Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Mikkel, is it wrong to believe that there is no elephant in my room? How would it have entered? The door is only 8ft high and perhaps a little less than 3 ft wide. I suppose it may be a baby elephant.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tell me why my personal belief is wrong
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Mikkel, is it wrong to believe that there is no elephant in my room? How would it have entered? The door is only 8ft high and perhaps a little less than 3 ft wide. I suppose it may be a baby elephant.
No, it is not wrong. You just do metaphysics differently than a theist, but you still do it as a positive. I also do metaphysics but as a negative.
But I don't know who is wrong, And wrong as you use it is not science, it is culture. And no, that is not wrong. It is cultural relativism.
Last edited:
It's true that many atheists claim there is no God, but that's usually a personal opinion. How it could be derived from science I don't know.
What atheism implies is that there's neither tangible evidence nor a need for God as an explanatory factor, so it falls into the same category as pink unicorns.
Millions of people have made all sorts of strange, unsupported, subjective claims over the centuries. The faithful of every religion frequently claim acquaintance with this or that deity. Millions believe they've seen leprechauns, as well.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Give tacit credence to all of them and your head would explode.
Needed for what? and why do you believe this?
Lack of evidence doesn't show God does not exist. Where did you get that idea?
Lack of evidence is why there's no reason to posit a god. Deferring belief in a thing till there is evidence of it, or, at least, need of it, is the reasonable approach. Atheists and scientists are a mostly logical, reasonable bunch. They believe in that which there's evidence of, and defer belief in things without evidence.
Not following. Anatomy, physiology, chemistry, abiogenesis, evolution -- all are legitimate scientific areas of study, are they not? Overstepping the mark? Chemicals? Again, not following. Explain?
Please stop with the "proof." Science hasn't even proven that the Earth is round. Science accumulates and assesses evidence and posits the most likely explanation. It doesn't prove things.
And what do atheists have to do with any of this? Atheism has nothing to do with science.
What is science of the gaps? If science fills a gap, it's due to discovery and testing of pertinent evidence. It's nothing like the unsupported claims of religion.
No! You keep trying to conflate scientific research with religion. Scientific claims are evidenced. The evidence precedes the claims.They're very different from religious claims, based on mythology, with no supporting evidence.
You don't understand how science works. You don't know the difference between a priori and a posteriori. You have a poor grasp of logic and reason. Our points are going right over your head, and you continue to conflate science and faith.
Yet again, scientific conclusions are not faith-based. Faith is the opposite of science.
Debunking links, please.
Ongoing archæology casts more and more doubt on biblical historicity, not less.
Science begins with observation and data collection. Of course researchers are going to speculate on explanations. It's not making up claims. The speculative possibilities are not claims, they're not the science.
Yes. You keep making the same claims over and over, even after we've pointed out the problems with them. As I said before, you're not grasping our points.
I dont. Links?
I think we're working from different concepts of evidence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Correct. That has a name. Cognitive relativism.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Then you must deny the historical reliability of the Bible.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I just do it differently as for reliability.
Just be strong in your faith. Why do you rely on such pagan notions as truth, reason and logic?
The Bible is true because it is the word of God. Period! That is all it takes. Justification are for the atheists.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not see why I should wholly reject or wholly accept historicity of Torah/Bible/Quran. Vedas, however, where they are not mentioning Gods, are perhaps largely true without any religious idea to sell.
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
No, I just do it differently as for reliability.
Just be strong in your faith. Why do you rely on such pagan notions as truth, reason and logic?
The Bible is true because it is the word of God. Period! That is all it takes. Justification are for the atheists.
I don't think truth, reason and logic are pagan notions. They are from God and Jesus said that He is the Truth,,,,,,,,,,,, and He is the Word of God which is the truth.
1Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,…
It is true that the Bible is true because it is the word of God but talking, debating requires more than just telling people what the Bible says usually.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, in history those notions are from before Christianity and are Pagan Greek ideas. They are not even Jewish.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
@Heyo That is not even true. You can also find it in other cultures, but it is not Judeo-Christian as such.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
You can be a good person while believing something patently false.
Brian2
Veteran Member
So? It is OK for things to have existed before Christianity and still be legitimate in Christianity.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes. That "OK" is your understanding. I have a different one.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, killing your brother and coveting your neighbor's wife was illegitimate before or after Christianity or Judaism. Religions don't come up with anything new other than different ways to sell their ware.
Truth, reason and logic existed before the monotheistic religions came up (Zoroastrianism and Judaism, I don't know which is older). After monotheism, it was what one person said and nothing else. Monotheism killed truth, reason and logic.
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
Truth, reason and logic existed as concepts before the monotheistic religions. (well maybe not, some anthropology of religion says that monotheism came before polytheism.) But anyway, truth, reason and logic are concepts of people and not specific to one type of religion.
Why do you say that after monotheism it was what one person said and nothing else. That sounds as if you are saying that men made up religions and with many gods that would give many men a chance to have their say.
But even with monotheism many people got to have their say about this one god.
I suppose that made it hard to pick who was saying the right thing about this god but why is that any different than in a situation where there are many gods?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
In fact there is a version of truth, reason and logic that is no different than monotheism. Can you figure out which version that is?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That is true. Monotheism is dictatorship. Polytheism is democratic. It has all the failings of democracy.
I do not know. Kindly enlighten me.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So other worldviews than your one is a case of polytheism in effect.