Opinions on Christianity - Page 12 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Indepth Interests > Debates Section

Debates Section Enjoy a good discussion? This is the place for you! Only knowledgeable discussions allowed!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2008, 01:55 PM   #166
Trey
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,251
Thanks: 139
Thanked 538 Times in 300 Posts
Trey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to behold
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T View Post
Which suggests that you were telling me that I took Orwell's message too much to heart. However, Orwell's message was what you were trying to put forth yourself, and I agree that bare assertion does not constitute knowledge. Thus, I agree with Orwell's message (that bare assertion does not constitute knowledge was [at least] pretty much one of Orwell's messages) and your suggestion to the contrary is wrong. Perhaps you misinterpreted my position or you intended to put forward something along the lines of, 'You give too much credence to the propaganda described in Nineteen Eighty-Four.'
Dude, it was a passing comment. Nothing more. It was just saying how the example which you used was in the book Nineteen Eighty Four.

Quote:
I did not say that you had the wrong idea about the burden of proof. I did, however, wish to ensure that my position on it was clear.
Okay.

Quote:
It is illogical to believe in God because belief is illogical: it does not adhere to deductive logic. The 'idea' of God itself is not contrafactual.
Okay.

Quote:
I never used that phrase. I can hope that my arguments are sound and will lead you to acknowledge the shortcomings of your own positions, but I will not assert that which I cannot support--as 'divine truth' or otherwise.
The shortcomings? It's a personal lifestyle. I don't use God to prove things for me. I don't sit outside and ask God to provide me a ride to school. I just use the commandments for a rough base of my morals and choose to believe I'll go somewhere upon death. That's it. Why do you feel the need to tell me I'm wrong and illogical six ways to Sunday?

Not everyone religious believes God influences everything, so I'd appreciate it if you stop throwing the entire religious population under the illogical bus. I mean, it's also illogical to believe we'll go nowhere too, upon death, going by your guidelines. There's no proof. /shrug

Quote:
You do not know enough of me to judge how 'great' my mind is. Appealing to authorities' support to try and show something to be true is a recognised fallacy. Besides, you seem to have chosen to use the word 'greater' when better choices would have been along the lines of 'better', 'more powerful', 'more perspicacious' and so on.
I figured that pointing out a logical fallacy was a fallacy in and of itself. There's so many of them you can't even debate without using one. Shit, I think I just used another one in the previous sentence. Go figure.

No, I think greater was what I meant. Insightful. Learned. Take your pick.

Quote:
Using faith as a tool to derive knowledge can lead to an infinite number of externally contradictory (i.e., logically incorrect) and internally contradictory conclusions. Faith is bare assertion. Thus, faith is not a valid tool to derive knowledge, and using it as a tool to influence others is indeed what I would call 'wrong'. You said that that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth. However, assuming faith as a valid informative tool results in contradictory conclusions, such as that 2+2 equals four, five, six seven and any other value.
No, faith is faith. I'm not forcing myself to believe God exists. I'm not trying to believe in him. I just do. And so do many others. We're not strapped up to a pain machine cranked to sixety percent and tortured into believing he exists.

Give me hard, sold, irrefutable proof that God does not exist, then yes, I will stop believing in him. Until then, however, I will.

But my whole point is that 2+2=4 is absolute, traditional, non-changing truth. The means justify the ends. There's no getting around it. 2+2=4 applies to everything from counting rock to the LoCoM. No matter how hard you believe, the general reality would constitute that you won't get more than what you put in.

Quote:
Faith is something that has very successfully allowed fools to justify their atrocities.
Yes, but all religious folks are not fools.

Quote:
Not only were those not the atrocities I had at the forefront of my mind, but you also seem to have missed my point. My point was not that hundreds of millions of people would subjugate others. My point was that hundreds of millions--if not billions--have been subjugated at religions' behest. As a correction to what I think I may have poorly formulated: religion itself--as a concept--does not decree these subjugations. However, religions have. It is a fine distinction, but an important one.
Okay.

Quote:
In my usage, 'belief' refers to holding a position one holds due to faith. Thus, in my usage, belief in a deity is illogical by definition. Whether or not thinking a deity exists is necessarily illogical and whether or not demonstrating that assertion is within the scope of logic may depend on one's definition of 'deity'. Lots of discussion of 'God' takes place without any parties neither having a valid definition of 'God' nor realising that they lack a valid definition. Without a valid definition, the only rational stance is agnosticism.
I know this is directed at Mashed, but I'm responding to this anyways.

I'll just keep believing in the unproven.

