Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ultimately, belief comes down a circular argument. I believe because I believe. Belief is self-sustaining and cannot be taught. You are on the other side of a large rift and I don't see that divide being reconciled any time soon.
True, but what we have established is that for you that sort of "circular argument" is good enough. The "I believe because I believe" is good enough for you, and of course I know this is good enough for lots and lots of people, but from an intellectual unbiased critical thinking standpoint, such criteria or lack thereof is in no way acceptable.
I am interested to know if in this forum there are any people who are better described by the latter rather than the former, and if so, what they might offer different or better than "I believe because I believe."
That the teachings, in any religion, be that your core faith must be based on the foundations of that religion is obviously born of an agenda rather than the truth, or I would expect those teachings to provide the means and/or proof to justify that sort of requirement.
BTW, I am not sure you are aware, but a "circular argument" is essentially a fallacy.
"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as 'circular logic') is a logical fallacy in which one begins arguing in the wrong end of a premise that indicates some regularity and tries to move either a)in the opposite direction, from an assumption or observation that verifies a ...
I am interested to know if in this forum there are any people who are better described by the latter rather than the former, and if so, what they might offer different or better than "I believe because I believe."
My sister in law believes because she witnessed a miracle. Of course, you might deny that what she witnessed was a miracle. The threshold of proof is not going to be agreed upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
That the teachings, in any religion, be that your core faith must be based on the foundations of that religion is obviously born of an agenda rather than the truth,
You do realize that making this statement about what "must" be is a logical fallacy. It is what you think is true but has not been proven to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
or I would expect those teachings to provide the means and/or proof to justify that sort of requirement.
Why is what you expect at all persuasive to anyone but you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
BTW, I am not sure you are aware, but a "circular argument" is essentially a fallacy.
Good thing I'm not relying on that circular argument to try and deduce some logical point or construct a rhetorically sound argument.
True, but what we have established is that for you that sort of "circular argument" is good enough. The "I believe because I believe" is good enough for you, and of course I know this is good enough for lots and lots of people, but from an intellectual unbiased critical thinking standpoint, such criteria or lack thereof is in no way acceptable.
I am interested to know if in this forum there are any people who are better described by the latter rather than the former, and if so, what they might offer different or better than "I believe because I believe."
That the teachings, in any religion, be that your core faith must be based on the foundations of that religion is obviously born of an agenda rather than the truth, or I would expect those teachings to provide the means and/or proof to justify that sort of requirement.
BTW, I am not sure you are aware, but a "circular argument" is essentially a fallacy.
"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as 'circular logic') is a logical fallacy in which one begins arguing in the wrong end of a premise that indicates some regularity and tries to move either a)in the opposite direction, from an assumption or observation that verifies a ...
Surely we can do better than circular reasoning. Right? "Because just because."
I sure hope so...
I must sign off now, not just because, but because I've got some other things to attend to now. Cheers!
WHY do you persist on coming here and badgering posters about their faith? Because YOU believe that "from an intellectual unbiased critical thinking standpoint", faith alone is insufficient? Tell you what - you analyze your beliefs all you want, but leave mine alone. They work for me. I don't care about analyzing them in any scientific manner. I pray - to you I guess that would be an "unscientific" endeavor. So be it. Go and harass some Hare Krishnas or Seventh Day Adventists instead, if you've nothing better to do with your time. (I mean no offense to either group, btw - they were the first ones in my mind.)
Oh, and before you riposte with a scathing (in your mind) comment that people ought to be able to discuss their religious beliefs in a calm and rational manner, I will agree with you. You, on the other hand, apparently enjoy "hearing" (reading) your own endless, pointless discussions about a religious faith that is not your choice to accept. You're free to do so, or not; however, you're also not entitled to attack its precepts. None of the respondents to your posts have questioned YOUR faith or beliefs.
