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!
No. They avoid logic and 'deductive proof. They even avoid evidence. They believe in the mythology and world-view they were raised with; a ROM installed before they developed any reason or critical analytic firewalls.
Atheists care about the same things theists do, we're just better at recognizing and evaluating evidence.
Yes. One reasons, the other feels. One 'thinks' a posteriori, the other a priori. One critically analyzes, the other rationalizes.
Ha! satan seems to have a habit of winning arguments ..
Ha! satan seems to have a habit of winning arguments ..
..he's had plenty of practice.
Who's satan? Have I met him?
I don't think so .. but I can't be sure.
I believe that satan can use very convincing arguments, to demonstrate why belief in God is foolish. he is also capable of recruiting others to do his "dirty work".
satan also infiltrates believers .. is more likely to, as atheists don't concern him. he wants us to believe half-truths, and make us extremists and what have you.
One fact that can be agreed upon by believers and disbelievers alike is
"what will be, will be"
..and that we all have a part to play in what it will be.
That isn't credible nor scientific. It's laughable that whoever created that website is trying to fool people that it all looks like a science journal. They obviously just copied to format of science journals to deceive those who don't know better.
Limited? Empirisim is the only game in town if you want valid knowledge and sound conclusions.
Yes, real places, not the imaginary territories.
I didn't say that.
That just goes back to the same old question..
That is not how I see it.
..for you, it seems..
A believer has faith in that they trust God will guide them.
For what reason?
When worshipping the Creator of the universe, one would think so????
I never used that as an argument - are we going in circles?
My stars, ...You asked the flippin' question '...why else, besides disseminating seed, would a tree need to produce fruit...' and I answered you
yes, did you bring your fishing rod also?
The advantage of philosophy and religion is that it doesn't have to be correct, or face tests in reality.
Reasoning requires empiricism. It is the only thing.
What difference does it make? Nothing suggests there is an actual God or Satan. What people believe is ony their own narrative about meaning in life. It doesn;t have to be based on facts, and it isn't.
Since no Satan is known to exist at best your notion of Satan is a metaphor for mental illness or maladjusted behaviors.
Not the way you describe in your fantastic beliefs.
Why don't your holy books explain it?
Since no Gods are known to exist you must be referring to what you are reading of the character of God in your books.
Are you admitting that personal religious belief, like yours, is subjective and at the whims of the individual?
Believers can be wrong, and faith is unreliable. And as I noted how reliably does God guide suicide bombers of your faith? Aren't the innocent people killed by these bombers living by faith in God, too? So God let's it happen?
Since you are not God you can't know who is sincere, so given what you say here I might be a sincere seeker of truth and may not be, and you would have no idea?
I have no idea what this means.
Explain the limitations, but also that evidence can be extremely compelling and certain, OK?
Do you find this process flawed and inaccurate? Do you acknowledge that it works phemominally well for science?
You aren't describing what philosophical reasoning is and how it differs from ordinary, every day reasoning.
So you form attachment and caring for others via reason, and not emotions?
Logic and reason is synonymous.
You're speaking from an Abrahamic, religious point of view.
You asked:↑ "Why do certain tree grow fruit, when it doesn't consume the fruit itself?" If you weren't asking about the biological function of fruit, what were you asking?
So your claim is that reason does not work in an explanatory sense, like in court or science?
Reasons for feelings or actions is not necessarily reasoned. You see a sad movie and cry, you aren't crying because it is reasonable to do so, you feel empathy. And those feelings in the moment fade after some time.
Logic is part of the broad category of philosophy, and is a set of rules that govern thought. That logic is a credible set of rules does not meat that all philosophy is logical, true, or valid. There is a lot of nonsense philosophy out there.
The search for truth. This is why I don't assume any ods exist, nor can believe any Gods, angels, devils, demons, etc. etc. There is no evidnce for any of these characters that are common in religious lore and litrature.
And you do. You make all sorts of assumptions that you don't seem willing to acknowledge are assumptions. You treat your assumption and belief in a God as if it's factual, and then you construct sentences in your post that assert or imply this God you think exists actually exists. That is not a search for truth. That is an exercise of self-fulfillment in your religious beleifs. That you try to argue that your beliefs and assumptions are true is something no theist can accomplish. Look how little of my previous post you quoted, if you had the truth,a nd a real God on your side, you'd be able to respond with facts and a coherent argument. You can't. Do you learn anything from this exercise? It doesn't seem you do...I can only make assumptions.
