the right religion

[1robin]

Ah, Descartes- simultaneously one of our greatest minds and one to whom we owe the most confusion; the Cartesian ego, the Cartesian theater, mind/body dualism and naive foundationalism. As it happens, Descartes wanted to say we could know other things with certainty, including our "clear and distinct impressions/perceptions" because, basically, Descartes felt that God is a nice guy and wouldn't deceive us, but that's sort of an academic footnote. RE your question, certainty as a criteria for knowledge is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for knowledge since, one can be psychologically certain, and nevertheless mistaken, and one can know something and not be entirely certain. The fact is that, if certainty is our criteria, there is precious little we truly know- we couldn't know anything save the tautologies of logic and mathematics since a posteriori/synthetic claims (i.e. factual claims which are not logical truths) always have the possibility of being false.

Let me tell you something that may simplify your responses. I concede you are educated in philosophy. If I wrote a paper on it's history I would use you as a resource but my claims in debates are made for a purpose and simplified to avoid entanglements that terminology can create. Since I am not getting my purpose across I am forced to simplify things to a level that may be construed as an insult but I have no choice. Excluding Latin, labels of various philosophical groups, or crying fallacy at every turn please answer these statements.

1. You know reality was not constructed 5 minutes ago because of ________________.
2. You can prove any other fact _______________ in addition to you think, because of proof ____________________.

The kind of argumentation you consistently use has two purposes.

1. To split the fringe areas once the basics are met. (for example my fill in the blank statements). Once that is done then the vagaries of a concept may require your level of rhetoric.
2. To confuse a simple issue that is inconvenient into one that is more convenient.

My thought processes are this: Most of the terminology you use applies to grey areas. I have learned through long experience in academics that most people cover up the fact they can't answer simple questions or refuse to because an answer is inconvenient, with language devised to complicate the obvious and trivialize the momentous. The test for that is for me to state a concept so simply that they must answer simply to respond at all. Only once they have provided those simple answers to simple concepts do I then move on in confidence in their ability and education. If I ask what is 2 + 2 = ? and you give me long drawn out discussions about Riemann, relativity, or transfinite mathematics instead of simply 4, I must conclude that if you can't or will not give me 4 I can't trust you concerning Boolean differential calculus. BTW Descartes's faith had nothing to do with my questions. I would not care if he was a left handed, Eskimo, Satanist his claim is still very accurate.

How can you claim much of science is not based on faith if you can't show that anything beyond "that we think" is knowable to factual status? I have no problem discussing these more complex issues once you establish your credibility by addressing the simple ones satisfactorily.

The operative clause here being "to some extent"- and the extent to which belief in sensory evidence or the claims of science require "faith" is much different from the extent required by religious claims. Thus, the dichotomy between certain knowledge and belief as faith is a false dilemma- these are not the only options, this obscures all the middle-ground between the two. The epistemic leap- the "leap of faith" required to believe, e.g. that the sun will rise tomorrow, is not the same as the leap required by religious propositions, thus we're using the word "faith" somewhat equivocally- in other words, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and faith that Christ rose from the dead are not the same type of faith. The former only requires "faith" in that, while warranted by the evidence, the conclusion is not a necessary truth (thus, it is logically possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that it is false), whereas the latter requires faith in the robust sense because the conclusion is NOT warranted by the evidence. And arguably, even using the word "faith" in the former context is to do violence to language.

I think you went the long way around to agree with what I said in far fewer sentences. Faith is involved in different ratios in theological claims as well as scientific and all others. If you retain denial of this simple fact I could not justify discussing the harder to evaluate ratio issue with you. Since it "seems" you grant the principle then I can do so and your terminological dependence would be appropriate. If I am mistaken and you still claim faith is not involved in science and all other areas then it would not be justified. My apprehension concerning you concerns your willingness to grant things that are inconvenient not your capacity to know the truth of them.

The crucial difference between correct belief and knowledge is not certainty, but warrant- and this is what distinguishes religious faith from "faith" in science or the senses.

You use warrant. I have used intellectual plausibility, and reasonability. I do not see the meaningful difference. Most of Christian faith is all three. Most science is all three. I do not deny most of science, but I believe you deny most of my faith.

Is there a source online you could direct me to for these discussions?

