K
kristina411
Guest
Do we should only enter into marriage, believe our spouse loves us, if we can hook them to a monitor to show their love is real fist. Then we shall enter into a marriage?
Upvote
0
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 haven't personally ever been shown evidence.
Nothing. I do so, and happily.
Happiness and love are chemical phenomena that occur in the presence of certain stimuli as a result of natural selection. It's not as if we don't have a scientific backing for the existence of emotions.
Consider the analogy I made on post #29 about the claim of a chicken that lays solid gold eggs. Would you require absolute certainty that this claim has been proven undeniably true before spending your entire life savings on such a chicken?
Ken
I didn´t say anything about when you can or can´t walk away. You can always walk away.When the subject changes from philosophy to Christian apologetics I can, and will walk away.
For the rest of the posters, I apologize I do not have the time to single out, or patience.
What I will say, after reading them all, is that we all need to remember(both sides) that saying "I believe" is different than saying "I know for a fact". So when a poster creates a topic that says "Do you believe you are attractive? If so why do you believe it?" And I say "yes, because I see it in the mirror" that does not open me up to questions such as "what proof do you have? You must have officially been scored by a select panel of scientists, and it must be proven to be true, unlike beauty which is subjective."
Do you see why this line of questioning is not helpful? Because the poster said "what do you believe" it is already implied that I am merely giving my personal belief when I say "yes, because I have a mirror." This needs to be remembered when claiming a Christian is stating facts. This is the only type of scenario I have ever not provided facts, because it asked my belief. I am entitled to that. Now if I said "I know for a fact", you could probe for reasons. Otherwise it is my privelidge to believe as I so wish.
If all there is are contradicting statements of belief... there would not be a debate.
But there is more. Look around you. Look at other threads here. In many of them you will find Christians who make factual claims. "This is so. Accept that. Or face the consequences."
If you don't do that: fine. But then you need to grant others the same privilege that you claim for yourself.
For your analogy, you are asking for my lifestyle to be at risk. You would be asking that I risk being homeless and poor, starving to death and potentially allowing my child to starve to death. Your analogy can not be applied to Christianity because in Christianity I lose nothing but my darkness and I gain the world.
You would be asking me to lose everything I had and risk my life falling apart. The "risk" of Christianity is nothing more than risking me one day wanting to be selfless and follow Jesus, and no one can deny how good he was.
For the rest of the posters, I apologize I do not have the time to single out, or patience.
What I will say, after reading them all, is that we all need to remember(both sides) that saying "I believe" is different than saying "I know for a fact".
Show me where I have ever claimed evidence without proving.
You are sourly mistaking "I believe" with "I have proof".
Any claims I have stated I had proof, I gave proof. Any claims I stated to be fact I gave evidence (statistics and links to places you could find the evidence). Yet my belief is demanded proof for as well and that is how it is turned into Christian apologetics.
I have never and would never say "or face the consequences", nor have I seen many Christians post such ideas but a minority. I would never do this, despite my belief on its accuracy because this mindset is what has driven so many from Christianity and most Christians today can see how destructive judgement is, especially with faith and avoid such statements for that purpose.
I can give you my belief and give you evidence for that belief that supports my reasoning. I do not have to but I do. When I gather the evidence I make my conclusion. You may come to a different conclusion with my facts but if I find my evidence substantial who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to say my conclusion is wrong because you don't think the evidence is sufficient? It is not your conclusion, it is mine.
So for every poster on here who decides that they have won over a discussion because the evidence is not enough for them, you have won a battle against yourself, not the other poster, because at the end of the day the "evidence" is more than sufficient for the believer.
You can state flaws, that are reasonable, within someone's evidence but how many times in the short time I have been here, has my evidence been blown off because "well it could have meant small blue aliens with tin hats". That is a large jump, and unrealistic discussion-unless you can back up with your own evidence that said alien exists- is pointless.
We begin to debate like corrupt politicians trying to find flaw with the poster, making snide remarks, condemning the other person. The topic gets twisted and always ends in a tug of war, battle of who can nit pick, read between the lines, and continuously demand more than necessary. If it is in true request for answers, the request for evidence would not be demanded, the person providing the evidence would not be ridiculed and the heated debated would be heated and not useless Locker room complex arguments.
my evidence been blown off because "well it could have meant small blue aliens with tin hats".
That is a large jump, and unrealistic discussion-unless you can back up with your own evidence that said alien exists
You may come to a different conclusion with my facts but if I find my evidence substantial who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to say my conclusion is wrong because you don't think the evidence is sufficient?
If I just say that I want to be selfless and follow Jesus and then do nothing else ever related to religion, I'm saved and never have to worry about it again? Cool, done.
I'd imagine you'd think this is approach won't work, though. I'd have to do more than just make a claim and never follow through with it. That means that despite your claim here, there is a real cost to choosing to pretend to be Christian.
I have never and would never say "or face the consequences", nor have I seen many Christians post such ideas but a minority. I would never do this, despite my belief on its accuracy because this mindset is what has driven so many from Christianity and most Christians today can see how destructive judgement is, especially with faith and avoid such statements for that purpose.
I can give you my belief and give you evidence for that belief that supports my reasoning. I do not have to but I do. When I gather the evidence I make my conclusion. You may come to a different conclusion with my facts but if I find my evidence substantial who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to say my conclusion is wrong because you don't think the evidence is sufficient? It is not your conclusion, it is mine.
So for every poster on here who decides that they have won over a discussion because the evidence is not enough for them, you have won a battle against yourself, not the other poster, because at the end of the day the "evidence" is more than sufficient for the believer.
I'd be curious to see this quote in context - assuming it even is a quote.
I'll just let you argue with yourself here.
That's the biggest problem with the epistemology used for religious claims - they're so wishy-washy that it makes it tough not to devolve into special pleading for the particular fantastic claims that people wish were true.
Okay, so what you consider evidence is sufficient for you. It is personally enough to convince you, but why suppose that it must therefore also convince us? If you suppose that, you are implying that it is unreasonable for us not to agree with you, given the claimed evidence. That carries with it the notion that we ought to agree, yet we obviously do not, so either we are failing to reason through this properly, or your evidence isn't as good as you thought. This is how a debate begins.
There is a difference in debate and a battle of penis sizes where one side doesn't show but tells their size, and the other male never gives his size only points out how his opponent could be wrong at his assertion that he I larger. Round and round it goes.
Err, why are you here again?
There is a difference in debate and a battle of penis sizes where one side doesn't show but tells their size, and the other male never gives his size only points out how his opponent could be wrong at his assertion that he I larger. Round and round it goes.
What a strange analogy. I don't see how this analogy even applies, but let's go with it, if we must...
Suppose someone did claim to be "the largest," but then, instead of actually submitting his penis for measurement to determine whether the claim had any merit, he simply offered his own "personal evidence" that this was the case. For example, he recounted many lovers of his who claimed that he was "the biggest" they've seen. Another man makes a similar claim, but he too refuses to have his penis measured. And then another appears and says exactly the same thing, but like the first two he forgoes any attempt to have his penis measured. All of these men are making a very grand claim, and yet none of them is willing to offer anything more than his own "personal evidence". How are we to determine which man's claim actually has merit given that none of them is willing to actually "stand up" to scrutiny.
Hopefully I shouldn't have to make explicit what "penis size" is supposed to represent in this analogy... Again, you chose this analogy.
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?