Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 59 of 59
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    I just don't see where the trait of courage enters into the equation. One person does everything within his power to bring about X. Another person does everything within his power to bring about X and also prays to God to bring about X (if it be His will). Why would anyone consider the latter to be more courageous than the former in his effort to bring about X? What am I missing here?

  2. #42
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    You missed a step there. after "does god exist" should be , "what god". or even "which" if I am inclined to be kind.
    That's a secondary state of belief, not primary. I'm listing only primary because that's the universe of discourse.

    I take the position of ignostic. Having met many theists each with his or her own brand of god, I am no longer inclined to even think I know what a god is. So I have to wait for some theists to inform me of what they think is a god. Then and only then can we jump to the rest of your diagram and choose which position to take.
    Agreed...but then....this too is a secondary issue, not a primary.

    In other words, in order to discuss "What is God or that god like that allegedly exists?"...the question "Does God (or a god) exist?" must first be asked.

    The question "Does God (or a god) exist?" is not intended to explain attributes or properties of said deity...nor is it asking for such. "What is that deity like?" is something asked only if it is claimed that the deity exists in the first place. It makes no sense to discuss the properties of a deity if one is not making the claim that said deity exists.

    Absolute unequivocal evidence? You first, drag gods ass out for me to touch.
    This is a misunderstanding in how rational discourse proceeds though. If someone makes a claim, then they are expected to support it. My beliefs about something are completely irrelevant when it comes to the burden of someone supporting their own claims. Op made a claim, he was challenged to support it. I could be an atheist, Muslim, Christian, agnostic, igtheist, Christian Scientist, etc... and still challenge the fact that the claim made by someone else...was simply not supported.

    But evidence, might have something for you.

    Try a place called, Göbekli Tepe It is, so far, the first temple ever built. And it shows definite signs of after life worship.
    http://www.gobeklitepe.info/

    Sigh! Try googling " how to fear the lord".

    What makes you think fear means being scared of, besides apok.
    Not only is this considered 'linkwarz,' (a violation of supporting one's argument), it doesn't address what was being challenged.

    I'd ask that you to go back and reread the exchange you read. Maybe you just quickly read over the exchange or something. But what you seemingly think was said...wasn't.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; October 1st, 2013 at 08:56 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    That's a secondary state of belief, not primary. I'm listing only primary because that's the universe of discourse.
    Secondary? How does one go from being an atheist who rejects a theist interpretation, to an ignostic, a person yet to hear the theists interpretation that he will then reject. No, it is most definitely a primary.


    Agreed...but then....this too is a secondary issue, not a primary.

    In other words, in order to discuss "What is God or that god like that allegedly exists?"...the question "Does God (or a god) exist?" must first be asked.

    The question "Does God (or a god) exist?" is not intended to explain attributes or properties of said deity...nor is it asking for such. "What is that deity like?" is something asked only if it is claimed that the deity exists in the first place. It makes no sense to discuss the properties of a deity if one is not making the claim that said deity exists.
    Well it is a good thing that i got it in the right order then. If you refer back to my post #36 You will see I said:
    "You missed a step there. after "does god exist" should be , "what god". or even "which" if I am inclined to be kind."
    Your diagram suggests that a person immediately falls into an atheist or agnostic stance once the initial question "does god exist" is asked. Except that I do not. I wait patiently for the person to describe which god they might be referring too.

    Not only is this considered 'linkwarz,' (a violation of supporting one's argument), it doesn't address what was being challenged.

    I'd ask that you to go back and reread the exchange you read. Maybe you just quickly read over the exchange or something. But what you seemingly think was said...wasn't.
    I have no idea what a linkwarz is, is that technical jargon perhaps?
    What is linwarz, my link or my suggestion to look up a link?
    I interpret your challenge in post #6 and the very first temple dedicated to death worship is as historical as one can get. That suggests that religions purpose was as a gateway between the two existences.

  4. #44
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    Secondary? How does one go from being an atheist who rejects a theist interpretation, to an ignostic, a person yet to hear the theists interpretation that he will then reject. No, it is most definitely a primary.
    But you are misunderstanding the chart and its relevance/application by not making the distinction between the "issues."