Last edited by Trey; 08-08-2008 at 02:02 PM.
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-08-2008, 05:07 PM   #167
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
The shortcomings? It's a personal lifestyle. I don't use God to prove things for me. I don't sit outside and ask God to provide me a ride to school. I just use the commandments for a rough base of my morals and choose to believe I'll go somewhere upon death. That's it. Why do you feel the need to tell me I'm wrong and illogical six ways to Sunday?
Because it is? What's the big deal? It's illogical, so what? I think women and men should be treated as equals, but I wouldn't punch a girl in the face if she...I dunno, shoved me or some shit. Yet I'd break a dude's face for doing the exact same thing instantaneously. Does that make any logical sense? Not really. Oh well, no biggie.

It's not like saying something is illogical automatically makes it insulting. It just is what it is. Accept it.
Quote:
Not everyone religious believes God influences everything, so I'd appreciate it if you stop throwing the entire religious population under the illogical bus. I mean, it's also illogical to believe we'll go nowhere too, upon death, going by your guidelines. There's no proof. /shrug
The belief in God, or any other completely unproven claim, is illogical. Don't want to see that? Then cover your eyes. Like I said, shit is what it is. You not liking it isn't going to change that fact.

Also, about the death thing, since there's no actual proof backing any claims that something happens to our spirits or whatever, assuming we just stop existing as a conscious being isn't illogical. It's exactly what we observe happen, for fuck's sake. = /


Quote:
I figured that pointing out a logical fallacy was a fallacy in and of itself. There's so many of them you can't even debate without using one. Shit, I think I just used another one in the previous sentence. Go figure.
You figured wrong. If you're referring to what DA said to that introspection guy, that was a joke. That dude was just using them in an immature way, and was mistaken about some of them. It's not wrong to point out a fallacy. LRN2DEBATE =p

And you definitely can debate without using one. Well, maybe not you personally, but for other people it's definitely possible. Zing. : )

Oh, and regarding the whole "greater mind" thing: One can be an extremely intelligent dude and still hold an illogical belief. No one is perfect, after all. So saying "smarter people than you believe in God, hurr hurr" doesn't really prove, well, anything at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 05:57 PM   #168
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Dude, it was a passing comment. Nothing more. It was just saying how the example which you used was in the book Nineteen Eighty Four.
My assertion is that I have not read that book ‘too much’ just because I validly used an idea that happens to be in the book as a basis for an analogy, which seemed to be your original suggestion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
The shortcomings? It's a personal lifestyle. I don't use God to prove things for me. I don't sit outside and ask God to provide me a ride to school. I just use the commandments for a rough base of my morals and choose to believe I'll go somewhere upon death. That's it.
Your actions towards other people are affected by what you hold to be true. If you believe irrational, religious things, many of your actions towards other people will have an irrational, religious, basis, invariably leading towards deleterious actions towards other people. Allowing irrational arguments to justify external actions is absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Why do you feel the need to tell me I'm wrong and illogical six ways to Sunday?
Evidently I feel that there is something to be gained from it. There is always the chance that you or some spectator will see rationality in my positions (and that the positions will indeed be rational) and take them up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Not everyone religious believes God influences everything, so I'd appreciate it if you stop throwing the entire religious population under the illogical bus.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. What you said is that there are some deists, therefore some ‘religionists’ are logical. If you had the premises that all deists are religionists, and that some deists are logical, or the premises that some deists are religionists and that some of these desists are logical, you would have a sound argument. As it is, ‘God’ is invariably proposed without valid logical arguments, so the belief is invariably ‘illogical’ by definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I mean, it's also illogical to believe we'll go nowhere too, upon death, going by your guidelines. There's no proof.
So far as I know, no valid logical have been put forth to show that ‘death is the end’. However, working on the basis that death is the end is rational nonetheless, and I also did not claim that the assertion that death is the end is a logical one. There is a difference--or at least, I draw one--between that which is logical and that which is rational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I figured that pointing out a logical fallacy was a fallacy in and of itself. There's so many of them you can't even debate without using one. Shit, I think I just used another one in the previous sentence. Go figure.
Oh? Did you figure that out just like you figured out that ‘God exists’?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
No, I think greater was what I meant. Insightful. Learned. Take your pick.
Hitler may have had a greater mind than a cretin, but the cretin could still correctly point out that a position of Hitler’s was irrational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
No, faith is faith.
Thanks for that gem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I'm not forcing myself to believe God exists. I'm not trying to believe in him.
I do not see what you are getting at here, but I shall address these points anyway:

You leave yourself (by using whatever actions) with no choice but to think God exists, thus you are indeed forcing yourself (whether consciously or not) to believe God exists. You are blatantly trying to believe that God exists because sincerely maintaining an assertion (in this case the assertion that God exists) shows that you think that the proposition of the assertion is true, showing that, on some level, you try to hold that assertion (because holding a position requires some intention to do so). You may not realise it consciously, but it is still the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
And so do many others. We're not strapped up to a pain machine cranked to sixety percent and tortured into believing he exists.
See, these last two points seem misplaced and are troubling because they show that you make a completely voluntary choice to hold a position irrationally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Give me hard, sold, irrefutable proof that God does not exist, then yes, I will stop believing in him. Until then, however, I will.
I do not need to. All I need to show is that there is not reasonable evidence to do so. A good example is in the criminal justice system: the accused does not start with the status of ‘guilty’ and then have to ‘prove’ that they are not. The accuser must give reasonable evidence to show that the accused is in fact guilty. Otherwise, it is not reasonably shown to be the case. The accused may still be guilty, but it is not reasonable to assume they are. The jurors should operate on the agnostic basis that the accused may be guilty, but has not been demonstrated to be, and thus they should not take the positive action (that is, the action dictated by a positive, affirming claim as opposed to the action dictated by a negative, denying claim) of assuming the accused is guilty.

Similarly, the claim that God exists requires a reasonable level of evidence, and that has not been provided. Your incorrect perception of the burden of proof leads to contradiction: as well as one reaching theistic positions such as your own, one can also use your perception to derive contradictory positions by realising that the non-existence of God has not been disproved, and thus it is true. That results in the contradiction of God both existing and not existing, showing that your apparent perception of the burden of proof is flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
But my whole point is that 2+2=4 is absolute, traditional, non-changing truth. The means justify the ends. There's no getting around it. 2+2=4 applies to everything from counting rock to the LoCoM. No matter how hard you believe, the general reality would constitute that you won't get more than what you put in.
At some point, even justifying mathematic and logic uses necessary assumptions. How can we logically ‘prove’ logic itself without assuming the validity of logic? However, due to the consistency of mathematics and logic, they are as good as proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Yes, but all religious folks are not fools.
What I think you meant to say was that not all religious folks are fools. The usage of the word fool is largely subjective, but I agree that not all religious folks are utter fools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I'll just keep believing in the unproven.
So long as your irrational beliefs do not result in negative results for other people, I suppose that is acceptable. However, the probability of that is so small that in practice you are as good as deciding that you will wilfully negatively affect others, which I, of course, will not accept.

Last edited by Miles T; 08-09-2008 at 02:46 PM. Reason: Fixing an [/QUOTE] tag.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 07:50 PM   #169
Kites
I Love Donuts
 
Kites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Age: 22
Posts: 1,165
Thanks: 27
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
Kites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to beholdKites is a splendid one to behold
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Guys, II + II = IIII

And Jesus loves you.
Stop the playa hating.
Kites is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 08:23 PM   #170
Trey
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,251
Thanks: 139
Thanked 538 Times in 300 Posts
Trey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to behold
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Because it is? What's the big deal? It's illogical, so what? I think women and men should be treated as equals, but I wouldn't punch a girl in the face if she...I dunno, shoved me or some shit. Yet I'd break a dude's face for doing the exact same thing instantaneously. Does that make any logical sense? Not really. Oh well, no biggie.
No, it is not a shortcoming. I am not lesser than you because I believe in God, which is what a shortcoming would be. Believing in God does not restrict me in any way. I am as sane, and as legit, as any atheist.

Quote:
It's not like saying something is illogical automatically makes it insulting. It just is what it is. Accept it.
Sure.

Quote:
The belief in God, or any other completely unproven claim, is illogical. Don't want to see that? Then cover your eyes. Like I said, shit is what it is. You not liking it isn't going to change that fact.
Well, seeing as how you said "unproven claim", a lot of science is illogical. But, as I know that is only a poor choice of words, it really means nothing.

Quote:
Also, about the death thing, since there's no actual proof backing any claims that something happens to our spirits or whatever, assuming we just stop existing as a conscious being isn't illogical. It's exactly what we observe happen, for fuck's sake. = /
I was mocking him. Merely showing the lack of proof = illogical motif he keeps throwing in my face has variables.

Quote:
You figured wrong. If you're referring to what DA said to that introspection guy, that was a joke. That dude was just using them in an immature way, and was mistaken about some of them. It's not wrong to point out a fallacy. LRN2DEBATE =p
It's certainly not needed. Fallacies are in our nature, and trying to adhere to all of them is a rare feat that should not judiciously levy the outcome of a debate.

Quote:
Oh, and regarding the whole "greater mind" thing: One can be an extremely intelligent dude and still hold an illogical belief. No one is perfect, after all. So saying "smarter people than you believe in God, hurr hurr" doesn't really prove, well, anything at all.
You both took that side-comment too far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T View Post
My assertion is that I have not read that book ‘too much’ just because I validly used an idea that happens to be in the book as a basis for an analogy, which seemed to be your original suggestion.
It was just a comment to parallel your example with that scene in the book. Nothing more.