Yes, I have seen several thousand hours of professional theological debate, I have hundreds of hours of them on file and quite a few transcripts and these are as good as any. I have also found your statements about Craig's reputation among academia to not be accurate. No other opponent has instilled so much apprehension and fear than he has among his contemporaries that disagree in the context of regular public debate at schools like Oxford and Cambridge. If you are thinking of another context I do not see how it could possibly be more exacting or professional. Again it is a response to Hawking's book "The grand design" There are six and all are good but I recommend the ones by Craig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14dtDuEf3E, Lennox (Oxford math prof) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eHfhbP1K_4, and Habermas (textual scholar), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pV5XxZQDLs).

If you will look into them I think you will enjoy them. As a favor try and keep two things in mind.

1. Craig can keep up with anyone on Earth in terminology and the history of philosophy yet his points are so easily seen to have merit he feels no need to dress them in unnecessary rhetoric. If a person is right no embellishment is needed.
2. Hawking's science is not even an issue because the fundamental dynamics of his arguments are wrong in every way. I do not need to know or challenge him on white hole paradox's because he gets agency and mechanism wrong. His vast superiority in physics does not even matter because the simplistic reasoning behind what he even understands is the issue is wrong on elementary levels.

I am in electrical engineering. If a person tells me how a new theoretical virtual DAC works but refuses to show me they can strip a wire or tries and can't I will not bother with their theory if I suspect it up front. Let us get a good basic foundation built then you can run circles around me on less elementary issues (or try to). I like you and would value your less intuitive claims more once I trust you concerning the very intuitive issues I have raised.

I am out, have a good one.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

1. You know reality was not constructed 5 minutes ago because of ________________.

Know? I guess it depends on your criteria of knowledge whether we can know such a thing at all. But a reason for thinking this is not the case is, quite obviously, our memories. Of course, the reliability of our memory is bound to invoke... you guessed it, the reliability of memory, but we can surely think of negative evidence which would discredit this belief- evidence which is lacking. In any case, such skepticism faces the same problem that solipsism does- it tries to raise doubts where none can coherently be formulated. Put in terms I mentioned earlier, the subsistence of "reality" would be a hinge proposition, a piece of epistemic bedrock, upon which much of our linguistic use depends.

2. You can prove any other fact _______________ in addition to you think, because of proof ____________________.

This is unintelligible to me... "prove any other fact ___ in addition to you think"? What on earth does that mean?

I have learned through long experience in academics that most people cover up the fact they can't answer simple questions or refuse to because an answer is inconvenient, with language devised to complicate the obvious and trivialize the momentous.

If you think the first question above is a "simple questios", then you haven't thought about it hard enough, and this may explain some of your difficulties here. Open a page in any work of philosophy, and you will see that these are NOT "simple questions".

BTW Descartes's faith had nothing to do with my questions. I would not care if he was a left handed, Eskimo, Satanist his claim is still very accurate.

I wasn't talking about Descartes personal faith, but his argument. Descartes argues in Meditations on First Philosophy, in the same argument in which he formulates his famous dictum "cogito ergo sum", that we can trust our "clear and distinct" perceptions because God is good and wouldn't let us be deceived. So yes, it had alot to do with your question- your premise was mistaken.

How can you claim much of science is not based on faith if you can't show that anything beyond "that we think" is knowable to factual status?

Because of what the word "faith" means in English, and what science consists in...

Nobody ever claimed, much less showed, that "you can't show that anything beyond what we think is knowable to factual status", certainly not Descartes anyways.

I have no problem discussing these more complex issues once you establish your credibility by addressing the simple ones satisfactorily.

I have absolutely zero need to "establish my credibility".

I think you went the long way around to agree with what I said in far fewer sentences.

Then you need to read more carefully.

Faith is involved in different ratios in theological claims as well as scientific and all others. If you retain denial of this simple fact I could not justify discussing the harder to evaluate ratio issue with you.

Ah, so you're simply going to assert, without proper warrant, that "faith is involved in.... theological claims as well as scientific and all others"- which is precisely what is at issue- and then say that unless I concede this you couldn't justify discussing the matter? What's the point then, who would ever simply concede the point that is in contention because you tell them to?

Since it "seems" you grant the principle then I can do so and your terminological dependence would be appropriate.

Your belly-aching about terminology and "semantics" is a flimsy pretext to avoid addressing arguments. If you don't understand something, just ask- but don't hide behind this garbage. If I ask someone with a background in physics a question about physics, I can hardly complain when he tries to uses numbers and equations or starts talking about vectors or velocity.

