[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Chriliman]

From where I am standing, you are not even wrong.

"Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly "correct" conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.

The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

I agree, atheists are correct about many things except the existence of God. Therefore, you don't understand the nature of the discussion itself because you don't believe in God. Notice its only been atheists who argue against what I'm saying.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, I would have to agree with him, that you have not supported your claims, nor have you done a good job of making a lot of sense in what you write.

This has been pointed out to you over time and explained why you don't make a lot of sense. You can certainly just disagree, but that doesn't change how other people perceive what you write.

For every vocal atheist that thinks I'm not making sense, there's probably many believers who think I am making sense.

 

[bhsmte]

For every vocal atheist that thinks I'm not making sense, there's probably many believers who think I am making sense.

Cool, I can only speak for myself and I don't think you make a lot of sense.

 

[quatona]

key word "if"

There was no "if" in my sentence.

I've explained why I believe what I believe by giving reasons for my beliefs.

It seems you are losing sight of what we were discussing. "Explaining your beliefs" wasn´t the subject of your post nor my response. Your statement "The bible explains it [i.e. the coming into being of the universe]" was.

If you do not accept my reasons, then thats fine, I can't control what you accept as true. However, I have trouble understanding why you and many other atheists are so interested in this forum, if you think I'm just another religionist spouting unreasonable nonsense.

Spotting irrationality, logical mistakes and misconclusions is one of my guilty pleasures.
Intellectually honest people consider that a service.

Wouldn't it be easier to just ignore me if you think I'm so delusional?

Remove that chip from your shoulder. I didn´t call you "delusional". I just pointed out some mistakes in your lines of reasoning.
But, yes, it would be easier to ignore you. I guess by now I have seen all the arguments you have in store - so there isn´t much left to expect.

Or is it that you actually see some truth in what I'm saying?

Which part of "it [God did it] is not an explanation [i.e. it has no explanatory power], but an assertion" do you not understand?
Your reason or the accuracy of your beliefs, claims and assertions wasn´t the subject of my response.
Please try to concentrate.

But congratulations for this nice little bias confirmation mechanism you have created there, anyway: When people agree with you you take that for a sign that they believe your opinion is the "truth", and when they disagree with you you take conclude the same. :thumb:

 

[quatona]

For every vocal atheist that thinks I'm not making sense, there's probably many believers who think I am making sense.

Then maybe you would prefer to post in the Christians Only Section and preach to the choir?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

For every vocal atheist that thinks I'm not making sense, there's probably many believers who think I am making sense.

Good god I hope not...

Critical thinking courses should be mandatory in schools.

 

[stevenfrancis]

All persons must answer the question of Jesus at some point in their life. We never know when that moment is coming, but we do know we will all get a chance. Some sooner. Some later. My showdown with who Jesus is didn't truly happen until I was 48 years old after a life of fairly serious spiritual search and yearning. But that point. Whenever, and wherever that happens is the point at which your mind should change, because if you have been truly open to possibility of Jesus, and have in fact "opened the door" so he could enter, then you will die to yourself, and it will be Christ who lives in you. This is our faith. This is when we are set apart.

Who do you say that I am?

I'm sorry this seems off topic or anything. When reading the OP this is what just kept coming to mind. For those who let Jesus is, and have belief, no explanation is necessary. For those who haven't let Him in or begun to believe, no explanation will suffice.

I'm not sure how one goes about belief in Jesus. We all have our own conversion stories. There isn't a specific formula. But it is just as real as income tax. It happens. And once it does, these kinds of philosophical tests and challenges don't leave us with the same surety we had before. Our pride diminishes as our faith increases. It's not delusion. It is an entirely different worldview.

 

[Chriliman]

Then maybe you would prefer to post in the Christians Only Section and preach to the choir?

Thats actually good advice. I should go discuss my reasoning with other Christians to see if they agree, then if they do I'll have even more help! If they don't I'm sure they'll let me know in a loving way why and how I'm wrong and I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

 

[quatona]

Thats actually good advice.

You´re welcome.

 

[Chriliman]

There was no "if" in my sentence.

I was referring to what I said which was: If God exists are you going to dispute His assertions?

It seems you are losing sight of what we were discussing. "Explaining your beliefs" wasn´t the subject of your post nor my response. Your statement "The bible explains it [i.e. the coming into being of the universe]" was.

Refer to post #467

 

[nomadictheist]

The base issue with the ongoing conversation is one of premise. Premise affects one's entire line of reasoning.
In this instance, an atheist starts with the premise that there is no God. That premise does not allow any line of reasoning that leads to the existence of God.
An agnostic starts with the premise that we don't really know if there's a God. Therefore, there is resistance to any line of reasoning that leads to the ability to be sure that there is a God.
A Christian, theist, deist, or any other religious person starts with the premise that there is a God. Therefore, they will not follow any line of reasoning that leads to the absence of a God.