Quote:
Your actions towards other people are affected by what you hold to be true. If you believe irrational, religious things, many of your actions towards other people will have an irrational, religious, basis, invariably leading towards deleterious actions towards other people. Allowing irrational arguments to justify external actions is absurd.
The only thing I believe is that Moses and Jesus existed at some time in history, and that God exists. That is all.

Quote:
Evidently I feel that there is something to be gained from it. There is always the chance that you or some spectator will see rationality in my positions (and that the positions will indeed be rational) and take them up.
Wow. I'm not even going to respond to that. I'll just assume that wasn't a dickheaded as that sounded.

Quote:
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. What you said is that there are some deists, therefore some ‘religionists’ are logical. If you had the premises that all deists are religionists, and that some deists are logical, or the premises that some deists are religionists and that some of these desists are logical, you would have a sound argument. As it is, ‘God’ is invariably proposed without valid logical arguments, so the belief is invariably ‘illogical’ by definition.
Okay.

Quote:
So far as I know, no valid logical have been put forth to show that ‘death is the end’. However, working on the basis that death is the end is rational nonetheless, and I also did not claim that the assertion that death is the end is a logical one. There is a difference--or at least, I draw one--between that which is logical and that which is rational.
So people that try to rationalize their lives and phenomenoms with religion are still illogical when you just said that believing death is the end is illogical yet rational? It appears as though it is the end, but if it's only what we observe then well, part of the person is still alive.

Quote:
Oh? Did you figure that out just like you figured out that ‘God exists’?
Sure.

Quote:
Hitler may have had a greater mind than a cretin, but the cretin could still correctly point out that a position of Hitler’s was irrational.
Hitler still rationally went about his business, however cruel it was.

Quote:
Thanks for that gem.
No problem.

Quote:
I do not see what you are getting at here, but I shall address these points anyway:

You leave yourself (by using whatever actions) with no choice but to think God exists, thus you are indeed forcing yourself (whether consciously or not) to believe God exists. You are blatantly trying to believe that God exists because sincerely maintaining an assertion (in this case the assertion that God exists) shows that you think that the proposition of the assertion is true, showing that, on some level, you try to hold that assertion (because holding a position requires some intention to do so). You may not realise it consciously, but it is still the case.
Since the existence of God, or a higher being, can go either way upon death or transcendence, I just choose to believe he exists. I'm not forcing anything. I'm not defending religion as a idea or institution, I'm defending it as a lifestyle.

Quote:
See, these last two points seem misplaced and are troubling because they show that you make a completely voluntary choice to hold a position irrationally.
As does the majority of the world.

Quote:
I do not need to. All I need to show is that there is not reasonable evidence to do so. A good example is in the criminal justice system: the accused does not start with the status of ‘guilty’ and then have to ‘prove’ that they are not. The accuser must give reasonable evidence to show that the accused is in fact guilty. Otherwise, it is not reasonably shown to be the case. The accused may still be guilty, but it is not reasonable to assume they are. The jurors should operate on the agnostic basis that the accused may be guilty, but has not been demonstrated to be, and thus they should not take the positive action (that is, the action dictated by a positive, affirming claim as opposed to the action dictated by a negative, denying claim) of assuming the accused is guilty.
Actually, I would think that would apply more to my case than to yours. Innocent until proven guilty; true until proven false. However, I don't really think this court example has much to do with the subject at hand, so, moving on.

Quote:
Similarly, the claim that God exists requires a reasonable level of evidence, and that has not been provided. Your incorrect perception of the burden of proof leads to contradiction: as well as one reaching theistic positions such as your own, one can also use your perception to derive contradictory positions by realising that the non-existence of God has not been disproved, and thus it is true. That results in the contradiction of God both existing and not existing, showing that your apparent perception of the burden of proof is flawed.
The thing about that is, we may have not reached a level of ingenuity as humans to clearly and rationally prove or disprove God. Whether he is tangible or not, a part or seperate from our dimension. The truth may well lie in the many theories we have.

Quote:
At some point, even justifying mathematic and logic uses necessary assumptions. How can we logically ‘prove’ logic itself without assuming the validity of logic? However, due to the consistency of mathematics and logic, they are as good as proof.
Going by that logic, nothing is fact, because it could be argued our perception has been altered or miscontrued in some way. Which causes a paradox, in that logic is illogical. Sometimes shit happenes in nature, which is true. However, "that shit happens" can just possibly be beyond our scope of understanding, and should not be categorized or identified with our current lack of understand, or, ignorance.

Quote:
What I think you meant to say was that not all religious folks are fools. The usage of the word fool is largely subjective, but I agree that not all religious folks are utter fools.
We're not fools, period. The title fool should be applied on a person-to-person basis.

