More Religion Stuff
The conclusion of my first debate was that the Christian god is illogical and, therefore, impossible to know for certain IF you chose Conclusion D. That means that one has no way to know his motives or beliefs
( Read more... )
On a daily basis, when people speak of faith, they speak of belief in a higher power. THAT'S what's being talked about. It's not bad to reject faith, but most of those who do at least have some understanding of what it is.
"If one believes in faith, it should hold empirically. That means a person should believe in everything around them that doesn't have any evidence of existing. If that person does not, they are only having faith in things they already assume to be true and circular logic follows after that."
That is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. Who are you to tell people what their faith should be, and what they should believe in? Why are you still trying to shoehorn something so grand and yet so person into the little mold of "logical"? Faith in the general sense is believing in SOMETHING without evidence, not EVERYTHING.
But I see now something that I have missed: you've been trying to make your own definitions for everything. That's why you keep going, "Conclusion D must be correct," or "If all these things are true..." Dude, get it through your head: faith is what it is. So is religion. You can't suddenly make your own definition and then judge these things unfavorably because of said definitions, then expect people to defend these views.
Hell, it's fine if you have your own perception of what religion and faith are. But if that's fucked up your view of things, the only person you have to blame is yourself, because YOU'RE the one too boneheaded to accept somebody's word for something. Especially when you keep talking about you don't understand, you want to know why.
Stop thinking you know what you're talking about when you're admitting you don't understand something. You make up your own definition, ask a bunch of honestly meaningless and redundant questions, then refuse to listen to those who answer you, save to criticize and ridicule.
You're not trying to learn anything. You're an armchair philosopher who's only seeking to have your own beliefs confirmed by rewriting the facts to work in your favor.
I'm no longer going to contribute to this nonsense. It's apparent by now that it really isn't worth my time. If all you can understand or accept is logic (which isn't everything, because I'm sure you believe in the existence of emotions, which are rarely ever logical) then you'll never comprehend something like faith. Then again, you're not even trying, so there isn't much difference.
Reply
O RLY?
-------------------------------------------
"On a daily basis, when people speak of faith, they speak of belief in a higher power. THAT'S what's being talked about. It's not bad to reject faith, but most of those who do at least have some understanding of what it is."
I don't reject faith. I reject ugga. Read my other comment to understand the meaning of the word "ugga".
-------------------------------------------
"That is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. Who are you to tell people what their faith should be, and what they should believe in? Why are you still trying to shoehorn something so grand and yet so person into the little mold of "logical"? Faith in the general sense is believing in SOMETHING without evidence, not EVERYTHING."
Remember, I mean ugga, not faith. People can have faith in whatever they want, but they must not succumb to ugga. Ugga is an irrational argument to believe in anything. The reason why it is empirical is that all sound logic is true.
"If Y, then X.
Y.
Therefore, X."
That is sound logic because you can replace anything in the variables and it is true. It doesn't even have to make sense.
"If dogs are awesome, then my girlfriend is hot.
Dogs are awesome.
Therefore, my girlfriend is hot."
To say that ugga is sound logic to believe in god, it will have to be able to switch out the variables which includes unicorns, dragons, flying spagetti monsters, goblins, elves, etc. as well as gods. If you do claim that it is sound logic, then you can use that argument for anything. If you say you do not believe in unicorns but do believe in goblins or gods, then you are coming to different conclusions using sound logic which is impossible.
Now, if you claim that it is faulty logic, I want you to know that faulty logic is a bad thing. It isn't a virtue to believe in a faulty argument. It only makes you appear silly.
"I don't care. I'm gunna believe what I'm gunna believe."
That's fine. I already know that convincing believers is near impossible. We are all set in our ways by adulthood and I'm sure I am the same.
--------------------------------------------------
"You can't suddenly make your own definition and then judge these things unfavorably because of said definitions, then expect people to defend these views."
That's why I decided to make up my own word to prevent confusion.
--------------------------------------------------
"I'm no longer going to contribute to this nonsense. It's apparent by now that it really isn't worth my time. If all you can understand or accept is logic (which isn't everything, because I'm sure you believe in the existence of emotions, which are rarely ever logical) then you'll never comprehend something like faith."
Emotions are illogical. I know of illogical things, BUT emotions do have evidence of their existance. We do not succumb to ugga to believe in emotions as they are controlled by biochemistry in this biological machine I call my body. These hormones and stimulants are observable and testable and therefore, evidence. Also, since we are sentient, the feeling of emotion is enough evidence to convince ourselves that they exist and the observation of others in a emotional state is evidence as well.
But feelings are deceptive. I'm sure you have heard of the phantom limb, where a limb is missing, but the person still feels the sensation of that limb. Is that proof that the arm is still there? No, so feelings are not proof of anything.
If we had no evidence to go off of besides ourselves, then one couldn't assume emotions exist even if they do. The reason we have in the past is because others can observe a difference of behavior in an emotioinal person. That is observational evidence. Also, the scientific method and observational evidence of hormones and stimulants has confirmed what we already assumed to be true...that illogical emotions do, in fact, exist.
Reply
"I cannot prove or disprove X.
Therefore, I believe X exists."
If that is not the argument, correct me so I can correct my counter-argument.
Now, if we assume this is sound logic, it should apply to everything that is X. That includes every mythological creature and imaginary being one can imagine or make up.
But you do not. You have come to the conclusion that your god exists, but no commonly known mythology or something I made up out of thin air. You are coming to two different conclusions based on the same argument, which is impossible if it is sound logic.
I propose that you believe in a different argument for ugga altogether. It goes:
"I believe X exists.
I cannot prove or disprove X.
Therefore, I believe X exists."
Do you notice how the conclusion is also a proposition? That is a big no-no. In fact, we could probably simplify this argument because we have already shown that the proposition that "I cannot prove or disprove X" does not effect your conclusion.
"I believe X exists.
Therefore, I believe X exists."
Reply
Leave a comment