Religious Education Forum  

Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page!
Home Who's Online Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Religious Education Forum / Religious Topics / Religious Debates
Sitemap Popular RF Forums REGISTER Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 07-21-2013, 07:11 PM
Iridescence's Avatar
Iridescence Offline
Title:Catholic Universalist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Gender: Female
Posts: 920
Frubals: 106
Iridescence hopes to be reincarnated as a frubal next time aroundIridescence hopes to be reincarnated as a frubal next time aroundIridescence hopes to be reincarnated as a frubal next time around
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaidealukal View Post
Is it really that hard to understand? Do you not have any hobbies or things you're interested in then?
Of course. But, as one who doesn't believe in a Santa Claus, for example, challenging others' belief in him isn't one of them.

Quote:
No, not a leap at all- just plain old inevitable
Quote:
logical consquence.
'Logical consequence' as defined by (for now) an earthbound collective humanity who very likely hasn't yet even scratched the surface of reality in its entirety.

Again, our current use of logic, etc., is great and practical for conducting life on earth while in our mortal bodies, but we can't declare authoritatively what is or what isn't beyond where we are now.
I mean – we can if we want (free speech and all that!), but it's self-limiting in a way. Maybe the idea that the unknown is so vast is a tad unsettling, but I don't think it has to be. But if it is disconcerting, just don't think about it – it's not a requirement, just …. a hobby some of us have!

Quote:
And since theistic belief often leads to
Quote:
violence, divisiveness, and interolerance, and always is infantalizing and intellectually irresponsible
“Often”? Really?

How can one be sure that it's theism specifically that does all that, especially given that there is more than just one type?

Also, what about theists who
aren't violent, divisive, intolerant, infantilizing, and intellectually irresponsible? If theism alone were responsible for such behaviors, wouldn't every single theist in existence be engaging in them?

How about
non-theists – are they incapable of violence, divisiveness, intolerance, infantilizing and intellectual irresponsibility?

Quote:
undermining the foundations of a
Quote:
bankrupt worldview is important and necessary work.
This sounds a lot like what I thought I was doing when I was a religious fundamentalist. Hmmmmm....

Quote:
I'm a philosophical laborer, slaving away for the cause of humanity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FranklinMichaelV.3 View Post
But the definition of a square is created in such a way to make it not be a circle. True you can say that it is for this world, but if we went to another world, do you think we would be able to accept the concept of a square circle?
I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility. I mean, I really can't, because I personally haven't explored all facets of reality beyond our immediate one. Time will tell. I won't even get started on rectangular ovals …

Quote:
But I think part of what makes a square a square is also a mathematical proof, as such this world would have to have completely different Math, and as such communication and understanding with that world would be impossible.
True; it's a radical, theoretical concept at this point. Whatever math, communication and understanding would be required to accommodate such a thing is something that's being saved for later, if indeed it does exist (probably on the same dimension as that proverbial 'barefoot boy with shoes on, who stood sitting on the grass' ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoda89 View Post
Lack of evidence does not prove that there are not unknown possibilities. The concept of no evidence is not to bring out a big stick and beat people because they believe something different. That's happened too much. Your notion of seeing square-circle is possible. It's possible that there is a McDonalds on the far side of Titus.(They are everywhere).
Wouldn't that be fabulous?
Their fries …. lordy, those fries....


Quote:
Its saying well I don't see a square-circle so here lies no square circle. Please provide me with one so that take it in.
Yes, and I think that's a very rational approach to it.

If the individual can then provide one, that's fantastic.

If they can't, it proves not that there's no square circle at all, but rather that they are unable to provide one at this point in time (and space, etc.).


And if someone's beliefs simply make their day better – and, more importantly, make them a better person for it – then I would have to ask “why all da fuss?”

Again, though, if a believer in whatever were to become a direct threat to another based upon how that believer approaches their belief, then one can certainly understand questioning it more aggressively – though it might be less the belief and more just that individual's personality that causes them to be downright obnoxious about it.

