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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's probably because we weren't talking about that.
There you go again, changing what is being talked about.
Anyway, if you prefer being sick over being healthy, then go for it.
Funnily enough, if you prefer being sick over being healthy, then not caring about medical science is the best way to accomplish that.
That's probably because we weren't talking about that.
Science books, right?
...
Science books, I bet?
Funny.
It's not logical at all, this is your ongoing claim, and you continue to not provide any evidence. All you do is appeal to a tradition of belief that humans have adopted and passed on over thousands of years. Your lack of any logic, valid premises for the use of logic, is what we critics point out to you, yet you keep repeating the same error. That's illogical.
Who cares about meaning? You refer to logic and a possibility, and both of these require evidence and objective thinking. Meaning is subjective. So here you reveal your sloppy process, and how you blur meaning to what you want to be factually true and accepted as logical. Like other theists you fail to present the very thing that logic requires: facts and lucid reasoning.
Since you tried to use logic and philosophy, and my post was about logical and philosophical objections, I conclude that can't answer and that it's you who are actually afraid of learning anything that might shake your fragile 'certainties'.
But not you, it would seem.
If you don't give me the chance, I can't. And it's kind of funny that you assume that it is me that needs to change. I'me open to logical arguments but all I've seen in your posts are flaws. Maybe if you explained better, I see why they aren't, but at the moment, your arguments don't appear to be either honest or logical.
True, but you seem so sensitive to criticism that you start ranting and insulting when people even question what you regard are logical. What does that say to you? Time for a bit of reflection, or "he must be stupid"?
It includes the possibility that theists are completely wrong. You love possibilities, can you acknowledge this one?
Rational humans are defined as critical thinkers who avoid the bias of cultural traditions of belief, like theism.
Humans are dumb animals. Just because we can form abstract thoughts does not mean there is a natural ability to reason well. Reasoning is skilled thinking, and has to be learned, which includes recognizing biases, and character flaws. We see every day how humans often make poor decisions and bad judgments. Let's note that the 9-11 hijackers had a very well established deep belief in their duty to God, and flew planes with innocent people into buildings. Their fate was fulfilled. But it was not reasoned, not wise, not virtuous in a way that humanism is. Your approach is highly flawed because it is so vague and broad that it includes suicide bombers. Reason is what puts the guardrails on the human temptation to believe in irrational ideas.
You didn't post any logical objections or alternatives. All you posted were empty accusations. As you just did again.
Of course I am. But the conversation doesn't even get there.
And you continue to fail to articulate them. Which makes it appear that you have no idea what your talking about and are instead just knee-jerk auto defending. Why can't you articulate your superior logical alternative proposition?
Maybe stop fighting, and try understanding. It's not an argument. It's a discourse.
When I onject to phony or flawed criticism it does not mean I am being sensitive. To that I am throwing tantrums. I am simply calling it as I see it posted.
Whoosh, the psychological benefits in belief in imaginary things is not the topic, nor is it Pascal's Wager.
Back to if you can't rebut it, just call it stupid nonsense. Like a petulant child?
If you can't see the logical objections and questions in post #3,724, then you simply don't understand what logic is. Try giving an example, maybe?
Wow. You do realise that I have posted detail and asked you questions, and your response is this? Projection or what?
It's rather difficult to have a discourse with somebody who simply ignores a detailed post, like #3,724, and just robotically repeats that I haven't articulated any logical objections. Almost like you'd like anything but a discourse....
When all you say is things like "you're stupid", "it's flawed", and "you haven't articulated any objections", with zero detail as to how you reached those conclusions, it looks much more like fear, anger, irritation, sensitivity, and tantrums, than any genuine desire to have a discourse.
You don't even realize why it is funny.
That doesn't make it subjective. All it means is people are not all the same (physically or mentally).
That is wrong; there are many alternatives to dark matter, and if any of these alternatives happens to be true, the DM hypothesis would be falsified
SO if I don’t accept the claim that DM is the best explanation for the gravitational effects , or if I don’t accept common ancestry as the best explanation for genetic similarities………….I have no burden? Is that what you are saying?.................is it really that simple?