Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T
Actually, considering how you seemed to use the weasel words of "respect" and "interpretation", I'm not going to bother trying to refute your point about fundamentalism commanding respect.
|
Ok, thank you for assuming I used them as weasel words. They are not, though. That is according to the philosophy I follow.
Quote:
|
Well actually, you seemed to attempt to elucidate an appealing view in order to force readers into adopting it due to their being unable to resist its appeal. Even assuming this is not the case, your question (I assume that's what it was) is irrelevant. Your 'point' just seems to be a variation of the weak 'It's just my opinion' defence oft-used to excuse oneself from actually having to...ya know...back up one's arguments. The rest of this quoted section seems to just be non-sequitur fluff.
|
This isn't supposed to be an argument, which is why I am trying not to use logic. I quote myself...
Quote:
|
So, this probably isn't a debate, but I am curious about people's views. I don't just want Christians, or atheists, or other religions. I want every person who has a view to voice it.
|
Quote:
|
How can you reasonably expect us to accept your opinions when we can't even know what they are?!
|
Again, why do you respect any opinion? Is it because you find it of a certain amount of merit or is it because you except the fact that people think differently than you and you are not a superbeing?
Quote:
First, I'd like to note your hypocrisy. You say there is no truth then go on to you are a skeptic and espouse your Christian dogma, contradicting your own variation of 'skepticism'. There's another point: you say you're a skeptic 'the way the Greeks invented it' (probably siding with an old ideology to try and gain your position some credit, as you apparently can't actually [be bothered to] justify it), which is missing what the 'Greek skepticism' you attempt to refer to was about: not taking anything as a universal truth.
However, your hypocrisy doesn't refute your points, so...here I go!
|
1. It is not contradictory. The original Skepticism did not stress disbelief in everything. What it stressed was the fact that we can't prove anything so to regard anything as 100% proof is bogus.
2. I said "the way the Greeks invented it" because Skepticism has, over time, become a synonym of a questioner. I am not just a mere, questioner, hence why I mentioned the original. Way to go and totally miss the point though
.
Quote:
|
You gave me tasks to do which you thought were impossible, which wasn't very nice. =) Hopefully you'll forgive me for neglecting to follow these instructions, as I'll agree that your requirement for 'proof' is impossible to fulfil.
|
So, how can you have logic without proof?
Quote:
|
Both your questions can be answered by allowing for existence to be defined in terms of cognition (assuming we can define some things necessary for such definitions), but I see your point (or do I?) that nothing can be proven, and thus that all the knowledge we think we hold is due to assumptions. However, assuming we are wrong, what difference does it make? If the possibilities are believing in reality and not, we obviously pick the former because we only gain and are not adversely affected. In fact, if we choose the latter, we lose our blissful ignorance. If an illusion of something behaves and thus seems exactly like the 'real thing', they are identical and equal and thus indistinguishable. If this reality is just an illusion, then...then what? You showed that we assume certain fundamental views, but didn't actually show why that's a 'bad' thing.
|
So now that we agree that we can't prove anything without assuming, why would I want to except a reasoning where it tells me different? See, I do use logic sometimes, such as in a debate, (which is what you use in a real debate.) At the end of the day, I don't except anything as a universal truth though. Is there a problem with defying human nature and coming to the conclusion that "yes" and "no" mean nothing and there could possibly be answers such as "half-yes" and "half-no." No, there isn't. So, stop telling me that religion is 100% improbable because you used a, possibly faulty method, of proving things, the logical method. This is identical to me believing in a faulty philosophy, religion.
Quote:
|
At the end of the day, the kind of argument you presented is possibly the greatest bastardisation of philosophy: attacking existence, philosophy and logic...with philosophy and logic from your existence (I assume =) ).
|
Opinion.
Quote:
So what he perfect afterwards? If not, I suppose God should have fucked him up more, right?
And I'm not taking the story literally either. I'm saying that surely there must have been a better way to show that materialism is silly without making God look like an asshole in the process. Obviously, I don't think anything in this story really happened; I'm saying that the story itself is stupid.
|
You assume everyone thinks he is an asshole. Job, did not think he was an asshole. I do not think he was an asshole.
Quote:
|
Show that he was "better." Because rereading it, he seemed like a pretty damn good guy before. Look at it this way: Let's say I really appreciated the fact that I had healthy eye-sight. Then I lose sight in an eye. Do I appreciate healthy eye-sight MORE now that I only can see out of one eye? Nah, because I never took it for granted in the first place.
|
Quote:
1 Then Job replied to the LORD :
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."
|
Quote:
|
If that's the case, then that's even worse. "You loved me to begin with, and I already knew you'd love me no matter what happened, but I let Satan fuck with your life anyway, lol!"
|
Again, he improved through the circumstances.
Quote:
|
"God works in mysterious ways..." Cop-out. = /
|
It isn't a cop-out. It is my interpretation of the Bible. If God is an all-supreme
perfect being, what is the point of questioning him? Even better, how could a flawed human think better?
Quote:
Considering I was defending faith because I'm fully aware it helps people live their lives for the last two pages or so, that seems like quite the silly thing to say on your part.
Just because I personally don't need that shit doesn't mean I don't understand it.
|
You don't understand it to the extent we do. Proof? You don't have faith in a god, so do you really value it as much as us?
EDITVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Quote:
I've had another thought that can be applied to quite a few of your posts and which is a (somewhat) separate one, so I'll make another post.
How can you prattle on about faith and your beliefs and your 'interpretations' and all the justifications you use for these things (which can be equated with arguments), apparently refuse to justify them (which would surely be necessary when asserting them, as they're not 'fundamental' truths, common values or anything near either) and still think you're actually arguing validly? So far, you pretty much just seem to be stating that it's 'your interpretation' or 'your belief' as if that makes your positions self-evident.
|
Some of these interpretations are widely accepted, such as God being perfect, which is why I don't go out of my way to state them 100 times. Predestination is not widely accepted. Most people, such as baptists, believe in free will.
Also, please edit your post next time instead of DPing. It gets annoying.