-->
@Dr.Franklin
What is not what?
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
Posts
Total:
526
-->
@zedvictor4
@Dr.Franklin
What is not what?
Specificity problems
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we identify an objective truth (other than a mathematical truth or a tautology)?
ah yes - now that is a good question. I don't know why it needs to be differentiated from a mathematical truth or a tautology.
Also it was meant to read objective. Phylisphical "truths" are subjective.
Ok - I disagree. I think philosophical truths may be subjective and may be objective depending upon how the truth is formulated.
E.G. It is self evident that we exist here in the 21st century. I know this objectively. Although admittedly it is also subjective. But how I can be sure that I am not a person in another person's dream? How can I be sure I am not merely a character in someone's book? How can I be sure that the Matrix movie is incorrect in its assumptions? How do I know for sure that I am not having some psychological episode and am sitting in a mental hospital? I cannot conduct scientific tests to determine this -
I take the position therefore that it is an objective truth, knowing full well that perhaps another situation is occurring, that I am sitting at my computer here in the 21st Century.
Some things we know instinctively - or from experience - or from knowledge that we are told. I am a male - how do I know? Well I look at my physical body and identify certain parts of my anatomy that are male parts. Do I feel male? ????? What does that even mean? Some identify as a male - even though they are in a female's body. Honestly, I find that difficult to understand. Why? Because what does a male feel like in the inside? is it that we desire sex more than females? Is it that we feel more likely to be protective? Is it because we are attracted to females? What is it? Is it because I like to fight? Or to argue? Or because I can only do one thing at a time? Or because I like to eat meat? How does someone feel male? Or female? See I think that what is objective has got lost in our society.
It is an objective fact that males are males and females are females. Of course some people are born with two sets of genitals. A very small part of society. Yet they exist. Do they feel both male and female? Again, what does a female feel like? Is it because they can cry for no discernable reason? Or they are more likely to nurture? Or they like wearing dresses? Or they like to cook? Or they want someone to protect them? Or because they can do a dozen things at once? I think the most rational reason is because they have female parts. But again objectively - this has got lost in the subjective.
Our world has changed. I said this in another topic and I think it is true. We no longer value objective truths - we give lip service to science - but no one really uses it anymore except to say - look at the science - whatever that means. The science says - males are males and females are females. Yet this is not satisfactory for people who see gender as a means of racism.
You asked at the OP - a subjective question - because you asked individuals to explain to you their reasoning for why they dismiss other religions. Now on one hand this was a subjective posit - because you were trying to ascertain why people arrive at different places and that is fine. Yet on the other hand you wanted to use it as an exercise to demonstrate how dumb all of these methodologies were.
I suggested to you that the methodology I in part use is reason and deduction. and I provided a rationale for why I can without too much difficulty dismiss 90 % of the world's religions and worldviews simply on the basis of their own positions. Now to be consistent with your OP, that is all I need to do. I also managed to put within that 90% atheism and secularism. I think that they as worldviews ought to be dismissed for exactly the same reason as the others. Yet, this is because I am committed to objective science and its methodologies and I take the view that those 90% cannot commit fully to them. And despite sometimes giving lip service to it - our society demonstrates over and over again - its rejection of science which is objective in favour of a science which permits subjectiveness to rule.
-->
@secularmerlin
what problems
-->
@zedvictor4
idk
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think that the problem is your tendency to lack explanation.
-->
@Tradesecret
ah yes - now that is a good question. I don't know why it needs to be differentiated from a mathematical truth or a tautology.
Because neither will get you to something existing or not existing on their own.
It is self evident that we exist here in the 21st century. I know this objectively.
That is an objective statement built on a subjective standard. Unless we define this century tautologically as the 21st it becomes untrue. In other words it is a description of a thin we can confirm not a description of a possible but unknown proposition like a supernatural claim. Also this is not a philosophical issue.
But how I can be sure that I am not a person in another person's dream? How can I be sure I am not merely a character in someone's book? How can I be sure that the Matrix movie is incorrect in its assumptions? How do I know for sure that I am not having some psychological episode and am sitting in a mental hospital? I cannot conduct scientific tests to determine this -
You cannot know this objectively you can only accept it or not for convenience sake because it us the reality you can perceive.