Quote:
So long as your irrational beliefs do not result in negative results for other people, I suppose that is acceptable. However, the probability of that is so small that in practice you are as good as deciding that you will wilfully negatively affect others, which I, of course, will not accept.
Ah, so this is the heart of the problem. Because I believe in God, no matter what I do, I'll cause a negative effect on people. Wow, thanks for setting me straight, pal.

Last edited by Trey; 08-08-2008 at 08:25 PM.
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 08:45 PM   #171
OniKage
Shadow Demon
 
OniKage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In front of a computer
Age: 21
Posts: 592
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
OniKage has a spectacular aura aboutOniKage has a spectacular aura aboutOniKage has a spectacular aura aboutOniKage has a spectacular aura about
Re: Opinions on Christianity

enough of highlighting the "chances and possibilities" of this issue. Let's trace back in history.

*siding with Christianity*

First, not only Biblical records show existence of Christ. MANY TRACES have been left today.

For instance, a record: a shawl was left in a tomb near Jerusalem, showing bloodmarks of a man with a stab on the belly and nail marks on his hands and feet, is believed to be the cloth used to wrap Christ. It is oeen another one of the many proofs of his existence, but the man covered by the shawl may have body, but when they saw the piece of cloth, no one was in it. The Church made some research about it and they got different results. One was that the fabric was just produced less than 2000 years ago, and doesn't match in Christ's timeline.

Another record: Egyptian manuscripts in the time of Ramsees the Great showed the existence of Moses, almost every miracle he did in Egypt was written. It may be different from the one written in the Bible because of different writers and points of view, but they contain similar contents.
__________________

I'm with the:



OniKage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 09:23 PM   #172
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

When you define 'Christianity', you will have a comprehensible proposition.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 10:30 PM   #173
OniKage
Shadow Demon
 
OniKage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In front of a computer
Age: 21
Posts: 592
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
OniKage has a spectacular aura aboutOniKage has a spectacular aura aboutOniKage has a spectacular aura aboutOniKage has a spectacular aura about
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Chrisianity is a religion started by Christ's ministry 2000 years ago. It was divided in the rise of the Orthodox Catholicism and protestantism of martin luther. Though different Christian religions have different views, they become similar in their belief of Christ. As a roman catholic, i believe that Christianity is a broad term, because it includes many religions. I say its not that understandable because if you ask a lutherian, he may have a different definition of Christianity. Ask a Born again member, he also has another. The different definitions of Christianity may be bound to their different beliefs.

Also, if we talk about God's existence, it doesn't only refer to an issue in Christianity, but also in Judaism and Islam.

But personally, i believe that God exists, otherwise all the science in the world will remain a history. There will be no answer to the question, "How did something came from nothing". For example, we have the big bang, but ask this, "How did the big bang, the universe, everything come from in the very start? In the state of nothingness?"
__________________

I'm with the:



