User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 53

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    Well you certainly seem to be.


    I wanted you to put your views in your own words, not recommend the words of other people to me.


    I'd hardly call your view any deeper than mine, nor do I think it is difficult to understand why some people believe.
    Alright, if that's how you want to see it, I think that you sound defensive when there is no need to be.

    Anything I could say would pale in comparison with the sources I mentioned, if you are interested they are there, I dont know what you mean by deep but I dont believe that Dawkins, Hitchens or others like them are deep though.

  2. #42
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Alright, if that's how you want to see it, I think that you sound defensive when there is no need to be.

    Anything I could say would pale in comparison with the sources I mentioned, if you are interested they are there, I dont know what you mean by deep but I dont believe that Dawkins, Hitchens or others like them are deep though.
    You come in claiming God is fact. When faced with opposition, you simply refer to me to others instead of acknowledging the points brought up in conversation. In essence, your reasons for your beliefs are somewhat like this: "If you were to go through my life experiences, read the things that I read, etc. you would believe too." This is not enough for me. You're avoiding the issue.

    That's fine that you don't want to read Dawkins or Hitchens. (Although being deep does not require religion.) I brought them up in an attempt to make a point.


    I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    You come in claiming God is fact. When faced with opposition, you simply refer to me to others instead of acknowledging the points brought up in conversation. In essence, your reasons for your beliefs are somewhat like this: "If you were to go through my life experiences, read the things that I read, etc. you would believe too." This is not enough for me. You're avoiding the issue.

    That's fine that you don't want to read Dawkins or Hitchens. (Although being deep does not require religion.) I brought them up in an attempt to make a point.


    I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
    I am very aware that you do. Its been obvious to me from a few posts back. I'm also very aware that the weight of your own questions and possibly frustrations with any answers you've received from anyone else on the same topic is probably pressing upon you too.

    Its part of the reason I decided, for the sake of understanding, to recommend other sources, also ones which are more articulate than me since I was trying to say something more than "if you'd walked a mile in my shoes", which is what you appeared to read, and I agree, that wouldnt be satisfactory, definitely not if you felt that I was trying to presuade you of a point, which I wasnt and am not.

    I would not suggest that people who are non-believers are shallow, I'd have to know them and make my mind up on an individual basis for that really. I do think that many of the new atheist writers appear that way to me. I certainly do not believe that they are in the same league as the authors I mentioned, not for any "partisan" reasons, Fromm and Vernon are atheists, at least Vernon was once and Fromm definitely was all his life. I definitely think that they are not in Jung's league and I dont cite any of them as authorities in abscence of views of my own or in abscence of an argument or point per se. Just if you're interested in what I was saying but its fine if you arent.

    Thanks for taking an interest and posting in any case.

  4. #44
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    I don't think you quite understand. My frustration stems from this: We were having a rational debate, then at one point you decide to stop participating when nothing is resolved.

  5. #45
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I'd also like to point out that one cannot choose true belief.
    'True belief' is a logical fallacy. And it is the logical fallacy of 'no true scotsman', just click on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

  6. #46
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    'True belief' is a logical fallacy. And it is the logical fallacy of 'no true scotsman', just click on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    I'm sorry but you've got that way wrong.

    This is not ad hoc, nor is it a counterexample of a universal claim. Just like there's a difference between a lie and the truth, there is a difference between true belief and claimed belief.

    For example, right now I can say "I believe in God." yet I don't actually have a belief. That's not a fallacy and it's definitely not a no true Scotsman. It's simply not the truth. It's no different than saying "I'm a bird." I can do that all day long.