I am a male
Tautoloigically yes. You fit the prescriptive definition of male.
Some identify as a male - even though they are in a female's body. Honestly, I find that difficult to understand. Why? Because what does a male feel like in the inside? is it that we desire sex more than females? Is it that we feel more likely to be protective? Is it because we are attracted to females? What is it? Is it because I like to fight? Or to argue? Or because I can only do one thing at a time? Or because I like to eat meat? How does someone feel male? Or female? See I think that what is objective has got lost in our society.
I think that you are missing tr akin g what is actually happening here. Male and female are biological and/or structural distinctions. Masculine and feminine are artificial constructs that we identify with certain traits. Now some make may identify as a female meaning they identify with feminine traits (subjective) or after reassignment surgery (structurally arguably objective) and of course because biological sex is not as cut and dry as we tend to imagine someone may have male internal structures and external female structures or done combination of both. Hopefully thos helps you to clear up your confusion over this mostly subjective distinction.
This actually deserves it's own conversation precisely because it is not as binary an issue, objectively speaking, as you seem to think.
Our world has changed. I said this in another topic and I think it is true. We no longer value objective truths - we give lip service to science - but no one really uses it anymore except to say - look at the science - whatever that means.
The scientific method does not actually make any claims. It is merely a methodology and quite simply the most provably efficacious and reliable method of separating fact from fiction and improving the quality of human life we have as yet discovered. It is so efficacious precisely because it does not make claims of any kind in and of itself and because it allows for our evolving ability to test different hypotheses one proposition building on the next.
You asked at the OP - a subjective question - because you asked individuals to explain to you their reasoning for why they dismiss other religions. Now on one hand this was a subjective posit - because you were trying to ascertain why people arrive at different places and that is fine. Yet on the other hand you wanted to use it as an exercise to demonstrate how dumb all of these methodologies were.
Actually I don't think you are being dumb. Just inconsistent.
I suggested to you that the methodology I in part use is reason and deduction.
No reason and deduction requires some evidence upon which to build ones case. I think the actual reason you dismiss other religions is the same as the reason I do. There just isn't enough evidence to support their claims.
I also managed to put within that 90% atheism and secularism. I think that they as worldviews ought to be dismissed for exactly the same reason as the others.
Atheism is not a world view or is merely the lack of belief in one particular classification of claim. As for secularism it is merely a consequence of skepticism and nothing more. In the absence of belief in supernatural claims secularism is just what we are left with.
Yet, this is because I am committed to objective science and its methodologies and I take the view that those 90% cannot commit fully to them. And despite sometimes giving lip service to it - our society demonstrates over and over again - its rejection of science which is objective in favour of a science which permits subjectiveness to rule.
Science does not concern itself with subjectivism beyond the need for subjective standards we agree upon in order to measure phenomena in the universe objectively.
The real issue here I think is the nul hypothesis. That any claim can and should be dismissed until such time as it can be demonstrated. Without the nul hypothesis we might end up believing in insupportable and contradictory propositions.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think sometimes you argue for the sake of arguing not for the sake of learning or reasoning. No offence meant in that by the way. Just an observation.
I think that you are missing tr akin g what is actually happening here. Male and female are biological and/or structural distinctions. Masculine and feminine are artificial constructs that we identify with certain traits. Now some make may identify as a female meaning they identify with feminine traits (subjective) or after reassignment surgery (structurally arguably objective) and of course because biological sex is not as cut and dry as we tend to imagine someone may have male internal structures and external female structures or done combination of both. Hopefully thos helps you to clear up your confusion over this mostly subjective distinction.
No. It does not help. Male and female are biological facts. Good to know we both agree with this notion. Masculine and Feminine - you suggest as artificial constructs with certain identifiable traits - that of course is where we differ. If people are identifying with a particular artificial construct then the notion of it being artificial really needs to be explored further. If on the other hand - they are not artificial - and in fact are part of what it means to be male or feminine then that too needs to be explored. in either event, there is no need for gender reassignment based either / especially if it is artificial or on the other hand it is not artificial.