The only instance where I would blame a belief
for behavior is if each and every believer in that belief, that ever lived, exhibited the same threatening behavior towards nonbelievers.... then, yeah, Houston, we have a problem. Like anything, though, I see it as being less the tool and more how it's used that can cause potential harm.

Quote:
However, X can be believed by someone doesn't make it true if there is no evidence behind it. That is self-belief.
I agree. Belief alone doesn't necessarily make something true (though sometimes power of suggestion, or the placebo affect, has done wonders in some situations... but that might be more in the areas of meditation practices and the like, I suppose). Also, what appears to be no evidence at all may just be a case of evidence being out of manageable reach from whatever spot one is in.


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-21-2013, 08:08 PM
I.S.L.A.M617's Avatar
I.S.L.A.M617 Offline
Religion: Atheist/Autotheist
Title:Illuminatus
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,180
Frubals: 177
I.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsI.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsI.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsI.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescence View Post
[color=#000000][font=Verdana][size=2]Of course. But, as one who doesn't believe in a Santa Claus, for example, challenging others' belief in him isn't one of them.
Santa Claus doesn't tell gay people they can't get married or rape victims they can't get abortions. Belief in Santa Claus is harmless and generally not imposed on people by those who view themselves as superior.
__________________
I Self Lord And Master
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-22-2013, 01:58 AM
nash8 Offline
Religion: DIR I'm posting in ;)
Title:Da man, when I walk thru!
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dirty South
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,512
Frubals: 77
nash8 likes the look on kids' faces when you tell them their frubals are falling offnash8 likes the look on kids' faces when you tell them their frubals are falling off
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaidealukal View Post
No it isn't; counter-intuitive results yes, but not contradictions.
So what exactly is logical about a moving object that isn't moving, or for that matter, a non moving object that is moving.

What's the differnece between counter-intuitive and contradictive?


Quote:
Lol... According to "my" logic. As if logic was like a purse or a cell phone, such that "my logic" which I carry around with me is slightly different from the logic everyone else carries around with them.

And no, logic is not contingent upon the number of neurons any given person has in their brain (although a particular persons ability to comprehend or utilize logic is obviously contingent upon the state of their brain).
If logic is all the same, then why does my "logic" tell me something totally different from your "logic"? Is your logic better than mine?

So logic has nothing to do with the amount of information that can be stored, and the physical ability to connect that information to other relevant information?

[quote] Um, no... That's ludicrous. Alot of our natural reasoning is deductive; in particular, we reason deductively from things we gather through induction. (for instance- say I know from experience/induction that Julie is a lawyer, and that all lawyers are smart; I conclude, deductively, that Jule is smart) [quote]

Let me rephrase that. Deductive reasoning only works in mathematics. And that is only because proofs that use deductive reasoning are based on previously established inductive proofs.

Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reasoning on generalized statements doesn't work well in life settings, as evidenced by your lawyer example. Are all lawyers smart? What is a generalized statement about the requirement for one to be smart?

Quote:
Looks like you completely missed the point of the example and read me far too literally; the illustration had nothing to do with transfinite cardinalities but the colloquial expression "infinity plus one" (as you'll note your Wiki article mentions) which illustrates the unintelligible nature of something being greater than the limit for a particular attribute. Saying something is "more powerful than all powerful" (i.e. "super-omnipotent") is like saying "taller than the tallest thing", " north of the north pole", and so on.

So did you have anything to say to that point, or were you just being a pedant?
My point was to show that things that you say are "illogical" in your idea of reality, serve a logical purpose in certain areas. How can something be inherently illogical yet serve a logical purpose?

