Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Religion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guyver
    replied
    Clete, your post is too long. FYI. Not addressing all that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Since I've never even heard of them....yes....I think you should have. Doing a search, I find this - "The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is often considered to be based. The formulation and clarification of such rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy and logic. Generally they are taken as laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc. However, such classical ideas are often questioned or rejected in more recent developments, such as intuitionistic logic, dialetheism and fuzzy logic."

    Link
    There is no possible way of questioning or rejecting them without using them to do it. It is the very definition of a self-defeating endeavor.

    No, as I mentioned earlier - religions aren't falsifiable.
    Of course they are! Why wouldn't they be?

    There many some religions that aren't but anything what is unfalsifiable is irrational anyway and would have been rejected by your "rational thought process" by which you claim to have rejected the world's religions.

    Christianity is an excellent example of a totally falsifiable religion. It is falsifiable in several ways but perhaps the most important is stated by the Apostle Paul himself...
    I Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

    So, I do not make that claim.
    Okay fine.

    Then what do you claim? Your thread is entitled "My Religion" and I can't read your mind so...

    No, I am not familiar with the law of identity and have never heard of it. If it is anything like the "laws of reason" that you mentioned before, then it is the stuff of philosophy and logic.
    As foundations are the stuff of houses, so the law of identity is the stuff of understanding, knowledge, communication and thought. Every single time you think anything at all, you tacitly utilize the law of identity. Even if what you are thinking is false! If your thought has any meaning whatsoever, it does so because of the law of identity and it's corollaries.

    OK....that's better. Now we actually have something to discuss. It's got some good information, but it is from an apologetics ministry, so it's not actually science. It speaks of people being made in God's image and the value of the human mind and intellect. Yet, God cannot be shown to actually exist.....so again.....we are not talking science here.
    So, we've actually taken a step backward here.

    First of all, it doesn't claim to be science. Science has to do with a systematic and rational analysis of nature (i.e. with the physical world). Science has little to say about philosophy. In fact, science is an outworking of philosophy. In other words, properly done science presupposes that logic works, that reality is real (there's that law of identity again!) and that it can be understood. Thus it is philosophy that is primary here not science.

    Further, your rejection of the paper's point based on its source is irrational. The point the paper makes is either valid or it is not. The religious beliefs of the author are not relevant to whether his statements are true.

    Further still, if Christianity is in fact rational, one would expect an apologetics ministry to fully understand, endorse and promote the laws of reason. Have you ever discovered another major world religion that does so?

    Lastly, you claim to believe in a higher power and now reject the existence of God. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? Do you believe that there is a God or don't you?

    This sentence reminds me that I find the tone of your post insulting to a small degree, and definitely accusatory/confrontational. You don't know me, I don't know you. If you wish to dialog, I'd appreciate it if you could at least be somewhat polite or respectful.
    I couldn't care less about your feelings. I'm simply asking direct questions to see whether you've actually put in the effort you claim to have put in.

    If I wanted to insult you, there'd be no way for you to not get the point.

    As I have now stated more than once, I do not claim to have falsified something that cannot be falsified. So....is that what you're looking for? You seem to have a problem with the idea that someone could call your religion false?
    What I have a problem with is liars.

    You started this thread by claiming to have rejected all the world's regions and you answered my question about how it was done with a two word answer that has now been shown not only be false but an outright lie.

    Not only have you not made any effort to falsify ANY of the world's religions via anything that resembles a rational thought process but we can know that whatever your region turns out to be cannot have been formulated with any sort of rational process because you're completely ignorant of even the most basic tenets of logic and reason.

    Beliefs are not necessarily rational to begin with. So, you could just as easily claim that believing is irrational.
    This sentence is stupidity.

    (See! That's what an insult from me looks like.)

    Let's just look at the structure of what you just said...

    A is not necessarily B therefore you could just as easily claim that B is not A.

    Vehicles are not necessarily cars therefore you could just as easily claim that cars are not vehicles.

    See what I mean? Stupidity!

    Just because beliefs are not necessarily rational doesn't mean that they are irrational. A whole lot of beliefs are entirely rational.

    Yes, truth supersedes belief and I told you why. Do you not accept my claim? You said not every religion can be true, only one of them can. You forgot to add that they could all be false.
    No, I did not forget anything.