I also disagree with you about biological sex being cut and dry. I think it is. Not every male has to be a fighter. Males can work at home and desire to have children. Not all females can have or desire children. I said above that there are some people - a small amount of course- but there are some people who are born with both sets of genitalia. Whether they choose to be male or female will I have no issue with.
But the idea that some males suggest that they don't feel male enough or that they feel female - so they identify that way - is a nonsense. Just because my brother wants to wear dresses does not mean he identifies as a female - just that he likes to wear dresses. Just because my father wished that he could have babies like a female does - does not mean he identifies as a female - it simply means he wished he could experience that part of life - something that males are excluded from.
Feelings and this is mostly what we are talking about - when people talk about identifying as something - empathy perhaps - but feelings - are subjective. We cannot really get away from that fact. Again I agree this is another conversation. But I do think that the modern world has attached itself to feelings as something objective -and has distorted the notion of objective science with subjective thinking.
Reasoning and deduction can begin with philosophical statements - have you never read Plato or Aristotle? Tautologies are useful.
Atheism is a worldview. I know it is common for atheists to deny this. Often it suggests it is about a lack of belief - or a lack of a claim. I see that as putting your head in the sand and denying what everyone else sees. Again no offence. What is a worldview? It is the way people see the world. Atheists see the world somehow - and despite the fact that they say they don't have a common worldview - there is an amazing similarity about their non-beliefs that can be observed. Do they all believe the same thing? No - sometimes they have vastly different political views - but the differences that exist within Atheism exist in every other worldview. Now I am not saying it is a comprehensive worldview - but so what? Many worldviews are not necessarily comprehensive. Many borrow from other worldviews where they might have a vaccuum. But overall there are many parts of their worldview which tie all Atheists together. And one of those is their unified belief that "there is not enough or any evidence for the existence of God". And from this non-belief - all of their other beliefs - are either enhanced or called into question.
I just think it is a nonsense to say it is not a worldview. And the evidence I see for that is that I can pretty much know which doctrines you say don't believe in - which can get up your goat. You might not call them doctrines - but that is what they are - we are not allowed to criticise them. We are not allowed to compare them to really evil things like Hitler or Pedaphilia. We are pretty much told to accept them - and one catchcry which always makes me laugh - is "this is what the science says". OR it is the consensus of scientific thinking - which I take a significant warning. (As an aside - the consensus of science is not the consensus of scientists. It is mostly the consensus of scientists which have an ideology or a paypacket which makes them say that) Take climate change as a really interesting example. The consensus of scientists - is not total scientists in the world - no - it is publically paid scientists - most of whom work for organisations who get paid their salaries or tenures from UN grants. On the other hand - those scientists who tend to disagree are from the private sector - who believe it or not are being paid by businesses who have a different agenda. And when the scientist with the proper pedigree makes a statement against the consensus of public scientists - he or she gets shafted - as being a moron - obscure - out of touch with real science, obviously being paid to say what he does by a big business corporation who has an agenda to discredit climate change. For the record - I do believe in climate change - but I am not oblivious to the very strong bias and agenda of climate change scientists who are being paid for and who do have a conflict of interest to exagerate the data and make things appear more serious than they are. And although not every athiest holds to the doctrine of climate change and in fact many are very skeptical - it is an example of a doctrine which for many is simply untouchable.
As far as I can tell or remember there has never been a proper conversation on climate change. In fact has been discouraged from the beginning - at least in Australia.
We have gotten off topic. Allow me to refocus us. Although I might at some future point be willing to explore these ideas with you the fact of climate change and the spectrum upon which one might be one might find oneself between male/masculine and female/feminine (biologically, socially or structurally) don't have anything to do with shy you dismiss other religious doctrines. Let's go back to something you don't seem to have addressed that I think may be central to the real question here.
How do we tell the difference between prophecies and miracles and what you are calling superstition?
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we tell the difference between prophecies and miracles and what you are calling superstition?
