Simple question to theists
Posted on: September 25, 2010 - 7:59pm
Offline
Simple question to theists
If you are representing a particular religion my question is:
Why are you representing that religion, and not another?
Please, give me your best reason, what exact logic have you used that has led you to represent a certain religion and not another. Why are you Christian and not Hindu, or Muslim, or a Scientologist for that matter, are you as versed in the religions you haven't chosen to represent as you are in the one you have chosen to represent?
- Login to post comments
Faith? Faith is what you have in a husband or wife. Faith is what you have in a friend. That these people won't screw you over. When you have faith, a good chunk of the time, yiu end up questioning why you had faith to begin with. Why you fell for the deceiptful lies and so on. So how is that evidence? Do you realize how high the divorce rate is? Why would you say that's proof, to have faith?
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
You can't all be right but you can all be wrong.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'm not getting into the "evidence for jesus' ressurection" discussion as I find it rediculous. I'm sure others would be happy to get into the details with you on another thread. All I will say is, it is absolutely proposterous to believe something like that based on the evidence available for it. It basically boils down to "this guy in story did this impossible thing, those guys in story saw it, some things in the story are true, therefor this guy did set impossible thing." You see how rediculous it is. If you told me "my friend Jen went to the store at 8 and bought a bag of chips," I would most likely take your word for it whether it was true or not because it is such a small thing I couldn't care less. If you said Jen went to the store at 8 and farted 3 purple mermaids, I would need a little more than a dead eyewitness and some stories to believe it was true. I guess we just have different standards of evidence. Mine being reasonable, and yours being rediculous.
Small? SMALL??? No! A massive, humungous, gigantic and unjustified leap of faith.
I didn't say that we were all right. In fact, I specifically said that my religion was right and all of the others were wrong.
And every religious adherent (no matter the religion) says the same thing you do.
You can't all be right but you can all be wrong.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I didn't say that we were all right. In fact, I specifically said that my religion was right and all of the others were wrong.
A Muslim says the same thing as you.
A Jew says the same thing as you.
A Hindu says the same thing as you.
A <fill in the name of a religious adherent> says the same thing as you do.
They think they're right and all the other religions are wrong just as you do.
I know what you specifically said but all of you who say that can't be right.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Blood, when nothing you say is any different than what any alternate and mutually contradictory religion says, how can a neutral observer tell what is right and what is wrong? When ten people come to radically contradictory hypothesis from the same core assumptions, maybe those assumptions are wrong.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Tell you what , mellestad. I'll think it and you write it
thanks for the help.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That's quite a good question, and there are many different possible answers for it. Personally, I have mostly heard the following ones:
- Personal experience ("It made a difference in my life." / "It saved me." )
- Emotional arguments ("I'm feeling that it's true." )
- Historical arguments ("Scientists acknowledged that the bible is true." )
- Social arguments ("My family and my friends wouldn't lie to me." )
- Irrelevance ("All religions are different paths to the same god." - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant )
- Threat of despair ("If I were wrong, that would be horrible." - loved ones burning in another hell, maybe no afterlife at all etc )
So?
But I'm not saying that all of us are right. I'm saying that I'M right. Understand?
And every follower of every religion says that he or she is right and all the others are wrong.
All these people saying "I'm right" simply can't be the truth. I know you vehemently insist that you are right (as does every other religious follower).
You don't have exclusivity no matter how loudly you claim it. All religious adherents think they're right but that's really all they have - they can't know for sure.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
And kids professing their belief in Santa Clause believe they are right and unbelievers are wrong. But that doesn't make their belief true.
The difference is, Christianity really is the right religion. Therefore, I am totaly justified in following it.
But you just agreed that they can't all be right, so by your logic, I do have exclusivity.
No, my logic says all of you can be wrong. This is the more likely outcome. Nothing exclusive there.
You don't know Christianity is the right religion - you only believe it really hard - just like believers in Santa.
Your belief isn't true either (no matter how hard you wish it so). If you knew Christianity was right, you'd be able to articulate it convincingly. I don't see that happening.
