FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: Anita6586 on September 29, 2011, 03:18:50 pm
-
Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?
-
in order for them to believe people expect to many great things from god as proof.
-
Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?
Such a "belief" never was necessary; it was/is an opinion-based choice, (which is, in turned eitehr based upon 'faith' or, lack thereof). Since 'faith' constitutes a 'belief which lacks conclusive evidence', such a choice is essenetially irrational. Therefore, "belief" is an irrational choice to rely upon blind faith.
-
Falcon- what about things like the "God Spot" and such? Do you think it was part of our natural evolution to ensure we survive as long as we could? If so, could that constitute as being necessary (not just with a religious god, but a god figure in general)?
-
Falcon- what about things like the "God Spot" and such? Do you think it was part of our natural evolution to ensure we survive as long as we could? If so, could that constitute as being necessary (not just with a religious god, but a god figure in general)?
No, my speculation is that primative cultures in the past inaccurately attributed phenomenon which they did not understand to "gods" and "magic", (since they had no other explanation and apparently needed one). Further extrapolation speculates that these early 'god forms', (lightening gods/thunder gods, moon gods/goddesses, rain gods/goddesses, fertility goddesses, vulcanic gods, agricultural gods/goddesses and the like), evolved other attributes to attempt to account for other unexplained phenomenon. These pantheons became somewhat complex for the early folks, (especially the Aegyptian pantheon), and some of them wanted to simplify things by consolidating the 'gods/goddesses' into one 'god'.
I cannot concur that any 'god form' is necessary to survival since each previous attribution of deital aspects has since been more accurately attributed to its actual cause, (except for the more metaphysical and least provable attributes).
-
People create their own religion these days but they won't classify it as such. Everyone has their own set of beliefs about why they think good and evil exist, how they think people should behave, and what they believe the consequences should be. Ask anyone and they have an opinion on these things even if they do not believe in a higher power. Most people today want to move away from organized religion for various reasons so most people don't see themselves as "religious"
-
Religion can be very oppressive. People still believe in god, but have realized it does not take a church to worship god.
-
No, my speculation is that primative cultures in the past inaccurately attributed phenomenon which they did not understand to "gods" and "magic", (since they had no other explanation and apparently needed one). Further extrapolation speculates that these early 'god forms', (lightening gods/thunder gods, moon gods/goddesses, rain gods/goddesses, fertility goddesses, vulcanic gods, agricultural gods/goddesses and the like), evolved other attributes to attempt to account for other unexplained phenomenon. These pantheons became somewhat complex for the early folks, (especially the Aegyptian pantheon), and some of them wanted to simplify things by consolidating the 'gods/goddesses' into one 'god'.
I cannot concur that any 'god form' is necessary to survival since each previous attribution of deital aspects has since been more accurately attributed to its actual cause, (except for the more metaphysical and least provable attributes).
Well considering people get over emotional about it, I'm one to think it extends a bit further than just the "god of the gaps" examples you've given. People also attribute love, hatred, jealousy, etc. along with occurrences in nature that were unexplainable. It gets to the point where whenever you approach certain individuals and open a discussion about their deity, they put their shield up and get extremely defensive about it to the point of defending absurdities. I totally agree with what you've stated, but to me it's obvious that there's some emotional attachment/investment in there that stems further than just the good ol' "God did it! lol!" ideas.
-
Faith is overrated; especially, by the Christian sector. Everytime someone asks if I have "Faith" I look around to make sure Tim McGraw isn't listening. ::)
-
Insecurities the answer, so is variety :)
-
Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?
YEP!!!!!!! Too much bs involved, too many mis-interpretations, too many people using religion and believe in God as an excuse for their own agendas-good or bad.
Tooo many innocents die because of religion. Too many hypocrites, WAY too many people up in your business-only to use it against you later! To me, its just best to be free of all that. To each his own, but this one doesn't need a crutch with millions of others who believe to lean on when things get rough. I believe in myself, I believe in nature, I believe in science, and I believe in evolution. I believe in the tangible.
Some people have evolved beyond religious beliefs, they are no longer necessary. :wave:
-
Well considering people get over emotional about it, I'm one to think it extends a bit further than just the "god of the gaps" examples you've given. People also attribute love, hatred, jealousy, etc. along with occurrences in nature that were unexplainable. It gets to the point where whenever you approach certain individuals and open a discussion about their deity, they put their shield up and get extremely defensive about it to the point of defending absurdities. I totally agree with what you've stated, but to me it's obvious that there's some emotional attachment/investment in there that stems further than just the good ol' "God did it! lol!" ideas.
A catholic priest, in a moment of openess, once told me that "faith" is what some people have when they haven't got anything. Happened at an astonishing breakfast during a conference wherein a bunch of catholic priests and some non-catholics were attending separate conferences but, neighboring breakfast tables. I soon discovered that this was no mere street-level priest but, that the higher eschelon of the HolyC was holding a big conference and I had the ear of one of 'em for a short time. You bet I asked some piercing questions of him, (which he proceded to answer with an aplomb and candor which was surprising coming from one in his position). I have no doubt whatsoever that those answers would shock and scandalize at least some of the 'faithful', (while others wouldn't be if 'hay-seus hisself' were to personally advise them to quit stalking 'him' and bugger off).
-
No longer necessary? A belief in any sort of God was NEVER necessary!
-
Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?
I 'strayed' away eons ago after realizing there was no truth in it, only smoke and mirrors. This might explain the recent moving away by many...... ;)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/298604_10150391414782354_684417353_10120156_282714167_n.jpg)
-
in order for them to believe people expect to many great things from god as proof.
Is coming down and showing one's self to prove you exist to everyone on earth really that much of a hassle that it interferes with gods schedule? I would never ask that much of god to proves its existence. In reality, things like curing cancer, healing the sick, preventing a disaster do not prove the existence of god since these things can be explained without god. If it is really all powerful it would simply show itself to everyone on the earth. It would require little effort on gods part and go a long way to prove its own existence than anything else would. So why doesn't god do this? Could it possibly be because god doesn't exist?
-
in order for them to believe people expect to many great things from god as proof.
Is coming down and showing one's self to prove you exist to everyone on earth really that much of a hassle that it interferes with gods schedule? I would never ask that much of god to proves its existence. In reality, things like curing cancer, healing the sick, preventing a disaster do not prove the existence of god since these things can be explained without god. If it is really all powerful it would simply show itself to everyone on the earth. It would require little effort on gods part and go a long way to prove its own existence than anything else would. So why doesn't god do this? Could it possibly be because god doesn't exist?
That would not be something that God would do (well I don't pretend to be the decider on what God would or would not do, it just seems pretty obvious that it isn't something He would do). If he showed himself then we would "Know". If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith". Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can. You may not believe in God, but if you are going to argue along these lines, then keep within the confines of the presentation. If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith. We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe".
-
If he showed himself then we would "Know". If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith". Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
This is an absurd reasoning that extends to an illusionary end. I honestly don't understand why people willingly bind their arms back so they can't see such an obvious problem with this thought process. It's common sense--
Rational process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"Hello. I am Being A."
"Excellent."
Religious process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"I can't because if I did, we'd all turn into robots. You dont't want to be a robot, do you? Just have faith that Being A exists."
"Oh. How convenient."
If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith. We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe".
The free will argument is a complete contradiction. How does an omnipotent god allow for free will when he already knows the past/present/future of every outcome? The choices of all are known before they happen unless the religious crowd were to limit this gods power. Basic beliefs are based upon knowing things about the actual physical world-- if asked, they can usually be demonstrated. Religious faith is not and willingly blinds itself of reality and the problems that dwell within.
-
If he showed himself then we would "Know". If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith". Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
This is an absurd reasoning that extends to an illusionary end. I honestly don't understand why people willingly bind their arms back so they can't see such an obvious problem with this thought process. It's common sense--
Rational process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"Hello. I am Being A."
"Excellent."
Religious process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"I can't because if I did, we'd all turn into robots. You dont't want to be a robot, do you? Just have faith that Being A exists."
"Oh. How convenient."
It only seems absurd to you because you are considering it from the view of an unbeliever and I do understand your point of view as I had it once. When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt. Without my faith I would lose my salvation and although I cannot expect you to understand that it is the reasoning of why such things are.
If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith. We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe".
The free will argument is a complete contradiction. How does an omnipotent god allow for free will when he already knows the past/present/future of every outcome? The choices of all are known before they happen unless the religious crowd were to limit this gods power. Basic beliefs are based upon knowing things about the actual physical world-- if asked, they can usually be demonstrated. Religious faith is not and willingly blinds itself of reality and the problems that dwell within.
Again I have shared these same doubts as you express here. It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us. Even a simple concept such as infinity which we think we understand we truly do not. We use the term and it makes sense in mathematics and physics but the scope of forever is beyond our capabilities to fully realize. When dealing with forever, any views based on time are sort of lost, except as an expression of a measure from one point to another.
You are taking a deterministic view of omnipotency and that is to be expected based on our limited reasoning skills of such concepts. If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment). I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things. Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that. Instead of always approaching it as "Christians are stupid and so is their god" you should perhaps approach it as "Just for the sake of argument how might this hold true".
-
It only seems absurd to you because you are considering it from the view of an unbeliever and I do understand your point of view as I had it once.
I hate to sound like I'm attacking (sorry if this sounds so), but unless something traumatic happened to you, this is pretty much impossible and I doubt your claim of being a typical non believer (unless I assume too much). Once one learns of the fictional qualities within religion, it's delusional to go back and thinking that way again.
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt. Without my faith I would lose my salvation and although I cannot expect you to understand that it is the reasoning of why such things are
Without proof, this is just an empty opinion since it can't be debated with-- allowing for impossible claims in an argument w/o proof of them happening or showing how they work is an absurdity.
It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us. Even a simple concept such as infinity which we think we understand we truly do not. We use the term and it makes sense in mathematics and physics but the scope of forever is beyond our capabilities to fully realize. When dealing with forever, any views based on time are sort of lost, except as an expression of a measure from one point to another.
Well if we can't debate rationally and only speculatively, pass the pipe over this way, girrrrl! :icon_rr:
You are taking a deterministic view of omnipotency and that is to be expected based on our limited reasoning skills of such concepts. If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment). I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things. Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that. Instead of always approaching it as "Christians are stupid and so is their god" you should perhaps approach it as "Just for the sake of argument how might this hold true".
I have though. I've read up on it quite a bit in the past and have seen this argument in action many times. The religious will constantly try to spin the problem around and cover it up with straw man fallacies, but the basic problem is still there and they tend to veer away from it. It really is a blunt contradiction that the religious avoid because it only allows for 2 possibilites--
1.) God can allow for free will due to him not being all-powerful
2.) He cannot allow for free will due to his power and as a result, it can easily be argued that he is malevolent.
-
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now personally, I don't know how someone couldn't believe or have faith. And, all I know is even if you don't believe in God, he still believes in you. :dontknow: Also don't know how folks that don't believe make it through life, its tough and my faith is all that gets me through sometimes. Well, good luck to all you, those who believe and those who don't.
-
I'll keep my faith in God and you can keep whatever it is that keeps you going....
-
It only seems absurd to you because you are considering it from the view of an unbeliever and I do understand your point of view as I had it once.
I hate to sound like I'm attacking (sorry if this sounds so), but unless something traumatic happened to you, this is pretty much impossible and I doubt your claim of being a typical non believer (unless I assume too much). Once one learns of the fictional qualities within religion, it's delusional to go back and thinking that way again.
I was certainly agnostic, probably not an atheist though as they are a very rare breed. I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable. Regarding something traumatic happening to me -- no, but it was at a culmination of both good and very bad points in my life. A lot of things came together at one single point in time including questions I had and condemnations and the few single pleas I had ever made to any divine being. The experience was unreal to me and an odd change took over me. It was like a loud bell struck a single deafening and vibrating tone, but there was no sound and no shaking (but still everything I understood said such had just occurred even though none of my physical sense detected it). That might not even be the best way to describe it and my memory may have fogged the experience as such things I find are unreliable even after a few months. Regardless I sort of understand what is meant when talking about Saul and the scales falling from his eyes. Peace filled me and everything I looked at seemed different. A simple rock or leaf invoked such fascination from me that I could actually find pleasure (and even to this day) by looking at one. Things I normally pursued seemed to take on a foolish nature and the worries and scurries of people seemed somehow misguided like they were wandering blindfolded in a maze or something (sorry if this sounds somewhat poetic but that is the only way that I can get across the odd alteration in me). Perhaps one could argue that I lost my mind that day and went insane and if so then I would not trade back for it for anything. All I can really tell you is that I was there, I know what I saw and what I felt and what happened. I know who I was before that event and I know who I am after. Things I could never understand before suddenly made sense and I could understand more of what I read in the Bible (still have difficulty with some things though but I suppose all of it isn't meant for everyone).
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt. Without my faith I would lose my salvation and although I cannot expect you to understand that it is the reasoning of why such things are
Without proof, this is just an empty opinion since it can't be debated with-- allowing for impossible claims in an argument w/o proof of them happening or showing how they work is an absurdity.
[/quote]
As you said, the point really isn't solvable by debate. Those that don't believe want proof and those that do believe know that proof denies the very faith that is being proved. If you are familiar with "Entanglement Theory" you can understand some of the points when discussing detecting and altering the spin of entangled particles and whether usefulness can be gained from it.
It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us. Even a simple concept such as infinity which we think we understand we truly do not. We use the term and it makes sense in mathematics and physics but the scope of forever is beyond our capabilities to fully realize. When dealing with forever, any views based on time are sort of lost, except as an expression of a measure from one point to another.
Well if we can't debate rationally and only speculatively, pass the pipe over this way, girrrrl! :icon_rr:
[/quote]
It is because of the constraints of what we can understand that limits the debate. Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend? An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist". Facing such limitations one can only speculate.
You are taking a deterministic view of omnipotency and that is to be expected based on our limited reasoning skills of such concepts. If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment). I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things. Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that. Instead of always approaching it as "Christians are stupid and so is their god" you should perhaps approach it as "Just for the sake of argument how might this hold true".
I have though. I've read up on it quite a bit in the past and have seen this argument in action many times. The religious will constantly try to spin the problem around and cover it up with straw man fallacies, but the basic problem is still there and they tend to veer away from it. It really is a blunt contradiction that the religious avoid because it only allows for 2 possibilites--
1.) God can allow for free will due to him not being all-powerful
2.) He cannot allow for free will due to his power and as a result, it can easily be argued that he is malevolent.
[/quote]
Reminds me of the matrix quote "No, you've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it." Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead. Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score. This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.
-
If he showed himself then we would "Know". If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith". Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt. Without my faith I would lose my salvation ...
How do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described? Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"? The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").
It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us.
Apparently, such a question has no answer which does not rely entirely upon "faith", (that for which there is no evidence).
If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment).
"Perhaps", twice suggested? If such a "god" is unaware of the results/effects of unknown variables, then such a "god" is not omnipotent, (conversely, being aware of such factors would operatively remove 'free will').
I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things. Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that.
Why "limit" ourselves at all when speculating? Why not speculate that nonlinear effects would alter results paradoxically and manifest mutually-contradictory effects, (parallel 'universes' in which any variation possible is realized)?
-
I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable.
I'm not sure how making decisions based upon experience, current variables and available choices precludes having free will.
Those that don't believe want proof and those that do believe know that proof denies the very faith that is being proved. If you are familiar with "Entanglement Theory" you can understand some of the points when discussing detecting and altering the spin of entangled particles and whether usefulness can be gained from it.
I'm familiar with quantum entanglement theory and have considered it, (just now), in light of "faith" long enough to formulate a line of reasoning. Such an entanglement theory posits peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. These correlations are speculated to rely upon some indeterminate 'hidden variable', (not presumed to be "god" or "faith"). When you brought up quantum entanglement, the first thing that occurred to me was Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This theory seemed more apropo in relation to "faith" than entanglement theory however, not by much. Essentially, Heisenberg postulates that if you know some variables, this would preclude knowing other variables. As an analogy, you could have speculated that 'knowing' some religious aspect for sure would preclude knowing the "faith variable", (although this would not support the conclusion of a loss of "salvation" since that conclusion also relies upon 'faith').
Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend? An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist". Facing such limitations one can only speculate.
It is inaccurate to assert that "every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that 'it is impossible for us to exist'". It may conclude that it is _improbable_, (not impossible), however we manifestly do exist so, the inherent assumption you posited via entanglement analogy is that there 'must be' unknown variables involved. In any given manifestation, there are unknown variables involved, (not necessarily 'unknowable' ones or, 'godlike' ones - just unknown ones).
Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead. Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score. This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.
The analogy presented is simply another way of suggesting that events are deterministic however, awareness of such events is limited so that the 'illusion' of free will is preserved without the substance. As you allude, the analogy is simplistically faulty in that humans experience events as they happen and make their decisions during the course of events, (rather than after watching them unfold). Such decision processes may or, may not include variables-contingency-planning but, they are still made at the time preceding/during event occurance.
-
I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable.
I'm not sure how making decisions based upon experience, current variables and available choices precludes having free will.
It doesn't. Reread what I posted and if you still hold the same position reread it again until you see the missing word.
Those that don't believe want proof and those that do believe know that proof denies the very faith that is being proved. If you are familiar with "Entanglement Theory" you can understand some of the points when discussing detecting and altering the spin of entangled particles and whether usefulness can be gained from it.
I'm familiar with quantum entanglement theory and have considered it, (just now), in light of "faith" long enough to formulate a line of reasoning. Such an entanglement theory posits peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. These correlations are speculated to rely upon some indeterminate 'hidden variable', (not presumed to be "god" or "faith"). When you brought up quantum entanglement, the first thing that occurred to me was Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This theory seemed more apropo in relation to "faith" than entanglement theory however, not by much. Essentially, Heisenberg postulates that if you know some variables, this would preclude knowing other variables. As an analogy, you could have speculated that 'knowing' some religious aspect for sure would preclude knowing the "faith variable", (although this would not support the conclusion of a loss of "salvation" since that conclusion also relies upon 'faith').
The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was exactly what I was originally thinking about but for the life of me I couldn't recall the name so I went instead with entanglement and avoided causality and instead focused on 'usefulness' of the information. Interesting that we think similarly in such an argument regardless of which side.
Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend? An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist". Facing such limitations one can only speculate.
It is inaccurate to assert that "every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that 'it is impossible for us to exist'". It may conclude that it is _improbable_, (not impossible), however we manifestly do exist so, the inherent assumption you posited via entanglement analogy is that there 'must be' unknown variables involved. In any given manifestation, there are unknown variables involved, (not necessarily 'unknowable' ones or, 'godlike' ones - just unknown ones).
I do not think it to be inaccurate at all. I am talking pure logic, on/of true/false. Regardless of the variables involved, these unknowns, there exists the pure multiplier of "something from nothing" or "always existed" and such things do not fall within the human ability of understanding. Oh we can use these words and associate them with a meaning but their truth is beyond our ability to appreciate. Our existence, according to what is possible for us to understand, is itself impossible...yet we are here aren't we? Even including the Divine this still holds true and it is a human reasoning limitation.
Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead. Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score. This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.
The analogy presented is simply another way of suggesting that events are deterministic however, awareness of such events is limited so that the 'illusion' of free will is preserved without the substance. As you allude, the analogy is simplistically faulty in that humans experience events as they happen and make their decisions during the course of events, (rather than after watching them unfold). Such decision processes may or, may not include variables-contingency-planning but, they are still made at the time preceding/during event occurance.
I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic. It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will. If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.
-
If he showed himself then we would "Know". If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith". Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt. Without my faith I would lose my salvation ...
How do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described? Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"? The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").
The fact that most of my usage of 'knowing' or 'Know' were either capitalized or quoted should have clued you in on the meaning and distinction. The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people as a form of strengthening and tempering for greater purpose (and not as a punishment even though people at times feel that way). If we 'Knew' during such tests then there would be no way to grow and no gain or purpose could possibly come from it. It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge, and our faith in him cannot grow if our knowledge of him is absolute.
It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us.
Apparently, such a question has no answer which does not rely entirely upon "faith", (that for which there is no evidence).
I don't really see where faith plays into this, can you expand on that?
If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment).
"Perhaps", twice suggested? If such a "god" is unaware of the results/effects of unknown variables, then such a "god" is not omnipotent, (conversely, being aware of such factors would operatively remove 'free will').
I was merely giving examples off the top of my head and I don't honestly pretend to know, but there are other plausible answers I am sure. Being aware would not remove free will, except when one restricted the view to a purely linear method while knowing ahead of time the answer (which suggest non linear knowledge and thus disqualify it being denial of free will).
I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things. Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that.
Why "limit" ourselves at all when speculating? Why not speculate that nonlinear effects would alter results paradoxically and manifest mutually-contradictory effects, (parallel 'universes' in which any variation possible is realized)?
I never really held much to parallel universes. I do feel that there was a separation (possibly two) at the formation of gravity that caused any particles travelling faster than the speed of light to be bound above such speeds and our typical physical universe as we see it to be bound inside. I have some loose theories that the particle + mass question lies somewhere within such understanding as well as some answers to the missing matter/energy and maybe even singularities. I also don't hold to the Higgs Boson and feel that my higgsless model is just as likely. In such a model as I consider, time travel is not possible (well I haven't ruled out C^2) and one could travel multiples of C without violating causality. I am thinking along the lines of tachyons and negative mass or imaginary mass (mathematically speaking).
-
I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable.
I'm not sure how making decisions based upon experience, current variables and available choices precludes having free will.
It doesn't. Reread what I posted and if you still hold the same position reread it again until you see the missing word.
Rather than assuming what you meant, why not just indicate which word was "missing"?
The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was exactly what I was originally thinking about but for the life of me I couldn't recall the name so I went instead with entanglement and avoided causality and instead focused on 'usefulness' of the information. Interesting that we think similarly in such an argument regardless of which side.
Quantum entanglement theory doesn't actually avoid causality however, that's a long and complex discussion. As to using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to support your contention, we aren't thinking similarly on opposite sides of this argument; I simply recognized the analogy you were attempting to use.
Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend? An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist". Facing such limitations one can only speculate.
It is inaccurate to assert that "every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that 'it is impossible for us to exist'". It may conclude that it is _improbable_, (not impossible), however we manifestly do exist so, the inherent assumption you posited via entanglement analogy is that there 'must be' unknown variables involved. In any given manifestation, there are unknown variables involved, (not necessarily 'unknowable' ones or, 'godlike' ones - just unknown ones).
I do not think it to be inaccurate at all. I am talking pure logic, on/of true/false. Regardless of the variables involved, these unknowns, there exists the pure multiplier of "something from nothing" or "always existed" and such things do not fall within the human ability of understanding.
Whether you believe your assertion to be inaccurate or not, no logical argument can be made that we do not exist, (although such arguments were strenuously attempted during college philosophy courses). As to the "come from nothing" premise you raise, please refer to my recent post in another thread concerning emergent phenomenon theory?
Oh we can use these words and associate them with a meaning but their truth is beyond our ability to appreciate. Our existence, according to what is possible for us to understand, is itself impossible...yet we are here aren't we? Even including the Divine this still holds true and it is a human reasoning limitation.
As I understand the premise, you're saying that there are no rational basis for our existance? That's a contendable premise however, it doesn't make sense to jump to a faith-based attribution given insufficient information, (i.e., the W.A.G.). The limits of reason do not constitute an excuse for jumoing off the deep end. One must walk before they can run, run before they can jump and jump before they can fly. Those who try to fly from the get-go end up like Icarus.
Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead. Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score. This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.
The analogy presented is simply another way of suggesting that events are deterministic however, awareness of such events is limited so that the 'illusion' of free will is preserved without the substance. As you allude, the analogy is simplistically faulty in that humans experience events as they happen and make their decisions during the course of events, (rather than after watching them unfold). Such decision processes may or, may not include variables-contingency-planning but, they are still made at the time preceding/during event occurance.
I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic.
Indeed; a simplistic analogy is usually inherently inaccurate instead of being simplistically accurate.
It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will. If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.
No doubt Falconeer02 can address that point as he chooses. Were I to venture to speculate; there are three options, (plus secondary variations on those three), available when considering "free will". The first being that we have what is known as "free will", (e.g., the ability to make our own decisions without external control). The second option; that we do not have "free will". The third option; that we have a limited degree of "free will", (that is, either the 'illusion' of free will or, the freedom of choice within limited parameters but, not on a macro-level). Incidentally, neither the first nor the third reflect my stance on the subject, I merely present the available options. If yet another option occurs to you, (or anyone), please indicate them.
-
If he showed himself then we would "Know". If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith". Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt. Without my faith I would lose my salvation ...
How do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described? Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"? The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").
The fact that most of my usage of 'knowing' or 'Know' were either capitalized or quoted should have clued you in on the meaning and distinction.
It did; I recognize sophistry when someone tries it - no matter what punctuation is used. The questions asked remain unanswered; how do you know?
The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people as a form of strengthening and tempering for greater purpose (and not as a punishment even though people at times feel that way). If we 'Knew' during such tests then there would be no way to grow and no gain or purpose could possibly come from it. It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge, and our faith in him cannot grow if our knowledge of him is absolute. ]/quote]
To reiterate the point of contention; the presumption you are presenting is that 'faith is a test'. Firstly, this a priori assumption is not a given and it constitutes an inherent claim, (that the concept of religious 'faith' itself requires "faith"). Secondly, it is this same religious 'faith' which is intended to support the secondary premise that "It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge". No doubt I'm not the only one to twig to the circularity of such a pseudo-syllogism.
It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us.
Apparently, such a question has no answer which does not rely entirely upon "faith", (that for which there is no evidence).
I don't really see where faith plays into this, can you expand on that?
The context you and Falconeer were discussing was that of the concept of "free will". You maintained that this was/is a complex question and that "it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us." The latter assertion quoted implicitly requires 'faith' because it was asserted that an answer would be beyond our ability to understand. This assertion also glosses over our ability to learn to understand what we don't and directly suggests that an answer we could not understand is effectively no answer.
If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment).
"Perhaps", twice suggested? If such a "god" is unaware of the results/effects of unknown variables, then such a "god" is not omnipotent, (conversely, being aware of such factors would operatively remove 'free will').
I was merely giving examples off the top of my head and I don't honestly pretend to know, but there are other plausible answers I am sure. Being aware would not remove free will, except when one restricted the view to a purely linear method while knowing ahead of time the answer (which suggest non linear knowledge and thus disqualify it being denial of free will).
On the contrary, being aware of all of the variations of all variables, (manifested or, unmanifested), would essentially constitute a deterministic/clockwork universe where choice is possible however, the outcomes of choices are knowable in advance. If outcomes are accurately, (rather than generally), knowable in advance then there are none of those "unknown variables" you previously mentioned. Nonlinear advance knowledge wouldn't disqualify a denial of free will however, neither does it support that double negative.
I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things. Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that.
Why "limit" ourselves at all when speculating? Why not speculate that nonlinear effects would alter results paradoxically and manifest mutually-contradictory effects, (parallel 'universes' in which any variation possible is realized)?
I never really held much to parallel universes. I do feel that there was a separation (possibly two) at the formation of gravity that caused any particles travelling faster than the speed of light to be bound above such speeds and our typical physical universe as we see it to be bound inside. I have some loose theories that the particle + mass question lies somewhere within such understanding as well as some answers to the missing matter/energy and maybe even singularities. I also don't hold to the Higgs Boson and feel that my higgsless model is just as likely. In such a model as I consider, time travel is not possible (well I haven't ruled out C^2) and one could travel multiples of C without violating causality. I am thinking along the lines of tachyons and negative mass or imaginary mass (mathematically speaking).
For more on this subject, I'll again refer you to a recent post I made in another thread regarding emergent phenomenon, (which may parallel the concepts you've touched upon without necessarily involving parallel universes).
-
in order for them to believe people expect to many great things from god as proof.
Is coming down and showing one's self to prove you exist to everyone on earth really that much of a hassle that it interferes with gods schedule? I would never ask that much of god to proves its existence. In reality, things like curing cancer, healing the sick, preventing a disaster do not prove the existence of god since these things can be explained without god. If it is really all powerful it would simply show itself to everyone on the earth. It would require little effort on gods part and go a long way to prove its own existence than anything else would. So why doesn't god do this? Could it possibly be because god doesn't exist?
That would not be something that God would do (well I don't pretend to be the decider on what God would or would not do, it just seems pretty obvious that it isn't something He would do). If he showed himself then we would "Know". If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith". Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can. You may not believe in God, but if you are going to argue along these lines, then keep within the confines of the presentation. If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith. We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe".
Great post,Abrupt. :thumbsup:
I think a lot of skeptics resent the fact that faith in God is required for Salvation.God prizes Faith above all,and rewards us for our faith.Believing because we have seen with our eyes is worth little. Jesus told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
-
Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?
For me; saying my prayers and reading the Bible each night helps me, I don't know "why" some individuals have strayed away from God, but he is a part of my life each and every single day. :notworthy:
-
think a lot of skeptics resent the fact that faith in God is required for Salvation
Nah we're just all ::) to the religious dogma and usually don't care much about it. It's when this one belief system is spoken rudely and forced upon individuals-- that's when skeptics resent it. When people throw their beliefs as fact but they can't even surpass elementary skepticism, there's an obvious problem when they think they can just skip a bunch of dire steps to actually make sense of something.
Believing because we have seen with our eyes is worth little. Jesus told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Very convenient.
It is because of the constraints of what we can understand that limits the debate. Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend? An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist". Facing such limitations one can only speculate.
Speculating is one thing-- defining speculations as fact and truth is another.
I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic. It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will. If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.
Well for the record I am a compatibilist though admittedly I am pliable on the issue and completely open to other POVs though. This example is a bit flimsy and Falcon9 has already answered it much more elegantly than I could have. But going further into your example (and to try to turn it back on the path of religious-faith grounds), suppose a person records the game, watches it, tells you he knows the outcome of the game, and then says you must place a bet on his favorite team in the game or his friend will torture you. What if you don't like his team? What if you don't want to take this gamble? What if you aren't interested in football? How is this a free and fair choice?
Oh and thank you for sharing your story with me :)
-
People create their own religion these days but they won't classify it as such. Everyone has their own set of beliefs about why they think good and evil exist, how they think people should behave, and what they believe the consequences should be. Ask anyone and they have an opinion on these things even if they do not believe in a higher power. Most people today want to move away from organized religion for various reasons so most people don't see themselves as "religious". And they if everybody were like that there would be no deaths in the world.
-
Ah, you equate straying away from Religion to straying away from Belief in God. I do not believe the two are synonymous. I believe that people stray away from Religion because churches do not change to keep up with the times. I do not believe that necessarily means that people do not believe in God.
-
Religion can be very oppressive. People still believe in god, but have realized it does not take a church to worship god. and that is totally cool if they stiff believe in god. :)
-
Religion can be very oppressive. People still believe in god, but have realized it does not take a church to worship god. and that is totally cool if they stiff believe in god.
What a bummer ... 'god' gets stiffed again? O_O
-
Rather than assuming what you meant, why not just indicate which word was "missing"?
Because I choose not to. You are the one making an attack just for the sake of being on the offensive and you are the one in error. There is no real point in me in instructing you in your mistake, other than to point out that you made one.
Quantum entanglement theory doesn't actually avoid causality however, that's a long and complex discussion. As to using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to support your contention, we aren't thinking similarly on opposite sides of this argument; I simply recognized the analogy you were attempting to use.
Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above. I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument. Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general) as you recognizing my intended analogy would indeed denote similar thinking. Have I wounded you in some way? You approach me in a manner that I have seen before where people in authority over me (or on a parallel standing) have treated me as a threat. I learned early to never show to much when at a new job or team endeavor and I tend to subdue this natural impulse even in things such as this.
Whether you believe your assertion to be inaccurate or not, no logical argument can be made that we do not exist, (although such arguments were strenuously attempted during college philosophy courses). As to the "come from nothing" premise you raise, please refer to my recent post in another thread concerning emergent phenomenon theory?
I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do. My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility. Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.
As I understand the premise, you're saying that there are no rational basis for our existance? That's a contendable premise however, it doesn't make sense to jump to a faith-based attribution given insufficient information, (i.e., the W.A.G.). The limits of reason do not constitute an excuse for jumoing off the deep end. One must walk before they can run, run before they can jump and jump before they can fly. Those who try to fly from the get-go end up like Icarus.
There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence. If you are going to post snipe at least follow the dialog.
Indeed; a simplistic analogy is usually inherently inaccurate instead of being simplistically accurate.
A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient. It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works.
No doubt Falconeer02 can address that point as he chooses. Were I to venture to speculate; there are three options, (plus secondary variations on those three), available when considering "free will". The first being that we have what is known as "free will", (e.g., the ability to make our own decisions without external control). The second option; that we do not have "free will". The third option; that we have a limited degree of "free will", (that is, either the 'illusion' of free will or, the freedom of choice within limited parameters but, not on a macro-level). Incidentally, neither the first nor the third reflect my stance on the subject, I merely present the available options. If yet another option occurs to you, (or anyone), please indicate them.
I cannot think of others off the top of my head (didn't really try to honestly) but I recall reading many arguments involving Clarence Darrow where I am sure some others were mentioned -- but there are only so many variations I suspect until the point is a variation on similar.
-
It did; I recognize sophistry when someone tries it - no matter what punctuation is used. The questions asked remain unanswered; how do you know?
Since I think you are the only person that read what I said that is having difficulty understanding it I leave you with this quote:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Inigo Montoya.
(that is +1 point for me for using a reference to "The Princess Bride" by the way)
To reiterate the point of contention; the presumption you are presenting is that 'faith is a test'. Firstly, this a priori assumption is not a given and it constitutes an inherent claim, (that the concept of religious 'faith' itself requires "faith"). Secondly, it is this same religious 'faith' which is intended to support the secondary premise that "It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge". No doubt I'm not the only one to twig to the circularity of such a pseudo-syllogism.
I did not say that faith is a test Your comprehension has been exceedingly poor of late. I am currently suffering the effects of a severe Migraine and wonder if you are in a similar plight?
The context you and Falconeer were discussing was that of the concept of "free will". You maintained that this was/is a complex question and that "it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us." The latter assertion quoted implicitly requires 'faith' because it was asserted that an answer would be beyond our ability to understand. This assertion also glosses over our ability to learn to understand what we don't and directly suggests that an answer we could not understand is effectively no answer.
Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument. You have said that faith is irrational so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument. I do not know how to respond to this other than to again ask you if you are feeling well?
On the contrary, being aware of all of the variations of all variables, (manifested or, unmanifested), would essentially constitute a deterministic/clockwork universe where choice is possible however, the outcomes of choices are knowable in advance. If outcomes are accurately, (rather than generally), knowable in advance then there are none of those "unknown variables" you previously mentioned. Nonlinear advance knowledge wouldn't disqualify a denial of free will however, neither does it support that double negative.
I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread. I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation). My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind. What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself. This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more. I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.
For more on this subject, I'll again refer you to a recent post I made in another thread regarding emergent phenomenon, (which may parallel the concepts you've touched upon without necessarily involving parallel universes).
I am not familiar with it -- not by that name anyways -- is it something along the lines of the Entropy arguments? Again I might be interested in reading it if you supplied a link. I am concerned though as you seem to generally prefer to be deliberately convoluted in your writings and my worries are that you might intentionally make an already complex topic overly obfuscated. Pardon my manners if I seem harsh but Migraines are where my handle comes from in real life (the other names I get called when under their effects would not be appropriate for a handle).
-
It is because of the constraints of what we can understand that limits the debate. Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend? An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist". Facing such limitations one can only speculate.
Speculating is one thing-- defining speculations as fact and truth is another.
I agree, but some abstractions can only be discussed in such uncertain ways if they are to be discussed at all.
I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic. It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will. If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.
Well for the record I am a compatibilist though admittedly I am pliable on the issue and completely open to other POVs though. This example is a bit flimsy and Falcon9 has already answered it much more elegantly than I could have. But going further into your example (and to try to turn it back on the path of religious-faith grounds), suppose a person records the game, watches it, tells you he knows the outcome of the game, and then says you must place a bet on his favorite team in the game or his friend will torture you. What if you don't like his team? What if you don't want to take this gamble? What if you aren't interested in football? How is this a free and fair choice?
Oh and thank you for sharing your story with me :)
I had never heard of a compatibilist before and had to look the term up. I have never met one before, well none that identified themselves as such I suppose, pleasure to meet you. I didn't find Falcon9's reply particularly elegant for him and I prefer you riposte method. I know what it is you are referring to, but I already told you I don't believe in that 'torture' bit. I have used concordances and lexicons to trace those words back and find the original meanings are quite different. With that removed your argument has less potency as the "friend will torture you" becomes more like "you will go to sleep". It is still valid though, but it doesn't entirely remove free will only applies a little coercion -- although in your example it is undeniably strong, in mine it is less so.
Regarding sharing my story with you. You are welcome, though I must confess I didn't reveal everything. There are parts that are unflattering that are omitted, and other points that I evade in order to protect my anonymity (not that I am anyone famous or distinct but I am always cautious about such details).
-
The questions asked remain unanswered; how do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described? Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"? The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").
Since I think you are the only person that read what I said that is having difficulty understanding it I leave you with this quote:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Inigo Montoya.
Your attempt to dodge the question was too obvious; perhaps your migraine has addled you? Again, the dodged question was, 'how do you know? (if you've forgotten the context of your own assertion, scroll up or tacitly admit to dodging).
To reiterate the point of contention; the presumption you are presenting is that 'faith is a test'. Firstly, this a priori assumption is not a given and it constitutes an inherent claim, (that the concept of religious 'faith' itself requires "faith"). Secondly, it is this same religious 'faith' which is intended to support the secondary premise that "It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge". No doubt I'm not the only one to twig to the circularity of such a pseudo-syllogism.
I did not say that faith is a test.
No? Then who wrote "The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people ... " if not you?
Your comprehension has been exceedingly poor of late. I am currently suffering the effects of a severe Migraine and wonder if you are in a similar plight?
No however, your migraine does seem to be inhibiting your process of discernment; my comprehension of what you wrote is unimpaired.
The context you and Falconeer were discussing was that of the concept of "free will". You maintained that this was/is a complex question and that "it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us." The latter assertion quoted implicitly requires 'faith' because it was asserted that an answer would be beyond our ability to understand. This assertion also glosses over our ability to learn to understand what we don't and directly suggests that an answer we could not understand is effectively no answer.
Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument. You have said that faith is irrational ...
Obviously not, since you proceed to misunderstand the point that your contention, (an answer would be impossible for us to understand and thus, implicitly requires 'faith' to buy that concept), it makes sense that you are claiming not to understand the argument. To clarify my position then; an argument which requires 'faith' is not rational and I reject it as irrational.
... so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument.
Not at all; I'm using the circular basis of your implicit premise above to support my contention that 'faith' is an irrational foundation to argue that it is actually a requirement of "salvation" NOT to know, (but to instead, "have faith").
I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread.
More accurately, you accused me of resorting to "contextonomy" after I effective demonstrated that you resorted to it previously. Oddly, you didn't support your contention and merely left the empty claim swinging in the wind.
I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).
Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).
My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind.
Now you're explicitly making the claim that a "divine spark of life" was "given to mankind". I don't suppose you're going to bother substantiating a "divine" attribution, are you?
What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself. This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more. I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.
No, it went beyond speculation when you derived further assumptions from that unsupported a priori assumption. Presumably, your a priori assumptive claim is intended to be supported by 'faith' alone? And that brings us back around to 'faith' being an irrational basis, (given that it has no rational basis nor a requirement to provide one).
I am not familiar with it -- not by that name anyways -- is it something along the lines of the Entropy arguments?
No, it can be found under the name mentioned; 'emergent phenomenon'. The "Entropy argument" I estimate you're referring to often misuses the thermodynamic argument as a classic misrepresentation of a fundamental scientific concept, (entropy). Entropy refers to the number of available energy microstates in a thermodynamic system, for instance; it has very little to do with the spatial order of matter. An energy microstate is simply any mechanism that can carry energy (e.g., each way a molecule can vibrate or rotate). Thermodynamics is about the bookkeeping of energy; not spatial order. The distinction is crucial. Neither is gravity "entropic" (http://www.100wizard.com/experiments-show-gravity-is-not-an-emergent-phenomenon-technology-review.html)
"Emergence is the process of deriving some new and coherent structures, patterns and properties in a complex system. Emergent phenomena occur due to the pattern of interactions between the elements of a system over time. Emergent phenomena are often unexpected, nontrivial results of relatively simple interactions of relatively simple components. What distinguishes a complex system from a merely complicated one is that some behaviours and patterns emerge in complex systems as a result of the patterns of relationship between the elements." --
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Emergent_phenomenon/
Again I might be interested in reading it if you supplied a link.
If the above link is insufficient to outline the emergent phenomenon theory, these and more are also available:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/6/1844
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Emergent+phenomenon
There are some dissenting views concerning emergent phenomenon theories, of course, (lest you believe my link cites are 'cherry-picked').
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/31949/frontmatter/9780521831949_frontmatter.pdf
http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/emergence3.pdf
I am concerned though as you seem to generally prefer to be deliberately convoluted in your writings and my worries are that you might intentionally make an already complex topic overly obfuscated. Pardon my manners if I seem harsh but Migraines are where my handle comes from in real life (the other names I get called when under their effects would not be appropriate for a handle).
Whether or not my reasoning, (and the basis for it), appears to be convoluted, I have endeavored to pare them down within the posting constraints of this forum. Scary as the thought may be, I could elaborate in even more detail however, since I am not deliberately attempting to make these complex concepts even more complex. On the contrary, oftentimes it isn't easy to reduce complexity into simplistic terms).
Although I am peripherally aware of migraine symptoms, (my girlfriend has suffered from them since before she met me), I'm unsure of the wisdom of engaging in this debate while suffering from those symptoms.
-
Rather than assuming what you meant, why not just indicate which word was "missing"?
Because I choose not to. You are the one making an attack just for the sake of being on the offensive and you are the one in error. There is no real point in me in instructing you in your mistake, other than to point out that you made one. ]/quote]
The "point" in your indicating something which was "missing" is the same as the point a diagnostician would make by informing a patient that they have a ailment but, they must guess what it is.
Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above. I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument.
Oh? I wasn't the one who used "entanglement" when they 'meant' Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, (that was you, by admission). Any causality 'hints' would then have referred more to HUP than to entanglement theories. If you don't wish your mis-statements to be misinterpreted, be more specific.
Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)
Now you're playing the schoolyard ad hominem card to cover your vagueness? Wow, impressive argument. ::)
... as you recognizing my intended analogy would indeed denote similar thinking. Have I wounded you in some way?
Although you've been unable to "wound" me with mere text, I refer you to your recent attempt: "Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)".
I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do. My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility. Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.
I'm astounded to have come across two different people who cannot recall their own words and 'insist', (however 'politely'), that I look up their words for them. To paraphrase your assertion then; you stipulated that, according to current knowledge and reasoning, we logically shouldn't exist, (despite the apparent manifestation of our existance). I dissented and referred to emergent phenomenon theory as an alternate explanation for our existance.
As I understand the premise, you're saying that there are no rational basis for our existance? That's a contendable premise however, it doesn't make sense to jump to a faith-based attribution given insufficient information, (i.e., the W.A.G.). The limits of reason do not constitute an excuse for jumping off the deep end. One must walk before they can run, run before they can jump and jump before they can fly. Those who try to fly from the get-go end up like Icarus.
There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence. If you are going to post snipe at least follow the dialog.
If you're going to snip the context which you're 'sniping' at, (contextonomy on your part), at least either confirm or deny the tacit religious assumption that some 'god' created the universe then. Such an admission would explicitly be supported by 'faith' and therefore, couldn't be honestly denied, (which is likely why you went with "There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence" instead).
A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient. It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works.
It is even more foolish to try to reduce a manifestly complex concept down to inaccurately simplistic terms, (which would make such an analogy insufficient once it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate - which it was). Your debating is not benefiting from your migraine, man.
-
One does not need to belong to a religion in order to believe in God. I believe in God, but not religion. Religion isn't necessary for everyone. If belonging to a religion makes you happy and works for you go for it. :peace:
-
God is still necessary.
-
God is still necessary.
For what purpose?
-
Since I think you are the only person that read what I said that is having difficulty understanding it I leave you with this quote:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Inigo Montoya.
Your attempt to dodge the question was too obvious; perhaps your migraine has addled you? Again, the dodged question was, 'how do you know? (if you've forgotten the context of your own assertion, scroll up or tacitly admit to dodging).
I am not dodging anything. Your lack of understanding in what I wrote has me so boggled that I wouldn't know how to explain it any simpler. Knowing is certainty, faith is trust. Doing something because you know the outcome is not equal to the character involved when doing the same based on trust of the outcome. Does that clarify to the level you need or is there something else?
I did not say that faith is a test.
No? Then who wrote "The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people ... " if not you?
Of course I wrote that, but that is not what you accused me of writing. Testing faith does not imply in any way that faith is a test and you have committed a form of inductive conversion fallacy.
Your comprehension has been exceedingly poor of late. I am currently suffering the effects of a severe Migraine and wonder if you are in a similar plight?
No however, your migraine does seem to be inhibiting your process of discernment; my comprehension of what you wrote is unimpaired.
Not sure what the deal is then since I assure you that you are slipping from the level I originally judged you as being capable of debating at.
Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument. You have said that faith is irrational ...
Obviously not, since you proceed to misunderstand the point that your contention, (an answer would be impossible for us to understand and thus, implicitly requires 'faith' to buy that concept), it makes sense that you are claiming not to understand the argument. To clarify my position then; an argument which requires 'faith' is not rational and I reject it as irrational.
You are the one suggesting that faith supplies the answer. Even including any amount of faith you wish I contend that the answer would not be anything we could understand ("void" and "infinity" would be far easier to fully realize than an answer involving origin, and as common and seemingly simple as those terms are they can only be abstractly appreciated by the human brain as we cannot picture "void" or "infinity")
... so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument.
Not at all; I'm using the circular basis of your implicit premise above to support my contention that 'faith' is an irrational foundation to argue that it is actually a requirement of "salvation" NOT to know, (but to instead, "have faith").
You are mixing arguments. You are taking a specific comment of mine to Falconer02 regarding free will and omnipotence and mixed it into our debate and expanded it to somehow include faith. Now you are trying to backtrack and bring in salvation (again it doesn't have anything to do with the "It is a complex question..." bit. While you do have a viable question hidden in your comment I am not going to speculate on answering it unless you can figure out the question and ask it independent of the contested "It is a complex question..." bit.
I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread.
More accurately, you accused me of resorting to "contextonomy" after I effective demonstrated that you resorted to it previously. Oddly, you didn't support your contention and merely left the empty claim swinging in the wind.
Again with your imagination and use of your accusations alone as supporting evidence. You accused me of performing the act possibly a half dozen times and never provided any evidence other than your accusations. Then, you actually pre-qualified your use of contextonomy at one point to demonstrate how it can be used damagingly (why does that word sound odd to me), and I didn't mind that at all, but later you committed the act multiple times without qualification and so I abandoned any further debate with you (and no I didn't even attempt to highlight what you did at that point as I really didn't care except for the loss of some worthy and fun debate).
I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).
Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).
Again you were the one who accused me so many times of the act and it is something I would never do as it is a weak trait and its deliberate usage admits defeat and inferiority. As humble as I try to be my pride and honor prevents me from ever doing that. Even without pride, my competitive nature and joy of figuring things out would never allow me to act in that way.
My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind.
Now you're explicitly making the claim that a "divine spark of life" was "given to mankind". I don't suppose you're going to bother substantiating a "divine" attribution, are you?
I am making no claims. I was giving alternate possibilities to the choices given that could qualify the conditions of the argument. Since the argument was regarding divine omnipotence and free will my possibilities are rather unlimited and do not even require my belief in the suppositions. Since I stated that I have no idea of the internal workings of such and also considering that I do not require myself to rationalize them for my acceptance, I merely speculated on how things might work and be valid to our understanding. I seriously doubt any guess I made would be correct, mind you, and no weight is to be given such a guess other than would it qualify the conditions. There was no right or wrong answer I could give and it seems that you somehow think there was.
What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself. This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more. I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.
No, it went beyond speculation when you derived further assumptions from that unsupported a priori assumption. Presumably, your a priori assumptive claim is intended to be supported by 'faith' alone? And that brings us back around to 'faith' being an irrational basis, (given that it has no rational basis nor a requirement to provide one).
Yet regardless of whether I generated the answer on a random wheel of words it wouldn't matter. It is pure speculation and guesswork and any logical deduction would be entirely coincidental since it is absolutely unknown and abstract. You are arguing a point you cannot win, and the reason you cannot win is because I cannot lose, unless there is a way to lose a question that has no right or wrong answer. Faith doesn't consider reasoning's, so rational or irrational have no meaning in the context.
I am not familiar with it -- not by that name anyways -- is it something along the lines of the Entropy arguments?
No, it can be found under the name mentioned; 'emergent phenomenon'. The "Entropy argument" I estimate you're referring to often misuses the thermodynamic argument as a classic misrepresentation of a fundamental scientific concept, (entropy). Entropy refers to the number of available energy microstates in a thermodynamic system, for instance; it has very little to do with the spatial order of matter. An energy microstate is simply any mechanism that can carry energy (e.g., each way a molecule can vibrate or rotate). Thermodynamics is about the bookkeeping of energy; not spatial order. The distinction is crucial. Neither is gravity "entropic" (http://www.100wizard.com/experiments-show-gravity-is-not-an-emergent-phenomenon-technology-review.html)
"Emergence is the process of deriving some new and coherent structures, patterns and properties in a complex system. Emergent phenomena occur due to the pattern of interactions between the elements of a system over time. Emergent phenomena are often unexpected, nontrivial results of relatively simple interactions of relatively simple components. What distinguishes a complex system from a merely complicated one is that some behaviours and patterns emerge in complex systems as a result of the patterns of relationship between the elements." --
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Emergent_phenomenon/
Again I might be interested in reading it if you supplied a link.
If the above link is insufficient to outline the emergent phenomenon theory, these and more are also available:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/6/1844
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Emergent+phenomenon
There are some dissenting views concerning emergent phenomenon theories, of course, (lest you believe my link cites are 'cherry-picked').
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/31949/frontmatter/9780521831949_frontmatter.pdf
http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/emergence3.pdf
Sounds interesting and I still haven't managed enough free time to give credit to reading it, but bookmarked the links for when such becomes available. I appreciate the inclusion of the dissenting views as well.
I am concerned though as you seem to generally prefer to be deliberately convoluted in your writings and my worries are that you might intentionally make an already complex topic overly obfuscated. Pardon my manners if I seem harsh but Migraines are where my handle comes from in real life (the other names I get called when under their effects would not be appropriate for a handle).
Whether or not my reasoning, (and the basis for it), appears to be convoluted, I have endeavored to pare them down within the posting constraints of this forum. Scary as the thought may be, I could elaborate in even more detail however, since I am not deliberately attempting to make these complex concepts even more complex. On the contrary, oftentimes it isn't easy to reduce complexity into simplistic terms).
Although I am peripherally aware of migraine symptoms, (my girlfriend has suffered from them since before she met me), I'm unsure of the wisdom of engaging in this debate while suffering from those symptoms.
I hurt terribly regardless of the activity and sometimes focusing on things can reduce it (although other times it makes it much worse).
-
Because I choose not to. You are the one making an attack just for the sake of being on the offensive and you are the one in error. There is no real point in me in instructing you in your mistake, other than to point out that you made one.
The "point" in your indicating something which was "missing" is the same as the point a diagnostician would make by informing a patient that they have a ailment but, they must guess what it is.
Actually it would be equivalent to the diagnostician telling the patient that they are missing a thumbnail when the patient only has one hand and only one thumb on that hand. In fact the missing word appears twice in my answer.
Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above. I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument.
Oh? I wasn't the one who used "entanglement" when they 'meant' Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, (that was you, by admission). Any causality 'hints' would then have referred more to HUP than to entanglement theories. If you don't wish your mis-statements to be misinterpreted, be more specific.
Well I don't require my answers to be perfect and I wanted to answer and drew a complete blank on HUP (so complete that I couldn't even think of a way to google fish for keywords). I made no misstatements as there are many common examples of the usage of entanglement for information transfer and violations of causality at that end. I avoided arguing causality and instead asked if such information would be of any value (actually this involved HUP here as well but HUP is being challenged in this sense with Quantum Memory theories).
Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)
Now you're playing the schoolyard ad hominem card to cover your vagueness? Wow, impressive argument. ::)
Name calling is not ad hominem, especially when it is true. There is ample evidence on these board for your propensity to display your ability to be a *bleep*. I know this, you know this, others know this. That isn't an insult unless, I suppose, you seriously don't recognize this in yourself (I have met many self delusional people in many different areas, myself included). As an example I will give you a recent posting of yours in a thread titled "Praying For Yourself":
"Prayer" is a self-delusional appeal to dubious 'authority'.
Considering that the thread was written by people who believe in prayer and wanted to ask serious questions regarding what is appropriate, how do you see your answer qualifying as anything other than being a *bleep*? *bleep*. (lol couldn't resist that last bit, but I know that doesn't really bother you to be called that).
... as you recognizing my intended analogy would indeed denote similar thinking. Have I wounded you in some way?
Although you've been unable to "wound" me with mere text, I refer you to your recent attempt: "Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)".
No that wasn't meant to wound you at all but to bolster you up and get you back on your A game. You are not fragile in that sense and you would never admit it if you were. Subtle works on you though, and terse too. If I approached you purely with that intention though my answers would be extremely short as you are most assured and most dangerous when given a lot to work with and I do give a lot to work with (maybe that is what bothers you, that I don't have as many chinks as you are used to and your typical approaches just don't quite fit with me).
I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do. My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility. Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.
I'm astounded to have come across two different people who cannot recall their own words and 'insist', (however 'politely'), that I look up their words for them. To paraphrase your assertion then; you stipulated that, according to current knowledge and reasoning, we logically shouldn't exist, (despite the apparent manifestation of our existance). I dissented and referred to emergent phenomenon theory as an alternate explanation for our existance.
My saying that comprehension of reasoning denotes that we shouldn't exist is not the same as me saying that we don't exist. You are reaching incredibly far to make that conclusion. I still haven't read the emergent phenomenon but would be intrigued to see an explanation for origin that is within the confines of human logic. In order to qualify as an explanation for the above it must explain the void to existence dilemma. I will get around to reading it though but cannot really go far on speculation of what it theorizes.
There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence. If you are going to post snipe at least follow the dialog.
If you're going to snip the context which you're 'sniping' at, (contextonomy on your part), at least either confirm or deny the tacit religious assumption that some 'god' created the universe then. Such an admission would explicitly be supported by 'faith' and therefore, couldn't be honestly denied, (which is likely why you went with "There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence" instead).
"Snipe", not "Snip" those are very different words. Of course I believe God created the universe. That, though, doesn't satisfy the unexplained of the 'hows' before that. What I mean is even with my faith in knowing that God created the universe it still isn't understandable to the human brain. The questions that typically follow to reach that are the "where did God come from" with the reply of "God always was/is" and such which are impossible for a human brain to understand. So, even with faith there is no human comprehensible answer, there is only an acceptance of the answer with the understanding that we are mentally unable to understand it.
A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient. It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works.
It is even more foolish to try to reduce a manifestly complex concept down to inaccurately simplistic terms, (which would make such an analogy insufficient once it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate - which it was). Your debating is not benefiting from your migraine, man.
A complex problem can be demonstrated by parallelism of another similar and familiar example, which is what I did. If someone demonstrated it to be inaccurate they failed to show it to me. I don't know I had a few rather good points in there. My '*bleep*' bit was good and I know that a few people who managed to read through my post had a good laugh at that part. While it may have seemed a little base, your response was exactly as I anticipated which signifies to me that I was spot on at least in parts. You have probably noticed that I have adjusted on you a bit, exposing a flank here, redeploying there, etc, and am giving you full knowledge of that.
-
I am not dodging anything.
Given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...", isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of 'faith/belief'? This is the question which you dodged up to this point, (and denied dodging).
Knowing is certainty, faith is trust.
Too simplistic; your abbreviated assertion generalizes into inaccuracy. "Knowing" is only as certain as the available information can make it. "Faith" is trusting despite a glaring lack of evidence, (and indeed, apparently _requires_ a total lack of evidence).
Doing something because you know the outcome is not equal to the character involved when doing the same based on trust of the outcome.
Making such a 'leap of faith' is an irrational decision primarily because it lacks a rational basis. You've unsuccessfully contended this assertion, (by evasion, dissembling and attempting to 'insult' me using unsupported opinion; something which indicates a lack of character). Succinctly; either "faith" has a rational basis or, it does not. If you are conversely maintaining that it does, demonstrate such a basis rationally. If it does not, (as I contend and have demonstrated using logic - despite your illogical denials), then any 'faith-based' decisions have an irrational basis.
I did not say that faith is a test.
No? Then who wrote "The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people ... " if not you?
[/quote]
Of course I wrote that, but that is not what you accused me of writing. Testing faith does not imply in any way that faith is a test and you have committed a form of inductive conversion fallacy.
There was no inductive conversion involved; I quoted your words, (without translating English into English). Are you actually implying that "testing faith" is not a test of faith? Wow, such convoluted squirming is going to give you cramps, dude.
Not sure what the deal is then since I assure you that you are slipping from the level I originally judged you as being capable of debating at.
More lame ad hom from you; is your position so weak that you keep trying such faint feints? (rhetorical pun intended)
Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument. You have said that faith is irrational ...
Obviously not, since you proceed to misunderstand the point that your contention, (an answer would be impossible for us to understand and thus, implicitly requires 'faith' to buy that concept), it makes sense that you are claiming not to understand the argument. To clarify my position then; an argument which requires 'faith' is not rational and I reject it as irrational.
You are the one suggesting that faith supplies the answer.
Now you're arguing with yourself, instead with my dissent. The acceptance of the concept of 'unknowable answers' implicitly requires the religious 'faith' you profess. I never suggested that 'faith' _itself_ supplied any answers, (because it doesn't; requiring "trust" instead).
... so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument.
Not at all; I'm using the circular basis of your implicit premise above to support my contention that 'faith' is an irrational foundation to argue that it is actually a requirement of "salvation" NOT to know, (but to instead, "have faith"). [/quote]
You are mixing arguments.
No, the argument was extrapolated to include "salvation" because 'faith' is an asserted requirement of "salvation" according to soteriology. The arguments have not been mixed because they are interrelated.
I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread.
More accurately, you accused me of resorting to "contextonomy" after I effective demonstrated that you resorted to it previously. Oddly, you didn't support your contention and merely left the empty claim swinging in the wind.
Again with your imagination and use of your accusations alone as supporting evidence.
Not my accusations nor imagination alone, (that's your tactic); I quoted your empty claims, (those which lacked support), and pointed out where you 'convienently' snipped portions of context out of our debate, (which qualify as contextonomy on your part when used to obscure context).
Again you were the one who accused me so many times of the act and it is something I would never do as it is a weak trait and its deliberate usage admits defeat and inferiority.
Then your 'faith' isn't the only thing that's blind. Merely denying what you've done doesn't erase the evidence upthread that you deleted context deliberately, (contextonomy). Although I do agree that its usage tends to indicate a weak argument and therefore, I conclude that your usage of it indicates your weak argument, (thanks but, I'd already seen that your unsupported argument was weak and expected your diversionary tactics in lieu of a strong rebuttal).
My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind.
Now you're explicitly making the claim that a "divine spark of life" was "given to mankind". I don't suppose you're going to bother substantiating a "divine" attribution, are you?
[/quote]
I am making no claims.
Okay, you're not going to substantiate your speculation stated as an asserted claim regarding a so-called "divine spark" then?
What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself. This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more. I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.
No, it went beyond speculation when you derived further assumptions from that unsupported a priori assumption. Presumably, your a priori assumptive claim is intended to be supported by 'faith' alone? And that brings us back around to 'faith' being an irrational basis, (given that it has no rational basis nor a requirement to provide one). [/quote]
It is pure speculation and guesswork and any logical deduction would be entirely coincidental since it is absolutely unknown and abstract.