    The issue you address by the question "What properties does or would this deity have?" is a different issue than "Does a deity, any deity, exist?"

    In other words, you do not have to believe in any particular deity to hold the position that a deity exists. You could hold the belief that there is at least 1 deity that exists...but you (or maybe no one) can know anything about said deity other than its existence.

    You are trying to force a particular system into a general system. I'm addressing the latter only...while you are insisting that the former belongs. You are insisting that the subset belongs in the set as a primary category, and that simply is not the case.

    It is like the following exchange:

    Joe: There are animals, plants, and cells in the group "living things."
    Bob: You are forgetting cats.
    Joe: No, the group "cats" is a secondary category (or subset)...they belong under (or within) the primary group "animals."


    Well it is a good thing that i got it in the right order then. If you refer back to my post #36 You will see I said:
    "You missed a step there. after "does god exist" should be , "what god". or even "which" if I am inclined to be kind."
    Your diagram suggests that a person immediately falls into an atheist or agnostic stance once the initial question "does god exist" is asked. Except that I do not. I wait patiently for the person to describe which god they might be referring too.
    "Which" god someone is referring to is irrelevant to the question of "Does a deity, any deity exist?" which is the question being asked in the context in which I refer to it.

    I have no idea what a linkwarz is, is that technical jargon perhaps?
    What is linwarz, my link or my suggestion to look up a link?
    You are new to the community so it is understandable for the lack of clarity (and obviously, there is no infraction or warning necessary, just an explanation of what we mean by the term as well as an expectation).

    From our rules page:

    Quoting External Sources
    You are encouraged to provide support for any claims you make through the use of external sources. However, it is inappropriate to simply provide one or more links or sources (including embedded videos) and proclaim that all one needs to do is review them. Readers should not have to access your sources before they understand your argument. Where possible, you should provide a short summary of the link/video you have posted. Members who fail to observe this rule will be guilty of what is colloquially known as "linkwarz."

    The following should be followed for proper citation in threads:
    1) Other posters should not need to actually click on the link to read your support. The link is primarily for verification purposes and to allow the reader access to further details on the topic - the relevant material you want to use from it should be contained in your post itself. Depending on the context, any of the following options might be suitable:

    • Quote the material verbatim. This does not give you license to copy-and-paste large chunks of text and expect other posters to wade through them to find your support. You should be concise and quote only as much as is needed to support your claim.
    • Paraphrase the material. If you go this route, make sure your paraphrase is accurate and does not misrepresent or exaggerate what the source actually says.
    • If it is a video, you should describe (or if possible, transcribe) the relevant portions of the video that support your claim. Also, if the video allows, point out the key time frames of the relevant information in the video. Don't expect other members to load and watch the video in its entirety to find your cited evidence.
    • If your support is a graphic (e.g. a graph) that can fit comfortably in a post, post the graphic using image tags in your post itself. Else, download the image, then attach the image to the post.


    2) When quoting material, the quoted text should be clearly set apart from your main text. The best way to do this is to use indents (to prevent confusion, it is better to reserve quote tags for quoting the poster(s) you are responding to). Simply enclosing your quoted text in inverted commas is not acceptable.

    3) You should make it easy for other posters to locate the part of your source that supports your claim. So:

    • If your support is buried in a 5-page article, you should link to the exact page where your support appears (instead of the start of the article).
    • If your support is another post buried in a multi-page thread, you should link to the specific post and not the entire thread. (In case you didn't know already, the number at the top-right hand corner of each post is the link to that specific post.) If your support is spread over multiple posts, state the relevant post numbers.


    4) If it is not self-evident, you should explain how the source supports the exact claim you made. For example, if your claim is "The Iraq War is a failure" and your source talks about the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq, do not think that simply citing the source is sufficient to support your claim. You need to explain why this death toll means that the Iraq War has failed.


    I interpret your challenge in post #6 and the very first temple dedicated to death worship is as historical as one can get. That suggests that religions purpose was as a gateway between the two existences.
    In what way does it support his claim: Religion started because people felt uncomfortable with the idea that there is no life after death.