And as for the pedant remark.
Pedant - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I am a male and I am a certified teacher. I was making a show of knowledge. And I believe I have precision in my teaching abilities. So according to 1, 2a, and part of 2c, yes I was being pedant. As far as 2b goes, no I don't think I was. Was my assessment of my pedantness logical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaidealukal View Post
Exactly. This is called "wanting ones cake and to eat it too".
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-22-2013, 02:00 AM
nash8 Offline
Religion: DIR I'm posting in ;)
Title:Da man, when I walk thru!
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dirty South
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,512
Frubals: 77
nash8 likes the look on kids' faces when you tell them their frubals are falling offnash8 likes the look on kids' faces when you tell them their frubals are falling off
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.S.L.A.M617 View Post
Santa Claus doesn't tell gay people they can't get married or rape victims they can't get abortions. Belief in Santa Claus is harmless and generally not imposed on people by those who view themselves as superior.
Actually, one of my buddies at work the other day, was telling me how ole St. Nick used to literally beat people that he judged as naughty. If thats not a view of superiority I dunno what is lol .
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-22-2013, 03:28 AM
I.S.L.A.M617's Avatar
I.S.L.A.M617 Offline
Religion: Atheist/Autotheist
Title:Illuminatus
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,180
Frubals: 177
I.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsI.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsI.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsI.S.L.A.M617 is filling up landfills everywhere with frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nash8 View Post
Actually, one of my buddies at work the other day, was telling me how ole St. Nick used to literally beat people that he judged as naughty. If thats not a view of superiority I dunno what is lol .
Makes sense; he is the patron saint of prostitutes lol
__________________
I Self Lord And Master
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-22-2013, 09:16 AM
Iridescence's Avatar
Iridescence Offline
Title:Catholic Universalist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Gender: Female
Posts: 920
Frubals: 106
Iridescence hopes to be reincarnated as a frubal next time aroundIridescence hopes to be reincarnated as a frubal next time aroundIridescence hopes to be reincarnated as a frubal next time around
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.S.L.A.M617 View Post
Santa Claus doesn't tell gay people they can't get married or rape victims they can't get abortions. Belief in Santa Claus is harmless and generally not imposed on people by those who view themselves as superior.
Well that's true – though it probably depends on the values of the household in which the Santa concept is being applied. If the parents are against something, then they're likely going to tell their kids that Santa's not thrilled with it either.

The Santa thing is, I believe, a bit more insidious than one might think (it probably deserves a thread of its own, lol!) First, there are quite a number of parallels between the Santa concept and the average Christian god-concept. I'm sure you're familiar with the lyrics to “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” ... it can come across as downright threatening. “You better watch out!” … “You better not cry!” … because Santa's coming, by golly. Its like a freakin' judgment day or something. And I won't even get into Santa's stalking tendencies articulated in the song.

The whole message: “You better be good – or else”. The “or else”, in a child's eyes, can seem rather apocalyptic. So, if one is raised in a household where homosexuality or abortion are considered “bad”, then “You better be good for goodness sake” (which will be encouraged by the parents well beyond the Santa years) is probably going to address that as well, sooner or later.

It doesn't end there, though. We were the kind of parents who, while we told our kids about the Santa tradition, we didn't tell them he was real (we told them the historical Saint Nick fellow, but we assured them that the fellow who comes down the chimney is just a fun story). When some of our friends/family/others got wind of that, the grief we got was a bit startling. Especially from our Christian friends/family, who I had thought for sure would've valued truth-telling. It's seen as a bad thing not to essentially lie to your kids about how the gifts got under the tree (or how the Easter eggs got under the bushes, or how the tooth magically transformed into coins under the pillow). The Santa/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy-supporters I have encountered are surprisingly devoted to the practice, and they don't always take kindly to others deviating from it. They may not get all Westboro on you for it (though one family member kinda did, in hindsight), but frankly they don't need to for it to sting a bit. It's a bit twisted, if you ask me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-22-2013, 11:08 AM
enaidealukal Offline
Religion: irreligious
Title:Restricted
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,952
Frubals: 159
enaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objects
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Doom View Post
Oh, I love the answer, chief. I really do. It's hilarious.

The dodge is that you keep trying to categorize it away as something you simply can't describe, when I'm literally providing a description for you already. You just refuse to assign it out of some sort of bent principle that prevents you from assigning hypothetical attributes to a hypothetical being in your imagination. Why you think this gives you some kind of edge here is beyond my reckoning. Its nothing more than:
There is no "something to describe" in the first place- the conjunction of "super" and "omnipotent" ("super" denoting extra, more, greater than) is illicit, for the reasons we've already covered.

Quote:
I don't believe the subject matter is here to admit anything. I'm pretty sure that would require that it actually existed in reality, and additionally had the ability to communicate to us what it admits.
Needless to say, you need to check the definition of "admits", then re-read this portion of our exchange. I'm not saying Christian theology verbally "admits" anything- that's ludicrous- the point is that if it "admits", in the sense of allowing, contradictions (i.e into it's discourse), then it is assuredly false.

Quote:
This conclusion states that YOU do not find these three specific things 'meaningful'.
I don't find them meaningful becuase they are not meaningful; they do not denote any logically possible object or state of affairs. Which is the basically the whole point here.

Quote:
Of course, there is no contradiction and 'meaning' is 100% subjective and arbitrary
No, it isn't. If this were so communication would be impossible. It is not.

Quote:
Gee, I see what you mean, but what I don't see is any sort of rebuttal. I wonder why that is? Probably because you have none to make and conceding the point would wound your pride too much, so instead you attempt to ridicule me and use that as some kind of shiny object to draw attention away from the fact that you really just can't dispute what I said at all.
There is no point to dispute or concede here; you've said virtually nothing, despite all the words on the page... Sort of an accomplishment in itself, typing so many words and yet managing to say so little.

Quote:
I And, as I am not required to GO North of the North Pole in order to IMAGINE North of the Northpole
Clearly, and yet you can do neither, because "north of the north pole" does not denote a logical possibility- you can not imagine this any more than you can imagine a round square.

Quote:
You say that, but then you offer absolutely no rebuttal whatsoever
If and when you raise a salient point, I will rebut it. Until you do so however, there isn't much to say here. Needless to say, nonsensical bluster about "super-omnipotence" has no bearing on my argument that various properties ascribed to God are logically contradictory, such that no such object could exist, even in principle.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-22-2013, 11:15 AM
enaidealukal Offline
Religion: irreligious
Title:Restricted
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,952
Frubals: 159
enaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objects
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nash8 View Post
So what exactly is logical about a moving object that isn't moving, or for that matter, a non moving object that is moving.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here; Heisengerg's principle does not imply that any objects are "moving and not moving". You should probably be more specific about what you have in mind.

Quote:
What's the differnece between counter-intuitive and contradictive?
Something which is counter-intuitive is something which strikes us as implausible, unusual, contrary to what we would expect. But it needn't be contradictory, as in "P and not P" ("Socrates is not Socrates" "The cat is on the mat and the cat is not on the mat", etc.).

Quote:
If logic is all the same, then why does my "logic" tell me something totally different from your "logic"? Is your logic better than mine?
We don't have personal logics- that isn't what "logic" means in the technical sense here. Logic is a formal axiomatic system of reasoning- there are various logics (sentential, predicate, modal, paraconsistent, alethic, etc.), but they aren't "my" logic and "your" logic.

Quote:
Let me rephrase that. Deductive reasoning only works in mathematics. And that is only because proofs that use deductive reasoning are based on previously established inductive proofs.
You're simply restating your (patently false) claim from your last post. Deductive reasoning can be applied to ANY subject matter, as the lawyer example shows. Here's another famous example of deductive reasoning, which has nothing to do with mathematics-

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
(therefore) Socrates is mortal.

