Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't see where he was insincere.
I'm not convinced that there is a game to play. The rules of this "game" allow you to play it however you want to. You can pretend to have "won" the game, if you want. The rules allow that.
Yes, science grows in knowledge. What does religion grow in?
I'm not convinced that there is a game to play. The rules of this "game" allow you to play it however you want to. You can pretend to have "won" the game, if you want. The rules allow that.
That's because you expect evidence that he was insincere.
We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.
That is a rule of sorts, it just allows some people to make up the rules (and the "truth") as they go.
Well that, and it doesn't work if more than one person wants to exercise it.
Indeed.That's because you expect evidence that he was insincere.
This game also apparently has goalposts that can't stay put.We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.
It works fine if the two of them ignore their differences and continue the epistemological free for all.
It just doesn't work for any of the rest of us, but I am not sure that is the point.
If only we would have already evolved as a society to the point where special pleading was considered rude by all.
I just glanced at that site ... interesting.I think AntiCitizenX said it well. This isn't just a debate over whether one ought to play the religious game. It's a conversation on how it is played and the epistemological playing field in which the game unfolds.
I just glanced at that site ... interesting.
My immediate question, is what is being protected at the core of "Christianity" ? If it were to unravel and lose influence and power, what would be lost at it's core ?
Hmm ... excellent points.It always seems to me that believers are mainly protecting a world view in which they feel safe, have their metaphysical questions answered, and the purpose and meaning of their lives is mapped out for them.
It always seems to me that believers are mainly protecting a world view in which they feel safe, have their metaphysical questions answered, and the purpose and meaning of their lives is mapped out for them.
Not only that, but all other answers are wrong, everyone else is an unethical wolf stalking innocent sheep, and as we've learned elsewhere, those who disagree lead purposeless, meaningless lives.
I do wonder, if not for indoctrination of youth, social pressure, the coercion of afterlife punishments and rewards depending on unquestioning obedience, and the (occasionally literal) demonization of non-believers, would any religion be relevant today? Would any survive on merit alone?
Let's take for instance, our host Kristina, and Colter: Their specific, individual belief systems, it seems are different in many aspects (knowing what I do of Colter, and making broad assumptions about Kristina). It's safe to assume that one of them (or their religious ancestors) has added falsehood to truth, or discarded portions of truth.
How would I know which of you (if not both) is preaching a distorted truth or outright lie if I do not demand evidence that yours is actually is truth? How would I know what part is distorted, false, or absent if I did not scrutinize your respective claims? I can't do it based on "trust me, I'm right." Then let's add in hundreds of thousands of other belief systems, and millions of additional claims and do it again.
We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.
Lol I expected nothing less from you. Take care Davian.That was not mockery, but a rhetorical device:
"In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action."
Rhetorical device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rather than pointing out the poster's requirement that I jettison my intellectual integrity in pursuit of his "truth", I chose this tool to, in effect, hold a mirror up to him for him to see his position from a different perspective.
This discussion cannot be productive if you or he considers their position beyond reproach. Is that the case here?
I think AntiCitizenX said it well. This isn't just a debate over whether one ought to play the religious game. It's a conversation on how it is played and the epistemological playing field in which the game unfolds.
Yes.
But, I have come to the conclusion that this thread needs to end for me. Simply put, those who understand the above, and understand that their side is not perfect in this, has heard what I had to say. Maybe not agree but if you took a real look you would see the truth.
There is a difference between Christians and the radical Christians. There is a difference between atheists and radical atheists and often times in this section it seems the radical atheists "come out and play".
I dont think I will continue any conversation which follows the lines that I have outlined so in the future if I do not respond, that is why.
I simply have too much going on in my life to bicker with internet people all day.
I'm not convinced that there is a game to play. The rules of this "game" allow you to play it however you want to. You can pretend to have "won" the game, if you want. The rules allow that.
Yes, science grows in knowledge. What does religion grow in?
I don't see where he was insincere.
Yes, truth is often preferable when it is available. But in a court room, the evidence doesn't always point you where you think it is. Case in point: America thought the whole Casey Anthony trial outcome was set in stone before the trial. She was guilty to America without reasonable doubt. Despite the evidence that made us sure, she was found innocent.I didn't intent for that courtroom example to be a direct comparison of "becoming a Christian" or liken religion to a crime or any kind of loss. I think you are a little overreacting here... perhaps showing how negative and inaccurate your views of, well, me, are. (No offense meant, just a little light banter.)
The example was meant to show one thing and one thing alone: that in some cases, it can be very important to have a better shot at "truth" than pure belief.
Yes! Please do all you can to find the truth, just remember that this is not some fairy tale to the believers. This is more important than our own lives, many Christians lay down their lives for their views. These aren't just the radicals. Once a person becomes truly committed to their faith (beyond the beginning stages of acceptance) ones life drastically changes. So to approach a person about their faith with mockery, manipulation, or condemnation for their faith (not saying you specifically) the person will become upset. Just as a homosexual would if a Christian started badgering them about their sexuality.You said it yourself here: "We have [...] everything to lose in losing the faith."
Everything... that is important, isn't it?
So I should be aiming for the best way to find out the truth.
yes, I do believe that. I and many other Christians often pray for the unbelievers.You believe. Your belief is important for you... not only subjectively, because it makes you feel good, but because you think that it has an objective result. You also think that unbelievers and non-Christians lose out on that objective result. (Yes, you might not go around and tell unbelievers that, but you do believe that, don't you?)
I do want it to be important to others. I want it to be because i want them to have the amazing aspects that come with it. Not just heaven. That is merely a fraction. The best testimony one can give is through the life they live. I want to live a life so appealing-like my Grandmother was for me- that any unbeliever would second guess themselves. Just saying ��And I do not believe what you believe. But I understand that it is important for you... and I understand that you (if not you personally, then "you" as a huge number of theists) want it to be important for me as well.
If you had true desire to have faith it is granted to you. It doesn't just happen because you want to believe. You (well I did it this way) recognize many things cannot be explained through science. And even what is explained through science doesn't explain why, just how. We know how the universe was likely to start, not the slightest idea of why. We know how we have life but not the slightest idea why. We only have a fraction if a fraction of the knowledge this universe has.But I do not believe! I don't have the slightest idea of how you do it, or how I am supposed to do it.
I dont. What I think is unreasonable is trying to get someone stuck in a constant "show me proof for your proof for that proof", or the lack of opposing ideas, or the ignoring facts that you can not explain, or comments like "well maybe Santa can come visit". This is unreasonable. I'm not saying you specifically do this but this kind of talk is frequent in this board.I am trying my best to follow the way that I know works. Why do you think I am unreasonable for doing so?.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?