It is actually a good thing if you’re blind to that fact that this post was nothing more—or less----than witnessing to me.
Good because of a moral certainty in you, you can find no more reasoned argument for God, as you can find for vampires.
In some parts that’s called faith. But whatever you call it, it’s subjective.
This is simply wrong.
Not at all. You don’t understand a very simple concept, and I’m trying to illustrate it to you in a way that can get through your ideological conditioning.
There are no reasoned arguments for God. None. If you have one, post it. But I’m guessing you won’t.
So shut me up. Post the reasoned argument for God. Please and thank you.
It’s not faith in the religious sense to think the world follows the laws of physics. It’s a reasoned trust based on the reliability of the natural world.
Compare this with the vapid, child-like faith a religious person has. Religious faith is based on wishful thinking, not rationality.
So, do vampires exist? Yes or no, please.
No matter how severe the contrasts between two opposing beliefs it will always get back to the quality of the evidence.
And making that contrast as severe as possible in an effort to undermine one through apparent absurdity, doesn’t invalidate the legitimacy of the one you seek to belittle. It’s the only apparent debating tactic Czarcasm knows.
The existence-----or non existence------ of God will stand, or fall on it’s merits, and comparing that argument to the Loch Ness Monster or a Pink Unicorn is either a juvenile debating tactic or ignorance.
Ignoring the obvious hijack and getting back to the actual topic of whether it is logical to be a Christian in our current society, I’d say it isn’t so much logical(in the scientific sense of the word) as it is easier and safer(logical in the societal sense of the word). It is a brightly lit road where most can see you and think they understand you and your motives without much thought or doubt. Trying to be included in the larger group, especially when past history shows how said larger group has treated outsiders, is easier than most alternative paths.
Hold on. I’m micing some popcorn.
You’ll be the first one here to show me that the non-existence of god is objectively true.
I can’t wait.
No, it is you demanding special privilege for the particular brand of nonsense that is important to you.
Your faith is bald, and can’t stand up to reason or intelligent investigation. So you demand that it doesn’t need to.
It’s quite simple what you’re doing. Caught naked, you scream that the rules don’t apply to you.
Is this why you attempt to conflate agnostic/atheist? Because you equate “something someone feels strongly about” with “devout belief”?
You’ve heard this analogy so I’m not sure why you stir this up over and over: Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby
Ok, so you tell me, how can the question be resolved? You say it will be resovled on it’s merits, but what are those merits? What sort of logic or evidence would convince you of God’s non-existence? What would you offer me to convince me of God’s existence?
I really sincerely was not trying to belittle anyone with the Nessie analogy. It’s just that the arguments for God–a vast being of infinite power who is deeply intertwined with our world and yet leaves no objective trace of its existence–don’t seem any more complelling than arguments for Nessie.
You accuse me of being insulting, but it is you who have insulted me. To claim that I only believe what I do on this issue because of some sort of faith like moral certainty is deeply insulting and wrong. I believe that God doesn’t exist because there is no compelling reason to believe that he she or it does. But if you present some I will consider it. The duck billed platypus is an absurd creature, but I am fairly certain it exists.
I have to admit.
I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
You are demanding that God deserves a place apart from unicorns and swamp monsters.
You demand that because your God has as much evidence going for it as unicorns and swamp monsters do. And you don’t want your God to be seen as equally unlikely.
It’s a simple concept. You’re defending your beliefs via special pleading because of how indefensible they are.
Well, I’d imagine these are translations from his German, but the gist of them all point to his disdain for Reason. It would be difficult to dismiss them all, and I haven’t seen anyone show that is was simply a mistranslation or taken out of context. There are too many times when he spoke like this. If someone makes a case for it, I’d appreciate the link. Here’s a few dozen more of his anti-reason quotes to ponder over, here, here, and here. The last one is just a mix of quotes from him, with just a few dealing with reason or faith. A few of these lists the sources, some the original German.
From my wiki link in post 16, it says that quote came from Diet of Worms (19 April 1521), quoted in Martin Luther by Martin Brecht. But I agree, it doesn’t sound like the same man. One possible explanation would be his sentiment changed over time. It would be interesting to see if much of his anti-reason and anti-Semitic quotes came before or after he said this.
I don’t think faith is a matter of reason. I do happen to be a Christian and a member of a faith community, but don’t feel the need to defend my beliefs as a matter of logic, let alone try to prove them true to anyone else.
I do think that loving one’s neighbor as oneself is a rational code for behavior–not in the sense of self-interest, but for the human race as a whole.
That most of us (including me) fail to follow this precept most of the time, and that people who profess to be Christians have failed spectacularly, doesn’t make it less rational.
And yes, there can be practical and emotional advantages to being a member of a church and following or trying to follow the precepts of Christianity.
No, I’ve never heard it before, but it’s inanity isn’t flattering to your argument.
I’d shelve it, if I were you.
Throughout the last several thousand years of recorded human history reasoned, rational arguments have been made for the existence of [a] God.
And while we have made mind numbing progress (particularly in the last few hundred years) almost none of that gain has begun to substantively approach the central question as to how we got here.
The average college freshman may know more about the cosmos than the Apostle Paul, but he’s in no better shape in answering the question as to how we got here----if proof is the only criteria.
And so even today a lot of really intelligent people continue to advance publicly, or privately through their own life and faith, a rational, reasoned belief in some “higher power.”
And…if proof is the only arbiter in addressing the question, it is an unassailable position, for the alternative offers no proof either.
In any event, after several thousand years of reasoned, rational arguments hoping to understand the human experience, saying that those arguments are as reasoned as “unicorns and swamp monsters” looks like message board stupidity.
Or…the the greatest of faith, in your subjective belief.
At any rate, there was a time when I felt compelled to answer every charge, no matter how juvenile. Now it’s a sign of maturity, and a badge of honor, to say to myself, “man, there’s other things to do with my time.”
Given your inability to argue your position and faulty reasoning, I’m not sure you should be debate coaching.
…
Like dispensing with evidence and reason entirely and make wasting our time a pure art form. Saying a million times “But I’ve shown you a million times before!” is not the same thing as actually showing us, by the way. You’ve gone that route far too many times for anyone here to fall for it.
Got something to show us? Then do it.
Since you can’t name one, I don’t think you’re correct.
If you had an argument, you’d bring it out, instead you hide behind a shield that isn’t there.
Sure. But not knowing isn’t the same as God did it. God did it isn’t suggested by the evidence.
Not knowing something doesn’t mean you get to pull an answer out of your ass.
So? Religion is inflicted on children. Of course some people are unable to escape its grasp.
Again, you have no proof that there aren’t vampires. But you think they don’t exist. Because you are demanding that your nonsense belief, in God, gets special treatment. That’s the sign of someone who can’t test their beliefs.
No, the only stupidity here is asserting that your belief in your favored monster doesn’t need evidence. Because you say so.
Nonsense.
I note that you have still not presented this reasoned argument for God’s existence.
Because you don’t have it. Please stop pretending you do.
Of course he won’t. He’s just blustering to cover how utterly without merit his position is.
Ontopic: Being a Christian can be rational. Like if you’ll get burned for heresy if you aren’t.