombards about 50 things in his opening speech and demands that his opponents respond to all of them, in a very childish fashion.

 

At least he's not boring like Dawkins and Lennox, but what is he is is a coward who is too afraid to enter into a properly independently moderated debate, and uses nothing but underhand and devious tactics when he is engaged in one. At least Lennox and Dawkins have a modicum of integrity.

Not only a little rather a lot, especially if they look good.

Seriously though, I didn't expect showing Richard Dawkins in a bad light would bother you in the slightest. It could be viewed that I was showing myself in a bad light by posting a tasteless video (though the music was good I don't think anyone would argue with that)

 

I didn't find the Dawkins/Lennox debates I've seen boring, people's different views on serious topics interest me. The fact that i have a faith doesn't necessary mean that i have to be closed minded, entirely dismissing every criticism of religious belief that Dawkins states, or that i need to entirely agree with every opinion Lennox holds, though i do think he's a great speaker.

I can't pass an opinion on William Lane Craig, because so far I've haven't heard him speak, apart from that comment he was heard uttering on that video.

[Cyclone]

To be fair, I've met plenty of theists who are open to the possibility that their beliefs may be wrong (agnostic theism)

 

Then again, I've met plenty who are indeed closed minded. I don't think it can be argued that supernatural beliefs aren't irrational.

 

If they were open to the possibility then it should be the work of a few minutes though for them to stop being theists... Maybe they are just saying that they're open to the possibility of changing their mind. Faith is inherently intractable to reasoned argument IMO.