    Everyone has some sort of belief system. There are two (and only two) broad categories. Either you believe that God exists or your believe that He does not. There are many variations of both groups but all the world's relgions fall into one or the other of those two categories. One group or the other is wrong and those in the other group ara right to one degree or another.

    What makes you think that all relgions cannot be true but only one can?
    Because A is A, Guyver!

    God either exists or He doesn't.
    Mohammad is either God's profit or he isn't.
    Jesus is either God's only begotten Son or He isn't.

    Those three sentences alone cover more than 70% of all the world's religions (by population) and the rest are religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and things like the native American religions all of which make no attempt to be rational in any way, in fact, quite the opposite in some cases.

    Are you attempting to argue that only YOUR religion is true?
    I make no claim to having every aspect of my doctrine correct but yes, Christianity is the only rationally consistent worldview.

    A religion is only as true as someone believes it to be. That's the nature of religion.
    That's not only stupidity but it directly contradicts your own statements!

    It was you who stated (and rightly so) that "truth supersedes belief".

    It does not matter one little bit how much someone believes something to be true. It is either true or it not. Truth is (period). A is A. God exists or He doesn't whether anyone believes it or not.

    Since religions are only true in the sense I described before, and they are not scientific theories, I don't believe that they can be falsified.
    An excellent example of a belief that is false!

    It doesn't matter whether you believe religions can be falsified or not. The fact of the matter is that they can be or at least most of them can be and the one's that can't aren't worth even thinking about because they're worthless anyway.

    Beliefs are not generally something that can be tested by science...
    That's just flatly not true!

    Ever heard of a hypothesis?
    Ever heard of a theory?

    Who said anything about science anyway? I certainly didn't. Who cares what science can or cannot test? We're discussing philosophy here not physics.


    Originally posted by Clete
    you failure to affirm the laws of reason is itself irrational. You are, in effect, using the laws of reason to express doubt about the laws of reason.
    I disagree.
    You mean that you think my comments contradict reality?

    Is that what you mean?

    If not, just what do you mean?

    Because it actually works.
    Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you but the twelve step's "higher power" is the very definition of an unfalsifiable god! AA and other twelve step groups do NOT care what you believe about this "higher power" so long as you believe that it can render help toward your sobriety. You can believe the pet rock in your pocket is your higher power or that there is a God who created that rock. You can even believe that your higher power is Satan himself if you want. So maybe it isn't their belief about some arbitrarily believed in higher power that is responsible for your experience.

    As I told you before, I came to believe in the twelve steps because of personal experience. I don't wish to discuss AA in this thread, or at all except in private. If you would like to learn more about it, you may attend group as an observer/guest, you may read the book for yourself, or do some study of it on your own.
    The only reason the twelve step program is being mentioned at all is because you brought it up. I couldn't care less about it one way or the other. What I'm trying to do is flesh out this religion of yours that one would think that a thread entitled "My Religion" is supposed to be all about.

    So far we've established that you not only haven't falsified all the world's religions, you've made no attempt to understand even the most basic tenets of philosophy, never mind the world's religious beliefs. You seem to have had a positive experience with a twelve step program and it's higher power and so have concluded, based on your subjective experience that such a power exist. That is anything but a rational thought process but it is at least a step in the correct direction.

    So far, we've been discussing generalities, lets get more specific. Since you accept the existence of at least some sort of God, we don't have to go over the ground that established atheism as being irrational and since we're on an overtly Christian website, let's focus on that religion. Just what is it that you think is irrational about Christianity?

    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • 6days
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Which would be fine, if in fact it could be demonstrated.(Bible as divine revelation of truth?) But I don’t think it does.
    We believe the evidence shows divine revelation. Reasons include prophecy fulfilled...scientific accuracy.... painfully honest...unique message of salvation....geographical accuracy...unique in unity (Over 40 authors...over 1500years creating one cohesive story)… "The Bible Describes Reality Better Than Any Other Religion Or Worldview
    It tells us why the universe has laws, design, order, complexity, simplicity, elegance, symmetry and beauty – because there is a great and wise and powerful Designer. It tells us why there is beauty, love, wisdom, justice, truth and personality."https://www.shema.com/ten-evidences-that-demonstrate-that-the-bible-is-the-divinely-inspired-word-of-god-272/

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post

    I have to cite the source of the laws of reason?
    Since I've never even heard of them....yes....I think you should have. Doing a search, I find this - "The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is often considered to be based. The formulation and clarification of such rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy and logic. Generally they are taken as laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc. However, such classical ideas are often questioned or rejected in more recent developments, such as intuitionistic logic, dialetheism and fuzzy logic."