WHY do you persist on coming here and badgering posters about their faith? Because YOU believe that "from an intellectual unbiased critical thinking standpoint", faith alone is insufficient? Tell you what - you analyze your beliefs all you want, but leave mine alone. They work for me. I don't care about analyzing them in any scientific manner. I pray - to you I guess that would be an "unscientific" endeavor. So be it. Go and harass some Hare Krishnas or Seventh Day Adventists instead, if you've nothing better to do with your time. (I mean no offense to either group, btw - they were the first ones in my mind.)
Oh, and before you riposte with a scathing (in your mind) comment that people ought to be able to discuss their religious beliefs in a calm and rational manner, I will agree with you. You, on the other hand, apparently enjoy "hearing" (reading) your own endless, pointless discussions about a religious faith that is not your choice to accept. You're free to do so, or not; however, you're also not entitled to attack its precepts. None of the respondents to your posts have questioned YOUR faith or beliefs.
Because he's here to proselytize, plain and simple. I pointed out to him in the other thread that he's really no different than a fundamental Christian who needs to convince everyone else to accept his truth.
Again...., I prefer an agreed upon criteria, much as science tends to rely upon, rather than insist anyone do or believe anything based on less agreeable criteria. Understand?
You seem intent on an "ends justify the means" sort of mentality. First the agenda, then how to get that outcome. That's the sort of thinking that has us "always at war because of religion" and for a whole lot of other reasons too, nice person or not that you might be...
Regardless what our fate as humans may be for all variety of reasons I prefer not to judge, because I want to maintain a civil tone here, but surely we can all agree that our universal truth is a worthy quest that need not be an easy path.
On a positive note, I see much evidence that we humans have made much progress in many important ways that can and should lead to more peace! We already enjoy more peace than in most other periods of world history. I believe we will continue to make that sort of progress until or unless that progress is undermined by the sort of ignorance that ultimately leads to war, and now quite likely the end of our planet and/or humans altogether if we're not careful!
ultimately, belief comes down a circular argument. I believe because I believe. Belief is self-sustaining and cannot be taught. You are on the other side of a large rift and I don't see that divide being reconciled any time soon.
True, but what we have established is that for you that sort of "circular argument" is good enough. The "I believe because I believe" is good enough for you, and of course I know this is good enough for lots and lots of people, but from an intellectual unbiased critical thinking standpoint, such criteria or lack thereof is in no way acceptable.
I am interested to know if in this forum there are any people who are better described by the latter rather than the former, and if so, what they might offer different or better than "I believe because I believe."
That the teachings, in any religion, be that your core faith must be based on the foundations of that religion is obviously born of an agenda rather than the truth, or I would expect those teachings to provide the means and/or proof to justify that sort of requirement.
BTW, I am not sure you are aware, but a "circular argument" is essentially a fallacy.
"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as 'circular logic') is a logical fallacy in which one begins arguing in the wrong end of a premise that indicates some regularity and tries to move either a)in the opposite direction, from an assumption or observation that verifies a ...
Surely we can do better than circular reasoning. Right? "Because just because."
I sure hope so...
I must sign off now, not just because, but because I've got some other things to attend to now. Cheers!
You have only established your own personal disposition.
And it is apparent that you lack the common grace so freely given.
A respect for The Jewish people is beyond you by reason of a written ordinance.
And if you continue.
My sister in law believes because she witnessed a miracle. Of course, you might deny that what she witnessed was a miracle. The threshold of proof is not going to be agreed upon.
You do realize that making this statement about what "must" be is a logical fallacy. It is what you think is true but has not been proven to be true.
Why is what you expect at all persuasive to anyone but you?
Good thing I'm not relying on that circular argument to try and deduce some logical point or construct a rhetorically sound argument.
I have a very good friend who has a sister who was very ill, deemed terminally ill, and she "witnessed" a miracle, perhaps better put, she was part of the miracle (and still alive today). I posted an article earlier about how the Pope dealt with all those who believed they were witnessing a miracle in their town...
