We sure are a long way from it, id wish it wasnt so long.  And if you think your camments are harsh, your a pussy.  Yet another guy attacking my grammar/spelling, yes im more concerned about the message and could do mush better in that area, ill work on it, in the meantime...  I never said that one religion cant be more rational than another, i said that it is obvious that all organized religion is irrational and that one adopting a faith simply because he is convinced of the teachings in a certain holybook is arrogant, and irrational.  What i find funny is that no-where do i say that the belief in god is irrational, only that the belief in a certain religion is.  The belief in god is an entirely different sudject from the belief in man made religions.  

  As to my statement that thiests have already lost contradicting mystatement of not claiming absolute truth.  This is not a faith based statement, it is a conclusion based on the general defeat of other out dated irrational beliefs such as racism, a flat earth, slavery, or hatred for homosexuals.  It is obvious to me, than any rational inteligant man of good moral understanding could have predicted the end of slavery in due time with absolute certainly, depending ofcoarse on the fact that humanity continued to evolve and exist on this planet, in time it was inevitable.  I think we can all agree on that.  I see no diference with the belief in hell, eternal torture of innocent people, and other rediculous immoral beliefs.   They are illogical and immoral, and the world is waking up to it.

  Now i assume that you are representing one of these faiths, most likely christianity.  Well its pretty simple, if christianity in no way claimed all the things it does like eternal torture in hell, i would not assert that one day it will cease to hold any power.   This is because i would have no rational reason to predict the falling of something that wasnt morally dated.  But because these holy books are so obviously morally outdated like people who agreed with slavery, I can say with strong conviction that those outdated morals will hold no relevance in the future world. Se the personal belief in god is one thing, something i dont find harmful in its purest form, the belief that you are special and going to heaven, I to hell along with the billions of people who refuse Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour  to be tortured for eternity makes you insane.  Thier is simply no other way of slicing it, so wheather you believe that or not, that belief is immoral and insane, and will either be irradicated, or the world was not allowed to progress as it is doing now by some catasprophic event.  

So if you got from my post that i think the future world will only have atheists in power, then you are very mistaken.  What i said is that people believing in such insane things like eternal torture wil not, and will be ridiculed, as they certainly should be.

Anyways thanks for the reply always nice to hear from another angry thiest  picking apart my grammar missing the issue entirey, i love it.

"ONE MIND AT A TIME"

Good, point, it's not like Christianity/religion has been around for thousands of years or anything.

I will agree some atheists are atheists because there parents were. that is part of the argument really... but I supose many atheists have been theists at some point or were not brought up by atheists. etc.  It is not saying because your parentd were this you are this. It is saying because you live in a society that is pedomenantly christian you will likely be a christian , had you been brought up in a society that was predomenantly muslim then it is likely you would be muslim and no matter witch of the two you would still of believed yourself correct. Its about the culture around you, it influances witch religion you would chose, if any.

What I'm getting at is that suggesting that theists are theists because they were born in a particular region is fallacious. Predisposition to a particular set of beliefs is does seem to make it more likely that one will follow those beliefs. I thought this is what you were saying in the OP with, "you could have been born too many other faiths with many other gods and you would have asserted their existance with the same amount of conviction." Sorry if I miss read it.
 

i am new to the site, am learning to take more care in the exact way i articulate my thoughts.  The people on this site are very diligent in their disecting your every word, and so for the most part they should be.  I sumed up what dawkings said in response to a question it was actually  something more along the lines of.

"It is by pure luck that you were born into a prodomonotly Judao Christian society and therefore hold that belief to be true.  If you were born in Denmark in the 1600s you would believe in thor, in ancient Greese Zeus and Apollo,  or ancient Africa The great JuJu up the mointain"

check it out at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

I simply used this well articualted clip to express my feelings that people who believe in a certain man-made religion over another man-made religion are just obsurd to me, because religions by nature all contradict eachother and say their all right, its sooooooo obviously rediculous!!!  I just cant for the life of me find how they get to this logic.  Like i always say, the belief in god in its purest form is one thing and should be discussed civily, the belief in obvious man-made religious doctrines full of rediculous/immoral teachings and believing you got it wright is an entirely other thing, one that doesnt require my respect.