    Link

    You claim to have falsified all the religions of the world by means of a rational thought process and you're not familiar with the law of identity?
    No, as I mentioned earlier - religions aren't falsifiable. So, I do not make that claim. No, I am not familiar with the law of identity and have never heard of it. If it is anything like the "laws of reason" that you mentioned before, then it is the stuff of philosophy and logic.

    These laws of have been around for literally thousands of years but if you need something more than my word for it, I invite you to read the following paper...

    The Nature & Necessity of Logic by Craig S. Hawkins
    OK....that's better. Now we actually have something to discuss. It's got some good information, but it is from an apologetics ministry, so it's not actually science. It speaks of people being made in God's image and the value of the human mind and intellect. Yet, God cannot be shown to actually exist.....so again.....we are not talking science here.

    I used your own words when I asked the question so don't start telling me what I shouldn't have asked.
    This sentence reminds me that I find the tone of your post insulting to a small degree, and definitely accusatory/confrontational. You don't know me, I don't know you. If you wish to dialog, I'd appreciate it if you could at least be somewhat polite or respectful.

    More evidence that you haven't actually falsified a single religion from anywhere in the world at all, most especially not in any sort of rational manner.
    As I have now stated more than once, I do not claim to have falsified something that cannot be falsified. So....is that what you're looking for? You seem to have a problem with the idea that someone could call your religion false?

    The fact is that most regions are very easily falsified when you subject their claims to the laws of reason. It's difficult to persuade anyone away from a religion that they believe in with sound reason but that's an entirely different issue. As you said yourself, truth supersedes belief and whether anyone chooses to acknowledge it or not, if something is shown to be irrational it has been falsified.
    Beliefs are not necessarily rational to begin with. So, you could just as easily claim that believing is irrational.


    Well, like you said, truth supersedes belief. Not every religion can be true. In fact, only one of them can be. The question is whether you've educated yourself enough to discover which it is and why.
    Yes, truth supersedes belief and I told you why. Do you not accept my claim? You said not every religion can be true, only one of them can. You forgot to add that they could all be false. What makes you think that all relgions cannot be true but only one can? Are you attempting to argue that only YOUR religion is true?

    A religion is only as true as someone believes it to be. That's the nature of religion.

    So which is it? Have you falsified them or not?
    Since religions are only true in the sense I described before, and they are not scientific theories, I don't believe that they can be falsified. Beliefs are not generally something that can be tested by science, but science can certainly acknowledge that they exist.

    In fact, your failure to affirm them is itself irrational. You are, in effect, using the laws of reason to express doubt about the laws of reason.
    I disagree.

    It therefore stands to reason that you put the twelve step's higher power to a similar test that it somehow managed to pass. I want to know what that test looked like. What questions did you ask, what were the answers to those questions and how did you get those answers? Just how is it that, of all the gods men worship, it's the twelve step's higher power survived your rational thought process when so many hundreds of others failed?

    Clete
    Because it actually works.

    As I told you before, I came to believe in the twelve steps because of personal experience. I don't wish to discuss AA in this thread, or at all except in private. If you would like to learn more about it, you may attend group as an observer/guest, you may read the book for yourself, or do some study of it on your own.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    So, in other words.....if I don't sufficiently dazzle you with brilliance, you will consider your participation in this thread a waste of your time. hmmmn. OK.
    I don't need dazzled but substantive responses are necessary.

    Then you should have cited your source. It is reasonable for me to assume you were just making that up since you didn't provide a source for me to evaluate....isn't it?
    I have to cite the source of the laws of reason?

    You claim to have falsified all the religions of the world by means of a rational thought process and you're not familiar with the law of identity?