We all pass judgment as to what to believe in these regards in all variety of ways. All I am simply suggesting is that we would probably come to more common agreement as to what is fact and what is fiction if the criteria for what we believed were more commonly accepted, as best exemplified by what principles science is committed, for such purposes of establishing what is truth and what is not. Is this so very hard to understand or accept? Scientists have for the most part "agreed upon" that "threshold of proof," and that's certainly good enough for me and most all of us. Not you?
I pointed out that a circular argument is a fallacy, and so I guess it is fair to try and argue the same about my argument, but I'm not understanding what you further explain here. It isn't "anyone but me." It is persuasion that is universal -- that which we all tend to agree upon -- no matter our religion, no matter our country. Again, the Earth is NOT the center of the universe for example. Not any more. That fact is not a fact for just me by any means! Right?
You gave me your reason for why you believe what you do. I understand, and I explained how I am interested in other reasons of a different sort. If none of those other reasons are shared by anyone reading this thread, then maybe everyone believes what they do "just because." I don't know, but I suspect not...
In any case, you need not continue your frustration with me. I'm sure we can both respect our difference of view, perspective and opinion about all this. Can't we? Without any heartburn. I know I certainly can.
All I am simply suggesting is that we would probably come to more common agreement as to what is fact and what is fiction if the criteria for what we believed were more commonly accepted, as best exemplified by what principles science is committed, for such purposes of establishing what is truth and what is not.
But that is, in and of itself, part of the problem. Using the standards of science, one would come to a definition of proof that would be relevant to science. What is "commonly accepted" is only accepted by things that are in common. I know religious scientists who compartmentalize and clearly accept differing levels of proof and come to separate visions of "truth" depending on context. It might be that the belief that there is a grand unifying system is where the error lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Is this so very hard to understand or accept? Scientists have for the most part "agreed upon" that "threshold of proof," and that's certainly good enough for me and most all of us. Not you?
But lawyers have a different threshold. Weathermen use inference very differently. Archaeologists, in a different way. Social scientists, another. Why do you assume that there can be one standard that would be universally and consistently applicable? WHen you do, and you start with the expectation that the desirable standard is steeped in science, you start the conversation with a bias against religion.
WHY do you persist on coming here and badgering posters about their faith? Because YOU believe that "from an intellectual unbiased critical thinking standpoint", faith alone is insufficient? Tell you what - you analyze your beliefs all you want, but leave mine alone. They work for me. I don't care about analyzing them in any scientific manner. I pray - to you I guess that would be an "unscientific" endeavor. So be it. Go and harass some Hare Krishnas or Seventh Day Adventists instead, if you've nothing better to do with your time. (I mean no offense to either group, btw - they were the first ones in my mind.)
Oh, and before you riposte with a scathing (in your mind) comment that people ought to be able to discuss their religious beliefs in a calm and rational manner, I will agree with you. You, on the other hand, apparently enjoy "hearing" (reading) your own endless, pointless discussions about a religious faith that is not your choice to accept. You're free to do so, or not; however, you're also not entitled to attack its precepts. None of the respondents to your posts have questioned YOUR faith or beliefs.
I suspect you are not really interested in the honest answer to your question, and of course I am not here to "badger" anyone. Why do you persist in making false accusations of me?
I have given my belief(s) much thought and consideration, but because I strongly believe the only way to truly test one's beliefs and/or understand what I do not is to engage people who a) are not only willing and able to consider such subjects in a mature rational manner, but b) hold beliefs different from mine.
I have obviously read each and every comment posted here and I have been interested in doing so, just like I am interested in writing my responses. People in this thread and others are inspired to engage with me, either for reasons like yours that I regret or other reasons that I better enjoy or appreciate.
Why you bother rather than simply ignore me and comment about whatever else you prefer, I truly do not understand, though I have my suspicions...
Last edited by LearnMe; 07-27-2017 at 11:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(I mean no offense to either group, btw - they were the first ones in my mind.)
