Is religion just a place to throw any rationality. evidence based belief, and the scientific method?
Is religion just a compartment where you are willing to throw it all away?
Is Great Debates just a dumping ground for failed rants?
No
Not really.
Hey, and more importantly, welcome back Lib!
Can you give a rational evidence based defense of specific religious beliefs using the scientific method?
Is life really all about that and nothing more?
And can you give a rational evidence based defense - using the scientific method - of your decision to get blind drunk? If not, why did you do it?
Can you establish another method for justifying beliefs?
Moderator’s Note: Let’s keep the Pit out of Great Debates, please.
Why should I? Personal goals are differnt from statements about reality.
I don’t see why I should accept this as true just because you say it, but please elaborate.
Why? Are your personal goals not real? Are you unable to defend your personal goals scientifically?
That sounds a tad irrational.
My personal goals are by their very nature subjective. It is like being in love. You are either are or you are not. That question is entirely an agent question. It is about my specific viewpoint.
The question of whether the waifer is changed into the flesh of God is different. It should be subjected to a non-agent viewpoint. Any viewpoint should show it actually changed into the flesh of God regrdless of desire.
Why?
Because that is the claim. It is not a Jamesian view about the pragmatic truth of the change. Catholics hold that it actually changes into the body of God.
Aside from seriously misunderstanding what the RCC actually says (as I have pointed out in several threads, most recently in your first rant this evening, since moved to the Pit), you have still failed to explain why any claim must show a particular event.
Your statement regarding the claim made is in error, and you have provided no reason WHY anyone who is speaking outside your (limited) frame of reference should establish anything inside your frame of reference.
Yes, let’s. So why is this still here? What argument did the OP formulate? When in Great Debates did we begin personalizing insults about irrationality into questions with second person pronouns? Then again, why am I bothering to appeal to reason? I’ll stay away from your "Great Debates’.
Does religion compel one to take personal offense at any general criticism of religion?
Perhaps. Doesn’t membership of any group do that?
Justifiably? Not in my opinion, no. Certainly not enough to motivate someone to post after months of hiatus only to say that they aren’t going to come back any more.
Also, if this is the place for witnessing, shouldn’t it also be the place for the other end of the witnessing spectrum? Or are evidence-free expositions on religion only okay if they are in favor of religion?