Humanism

[Skavau]

Well, obviously he chose which authority was authoritative by taking the word of another authority. Reason is for chumps. Trust me, I'm an authority on the topic.

This is what I mean: why he believes what he believes is arbitrary by his own words. If at any point he used any kind reason or evidence to come to any conclusion on anything then he is a hypocrite.

 

[juvenissun]

You are misrepresenting humanism. It isn't some form of epistemological skepticism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If so, how do you value and apply the "doubt"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If so, how do you value and apply the "doubt"?

An informed and critical perspective on things?

 

[Leap]

Why did you choose the authority of Christianity over say Islam or any other religion?

I didn't choose Christianity. Jesus called and I could not but answer. There was no weighing of evidence, I simply fell in love with God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If so, how do you value and apply the "doubt"?

Since I'm not an epistemological skeptic who doubts the ability of rational processes of thought to generate human knowledge, I ask myself how I know what I know, and if it someone else's claim, how they know what they know.

For example: when it comes to the search for the Higgs-Boson, I wonder how the scientists at CERN are conducting their research (they use a state of the art particle accelerator), and how many sigmas of certainty they have generated so far. I'm not a professional in the field, but it is possible for me to at least have a layman's understanding of the basic concept behind their search process. I have some idea of how they know what they claim to know, and it makes sense to me.

Likewise, if someone claims to have verified the existence of the Higgs-Boson, but claims that they have done so through tea leaf readings, I hope that you can understand easily enough why I would be significantly more doubtful. Unless someone can explain in a convincing way how tea leaf readings are going to answer this question, I'm unlikely to find that particular claim of discovery credible.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Skavau]

I didn't choose Christianity. Jesus called and I could not but answer. There was no weighing of evidence, I simply fell in love with God.

So you were effectively commanded to.

Other people obviously have not had that calling. Why should they assume by faith that what you believe in is authoritative?

 

[Leap]

So you were effectively commanded to.

Other people obviously have not had that calling. Why should they assume by faith that what you believe in is authoritative?

Sorry, you misunderstand me. There is no "should". They either will or they will not. Your heart is either drawn to faith, and the true faith (that does not contradict the nature of faith), or it is not.

 

[Skavau]

Sorry, you misunderstand me. There is no "should". They either will or they will not. Your heart is either drawn to faith, and the true faith (that does not contradict the nature of faith), or it is not.

Great!

So it isn't anyone's fault that they don't believe - they're just "not drawn" to faith.

 

[Leap]

So it isn't anyone's fault that they don't believe - they're just "not drawn" to faith.

It is either in your heart to do so, or it is not. If you are not, then that is itself a fault by God's law because you are a tree that produces bad fruit.

 

[Skavau]

It is either in your heart to do so, or it is not. If you are not, then that is itself a fault by God's law because you are a tree that produces bad fruit.

But it wouldn't be my fault. I'd have just been born without the "heart" for faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry, you misunderstand me. There is no "should". They either will or they will not. Your heart is either drawn to faith, and the true faith (that does not contradict the nature of faith), or it is not.

So now there is some distinction between faith and true faith? Interesting. How do you know when it's true faith? By yet more faith?

 

[Leap]

But it wouldn't be my fault. I'd have just been born without the "heart" for faith.

The fault is intrinsic to your nature; you would be "bad seed" (using the vine and tree analogy). The heart does not weigh evidence, it responds or it does not, but the responding or not is still a fault in your character for you to bear the repercussions of.

So now there is some distinction between faith and true faith? Interesting. How do you know when it's true faith? By yet more faith?

No distinction at all; just the difference between faith and that which claims to be faith but which contradicts faith. Clearly your interest is in making smart alec, but empty, comments by playing word games, rather than make an effort to understand anything that doesn't resemble linguistic babyfood.

 

[Skavau]

The fault is intrinsic to your nature; you would be "bad seed" (using the vine and tree analogy). The heart does not weigh evidence, it responds or it does not, but the responding or not is still a fault in your character for you to bear the repercussions of.

How is it a fault of my character? If I was born with this nature how can I be held accountable for having this nature?

No distinction at all; just the difference between faith and that which claims to be faith but which contradicts faith. Clearly your interest is in making smart alec, but empty, comments by playing word games, rather than make an effort to understand anything that doesn't resemble linguistic babyfood.

Actually every argument I've seen you make here has been "word games" or semantics. Especially in the way you seem to use the word faith.

At any rate what faith contradicts faith might I ask?

 

[Leap]

How is it a fault of my character? If I was born with this nature how can I be held accountable for having this nature?

If you think that you are not to be held responsible for the content of your heart, you are very much mistaken.

Actually every argument I've seen you make here has been "word games" or semantics. Especially in the way you seem to use the word faith.

At any rate what faith contradicts faith might I ask?

If you are asking which religions contradict faith, the answer is all of them except Christianity. Not that you care so long as we avoid the subject - that being that humanism is based on a contradiction. Any chance of getting back to that? Actually, dont bother. You are a humanist, your heart is against faith, and I will leave you to it.

 

[WonderBeat]

Not really, no. "Infinite love" is not the only possible basis for a non-nihilistic ethics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

..Which shows just how ignorant you are....

 

[Skavau]

If you think that you are not to be held responsible for the content of your heart, you are very much mistaken.

If I was born with it how can I be responsible for it?

If you are asking which religions contradict faith, the answer is all of them except Christianity. Not that you care so long as we avoid the subject - that being that humanism is based on a contradiction.

You're confusing humanism with (what you think is) empiricism.

Not surprising.

At any rate: How can a Muslim who believes in Islam because of faith be contradicting faith?

Any chance of getting back to that? Actually, dont bother. You are a humanist, your heart is against faith, and I will leave you to it.

This part is true: I am against faith (though not my heart, my head is).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The fault is intrinsic to your nature; you would be "bad seed" (using the vine and tree analogy). The heart does not weigh evidence, it responds or it does not, but the responding or not is still a fault in your character for you to bear the repercussions of.



No distinction at all; just the difference between faith and that which claims to be faith but which contradicts faith. Clearly your interest is in making smart alec, but empty, comments by playing word games, rather than make an effort to understand anything that doesn't resemble linguistic babyfood.

Your entire argument against informed skepticism was based on exactly these kinds of word games. It's not so much that I'm playing word games as I am playing along with your word games to make a point about them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

..Which shows just how ignorant you are....

LOL! Or you are the one who is ignorant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

LOL! Or you are the one who is ignorant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You can interpret it that way.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can interpret it that way.

I can also conclude that way.


eudaimonia,

Mark