Discussion in 'Religion' started by Seattle, Apr 7, 2019.
Is this the same Dave?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes. Which is why it was odd that you addressed me in the third person - and as if I didn't comprehend my own post.
But you still haven't actually addressed the issue. Your opponent's motives aren't an excuse to be coy about the truth if you have it.
You pretend you are holding some truth, but I'm calling your bluff.
On the contrary, if one's opponent's motives are just to willfully remain at a distance from even theoretically understanding things, and just play games to score self-serving kudos as they hypocritically waver from one accusation to another, it is the very first thing that must be addressed.
In any discipline of knowledge, having such an attitude grants dire results.
I notice though, you never move on to actually make a contribution to the topic.
You talk pretty, but always stop short of anything that advances the subject, only to stall it.
Your MO, to never make an assertion about the subject that you'd actually need to defend, has its own results. One of which is to keep you at your own distance from your convictions.
Why don't we cut this side-thread out, and talk about the topic? Why don't you assert a conviction that might actually need defending?
Sure, it's easy enough to toss out vacuous claims such as that, but can you actually support it with empiricism, or at the very least, a reasonable, rational and logical argument?
I didn't say we were limited to the legal system.
Yes. Google "crystal miracles". People believe it the same as other people believe that God causes miracles.
So the question remains: What's the difference between those beliefs?
This is news to me.
It certainly seems silly, and I suspect that is the main reason for you dredging it up as a comparative example.
But that aside, if you want to progress this angle, perhaps you might want to start with your position on how miracles pertaining to God are at the core of religious practice (or the means that practitioners establish the validity of their worshipful Deity) and then proceed to join to dots to crystal rubbing or whatever.
Frankly, it seems to be yet another exercise in spuriousness. You diligently search for the furtherest flung bullshit in the name of religion and then look for some other similarly outer orbit crap and play this so-called similarity as the ineffable core of religiousity.
It might be more intelligent to start with something pertaining to history and/or philosophy of religion rather than ask silly questions about pineapples and cars.
My whole point is that empiricism does not have a monopoly on epistemology. You can talk of reasonable rational and logical empiricism, but if you talk of empiricism being the ultimate means to discern anything and everything, you are being unreasonable, irrational and illogical.
If your every endeavour is to foil any attempt to advance the topic at every step of the way, what other result would you expect?
Take a look at your own onionesque convictions.
As I said earlier, a sincere answer requires a sincere question. If you are constantly hypocritically redefining your convictions for the sake of drawing the shortest possible route to the closest tool of fallacious argument at every step of the way, you inadvertently make your own kudos-thirsty antics the topic that needs to be addressed.
Other posters, even other atheist posters, do not have this issue.
It's faith. Belief without evidence. Belief in undemonstrable claims.
You don't honestly think I demure. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I certainly make my share of assertions.
Using an 'if' is one form of coyness. (If you think I'm doing that, say so.)
Since the 'if' premise is false, the rest of the statement matters not. Simple.
That is not my endeavor. My endeavor is to encourage rational, defensible discussion of objective things. I don't care which way it goes nearly as much as I care that it goes rationally.
It is not uncommon to see me defend some valid point made by a theist - just as it is not uncommon to see me challenge a poorly constructed atheist argument. (In fact, I challenged one right here in this thread - the crystal rubbing comparison - defending you, in fact. It wasn't until the argument was clarified that I was willing to grant it as valid.)
Now - I can't help the fact that there tends to an overlap between theist beliefs and irrational thinking* - at least here - by some of the more vocal contributors, but I certainly don't fault you for not seeing the nuance of my focus.
To sum: a topic can only advance through rational argument. By calling out irrationality, I am making way for advancement of the discussion.
*for the record, I don't think you're one of the irrational ones.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pyramids are good, too. Sit in a glass tetrahedron three hours a day and you'll grow hair and attract money.
Well, it would work if only your faith were strong enough!
Probably because ''be kind'' is subjective, and everyone's ideas of what kindness is, would be subjective. Depending on varying religions, they too can be subjective. I don't think it's a fair question, actually. The comparison is actually between two ideals, that are both equally abstract and non-objective.
There's nothing saying it can't be followed by examples.
The game of loopholes lol
It would still be subjective. Your idea of being kind might be different than mine. I'm sure with some cross pollination. It is still a question that is too broad and abstract, but it's designed to refute religion as necessary in any practical sense, that secular morality couldn't provide.
The answer probably lies in the motivation. Is kindness coming from a place of selflessness, or is it because we seek to gain something from it? Many people for example, who donate to charities, say that it ''makes them feel good,'' to be ''doing good for others.'' So, is ''being kind'' in that sense, truly motivated by selflessness or by self righteousness?
You're right. Examples matter.
Selflessness can't be the standard. Actions are more important anyway. Who is to say that religious actions don't make one feel good?
Should the standard be to do something that is kind but that makes you feel bad?
Of course "be kind" is subjective. Religion is nothing but subjective and yes it's also a "simple" concept but without being too cynical about it, would the world not be better off if more people focused on being kind (whatever that means to them) rather than on trying to decipher the Bible?
You can try to figure out who the bad guys are, the immoral, the evil or whatever or you can just spend more time trying to be kind. There is no downside to being kind and it's hard to prevaricate the message of kindness. With religion it's very easy to be anything but kind. It's easy to be judgmental, to start wars in the name of religion. It would be very hard to do all that in the name of kindness.
No one said empiricism had a monopoly or that it was the ultimate means of discerning, those are just more claims you have added onto your previous, which you still have yet to support. Again, feel free to support your vacuous claims.
At a guess, I suspect you are just equating the demonstrable with the empirical.
On the contrary, practically every one is saying that. Even if they give lip service and say that they aren't, several posts later they are back to saying the same thing.
Separate names with a comma.