    These laws of have been around for literally thousands of years but if you need something more than my word for it, I invite you to read the following paper...

    The Nature & Necessity of Logic by Craig S. Hawkins



    OK....let's back up a minute here. First of all, I should not have claimed to falsify all the world's religions, and you should not have asked me if I did.
    I used your own words when I asked the question so don't start telling me what I shouldn't have asked.

    Religions don't lend themselves to falsification since they are not scientific theories.
    More evidence that you haven't actually falsified a single religion from anywhere in the world at all, most especially not in any sort of rational manner.

    The fact is that most regions are very easily falsified when you subject their claims to the laws of reason. It's difficult to persuade anyone away from a religion that they believe in with sound reason but that's an entirely different issue. As you said yourself, truth supersedes belief and whether anyone chooses to acknowledge it or not, if something is shown to be irrational it has been falsified.

    I could have explained more thoroughly why I don't accept any religions of the world, but I didn't. The religions of the world exist and are believed by those who practice.....so in that sense they are true.
    Well, like you said, truth supersedes belief. Not every religion can be true. In fact, only one of them can be. The question is whether you've educated yourself enough to discover which it is and why.

    Whether or not the claims these various religions make are true or not is something that can be considered, and should be. That is what I have done to some degree, and that's why I feel confident in the decision I have made to reject all the religions of the world.
    So a moment ago you were talking about how you should not have claimed to have falsified all the world's religions and now you seem to making the claim again.

    So which is it? Have you falsified them or not?

    As I have stated before many times in this thread, if a person is made better by the practice of their religion (as long as it harms no person or animal) then I support their practice of faith.....for THEM - not for me.
    How thoughtful of you.

    I do not affirm or reject these statements at this time.
    That sentence could not have been written without them nor could you read this sentence in response to it. There is no such thing as an intelligible thought that does not utilize the law of identity or one of it's corollaries.

    In fact, your failure to affirm them is itself irrational. You are, in effect, using the laws of reason to express doubt about the laws of reason.

    Yes, I do claim that, and yes I do affirm a Higher Power. I don't know why you think it's necessary to ask me about the rational thought process that led me to that decision....so I'll just skip that part and tell you that I believe in it because of personal experience.
    I am merely following the path you've laid down.

    It is necessary to ask because you claim to have falsified at least some significant portion of the world's religions, several of which do little more than simply acknowledge the existence of a higher power, via a rational thought process.

    It therefore stands to reason that you put the twelve step's higher power to a similar test that it somehow managed to pass. I want to know what that test looked like. What questions did you ask, what were the answers to those questions and how did you get those answers? Just how is it that, of all the gods men worship, it's the twelve step's higher power survived your rational thought process when so many hundreds of others failed?

    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    I was simply expecting something more substantive than a two word answer. If that's all you're capable of then this is going to be a waste of time. We'll see in short order....
    So, in other words.....if I don't sufficiently dazzle you with brilliance, you will consider your participation in this thread a waste of your time. hmmmn. OK.


    They aren't "my claims"!
    Then you should have cited your source. It is reasonable for me to assume you were just making that up since you didn't provide a source for me to evaluate....isn't it?

    If you didn't simply lie in your previous post and you actually did falsify all of the world's religions through a rational thought process, then you used those so called claims of mine to do it.
    OK....let's back up a minute here. First of all, I should not have claimed to falsify all the world's religions, and you should not have asked me if I did. Religions don't lend themselves to falsification since they are not scientific theories. I could have explained more thoroughly why I don't accept any religions of the world, but I didn't. The religions of the world exist and are believed by those who practice.....so in that sense they are true. Whether or not the claims these various religions make are true or not is something that can be considered, and should be. That is what I have done to some degree, and that's why I feel confident in the decision I have made to reject all the religions of the world. As I have stated before many times in this thread, if a person is made better by the practice of their religion (as long as it harms no person or animal) then I support their practice of faith.....for THEM - not for me.

    They are only the basic building blocks of every syllable of intelligible discourse that has ever occurred. Everything from "Let there be light." to this sentence you're reading right now and every other intelligible thing anyone ever said before or will say after, is built upon those three laws of reason. The very words of your facile answer to my question is a direct affirmation of them.
    I do not affirm or reject these statements at this time.