Then again, I don't think there are gnostic atheists either.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I do know that Christianity is the right religion, which is why I am a Christian. If Christianity was the wrong religion, I'd know it and I'd be part of a different religion. But I'm not.
I do know that Christianity is the right religion, which is why I am a Christian. If Christianity was the wrong religion, I'd know it and I'd be part of a different religion. But I'm not.
If you know, you must have incontrovertible proof - let's see what you have.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
BECAUSE MINE IS TRUE AND THE OTHERS ARE FALSE!!!
Though You have not defined "religion" so I do not know what you mean by this. Religion is not a term that can be define since there is no universal meaning that can by applied to it connotatively. The term is a non-term. But I will assume you mean one who believes in God via a theology.
God IS axiomatically, and His Word IS axiomatically.More specifically, the Triune God is axiomatic. I take God and His Word as a first principle. And thus I argue deductively, NOT inductively. I argue FROM God's Being and not TO God's Being.
God's Doctrines in His Word are then theorems or implications from the axioms.
At this point we must answer the question regarding evidence. If we start deductively, then logically there are consequences to this.
1) Empiricism is wrong (Knowledge via the senses and via experience)
2) Rationalism is wrong (Capital R, not low case r).
3) Mysticism is wrong (via experiences of feelings or volition).
Thus archeology would not be evidence for God's Word via my validity of logic. This is valid despite your disagreements, and I believe it is sound. This is why geometry is valid and sound. Archeology is not needed to "prove" a triangle has 3 sides. And archeology is not needed to "prove" God's Bible is true. It is true as a first principle.
The evidence via Kant's transcendental argument would be the consistency of that axioms and the theorems. If God says ABC, and we go out an encounter ABC, then ABC does not "support" God's Being as such, but logically demonstrates God's consistency as such.
So if God said in Genesis 1 that He created the fish and the stars, and we go out and we logically encounter fish and we encounter stars, then logically this DEMONSTRATES God's implications of the first principle of God Himself.
This is my valid argument (despite if you disagree) and I argue sound argument. Now the burden of "proof" shifts, and now you as an atheist or agnostic or free thinker or whatever must logically prove via your meaning of proof (it is not my meaning), that there is no God. You must use 1 of the 3 means of argument to do this:
1) Empiricism (Logical Positivism OR Locke/Hume epistemology).
2) Rationalist (Capital R = Rene Descartes).
3) Mysticism (Feelings, become an occult witch or satanist).
You must do this according to the rules of YOUR thinking. You must jump from a particular to an infinite via negative proof. Most likely it will be empirical, since this has won the day via a coin toss.
Via an inductive ladder, JUMP from a particular into a universal and disprove God via VALID validity of your starting point or first principle. Your first principle via empiricism is NOTHING. So you must first logically go from nothing, into something.
This has never been done before. I would suggest that you ignore or delete this post so that you don't find yourself embarrassed via defeat.
Ready, set, go!!!
Good Luck.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Quit your babbleing, this thread isn't about evidence for gods existance, it's asking what logic you use to choose your particular set of beliefs and not another god belief system.
Hello,
I thought my arguments would allow you to enjoy the whip cream on your Ice Scream Cone of doubt. If there is anything else I can get you, let me know. But when you die, the bill will be due.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
deleted
Interesting you should mention that, Jean.
The bill will come due for both of us. The difference is that I'll be willing to pay and you'll be complaining that you shouldn't have to pay because your Daddy sent someone else with the money.
Oh, and taking the Bible and God as the first principle while trying to prove that is indeed the first principle is question-begging
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
WTF?.
Apparently God was so appalled by the pagans sacrificing their infants that he finally had to do something to correct it. So God's answer from time to time was to send in his Hebrew einsatzgruppen who could ( ironically ) *put to the sword the very same toddlers and infants ......*as was frequently required by God's "justice" against neighboring pagan societies.
That's like beating up your girlfriend to demonstrate how much you deplore violence against women. Way to go God.