What is a superstition? Think of some. Crossing a line brings bad luck. Seeing a black cat brings bad luck. Not wearing a particular item brings bad luck but wearing the item brings good luck.
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
Top 10 superstitions
Friday the 13th: Bad Luck
Itchy Palm: Good Luck
Walking Under a Ladder: Bad Luck
Breaking a Mirror: Bad Luck
Finding a Horseshoe: Good Luck
Opening an Umbrella Inside: Bad Luck
Knock Twice on Wood: Reverse Bad Luck
Tossing Spilled Salt Over Your Shoulder: Good Luck
Black Cats: Bad Luck
Saying “God Bless You”: Good Luck
Now what are the common connections here: It is that doing something brings either good luck or bad luck. These are all so called supernatural occurrences - not necessarily attributed to God or the divine. Fate for instance comes into this.
Miracles - on the other hand have nothing to do with good luck or bad luck. The Bible does not teach such a thing. It teaches you that if you are sick - you need to go to a doctor, and / or ask for the elders to pray for you and ask God if he is willing to heal you. The Bible teaches that luck is nonsense. Whether it is good luck or bad luck. God rules history and nothing is left up for chance - even the roll of the dice is according to his determination. Hence I think it is easy to differentiate superstition from miracles. Superstitions have to do with good or bad luck and therefore doing some sort of formula or avoiding certain things. This is why I call it magic. Magic requires formulas. On the other hand we cannot put God into a box - or under a microscope or expect him to perform in a particular way or do something because we do a particular rite or formula or incantation. Superstition is a manipulation of the forces around us. God on the other hand cannot be manipulated.
Prophecies - I say the purpose of ALL prophecy is to bring about an ethical response to people hearing them. I don't think it is primarily about predicting the future. For me - a prophecy might be prediction of a future if people do not change their behaviour - hence it is a warning. On the other hand - it might simply be the calling of people to repentance. John the Baptist was considered the greatest prophet by Jesus and yet he hardly predicted anything in the future - just that the one coming after him was the messiah - most of his life was about calling people to repentance.
The Story of Jonah is an example of prophecy to produce response. He made a prophecy - which by the way did not come true. Why was he not stoned? Because the primary purpose of prophecy is not prediction but to produce a response. This response was produced -and therefore God did not bring that predicted future course- but because of the implied promise within Jonah's prophecy to repent of their sins - would produce forgiveness - this is what happened. And we know this was part of it - because Jonah the whole way through the book is grumbling and complaining that God would show mercy to Nineveh even though Jonah hated them and did not want God to show mercy.
Prophecy is not superstition because it is not manipulating God - it is God warning people to change their behaviour. It is not magic. Miracles - fall into the same category - they are not random events based upon humans attempting to manipulate God. Just for clarity's sake - many so called Christians in the Charismatic and pentecostal circles are superstition in the way they attempt to produce miracles today - because they are not following Biblical practicese - but manipulating everything - it is like they think they have God on a string - manipulation. But I would say - not God - not biblical - it is superstition because it is manipulation. We cannot get God to do anything by formula, incantation, special little prayers, boldly speaking words, etc, that is superstitious.
-->
@Tradesecret
Other religions have detailed accounts of what they claim are miracles and prophecies that have nothing to do with luck. Are you saying that these religions, some of them eastern religions, are likely correct?
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
This sounds a lot like religion to me.
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation (some god(s)) leading to certain consequences (heaven, hell, Valhalla, nirvana, reincarnation etc.) of an action or event , or a practice based on such a belief (prayer, sacrifice, baptism, ceremony etc.).
-->
@secularmerlin
Other religions have detailed accounts of what they claim are miracles and prophecies that have nothing to do with luck. Are you saying that these religions, some of them eastern religions, are likely correct?
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion. I indicated that if a religion or worldview does not even believe that you can believe in objective truth or that exclusiveness is essential, then they effectively rule themselves out. Most if not all Eastern Religions subscribe to inclusiveness or to relativity and subjectivism in their core - hence I would deduct them from a list when I am seeking objective truth. But please don't forget that I indicated that all of of these religions and worldviews have some good things about them. I don't necessarily reject everything about them. But that of course does not mean that I cannot deduct them from a list that arises to pursue objective truth.
In respect to other religions and their particular view on miracles and prophecies, what they believe or don't believe is a matter for them. You asked me to distinguish from what I believe superstition is and what I consider miracles and prophecies. That I have. Since I do hold to the view that Christianity is correct - in principle - then I would have to sit down and ask myself - if other religions are making prophecies - and miracles - then I would need to examine them more closely to determine whether they fit within my parameters - to see whether I ought to change my views - or adapt them - or reject them. I don't take the view that just because some one says "miracle" that this means a miracle took place. Nor do I have an issue if a demoniac spirit does a miracle or makes a prophecy. The Book of Acts describes a girl predicting the future to make money for her masters. It was not a gift from God and it ceased immediately upon the demon spirit being cast out of her. Similarly Jesus described people who healed people and utter prophecies which did not equate as Godly gifts but had a source of power from elsewhere.
I described superstitions as we mostly understand them - as related to luck good or bad.
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position. Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith. Is that superstition? Understanding God exists is neither absurd nor blind faith. Believing in God per se is not superstitious. Believing that luck is somehow related to whether a cat crosses the road - is quite different to praying to God and asking for his help. One is an attempt to beat the system around you by a formula of some kind - the other is relying utterly on the source of all to good. I take the view that God's blessings and curses in the bible - are cause and effect situations. I don't think they are random or vindictive. Mostly, God's curses are the result of humanity not wanting God to continue to watch over them. And basically God says - ok then if you don't want me to watch over you - I won't - live under your own steam. And the curses therefore reflect this situation. Cause and effect. Hence - if you say God - I dont want to be faithful in my marriage and I will commit adultery - the curse will be that your marriage will probably end - which in my understanding is a covenantal death sentence. If you kill someone - disregarding God's law not to murder - you will probably end up going to prison or copping the covenantal death sentence If you disregard God's commandment not to steal - you will reap the curse of getting caught and having to pay that back somehow - often 4 or 5 times that you took.
The way that God works however is through his institutions of State, church and family. And if we disregard these - then it is possible that God will take things into his direct control. If we don't look after the land and let it rest - then what happens - eventually it causes problems - If we don't care for the poor in our land - what will eventually happen ? People will die - and people will rebel - When the state is corrupt - it will last for a while - but eventually a corrupt power will get overthrown somehow. Even if it replaced by another corrupt government.
Again I dont expect you to get any of this - I just think that the skepticism never really realises exactly the extent of its skeptism - and misses the entire and comprehensive worldview.
-->
@Tradesecret
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion.
No I did not. I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong. I think you had better reform your argument with this in mind.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.
So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?
Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith.
I think with this statement you have proven yourself scientifically illiterate enough that you should avoid using any allusions to science in future discussions with me.
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok.
I have to run away for a couple of days. I need to prepare a funeral for one of my congregation - talk to the family, and the funeral parlour, organise the service, write a message, help deal with grieving people. After that I will be back and return to our topic. Please keep your thoughts in mind. Cheers.
-->
@Tradesecret
I am sorry for your loss.
-->
@Tradesecret
.
Tradesecret, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, and now states there is fiction within the scriptures!
YOUR ALLEGED TRUTHFUL QUOTE: "I have to run away for a couple of days. I need to prepare a funeral for one of my congregation - talk to the family, and the funeral parlour, organise the service, write a message, help deal with grieving people. After that I will be back and return to our topic. Please keep your thoughts in mind. Cheers. "
At least you used the correct term in RUNNING AWAY, like you have done to my Jesus inspired posts ad infinitum of late. Hmmm, I remember me telling you that I had to conduct some business that took me away from this forum, and where you blatantly called it an excuse to leave our discussion, remember? Therefore, within the same context, I blatantly see that secularmerlin is OWNING YOU in your discussion with him, therefore you now are doing what you accused me of in another thread! 2+2=4. LOL
Furthermore, why are there allegedly "grieving people" since this lost one is supposed to go to heaven, correct? Why would anyone be grieving, whereas they should be joyful in the fact that the loss of the person in question is now walking around our 1400 square mile heaven with its 60 foot high walls for ETERNITY with Jesus, whereas the additional caveat is the biblical fact that there is NO WOMEN in heaven!
Tradesecret, listen, you do not have to address this post of mine to make you further embarrassed by trying to do so, okay? In this way, it shows the forum that you have taken a cowardly defeatist position and thrown in the towel of complete defeat to your superior Brother D. Thomas. I'll have my secretary just add this one and all future runways of yours to my existing and ever growing runaway posts of yours. I will have her update them, then showing them to you at certain intervals in front of the membership in total and complete embarrassment for you. You can thank me later.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT DOESN'T RUN AWAY LIKE TRADESECET FROM JESUS' TRUE WORDS?
.
8 days later
-->
@secularmerlin
Thanks Secular Merlin,
I appreciate the sentiments. Preparing a funeral for people is not an easy thing to do at the best of times.
Now where were we?
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Furthermore, why are there allegedly "grieving people" since this lost one is supposed to go to heaven, correct? Why would anyone be grieving, whereas they should be joyful in the fact that the loss of the person in question is now walking around our 1400 square mile heaven with its 60 foot high walls for ETERNITY with Jesus, whereas the additional caveat is the biblical fact that there is NO WOMEN in heaven!
The difference between your trip away and my preparation for a funeral is that I did not lie and say I had no internet. I had internet - I simply had other things to do which required a substantial part of my time. I was not running away.
As for grieving people - I guess you live in a world which is perfect. Have you never read that "Jesus Wept"? Grief is a normal part of life when people die. It is death which is the intruder - a cruel intruder into our life - and the reason is because of sin. Death is the proof of sin. Sin is a proof that God exists. If God did not exist - then sin would have no meaning. And if sin did not exist - then death would not exist either.
Every person is going to die. The question is why? What is it about every person that requires them to die - what is the common factor? Things wear out? Ok. Why?
Things are born and die? Why? You have no satisfactory answer for death. Nor for evil. Nor for why good exists?
Christians grieve because they will miss their loved ones who trust in Jesus while they are on earth. Yet on the hand they also rejoice - because they know they will see them again. Christian have hope - Atheists have nothing of the like.
Oh and for the record - the grieving people I was dealing with were ATHEISTS. They were the ones who could not hold themselves together and could not be comforted. Death had robbed them of their loved one - and they did not know how to cope. Atheism has no way of dealing with comfort. Atheism is cruel and mean spirited.
-->@Tradesecret
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion.
No I did not. I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong. I think you had better reform your argument with this in mind.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.
So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?
Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith.
I think with this statement you have proven yourself scientifically illiterate enough that you should avoid using any allusions to science in future discussions with me.
Atheism has no way of dealing with comfort. Atheism is cruel and mean spirited.
Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.
-->
@secularmerlin
Atheism has no way of dealing with comfort. Atheism is cruel and mean spirited.Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.
Absolutely and that is why it is majorly flawed. People become atheists and in doing so reject previous worldviews - leaving a big hole in their thinking.
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.Absolutely and that is why it is majorly flawed. People become atheists and in doing so reject previous worldviews - leaving a big hole in their thinking.
This is a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that recognizing a lack of sufficient evidence in some claim would leave a hole in ones thinking. Does not believing in big foot leave a sasquatch shaped hole?
-->
@secularmerlin
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion.No I did not. I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong. I think you had better reform your argument with this in mind.
I was of the view that you did make this claim. Nevertheless, I cannot be bothered going back to check it out - so will accept you are correct about what you suggest you said.
You used the term "exclusively right". I assumed the same.
I thought that was meant to ascertain why I thought they were not the one true religion. Nevertheless, I don't see why it necessarily means I ought to reform my argument.
I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong.
I take the view that absolute right and wrong exists as a matter of logic. Hence, if a religion or worldview declares ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion. This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world. Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat. This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity. You have yet to refute this logically.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?
Give me some examples of what you are trying to clarify.
Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith.I think with this statement you have proven yourself scientifically illiterate enough that you should avoid using any allusions to science in future discussions with me.
No not at all. It only demonstrates that I like to think and do not accept something just because some one told me it was true. And it is one of those doctrines which is endlessly changing depending upon who you talk to and read.
-->
@secularmerlin
Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.Absolutely and that is why it is majorly flawed. People become atheists and in doing so reject previous worldviews - leaving a big hole in their thinking.This is a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that recognizing a lack of sufficient evidence in some claim would leave a hole in ones thinking. Does not believing in big foot leave a sasquatch shaped hole?
It does leave a hole in your thinking. You admit as much when you say there is no overarching goal or spirit. Big Foot is a red herring. And not relevant.
Atheists have no capacity to offer comfort in death. They have nothing to offer in hope. They might think that they have the truth - which I would refute. Yet even if they were correct- they reduce life to nothingness with no meaning - and no purpose. IT is a cruel worldview. And i am not trying to be mean - but when you take away hope from people - you need to replace it with something of at least equal worth. Otherwise - it is a spirit of meanness.
-->
@Tradesecret
I take the view that absolute right and wrong exists as a matter of logic. Hence, if a religion or worldview declares ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion. This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world. Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat. This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity. You have yet to refute this logically.
To be fair I don't need to you are the one claiming there is some absolute right and wrong and as the claimant the burden of proof is on you both to show that there iui s such a thing and also to support your claim that any given world view disagrees with you.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?Give me some examples of what you are trying to clarify.a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.This sounds a lot like religion to me.a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation (some god(s)) leading to certain consequences (heaven, hell, Valhalla, nirvana, reincarnation etc.) of an action or event , or a practice based on such a belief (prayer, sacrifice, baptism, ceremony etc.).
Given the similarities between your provided definition and the similarity to religion (and indeed your implication that some religions are superstitious) how do we go about separating a true religion from a superstition?
Atheists have no capacity to offer comfort in death.
I do in fact. You did not exist for billions of years before your birth and were quite unbothered by it so I wager when you don't exist for billions of years after your death you will find it equally untroubling. Also have you heard the good news? No god(s) are waiting to throw you into eternal torment after you die for real or imagined transgressions you can neither avoid nor understand. In fact I find the whole idea of heaven and hell to be very disquieting and I don't think Christians have much to offer that counts as comfort when examined logically whether they are correct or not.
-->
@secularmerlin
I do in fact. You did not exist for billions of years before your birth and were quite unbothered by it so I wager when you don't exist for billions of years after your death you will find it equally untroubling. Also have you heard the good news? No god(s) are waiting to throw you into eternal torment after you die for real or imagined transgressions you can neither avoid nor understand. In fact I find the whole idea of heaven and hell to be very disquieting and I don't think Christians have much to offer that counts as comfort when examined logically whether they are correct or not.
With great respect - there is no comfort in anything you have mentioned. To tell me that I am nothing more or less than the rest of the universe simply tells me that I am meaningless. It tells me that my life on earth is not worth the effort of the struggles I will inevitably face or that my children will face. And further more to put it in the context of eternity really only gives a depth of despair that is overwhelming. Just because I did not find something troubling in the past and I will not find it troubling in the future does not take the struggle or the grief that comes with the knowledge of lost ones or me.
The good news of the Gospel is not about heaven or hell. That misses the point. It is about reconciliation with God. I would see no point in heaven unless there was reconciliation with God.
-->
@Tradesecret
Reconciliation with GOD is a very good analogy for being nothing more or less than the rest of the universe.
You give your life meaning because that it what you are programmed to do, and if that includes believing in a specific GOD, then that is absolutely fine.
My life has meaning without the need for belief in a specific GOD.
Nonetheless, should there be a specific GOD, I expect that they would be wise and noble enough to understand.
-->
@zedvictor4
Why?
-->
@Tradesecret
Why to which bit?... Or to all of it?
Though if your profile is to be believed, then you should be clever enough to work it out.