So, these a priori speculations inherently preclude logic/rationality, (according to your statement above that "It is pure speculation and guesswork and any logical deduction would be entirely coincidental since it is absolutely unknown and abstract"). Which means that any 'faith' in such speculations would be illogical/irrational. Thanks for assisting in supporting my contention, I appreciate that.
Faith doesn't consider reasoning's, so rational or irrational have no meaning in the context.
Your conclusion does not follow your assertion. It is immaterial whether or not "faith" considers logical reasoning when this determination is inconclusively contended _using_ logic and reasoning. That is, logical reasoning is used to determine that "faith" isn't logical or rational and it doesn't matter to that process whether "faith" considers reasoning to be a valid judge of what's irrational or irrational. It is dissembling to remove reasoning from the reasoning process. If, instead you wish to base "faith" on non-reasoning, then you tacitly support my contention.
-
Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above. I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument.
Oh? I wasn't the one who used "entanglement" when they 'meant' Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, (that was you, by admission). Any causality 'hints' would then have referred more to HUP than to entanglement theories. If you don't wish your mis-statements to be misinterpreted, be more specific.
[/quote]
Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)
Now you're playing the schoolyard ad hominem card to cover your vagueness? Wow, an impressive argument. ::) [/quote]
Name calling is not ad hominem, especially when it is true.
Au contraire; ad hominem includes name calling since it also consists of attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument, (which your characterization qualifies as). Further, a biased opinion does not support the contention that such an opinion "is true", (since the support for such an empty opinion was given as an assumption of what you and others allegedly "know"). The opinion is biased because you have a vested interest in skirting issues raised within this debate in lieu of rational rebuttal, resorting instead to attacking your opponent's character. Whether or not some irrelevant subjective perception is true or false remains immaterial to the contextual points of the debate. That means being a "*bleep*", (or lacking one, in your figurative case - see, I can do it with panache too), has no bearing on the debate itself. Your denial of using an obvious ad hominem is merely entered into quoted evidence of your dissembling.
(I have met many self delusional people in many different areas, myself included).
I will give you a recent posting of yours in a thread titled "Praying For Yourself":
"Prayer" is a self-delusional appeal to dubious 'authority'.
Indeed, that does constitute an example of self-delusion in which you included yourself, (as quoted above and within the context of the other thread). It is not however, conclusive evidence that some unsupported 'libelous' opinion is accurate. Given that this forum isn't a 'court' and that the subject of empty insults is largely immaterial to the context of the debate, (except as evidence of ad hominems you've denied using), I see no valid reason to keep addressing such smoke & mirrors on your part.
Considering that the thread was written by people who believe in prayer and wanted to ask serious questions regarding what is appropriate, how do you see your answer qualifying as anything other than being a *bleep*? *bleep*. (lol couldn't resist that last bit, but I know that doesn't really bother you to be called that).
That thread appeared in D+D, (Debate+Discuss), not in 'religious support groups'. My response dissented on the basis of the inherent presumptions made regarding "prayer" and appropriately appeared in the D+D forum. Again, whether or not an empty, biased opinion irrationally characterizes such dissent as "being a *bleep*" is immaterial to the dissension. No rebuttal of the contention was presented and instead, the same ad hominem was weakly employed. As an aside, if you are going to employ that weekly, (as well as weakly), expect derision.
No that wasn't meant to wound you at all but to bolster you up and get you back on your A game.
No such bolstering was required since the reasoning used to counter your evasions and empty claims hasn't faltered.
If I approached you purely with that intention though my answers would be extremely short as you are most assured and most dangerous when given a lot to work with and I do give a lot to work with (maybe that is what bothers you, that I don't have as many chinks as you are used to and your typical approaches just don't quite fit with me).
You'll have to translate that gibberish back into English before an appropriate response can be made. Until such time, however I can point out that your flimsy position is not only full of chinks, it may consist entirely of chinks.
I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do. My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility. Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.
I'm astounded to have come across two different people who cannot recall their own words and 'insist', (however 'politely'), that I look up their words for them. To paraphrase your assertion then; you stipulated that, according to current knowledge and reasoning, we logically shouldn't exist, (despite the apparent manifestation of our existance). I dissented and referred to emergent phenomenon theory as an alternate explanation for our existance. [/quote]
My saying that comprehension of reasoning denotes that we shouldn't exist is not the same as me saying that we don't exist.
Read it again; I didn't assert that you stated "we don't exist", I asserted that you implicitly stipulated that we 'shouldn't exist', (according to some unreferenced source or, 'reasoning'). You're making a strawman argument here, dude. Either we're going with the a priori assumption that we do exist, (despite unspecified 'reasoning' stipulating that we shouldn't), or one of us is going to have to take the position that we don't exist. I defer doing so.
Of course I believe God created the universe.
And is such a 'belief' based upon "faith" or, some evidence to support that 'belief'? Which is it, without evasion?
What I mean is even with my faith in knowing that God created the universe it still isn't understandable to the human brain.
What is understandable to my human brain is that, either such an asserted 'belief' is based upon "faith" or, some evidence which hasn't been presented. Especially given the further assertion you made that this is something you 'know'. As you stated previously, "knowing" involves some certainty, (usually extrapolated from evidence), and "faith" demands "trust", (sans evidence), to paraphrase. Therefore, your phrase "my faith in knowing" becomes self-contradictory, (which falsifies itself).
A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient. It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works.
It is even more foolish to try to reduce a manifestly complex concept down to inaccurately simplistic terms, (which would make such an analogy insufficient once it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate - which it was). Your debating is not benefiting from your migraine, man. [/quote]
A complex problem can be demonstrated by parallelism of another similar and familiar example, which is what I did.
The parallel was inaccurate and therefore failed to demonstrate the complex problem, (indeed, such a parallel as you used would be more likely to propogate an erroneous tangential conclusion - which may have been the intention, were I to speculate).
If someone demonstrated it to be inaccurate they failed to show it to me. I don't know I had a few rather good points in there.
Your quantum entanglement analogy is inconclusive as a parallel because it contains unspecified a priori assumptions, (regarding causality and other inherent aspects of the theory). If someone commented that this debate was like golf, only completely different, that would also be an inconclusive parallel.
You have probably noticed that I have adjusted on you a bit, exposing a flank here, redeploying there, etc, and am giving you full knowledge of that.
I've observed 'wargaming' before and do not require advance notice of your manuevers and feints however, you've managed nothing novel thusfar and haven't acheived any tactical advantage, (much less any strategic ones), so far. Smoke and mirrors aside, naturally.
-
(http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Popcorn-02-Stephen-Colbert.gif)
-
Wow, I can feel the LOVE, here on this topic. :heart:
-
Wow, I can feel the LOVE, here on this topic. :heart:
You do? That must take a great deal of ... 'faith'. :angel12:
-
I believe everyone is entitled to their own personal choices for their own reasons. For some...Religion...is a vehicle that takes them to
a spiritual place. Others are already in a spiritual place so they have no reason for the vehicle. Then there are those who have no desire,
whatsoever, for spirituality. Many religious organizations can be like 'clubs' where people with a common interest experience social interaction
with one another. Personally...I have faith that God exists and loves everyone...even if I don't participate in organized religion.
:heart:
Later...
Sherry
-
No, my speculation is that primative cultures in the past inaccurately attributed phenomenon which they did not understand to "gods" and "magic", (since they had no other explanation and apparently needed one). Further extrapolation speculates that these early 'god forms', (lightening gods/thunder gods, moon gods/goddesses, rain gods/goddesses, fertility goddesses, vulcanic gods, agricultural gods/goddesses and the like), evolved other attributes to attempt to account for other unexplained phenomenon. These pantheons became somewhat complex for the early folks, (especially the Aegyptian pantheon), and some of them wanted to simplify things by consolidating the 'gods/goddesses' into one 'god'.
I cannot concur that any 'god form' is necessary to survival since each previous attribution of deital aspects has since been more accurately attributed to its actual cause, (except for the more metaphysical and least provable attributes).
Well considering people get over emotional about it, I'm one to think it extends a bit further than just the "god of the gaps" examples you've given. People also attribute love, hatred, jealousy, etc. along with occurrences in nature that were unexplainable. It gets to the point where whenever you approach certain individuals and open a discussion about their deity, they put their shield up and get extremely defensive about it to the point of defending absurdities. I totally agree with what you've stated, but to me it's obvious that there's some emotional attachment/investment in there that stems further than just the good ol' "God did it! lol!" ideas.
Most likely because they are too weak to cope with the idea of a "god" not existing. It would make life not worth living to have the long time belief system proved to false. People cling to life. If "god" is their "life" then then their life in fact is attached to the "presence" of this imaginary being that "loves and cares for them" and to lose that terrifies them.
-
Most likely because they are too weak to cope with the idea of a "god" not existing. It would make life not worth living to have the long time belief system proved to false. People cling to life. If "god" is their "life" then then their life in fact is attached to the "presence" of this imaginary being that "loves and cares for them" and to lose that terrifies them.
While I concur with the estimation that many, (if not most), of the people with strident religious 'beliefs' have such a vested interest in those beliefs, their lives would not literally end were those belief systems rendered false. Although theu do tend to cling to them, despite the inherent irrationality of such beliefs, a case can be made for the holders being more concerned with being "wrong" and having to exercise critical thinking, (rather than default to 'unprovable beliefs'). In turn, that would mean they'd need to take personal responsibility for their decisions and lives instead of abdicating those to a fabricated abstract concept involving 'faith'.
-
The questions asked remain unanswered; how do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described? Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"? The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").
Since I think you are the only person that read what I said that is having difficulty understanding it I leave you with this quote:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Inigo Montoya.
Your attempt to dodge the question was too obvious; perhaps your migraine has addled you? Again, the dodged question was, 'how do you know? (if you've forgotten the context of your own assertion, scroll up or tacitly admit to dodging).
To reiterate the point of contention; the presumption you are presenting is that 'faith is a test'. Firstly, this a priori assumption is not a given and it constitutes an inherent claim, (that the concept of religious 'faith' itself requires "faith"). Secondly, it is this same religious 'faith' which is intended to support the secondary premise that "It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge". No doubt I'm not the only one to twig to the circularity of such a pseudo-syllogism.
I did not say that faith is a test.
No? Then who wrote "The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people ... " if not you?
Your comprehension has been exceedingly poor of late. I am currently suffering the effects of a severe Migraine and wonder if you are in a similar plight?
No however, your migraine does seem to be inhibiting your process of discernment; my comprehension of what you wrote is unimpaired.
The context you and Falconeer were discussing was that of the concept of "free will". You maintained that this was/is a complex question and that "it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us." The latter assertion quoted implicitly requires 'faith' because it was asserted that an answer would be beyond our ability to understand. This assertion also glosses over our ability to learn to understand what we don't and directly suggests that an answer we could not understand is effectively no answer.
Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument. You have said that faith is irrational ...
Obviously not, since you proceed to misunderstand the point that your contention, (an answer would be impossible for us to understand and thus, implicitly requires 'faith' to buy that concept), it makes sense that you are claiming not to understand the argument. To clarify my position then; an argument which requires 'faith' is not rational and I reject it as irrational.
... so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument.
Not at all; I'm using the circular basis of your implicit premise above to support my contention that 'faith' is an irrational foundation to argue that it is actually a requirement of "salvation" NOT to know, (but to instead, "have faith").
I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread.
More accurately, you accused me of resorting to "contextonomy" after I effective demonstrated that you resorted to it previously. Oddly, you didn't support your contention and merely left the empty claim swinging in the wind.
I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).
Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).
My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind.
Now you're explicitly making the claim that a "divine spark of life" was "given to mankind". I don't suppose you're going to bother substantiating a "divine" attribution, are you?
What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself. This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more. I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.
No, it went beyond speculation when you derived further assumptions from that unsupported a priori assumption. Presumably, your a priori assumptive claim is intended to be supported by 'faith' alone? And that brings us back around to 'faith' being an irrational basis, (given that it has no rational basis nor a requirement to provide one).
I am not familiar with it -- not by that name anyways -- is it something along the lines of the Entropy arguments?
No, it can be found under the name mentioned; 'emergent phenomenon'. The "Entropy argument" I estimate you're referring to often misuses the thermodynamic argument as a classic misrepresentation of a fundamental scientific concept, (entropy). Entropy refers to the number of available energy microstates in a thermodynamic system, for instance; it has very little to do with the spatial order of matter. An energy microstate is simply any mechanism that can carry energy (e.g., each way a molecule can vibrate or rotate). Thermodynamics is about the bookkeeping of energy; not spatial order. The distinction is crucial. Neither is gravity "entropic" (http://www.100wizard.com/experiments-show-gravity-is-not-an-emergent-phenomenon-technology-review.html)
"Emergence is the process of deriving some new and coherent structures, patterns and properties in a complex system. Emergent phenomena occur due to the pattern of interactions between the elements of a system over time. Emergent phenomena are often unexpected, nontrivial results of relatively simple interactions of relatively simple components. What distinguishes a complex system from a merely complicated one is that some behaviours and patterns emerge in complex systems as a result of the patterns of relationship between the elements." --
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Emergent_phenomenon/
Again I might be interested in reading it if you supplied a link.
If the above link is insufficient to outline the emergent phenomenon theory, these and more are also available:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/6/1844
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Emergent+phenomenon
There are some dissenting views concerning emergent phenomenon theories, of course, (lest you believe my link cites are 'cherry-picked').
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/31949/frontmatter/9780521831949_frontmatter.pdf
http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/emergence3.pdf
I am concerned though as you seem to generally prefer to be deliberately convoluted in your writings and my worries are that you might intentionally make an already complex topic overly obfuscated. Pardon my manners if I seem harsh but Migraines are where my handle comes from in real life (the other names I get called when under their effects would not be appropriate for a handle).
Whether or not my reasoning, (and the basis for it), appears to be convoluted, I have endeavored to pare them down within the posting constraints of this forum. Scary as the thought may be, I could elaborate in even more detail however, since I am not deliberately attempting to make these complex concepts even more complex. On the contrary, oftentimes it isn't easy to reduce complexity into simplistic terms).
Although I am peripherally aware of migraine symptoms, (my girlfriend has suffered from them since before she met me), I'm unsure of the wisdom of engaging in this debate while suffering from those symptoms.
Actually, what ended our dialog was your inability to produce the "unanswered challenges" you claimed to exist. I was in no way dishonest and I resent that remark. Also, the bringing up of my name in this post shows your insecurities in that debate as well as in this one, not to mention it is simply immature. Please refrain from talking about me rather than to me as it is disrespectful, I doubt you will adhere to this as you seem to avoid maturity, but I am kindly requesting that you do so.
Abrupt- I enjoy reading your responses and find it refreshing that someone calls falcon9 out on his attacking of others debate tactics rather than the actual issue. Also, I want you to know I am not a dishonest person and that statement made by falcon9 is false. I totally agree with your argument that faith is an essential part of Christianity and that God cannot simply show himself for this reason. I also feel that due to this there will always be people that do not agree, but not everyone can accept that we are allowed to have different belief systems. You have been very respectful when dealing with those who believe differently, even when faced with blatant rude remarks and it has built up your credibility in my opinion.
-
I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).
Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).
Actually, what ended our dialog was your inability to produce the "unanswered challenges" you claimed to exist.
No, what interrupted that "dialog" was my refusal to remind you of what you wrote. Your faulty memory is not my responsibility. The challenges you failed to answer are available in the threads in which you participated. Your continued evasions directly indicated that quoting your own words to repeat the challenge would only engender further evasions on your part. These evasions relate directly to your next unsupported claim below:
I was in no way dishonest and I resent that remark.
The unaltered record of your own posted words belies your claim. It is therefore false and provides additional evidence of your dishonesty.
Also, the bringing up of my name in this post shows ...
It merely shows that your comments were used as an example when "Abrupt" brought up dishonest "debate" tactics after attempting to come to your aid, (as your comments below confirm).
Abrupt- I enjoy reading your responses and find it refreshing that someone calls falcon9 out on his attacking of others debate tactics rather than the actual issue.
On the contrary; I _have_ not only debated the contextual issues but, have refrained from _initiating_ 'attacks', (confining my peripheral responses in that regard to a few counter-attacks After ad hominems were employed against me first). The hypocrisy of those who initiated the ad hominem attacks, ("SurveyMack10" & "Abrupt"), is contained in these threads and in their own words. Given this evidence, (which is available to any unbiased reader), one could view that as compelling evidence that Mack lies compulsively.
-
I totally agree with your argument that faith is an essential part of Christianity and that God cannot simply show himself for this reason.
Interesting that a lack of evidence is an essential part of the belief system.
I also feel that due to this there will always be people that do not agree, but not everyone can accept that we are allowed to have different belief systems.
On the contrary, anyone who prefers to hold unsubstantiated opinions, ('beliefs', as it were), can do so - at least in the U.S., (not so much in some other places). Once they toss these unsubstantiated opinions out for Debate+Discussion in a public forum however, they tacitly accept that others may dissent and that such informed dissent is as much "allowed" as their empty opinions are.
-
Most likely because they are too weak to cope with the idea of a "god" not existing. It would make life not worth living to have the long time belief system proved to false. People cling to life. If "god" is their "life" then then their life in fact is attached to the "presence" of this imaginary being that "loves and cares for them" and to lose that terrifies them.
While I concur with the estimation that many, (if not most), of the people with strident religious 'beliefs' have such a vested interest in those beliefs, their lives would not literally end were those belief systems rendered false. Although theu do tend to cling to them, despite the inherent irrationality of such beliefs, a case can be made for the holders being more concerned with being "wrong" and having to exercise critical thinking, (rather than default to 'unprovable beliefs'). In turn, that would mean they'd need to take personal responsibility for their decisions and lives instead of abdicating those to a fabricated abstract concept involving 'faith'.
All true. I think if people need something like that to have a happy little life fine. I just hate when people try to force feed religion to other. My family being some of the worst of those people. Personally I prefer to rely on myself rather then an invisible friend.
-
All true. I think if people need something like that to have a happy little life fine.
Well, they sure don't seem to be any happier than anyone else however, it may be that they 'believe' such "faith" lends them hope. Unfortunately, the interest rate on such lending is far higher than they imagine for it is a forlorn hope.
I just hate when people try to force feed religion to other. My family being some of the worst of those people. Personally I prefer to rely on myself rather then an invisible friend.
I agree with your sentiment, (which is backed by centuries of dishonorable historical precedence by the 'major religions'). Oddly enough, not even the evangelicals view their strident pushing of religion at others as "force-feeding" per se, (let alone the ones who use less overt methods to do the same thing - like soup kitchens with requisite preachings, for instance). For some reason, (e.g., unknown excuse), such folks apparently don't realize that keeping their belief systems to themselves wouldn't be a problem for everyone else and that their inability to do so is the problem.
-
For some reason, (e.g., unknown excuse), such folks apparently don't realize that keeping their belief systems to themselves wouldn't be a problem for everyone else and that their inability to do so is the problem.
“Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15)
That's the problem. Mythical/romanticized holy men told them to do it, so they've got to do it. No questions asked. There's plenty of this sprawled out over the New Testament. Trying to show major problems, contradictions, the lack of evidence, etc. in their holy texts is pretty much pointless because they are so adamantly against the idea of something being wrong with their beliefs and thus ignore it-- their god can't be wrong. It's either they don't acknowledge what's in plain sight (I have been told in person that they "just don't see it that way" when the problem is right infront of them) or they make up ridiculously naive excuses of why it's right (it says this, but it actually means this!). Of course this leads back to the faith card, and that's why it's so screwy to us. We don't understand the emotional aspect (as it may vary from person to person), but we do understand everything else.
-
Most likely because they are too weak to cope with the idea of a "god" not existing. It would make life not worth living to have the long time belief system proved to false. People cling to life. If "god" is their "life" then then their life in fact is attached to the "presence" of this imaginary being that "loves and cares for them" and to lose that terrifies them.
While I concur with the estimation that many, (if not most), of the people with strident religious 'beliefs' have such a vested interest in those beliefs, their lives would not literally end were those belief systems rendered false. Although theu do tend to cling to them, despite the inherent irrationality of such beliefs, a case can be made for the holders being more concerned with being "wrong" and having to exercise critical thinking, (rather than default to 'unprovable beliefs'). In turn, that would mean they'd need to take personal responsibility for their decisions and lives instead of abdicating those to a fabricated abstract concept involving 'faith'.
Indeed, everyone, whether Christian, athiest, non-believer, etc., will need to take personal responsibility for their decisions. You say a Christian's belief, with faith, is an "inherent irrationality," while in turn, some think that ones who cannot break with the fascination of accepting only concrete evidence, is just as odd. Everyone who dies will either live forever with God, or live in the eternal place of punishment, OR, will know nothing because of nothing afterwards. That's the time when those "belief systems rendered false" will be either be shown to be true, false, or nothing.
As a believer, I know what I believe to be true is definitely based on my faith in the Lord, in His Word, and on historical teachings. You nor others in here don't have to exercise that faith nor will I ever be one to try and force it on anyone. I will speak of it when I feel like I need to or am asked questions about it. Like others in here have said, this is debate and discuss, not combat and torture. The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers.
-
No, my speculation is that primative cultures in the past inaccurately attributed phenomenon which they did not understand to "gods" and "magic", (since they had no other explanation and apparently needed one). Further extrapolation speculates that these early 'god forms', (lightening gods/thunder gods, moon gods/goddesses, rain gods/goddesses, fertility goddesses, vulcanic gods, agricultural gods/goddesses and the like), evolved other attributes to attempt to account for other unexplained phenomenon. These pantheons became somewhat complex for the early folks, (especially the Aegyptian pantheon), and some of them wanted to simplify things by consolidating the 'gods/goddesses' into one 'god'.
I cannot concur that any 'god form' is necessary to survival since each previous attribution of deital aspects has since been more accurately attributed to its actual cause, (except for the more metaphysical and least provable attributes).
Well considering people get over emotional about it, I'm one to think it extends a bit further than just the "god of the gaps" examples you've given. People also attribute love, hatred, jealousy, etc. along with occurrences in nature that were unexplainable. It gets to the point where whenever you approach certain individuals and open a discussion about their deity, they put their shield up and get extremely defensive about it to the point of defending absurdities. I totally agree with what you've stated, but to me it's obvious that there's some emotional attachment/investment in there that stems further than just the good ol' "God did it! lol!" ideas.
Most likely because they are too weak to cope with the idea of a "god" not existing. It would make life not worth living to have the long time belief system proved to false. People cling to life. If "god" is their "life" then then their life in fact is attached to the "presence" of this imaginary being that "loves and cares for them" and to lose that terrifies them.
It would be hard to be terrified if someone is already dead and there was nothing. However, if someone dies and goes to heaven, they are then rewarded for that faith because of being in that blessed place. I would find it extremely terrifying if I died and found out that because I didn't choose to believe in the Lord that I would be sent to an eternal place of punishment. But there again, it is up to only the person what he or she believes or doesn't believe, agrees with or doesn't agree with.
-
Indeed, everyone, whether Christian, athiest, non-believer, etc., will need to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
There is however, a great deal of difference between a nonreligious person taking personal responsibility for their decisions and a religious person abdicating such responsibility to "faith" in a belief system.
You say a Christian's belief, with faith, is an "inherent irrationality"...
I don't just "say" it, I've presented the reasoning which shows that "faith/belief" are inherently irrational since they specifically rely upon a _lack_ of evidence/substantiation. I've asked several people who profess to such, (at least three of them on this forum), if they instead maintain that these 'beliefs' are rational and to support their opinion with something other than 'I believe my beliefs are rational', (which is circular and a null argument). None have deigned to represent "faith/beliefs" as rational positions per se however, few could reasonably be expected to readily admit that they hold irrational beliefs.
... while in turn, some think that ones who cannot break with the fascination of accepting only concrete evidence, is just as odd.
Why would that be considered odd? Do you not require concrete evidence of the groceries you purchased to be bagged to take home? Does not the grocery cashier require concrete evidence that you've paid for those groceries? Would you prefer to have 'faith' that the groceries are yours or, expect the cashier to have 'faith' that you paid for them?
Everyone who dies will either live forever with God, or live in the eternal place of punishment, OR, will know nothing because of nothing afterwards. That's the time when those "belief systems rendered false" will be either be shown to be true, false, or nothing.
You're speculating there, (since there is no evidence to support your contentions). Being unaware of other potential options, (no one knows yet), doesn't default the options to the ones speculated upon. The belief systems mentioned are rendered false because they rely wholey upon "faith/belief" sans substantiation. That makes them false claims, (since the claimants have consistantly failed to support their claims with anything other than they believe because they have faith - a manifestly circular justification).
As a believer, I know what I believe to be true is definitely based on my faith in the Lord, in His Word, and on historical teachings.
You've just confirmed my assertion of the circularity of such a justification.
You nor others in here don't have to exercise that faith nor will I ever be one to try and force it on anyone. I will speak of it when I feel like I need to or am asked questions about it. Like others in here have said, this is debate and discuss, not combat and torture.
Yes, this forum is entitled "D+D", rather than Evade + Sophistry, (which doesn't account for those of "faith" & religious beliefs evading debate points or using sophist circularity as discussion). These are words; they do not constitute "combat" nor "torture" although they do constitute challenges to those making unsupported claims, (which may be viewed as unconfortable for those unable to meet such challenges). Consider this; how strong is a belief or faith that cannot stand up to a merely textual challenges, (let alone such documented 'conversion at the point of a sword' challenges to "nonbelievers")?
The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers.
One of the main points of contention within this debate has been whether or not such a choice "to believe" is made on an irrational or, rational basis. So far, no case for a rational basis for that choice has been presented while the reasoning behind the counter contention of an irrational basis has been elaborated upon extensively. As far as "searching for answers" goes, I submit the theory, (not the claim), that those holding whichever religious beliefs they cling to have ceased searching and "believe" they've found their "answers". On the other hand, those who do not cling to such irrational beleif systems are in a better position to keep searching, questioning and being skeptical of unsupported opinions.
-
For some reason, (e.g., unknown excuse), such folks apparently don't realize that keeping their belief systems to themselves wouldn't be a problem for everyone else and that their inability to do so is the problem.
“Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15)
That's the problem. Mythical/romanticized holy men told them to do it, so they've got to do it. No questions asked. There's plenty of this sprawled out over the New Testament. Trying to show major problems, contradictions, the lack of evidence, etc. in their holy texts is pretty much pointless because they are so adamantly against the idea of something being wrong with their beliefs and thus ignore it-- their god can't be wrong. It's either they don't acknowledge what's in plain sight (I have been told in person that they "just don't see it that way" when the problem is right in front of them) or they make up ridiculously naive excuses of why it's right (it says this, but it actually means this!). Of course this leads back to the faith card, and that's why it's so screwy to us. We don't understand the emotional aspect (as it may vary from person to person), but we do understand everything else.
It's still circular at the foundation; they "believe" that they should evangelize because of their "faith". I'm going to stick with the theory, (not my 'claim'), that circumstantial evidence of the human tendency to abhor being "wrong" prevails as it does in nonreligious matters. As "cuppycake" pointed out, having their cherished "beliefs" rendered as irrational, (or worse yet, as false), is a tacit blow to their ego which they are unable to withstand. This goes far to account for the lengths such religious folk are willing to go out on unsupported limbs, (the excuses, the circular non-reasoning, the emotional justifications).
-
It would be hard to be terrified if someone is already dead and there was nothing.
That's not the fear, (terror), religious folks implicitly express; they feel such while they are still alive and dreading physical death. If you are maintaining that the only options were "heaven/hell/nothing", that is a false dichotomy.
However, if someone dies and goes to heaven, they are then rewarded for that faith because of being in that blessed place. I would find it extremely terrifying if I died and found out that because I didn't choose to believe in the Lord that I would be sent to an eternal place of punishment. But there again, it is up to only the person what he or she believes or doesn't believe, agrees with or doesn't agree with.
What happens to such "faith" if a person dies and isn't presented with the 'heaven/hell/nothingness' options listed? We can only speculate however, we can reasonably estimate that if those options aren't available then "faith/belief" in nonviable options while alive didn't prepare one at all for when they're not alive. Essentially, it comes down to whether or not a nonphysical existance is the case after physical death. Either it is or, it isn't. If it is, any speculations upon the conditions pertaining to nonphysical existance are speculative. If it isn't, no speculations are required.
-
i beleive that maybe birds and bees and all other creatures evolved to allosw that the best survive and the weak do not..but we are the only creatures that love...so why was that a necessary evolution on the humans part? the big bang may have made worms and snakes and birds, but GOD MADE HUMANS :angel11:
-
i beleive that maybe birds and bees and all other creatures evolved to allosw that the best survive and the weak do not..but we are the only creatures that love...so why was that a necessary evolution on the humans part? the big bang may have made worms and snakes and birds, but GOD MADE HUMANS :angel11:
How do you know that "we are the only creatures that love"? Is this merely your opinion or, have you checked with whales, dolphins, apes, monkies, cats, dogs, etc.? You extend the concept of "love" to humans but, not to, (or from), other creatures? Of course, you'd have to define what "love" is before making such a determination; unless it is simply your opinion/belief.
-
I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).
Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).
Actually, what ended our dialog was your inability to produce the "unanswered challenges" you claimed to exist.
No, what interrupted that "dialog" was my refusal to remind you of what you wrote. Your faulty memory is not my responsibility. The challenges you failed to answer are available in the threads in which you participated. Your continued evasions directly indicated that quoting your own words to repeat the challenge would only engender further evasions on your part. These evasions relate directly to your next unsupported claim below:
I was in no way dishonest and I resent that remark.
The unaltered record of your own posted words belies your claim. It is therefore false and provides additional evidence of your dishonesty.
Also, the bringing up of my name in this post shows ...
It merely shows that your comments were used as an example when "Abrupt" brought up dishonest "debate" tactics after attempting to come to your aid, (as your comments below confirm).
Abrupt- I enjoy reading your responses and find it refreshing that someone calls falcon9 out on his attacking of others debate tactics rather than the actual issue.
On the contrary; I _have_ not only debated the contextual issues but, have refrained from _initiating_ 'attacks', (confining my peripheral responses in that regard to a few counter-attacks After ad hominems were employed against me first). The hypocrisy of those who initiated the ad hominem attacks, ("SurveyMack10" & "Abrupt"), is contained in these threads and in their own words. Given this evidence, (which is available to any unbiased reader), one could view that as compelling evidence that Mack lies compulsively.
Your accusing me of lying compulsively, along with the other personal attacks you frequently make at anyone who disagrees with you, severely lowers your credibility and shows your lack of ability and maturity to discuss something without attempting to degrade others.
-
I totally agree with your argument that faith is an essential part of Christianity and that God cannot simply show himself for this reason.
Interesting that a lack of evidence is an essential part of the belief system.
I also feel that due to this there will always be people that do not agree, but not everyone can accept that we are allowed to have different belief systems.
On the contrary, anyone who prefers to hold unsubstantiated opinions, ('beliefs', as it were), can do so - at least in the U.S., (not so much in some other places). Once they toss these unsubstantiated opinions out for Debate+Discussion in a public forum however, they tacitly accept that others may dissent and that such informed dissent is as much "allowed" as their empty opinions are.
You must have somehow mistook this post as being directed towards you as it certainly was not.
-
I believe that people create their own religion, to justify their beliefs. But faith is believing in the unbelievable and trusting that God will be there through thick and thin. God has always been there for me when I need Him. I am not asking you to believe what I believe I am just telling you my experience with my faith and God. I wish every one knew God the way I do but God gave everyone free will to choose for them selves. :thumbsup:
-
I believe that people create their own religion, to justify their beliefs. But faith is believing in the unbelievable and trusting that God will be there through thick and thin. God has always been there for me when I need Him. I am not asking you to believe what I believe I am just telling you my experience with my faith and God. I wish every one knew God the way I do but God gave everyone free will to choose for them selves. :thumbsup:
I love when people share their beliefs and respect others at the same time. I too believe in God and am glad to hear of someone else sharing their faith in a positive way!
-
Abrupt- I enjoy reading your responses and find it refreshing that someone calls falcon9 out on his attacking of others debate tactics rather than the actual issue. Also, I want you to know I am not a dishonest person and that statement made by falcon9 is false. I totally agree with your argument that faith is an essential part of Christianity and that God cannot simply show himself for this reason. I also feel that due to this there will always be people that do not agree, but not everyone can accept that we are allowed to have different belief systems. You have been very respectful when dealing with those who believe differently, even when faced with blatant rude remarks and it has built up your credibility in my opinion.
Thank you, I actually sort of like debating falcon9 as he will force you to clarify your thinking. Even though it may seem to many to be a lesson in futility it is a good way to improve ones debating skills. He is fairly consistent and proficient in his style, but you cannot debate him in a typical fashion for the purpose of exchange, but must instead assume the posture of an attorney in a courtroom. Do not concern yourself with defending your position to others based on what falcon9 says as any that read many of his posts will soon notice that he is self referencing and often relies upon his accusations as evidence of an offense. I never judged you as dishonest so worry not with that. Some people are so polarized in how they think and so reliant upon immediate feedback that (without them having known otherwise) they could not voluntarily introduce themselves to the eye of a hurricane because the outer winds would only lead them to conclude that such is the way from all parts and positions of the storm -- what I mean is in relation to faith is that they cannot understand how faith can give you a sense of knowledge about things that cannot be learned or gained in some external observation. These people trust their physical senses, and some even trust their instincts or gut, but they can never realize that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense and just as impossible to define to one without such a sense. One can never truly instruct one who has never seen or heard exactly what the experience is like and you cannot do the same for those that never possessed faith.
I try to be respectful, and generally never mean offense even when it appears that I do. I do sometimes employ more base tactics to learn information about people when I try to get a better understanding of the person behind the words, but even these are not meant to damage or insult, but instead to reveal and sometimes even to rattle the cage a bit. I am no master of debate but have had experience with it and enjoy the exercise and I find the best way to improve is to pursue it with/against those that have a talent for it. There are many different debate styles, and some feel more like a blood sport or an intellectual battle than they do a persuasion of ideas or a sharing of the opinions of knowledge and/or experiences.
-
I always liked this:
F- forgetting
A-all
I-I
T-trust
H-HIM
We just have to trust HIM and He will do the rest!
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
Indeed, everyone, whether Christian, athiest, non-believer, etc., will need to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
Quote from: falcon9:
There is however, a great deal of difference between a nonreligious person taking personal responsibility for their decisions and a religious person abdicating such responsibility to "faith" in a belief system.
Not really. Both the nonreligious person and the religious person are taking personal responsibility for their decisions. A religious person may rely on faith as part of the basis, but there are other things they depend on, such as the Bible, historic events, findings (like scrolls, archaeological findings that correlate with the history in the Bible), and even family ancestry and events of many of the people who originally came to America from England and Holland because of wanting the freedom to worship God freely. This does not include the curious, the nonbelievers, and/or adventurers who also came to this New World.
A nonreligious person is also taking personal responsibility for their decision, as well. It's done because they choose to not put faith in something they cannot see, or maybe because they don't understand, or even because they just plain don't want anything to do with the subject. Either way, both are making their decisions based on whatever reason and so are responsible for their own decisions.
-
Quote from jcribb:
You say a Christian's belief, with faith, is an "inherent irrationality"...
Quote from: falcon9:
I don't just "say" it, I've presented the reasoning which shows that "faith/belief" are inherently irrational since they specifically rely upon a _lack_ of evidence/substantiation. I've asked several people who profess to such, (at least three of them on this forum), if they instead maintain that these 'beliefs' are rational and to support their opinion with something other than 'I believe my beliefs are rational', (which is circular and a null argument). None have deigned to represent "faith/beliefs" as rational positions per se however, few could reasonably be expected to readily admit that they hold irrational beliefs.
Yes, you have presented reasoning but there are different types of reasoning that people use to debate their points:
1. Reasoning - the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises (*a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds..; to assume, either explicitly or implicitly, (a proposition) as a premise for a conclusion.)
2. Fallacious reasoning - keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric ...
www.logicalfallacies.info/
3. Deductive and inductive refer to two distinct logical processes - Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion drawn from a set of premises contains no more information than the premises taken collectively. All dogs are animals; this is a dog; therefore, this is an animal: The truth of the conclusion is dependent only on the method. All men are apes; this is a man; therefore, this is an ape: The conclusion is logically true, although the premise is absurd. Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is proposed that contains more information than the observations or experience on which it is based. Every crow ever seen was black; all crows are black: The truth of the conclusion is verifiable only in terms of future experience and certainty is attainable only if all possible instances have been examined. In the example, there is no certainty that a white crow will not be found tomorrow, although past experience would make such an occurrence seem unlikely.
4. Causal reasoning - is the idea that any cause leads to a certain effect.
Causal reasoning can help to eliminate a few and strengthen the case for researching others, focusing research and targeting resources.
Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/causal-reasoning.html#ixzz1aTqWdxj
5. Abductive reasoning, or inference, is a useful tool for determining the course of scientific research.
Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/abductive-reasoning.html#ixzz1aTquj1Ni
You and I can say that each of our arguments is based on any or several of these types of reasoning. Any of these can also be used to try and prove each of our points, logical or illogical. You say our beliefs are "circular and null" no matter which reasoning is being used. Yet your rebuttals are constantly circular as well because things presented have to keep being presented because you refuse to accept them as possible answers. You want proof of something or someone you cannot see - as we want proof of you (not you, in particular) showing that this something or someone does not exist.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
... while in turn, some think that ones who cannot break with the fascination of accepting only concrete evidence, is just as odd.
Quote from: falcon9:
Why would that be considered odd? Do you not require concrete evidence of the groceries you purchased to be bagged to take home? Does not the grocery cashier require concrete evidence that you've paid for those groceries? Would you prefer to have 'faith' that the groceries are yours or, expect the cashier to have 'faith' that you paid for them?
Turn it around. Since you require concrete evidence, then wouldn't you want to check behind the bagger to make sure there is proof that all items of your grocery list are really in those bags? Wouldn't you need concrete proof that the money you hand the cashier is actually real and not counterfeit? After all, there are many cashiers now who have to check the money and make sure your money is for real when it's large bills. You are assuming that all items are bagged and that your money is not counterfeit when you buy those groceries. You are also assuming that with each item you are buying that there is exactly the right amount on the inside as told on the outside, that something has not molded inside of a container, that there are correct labels for people with allergies to see and avoid that product (ex. peanut allergies,) etc.
Maybe I sound ridiculous, but I'm just trying to make a point in return. We may check the carton of eggs to make sure there are no broken ones or there is the right amount; and check things that are obvious. However, concrete evidence or proof needed for certain people to see God, would seem normal to spill over into their everyday lives, needing proof of evidence of things that others take for granted (ex.: assumption that the legs of tables and chairs are put together correctly and not done cheaply; assuming that there are no snakes under your couch, bed, refridgerator, etc., when reaching for something; assuming no one is in your house robbing it while you are gone or still there when you come in; etc. There seems to be more required from Christians regarding proof of God than there are of things in some people's everyday lives.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
Everyone who dies will either live forever with God, or live in the eternal place of punishment, OR, will know nothing because of nothing afterwards. That's the time when those "belief systems rendered false" will be either be shown to be true, false, or nothing.
Quote from: falcon9:
You're speculating there, (since there is no evidence to support your contentions). Being unaware of other potential options, (no one knows yet), doesn't default the options to the ones speculated upon. The belief systems mentioned are rendered false because they rely wholey upon "faith/belief" sans substantiation. That makes them false claims, (since the claimants have consistantly failed to support their claims with anything other than they believe because they have faith - a manifestly circular justification).
You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be. Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards. They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in. If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead. So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I? But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth. Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
As a believer, I know what I believe to be true is definitely based on my faith in the Lord, in His Word, and on historical teachings.
Quote from: falcon9:
You've just confirmed my assertion of the circularity of such a justification.
Just as you have circled right around my reasonings and simply refuse to acknowledge even historical teachings, including places that still exist, even if in partial buildings or pieces, where things spoke of in the Bible took place, or places labled with people from the Bible who lived or worked or preached in those places, or archaeological findings of different rulers' temples being uncovered, or even the scrolls found that are in the original languages that speak of Jesus, God, other people - as written about in the Bible, etc.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
You nor others in here don't have to exercise that faith nor will I ever be one to try and force it on anyone. I will speak of it when I feel like I need to or am asked questions about it. Like others in here have said, this is debate and discuss, not combat and torture.
Quote from: falcon9:
Yes, this forum is entitled "D+D", rather than Evade + Sophistry, (which doesn't account for those of "faith" & religious beliefs evading debate points or using sophist circularity as discussion). These are words; they do not constitute "combat" nor "torture" although they do constitute challenges to those making unsupported claims, (which may be viewed as unconfortable for those unable to meet such challenges). Consider this; how strong is a belief or faith that cannot stand up to a merely textual challenges, (let alone such documented 'conversion at the point of a sword' challenges to "nonbelievers")?
Consider the words underlined in your response. You are actually showing the one-sided view in a debate and discuss forum. I don't consider people debating and discussing when the opposite side is trying to make the other side appear as incompetent, evasive, circular, nonchallenging. You seem to always be on the opposition/prosecution side while putting Christians on the defense/defensive side. You give the impression that Christians have the inability to think critically, which in turn, tries to make them appear vulnerable to manipulation. (Clarification: By "You," I am not just singling you out. I'm speaking of certain people who are nonbelievers, and usually those same people are very sharp and talented in the area of rhetoric.) From the Old World Dictionary rhetoric can be any of these things:
1. the study of the technique of using language effectively
2. the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory
3. excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast
4. speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric
[C14: via Latin from Greek rhētorikē ( tekhnē ) (the art of) rhetoric, from rhētōr rhetor ]
I'm not necessarily saying you or others are using all of those definitions, but it is very obvious to people in here that rhetoric is being used, in a very skillful way, I might add. But it doesn't change the views and reasonings, or research and answers, that Christians use as their debate/discussion. Even if you or others want to call it irrational, then that is your opinion or wording.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers.
Quote from: falcon9:
One of the main points of contention within this debate has been whether or not such a choice "to believe" is made on an irrational or, rational basis. So far, no case for a rational basis for that choice has been presented while the reasoning behind the counter contention of an irrational basis has been elaborated upon extensively. As far as "searching for answers" goes, I submit the theory, (not the claim), that those holding whichever religious beliefs they cling to have ceased searching and "believe" they've found their "answers". On the other hand, those who do not cling to such irrational beleif systems are in a better position to keep searching, questioning and being skeptical of unsupported opinions.
Well, you are right in your "theory," in that those who have found salvation in the Lord do cling to that and don't have the need to search for other answers: God is their answer. As for rational/irrational, that will remain to be determined, won't it?
With your other response, you say those who aren't clinging to an "irrational belief system" are in a "better position to keep searching, questioning, and being skeptical of unsupported opinions." Please clarify then, just what these others are searching for and questioning about. Also, why they are even searching in the first place? And what's the use of searching and finding something when it may have "unsupported opinions?" Because then it would be too irrational to question and search about anything that may be a possible answer because of skepticism and/or not having enough supported opinions. However, it appears that just about anything people put out there is better supported when it comes up against the speaking of God. It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.
-
They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in. If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead. So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I? But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth. Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.
If I may butt in- you leave out about a billion other possibilities and how other people feel. Christianity isn't the only correct path to salvation according to the majority of the world.
The way you live your life does fall into others lives-- for instance I recall you believing in creationism. Believing and teaching this is completely delusional and that these teachings have an impact on whoever you spread it to. We live in a time where we should value reason and not primitive/backwards thinking. "Irrational" and "delusional" are more than just words because they can have a major impact on others and how they learn about the world. You call these words intimidating and I completely agree- they should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box. Other than the religious zealots, there is nothing wrong with that.
-
Good afternoon 2 all, I was reading a bit of what was being said and I should add that The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Everyone has and always will have their own opinions @ the end of the day. But I will say this whether Christianity is viewed as right or wrong is it what I stand and believe on. I will or have never attempted to "force" my opinions on others. I will live my life as God says I should and pray that others find their way in time before its 2 late.
-
They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in. If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead. So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I? But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth. Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.
If I may butt in- you leave out about a billion other possibilities and how other people feel. Christianity isn't the only correct path to salvation according to the majority of the world.
The way you live your life does fall into others lives-- for instance I recall you believing in creationism. Believing and teaching this is completely delusional and that these teachings have an impact on whoever you spread it to. We live in a time where we should value reason and not primitive/backwards thinking. "Irrational" and "delusional" are more than just words because they can have a major impact on others and how they learn about the world. You call these words intimidating and I completely agree- they should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box. Other than the religious zealots, there is nothing wrong with that.
A billion other possibilities is quite a large amount. Are you prepared to actually post about a billion other possibilities to back up your statement? I'm not disagreeing, but making a point about what our words indicate. Before I take the time to "debate" your remarks on delusional and irrational, I'm asking that you first read the different types of reasoning in another post of mine.
I will say that you think those words should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box, and we all know this is aimed toward the Christians. The same can be returned right back at you as well. Some of you do not want to step out of your restraining box and take a leap of faith. Just as there are religious zealots there are also athiest zealots out there. However, debating and discussing does not mean that someone is forcing their views on others - but, unfortunately, there are some on both sides who do and both sides turn people off, tune them out, or start calling names. That to me, is wrong, and going too far.
-
Good afternoon 2 all, I was reading a bit of what was being said and I should add that The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Everyone has and always will have their own opinions @ the end of the day. But I will say this whether Christianity is viewed as right or wrong is it what I stand and believe on. I will or have never attempted to "force" my opinions on others. I will live my life as God says I should and pray that others find their way in time before its 2 late.
I agree with you.
-
He is fairly consistent and proficient in his style, but you cannot debate him in a typical fashion for the purpose of exchange, but must instead assume the posture of an attorney in a courtroom.
Not at all; challenges to the reasoning, (or lack thereof on your part and that of Mack10), could be made in a nonevasive manner in lieu of the unartful dodgings employed thusfar in failed attempts to avoid them. True, no one is specifically obliged to answer challenges to unsupported opinions however, that's because this forum is not a court, (not even a kangaroo court). That said, such evasions inherently serve as evidence of evasion. This evidence of evasion leads to speculations as to why the challenges are being evaded and what that does to weaken the position of those who hold such evaded and unsupported opinions.
Do not concern yourself with defending your position to others based on what falcon9 says as any that read many of his posts will soon notice that he is self referencing and often relies upon his accusations as evidence of an offense.
The acccusation that many, (or indeed any), of my posts are self-referential is empty and false. It is made baldly and with no substantiation whatsoever which qualifies it as mere ad hominem to be disregarded. On the other hand, evidence in the form of the 'acussed' own printed words, (of which unaltered records exist in these threads), exists to support the contentions, (not "accusations"), made against those who would prefer they were overlooked. The weak 'counter-attack', (essentially a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" schoolyard 'argument'), made fails simply because zero conclusive evidence was presented to support it.
--what I mean is in relation to faith is that they cannot understand how faith can give you a sense of knowledge about things that cannot be learned or gained in some external observation.
A false "sense of knowledge" does not equate to accurate knowledge, particularly if such dubious "knowledge" relies on a LACK of evidence or substantiation, (e.g., "faith"). By definition then, "faith" cannot impart conclusive knowledge since it relies specifically on unsupported beliefs rather than verifiable evidence. The word you seem to be hunting for in this context would likely be "gnosis" instead.
These people trust their physical senses, and some even trust their instincts or gut, but they can never realize that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense and just as impossible to define to one without such a sense.
Falsely characterizing "faith" as a "tangible sense" does not transform faith into a tangible sense. In fact, asserting that it does constitutes another unsupported claim, (which I have little expectation of being substantiated, given your previous documented failures to do so).
I try to be respectful, and generally never mean offense even when it appears that I do. I do sometimes employ more base tactics to learn information about people when I try to get a better understanding of the person behind the words, but even these are not meant to damage or insult, but instead to reveal and sometimes even to rattle the cage a bit.
Such an 'excuse' would carry more conviction were it applied to your opponents as well.
I am no master of debate but have had experience with it and enjoy the exercise and I find the best way to improve is to pursue it with/against those that have a talent for it. There are many different debate styles, and some feel more like a blood sport or an intellectual battle than they do a persuasion of ideas or a sharing of the opinions of knowledge and/or experiences.
There are indeed a variety of 'debate styles' and some are far more subtle than others. Be that as it may, information has been imparted in the course of these 'debates' and discussions, (either apart from or, embedded within the discussions themselves). Each and every time such information as contradicts a "belief" has failed to be countered by "faith" alone. This indicates either that those holding such "beliefs" have no reasonable counter-arguments or, that there aren't any, (thus envincing the fallback position of 'I don't need reason because faith expressly fails to require it'). And isn't that convienent?
-
Both the nonreligious person and the religious person are taking personal responsibility for their decisions.
That misses the point; religious persons often abdicate personal responsibilty for their decisions by declaring that the big, (or even small ones), are somehow "god's will". Nonreligious persons do not do this and that's but one enormous difference in taking responsibility and ducking it.
A religious person may rely on faith as part of the basis, but there are other things they depend on, such as the Bible, historic events, findings (like scrolls, archaeological findings that correlate with the history in the Bible), and even family ancestry and events of many of the people who originally came to America from England and Holland because of wanting the freedom to worship God freely.
Unfortunately, the "other things" you mention also rely upon the same "faith" and therefore, do not constitute conclusive evidence, (they do constitute hearsay, however). Archeological findings reveal physical evidence of structures and implements, they do not inherently corroborate what actually happened in those digs, (as per the hearsay evidence of the bible or, Sanskrit scrolls for instance). This means that the entire basis for the religious follower is "faith/belief" and not conclusively supportive evidence.
A nonreligious person is also taking personal responsibility for their decision, as well. It's done because they choose to not put faith in something they cannot see, or maybe because they don't understand, or even because they just plain don't want anything to do with the subject. Either way, both are making their decisions based on whatever reason and so are responsible for their own decisions.
I disagree since the religious persons are emphactically Not using _reason_ as opposed to many nonreligious persons using reason to question and ascertain the actual basis instead of taking an unwaranted 'leap of faith'.
-
You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be.
True, if you are making unsupported contentions - you don't need evidence to support them. However, if you are asserting a contention which rests solely upon a nebulous "faith", then you tacitly concede that you are making an unsupportable contention. An unsupported contention is merely an opinion without a solid foundational basis.
Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards. They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers ...
You've discounted or omitted the variation that no one has yet come back from being dead, (except for a hearsay story regarding a zombie Jeshua), to provide evidence of what being dead is like. That makes such religious claims as to what happens after one physically dies unreasonable, (no reasonable evidence presented), possibities. As Falconeer02 pointed out, if one considers all potentialities as being equally "reasonable", (or unreasonable, as the case may be), then claims based upon them cannot be conclusively true. That which is not conclusively true isn't necessarily false however, it tends to be, (otherwise, it'd be unambiguously true). Either way, we don't know despite claims of the 'faithful' to know what happens after we're dead.
- with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in. If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead.
The reasoning is faulty in that we're making the for and against arguments while still alive, rather than while disembodied. The more accurate position would be to argue such things after kicking the bucket. If you can, I'll met you afterword, and we can pick up where we left off, (unless of course, you've unsuccessfully negotiated that transition and have dissapated into the "second death").
So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I?
You'll know/discover that you'd been wrong if your consciousness survives not only the transition of physical death, but also the challenge of surviving what's termed the "second death", (dissapation of the speculated disembodied state of being - for which I concede there is no evidence to support ... then again, this portion of the discussion rests upon speculating about speculations anyway).
Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those. [/color]
The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them. Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them. In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational. One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational. Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position).
As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices. Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless). Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it. In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
As a believer, I know what I believe to be true is definitely based on my faith in the Lord, in His Word, and on historical teachings.
Quote from: falcon9:
You've just confirmed my assertion of the circularity of such a justification.
Just as you have circled right around my reasonings ...
Not yet addressing your justifications, ("reasons" do not equate to 'reasoning'), isn't the same thing as your using circular 'nonreasoning', (e.g., "As a believer, I know what I believe to be true is definitely based on my faith ... "). It's a little one-sided to address your justifications while ya'll evade addresses challenges to your contentions however, I have done so and will again in this reply below.
... and simply refuse to acknowledge even historical teachings ...
If you are alluding to any non-biblical sources, please indicate which ones so that they can be examined in order to address them. Perhaps you are hinting at the Dead Sea scrolls as one alternate source or, something else?
... including places that still exist, even if in partial buildings or pieces, where things spoke of in the Bible took place, or places labled with people from the Bible who lived or worked or preached in those places, or archaeological findings of different rulers' temples being uncovered ...
Finding archeological evidence of buildings, pottery or temples does not substantiate hearsay 'evidence' of events that allegedly took place there. Finding the "Ark of The Covenant", the "staff of Moses", the original stone-carved "ten commandments" or heck, even some Aeyptian records of a bunch of hebrew migrant laborers fleeing from Aegyptian troops across the desert, (note: the pharohic civilizations of the specified time period kept pretty good hierglyphic records of both mundane things like crops production/nile floodings and more esoteric stuff as well). An event like several thousand migrant workers taking off under such conditions as to instigate a military response would get noted simply because military actions did get recorded - even if only logistical/supply records), hasn't happened.
or even the scrolls found that are in the original languages that speak of Jesus, God, other people - as written about in the Bible, etc.[/color]
Other scrolls, in say, Sanskrit? Surely you aren't obliquely referring to the gnostic or, Dead Sea scrolls? If so, these are merely hearsay 'records' which predate latter transcriptions which would someday become various versions of the "bible". They do not constitute independent evidence and indeed, hold such contradictions that the Council of Nicea deliberately omitted several source scrolls of so-called 'lost books of the bible'. If that was not the quagmire alluded to, which other scrolls were intended in your vague reference?
-
I'm not necessarily saying you or others are using all of those definitions, but it is very obvious to people in here that rhetoric is being used, in a very skillful way, I might add.
Actually, you are saying exactly that however, this does not negate the reasoning employed by what you are characterizing as "rhetoric", nor does it alleviate the burden of reasonable rebuttal. Essentially, you seem to be implying that, if you can recast reasonable challenges and the lines of reasoning presented as dissent in view of unsupported opinion as 'mere rhetoric' in the hopes of evasion, that you can avoid the dissenting arguments.
But it doesn't change the views and reasonings, or research and answers, that Christians use as their debate/discussion. Even if you or others want to call it irrational, then that is your opinion or wording. [/color]
No doubt there are others awaiting such elusive "reasonings, or research and answers" to be presented as supporting evidence. Ascertaining whether or not such purported, (and yet to be presented), 'evidence' is irrational, rational, conclusive or inconclusive will rely upon reasoning and not unsupported opinion, (as you conclude in advance of the ascertations ... making such a conclusion sophist).
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
Everyone who dies will either live forever with God, or live in the eternal place of punishment, OR, will know nothing because of nothing afterwards. That's the time when those "belief systems rendered false" will be either be shown to be true, false, or nothing.
Quote from: falcon9:
You're speculating there, (since there is no evidence to support your contentions). Being unaware of other potential options, (no one knows yet), doesn't default the options to the ones speculated upon. The belief systems mentioned are rendered false because they rely wholey upon "faith/belief" sans substantiation. That makes them false claims, (since the claimants have consistantly failed to support their claims with anything other than they believe because they have faith - a manifestly circular justification).
You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be. Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards. They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in. If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead. So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I? But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth. Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.
:thumbsup: great response!
-
Good afternoon 2 all, I was reading a bit of what was being said and I should add that The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Everyone has and always will have their own opinions @ the end of the day. But I will say this whether Christianity is viewed as right or wrong is it what I stand and believe on. I will or have never attempted to "force" my opinions on others.
Very true, being a Christian is not harming anyone and there is no rule that we all have to believe the same thing. Great post!
-
A billion other possibilities is quite a large amount. Are you prepared to actually post about a billion other possibilities to back up your statement? I'm not disagreeing, but making a point about what our words indicate. Before I take the time to "debate" your remarks on delusional and irrational, I'm asking that you first read the different types of reasoning in another post of mine.
I will say that you think those words should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box, and we all know this is aimed toward the Christians. The same can be returned right back at you as well. Some of you do not want to step out of your restraining box and take a leap of faith. Just as there are religious zealots there are also athiest zealots out there. However, debating and discussing does not mean that someone is forcing their views on others - but, unfortunately, there are some on both sides who do and both sides turn people off, tune them out, or start calling names. That to me, is wrong, and going too far.
Loved the second paragraph of this so much. Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
Everyone who dies will either live forever with God, or live in the eternal place of punishment, OR, will know nothing because of nothing afterwards. That's the time when those "belief systems rendered false" will be either be shown to be true, false, or nothing.
Quote from: falcon9:
You're speculating there, (since there is no evidence to support your contentions). Being unaware of other potential options, (no one knows yet), doesn't default the options to the ones speculated upon. The belief systems mentioned are rendered false because they rely wholey upon "faith/belief" sans substantiation. That makes them false claims, (since the claimants have consistantly failed to support their claims with anything other than they believe because they have faith - a manifestly circular justification).
You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be. Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards. They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in. If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead. So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I? But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth. Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.
:thumbsup: great response!
Thank you!
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers.
Quote from: falcon9:
One of the main points of contention within this debate has been whether or not such a choice "to believe" is made on an irrational or, rational basis. So far, no case for a rational basis for that choice has been presented while the reasoning behind the counter contention of an irrational basis has been elaborated upon extensively. As far as "searching for answers" goes, I submit the theory, (not the claim), that those holding whichever religious beliefs they cling to have ceased searching and "believe" they've found their "answers". On the other hand, those who do not cling to such irrational beleif systems are in a better position to keep searching, questioning and being skeptical of unsupported opinions.
Well, you are right in your "theory," in that those who have found salvation in the Lord do cling to that and don't have the need to search for other answers: God is their answer. As for rational/irrational, that will remain to be determined, won't it?
Ultimately? Perhaps so. In the here and now, (which is where we are, as opposed to being dead), no rational basis of reasoning has yet been presented therefore, it must be concluded that, as far as we know so far, there is no rational basis, (and, that the basis presented as "faith" does not qualify as a rational basis because of an a priori assumption that 'faith requires no proof, eschewing it instead').
With your other response, you say those who aren't clinging to an "irrational belief system" are in a "better position to keep searching, questioning, and being skeptical of unsupported opinions." Please clarify then, just what these others are searching for and questioning about.
To clarify, at your request; I stated that those not locked into an irrational belief system remain free to keep searching for answers, not that they already had those answers in mind while conducting such searches. They are therefore in a better position to keep searching than others who believe they've concluded their search and found "answers". One who continues to learn is more likely to learn than one who has ceased searching for knowledge, believing that they already know.
Also, why they are even searching in the first place?
You want me to speculate, eh? Okay, some search because the carious religious belief systems expressly do not provide answers to their questions. Some continue to search because making a 'leap of faith' across an unknown abyss may not be the wiser option available. Then there are those whose search is intensely personal and not amiable to catagorization under one or more religious belief systems. These are the ones who seek no followers and prefer to farage ahead alone. They eschew faith while standing upon reason to reach for the stars.
And what's the use of searching and finding something when it may have "unsupported opinions?" Because then it would be too irrational to question and search about anything that may be a possible answer because of skepticism and/or not having enough supported opinions.
It isn't entirely clear what you intended the statement following your question to mean. Nonetheless, as to the former question; the utility in continuing the search when the answers are still inconclusive is to get as close to conclusive as one can. Ceasing the search when one finds 'comfortable' yet, inconclusive answers is an abducation by the searcher. It's also their choice. Some choice to keep looking, even if that constitutes their existance.
However, it appears that just about anything people put out there is better supported when it comes up against the speaking of God.
Yeah, that's kind of a bummer for you guys but, at least Pascal's Wager took a sophist shot at it.
It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.[/color]
Neither I, nor George Carlin for instance, have/had any such "fear". Both he and I have directly invited "god" to 'strike us dead' to verify "his" existance and lo and behold, nothing happened. Well, nothing except for religious appologists attempting to 'explain' why "god" didn't smite us. Afterall, the xtian bible has "god" supposedly smote folks left and right for a lot less so, why not now?
-
Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.