    There are several problems here:

    1) readers shouldn't have to dig through random links to find support for claims you are making (even if you are making them in support of another poster).
    2) nowhere in that article does it explain how this temple addresses how religion started.
    3) nowhere in that article does it explain or make the claim that those who built it and used "felt uncomfortable" with the idea of no life after death
    4) nowhere in that article does it even address or explain a single type of ritual, ceremony, practice or belief by those who built or used that temple


    Out of 469 words, only a few address religion: "There is archelological [sic] proof that these installations were not used for domestic use, but predominantly for ritual or religous [sic] purposes."

    So maybe this information you say exists, is found elsewhere on the site and you gave a bad link? So I found this one: http://www.gobeklitepe.info/who_how_why.html

    What does it say with regards to the beliefs, practices, rituals, origins of religion?

    The hypothesis here is that Gobeklitepe is a burial site. The excavations did not get as far as the actual graves yet, but they expect to find them under the floor or behind the walls, so far untouched. It is also surmised that Gobeklitepe’s main function was primarily ritual burials, and in some lesser capacity big feasts and social gatherings

    ...they think, but cannot confirm, that it's a burial site. Nothing more is said about the people's beliefs, why they believed, their "comfort level" this being the cause of religion, etc...It's thought to be a grave.

    In no way, shape, or form...is that link or this site, a support of the claim: Religion started because people felt uncomfortable with the idea that there is no life after death.

    As I said earlier..."Maybe you just quickly read over the exchange or something. But what you seemingly think was said...wasn't." and you are doing the same thing now with that source you provided.No one is debating that religion exists or that it started very early or that people buried people. What is being objected to (at least in requiring support for), is the claim that "Religion started because people felt uncomfortable with the idea that there is no life after death."....which interestingly enough...after all these posts...is still an unsupported claim.

    ---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Even if there was fear that doesn't make it wrong. I could believe out of fear and it could still be true, which would still make me right. Now I don't believe out of fear, but I see no reason to have to justify myself when logically its rather irrelevant.
    Yup, true. But maybe the op wasn't trying to disprove religion, just somehow make a connection that because it is fear based, then something must be wrong.

    The problem is that not only has the op failed to make that connection but also support his claims. It's more of an opinion piece than anything else...and is why it was moved to the Formal Discussion forum (it doesn't qualify as a legitimate debate).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; October 1st, 2013 at 12:56 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,426
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    I have no idea what a linkwarz is, is that technical jargon perhaps?
    What is linwarz, my link or my suggestion to look up a link?
    I interpret your challenge in post #6 and the very first temple dedicated to death worship is as historical as one can get. That suggests that religions purpose was as a gateway between the two existences.
    Linkwars is debate jargon for arguing simply by pasting a bunch of links and saying "go read that and see why you are wrong"

    It makes for poor debate so we have rules against it. Essentially you need to provide in your post the argument made in the linked material or the direct evidence presented in it that is relevant to the debate. We want the link to source your argument/evidence, but we also require you to inform your reader what it is. The ideal being they don't have to click the link unless they doubt the veracity of the source or want more details.

    If you haven't yet, please read all our debate rules linked in my signature. We have quite a few but they are all designed to keep the debates engaging and substantive.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. Thanks Apokalupsis thanked for this post
  7. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    I just don't see where the trait of courage enters into the equation. One person does everything within his power to bring about X. Another person does everything within his power to bring about X and also prays to God to bring about X (if it be His will). Why would anyone consider the latter to be more courageous than the former in his effort to bring about X? What am I missing here?
    You're not wrong there, Rod. My intention, however poorly worded it may be, isn't to argue that it actually IS braver to pray or to trust God, but to offer the counter that it isn't fear that motivates reliance on God for provision rather than self reliance, it's confidence/courage to put faith in where you food comes from in something beyond yourself (trust). I'm offering a counter-point to Serand's point. Just as you don't see a connection between prayer and courage, I don't really see a logical connection between praying to God for provision and that prayer being motivated by fear.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  8. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,426
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    ----- With my debate hat on -----

    I think the OP in this thread badly over reaches and is insulting in the process. That said, I generally suspect he is correct.

