• 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!

Which faulty tactic you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?

Which faulty tactic you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?


  • Total voters
    5
  • This poll will close: .

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
World view is affirmation of specific beliefs, or even just preferences, for those who eschew belief.

Defining a world view by what it doesn’t contain is absurd.
But what you oppose is as much a part of your worldview as what you embrace, surely? If I didn't dislike fundamentalism, I wouldn't be me.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If by 'what is' you mean a statement is true if it accurately corresponds with the world external to the self, then we're on the same page, a standard for 'truth' that can, at least in principle, be tested by anyone.

Is that about right? If it isn't, I'm interested to understand the difference.
We can't know if what we think 'is' corresponds with 'what is'. As humans we do not have the sensual/intellectual capacity to know 'what is'. It is far to vast and complex. So the "truth", for us, is limited to those theories of 'what is' that appear to function within the limited sensual/intellectual experience that we so have. Our "truth", therefor, is both relative and subjective. Which is why it's always changing.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We can't know if what we think 'is' corresponds with 'what is'. As humans we do not have the sensual/intellectual capacity to know 'what is'. It is far to vast and complex. So the "truth", for us, is limited to those theories of 'what is' that appear to function within the limited sensual/intellectual experience that we so have. Our "truth", therefor, is both relative and subjective. Which is why it's always changing.
But you obviously don't function on that basis.

You have clear ideas from your sensory inputs about the world external to you. Further, you understand the origin, nature and purpose of scientific instruments, from the magnifying glass to the computer to the LHC; you have a useful outline of medicine and biology, you aren't perplexed to know how flowers grow from seeds or tadpoles from spawn, or to read a report on brain research. You live and function in, and understand, a world where knowledge isn't absolute, yet good enough to put rovers on Mars, make medicines for certain brain disorders, treat Ebola, aid fertility &c, create new materials, on and on.

So my point is that there can indeed be a legitimate and functional concept of truth in your world and in mine. Do you seriously dispute that?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
But you obviously don't function on that basis.
It's not a question of function. It's a question of realizing that truth is not defined by functionality. Or not realizing it.
You have clear ideas from your sensory inputs about the world external to you.
No, I (we) don't. Because I am already aware that there are aspects of reality that are beyond the reach of my (our) sensual/intellectual experience, and I (we) have no way of knowing how vast or how significant all that missing information is in knowing the truth of 'what is'. So we have no idea how accurate our ideas of it, are.
So we cannot logically assume that what we can detect and understand.
We can logically assume that we cannot detect or understand 'what is' (truth) because 'what is' (truth) is an integrated whole. And we not only do not have access the that integrated whole, we don't even know how limited the access we do have, is, and how much of the whole we are oblivious of.
Further, you understand the origin, nature and purpose of scientific instruments, from the magnifying glass to the computer to the LHC; you have a useful outline of medicine and biology, you aren't perplexed to know how flowers grow from seeds or tadpoles from spawn, or to read a report on brain research. You live and function in, and understand, a world where knowledge isn't absolute, yet good enough to put rovers on Mars, make medicines for certain brain disorders, treat Ebola, aid fertility &c, create new materials, on and on.

So my point is that there can indeed be a legitimate and functional concept of truth in your world and in mine. Do you seriously dispute that?
What I dispute is your continued insistence on conflating functionality with truth.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
But what you oppose is as much a part of your worldview as what you embrace, surely? If I didn't dislike fundamentalism, I wouldn't be me.

You have a point, but atheism isn’t strictly about opposing theism.

It may well be about opposing theists though, by dint of their intrusion in our lives.

There is an important difference there.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's not a question of function. It's a question of realizing that truth is not defined by functionality. Or not realizing it.
It's a question of accurately reporting the external world to the brain, thus enabling the brain to deal with reality.
No, I (we) don't. Because I am already aware that there are aspects of reality that are beyond the reach of my (our) sensual/intellectual experience
But as I said, they're accessible by our tools and instruments. But until we detect them, on what basis do we say they're real? What test makes the statement "That's a real aspect of the world external to me" true?
and I (we) have no way of knowing how vast or how significant all that missing information is in knowing the truth of 'what is'. So we have no idea how accurate our ideas of it, are.
Or indeed whether any particular thing or phenomenon of that kind is there at all, no?
We can logically assume that we cannot detect or understand 'what is' (truth) because 'what is' (truth) is an integrated whole.
Do you mean that we can't know 'the truth' until we account for all every atom, force and phenomenon in the the universe in real time? Or to put that another way, do you think the statement 'North Dakota shares a border with South Dakota' can't be true because it isn't part of a grand Scheme of Everything? Or do you think it's true as it stands, and if you think that, what definition of 'truth' are you using?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You have a point, but atheism isn’t strictly about opposing theism.

It may well be about opposing theists though, by dint of their intrusion in our lives.
I have no problem with that. People can believe what they like (as long as fundamentalism is confined to consenting adults in private). The important thing is whether someone treats others with respect and decency.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Which faulty tactic you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?

I never used, repeat never used, any faulty tactic with anybody, including Atheism people in the forum while in discussion or debate here to convince anybody. Why should I, I don't hate anybody?
If I did, please point it here to discuss it again.

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Which faulty tactic you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?

I never used, repeat never used, any faulty tactic with anybody, including Atheism people in the forum while in discussion or debate here to convince anybody. Why should I, I don't hate anybody?
If I did, please point it here to discuss it again.
I would like to ask a reverse question.
Which faulty tactics the Atheism people use/d against the believers of Revealed Religions, please?

Regards
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have never seen Atheism people giving any positive argument in favor of their worldview, it is perhaps for this that they resort to deride and or ridicule the truthful Religion. Right, please?
Regards
ROFL!
That's because atheists have no particular worldview, you silly.
 
Top