Exactly Jan...well said Grover.
For the atheists
- Thread starter grover
- Start date
Exactly Jan...well said Grover.
Just think about it for a second.
You ask what is "believable about the scripture, I answer "it contains truth".
Now please explain to me what is wrong with the answer to that question?
You asked for a reason and you got one.
Q.. what is so nice about orange juice?
A.. taste.
Jan.
The Iliad contains truth...
What religion are you talking about?
What is it that actually matters to the religion?
What would you regard as evidence of a supreme being?
And finally, are we to abandon our personal experiences because we cannot share them with others? If yes, why?
Jan.
No one was suggesting that you believed in what to you contained no truth.jan said:
They were asking where, or how, you found truth in the Bible to believe.
I have found understanding in the Bible - remakable collection of stories, and it is through stories that we become human and wise and understand in our turn. Is that what you meant?
Actually, I think you just answered the question.
Q: What's so special about scripture?
A: I like it.
A total abscence of any critical thinking or engagment whatsoever.
Enterprise-D,
The logical position IS one of belief, because we cannot see God directly.
His position is logical too, albeit simple, but it is not rational as that is not the way to percieve God directly (physical evidence which will satisfy him), according to any scripture, yet he sticks to his request knowing that it will never happen, and yet postulates God does not exist, because he cannot see him.
Who is asking for proof?
Your problem is, you have preset ideas and regardless of whether or not I press the buttons, your going to invoke them. .
Now please point out where I assume that the bible is the absolute truth, then when you realise I haven't, come back a deal with a point at a time, if that is possible.
Please answer the question.
You stated, or maybe implied, that people murder innocents, for the pleasure of virgins awaiting them in heaven.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe if you just answer the question directly, you may make more sense.
An example?
You, Dawkins, Harris, you don't question religion, you only demean it.
Where have you questioned actual religion since we started this discussion?
Of course it can.
I was refering to a "violent person" regardless of his lifestyle.
What do you mean by "Up to and including religious means"?
You yet to show violence based purely on religion, you seem happy to cherry pick small, incontextual samples, to ring your triangle, but that is not satisfactory.
Is this the best you have to offer in the way of an answer?
As I said, you have preset ideas which are incapable of detecting subtlety.
Because you don't know how to.
You do not percieve as I do, why don't you challenge my ideas?
Jan.
The logical position IS one of belief, because we cannot see God directly.
His position is logical too, albeit simple, but it is not rational as that is not the way to percieve God directly (physical evidence which will satisfy him), according to any scripture, yet he sticks to his request knowing that it will never happen, and yet postulates God does not exist, because he cannot see him.
Who is asking for proof?
Your problem is, you have preset ideas and regardless of whether or not I press the buttons, your going to invoke them. .
Now please point out where I assume that the bible is the absolute truth, then when you realise I haven't, come back a deal with a point at a time, if that is possible.
Please answer the question.
You stated, or maybe implied, that people murder innocents, for the pleasure of virgins awaiting them in heaven.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe if you just answer the question directly, you may make more sense.
An example?
You, Dawkins, Harris, you don't question religion, you only demean it.
Where have you questioned actual religion since we started this discussion?
Of course it can.
I was refering to a "violent person" regardless of his lifestyle.
What do you mean by "Up to and including religious means"?
You yet to show violence based purely on religion, you seem happy to cherry pick small, incontextual samples, to ring your triangle, but that is not satisfactory.
Is this the best you have to offer in the way of an answer?
As I said, you have preset ideas which are incapable of detecting subtlety.
Because you don't know how to.
You do not percieve as I do, why don't you challenge my ideas?
Jan.
grover,
That wasn't the nature of my answer at all.
Jan.
That wasn't the nature of my answer at all.
Jan.
I said what I mean, what is so hard to understand?
The question has been answered, so let's move on to the next point, if indeed there is one.
Jan.
Sure it is Jan. You said:
"Q.. what is so nice about orange juice?
A.. taste"
In this analogy that you made orange juice is to scripture as taste is to truth.
So basically when someone asks you, how do we know scripture is true? Your answer is - we know scripture is true because scripture contains truth. It's not an answer at all.
Right!
All of the entire (artificial) complexity and structure of religion is founded on this simple circular delusion.
"How do you know god exists?"
"The bible clearly says so."
"And the bible is true because...?"
"It's gods word, silly!"
(or substitute any religious text/myth of your choice)
Arrrggghhhhhhh!!!
Sorry, I have to disagree. This is not what Buddhist/mysticism texts are about.
I agree. I mean religions that promote a god/creator. To me, Buddhism in it's purest form isn't even a religion.
You answer the question then.
And bear in mind, the term "scripture" isn't exclusive to the bible.
Jan.
grover,
The answer to the question "what is so nice about orange juice?", is "taste", I suggest you get over it and move on.
You asked what is "believable" about the scriptures, the answer you recieved was "it contains truth". The way to verify this is to ask people who believe scriptures, it is as simple as that.
The question you pose above, is a different one.
Jan.
The answer to the question "what is so nice about orange juice?", is "taste", I suggest you get over it and move on.
You asked what is "believable" about the scriptures, the answer you recieved was "it contains truth". The way to verify this is to ask people who believe scriptures, it is as simple as that.
The question you pose above, is a different one.
Jan.
superluminal,
Are you aware of the original question?
Q.....Why are scriptures believable?
A.....Because they contain truth.
Please explain how this answer is circular, and/or delusional?
That wasn't the question.
You prematuraly ejaculated your response.
Jan.
Are you aware of the original question?
Q.....Why are scriptures believable?
A.....Because they contain truth.
Please explain how this answer is circular, and/or delusional?
That wasn't the question.
You prematuraly ejaculated your response.
Jan.
Ummm...
That's actaully a perfect textbook example of circular reasoning.
There is really no explaining to do.
The conclusion is included in the premise.
If you do not recognize that, then you simply don't understand what circular reasoning IS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
It appears you are jumping the gun.
My answer would have to favour, 'the bible is believable, because people believe in it", to be classed as circular reasoning.
In logic, begging the question describes a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
Jan.
Jan.