OniKage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 11:26 PM   #174
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
No, it is not a shortcoming. I am not lesser than you because I believe in God, which is what a shortcoming would be.
All else being equal, who is ‘better’: a rational person or a deluded one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Believing in God does not restrict me in any way.
Holding any position irrationally is a vexation to developing a fine mind; it is like trying to complete a Su Doku puzzle with numbers in places that will not allow it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I am as sane [as any atheist], and as legit, as any atheist.
This is just more rabble irrelevant to the correctness of your proposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Well, seeing as how you said "unproven claim", a lot of science is illogical. But, as I know that is only a poor choice of words, it really means nothing.
Actually, Miburo used the phrase “completely unproven claim,” which is crucially different from the phrase ‘unproven claim’.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I was mocking him. Merely showing the lack of proof = illogical motif he keeps throwing in my face has variables.
No matter. Holding a position that does not have reasonable evidence to support it is always illogical. It is outside the power of any variables to change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
It's certainly not needed.
Wait…what am I doing!? This is more irrelevant fluff!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Fallacies are in our nature, and trying to adhere to all of them is a rare feat that should not judiciously levy the outcome of a debate.
As best I can recall, neither myself nor Miburo claimed that we were right because we did not commit any logical fallacies; this is just more non sequitur rambling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
You both took that side-comment too far.
The old “I didn’t really mean it!” defence, eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
It was just a comment to parallel your example with that scene in the book. Nothing more.
What you typed did not reflect that; you failed to communicate what you wanted to get across, but I think I understand now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
The only thing I believe is that Moses and Jesus existed at some time in history, and that God exists. That is all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
So people that try to rationalize their lives and phenomenoms with religion are still illogical when you just said that believing death is the end is illogical yet rational? It appears as though it is the end, but if it's only what we observe then well, part of the person is still alive.
So this argument is essentially, ‘It is not proven that death is the end. Therefore part of the person is still alive.’? Can you not see how argument is deficient?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Hitler still rationally went about his business, however cruel it was.
You implied that because great minds have thought that God exists, God must exist That is a fallacy (yes, I am indeed calling you out on using a fallacious argument). You would probably now say that that was not what you meant, in which case I can relegate yet more of what you have said to the realm of non sequitur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Since the existence of God, or a higher being, can go either way upon death or transcendence, I just choose to believe he exists.
You mean that if you believe in God, you will achieve salvation, so you believe in God so you do not run the risk of missing out on salvation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I'm not forcing anything.
You are telling us that God exists, are you not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I'm not defending religion as a idea or institution, I'm defending it as a lifestyle.
You seemed quite hasty to defend religion when I pointed out all the atrocities committed in its name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
As does the majority of the world.
Another fallacy. Something is not necessarily true just because a majority of the world thinks it to be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Actually, I would think that would apply more to my case than to yours. Innocent until proven guilty; true until proven false. However, I don't really think this court example has much to do with the subject at hand, so, moving on.
My intention was to demonstrate that the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, which was, in my example, the accuser. It leads to contradictions to derive the truth using the principle that the burden of proof is upon the person denying a claim. That is the only case where your statement that God’s existence cannot be disproved would prove its existence, but seeing as that case is paradoxical, your statement does not show that God necessarily exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
The thing about that is, we may have not reached a level of ingenuity as humans to clearly and rationally prove or disprove God. Whether he is tangible or not, a part or seperate from our dimension. The truth may well lie in the many theories we have.
Again; you must know something about ‘God’ before you make claims about the falsifiability thereof. As you seem to have neither defined nor described ‘God’, your statement carries no weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Going by that logic...
Heh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
…, nothing is fact, because it could be argued our perception has been altered or miscontrued in some way. Which causes a paradox, in that logic is illogical.
Logic is not illogical, it is just unable to be derived using logic. Similarly, water is watery, but defining water in terms of water does not tell us much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Sometimes shit happenes in nature, which is true.
Except for the whole part where nothing is absolute truth. We accept that all our empirical evidence is in accordance with logic, which makes the chance of it being incorrect for most intents and purposes negligible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
However, "that shit happens" can just possibly be beyond our scope of understanding…
It can also not be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
…and should not be categorized or identified with our current lack of understand, or, ignorance.
So then…that the Sun ‘rises’ should not be categorised or identified because we do not know everything? I really do not understand your point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
We're not fools, period. The title fool should be applied on a person-to-person basis.
As I said, it depends upon what one means by the word ‘fool’. If one would call someone who believes something that does not have reasonable evidence and which has been shown to them not to have reasonable evidence a fool, then there are indeed fools who follow a religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Ah, so this is the heart of the problem. Because I believe in God, no matter what I do, I'll cause a negative effect on people. Wow, thanks for setting me straight, pal.
There is always the unlikely case that your thinking God exists does not have a negative effect on people. There is also always the presently unlikely case that the Sun will not rise tomorrow.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2008, 11:56 PM   #175
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by OniKage View Post
Chrisianity is a religion started by Christ's ministry 2000 years ago. It was divided in the rise of the Orthodox Catholicism and protestantism of martin luther. Though different Christian religions have different views, they become similar in their belief of Christ. As a roman catholic, i believe that Christianity is a broad term, because it includes many religions. I say its not that understandable because if you ask a lutherian, he may have a different definition of Christianity. Ask a Born again member, he also has another. The different definitions of Christianity may be bound to their different beliefs.
Then we will use what you provided:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OniKage View Post
Chrisianity is a religion started by Christ's ministry 2000 years ago. It was divided in the rise of the Orthodox Catholicism and protestantism of martin luther. Though different Christian religions have different views, they become similar in their belief of Christ.
Even assuming your definition is passable, the only thing we find out to be common to all denominations is their ‘belief of Christ’. The term ‘belief of Christ’ is itself ambiguous: it could plausibly be substituted for ‘position that Christ lived’ or ‘position that Christ lives’ or ‘position that Christ’s teachings were correct’ or possibly even something else. Then there is the ambiguity of what is meant by ‘Christ’: ‘Christ’ as described in the Bible or somebody who went around preaching to love one’s neighbours or something else? All of the permutations of the possibilities I suggested I suggested are either nothing extraordinary or unsupported by a reasonable level of evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OniKage View Post
Also, if we talk about God's existence, it doesn't only refer to an issue in Christianity, but also in Judaism and Islam.
I am genuinely glad that you realise that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OniKage View Post
But personally, i believe that God exists, otherwise all the science in the world will remain a history.
“all the science in the world will remain a history.”? I do not follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OniKage View Post
There will be no answer to the question, "How did something came from nothing". For example, we have the big bang, but ask this, "How did the big bang, the universe, everything come from in the very start? In the state of nothingness?"
You are assuming that there is an answer to that question. Even if there is an answer, it does not necessarily lie in religion, and it is not even necessarily true that humans will ever know it. I think what you were getting at is the following argument, a cosmological one:

Whatever exists has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.
Therefore God exists.

