- Apr 7, 2012
- 8,976
- 780
- 63
- Faith
- Unorthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
A worldview is the beliefs and experiences that shape how one views the world
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.
How are you defining worldview?
And what besides a world view is just as important?
You flatter yourself.
I do not pretend that I am going to get atheists to see the light. My reason for refuting the things that you say is so that poison won't go unchallenged and undermine the faith of a Christian who is bombarded from the lies of the world and starts to question the truth of the word.
"X is true because Y says it is" = fallacy.
So, basically, you just call anything and everything that one might accept as accurate for whatever reason as being "faith".
It's a contradiction in terms because in the context of what we are actually talking about, faith is what you require when you have no evidence.
And for the record: "testmony" is the lowest possible form of evidence there is.
A worldview is the beliefs and experiences that shape how one views the world
Why are reasoning errors important to understand and accept? Because Sometimes people base their whole lives around faulty thinking and exclude themselves from the reality of the world around them and about themselves... Sometimes people cause unnecessary and often negative division between themselves and others and/or try to create it with between external parties. So they don't grow and they prevent others from the opportunity of growth.. Having good intentions is a start but if filtered through reasoning errors can cause undue harm to self and others..
1. Circular Reasoning
- Attempts at arguments by assuming what you're trying to prove is true (common example: bible is true because the bible says it's true)
2. Faith
- Is actually confirmation bias - you want info/data to be in alignment with one's beliefs and so you interpret it as being in alignment with your beliefs (common example "If you pray for x it will occur")
3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..
4. Pragmatic Fallacy - Vague often non scientific anecdotal knowledge of something "working" and assuming it will "work" for everyone else (e.g. anytime someone says I met god.. felt god.. god talked to me etc.. therefore god will talk to you etc.. and if he doesn't you're satan.. evil.. wrong.. etc.. - also see confirmation bias)
5. Placebo Effect (see confirmation bias and pragmatic fallacy) - experience something because you believe it to work "I felt god wanted me to.." "I sense god in others"
5. Appeal to Authority - An authority (often subjectively chosen as such) says something so therefore a thing is true.. e.g. Dawkins says X therefore X is what atheists believe
These are errors that everyone is susceptible to, and probably have made at some point. However, on this forum, I've noticed that they occur a lot without self reflection by those who are of faith.. There is one person who goes on threads and responds to posts by repeating the confirmation of their faith.. and while that really looks a bit kooky.. I'm reminded that in real life when confronted with opposing views.. there are many who do the same thing.. rather than consider their position may be flawed..
I'm open to correction if this is not the case but it seems to be a stumbling block in a lot of efforts at dialogue. Also open to any reasoning errors I have missed..
Why? Because you say so? Do you see the irony?
An argument from authority is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
-Wikipedia
No, I defined faith and explained why the things in question fit that definition. Try reading next time.
Congratulations, you've committed "Reasoning Error #3" of the OP.
It is comical to find atheists arbitrarily defining faith as irrationality.
It's strange that you base so many of your beliefs on it, then.
Evolution is based on the earth being billions of years old
, while there is plenty of disagreement out there on if carbon dating or whatever is reliable
You choose to "assume" the side that says it's reliable is correct, I choose not to.
So until you can prove it is....
we are dealing with assumptions somewhere down the line and that's just one example.
Prove the earth is millions of yrs old
or stop making any claims that are based on that as a fact.
IOW, you "observe" the earth is billions of yrs old...nope you just assume it is.
I wasn't, I was talking about what you stated originally, something to the effect of "where did life come from?", if not exactly that.
If you insist on hiding behind that junk as a defense
It's not a fallacy unless you can prove it is untrue
At the very least, the logic in ID makes a lot more sense than
we all just came to be for no known reason/no known start, then evolved and made ourselves from something unknown
ID sounds *much* more likely than that mess, but beware, I'm using logic there.
And since we didn't see either one of them happen, think I'll go with what is logically sound.
If you are right, I've lost nothing, If I am right, I have lost nothing, and you have lost everything. See the logic in that?
Speciation is a myth! Kenny created that argument ex nihilo completely separately from and completely unrelated to Pascal's Wager and both arguments cohabited the internet at the same time!I see a species of Pascal's Wager.
Again, demonstrable to whom?
For a person who has encountered the Holy Spirit your contention that no such entity exists
can be nothing more than the foolish rambling of the unenlightened.
Exactly. Your position, given the existence of God, is hardly a rational position.
The possibility that you could be wrong never comes up, does it?
That's why debating with atheists is a complete waste of time.
They have an entirely different view of the world that denies most of reality.
What facet of Mohammed's personality would indicate that he isn't a liar?
No, if it IS an angel it is a statement of fact
The craziest of which is this foolish contention that there is no God.
And you wonder why we consider your beliefs foolishness.
What makes you think I haven't.
No, they're scared to death they might learn that God is real.
Humans have a known beginning and a provable starting point; they were born.
What is the starting point of a rock? How did it originate? When did it originate? Not knowing the how, you cannot determine precisely when. You can only guess.
Wrong is wrong. Being closer to right is still wrong.
If a lottery pays out only for the correct numbers getting close means nothing.
It is not. Evolution is based on the evidence and oberved phenomena in biology.
What the model does do, is predict that the earth is old.
It is not based on the earth being old. It is based on the data of living and dead things and the biological observable processes involved
There is no such disagreement within the scientific community, at all.
And the age of the earth isn't measured by carbon dating, either.
It is. Evolution depends on it.
This is where I've seen flat out lies before. Your idea of the scientific community is one that agrees with your side, otherwise, to you, it is not a Scientific community.
All I can really say is get over yourself....there are other sides on the planet
and it doesn't revolve around just your side just because you say it does.
Wish I had the time for the "yes it is" or the "no it is nots" required for most of what follows in your post. Maybe I'll get to it later.
It is not. In fact, in Darwin's day they were pretty clueless about the earth's age.
How could evolution theory, an idea in biology, be "based" on data of geology that wasn't even known at the time?
An sufficiently old earth was predicted by evolution theory. Evolution as a scientific model was not based on the idea of an old earth. It was based on the data of biology.
When, much later, the age of the earth was finally discovered to be more then 4 billion years old, it matched the prediction of evolution theory. It didn't have to, mind you.
If geologists would have discovered that it was only 50.000 years old for example, then we would have known that either biology or geology would have to be wrong.
But instead, the findings of both independend fields, converged on the same answer.
And not just on the age of the earth of course. The geological column and the dating thereof is also a part of the independent field of geology.
The fossils therein is in turn data for biology. And again, both the layering as well as the contents thereof, match exactly what we would expect if our models of the earth's age and life's history are accurate.
Not all sides are worth listening too.
I side with the side that has the evidence and engages in the science.
That's actually quite funny, considering that you actively ignored every single point I raised in the post that you are responding to.
There you go again, acting like those who disagree with your science, don't actually engage in science. Do you know how ridiculous this stuff that you have to be making up on the spot, sounds?
I think I already disagreed with you there.
Then you admit there are two sides after saying there is only one actual community.
There you go again, acting like those who disagree with your science, don't actually engage in science.
Do you know how ridiculous this stuff that you have to be making up on the spot, sounds?
That is not a fact.
It's easy to see how the Atheist Scientist might draw the conclusions they do, I mean is making things up as much a part of how they deal with science too.
I'm not sure what you mean by the second question. One's world view influences one's actions and thoughts. So, it seems that anything else would be influenced by that worldview.Thank you. Can you answer the second question?
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?