Do explain why please and not just assert it as general fallacy and end your reply, i am new the the debate, and i am always looking to be enlightened.  I just cant see how it is a fallacy to state that if you were born in Denmark in times of Thor their is a massively larger chance than 1 in (however many religions their are) that you would have excepted Thor as your god.  This does not mean you would have for certain, but i cant see how you can argue that you wouldnt be more predisposed to the belief in Thor as apposed to Buddha if you lived in denmark in those times, id like to hear of a story of a Viking who reasearched Bhuddism and became a buddhist in his time.  I cant see that at all, so please enlighten me how the statement above is a fallacy?  

I could say, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..."

What????

Now i must entirely disagree.  Athiesm has existed longer than religion, (before belief in a god their was no belief in a god) it has always been around.  Although religion has been around a long time it has taken countless forms and shapes that contradict eachother, athiesm has not changed a bit.  To say that your quote equals mine is rediculous.  Athiesm is simply the lack of belief in a diety, making athiesm the lack of belief in the hundreds if not thousands of religions that have existed.  In every coulture that has ever existed since the history or mankind one can only assume their has always been atleast 1 athiest in every group/city/culture that has ever existed, can you say the same about every religion in every country in all of history, WWWHHHAAATTT???.  How dare you compare being an athiest in any country ever, to lets say believing in Zeus in modern day Costa Rica.  Are you saying that if you were born before Christianity it is potentially possible to be a christian, or more reasonbly if a person were born in Ireland, you would put money an the fact they might turn out muslim?  I get your analogy although its that i consider to be false. 

I 100% agree, because someones parents believe something isn't the reason for the child believing it, except at a young age i suspect. Thats why I find it is better to refer to the culture you have been exposed to. While it is not impossible for someone who grew up and lives in a christian nation and neighbourhood to not be christian but rather muslim it is far less likely then them chosing christianity if they decided to believe in god. I mean if any of you have been theists before why did you chose that religion? Im sure you felt at the time that it is beacuse you just felt it or somthing but looking back im sure you can see that isnt the case. i think this must be what Dawkins means (never heard him saying this stuff though) so i cannot be sure.

i believe i get it now, all you are saying is that at birth, the mind is free and it makes no difference where you are born or at what time, at that moment you are predisposed to nothing untill further knowledge is taught to you by the coulture..  Ok, gotcha.  I have no problem agreeing with that, my problem is that you pickked the smallest insignificant little minute point to argue about my statement, which you can really only argue by picking apart my sentenced to find where i perhaps could have used a better, or a certain way it was phrased may indicate i was saying what you think, you know i wasn't, you know the issue i put forth is still true, and thats the real issue not pointing out a small insigficant fallacy that really doesnt have much to do with the big picture of what i said anyways.  If you were just trying to enlighten me, ok fallacy noted.  But if this was your actual argument to my statement im deeply dissapointed.    Like if a said theirs a bomb headed you way, and your response was, "what colour is it" as if that has anything to due with the relevance or power of the bomb itself.  But indeed, fallacy noted.

Precision is important when one is discussing things, and I'm guilty as anyone of not being clear. I'm of the sort that will spend more time defining what I am talking about then actually arguing my point...at least I hope I do this.

I don't think the nature of the genetic fallacy has been properly elucidated in this thread.

First, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy. This may sound trivial, but it's in fact extremely important because far too many people forget that only arguments can be fallacious, *by definition*. So, if X isn't an argument, X can't be fallacious (in the sense of committing such and such a fallacy). So, to use a common example, an insult during a debate is not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy *unless* it's part of an argument.