Which assumes that God is the only thing that could have caused the Universe. As a side-note, this argument (if true) leads to the conclusion that God must have a cause, as God exists. This is often contradictory to the claims of theists.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 12:59 AM   #176
Trey
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,251
Thanks: 139
Thanked 538 Times in 300 Posts
Trey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to behold
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T View Post
All else being equal, who is ‘better’: a rational person or a deluded one?
Seeing how these "delusions" have no mental or physical consequence on the person; neither, I would say.

Quote:
Holding any position irrationally is a vexation to developing a fine mind; it is like trying to complete a Su Doku puzzle with numbers in places that will not allow it.
Sudoku is pretty fun, actually.

Quote:
This is just more rabble irrelevant to the correctness of your proposition.
Okay.

Quote:
Actually, Miburo used the phrase “completely unproven claim,” which is crucially different from the phrase ‘unproven claim’.
I distinctly remember seeing "unproven claim" only, but I may have been mistaken. If he had, of course, put completely there, then I retract my statement.

Quote:
No matter. Holding a position that does not have reasonable evidence to support it is always illogical. It is outside the power of any variables to change that.
Okay.

Quote:
The old “I didn’t really mean it!” defence, eh?
I actually used that defense, not to prove the existence of God, but to express that people are not generally illogical just because they believe in a higher presence.

Quote:
What you typed did not reflect that; you failed to communicate what you wanted to get across, but I think I understand now.
Or perhaps you just misconstrued the tone of my words. That's the more likely scenario.

Quote:
So this argument is essentially, ‘It is not proven that death is the end. Therefore part of the person is still alive.’? Can you not see how argument is deficient?
Your confusion is my fault: let me elaborate. Mibs said that the it is observed that a person ends, and I rebutted with a statement that should've meant; even in clinical death, parts of the body are still alive. So, if we say that their end is rational because we observe it, they are also alive in a sense as well. You follow me?

Quote:
You implied that because great minds have thought that God exists, God must exist That is a fallacy (yes, I am indeed calling you out on using a fallacious argument). You would probably now say that that was not what you meant, in which case I can relegate yet more of what you have said to the realm of non sequitur.
Read above.

Quote:
You mean that if you believe in God, you will achieve salvation, so you believe in God so you do not run the risk of missing out on salvation?
Something like that.

Quote:
You are telling us that God exists, are you not?
I believe he exists, but it doesn't mean you have to. I never try to prove his existence, and choose to believe personally.

Quote:
You seemed quite hasty to defend religion when I pointed out all the atrocities committed in its name.
Because you were offhandedly attacking the people belonging to religion.

Quote:
Another fallacy. Something is not necessarily true just because a majority of the world thinks it to be true.
Numbers show that the majority of the world is religious.

Quote:
Again; you must know something about ‘God’ before you make claims about the falsifiability thereof. As you seem to have neither defined nor described ‘God’, your statement carries no weight.
My personal definition is a bit different from traditional ones, and I don't feel obliged to share.

Quote:
Logic is not illogical, it is just unable to be derived using logic. Similarly, water is watery, but defining water in terms of water does not tell us much.
Of course, because when you define something you cannot use the defined word in the definition because that divulges nothing.

Quote:
So then…that the Sun ‘rises’ should not be categorised or identified because we do not know everything? I really do not understand your point here.
I was speaking strictly of an omniscient being.

Quote:
As I said, it depends upon what one means by the word ‘fool’. If one would call someone who believes something that does not have reasonable evidence and which has been shown to them not to have reasonable evidence a fool, then there are indeed fools who follow a religion.
There are fools who do not follow religion as well. As I said, the term "fool" should be applied on a person-to-person basis, not as a broad blanket over a certain group.

Quote:
There is always the unlikely case that your thinking God exists does not have a negative effect on people. There is also always the presently unlikely case that the Sun will not rise tomorrow.
No, seeing as how I keep my belief seperate from my interaction with people, no one is negatively effected.

