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!
You're welcome.
I told you in the next sentence.
That is not what I asked if you agree to. I said nothing about a logical mind. I said that:
No, it doesn't.
Absurd, how can you know anything about something you can't detect?
All of your religious belief is guessing that you believe is true. The evidence you cite is not adequate for critical thinkers, as we explain to you over and over again.
Who says scriptures are reliable? Only those who want to believe. They are highly flawed to use as evidence for what they claim.
Your religious beliefs are all based on assumptions. I understand you want to reject this fact.
That's too bad, science is what is relable for knowledge.
And by you. And by everyone on earth.
You told me. And you have no evidence that you are correct.
Your standards are very low, and not at the usual stadard for logic, law, and academics.
That isn't knowledge, it is belief based on assumptions the Messengers are genuine. They have written nothing that suggests they had any contact with a God. You have bad belief, not knowledge. That you have to inflate your claim that you have knowledge indicates you are defensive about the weakness of your beliefs.
It's not good enough, as has been explained to you over and over again. It just doesn't sink in.
Of course it is comforting, why else would people believe in any religious framework except for the personal benefits and mental rewards?
That is why your belief is questionable. Why assume revelations are true?
Whether your language is that you believe they are factual or you assume they are factual still means they aren't factual or true. Facts are demonstrably true. Truth is demonstrated, it isn't believed. You want your beliefs to be valid, but you don't have adequate evidence. Sorry.
Why would a person want this? Not when the ideas lack evidence.
It's not convincing. There is nothing he wrote that suggests he was in contact with a God. Not credible.
You could be mistaken.
Your evidence is not credible. You have no argument.
Well, you haven't.
But you don't have adequate evidence for anyone who isn't biased.
So what, you have low standards. You want to believe this stuff.
It's ideological truth, not factual truth.
I have high standards, you have low standards.
No, I am considering your claims and they are weak. That is your dilemma.
I'm not interested in the personal motives of believers, I'm interested in the evidence. That's because I seek truth, not dogma. If a person wants to explain why they want to believe, and what their bias is, let them be honest and share it. That won't mean that critical thinkers will be sympathetic and agree to believe. Frankly it's odd that you try to apeal to emotions like this when we explain to you that it's about evidence.
Believers have low stndards. Critial thinkers have high standards. That is why believers believe in ideas that are not true and factual.
That is what studies reveal. No one comes to a rational conclusion that a God exists due to facts and reasoning, they believe for personal and social reasons.
Objectivity is about skilled thinking, not personal perspective.
Yes it is. God isn't part of physical reality. What you think Messengers are is not factual.
Atheism isn't a claim or argument, it is the natural default of intellectual thought concering the idea of god.
You offer no rational basis for your assumptions and beliefs.
Because it is. It is the conclusion of hundreds of thousands of experiments in science.
Do you know more than experts in biology?
No, I am not making any assumptions. You are demonstrating that you do not understand the consequences of omnipotence.
How can "he" choose if he already chose
I expect it's coz the atheists see through
Like many Biblical stories there is a grain of truth in the Israelites creation narrative.
It sounds like you care about being right with your beliefs. You know that you have no way to rule gods in or out empirically or logically, so you remain agnostic about the idea. But throw that commitment to empirical confirmation before belief and being honest with yourself, and you are free to believe whatever you can imagine, which is exactly what belief by faith is - the willingness to untether yourself from reality and choose beliefs otherwise.
Trailblazer has a unique understanding of language. Knowledge is whatever she believes including what she believes by faith. Evidence for a belief is whatever she declares supports her belief according to personal rules for evaluating it that she agrees doesn't convince critical thinkers, although she calls herself one as well. She says that beliefs are neither assumptions nor claims. It's not helpful to explain why you disagree.
OK. These are nice illustrations of your idiosyncratic use of language.
Nor by anybody else, but then I'm using the standard definition of knowledge, which requires empirical confirmation.
That's a statement that you believe by faith. You don't need facts to declare something true.
OK. Everything I believe I assume is correct, the degree of belief being commensurate with the quality and quantity of available supporting evidence.
This seems to be a statement that all conclusions attached to that evidence are equal.
No, if your belief has not been confirmed empirically, it is neither knowledge nor understanding.
Where I usually see this kind of anti-intellectualism is from the faithful who resent the critical thinker's rejection of their faith-based claims. That is when we see words like myopic, materialist, and scientism wheeled out in objection to rigorous thought.
That's faith, not knowledge. Unfalsifiable ideas have no relationship to fact, truth, knowledge, or understanding. They can only be believed by faith, and that world has nothing to do with any of those.
Then that is the foundation for the construction of a evidenced explanation.
That is an interesting take. Where doe Jesus fit into that narrative? If, at all?
No, I do not think all conclusions attached to the evidence are equal.
In my understanding Jesus or Christ Michael is our Creator Son. His Father is in essence our grandfather. Lucifer and the other rebels were subordinate creations of the Son, they lived by faith in the unseen Father. At some point Lucifer rebelled against the existence of the Father. Of coarse he knows Michael but still rebelled against the entire administration!
Explanations are only explanations when the explainer starts at a common ground with the explainee. Then builds with sound argumentation towards the conclusion, all the while faithfully checking in with the explainee every single step of the way.
What religious tradition is this?
I'm a student of the Urantia Book revelation.