The problem with the thread as a whole is this: It's trying to objectify a subjective issue. When should we change our beliefs and/or reasoning? I'm sure everyone here could come up with a different scenario to answer that. But for most people it would depend mostly on personal experience. I'm not saying it should depend on that, but that's the way that most people determine what to believe.

My personal choice is to believe there is a God who created the order and structure we see in the universe. I have my reasons for believing this, but experience has taught me that my reasons won't convince somebody who holds an opposing belief.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I was referring to what I said which was: If God exists are you going to dispute His assertions?

Yes, but you said "key word" below what he wrote, which means that the phrase "key word" would be in reference to what he...

Oh, never mind. This is pointless.

 

[Davian]

I agree,

You agree that you are not even wrong?. Good to hear that.

atheists are correct about many things except the existence of God.

Atheism is not a truth statement. Are you new here?

Therefore, you don't understand the nature of the discussion itself because you don't believe in God.

Do you find that misrepresenting others' positions makes you more credible?

Notice its only been atheists who argue against what I'm saying.

I can't even understand what you are saying. You are not even wrong.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The base issue with the ongoing conversation is one of premise. Premise affects one's entire line of reasoning.
In this instance, an atheist starts with the premise that there is no God. That premise does not allow any line of reasoning that leads to the existence of God.
An agnostic starts with the premise that we don't really know if there's a God. Therefore, there is resistance to any line of reasoning that leads to the ability to be sure that there is a God.
A Christian, theist, deist, or any other religious person starts with the premise that there is a God. Therefore, they will not follow any line of reasoning that leads to the absence of a God.

You don't have the terms correct. Atheism has to do with belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge.

I'm an atheist that does not say "There is no god." I've known agnostic theists.

See the difference?

 

[Davian]

For every vocal atheist that thinks I'm not making sense, there's probably many believers who think I am making sense.

So you are only preaching to those that already believe, in a forum where that is against the rules regardless. Tell me more about this "making sense" thing you have discovered.

 

[Chriliman]

The base issue with the ongoing conversation is one of premise. Premise affects one's entire line of reasoning.
In this instance, an atheist starts with the premise that there is no God. That premise does not allow any line of reasoning that leads to the existence of God.
An agnostic starts with the premise that we don't really know if there's a God. Therefore, there is resistance to any line of reasoning that leads to the ability to be sure that there is a God.
A Christian, theist, deist, or any other religious person starts with the premise that there is a God. Therefore, they will not follow any line of reasoning that leads to the absence of a God.

The problem with the thread as a whole is this: It's trying to objectify a subjective issue. When should we change our beliefs and/or reasoning? I'm sure everyone here could come up with a different scenario to answer that. But for most people it would depend mostly on personal experience. I'm not saying it should depend on that, but that's the way that most people determine what to believe.

My personal choice is to believe there is a God who created the order and structure we see in the universe. I have my reasons for believing this, but experience has taught me that my reasons won't convince somebody who holds an opposing belief.

I agree, I also think its important for Christians to be able to explain why they believe what they believe even to the very bottom of reason. Because ultimately we can't expect physical evidence when talking about the origins of the universe so we must resort to reasons for the unprovable concepts that make the most sense, otherwise we can just throw whatever concept out there even though it may not be the concept that actually makes the most sense.

 

[Davian]

The base issue with the ongoing conversation is one of premise. Premise affects one's entire line of reasoning.
In this instance, an atheist starts with the premise that there is no God. That premise <snip>

Your reasoning is faulty. For one to believe there is no "God", one would first need to define what one means by "God" and then believe that that particular god does not exist. As that puts the impossible burden of defining each and every god concept there is not to believe in onto the atheist, you have set up an impossible straw-man, a misrepresentation of what others - particularly myself - think.

If you care, of course.

 

[anonymous person]

Do you have the names and address of these individuals?

I have some names. No addresses though.

How do you propose to show that it is two-way?

Answered prayer would be an instance right off the top of my head.

You can be privy to this just like I was. Ask seek and knock.

I asked God for something and He responded by giving me something. In this sense it could be seen as being an instance of two-way communication.

Can I demonstrate this to you. No. Because it happened several years ago.

Are there Christ-followers in your local area who might be able to show you how they have an open line with God?

I think so. Seek them out.

 

[quatona]

I was referring to what I said which was: If God exists are you going to dispute His assertions?

Is there are reason you don´t respond to the point but prefer to change the topic?

Refer to post #467

No, I referred and keep referring to the statement that I initially responded to. I understand that that´s inconvenient for you, though.
What is post #467 supposed to explain?

 

[anonymous person]

If it depends on who is reporting on it, it is not historical. If it were historical, Christianity would be reality, not a religion.

I just do not see how that follows.