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.
At some macro level, all theistic belief systems make basic claims about the nature of reality that aren't dissimilar. Most of the moral claims are similar. As we move toward the micro level, then yes they do make truth claims that can't be reconciled.
Quote:
This is correct but all those that claim that THEIR religion is the only truly religion is strictly based on faith and nothing else.
As we move along the "continuum of convictions" from deciding whether any reality beyond what we experience with our five senses is probable, to deciding whether theism is the best explanation, to deciding which theistic explanation is most likely to be true, we do increasingly rely on a broader spectrum of evidence than just hard scientific evidence and even on inferences and intuition.
Once someone like me is at the point of believing the Christian explanation is the one most likely to be true, deciding to live as though it were true is indeed an act of faith - but it wouldn't be accurate to say it is strictly an act of faith and nothing more. One of the truth claims of Christianity is that it is the one true religion, so yes I accept that truth claim on faith.
Quote:
And this is your personal belief, Just because Jesus Christ is a unique person does not make your religion the right one. Many religions have a unique person in them.
But not a unique person who was the only Son of God and the only person in history to have been resurrected from the dead, which are the Christian truth claims. You asked the basis on which we know our religion is the right one, and my answer is that the person of Jesus Christ is my basis. If you choose to disagree with the Christian truth claims, this isn't going to affect my answer.
Quote:
So are you saying that Christianity has no parallel to Judaism?
Christianity and Judaism are functionally one and the same. The fact that some Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and continue to practice pre-Jesus Judaism doesn't alter the fact that Jesus was a Jew and made no claim to introducing a new religion. Part of the reason the Jews rejected Jesus and continue to do so is that he was startlingly different from the political warrior Messiah they had expected and his message of inclusiveness for Gentiles was scandalous. But what I was talking about is the frequent claim that parallels to Christianity and specifically the "resurrecting God" motif are found in other ancient religions.
Quote:
Your belief is simply your belief in a belief. No evidence whatsoever but when you come to me trying to convince me of the existence of your Christian God I will bring up the Dragon in my Garage argument.
I think you are exposing that your original post was nothing like a sincere inquiry. It was merely an opportunity for you to strut your atheism.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care what you believe or what your eternal fate may be. I truly don't.
No, my belief in Christianity is a reasoned conviction after a long and diligent journey down the "continuum of convictions." It is evidence-based to the extent I have been able to make it evidence-based. I rely on hard scientific evidence to the extent it is relevant. I rely on experiential and anecdotal evidence to the extent they are relevant. I rely on the best inferences I can make. I rely on intuition to the extent I must. I have reached my religious convictions via the same route that I and all rational people follow in making decisions where the truth or correctness cannot be known with certainty.
My religion is the right one.
My religion is the right one for me.
No, ultimate truth is ultimate truth. There is no "right for me" about it. If the ultimate truth is that there is no god, then Christianity is simply false. If Christianity is true, other belief systems are simply false. A false belief system isn't "right" for anyone.
ID is bogus science, they lie to people willing to be lied to, something you would know if you had actually done any research.
You're just talking through your hat. There are any number of highly respected scientists and articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals that support intelligent design as a viable scientific theory. This is precisely why, in the best tradition of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the guardians of the naturalistic paradigm oppose it with almost religious zeal. It challenges them on their own turf, using their own methodology.
Quote:
And that is the point that is lost on you, you are just pretending to be rational, and we know the game you are playing.
How does one pretend to be rational? Are you the arbiter of who is rational and who isn't? What is the game I am playing, in your view?
Do you not see that you are making a fool of yourself?
Quote:
Yes, you would be out of your depths on Bayesian logic, probability, real science, the history of your own religion, etc. This is why you rely on your repeated and exaggerated philosophobabble, and why you have to dismiss things you do not understand as 'knee-jerk, non-substantive', because you can not make a rational argument for yourself.
I actually know a fair amount about Bayesian logic and probability theory. Philosophers of religion have been using Bayesian reasoning to determine the rationality of theistic belief for many years - and some 73% of philosophers of religion lean toward theism. Why Are So Many Philosophers of Religion Theists? - Daily Nous Presumably they are just pretending to be rational too?
The history of my own religion? It would be difficult to be more well-versed in the history of Christianity than I am.
How do you have any idea what my "depths" are?
You post a series of rapid-fire one liners in response to almost everything every believer posts, filled with nonsense such as "pretending to be rational" and "out of your depths." I characterized your contributions as knee-jerk and non-substantive, and I stand by that.
No, ultimate truth is ultimate truth. There is no "right for me" about it. If the ultimate truth is that there is no god, then Christianity is simply false. If Christianity is true, other belief systems are simply false. A false belief system isn't "right" for anyone.
No one but you is talking about hard evidentialism, and linking to a philosophy page instead of making your own argument is appealing to an authority.
You did not post the link for information, you posted the link to support you argument. Either you do not understand this, making you the fool; or you do, making you dishonest.
The OP quoted Sam Harris regarding the irrationality of religion. Now there actually was an appeal to authority, and I simply pointed out that Harris is a dubious choice since he is not only a leading New Atheist spokesman but repeatedly commits the same intellectual mistakes he accuses others of committing. I didn't play the "Ah-ha, you just committed a logical fallacy!" game with the OP because, frankly, who cares? Would it have made any difference to the discussion if the OP had parroted Harris' views as his own rather than quoting Harris?
I then pointed out that the article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy addresses the narrow understanding of rationality on which atheists typically rely and might be helpful to anyone who is confused as to why atheists and believers seem to be speaking different languages and have such different views of rationality. The article doesn't "support" any particular argument. Would it have made any difference to the discussion if I had summarized the article rather than linking to it?
Harry: "I don't know how to set the timing in a 1965 VW Beetle."
Irkle: "Here's a link to an online manual by a guy who specializes old VWs."
Harry: "Gotcha! You just committed the logical fallacy of APPEALING TO AUTHORITY!"
Well, no, not exactly. Atheists are peculiarly obsessed with the Logical Fallacy Game, which is what leads me to believe there is some Atheists' Playbook of Logical Fallacies to which they turn with no real understanding. They consistently make fools of themselves in their efforts at one-upsmanship, and I find it rather comical since it has precisely the opposite of the intended effect.
My "familiarity" with what? online philosophical encyclopedias? Sam Harris? epistemology? what? How would my "familiarity" with anything on earth "belie" my acceptance of the tenets of mainstream Christianity? In your weird little corner of the universe, is it impossible for a mainstream Christian to be fully informed about secular philosophy and atheism?
Weird.
If you actually understand what our science has discovered thus far about the nature of our Reality, you should NOT be able to buy into the typical mainstream Christian dogma, period! It is irrational and absurd because of the corrupt "precepts and doctrines of men" based on the primitive interpretations and understanding of our ignorant ancient ancestors. They stagnated at the "carnal milk" stage and have never progressed beyond it to the spiritual "solid food."
Wouldn't everyone who has a religion believe theirs is the right one? To believe otherwise makes no sense to me .
Yeah, I asked that question once, and the answers I got pretty much were along the lines that social pressure, acceptance, etc. make people stay with a religion they don't believe in.
To me, if a religion makes you a better person, helps you find peace and fulfillment in life, gives you something more to reach for, and strengthens your relationship with God, it's the right one -- at least for you.
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.
My "familiarity" with what? online philosophical encyclopedias? Sam Harris? epistemology? what?