Such hypocrisy would be astounding were it not so commomplace with you. Regardless, it's amusing to see the 'pot hiss' when called 'black' by the 'kettle'.
-
I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!
-
If I may butt in- you leave out about a billion other possibilities and how other people feel. Christianity isn't the only correct path to salvation according to the majority of the world.
While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken. Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint. Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.
The way you live your life does fall into others lives-- for instance I recall you believing in creationism. Believing and teaching this is completely delusional and that these teachings have an impact on whoever you spread it to. We live in a time where we should value reason and not primitive/backwards thinking. "Irrational" and "delusional" are more than just words because they can have a major impact on others and how they learn about the world. You call these words intimidating and I completely agree- they should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box. Other than the religious zealots, there is nothing wrong with that.
-
A billion other possibilities is quite a large amount. Are you prepared to actually post about a billion other possibilities to back up your statement? I'm not disagreeing, but making a point about what our words indicate. Before I take the time to "debate" your remarks on delusional and irrational, I'm asking that you first read the different types of reasoning in another post of mine.
I will say that you think those words should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box, and we all know this is aimed toward the Christians. The same can be returned right back at you as well. Some of you do not want to step out of your restraining box and take a leap of faith. Just as there are religious zealots there are also athiest zealots out there. However, debating and discussing does not mean that someone is forcing their views on others - but, unfortunately, there are some on both sides who do and both sides turn people off, tune them out, or start calling names. That to me, is wrong, and going too far.
Loved the second paragraph of this so much. Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.
This is true.
-
I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!
I'd be speculating however, some may engage in such discussions & debates because there are others who remain undecided on the issues, (and they are either curious or, prompted to think about the nature of such issues when they observe these posts). Others may view these threads as simply 'flame-fests', (they'd be mistaken since an exclusively mud-slinging contest hasn't occurred). Still others can extraplolate for themselves upon issues they may have declined to consider before or, were unaware of - not that these would necessarily 'persuade' someone else who has a deathgrip on "faith" to change their minds but, to present the counter-arguments and let those others decide for themselves.
-
I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!
I do know what you mean. However, religion will always be at odds between believers/non-believers, just as it was in Bible history. Occasionally someone's mind may change, but usually, like you said, the majority of people have made up their minds, based on whatever reason/s that helped them come to their decisions. Since the forum is offering the bonus earnings to post at least 30 posts a month, debates are usually well attended, with plenty of chances to offer opinions, beliefs, arguments, etc. I like how you put it, though, to "knock yourself out," lol. It does seem that way at times!! :)
-
Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.
Such hypocrisy would be astounding were it not so commomplace with you. Regardless, it's amusing to see the 'pot hiss' when called 'black' by the 'kettle'.
Thank you for further proving my point.
-
I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!
Personally, I don't post here to try to change anyone's religious beliefs at all. More just to try to show people that not everyone has to believe the same thing and that it is perfectly fine for Christians to be Christians and atheists to be atheists and so on...
-
Do not concern yourself with defending your position to others based on what falcon9 says as any that read many of his posts will soon notice that he is self referencing and often relies upon his accusations as evidence of an offense.
The acccusation that many, (or indeed any), of my posts are self-referential is empty and false. It is made baldly and with no substantiation whatsoever which qualifies it as mere ad hominem to be disregarded. On the other hand, evidence in the form of the 'acussed' own printed words, (of which unaltered records exist in these threads), exists to support the contentions, (not "accusations"), made against those who would prefer they were overlooked. The weak 'counter-attack', (essentially a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" schoolyard 'argument'), made fails simply because zero conclusive evidence was presented to support it.
It isn't ad hominem because it is the truth. I can present this evidence at any time I wish to but haven't felt inclined to and I have never been quite the "to the jugular" man. I had even already formulated an introduction to it comparing your criticisms and insults towards faith with the type of faith that would be required to believe you had ever performed anything more than the citing of "your' accusations as evidence of an offense by the other. The evidence of you doing this (unlike the evidence you claim to exist) is within these pages and I pointed out to you many of the times you did such. If you have forgotten you can take a look, or if others are interested they can as well. Don't mistake my failure to press to mean a lack of position, instead you should accept my generosity and leave it alone.
--what I mean is in relation to faith is that they cannot understand how faith can give you a sense of knowledge about things that cannot be learned or gained in some external observation.
A false "sense of knowledge" does not equate to accurate knowledge, particularly if such dubious "knowledge" relies on a LACK of evidence or substantiation, (e.g., "faith"). By definition then, "faith" cannot impart conclusive knowledge since it relies specifically on unsupported beliefs rather than verifiable evidence. The word you seem to be hunting for in this context would likely be "gnosis" instead.
Since you don't posses this knowledge you can only speculate as to its lack of truthfulness. Considering your complete inability to understand faith (you repeatedly call it irrational which indicates the best of your ability to understand it) you cannot really expect me to let you get by with such an argumentum ad verecundiam.
These people trust their physical senses, and some even trust their instincts or gut, but they can never realize that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense and just as impossible to define to one without such a sense.
Falsely characterizing "faith" as a "tangible sense" does not transform faith into a tangible sense. In fact, asserting that it does constitutes another unsupported claim, (which I have little expectation of being substantiated, given your previous documented failures to do so).
Again with the ipse dixit. A blind man could make the same statement that you just made to a man with sight and it would be the same argumentum ad ignorantiam you just made. In fact I propose that is what just happened. I have never attempted to prove faith to you so how I could fail at such a task I cannot imagine. This is a classic example of one of your attempts at a weak and empty accusation stated oh so boldly with the hopes to inject some sort of an appeal from authority. Even if I could move mountains with my faith it would not suffice as proof to you. You do realize that only you can prove it to yourself don't you? I can demonstrate my faith and that is about my limits, but it isn't something capable of being done over a medium such as this. You will likely find this amusing (maybe even insulting), but I have prayed for a Saul to Paul moment for you as that is about the only way I can imagine you understanding.
I try to be respectful, and generally never mean offense even when it appears that I do. I do sometimes employ more base tactics to learn information about people when I try to get a better understanding of the person behind the words, but even these are not meant to damage or insult, but instead to reveal and sometimes even to rattle the cage a bit.
Such an 'excuse' would carry more conviction were it applied to your opponents as well.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. I was specifically talking about the way I treat my 'opponents' (that isn't how I see it, seems a bit harsh to me).
I am no master of debate but have had experience with it and enjoy the exercise and I find the best way to improve is to pursue it with/against those that have a talent for it. There are many different debate styles, and some feel more like a blood sport or an intellectual battle than they do a persuasion of ideas or a sharing of the opinions of knowledge and/or experiences.
There are indeed a variety of 'debate styles' and some are far more subtle than others. Be that as it may, information has been imparted in the course of these 'debates' and discussions, (either apart from or, embedded within the discussions themselves). Each and every time such information as contradicts a "belief" has failed to be countered by "faith" alone. This indicates either that those holding such "beliefs" have no reasonable counter-arguments or, that there aren't any, (thus envincing the fallback position of 'I don't need reason because faith expressly fails to require it'). And isn't that convienent?
Yes some information has been transferred, but the bulk I what I expect to obtain here is interesting debate and an improvement upon my skills at such. While I don't hold to the position that theology is strictly the domain of theologians I can reasonably conclude we are not likely to turn up anything ground breaking here in our endeavors. I haven't witnessed any of this uncontested 'information as contradicts a "belief"' that you speak of. What page is that on please?
-
The acccusation that many, (or indeed any), of my posts are self-referential is empty and false. It is made baldly and with no substantiation whatsoever which qualifies it as mere ad hominem to be disregarded. On the other hand, evidence in the form of the 'acussed' own printed words, (of which unaltered records exist in these threads), exists to support the contentions, (not "accusations"), made against those who would prefer they were overlooked. The weak 'counter-attack', (essentially a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" schoolyard 'argument'), made fails simply because zero conclusive evidence was presented to support it.
It isn't ad hominem because it is the truth. I can present this evidence at any time I wish to but haven't felt inclined to and I have never been quite the "to the jugular" man.
If it exists, (in quotable form, rather than 'loosely misinterpreted'), present it. Your rationalization for not doing so is inadaquate.
I had even already formulated an introduction to it comparing your criticisms and insults towards faith with the type of faith that would be required to believe you had ever performed anything more than the citing of "your' accusations as evidence of an offense by the other.
That's preposterous; I've presented the evidence in the form of citing the 'accused' own words and the reasoning which supports the contentions made. No reasonable refuations were presented as counter-arguments; instead, the empty counter-accusation that mine are 'self-referential' and 'it in't ad hominem because it is the truth" are made with zero evidence to substantiate such counter-accusations. Your tactic of making tangential diversions is entirely a non sequitur.
The evidence of you doing this (unlike the evidence you claim to exist) is within these pages and I pointed out to you many of the times you did such. If you have forgotten you can take a look, or if others are interested they can as well. Don't mistake my failure to press to mean a lack of position, instead you should accept my generosity and leave it alone.
Seriously; you're now attempting to use my 'own argumentive method' against me? And the attempt fails with such transparent clumsines as to be laughable. If such purposrted 'evidence' is "within these pages", you'd have no trouble excerpting a contextual quote. Both you and mack10 seem to feel that I should somehow be obligated to find _your_ supportive evidence when you are the ones making the claims which require such evidence. Once again, such smoke & mirrors in lieu of a substantiated refutations is only worthy of passing observation.
--what I mean is in relation to faith is that they cannot understand how faith can give you a sense of knowledge about things that cannot be learned or gained in some external observation.
A false "sense of knowledge" does not equate to accurate knowledge, particularly if such dubious "knowledge" relies on a LACK of evidence or substantiation, (e.g., "faith"). By definition then, "faith" cannot impart conclusive knowledge since it relies specifically on unsupported beliefs rather than verifiable evidence. The word you seem to be hunting for in this context would likely be "gnosis" instead.
Since you don't posses this knowledge you can only speculate as to its lack of truthfulness.
On the other hand, I can and have requested that the claimant, (that would be you in this instance), respond with the urden of proof for making the initial claim. Instead, you dodge it and somhow believe that you've shifted the burden to 'disprove' your initial claims. Amazing; the sheer dishonesty of such a ploy and yet, not entirely unexpected.
Considering your complete inability to understand faith (you repeatedly call it irrational which indicates the best of your ability to understand it) you cannot really expect me to let you get by with such an argumentum ad verecundiam.
On the contrary, I called it irrational because it lacked rationality; which meaans I not only understood it but, drew the logical conclusion from the premise. No appeal to an external authority or, 'argument from prestige' has been made. Your extraneous diversions into inapplicable latin tems remains a non sequitur, (pun intended).
These people trust their physical senses, and some even trust their instincts or gut, but they can never realize that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense and just as impossible to define to one without such a sense.
Falsely characterizing "faith" as a "tangible sense" does not transform faith into a tangible sense. In fact, asserting that it does constitutes another unsupported claim, (which I have little expectation of being substantiated, given your previous documented failures to do so).
Again with the ... [irrelevant non sequiturs] .. I have never attempted to prove faith to you so how I could fail at such a task I cannot imagine. [/quote]
I didn't request that you "prove faith", I requested that you support your claim "that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense ...". If it as tangible as the physical senses, please produce the tangible evidence to support your claim. If there is no tangible evidence, your claim is empty.
This is a classic example of one of your attempts at a weak and empty accusation stated oh so boldly with the hopes to inject some sort of an appeal from authority.
I've made no appeals to authority. Are you instead implying that you're appealing to supernatural authority regarding "faith"?
You will likely find this amusing (maybe even insulting), but I have prayed for a Saul to Paul moment for you as that is about the only way I can imagine you understanding.
It is mildly insulting however, not for the 'reason' you might suppose.
I try to be respectful, and generally never mean offense even when it appears that I do. I do sometimes employ more base tactics to learn information about people when I try to get a better understanding of the person behind the words, but even these are not meant to damage or insult, but instead to reveal and sometimes even to rattle the cage a bit.
Such an 'excuse' would carry more conviction were it applied to your opponents as well.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. I was specifically talking about the way I treat my 'opponents' (that isn't how I see it, seems a bit harsh to me). [/quote]
Your failure to undertand is duly noted.
I haven't witnessed any of this uncontested 'information as contradicts a "belief"' that you speak of. What page is that on please?
Where did I state it was "uncontested information" again? Your strawman counters are superfifical. If I stated that, quote it. If not, you dissemble.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers.
Quote from: falcon9:
One of the main points of contention within this debate has been whether or not such a choice "to believe" is made on an irrational or, rational basis. So far, no case for a rational basis for that choice has been presented while the reasoning behind the counter contention of an irrational basis has been elaborated upon extensively. As far as "searching for answers" goes, I submit the theory, (not the claim), that those holding whichever religious beliefs they cling to have ceased searching and "believe" they've found their "answers". On the other hand, those who do not cling to such irrational beleif systems are in a better position to keep searching, questioning and being skeptical of unsupported opinions.
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 08:53:14 am
Well, you are right in your "theory," in that those who have found salvation in the Lord do cling to that and don't have the need to search for other answers: God is their answer. As for rational/irrational, that will remain to be determined, won't it?
Quote from: falcon9:
Ultimately? Perhaps so. In the here and now, (which is where we are, as opposed to being dead), no rational basis of reasoning has yet been presented therefore, it must be concluded that, as far as we know so far, there is no rational basis, (and, that the basis presented as "faith" does not qualify as a rational basis because of an a priori assumption that 'faith requires no proof, eschewing it instead').
I disagree. It must not so quickly be concluded that there is no rational basis. Faith actually means that there is a belief in something or "someone" that can't be seen. I will give an example that has been used so many times but good examples are not to be ignored. A person can feel the wind or breeze blowing, as well as seeing evidence of it with the tree leaves and branches swaying. However you cannot see the wind itself. So there is a rational belief in wind existing though the wind itself can't be seen. Did a ghost do that? Or someother supernatural effect? We already know why the wind is there, scientifically, but you cannot actually prove its source is not part of God's scientific inventions he created. There are amazing scientists out there - have you ever just given even an inkling of a thought as to where their amazing abilities and skills come from? There had to be someone with that kind of knowledge and understanding who could create such an amazing and awesome brain. I'm digressing, though.
Going back to the quoted "someone" - people have said they feel the "presence" of the Lord, or see miracles happen, or specific prayers answered. You would be inviting trouble upon yourself if you disagreed to their face that they were lying or irrational or delusional. The fact is, is that unless you are in their shoes, so-to-speak, you don't know what they experienced. You may never experience what they say they have, but it doesn't mean it didn't really happen to them. Therefore, they believe in God, though they can't actually see Him, Himself. Many people say you are looking at the essence or evidence of God when seeing flowers, trees, mountains, rainbows (which has a Biblical promise people believe,), and so many other things. However, for some people, they avoid that kind of talk and that leap of faith like that is too hard to take.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 08:53:14 am
It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.[/color]
Quote from falcon9:
Neither I, nor George Carlin for instance, have/had any such "fear". Both he and I have directly invited "god" to 'strike us dead' to verify "his" existance and lo and behold, nothing happened. Well, nothing except for religious appologists attempting to 'explain' why "god" didn't smite us. Afterall, the xtian bible has "god" supposedly smote folks left and right for a lot less so, why not now?
I am so glad you have brought that up. I won't say rational or delusional, but I will say that what you and George Carlin have tried is a tad ridiculous, but hey, you gave it a shot, right?!!
First, you need to understand that God heard both of you, but since you are not one of His, He knew you were asking something out of mockery, and He doesn't need to prove or verify Himself to you, George Carlin, or anyone else. Faith in Him is the way and if you don't have faith, then you can shout all you want to Him but He won't answer just to prove He exists.
Second, even though He heard both of you, when you are both unsaved, He does not respond in the way you demand Him to. He hears a sinner's prayer of repentance and acknowledgement of Him as Lord.
Third, once you are a Christian, then yes, He listens and responds in the way, will, and time, of what He wants; once again - you cannot "demand" God what to do.
Fourth, when it's your time to die, it doesn't matter what you ask or demand, etc., you will die when it's your time, according to His plan. If He wants to "strike" you dead or not, He will do exactly that or not.
Fifth, a Christian knows they don't need to ask God to "strike" them dead, because they already believe He exists, believe in Him, and they don't need verification that He exists.
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God. Why? Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.
Another thing I would like to respond to is that the "smiting" of people that God did Himself, or had others do, took place under the Old Law (Old Testament.) That was before Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection, which then became the New Law (New Testament.) Jesus became the focus, was seen for a time while sharing His message/ministry of salvation (which some people who actually looked upon Him still could not accept Him even then,) and finally, the acceptance of Christ through faith. If you really want to understand the "smiting" in the Old Testament, then researching the Bible itself, with commentaries and helps, will give the you background of why those things happened.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 06:07:17 am
A nonreligious person is also taking personal responsibility for their decision, as well. It's done because they choose to not put faith in something they cannot see, or maybe because they don't understand, or even because they just plain don't want anything to do with the subject. Either way, both are making their decisions based on whatever reason and so are responsible for their own decisions.
Quote from falcon9:
I disagree since the religious persons are emphactically Not using _reason_ as opposed to many nonreligious persons using reason to question and ascertain the actual basis instead of taking an unwaranted 'leap of faith'
I still say both are using reason to arrive at their conclusion. Religious people, whatever faith they have chosen, have arrived at their decision by researching, questioning and "ascertaining" the actual basis and have taken the warranted (to them) "leap of faith." I do agree that others are still researching, etc. Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc., and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision. If someone has figured out the answer for their questions and research, then that is their freedom of choice and religion to accept what they choose. If someone else has not found an answer, then that is their choice, as well, to keep looking.
-
While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken. Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint. Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.
I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.
We already know why the wind is there, scientifically, but you cannot actually prove its source is not part of God's scientific inventions he created.
(http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/280x280/9470430.jpg)
You would be inviting trouble upon yourself if you disagreed to their face that they were lying or irrational or delusional. The fact is, is that unless you are in their shoes, so-to-speak, you don't know what they experienced. You may never experience what they say they have, but it doesn't mean it didn't really happen to them. Therefore, they believe in God, though they can't actually see Him, Himself.
Faith healing comes to mind. By chance are you defending that mind frame?
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 07:57:27 am
Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those. [/color]
Quote from falcon9:
The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them. Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them. In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational. One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational. Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position).
As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices. Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless). Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it. In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).
Who's complaining? So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that? What is there to complain about? I thought people in here were debating, or maybe arguing would be a closer term, but complaining? Would it make it non-complaining if I were to instead say that irrational and delusional hurt me? It is no complaint in saying that those words do not bother me. It also is not complaining when I say my choice does not interfere with yours and vice versa. That is stating truth. You still live your life by your choices as I do mine. We are on a forum, openly discussing this, but I see no complaining going on.
Why do you consider humor illogical? (It sounds like something Spock, from Star Trek, would say. Humor intended.) Humor is part of our very make-up. Are you saying that we should always be serious, grave, no smiles, and only indulge in certain circumstances? Humor and smiles are a lot of what calms "hot spots", worries, making someone else feel better when down, etc. I don't consider that "illogical."
-
Quote from jcribb:
You would be inviting trouble upon yourself if you disagreed to their face that they were lying or irrational or delusional. The fact is, is that unless you are in their shoes, so-to-speak, you don't know what they experienced. You may never experience what they say they have, but it doesn't mean it didn't really happen to them. Therefore, they believe in God, though they can't actually see Him, Himself.
Quote from Falconer:
Faith healing comes to mind. By chance are you defending that mind frame?
Absolutely not. That's a different subject altogether.
-
Quote from Falconer:
While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken. Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint. Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.
I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.
Thank you for your clarification. You make some good points there that both sides have to look at and delve into.
-
While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken. Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint. Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.
I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.
We already know why the wind is there, scientifically, but you cannot actually prove its source is not part of God's scientific inventions he created.
(http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/280x280/9470430.jpg)
What would we do without your sense of humor? :)
-
I still say both are using reason to arrive at their conclusion. Religious people, whatever faith they have chosen, have arrived at their decision by researching, questioning and "ascertaining" the actual basis and have taken the warranted (to them) "leap of faith."
There is an enormous difference between having "reasons" for making a decision and using 'Reason' itself as a process for making decisions. In regards to choosing a "faith", (belief system), they are employing the former; with reliance upon 'faith-based' rationales, (as opposed to a reasoning process). Interestingly, it is "faith" which apparently cannot stand up to reason while reason easily stands up to "faith".
I do agree that others are still researching, etc. Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc. ...
If one stops questioning, one stops learning. If one stops learning, one becomes mired in dogma and relies entirely upon "faith"; eschewing reason for the most part, (the exceptions are selectively applied).
... and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision.
What coercion; you mean like the nominally-faithful coercing others at the point of a sword? Surely you aren't referring to nonviolent discussions consisting of words?
If someone has figured out the answer for their questions and research, then that is their freedom of choice and religion to accept what they choose. If someone else has not found an answer, then that is their choice, as well, to keep looking. [/color]
Indeed, once someone has ceased searching and labors under the belief, (meaning that which has no supportive evidence and relies solely upon "faith"), that they have found an "answer", (something that comforts them, valid or not), they tend to resent others questioning that promoted choice. Again, were such a choice held within the confines of the 'believer's' mind, no one else would question it.
-
I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.
I may grok what you're getting at there ... if you are saying that the longevity of a belief system has little to no bearing on whether or not it is as legitimate, (or illegimate, for that matter). Oddly, many cults have relied upon such a stance and once upon a time, xtianity was considered a "cult" by nonxtians, (Romans, Aegyptians, various pagans, etc.). Somehow, 'time-in-grade' is considered to lend legitimacy to what started out as cults. Strangely, even Wicca and Satanism are recognised as legitimate religions by the U.S. government, (much to the chagrin of many xtians).
-
Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those. [/color]
Quote from falcon9:
The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them. Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them. In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational. One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational. Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position).
Who's complaining? So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that?
So far, "SurveyMack10", "Abrupt" and even "jcribb16" have "complained" when their responses have been met with rebuttals, questions or challenges to their cherished beliefs, (although a few others have registered tacit 'complaints' as well). Sometimes they haven't complained or completely evaded answering rebuttals, questions or other challenges and have attempted to justify their "faith" in some circuitous manner.
Would it make it non-complaining if I were to instead say that irrational and delusional hurt me? It is no complaint in saying that those words do not bother me.
I understand; few people would cheerfully-accept that their belief system is considered to be irrational or, delusional, (or, that the 'believer' considers dissent concerning their belief system as a personal attack upon themselves). Firstly, let me make it clear that the primary focus of my dissenting views has concerned the belief systems themselves and were not intended to be construed as personal attacks, (since I don't know you personally). While a case can be made for a contention that challenging any particular beleif system constitutes an "attack" on those who have 'faith' in those belief systems, such still do not constitute _personal_ "attacks", (a parallel analogy may be one where the belief systems are likened to a virus and the believers would be carriers, for instance).
It also is not complaining when I say my choice does not interfere with yours and vice versa. That is stating truth. You still live your life by your choices as I do mine. We are on a forum, openly discussing this, but I see no complaining going on.
To an extent, I agree however, it is when your religious choices begin impinging/constricting the choice parameters of others, (as in the instance of conversion at the swordpoint, for example), that I'd emphatically disagree. Now, I realize that you, personally, aren't likely going around out there attempting to convert anyone by force; that isn't the point of the example. Others have been and indeed, still are - all under the banner of various religious belief systems.
As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices. Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless). Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it. In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).
Why do you consider humor illogical? (It sounds like something Spock, from Star Trek, would say. Humor intended.) Humor is part of our very make-up. Are you saying that we should always be serious, grave, no smiles, and only indulge in certain circumstances? Humor and smiles are a lot of what calms "hot spots", worries, making someone else feel better when down, etc. I don't consider that "illogical."[/color]
No doubt someone else brought up the illogic inherent in humor before "Spock" or, I did. Nevertheless, a great deal of humor, (in general), relies upon juxtapositioning outrageous or, illogical situations. Laughter is good mental health 'medicine' because we can't be serious/grave/logical all the time, (particularly since we haven't suppressed emotional responses as the "Vulcans" fictionally do). As I said, we humans do plenty of illogical, irrational things on pretty much a daily basis, (enough so that this is much more common that the rarified use of logic on the same basis).
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:09:58 pm
I do agree that others are still researching, etc. Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc. ...
Quote from: falcon9:
If one stops questioning, one stops learning. If one stops learning, one becomes mired in dogma and relies entirely upon "faith"; eschewing reason for the most part, (the exceptions are selectively applied).
Even when someone, let's say a new believer in the Lord, comes to make their decision about the Lord, they in no way stop learning. They are going to research, ask questions, and learn more about the Lord. They will learn more about Him, His ways, grow spiritually, delve into His Word for learning and understanding. Perhaps I worded or said something in my other comment that made it seem they stop learning after that choice is made. Sorry about that. They definitely continue learning and branching out within the decision they made.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:09:58 pm
... and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision.
Quote from: falcon9:
What coercion; you mean like the nominally-faithful coercing others at the point of a sword? Surely you aren't referring to nonviolent discussions consisting of words?
Maybe coercion was a strong word. Instead I will use intimidate. I'm speaking of some of some really dedicated athiests I know who at first discuss and disagree with believers, and then ultimately, start using stronger terms to try and intimidate the believers with such words as "security blanket," "fairy-tale," "zealot," and more. Instead of letting them state their view and personal choice, they instead try to make the Christian look foolish, stupid, or just plain crazy for what they believe. That's not a debate.
Now, on the other side of the coin, before someone says something about the above paragraph, there are "Christians" who go overboard as well toward athiests or nonbelievers. They try to intimidate and threaten them into "hell" if they don't accept God. I don't agree with that and would never do that to anyone, no matter who they are. Threats, intimidation, name-calling, and more, should not be used on either side - all it is going to do is stir up anger and make enemies.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:30:19 pm
Who's complaining? So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that?
Quote from: falcon9:
So far, "SurveyMack10", "Abrupt" and even "jcribb16" have "complained" when their responses have been met with rebuttals, questions or challenges to their cherished beliefs, (although a few others have registered tacit 'complaints' as well). Sometimes they haven't complained or completely evaded answering rebuttals, questions or other challenges and have attempted to justify their "faith" in some circuitous manner.
I do not consider my rebuttals back to you as complaining. When defending a personal belief or choice by giving reasons for it, is certainly not complaining. The subject of name-calling could be brought up as well, but I, myself, realize it would be to no avail, and/or that certain terms are actually directed to the choice or belief, not the actual person. I do believe Spock would tell us that complaining and name-calling are both "illogical" and to get the focus back on the subject of the debate. {Humor here, I hope...:)}
-
I do agree that others are still researching, etc. Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc. ...
Quote from: falcon9:
If one stops questioning, one stops learning. If one stops learning, one becomes mired in dogma and relies entirely upon "faith"; eschewing reason for the most part, (the exceptions are selectively applied).
Even when someone, let's say a new believer in the Lord, comes to make their decision about the Lord, they in no way stop learning. They are going to research, ask questions, and learn more about the Lord. They will learn more about Him, His ways, grow spiritually, delve into His Word for learning and understanding. Perhaps I worded or said something in my other comment that made it seem they stop learning after that choice is made. Sorry about that. They definitely continue learning and branching out within the decision they made.
Perhaps my response was seen as too generalized; the intention was that they tend to stop learning about _other_ metaphysical subjects once they've decided upon a specific belief system. There are numerous exceptions to this theory; namely the ones who hop from path to path like spiritual rabbits, (oft termed "fluff-bunnies" as a disparaging remark). The ones who stay within a belief system may well broaden their information base about various sub-topics within that belief however, they all too often do not expand their awareness beyond that specific belief system, (hence the equally disparaging term, "blinded by the light").
Essentially, the cognizant point at this juncture would be that it is far more common for a religious adherent to a belief system to learn much about other belief systems or indeed, proceed learning without a belief system in place. On the other hand, I've found that quite a few non-religious persons have a tendency to either explore other philosophies/systems/processes to whatever depth they are able or, eschew religious beliefs altogether, (while still pursuing/researching knowledge and more subtlely, wisdom).
-
Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever. I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life. Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words. They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those. [/color]
Quote from falcon9:
The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them. Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them. In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational. One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational. Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position).
Who's complaining? So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that?
So far, "SurveyMack10", "Abrupt" and even "jcribb16" have "complained" when their responses have been met with rebuttals, questions or challenges to their cherished beliefs, (although a few others have registered tacit 'complaints' as well). Sometimes they haven't complained or completely evaded answering rebuttals, questions or other challenges and have attempted to justify their "faith" in some circuitous manner.
Would it make it non-complaining if I were to instead say that irrational and delusional hurt me? It is no complaint in saying that those words do not bother me.
I understand; few people would cheerfully-accept that their belief system is considered to be irrational or, delusional, (or, that the 'believer' considers dissent concerning their belief system as a personal attack upon themselves). Firstly, let me make it clear that the primary focus of my dissenting views has concerned the belief systems themselves and were not intended to be construed as personal attacks, (since I don't know you personally). While a case can be made for a contention that challenging any particular beleif system constitutes an "attack" on those who have 'faith' in those belief systems, such still do not constitute _personal_ "attacks", (a parallel analogy may be one where the belief systems are likened to a virus and the believers would be carriers, for instance).
It also is not complaining when I say my choice does not interfere with yours and vice versa. That is stating truth. You still live your life by your choices as I do mine. We are on a forum, openly discussing this, but I see no complaining going on.
To an extent, I agree however, it is when your religious choices begin impinging/constricting the choice parameters of others, (as in the instance of conversion at the swordpoint, for example), that I'd emphatically disagree. Now, I realize that you, personally, aren't likely going around out there attempting to convert anyone by force; that isn't the point of the example. Others have been and indeed, still are - all under the banner of various religious belief systems.
As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices. Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless). Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it. In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).
Why do you consider humor illogical? (It sounds like something Spock, from Star Trek, would say. Humor intended.) Humor is part of our very make-up. Are you saying that we should always be serious, grave, no smiles, and only indulge in certain circumstances? Humor and smiles are a lot of what calms "hot spots", worries, making someone else feel better when down, etc. I don't consider that "illogical."[/color]
No doubt someone else brought up the illogic inherent in humor before "Spock" or, I did. Nevertheless, a great deal of humor, (in general), relies upon juxtapositioning outrageous or, illogical situations. Laughter is good mental health 'medicine' because we can't be serious/grave/logical all the time, (particularly since we haven't suppressed emotional responses as the "Vulcans" fictionally do). As I said, we humans do plenty of illogical, irrational things on pretty much a daily basis, (enough so that this is much more common that the rarified use of logic on the same basis).
I did not "complain" that you met any of my responses with a rebuttal at all- the only thing I said that may be considered "complaining" is that there is no need for you to call names and degrade others. If you feel differently please so evidence of such complaining and I will explain the context.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:09:58 pm
... and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision.
Quote from: falcon9:
What coercion; you mean like the nominally-faithful coercing others at the point of a sword? Surely you aren't referring to nonviolent discussions consisting of words?
Maybe coercion was a strong word. Instead I will use intimidate. I'm speaking of some of some really dedicated athiests I know who at first discuss and disagree with believers, and then ultimately, start using stronger terms to try and intimidate the believers with such words as "security blanket," "fairy-tale," "zealot," and more. Instead of letting them state their view and personal choice, they instead try to make the Christian look foolish, stupid, or just plain crazy for what they believe. That's not a debate.
Interestingly, one cannot be textually/verbally intimidated unless one allows it. Even a verbal/textual 'threat', (of which, none have thusfar been made in these discussions), cannot intimidate another unless that other percieves imminent personal harm ensuing. That said, 'intimidation' of another's _ego_ is also something which fails if the other does not allow it. By this I mean not being an 'egotist' as a shield against intimidation but, the internal realization that the 'ego' is what informs a person that they'd prefer not to be "wrong" about something. This seems to be a powerful motivator however, I actually enjoy being _proven_ wrong, (as opposed to simply being accused of it, without merit or valid substantiation).
Subsequently, words that are perceived as 'intimidating' are sometimes used to prompt an opponent into thinking outside of their comfort zone, (as "Abrupt" alluded to in another post). Sometimes this is effective, (e.g., it elicits an outside-the-comfy-parameters response), and sometimes it is not, (instead, a defensive posture is taken and any semblance of reason flies out the window). In the former instance, discussions/debates can take on an unanticipated dimension which could surprise even the most jaded. In the latter instance, such "discussions" more often degenerate into what could be perceived as mere "pissing contests". Naturally, people being human, differentation between the two becomes either rational or, very irrational, (and discerning the difference is not a matter of personal opinion).
Now, on the other side of the coin, before someone says something about the above paragraph, there are "Christians" who go overboard as well toward athiests or nonbelievers. They try to intimidate and threaten them into "hell" if they don't accept God. I don't agree with that and would never do that to anyone, no matter who they are. Threats, intimidation, name-calling, and more, should not be used on either side - all it is going to do is stir up anger and make enemies.[/color]
I partially agree with your contentions however, I'll part ways with you on the "name-calling" portion due to subjective variations on what exaactly constitutes "name-calling." Sometimes, that's fairly easy to determine, ('you're an idiot' would be largely unambiguous), and other times, it isn't as straight-forward as would appear. For instance, designating an argument as being "irrational" simply means that no, (or few), rational components of such an argument can be seen. Either such have not yet been presented, there are no/few rational components or, other non-rational assertions have been put forth to substitute for rational rebuttal/refutation/argument, (despite being characterized by those who put such forth as somehow being "rational", even while omitting the line of reasoning/evidence to support the secondary or, tertiary assertions made).
While logic and reason aren't necessarily inherent aspects of a debate, (or a discussion), proceding without those aspects can lead to having a deathgrip on a priori assumptions. If such a priori assumptions, (regarding belief systems, faith, gnosis, etc.), are never questioned or challenged, how can the seeker consider themselves still truly learning? What do you think would happen if a "leap of faith" is taken across an abyss of unknown breadth?
-
I do not consider my rebuttals back to you as complaining. When defending a personal belief or choice by giving reasons for it, is certainly not complaining.
Again, giving "reasons" does not necessarily equate to providing the reasoning for the conclusion held. In the former instance, any "reason", (justification), a person wishes to employ can be presented sans _reasoning_, (even as some "complain" that their non-rational
"reasons"/justifications aren't being accepted without challenge). While in the latter instance, I've seen some "complaints" made about challenging the nominally-reasonable rebuttals, (not in all instances, however).
The subject of name-calling could be brought up as well, but I, myself, realize it would be to no avail, and/or that certain terms are actually directed to the choice or belief, not the actual person. I do believe Spock would tell us that complaining and name-calling are both "illogical" and to get the focus back on the subject of the debate. {Humor here, I hope...:)}
As I understand the character, "Spock" he might logically determine that evident name-calling, (as opposed to subjectively-designated name-calling), would be irrational. As mentioned in another posted response, what gets called "name-calling" by one, (who simply feels affronted and has a distinct vested interest in the determination, rather than having a reasoned basis for the determination), may not be designated as "name-calling" by another. Within the subject of humor, IIRC "Spock" once replied that he logically determined that it was time to do something illogical, (to paraphrase).
-
The acccusation that many, (or indeed any), of my posts are self-referential is empty and false. It is made baldly and with no substantiation whatsoever which qualifies it as mere ad hominem to be disregarded. On the other hand, evidence in the form of the 'acussed' own printed words, (of which unaltered records exist in these threads), exists to support the contentions, (not "accusations"), made against those who would prefer they were overlooked. The weak 'counter-attack', (essentially a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" schoolyard 'argument'), made fails simply because zero conclusive evidence was presented to support it.
It isn't ad hominem because it is the truth. I can present this evidence at any time I wish to but haven't felt inclined to and I have never been quite the "to the jugular" man.
If it exists, (in quotable form, rather than 'loosely misinterpreted'), present it. Your rationalization for not doing so is inadaquate.
I had even already formulated an introduction to it comparing your criticisms and insults towards faith with the type of faith that would be required to believe you had ever performed anything more than the citing of "your' accusations as evidence of an offense by the other.
That's preposterous; I've presented the evidence in the form of citing the 'accused' own words and the reasoning which supports the contentions made. No reasonable refuations were presented as counter-arguments; instead, the empty counter-accusation that mine are 'self-referential' and 'it in't ad hominem because it is the truth" are made with zero evidence to substantiate such counter-accusations. Your tactic of making tangential diversions is entirely a non sequitur.
The evidence of you doing this (unlike the evidence you claim to exist) is within these pages and I pointed out to you many of the times you did such. If you have forgotten you can take a look, or if others are interested they can as well. Don't mistake my failure to press to mean a lack of position, instead you should accept my generosity and leave it alone.
Seriously; you're now attempting to use my 'own argumentive method' against me? And the attempt fails with such transparent clumsines as to be laughable. If such purposrted 'evidence' is "within these pages", you'd have no trouble excerpting a contextual quote. Both you and mack10 seem to feel that I should somehow be obligated to find _your_ supportive evidence when you are the ones making the claims which require such evidence. Once again, such smoke & mirrors in lieu of a substantiated refutations is only worthy of passing observation.
Your claim:
As I have shown, the example you presented did not constitute a "failure to state" under the definition of that term. Therefore, yours was an accusation and one which you failed to substantiate. Be that as it may, it simply adds evidence to my contention that such are mere attempts to bog down this debate in minutia.
You 'showing' why the example was not a failure to state:
"Failure to state"? What are you talking about? What you quoted was clearly stated asa response to another and that response originally quoted what was being responded to. Your weariness is not my concern; if you're going to debate this, finding appropriate references is your own responsibility. Attempting to dismiss the central premise of the debate as being "unimportant to the topic at hand" is evidentially irrational. Which goes far in supporting my secondary contention about people making irrational assertions stemming from irrational belief.
It is quite obvious you never even tried to show that the example was not a "failure to state" and only claimed that you did and tried to use your claim as evidence later. This qualifies as a perfect example of you self-referencing in a decptive and dishonest manner. It isn't even necessary for me to show your original "failure to state" as you claims of defense are obviously false and overtly apparent.
Your claim:
It is even more foolish to try to reduce a manifestly complex concept down to inaccurately simplistic terms, (which would make such an analogy insufficient once it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate - which it was).
You demonstrating it to be inaccurate:
The analogy presented is simply another way of suggesting that events are deterministic however, awareness of such events is limited so that the 'illusion' of free will is preserved without the substance. As you allude, the analogy is simplistically faulty in that humans experience events as they happen and make their decisions during the course of events, (rather than after watching them unfold). Such decision processes may or, may not include variables-contingency-planning but, they are still made at the time preceding/during event occurance.
Notice the absence of you demonstrating anything to be inaccurate.
Your claim:
More accurately, you accused me of resorting to "contextonomy" after I effective demonstrated that you resorted to it previously. Oddly, you didn't support your contention and merely left the empty claim swinging in the wind.
You effecitvely demonstrating me resorting to it previously:
The evidence that you snipped portions of the context to which you replied exist in this thread of discussion. Whether or not it was "sinister" is your subjective interpretation of the act - I merely suggested that it was suspicious.
Observe the lack of you demonstraing me resorting to contextonomy.
Your claim:
As previously indicated, your "expansion" on scopes was vague and inconclusive thus failing to directly support your contention. That made it tangential. Characterizing reiteration of this aspect of your 'argument' as redundant and irrelevant while you repeatedly ignore the evident vague inconclusiveness noted is hypocritical. You are begging the question. This is the very 'circular reasoning' you seem so fond of accusing others of, yet this is actually a proper example of it and not just a simple accusation without support.
Your indicating it being vauge and inconclusive:
Your premise is inherently faulty in that the "scope of variables the chooser has at hand" can and often do contain an irrational basis. Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance), to arrive at a choice encompasses making an irrational decision. In short, if the premise is false, conclusions drawn from it are extremely likely to be false ones.
Notice the lack of you actually indicating it to be vauge and inconclusive.
Indeed I had no trouble locating a few of the many examples of you self-referencing where you supposedly proved or demonstrated or indicated something where you never did. There are plenty more examples too, but these will suffice. I am sure that as many times as you did this against me that others have been met with the same dishonesty. You either assumed my lack of giving examples of you committing this offense was because I couldn't, or that I wouldn't go to the minimal effort necessary. You never considered that I might have other reasons for not doing it.
I don't use smoke and mirrors as I don't care about winning or losing -- I enjoy the debate and the way it improves my mind in thinking argumentatively/persuasively...there would be no reason to be dishonest as one could not improve the skill if they were. I have no ego or pride in the matter and if I make an augmentative blunder I will laugh at myself and improve.
-
Indeed I had no trouble locating a few of the many examples of you self-referencing where you supposedly proved or demonstrated or indicated something where you never did.
Since none of your so-called examples actually supported your contention, (you merely excerpted out of context quotes and emptily asserted that these supported your contentions), I didn't bother to include your dissembling, (besides, they remain intact, in the previous excuse for your post).
You either assumed my lack of giving examples of you committing this offense was because I couldn't ...
Your assumption that I assumed anything is off-base. I merely asked you to produce evidence supporting your contention and instead, you produced inconclusive nonsense which failed to support your contention. There was no need to assume or presume this as you supplied the responses yourself.
... or that I wouldn't go to the minimal effort necessary. You never considered that I might have other reasons for not doing it.
Unless you're now making the implicit claim to be a mind-reader, you have incorrectly determined what I may or may not consider. As it happens, your 'considerable effort' was wasted in producing inconclusive cherry-pickings. Perhaps you considered that I reply in this manner, or not ... either way, I make no tacit claims of 'mind-reading'. However, allow me now to try my hand at your 'mind-reading knack'; let's see ... it could be that you actually believe that your example were valid ones, (e.g., ones that supported your contention, despite the absence of factual evidence). Was I close?
I don't use smoke and mirrors as I don't care about winning or losing -
Your bland denial is belied by your evident use of smoke & mirrors, (specifically, attempting to claim that some excerpted, out of context quotes and emptily asserted self-referential assertions supported your contentions). Your example of using smoke & mirrors is accepted as evidence of same.
- I enjoy the debate and the way it improves my mind in thinking argumentatively/persuasively ...
In that case, you must not be enjoying this debate as much as you claim to be since there is little demonstrable evidence that it has improved your argumentative/persuasive thinking. To wit; I remain unpersuaded by the flimsy rebuttals offered thusfar. Have you got anything more substantial than sophistry?
...there would be no reason to be dishonest as one could not improve the skill if they were. I have no ego or pride in the matter and if I make an augmentative blunder I will laugh at myself and improve.
No doubt that isn't laughter I hear then ... must be the cat outside, yeah - that's it.
-
Indeed I had no trouble locating a few of the many examples of you self-referencing where you supposedly proved or demonstrated or indicated something where you never did.
Since none of your so-called examples actually supported your contention, (you merely excerpted out of context quotes and emptily asserted that these supported your contentions), I didn't bother to include your dissembling, (besides, they remain intact, in the previous excuse for your post).
On the contrary, all of my examples clearly demonstrated the offense that you repeatedly commit. I showed quotes of your claims of proving/demonstrating/indicating something and then I showed the quotes you were referencing with your claims. If the quotes were out of context they were out of context because you made them that way as they come entirely from your posts. That doesn't even matter though as they are direct chains of each other where you make a rambling statement or an accusation and then in your next post you cite that accusation or statement as proof of some sort of undeniable bit of wisdom -- you do this as an "argumentum ad verecundiam", or a fallacious appeal from inappropriate authority (since my use of Latin bothers you). It is more precisely a use of ipse dixitism, or a self-referential appeal to authority (again since my Latin troubles you). This is something you frequently do at a rate I have never seen managed by anyone outside of a political office.
Oh please show this dissembling. Draw back the curtain and show the readers the true wizard behind it -- this unfair and sinister threat you must contend with. Or did you mean that I am just going through with the motions? I am very curious and this must be terribly important for you to bring it up, yet oddly then dismiss it at the same time as if it didn't matter. This again reminds me of some politicians trick.
You either assumed my lack of giving examples of you committing this offense was because I couldn't ...
Your assumption that I assumed anything is off-base. I merely asked you to produce evidence supporting your contention and instead, you produced inconclusive nonsense which failed to support your contention. There was no need to assume or presume this as you supplied the responses yourself.
You asked and you received and I cannot help it if you didn't like your gifts. I would not quite call your posts "inconclusive nonsense", at best they are simply "nonsense" but it shows a bit of humility on your behalf for you to admit the obvious nonsensicality of what you posted.
... or that I wouldn't go to the minimal effort necessary. You never considered that I might have other reasons for not doing it.
Unless you're now making the implicit claim to be a mind-reader, you have incorrectly determined what I may or may not consider. As it happens, your 'considerable effort' was wasted in producing inconclusive cherry-pickings. Perhaps you considered that I reply in this manner, or not ... either way, I make no tacit claims of 'mind-reading'. However, allow me now to try my hand at your 'mind-reading knack'; let's see ... it could be that you actually believe that your example were valid ones, (e.g., ones that supported your contention, despite the absence of factual evidence). Was I close?
Your use of 'considerable effort' betrays you. This tells us that you consider the evidence I produced to have required a considerable degree of effort by your own standards and something that would not be done casually or without conviction. If they were cherry picked or not wouldn't disqualify them in any way, in fact by you including "cherry-picking" you are effectively admitting that you believe there to be many more and that these are just the most damaging. I cannot fully attest to that as I just grabbed the ones I recalled, although I would agree with you in your implied presumption that there are many more.
Your example of mind reading is akin to one guessing what card the other has after the other reveals it. Now guess what sentence I typed before I typed this one? Did you get it right? Wow you are amazing! (good sentence there for you to contextualize since you have proven to be not above such actions).
I don't use smoke and mirrors as I don't care about winning or losing -
Your bland denial is belied by your evident use of smoke & mirrors, (specifically, attempting to claim that some excerpted, out of context quotes and emptily asserted self-referential assertions supported your contentions). Your example of using smoke & mirrors is accepted as evidence of same.
My evident use of smoke and mirrors? Let us take a closer look, you never actually challenged the quotes of yours that I put forth (not that you could directly as they are your words), but all through your post you applied various adjectives and phrases to describe the use of them -- textbook smoke and mirrors.
- I enjoy the debate and the way it improves my mind in thinking argumentatively/persuasively ...
In that case, you must not be enjoying this debate as much as you claim to be since there is little demonstrable evidence that it has improved your argumentative/persuasive thinking. To wit; I remain unpersuaded by the flimsy rebuttals offered thusfar. Have you got anything more substantial than sophistry?
The only reason I would not have improved is because my opposition failed to challenge me -- something to which I would agree in the sense that after one becomes used to your repetitive and highly predictable style there really isn't anything else from you. I thought I might manage to get through one post without you using the term 'sophistry' or 'sophist' but I was mistaken...well haven't heard 'non sequitur' from you in this one yet so there is hope still on that.
...there would be no reason to be dishonest as one could not improve the skill if they were. I have no ego or pride in the matter and if I make an augmentative blunder I will laugh at myself and improve.
No doubt that isn't laughter I hear then ... must be the cat outside, yeah - that's it.
I cannot speculate as to what you hear or not, but I could readily believe you often hear things that are not there and don't hear things that are based solely on your memory and imagination expressed through your postings.
-
Since none of your so-called examples actually supported your contention, (you merely excerpted out of context quotes and emptily asserted that these supported your contentions), I didn't bother to include your dissembling, (besides, they remain intact, in the previous excuse for your post).
On the contrary, all of my examples clearly demonstrated the offense that you repeatedly commit.
No, they did not show any such thing except your flimsy attempts to characterize them as such. Each of them failed to support your contended accusation regarding some fabricated "offense", (e.g., the quoted excerpts did not substantiate _your_ claim), therefore, no valid evidence was presented was presented. Your claim is rendered false.
I showed quotes of your claims of proving/demonstrating/indicating something
That is a false claim; you certainly did not quote my lines of reasoning used; you quoted randomly-selected excerpts and then claimed that these excerpts supported your contentions when they did not, (merely because you claimed they did, and yes I do see where you are trying to imply this it what I have done however, your accusation is empty because it remains unsubstantiated). Now we have clear evidence of you claiming to provide evidence, the quoted "evidence" itself, (which does not support the claim), and your dishonest 'debate' tactics.
... where you make a rambling statement or an accusation and then in your next post you cite that accusation or statement as proof ...
None of your excerpted quotes show me citing my previous posts as self-referential evidence. None. Zero. Your false claims and your uncited examples never support this repeated contention of yours. Although you'll not likely admit to promoting false contentions, it is in keeping with the general concept of xtianity.
-- you do this as an "argumentum ad verecundiam", or a fallacious appeal from inappropriate authority ...
Since they weren't self-referential merely because you emptily claim they were, there was no appeal to authority made or implied. Your 'reasoning', (to use a misnomer), is faulty.
It is more precisely a use of ipse dixitism, or a self-referential appeal to authority ...
This is something you frequently do at a rate I have never seen managed by anyone outside of a political office.
You either assumed my lack of giving examples of you committing this offense was because I couldn't ...
Your assumption that I assumed anything is off-base. I merely asked you to produce evidence supporting your contention and instead, you produced inconclusive nonsense which failed to support your contention. There was no need to assume or presume this as you supplied the responses yourself.
You asked and you received ... "inconclusive nonsense", at best they are simply "nonsense" ...
Your response was pared-down to make it more accurate than the lame insult intended.
... or that I wouldn't go to the minimal effort necessary. You never considered that I might have other reasons for not doing it.
I don't use smoke and mirrors as I don't care about winning or losing -
Your bland denial is belied by your evident use of smoke & mirrors, (specifically, attempting to claim that some excerpted, out of context quotes and emptily asserted self-referential assertions supported your contentions). Your example of using smoke & mirrors is accepted as evidence of same.
- I enjoy the debate and the way it improves my mind in thinking argumentatively/persuasively ...
In that case, you must not be enjoying this debate as much as you claim to be since there is little demonstrable evidence that it has improved your argumentative/persuasive thinking. To wit; I remain unpersuaded by the flimsy rebuttals offered thusfar. Have you got anything more substantial than sophistry?
The only reason I would not have improved is ...
I quoted your statement above, in context, "I enjoy the debate and the way it improves my mind ..." therefore, if your argumentative thinking and persuasiveness have shown no improvement since the debate began, (and there's been no demonstrable evidence of such "improvement" presented), then you must not be enjoying the debate. That conclusion logically follows from your own assertions, unless you're using something other than logical to arrive at them. Given your subsequent empty assertions, it could be extrapolated that you're using sophistry instead of valid reasoning.
... because my opposition failed to challenge me ...
Manifestly, that is not the "only reason", (e.g., non-reasoned excuse). There are many other potential excuses for your failure to improve which are entirely your responsibility, (as opposed to shifting that responsibility to another in a simplistic attempt at a derrogatory remark). These range from your lacking the ability to reasoning logically at anything other than a sophist level, (or, within the context of a computer programming language which requires only a loose adherence to 'logic'), to being unable to met the challenge by improving your skills.
...there would be no reason to be dishonest as one could not improve the skill if they were. I have no ego or pride in the matter and if I make an augmentative blunder I will laugh at myself and improve.
No doubt that isn't laughter I hear then ... must be the cat outside, yeah - that's it. [/quote]
I cannot speculate as to what you hear or not, but I could readily believe you often hear things that are not there and don't hear things that are based solely on your memory and imagination expressed through your postings.
On the contrary, of the participants in this 'debate', one isn't having "faith" in nor "praying" to unseen and unheard things that are not there and are based solely upon imagination and the other one is. These are your words; if you don't like them, chastize yourself in some self-referential non sequitur. Again.
-
Indeed I had no trouble locating a few of the many examples of you self-referencing where you supposedly proved or demonstrated or indicated something where you never did.
Since none of your so-called examples actually supported your contention, (you merely excerpted out of context quotes and emptily asserted that these supported your contentions), I didn't bother to include your dissembling, (besides, they remain intact, in the previous excuse for your post).
On the contrary, all of my examples clearly demonstrated the offense that you repeatedly commit. I showed quotes of your claims of proving/demonstrating/indicating something and then I showed the quotes you were referencing with your claims. If the quotes were out of context they were out of context because you made them that way as they come entirely from your posts. That doesn't even matter though as they are direct chains of each other where you make a rambling statement or an accusation and then in your next post you cite that accusation or statement as proof of some sort of undeniable bit of wisdom -- you do this as an "argumentum ad verecundiam", or a fallacious appeal from inappropriate authority (since my use of Latin bothers you). It is more precisely a use of ipse dixitism, or a self-referential appeal to authority (again since my Latin troubles you). This is something you frequently do at a rate I have never seen managed by anyone outside of a political office.
Oh please show this dissembling. Draw back the curtain and show the readers the true wizard behind it -- this unfair and sinister threat you must contend with. Or did you mean that I am just going through with the motions? I am very curious and this must be terribly important for you to bring it up, yet oddly then dismiss it at the same time as if it didn't matter. This again reminds me of some politicians trick.
You either assumed my lack of giving examples of you committing this offense was because I couldn't ...
Your assumption that I assumed anything is off-base. I merely asked you to produce evidence supporting your contention and instead, you produced inconclusive nonsense which failed to support your contention. There was no need to assume or presume this as you supplied the responses yourself.
You asked and you received and I cannot help it if you didn't like your gifts. I would not quite call your posts "inconclusive nonsense", at best they are simply "nonsense" but it shows a bit of humility on your behalf for you to admit the obvious nonsensicality of what you posted.
... or that I wouldn't go to the minimal effort necessary. You never considered that I might have other reasons for not doing it.
Unless you're now making the implicit claim to be a mind-reader, you have incorrectly determined what I may or may not consider. As it happens, your 'considerable effort' was wasted in producing inconclusive cherry-pickings. Perhaps you considered that I reply in this manner, or not ... either way, I make no tacit claims of 'mind-reading'. However, allow me now to try my hand at your 'mind-reading knack'; let's see ... it could be that you actually believe that your example were valid ones, (e.g., ones that supported your contention, despite the absence of factual evidence). Was I close?
Your use of 'considerable effort' betrays you. This tells us that you consider the evidence I produced to have required a considerable degree of effort by your own standards and something that would not be done casually or without conviction. If they were cherry picked or not wouldn't disqualify them in any way, in fact by you including "cherry-picking" you are effectively admitting that you believe there to be many more and that these are just the most damaging. I cannot fully attest to that as I just grabbed the ones I recalled, although I would agree with you in your implied presumption that there are many more.
Your example of mind reading is akin to one guessing what card the other has after the other reveals it. Now guess what sentence I typed before I typed this one? Did you get it right? Wow you are amazing! (good sentence there for you to contextualize since you have proven to be not above such actions).
I don't use smoke and mirrors as I don't care about winning or losing -
Your bland denial is belied by your evident use of smoke & mirrors, (specifically, attempting to claim that some excerpted, out of context quotes and emptily asserted self-referential assertions supported your contentions). Your example of using smoke & mirrors is accepted as evidence of same.
My evident use of smoke and mirrors? Let us take a closer look, you never actually challenged the quotes of yours that I put forth (not that you could directly as they are your words), but all through your post you applied various adjectives and phrases to describe the use of them -- textbook smoke and mirrors.
- I enjoy the debate and the way it improves my mind in thinking argumentatively/persuasively ...
In that case, you must not be enjoying this debate as much as you claim to be since there is little demonstrable evidence that it has improved your argumentative/persuasive thinking. To wit; I remain unpersuaded by the flimsy rebuttals offered thusfar. Have you got anything more substantial than sophistry?
The only reason I would not have improved is because my opposition failed to challenge me -- something to which I would agree in the sense that after one becomes used to your repetitive and highly predictable style there really isn't anything else from you. I thought I might manage to get through one post without you using the term 'sophistry' or 'sophist' but I was mistaken...well haven't heard 'non sequitur' from you in this one yet so there is hope still on that.
...there would be no reason to be dishonest as one could not improve the skill if they were. I have no ego or pride in the matter and if I make an augmentative blunder I will laugh at myself and improve.
No doubt that isn't laughter I hear then ... must be the cat outside, yeah - that's it.
I cannot speculate as to what you hear or not, but I could readily believe you often hear things that are not there and don't hear things that are based solely on your memory and imagination expressed through your postings.
:thumbsup:
-
I cannot speculate as to what you hear or not, but I could readily believe you often hear things that are not there and don't hear things that are based solely on your memory and imagination expressed through your postings.
:thumbsup:
Of the participants in this 'debate', one isn't having "faith" in nor "praying" to unseen and unheard things that are not there and are based solely upon imagination and a few others are. To reiterate the central point of contention which the ones who are have continued to dodge; the a priori premise presented was that "faith" is either a rational or, irrational basis for "belief". I contended that it is an irrational basis and posted the reasoning behind that contention, (no substantial rebuttal was offered, discounting unsubstantiated 'no, it's not' types of responses). Opponents of this contention tacitly adopt the implicit opposite view; that "faith" is rational however, none have shown any line of reasoning or evidence to support that implicit counter-contention.
All dodgings aside; has anyone got any reasoning or evidence to support an implicit contention that "faith" is rational?
-
Of the participants in this 'debate', one isn't having "faith" in nor "praying" to unseen and unheard things that are not there and are based solely upon imagination and a few others are. To reiterate the central point of contention which the ones who are have continued to dodge; the a priori premise presented was that "faith" is either a rational or, irrational basis for "belief". I contended that it is an irrational basis and posted the reasoning behind that contention, (no substantial rebuttal was offered, discounting unsubstantiated 'no, it's not' types of responses). Opponents of this contention tacitly adopt the implicit opposite view; that "faith" is rational however, none have shown any line of reasoning or evidence to support that implicit counter-contention.
All dodgings aside; has anyone got any reasoning or evidence to support an implicit contention that "faith" is rational?
I cited the relevance of rational choice theory regarding human decision making. You can consult the works of William Bainbridge and Rodney Stark for more information into this. There is also James Frazer, Max Weber, and Edward Tylor who shared similar views that religious faith is deliberate and rational and this is even if they didn't believe in it.
All human decision is based on making rational choices, regardless of how others view the results of such choices. In addition to the prevalent usage of rational choice theory in all aspects of modelling of human behavior I can also lend habit of human nature to always ask "why?" when someone does something horrific or foolish or unreasonable to the observer. We ask "why?" because we know they had their reasons. We know something compelled them to choose the action they did as appropriate and even if we do not agree or understand it we try to grasp the reasoning behind their choice. Even in courts we make exceptions for "heat of the moment" type cases to reduce penalties because we realize under such circumstances the ID, or non-reasoning part of the brain takes over and people act and react without thinking and without choosing a course of action (hard wired responses kick in that bypass normal thought processes (much like when one types or shoots and muscle memory takes control)).
I indicated the complete worthlessness of polls and surveys and sampling data if such were the case that people tended to make choices based on irrationality. Since we know that this information is considered valuable enough that people pay money and go to great efforts to obtain it then we can only conclude that it is quite reliable and lends to human predictability (which would not be possible if we made irrational choices). I myself can never remember making an irrational choices, even though I perfectly recall doing many foolish things that were irrational in hindsight. Even when I deliberately chose to do something that I knew ahead of time to be foolish (bb gun wars, arrow roulette, circular saw blade chicken, etc) I made these choices rationally and deliberately (even though I muttered under my breath "this is so stupid").
Can anyone think of any choice they made openly and deliberately where they chose the most illogical of choices as the best outcome without counter-weighting it against a reward or alternate gain (such as bet the longshot as a valid risk/reward but a foolish if the odds were even money)? I personally cannot.
In addition I leave you with this and I am unsure of the source as: "The view that faith underlies all rationality holds that rationality is dependent on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory, and reason, because the foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by evidence or reason.". In addition I indicated an experiment in another thread where the reliability of memory was proven to rapidly degrade even as short as 30 days after an event. At such time the person's brain will rewrite the memory to better fit into the way in which the brain tends to view or understand things. The result can be that a person remembers quite clearly and honestly an event that never ever happened and the person could readily pass a lie detector and be found to be telling the truth about it.
-
Of the participants in this 'debate', one isn't having "faith" in nor "praying" to unseen and unheard things that are not there and are based solely upon imagination and a few others are. To reiterate the central point of contention which the ones who are have continued to dodge; the a priori premise presented was that "faith" is either a rational or, irrational basis for "belief". I contended that it is an irrational basis and posted the reasoning behind that contention, (no substantial rebuttal was offered, discounting unsubstantiated 'no, it's not' types of responses). Opponents of this contention tacitly adopt the implicit opposite view; that "faith" is rational however, none have shown any line of reasoning or evidence to support that implicit counter-contention.
All dodgings aside; has anyone got any reasoning or evidence to support an implicit contention that "faith" is rational?
I cited the relevance of rational choice theory regarding human decision making. You can consult the works of William Bainbridge and Rodney Stark for more information into this. There is also James Frazer, Max Weber, and Edward Tylor who shared similar views that religious faith is deliberate and rational and this is even if they didn't believe in it.
"Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage. For example, this may involve kissing someone, cheating on a test, buying a new dress, or committing murder. In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process." *
To emphasize that last sentence, "In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process."
Note that the theory says nothing of basing choices on 'logical reasoning' but, as a self-centered process which _mimics_ a rational process.
All human decision is based on making rational choices, regardless of how others view the results of such choices.
That is an a priori assumption with which I disagree. Humans not only make irrational choices, (this assertion is backed by a plethora of documented evidence and examples ought to exist within your personal experience as well). That is, unless you are claiming literally that "all human decision making is based on making rational choices ... ", (not as in 'rationalizing' such choices but, as in using logical reasoning with an equally logical basis). Lest you go off into a diversion into word interpretation variations, "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning, regardless of how much you'd enjoy redefining words to suit your assertions.
In addition to the prevalent usage of rational choice theory in all aspects of modelling of human behavior ...
Your appeal to authority argument is rejected on the basis of not recognizing 'microeconomic models', some scholars in other disciplines such as sociology as authoritive.
I can also lend habit of human nature to always ask "why?" when someone does something horrific or foolish or unreasonable to the observer. We ask "why?" because we know they had their reasons.
You're making a common mistake in equating "reasons", (excuses which may or may not have a basis in logical reasoning), with logical reasoning.
The two are not interchangeable, as you suggest by way of false implicit parallel. Some people may believe they had some _excuse_, (colloqiually called a "reason"), for their irrational choices but, the fact remains that if their excuse has no basis in logical reasoning, it was an irrational choice made upon an irrational basis, (whether an emotional, a random/unknown one or, no logical reason whatsoever).
We know something compelled them to choose the action they did as appropriate and even if we do not agree or understand it we try to grasp the reasoning behind their choice.
An irrational decision, (whether it results in an action or, inaction), remains an irrational one if there is no logical reasoning behind that decision. In this instance, the one making the decision/choice would be aware of any logical reasoning process preceding such and be able to provide the line of reasoning to others. If they don't know, they don't have a logical basis for their irrational decision/choice.
Even in courts we make exceptions for "heat of the moment" type cases to reduce penalties because we realize under such circumstances the ID, or non-reasoning part of the brain takes over and people act and react without thinking and without choosing a course of action ...
You've just provided support for my contention that people do indeed make irrational choices when the "non-reasoning part of the brain takes over and people act and react without thinking and without choosing a course of action ..." That contention inclusively contained the premise that "faith" involves the "non-reasoning part of the brain ...".
I indicated the complete worthlessness of polls and surveys and sampling data if such were the case that people tended to make choices based on irrationality.
Ah but, people _do_ make irrational choices during the "heat of the moment", an 'emotional crisis', etc. and while rushing through surveys for a variety of 'reasons'/excuses.
Since we know that this information is considered valuable enough that people pay money and go to great efforts to obtain it then we can only conclude that it is quite reliable and lends to human predictability (which would not be possible if we made irrational choices).
Unfortunately, some people taking surveys do indeed rush through them, (tossing out randomly-selected responses), which most online survey sites check for and reject. Further, some survey-takers actually lie during the survey just to get paid, (this is a bit more difficult for online sites to verify since no personally-identifying data is gathered). I'm not saying everyone does this, or that you or I do this however, it does happen, (which many survey site employees can attest to, based upon either inconsistent data or, inconsistent patterns).
I myself can never remember making an irrational choices, even though I perfectly recall doing many foolish things that were irrational in hindsight.
If your foolish/irrational actions were made upon an irrational basis, it doesn't matter whether or not you can remember doing it. The result is the same; your irrational actions were a direct result of your making irrational choices. I've made some irrational decisions in my misspent youth as well, so have everyone I know of.
Even when I deliberately chose to do something that I knew ahead of time to be foolish (bb gun wars, arrow roulette, circular saw blade chicken, etc) I made these choices rationally and deliberately (even though I muttered under my breath "this is so stupid").
Wait a moment ... are you seriously going with "Spock's", 'I logically reasoned that it was time to do something illogical'? Okay, let's look more closely at what you wrote; you "deliberately chose to do something" which you "knew ahead of time to be foolish", (e.g., irrational). This means that you were aware, in advance of the decision, that your choice was irrational. You then stated that you "made these choices rationally and deliberately ..." however, that's not accurate. The more accurate statement, (based upon the context you provided), would've been that you "rationalized" your decision, (did it for fun, kicks, as a dare, impress girls, whatever - none of which are lines of logival reasoning; they're emotionally-based). Yes, the choice was deliberate however, it was not made upon a rational basis. Now, I realize that one can produce a line of reasoning based upon a irrational premise, (e.g., 'if doing this crazy stunt will impress that gorgeous woman, I might get laid ...'). My point being that people make irrational decisions based upon irrational premises all the time.
Can anyone think of any choice they made openly and deliberately where they chose the most illogical of choices as the best outcome without counter-weighting it against a reward or alternate gain (such as bet the longshot as a valid risk/reward but a foolish if the odds were even money)? I personally cannot.
"The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage." *
In addition I leave you with this and I am unsure of the source as: "The view that faith underlies all rationality holds that rationality is dependent on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory, and reason, because the foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by evidence or reason."
First, there really aren't any "laws" of logic or mathematics; there are tested principles which deliver accurate results. Illogic and faulty a faulty math process deliver inaccurate results. We observe that 2+ 2 does not equal 173 and must conclude something didn't add up. We also can observe that running out onto a busy freeway isn't a rational choice because that person's odds of ending up squashed are high. None of these observations rely upon "faith".
* -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
-
I cited the relevance of rational choice theory regarding human decision making. You can consult the works of William Bainbridge and Rodney Stark for more information into this. There is also James Frazer, Max Weber, and Edward Tylor who shared similar views that religious faith is deliberate and rational and this is even if they didn't believe in it.
"Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage. For example, this may involve kissing someone, cheating on a test, buying a new dress, or committing murder. In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process." *
To emphasize that last sentence, "In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process."
Note that the theory says nothing of basing choices on 'logical reasoning' but, as a self-centered process which _mimics_ a rational process.
The description of crazy or sane comes from the observer, not the performer and the extension of mimicking such a rational process also implies that the observer must consider whatever decision making skills used by the performer had to follow some form of a rational process to the performer.
All human decision is based on making rational choices, regardless of how others view the results of such choices.
That is an a priori assumption with which I disagree. Humans not only make irrational choices, (this assertion is backed by a plethora of documented evidence and examples ought to exist within your personal experience as well). That is, unless you are claiming literally that "all human decision making is based on making rational choices ... ", (not as in 'rationalizing' such choices but, as in using logical reasoning with an equally logical basis). Lest you go off into a diversion into word interpretation variations, "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning, regardless of how much you'd enjoy redefining words to suit your assertions.
I contend that what determines a 'rational' choice is purely subjective and that the consensus of what is rational or not, while appropriate in a democracy or courtroom, holds no weight in the validity of personal decision making. To clarify I can think of many cases where certain courses of action would be considered irrational to nearly everyone, but then when you start mixing in more variables (the kind of variables favoring choosing the 'by itself' irrational choice) to the equation you will begin to whittle away at the majority and given enough compelling reasons that majority will become a minority. You might call this rationalizing but I further contend this is exactly what is involved in decision making. As an example, voting for Obama in the next election is the only rational choice to some (as of now and regardless of anything else that occurs), to others the only rational choice is to vote for anyone but Obama (again as of now and regardless of anything else that occurs to the time of voting), and yet others are still subject to the "it depends" and the weighing of choices in the future as they become available.
In addition to the prevalent usage of rational choice theory in all aspects of modelling of human behavior ...
Your appeal to authority argument is rejected on the basis of not recognizing 'microeconomic models', some scholars in other disciplines such as sociology as authoritive.
It is an appeal to authority, but what do you give in opposition? You give your own opinion about how you view the choices made by people and while some strongly agree with your points of view on things there are others that just as strongly disagree with you. Don't try to minimize the importance of these 'microeconomic models' and they are extremely effective with their ability to predict. Risk versus reward is something everyone can understand and agree that given enough reward they will most certainly increase the risk they are welling to participate in. Again I indicate the longshot bet. At even money it is foolish but at 1000:1 odds it suddenly becomes a more rational choice. If all the other bets were even money then the longshot is practically the only rational choice to make.
I can also lend habit of human nature to always ask "why?" when someone does something horrific or foolish or unreasonable to the observer. We ask "why?" because we know they had their reasons.
You're making a common mistake in equating "reasons", (excuses which may or may not have a basis in logical reasoning), with logical reasoning.
The two are not interchangeable, as you suggest by way of false implicit parallel. Some people may believe they had some _excuse_, (colloqiually called a "reason"), for their irrational choices but, the fact remains that if their excuse has no basis in logical reasoning, it was an irrational choice made upon an irrational basis, (whether an emotional, a random/unknown one or, no logical reason whatsoever).
I agree that there are differences between reasons and logical reasons, but then the distinction is always placed to indicate it being logical and not the other way around. We are not logical automatons though and that is obvious in our diversity of choices from everything to fashion, food, music, politics, religion, etc. I used to gamble and played blackjack purely logically. I applied a card count system and all my choices strictly relied upon the results of the point count and what my cards were versus the dealers up card. That is an example of me being purely logical, but I had to force myself to do that and it was not natural and even knowing the statistics I still had to actively fight the desire to alter my style as my emotions changed during the play.
I would speculate that if there is a person out there who always bases their choices on pure logic that everyone who knows this individual would claim the person to "have something wrong with them" or uses such words as "doesn't seem quite right" or "odd" when describing the person.
We know something compelled them to choose the action they did as appropriate and even if we do not agree or understand it we try to grasp the reasoning behind their choice.
An irrational decision, (whether it results in an action or, inaction), remains an irrational one if there is no logical reasoning behind that decision. In this instance, the one making the decision/choice would be aware of any logical reasoning process preceding such and be able to provide the line of reasoning to others. If they don't know, they don't have a logical basis for their irrational decision/choice.
This again relies on a consensus of what is logical or not. Outside of pure science one will find it difficult to logically prove most things in all cases. People weight variables. Some things have more importance than others when choosing and thus are more difficult to convey as rational to an observer. Some things that certain people weigh as very important are completely unimportant to others. In such context the logic of the observer has no relevance to the logic of the performer. Unless the importance of the variables are equally shared by those that they are being explained to then it is possible that their will be disagreement on whether the chosen action was logical or not.
Even in courts we make exceptions for "heat of the moment" type cases to reduce penalties because we realize under such circumstances the ID, or non-reasoning part of the brain takes over and people act and react without thinking and without choosing a course of action ...
You've just provided support for my contention that people do indeed make irrational choices when the "non-reasoning part of the brain takes over and people act and react without thinking and without choosing a course of action ..." That contention inclusively contained the premise that "faith" involves the "non-reasoning part of the brain ...".
No, I provided support for my contention that courts are aware that sometimes people don't make choices. Courts are aware that sometimes people act and react without processing the data. The non-reasoning part of the brain does not consider anything other than primal nature. Their is no decision making process ever invoked, therefor there is no choice made or to be made. Whether faith may be primal or not I am uncertain. It certainly doesn't qualify in the case of the example above though as the above relies upon immediate action. Even the biblical thief on the cross was not in such an instant decision making choice to choose faith from a "heat of the moment" reaction, but a man with a gun to his head might well qualify I suppose.
I indicated the complete worthlessness of polls and surveys and sampling data if such were the case that people tended to make choices based on irrationality.
Ah but, people _do_ make irrational choices during the "heat of the moment", an 'emotional crisis', etc. and while rushing through surveys for a variety of 'reasons'/excuses.
As I contend above, the "heat of the moment" is not a considered choice, it is simply an action of hard wired nature. During an "emotional crisis" we can find similar hard wired responses and also an interruption of the natural chemical balance of the human body and even a psychological damaging of reality. In such cases the choice may be completely rational to what is being perceived by the performer. Rushing through surveys and randomly clicking doesn't constitute an irrational decision as one isn't considering the question at all, one is simply attempting to rush through a series of selections as rapidly as possible without regard to any outcome other than profit (profit is a variable often weighted heavily by people). In an attempt to hurry a survey as fast as possible, the rational choice would obviously be not to read the question at all. Now if one is aware of survey's using reader comprehension methods to screen for such cases those types of hurry through people will then have to check the question for such indications (but even then they often just look for word triggers and don't actually read the whole question or even the choices except for cases of questions to detect those not reading indicating which response to select).
Since we know that this information is considered valuable enough that people pay money and go to great efforts to obtain it then we can only conclude that it is quite reliable and lends to human predictability (which would not be possible if we made irrational choices).
Unfortunately, some people taking surveys do indeed rush through them, (tossing out randomly-selected responses), which most online survey sites check for and reject. Further, some survey-takers actually lie during the survey just to get paid, (this is a bit more difficult for online sites to verify since no personally-identifying data is gathered). I'm not saying everyone does this, or that you or I do this however, it does happen, (which many survey site employees can attest to, based upon either inconsistent data or, inconsistent patterns).
I agree that dishonesty occurs in online surveys. Many people are aware (or will be eventually) that such things are often detected and used as disqualification and this is a rational basis for the survey taker to be honest instead of wasting their time being dishonest. By that I mean they are taking surveys to gain profit but if they consistently are dishonest and get detected they will not gain profit in all cases and given enough instances of being detected it eventually becomes less profitable to hurry a survey than it does to proceed correctly -- or in other words the hurry method pays less overall for the time put in than the honest method does. This again qualifies as a risk versus reward situation in addition to an integrity situation.
I myself can never remember making an irrational choices, even though I perfectly recall doing many foolish things that were irrational in hindsight.
If your foolish/irrational actions were made upon an irrational basis, it doesn't matter whether or not you can remember doing it. The result is the same; your irrational actions were a direct result of your making irrational choices. I've made some irrational decisions in my misspent youth as well, so have everyone I know of.
My BB gun wars were never irrational to me until the day I got shot in one of my *bleep*. Previous to that they may have been foolish to me (not sure rally as I only remember them as fun), but completely rational as the fun factor was amazing. After that they were completely irrational for me to do -- unless I wore a cup and some high impact protective goggles. While I can look back as an observer and decide what is rational or irrational of my own decision making process, I cannot appreciate the weights I applied to the other variables at the time as such things are no longer valued the same to me. In the example I indicated, prior to getting shot in oh-so-sensitive an area, my weighting of risk of injury was rather low. After getting shot my weighting of risk of injury was extremely high and even unreasonably high considering out of 20 or more times I was only injured once.
Even when I deliberately chose to do something that I knew ahead of time to be foolish (bb gun wars, arrow roulette, circular saw blade chicken, etc) I made these choices rationally and deliberately (even though I muttered under my breath "this is so stupid").
Wait a moment ... are you seriously going with "Spock's", 'I logically reasoned that it was time to do something illogical'? Okay, let's look more closely at what you wrote; you "deliberately chose to do something" which you "knew ahead of time to be foolish", (e.g., irrational). This means that you were aware, in advance of the decision, that your choice was irrational. You then stated that you "made these choices rationally and deliberately ..." however, that's not accurate. The more accurate statement, (based upon the context you provided), would've been that you "rationalized" your decision, (did it for fun, kicks, as a dare, impress girls, whatever - none of which are lines of logival reasoning; they're emotionally-based). Yes, the choice was deliberate however, it was not made upon a rational basis. Now, I realize that one can produce a line of reasoning based upon a irrational premise, (e.g., 'if doing this crazy stunt will impress that gorgeous woman, I might get laid ...'). My point being that people make irrational decisions based upon irrational premises all the time.
No. I didn't do them to be illogical (although I speculate one can claim to do that but the act of intending to deliberately do something illogical suddenly qualifies that act as logical in that pretense). Yes, I know in the case of the circular saw blade chicken that it was a demonstration of bravery and that I was fully aware ahead of time of the inherent risk involved and the random nature that the blade would take (thus making it unlikely to dodge out of the way as any choice of which is right/wrong way is unreliable as the blade can just as easily go one way or the other without indication ahead of time). I knew from experience as a kid around other boys contending for the position of who is tougher/etc that the penalty for not performing this risky endeavor after the others had done it was sustained and repeated ridicule and a loss of station within my group. I weighed that penalty against the reward for completing it (the reward being acceptance and if I happened to get injured and not show concern an elevation above my current standing). The risk, although imaginable, had never been demonstrated as nobody had ever been injured in the previous attempts so it was a real sense of danger but not weighted very high as it never had happened. My choice was the rational choice of a young boy trying to fit in with his peers.
-
Can anyone think of any choice they made openly and deliberately where they chose the most illogical of choices as the best outcome without counter-weighting it against a reward or alternate gain (such as bet the longshot as a valid risk/reward but a foolish if the odds were even money)? I personally cannot.
"The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage." *
I agree, but I contend that there really isn't any difference between the two if you expand the application of the rational choice theory from the isolated event to 'most people' and given the same set of circumstances and value rating that the classifications converge. While people can predict ahead of time, consequences are never fully realized or appreciated until after the fact. This is the time where people re-evaluate their weighting systems based on the real experience rather than the perceived possibility of such an experience. This is the time where people can suddenly go from considering their choice rational while making it to irrational while suffering the consequence of it. It is simply a matter of perception.
In addition I leave you with this and I am unsure of the source as: "The view that faith underlies all rationality holds that rationality is dependent on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory, and reason, because the foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by evidence or reason."
First, there really aren't any "laws" of logic or mathematics; there are tested principles which deliver accurate results. Illogic and faulty a faulty math process deliver inaccurate results. We observe that 2+ 2 does not equal 173 and must conclude something didn't add up. We also can observe that running out onto a busy freeway isn't a rational choice because that person's odds of ending up squashed are high. None of these observations rely upon "faith".
* -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
Those were not my words, that is a quote that I could not source (found multiple references to it in multiple places but no origin source). I think they use "laws" loosely to imply the understood nature and knowledge (if we could date the quote it might be more helpful in that regard). We can state that 1 + 1 = 10 and be both right and wrong. We can state that i*i = -1 and be both right and wrong. Both of those cases rely upon perception of the variables and both of those are actually true as both right and wrong. We can also observe that a mother running onto a busy freeway to try and save her child who wandered into traffic is a perfectly understandable (and thus rational) choice, and one that is more likely to occur than not to occur (well speculation there but based on the women I know and how they safeguard their children and value their children's worth over their own). All observations rely upon faith. Faith that you are seeing and interpreting all of the details involved, or at least enough of the important ones to be able to realize the situation. It is such a degree of faith normally extended that people fail to realize they apply it unquestionably until at such times the unexplained occurs (an example watching a magic act and witnessing something occur that your mind says cannot happen...you begin to doubt and backtrack your senses to try and detect the ruse -- which is interesting as your physical senses tell you one thing but your logic, acting as faith (because you are choosing to believe something else happened that is not supported by evidence), tells you that it couldn't happen as your senses interpreted it).
-
The description of crazy or sane comes from the observer, not the performer and the extension of mimicking such a rational process also implies that the observer must consider whatever decision making skills used by the performer had to follow some form of a rational process to the performer.
There is no requirement for an observer to assume that the "performer"/decision-maker observed "had to follow some form of a rational process ..." The observed decision-maker could be asked to describe the process used to reach their decision and, if it were based on logical reasoning, (rather than 'mimicking such a rational process'), the line of reasoning would be apparent. If the observed decision-maker cannot describe the process or, invalidates it as logical reasoning by describing illogical aspects of the process, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or, random risks taken, etc.), then their decision had an irrational basis.
I contend that what determines a 'rational' choice is purely subjective and that the consensus of what is rational or not, while appropriate in a democracy or courtroom, holds no weight in the validity of personal decision making.
I disagree based upon the established meaning of "rational": Lest you go off into a diversion into word interpretation variations, "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning. The established meaning of "rational" includes a process 'in accordance with reason and logic; unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice.' Inclusion of irrational aspects, (such as emotional bias or prejudice), invalidates the decision-making process as being rational by definition. It doesn't matter to this definition whether the decision-maker subjectively views their own decision as 'making sense' to them personally, (as this has no bearing on the objective reasoning process itself).
To clarify I can think of many cases where certain courses of action would be considered irrational to nearly everyone, but then when you start mixing in more variables (the kind of variables favoring choosing the 'by itself' irrational choice) to the equation you will begin to whittle away at the majority and given enough compelling reasons that majority will become a minority. You might call this rationalizing but I further contend this is exactly what is involved in decision making.
The inclusion of non-rational variables is what dillutes a rational decision-making process, (mixing irrationality with reasoning), and forms an irrational basis for making decisions. While it can be contended that including irrational factors in a decision-making process is 'reasonable' in light of human propensities for irrational behaviour, the decision-making process itself does have an irrational basis. Therefore, inclusion of irrational and not fully-predictable variables can, (and often does), lead to errors of misjudgement.
It is an appeal to authority, but what do you give in opposition? You give your own opinion about how you view the choices made by people ...
It isn't my "opinion", since the described reasoning used to arrive at the dissenting contention employs logical reasoning, (rather than emotional bias, subjective preconceptions or prejudicial preferences). That means it isn't 'merely' an unfounded opinion.
I agree that there are differences between reasons and logical reasons, but then the distinction is always placed to indicate it being logical and not the other way around.
While it is true that a reason may or may not be based in reasoning, the distinction between reasons/excuses and logical reasoning is made because reasons/excuses quite often are not based upon logical reasoning. It is important not to conflate the two due to this distinction.
We are not logical automatons though and that is obvious in our diversity of choices from everything to fashion, food, music, politics, religion, etc..
Precisely so, and it is because we are not logical automatons that we humans regularly include illogical components to the decision-making process regarding the subjects mentioned - with emphasis upon "religion" especially. The illogical component included in religion is faith.
I would speculate that if there is a person out there who always bases their choices on pure logic that everyone who knows this individual would claim the person to "have something wrong with them" or uses such words as "doesn't seem quite right" or "odd" when describing the person.
Actually, I've observed that most reactions have included irrationally-emotional ones when confronted by logic. Apparently, umbrage is taken when an individual's personal preferences/bias is challenged by reason, (in fact, such a reaction often swings over into a 'logic can't tell me what to do' response ... almost as if they are insisting upon being as irrational as possible - just to be contrary).
This again relies on a consensus of what is logical or not. Outside of pure science one will find it difficult to logically prove most things in all cases.
To reiterate; "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning. The established meaning of "rational" includes 'in accordance with reason and logic; unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice.' The only "consensus" involved concerns the consistancy of meaning, (otherwise, people would redefine meanings in any random manner).
People weight variables. Some things have more importance than others when choosing and thus are more difficult to convey as rational to an observer. Some things that certain people weigh as very important are completely unimportant to others.
Such a variable-weighting process either involves logical reasoning to assign weights or, it incorporates irrational aspects, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or prejudices). If it includes irrational aspects, the reasoning process contains error-prone factors, (as not all variables are known). Even when all variables are unknown, consciously choosing to make a "leap of faith" in lieu of them qualifies as an irrational decision because it isn't based upon logical reasoning by definition.
In such context the logic of the observer has no relevance to the logic of the performer. Unless the importance of the variables are equally shared by those that they are being explained to then it is possible that their will be disagreement on whether the chosen action was logical or not.
I disagree since, if the "performer"/decision-maker is not using logic, that is relevant to the context. The observed decision-maker could be asked to describe the process used to reach their decision and, if it were based on logical reasoning, (rather than 'mimicking such a rational process'), the line of reasoning would be apparent. If the observed decision-maker cannot describe the process or, invalidates it as logical reasoning by describing illogical aspects of the process, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or, random risks taken, etc.), then their decision had an irrational basis.
I provided support for my contention that courts are aware that sometimes people don't make choices. Courts are aware that sometimes people act and react without processing the data.
On the contrary; acting and reacting without thinking is based upon the choice to permit strong emotions or personal preconceptions, (previously deciding upon choice preferences - and often according to an irrational basis), to override rational thinking. Your contention appears to be based upon such subconscious roots as the 'flight or fight' instinct. Such 'instincts' are emotionally-based and therefore, aren't logical by definition. Courts do recognize this when judging premeditation and self-defense however, no bank robber would get off on a plea of self-defensively robbing a bank.
Whether faith may be primal or not I am uncertain. Even the biblical thief on the cross was not in such an instant decision making choice to choose faith from a "heat of the moment" reaction, but a man with a gun to his head might well qualify I suppose.
Since we're all going to physically die at some point, an argument can be made that all humans do have that type of 'gun to the head' and are using "faith" to grasp at any chance of somehow surviving that fate in a nonphysical form. Such a rationalization doesn't qualify as using reason; it qualifies as succumbing to fear emotions.
I agree that dishonesty occurs in online surveys. Many people are aware (or will be eventually) that such things are often detected and used as disqualification and this is a rational basis for the survey taker to be honest instead of wasting their time being dishonest.
That may indeed provide a rational basis to be honest however, there is a strong probability that the dishonest survey-taker has previously made their decision to 'cheat' on the basis that they may not get caught, (which qualifies as irrational since it either disregards the possibility of being caught cheating or, includes a willingness to accept the consequences of being caught).
I didn't do them to be illogical (although I speculate one can claim to do that but the act of intending to deliberately do something illogical suddenly qualifies that act as logical in that pretense).
The implication wasn't that the intention was to be illogical but, that the decision-making process included irrational aspects, (which your example included), and therefore, the conclusion was irrational. In the context of basing "belief" upon "faith"; faith being an irrational aspect of a decision to hold a religious belief, (since no valid argument for "faith" being a rational component has been made), means that choosing to have such "faith" is an irrational decision. As previously mentioned, people are free to hold irrational beliefs and make irrational decisions based upon them. Whether or not they accept the consequences of their decisions manifests during life, (as there is no conclusive evidence of it manifesting after they physically die).
-
Can anyone think of any choice they made openly and deliberately where they chose the most illogical of choices as the best outcome without counter-weighting it against a reward or alternate gain (such as bet the longshot as a valid risk/reward but a foolish if the odds were even money)? I personally cannot.
"The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage." *
I agree, but I contend that there really isn't any difference between the two if you expand the application of the rational choice theory from the isolated event to 'most people' and given the same set of circumstances and value rating that the classifications converge. This is the time where people can suddenly go from considering their choice rational while making it to irrational while suffering the consequence of it. It is simply a matter of perception.
The difference between the two terms remains even if expanded as you suggest. This is due to the distinction between subjective perception and objective differences pertaining. The choice is still irrational if it does not qualify as logical under the parameters of that meaning. As to suffering the consequences of our choices; we all do, to some extent - whether those choices are rational or not.
In addition I leave you with this and I am unsure of the source as: "The view that faith underlies all rationality holds that rationality is dependent on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory, and reason, because the foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by evidence or reason."
First, there really aren't any "laws" of logic or mathematics; there are tested principles which deliver accurate results. Illogic and faulty a faulty math process deliver inaccurate results. We observe that 2+ 2 does not equal 173 and must conclude something didn't add up. We also can observe that running out onto a busy freeway isn't a rational choice because that person's odds of ending up squashed are high. None of these observations rely upon "faith".
* -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
Those were not my words, that is a quote that I could not source (found multiple references to it in multiple places but no origin source).
Yet you quoted them to attempt to support your contention. I dissented with the attempted supportive quote and stated why.
I think they use "laws" loosely to imply the understood nature and knowledge (if we could date the quote it might be more helpful in that regard). We can state that 1 + 1 = 10 and be both right and wrong. We can state that i*i = -1 and be both right and wrong. Both of those cases rely upon perception of the variables and both of those are actually true as both right and wrong.
While it is true that, unless the variables are defined, they are open to subjective interpretation, mathematical variables are nominally defined, (such as 'let x = a specific factor'), rather than an open-ended 'depends upon what someone means by "one", (presumably, the objection implies that the equation is dependent upon "one" _what_ and mathematically, it isn't because the numeral doesn't normally represent a variable).
We can also observe that a mother running onto a busy freeway to try and save her child who wandered into traffic is a perfectly understandable (and thus rational) choice ...
There remains a distinctive difference between "understandable" and "rational choice". In your example, the mother's decision isn't rational because of the strong probability that she'll be hit by a vehicle and prevented from saving her child. She'd still be likely to make this irrational choice because of her maternal instincts and because of the existence of even the smallest chance for saving her child's life. In the end, the risky choice, (whether risk-factors were consciously-weighed or, defaulted to 'instincts'), was both irrational and understandable.
All observations rely upon faith. Faith that you are seeing and interpreting all of the details involved, or at least enough of the important ones to be able to realize the situation.
That characterization is inaccurate; all observations do not rely upon "faith", (which is apparently being implicitly conflated with the subjectivity of sensory perceptions here). For instance, "faith" in the effects of gravity are unnecessary since such effects will be evident whether one has 'faith' in gravity or not. Such "faith" is therefore irrelevant to gravity. As far as subjectively interpreting, (or misinterpreting, for that matter), what the senses perceive, it isn't a matter of "faith". Such interpretations are made either on the basis of objective evidence, misinterpretations of such evidence or, lack of evidence, (e.g., guesswork). The proof is in the pudding, as the colloquialism goes. The 'pudding', in this instance, is whether
or not 'blind faith', (that which has no substantiating evidence), is irrational or, rational. I'm contending it isn't rational and provided the reasoning behind that contention. You are contending that it is rational but, haven't supported the inherent requirement for the contention to contain logical reasoning, (instead, you've provided examples of incorporating irrational factors into the decision-making process and of non-thinking resonses which do not contain a rational reasoning process by definition).
It is such a degree of faith normally extended that people fail to realize they apply it unquestionably until at such times the unexplained occurs (an example watching a magic act and witnessing something occur that your mind says cannot happen...you begin to doubt and backtrack your senses to try and detect the ruse -- which is interesting as your physical senses tell you one thing but your logic, acting as faith (because you are choosing to believe something else happened that is not supported by evidence), tells you that it couldn't happen as your senses interpreted it).
-
The description of crazy or sane comes from the observer, not the performer and the extension of mimicking such a rational process also implies that the observer must consider whatever decision making skills used by the performer had to follow some form of a rational process to the performer.
There is no requirement for an observer to assume that the "performer"/decision-maker observed "had to follow some form of a rational process ..." The observed decision-maker could be asked to describe the process used to reach their decision and, if it were based on logical reasoning, (rather than 'mimicking such a rational process'), the line of reasoning would be apparent. If the observed decision-maker cannot describe the process or, invalidates it as logical reasoning by describing illogical aspects of the process, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or, random risks taken, etc.), then their decision had an irrational basis.
I contend that what determines a 'rational' choice is purely subjective and that the consensus of what is rational or not, while appropriate in a democracy or courtroom, holds no weight in the validity of personal decision making.
I disagree based upon the established meaning of "rational": Lest you go off into a diversion into word interpretation variations, "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning. The established meaning of "rational" includes a process 'in accordance with reason and logic; unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice.' Inclusion of irrational aspects, (such as emotional bias or prejudice), invalidates the decision-making process as being rational by definition. It doesn't matter to this definition whether the decision-maker subjectively views their own decision as 'making sense' to them personally, (as this has no bearing on the objective reasoning process itself).
To clarify I can think of many cases where certain courses of action would be considered irrational to nearly everyone, but then when you start mixing in more variables (the kind of variables favoring choosing the 'by itself' irrational choice) to the equation you will begin to whittle away at the majority and given enough compelling reasons that majority will become a minority. You might call this rationalizing but I further contend this is exactly what is involved in decision making.
The inclusion of non-rational variables is what dillutes a rational decision-making process, (mixing irrationality with reasoning), and forms an irrational basis for making decisions. While it can be contended that including irrational factors in a decision-making process is 'reasonable' in light of human propensities for irrational behaviour, the decision-making process itself does have an irrational basis. Therefore, inclusion of irrational and not fully-predictable variables can, (and often does), lead to errors of misjudgement.
It is an appeal to authority, but what do you give in opposition? You give your own opinion about how you view the choices made by people ...
It isn't my "opinion", since the described reasoning used to arrive at the dissenting contention employs logical reasoning, (rather than emotional bias, subjective preconceptions or prejudicial preferences). That means it isn't 'merely' an unfounded opinion.
I agree that there are differences between reasons and logical reasons, but then the distinction is always placed to indicate it being logical and not the other way around.
While it is true that a reason may or may not be based in reasoning, the distinction between reasons/excuses and logical reasoning is made because reasons/excuses quite often are not based upon logical reasoning. It is important not to conflate the two due to this distinction.
We are not logical automatons though and that is obvious in our diversity of choices from everything to fashion, food, music, politics, religion, etc..
Precisely so, and it is because we are not logical automatons that we humans regularly include illogical components to the decision-making process regarding the subjects mentioned - with emphasis upon "religion" especially. The illogical component included in religion is faith.
I would speculate that if there is a person out there who always bases their choices on pure logic that everyone who knows this individual would claim the person to "have something wrong with them" or uses such words as "doesn't seem quite right" or "odd" when describing the person.
Actually, I've observed that most reactions have included irrationally-emotional ones when confronted by logic. Apparently, umbrage is taken when an individual's personal preferences/bias is challenged by reason, (in fact, such a reaction often swings over into a 'logic can't tell me what to do' response ... almost as if they are insisting upon being as irrational as possible - just to be contrary).
This again relies on a consensus of what is logical or not. Outside of pure science one will find it difficult to logically prove most things in all cases.
To reiterate; "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning. The established meaning of "rational" includes 'in accordance with reason and logic; unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice.' The only "consensus" involved concerns the consistancy of meaning, (otherwise, people would redefine meanings in any random manner).
People weight variables. Some things have more importance than others when choosing and thus are more difficult to convey as rational to an observer. Some things that certain people weigh as very important are completely unimportant to others.
Such a variable-weighting process either involves logical reasoning to assign weights or, it incorporates irrational aspects, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or prejudices). If it includes irrational aspects, the reasoning process contains error-prone factors, (as not all variables are known). Even when all variables are unknown, consciously choosing to make a "leap of faith" in lieu of them qualifies as an irrational decision because it isn't based upon logical reasoning by definition.
In such context the logic of the observer has no relevance to the logic of the performer. Unless the importance of the variables are equally shared by those that they are being explained to then it is possible that their will be disagreement on whether the chosen action was logical or not.
I disagree since, if the "performer"/decision-maker is not using logic, that is relevant to the context. The observed decision-maker could be asked to describe the process used to reach their decision and, if it were based on logical reasoning, (rather than 'mimicking such a rational process'), the line of reasoning would be apparent. If the observed decision-maker cannot describe the process or, invalidates it as logical reasoning by describing illogical aspects of the process, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or, random risks taken, etc.), then their decision had an irrational basis.
I provided support for my contention that courts are aware that sometimes people don't make choices. Courts are aware that sometimes people act and react without processing the data.
On the contrary; acting and reacting without thinking is based upon the choice to permit strong emotions or personal preconceptions, (previously deciding upon choice preferences - and often according to an irrational basis), to override rational thinking. Your contention appears to be based upon such subconscious roots as the 'flight or fight' instinct. Such 'instincts' are emotionally-based and therefore, aren't logical by definition. Courts do recognize this when judging premeditation and self-defense however, no bank robber would get off on a plea of self-defensively robbing a bank.
Whether faith may be primal or not I am uncertain. Even the biblical thief on the cross was not in such an instant decision making choice to choose faith from a "heat of the moment" reaction, but a man with a gun to his head might well qualify I suppose.
Since we're all going to physically die at some point, an argument can be made that all humans do have that type of 'gun to the head' and are using "faith" to grasp at any chance of somehow surviving that fate in a nonphysical form. Such a rationalization doesn't qualify as using reason; it qualifies as succumbing to fear emotions.
I agree that dishonesty occurs in online surveys. Many people are aware (or will be eventually) that such things are often detected and used as disqualification and this is a rational basis for the survey taker to be honest instead of wasting their time being dishonest.
That may indeed provide a rational basis to be honest however, there is a strong probability that the dishonest survey-taker has previously made their decision to 'cheat' on the basis that they may not get caught, (which qualifies as irrational since it either disregards the possibility of being caught cheating or, includes a willingness to accept the consequences of being caught).
I didn't do them to be illogical (although I speculate one can claim to do that but the act of intending to deliberately do something illogical suddenly qualifies that act as logical in that pretense).
The implication wasn't that the intention was to be illogical but, that the decision-making process included irrational aspects, (which your example included), and therefore, the conclusion was irrational. In the context of basing "belief" upon "faith"; faith being an irrational aspect of a decision to hold a religious belief, (since no valid argument for "faith" being a rational component has been made), means that choosing to have such "faith" is an irrational decision. As previously mentioned, people are free to hold irrational beliefs and make irrational decisions based upon them. Whether or not they accept the consequences of their decisions manifests during life, (as there is no conclusive evidence of it manifesting after they physically die).
I get the gist of your implementation of 'rational' now and I have a better understanding as to our points of disagreement. I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice). Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery. In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults). Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
Excerpt from wikipedia but pertinent to this topic:
"It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
It is evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people."
I do not use a definition of rational to be one of pure logic, instead I use a more standard definition of what constitutes rational behavior: "A decision-making process that is based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the individual. Most conventional economic theories are created and used under the assumption that all individuals taking part in an action/activity are behaving rationally."
I don't quite know where this leaves our debate at though honestly. I don't hold to your strict definition because I consider it unachievable by human beings, except possibly in purely mathematical calculations -- but that isn't really making choices though. I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational unless you would also be willing to apply it to a belief in/position of atheism being irrational. I don't know that you are suggesting that, though, as you lose the thrust of your argument in that it becomes a double edged blade. I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'. So where does that leave us?
-
I get the gist of your implementation of 'rational' now and I have a better understanding as to our points of disagreement.
Splendid. Hopefully, the process didn't require some 'leap of faith'?
I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice).
On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions. Some folks
rely more upon various irrational foundations than others. I concur that few go about it in a purely logical manner. Having agreed to this extent, the contention that "faith" has an irrational basis is sustained by your quote and previously described reasoning.
Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.
Not quite. There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations. These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.
In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults). Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself). Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition. Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... " - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77
Excerpt from wikipedia but pertinent to this topic:
"It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias."
The "it is believed ... " part of the excerpt was perhaps, unintentionally sardonic however, you'll no doubt recall that the contention was that "faith" qualifies as an irrational basis for choice, (especially under the terms of the excerpted parameters you quoted). Note also that there was no contention made that humans avoided making irrational decision which rest upon other irrational basis. They certainly do.
I don't quite know where this leaves our debate at though honestly.
I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...
Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position. What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.
... unless you would also be willing to apply it to a belief in/position of atheism being irrational. I don't know that you are suggesting that, though ...
I most emphatically am not suggesting that atheism is either something which is 'believed in', nor that the skeptical position of atheism can be accurately termed as "irrational". Unless you're willing to elaborate on how skeptical inquiry, (atheism), is irrational I'll have to disagree with the unsupported assertion that it is.
I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'. So where does that leave us?
No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it). I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods. Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is. That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.
I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis). You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this. We had a good run though, much food for thought was consumed, (some of it caused mental indigestion, constipation and frankly, the runs at times). Thanks.
-
I get the gist of your implementation of 'rational' now and I have a better understanding as to our points of disagreement.
Splendid. Hopefully, the process didn't require some 'leap of faith'?
You have often said statements like: (so and so) "..just hit me for no reason...I didn't do anything" I would be willing to bet?
I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice).
On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions. Some folks
rely more upon various irrational foundations than others. I concur that few go about it in a purely logical manner. Having agreed to this extent, the contention that "faith" has an irrational basis is sustained by your quote and previously described reasoning.
Irrational by your definition and a misleading way of putting things. You are misleading the reader here in that you are presenting the argument as if people have the choice of removing emotion and experience from their decision making process. You clean it up a bit by adding that "few go about in a purely logical manner", but you fail to give the reason that such few would be people who are brain damaged, thus leading the reader to believe that some choice in this matter is available where it isn't. A more honest way of saying this would be to say that people always combine emotion and experience into their decision making process. I don't agree to your position, I only agree that under your contention that such as you said would be true regarding faith and it would be true regarding the position of atheism as well though so do not try to put words into my mouth without finishing the sentence in the context I would use it.
Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.
Not quite. There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations. These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.
They cannot take emotion or experience or mental imagery into account and hold to the position of not including irrational elements -- under your definition. You are justifying (rationalizing) your own tolerance of what sort of irrationality (by your definition) is allowed and this is prejudice.
In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults). Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself). Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition. Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... " - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77
Atheism is irrational by your definition. It is a rejection without positive proof, much like the child who refuses to eat his broccoli while never having even tried it. Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief". You try to mislead the reader into portraying your view as fair and thought out when in fact, to use another child reference, you are the child holding your hands over your ears saying "nah nah nah nah nah nah..." real loud so as not to hear the others question. You try to both take an empty compromising position that is effectively a "failure to state" and then you indicate your difference to agnosticism indicating that you have fully realized the situation and somehow collected facts enough to disprove agnosticism.
Excerpt from wikipedia but pertinent to this topic:
"It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias."
The "it is believed ... " part of the excerpt was perhaps, unintentionally sardonic however, you'll no doubt recall that the contention was that "faith" qualifies as an irrational basis for choice, (especially under the terms of the excerpted parameters you quoted). Note also that there was no contention made that humans avoided making irrational decision which rest upon other irrational basis. They certainly do.
You left out the important part of that quote so let us remind the reader of what you didn't want them to see: "It is evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people."
In other words since every human, other than the brain damaged, always included elements of the irrational (according to the definition), then there is no decision made by a human that isn't irrational or isn't at least highly suspect of being irrational and impossible to prove that it isn't.
I don't quite know where this leaves our debate at though honestly.
I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...
Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position. What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.
It doesn't require a lack of substantiating evidence, it merely doesn't require absolute confirmation of evidence and that is a huge difference. You are rationalizing by degree, trying to find the worst case scenario and presenting it as the minimum condition to qualify and whether you realize it or not, all readers are drawn to the obviousness of such deception as if you had shined a spotlight on it. You should be aware that when you go to such lengths to classify something so prejudicially that you are reducing your claim to reason and logic in much the same way as the sand and clenched fist analogy.
... unless you would also be willing to apply it to a belief in/position of atheism being irrational. I don't know that you are suggesting that, though ...
I most emphatically am not suggesting that atheism is either something which is 'believed in', nor that the skeptical position of atheism can be accurately termed as "irrational". Unless you're willing to elaborate on how skeptical inquiry, (atheism), is irrational I'll have to disagree with the unsupported assertion that it is.
Atheism isn't skeptical inquiry. It is the screaming kid with his hands to his ears. Your vehement refusal above indicates the degree of insult you felt at the mere question of whether you would hold your own positions to your own standards of scrutiny. This is an emotional and prejudicial reaction and indicates the type and level of thoughts invoked when your position is tested in the slightest sense...talk about blind faith. Skeptical inquiry doesn't reject without confirmation, yet your skeptical inquiry rejects unless it is given absolute proof. Such a contrasting position to the claim I find quite 'irrational'.
I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'. So where does that leave us?
No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it). I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods. Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is. That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.
I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis). You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this. We had a good run though, much food for thought was consumed, (some of it caused mental indigestion, constipation and frankly, the runs at times). Thanks.
You cannot hold the position that "no reduction in logic is necessary" without also including "..because we are not considering the question in the first place". But you cannot include that extension and also have taken a position on what entails a 'belief'. If you have taken a position on 'belief' and have been able to reject it then you must have proof available to demonstrate to the reader and if you do not then you are being as irrational as you claim those who adhere to faith to be and in addition you are being prejudicial. You have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational. Your deliberate and insulting posts in any thread you can find that relates to faith and especially Christianity shows your prejudice and prejudice immediately rejects a position as rational. You have poisoned your own well.
Show this vested interest. Demonstrate to the reader how my personal belief system that provides me with a degree of comfort that cannot otherwise be obtained, would make me uncomfortable if an algorithm run on a computer came to the determination that the answer was indeterminate? I will help you out here, since I am quite adept at programming and reveal to you that indeed the answer would indeed be indeterminate given the set of variables that are capable of being indicated in a program and even probabilistic inference systems of AI cannot qualify the human experience. You cannot dismiss emotion so readily either. It is likely the most important part of being human and allows us to extend within and beyond the outlines of the drawing. Emotion supplies relevance and without it all things are equally valuable and thus by extension equally worthless.
-
Quote from: Abrupt on October 15, 2011, 07:48:46 pm
I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice).
Quote from falcon9:
On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions. Some folks
rely more upon various irrational foundations than others. I concur that few go about it in a purely logical manner.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 08:53:14 am
It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.[/color]
Quote from falcon9:
Neither I, nor George Carlin for instance, have/had any such "fear". Both he and I have directly invited "god" to 'strike us dead' to verify "his" existence and lo and behold, nothing happened. Well, nothing except for religious appologists attempting to 'explain' why "god" didn't smite us. Afterall, the xtian bible has "god" supposedly smote folks left and right for a lot less so, why not now?
Some people would say that the above, written in navy, is one of those example of not using logic when trying to formulate a decision about something.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Cont. from 10/11)
Quote from jcribb:
I am so glad you have brought that up. I won't say rational or delusional, but I will say that what you and George Carlin have tried is a tad ridiculous, but hey, you gave it a shot, right?!!
First, you need to understand that God heard both of you, but since you are not one of His, He knew you were asking something out of mockery, and He doesn't need to prove or verify Himself to you, George Carlin, or anyone else. Faith in Him is the way and if you don't have faith, then you can shout all you want to Him but He won't answer just to prove He exists.
Second, even though He heard both of you, when you are both unsaved, He does not respond in the way you demand Him to. He hears a sinner's prayer of repentance and acknowledgement of Him as Lord.
Third, once you are a Christian, then yes, He listens and responds in the way, will, and time, of what He wants; once again - you cannot "demand" God what to do.
Fourth, when it's your time to die, it doesn't matter what you ask or demand, etc., you will die when it's your time, according to His plan. If He wants to "strike" you dead or not, He will do exactly that or not.
Fifth, a Christian knows they don't need to ask God to "strike" them dead, because they already believe He exists, believe in Him, and they don't need verification that He exists.
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God. Why? Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.
Another thing I would like to respond to is that the "smiting" of people that God did Himself, or had others do, took place under the Old Law (Old Testament.) That was before Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection, which then became the New Law (New Testament.) Jesus became the focus, was seen for a time while sharing His message/ministry of salvation (which some people who actually looked upon Him still could not accept Him even then,) and finally, the acceptance of Christ through faith. If you really want to understand the "smiting" in the Old Testament, then researching the Bible itself, with commentaries and helps, will give the you background of why those things happened.
-
Quote from: Abrupt on October 15, 2011, 07:48:46 pm
I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice).
Quote from falcon9:
On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions. Some folks
rely more upon various irrational foundations than others. I concur that few go about it in a purely logical manner.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 08:53:14 am
It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.[/color]
Quote from falcon9:
Neither I, nor George Carlin for instance, have/had any such "fear". Both he and I have directly invited "god" to 'strike us dead' to verify "his" existence and lo and behold, nothing happened. Well, nothing except for religious appologists attempting to 'explain' why "god" didn't smite us. Afterall, the xtian bible has "god" supposedly smote folks left and right for a lot less so, why not now?
Some people would say that the above, written in navy, is one of those example of not using logic when trying to formulate a decision about something.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Cont. from 10/11)
Quote from jcribb:
I am so glad you have brought that up. I won't say rational or delusional, but I will say that what you and George Carlin have tried is a tad ridiculous, but hey, you gave it a shot, right?!!
First, you need to understand that God heard both of you, but since you are not one of His, He knew you were asking something out of mockery, and He doesn't need to prove or verify Himself to you, George Carlin, or anyone else. Faith in Him is the way and if you don't have faith, then you can shout all you want to Him but He won't answer just to prove He exists.
Second, even though He heard both of you, when you are both unsaved, He does not respond in the way you demand Him to. He hears a sinner's prayer of repentance and acknowledgement of Him as Lord.
Third, once you are a Christian, then yes, He listens and responds in the way, will, and time, of what He wants; once again - you cannot "demand" God what to do.
Fourth, when it's your time to die, it doesn't matter what you ask or demand, etc., you will die when it's your time, according to His plan. If He wants to "strike" you dead or not, He will do exactly that or not.
Fifth, a Christian knows they don't need to ask God to "strike" them dead, because they already believe He exists, believe in Him, and they don't need verification that He exists.
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God. Why? Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.
Another thing I would like to respond to is that the "smiting" of people that God did Himself, or had others do, took place under the Old Law (Old Testament.) That was before Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection, which then became the New Law (New Testament.) Jesus became the focus, was seen for a time while sharing His message/ministry of salvation (which some people who actually looked upon Him still could not accept Him even then,) and finally, the acceptance of Christ through faith. If you really want to understand the "smiting" in the Old Testament, then researching the Bible itself, with commentaries and helps, will give the you background of why those things happened.
:thumbsup:
-
I get the gist of your implementation of 'rational' now and I have a better understanding as to our points of disagreement.
Splendid. Hopefully, the process didn't require some 'leap of faith'?
You have often said statements like: (so and so) "..just hit me for no reason...I didn't do anything" I would be willing to bet?
Your evident misinterpretation of what I actually did write, (as opposed to making statements "like"), indicates you've missed the jest here.
I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice).
On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions. Some folks
rely more upon various irrational foundations than others. I concur that few go about it in a purely logical manner. Having agreed to this extent, the contention that "faith" has an irrational basis is sustained by your quote and previously described reasoning.
Irrational by your definition and a misleading way of putting things.
It isn't misleading since the parameters of the definition of 'irrational' have been demonstrated to apply to "faith". You've already conceded this point, ("Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience ..."), by way of your
ancedotal experience of "faith".
You are misleading the reader here in that you are presenting the argument as if people have the choice of removing emotion and experience from their decision making process.
On the contrary, it is you who are presenting a misleading strawman argument since I've stated nothing about "removing emotion and experience" from the decision-making process. What I did present was an example where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process.
You clean it up a bit by adding that "few go about in a purely logical manner", but you fail to give the reason that such few would be people who are brain damaged ...
That's an absurd implication; the use of logical reasoning isn't possible given brain damage therefore, its usage does not require brain damage. On the other hand, irrationality has often been linked to bran damage by medical professionals.
A more honest way of saying this would be to say that people always combine emotion and experience into their decision making process.
No, the use of the word "always" would be an assertion that this occurs in every instance and that there is conclusive evidence to support such an assertion. What I did state was 'On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions.' The alteration you suggested would be a dishonest one, unless you can provide the substantiating evidence to support it.
I don't agree to your position, I only agree that under your contention that such as you said would be true regarding faith and it would be true regarding the position of atheism as well though ...
Your qualifier is nonsensical; atheism employs skeptical reasoning, not irrationality. Your attempts to conflate the two opposing terms under irrationality are illogical.
... so do not try to put words into my mouth without finishing the sentence in the context I would use it.
Again, your qualifier, (" ... it would also be true regarding the position of atheism ..."), doesn't apply to the context. As far as trying to put words in the mouth of another, you've attempted that twice in this post alone so far. A pattern of your previous attempts at this continues to manifest.
Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.
Not quite. There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations. These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.
They cannot take emotion or experience or mental imagery into account and hold to the position of not including irrational elements -- under your definition.
Unless you're being intentionally obtuse, you've managed to miss the point once again. Taking observed irrational phenomenon into account has two aspects. One applies to accounting for external phenomenon and the other involved self-awareness of internal phenomenon. In the former instance, someone else's emotions can be taken into account, (or not, as the case may be), without incorporating those emotions themselves into one's own decision-making process. In the latter instance, it is possible to be aware of one's own internal emotions to such a degree as to either be aware of incorporating them or, to intentionally choose to not include them as aspects of a decision-making process. Not only does this _not_ require "brain damage" to accomplish but, such damage would preclude it.
You are justifying (rationalizing) your own tolerance of what sort of irrationality (by your definition) is allowed and this is prejudice.
I said nothing about what "is allowed" and therefore, there was no prejudice involved, (either implicit or, explicit), and no rationalizing. That's the third time so far in this post you've attempted a strawman argument by misinterpreting what I actually wrote.
In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults). Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself). Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition. Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... " - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77
Atheism is irrational by your definition. It is a rejection without positive proof ...
False. It is a rejection of claims made without those claims having substantiating proof. Your implication is that atheism is required to 'prove a negative assertion', (e.g., 'prove that x does not exist'), by framing it as "a rejection WITHOUT positive proof". Requirement of a negative proof is a logical fallacy. Nothing in my prior statements confers irrationality to atheism.
Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief".
Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition.
You try to both take an empty compromising position that is effectively a "failure to state" ...
False. My position regarding the irrationality of "faith" has been elaborately stated.
... and then you indicate your difference to agnosticism indicating that you have fully realized the situation and somehow collected facts enough to disprove agnosticism.
I neither stated nor implied that I've "collected enough facts to disprove agnosticism". I simply stated that I'm not an agnostic, as a follow-on comment to the agnostic premise of a fence-sittingbeleif system, (that they have no evidence, one way or the other - not that I do have such evidence). Under your conditions, everyone would be an agnostic. Since your conditions are illogical, everyone isn't agnostic. By the way, that's the fourth strawman you've tried to promulgate in this post. You're on a roll, man!
I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...
Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position. What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.
[/quote]
It doesn't require a lack of substantiating evidence, it merely doesn't require absolute confirmation of evidence and that is a huge difference.
What a load of bovine feces; are you actually suggesting that there's any substantial evidence or, just spliting tiny hairs? The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in. A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.
You are rationalizing by degree, trying to find the worst case scenario and presenting it as the minimum condition to qualify ...
Your accusation is false because the worst case wasn't whaat was presented, (excepting that your biased view of it as the worst case is noted); the minimum requirement of "faith" was presented - not needing evidence to 'believe'. This minimum has been previously presented by others holding to irrational faith in various comments to this thread, (and others). So, you're objecting to other xtians not requiring evidence to have 'faith' as well as those who aren't xtian?
Atheism isn't skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry doesn't reject without confirmation ...
Atheism rejects unsubstantiated claims and often includes the skeptical inquiry that those making such religious claims support them. Since those making such unsupported claims remain unable to substantiate them, atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, (not a confirmation of proving a negative condition).
... yet your skeptical inquiry rejects unless it is given absolute proof. Such a contrasting position to the claim I find quite 'irrational'.
It isn't irrational to require the burden of proof from those who are making the claim, (that would be those claiming that a 'belief' in some
I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'. So where does that leave us?
No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it). I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods. Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is. That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.
I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis). You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this.
You cannot hold the position that "no reduction in logic is necessary" without also including "..because we are not considering the question in the first place". But you cannot include that extension and also have taken a position on what entails a 'belief'.
I have considered that the question 'faith' as an irrational basis for an equally irrational 'belief' without any "reduction in logic." Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?
You have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational.
Now you're simply lying; I presented no such evidence, (regardless of your irrational misinterpretations of what I actually did state).
Your deliberate and insulting posts in any thread you can find that relates to faith and especially Christianity shows your prejudice and prejudice immediately rejects a position as rational.
No doubt a xtian would find such things as pointing out that their religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths, an entire "dark age" and a massive amount of cultural theft/suppression & absorbtion of other 'religions' as "insulting." Too bad; such despicable actions under the banner of religion, (including xtianity), is insulting to me. Doubtless this doesn't matter to you either, as an adherent to a belief system which perpetrated such crimes against humanity.
You have poisoned your own well.
On the contrary, xtianity beat me to their own well centuries ago.
You cannot dismiss emotion so readily either. It is likely the most important part of being human and allows us to extend within and beyond the outlines of the drawing. Emotion supplies relevance and without it all things are equally valuable and thus by extension equally worthless.
I didn't "dismiss" it; I expressly stated it could be accounted for. Accounting for something is the opposite of dismissing or, disregarding it. It was further stated that I have emotions, (rather than being an AI program sent to vex you). Although I suppose I could question your contention that "emotion supplies relevance ..." etc., though I somehow doubt that what you'd supply as 'evidence' would be conclusive, (that's skepticism, not a dismissal in advance).
-
Quote from: Abrupt on October 15, 2011, 07:48:46 pm
I find it to stringent to be used effectively when applied to human behavior. Under the definition you use, virtually ever choice a human makes would be considered to be irrational, regardless of the outcome chosen. Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience (senses because they invoke emotion and experience because it is based on prejudice).
Quote from falcon9:
On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions. Some folks
rely more upon various irrational foundations than others. I concur that few go about it in a purely logical manner.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 08:53:14 am
It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.[/color]
Quote from falcon9:
Neither I, nor George Carlin for instance, have/had any such "fear". Both he and I have directly invited "god" to 'strike us dead' to verify "his" existence and lo and behold, nothing happened. Well, nothing except for religious appologists attempting to 'explain' why "god" didn't smite us. Afterall, the xtian bible has "god" supposedly smote folks left and right for a lot less so, why not now?
Some people would say that the above, written in navy, is one of those example of not using logic when trying to formulate a decision about something.
Some people can say whatever they like, it apparently doesn't have to be based upon anything other than their unsupported opinion.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Cont. from 10/11)
Quote from jcribb:
I am so glad you have brought that up. I won't say rational or delusional, but I will say that what you and George Carlin have tried is a tad ridiculous, but hey, you gave it a shot, right?!!
It was intended to emphasize a moot point; there is no evidence of the existance of "god". It's moot because you folks don't require evidence to have "faith". Others don't need faith if they have evidence therefore, faith is an unnecessary irrationality.
First, you need to understand that God heard both of you, but since you are not one of His, He knew you were asking something out of mockery, and He doesn't need to prove or verify Himself to you, George Carlin, or anyone else. Faith in Him is the way and if you don't have faith, then you can shout all you want to Him but He won't answer just to prove He exists.
These are your unsupported beliefs, they aren't mine. An equally valid "belief", (not my stated position), would be that no such being exists. I don't assert that because it would require proving a negative condition. On the other hand, you've specifically stated your belief that proof that "god" exists isn't needed, (presumably due to "faith"; a blind trust).
Second, even though He heard both of you, when you are both unsaved, He does not respond in the way you demand Him to. He hears a sinner's prayer of repentance and acknowledgement of Him as Lord.
So, you're telling me that George Carlin, who was raised as a catholic, is "unsaved" because he didn't follow your particular flavor of xtianity? Wow, talk about religious intolerance ... your "third" was more of the same so, I skipped it.
Fourth, when it's your time to die, it doesn't matter what you ask or demand, etc., you will die when it's your time, according to His plan. If He wants to "strike" you dead or not, He will do exactly that or not.
The phrase, "when it's your time to die", directly implies 'fate'/predestination. The implication is without basis and I reject it.
Fifth, a Christian knows they don't need to ask God to "strike" them dead, because they already believe He exists, believe in Him, and they don't need verification that He exists.
A belief that something exists does not confer existance on that something. This has already been illuminated by way of a hypothetical belief in invisible unicorn. The unicorn didn't spring into existance due to a belief in it.
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God. Why? Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.
You're quite correct in that such "coincidental" events cannot conclusively be attributed to some deity therefore, would not constitute proof. Now, a bolt of lightening from a cloudless sky directly following the invitation would go a lot further as evidence, (once any weather anomalies were accounted for).
Interestingly, before xtianity co-opted other pre-existing pagan belief systems, many of those beliefs attributed various effects to 'magical' causes,
(which might be considered to be "coincidental" today).
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:42:19 pm
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God. Why? Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.
