• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence...

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
This is why athiests are actually the irrational ones. They will even claim that if God speaks to them it must be a hallucination.
If you can not trust your own mind you can not trust anything.
Click to expand...
No, you have that wrong and have demonstrated that you are not being rational.

I am sure that if a Muslim or Hindu told you that you were wrong because their God talked to them you would dismiss their claims and believe that God had not contacted them. If they continued to insist and you told them to "prove it" would you accept their insistence that God talked to them?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sheldon said:
Sorry but please quote the specific claim you are saying I made, and make a specific point you have about it, if you want to provide a link to support your claim fine, but I'm not scouring the internet when I have no idea what claim you're referring to or what point you're making about it.
Click to expand...

I am using a source by scientists.
But it is simple to test: You just tell me if these 3 examples of the same exact sense of see:
I see a dog.
I see that 2+2=11 is correct by certain sex of axioms.
I see that you are wrong. (Note wrong is also a cases of 2 different senses).
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sheldon said:
Sorry but please quote the specific claim you are saying I made, and make a specific point you have about it, if you want to provide a link to support your claim fine, but I'm not scouring the internet when I have no idea what claim you're referring to or what point you're making about it.

You didn't address any of the straw man claims you keep assigning to me?
Click to expand...

That in effect for one of your claims that something is hilarious. Do you know that?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
I am using a source by scientists.
But it is simple to test: You just tell me if these 3 examples of the same exact sense of see:
I see a dog.
I see that 2+2=11 is correct by certain sex of axioms.
I see that you are wrong. (Note wrong is also a cases of 2 different senses).
Click to expand...
Are you sure that you are not conflating sex and gender?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Subduction Zone said:
No, you have that wrong and have demonstrated that you are not being rational.

I am sure that if a Muslim or Hindu told you that you were wrong because their God talked to them you would dismiss their claims and believe that God had not contacted them. If they continued to insist and you told them to "prove it" would you accept their insistence that God talked to them?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. But that is not unique to religion. You could do it politically or philosophically and end where some religious people end. They have an objective truth, that is not objective as per evidence.
If I recall right an honest Marxist once told me, where Karl Marx did a "job" on subjective and declared it objective.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, yes. But that is not unique to religion. You could do it politically or philosophically and end where some religious people end. They have an objective truth, that is not objective as per evidence.
If I recall right an honest Marxist once told me, where Karl Marx did a "job" on subjective and declared it objective.
Click to expand...
You do not appear to be using the word objective properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top