Second, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy of relevance. How I acquired a belief has no bearing on the truth or falsity of that belief. In other words, the genetic fallacy involves judging one's history (you believe X because you were raised in a nation where belief in X is predominant) or one's psychology (you only believe X because you fear what non-X entails) or one's source (you believe X because S told you X, and X is unreliable) to be dispositive with respect to a belief's truth value. You may indeed be able to explain how I acquired a belief, but by doing so you haven't said anything about whether my belief is true or false.

One caveat: The origin of a claim isn't always irrelevant if we're considering whether it should count as *evidence* for a claim (as opposed to considering whether it's *dispositive*, i.e. whether it determines the truth or falsity of the issue, which is where the fallacy is committed). For example, if S is known to be highly unreliable, I do have grounds for doubting S's claims, but I don't have good grounds, based on S's unreliability alone, for concluding that S's claims are false.

So, the genetic fallacy is committed when one argues from the origin or source of a belief to its truth or falsity, i.e. when one confuses why one believes X to be true or false with why X is true or false.

"The point is not to directly prove theism is wrong, it is to demonstrate that it is just another viral meme."

If this is the point, then there is no fallacy. But I fail to see how this could be the point, for the simple reason that it does no work in this thread. That is, it's a point without a point. Could you tell me how this advances the discussion if it's not meant to provide an undercutting defeater for theism? After all, one could make the same point about memes: there's this viral 'meme' meme, and it has a rather clearly delineated line of descent from Semon to Dawkins to readers of "The Selfish Gene" and so on. However, if I leave it at that, I've done nothing but provide a way of thinking about how ideas are transmitted. Now, since the issue of how religious beliefs originate was raised in a thread titled, "Oh silly theists, don't you see the big picture?" I think one is justified in concluding that it wasn't raised to discuss how we can think about the spread of ideas, but about whether the ideas so spread are true/false, justified/unjustified, etc.

The point was when someone claims their religion as true over all others it seems  completely rediculous to the rationally minded given the fact all theist seems to think they are representing the true faith and others are false. We can then  only conclude they are all wrong and claiming truth is flamboyantly arrogant, and an asserion of a metally less aware person given all the religions contradicting eachother in the world.  Thats it.  We can cut it up into a bunch of small discussions, but thats the pont.  The Dawkins quote was just used to illustrate what i feel is the absurdity of claiming truth in the religion you are most prodomenantly surronded by (not like claiming any other would have been any better), it may be "fallacious", but its still true, i dont care how much you slice it up. 

His answer was the many-gods objection to Pascal's Wager.

Per his statement that NoMoreCrazyPeople highlighted, I think he does. He's saying that, "you believe x because your were brought in a culture that believes x." the reasons for one's beliefs then, have to do with their culture of origin, not the content of their beleifs. That's why I think it is a fallacy. As I said, "It is by pure luck that you were born in late 20th century China or Japan, therefore hold atheism to be true..." If this is true, such atheists would not be atheists on the grounds of rational rejection of theism.

There is a strong correlation between one's beliefs and one's culture's beliefs, but this does not mean that one beleives something because their culture believes it. Even atheism is strongly localized. If this is the case, then it too would be "just another viral meme".

Yes, it is just another viral meme to many people (See China).  Human ideas do not arise in a vacuum, that is the point.  Environments are typically where people get their ideas from.  I fully accept that strong atheism is no different from theism in that regard, assuming the human making the choice is aware of the theistic alternatives and at some point considers theism a valid alternative.  There is a somewhat important difference though, since atheism obviously is the rejection of belief.  However, most cultures are so steeped in religion that I won't argue the premise for the sake of this discussion.

Once we accept that all these ideas are on equal footing we can debate them on their merits, free from the assumption that a particular dogma is true by default, no matter how irrational it may be.

I think we all believe some things without justification. But for whatever reason or lack thereof one gives for a particular belief, one cannot peg it on someone's place of origin. Only the adherent to the particular belief could say such things, such as "I'm a Chistian because my grandma was a Christian."

Sure, that's what I was getting at by saying, "It is likely that a person brought up in a culture that believes X will believe X." But this does not assert the cultural beliefs as the epistemic mode of justification, which is why I do not think it is a fallacy.

Well, a person's place of origin tells you what cultural influences they were likely exposed to. The cultural influences they were exposed to play a major part in the formation of their beliefs. So I think the connection is rather clear and uncontroversial.

The genetic fallacy in the form that I stated it is a fallacy because the cause of my belief has no bearing on the truth of my belief. I could believe that the seasons will change because of the earth's proximity to the sun in its elliptical orbit. My belief that the seasons will change would be true but not justified.

What you're saying is entirely different. You're saying that your place of origin doesn't determine your beliefs. Which is obviously the case or else everyone in a particular region would have the same beliefs. But it's not true that your place of origin has no bearing on your beliefs. As I said using the term in that broader sense of inferring something about the nature of some topic based on its origins, you experience the problem that many times the reasoning is actually appropriate. On ask.com they give the example of using the make of an automobile as an indicator of its likely quality.

You can actually have the last word on that I don't think I want to have too long of a discussion about what constitutes a fallacy and probably you don't either.

"Hmmm, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!"

Really? Let's look at what you said:

"The point was when someone claims their religion as true over all others it seems completely rediculous to the rationally minded *given the fact* all theist seems to think they are representing the true faith and others are false."

The logic of this is clear: if you believe that P while others believe not-P, you're ridiculous. You *now* want to qualify your thesis, so that:

(1) It's ridiculous to believe that P if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) that belief is faith based, (b) you claim that others with similarly faith based beliefs hold false beliefs, and (c) your belief entails negative consequences for those who don't accept it.

Wow. That's even less sensible than your first claim. At least your first claim invoked a real problem, viz. contradiction. So, how precisely is (1) ridiculous? (Of course, I could go on to explain that you've presented irrelevant dis-analogies, that you obviously have no idea what the term 'faith' means, that you have no idea about the role of arguments and evidence in various faith traditions, etc. but I won't.)

"Claiming truth in something it is impossible to prove (like your god) is flamboyantly arrogant, claiming the sky is blue is not, it is proovable by scientific method."

First, please prove to me that the sky is blue using the scientific method. This claim betrays an appalling ignorance of science (and philosophy: cf. 'inverted qualia'), and is made all the more so given your persistent declarations of your own rationality. Further, I could name a number of things you undoubtedly believe to be true that you could never prove -- indeed, that you could never even in principle provide a scrap or evidence for. Again, your ignorance of the basics of the debate is appalling. You must tone down the "Look at me, I'm so rational, you stupid theists" nonsense and take the time to inform yourself; you haven't earned the right to be arrogant.

"Claiming you have a special connection with god when others in other religions who believe just as much as you dont is flamboyantly arrogant."

Why? Since when is the intensity of a belief even relevant to its truth value? You believe strongly that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists, right? Well, others believe just as strongly that there are good reasons to believe that god exists. Are you therefore arrogant for holding a belief you no doubt can't prove? Or would you claim to have a proof that there are no good reasons to believe that god exists? Hint: it's no proof to claim that you haven't yet seen any good reasons. At one time no one had ever seen a non-white swan; it didn't follow that there were no non-white swans (as we learned when we saw black swans in Australia). So, either concede your arrogance or provide your proof.

"Claiming absolute truth that can be proven is NOt arrogant."

Would you say it's arrogant to claim truths that cannot be proven? If P is true, it's not arrogant to claim that P, whether one can prove it or not. For example, let's say you're accused of a crime for which you have no alibi, and for which you had a motive. Further, let's assume that all the available evidence pointed to you. However, you're innocent. You know this because you were taking a walk, in the vicinity of the crime scene, when the crime was committed. Now, all the evidence is against you, and you cannot prove that you're innocent, even though you are. Would it be arrogant of you to speak the truth -- "I'm innocent" -- even though you can't prove it? Of course not.

"I define faith as belief without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. How are you defining it?"

This is one of the most prevalent misconceptions among atheists. Before I provide a definition, I'll make a few quick points:

(1) Faith is a way of knowing. Its objects concern those beyond the reach of reason. But, since faith is a way of knowing, it cannot be reduced to 'belief without evidence,' for this is obviously no way to attain knowledge.

(2) Conclusions reached by faith cannot contradict truths attained by reason. Hence, again, faith cannot be identified with 'belief without evidence,' since there are all sorts of things I can believe without evidence that do contradict truths arrived at by reason.

(3) Since faith and reason differ, we cannot judge one by the criteria of the other, just as we cannot judge mathematical arguments by scientific criteria, though both lead to truths.

(4) Faith is consistent with belief without evidence, but it is not reducible to it, for (a) it is also consistent with belief on the basis of the evidence, and (b) faith cannot be explained in terms of belief alone, but requires other elements.

(5) The evidence that supports faith is almost always one of the following: (a) such that it, attained through reason, incontrovertibly points in the direction of the conclusion of faith, though it doesn't get you all the way there; (b) such that it provides reasons for trusting authority concerning issues you cannot verify (which is *not* an instance of the ad verecundiam fallacy, since it doesn't involve an appeal to *misplaced* authority; however, I'll certainly concede that appeals to legitimate authorities, though not at all fallacious, are also not the strongest forms of argument); and (c) it appeals to a pre-modernist conception of evidence, in which aesthetic and 'sense-of-life' considerations are more strongly weighted. (There are others, but these are the main categories, and will do for now.)

(6) A good way to think about the nature of faith is not in terms of assent to the truth of a proposition, but in terms of trusting another person. Often, you can only get to know another person by trusting him. What you come to know this way won't contradict any truths of reason. This trust involves belief, but is not reducible to it, since it also involves commitment, steadfastness, etc. This trust may be based on evidence, but it can also be based on no evidence at all. And so on. (Now, this analogy isn't perfect, of course; it's merely intended to serve as a simple example to illustrate some of the profound differences between faith as (educated) Christians understand the term, and faith as you've defined it.)

Now we can move on to a definition of faith. (I do not want to turn this thread into a "what is faith" or "does faith make sense" thread; I'm only answering your question about how I -- and most informed Christians -- define faith, and trying by way of this to show you how uninformed, simple minded and and inadequate Dawkins's definition is.)

Faith is defined by Aquinas as "the *act* of the *intellect* assenting to a *Divine truth* owing to the movement of the *will*, which is itself moved by the *grace of God*." There is *a lot* to unpack there, and I doubt that if I were to go through it (I'm not) most of it will be clear at first (especially if your theological background is such that you swallowed Dawkins's definition of faith!), but the important point is that faith so defined is obviously not antithetical to evidential support, and is not reducible to propositional belief. (Now, it's *also* consistent with belief without evidence, but this isn't relevant to our discussion, since it's not *reducible* to your definition; however, if you reflect upon it for a moment, you'll see that its consistency with both evidentialism and fideism makes the faith very democratic: it's accessible to the most learned among us, on intellectual grounds, *and* to the simplest among us, who may lack the capacity to understand philosophy and theology.) Indeed, Aquinas is most famous for his arguments for God's existence (which I have *never* seen a single atheist who is not a professional philosopher evince the slightest understanding of; in fact, few professional philosophers who don't specialize in the study of Aquinas understand them), arguments which would be pointless if faith were to be understood as you suggested.

So there's my mini essay on the definition of faith. All I hope to achieve by it is to disabuse you of the notion that faith is 'belief without evidence, or in spite of the evidence.'

"if we attach qualifiers and definitions to it, then we could 'prove' it in the colloquial sense. We could say that the light from the sky often has a wavelength between 450 and 495 nm."

I agree, but there is no reason to think that this is what NoMoreCrazyPeople meant. Do you honestly think he implicitly intended to distinguish between qualia and the wavelength of blue light on the electromagnetic spectrum?

