Originally posted by King Castle
science allows for the possibility for infinite realities and possibilities... what kind of sanity is that?
I'm not sure where you got that idea. And anyway, we only exist in one reality at a time (so far as science cares, philosophers define other sorts of reality).
Originally posted by King Castle
a religious person choices to except one particular option and view.
So? Accepting one particular view is not meritorious if that view is wrong or damaging.
I guess this is part of the fallout from Kant's ethical theories. People believe that as long as they are principled it somehow doesn't matter what they're principled about. Strom Thurmond's filibuster proved him to be one of the most principled politicians in like a hundred years but that doesn't make his racism better than the egalitarian views of the rest of Congress.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is his problem, don’t you think?
If by "problem" you mean it's religious choice, yes. But, again, I have engaged it in no debate about it's religion. I have been pointing out how it's argument is meant to make the conversation or argument or discussion about it's religious preferences. But, it is no longer it's problem when it decides to open a debate only for the purpose of convincing others that they agree with it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you don’t like what they do, so much, then why do the same thing back to them?
Again, you do not see me debating it's religious perspective. I address only it's style of "innocent questioning".
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does doing that make you feel better about your religious choices?
I have made no religious choice. That's kind of the whole point. You are equating the two positions, not me, as thought they were at all equal. I do not debate it because it is arguing from a religious perspective.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, he is filled with delusion, but that is just my opinion.
See, I care about your opinion on religion as much as I care about his. This is why I have not engaged you in a dabate over your religious beliefs, and only responded to your position that I am making atheism a religion, when it is the furthest from that it possibly could be. If you believe in a god, then that is your right. You're doing very little debating with me about religion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why pursue a lost cause?
I'm not pursuing it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaosi am just saying that there can be some rationality in the irrational...
I'm not sure where you got that idea. And anyway, we only exist in one reality at a time (so far as science cares, philosophers define other sorts of reality).So? Accepting one particular view is not meritorious if that view is wrong or damaging.
I guess this is part of the fallout from Kant's ethical theories. People believe that as long as they are principled it somehow doesn't matter what they're principled about. Strom Thurmond's filibuster proved him to be one of the most principled politicians in like a hundred years but that doesn't make his racism better than the egalitarian views of the rest of Congress.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps it is utilitarianistic motives, but I still don’t think you can take the higher ground. The evils of the world are caused by humans regardless of they religious views, including atheistic views.
Originally posted by skekUng
If by "problem" you mean it's religious choice, yes. But, again, I have engaged it in no debate about it's religion. I have been pointing out how it's argument is meant to make the conversation or argument or discussion about it's religious preferences. But, it is no longer it's problem when it decides to open a debate only for the purpose of convincing others that they agree with it.
No, I do not mean religious choice when I say problem. I’m not talking about debating, I’m talking about not debating.
Originally posted by skekUng
Again, you do not see me debating it's religious perspective. I address only it's style of "innocent questioning".
I was talking about being confrontational. If you don’t like when Christians are confrontational with you, then why would you do the same? I was just trying to ask the question in a less accusatory way. I don’t think you were doing anything wrong; I am just curious.
Originally posted by skekUng
I have made no religious choice. That's kind of the whole point. You are equating the two positions, not me, as thought they were at all equal. I do not debate it because it is arguing from a religious perspective.
I am equating the two positions, because they are the same to me. If it looks like a duck…
Originally posted by skekUng
See, I care about your opinion on religion as much as I care about his. This is why I have not engaged you in a dabate over your religious beliefs, and only responded to your position that I am making atheism a religion, when it is the furthest from that it possibly could be. If you believe in a god, then that is your right. You're doing very little debating with me about religion.
I never said anything about atheism being a religion. I was just asking you a question.
Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not pursuing it.
Then why have you spent most of the last few posts talking about The MISTER as “it”?
Originally posted by King Kandy
SO, you would say that no ideology is better than any other? It is true that religion may come from man, but acting like the creation can't influence its creator is wrong. There is a world of difference between a belief that promotes violence and one that promotes peace (in fact, you made this exact same point when you said Buddhism is not at war in another thread).
Yes, but I think that atheism is just as prone to violence as Christianity.
Originally posted by King Castle
i am just saying that there can be some rationality in the irrational...
Yes. And logic addresses that too! 😛
Well thought out religious arguments are usually Valid (in the sense used by logicians), where they trip up is the test of Truth (in the sense used by logicians).
That is to say that intelligent religious people usually come up with an argument that follows a sequence of logical steps. What they don't do is make sure that all of their propositions are accurate. Deconstructing such arguments has been very important in the history of philosophy.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is exactly why I think atheism is just as prone to violence as Christianity, they are both humans.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😐 I don't give a damn.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. And logic addresses that too! 😛Well thought out religious arguments are usually Valid (in the sense used by logicians), where they trip up is the test of Truth (in the sense used by logicians).
That is to say that intelligent religious people usually come up with an argument that follows a sequence of logical steps. What they don't do is make sure that all of their propositions are accurate. Deconstructing such arguments has been very important in the history of philosophy.
And some of the best philosophers were religious.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And some of the best philosophers were religious.