    Lets be clear, there is no way to prove how the first religion started or why. We don't have reliable records for that. There is no deductive proof for or against such a proposition. Any argument in this space is going to be inductive. Calls for deductive proof by the theists or claims of deductive proof by atheists are all foolhardy. We can supply our arguments, but in the end we each must look a that evidence and decide where the preponderance lies.

    One clear stumbling block is the motivations of contemporary theists. The OP claims to know other peoples motivations, and yet how can those claims stand against someone else's direct testimonial to their own motivation? Any time you want to claim someone thinks X you open yourself up to a direct refutation that they do not, and you are hard pressed to present evidence that shows them a liar or that you have greater insight into their minds than they do to their own.

    Serand claimed he has things figured out, but truly such claims are the first sign of grand ignorance and the weakness of his own case betrays a great lack of wisdom.

    One sticky issue here is theism vs religion
    The OP sites religion, but he sites all religion. In defense astute debaters such as Apok mention that specific attacks on Christianity don't rise to the claims of the OP in which the motivations of all religions are cited. Apok defends his views are based on reason and when asked how he defends specific christian views he brings the discussion back to a general argument of theism.

    I'd like to point out that theism and religion are not exactly the same. While theism is required for any religion, what we call religion and is practiced by most human beings goes well beyond theism. A pure theist with no religious beliefs is a pretty rare breed and not representative of the vast majority of the worlds current or historical religious practices or beliefs.

    The OP indites religion, and all the trappings of specific beliefs that go with it rather than simply going after theism. While theism can certainly be argued with rational proofs, it is much harder to apply them to the more specific and far more common religious viewpoints which are many and varied.

    A view of generic theism does not really resonate with the idea that it is held by virtue of fear and uncertainty. What does a generic first cause/creator really offer anyone in terms of emotional solace? He could be any sort of power from benevolent, to hostile, indifferent, or utterly alien, or simply unknowable. Only one of those can offer any Succor.

    Specific religions on the other hand offer a wide range of assurances to the faithful from the classic life in paradise ever after, to enlightenment, to magical powers, to wealth, to physical mortality and so on. Most feature some largely benevolent god, or gods, though that is not universal. But even in those with capricious gods, they offer an appeal to a greater than human power who can affect outcomes beyond the ability of humans to control. And it is here the argument can be made that a central theme of all religious practice is a promise of a means of some control for things normally beyond human control or at least assurances that someone or something capable does indeed have their hand on the tiller and you can trust problems greater than yourself to them.

    So I think a defense of the rationality of theism specifically misses the mark in terms of defending against the motivations of religious practitioners, for there is a great gap from simple theism to the rich tapestry and specific promises of religion.

    To make a full case for the reasons I see religion as being the product of human anxiety and hopefulness would take more time than I have, but I wanted to at least lay some groundwork to set the frame of the case into its proper scope, which is not a belief in some supreme power or powers, but in specific entities that make specific promises about the nature of life and your own place within the universe.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #48
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    I agree with you re: distinction between theism and particular religions, as well as the fact that someone who believes in God almost certainly is more than simply a theist, but an adherent to a particular religion. But context is important here. The issue about theism/atheism/agnosticism, etc... is a sub-issue and is not a direct counter or response to the op at all. The op was directly responded accordingly. It wasn't until much later than the op disagreed with the philosophical understanding of atheism, and when that occurred, it was necessary to explain the differences. Incidentally, it was that sub-issue that Soylent was addressing as well.

    In as far as a defense of the rationality of theism not really addressing the motivations of religious practitioners, you are correct! But then, that was never the issue. No one was arguing in defense of a particular religion with the arguments for theism. You are mixing two separate issues there. What happened, was the op made claims against religionists, a rebuttal (in the form of several challenges to the op's reasoning and claims) was offered, then like most discussions, we veered off to a side-topic...distinct, yet still relevant as that side-topic is the foundation for the more particular arguments about religionists. In other words, we took a step back to examine some underlying beliefs and understandings so that we could move forward with the original topic. But the op's never got off the ground and instead, kept sinking more and more in a hole of fallacies and assertions (when we needed to fill that hole with sound argumentation).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #49
    shirleyrader
    Guest

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    What you are actually discussed here...

  11. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,426
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by shirleyrader View Post
    What you are actually discussed here...
    The primary topic is this....

    Do people believe in religions primarily out of emotional desire?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    But you are misunderstanding the chart and its relevance/application by not making the distinction between the "issues."

    The issue you address by the question "What properties does or would this deity have?" is a different issue than "Does a deity, any deity, exist?"
    Yes, and IMO should come before asking if a god exists. If any claims are outlandish then they must be supported.

    In other words, you do not have to believe in any particular deity to hold the position that a deity exists. You could hold the belief that there is at least 1 deity that exists...but you (or maybe no one) can know anything about said deity other than its existence.
    As an ignostic I am not even sure why I should consider a god could exist. Many things could exist but do not, what makes god special?

    You are trying to force a particular system into a general system. I'm addressing the latter only...while you are insisting that the former belongs. You are insisting that the subset belongs in the set as a primary category, and that simply is not the case.

    It is like the following exchange:

    Joe: There are animals, plants, and cells in the group "living things."
    Bob: You are forgetting cats.
    Joe: No, the group "cats" is a secondary category (or subset)...they belong under (or within) the primary group "animals."
    If Bob is playing the role of a ignostic , then why would he assume a cat? To do so he would need to know at least enough to be able to make an association between a cat and life.

    But an ignostic position is not that I know a little about your religion or beliefs. It is that i am ignorant of it. I try to make no assumptions.
    Had Bob been an ignostic the conversation would have been,
    Joe: There are animals, plants, and cells in the group "living things."
    Bob: Well point one out.
    Joe: Cats, cats are an example.
    From that point only can Bob truly begin to weigh the merits of Joe's first statement. And consider existence. And then say something like .
    Bob: Does that include Schrödinger's cat?

    "Which" god someone is referring to is irrelevant to the question of "Does a deity, any deity exist?" which is the question being asked in the context in which I refer to it.
    Only if you assume that the other person has already taken a position of either being for against or indifferent.

    In no way, shape, or form...is that link or this site, a support of the claim: [I]Religion started because people felt uncomfortable with the idea that there is no life after death.
    True, as you point out. It is not fair to assume what a person needs or believes because not all are the same. Nor is it fair to ask the other to start from a position of already assuming that a deity could exist.

    Gobeklitepe does not support that claim it is not support as yet so much as conjecture.

  13. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    Yes, and IMO should come before asking if a god exists. If any claims are outlandish then they must be supported.
    I recognize this is a personal opinion, so I am not going to challenge it. But, I do not agree with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    As an ignostic I am not even sure why I should consider a god could exist. Many things could exist but do not, what makes god special?
    How many of those things that "Do not exist" can you prove do not, indeed, exist. Perhaps they exist beyond our ability to comprehend them (extra-dimensional). Perhaps they
    exist in plain sight and we simply lack the cognitive ability to recognize and categorize them? Is there any way you can definitively dismiss any thing from existing in some form or another? What would make God special is that He would be the creator of all things....that is pretty special in my book.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  14. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I recognize this is a personal opinion, so I am not going to challenge it. But, I do not agree with it.
    .
    Why not? What is wrong with a personal opinion?

    How many of those things that "Do not exist" can you prove do not, indeed, exist. Perhaps they exist beyond our ability to comprehend them (extra-dimensional). Perhaps they
    exist in plain sight and we simply lack the cognitive ability to recognize and categorize them? Is there any way you can definitively dismiss any thing from existing in some form or another? What would make God special is that He would be the creator of all things....that is pretty special in my book
    And by asking this, you are taking that next step that Apokalupsis talked about.
    #44, The issue you address by the question "What properties does or would this deity have?" is a different issue than "Does a deity, any deity, exist?"
    And now that I know a quality of your god I can no longer say I am an ignostic, because I now know something about your god I can start to take a position of belief , disbelief or indifference. Can you support it created all things?

  15. #54
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    Yes, and IMO should come before asking if a god exists. If any claims are outlandish then they must be supported.
    Hmm...well a couple things.

    The latter statement...it isn't that "outlandish claims need to be supported" it is that "any claims need to be supported." Any claim made without support is just an assertion or opinion, and they never need to be addressed because they do not serve the purpose of "compelling others" or "proclaiming the truth of the matter." They aren't statements about reality...but instead, merely statements about the self and the self's perception...of which, there can be little disagreement.

    More importantly, asking "What is God like?" is philosophically, incorrect. It's putting the cart before the horse. It's forcing the description of something to be the primary category. It's saying that theists are in a subset of the group Christian. In fact, it is saying that Atheists are in the subset Christian! It's backwards thinking and objectively incorrect.

    Another example of how this is incorrect is that your line of thinking is the same as saying "Tire" is a subset of "Car".

    What the philosophical way of thinking about this is, "All Christians are Theists." What you are saying (as an extension of your claim above) is that "All Theists are Christians." You are making "Christians" to be the larger group by insisting that this group be the header category...that we must define "What type of God" before we discuss the mere existence of God.

    Now...you did state to Sig that this was just your "opinion." In addition, this is merely a formal discussion, not a debate. In an actual debate, I'd press harder and take you to task (as anyone should) to actually support it.

    One way I'd do this is to ask for an example of an actual philosophical belief or philosophy who shares the same position so that we can examine that a bit more formally. The problem is, they don't exist...and for good reason. A "particular" is a particular...a "general" is a general. Particular's are subject to generals...not the other way around as you are asserting.

    As an ignostic I am not even sure why I should consider a god could exist. Many things could exist but do not, what makes god special?
    This is not relevant to which is the parent and which is the child system...or which is a subset of another.

    I'm referring to hierarchy here and you are responding with "Why should I believe in God?" It's a red herring.

    If Bob is playing the role of a ignostic , then why would he assume a cat? To do so he would need to know at least enough to be able to make an association between a cat and life.
    Yup. This is called "logical inference." It's a part of any logical argument.

    In order to make a claim about the cat, it is inferred that the cat has certain properties. It's fine to question those properties, but it makes no sense to insist that what is actually a subset of another is the primary of the actual primary, instead.

    But an ignostic position is not that I know a little about your religion or beliefs. It is that i am ignorant of it. I try to make no assumptions.
    Had Bob been an ignostic the conversation would have been,
    Joe: There are animals, plants, and cells in the group "living things."
    Bob: Well point one out.
    Joe: Cats, cats are an example.
    From that point only can Bob truly begin to weigh the merits of Joe's first statement. And consider existence. And then say something like .
    Bob: Does that include Schrödinger's cat?
    2 things...

    1) In my dialog, both knew what "cat" was and Bob was categorizing it OR Bob genuinely did not know what "cat" was and needed it to be explained/defined. That's fine. After Joe does that, Bob, if he is a rational agent, would be forced logically to agree with Joe that it is a subset of "animal."

    2) In your dialog, Bob apparently doesn't know what "cat" is and needs it defined (see above). All you are doing is insisting that it is the case that "Joe would necessarily not define 'cat' and as such, it's reasonable that all things 'cat' be included as life." And that's not the case at all. Either Joe would define cat or Bob would already know what is meant by cat through logical inference.

    Lastly, Bob equivocates in the last statement.

    So all you are doing there w/ that dialog is exposing the flaw in igntheism by suggesting that it is an irrational position. Now...I don't believe you intended to do that of course...and instead, I believe it was just a faulty example.

    But we must take into account the existence and engagement of logical inference as well as supposing that all agents involved are rational beings. It makes no sense otherwise as we'll be saying "It's logical to be illogical."

    Let's try a simpler example...

    Would you agree that apples, oranges, and pears are all fruits? If not, why not? If so, then would you agree that fruit is the category and apples, oranges and pears are a part of the set of "fruit"? That they a parts, and "fruit" is the whole?

    Only if you assume that the other person has already taken a position of either being for against or indifferent.
    ...I don't understand this answer. Can you expand?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #55
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    Why not? What is wrong with a personal opinion?
    This is a fair, and good question.

    I've covered this before elsewhere, so I'll post it here for convenience:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	opinion1.png 
Views:	62 
Size:	194.4 KB 
ID:	3521

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	opinion2.png 
Views:	72 
Size:	299.9 KB 
ID:	3520

    Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, T. Edward Damer



    Opinions are never evidence. Opinions never require nor possess reasons. Once we have offered reasons, we have moved from a stated opinion to a factual claim. They are not essential at all since opinions are merely stated beliefs without reasons. Once we have reasons, we have a factual claim, a belief grounded in reason, and one that is an assertion of the way the world was, is, or will be.

    We don't challenge opinions we challenge and respond to factual claims.

    To be as clear as possible:

    opinion - an unsupported claim
    argument - a supported claim
    debate - competition between arguments

    In a more formal discussion opinions are irrelevant to persuading the other side of anything true or false because there are no reasons offered for the other side to believe it. You cannot persuade someone without offering reasons to believe it.

    In order for that opinion to be relevant there must be an answer to the questions "Is evidence necessary?" and "Is there any evidence?"
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. Likes Someguy liked this post
  18. #56
    Rinn
    Guest

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    My heart goes out to you because of your lack of faith in the only person who can save your life. I'm saddened to know that on judgement day, which will come, that you will realize there truly is a God who does care for you, who does love you, and who does want you with Him in Heaven. The Bible says in Romans 14:11, "It is written: 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'" That means that whether we believe in God or not while we live on this earth, one day we will have no choice but to confess that He lives, that He exists, and if your heart has not opened up to Him, you cannot be accepted in the Kingdom of God. For the Bible also says in John 14:6, Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" We humans cannot be accepted into Heaven unless we go through Jesus, and to do that, you must be reborn.

    On another note, just because you pray to God that he spare you from punishment doesn't mean he will. Punishments are designed to teach us a lesson, so that we can learn that what we did was not safe or not right. How can a good God allow bad things to happen to good people? That is a century old question. The answer is not that He won't allow those bad things to happen, but that He'll be there with you to help you when you do go through bad times. And give this question a thought: have you ever thought that eventually bad things happen to bad people? One day you might find that you can't live through life depending just upon yourself. You may also find that if you start depending on God more, you'll get through the bad times with more easy than if you were to try to go it all on your own.

    Finally, I'm curious. Why would it take intelligent life on other planets to get you to believe in God? Why wait til then? What difference would it make? And if you don't believe now, what makes you think you'd believe in God then? Is this not an excuse to put off discovering God now?

    My prayers are with you. God bless you and may you not be swayed, deceived or tempted by the Father of lies.

  19. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,424
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post

    "Does God exist?"
    Theism: "God exists" Non-theism: "I don't believe in God"
    Agnosticism: “I don’t know if God exists” Atheism: “God does not exist”
    Hard Agnosticism: "I don't know
    if God exists and no one else can
    know either."
    Soft Agnosticism: "I don't know
    if God exists, but it's possible for
    someone to know."
    I love this table except it is missing a leaf. In between hard and soft there has just gotta be:
    I don't know if God exists and I have no idea if it's possible for someone to know. Can we just call it True Agnostism?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #58
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I love this table except it is missing a leaf. In between hard and soft there has just gotta be:
    I don't know if God exists and I have no idea if it's possible for someone to know. Can we just call it True Agnostism?
    Well, I think that view is best represented in its higher category: "Agnosticism." It makes no statement about possibility of knowledge of God's existence. The Hard/Soft take Agnosticism a step further by declaring something to be true about the knowledge of God's existence. Agnosticism itself (represented above Hard/Soft) makes no such statement. This is due to either the statement about such knowledge being irrelevant or simply unknown.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  21. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,424
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Well, I think that view is best represented in its higher category: "Agnosticism." It makes no statement about possibility of knowledge of God's existence. The Hard/Soft take Agnosticism a step further by declaring something to be true about the knowledge of God's existence. Agnosticism itself (represented above Hard/Soft) makes no such statement. This is due to either the statement about such knowledge being irrelevant or simply unknown.
    I was reading the table as one where you'd keep going until you hit and end node. It's the computer science guy in me. Fair enough then.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •