NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
It would be cool if you could convince me.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Don't derail my thread. I've never, ever blocked anyone, ever, in this forum, but if you want to play word games, you will derail the thread before it even gets started, and that I won't permit.
History is largely subjective; so the "evidence" that I will accept will be much more lenient than, say, "evidence" that Sasquatch exists.
Never let a good myth get in the way of belief.The 'exodus' did not happen as the story depicts. In fact, the Israelites were never enslaved by or in Egypt. But myths are not intended to be taken as factual. They are intended to be taken as story-lessons. So claiming a myth is not factual is as irrelevant as claiming they are.
Well, I will behave here, despite in being in general religious debates.
You can have your words and I will have mine.
To a degree, I can accept that; but that has to give way and accept the meaning of one word or another in order for clear communication while we are engaged in a given discussion. Outside of that discussion becomes "nunmybidness".
Okay, you answered, so here is my answer. If you have 2 different understandings of how a word connects to the rest of the world, then that is what we are playing. You can if you like simply ignore the one and claim the other as correct. But that is not unique to you or me. That is in effect the western project: How words connect to the real world in a correct manner? We have been doing that for over 2000+ years now and it ain't over yet.
Our current culture is properly not the end of that process, no matter how much your culture works for you or mine for me.
mikkel_the_dane
I have been known to ask posters, "Define that word. When you say ___________, what are you trying to say?"
Words are tricky. There are so many words we use in our conversations that are so sloppy, so vague, so commonly misused, that communication can be very difficult when the words are used. Some words I can list that fall here are: Religion, Faith, Knowledge, Pedophile. These are just a few. Some words, like "God", can be generally accepted until finer points come into play. When we say "God", we have a general idea what the speaker is intending to say; and for general discussion, that word is sufficient. However, if we get down to finer points of discussion, it may be necessary to ensure clear communication that we agree on the characteristics and nature of that given object (herein "God") in order for communication to continue. When discussions become that fine, clearly defining our idea of "God" may become necessary.
So I both respect and accept your premise.
However, if we pour over the definition of each and every word in this post, the conversation goes nowhere. The premise of the discussion is lost in the futile exercise of bickering or discussing semantics rather than the subject of the discussion itself.
I am posting this comment in 2 different threads, not to break rules and spam, but because the question over the use of words has come up in 2 different threads in a short period of time and I believe this comment is equally valid in both threads.
Can you point to something in objective reality, that we can all observe, outside of the written claims themselves, which specifically corresponds to the events recorded in Exodus?
Can you point to something in objective reality, that we can all observe, outside of the written claims themselves, which specifically corresponds to the events recorded in Exodus? Because if you can't, then it's reasonable to presume these claims are imaginary until such evidence can be provided.
If people tend to accept claims that have zero supporting evidence, then we know this leads to incoherence, contradictions, and mental detachment from reality. Skeptics would like to avoid living that way, and so we are asking for evidence.
they can't be doubted.
Objective reality is philosophy and I do another version of what the real world is and what really matters.
If you want my honest answer, then here it is: If I accept the assumptions about objective reality and what matters, as you used them, you win. But I can still do it differently.
Ok, so you are able to justify your belief in certain claims only by "doing another version of what the real world is."
I accept that you can believe religious claims if you willfully choose to live in an unevidenced alternate reality. Along those lines, I wholeheartedly agree with you that I win.
I am not religious. I am a skeptic.
I don't do naturalism nor idealism in the ontological sense.
Even methodological naturalism has its limits: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
- Everything is material
- Everything is from God
- Both are too simple and only capture some elements of the everyday world.
I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but it seems to be recognised that the Exodus story is not historically corroborated. I understand most scholars think it may contain a grain of truth, greatly embellished later, for myth-making purposes.It would be cool if you could convince me.
Alright. I guess I would ask you then: For the category of claims which we have no tools to evaluate, which have no demonstrable supporting evidence, and overall no way to show that these claims correspond to reality, what should our default position be? Should we provisionally accept all such claims, or provisionally not accept them, or positively reject them? I think anything but the second approach leads to incoherence.
I agree that methodological naturalism is about describing reality, and therefore isn't concerned with personal conceptual imaginary thoughts, including preferences, opinions, and supernatural beliefs. That's not a failing of methodological naturalism, though, because it's not a doctrine but a practical standard of reasonableness that is open to revision. If you can provide any reliable tool for showing that some object is real instead of imaginary, then methodological naturalism will incorporate that tool and accept that your object is a part of reality. If you can't, then there really isn't a good reason for anyone to believe your claim.
Esoteric philosophical objections to this approach seem to be nothing more than the well-phrased whining of apologists who have emotional reliance on their unjustifiable beliefs. I could be wrong, but that has been the entirety of my experience. Such objections are also dealt with pretty easily, by directing people to read up on Fallibilism and the Principle of Underdetermination. Namely, we don't need ontological certainty in order to have epistemological warrant.
It would be cool if you could convince me.