As I said, I'm not going to let everyone derail this thread and turn it into a "what is faith" thread. It suffices that my definition and explanation belies the simple minded 'belief without evidence' caricature.

However, I'll briefly respond.

"IOW, is your definition of faith/truth sectarian?"

I would've thought that the answer to this question is obvious, given the definition. Look at Aquinas's definition of faith again, and take note of some of the important -- indeed, essential -- theological elements. In this sense, of course it's sectarian. For example, it is inconsistent with non-theistic religions, is inconsistent with deism, and is inconsistent with, say, Islam's conception of grace.

As for your other questions, you must remember that faith cannot contradict a conclusion of reason. So, if you mean to ask whether faith can lead to a non-Christian truth that is consistent with reason, I'd have to ask, (1) *how* do you propose faith leads to this conclusion (a good test to see if you understood the definition), and (2) by a non-Christian truth, so you mean (a) a truth not taught by Christianity but that doesn't necessarily contradict any of the claims of Christianity (a literal rendering of 'non-Christian'), or (b) a truth not taught by Christianity that contradicts a claim of Christianity?

Faith is typically used in the context of justifying belief in deity, or having faith that said deity has some sort of plan that makes sense in some context.

By your definition, this is useless...you cannot intellectually prove god, and you especially cannot inellectually prove a specific god, so most of your definitions are invalid to start with.

Your other examples are typical theist cop-outs.  Faith is about knowing that which we cannot know!  Sure, that makes sense.  If there is something that faith can 'prove' then it must manifest in the real world, if it manifests in the real world it can be studied within the context of reality.  You know, the invisible and non-existent often appear similar?

I am glad you listed the real justification of faith and theology though..."(c) it appeals to a pre-modernist conception of evidence, in which aesthetic and 'sense-of-life' considerations are more strongly weighted."  Ding-ding-ding-ding!  Faith is about justifying emotion, plain and simple.  I don't see how you have done anything to counter his definition of faith.

I did get a chuckle at your last point though...the teachings of Aquinas are just sooooo advanced that we poor, simple minded atheists cannot possible comprehend what he is saying.  After all, if we really did understand, we would agree with him!

"Faith is typically used in the context of *justifying* belief in deity"

It is? It's used to *justify* belief in a deity? By whom?

"you cannot intellectually prove god, and you especially cannot inellectually prove a specific god, so most of your definitions are invalid to start with."

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote if you think a necessary condition of faith is "intellectual proof."

"Faith is about knowing that which we cannot know!"

Um, where did I say that? Hint: knowing what cannot be known by way of reason is not the same as knowing what cannot be known. I hope the blatantly contradictory nature of the latter is apparent to you, and that the non-contradictory nature of the former isn't.

"I am glad you listed the real justification of faith and theology though..."(c) it appeals to a pre-modernist conception of evidence, in which aesthetic and 'sense-of-life' considerations are more strongly weighted." Ding-ding-ding-ding! Faith is about justifying emotion, plain and simple. I don't see how you have done anything to counter his definition of faith."

Wow, you do have a serious reading comprehension problem, now, don't you? I said rather clearly that that is *one* of the ways evidence is used to support faith -- one among three rather distinct examples I provided. Also, you're displaying an ignorance of modern science here. Have you never heard elegance and beauty -- aesthetic criteria -- appealed to by scientists as criteria by which to judge competing theories?

"I did get a chuckle at your last point though...the teachings of Aquinas are just sooooo advanced that we poor, simple minded atheists cannot possible comprehend what he is saying."

Prove to me that you understand Aquinas. Here are a couple of basic questions:

1. The first way is an analysis of motion in terms of potency and act. Explain “potency” and “act”, and explain what Aquinas is doing when he gives an account of motion that makes it neither an act as such nor a potency as such.

2. What does Aquinas mean by “to take away the first cause, is to take away intermediate causes”. How does this relate to Aquinas starting his proof by not arguing from efficient causes as such, but from the order of efficient causes?

,...