Last edited by Trey; 08-09-2008 at 01:02 AM.
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 02:43 AM   #177
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Seeing how these "delusions" have no mental or physical consequence on the person; neither, I would say.
Come off it. You do not really think that—all else being equal—a person deluded in any way is equal to a rational person without any delusions, do you? Even if the difference is tiny, there will be one—and not in the favour of the deluded person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I actually used that defense, not to prove the existence of God, but to express that people are not generally illogical just because they believe in a higher presence.
What makes a person illogical is also subjective. I would say that thinking God exists does not—by itself—make a person utterly illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Mibs said that the it is observed that a person ends, and I rebutted with a statement that should've meant; even in clinical death, parts of the body are still alive. So, if we say that their end is rational because we observe it, they are also alive in a sense as well. You follow me?
In biological nomenclature, I think that ‘life’ is a property that only applies to organisms (and, some would say, viruses as well). As body parts do not reproduce, metabolise and be viruses, they are not organisms. I think it would be ‘biologically correct’, however, to say that parts of the body are animated after death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Something like that.
Which pretty much sounds like Pascal’s Wager. First off, note that that argument does not actually demonstrate the existence of God: it merely tries to show why thinking God exists is rational. Second, it fails at that. For every one of the infinite number of Gods that only reward those who ‘believe’ in them, there is a God that only rewards those who do not ‘believe’ in them. Thus—based on that alone—the probabilities of a God existing that rewards only ‘believers’ and that of a God who only rewards ‘non-believers’ are equal, and all possible Gods are infinitesimally likely to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I never try to prove his existence, and choose to believe personally.
So…you never try to prove God’s existence, you just put forward arguments to support that proposition to other people. Okay then…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Because you were offhandedly attacking the people belonging to religion.
I can support that which I have said here with rational arguments, and I have not been shown to be wrong. Any assertion of mine you are referring to is probably correct, even if it does not put religious people in a good light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I was speaking strictly of an omniscient being.
Categorisation of an omniscient being is possible—the name itself categorises. Whether or not knowing that something is an omniscient being is possible seems less clear-cut. Perhaps you can show why it is impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
There are fools who do not follow religion as well. As I said, the term "fool" should be applied on a person-to-person basis, not as a broad blanket over a certain group.
If a behaviour is exhibited by every member of a group, and that behaviour identifies anything that exhibits it as a fool, every member of the group is a fool. As I said, it comes back to how one personally uses the word ‘fool’.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
No, seeing as how I keep my belief seperate from my interaction with people, no one is negatively effected.
Except (at least) when you put forward arguments supporting your position that a potentially impressionable audience could come across.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 03:21 AM   #178
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Holy shit, Miles is tearing shit up in here. I fuckin' love this guy. ; )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
No, it is not a shortcoming. I am not lesser than you because I believe in God, which is what a shortcoming would be. Believing in God does not restrict me in any way. I am as sane, and as legit, as any atheist.
Did I call it a shortcoming? Nope, don't think I did. I said the belief in God is illogical. That's it.

Quote:
Well, seeing as how you said "unproven claim", a lot of science is illogical. But, as I know that is only a poor choice of words, it really means nothing.
As was already pointed out, you apparently missed the "completely" part of that statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Mibs said that the it is observed that a person ends, and I rebutted with a statement that should've meant; even in clinical death, parts of the body are still alive. So, if we say that their end is rational because we observe it, they are also alive in a sense as well. You follow me?
Actually, I said we observe that the person's existence as a conscious being ends when they die. This whole 'missing key words in the argument' thing is killing you. = )
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 02:42 PM   #179
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Holy shit, Miles is tearing shit up in here.
This is a good cue to make a point that was touched upon earlier. My posts may seem “dickheaded” in their arrogance and because of what seems to be presumptuousness. However, my conviction in my position grows with every pro-theism argument I think I refute. Having done so a good few times, and also having one of the finest human minds on my side, I have rightfully become very confident in my position, and that can come off as arrogant and presumptuous. I do not reflexively decry arrogance as inherently bad, and embrace my own ‘arrogance’ with the support of how my intellect and intelligence has proven superior to so many others time and time again. I also realise that, at a certain point, one can become reasonably sure of the correctness of one’s positions, and can then act upon their convictions—even in situations where others are left behind.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2008, 03:09 PM   #180
Matthekage
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 552
Thanks: 256
Thanked 141 Times in 96 Posts
Matthekage is a glorious beacon of lightMatthekage is a glorious beacon of lightMatthekage is a glorious beacon of lightMatthekage is a glorious beacon of lightMatthekage is a glorious beacon of lightMatthekage is a glorious beacon of lightMatthekage is a glorious beacon of lightMatthekage is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Nah!, your alright. As a fellow atheist, I'm loving' it I've read no "Dick headed" arrogance here, when your right, your right. You just appear to have a vocab' and grasp of English that can intimidate others. That's their problem, debate on Miles T. This is refreshing.

Last edited by Matthekage; 08-09-2008 at 03:14 PM.
Matthekage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.