Quote:
My point was to show that things that you say are "illogical" in your idea of reality, serve a logical purpose in certain areas. How can something be inherently illogical yet serve a logical purpose?
Because you're using the word "logical" equivocally.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-22-2013, 11:24 AM
enaidealukal Offline
Religion: irreligious
Title:Restricted
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,952
Frubals: 159
enaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objectsenaidealukal thinks of frubals as mere sex objects
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescence View Post
Of course. But, as one who doesn't believe in a Santa Claus, for example, challenging others' belief in him isn't one of them.
If adults believed in Santa, and used this belief as a basis to demonize, make war upon, and exclude others, then challenging others belief in Santa would be a perfectly legitimate activity.

Quote:
Again, our current use of logic, etc., is great and practical for conducting life on earth while in our mortal bodies, but we can't declare authoritatively what is or what isn't beyond where we are now.
We can declare authoritatively that the basic laws of logic hold universally, because they are not laws in the same sense that our physical laws of nature are laws- they are simply consequences of the way we use language. And I have no idea what you mean by "what is or isn't beyond where we are now"; do you mean, something like "outside of the physical universe"?

Quote:
“Often”? Really?
Yes, really.

Quote:
How can one be sure that it's theism specifically that does all that, especially given that there is more than just one type?
Because it is common to every form of theism.

Quote:
Also, what about theists who aren't violent
What about them?

Quote:
divisive, intolerant, infantilizing, and intellectually irresponsible?
It isn't theists who are divisive and infantalizing, but theism. And any form of theism is intellectually irresponsible, because there is no adequate justification for theistic belief.

Quote:
If theism alone were responsible for such behaviors, wouldn't every single theist in existence be engaging in them?
No, that doesn't follow, and I never said that theism alone was responsible for these behaviors in the first place. Read more carefully.

Quote:
How about non-theists – are they incapable of violence, divisiveness, intolerance, infantilizing and intellectual irresponsibility?
Sure, but not qua non-theism.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-22-2013, 12:04 PM
Thief Offline
Religion: rogue theologian
Title:Devoted Member
Shield of 10,000 Thoughts: Awarded for contributing 10,000 posts - Issue reason: For contributing 10,000 posts! 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 17,690
Frubals: 383
Thief suggests that you not swim for half an hour after receiving frubalsThief suggests that you not swim for half an hour after receiving frubalsThief suggests that you not swim for half an hour after receiving frubalsThief suggests that you not swim for half an hour after receiving frubalsThief suggests that you not swim for half an hour after receiving frubalsThief suggests that you not swim for half an hour after receiving frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaidealukal View Post
If adults believed in Santa, and used this belief as a basis to demonize, make war upon, and exclude others, then challenging others belief in Santa would be a perfectly legitimate activity.


We can declare authoritatively that the basic laws of logic hold universally, because they are not laws in the same sense that our physical laws of nature are laws- they are simply consequences of the way we use language. And I have no idea what you mean by "what is or isn't beyond where we are now"; do you mean, something like "outside of the physical universe"?


Yes, really.


Because it is common to every form of theism.


What about them?


It isn't theists who are divisive and infantalizing, but theism. And any form of theism is intellectually irresponsible, because there is no adequate justification for theistic belief.


No, that doesn't follow, and I never said that theism alone was responsible for these behaviors in the first place. Read more carefully.


Sure, but not qua non-theism.
I liken this perspective to a shallow retort....
I don't believe... I won't believe.... and you can't make me!

And nobody can.

But to say as you do you would have to surrender all kinds of 'obvious' reasoning's.

Like....
all of these copies of a learning device.....the human body....
each one generating a unique soul....
and the likelihood of no one surviving the last breath?

It might pain you to think someday you might have to face Something Greater than yourself.
Most believers seem to think so.
It's called judgment day.

Logic isn't want you want it to be.
And there are rules.

But no one is going to force you to believe.
Only you can do that.
And a better logic would help.

Or perhaps you might be favoring belief and I can't see it?
Are you believing ....or not?
__________________
First you are told.... 'this is this...and that is that'.
Then someone else will come along and say...'No it ain't'.

I do BELIEVE as I post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Copyright © ReligiousForums.com

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.