  7. #47
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    You come in claiming God is fact. When faced with opposition, you simply refer to me to others instead of acknowledging the points brought up in conversation. In essence, your reasons for your beliefs are somewhat like this: "If you were to go through my life experiences, read the things that I read, etc. you would believe too." This is not enough for me. You're avoiding the issue.
    There is nothing wrong with saying, "the sum total of my life experiences has led me to have faith in God"; which allows for someone else with different experiences to have reached a different conclusion. Claims that any matter of faith is factual, however, have a much higher burden of proof. (And I would argue if true, it is no longer a matter of faith.) Yes, it may have taken years of reflection and reading through many books to come to this conclusion, but it should be possible to summarize the key points that led to it and support it. References can then be provided to document key points/facts if appropriate. I, too, prefer to have someone state their views in their own words, especially on a topic as personal as faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Its part of the reason I decided, for the sake of understanding, to recommend other sources, also ones which are more articulate than me since I was trying to say something more than "if you'd walked a mile in my shoes", which is what you appeared to read, and I agree, that wouldnt be satisfactory, definitely not if you felt that I was trying to presuade you of a point, which I wasnt and am not.

    I would not suggest that people who are non-believers are shallow, I'd have to know them and make my mind up on an individual basis for that really. I do think that many of the new atheist writers appear that way to me.
    Most non-believers I know have given far more thought to why they do not believe, than the believers I know have given to their beliefs. Unquestioning belief like this comes across as shallow, and even somewhat irresponsible. It is the belief of a child, not a rational adult.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #48
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    There is nothing wrong with saying, "the sum total of my life experiences has led me to have faith in God"; which allows for someone else with different experiences to have reached a different conclusion. Claims that any matter of faith is factual, however, have a much higher burden of proof. (And I would argue if true, it is no longer a matter of faith.) Yes, it may have taken years of reflection and reading through many books to come to this conclusion, but it should be possible to summarize the key points that led to it and support it. References can then be provided to document key points/facts if appropriate. I, too, prefer to have someone state their views in their own words, especially on a topic as personal as faith.
    That's fine. I agree with you, especially the bolded part. You say it much better than I do.

  9. #49
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
    You and everyone else who's been foolish enough to engage him in conversation. I'm not entirely convinced he's not just a troll, albeit a gifted and dedicated troll. (The way he slyly accuses people of the things he's obviously guilty of and seems to have no real investment in his professed, clearly contradictory "beliefs", and how he "recommends" books to people that are laser-guided and notoriously suspect "refutations" of their assertions yet never demonstrates any depth of knowledge of these books, has me leaning toward the latter.)

    Anyway, in response to the person who said that there can be no proof for God's existence as this would violate free will:

    Whether or not free will is a reality has been debated for centuries, and modern science is tipping the scales in favor of its non-existence. Experiments have indicated that we only become conscious of our decisions after they've already been made, and I don't see any reason to believe that we are not all complex biological Rube Goldberg devices with ego complexes.

    People point to quantum mechanics and its findings to refute this, but if it's true that every possibility plays out in an infinite number of universes, each of these paths would still be determined. Trains traveling along an infinite number of tracks.

    Besides, even if everything in the bible were true, and free will did exist, we'd still have to choose between siding with God or the Devil, so I don't see how that would preclude a basis in evidence.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  10. #50
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    The OP fallacies are actually kind of silly. You'd have to be interacting with pretty dim witted people, (or people in a whole lot of denial) who use this as evidence that God exists. There is a lot of logical and scientific evidence that the existence of life and the universe be explained in other ways, but there is no evidence that God didn't create all these things. In other words, we can not disprove the existence of God, and it would be very difficult to do so with current methods.

    This is why it's futile to argue these points at all, but people just keep on doing it, unaware that there is absolutely no logic in either argument.

    God exists based on intuition, feelings, other worldly experiences, faith, fear, history, the list goes on- there's just very little scientific logic behind it. And if God exists and (for whatever reason) does not want to reveal himself, do you think he would make it mathematically possible for humans to figure it out? It's God. Scientific arguments for or against nature of God are basically irrelevant.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

Similar Threads

  1. There are two types of people in the world...
    By Legion in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-23-2016, 05:13 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-15-2014, 04:30 AM
  3. Which is more useful in the real world?
    By yenom in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 03:31 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-07-2013, 08:43 AM
  5. The two tragedies in life...
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 11:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO