Well apologies for the delay, I had (insert intellectually-stimulating activity here) to do.
Magorian Aximand said:
Do you think I was calling specific views childish? Because that's not what I said...
No, but you automatically made assumptions regarding specific views in making that statement, unknowingly perhaps.
Magorian Aximand said:
Because it doesn't follow. How any person "applies logic" is always subjective. Whether or not any beliefs are actually valid or actually not valid (according to logical principles) is always objective fact. Those two things are true, regardless of the kind of discussion you're having or how you think I'm "approaching" it. Your assertion that metaphysical discussion is somehow exempt from the application of logic is one that you have never supported, and that must resort to special pleading to support. Like I've said all along...
Once again, you're not viewing this issue properly. Logic is a side on the scale but it does not permeate the scale in its totality. Logic is applicable but it is not the sole applicable concept, nor will it lead, whether right now or in the future, to a singular point in which faith is not valid. Which brings me to another point, which is your misguided assertions as to the nature of faith.
You criticize me on the boundaries of not comprehending enough about the tenets of anti-theism (which you insist is a position without doctrine, so I'd really like to know if this is true what there is to know about it), but you misunderstand, likely a result of the teachings of Dawkins, on faith. In fact, when it comes to the nature of faith, you have essentially, thus far, mindlessly spewed Dawkins rhetoric, in that you characterize faith as being a state of mindlessly believing in a deity with no question whatsoever, and thus being susceptible either to the manipulations of religious organizations or to fundamentalist groups, or being an apologist of such. The truth is that you are correct in that faith has multiple definitions. The faith possessed by fundamentalist groups would definitely fall into the category of which you have already previously informed everyone here, of blind obedience. The faith of the average believer though? Not so much.
The faith of the average believer is not rooted in such blind and almost unthinking adherence to some sort of ideology or doctrine. Faith, what I would perhaps egoistically refer to as true faith is not something which is broken upon being challenged, but neither is it one which is iron-hard and unflinching in its treatment of other faiths or values. True faith is something which is challenged often, but never broken, but rather enhanced by these experiences. Most importantly, perhaps, the treatment with which treats one's beliefs when one has true faith enables tolerance of the beliefs of others, and even empathy. This is the faith which the majority of informed believers who I've interacted with have espoused. Unfortunately, as is usual, fundamentalism happens to drown out this faith, instead giving the impression that to have faith is to be like a fundamentalist.
Regardless, suffice to say this is where Dawkins and Hitchens and all those other fellows in the "new atheist" crew are dreadfully wrong in their vilification of religion. Religion is not, for the majority of people, a practice which either promotes harm on people or acts apologetic towards fundamentalism, which causes harm. This is why I find Dawkins to be incredibly presumptuous (not to mention incorrect) when he assumes, at the start of The God Delusion, that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Dawkins makes that assumption (among other things) that faith is something unbased and unthinkingly adhered to which can easily be dispelled with a wave of the magic logic wand. The truth is it is not, and that is why the aforementioned blurb has proven to be utterly incorrect, in my case and in the case of the many other theologians who have read his book. A lesser person might even say he's committing a straw man fallacy.
This is also where you are incorrect, along with Dawkins. You and he are demonstrating the key features of a fundamentalist group in your blanket usage of this type of faith. You are showing an very willing ignorance of the driving forces behind the opposing side, and in fact refuse to acknowledge an opposing side, but rather a side that is correct and a side that is incorrect. But all having been said, I do't dislike the whole "new atheist" thing. In fact, I herald Dawkins and company, as it's about time that atheism had its own uncompromising, unflattering and uncooperative fundamentalist group.