    You claim to believe in the twelve step program which acknowledges the existence of a higher power (step 2). Do you believe in a "higher power"? If so, what rational thought process brought you to that conclusion?


    Clete
    Yes, I do claim that, and yes I do affirm a Higher Power. I don't know why you think it's necessary to ask me about the rational thought process that led me to that decision....so I'll just skip that part and tell you that I believe in it because of personal experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    What?! You mean like you just did by asking such a silly question?

    You asked me a question, I answered it. I told you why truth supersedes belief, you said nothing. You asked me how I falsified the world's religions, I answered. I guess you're peeved because I didn't argue your logical axioms claims.
    I'm not peeved!

    Sheesh you people have thin skin! Take a chill pill already.

    I was simply expecting something more substantive than a two word answer. If that's all you're capable of then this is going to be a waste of time. We'll see in short order....


    ....your logical axioms claims.
    They aren't "my claims"!

    If you didn't simply lie in your previous post and you actually did falsify all of the world's religions through a rational thought process, then you used those so called claims of mine to do it. They are only the basic building blocks of every syllable of intelligible discourse that has ever occurred. Everything from "Let there be light." to this sentence you're reading right now and every other intelligible thing anyone ever said before or will say after, is built upon those three laws of reason. The very words of your facile answer to my question is a direct affirmation of them.


    You claim to believe in the twelve step program which acknowledges the existence of a higher power (step 2). Do you believe in a "higher power"? If so, what rational thought process brought you to that conclusion?


    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I don't think God made a world of death, I know he did by observation.

    When I observe the world, I see it teeming with life.

    I see the world as God made it, a world teeming with life.

    Maybe there's something amiss with the way you observe things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Why do you think God made a world of death?
    I don't think God made a world of death, I know he did by observation. That is, if there is a God who made the universe. Everything dies in this world. Therefore God made a world of death. But, to be more accurate, it should be said that God made of world of life and death because a thing can only die if it has lived. So, God made a world where all living things live, then die.

    But in that life is the constant struggle for survival and reproduction. From the birds, and the bees, to every other living thing all the way down to the smallest microorganisms, everything fights to stay alive and reproduce, or it just dies.

    That is why.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    He didn't
    You believe someone other than God made the world then.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    That's it?

    Of all the things I said in my post, you come back with "I do believe in the twelve step recovery program of AA."?

    Are you trying to waste everyone's time here or what?
    What?! You mean like you just did by asking such a silly question?

    You asked me a question, I answered it. I told you why truth supersedes belief, you said nothing. You asked me how I falsified the world's religions, I answered. I guess you're peeved because I didn't argue your logical axioms claims.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    ... why would God make a world of death?

    He didn't

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Now death. Well, being dead is fine...the problem I have with death is that it exists in the first place. It’s the whole idea of why would God make a world of death?
    Why do you think God made a world of death?

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Rational thought process. I think I did say that I do believe in the twelve step recovery program of AA. That I believe is a true religion.
    That's it?

    Of all the things I said in my post, you come back with "I do believe in the twelve step recovery program of AA."?

    Are you trying to waste everyone's time here or what?

    Leave a comment:


  • bibleverse2
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I don’t believe in “dark or evil” forces except for the evil actions that people choose to do.
    Note that dark or evil forces do exist which are not flesh and blood like humans are (Ephesians 6:12).

    --

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    It seems to me that Ecclesiastes should be the simplest of all books to give an answer, but you don’t have it; neither does anyone else.
    Ecclesiastes 12:1 simply means that old people can have a hard time because of physical frailties.

    --

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I was a found lost soul who realized the truth.
    John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    --

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I was just thinking about dying and I was going to say that I’m ok with dying as a result of my religion. But then, I checked myself and realized I’m not ok with dying because dying is brutal. I should say I’m ok with death, but that’s not true either. I’m not ok with death, I’m ok with being dead.
    Note that dead people can be sent to hell (Luke 12:5).

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    ...the problem I have with death is that it exists in the first place. It’s the whole idea of why would God make a world of death?
    Because of sin (Romans 6:23).

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    It is possible that we are being punished for crimes in a previous existence.
    No, for there is no reincarnation (Hebrews 9:27).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X