I am merely pointing out that it is not an exclusive "doubt " thing since you can manage other scenarios quite nicely.
best arguments against religion (no theists)
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
That's not a valid answer. If they once had access to confirmation of God as a result of a special practice, why would they ever grow to disbelieve?
If I used to be a nuclear physicist and performed experiments and understood certain processes, why would I ever grow to disbelieve in them just because I fell out of practice? I might not remember exactly how I came to those conclusions, but I wouldn't reject those conclusions. You can't drop out of knowing the truth.
Sincere practicing believers that go on to reject theism are proof that your premise of a special "tool" that can confirm faith is false.
I guess you can add that one to the link you are yet to find where I supposedly argue in favour of "all you gotta do is believe"
Because they fall short from practical experience that establishes it as an irrevocable fact
Now compare to if one is a rudimentary practitioner and, due to falling short or misunderstanding key aspects of practical application, reaps results that are contrary to their theoretical outlook of how things should be
Only if you can establish them as belonging to the topmost strata of practitoners
Nice try attempting to trap me into admitting that I "had faith" while blindly ignoring the fact that there's a vast difference between trust based on previous evidence and religious faith which is demonstrably based on no evidence. But I've probably been doing this a lot longer than you have, you're going to have to do much better than that to trap me.
There is no strata, you made that up. There is no difference between the soon to be sainted Mother Teresa and the average believer.
That is certainly one argument, but not necessarily the one being addressed here, given the way the discussion has moved since.Signal said:
Your primary argument is that God exists... and all you offer by way of support is "you have to follow a certain path" (or words to that effect), a path which requires one to have belief that God exists, and a path which if it ultimately does not lead to where God can not be witnessed/evidenced (or however you want to call it that is beyond mere belief) then it is the fault of the practitioner. And if you choose to dismiss the claim, and not to follow this path, then you are akin to "a high-school drop out" in such matters.
Hmmm - and yet you're not willing to do the same to see how it's possible to measure microkelvin with a tape-measure.
:shrug:
Furthermore, your arguments that only those that "fall short from practical experience that establishes it as an irrevocable fact" would turn away from theism really does nothing to separate the "path" from a process of brainwashing... where only those where the brainwashing sticks will "see God".
And you wrap this up with "but if you don't achieve - it's your fault, not the process"... which might certainly help imprint the brainwashing on some (who then manage to convince themselves they can "see God" etc).
kx000
Valued Senior Member
If God intended religion for man, he would have gave us one. Prophets sent by God do not equal religion, they are merely takin by religious followers as a representation that their religion is the end all, when in truth every religion has always followed the same God weather they know it or not.
so based on my previous posts you had the faith I wouldn't post that argument?
Then why talk of Mother Teresa in the first place?
Or for that matter why the "average" believer?
(How can one have an "average" anything if there is no variegation?)
a key difference is that with the tape measure you have to radically redefine the discipline that microkelvins appear in order to hope to become valid
brainwashing can run a steady parallel in any claim of knowledge (regardless whether it is grounded or not).
For instance its not really valid to dismiss anthropology as a whole on the basis of the basis of ideas of race that was prevalent in the early 20th century
perhaps your critique would be valid if you had a clue about the process.
Instead you just talk in general terms, as if citing issues of brainwashing could hope to become anything more than anecdotal.
:shrug:
I got to laugh at your attempt to distinguish issues of faith from trust based on previous experience ....
I've noticed that you have a particular style of argument - you state the conclusion while completely avoiding any supporting points (and usually tie it up with a snide sense of arrogance).
For instance you state your conclusion (there's a difference between faith and trust from previous experience) you totally neglect explaining how or why there is a difference and you spend the next half trying to belittle your opponent.
Its kind of like "arioch says".
:shrug:
explanation?
there is no explanation - its simply a statement, much like this "You are wrong Arioch"