Quote from: falcon9:
You're quite correct in that such "coincidental" events cannot conclusively be attributed to some deity therefore, would not constitute proof. Now, a bolt of lightening from a cloudless sky directly following the invitation would go a lot further as evidence, (once any weather anomalies were accounted for).
Actually, they would constitute proof. You cannot demand or tell God what to do. My point is, is that even if He were to use the "strike dead right then" through a car wreck, heart attack, cancer death, gun shot, death from a fire, etc. - you would still not accept that He exists. He doesn't have to use a strike of lightning just because you are demanding it.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:42:19 pm
First, you need to understand that God heard both of you, but since you are not one of His, He knew you were asking something out of mockery, and He doesn't need to prove or verify Himself to you, George Carlin, or anyone else. Faith in Him is the way and if you don't have faith, then you can shout all you want to Him but He won't answer just to prove He exists.
Quote from: falcon9:
These are your unsupported beliefs, they aren't mine. An equally valid "belief", (not my stated position), would be that no such being exists. I don't assert that because it would require proving a negative condition. On the other hand, you've specifically stated your belief that proof that "god" exists isn't needed, (presumably due to "faith"; a blind trust).
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:42:19 pm
Second, even though He heard both of you, when you are both unsaved, He does not respond in the way you demand Him to. He hears a sinner's prayer of repentance and acknowledgement of Him as Lord.
Quote from: falcon9:
So, you're telling me that George Carlin, who was raised as a catholic, is "unsaved" because he didn't follow your particular flavor of xtianity? Wow, talk about religious intolerance ... your "third" was more of the same so, I skipped it.
Religious intolerance? I assumed you and George were good friends from the way you spoke of both of you trying to demand God to strike you both. Wikipedia can say this next part better than me:
"Although raised in the Roman Catholic faith, which he describes anecdotally on the albums FM & AM and Class Clown, Carlin was an atheist and denounced the idea of God. He described his opinion of the flaws of organized religion in interviews and performances, notably with his "Religion" and "There Is No God" routines as heard in You Are All Diseased. His views on religion are also mentioned in his last HBO stand up show It's Bad for Ya where he mocked the traditional swearing on the Bible as "bullshit",[56] "make believe", and "kids' stuff." "
There's no religious intolerance on my end. You and I both know you skipped the third one because you have chosen not to take that "leap of faith" and therefore, I know you can't really comment about something you haven't experienced.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:42:19 pm
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God. Why? Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.
Quote from: falcon9:
You're quite correct in that such "coincidental" events cannot conclusively be attributed to some deity therefore, would not constitute proof. Now, a bolt of lightening from a cloudless sky directly following the invitation would go a lot further as evidence, (once any weather anomalies were accounted for).
Actually, they would constitute proof.
Once again, such "coincidental" events would not constitute conclusive proof merely because you 'believe' that they would. Such coincidental events cannot be conclusively attributed to some deity just because you want them to be. It takes much more than that to conclusively attribute effects to specific causes. Doubtless you've no intention of supporting the burden of proof for for claim that such would "constitute proof" however, here's my pro forma request for it regardless.
You cannot demand or tell God what to do.
Sure I can however, it actually took the form of an open-ended rhetorical request, (especially given that no bolt of lightening struck myself or, Mr. Carlin stone dead).
My point is, is that even if He were to use the "strike dead right then" through a car wreck, heart attack, cancer death, gun shot, death from a fire, etc. - you would still not accept that He exists.
Your point was already covered under 'such "coincidental" events would not constitute conclusive proof merely because you 'believe' that they would. Such coincidental events cannot be conclusively attributed to some deity just because you want them to be. It takes much more than that to conclusively attribute effects to specific causes. Doubtless you've no intention of supporting the burden of proof for for claim that such would "constitute proof" however, here's my pro forma request for it regardless.'
-
First, you need to understand that God heard both of you, but since you are not one of His, He knew you were asking something out of mockery, and He doesn't need to prove or verify Himself to you, George Carlin, or anyone else. Faith in Him is the way and if you don't have faith, then you can shout all you want to Him but He won't answer just to prove He exists.
Quote from: falcon9:
These are your unsupported beliefs, they aren't mine. An equally valid "belief", (not my stated position), would be that no such being exists. I don't assert that because it would require proving a negative condition. On the other hand, you've specifically stated your belief that proof that "god" exists isn't needed, (presumably due to "faith"; a blind trust).
[observe that there was no response to the above while considering your third point]
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:42:19 pm
Second, even though He heard both of you, when you are both unsaved, He does not respond in the way you demand Him to. He hears a sinner's prayer of repentance and acknowledgement of Him as Lord.
Quote from: falcon9:
So, you're telling me that George Carlin, who was raised as a catholic, is "unsaved" because he didn't follow your particular flavor of xtianity? Wow, talk about religious intolerance ... your "third" was more of the same so, I skipped it.
Religious intolerance? I assumed you and George were good friends from the way you spoke of both of you trying to demand God to strike you both.
Yes, intolerance taking the form of "you are both unsaved", (since Mr. Carlin was raised catholic then became an atheist after years of skeptical inquiry and I've never been a xtian, neither of us had been "saved"). While I never met Mr. Carlin, I noted similar requests for bolts of lightening went unmanifested.
Wikipedia can say this next part better than me:
"Although raised in the Roman Catholic faith, which he describes anecdotally on the albums FM & AM and Class Clown, Carlin was an atheist and denounced the idea of God. He described his opinion of the flaws of organized religion in interviews and performances, notably with his "Religion" and "There Is No God" routines as heard in You Are All Diseased. His views on religion are also mentioned in his last HBO stand up show It's Bad for Ya where he mocked the traditional swearing on the Bible as "bullshit",[56] "make believe", and "kids' stuff." "
Yes, Mr. Carlin's parents coerced him into attending catholic church whereupon he still managed to develop sufficient critical thinking skills to later become an atheist. We're agreed here so, there's no contention to argue there.
There's no religious intolerance on my end.
Of course there was. To reiterate the intolerant judgement you made; "you are both unsaved", (since Mr. Carlin was raised catholic then became an atheist after years of skeptical inquiry and I've never been a xtian neither of us had been "saved").
You and I both know you skipped the third one because you have chosen not to take that "leap of faith" and therefore, I know you can't really comment about something you haven't experienced. [/color]
True, my policy is not to take any "leaps of faith", (e.g., blind trust). I can and have commented upon that which I haven't experienced, just as you have. You do recall commenting on things which you believe will occur after you physically die even though you haven't experienced death as yet, don't you?
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 16, 2011, 05:02:57 pm
Wikipedia can say this next part better than me:
"Although raised in the Roman Catholic faith, which he describes anecdotally on the albums FM & AM and Class Clown, Carlin was an atheist and denounced the idea of God. He described his opinion of the flaws of organized religion in interviews and performances, notably with his "Religion" and "There Is No God" routines as heard in You Are All Diseased. His views on religion are also mentioned in his last HBO stand up show It's Bad for Ya where he mocked the traditional swearing on the Bible as "bullshit",[56] "make believe", and "kids' stuff." "
Quote from falcon9:
Yes, Mr. Carlin's parents coerced him into attending catholic church whereupon he still managed to develop sufficient critical thinking skills to later become an atheist. We're agreed here so, there's no contention to argue there.
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 16, 2011, 05:02:57 pm
There's no religious intolerance on my end.
Quote from:falcon9:
Of course there was. To reiterate the intolerant judgement you made; "you are both unsaved", (since Mr. Carlin was raised catholic then became an atheist after years of skeptical inquiry and I've never been a xtian neither of us had been "saved").
No, there wasn't. He did not state he was saved. You, yourself said his parents coerced him into attending the catholic church school. That does not mean that just because he was forced to go there that he was saved. We will never know because he never stated he was or wasn't. Just by attending a church or church school, of any religion, doesn't mean they are saved. He said he was athiest and that is what I was commenting on about both of you not being one of His.
-
There's no religious intolerance on my end.
Quote from:falcon9:
Of course there was. To reiterate the intolerant judgement you made; "you are both unsaved", (since Mr. Carlin was raised catholic then became an atheist after years of skeptical inquiry and I've never been a xtian neither of us had been "saved").
No, there wasn't. He did not state he was saved. He said he was athiest and that is what I was commenting on about both of you not being one of His.
You misunderstand the contended point; it didn't regard whether Mr. Carlin or I were "saved", it regarded a judgement being made about being "unsaved". That is, the intolerance involves some arbitrarily vague religious concept, ("saved/unsaved"), being applied to those outside of a particular religious belief system. Specifically, the "you're not saved, you're not one of His".
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
-
There's no religious intolerance on my end.
Quote from:falcon9:
Of course there was. To reiterate the intolerant judgement you made; "you are both unsaved", (since Mr. Carlin was raised catholic then became an atheist after years of skeptical inquiry and I've never been a xtian neither of us had been "saved").
No, there wasn't. He did not state he was saved. He said he was athiest and that is what I was commenting on about both of you not being one of His.
You misunderstand the contended point; it didn't regard whether Mr. Carlin or I were "saved", it regarded a judgement being made about being "unsaved". That is, the intolerance involves some arbitrarily vague religious concept, ("saved/unsaved"), being applied to those outside of a particular religious belief system. Specifically, the "you're not saved, you're not one of His".
This is rich!Now let me get this straight....
It's intolerant to consider a militant atheist who defies God to the point of asking to be struck dead by lighting as "unsaved"?
Wouldn't it be more offensive to said atheist to actually be considered saved?
.......I'm just sayin'.......
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.
No, atheism dismisses beliefs without evidence. Since there is evidence of the position of atheism, it does not dismiss itself. Further, those who believe that "god" have consistently failed to provide conclusive evidence to support their contention. Many atheists therefore conclude that such evidence is lacking and it is unnecessary to either believe or, disbelieve something which lacks evidence.
And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist ...
It is irrational to demand proof of a negative condition. Your premise is therefore faulty.
... you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.
Not at all; the critical thinking processes involved with atheism have nothing whatsoever to do with "faith", (which concerns belief without evidence and doesn't apply to the eschewing of beliefs which constitutes a principle of atheism). All concepts of man are man-made theories, (including bizarre religious concepts), so your statement is a huge non sequitur.
I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
That's because "one side", (composed of various religious adherents), seems to eschew reasoning ability while those who consider "belief" to be irrelevant, (since both "belief" and "faith" are ambiguous concepts held by religious followers and not by atheists). Your conclusion, being based upon a false premise, is therefore in error.
-
There's no religious intolerance on my end.
Quote from:falcon9:
Of course there was. To reiterate the intolerant judgement you made; "you are both unsaved", (since Mr. Carlin was raised catholic then became an atheist after years of skeptical inquiry and I've never been a xtian neither of us had been "saved").
No, there wasn't. He did not state he was saved. He said he was athiest and that is what I was commenting on about both of you not being one of His.
You misunderstand the contended point; it didn't regard whether Mr. Carlin or I were "saved", it regarded a judgement being made about being "unsaved". That is, the intolerance involves some arbitrarily vague religious concept, ("saved/unsaved"), being applied to those outside of a particular religious belief system. Specifically, the "you're not saved, you're not one of His".
This is rich!Now let me get this straight....
It's intolerant to consider a militant atheist who defies God to the point of asking to be struck dead by lighting as "unsaved"?
No, you are apparently constitutionally-unable to grasp the point after more than one iteration. The intolerant part was the inherently arrogant assumption that one must "be saved in order for someone else's god to hear them." From your previous stridently-obstuse comments, I gather that you'll continue to remain in the dark about this. By the way, your phrase "militant atheist" emphasizes your intolerance of those who are not of your insidious belief system by using a derrogatory adjective.
Wouldn't it be more offensive to said atheist to actually be considered saved?
.......I'm just sayin'.......
Since the concept of being "saved" is an unsupported religious belief, I'd estimate that an atheist would be nonplussed to learn that they were "saved" or, "unsaved", (just as a religious adherent might be if they grasped how much of their belief system was taken from previously-existing pagan belief systems which had nothing whatsoever to do with the xtian "god").
-
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy. Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
This logic is beyond broken-
1.) Your assertion that a belief in a non-belief is irrational. It's much like someone who collects bugs and someone who does not- your logic is that the person who does not collect bugs has a hobby of not collecting bugs.
2.) There is no religious faith within scientific theories. They are based upon evidences with things you or I can (usually) interact with in the real world. Your one-of-a-million popular religious belief system with thousands of contradictions is based furthest from concrete evidences and moreso based upon social myopia and emotional validation. You and others have failed to show any shred of evidence for a god (much less your own personalized god), so therefore comparing both on the same spectrum is ludicrous reasoning. Granted scientific reasonings can be faulty (which can actually be a wonderful thing for the world-- see chart below), atleast there's a visible foundation to rest on.
(http://api.ning.com/files/yO-D*bKDqbnX-zxqrCNNj52gwx4KkJ2ajK8n8aavrMjH*3hcZgKsLcwlP-HguV0*/ScienceVsFaith.png)
-
I will ALWAYS have faith. GOD IS ALIVE... There is only ONE TRUE GOD and he is the Truth the Life and the Way.
-
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy. Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
This logic is beyond broken-
1.) Your assertion that a belief in a non-belief is irrational. It's much like someone who collects bugs and someone who does not- your logic is that the person who does not collect bugs has a hobby of not collecting bugs.
2.) There is no religious faith within scientific theories. They are based upon evidences with things you or I can (usually) interact with in the real world. Your one-of-a-million popular religious belief system with thousands of contradictions is based furthest from concrete evidences and moreso based upon social myopia and emotional validation. You and others have failed to show any shred of evidence for a god (much less your own personalized god), so therefore comparing both on the same spectrum is ludicrous reasoning. Granted scientific reasonings can be faulty (which can actually be a wonderful thing for the world-- see chart below), atleast there's a visible foundation to rest on.
(http://api.ning.com/files/yO-D*bKDqbnX-zxqrCNNj52gwx4KkJ2ajK8n8aavrMjH*3hcZgKsLcwlP-HguV0*/ScienceVsFaith.png)
Excellent elaboration; I'd momentarily forgotten that some folks require graphics to ignore along with the written reasoning.
-
I will ALWAYS have faith.
You will always insist upon a lack of evidence, ("faith")?
GOD IS ALIVE...
Evidence for this claim consists of what?
There is only ONE TRUE GOD and he is the Truth the Life and the Way.
Evidence of these two claims consists of what?
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
Absolutely!
As in, absolutely false; atheism is not a "belief" itself since that would mean that requiring evidence of religious claims is a "belief."
Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.
"Many have trouble comprehending that "not believing X" (not believe gods exist) doesn't mean the same as "believing not X" (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial."
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
Absolutely!
As in, absolutely false; atheism is not a "belief" itself since that would mean that requiring evidence of religious claims is a "belief."
Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.
"Many have trouble comprehending that "not believing X" (not believe gods exist) doesn't mean the same as "believing not X" (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial."
Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
-
Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot. Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome. If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future. Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.
-
Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot. Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome. If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future. Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.
Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?
-
Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?
I have a very vague feeling that a "God of the gaps" argument is coming.
-
Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot. Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome. If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future. Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.
Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?
Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain. This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not. There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.
-
Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot. Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome. If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future. Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.
Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?
Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain. This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not. There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.
When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?" I merely asked a yes or no question and you attempted to apply statements to me that I never made.
-
Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot. Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome. If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future. Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.
Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?
Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain. This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not. There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.
When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?"
That would be when you'd previously, (and recently), insisted upon a "belief" in an entity's existance for which you've no evidence, (thus the conclusion that there is no more evidence for an imaginary deity as there is for an imaginary unicorn in Falconeer's garage).
I merely asked a yes or no question and you attempted to apply statements to me that I never made.
Not exactly; you asked a leading question. I can see where that was leading, (and so can Falconeer, apparently). As to the statements you have made; those consisted of a belief in a deity whose existance lacks even a shred of evidence therefore, it was logically concluded that such a belief was in a non-existant entity, (imaginary one).
-
Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?
I have a very vague feeling that a "God of the gaps" argument is coming.
I'd extrapolated something along similar lines when I replied to her leading question. While such a "god of the gaps" argument may be new to some, I'd argued against the inherent logical fallacies it consists of before. Maybe you'd like a stab at though?
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:42:19 pm
I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God. Why? Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.
Quote from: falcon9:
You're quite correct in that such "coincidental" events cannot conclusively be attributed to some deity therefore, would not constitute proof. Now, a bolt of lightening from a cloudless sky directly following the invitation would go a lot further as evidence, (once any weather anomalies were accounted for).
You cannot "box" God in a corner. You are requesting:
1. A bolt of lightning
2. A cloudless sky
3. Weather anomalies are accounted for
4. Now: "If you exist, strike me dead, only using numbers 1 through 3."
You are demanding God to answer your requests with stipulations. That is not using logic. To you, faith is not logic. We will not, at this point, agree with each other about this, and that's fine. But, I do say that God will not be boxed for you, George Carlin, or anyone, just so you have absolute proof.
I also want to clarify that faith is believing in something or someone you cannot see. Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional. Yet, you have no evidence, on your side, on what or who actually created man and the world from the beginning. The kind of perfection in this creation has to have a higher mind to put together everything with such knowledge. The man and the earth/world could not evolve from nothing without someone having a cause to create in the first place.
-
" The intolerant part was the inherently arrogant assumption that one must "be saved in order for someone else's god to hear them."
God hears all,saved or unsaved.I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.The objection was to "tempting" God to strike them dead,and considering it proof of His Non-existence when He does not do so.
"By the way, your phrase "militant atheist" emphasizes your intolerance of those who are not of your insidious belief system by using a derrogatory adjective."
Considering that you yourself have called Christians "delusional" and "primitive" you'll understand if I don't take your chiding over the term "militant" very seriously.
-
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy. Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
This logic is beyond broken-
1.) Your assertion that a belief in a non-belief is irrational. It's much like someone who collects bugs and someone who does not- your logic is that the person who does not collect bugs has a hobby of not collecting bugs.
You are substituting belief in God for belief in speculative theory.The absence of belief in God is not the total absence of belief in something.
2.) There is no religious faith within scientific theories. They are based upon evidences with things you or I can (usually) interact with in the real world. Your one-of-a-million popular religious belief system with thousands of contradictions is based furthest from concrete evidences and moreso based upon social myopia and emotional validation. You and others have failed to show any shred of evidence for a god (much less your own personalized god), so therefore comparing both on the same spectrum is ludicrous reasoning. Granted scientific reasonings can be faulty (which can actually be a wonderful thing for the world-- see chart below), atleast there's a visible foundation to rest on.
You have failed to show that no faith is involved in belief in speculative theory.There are numerous leaps of logic in all scientific attempts to explain Creation.As I said before,your belief's are as dependent upon "faith" as anyone.
-
You cannot "box" God in a corner. You are requesting:
1. A bolt of lightning
2. A cloudless sky
3. Weather anomalies are accounted for
4. Now: "If you exist, strike me dead, only using numbers 1 through 3."
Yes, the parameters should not be constricting for the 'powers' attributed to such a deity.
You are demanding God to answer your requests with stipulations.
Nope, still requesting, (as you mentioned above in "You are requesting ..." - followed by 3 parameters).
That is not using logic.
On the contrary, it is far more logical to stipulate an experiment's parameters than to loosely attribute any effect to the speculative 'powers' of some alleged deity.
To you, faith is not logic.
More accurately, "faith" is not, according to its meaning, logical in that acceptance of a "belief" without evidence isn't logical.
We will not, at this point, agree with each other about this, and that's fine. But, I do say that God will not be boxed for you, George Carlin, or anyone, just so you have absolute proof.
They were simply parameters for the bolt of lightening experiment, established to reduce false attributions. As far as a 'god in a box' goes, that's subtely sublime.
I also want to clarify that faith is believing in something or someone you cannot see.
There is a distinct difference between being unable to see something which is nonetheless visible given the proper equipment and that which remains an invisible conceptualization. It isn't a subtle difference.
Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional.
No conclusive evidence has been presented by xtians on any thread in this forum. Conclusive evidence is evidence which is incontrovertible, rather than vaguely ambiguous hearsay.
Yet, you have no evidence, on your side, on what or who actually created man and the world from the beginning.
Stardust.
The kind of perfection in this creation has to have a higher mind to put together everything with such knowledge. The man and the earth/world could not evolve from nothing without someone having a cause to create in the first place. [/color]
Your conclusion does not follow since it contains the premise assumption of 'intelligent design', (circular and without substantiation).
-
Considering that you yourself have called Christians "delusional" and "primitive" you'll understand if I don't take your chiding over the term "militant" very seriously.
Considering centuries of murder under the inglorious banner of religion, your objections are mere dust in the wind. (note that I no longer bother asking you to substantiate any of your religious claims because, you never do. On the other hand, the reasoning behind characterizing the unsubstantiated claims of xtians as primitively and delusionally-based has been extensively presented).
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.
Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.
-
Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot. Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome. If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future. Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.
Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?
Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain. This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not. There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.
When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?"
That would be when you'd previously, (and recently), insisted upon a "belief" in an entity's existance for which you've no evidence, (thus the conclusion that there is no more evidence for an imaginary deity as there is for an imaginary unicorn in Falconeer's garage).
I merely asked a yes or no question and you attempted to apply statements to me that I never made.
Not exactly; you asked a leading question. I can see where that was leading, (and so can Falconeer, apparently). As to the statements you have made; those consisted of a belief in a deity whose existance lacks even a shred of evidence therefore, it was logically concluded that such a belief was in a non-existant entity, (imaginary one).
Ohh I didn't realize you knew what I was going to say. I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask.
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.
Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.
Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.
-
Ohh I didn't realize you knew what I was going to say.
I didn't. I merely stated that you began with a leading question. Given your level of hostility, the question was view dubiously.
I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask.[/b]
There are too many undefined variables inherent in the second question to make even an educated guess. It's possible however, it remains unknown how probable that event would be.
-
Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.
Atheism itself makes no such claim. Instead, specific atheists and others have requested that those making unsupported religious claims provide evidence under the burden of proof requirement for initially making the claims. It is not incumbent upon those who request such substantiation to "disprove" the religious claimant's claims. Your assertion that "atheism ... attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God" is not only unsubstantiated, its a false attribution.
-
You have often said statements like: (so and so) "..just hit me for no reason...I didn't do anything" I would be willing to bet?
Your evident misinterpretation of what I actually did write, (as opposed to making statements "like"), indicates you've missed the jest here.
You are quite right, and my apologies in that regard. It does seem -- at least to me anyways -- that whenever one of us assumes a lighter tone that the other misinterprets it. Maybe we just aren't very funny (although I do like some of your sarcasm).
Irrational by your definition and a misleading way of putting things.
It isn't misleading since the parameters of the definition of 'irrational' have been demonstrated to apply to "faith". You've already conceded this point, ("Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience ..."), by way of your
ancedotal experience of "faith".
I didn't concede any point, I am simply applying the logic you provided to cases other than the one you narrowly focused it upon. Basically you have indicated that the inclusion of any 'irrational' element as a variable of any decision making process will disqualify the 'choice' as being rational. Since we cannot make any decision without including emotion or experience (well we cannot prove that we can make any decision without involving emotion or experience -- thus irrational ipso facto by the very argument you make towards faith) then the decision is disqualified from being considered to be rational by default. While we can all consider choices which would not rely upon experience or emotion, we would never be able to demonstrate to another that those elements were omitted, and we couldn't even be certain ourselves that they truly were omitted as the brain tends to consider any abstract concept in a prejudice fashion.
You are misleading the reader here in that you are presenting the argument as if people have the choice of removing emotion and experience from their decision making process.
On the contrary, it is you who are presenting a misleading strawman argument since I've stated nothing about "removing emotion and experience" from the decision-making process. What I did present was an example where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process.
That isn't a strawman because the idea isn't presented as a substitute for your position and I haven't claimed any victory of an attack upon the position. Your words of "some rely" denotes a choice in the matter, one way or the other. Had you said something along the lines of "Some people have conditioned themselves to try and recognize and ignore emotional considerations", I would not have objected so. You didn't present any example of where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process -- you presented a generalization of what most people do day to day.
You clean it up a bit by adding that "few go about in a purely logical manner", but you fail to give the reason that such few would be people who are brain damaged ...
That's an absurd implication; the use of logical reasoning isn't possible given brain damage therefore, its usage does not require brain damage. On the other hand, irrationality has often been linked to bran damage by medical professionals.
Logic is entirely possible with brain damage. In fact the complete use of logic with no emotional considerations is only possible with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. I will let pass your appeal to authority regarding the medical professionals as the point of brain damage and irrationality is moot.
A more honest way of saying this would be to say that people always combine emotion and experience into their decision making process.
No, the use of the word "always" would be an assertion that this occurs in every instance and that there is conclusive evidence to support such an assertion. What I did state was 'On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions.' The alteration you suggested would be a dishonest one, unless you can provide the substantiating evidence to support it.
You are presenting the rule as a possibility to the exception and that is an attempt to minimize the rule and elevate the exception, it is inherently dishonest even though the exception might be true:
"Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied people who had received brain injuries that had had one specific effect: to damage that part of the brain where emotions are generated. In all other respects they seemed normal - they just lost the ability to feel emotions.
The interesting thing he found was that their ability to make decisions was seriously impaired. They could logically describe what they should be doing, in practice they found it very difficult to make decisions about where to live, what to eat, etc.
In particular, many decisions have pros and cons on both sides. Shall I have the fish or the beef? With no rational way to decide, they were unable to make the decision.
So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
We talk about decisions that feel or seem right. When logical decisions are wrong, we will often feel that this is so. Emotions are perhaps signals from the subconscious that tell us a lot about what we really choose.
An even stranger factor is research where the subject's brain was wired up to recorders and the subject was asked to simply press a red button at any time. The notion was that if the conscious mind was in charge, then that part of the brain would be seen to change first, an if the decision started in the subconscious, then electrical activity in that part of the brain would work first.
And the answer was...that the subconscious started activity first. The shocking conclusion is that the subconscious is in charge of the bus, and that we are living an illusion of conscious choice. As emotions also stem from the subconscious, then this makes it even more likely that decisions have a strong emotional influence."
I don't agree to your position, I only agree that under your contention that such as you said would be true regarding faith and it would be true regarding the position of atheism as well though ...
Your qualifier is nonsensical; atheism employs skeptical reasoning, not irrationality. Your attempts to conflate the two opposing terms under irrationality are illogical.
Prove that atheism employs skeptical reasoning, and not irrationality. Since irrationality includes emotion then prove that emotion is not included in the reasoning process of atheism. Since neuroscience and psychology deny the ability to eliminate emotion from reason I find your task a most daunting and unenviable one.
... so do not try to put words into my mouth without finishing the sentence in the context I would use it.
Again, your qualifier, (" ... it would also be true regarding the position of atheism ..."), doesn't apply to the context. As far as trying to put words in the mouth of another, you've attempted that twice in this post alone so far. A pattern of your previous attempts at this continues to manifest.
Indicate where I have committed this offense or retract the charge.
Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.
Not quite. There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations. These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.
They cannot take emotion or experience or mental imagery into account and hold to the position of not including irrational elements -- under your definition.
Unless you're being intentionally obtuse, you've managed to miss the point once again. Taking observed irrational phenomenon into account has two aspects. One applies to accounting for external phenomenon and the other involved self-awareness of internal phenomenon. In the former instance, someone else's emotions can be taken into account, (or not, as the case may be), without incorporating those emotions themselves into one's own decision-making process. In the latter instance, it is possible to be aware of one's own internal emotions to such a degree as to either be aware of incorporating them or, to intentionally choose to not include them as aspects of a decision-making process. Not only does this _not_ require "brain damage" to accomplish but, such damage would preclude it.
It isn't that I am being deliberately obtuse, so perhaps I am just plain obtuse (been called a lot worse). You have previously employed the use of emotion as a sort of "fruits of the poisonous tree" in regards to any rational thinking. I cannot see how considering someone else's emotions, logically, can serve any purpose unless you use the considerations of these emotions to some end. What I mean is you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on a perception of an emotion -- you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on the perception of an irrational element. That would have to disqualify any outcome if such were the case under the strict definition you provided.
You are justifying (rationalizing) your own tolerance of what sort of irrationality (by your definition) is allowed and this is prejudice.
I said nothing about what "is allowed" and therefore, there was no prejudice involved, (either implicit or, explicit), and no rationalizing. That's the third time so far in this post you've attempted a strawman argument by misinterpreting what I actually wrote.
This isn't a strawman because it isn't presented as a substitution for what you said. Had I said something like "You cannot use an irrational bases as a means of a rational choice", I would have been making a strawman against you (and a particularly damaging one since it is your words, but a substitute for your words in another area).
In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults). Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself). Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition. Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... " - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77
Atheism is irrational by your definition. It is a rejection without positive proof ...
False. It is a rejection of claims made without those claims having substantiating proof. Your implication is that atheism is required to 'prove a negative assertion', (e.g., 'prove that x does not exist'), by framing it as "a rejection WITHOUT positive proof". Requirement of a negative proof is a logical fallacy. Nothing in my prior statements confers irrationality to atheism.
I get a mix of negative and positive atheism out of you. The negative being more along the lines of 'rejects without substantiating proof' and the positive claiming there is no God (a statement which would require proof by the rules of justification reciprocated). The agnostic atheist isn't irrational by your definition, but the gnostic atheist certainly is as the later owns the burden of proof when advocating his position. If you have only said you "don't believe God exists" and not "God doesn't exist" then I am wrong in my description of your atheism (based solely on burden of proof), but if you said the other then I am absolutely correct in my labeling of atheism as irrational (based on burden of proof). Now I can't remember offhand whether you have specifically said that "there is no God", but I am well aware of your willingness to lend an offensive remark in any thread mentioning religion or faith or God. That tendency to insult certainly belongs more to the positive atheist so I wasn't rash to reach that conclusion (I will look closer at some of your posts when I get more time but you can also clarify your position here in replay as well).
Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief".
Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition.
Please explain yourself here. You make a charge implying something underhanded by me ("Since you snipped the context of the comment") by doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Your attempt at slight of hand would be especially hilarious to any reader that wishes to go back and read the full paragraph where I said 'Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief"'. That is one of those "can't make that stuff up" moments.
You try to both take an empty compromising position that is effectively a "failure to state" ...
False. My position regarding the irrationality of "faith" has been elaborately stated.
The "failure to state" I speak of is where you put yourself in the position of not having to defend anything or being required to have burden of proof because your position doesn't state a finality on whether something is or isn't. When being asked "Does God exist?" and replying with "I don't have any proof that God exists" is a "Failure To State", for example. You try to sit on the fence of allegiance but consistently attack one side, never having to show fealty and attempting argument in a manner of ad absurdum.
... and then you indicate your difference to agnosticism indicating that you have fully realized the situation and somehow collected facts enough to disprove agnosticism.
I neither stated nor implied that I've "collected enough facts to disprove agnosticism". I simply stated that I'm not an agnostic, as a follow-on comment to the agnostic premise of a fence-sittingbeleif system, (that they have no evidence, one way or the other - not that I do have such evidence). Under your conditions, everyone would be an agnostic. Since your conditions are illogical, everyone isn't agnostic. By the way, that's the fourth strawman you've tried to promulgate in this post. You're on a roll, man!
That wasn't a strawman either. By the way, the 'indicating' I use is a consequential indication from the results of a direct comparison, and not a deliberate indication on your behalf. You probably know that but that is the only thing that was even close to being presented as a strawman that I could see and that would rely on you misunderstanding it to mean that I said you made such a claim.
-
I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...
Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position. What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.
It doesn't require a lack of substantiating evidence, it merely doesn't require absolute confirmation of evidence and that is a huge difference.
What a load of bovine feces; are you actually suggesting that there's any substantial evidence or, just spliting tiny hairs? The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in. A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.
What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence. You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't. I have faith, and unless you are willing to call me a liar, you must believe me when I tell you that I don't weigh any amount of evidence in relation to my faith. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.
You are rationalizing by degree, trying to find the worst case scenario and presenting it as the minimum condition to qualify ...
Your accusation is false because the worst case wasn't whaat was presented, (excepting that your biased view of it as the worst case is noted); the minimum requirement of "faith" was presented - not needing evidence to 'believe'. This minimum has been previously presented by others holding to irrational faith in various comments to this thread, (and others). So, you're objecting to other xtians not requiring evidence to have 'faith' as well as those who aren't xtian?
What? Your conditional of "that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence" isn't an attempt by you to put the requirements of faith into as narrow a field as possible? That is vastly different from what you now present as the minimum requirement of "not needing evidence to 'believe'". To be fair, I observed in your post that there was a dangling quote and it may have made it difficult for you to follow the paragraphs (these forums are not friendly to deep replies). I tried to correct it above in my reply so you can observe it and I will not accuse you of being dishonest as I concede that the dangling quote could have confused you.
Atheism isn't skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry doesn't reject without confirmation ...
Atheism rejects unsubstantiated claims and often includes the skeptical inquiry that those making such religious claims support them. Since those making such unsupported claims remain unable to substantiate them, atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, (not a confirmation of proving a negative condition).
First I must make aware to the readers that the above indicated quote of mine is not an accurate quote of what was posted. There is information missing between the two sentences in addition to the information that was indicated to be missing from the end by the included ellipses. Again I invite the reader to go back to my original post and enjoy the humor in the relevancy of the missing words in relation to the response given above.
Once again I observe that you are aligning yourself as a negative atheist and I will more closely monitor your posts in other threads to see if you hold to such a position.
... yet your skeptical inquiry rejects unless it is given absolute proof. Such a contrasting position to the claim I find quite 'irrational'.
It isn't irrational to require the burden of proof from those who are making the claim, (that would be those claiming that a 'belief' in some
Again when put into context with the missing information from my quote, the relevance of what I said will become clearer. I know that I am not such a skilled debater that you can only muster the ability to reply to half of my sentences at any given time so what gives? (bit of a ribbing but an honest question, is it my verbosity is it the clumsiness of the forum, the word limit, what?)
I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'. So where does that leave us?
No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it). I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods. Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is. That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.
I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis). You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this.
You cannot hold the position that "no reduction in logic is necessary" without also including "..because we are not considering the question in the first place". But you cannot include that extension and also have taken a position on what entails a 'belief'.
I have considered that the question 'faith' as an irrational basis for an equally irrational 'belief' without any "reduction in logic." Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?
My beliefs don't constrict me, they expand what I am capable of considering. By your own tacit admissions I can consider far more than is possible for you as I extend beyond the mere physical and logical into the spiritual as well.
You have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational.
Now you're simply lying; I presented no such evidence, (regardless of your irrational misinterpretations of what I actually did state).
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?
Your deliberate and insulting posts in any thread you can find that relates to faith and especially Christianity shows your prejudice and prejudice immediately rejects a position as rational.
No doubt a xtian would find such things as pointing out that their religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths, an entire "dark age" and a massive amount of cultural theft/suppression & absorbtion of other 'religions' as "insulting." Too bad; such despicable actions under the banner of religion, (including xtianity), is insulting to me. Doubtless this doesn't matter to you either, as an adherent to a belief system which perpetrated such crimes against humanity.
You have poisoned your own well.
On the contrary, xtianity beat me to their own well centuries ago.
You cannot dismiss emotion so readily either. It is likely the most important part of being human and allows us to extend within and beyond the outlines of the drawing. Emotion supplies relevance and without it all things are equally valuable and thus by extension equally worthless.
I didn't "dismiss" it; I expressly stated it could be accounted for. Accounting for something is the opposite of dismissing or, disregarding it. It was further stated that I have emotions, (rather than being an AI program sent to vex you). Although I suppose I could question your contention that "emotion supplies relevance ..." etc., though I somehow doubt that what you'd supply as 'evidence' would be conclusive, (that's skepticism, not a dismissal in advance).
When you purposely described emotions as "illogical emotions" (which is true but the added emphasis of double stating by you with the stipulation of 'illogical') makes it appear as if you find them distasteful. I realize you have emotions, but I have noticed that with many analytically prone thinkers that they will have a crossing point in their lives from where they go from an angry Spock Lite to the complete person they are to become (a person who has finally surrendered to the inevitability that we are in many ways of two minds and not meant to hold such a tight grip upon ourselves). I previously posted above the relevance of emotion in decision making and it is an interesting topic to read up on, especially in areas of neuroscience. Some of the examples about being unable to decide what to drink or what to eat I find fascinating. I did wonder if part of it was from the complete loss of the other form of choosing but then I realized that that alone would be enough though to make the emotional relevance valid.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 04:59:56 pm
Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional.
Quote from: falcon9:
No conclusive evidence has been presented by xtians on any thread in this forum. Conclusive evidence is evidence which is incontrovertible, rather than vaguely ambiguous hearsay.
The claim an atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an "*untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint." Legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler stated, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.”
{*Untenable - "Not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection"; Dictionary.com}
There have been atheists such as Karl Marx, philosopher Frederick Nietzsche, Freud, and others, who claim that those believing in God have a "mental disorder," being "delusional" and "irrational," and even having a "*wish-fulfillment desire." When you think about it, maybe it is really that these 3 and their followers are the one's who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: "the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment;" I already know this will be rejected, but what's "good for the goose, is good for the gander" as some people say.....
*Wish-fulfillment also means in the "Medical Dictionary" - "In psychoanalytic theory, the satisfaction of a desire, need, or impulse through a dream or other exercise of the imagination. ..." ;
"Wikipedia" - " in psychology is the satisfaction of a desire through such involuntary thought processes such as dreams, daydreams, an neurotic symptoms. In Freudian psychoanalysis, it is when desires of the unconscious are unacceptable to the ego and superego because of feeling of guilt or societal or cultural restrictions such as taboos, giving rise to dreams.[1] For Sigmund Freud, dreams result from attempts by the unconscious to resolve a conflict of some sort, whether something recent or something from the recesses of the past.[2] In the ethics of belief, wish fulfillment can come out as a bad faith self delusion."
[Wikipedia and FreeDictionary.com]}
-
Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.
There are specific labels for agnostics though and atheists aren't going "THERE IS NO GOD AND I DONT CARE WUT U BELEEV!" *fold arms*. They are definitely willing to listen to any "proofs", but obviously (as these threads present countless times) those proofs can't even break through the most elementary of skepticism. Atheists are generally agnostic-atheists when it comes to logically explaining things and argumenting with people of religious belief systems. Considering the amounts of religious foul ups and contradictions throughout history, it tends to pave a good argumentative path to show that a religious belief system has faults and it's highly probable that the metaphysical descriptions are false and imaginary from more primitive times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
When you think about it, maybe it is really that these 3 and their followers are the one's who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: "the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment;" I already know this will be rejected, but what's "good for the goose, is good for the gander" as some people say.....
That's an insane statement and I gotta shoot it down! lol those sane people who don't believe in any deity or specific afterlife savor reality much more than any religious person ever could hope to-- they believe in civilization and part of that foundation is educating one that they are accountable for their own actions while interacting with the world around them. The freethinkers tend to concentrait on the here-and-now rather than a one-in-a-trillion shot at their chosen afterlife idea and they writhe at the thought of wasting this life hoping to earn points with some randomly chosen god(s) they were raised to believe in or for whatever other emotional reason. This applies to the majority of religions- not just christianity.
To turn the argument around- what of the truckloads of people that use religion as an excuse to do evil deeds and get away with it because of the false shielding it provides (Catholics Priests and little boys? Ted Haggard and the whole gay prostitute thing?)? I mean with Ted Haggard, rather than authentically apologizing for his bigoted hypocrisy, he just said Satan got the best of him and people fell for it.
-
You have often said statements like: (so and so) "..just hit me for no reason...I didn't do anything" I would be willing to bet?
Your evident misinterpretation of what I actually did write, (as opposed to making statements "like"), indicates you've missed the jest here.
You are quite right, and my apologies in that regard. It does seem -- at least to me anyways -- that whenever one of us assumes a lighter tone that the other misinterprets it. Maybe we just aren't very funny (although I do like some of your sarcasm).
Humor is a subjective experience, (although it could be said that all experiences are).
Irrational by your definition and a misleading way of putting things.
It isn't misleading since the parameters of the definition of 'irrational' have been demonstrated to apply to "faith". You've already conceded this point, ("Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience ..."), by way of your
ancedotal experience of "faith".
I didn't concede any point, I am simply applying the logic you provided to cases other than the one you narrowly focused it upon. Basically you have indicated that the inclusion of any 'irrational' element as a variable of any decision making process will disqualify the 'choice' as being rational.
Close however, what I've argued is that inclusion of irrational elements in the _process_ of decision-making means that such a process has an irrational basis, (although the inference is that a conclusion stemming from an irrational basis is somewhat justified, if unstated). While it can be postulated that every choice is made on the basis of both rational and irrational elements, conclusions are based on which of these elements is predominate. If the irrational elements outweigh/outnumber/out-flumox the rational elements, there is a strong possibility that a conclusion drawn from them won't be rational.
Since we cannot make any decision without including emotion or experience (well we cannot prove that we can make any decision without involving emotion or experience -- thus irrational ipso facto by the very argument you make towards faith) then the decision is disqualified from being considered to be rational by default.
See the above paragraph in response and note the last sentence, (which which an implicit inference that the more rational elements present in a decision-making process, the more rational the conclusion resulting tends to be). Again, taking irrational elements into considered means that the decision-maker is not only aware of them, (rather than being unaware of subconscious input), but can choose to temper them with reason, (or not). The same applies to being aware of rational elements of a decision-making process. Subsequently, the result of a decision-making process can be rational or irrational, depending upon the influence rational and irrational elements have upon the resulting conclusion.
You are misleading the reader here in that you are presenting the argument as if people have the choice of removing emotion and experience from their decision making process.
On the contrary, it is you who are presenting a misleading strawman argument since I've stated nothing about "removing emotion and experience" from the decision-making process. What I did present was an example where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process.
Logic is entirely possible with brain damage.
Perhaps so, (pending evidence) however, the salient point was that it is not only possible _without_ brain damage but, that irrationality is often a sign of some mental impairment(s).
In particular, many decisions have pros and cons on both sides. Shall I have the fish or the beef? With no rational way to decide, they were unable to make the decision.
So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
We talk about decisions that feel or seem right. When logical decisions are wrong, we will often feel that this is so. Emotions are perhaps signals from the subconscious that tell us a lot about what we really choose.
Once again, I've already stated agreement the position that decisions are made on the basis of a mixture of logic and other non-logical factors. I elaborated a bit more on this position within this posted response in order to clarify the difference between a decision-making process which incorporates predominately irrational elements to influence a conclusion/choice and a process which uses predominately rational elements to influence the subsequent conclusion/choice. Our point of contention appears to rest with the process and only concerns the choice as a subsequrnt outcome of that process. I could be extrapolating in error where your position is concerned, however.
"... the subconscious started activity first. The shocking conclusion is that the subconscious is in charge of the bus, and that we are living an illusion of conscious choice. As emotions also stem from the subconscious, then this makes it even more likely that decisions have a strong emotional influence."
While neural activity originates at a subsconscious level, the resultant 'macro-activity' manifests as thoughts and emotions that one can become consciously aware of, (or not), in order to incorporate such awareness into a decision-making process, (or not, as the case may be).
Prove that atheism employs skeptical reasoning, and not irrationality.
I'll consider it right after you provide evidence supported your initially asserted qualifier that "I only agree that under your contention that such as you said would be true regarding faith and it would be true regarding the position of atheism as well ..."
Since irrationality includes emotion then prove that emotion is not included in the reasoning process of atheism. Since neuroscience and psychology deny the ability to eliminate emotion from reason I find your task a most daunting and unenviable one.
That one has already been addressed by way of delineating the differences between a decision-making process which incorporates predominately irrational elements to influence a conclusion/choice and a process which uses predominately rational elements to influence the subsequent conclusion/choice.
Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.
Not quite. There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations. These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.
[/quote]
They cannot take emotion or experience or mental imagery into account and hold to the position of not including irrational elements -- under your definition.
Unless you're being intentionally obtuse, you've managed to miss the point once again. Taking observed irrational phenomenon into account has two aspects. One applies to accounting for external phenomenon and the other involved self-awareness of internal phenomenon. In the former instance, someone else's emotions can be taken into account, (or not, as the case may be), without incorporating those emotions themselves into one's own decision-making process. In the latter instance, it is possible to be aware of one's own internal emotions to such a degree as to either be aware of incorporating them or, to intentionally choose to not include them as aspects of a decision-making process. Not only does this _not_ require "brain damage" to accomplish but, such damage would preclude it.
[/quote]
It isn't that I am being deliberately obtuse, so perhaps I am just plain obtuse (been called a lot worse). You have previously employed the use of emotion as a sort of "fruits of the poisonous tree" in regards to any rational thinking. I cannot see how considering someone else's emotions, logically, can serve any purpose unless you use the considerations of these emotions to some end. What I mean is you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on a perception of an emotion -- you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on the perception of an irrational element. That would have to disqualify any outcome if such were the case under the strict definition you provided.
Having seen where you've taken this tangent already within this post, I attempted to clarify the position that taking irrational elements into account during a decision-making process is not equivalent to incorporating such irrational elements into the process, (and subsequently, into the decision/choice resulting). The tangential premise is inaccurate since a decision-making process which takes predominately rational elements into account, (while consciously choosing to minimize any irrational aspects of the process), only considers a process where the decision-maker succumbs to emotions/other irrational elements. Generally, unless a person has little to no self-control and simply acts upon these irrational elements without regard to reason, there are at least fleeting moments of rationality envinced by their choices.
In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults). Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself). Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition. Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... " - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77
[/quote]
Atheism is irrational by your definition. It is a rejection without positive proof ...
False. It is a rejection of claims made without those claims having substantiating proof. Your implication is that atheism is required to 'prove a negative assertion', (e.g., 'prove that x does not exist'), by framing it as "a rejection WITHOUT positive proof". Requirement of a negative proof is a logical fallacy. Nothing in my prior statements confers irrationality to atheism. [/quote]
I get a mix of negative and positive atheism out of you.
I'm not aware of any mixed signals, unless that's simply a matter of subjective interpretation. Although I appreciate the effort, I've never declared one brand of atheism or the other and remained amused at the assumptions made by others. No one actually asked and now, I'd decline to answer; that way, I get to watch you paint yourselves into corners. Admittedly, a small vice but then, I don't smoke, drink, use drugs or enage in religious self-deceptions so one should have some hobbies.
Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief".
Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition.
Please explain yourself here.
No.
You try to both take an empty compromising position that is effectively a "failure to state" ...
False. My position regarding the irrationality of "faith" has been elaborately stated. [/quote]
The "failure to state" I speak of is where you put yourself in the position of not having to defend anything or being required to have burden of proof because your position doesn't state a finality on whether something is or isn't.
Oh, that. Yep, I do try to avoid making empty assertions which I cannot substantiate. Mostly, I'm sucessful but sometimes, something slips past the filters and we get a floater in the pool. In this instance, I deliberately have taken the position of the skeptic when it comes to requiring evidence to support the initial claims of opponents in an argument/debate. They seem to enjoy that less than I do and struggle to shift the burden of proof onto me, (can't say as I blame them too much for that human behaviour after watching them squirm for awhile now).
When being asked "Does God exist?" and replying with "I don't have any proof that God exists" is a "Failure To State", for example.
That isn't how it went down though. Numerous assertions, (initially stating claims), were made by others that "god exists" and my consistent response has been to request substantiation of such claims. None has been provided thusfar, (the typical response has been some non-evidentiary "faith" in lieu of evidence ... since "faith" specifically incorporates a lack of evidence by definition, it was rejected as evidence itself).
If you are now asking me whether or not I've determined some proposed deital being exists, I would have to consider any evidence presented to support cause. This varies from dismissing the question out of hand and does not qualify specifically as a "failure to state", (although it may qualify as a general failure to state in that one could accuse any number of people of failing to state whether they believe in the existance of invisible purple unicorns in Falconeer)2's garage). The argument is considered to be specious because deities and invisible unicorns either exist without benefit of my "belief" or, they do not and my "belief", (or lack of it), has no bearing on their existence. On the other hand, if such proposed beings _do_ require "belief" in order to exist, what does that say about the nature of such an existance?
... and then you indicate your difference to agnosticism indicating that you have fully realized the situation and somehow collected facts enough to disprove agnosticism.
I neither stated nor implied that I've "collected enough facts to disprove agnosticism". I simply stated that I'm not an agnostic, as a follow-on comment to the agnostic premise of a fence-sitting beleif system, (that they have no evidence, one way or the other - not that I do have such evidence). Under your conditions, everyone would be an agnostic. Since your conditions are illogical, everyone isn't agnostic.
-
I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...
Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position. What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.
It doesn't require a lack of substantiating evidence, it merely doesn't require absolute confirmation of evidence and that is a huge difference.
What a load of bovine feces; are you actually suggesting that there's any substantial evidence or, just spliting tiny hairs? The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in. A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.
What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence.
As I understand your suggestion; your own "faith" doesn't require that you produce evidence in what you supposedly have "faith" in however, when making a claim to have "faith" in something which does lack conclusive evidence, you are retreating behind "faith" nonetheless?
I have faith, and unless you are willing to call me a liar, you must believe me when I tell you that I don't weigh any amount of evidence in relation to my faith. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.
To elaborate upon your premise then; you aren't weighing any evidence at all when embracing "faith" as a rationale, (not a "reason" per se since it lacks that process by lacking a requirement for supporting evidence), and instead are making a "leap of faith" over reasoning. If this is the case then you've tactily admitted eschewing reason to choose to 'believe in a deity', (which means your decision-making process incorporated the irrational element of "faith"/lack of evidence to arrive at an irrational choice: not requiring evidence of what is being believed in).
You are rationalizing by degree, trying to find the worst case scenario and presenting it as the minimum condition to qualify ...
Your accusation is false because the worst case wasn't what was presented, (excepting that your biased view of it as the worst case is noted); the minimum requirement of "faith" was presented - not needing evidence to 'believe'. This minimum has been previously presented by others holding to irrational faith in various comments to this thread, (and others). So, you're objecting to other xtians not requiring evidence to have 'faith' as well as those who aren't xtian?
What? Your conditional of "that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence" isn't an attempt by you to put the requirements of faith into as narrow a field as possible?
It wasn't conditional since others have given to understand that any evidence presented in lieu of "faith" would negate the rationale for having "faith".
That is vastly different from what you now present as the minimum requirement of "not needing evidence to 'believe'".
The other requirements were deemed as purely arbitrary religious ones, (even the 'don't need evidence-got faith' one is arbitrary and somewhat illogical). If wished, we can address each of them as you present them or, not.
Atheism rejects unsubstantiated claims and often includes the skeptical inquiry that those making such religious claims support them. Since those making such unsupported claims remain unable to substantiate them, atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, (not a confirmation of proving a negative condition).
Once again I observe that you are aligning yourself as a negative atheist and I will more closely monitor your posts in other threads to see if you hold to such a position.
You'll no doubt find no statements of "positive atheism" on my part however, what you choose to construe as "negative atheism" relies upon your interpretation of the actual statements made. Given our debate thusfar, I'd estimate that disgreements have hinged upon such misinterpretations
far more than upon accurate inyerpretations.
... yet your skeptical inquiry rejects unless it is given absolute proof. Such a contrasting position to the claim I find quite 'irrational'.
It isn't irrational to require the burden of proof from those who are making the claim, (that would be those claiming that a 'belief' in something.
Again when put into context with the missing information from my quote, the relevance of what I said will become clearer. I know that I am not such a skilled debater that you can only muster the ability to reply to half of my sentences at any given time so what gives? (bit of a ribbing but an honest question, is it my verbosity is it the clumsiness of the forum, the word limit, what?)
Looks like a character limit, thus the snipping of what was considered to be noncontextual to the replies. Can't include the whole shebang in every response so, some judicious snippage is needed here.
I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'. So where does that leave us?
No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it). I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods. Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is. That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.
I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis). You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this.
You cannot hold the position that "no reduction in logic is necessary" without also including "..because we are not considering the question in the first place". But you cannot include that extension and also have taken a position on what entails a 'belief'.
I have considered that the question of 'faith' is an irrational basis for an equally irrational 'belief' without any "reduction in logic." Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?
My beliefs don't constrict me, they expand what I am capable of considering. By your own tacit admissions I can consider far more than is possible for you as I extend beyond the mere physical and logical into the spiritual as well.
Since I haven't delineated the range or limits of what I do consider, your assumptions are limited to an inference that I only use logic. This would be an inaccurate presumption.
You have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational.
Now you're simply lying; I presented no such evidence, (regardless of your irrational misinterpretations of what I actually did state).
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?
Which "beliefs" are you now assuming I have in regard to your claim that I "have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational"?
Your deliberate and insulting posts in any thread you can find that relates to faith and especially Christianity shows your prejudice and prejudice immediately rejects a position as rational.
No doubt a xtian would find such things as pointing out that their religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths, an entire "dark age" and a massive amount of cultural theft/suppression & absorbtion of other 'religions' as "insulting." Too bad; such despicable actions under the banner of religion, (including xtianity), is insulting to me. Doubtless this doesn't matter to you either, as an adherent to a belief system which perpetrated such crimes against humanity.
You have poisoned your own well.
On the contrary, xtianity beat me to their own well centuries ago.
You cannot dismiss emotion so readily either. It is likely the most important part of being human and allows us to extend within and beyond the outlines of the drawing. Emotion supplies relevance and without it all things are equally valuable and thus by extension equally worthless.
I didn't "dismiss" it; I expressly stated it could be accounted for. Accounting for something is the opposite of dismissing or, disregarding it. It was further stated that I have emotions, (rather than being an AI program sent to vex you). Although I suppose I could question your contention that "emotion supplies relevance ..." etc., though I somehow doubt that what you'd supply as 'evidence' would be conclusive, (that's skepticism, not a dismissal in advance).
When you purposely described emotions as "illogical emotions" (which is true but the added emphasis of double stating by you with the stipulation of 'illogical') makes it appear as if you find them distasteful.
The reason, (since reasoning was used to determine this), that I stipulated emotions as illogical was due to considered that there may be a generalized case for 'logical emotions'. That is, reasonable expectation of a certain emotion, given known parameters of stimulated response, may result in a predictable, (at least understandable, if not strictly logical), response. It isn't that I find emotions particularly "distasteful", what I do happen to find distasteful is a reliance by others upon predominately irrational elements in their decision-making processes which directly impinge upon my environment. In other words, they are euphemistically crapping in a public pool. No one enjoys that.
-
Quote from jcribb:
When you think about it, maybe it is really that these 3 and their followers are the one's who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: "the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment;" I already know this will be rejected, but what's "good for the goose, is good for the gander" as some people say.....
Quote from Falconer:
That's an insane statement and I gotta shoot it down! lol those sane people who don't believe in any deity or specific afterlife savor reality much more than any religious person ever could hope to-- they believe in civilization and part of that foundation is educating one that they are accountable for their own actions while interacting with the world around them. The freethinkers tend to concentrait on the here-and-now rather than a one-in-a-trillion shot at their chosen afterlife idea and they writhe at the thought of wasting this life hoping to earn points with some randomly chosen god(s) they were raised to believe in or for whatever other emotional reason. This applies to the majority of religions- not just christianity.
To turn the argument around- what of the truckloads of people that use religion as an excuse to do evil deeds and get away with it because of the false shielding it provides (Catholics Priests and little boys? Ted Haggard and the whole gay prostitute thing?)? I mean with Ted Haggard, rather than authentically apologizing for his bigoted hypocrisy, he just said Satan got the best of him and people fell for it.
You are twisting words and going off on another tangent. I was speaking of the 3 and their followers. I was speaking of athiests, in particular. The Christians believe in civilization and are accountable for their own actions, too.
All I did is turn it around like it is done to Christians and gave a "maybe" for the wish-fulfillment scenario. Sheesh.... :peace:
-
Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional.
Quote from: falcon9:
No conclusive evidence [of "god" existing] has been presented by xtians on any thread in this forum. Conclusive evidence is evidence which is incontrovertible, rather than vaguely ambiguous hearsay.
The claim an atheist makes—“no god,”
No, the claim would be 'there has been no conclusive evidence of the existance of god', (however, that would be requiring that a negative existential proposition be proven). Fortunately, this is not the initial claim; that comes from deists who claim the existance of "god", (and claim to have presented "laid out evidence of god existing").
... which is what “atheist” means—is an "*untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint."
Since 'theist' means "belief in the existence of one or more gods ...", then adding the 'a' to theist means not believing in one or more gods. That's not equivalent to defining atheism as stating a claim that 'there is no god'; it merely means that atheists don't "believe" the claim that there
is one, (or more).
Legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler stated, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.”
{*Untenable - "Not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection"; Dictionary.com}
The initial claim that theists make, (that 'there is a god'), is an untenable position since it lacks evidence to support the claim. Counter-arguments
do not require that the negative existential proposition, (that 'there is no god'), be disproved.
There have been atheists such as Karl Marx, philosopher Frederick Nietzsche, Freud, and others, who claim that those believing in God have a "mental disorder," being "delusional" and "irrational," and even having a "*wish-fulfillment desire."
Well, that'd be an appeal to authority argument which was raised by you so that you could argue against it?
*Wish-fulfillment also means in the "Medical Dictionary" - "In psychoanalytic theory, the satisfaction of a desire, need, or impulse through a dream or other exercise of the imagination. ..." ;
"Wikipedia" - " in psychology is the satisfaction of a desire through such involuntary thought processes such as dreams, daydreams, an neurotic symptoms. In Freudian psychoanalysis, it is when desires of the unconscious are unacceptable to the ego and superego because of feeling of guilt or societal or cultural restrictions such as taboos, giving rise to dreams.[1] For Sigmund Freud, dreams result from attempts by the unconscious to resolve a conflict of some sort, whether something recent or something from the recesses of the past.[2] In the ethics of belief, wish fulfillment can come out as a bad faith self delusion."
[Wikipedia and FreeDictionary.com]}[/color]
The above description of 'wishful thinking' sounds omninously-close to religious thinking.
[/quote]
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.
Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.
Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.
Quite right.Unfortunately -the human ego being what it is- many Atheists will still defend an indefensible position,rather than "convert" to Agnosticism......
-
... many Atheists will still defend an indefensible position,rather than "convert" to Agnosticism......
"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
-
"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."
Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.
Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.
Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.
Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.
Quite right.Unfortunately -the human ego being what it is- many Atheists will still defend an indefensible position,rather than "convert" to Agnosticism......
Agreed- most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
-
... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
-
... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
-
... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
-
... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.
"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
"Agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can."
-
"Agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain."
That is the common and generally accepted definition of agnosticism, agreed.
"Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can."
Conversely, that is not the common and generally accepted definition of atheism. Atheism certainly does Not claim to be able to disprove the alleged existence of some proposed deity, (a negative proof is a logical fallacy - If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea).
-
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Lee Strobel (Former atheist), arrived at this result several years ago, and has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
-
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.”
The problem with so-called "self-evident" statements is that that are circular and are not supported by evidence.
The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it.
That isn't the "only rational and reasonable conclusion" merely because it is asserted to be. So, let's look at the allegedly "logical set of statements" apparently intended to support that premise:
Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
Something does exist; this does not mean that the "something" is a deity.
• You do not get something from nothing.
Look up emergent phenomenon.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Possibly however, if that "something" is _eternal_, then it always existed and was not created. It therefore does not require a creator.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
The deduction is faulty since those aren't the only two options. The other options include, (but are not limited to), a spontaenously emergent universe and no creator, (eternal or otherwise), a universe which expands and contracts in a cyclic manner over a varyingly long duration, (but not an eternal one), or as a 'meta-fractal' aspect/dimension of a 'larger' multiverse.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. The burden of proof rests with those who would claim that the universe is eternal in this instance.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
The person you've quoted to support your contention has used fallacious 'reasoning' and arrived at an erroneous conclusion.
Lee Strobel (Former atheist), arrived at this result several years ago, and has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason."
Apparently, neither Lee nor yourself were familar with emergent phenomenon theory, (which would account for the 'appearance' of randomness, chaos and other misapprehensions of 'something from nothing'. At least emergent theories have more reasonable evidence going for them than relying on the lack of evidence which constitutes "faith".
[/quote]
-
It's in indisputable fact that Something can't come from Nothing.No Order from Chaos.A Creation must have a Creator.Common Sense needs to be applied here,folks.
-
It's in indisputable fact that Something can't come from Nothing.No Order from Chaos.A Creation must have a Creator.
Your "indisputable fact" is disputed by emergent phenomenon theories. Just because you aren't familar with them, (or with reasoning), doesn't mean your opinion - not "indisputable fact"(s) can't be disputed. Lo and behold, they have been.
Common Sense needs to be applied here,folks.
Conversely, reasoning needs to be applied where such 'uncommon sense' is based upon a false premise, (at best, a premise without any supporting evidence other than the empty opinion of a creationist).
-
"Agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain."
That is the common and generally accepted definition of agnosticism, agreed.
"Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can."
Conversely, that is not the common and generally accepted definition of atheism. Atheism certainly does Not claim to be able to disprove the alleged existence of some proposed deity, (a negative proof is a logical fallacy - If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea).
Actually
Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster
Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
-
Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster
Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine"). As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not. He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make. Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."
"Main Entry:
'belief system':
noun
Definition:
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com
-
Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster
Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine"). As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not. He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make. Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."
"Main Entry:
'belief system':
noun
Definition:
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com
Dodging.
-
Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster
Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine"). As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not. He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make. Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."
"Main Entry:
'belief system':
noun
Definition:
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com
Dodging.
I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings.
-
Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster
Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine"). As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not. He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make. Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."
"Main Entry:
'belief system':
noun
Definition:
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com
Dodging.
I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings.
In other words, you are admitting to dodging and attempting to blame it on me.
-
Dodging.
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 02:44:52 pm:
I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings. [/quote]
In other words, you are admitting to dodging and attempting to blame it on me.
No, as usual, your reading comprehension skills are significantly lacking. Your own dodgings are in your own words. I've answered directly, without dodging - unlike your 'responses'. Back to the subject matter you are currently dodging;
"belief system."
"Main Entry:
'belief system':
noun
Definition:
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com
-
Dodging.
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 02:44:52 pm:
I'm aware that you often dodge and take that into account when replying to your dodgings.
In other words, you are admitting to dodging and attempting to blame it on me.
No, as usual, your reading comprehension skills are significantly lacking. Your own dodgings are in your own words. I've answered directly, without dodging - unlike your 'responses'. Back to the subject matter you are currently dodging;
"belief system."
"Main Entry:
'belief system':
noun
Definition:
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com
[/quote]
I'm not dodging anything- you did not even ask a question?
And your response was clearly admitting that you are dodging as a revenge to me for the imaginary dodging you claim I participate in. Honestly, talking to you is an utter waste of time and I don't mean that as an insult or a dig, merely as an explanation if I decide to discontinue responding to someone who avoids discussing any issues.
-
I'm not dodging anything- you did not even ask a question?
Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system. You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions). Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.
And your response was clearly admitting that you are dodging as a revenge ... [yada yada, fabricated nonsense which does not match the record of what was actually written] ...
Your specious nonsense warranted no more response than this comment.
Honestly, talking to you is an utter waste of time
Coincidentally, the same thought had crossed my mind more than once however, for completely different reasons, (that is, I used reasoning - as opposed to what ever you're using in lieu of reasoning).
... and I don't mean that as an insult or a dig, merely as an explanation if I decide to discontinue responding to someone who avoids discussing any issues.
Sure you do; you words belie your empty insistance and serve not as a prelude "explaination" but, merely as an exit excuse. Keep dodging or stop responding; either way is alright with me - it's your choice, afterall.
[/quote]
-
People should have faith in God. In my religious view, I believe in God. God sent his son, Jesus Christ our savior to die on the cross for our sins. So we have to be thankful for our life. :)
So people should live our life in each step by faith. :)
-
Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster
Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a"doctrine"). As far as the inherent claim of atheistic theory goes; you've got "Abrupt" diligently checking to see whether I've claimed to be an atheist or not. He'll find that I have not expressly made such a claim and therefore, am under no particular obligation to support a claim I didn't make. Although that seems to vex "Abrupt" a bit, (with his "failure to state" diatribes), I prefer to consider atheism to be a theory since it doesn't qualify as a "belief system."
"Main Entry:
'belief system':
noun
Definition:
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
-- dictionary.com
Actually I haven't been diligently checking and I probably will not but will keep the option in reserve. You must understand that it doesn't vex me. I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less). I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard). I am assuming we are arguing to the reader and I use devices of persuasion periodically to try and reinforce my points and weaken yours -- but this is natural and we all do this in a sense in general. In my case I am focusing most of my efforts towards the reader though and not actually at attempts to reason with you. Since we lack the types of feedback that would typically be used to measure our efforts (we cannot consider those that agree with us or disagree with us as we know the bias), it proves more challenging to grade ones effectiveness. I use a mixture of trial balloons (to myself which makes it odd) and a delay in response where I can forget the immediate argument and approach it again fresh and more objective at a later time. Some things I say are only for the purpose of me judging them later and others are not. I have never had any experience on how to deal with a situation where one side is playing the prosecutor but relying upon protections afforded to the defense...and this makes it interesting to me. I am sure there are examples of how to effectively argue this but it is something I want to learn on my own, or at least explore what seems best to do in such situations.
Now some, upon hearing this, might say "well why bother". My answer is that this is interesting to me and enjoyable and something I consider good mental exercise as it draws in many areas of consideration.
-
I'm not dodging anything- you did not even ask a question?
Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system. You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions). Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.
And your response was clearly admitting that you are dodging as a revenge ... [yada yada, fabricated nonsense which does not match the record of what was actually written] ...
Your specious nonsense warranted no more response than this comment.
Honestly, talking to you is an utter waste of time
Coincidentally, the same thought had crossed my mind more than once however, for completely different reasons, (that is, I used reasoning - as opposed to what ever you're using in lieu of reasoning).
... and I don't mean that as an insult or a dig, merely as an explanation if I decide to discontinue responding to someone who avoids discussing any issues.
Sure you do; you words belie your empty insistance and serve not as a prelude "explaination" but, merely as an exit excuse. Keep dodging or stop responding; either way is alright with me - it's your choice, afterall.
[/quote]
Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)
-
Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?
I believe it is more that their religion has been twisted and corrupted and turned away from its core ideology.
And people can't stomach that beyond a certain time limit.
People should have faith---maybe note faith in the religious sense, but faith in something.
-
Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system. You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions). Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.
Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)
Can't recall what you recently wrote again, huh? Okay, I'll repost the excerpt, (just to see if you'll deny your own words) --
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.
-
I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less).
While I can see the parallel to a limited extent, I view this debate more as the presentation of opposing perspectives rather than faith' or 'reason' being on trial, (athough I'm fairly certain you could extrapolate what would happen in an actual court of law were the objective to substantiate 'faith' with conclusive evidence). Therefore, we are pretty much allowing any readers, (entrenched or still open to persuasion by reasoning - or, swayed by emotions), to weigh any evidence/lines of reasoning for themselves.
I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard). I am assuming we are arguing to the reader and I use devices of persuasion periodically to try and reinforce my points and weaken yours -- but this is natural and we all do this in a sense in general. In my case I am focusing most of my efforts towards the reader though and not actually at attempts to reason with you. Since we lack the types of feedback that would typically be used to measure our efforts (we cannot consider those that agree with us or disagree with us as we know the bias), it proves more challenging to grade ones effectiveness. I use a mixture of trial balloons (to myself which makes it odd) and a delay in response where I can forget the immediate argument and approach it again fresh and more objective at a later time.
Although I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise by irrational arguments, rational ones do ellicit a considered response. Perhaps you feel "entrenched", (as you suggested) however, my responses have not been solely directed at whomever else may be reading this lengthy exchange. They've also been directed at challenging you to challenge yourself, (instead of resting upon the 'bunker' of "faith"). Doubtless, you may consider my 'bunker' to be logical reasoning alone, (and frankly, I've presented that as being most conducive to arguing within the format of debate, rather than opening/closing arguments at a trial). Regardless, the position I've taken isn't arbitrary, (neither do I perceive yours to be, for what it's worth). So, we are both representing vested interests, as it were and given that awareness, I still seek to examine any evidence as objectively and rationally as possible.
Some things I say are only for the purpose of me judging them later and others are not. I have never had any experience on how to deal with a situation where one side is playing the prosecutor but relying upon protections afforded to the defense...and this makes it interesting to me. I am sure there are examples of how to effectively argue this but it is something I want to learn on my own, or at least explore what seems best to do in such situations.
Now some, upon hearing this, might say "well why bother". My answer is that this is interesting to me and enjoyable and something I consider good mental exercise as it draws in many areas of consideration.
-
I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less). I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard).
While I hold no law degree, I can see where you are going with this analogy. Let's try overtly following that analogy for as far as it takes this debate. Specifically, to expand on an assertion you made in a recent exchange within this debate:
Message ID: 433747-
Quote from: falcon9 on October 16, 2011, 12:27:26 am:
'The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in. A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.'
"What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence. You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.
---
In the context of discussing the concept of 'faith', you've contended "that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence." How would you perceive your arrest for murder if the police did not consider evidence, (or its absence)? Further, how would you perceive the decision to try you for murder, (let's say under circumstantial evidence), convict you of that charge and impose judgement upon you, (all without conclusive evidence and even in the face of a lack of such evidence)?
Would you view these choices, (your arrest and conviction), under these circumstances as arbitrary or, fairly based upon available evidence?
From my perspective, deliberately _not_ considering evidence, (or not requiring it when it is lacking), doesn't follow as a reasoned decision. Perhaps you could elaborate on any of your reasoning behind choosing to disregard evidence or a lack of evidence when it comes to "faith"?
-
;D
-
Currently, you've been dodging the challenge to your claim that atheism is a belief system. You claimed it, I challenged your loose interpretation of the phrase, (even after you quoted dictionary definitions). Since then, you've been dodging supporting your claim but, that's not unusual for you.
Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)
Can't recall what you recently wrote again, huh? Okay, I'll repost the excerpt, (just to see if you'll deny your own words) --
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term.
I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me.
-
I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
The challenge was to what you used/wrote/quoted (in an attempt to bolster your 'point'), so it was relevant.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me.
Since you quoted Webster, (rather than the other way around), I challenged your misinterpretation of what constitutes a "belief system". Now that your usual diversions are out of the way, (doubtless you have more but, let's pretend those tangents aren't relevant and move back to the original point in which you asked what was challenged), back to that challenge:
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
-
I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
The challenge was to what you used/wrote/quoted (in an attempt to bolster your 'point'), so it was relevant.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me.
Since you quoted Webster, (rather than the other way around), I challenged your misinterpretation of what constitutes a "belief system". Now that your usual diversions are out of the way, (doubtless you have more but, let's pretend those tangents aren't relevant and move back to the original point in which you asked what was challenged), back to that challenge:
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
I understand that, but I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was- so it was IRrelevant.
I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.
-
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...
Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.
I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.
You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_. It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs. Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?
By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").
"doc·trine
[dok-trin
noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"
--dictionary reference dotcom
-
I am approaching this more like an attorney might in a trial (although my skill would be much less). I know that we are both likely entrenched into our positions with one of us as prosecution and the other as defense (the roles not being fixed in any regard).
While I hold no law degree, I can see where you are going with this analogy. Let's try overtly following that analogy for as far as it takes this debate. Specifically, to expand on an assertion you made in a recent exchange within this debate:
Message ID: 433747-
Quote from: falcon9 on October 16, 2011, 12:27:26 am:
'The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in. A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.'
"What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence. You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.
---
In the context of discussing the concept of 'faith', you've contended "that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence." How would you perceive your arrest for murder if the police did not consider evidence, (or its absence)? Further, how would you perceive the decision to try you for murder, (let's say under circumstantial evidence), convict you of that charge and impose judgement upon you, (all without conclusive evidence and even in the face of a lack of such evidence)?
Would you view these choices, (your arrest and conviction), under these circumstances as arbitrary or, fairly based upon available evidence?
From my perspective, deliberately _not_ considering evidence, (or not requiring it when it is lacking), doesn't follow as a reasoned decision. Perhaps you could elaborate on any of your reasoning behind choosing to disregard evidence or a lack of evidence when it comes to "faith"?
I am trying to think of an analogy that is an appropriate comparison to my faith. The arrest for murder doesn't work and I am curious if that is how you view it as it isn't even close -- although I understand it perfectly in regards to courtroom practices and the burden of proof is of course on prosecution in such a situation. In the case of my experience it was different. I wasn't pursuing faith and my lifestyle was nothing like a person of faith would be imagined to be living. It wasn't like I said "Hey I wan't to believe and I will investigate the options of whether believing fits in with my way of thinking or not".
The closest analogy would be that I was hungry and thirsty and tired and then suddenly I wasn't any more. Even though I hadn't eaten or drank or rested I was sated. What would I have to doubt or question other than the acknowledgement that it was somewhat odd. That analogy isn't even quite right but it isn't entirely incorrect either.
I don't really know how to describe it as it was a change in me or around me or in my perception maybe. Everything was suddenly new all those years ago and to this day everything is still new every single day and it is the strangest and most delightful thing I can imagine. I still get angry and have the bad thoughts that are typical of people but those things seem to pass readily and I seem to be able to resist a bit more. You may be thinking "well good for you and all crazy person, but what does this have to do with faith?". That is even more difficult to explain because when my perception changed like that I knew what it was -- the connection of what it was appeared in my head with undeniable clarity. It was my thought and my voice telling me what I was experience and it was clear and obvious. I don't really even like talking about it in this way because I am afraid I will tell it different than it was because of ego or pride or such traits (yeah I still have those too). You mentioned "leap of faith" what I experienced would best be described as a "shove of faith". I would have liked the booming voice or a physical manifestation of course, but I didn't require it as I believed from then onward and not because I wanted to believe (remember I was agnostic then) but because I couldn't deny what I felt to be true.
Why would I question it? Why would I not want what I have now? If a pretty girl says she wants to kiss you, you don't ask her why.
-
"What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence. You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't. While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.
---
In the context of discussing the concept of 'faith', you've contended "that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence." How would you perceive your arrest for murder if the police did not consider evidence, (or its absence)? Further, how would you perceive the decision to try you for murder, (let's say under circumstantial evidence), convict you of that charge and impose judgement upon you, (all without conclusive evidence and even in the face of a lack of such evidence)?
Would you view these choices, (your arrest and conviction), under these circumstances as arbitrary or, fairly based upon available evidence?
From my perspective, deliberately _not_ considering evidence, (or not requiring it when it is lacking), doesn't follow as a reasoned decision. Perhaps you could elaborate on any of your reasoning behind choosing to disregard evidence or a lack of evidence when it comes to "faith"?
I am trying to think of an analogy that is an appropriate comparison to my faith.
The court/trial analogy itself was first broached by you, (I merely supplied an example of a portion of procedural evidence within that analogy). However, the questions posed to you related directly to not requiring/not considering evidence to 'have faith'. A secondary inquiry requested any reasoning process behind choosing to rely upon a lack of evidence ('faith') instead of the existence of evidence.
In the case of my experience it was different. I wasn't pursuing faith and my lifestyle was nothing like a person of faith would be imagined to be living. It wasn't like I said "Hey I wan't to believe and I will investigate the options of whether believing fits in with my way of thinking or not".
While I appreciate you taking the time to respond here, a perusal of your 'path to faith' contained no discernable reasoning process, (which explicitly pertained to the previous questions). From what could be gathered from your posted recollections in that regard, there was no apparent reasoning process involved, (if this inference is in error, perhaps such a reasoning process as was employed can be described?). This harkens back to the contention that the decision to choose 'faith' isn't based upon a reasoning process containing predominately rational aspects.
You mentioned "leap of faith" what I experienced would best be described as a "shove of faith". I would have liked the booming voice or a physical manifestation of course, but I didn't require it as I believed from then onward and not because I wanted to believe (remember I was agnostic then) but because I couldn't deny what I felt to be true.
The ancedote presented was, naturally, extremely subjective and appears to represent a preference-choice, (which imply underlying and unstated rationales/explainations however, these "reasons" do not imply use of _reasoning_). Therefore, the leap, (or "shove"), of "faith" still pertains and remains either a deliberate choice or, not a deliberate choice. If it was a deliberate choice, then it deliberately eschewed reasoning.
If it was not a deliberate choice, then it never considered employing reasoning. If there is another option, I have yet to discern it.
Why would I question it? Why would I not want what I have now? If a pretty girl says she wants to kiss you, you don't ask her why.
Don't question a "gifthorse in the mouth" sort of thing? Well, offhand one could be the subject of a gold-digging pretty girl in your example. To further that analogy; the proposed deity wants your 'soul', (just like 'his' alleged adversary but, this is tangential to the crux). Whether or not one succumbs to such 'advances' and loses their loot in exchange for promises, (or a "kiss"), is entirely related to the credence granted the proposition, ('faith/belief' or, disbelief in the proposition). To reiterate the matter; the inquiry was/is any reasoning process involved in choosing to rely upon a lack of evidence ('faith') instead of the existence of evidence?
-
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...
Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.
This is false.
I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.
You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_. It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs. Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?
By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").
"doc·trine
[dok-trin
noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"
--dictionary reference dotcom
I did not misinterpret Webster, but you are entitled to your opinion and that is exactly what it is, an opinion.
-
My opinion, once again is proved in this thread alone. TOOO MUCH BS tied to religion, and it will never end! :wave: I can do without it!
-
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...
Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.
This is false.
Why, because you make the empty claim that it is "false"? Hardly. Scrolling up in this post shows that your question was answered in context while you avoided answering the challenge to support your empty contention yet again.
I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.
You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_. It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs. Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?
By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").
"doc·trine
[dok-trin
noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"
--dictionary reference dotcom
I did not misinterpret Webster, but you are entitled to your opinion and that is exactly what it is, an opinion.
It isn't merely an "opinion", (without basis), since the basis was that you misinterpreted atheism as a 'belief _system_, (as the recorded exchanage clearly shows). Since you've already established your pattern for making empty claims by failing to substantiate them, the expectation bar for you is set fairly low. Although, if you want to limbo dance under it, that's up to you.
-
My opinion, once again is proved in this thread alone. TOOO MUCH BS tied to religion, and it will never end! :wave: I can do without it!
I can't blame you one bit for that, tzs. So, I don't. Also remember that a religionist's glass is half full of emptiness, (while the other half is claimed to consist of insubstantial 'faith'), and the skeptic asks "who drank half the glass?"
-
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
I did not ask any question about what I said merely about what you actual challenge was ...
Your question was answered in the context of what you quoted from Miriam Webster.
This is false.
Why, because you make the empty claim that it is "false"? Hardly. Scrolling up in this post shows that your question was answered in context while you avoided answering the challenge to support your empty contention yet again.
I didn't "interpret" webster, I quoted it word for word.
You misinterpreted atheism as as a belief _system_. It isn't since it does not rely upon "beliefs" but, is expressly skeptical of any unsubstantiated beliefs. Are you trying to interpret that dictionary definition to mean that 'doubt' or, 'disbelief' is itself a belief system?
By the way, a "doctrine" isn't necessarily a 'belief system' since it includes anything which is taught, (which encompasses physics, accounting, English Lit, etc. and not only "religious beliefs").
"doc·trine
[dok-trin
noun
1.
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church"
--dictionary reference dotcom
I did not misinterpret Webster, but you are entitled to your opinion and that is exactly what it is, an opinion.
It isn't merely an "opinion", (without basis), since the basis was that you misinterpreted atheism as a 'belief _system_, (as the recorded exchanage clearly shows). Since you've already established your pattern for making empty claims by failing to substantiate them, the expectation bar for you is set fairly low. Although, if you want to limbo dance under it, that's up to you.
So, you're saying that interpreting "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" as meaning that atheism does involve a belief is a misinterpretation? When it says BELIEF in the definition...I didn't realize that dictionaries involved so many misprints.[ /i]
-
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
So, you're saying that interpreting "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" as meaning that atheism does involve a belief is a misinterpretation?
As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM". It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).
Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.
-
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.
Quote from: falcon9 on October 18, 2011, 10:36:10 pm:
The quoted definitions do not expressly state that atheism is a "belief system", (although one could infer that it is a "disbelief system", were there such a term or, loosely as a "doctrine").
[appendum]
While there's no such thing as a 'disbelief system', (merely disbeliefs), skepticism cannot be called a "belief system"or, doctrine within the definition of that term. Since you asserted that 'atheism is a belief system', it's up to you to support your contention. Ready, set ... go!
So, you're saying that interpreting "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" as meaning that atheism does involve a belief is a misinterpretation?
As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM". It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).
Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.
I have no reason to lie about a GPA online? And I merely answered your assertion that I did not excel in school with a factual respresentation that I do, in fact, do just that. (Your inability to refrain from personal attacks shows your insecurities within this debate and blows your credibility). Now that the irrelevant matters that are continuously brought up by you have been addressed, I will continue on to the actual issues of the discussion.
This is the portion of this comment that warrants a response, not above:
So you are saying atheism involes only disbelief not belief? Doesn't atheism rely on a belief in science explaining all matters of the world either now or sometime in the future? Or would you not agree with that?
-
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above).
As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM". It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).
Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.
[/quote]
I have no reason to lie about a GPA online? And I merely answered your assertion that I did not excel in school with a factual respresentation that I do, in fact, do just that.
The reason that your claimed GPA was brought up, (initially by you, I'll add), was that it seemed dubious that such a grade point average could be supported by a demonstrably low reading comprehension level. As an aside, your assertion does not constitute a "factual representation";
only a scanned and unaltered copy of your school transcripts would. This won't be necessary as it was only one example of differentiating a 'fact' from a 'claim'.
So you are saying atheism involes only disbelief not belief?
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view. A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it." "-- wikipedia
The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism. So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief. Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."
Doesn't atheism rely on a belief in science explaining all matters of the world either now or sometime in the future? Or would you not agree with that?
No, I don't agree with that interpretation since "belief" isn't necessary in the context of the scientific method. Either such methods can, (or will), produce cause and effect explanations of various phenomenon, (and so far, they've done a pretty good job with non-metaphysical stuff), or they cannot. Applying physical scientific methodology to largely nonphysical 'metaphysics' gets into a gray area where the two are hypothesized to overlap. Theoretical physics, for instance, is often an outrider into those overlapping realms.
-
So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above).
As your quoted assertion contends in Message ID: 434227: "... as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system ..." and I replied that atheism is not a "belief SYSTEM". It involves disbelieving any religionist claims that 'god exists' and the burden of proof is on those that claim a positive assertion, (rather than upon the logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion).
Given your demonstrated lack of comprehension in these matters, your claimed GPA is dubious.
I have no reason to lie about a GPA online? And I merely answered your assertion that I did not excel in school with a factual respresentation that I do, in fact, do just that.
The reason that your claimed GPA was brought up, (initially by you, I'll add), was that it seemed dubious that such a grade point average could be supported by a demonstrably low reading comprehension level. As an aside, your assertion does not constitute a "factual representation";
only a scanned and unaltered copy of your school transcripts would. This won't be necessary as it was only one example of differentiating a 'fact' from a 'claim'.
So you are saying atheism involes only disbelief not belief?
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view. A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it." "-- wikipedia
The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism. So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief. Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."
Doesn't atheism rely on a belief in science explaining all matters of the world either now or sometime in the future? Or would you not agree with that?
No, I don't agree with that interpretation since "belief" isn't necessary in the context of the scientific method. Either such methods can, (or will), produce cause and effect explanations of various phenomenon, (and so far, they've done a pretty good job with non-metaphysical stuff), or they cannot. Applying physical scientific methodology to largely nonphysical 'metaphysics' gets into a gray area where the two are hypothesized to overlap. Theoretical physics, for instance, is often an outrider into those overlapping realms.
[/quote]
[/quote]
My response should appear in bold as that is quicking that correcting the formatting:
Actually, you brought up the discussion of GPA when you asserted that I must not do well in school. In fact, my GPA is a fact. That transcripts have not been shown does not change that it is factually, it just changes whether or not you believe it (which is irrelevant to whether it is fact or not). For example, if someone does not believe that 2+2=4 that does not change that it is a fact. Furthermore, the discussion of my schoolwork is a petty and irrelevant attempt by you to personally attack me and it STILL lowering you credibility and appearance of maturity on this forum. There is absolutely no need for schoolwork to continue to be brought up, and if you continue to you will only appear more immature, and I do not mean that as an insult but merely to let you know that your personal attacking of everyone who opposes your viewpoints is out of hand and lowers the respectability of this forum.
Wikipedia vs. Webster
(Webster trumps Wikipedia every time).
So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs. Such as, God is nonexistent, everything can be explained by science. (That God is nonexistent IS a belief no matter how many times you say it is not).
You did not effectively answer my question, I will rephrase so that you cannot use semantics to avoid the actual question again:
Does atheism rely on science to explain occurrences of the world; furthermore, does it rely on science to one day explain the things it has not been able to explain yet.
-
So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs.
Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."
Such as, God is nonexistent, everything can be explained by science. (That God is nonexistent IS a belief no matter how many times you say it is not).
The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism. So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief. The disbelieved assertion is that "god exists to believe in", (because that claim is not supported by any evidence). Disbelieving an initial claim is not a stand-alone claim in and of itself, nor is disbelief a "belief" since it is expressly the opposite of belief.
You did not effectively answer my question, I will rephrase so that you cannot use semantics to avoid the actual question again:
The question was effectively answered, it seemingly wasn't effectively understood, (two distinct but, related situations).
Does atheism rely on science to explain occurrences of the world; furthermore, does it rely on science to one day explain the things it has not been able to explain yet.
Some variations of atheism rely upon skeptical/critical thinking processes. Such critical thinking processes may be the same as or, similar to those of the scientific method. Such reliance as applicable to atheism not not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent. Anticipating where your leading questions are leading, I'd estimate that the scientific method has tenetively explained much more "natural" phenomenon than belief in deital forms has.
-
I can't believe you both are still arguing over atheism being a belief system. It's not. The same as theism-- it is a single quality and cannot encompass an entire belief system. Both are single points (one in a belief in a deity or deities and the other is the opposite) and they can't stretch beyond those points that set them apart. I think both of you have complicated it to a point where you're twirling in circles and I think SurveyMack has tried to find technicalities to make it seem like it actually is a belief system.
-
I can't believe you both are still arguing over atheism being a belief system. It's not. The same as theism-- it is a single quality and cannot encompass an entire belief system. Both are single points (one in a belief in a deity or deities and the other is the opposite) and they can't stretch beyond those points that set them apart. I think both of you have complicated it to a point where you're twirling in circles and I think SurveyMack has tried to find technicalities to make it seem like it actually is a belief system.
I agree and have argued against characterizing nearly all forms of atheism as an encompassing belief system, (there might be one version that nearly borders upon being a 'disbelief system'; "positive atheism" however, I haven't delved fully into the pro & con arguments related to that version). The closest concept to an 'anti-belief system' that I could find so far in general research would be satanism; as an inversion of xtian beliefs.
-
I can't believe you both are still arguing over atheism being a belief system. It's not. The same as theism-- it is a single quality and cannot encompass an entire belief system. Both are single points (one in a belief in a deity or deities and the other is the opposite) and they can't stretch beyond those points that set them apart. I think both of you have complicated it to a point where you're twirling in circles and I think SurveyMack has tried to find technicalities to make it seem like it actually is a belief system.
I really wasn't trying to find technicalities, I was simply asking yes or no questions. The answers would have led to my explanation as to why it can be viewed as a belief system, but instead of answers to the questions i got long drawn out insults and dodges and arguments over semantics. Often times on this forum there are opinions that wont be accepted if they are not identical to those of others, and that has been the case in this argument and it seems to be a waste of time.
-
So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs.
Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."
Such as, God is nonexistent, everything can be explained by science. (That God is nonexistent IS a belief no matter how many times you say it is not).
The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism. So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief. The disbelieved assertion is that "god exists to believe in", (because that claim is not supported by any evidence). Disbelieving an initial claim is not a stand-alone claim in and of itself, nor is disbelief a "belief" since it is expressly the opposite of belief.
You did not effectively answer my question, I will rephrase so that you cannot use semantics to avoid the actual question again:
The question was effectively answered, it seemingly wasn't effectively understood, (two distinct but, related situations).
Does atheism rely on science to explain occurrences of the world; furthermore, does it rely on science to one day explain the things it has not been able to explain yet.
Some variations of atheism rely upon skeptical/critical thinking processes. Such critical thinking processes may be the same as or, similar to those of the scientific method. Such reliance as applicable to atheism not not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent. Anticipating where your leading questions are leading, I'd estimate that the scientific method has tenetively explained much more "natural" phenomenon than belief in deital forms has.
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
-
I can't believe you both are still arguing over atheism being a belief system. It's not. The same as theism-- it is a single quality and cannot encompass an entire belief system. Both are single points (one in a belief in a deity or deities and the other is the opposite) and they can't stretch beyond those points that set them apart. I think both of you have complicated it to a point where you're twirling in circles and I think SurveyMack has tried to find technicalities to make it seem like it actually is a belief system.
I really wasn't trying to find technicalities, I was simply asking yes or no questions. The answers would have led to my explanation as to why it can be viewed as a belief system ...
In other words, they [/i]were[/i] leading questions.
... but instead of answers to the questions i got long drawn out insults and dodges and arguments over semantics.
No, instead you got answers which differentiated between various forms of atheism which were more accurate than simply answering yes or no to your leading questions.
Often times on this forum there are opinions that wont be accepted if they are not identical to those of others, and that has been the case in this argument and it seems to be a waste of time.
Pot, kettle called and left a message: you're black.
-
I can't believe you both are still arguing over atheism being a belief system. It's not. The same as theism-- it is a single quality and cannot encompass an entire belief system. Both are single points (one in a belief in a deity or deities and the other is the opposite) and they can't stretch beyond those points that set them apart. I think both of you have complicated it to a point where you're twirling in circles and I think SurveyMack has tried to find technicalities to make it seem like it actually is a belief system.
I really wasn't trying to find technicalities, I was simply asking yes or no questions. The answers would have led to my explanation as to why it can be viewed as a belief system ...
In other words, they [/i]were[/i] leading questions.
... but instead of answers to the questions i got long drawn out insults and dodges and arguments over semantics.
No, instead you got answers which differentiated between various forms of atheism which were more accurate than simply answering yes or no to your leading questions.
Often times on this forum there are opinions that wont be accepted if they are not identical to those of others, and that has been the case in this argument and it seems to be a waste of time.
Pot, kettle called and left a message: you're black.
Actually, I have told you multiple times that I have no intention of ever trying to convince you of God's existence and that your disbelief in him does not affect me whatsoever, just as my belief in God does not affect you. We are all entitled to our opinions and it would be nice if we could discuss them maturely without the use of personal insults, personal attacks, or degradation of others. I have not problem with you believing God is not real, yet you have a serious problem with anyone on this forum who believes He is- even though it has zero affect on you whatsoever no matter how you try to say that it does.
-
So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs.
Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."
Such as, God is nonexistent, everything can be explained by science. (That God is nonexistent IS a belief no matter how many times you say it is not).
The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism. So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief. The disbelieved assertion is that "god exists to believe in", (because that claim is not supported by any evidence). Disbelieving an initial claim is not a stand-alone claim in and of itself, nor is disbelief a "belief" since it is expressly the opposite of belief.
You did not effectively answer my question, I will rephrase so that you cannot use semantics to avoid the actual question again:
The question was effectively answered, it seemingly wasn't effectively understood, (two distinct but, related situations).
Does atheism rely on science to explain occurrences of the world; furthermore, does it rely on science to one day explain the things it has not been able to explain yet.
Some variations of atheism rely upon skeptical/critical thinking processes. Such critical thinking processes may be the same as or, similar to those of the scientific method. Such reliance as applicable to atheism not not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent. Anticipating where your leading questions are leading, I'd estimate that the scientific method has tenetively explained much more "natural" phenomenon than belief in deital forms has.
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
You've mentioned your "beliefs", (which rely upon "faith"), often enough to recall these instances yourself however, here you go:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
-
So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs.
Note the excerpt "... there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."
Such as, God is nonexistent, everything can be explained by science. (That God is nonexistent IS a belief no matter how many times you say it is not).
The answer to your question then is that atheism is subdivided into "positive atheism, negative atheism, pragmatic atheism, axiological atheism and theoretical atheism. So no, atheism does not "only" involve disbelief. The disbelieved assertion is that "god exists to believe in", (because that claim is not supported by any evidence). Disbelieving an initial claim is not a stand-alone claim in and of itself, nor is disbelief a "belief" since it is expressly the opposite of belief.
You did not effectively answer my question, I will rephrase so that you cannot use semantics to avoid the actual question again:
The question was effectively answered, it seemingly wasn't effectively understood, (two distinct but, related situations).
Does atheism rely on science to explain occurrences of the world; furthermore, does it rely on science to one day explain the things it has not been able to explain yet.
Some variations of atheism rely upon skeptical/critical thinking processes. Such critical thinking processes may be the same as or, similar to those of the scientific method. Such reliance as applicable to atheism not not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent. Anticipating where your leading questions are leading, I'd estimate that the scientific method has tenetively explained much more "natural" phenomenon than belief in deital forms has.
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
You've mentioned your "beliefs", (which rely upon "faith"), often enough to recall these instances yourself however, here you go:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism. Sorry if that was not clear. So can you please show where I mentioned faith as a part of atheism as asserted in the following quote by you, falcon9:
"Such reliance as applicable to atheism not not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent."
-
I can't believe you both are still arguing over atheism being a belief system. It's not. The same as theism-- it is a single quality and cannot encompass an entire belief system. Both are single points (one in a belief in a deity or deities and the other is the opposite) and they can't stretch beyond those points that set them apart. I think both of you have complicated it to a point where you're twirling in circles and I think SurveyMack has tried to find technicalities to make it seem like it actually is a belief system.
I really wasn't trying to find technicalities, I was simply asking yes or no questions. The answers would have led to my explanation as to why it can be viewed as a belief system ...
In other words, they [/i]were[/i] leading questions.
... but instead of answers to the questions i got long drawn out insults and dodges and arguments over semantics.
No, instead you got answers which differentiated between various forms of atheism which were more accurate than simply answering yes or no to your leading questions.
Often times on this forum there are opinions that wont be accepted if they are not identical to those of others, and that has been the case in this argument and it seems to be a waste of time.
Pot, kettle called and left a message: you're black.
Actually, I have told you multiple times that I have no intention of ever trying to convince you of God's existence and that your disbelief in him does not affect me whatsoever ...
Since your arguments have substantiation, they've remained unconvincing. This is why my "disbelief" has extended to challenging the claim which you characterized as your "belief", (while attempting to dodge whether _what_ you believe/have faith in has any real existence).
Nor is it possible to persuade anyone who relies upon 'blind faith' that they're tapping around with a white cane regarding their perceptions. Be that as it may, you've avoided responding to the content of the post you replied to and instead, went off on another whinging tangent, (in lieu of debating the topics _you_ raised).
We are all entitled to our opinions and it would be nice if we could discuss them maturely without the use of personal insults, personal attacks, or degradation of others.
No doubt you can falsely characterize dissenting arguments as "personal" however, what you perceive as 'insulting' and 'degragrading' is no less a subjective perspective than my perception of your publically stated beliefsystem as insulting, degrading, hypocritical and harmful to the wellbeing of others. Do thousands of years worth of evidence supporting the contention that millions have suffered and died in the name of such religious belief systems really need to be trotted-out?
I have not problem with you believing God is not real, yet you have a serious problem with anyone on this forum who believes He is- even though it has zero affect on you whatsoever no matter how you try to say that it does.
Excellent, then perhaps you'll actually respond to the context of the contended points, (which would make for a pleasant change from the previous pattern of your responses). Once again, the replies which you may perceive as "insulting" seem to be those which illuminate your own behaviour and that's what you appear to dislike. The simpler solution would be to cease such behaviour, rather than complain that you're being "insulted" when you get called on it. As usual, that decision is up to you, however.
-
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 04:23:47 pm:
You've mentioned your "beliefs", (which rely upon "faith"), often enough to recall these instances yourself however, here you go:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism.
Just as obviously, your quoted mention of faith is relevant in the context of your attempt to characterize atheism as a "belief system", (which would inherently include "belief" & "faith" concepts). Therefore, the quote was contextually-relevant.
So can you please show where I mentioned faith as a part of atheism as asserted in the following quote by you, falcon9:
"Such reliance as applicable to atheism does not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent."
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 22, 2011, 04:42:10 pm:
"So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs."
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
"So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above)."
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).
-
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 04:23:47 pm:
You've mentioned your "beliefs", (which rely upon "faith"), often enough to recall these instances yourself however, here you go:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism.
Just as obviously, your quoted mention of faith is relevant in the context of your attempt to characterize atheism as a "belief system", (which would inherently include "belief" & "faith" concepts). Therefore, the quote was contextually-relevant.
If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith"
So can you please show where I mentioned faith as a part of atheism as asserted in the following quote by you, falcon9:
"Such reliance as applicable to atheism not not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent."
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 22, 2011, 04:42:10 pm:
"So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs."
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
"So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above)."
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).
Nowhere in the above quotation did you show that I mentioned faith as related to atheism.
-
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 04:23:47 pm:
You've mentioned your "beliefs", (which rely upon "faith"), often enough to recall these instances yourself however, here you go:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
[/quote]
Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism.
Just as obviously, your quoted mention of faith is relevant in the context of your attempt to characterize atheism as a "belief system", (which would inherently include "belief" & "faith" concepts). Therefore, the quote was contextually-relevant.
If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith"
Name one which does not.
So can you please show where I mentioned faith as a part of atheism as asserted in the following quote by you, falcon9:
"Such reliance as applicable to atheism does not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent."
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 22, 2011, 04:42:10 pm:
"So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs."
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
"So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above)."
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).
Nowhere in the above quotation did you show that I mentioned faith as related to atheism.
Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith".
-
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
Quote from: falcon9 on Today at 04:23:47 pm:
You've mentioned your "beliefs", (which rely upon "faith"), often enough to recall these instances yourself however, here you go:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism.
Just as obviously, your quoted mention of faith is relevant in the context of your attempt to characterize atheism as a "belief system", (which would inherently include "belief" & "faith" concepts). Therefore, the quote was contextually-relevant.
If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith"
Name one which does not.
So can you please show where I mentioned faith as a part of atheism as asserted in the following quote by you, falcon9:
"Such reliance as applicable to atheism does not include "faith" per se; your question appears to be inherently using 'confidence' as being interchangeable with "faith" and those terms are not equivalent."
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 22, 2011, 04:42:10 pm:
"So, if atheism is not a form of belief system as you say then why is it that many atheists adhere to the same set of beliefs."
--Message ID: 434227:
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on October 18, 2011, 08:32:02 pm:
"So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above)."
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).
Nowhere in the above quotation did you show that I mentioned faith as related to atheism.
Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith".
[/quote]
1). You just asked me to prove a negative claim (something you have repeatedly reported as illogical)- this severely hurt your credibility as you asked me to do something you claim to be against
2). Belief and faith are not the same thing, by DEFINITION. Although, it has been proven you choose your definition over webster's so maybe they are the same thing to you.
3). We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree. I doubt you will do the same, but this is a waste of both of our time.
-
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
[/quote]
Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism.
Just as obviously, your quoted mention of faith is relevant in the context of your attempt to characterize atheism as a "belief system", (which would inherently include "belief" & "faith" concepts). Therefore, the quote was contextually-relevant.
If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith"
Name one which does not.
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).
Nowhere in the above quotation did you show that I mentioned faith as related to atheism.
Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith". (appendum: atheism is listed by merriam-webster as an _antonym_ of "faith").
[/quote]
1). You just asked me to prove a negative claim (something you have repeatedly reported as illogical)-
Not quite; you invented a false dichotomy, (namely, "If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith""), as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith - or, more likely an implication that there are philosophical schools of thought which are not inherently religious, (and there are non-religious philosophies which are not religious belief systems ... which is the context of discussion). The challenge for you to name one was not a request to prove a negative claim, (since you didn't make a negative claim in that instance).
... this severely hurt your credibility as you asked me to do something you claim to be against
You've attempted to pull this deceit several times before; claiming that something you don't like insulted you and thus "hurts my credibility", (illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion). Next time you get the hankering to try pulling that crap again, remember your hypocrisy in this context.
2). Belief and faith are not the same thing, by DEFINITION.
Oh?
"be·lief:
noun bə-ˈlēf
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
-- merriam-webster
"2faith
verb ˈfāth
transitive verb archaic
a: believe, trust
1faith
noun
a: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(b): complete trust
something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs" --merriam-webster
Note the "belief and trust in and loyalty to God" part under the definition of "faith". These definitions contradict your contention which shows that your contention is false.
Although, it has been proven you choose your definition over webster's so maybe they are the same thing to you.
On the contrary, no such thing has been "proven" since I'm using the quoted definitions from merriam-webster to substantiate the interrelated concepts of "faith" & "belief", (exception: merriam-webster's "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" under 'belief' contradicts the definition under 'faith' which delineates faith as belief without evidence).
3). We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree. I doubt you will do the same, but this is a waste of both of our time.
Given that you aren't actually debating but, merely blandly disagreeing without supporting your disagreement with anything other than empty opinions, I concur that it is a waste of time to even agree to disagree with you.
-
Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"
Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism.
Just as obviously, your quoted mention of faith is relevant in the context of your attempt to characterize atheism as a "belief system", (which would inherently include "belief" & "faith" concepts). Therefore, the quote was contextually-relevant.
If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith"
Name one which does not.
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).
Nowhere in the above quotation did you show that I mentioned faith as related to atheism.
Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith".
[/quote]
1). You just asked me to prove a negative claim (something you have repeatedly reported as illogical)-
Not quite; you invented a false dichotomy, (namely, "If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith""), as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith - or, more likely an implication that there are philosophical schools of thought which are not inherently religious, (and there are non-religious philosophies which are not religious belief systems ... which is the context of discussion). The challenge for you to name one was not a request to prove a negative claim, (since you didn't make a negative claim in that instance).
... this severely hurt your credibility as you asked me to do something you claim to be against
You've attempted to pull this deceit several times before; claiming that something you don't like insulted you and thus "hurts my credibility", (illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion). Next time you get the hankering to try pulling that crap again, remember your hypocrisy in this context.
2). Belief and faith are not the same thing, by DEFINITION.
Oh?
"be·lief:
noun bə-ˈlēf
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
-- merriam-webster
"2faith
verb ˈfāth
transitive verb archaic
a: believe, trust
1faith
noun
a: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(b): complete trust
something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs" --merriam-webster
Note the "belief and trust in and loyalty to God" part under the definition of "faith". These definitions contradict your contention which shows that your contention is false.
Although, it has been proven you choose your definition over webster's so maybe they are the same thing to you.
On the contrary, no such thing has been "proven" since I'm using the quoted definitions from merriam-webster to substantiate the interrelated concepts of "faith" & "belief". Therefore, you've once again failed to substantiate your false contentions and are not actually 'debating' here.
3). We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree. I doubt you will do the same, but this is a waste of both of our time.
Given that you aren't actually debating but, merely blandly disagreeing without supporting your disagreement with anything other than empty opinions, I concur that it is a waste of time to even agree to disagree with you.
I never claimed that my sole opinion was the one that determines who is credible or who is not,but I have found that usually those who act maturely and consider other's opinons are deemed more credible than those who insult everyone who feels differently than they do, especially when the other person was merely trying to have a discussion. So, I am not trying any "crap," but merely urging you to keep the conversation mature and discuss the issues rather than throwing an insult into every response you make, there is absolutely no reason for anyone on this forum to read any of that nonsense.
Onto the actual issue:
Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.
-
Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.
Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated). Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise. Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied. Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.
-
I never claimed that my sole opinion was the one that determines who is credible or who is not ...
It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions. This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions. These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.
... but I have found that usually those who act maturely and consider other's opinons are deemed more credible than those who insult everyone who feels differently than they do, especially when the other person was merely trying to have a discussion.
There are unsupported opinions and substantiated opinions; the vast majority of your 'opinions' have revealed themselves to be unsupported personal bias preferences of yours and not substantiated objectively. Your focus upon such tangential aspects of this "discussion" exemplifies the diversionary nature of your prior responses. Would it not be much more "mature" to ignore such slights as you perceive and focus instead upon the context of what is discussed? Before you jump to the counter-attack to accuse me of being 'immature' once again; I have focussed upon the context of the discussion points all the while, (despite your insistance upon being "insulted" when you dodge addressing the issues raised within the context being discussed and go off on tangents).
So, I am not trying any "crap," but merely urging you to keep the conversation mature and discuss the issues rather than throwing an insult into every response you make, there is absolutely no reason for anyone on this forum to read any of that nonsense.
After a posted reply stating the speficic definition of atheism did NOT define it as a belief system, your 'mature' reply was:
"Dodging"
Since you often toss derrogatory remarks such as empty accusations of immaturity throughout these discussions, (rather than actual rebuttal with substantive dissent), your hypocrisy was characterized as "crap". If you don't like it, stop doing it or at least complaining when you get what you dish out.
-
Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.
Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated). Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise. Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied. Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.
"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion, resulting in the assumption that you meant all belief systems are religious (I never asked if you were asserting that all religious belief systems relied upon faith, I asked it you were asserting that all belief systems rely upon faith--when you responded and made the comment quoted above it could be inferred that you meant that all the belief systems I spoke of were religious ones)
-
It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions. This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions. These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.
Quote from falcon9:
"(illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion). "
This is where you asserted that I was claiming that my sole opinion is the one that decides who is credible and who is not, in this context the person's credibility being mentioned was yours.
-
There are unsupported opinions and substantiated opinions; the vast majority of your 'opinions' have revealed themselves to be unsupported personal bias preferences of yours and not substantiated objectively. Your focus upon such tangential aspects of this "discussion" exemplifies the diversionary nature of your prior responses. Would it not be much more "mature" to ignore such slights as you perceive and focus instead upon the context of what is discussed? Before you jump to the counter-attack to accuse me of being 'immature' once again; I have focussed upon the context of the discussion points all the while, (despite your insistance upon being "insulted" when you dodge addressing the issues raised within the context being discussed and go off on tangents).
OBVIOUSLY those were opinions...Hence the intro to the statement being "I have found..."
When did I ever say that everything that comes out of my mouth is a proven fact? Every single person in this world has opinons that others disagree with- that's LIFE. Just because you do not agree with my opinions, that does not make them lies or fabrications as you like to put it.
However, they are not unsupported as I just told you I drew them from personal experience.
Yes, they are substantiated thank you for noting that as well (the prove provided was that they are from personal experience)
Obviously the statement we are talking about is a personal opinion, I never said it was not. Personal opinions reflect personal bias, so yes I guess that is a good observation of the obvious on your part...I'm not sure what point you are making with this?
I did not dodge anything by bringing this up, notice how after every time I brought this up I provided a clear transition into the discussion of the issues. This projection is more relevant to you using personal attacks as a way to divert from the issues.
I did not reply by calling you names or other petty tactics, I merely stated that your insults have been noted and that they were lowering the integrity of the enitre forum (doesn't sound too immature).
Show what I dodged please since you feel so strongly about it instead of just making unsubstantiated claims. If I DID leave something unanswered and within the same response said "I agree to disagree" then it definitely is not considered a dodge, merely an acknowledgement that this is a subject we will never agree on. It was also likely that I got tired of going through the hateful digs to find the reference to the actual issues, these likely did not happen but it is a possibility as there have been many times I have read a response full of insults and though "what a waste of time it is to speak to someone who lacks respect."
-
Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.
Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated). Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise. Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied. Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.
"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...
The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.
... resulting in the assumption that you meant all belief systems are religious (I never asked if you were asserting that all religious belief systems relied upon faith, I asked it you were asserting that all belief systems rely upon faith-
Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith. Within the context of non-religious philosophical concepts, it depends on which specific ones are being alluded to. The question posed to clarify what exactly you were asking was inherent in requesting that you name a non-religious "belief system", (not an impossible task, was it?).
-when you responded and made the comment quoted above it could be inferred that you meant that all the belief systems I spoke of were religious ones)
Any such inference would derive from the context of the prior discussion, (which focussed upon religious belief systems before the segue into non-religious atheism being alledged to be a "belief system").
-
After a posted reply stating the speficic definition of atheism did NOT define it as a belief system, your 'mature' reply was:
"Dodging"
Since you often toss derrogatory remarks such as empty accusations of immaturity throughout these discussions, (rather than actual rebuttal with substantive dissent), your hypocrisy was characterized as "crap". If you don't like it, stop doing it or at least complaining when you get what you dish out.
The reply of "dodging" was not meant as a rude one. However, I was busy with schoolwork and wanted to let you know that you ignored the content of my post.
-
It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions. This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions. These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.
Quote from falcon9:
"(illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion). "
This is where you asserted that I was claiming that my sole opinion is the one that decides who is credible and who is not, in this context the person's credibility being mentioned was yours.
The word "sole" wasn't used, (as your exerpted quote clearly shows). Your derisive and unsupported opinion regarding another person's "credibility" remains your subjective, biased and personal preference. As such, it carries little weight except to yourself so, why mention it to others?
-
"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...
The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true.
I said "belief systems"
You respdonded with "religious belief systems"
you implied that I was referring to religious belief systems only in my statement when I definitely was not, so I told you that is not at all what I meant..and it STILL is not what I meant.
You asked me to show a religious belief system that did not rely on faith whenever I never even claimed that one existed
-
It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions. This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions. These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.
Quote from falcon9:
"(illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion). "
This is where you asserted that I was claiming that my sole opinion is the one that decides who is credible and who is not, in this context the person's credibility being mentioned was yours.
The word "sole" wasn't used, (as your exerpted quote clearly shows). Your derisive and unsupported opinion regarding another person's "credibility" remains your subjective, biased and personal preference. As such, it carries little weight except to yourself so, why mention it to others?
you said "does not rest upon your" therefore referencing my sole opinon- please show where you referenced anyone else's opinion in that post.
Furthermore, are you suggesting that personal opinions don't carry weight in a debate?
-
"Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith. Within the context of non-religious philosophical concepts, it depends on which specific ones are being alluded to. The question posed to clarify what exactly you were asking was inherent in requesting that you name a non-religious "belief system", (not an impossible task, was it?)."
Many nonreligious people live by a set of beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with anything religious. These beliefs are which they base their daily choices- people can choose what they believe is right and wrong without adhering to a religion.
"Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith." That is all well and fine, but I never claimed they didn't so I do not know why this is being continually repeated.
-
OBVIOUSLY those were opinions...
To clarify a distinctive difference there; those opinions were unsubstantiated personal preferences reflecting a subjective bias.
Hence the intro to the statement being "I have found..."
When did I ever say that everything that comes out of my mouth is a proven fact?
You didn't, which is why your empty assertions were challenged, (that is, an opportunity to support them was presented but, missed).
Every single person in this world has opinons that others disagree with- that's LIFE. Just because you do not agree with my opinions, that does not make them lies or fabrications as you like to put it.
More accurately, I disagreed/dissented with your unsupported opinions and that too is life, (that is, the lack of evidence for or, reasoning underlying such "opinions" - not unreasoned personal biases).
However, they are not unsupported as I just told you I drew them from personal experience.
Unless your "personal experience" consists of some unspecified reasoning process or observational evidence, the support is flimsy.
Yes, they are substantiated thank you for noting that as well (the prove provided was that they are from personal experience)
No, you haven't supported them with either the reasoning process or, observational evidence, (as opposed to preferential bias), which underlies such "opinions". Therefore, they remain unsubstantiated thusfar.
Obviously the statement we are talking about is a personal opinion, I never said it was not. Personal opinions reflect personal bias, so yes I guess that is a good observation of the obvious on your part...I'm not sure what point you are making with this?
Your concession of the point made is sufficient to show your admission of making unsubstantiated assertions framed as "opinions".
Show what I dodged please since you feel so strongly about it instead of just making unsubstantiated claims.
Looking upthread, it can be seen that you've dodged, (failed to answer contextual challenges to your assertions; namely that "atheism is a belief system" in this instance).
If I DID leave something unanswered and within the same response said "I agree to disagree" then it definitely is not considered a dodge ...
It may not be considered to be a dodge _by you_ however, since it failed to answer the challenge made to your assertion, it definitely WAS a dodging of that challenge.
-
Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.
Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition). Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated). Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise. Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied. Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.
"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...
The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.
... resulting in the assumption that you meant all belief systems are religious (I never asked if you were asserting that all religious belief systems relied upon faith, I asked it you were asserting that all belief systems rely upon faith-
Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith. Within the context of non-religious philosophical concepts, it depends on which specific ones are being alluded to. The question posed to clarify what exactly you were asking was inherent in requesting that you name a non-religious "belief system", (not an impossible task, was it?).
-when you responded and made the comment quoted above it could be inferred that you meant that all the belief systems I spoke of were religious ones)
Any such inference would derive from the context of the prior discussion, (which focussed upon religious belief systems before the segue into non-religious atheism being alledged to be a "belief system").
Before you accuse me of dodging anything, if I ignored anything from this feel free to politely bring it to my attention as the formatting of your post was distinctly hard to distinguish new comment from old.
-
The reply of "dodging" was not meant as a rude one. However, I was busy with schoolwork and wanted to let you know that you ignored the content of my post.
The excuse for the false accusation you made is rejected as a non sequitur.
-
OBVIOUSLY those were opinions...
To clarify a distinctive difference there; those opinions were unsubstantiated personal preferences reflecting a subjective bias.
Hence the intro to the statement being "I have found..."
When did I ever say that everything that comes out of my mouth is a proven fact?
You didn't, which is why your empty assertions were challenged, (that is, an opportunity to support them was presented but, missed).
Every single person in this world has opinons that others disagree with- that's LIFE. Just because you do not agree with my opinions, that does not make them lies or fabrications as you like to put it.
More accurately, I disagreed/dissented with your unsupported opinions and that too is life, (that is, the lack of evidence for or, reasoning underlying such "opinions" - not unreasoned personal biases).
However, they are not unsupported as I just told you I drew them from personal experience.
Unless your "personal experience" consists of some unspecified reasoning process or observational evidence, the support is flimsy.
Yes, they are substantiated thank you for noting that as well (the prove provided was that they are from personal experience)
No, you haven't supported them with either the reasoning process or, observational evidence, (as opposed to preferential bias), which underlies such "opinions". Therefore, they remain unsubstantiated thusfar.
Obviously the statement we are talking about is a personal opinion, I never said it was not. Personal opinions reflect personal bias, so yes I guess that is a good observation of the obvious on your part...I'm not sure what point you are making with this?
Your concession of the point made is sufficient to show your admission of making unsubstantiated assertions framed as "opinions".
Show what I dodged please since you feel so strongly about it instead of just making unsubstantiated claims.
Looking upthread, it can be seen that you've dodged, (failed to answer contextual challenges to your assertions; namely that "atheism is a belief system" in this instance).
If I DID leave something unanswered and within the same response said "I agree to disagree" then it definitely is not considered a dodge ...
It may not be considered to be a dodge _by you_ however, since it failed to answer the challenge made to your assertion, it definitely WAS a dodging of that challenge.
[/quote]
So would I be correct in summarizing you responses as the following?:
My opinions hold no bearing in any debate. Every in a debate you speak with no bias whatsoever. You claim I made a dodge yet refuse to reproduce it. And any opinion I have that you disagree with will be considered unsubstantiated from here on out?
-
The reply of "dodging" was not meant as a rude one. However, I was busy with schoolwork and wanted to let you know that you ignored the content of my post.
The excuse for the false accusation you made is rejected as a non sequitur.
I made no excuse and your rejection is noted as reference to the condescending "uppity" attitude you regularly display.
-
"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...
The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true.
Yes, it is, as shown by the remarks actually made, (not the inaccurate interpretations you made).
I said "belief systems"
You respdonded with "religious belief systems"
No, as the quoted text shows, I responded with "... as if to imply ...", which means your characterization of atheism as a belief system was apparently intended to be conflated with other belief systems, (including religious ones). Such an implied conflation constitutes a false dichotomy.
you implied that I was referring to religious belief systems only in my statement when I definitely was not, so I told you that is not at all what I meant..and it STILL is not what I meant.
The context of the discussion up to that point had been religious belief systems, (specifically, your particular belief system requiring "faith" and your subsequent failed attempts to conflate that with atheism as a belief system). As such, the inference was contextualy-based.
You asked me to show a religious belief system that did not rely on faith whenever I never even claimed that one existed
That's false. I requested that you name a belief system, (not specifically a "religious" belief system), which did not rely upon faith. You could have named "zen", for instance and that would have qualified as an answer.
-
"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...
The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true.
Yes, it is, as shown by the remarks actually made, (not the inaccurate interpretations you made).
I said "belief systems"
You respdonded with "religious belief systems"
No, as the quoted text shows, I responded with "... as if to imply ...", which means your characterization of atheism as a belief system was apparently intended to be conflated with other belief systems, (including religious ones). Such an implied conflation constitutes a false dichotomy.
you implied that I was referring to religious belief systems only in my statement when I definitely was not, so I told you that is not at all what I meant..and it STILL is not what I meant.
The context of the discussion up to that point had been religious belief systems, (specifically, your particular belief system requiring "faith" and your subsequent failed attempts to conflate that with atheism as a belief system). As such, the inference was contextualy-based.
You asked me to show a religious belief system that did not rely on faith whenever I never even claimed that one existed
That's false. I requested that you name a belief system, (not specifically a "religious" belief system), which did not rely upon faith. You could have named "zen", for instance and that would have qualified as an answer.
Hmm, guess your repeated claim of religious belief systems relying on faith (which no one every claimed otherwise) caused me to misinterpret your request. I apologize and did not realize what you were asking. These miscommunications happen in life, especially when typing rather than talking.
-
So would I be correct in summarizing you responses as the following?
No.
My opinions hold no bearing in any debate.
Not precisely; no one's empty opinion holds weight in a debate however, opinions supported by something more substantial than personal bias or preferences, (like a line of reasoning underlying them or, objective observational _evidence_ for instance), would.
Every in a debate you speak with no bias whatsoever.
No such claim has ever been asserted, (except by you, just then). My "bias", (or personal preference), is to reject unsubstantiated claims - whether they are religious or non-religious ones. I've endeavored to support any such 'opinion' on those matters with substantiating lines of reasoning and observational evidence, (rather than a simplified 'xtians smell bad' or 'xtians are idiots' name-calling).
You claim I made a dodge yet refuse to reproduce it.
If you had not dodged the challenge to your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", the answer would be available for requoting. How can a missing answer be reproduced?
And any opinion I have that you disagree with will be considered unsubstantiated from here on out?
More precisely, any _unsubstantiated_ opinion you have in response to contextual points raised isn't going to be considered as a supported opinion.
-
The reply of "dodging" was not meant as a rude one. However, I was busy with schoolwork and wanted to let you know that you ignored the content of my post.
The excuse for the false accusation you made is rejected as a non sequitur.
I made no excuse
Your excuse was quoted above, following your "However".
... and your rejection is noted as reference to the condescending "uppity" attitude you regularly display.
The rejection wasn't condescending simply because you said it was; it was a rejection of your excuse. Now this comment: your personal bias is reflected by your opinion that I'm "condescending", "uppity" and "regularly display" such attitudes is disregarded as empty opinion.
-
"If you had not dodged the challenge to your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", the answer would be available for requoting. How can a missing answer be reproduced?"
This would be reproduced by showing your request, then showing my response to the request and thereby proving that I dodged the challenge.
Also,
so in every debate is everyone supposed to speak with no bias if playing by your rules?
-
Hmm, guess your repeated claim of religious belief systems relying on faith (which no one every claimed otherwise) caused me to misinterpret your request. I apologize and did not realize what you were asking. These miscommunications happen in life, especially when typing rather than talking.
Now your example of an attempt to be condescending isn't nearly as ambiguous as the ones you claimed I'd made. Bravo.
-
"If you had not dodged the challenge to your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", the answer would be available for requoting. How can a missing answer be reproduced?"
This would be reproduced by showing your request, then showing my response to the request and thereby proving that I dodged the challenge.
I can certainly requote the original challenge to your asserted unsported claim that "atheism is a belief system" however, it remains problematic to show a lack of evidence ... I'll give it a try nonethless:
Message ID: 436782
Message ID: 436777
Message ID: 436763
Message ID: 436761
Message ID: 436750
Message ID: 436733
Message ID: 436682
Message ID: 436652
Message ID: 436285
Message ID: 436225
Message ID: 436198
Message ID: 435778
Message ID: 435684
Message ID: 435420
Message ID: 435305
Message ID: 435180
Message ID: 435172 - "I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me."
All of the above referenced message IDs contain contextual quotes of the unanswered challenge to your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system". There are more message IDs which followed the initial challenge however, if seventeen of them isn't a sufficient cross-section showing your failure to substantiate your claim thusfar. Since the message IDs presented as evidence of a lack span over a week's worth of posted exchanges, ample opportunity existed for you to not dodge as there was to dodge more than 17 times.
-
"If you had not dodged the challenge to your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", the answer would be available for requoting. How can a missing answer be reproduced?"
This would be reproduced by showing your request, then showing my response to the request and thereby proving that I dodged the challenge.
I can certainly requote the original challenge to your asserted unsported claim that "atheism is a belief system" however, it remains problematic to show a lack of evidence ... I'll give it a try nonethless:
Message ID: 436782
Message ID: 436777
Message ID: 436763
Message ID: 436761
Message ID: 436750
Message ID: 436733
Message ID: 436682
Message ID: 436652
Message ID: 436285
Message ID: 436225
Message ID: 436198
Message ID: 435778
Message ID: 435684
Message ID: 435420
Message ID: 435305
Message ID: 435180
Message ID: 435172 - "I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me."
All of the above referenced message IDs contain contextual quotes of the unanswered challenge to your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system". There are more message IDs which followed the initial challenge however, if seventeen of them isn't a sufficient cross-section showing your failure to substantiate your claim thusfar. Since the message IDs presented as evidence of a lack span over a week's worth of posted exchanges, ample opportunity existed for you to not dodge as there was to dodge more than 17 times.
I was answering the challenge of atheism being a belief system the ENTIRE time, that is the issue we have been discussing THROUGHOUT
-
"If you had not dodged the challenge to your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", the answer would be available for requoting. How can a missing answer be reproduced?"
This would be reproduced by showing your request, then showing my response to the request and thereby proving that I dodged the challenge.
I can certainly requote the original challenge to your asserted unsported claim that "atheism is a belief system" however, it remains problematic to show a lack of evidence ... I'll give it a try nonethless:
Message ID: 436782
Message ID: 436777
Message ID: 436763
Message ID: 436761
Message ID: 436750
Message ID: 436733
Message ID: 436682
Message ID: 436652
Message ID: 436285
Message ID: 436225
Message ID: 436198
Message ID: 435778
Message ID: 435684
Message ID: 435420
Message ID: 435305
Message ID: 435180
Message ID: 435172 - "I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me."
All of the above referenced message IDs contain contextual quotes of the unanswered challenge to your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system". There are more message IDs which followed the initial challenge however, if seventeen of them isn't a sufficient cross-section showing your failure to substantiate your claim thusfar. Since the message IDs presented as evidence of a lack span over a week's worth of posted exchanges, ample opportunity existed for you to not dodge as there was to dodge more than 17 times.
I was answering the challenge of atheism being a belief system the ENTIRE time, that is the issue we have been discussing THROUGHOUT
Really? Please reproduce any 'answers', (rather than divergent non-answers), which actually supported your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", (by the way, the dictionary reference didn't support your claim - what else can you refer to?) Thanks in advance.
-
"If you had not dodged the challenge to your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", the answer would be available for requoting. How can a missing answer be reproduced?"
This would be reproduced by showing your request, then showing my response to the request and thereby proving that I dodged the challenge.
I can certainly requote the original challenge to your asserted unsported claim that "atheism is a belief system" however, it remains problematic to show a lack of evidence ... I'll give it a try nonethless:
Message ID: 436782
Message ID: 436777
Message ID: 436763
Message ID: 436761
Message ID: 436750
Message ID: 436733
Message ID: 436682
Message ID: 436652
Message ID: 436285
Message ID: 436225
Message ID: 436198
Message ID: 435778
Message ID: 435684
Message ID: 435420
Message ID: 435305
Message ID: 435180
Message ID: 435172 - "I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me."
All of the above referenced message IDs contain contextual quotes of the unanswered challenge to your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system". There are more message IDs which followed the initial challenge however, if seventeen of them isn't a sufficient cross-section showing your failure to substantiate your claim thusfar. Since the message IDs presented as evidence of a lack span over a week's worth of posted exchanges, ample opportunity existed for you to not dodge as there was to dodge more than 17 times.
I was answering the challenge of atheism being a belief system the ENTIRE time, that is the issue we have been discussing THROUGHOUT
Really? Please reproduce any 'answers', (rather than divergent non-answers), which actually supported your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", (by the way, the dictionary reference didn't support your claim - what else can you refer to?) Thanks in advance.
You just proved that no matter what I reproduce you're going to say it doesn't support my claim just because you do not agree with it which makes no sense whatsoever as your opinion is not at all fact.
-
"If you had not dodged the challenge to your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", the answer would be available for requoting. How can a missing answer be reproduced?"
This would be reproduced by showing your request, then showing my response to the request and thereby proving that I dodged the challenge.
I can certainly requote the original challenge to your asserted unsported claim that "atheism is a belief system" however, it remains problematic to show a lack of evidence ... I'll give it a try nonethless:
Message ID: 436782
Message ID: 436777
Message ID: 436763
Message ID: 436761
Message ID: 436750
Message ID: 436733
Message ID: 436682
Message ID: 436652
Message ID: 436285
Message ID: 436225
Message ID: 436198
Message ID: 435778
Message ID: 435684
Message ID: 435420
Message ID: 435305
Message ID: 435180
Message ID: 435172 - "I don't know how not recalling what I myself wrote was relevant as I asked you what your challenge was not what I wrote.
Anyway, you challenged Webster not me."
All of the above referenced message IDs contain contextual quotes of the unanswered challenge to your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system". There are more message IDs which followed the initial challenge however, if seventeen of them isn't a sufficient cross-section showing your failure to substantiate your claim thusfar. Since the message IDs presented as evidence of a lack span over a week's worth of posted exchanges, ample opportunity existed for you to not dodge as there was to dodge more than 17 times.
I was answering the challenge of atheism being a belief system the ENTIRE time, that is the issue we have been discussing THROUGHOUT
Really? Please reproduce any 'answers', (rather than divergent non-answers), which actually supported your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", (by the way, the dictionary reference didn't support your claim - what else can you refer to?) Thanks in advance.
&& these are just the 1st 15 messages where I am shown discussing atheism as a belief system
Message ID: 433627
Message ID: 433639
Message ID: 433648
Message ID: 433665
Message ID: 433717
Message ID: 433720
Message ID: 434018
Message ID: 434064
Message ID: 434079
Message ID: 434196
Message ID: 434500
Message ID: 434551
Message ID: 434595
Message ID: 434704
Message ID: 435172
-
Please reproduce any 'answers', (rather than divergent non-answers), which actually supported your assertion that "atheism is a belief system", (by the way, the dictionary reference didn't support your claim - what else can you refer to?) Thanks in advance.
You just proved that no matter what I reproduce you're going to say it doesn't support my claim just because you do not agree with it which makes no sense whatsoever as your opinion is not at all fact.
A request that you reproduce any "answers" which supported your assertion that "atheism is a belief system" does not constitute a dismissal in advance, (despite the qualifier that you refrain from non-answers which do not support your assertion since, if there were any they did, they'd refute my challenge).
-
these are just the 1st 15 messages where I am shown discussing atheism as a belief system
Message ID: 433627
Message ID: 433627
on: October 17, 2011, 03:01:40 pm
"Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system."
Merely agreeing with another xtian, sans anything other than restating your unsupported assertion, does not constitute supporting your assertion.
Message ID: 433639 - "Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433648 - "Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433665 - "When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?" I merely asked a yes or no question ...?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433717 - "I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask."
That snide remark did not support your assertion that atheism is a belief system. By now, others can observe a distinctive pattern in the message IDs you choose to alledgedly support your assertion ... namely, that they don't. I'll quote one more, your second to last reference to message ID 434704 - "Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)"
That request was met and making it did not support your asserted claim. Doubtless, the remaining message IDs are more along the same lines, (if not, please reproduce a quote from them which supports your assertion unless the message IDs you referenced do not do so). You did however, provide 15 additional examples of your _Not_ supporting your assertion, (rather than "discussing atheism", which was not the challenge; that challenge was to reproduce quotes of yours supporting your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system").
Message ID: 433720
Message ID: 434018
Message ID: 434064
Message ID: 434079
Message ID: 434196
Message ID: 434500
Message ID: 434551
Message ID: 434595
Message ID: 434704
Message ID: 435172
-
You just proved that no matter what I reproduce you're going to say it doesn't support my claim just because you do not agree with it which makes no sense whatsoever as your opinion is not at all fact.
Quoting what you wrote in the message IDs you referenced isn't my "opinion"; it is part of the record of the posted exchanges. These are your own quoted words which do not support your own assertion - none of them can be remotely construed as supporting your assertion. If you disagree with the inherent meanings of your own words, go ahead and try to spin them as supporting your assertion ... that might "prove" to be even more 'illuminating' than your shooting yourself in the foot was.
-
You just proved that no matter what I reproduce you're going to say it doesn't support my claim just because you do not agree with it which makes no sense whatsoever as your opinion is not at all fact.
Quoting what you wrote in the message IDs you referenced isn't my "opinion"; it is part of the record of the posted exchanges. These are your own quoted words which do not support your own assertion - none of them can be remotely construed as supporting your assertion. If you disagree with the inherent meanings of your own words, go ahead and try to spin them as supporting your assertion ... that might "prove" to be even more 'illuminating' than your shooting yourself in the foot was.
I wasn't talking about your quoting the message IDs, I was talking about you telling me a dictionary definition wasnt sufficient enough proof for you
-
these are just the 1st 15 messages where I am shown discussing atheism as a belief system
Message ID: 433627
Message ID: 433627
on: October 17, 2011, 03:01:40 pm
"Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system."
Merely agreeing with another xtian, sans anything other than restating your unsupported assertion, does not constitute supporting your assertion.
Message ID: 433639 - "Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433648 - "Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433665 - "When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?" I merely asked a yes or no question ...?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433717 - "I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask."
That snide remark did not support your assertion that atheism is a belief system. By now, others can observe a distinctive pattern in the message IDs you choose to alledgedly support your assertion ... namely, that they don't. I'll quote one more, your second to last reference to message ID 434704 - "Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)"
That request was met and making it did not support your asserted claim. Doubtless, the remaining message IDs are more along the same lines, (if not, please reproduce a quote from them which supports your assertion unless the message IDs you referenced do not do so). You did however, provide 15 additional examples of your _Not_ supporting your assertion, (rather than "discussing atheism", which was not the challenge; that challenge was to reproduce quotes of yours supporting your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system").
Message ID: 433720
Message ID: 434018
Message ID: 434064
Message ID: 434079
Message ID: 434196
Message ID: 434500
Message ID: 434551
Message ID: 434595
Message ID: 434704
Message ID: 435172
Your claim was that I dodged every challenge to atheism as a belief system
My proof was that I spent over 15 posts discussing atheism as a belief system
Whether you agree with the discussion or not, you cannot deny that it was not dodged as I have shown 15 messages of said discussion
-
You just proved that no matter what I reproduce you're going to say it doesn't support my claim just because you do not agree with it which makes no sense whatsoever as your opinion is not at all fact.
Quoting what you wrote in the message IDs you referenced isn't my "opinion"; it is part of the record of the posted exchanges. These are your own quoted words which do not support your own assertion - none of them can be remotely construed as supporting your assertion. If you disagree with the inherent meanings of your own words, go ahead and try to spin them as supporting your assertion ... that might "prove" to be even more 'illuminating' than your shooting yourself in the foot was.
I wasn't talking about your quoting the message IDs, I was talking about you telling me a dictionary definition wasnt sufficient enough proof for you
That's because the dictionary definition you tried to use to support your assertion didn't define atheism as a "belief system" and thus, failed to support your assertion or, qualify as proof/evidence of doing so. The merriam-webster definition you supplied did not mention "belief system"; it mentioned "disbelief" and "doctrine" instead. Your liberal misinterpretation notwithstanding, that source did not support your claim that "atheism is a belief system" while both the message IDs you and I both quoted show an exchange of comments which lacked any content supporting your claim. (not the 'abridged' claim you've attempted to substitute lately).
-
these are just the 1st 15 messages where I am shown discussing atheism as a belief system
Message ID: 433627
Message ID: 433627
on: October 17, 2011, 03:01:40 pm
"Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system."
Merely agreeing with another xtian, sans anything other than restating your unsupported assertion, does not constitute supporting your assertion.
Message ID: 433639 - "Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433648 - "Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433665 - "When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?" I merely asked a yes or no question ...?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433717 - "I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask."
That snide remark did not support your assertion that atheism is a belief system. By now, others can observe a distinctive pattern in the message IDs you choose to alledgedly support your assertion ... namely, that they don't. I'll quote one more, your second to last reference to message ID 434704 - "Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)"
That request was met and making it did not support your asserted claim. Doubtless, the remaining message IDs are more along the same lines, (if not, please reproduce a quote from them which supports your assertion unless the message IDs you referenced do not do so). You did however, provide 15 additional examples of your _Not_ supporting your assertion, (rather than "discussing atheism", which was not the challenge; that challenge was to reproduce quotes of yours supporting your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system").
Message ID: 433720
Message ID: 434018
Message ID: 434064
Message ID: 434079
Message ID: 434196
Message ID: 434500
Message ID: 434551
Message ID: 434595
Message ID: 434704
Message ID: 435172
Your claim was that I dodged every challenge to atheism as a belief system
As your own message ID references, (and the ones I presented), show; you didn't support your contention that "atheism os a belief system" therefore, that constitutes evidence of your dodging presenting support for your contention.
My proof was that I spent over 15 posts discussing atheism as a belief system
Read your own posts again; only one 'discussed' trying to conflate merriam-webster's definition, (which used the terms "disbelief" and "doctrine" but not "belief system"), with your interpretative dance. To reiterate; the challenge was _not_ to simply 'discuss' "atheism as a belief system", (which the first six didn't even do), it was/is to support your claim that "atheism is a belief system". None of the referenced messaage ID posts support your claim.
Whether you agree with the discussion or not, you cannot deny that it was not dodged as I have shown 15 messages of said discussion
Whether you are trying, (and failing), to conflate 'discussing' "atheism as a belief system" with Supporting Your Contention That "atheism is a belief system", such a diversion will not work. The fact remains that none of the message IDs you referenced support your contention that "atheism is a belief system", (the disputed contention _was not_ that you feel that you "discussed" it). As far as I can tell, this cannot be made any clearer and, ironically enough, you've been attempting to dodge the fact that the discussion itself wasn't being disputed - your failure to support your assertion that "atheism is a belief system" was and still is.
Now that the actual assertion you made, ("atheism is a belief system"), has been mentioned several times - in this posted reply alone - any 'misundestanding' on your part can only be construed in certain disparaging ways.
-
You just proved that no matter what I reproduce you're going to say it doesn't support my claim just because you do not agree with it which makes no sense whatsoever as your opinion is not at all fact.
Quoting what you wrote in the message IDs you referenced isn't my "opinion"; it is part of the record of the posted exchanges. These are your own quoted words which do not support your own assertion - none of them can be remotely construed as supporting your assertion. If you disagree with the inherent meanings of your own words, go ahead and try to spin them as supporting your assertion ... that might "prove" to be even more 'illuminating' than your shooting yourself in the foot was.
I wasn't talking about your quoting the message IDs, I was talking about you telling me a dictionary definition wasnt sufficient enough proof for you
That's because the dictionary definition you tried to use to support your assertion didn't define atheism as a "belief system" and thus, failed to support your assertion or, qualify as proof/evidence of doing so. The merriam-webster definition you supplied did not mention "belief system"; it mentioned "disbelief" and "doctrine" instead. Your liberal misinterpretation notwithstanding, that source did not support your claim that "atheism is a belief system" while both the message IDs you and I both quoted show an exchange of comments which lacked any content supporting your claim. (not the 'abridged' claim you've attempted to substitute lately).
We're not talking about whether or not you agree with the evidence I chose to use, IF I produced evidence it is not considered a dodge just because you don't agree with the evidence. A dodge would be ignoring the question altogether
-
these are just the 1st 15 messages where I am shown discussing atheism as a belief system
Message ID: 433627
Message ID: 433627
on: October 17, 2011, 03:01:40 pm
"Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system."
Merely agreeing with another xtian, sans anything other than restating your unsupported assertion, does not constitute supporting your assertion.
Message ID: 433639 - "Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433648 - "Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433665 - "When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?" I merely asked a yes or no question ...?"
That "answer" was a divergent question and did not support your assertion.
Message ID: 433717 - "I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask."
That snide remark did not support your assertion that atheism is a belief system. By now, others can observe a distinctive pattern in the message IDs you choose to alledgedly support your assertion ... namely, that they don't. I'll quote one more, your second to last reference to message ID 434704 - "Please show where you challenged my claim (this is not the same thing as denying the definition of atheism)"
That request was met and making it did not support your asserted claim. Doubtless, the remaining message IDs are more along the same lines, (if not, please reproduce a quote from them which supports your assertion unless the message IDs you referenced do not do so). You did however, provide 15 additional examples of your _Not_ supporting your assertion, (rather than "discussing atheism", which was not the challenge; that challenge was to reproduce quotes of yours supporting your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system").
Message ID: 433720
Message ID: 434018
Message ID: 434064
Message ID: 434079
Message ID: 434196
Message ID: 434500
Message ID: 434551
Message ID: 434595
Message ID: 434704
Message ID: 435172
Your claim was that I dodged every challenge to atheism as a belief system
As your own message ID references, (and the ones I presented), show; you didn't support your contention that "atheism os a belief system" therefore, that constitutes evidence of your dodging presenting support for your contention.
My proof was that I spent over 15 posts discussing atheism as a belief system
Read your own posts again; only one 'discussed' trying to conflate merriam-webster's definition, (which used the terms "disbelief" and "doctrine" but not "belief system"), with your interpretative dance. To reiterate; the challenge was _not_ to simply 'discuss' "atheism as a belief system", (which the first six didn't even do), it was/is to support your claim that "atheism is a belief system". None of the referenced messaage ID posts support your claim.
Whether you agree with the discussion or not, you cannot deny that it was not dodged as I have shown 15 messages of said discussion
Whether you are trying, (and failing), to conflate 'discussing' "atheism as a belief system" with Supporting Your Contention That "atheism is a belief system", such a diversion will not work. The fact remains that none of the message IDs you referenced support your contention that "atheism is a belief system", (the disputed contention _was not_ that you feel that you "discussed" it). As far as I can tell, this cannot be made any clearer and, ironically enough, you've been attempting to dodge the fact that the discussion itself wasn't being disputed - your failure to support your assertion that "atheism is a belief system" was and still is.
Now that the actual assertion you made, ("atheism is a belief system"), has been mentioned several times - in this posted reply alone - any 'misundestanding' on your part can only be construed in certain disparaging ways.
Whether or not you agree with the evidence is irrelevant, since I did produce evidence it is not considered a dodge. Even if I produced evidence from an unacceptable source it still is not a dodge since I did attempt to answer the challenge, even though that is not relevant because my sources were all acceptable.
-
I was talking about you telling me a dictionary definition wasnt sufficient enough proof for you
That's because the dictionary definition you tried to use to support your assertion didn't define atheism as a "belief system" and thus, failed to support your assertion or, qualify as proof/evidence of doing so. The merriam-webster definition you supplied did not mention "belief system"; it mentioned "disbelief" and "doctrine" instead. Your liberal misinterpretation notwithstanding, that source did not support your claim that "atheism is a belief system" while both the message IDs you and I both quoted show an exchange of comments which lacked any content supporting your claim. (not the 'abridged' claim you've attempted to substitute lately).
We're not talking about whether or not you agree with the evidence I chose to use
What you chose to use does constitute "evidence"; it merely constitutes you unsupported opinion that "atheism is a belief system." Since I've previously disagreed with your empty assertion, (and produced the reasoning behind that dissent), we sertianly were talking about the so-called "evidence" you chose to use in lieu of valid evidence.
IF I produced evidence it is not considered a dodge just because you don't agree with the evidence. A dodge would be ignoring the question altogether
That is incorrect. It is still a dodge because the "evidence" does not qualify as valid evidence, (since it consisted of your references to "discussing"
the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
-
I was talking about you telling me a dictionary definition wasnt sufficient enough proof for you
That's because the dictionary definition you tried to use to support your assertion didn't define atheism as a "belief system" and thus, failed to support your assertion or, qualify as proof/evidence of doing so. The merriam-webster definition you supplied did not mention "belief system"; it mentioned "disbelief" and "doctrine" instead. Your liberal misinterpretation notwithstanding, that source did not support your claim that "atheism is a belief system" while both the message IDs you and I both quoted show an exchange of comments which lacked any content supporting your claim. (not the 'abridged' claim you've attempted to substitute lately).
We're not talking about whether or not you agree with the evidence I chose to use
What you chose to use does constitute "evidence"; it merely constitutes you unsupported opinion that "atheism is a belief system." Since I've previously disagreed with your empty assertion, (and produced the reasoning behind that dissent), we sertianly were talking about the so-called "evidence" you chose to use in lieu of valid evidence.
IF I produced evidence it is not considered a dodge just because you don't agree with the evidence. A dodge would be ignoring the question altogether
That is incorrect. It is still a dodge because the "evidence" does not qualify as valid evidence, (since it consisted of your references to "discussing"
the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
Actually a dodge carries the implication that someone purposely avoided something, not that someone directly answered something and that the other person didn't agree with their answer.
-
Whether or not you agree with the evidence is irrelevant, since I did produce evidence it is not considered a dodge. Even if I produced evidence from an unacceptable source it still is not a dodge since I did attempt to answer the challenge, even though that is not relevant because my sources were all acceptable.
You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence). It is still a dodge because the "evidence" does not qualify as valid evidence, (since it consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
-
I was talking about you telling me a dictionary definition wasnt sufficient enough proof for you
That's because the dictionary definition you tried to use to support your assertion didn't define atheism as a "belief system" and thus, failed to support your assertion or, qualify as proof/evidence of doing so. The merriam-webster definition you supplied did not mention "belief system"; it mentioned "disbelief" and "doctrine" instead. Your liberal misinterpretation notwithstanding, that source did not support your claim that "atheism is a belief system" while both the message IDs you and I both quoted show an exchange of comments which lacked any content supporting your claim. (not the 'abridged' claim you've attempted to substitute lately).
We're not talking about whether or not you agree with the evidence I chose to use
What you chose to use does constitute "evidence"; it merely constitutes you unsupported opinion that "atheism is a belief system." Since I've previously disagreed with your empty assertion, (and produced the reasoning behind that dissent), we sertianly were talking about the so-called "evidence" you chose to use in lieu of valid evidence.
IF I produced evidence it is not considered a dodge just because you don't agree with the evidence. A dodge would be ignoring the question altogether
That is incorrect. It is still a dodge because the "evidence" does not qualify as valid evidence, (since it consisted of your references to "discussing"
the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
Actually a dodge carries the implication that someone purposely avoided something, not that someone directly answered something and that the other person didn't agree with their answer.
Then, according to your own parameters you've continued to dodge backing up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion, a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your empty assertion and an irrational insistance that invalid references somehow constitute "evidence", (which would be parallel to someone asking a person how they feel today and getting a 'response' of "opaque butter limpet" ... the rfesponse is unrelated to the question).
-
Whether or not you agree with the evidence is irrelevant, since I did produce evidence it is not considered a dodge. Even if I produced evidence from an unacceptable source it still is not a dodge since I did attempt to answer the challenge, even though that is not relevant because my sources were all acceptable.
You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence). It is still a dodge because the "evidence" does not qualify as valid evidence, (since it consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
[/quote]
I did not IGNORE the content of the post. You have repeatedly told me that you do not accept the proof that I provide. Also, I asked you many yes or no questions in order to form a point. You fought this process and also rejected the point. Therefore, we must agree to disagree because we do not have the same opinion on this subject. Honestly, why are you really SO confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say if it is not 100% equialent to your beliefs. Be an adult, agree to disagree.
-
I was talking about you telling me a dictionary definition wasnt sufficient enough proof for you
That's because the dictionary definition you tried to use to support your assertion didn't define atheism as a "belief system" and thus, failed to support your assertion or, qualify as proof/evidence of doing so. The merriam-webster definition you supplied did not mention "belief system"; it mentioned "disbelief" and "doctrine" instead. Your liberal misinterpretation notwithstanding, that source did not support your claim that "atheism is a belief system" while both the message IDs you and I both quoted show an exchange of comments which lacked any content supporting your claim. (not the 'abridged' claim you've attempted to substitute lately).
We're not talking about whether or not you agree with the evidence I chose to use
What you chose to use does constitute "evidence"; it merely constitutes you unsupported opinion that "atheism is a belief system." Since I've previously disagreed with your empty assertion, (and produced the reasoning behind that dissent), we sertianly were talking about the so-called "evidence" you chose to use in lieu of valid evidence.
IF I produced evidence it is not considered a dodge just because you don't agree with the evidence. A dodge would be ignoring the question altogether
That is incorrect. It is still a dodge because the "evidence" does not qualify as valid evidence, (since it consisted of your references to "discussing"
the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
Actually a dodge carries the implication that someone purposely avoided something, not that someone directly answered something and that the other person didn't agree with their answer.
Then, according to your own parameters you've continued to dodge backing up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion, a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your empty assertion and an irrational insistance that invalid references somehow constitute "evidence", (which would be parallel to someone asking a person how they feel today and getting a 'response' of "opaque butter limpet" ... the rfesponse is unrelated to the question).
[/quote]
I did not refuse to back up my "bald" claim and have already addressed this is my previous post.
-
I did not IGNORE the content of the post.
Then why do your responses contain so little content relevant to the context of the posts you replied to?
-
I did not refuse to back up my "bald" claim and have already addressed this is my previous post.
Your empty declaration of opinion that "atheism is a belief system" remains unsupported by any valid evidence. 'Addressing' the challenge by way of dancing around it does not constitute a reasoned refutation. It may constitute an irrational and thus, invalid one however.
-
I did not IGNORE the content of the post.
Then why do your responses contain so little content relevant to the context of the posts you replied to?
Simple, because earlier I was having a conversation with you asking simple yes or no questions in order to prove a point and you refused to comply. So, I agree to disagree. I guess whether or not you are able to do the same is your own inner issue to resolve
-
I did not refuse to back up my "bald" claim and have already addressed this is my previous post.
Your empty declaration of opinion that "atheism is a belief system" remains unsupported by any valid evidence. 'Addressing' the challenge by way of dancing around it does not constitute a reasoned refutation. It may constitute an irrational and thus, invalid one however.
I danced around nothing, but you are entitled to your opinion and I disagree. ( and that is my right )
-
You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence).
[/quote]
You have repeatedly told me that you do not accept the proof that I provide.
That's because you've failed to produce any valid evidence. Since such invalid "evidence" consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
Therefore, we must agree to disagree because we do not have the same opinion on this subject.
The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence"). I see no reason to "agree to disagree" since that is nominally used as a euphemism used to attempt to 'save face' while losing an argument.
Honestly, why are you really SO confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say if it is not 100% equialent to your beliefs. Be an adult, agree to disagree.
My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims. Since this forum is D+D, (Debate + Discuss), one would normally expect some debate to be "confrontational" therefore, your complaint is a non sequitur. Once again, you attempt the "insult" alledgedly disparaging my 'maturity'. That being the case, don't whine when you get what you dish out back; I find myself in the unchallenging position of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Speaking of which, in view of the lack of valid evidence to support your claimed declaration, it must be concluded that your opinion is baseless and factually invalid. This is apparently analoguous to your 'blind faith' declarations of religious opinion. Empty as a holey bucket.
-
I did not IGNORE the content of the post.
Then why do your responses contain so little content relevant to the context of the posts you replied to?
Simple, because earlier I was having a conversation with you asking simple yes or no questions in order to prove a point and you refused to comply.
More accurately, you asked _leading questions_, which myself and at least one other saw the direction they were leading, I refused to help you "prove" your counter-attacking divergent "point" and you decided to engage in irrationalities. That's fine and all however, such behaviour is hardly 'mature' and tends to support my previous contention that some people make willfully-irrational decisions.
-
I did not refuse to back up my "bald" claim and have already addressed this is my previous post.
Your empty declaration of opinion that "atheism is a belief system" remains unsupported by any valid evidence. 'Addressing' the challenge by way of dancing around it does not constitute a reasoned refutation. It may constitute an irrational and thus, invalid one however.
I danced around nothing, but you are entitled to your opinion and I disagree. ( and that is my right )
You dance clumsily; it isn't an empty "opinion" to note that you've dodged/danced around actually providing any valid evidence to support your empty opinion that "atheism is a belief system". Your empty opinion cannot be accurately conflated with a reasoned refutation by your implicit comparison of 'opinions' and is disregarded. That's my "right"; to disregard empty opinions which are declared as if they carried any weight.
-
You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence).
You have repeatedly told me that you do not accept the proof that I provide.
That's because you've failed to produce any valid evidence. Since such invalid "evidence" consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
Therefore, we must agree to disagree because we do not have the same opinion on this subject.
The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence"). I see no reason to "agree to disagree" since that is nominally used as a euphemism used to attempt to 'save face' while losing an argument.
Honestly, why are you really SO confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say if it is not 100% equialent to your beliefs. Be an adult, agree to disagree.
My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims. Since this forum is D+D, (Debate + Discuss), one would normally expect some debate to be "confrontational" therefore, your complaint is a non sequitur. Once again, you attempt the "insult" alledgedly disparaging my 'maturity'. That being the case, don't whine when you get what you dish out back; I find myself in the unchallenging position of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Speaking of which, in view of the lack of valid evidence to support your claimed declaration, it must be concluded that your opinion is baseless and factually invalid. This is apparently analoguous to your 'blind faith' declarations of religious opinion. Empty as a holey bucket.
[/quote]
Just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it false.
I am not complaining.
This debate will continue to go nowhere as we view things form opposite sides of the spectrum, I see no reason for either of us to continue wasting our time when it is obvious we will continue to disagree. This is not saving face, it is accepting that two people do not always see things the same way.
Your opinion that my opinion is "baseless and factually invalid" shows that we will never agree as you believe that nothing I say holds any value, so there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
I did not ignore your questions, you merely do not accept my answers.
When I disagree with you- you tell me I am wrong. When I say you are entitled to your opinion- you accuse me of dodging a question. When I agree to disagree- you accuse me of trying to save face. You are confrontational to the point of arguing with everything I say, this is different than debating, and I see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly with someone. I am acknowledging that we disagree and I am fine with that, if you cannot agree to disagree that is you own inner issue to deal with.
-
I did not refuse to back up my "bald" claim and have already addressed this is my previous post.
Your empty declaration of opinion that "atheism is a belief system" remains unsupported by any valid evidence. 'Addressing' the challenge by way of dancing around it does not constitute a reasoned refutation. It may constitute an irrational and thus, invalid one however.
I danced around nothing, but you are entitled to your opinion and I disagree. ( and that is my right )
You dance clumsily; it isn't an empty "opinion" to note that you've dodged/danced around actually providing any valid evidence to support your empty opinion that "atheism is a belief system". Your empty opinion cannot be accurately conflated with a reasoned refutation by your implicit comparison of 'opinions' and is disregarded. That's my "right"; to disregard empty opinions which are declared as if they carried any weight.
I offered evidence and discussion about atheism as a belief system, you choose not to accept it and that is your right. I am asking you to please stop wasting my time with petty repetition of your opinions. I have acknowledged that our opinions are different. We do not agree. We never will. That is fine.
-
Just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it false.
That wasn't the cognizant reason your empty opinion had no validity; the fact that you produced no valid supporting evidence for it was what reduced your asserted claim to a "false" statement. This merely emphasizes the observation that not all "opinions" are equal; some contain false statements, (such as your statement that "atheism is a belief system", lest you forget again).
I am not complaining.
Then someone else may be posting under your "SurveyMack10" 'nym.
This debate ...
This isn't a "debate"; as you referred to it earlier as a "discussion", (in which you attempted to studiously avoid actually debating/responding to reasoned refutations of your empty declarations, etc.).
You opinion that my opinion is "baseless and factually invalid" shows ...
What it showed was the reasoning and evidence, (as opposed to your empty opinion), that you failed to support your assertion that "atheism is a belief system". That means that your opinion that "atheism is a belief system" is baseless and factually invalid.
I did not ignore your questions, you merely do not accept my answers.
By failing to address the contextual content of those questions, your "answers" were merely unrelated responses which did not actually answer the questions, (and therefore, were non-answers which ineffectively ignored the questions ... they were ineffective because the dodge was seen, commented upon and reduced your 'argument' to an empty opinion).
When I disagree with you- you tell me I am wrong.
Not even close ... when you disgree, you tend to present such disagreement as unsupported opinion. While you are nominally correct in that you're "entitled" to holding empty opinions, these remain invalid due to having nothing whatsoever to back them up other than your bland declaration of them.
When I say you are entitled to your opinion- you accuse me of dodging a question.
While you are nominally correct in that you're "entitled" to holding empty opinions, these remain invalid due to having nothing whatsoever to back them up other than your bland declaration of them.
When I agree to disagree- you accuse me of trying to save face.
Having observed such a 'retreat' subterfuge many times before, I simply noted the continued pattern of dodging the salient points which you've engaged in throughout.
You are confrontational to the point of arguing with everything I say, this is different than debating, and I see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly with someone.
That is incorrect; in debates, participants commonly make, (and usually defend), positional assertions while opposing participants may either concur with or, challenge those assertions. Upon perusing the threads in which I've challenged you to support your assertions, you've either avoided substantiating them, countered with tangential diversions or, otherwise failed to defend your stated assertions. Therefore, I've engaged in 'debate' while you've been doing something "different", (as you noted). Your "see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly ..." comment
does directly imply that you are unable to defend what turns out to be merely an empty opinion and are tacitly retreating.
-
Just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it false.
That wasn't the cognizant reason your empty opinion had no validity; the fact that you produced no valid supporting evidence for it was what reduced your asserted claim to a "false" statement. This merely emphasizes the observation that not all "opinions" are equal; some contain false statements, (such as your statement that "atheism is a belief system", lest you forget again).
I am not complaining.
Then someone else may be posting under your "SurveyMack10" 'nym.
This debate ...
This isn't a "debate"; as you referred to it earlier as a "discussion", (in which you attempted to studiously avoid actually debating/responding to reasoned refutations of your empty declarations, etc.).
You opinion that my opinion is "baseless and factually invalid" shows ...
What it showed was the reasoning and evidence, (as opposed to your empty opinion), that you failed to support your assertion that "atheism is a belief system". That means that your opinion that "atheism is a belief system" is baseless and factually invalid.
I did not ignore your questions, you merely do not accept my answers.
By failing to address the contextual content of those questions, your "answers" were merely unrelated responses which did not actually answer the questions, (and therefore, were non-answers which ineffectively ignored the questions ... they were ineffective because the dodge was seen, commented upon and reduced your 'argument' to an empty opinion).
When I disagree with you- you tell me I am wrong.
Not even close ... when you disgree, you tend to present such disagreement as unsupported opinion. While you are nominally correct in that you're "entitled" to holding empty opinions, these remain invalid due to having nothing whatsoever to back them up other than your bland declaration of them.
When I say you are entitled to your opinion- you accuse me of dodging a question.
While you are nominally correct in that you're "entitled" to holding empty opinions, these remain invalid due to having nothing whatsoever to back them up other than your bland declaration of them.
When I agree to disagree- you accuse me of trying to save face.
Having observed such a 'retreat' subterfuge many times before, I simply noted the continued pattern of dodging the salient points which you've engaged in throughout.
You are confrontational to the point of arguing with everything I say, this is different than debating, and I see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly with someone.
That is incorrect; in debates, participants commonly make, (and usually defend), positional assertions while opposing participants may either concur with or, challenge those assertions. Upon perusing the threads in which I've challenged you to support your assertions, you've either avoided substantiating them, countered with tangential diversions or, otherwise failed to defend your stated assertions. Therefore, I've engaged in 'debate' while you've been doing something "different", (as you noted). Your "see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly ..." comment
does directly imply that you are unable to defend what turns out to be merely an empty opinion and are tacitly retreating.
[/quote]
So since I referred to it as a discussion it cannot be a debate, got it.
Since you do not agree with my opinions I am not entitled to them, got it.
Since I do not consider myself to be complaining I deserve a condescending remark from you, got it.
Since you do not accept my opinions you do not consider me to be debating, got it.
And since you are overly confrontational you will disagree with every single thing I say, even it I said that I am agreeing to disagree with you, got it.
You are doing your best to stretch out a conversation that is clearly over and only going in circles and repeating itself- I am agreeing to disagree, if you cannot do so that is your own inner issue and not something I can fix for you.
-
I offered evidence and discussion about atheism as a belief system ...
That is patently untrue; no such valid evidence supporting your claim that "atheism is a belief system" has been presented. "Discussion about atheism" does not constitute valid evidence supporting your claim. If you did have valid evidence supporting your claim, amply opportunity to repost it in quoted form has existed for several days. So, where's the "evidence"?
I am asking you to please stop wasting my time with petty repetition of your opinions. I have acknowledged that our opinions are different.
The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence"). My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims and is therefore not conflated with being a "petty" 'opinion'. Your insult reveals your weak ability to reason and the weakness of your undefended asserted "opinion". If you wish to stop wasting your time, the easiest solution would be for you to cease replying here. Surely someone with an alledged 4.0 GPA could've figured that simple resolution out; unless that was anotehr empty declaration without supportive evidence.
-
I offered evidence and discussion about atheism as a belief system ...
That is patently untrue; no such valid evidence supporting your claim that "atheism is a belief system" has been presented. "Discussion about atheism" does not constitute valid evidence supporting your claim. If you did have valid evidence supporting your claim, amply opportunity to repost it in quoted form has existed for several days. So, where's the "evidence"?
I am asking you to please stop wasting my time with petty repetition of your opinions. I have acknowledged that our opinions are different.
The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence"). My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims and is therefore not conflated with being a "petty" 'opinion'. Your insult reveals your weak ability to reason and the weakness of your undefended asserted "opinion". If you wish to stop wasting your time, the easiest solution would be for you to cease replying here. Surely someone with an alledged 4.0 GPA could've figured that simple resolution out; unless that was anotehr empty declaration without supportive evidence.
You don't agree with my evidence and consider it invalid.
Your continued reference to my personal life is such a joke, you are a waste of time.
You cannot help but want the last word even though there is clearly nothing left to discuss.
-
So since I referred to it as a discussion it cannot be a debate, got it.
Nope, you've still managed to miss the point; you haven't engaged in "debate" and you acknowledged that.
Since you do not agree with my opinions I am not entitled to them, got it.
That's another failing grade in reading comprehension for you since that isn't what I wrote in refutation. The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence").
Since I do not consider myself to be complaining I deserve a condescending remark from you, got it.
No, since the standard consensual meaning of your remarks constitutes "complaining", your internally-biased opinion that you're not complaining when you're complaining is yet another irrational and inaccurate opinion.
Since you do not accept my opinions you do not consider me to be debating, got it.
Closer; your failure to support your asserted declarations makes them unsubstantiated and empty opinions and not supporting your own assertions means that you hoped to fob off such without debating them when they are challenged.
And since you are overly confrontational you will disagree with every single thing I say, even it I said that I am agreeing to disagree with you, got it.
Since you've yet to agree with anything I've thusfar stated, that remains a hypothetical situation and your estimate of what I "will" do is specious.
You are doing your best to stretch out a conversation that is clearly over and only going in circles and repeating itself-
It's going in circles because you've continued to avoid supporting your asserted claim that "atheism is a belief system" and instead, hoped that the non-evidence of "discussing atheism" and tossing out a dictionary definition of atheism which did Not support your claim would do in lieu of valid evidence. That boat doesn't float and the 'circling' you perceive in your own mind are the metaphorical carrion over the demise of your empty opinion.
-
You don't agree with my evidence and consider it invalid.
No, the "evidence" you presented failed to support your asserted contention that "atheism is a belief system" therefore, it wasn't relevantly valid in of of itself, (not because I "consider it invalid" however, if you have any rational reason why such specious non-evidence should be considered for validity, wouldn't you have presented it by now?)
Your continued reference to my personal life is such a joke, you are a waste of time.
What reference to your "personal life" are you imagining was made? The nearest, most recent remark to that I'd made referred to the dubious GPA claim you'd previously made. Since grades are not 'top secret', this was hardly a reference to your "personal life". I have no idea how you conduct your "personal life" however, were I to speculate, such speculation may include your propensity for attempting to fob off unsupported opinions as implied facts ... lying profusely and then lying about prior lying when such deceptions have been quoted in your own words, excessive whining, (while claiming not to be whining while tossing out insults yourself), generally coming across as a spoiled kid and apparently laboring under the false impression that your inherently 'because-I-said-so' opinions aren't weightless.
You cannot help but want the last word even though there is clearly nothing left to discuss.
What an amazing coincidence; I just mentioned that you were doing what you accuse me of ... and right after I'd posted that the simple solution for someone who views this "discussion" as a "waste of time" would be to cease replying. Of course, the implicit "reason" she doesn't would because she "wants the last word even though there is clearly nothing left to discuss", (except the fact that she's failed to support her empty claim that "atheism is a belief system"). If it'll help, I formally accept your implicit surrender and resoundingly demostrated defeat.
-
You don't agree with my evidence and consider it invalid.
No, the "evidence" you presented failed to support your asserted contention that "atheism is a belief system" therefore, it wasn't relevantly valid in of of itself, (not because I "consider it invalid" however, if you have any rational reason why such specious non-evidence should be considered for validity, wouldn't you have presented it by now?)
Your continued reference to my personal life is such a joke, you are a waste of time.
What reference to your "personal life" are you imagining was made? The nearest, most recent remark to that I'd made referred to the dubious GPA claim you'd previously made. Since grades are not 'top secret', this was hardly a reference to your "personal life". I have no idea how you conduct your "personal life" however, were I to speculate, such speculation may include your propensity for attempting to fob off unsupported opinions as implied facts ... lying profusely and then lying about prior lying when such deceptions have been quoted in your own words, excessive whining, (while claiming not to be whining while tossing out insults yourself), generally coming across as a spoiled kid and apparently laboring under the false impression that your inherently 'because-I-said-so' opinions aren't weightless.
You cannot help but want the last word even though there is clearly nothing left to discuss.
What an amazing coincidence; I just mentioned that you were doing what you accuse me of ... and right after I'd posted that the simple solution for someone who views this "discussion" as a "waste of time" would be to cease replying. Of course, the implicit "reason" she doesn't would because she "wants the last word even though there is clearly nothing left to discuss", (except the fact that she's failed to support her empty claim that "atheism is a belief system"). If it'll help, I formally accept your implicit surrender and resoundingly demostrated defeat.
My school grades are a part of my personal life, but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.
-
My school grades are a part of my personal life
Perhaps so however, you initially brought them up and posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.
but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.
You're merely young and inexperienced. With any luck, persistence and ability, that might change. Doubtless you'll reject the observational "assessment of a stranger", (given the unspoken 'you don't know me' implicit in your remark). The remarks, statements, opinions and unsupported claims you've made on a public forum are known, however. That's what those "assessments" are based upon - although you would be correct in assuming that I don't know you.
-
You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence).
You have repeatedly told me that you do not accept the proof that I provide.
That's because you've failed to produce any valid evidence. Since such invalid "evidence" consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
Therefore, we must agree to disagree because we do not have the same opinion on this subject.
The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence"). I see no reason to "agree to disagree" since that is nominally used as a euphemism used to attempt to 'save face' while losing an argument.
Honestly, why are you really SO confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say if it is not 100% equialent to your beliefs. Be an adult, agree to disagree.
My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims. Since this forum is D+D, (Debate + Discuss), one would normally expect some debate to be "confrontational" therefore, your complaint is a non sequitur. Once again, you attempt the "insult" alledgedly disparaging my 'maturity'. That being the case, don't whine when you get what you dish out back; I find myself in the unchallenging position of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Speaking of which, in view of the lack of valid evidence to support your claimed declaration, it must be concluded that your opinion is baseless and factually invalid. This is apparently analoguous to your 'blind faith' declarations of religious opinion. Empty as a holey bucket.
Just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it false.
I am not complaining.
This debate will continue to go nowhere as we view things form opposite sides of the spectrum, I see no reason for either of us to continue wasting our time when it is obvious we will continue to disagree. This is not saving face, it is accepting that two people do not always see things the same way.
Your opinion that my opinion is "baseless and factually invalid" shows that we will never agree as you believe that nothing I say holds any value, so there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
I did not ignore your questions, you merely do not accept my answers.
When I disagree with you- you tell me I am wrong. When I say you are entitled to your opinion- you accuse me of dodging a question. When I agree to disagree- you accuse me of trying to save face. You are confrontational to the point of arguing with everything I say, this is different than debating, and I see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly with someone. I am acknowledging that we disagree and I am fine with that, if you cannot agree to disagree that is you own inner issue to deal with.
[/quote]
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
-
Portion pulled from SurveyMack's post:
..this is different than debating..
Now, don't fall out of your chair or faint and hit the floor, but I couldn't agree more!
This entire conglomeration of posts, spanning umpteen pages, ceased being any type of 'debate' long ago. The saying about "the dog who refuses to let go of the bone" comes to mind. At this point, either one of you will stop replying or you'll both continue to chase your tails - 'agree to disagree' just doesn't work with some. ;)
-
My school grades are a part of my personal life
Perhaps so however, you initially brought them up and posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.
but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.
You're merely young and inexperienced. With any luck, persistence and ability, that might change. Doubtless you'll reject the observational "assessment of a stranger", (given the unspoken 'you don't know me' implicit in your remark). The remarks, statements, opinions and unsupported claims you've made on a public forum are known, however. That's what those "assessments" are based upon - although you would be correct in assuming that I don't know you.
YOU brought up my schoolwork.
You don't know anything about my age or experience.
And you do not know me whatsoever, thanks for pointing that out.
What I do know is that you and I have different opinions on this issue.
I accept that your opinion is different than mine and you are absolutely entitled to it.
Whether or not you think I am entitled to my opinion, I am agreeing to disagree.
There is nothing more to be said here.
-
You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence).
You have repeatedly told me that you do not accept the proof that I provide.
That's because you've failed to produce any valid evidence. Since such invalid "evidence" consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system"). None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase. Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.
In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?
Therefore, we must agree to disagree because we do not have the same opinion on this subject.
The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence"). I see no reason to "agree to disagree" since that is nominally used as a euphemism used to attempt to 'save face' while losing an argument.
Honestly, why are you really SO confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say if it is not 100% equialent to your beliefs. Be an adult, agree to disagree.
My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims. Since this forum is D+D, (Debate + Discuss), one would normally expect some debate to be "confrontational" therefore, your complaint is a non sequitur. Once again, you attempt the "insult" alledgedly disparaging my 'maturity'. That being the case, don't whine when you get what you dish out back; I find myself in the unchallenging position of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Speaking of which, in view of the lack of valid evidence to support your claimed declaration, it must be concluded that your opinion is baseless and factually invalid. This is apparently analoguous to your 'blind faith' declarations of religious opinion. Empty as a holey bucket.
Just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it false.
I am not complaining.
This debate will continue to go nowhere as we view things form opposite sides of the spectrum, I see no reason for either of us to continue wasting our time when it is obvious we will continue to disagree. This is not saving face, it is accepting that two people do not always see things the same way.
Your opinion that my opinion is "baseless and factually invalid" shows that we will never agree as you believe that nothing I say holds any value, so there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
I did not ignore your questions, you merely do not accept my answers.
When I disagree with you- you tell me I am wrong. When I say you are entitled to your opinion- you accuse me of dodging a question. When I agree to disagree- you accuse me of trying to save face. You are confrontational to the point of arguing with everything I say, this is different than debating, and I see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly with someone. I am acknowledging that we disagree and I am fine with that, if you cannot agree to disagree that is you own inner issue to deal with.
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
[/quote]
Thank you, I was beginning to think what I was seeing in my post was not what everyone else was seeing by how the conversation is continuing to go in circles.
-
My school grades are a part of my personal life
Perhaps so however, you initially brought them up and posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.
but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.
You're merely young and inexperienced. With any luck, persistence and ability, that might change. Doubtless you'll reject the observational "assessment of a stranger", (given the unspoken 'you don't know me' implicit in your remark). The remarks, statements, opinions and unsupported claims you've made on a public forum are known, however. That's what those "assessments" are based upon - although you would be correct in assuming that I don't know you.
YOU brought up my schoolwork.
"My school grades are a part of my personal life"
You initially posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.
You don't know anything about my age or experience.
Unless you posted a picture of your young daughter, presumably you're not a 48 year old mom returning to college. However, the pattern and content of your posted replies strongly suggests youthful inexperience, (given that the younger one is, the less time has elapsed to attain experience). Regardless, what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted. Doubtless this does not encompass the entirety of your 'vast' experience.
And you do not know me whatsoever, thanks for pointing that out.
I didn't write "whatsoever" in that context; I did state that 'what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted'.
What I do know is that you and I have different opinions on this issue.
There's a distinctive difference between your unsupported opinion and unmet challenges to it, (those challenges did not consist of "opinion" but, were and are based upon the standard consensual meanings of the unsupported opinion you expressed; that "atheism is a belief system").
I accept that your opinion is different than mine and you are absolutely entitled to it.
You keep conflating your "opinion" with a challenge to you to support it; they are not equivalent.
Whether or not you think I am entitled to my opinion, I am agreeing to disagree.
On the contrary, I have remarked that you are "entitled" to hold a baseless opinion, (which bears no resemblance to accuracy). So too am I "entitled" to question such unsupported declarations in a forum entitled Debate + Discuss.
There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]
Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument. This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission).
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
-
Portion pulled from SurveyMack's post:..this is different than debating..
Now, don't fall out of your chair or faint and hit the floor, but I couldn't agree more!
I also concurred but, probably for somewhat different reasons.
This entire conglomeration of posts, spanning umpteen pages, ceased being any type of 'debate' long ago.
That's not entirely accurate; I've continued to bring the context of the "debate" back to challenging that assertion that "atheism is a belief system" however, the one who made that unsubstantiated claim refused to support her empty declaration. At the point of challenges to that unsupported assertion, the "debate" became a tangential discussion apparently used in lieu of debate.
-
My school grades are a part of my personal life
Perhaps so however, you initially brought them up and posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.
but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.
You're merely young and inexperienced. With any luck, persistence and ability, that might change. Doubtless you'll reject the observational "assessment of a stranger", (given the unspoken 'you don't know me' implicit in your remark). The remarks, statements, opinions and unsupported claims you've made on a public forum are known, however. That's what those "assessments" are based upon - although you would be correct in assuming that I don't know you.
YOU brought up my schoolwork.
"My school grades are a part of my personal life"
You initially posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.
You don't know anything about my age or experience.
Unless you posted a picture of your young daughter, presumably you're not a 48 year old mom returning to college. However, the pattern and content of your posted replies strongly suggests youthful inexperience, (given that the younger one is, the less time has elapsed to attain experience). Regardless, what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted. Doubtless this does not encompass the entirety of your 'vast' experience.
And you do not know me whatsoever, thanks for pointing that out.
I didn't write "whatsoever" in that context; I did state that 'what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted'.
What I do know is that you and I have different opinions on this issue.
There's a distinctive difference between your unsupported opinion and unmet challenges to it, (those challenges did not consist of "opinion" but, were and are based upon the standard consensual meanings of the unsupported opinion you expressed; that "atheism is a belief system").
I accept that your opinion is different than mine and you are absolutely entitled to it.
You keep conflating your "opinion" with a challenge to you to support it; they are not equivalent.
Whether or not you think I am entitled to my opinion, I am agreeing to disagree.
On the contrary, I have remarked that you are "entitled" to hold a baseless opinion, (which bears no resemblance to accuracy). So too am I "entitled" to question such unsupported declarations in a forum entitled Debate + Discuss.
There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]
Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument. This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission).
On a separate thread you tried to attack my intelligence by saying something about me not making very good grades, I let you know that was not the case.
You continue to bring it up though it is still irrelevant and frankly not even your business to discuss and never was in the first place.
However, if I would not have let you know what my grades were after you initially attacked them, you probably would have said that I do in fact make bad grades because I ddin't refute it- and would likely STILL bring it up as a personal attack.
So, now you know why I let you know what my GPA was and now you know why there is no need to discuss it anymore at all.
Your talking down to me by assuming my age and making assumptions about my life experiences is amusing and absolutely irrelevant.
This thread has turned into petty nonsense and wasted time.
In regard to the rest of your post, I agree to disagree. If you cannot do the same that is your own inner issue.
-
There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]
Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument. This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission). [/quote]
On a separate thread you tried to attack my intelligence by saying something about me not making very good grades
No, I questioned your claim to a "4.0 GPA" based upon your posted claim a "4.0 GPA" based upon your comments which did not appear to stem from someone with a supposedly "4.0 GPA".
You continue to bring it up though it is still irrelevant and frankly not even your business to discuss and never was in the first place.
To reiterate; you initally mentioned your supposed "4.0 GPA"; how would I know you were in college or, what your alleged GPA was if you hadn't first mentioned it? If it is none of my business, your purpose in mentioning it must have been other than you claim.
Your talking down to me by assuming my age and making assumptions about my life experiences is amusing and absolutely irrelevant.
Your perception of the extrapolation of your youthfulness and subsequent lack of experience as "talking down" to you is entirely subjective. Either you're somewhat more elderly and experienced than was extrapolated or, as young and inexperienced as inferred from your public posts. There's nothing of "talking down" in either inference.
This thread has turned into petty nonsense and wasted time.
Look in your mirror to affix the larger proportion of responsibility for that outcome. I'll take responsibility for using the opportunity to illuminate an unsubstantiated claim made, (that "atheism is a belief system"), for the benefit of those with critical thinking skills.
In regard to the rest of your post, I agree to disagree.
I do not, (and have previously delineated why), therefore, there is no agreement to disagree.
-
There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]
Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument. This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission).
On a separate thread you tried to attack my intelligence by saying something about me not making very good grades
No, I questioned your claim to a "4.0 GPA" based upon your posted claim a "4.0 GPA" based upon your comments which did not appear to stem from someone with a supposedly "4.0 GPA".
You continue to bring it up though it is still irrelevant and frankly not even your business to discuss and never was in the first place.
To reiterate; you initally mentioned your supposed "4.0 GPA"; how would I know you were in college or, what your alleged GPA was if you hadn't first mentioned it? If it is none of my business, your purpose in mentioning it must have been other than you claim.
Your talking down to me by assuming my age and making assumptions about my life experiences is amusing and absolutely irrelevant.
Your perception of the extrapolation of your youthfulness and subsequent lack of experience as "talking down" to you is entirely subjective. Either you're somewhat more elderly and experienced than was extrapolated or, as young and inexperienced as inferred from your public posts. There's nothing of "talking down" in either inference.
This thread has turned into petty nonsense and wasted time.
Look in your mirror to affix the larger proportion of responsibility for that outcome. I'll take responsibility for using the opportunity to illuminate an unsubstantiated claim made, (that "atheism is a belief system"), for the benefit of those with critical thinking skills.
In regard to the rest of your post, I agree to disagree.
I do not, (and have previously delineated why), therefore, there is no agreement to disagree.
[/quote]
Once again, your opinion and assessment of my personal life is not wanted nor considered as it is not useful to me.
Regarding the small mention you made of the actual debate, we have different opinions, and that is fine with me.
You are entitled to yours as I am mine.
-
Regarding the small mention you made of the actual debate, we have different ...
Manifestly, we have different criteria for what constitutes an unsupported opinion, (such as your claim that "atheism is a belief system"), and what constitutes your failure to actually debate the empty declarations you've made:
« Reply #404 on: October 21, 2011, 06:10:50 pm » Message ID: 435449
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 25, 2011, 04:11:01 pm
"The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God."
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
No cognizant substantiation or refutations were ever presented by you after you expressed your unsupported opinion as an assertion. This was not extension of you not-debating, it was but an example of it.
-
Regarding the small mention you made of the actual debate, we have different ...
Manifestly, we have different criteria for what constitutes an unsupported opinion, (such as your claim that "atheism is a belief system"), and what constitutes your failure to actually debate the empty declarations you've made:
« Reply #404 on: October 21, 2011, 06:10:50 pm » Message ID: 435449
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 25, 2011, 04:11:01 pm
"The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God."
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist). If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'
Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"? Belief is god? Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?
No cognizant substantiation or refutations were ever presented by you after you expressed your unsupported opinion as an assertion. This was not extension of you not-debating, it was but an example of it.
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
-
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.
Now, you've already done that dance around to avoid the inherent alternatives that, either your "belief" is in something real/extant or, it is in something unreal/imagined. Whether you explicitly state this or not, those are the subsequently inherent alternatives implicit in your contention.
-
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.
Now, you've already done that dance around to avoid the inherent alternatives that, either your "belief" is in something real/extant or, it is in something unreal/imagined. Whether you explicitly state this or not, those are the subsequently inherent alternatives implicit in your contention.
I removed the initial response I made to this post because I realized how stupid it is to sit here and justify my peresonal beliefs to a total stranger.
I never said God's existence was fact. It is my choice to put my faith in his being real. That's my right and my business. I don't owe you any proof of his existence, because I never claimed his existence was a fact.
Whatever you belief or don't believe is your business. And I have no interest in trying to convince you that you are wrong as you are trying to convince me.
I am acknowledging that we do not have the same beliefs, yet you continue to bring up issues that you know from past conversations that we will not agree on. I am not understanding your inability to accept that not everyone believes the way you do.
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate. I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round. I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate. I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round. I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
I agree with this completely. I feel like no matter how many times I try to end the conversation and keep it on a somewhat mature note another issue gets drug up so that it will continue, and I know that if I leave any matter hanging and dont refute the attacks then the next time we are even in a debate I will be accused of "dodging." And the random attack at you just now was totally unwarranted especially considering all you did was say that my post was clearly stated.
I wish I had initially responded as you did here by clearly saying you did not want to enter into the conversation!
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate. I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round. I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else. So the remark made about a subject on another thread really isn't relevant and I wish I had been as wise as you by realizing that some conversations/confrontations will never end...
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate. I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round. I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else. So the remark made about a subject on another thread really isn't relevant and I wish I had been as wise as you by realizing that some conversations/confrontations will never end...
True, but when the debate first started between the two of you, you had no idea where it was headed at that point. You were just debating, giving opinion, and rebutting - nothing wrong with that!
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate. I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round. I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else. So the remark made about a subject on another thread really isn't relevant and I wish I had been as wise as you by realizing that some conversations/confrontations will never end...
True, but when the debate first started between the two of you, you had no idea where it was headed at that point. You were just debating, giving opinion, and rebutting - nothing wrong with that!
True! But I have been in debates with this person before so I should have known better haha, fool me twice shame on me! I just get caught up and it gets to a point where there are so many hateful things being said that it's hard not to be hateful back, and that really isn't what I want to do here.
-
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
Then the remaining inherent implication is that your "faith" is in something with no factual existence.
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate. I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round. I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else. So the remark made about a subject on another thread really isn't relevant and I wish I had been as wise as you by realizing that some conversations/confrontations will never end...
True, but when the debate first started between the two of you, you had no idea where it was headed at that point. You were just debating, giving opinion, and rebutting - nothing wrong with that!
True! But I have been in debates with this person before so I should have known better haha, fool me twice shame on me! I just get caught up and it gets to a point where there are so many hateful things being said that it's hard not to be hateful back, and that really isn't what I want to do here.
As long as I've known you, I know that isn't your intention. Those things sometimes kind of jump out at you and have you ensnared before you know it. Even so, I haven't seen anything ugly spewing from you! :)
-
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
I never said God's existence was fact. It is my choice to put my faith in his being real.
I don't owe you any proof of his existence, because I never claimed his existence was a fact.
As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.
Now, you've already done that dance around to avoid the inherent alternatives that, either your "belief" is in something real/extant or, it is in something unreal/imagined. Whether you explicitly state this or not, those are the subsequently inherent alternatives implicit in your contention.
-
And I still notice he hasn't let go and moved on, lol! Some people just enjoy going in circles, I guess.
-
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate.
It ceased to be a "debate" the moment 'SurveyMack10' ceased debating; I'd been debating up to and through her diversions, (as the record of posts upthread shows). Although we both participated in her initiated diversions, I did keep bringing the originally disputed point back to the fore; namely, her contended opinion that "atheism is a belief system". That contention has been shown to be devoid of substantiating evidence and therefore, empty.
I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round.
More accurately, I declined to "agree to disagree" and reiterated that she failedd to support her contended assertion.
I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
I'll tell you this much, no "random attack" was made nor, implied. The intent was that, as a xtian believer, you'd have a strong inclination to agree with another one, (rather than with an opposing viewpoint), and that bias is inherent.
-
I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate. I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough." You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round. I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else. So the remark made about a subject on another thread really isn't relevant and I wish I had been as wise as you by realizing that some conversations/confrontations will never end...
True, but when the debate first started between the two of you, you had no idea where it was headed at that point. You were just debating, giving opinion, and rebutting - nothing wrong with that!
True! But I have been in debates with this person before so I should have known better haha, fool me twice shame on me! I just get caught up and it gets to a point where there are so many hateful things being said that it's hard not to be hateful back, and that really isn't what I want to do here.
As long as I've known you, I know that isn't your intention. Those things sometimes kind of jump out at you and have you ensnared before you know it. Even so, I haven't seen anything ugly spewing from you! :)
Well thank you I really appreciate that! Sometimes I read over stuff and I think I shouldn't have said that, but in the moment it came out haha
-
I feel like no matter how many times I try to end the conversation and keep it on a somewhat mature note another issue gets drug up so that it will continue, and I know that if I leave any matter hanging and dont refute the ...
You've been unable to refute the challenges made to your unsupported assertions. Snide remarks about 'maturity' notwithstanding; how "mature" is it to make unsubstantiated assertions in the Debate + Discuss forum and then 'leave that matter handing' when challenged to support your claims? At the very least, it is extremely disingenuous of you.
... then the next time we are even in a debate I will be accused of "dodging."
Those weren't simply accusations of your dodging supporting your own claims, no evidence exists in these threads of your substantiating your empty declarations. You have however, attempt to recast them as "opinions" in the forlorn hope that any nonsense whatsoever can be concealed beneath that 'banner'.
And the random attack at you just now was totally unwarranted especially considering all you did was say that my post was clearly stated.
« Reply #305 on: Today at 12:37:17 pm » Message ID: 437563
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 08:33:01 am:
"I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here."
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
Hardly an "attack", random or otherwise. You're posts resemble that of a very defensive person.
-
And I still notice he hasn't let go and moved on, lol! Some people just enjoy going in circles, I guess.
It's unbelievable!
-
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
I never said God's existence was fact. It is my choice to put my faith in his being real.
I don't owe you any proof of his existence, because I never claimed his existence was a fact.
As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal. Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God". These are your unaltered words. Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress). Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.
Now, you've already done that dance around to avoid the inherent alternatives that, either your "belief" is in something real/extant or, it is in something unreal/imagined. Whether you explicitly state this or not, those are the subsequently inherent alternatives implicit in your contention.
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
I never said God's existence was fact. It is my choice to put my faith in his being real.
I don't owe you any proof of his existence, because I never claimed his existence was a fact.
-
Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.
Then the remaining inherent implication is that your "faith" is in something with no factual existence.
[/quote]
Welp, I never claimed God's existence was a proven fact.
-
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...
The forum is entitled Debate+Discuss, not Baseless Opinionating+Whinging. However, while it is true that participates are not _required_ to debate or discuss, it is not true that publically posted unsupported assertions are required to go unchallenged. Don't like that state of affairs? Don't post unsupported assertions with the unrealistic expectation that they won't be challenged.
...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else.
Again, attempting to recast your empty assertion as an "opinion" does not relieve a public post from being challenged in the D+D forum.
-
I feel like no matter how many times I try to end the conversation and keep it on a somewhat mature note another issue gets drug up so that it will continue, and I know that if I leave any matter hanging and dont refute the ...
You've been unable to refute the challenges made to your unsupported assertions. Snide remarks about 'maturity' notwithstanding; how "mature" is it to make unsubstantiated assertions in the Debate + Discuss forum and then 'leave that matter handing' when challenged to support your claims? At the very least, it is extremely disingenuous of you.
... then the next time we are even in a debate I will be accused of "dodging."
Those weren't simply accusations of your dodging supporting your own claims, no evidence exists in these threads of your substantiating your empty declarations. You have however, attempt to recast them as "opinions" in the forlorn hope that any nonsense whatsoever can be concealed beneath that 'banner'.
And the random attack at you just now was totally unwarranted especially considering all you did was say that my post was clearly stated.
« Reply #305 on: Today at 12:37:17 pm » Message ID: 437563
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 08:33:01 am:
"I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here."
Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.
Hardly an "attack", random or otherwise. You're posts resemble that of a very defensive person.
I sincerely am not worried about your opinion of me, so if you think I'm defensive that's fine.
As for the remarks about me not backing up anything I said, I cannot force you to accept my evidence as you have yet to accepted anything that I have said that did not coincide with your beliefs.
I'm not too worried about it as I have realized we will continue to disagree.
-
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...
The forum is entitled Debate+Discuss, not Baseless Opinionating+Whinging. However, while it is true that participates are not _required_ to debate or discuss, it is not true that publically posted unsupported assertions are required to go unchallenged. Don't like that state of affairs? Don't post unsupported assertions with the unrealistic expectation that they won't be challenged.
...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else.
Again, attempting to recast your empty assertion as an "opinion" does not relieve a public post from being challenged in the D+D forum.
No one is complaining about challenges being made, just saying that a justification of a personal opinion is not required.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 08:44:24 pm
I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.
Quote from: falcon9:
I'll tell you this much, no "random attack" was made nor, implied. The intent was that, as a xtian believer, you'd have a strong inclination to agree with another one, (rather than with an opposing viewpoint), and that bias is inherent.
There most definitely was a "personal jab" inferred (implied.) I disagree with you with what you say my intent was. I agree with people on things said or actions taken, no matter whether they are a Christian or not. That is a "bias" statement you made about me - you are prejudiced with your remark because I am a Christian, and that is unfair to me and to those in this forum whom I've had the pleasure (and/or displeasure) to debate with. There are a couple of nonbelievers in this thread who I've debated with, and I've agreed with them on certain remarks or issues when the other side said something I felt was incorrect. There are also nonbelievers and Christians both who I am friends with or like to talk with outside of debating in this forum. I try to be as objective as possible and not be "biased" toward someone because they may not believe as I do.
-
Even so, I haven't seen anything ugly spewing from you! :)
There's that bias mentioned previously and a false observation given to boot! If you'd like a string of "ugly" quotes made by 'Surveymack10', these can be reposted. Are you sure you want to make false statements in that regard?
-
There most definitely was a "personal jab" inferred (implied.)
If the implied "jab" was that a xtian sided with a xtian, then yes, it was a 'jab". ::)
I disagree with you with what you say my intent was. ]/quote]
Then provide the reasoning why and the alternate intent. Or don't, your choice.
I agree with people on things said or actions taken, no matter whether they are a Christian or not.
Perhaps so, there's no evidence of that within the disputed threads so, that remains an inconclusive assertion.
That is a "bias" statement you made about me - you are prejudiced with your remark because I am a Christian, and that is unfair to me and to those in this forum whom I've had the pleasure (and/or displeasure) to debate with.
You are mistaken regarding 'prejudice' against xtians as regards my posts. There no no examples of my specifically and unambiguously exhibiting stated bias against anyone due to their religious or nonreligious stance. My comment implied that it wasn't all that remarkable for one xtian to agree/side with another. That's why there are huge congregations of 'em, despite internal disparaties of understanding.
There are a couple of nonbelievers in this thread who I've debated with, and I've agreed with them on certain remarks or issues when the other side said something I felt was incorrect. ]/quote] [/color]
I'm unaware of those instances to which you refer. Have you got any examples or message IDs available so that I could have a look at them?
-
Even so, I haven't seen anything ugly spewing from you! :)
There's that bias mentioned previously and a false observation given to boot! If you'd like a string of "ugly" quotes made by 'Surveymack10', these can be reposted. Are you sure you want to make false statements in that regard?
I have openly admitted to slipping and getting dragged down a level of hatefulness, I think what she meant is that I wasn't intentionally jabbing at others and bringing up personal insults without being provoked. I don't KNOW that this was her meaning, but I really don't think she meant that I was a saint and have been nothing but sugar sweet this entire time, as that is obviously not right
-
Even so, I haven't seen anything ugly spewing from you! :)
There's that bias mentioned previously and a false observation given to boot! If you'd like a string of "ugly" quotes made by 'Surveymack10', these can be reposted. Are you sure you want to make false statements in that regard?
Both of you have gotten heated, and that's pretty normal when buttons start getting pushed on both sides. As far as filthy words - what I meant by ugly - there has not been that from her nor from you. Sparked words? Yes. For the type of words she has used, there are words you have used, as well, that try and make her views look "empty," "baseless opinion," "whining," "defensive," etc.
-
You've been unable to refute the challenges made to your unsupported assertions. Snide remarks about 'maturity' notwithstanding; how "mature" is it to make unsubstantiated assertions in the Debate + Discuss forum and then 'leave that matter handing' when challenged to support your claims? At the very least, it is extremely disingenuous of you.
... then the next time we are even in a debate I will be accused of "dodging."
Those weren't simply accusations of your dodging supporting your own claims, no evidence exists in these threads of your substantiating your empty declarations. You have however, attempt to recast them as "opinions" in the forlorn hope that any nonsense whatsoever can be concealed beneath that 'banner'.
As for the remarks about me not backing up anything I said, I cannot force you to accept my evidence
You failed to produce _any_ valid evidence to back up your empty assertions. Producing 14 message IDs worth of posts whose content expressly Did Not back up your assertion that "atheism is a belief system" don't constitute valid evidence. Producing a dictionary definition which did not include reference to atheism as "a belief system" does not constitute valid evidence supporting your claim. "Discussing" the subject does not constitute valid evidence supporting your claim. Therefore, no valid evidence has been presented thusfar to support your claim which means that your assertion was an empty opinion, (one without foundational substantiation). And yes, 'Virgina', you are "entitled" to have empty opinions.
-
You've been unable to refute the challenges made to your unsupported assertions. Snide remarks about 'maturity' notwithstanding; how "mature" is it to make unsubstantiated assertions in the Debate + Discuss forum and then 'leave that matter handing' when challenged to support your claims? At the very least, it is extremely disingenuous of you.
... then the next time we are even in a debate I will be accused of "dodging."
Those weren't simply accusations of your dodging supporting your own claims, no evidence exists in these threads of your substantiating your empty declarations. You have however, attempt to recast them as "opinions" in the forlorn hope that any nonsense whatsoever can be concealed beneath that 'banner'.
As for the remarks about me not backing up anything I said, I cannot force you to accept my evidence
You failed to produce _any_ valid evidence to back up your empty assertions. Producing 14 message IDs worth of posts whose content expressly Did Not back up your assertion that "atheism is a belief system" don't constitute valid evidence. Producing a dictionary definition which did not include reference to atheism as "a belief system" does not constitute valid evidence supporting your claim. "Discussing" the subject does not constitute valid evidence supporting your claim. Therefore, no valid evidence has been presented thusfar to support your claim which means that your assertion was an empty opinion, (one without foundational substantiation). And yes, 'Virgina', you are "entitled" to have empty opinions.
It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree because I realize that not everyone believes what I do and that is their right.
-
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...
The forum is entitled Debate+Discuss, not Baseless Opinionating+Whinging. However, while it is true that participates are not _required_ to debate or discuss, it is not true that publically posted unsupported assertions are required to go unchallenged. Don't like that state of affairs? Don't post unsupported assertions with the unrealistic expectation that they won't be challenged.
...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else.
Again, attempting to recast your empty assertion as an "opinion" does not relieve a public post from being challenged in the D+D forum.
No one is complaining about challenges being made, just saying that a justification of a personal opinion is not required.
That's false and remains false even after attempts to recast your original assertion that "atheism is a belief system" as an "opinion". Characterizing your unsupported claim as an "opinion" in D+D does not relieve the claimaint of the responsibility to substantiate their claim when challenged in debate to do so. Certainly, the claimaint can refuse such challenges, (as you did), and therefore tacitly concedes that their claim was empty, (bereft of substantiation).
-
Also, we are not required to debate anything with anyone...
The forum is entitled Debate+Discuss, not Baseless Opinionating+Whinging. However, while it is true that participates are not _required_ to debate or discuss, it is not true that publically posted unsupported assertions are required to go unchallenged. Don't like that state of affairs? Don't post unsupported assertions with the unrealistic expectation that they won't be challenged.
...just because we post an opinion doesn't mean we have to justify it to anyone else.
Again, attempting to recast your empty assertion as an "opinion" does not relieve a public post from being challenged in the D+D forum.
No one is complaining about challenges being made, just saying that a justification of a personal opinion is not required.
That's false and remains false even after attempts to recast your original assertion that "atheism is a belief system" as an "opinion". Characterizing your unsupported claim as an "opinion" in D+D does not relieve the claimaint of the responsibility to substantiate their claim when challenged in debate to do so. Certainly, the claimaint can refuse such challenges, (as you did), and therefore tacitly concedes that their claim was empty, (bereft of substantiation).
[/quote]
No one here has to justify their opinion to you just because you say so.
-
Even so, I haven't seen anything ugly spewing from you! :)
There's that bias mentioned previously and a false observation given to boot! If you'd like a string of "ugly" quotes made by 'Surveymack10', these can be reposted. Are you sure you want to make false statements in that regard?
I have openly admitted to slipping and getting dragged down a level of hatefulness, I think what she meant is that I wasn't intentionally jabbing at others and bringing up personal insults without being provoked. I don't KNOW that this was her meaning, but I really don't think she meant that I was a saint and have been nothing but sugar sweet this entire time, as that is obviously not right
Provoked? What about your provoking me? Doesn't count unless it's your 'excuse', or does that go both ways?
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 09:36:57 pm
That is a "bias" statement you made about me - you are prejudiced with your remark because I am a Christian, and that is unfair to me and to those in this forum whom I've had the pleasure (and/or displeasure) to debate with.
Quote from: falcon9:
You are mistaken regarding 'prejudice' against xtians as regards my posts. There no no examples of my specifically and unambiguously exhibiting stated bias against anyone due to their religious or nonreligious stance. My comment implied that it wasn't all that remarkable for one xtian to agree/side with another. That's why there are huge congregations of 'em, despite internal disparaties of understanding.
Your comment was directly aimed at me, at that moment.
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 09:36:57 pm
There are a couple of nonbelievers in this thread who I've debated with, and I've agreed with them on certain remarks or issues when the other side said something I felt was incorrect. ]/quote] [/color]
Quote from: falcon9:
I'm unaware of those instances to which you refer. Have you got any examples or message IDs available so that I could have a look at them?
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search. I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you. They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
-
For the type of words she has used, there are words you have used, as well, that try and make her views look "empty," "baseless opinion," "whining," "defensive," etc.
Our interpretations are bound to be at variance howver, I quoted her own words, (which have standard inherent meanings), and had no need to "try and ,ake her views look 'empty', 'baseless opinion', etc.. As for the defensiveness and whining, those were subjective impressions of textual remarks she'd made, (such qualities as "tone" or, "inflection" are difficult to discern in a text medium).
-
It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions
As alluded to; there are vast differences between unsubstantiated, (empty), "opinions" and substantiated, (supported with evidence or lines of reasoning), ones. I can't be sure why this distinction continues to elude your understanding.
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
The word order you used above was slightly rearranged for accuracy, (the content wasn't altered however, the underlying meaning becomes clearer with that word sequence).
-
No one here has to justify their opinion to you just because you say so.
That's correct; no one "has to" substantiate an empty opinion however, such "opinions" when made as stated assertions, ("atheism is a belief system"), may be disputed and challenged in a D+D forum. It's also correct that the claimaint, (the one who stated their "opinion" as if it had substantiation), doesn't have to "justify" their making speciously false remarks. And yes, 'Mack, "opinions" can be specious; yours certainly turned out to be.
-
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search. I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you. They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive. That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.
-
It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions
As alluded to; there are vast differences between unsubstantiated, (empty), "opinions" and substantiated, (supported with evidence or lines of reasoning), ones. I can't be sure why this distinction continues to elude your understanding.
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
The word order you used above was slightly rearranged for accuracy, (the content wasn't altered however, the underlying meaning becomes clearer with that word sequence).
"the content wasn't altered" = false.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 09:36:57 pm
That is a "bias" statement you made about me - you are prejudiced with your remark because I am a Christian, and that is unfair to me and to those in this forum whom I've had the pleasure (and/or displeasure) to debate with.
Quote from: falcon9:
You are mistaken regarding 'prejudice' against xtians as regards my posts. There no no examples of my specifically and unambiguously exhibiting stated bias against anyone due to their religious or nonreligious stance. My comment implied that it wasn't all that remarkable for one xtian to agree/side with another. That's why there are huge congregations of 'em, despite internal disparaties of understanding.
Your comment was directly aimed at me, at that moment.
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 09:36:57 pm
There are a couple of nonbelievers in this thread who I've debated with, and I've agreed with them on certain remarks or issues when the other side said something I felt was incorrect. ]/quote] [/color]
Quote from: falcon9:
I'm unaware of those instances to which you refer. Have you got any examples or message IDs available so that I could have a look at them?
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search. I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you. They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
I can think of countless instances where you have had many intelligent conversations with nonbelievers on this thread, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. This will be referred to as biased since we are both Christians, but I wanted to say that I was going to suggest you not wasting your time digging up the messages because they still likely won't be accepted as proof.
-
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search. I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you. They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive. That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.
That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree." To you it remains inconclusive. It's not part of the actual topic you two were debating about. As I said you can disbelieve if you so choose - it doesn't matter to me. I know what I said is conclusive - you don't know me from a hill of beans, so I don't expect you to know me enough to believe me or not. And vice versa, too. You are starting to make this part of the debate/discuss appear comical - humor is good for the soul. I think you just enjoy debating/discussing/challenging/circling/making rulings on whether things are "inconclusive," "no evidence," "empty opinions," - "no assessment," etc. :)
-
It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions
As alluded to; there are vast differences between unsubstantiated, (empty), "opinions" and substantiated, (supported with evidence or lines of reasoning), ones. I can't be sure why this distinction continues to elude your understanding.
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
The word order you used above was slightly rearranged for accuracy, (the content wasn't altered however, the underlying meaning becomes clearer with that word sequence).
"the content wasn't altered" = false.
The content consisted of your words, none were added, (although a few were removed and resequenced). That did alter the meaning from your intended excuse to the actual excuse, nothing more.
-
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search. I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you. They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive. That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.
That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree." To you it remains inconclusive.
That's correct; it is inconclusive to me, (or anyone else not aware of previous examples to support your contention). That means that no conclusion can be drawn from unsubmitted evidence, (although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).
You are starting to make this part of the debate/discuss appear comical - humor is good for the soul. I think you just enjoy debating/discussing/challenging/circling/making rulings on whether things are "inconclusive," "no evidence," "empty opinions," - "no assessment," etc.[/color] :)
Zounds, you've unmasked me! :P
-
It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions
As alluded to; there are vast differences between unsubstantiated, (empty), "opinions" and substantiated, (supported with evidence or lines of reasoning), ones. I can't be sure why this distinction continues to elude your understanding.
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
The word order you used above was slightly rearranged for accuracy, (the content wasn't altered however, the underlying meaning becomes clearer with that word sequence).
"the content wasn't altered" = false.
The content consisted of your words, none were added, (although a few were removed and resequenced). That did alter the meaning from your intended excuse to the actual excuse, nothing more.
Let's eat grandpa.
Let's eat, grandpa.
A simple comma can change the content enough to threaten grandpa's life. If a comma can change the content of a post, rearranging and removing words can do the same.
If you said "I want to go to the park" and I removed some words and changed it to "I want to park"...the meaning is totally different.
So your defense that you used words I posted does not make sense. If the order of words didn't matter, the whole english language as we learned it in school wouldn't even be relevant?
-
I believe God is always necessary!! Take a look at this world since God has been practically taken out of everything. Take a look at all the school shootings since prayer, the ten commandments, and God has been taken out of our schools....when God was allowed in the schools, you didn't hear of so much violence among our children in schools like you do now. I think everyone needs to think about this. Remember God is good all the time!! :angel11:
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 10:02:18 pm
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search. I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you. They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
Quote from falcon9:
Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive. That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.
Quote from jcribb:
That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree." To you it remains inconclusive.
Quote from falcon9:
That's correct; it is inconclusive to me, (or anyone else not aware of previous examples to support your contention). That means that no conclusion can be drawn from unsubmitted evidence, (although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).
You did fine until the last part of your statement: "(although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).
It may bear a striking resemblance, but you are really doing the enjoyment part I listed and trying to challenge or dare me to submit the evidence. It's in the forum, but I don't wish to accept the challenge or dare at this moment - it's way past my bedtime, thanks to insomnia, but I am going to go and make myself get some rest. Oh, and that reminds me!! You always tell someone to go back and find something they said you commented on; that you weren't going to go back yourself and look. It's kind of like that now, lol!!
Yep! At least you agreed that I "unmasked you," lol! :)
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 10:02:18 pm
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search. I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you. They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
Quote from falcon9:
Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive. That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.
Quote from jcribb:
That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree." To you it remains inconclusive.
Quote from falcon9:
That's correct; it is inconclusive to me, (or anyone else not aware of previous examples to support your contention). That means that no conclusion can be drawn from unsubmitted evidence, (although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).
You did fine until the last part of your statement: "(although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).
It may bear a striking resemblance, but you are really doing the enjoyment part I listed and trying to challenge or dare me to submit the evidence. It's in the forum, but I don't wish to accept the challenge or dare at this moment - it's way past my bedtime, thanks to insomnia, but I am going to go and make myself get some rest. Oh, and that reminds me!! You always tell someone to go back and find something they said you commented on; that you weren't going to go back yourself and look. It's kind of like that now, lol!!
Yep! At least you agreed that I "unmasked you," lol! :)
:thumbsup:
-
" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
Those are the original and resequenced quotes, side-by-side. As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made. The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed).
-
" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
Those are the original and resequenced quotes, side-by-side. As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made. The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed).
Irrelevant- my point was that your assertion that removing and resequencing words doesn't change content is wrong, and I showed examples of that so don't even try to deny any evidence.
-
You did fine until the last part of your statement: "(although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).
It was phrased in that way because unsubmitted evidence is indistinguishable from a lack of evidence. The only difference between them being the possibility remains to produce previously unsubmitted evidence while a lack of evidence exists as only a void.
It may bear a striking resemblance, but you are really doing the enjoyment part I listed and trying to challenge or dare me to submit the evidence.
Yep. If I thought it would help to dare you, I might've.
It's in the forum, but I don't wish to accept the challenge or dare at this moment - it's way past my bedtime, thanks to insomnia, but I am going to go and make myself get some rest.
What if I estimated, (based upon most of your posted responses to me so far), that your contention is more likely valid than not? This is necessarily a provisional conclusion and could still go either way. For now, you get the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, and that reminds me!! You always tell someone to go back and find something they said you commented on; that you weren't going to go back yourself and look. It's kind of like that now, lol!!
Yes, it is since when someone insists that they've said so-and-so before but, declines to produce the relavent quote as evidence, I'm somewhat dubious of their assertion. Doubtless I'm jaded from over a decade of combating the nonsense which trolls produce so profusely on usenet newsgroups. It used to be a good way to discern human behavioural patterns, separate fact from fiction and generally clear away the underbrush of any smoke 'n mirrors. Yeah, it was fun too.
Yep! At least you agreed that I "unmasked you," lol! :) [/color]
Or, at least you unmasked the mask I intended you to. ;)
-
" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
Those are the original and resequenced quotes, side-by-side. As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made. The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed).
Irrelevant-
It is contextually-relevent. The two versions were posted side-by-side for comparison purposes. If wished, go ahead and interpret each one of your own statements insofar as you perceive their meaning to be. Then, I'll do the same. Or, not - your choice.
-
" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
Those are the original and resequenced quotes, side-by-side. As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made. The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed).
Irrelevant-
It is contextually-relevent. The two versions were posted side-by-side for comparison purposes. If wished, go ahead and interpret each one of your own statements insofar as you perceive their meaning to be. Then, I'll do the same. Or, not - your choice.
I was simply letting you know that your notion that removing and rearranging words doesn't change context is rarely, if ever, true.
-
" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
I was simply letting you know that your notion that removing and rearranging words doesn't change context is rarely, if ever, true.
As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made. The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed). The context, (that you are trying to equate opinion with reason), remained your misconception.
-
" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."
You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.
I was simply letting you know that your notion that removing and rearranging words doesn't change context is rarely, if ever, true.
As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made. The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed). The context, (that you are trying to equate opinion with reason), remained your misconception.
[/quote]
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
No actually that is fine I really do not need you to consider them.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
No actually that is fine I really do not need you to consider them.
Nor, apparently, do you need for them to have any valid basis but, that's fine too.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
No actually that is fine I really do not need you to consider them.
Nor, apparently, do you need for them to have any valid basis but, that's fine too.
Yes by your opinion I suppose that is true.
We don't have to agree.
In fact, I am perfectly fine with this conversation ending right now on a note of disagreement.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
No actually that is fine I really do not need you to consider them.
Nor, apparently, do you need for them to have any valid basis but, that's fine too.
Yes by your opinion I suppose that is true.
It isn't 'merely' an opinion; you have not evinced any propensity for substantiating your claims therefore, they are baseless - that's not an "opinion", it's a reasoned conclusion. Although the distinction obviously excapes you, it doesn't excape some others.
In fact, I am perfectly fine with this conversation ending right now on a note of disagreement.
As previously mentioned, the simpliest solution then would be for you to cease continuing this conversation. Unless, of course, you're still playing that 'mature' gambit of getting in the last word, (which is not equivalent to sucessfully concluding an argument). Either way is fine by me.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
No actually that is fine I really do not need you to consider them.
Nor, apparently, do you need for them to have any valid basis but, that's fine too.
Yes by your opinion I suppose that is true.
It isn't 'merely' an opinion; you have not evinced any propensity for substantiating your claims therefore, they are baseless - that's not an "opinion", it's a reasoned conclusion. Although the distinction obviously excapes you, it doesn't excape some others.
In fact, I am perfectly fine with this conversation ending right now on a note of disagreement.
As previously mentioned, the simpliest solution then would be for you to cease continuing this conversation. Unless, of course, you're still playing that 'mature' gambit of getting in the last word, (which is not equivalent to sucessfully concluding an argument). Either way is fine by me.
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.You are the one continuing to call her opinions "baseless" and "thoughtless" which is not a convincing way of trying to end a discussion maturely.
-
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?
You are the one continuing to call her opinions "baseless" and "thoughtless" which is ...
... Which is an accurate asseement, based upon her posted baseless opinions which are bereft of the thought that goes into reasoning instead.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
No actually that is fine I really do not need you to consider them.
Nor, apparently, do you need for them to have any valid basis but, that's fine too.
Yes by your opinion I suppose that is true.
It isn't 'merely' an opinion; you have not evinced any propensity for substantiating your claims therefore, they are baseless - that's not an "opinion", it's a reasoned conclusion. Although the distinction obviously excapes you, it doesn't excape some others.
In fact, I am perfectly fine with this conversation ending right now on a note of disagreement.
As previously mentioned, the simpliest solution then would be for you to cease continuing this conversation. Unless, of course, you're still playing that 'mature' gambit of getting in the last word, (which is not equivalent to sucessfully concluding an argument). Either way is fine by me.
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.You are the one continuing to call her opinions "baseless" and "thoughtless" which is not a convincing way of trying to end a discussion maturely.
Glad someone noticed haha
-
I believe that a large cause of the loss of relegion is based on the fact that most of it seems to be only about making money. too many have tried to turn it into a business.
-
... [empty opinion] ...
Glad someone noticed haha
Yeah, what a shocker - an 'opinion' from another xtian supporting a xtian's opinions. What's next, water is wet?
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
No actually that is fine I really do not need you to consider them.
Nor, apparently, do you need for them to have any valid basis but, that's fine too.
Yes by your opinion I suppose that is true.
It isn't 'merely' an opinion; you have not evinced any propensity for substantiating your claims therefore, they are baseless - that's not an "opinion", it's a reasoned conclusion. Although the distinction obviously excapes you, it doesn't excape some others.
In fact, I am perfectly fine with this conversation ending right now on a note of disagreement.
As previously mentioned, the simpliest solution then would be for you to cease continuing this conversation. Unless, of course, you're still playing that 'mature' gambit of getting in the last word, (which is not equivalent to sucessfully concluding an argument). Either way is fine by me.
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.You are the one continuing to call her opinions "baseless" and "thoughtless" which is not a convincing way of trying to end a discussion maturely.
Notice that even though I am not responding to him he continues to try to bait me into another conversation.
-
I think that belief is failing based on how hard people are having to struggle. they may still believe in something greater than themselves, just not necessarily the ominous God that organized relegion would have you follow. But that does not mean they do not have faith.
-
To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.
Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions. Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.
I am sorry for coming in at this spot, but this issue about calling her opinions "thoughtless and baseless" has gone on long enough.
Opinion: In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.
Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion. (Courtesy Wikipedia)
You are acting as if you are trying to hold her to a "higher standard to substantiate" her opinion. This is not a "professional" debate and discuss thread. Her opinion, as well as others in here, are in general considered more "casual." All are entitled to their own opinions without the harshness of words, such as "thoughtless and baseless" being thrown back at them. Your opinions are not the only ones of importance like you seem to be insinuating. However, if she was stating something as fact, or giving a professional opinion, then yes, the situation would be different.
-
Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.
Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?
Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!! You are comical! If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word! It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want: the last word!!!!! ;D
-
Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.
Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?
Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!! You are comical! If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word! It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want: the last word!!!!! ;D
:thumbsup:
-
Notice that even though I am not responding to him he continues to try to bait me into another conversation.
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on Today at 03:15:18 pm, in reply to falcon9:
"In fact, I am perfectly fine with this conversation ending right now on a note of disagreement."
So much for "not responding" while cutting her own bait.
-
I am sorry for coming in at this spot, but this issue about calling her opinions "thoughtless and baseless" has gone on long enough.
Opinion: In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.
Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion. (Courtesy Wikipedia)
You are acting as if you are trying to hold her to a "higher standard to substantiate" her opinion.
Nope, I was applying the main portion of your reference: "Opinion: In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."
Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system." That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument and is therefore baseless. Thank you for the referral, though - it helped to verify that the conclusion was not, itself, an unsubstantiated opinion.
This is not a "professional" debate and discuss thread.
That's right, it isn't and that's why I applied the main usage of the term, before the secondary one.
Her opinion, as well as others in here, are in general considered more "casual."
Indeed and I concur.
All are entitled to their own opinions without the harshness of words, such as "thoughtless and baseless" being thrown back at them.
Where does it say that? The U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of speech", (which includes opinions but, does not include such restrictions on speech which dispute those opinions). Further, this forum, (D+D), has an cautionary introduction which reads "enter at your own risk". I found that to be both humorous and apropo.
Your opinions are not the only ones of importance like you seem to be insinuating.
There was no such insinuation; I did however, make the difference between an unsubstantiated opinion and a substantiated one fairly plain.
However, if she was stating something as fact, or giving a professional opinion, then yes, the situation would be different.[/color]
In that case, she did _initially_ state that "atheism is a belief system" as a factual assertion. After this was disputed, that assertion 'morphed into being her "opinion", (which remained bereft of substantiation, despite rephrasing the claim). Her "opinion" was therefore stated as a claim and, an unsubstantiated one at that. The 'debate' actually ended some time ago when she declined to support her claim/opinion. After that point, I even provided an 'out' by mentioning a portion of what you quoted above; namely that an unsubstantiated opinion isn't equivalent to a substantiated one. That means that, yes, she remains entitled to holding a baseless opinion - just like anyone else is entitled to hold opinions which have substantive basis.
-
Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.
Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?
Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!! You are comical! If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word! It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want: the last word!!!!! ;D
As long as either one of us continue replying in reference to the previous conversation, no one actually gets the last word. That's what makes such a concept ironically-humorous.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 27, 2011, 07:01:35 pm
All are entitled to their own opinions without the harshness of words, such as "thoughtless and baseless" being thrown back at them.
Quote from: falcon9:
Where does it say that? The U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of speech", (which includes opinions but, does not include such restrictions on speech which dispute those opinions). Further, this forum, (D+D), has an cautionary introduction which reads "enter at your own risk". I found that to be both humorous and apropo.
I totally agree with the "enter at your own risk." However, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be challenged, as well, since you do quite a bit of the challenging in here (no offense given, just what is seen.) I've entered "at my own risk" just by challenging you about her opinions. Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence. Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding. So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.
-
I totally agree with the "enter at your own risk." However, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be challenged, as well, since you do quite a bit of the challenging in here (no offense given, just what is seen.) I've entered "at my own risk" just by challenging you about her opinions.
There is some inherent difference in challenging irrationality with rationality and in challenging rationality with irrationality. Not all opionions are created equally, yet they are often conflated. I try to met challenges which are based upon reasoning and substantive evidence while showing the lack of reasoning or evidence underlying challenges which lack those qualities. Otherwise, I'd be chasing around stubbornly-circular irrationalities for longer than this thread has run so far. In this instance, you aren't really challenging my "opinion" since my position is reflected nearly exactly by what you've quoted as reference.
Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence. Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding. So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.[/color]
As I mentioned previously, her opionion is not being held to a "professional standard". The standard being used is the "casual" one you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."
Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system." That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument but, as you alluded, is based upon "faith". We've already established that "faith" is a belief without evidence therefore, the basis of the opinion is without evidence, (which means the basis is insubstantial).
-
I totally agree with the "enter at your own risk." However, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be challenged, as well, since you do quite a bit of the challenging in here (no offense given, just what is seen.) I've entered "at my own risk" just by challenging you about her opinions.
There is some inherent difference in challenging irrationality with rationality and in challenging rationality with irrationality. Not all opionions are created equally, yet they are often conflated. I try to met challenges which are based upon reasoning and substantive evidence while showing the lack of reasoning or evidence underlying challenges which lack those qualities. Otherwise, I'd be chasing around stubbornly-circular irrationalities for longer than this thread has run so far. In this instance, you aren't really challenging my "opinion" since my position is reflected nearly exactly by what you've quoted as reference.
Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence. Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding. So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.[/color]
As I mentioned previously, her opionion is not being held to a "professional standard". The standard being used is the "casual" one you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."
Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system." That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument but, as you alluded, is based upon "faith". We've already established that "faith" is a belief without evidence therefore, the basis of the opinion is without evidence, (which means the basis is insubstantial).
I completely understand what you are saying and I don't have a problem with your responses here. I was challenging the words "thoughtless and baseless" and "empty." By using the word "unsubstantial," as you just did, that word better fits the more casual opinion that was given, instead of sounding more superior and harsh with those other words when she or anyone else was giving a faith-based opinion.
You are obviously very knowledgeable with serious debating in this particular topic. :) However, once you and whoever else start going in complete circles, over and over, that's when the debate goes downhill, and then the knowledge-level-reputation goes down. :-[
-
i believe the younger kids who dont believein a god just want to rebel.
-
Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.
Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?
Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!! You are comical! If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word! It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want: the last word!!!!! ;D
I have ceased responding to him, yet he has still posted directly to me twice. Amusing.
-
Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence. Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding. So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.[/color]
As I mentioned previously, her opinion is not being held to a "professional standard". The standard being used is the "casual" one you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."
Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system." That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument but, as you alluded, is based upon "faith". We've already established that "faith" is a belief without evidence therefore, the basis of the opinion is without evidence, (which means the basis is insubstantial).
[/quote]
I completely understand what you are saying and I don't have a problem with your responses here. I was challenging the words "thoughtless and baseless" and "empty." By using the word "unsubstantial," as you just did ... [/quote]
Actually, the word I used was "insubstantial" but, the two are fairly interchangeable; unlike the meaning of 'opinion' ...
... that word better fits the more casual opinion that was given, instead of sounding more superior and harsh with those other words when she or anyone else was giving a faith-based opinion.
The casual opinions were still characterized under what you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."
You are obviously very knowledgeable with serious debating in this particular topic. :) However, once you and whoever else start going in complete circles, over and over, that's when the debate goes downhill, and then the knowledge-level-reputation goes down. :-[ [/color]
There is an explanation for the circularity; the avoidance of supporting asserted and disputed points/opinions has lead to repetition of that aspect of the foregoing debate. It stopped being a debate when the one asserting the empty claim went off on tangents, (and I hold the responsibility for replying to some of those tangents while also repeatedly bringing the disputed assertion back to the forefront). One thing that may have been missed during the 'circlings' was that the initial assertion turned out to be empty. Hence the conclusion that it was a baseless opinion. Unfortunately, empty claims, (whether phrased as "opinion" or not), remain empty if they lack substantiation, (and "faith" does not qualify as substantiation by definition).
As far as I was concerned, the debate portion ended with the claimaint being unable to support her claim. The remainder of the divergent 'circling' was considered to be her attempt to draw attention away from the unsubstantiated claim, (while my intent was to return the primary focus to the initial claim that "atheism is a belief system"). So, all we've determined is that the claimaint simply 'believes' that her opinion is correct, despite the complete lack of evidence provided to support her claim. That's what makes it an empty/baseless claim.
-
Falcon9:
There are many definitions of atheism with regards to whether or not it is a belief system. Most say not. However a couple actually do say it is. So her opinion has merit to it in that there are some who consider atheism a belief system.
a·the·ism
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(Dictionary.com)
doctrine:
1. Is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. (Wikipedia)
2. . A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
(www.thefreedictionary.com/doctrine)
It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism as believers have faith in theism. What's ironic is that atheists show they have strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. This "faith" includes using everything in their power to influence others to join their atheistic "non belief." They also want to turn anyone and everyone away from the idea of any belief in God. And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
-
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Who?
-
One side will never be able to convince the other side of thei beliefs if they actually believe what thy say they do. wheather it is belief in relegion or atheism. that is why they call it faith. it is the beleif in a pwer greater than themselves with which ther is no proof. and as for all people that beleve needing to be eradicated, think that was back with the romans killing the christians.
-
Falcon9:
There are many definitions of atheism with regards to whether or not it is a belief system. Most say not. However a couple actually do say it is.
There aren't any standard definitions which define atheism as a belief system, (wikipedia and the free dictionary being nonstandard sources). Interestingly enough, you used part of the definition for 'atheism', ("doctrine"), and referenced _that_ term, instead of 'athesim' itself. Let's look at wikipedia's nonstandard definition of 'atheism' shall we?
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
The entry continues, (anyone can look it up), without defining atheism as a "belief system". Now, as to atheism being a "doctrine" we have:
"doc·trine [dok-trin]
noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church."
Again, nothing about a "belief system" there.
So her opinion has merit to it in that there are some who consider atheism a belief system.
Alternatively, it appears from the reference sources that the word "doctrine" applies much more directly to religious beliefs than it does to a non-religious philosophy like atheism.
a·the·ism
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(Dictionary.com)
Oddly, that reference seems to define a 'disbelief' as a belief although the same source defines "disbelief" as:
"dis·be·lief [dis-bi-leef]
noun
1.the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true."
It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism as believers have faith in theism.
That does seem to be the a priori assumption in play however, applying "faith" to atheism is exxtremely specious. The reason being that theists declare that faith, (a lack of evidence), _required_ whereas atheism skeptically rejects a lack of evidence as a substantive basis and that doesn't require faith.
What's ironic is that atheists show they have strong faith in the inferiority of having faith.
Once again, no "faith" is required to be skeptical of a lack of evidence. Having "faith" in disbelief is not a logical concept.
This "faith" includes using everything in their power to influence others to join their atheistic "non belief."
Presumably, you are referring to the use of reason; something which most religionists abhor? You did include an inaccurate assumption in that atheism is not an evangelical organisation. There aren't any bicycle-rifing suits annoying suburban neighborhoods to 'spread teh atheist word'.
They also want to turn anyone and everyone away from the idea of any belief in God.
What the atheists I've met had in mind was to get people to actually use any inherent critical thinking ability which remains after religious indoctrinations to reason for themselves. They do this mainly by demonstrating some reasoning processes in the off chance that it'll catch on.
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Fanatics can be found under many rocks; militant atheists would be no more surprising than militant 'onward xtian soldiers'. However, Falconeer02 indirectly requested a source for this - unless it was hearsay?
-
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Who?
I'd be curious to know as well however, in general one can extrapolate that there are militant-fringes on either end of the spectrum in question.
-
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Who?
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10433178-american-atheists-leader-says-fundamentalist-christians-must-be-eradicated-compares-them-to-radical-islamists
-
Quote from falcon9:
There aren't any standard definitions which define atheism as a belief system, (wikipedia and the free dictionary being nonstandard sources). Interestingly enough, you used part of the definition for 'atheism', ("doctrine"), and referenced _that_ term, instead of 'athesim' itself. Let's look at wikipedia's nonstandard definition of 'atheism' shall we?
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
The entry continues, (anyone can look it up), without defining atheism as a "belief system". Now, as to atheism being a "doctrine" we have:
"doc·trine [dok-trin]
noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church."
Again, nothing about a "belief system" there.
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 28, 2011, 06:23:38 pm
So her opinion has merit to it in that there are some who consider atheism a belief system.
Quote from falcon9:
Alternatively, it appears from the reference sources that the word "doctrine" applies much more directly to religious beliefs than it does to a non-religious philosophy like atheism.
doctrine:
1. Is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. (Wikipedia)
2. . A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
(www.thefreedictionary.com/doctrine) [/b]
I referenced the term as any normal person would do. It is an unbiased definition that shows belief systems can include RELIGIOUS, and/or SCIENTIFIC groups. These groups would include theism as well as atheism. I'm not surprised, that you would reference only the religious side and leave out the alluding to the scientific side.
-
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Who?
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10433178-american-atheists-leader-says-fundamentalist-christians-must-be-eradicated-compares-them-to-radical-islamists
As alluded to previously, there are extremists at both ends of the spectrum:
"This review will cover the essence and flavor of American Fascists beginning with some background on the Christian right, its influence, and danger it poses that Hedges covers in detail. He said he wrote the book out of anger and fear of the fundamentalist Christian Right seeking to establish theocratic dominion over society in America in the name of God and is using the Republican party as their vehicle to do it. He compares the movement's messianic mission to Italian and German fascism of the last century cloaking itself in Christianity and patriotism as their way to gain political power under theocracy's literal meaning from the Greek words "Theos" meaning "God" and "cratein/crasy" meaning to rule." --
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5477
-
I referenced the term as any normal person would do. It is an unbiased definition that shows belief systems can include RELIGIOUS, and/or SCIENTIFIC groups. These groups would include theism as well as atheism.
The reference was to the various definitions of "doctrine", not of 'atheism'. If one hasn't already discerned that the definitions of words rely upon using other words, which in turn also use words to define them, they soon will. The point is that while the definition for _doctrine_ can include scientific and religious DOCTRINES, it does not conflate atheism with a belief system.
I'm not surprised, that you would reference only the religious side and leave out the alluding to the scientific side.
That's more due to a discernment of the differences between 'doctrine' and 'belief system', (wherein the former is a bit more inclusive than the latter).
[/quote]
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 28, 2011, 06:23:38 pm
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Quote from falcon9:
Fanatics can be found under many rocks; militant atheists would be no more surprising than militant 'onward xtian soldiers'. However, Falconeer02 indirectly requested a source for this - unless it was hearsay?
I do not need to be prodded, hurried, or challenged by you when the request first came from Falconer. I do have a life outside of this forum and I get on here when I am able and have time. I just happened to read this comment of yours after I posted the link in response to Falconer's request. Falconer knows me enough that if he asks something of me, I will answer as soon as I can.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 28, 2011, 06:23:38 pm
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Quote from falcon9:
Fanatics can be found under many rocks; militant atheists would be no more surprising than militant 'onward xtian soldiers'. However, Falconeer02 indirectly requested a source for this - unless it was hearsay?
I do not need to be prodded, hurried, or challenged by you when the request first came from Falconer. I do have a life outside of this forum and I get on here when I am able and have time. I just happened to read this comment of yours after I posted the link in response to Falconer's request. Falconer knows me enough that if he asks something of me, I will answer as soon as I can.
:thumbsup:
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 28, 2011, 06:23:38 pm
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Quote from falcon9:
Fanatics can be found under many rocks; militant atheists would be no more surprising than militant 'onward xtian soldiers'. However, Falconeer02 indirectly requested a source for this - unless it was hearsay?
I do not need to be prodded, hurried, or challenged by you when the request first came from Falconer. I do have a life outside of this forum and I get on here when I am able and have time. I just happened to read this comment of yours after I posted the link in response to Falconer's request. Falconer knows me enough that if he asks something of me, I will answer as soon as I can.
My reply was more centered on your comment that "All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system" rather than particularly rushing you. In this regard, your conclusion is disputed, (since it relies upon a secondary definition of 'doctrine' and not upon primary definitions of atheism which do not conflate "belief system" with doctrines).
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 28, 2011, 06:23:38 pm
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Quote from falcon9:
Fanatics can be found under many rocks; militant atheists would be no more surprising than militant 'onward xtian soldiers'. However, Falconeer02 indirectly requested a source for this - unless it was hearsay?
I do not need to be prodded, hurried, or challenged by you when the request first came from Falconer. I do have a life outside of this forum and I get on here when I am able and have time. I just happened to read this comment of yours after I posted the link in response to Falconer's request. Falconer knows me enough that if he asks something of me, I will answer as soon as I can.
My reply was more centered on your comment that "All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system" rather than particularly rushing you. In this regard, your conclusion is disputed, (since it relies upon a secondary definition of 'doctrine' and not upon primary definitions of atheism which do not conflate "belief system" with doctrines).
You can dispute it as you wish. However, there are still others who would dispute your dispute. The definitions are included in dictionaries for reasons whether standard or nonstandard, and in this case, I started with the definition of what "atheism" is according to Dictionary.com, and from there to explain what doctrine meant since it was part of the atheist definition:
a·the·ism
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
(Dictionary.com)
doctrine:
1. Is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. (Wikipedia)
2. . A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
(www.thefreedictionary.com/doctrine)
The religious, as well as scientific, were both included in the definition of doctrine. Doctrine is not just related to religion.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on October 28, 2011, 06:23:38 pm
And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated." All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.
Quote from falcon9:
Fanatics can be found under many rocks; militant atheists would be no more surprising than militant 'onward xtian soldiers'. However, Falconeer02 indirectly requested a source for this - unless it was hearsay?
I do not need to be prodded, hurried, or challenged by you when the request first came from Falconer. I do have a life outside of this forum and I get on here when I am able and have time. I just happened to read this comment of yours after I posted the link in response to Falconer's request. Falconer knows me enough that if he asks something of me, I will answer as soon as I can.
:thumbsup:
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who took the remark in the way it seemed to infer.
-
The religious, as well as scientific, were both included in the definition of doctrine. Doctrine is not just related to religion.
So, you are asserting that a basis for atheism as a belief system, (by way of these definitions), includes it as a codified doctrine? Or, that some basis for the 'belief' that "atheism is a belief system" exists?
-
You can dispute it as you wish. However, there are still others who would dispute your dispute.
Yes, they would however, their arguments soon become circular, as you'd noticed previously. Since atheism involves _disbelief_, (not believing), how can it be considered to be a "belief system"? Wouldn't 'disbelief system' be closer, (even stretching the idea that atheism itself is systematic)?
-
You can dispute it as you wish. However, there are still others who would dispute your dispute.
Yes, they would however, their arguments soon become circular, as you'd noticed previously. Since atheism involves _disbelief_, (not believing), how can it be considered to be a "belief system"? Wouldn't 'disbelief system' be closer, (even stretching the idea that atheism itself is systematic)?
So whatever in the world is wrong with having a "belief system" that means having disbelief in something or someone? A person is choosing to "believe" there are no deities. However, I do agree that "disbelief system" would be a good title for atheists. I have read of this same possible title being discussed in some things when reading about atheism and theism.
-
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10433178-american-atheists-leader-says-fundamentalist-christians-must-be-eradicated-compares-them-to-radical-islamists
1 angry dude? You're judging the atheist community on one guy who admittedly says he went on a rant? I've honestly never seen a prominent atheist say something that extreme and hypocritical before, but the whole read is not entirely bs and makes some good points (as Falcon9 quoted). Read the comments below the article since there are plenty of level-headed atheists there that say the same thing I did here.
However I've seen plenty of christians (both to my face and online) say this about atheists-- how they should be erradicated or deported.
http://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/atheists.png?w=550&h=1045
I said it once and I'll say it again- I honestly am perplexed as to why the christians here are trying to show how atheism is a belief system. It's not. Neither is theism. Plain and simple. The fact that the christians here are trying to find work-arounds and such are really just grasping at straws and it's really getting ridiculous.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090706202727AAs5FuA
-
nithing is wrong with having faith, because you have to just believe when there is no proof that any of the events ever took place, virgin birth, man being made in his own imageso he was white - what about all other cultures, and any people that are handicapped, are they left out. Adam and eve the only people on earth, have childeren that go out into the world and find wives , where did they find them the only woman was there mother. which was made from thier fathers rib. So yes when you use the term faith - you just have to believe.
-
nithing is wrong with having faith, because you have to just believe when there is no proof that any of the events ever took place, ... So yes when you use the term faith - you just have to believe.
Actually, no - one doesn't "have to believe" at all. Alternatively, one can disbelief such outrageous claims.
-
You can dispute it as you wish. However, there are still others who would dispute your dispute.
Yes, they would however, their arguments soon become circular, as you'd noticed previously. Since atheism involves _disbelief_, (not believing), how can it be considered to be a "belief system"? Wouldn't 'disbelief system' be closer, (even stretching the idea that atheism itself is systematic)?
So whatever in the world is wrong with having a "belief system" that means having disbelief in something or someone?
Well, for one thing; disbelieving is not equivalent to having a belief system. If you can reference a 'system of disbelief', that might prove interesting.
A person is choosing to "believe" there are no deities.
No, that isn't the same thing as disbelieving someone else's claim that there are deities to believe in.
However, I do agree that "disbelief system" would be a good title for atheists. I have read of this same possible title being discussed in some things when reading about atheism and theism.
The problem with that is that there really isn't a "system" of disbelief inherent in atheism, (other than the use of reason/logic). There could be a few different systems of disbelief, rather than the implied one, (as in "a" system of disbelief which specifically describes all atheists).
-
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10433178-american-atheists-leader-says-fundamentalist-christians-must-be-eradicated-compares-them-to-radical-islamists
1 angry dude? You're judging the atheist community on one guy who admittedly says he went on a rant? I've honestly never seen a prominent atheist say something that extreme and hypocritical before, but the whole read is not entirely bs and makes some good points (as Falcon9 quoted). Read the comments below the article since there are plenty of level-headed atheists there that say the same thing I did here.
However I've seen plenty of christians (both to my face and online) say this about atheists-- how they should be erradicated or deported.
http://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/atheists.png?w=550&h=1045
I said it once and I'll say it again- I honestly am perplexed as to why the christians here are trying to show how atheism is a belief system. It's not. Neither is theism. Plain and simple. The fact that the christians here are trying to find work-arounds and such are really just grasping at straws and it's really getting ridiculous.
Precisely. The implicit assumption being used there seems to be that, if atheism is a belief system, then it relies upon 'faith' as much as a religious belief system. Of course, the whole syllogism falls apart because atheism isn't a system of belief, (nor can 'doctrine' be substituted for 'atheism' in order to conflate the terms). The link you post below has a salient point:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090706202727AAs5FuA
[/quote]
From the above link:
"Do not believe the definitions that opponents try to impose on atheism. A mainstream atheist is someone who has concluded there is no credible basis of evidence or system of thought to conclude that a god exists. Says philosophically that of course there is no way to prove a negative (or many negatives). So a mainstream atheist does not positively maintain there is no god, but maintains the chance of the existence of a god, or the Christian God, is so infinitesimally remote as to be effectively zero." - 'Darwinall'
-
I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:
*Organized (There are leaders, information in literature to be mailed or handed out, agendas with dates of certain places to go to protest certain issues they have with Christians, as well as arguments in any given vocal debate in the public.)
*Composed of followers (who go and pass out or mail information about their organizations; where to go to stop religious things from taking place, etc.)
Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief and to do away with God or anything God. Especially with more of the "militant" atheists, of which I am not claiming anyone in here is or is not one of these.
-
I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:
*Organized (There are leaders, information in literature to be mailed or handed out, agendas with dates of certain places to go to protest certain issues they have with Christians, as well as arguments in any given vocal debate in the public.)
Not all atheists are organised, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets. A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?
*Composed of followers (who go and pass out or mail information about their organizations; where to go to stop religious things from taking place, etc.)
Not all atheists are followers of some organisation of atheists, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets. A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?
Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief and to do away with God or anything God. Especially with more of the "militant" atheists, of which I am not claiming anyone in here is or is not one of these.
The logical fallacy you've engaged in above consists of generalizing the few to represent the many. Yes, there are militant atheists, just as there are militant xtians - no one has disputed that. What is disputed now is the disingenuous inference being implicitly suggested; that such organised
atheists exist as majority, (or even minority), representatives of atheism. As you are no doubt at least nominally aware, there are many different xtian sects. It isn't such a stretch of imagination to consider that there are at least one than one type of atheist around. Unless you would like such militant xtian extremists as are now extant to represent your religion, the same curtesy would be appreciated.
-
I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:
*Organized (There are leaders, information in literature to be mailed or handed out, agendas with dates of certain places to go to protest certain issues they have with Christians, as well as arguments in any given vocal debate in the public.)
Not all atheists are organised, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets. A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?
*Composed of followers (who go and pass out or mail information about their organizations; where to go to stop religious things from taking place, etc.)
Not all atheists are followers of some organisation of atheists, nor do they run around passing out leaftlets. A few may, surely you're not suggesting that this is the majority without some sort of evidence?
Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief and to do away with God or anything God. Especially with more of the "militant" atheists, of which I am not claiming anyone in here is or is not one of these.
The logical fallacy you've engaged in above consists of generalizing the few to represent the many. Yes, there are militant atheists, just as there are militant xtians - no one has disputed that. What is disputed now is the disingenuous inference being implicitly suggested; that such organised
atheists exist as majority, (or even minority), representatives of atheism. As you are no doubt at least nominally aware, there are many different xtian sects. It isn't such a stretch of imagination to consider that there are at least one than one type of atheist around. Unless you would like such militant xtian extremists as are now extant to represent your religion, the same curtesy would be appreciated.
I was only trying to give examples of how or why people look at atheism as a belief sort of system - I did not allude to majority or minority in doing so. I am not trying to represent few to many. I will say that the group "Freedom from Religion" is becoming more vocally known through news sources as of late.
-
I was only trying to give examples of how or why people look at atheism as a belief sort of system - I did not allude to majority or minority in doing so. I am not trying to represent few to many. I will say that the group "Freedom from Religion" is becoming more vocally known through news sources as of late.
"The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state. The Foundation is the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and skeptics) with over 17,000 members."
17,000 members as opposed to how many millions of xtians? And of those, how many are presumed to be 'militant extremists'?
I am alluding to a minority of an estimated 80,000 to 1 in the U.S. alone. In any case, the atheists who self-identify as such aren't the ones trying to label atheism as a belief system. As Falconeer02 referenced; "A mainstream atheist is someone who has concluded there is no credible basis of evidence or system of thought to conclude that a god exists. Says philosophically that of course there is no way to prove a negative (or many negatives). So a mainstream atheist does not positively maintain there is no god, but maintains the chance of the existence of a god, or the Christian God, is so infinitesimally remote as to be effectively zero."
-
Read the comments below the article since there are plenty of level-headed atheists there that say the same thing I did here.
I said it once and I'll say it again- I honestly am perplexed as to why the christians here are trying to show how atheism is a belief system. It's not. Neither is theism. Plain and simple. The fact that the christians here are trying to find work-arounds and such are really just grasping at straws and it's really getting ridiculous.
"Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic.
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
When atheism is described as a belief system, a common error is made, but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you. If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?
If not believing something is, itself, a belief system then we can now say the unemployed are hard at work at not having a job, the impoverished are well invested in having no money, the homeless are dwelling in their spectacular non-homes and the hungry are gorging themselves on no food?"
-
I guess another way to put it would be that atheism is a practice of (or a system of) one's disbelief. So , yes, I can see why atheists don't agree they have a belief system, as opposed to an "unbelief system." However, to me, what changes from a practice of unbelief in God, to become more of an active system of sorts, is when we can obviously note that atheism is:
*Organized
*Composed of followers
Those things are much more than a "no belief system" because of the work and actions they are doing to promote their unbelief ...
First, I've read the very same thing that you just shared about reasons why atheism is not a belief system, in articles online. I get what they and you are saying. I'm also trying to say that there are other ideas that lend credibility to the idea of a belief system of sorts. The "New Atheists" or the newer and more militant group of atheists, to me, would be a belief system of atheism because of the active ways they do things to promote their unbelief. I know there are different levels of atheism (from weak to strong) and since they are still some sort of atheist, the overall perception is that atheism is a "sort of" belief system.
I agree atheists are trying to keep church and state separated - I agree with that. If the state comes into our church or our private schools, then everything would have to abide by what the states say. But the "New Atheists" are going much further than just trying to keep church and state separate. They want Christ or God denounced in everything and all people to denounce the same. They are much more vocal and militant in their attitude and action. Those are the ones who are a cause for concern.
-
I'm also trying to say that there are other ideas that lend credibility to the idea of a belief system of sorts.
There really isn't an "of sorts" concerning the credibility of defining atheism as any sort of belief system _itself_. There are many belief systems which are atheistic, however. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
The "New Atheists" or the newer and more militant group of atheists, to me, would be a belief system of atheism because of the active ways they do things to promote their unbelief.
I guess we didn't agree that the militant fringes do not represent the majority. Okay then, militant/radicial/fundamentalist xtians must represent the majority of xtians, (because of the active ways they do things to promote their beliefs, according to the same criteria you used). That either applies both ways or, not at all.
I know there are different levels of atheism (from weak to strong) and since they are still some sort of atheist, the overall perception is that atheism is a "sort of" belief system.
I'm aware of pacifist xtians and evangelical fundamentalist xtians; and since fundamentalists are still some sort of xtian, the overall perception is that xtians are "sort of" fundamentalist? Same criteria and speciousness ... yet, somehow I don't think you'd like the conclusion.
I agree atheists are trying to keep church and state separated - I agree with that. If the state comes into our church or our private schools, then everything would have to abide by what the states say. But the "New Atheists" are going much further than just trying to keep church and state separate. They want Christ or God denounced in everything and all people to denounce the same. They are much more vocal and militant in their attitude and action. Those are the ones who are a cause for concern.
Coincidentally, the fundamentalist xtians want such religious beliefs as 'creationism' taught in schools as if it were factual, (that is, based upon verifiable evidence). They're pretty vocal and militant too, and somewhat of a cause for concern. Neither extremist views represent the majority; which is the reason your criteria was applied to emphasize that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, (e.g., using the extremists as representative examples of the larger group).
-
I wouldnt say it isnt necessary but the bible just isnt all that believable especially when you have scientific evidence of things like dinosaurs. The bible was written by a human, how could a human write a book about a god and how life came about and everything. Why should one religion be taken more seriously than another? We are at war right now because Muslims and Christians disagree.