I have also found your statements about Craig's reputation among academia to not be accurate.

Based on what? Because you happen to admire him? Compelling...

No other opponent has instilled so much apprehension and fear than he has among his contemporaries...

LOL, riiiight.

Again it is a response to Hawking's book "The grand design" There are six and all are good but I recommend the ones by Craig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14dtDuEf3E, Lennox (Oxford math prof) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eHfhbP1K_4, and Habermas (textual scholar), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pV5XxZQDLs).

I'm not going to sit and watch youtube videos. If you have some written sources, I'd be happy to take a look.

And just to be clear, Craig, for all his many faults, is an incredibly successful and intelligent man. That much is not in doubt. But, as the h-index proves, he is not among the most frequently cited writers in his field, and a survey of the literature clearly shows he is not generally well-respected by other TOP academics in the field, and is not really a major player in the contemporary scene- students taking philosophy of religion don't read Craig, academics don't really submit papers on or responding to Craig's work in academic journals, and so on. Now, that he is not among the absolute elite of his field is hardly a knock against him- clearly he's incredibly successful, moreso than most people will ever be in their field. But he simply is not, as a matter of fact, this giant in the philosophy of religion, as all his little followers like to pretend.

And really the only qualm I have with him (aside from the fact that he's decided to waste his mind and career on futile attempts to rehabilitate antiquated and oft-refuted arguments) is some of his behavior; choosing to write primarily for the public and engaging in public debates as he does are not marks of a serious scholar, for one thing. And for another, much of what I've read of his work, especially RE other writers, is deliberately deceitful; he is a shameless quote-miner, and in his debates he seems to rely on intuition pumps and appeals to the public sentiment far too often for a serious academic.

 

[Ingledsva]

They are very different but you would have no idea even if they weren't because neither of us went into anything beyond the scantiest details concerning it.

I found something to be true that I did not wish to be but gave in to truth because it was true even though that truth was inconvenient). There is no way to see if Satan exists for a certainty and he said he chose it because it worked for him (he liked it). These are polar opposites. They are not even similar and making equal what is unequal is an epidemic on your side, not to mention that complaining about what is perfectly reasonable to ask in a debate forum is invalid anyway. You do not have to agree but IMO the emotional foundation for 90% of your comments is obvious.

You can attempt to twist it but it does not change.

My original sentence -

Since there is no proof of your religion, and YHVH didn't appear to you, you are in reality just making a choice, as he did with Satanism.

It is quite funny to see you say there is no way to know if Satan exists - when he is the other half of your religion. But be that as it may -

There is no proof of YHVH either, yet without any proof, you chose to believe the info, on FAITH alone.

You are no different then he.

*

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

No Such Thing As The Right Religion , Their only Multiple doctrine / teaching / version , of Religion cliaming they have the right Religion . Meaning people have One Version of the many doctrine / teaching / version , that are being taught today
This way they Push , Faith , Belief's !!!!

 

[1robin]

Know? I guess it depends on your criteria of knowledge whether we can know such a thing at all. But a reason for thinking this is not the case is, quite obviously, our memories. Of course, the reliability of our memory is bound to invoke... you guessed it, the reliability of memory, but we can surely think of negative evidence which would discredit this belief- evidence which is lacking. In any case, such skepticism faces the same problem that solipsism does- it tries to raise doubts where none can coherently be formulated. Put in terms I mentioned earlier, the subsistence of "reality" would be a hinge proposition, a piece of epistemic bedrock, upon which much of our linguistic use depends.

As I have said I have valued your opinions and know you are educated but no matter how simply I try and state the issue you instantly begin confusing the simple issues into ambiguous nightmares where nothing meaningful has any hope of being extricated from the swamps of terminology you create. I still think you are being sincere but that basis for that believe is being squandered. You said that what we know is not in large part based on faith. Please give me a simple sentence demonstrating the factual nature of that claim. Until you do my claim that what we know is based in large part on faith regardless of what field it lies in is so intuitive and obvious that it must stand. AS an analogy: This sounds like Clinton and his what the definition of is, is. I am interested in his guilt not the wall of flack generated to hide it.

This is unintelligible to me... "prove any other fact ___ in addition to you think"? What on earth does that mean?

Give me a fact beyond (we think therefore we are) that you claim to know and why you claim to know it.

If you think the first question above is a "simple questios", then you haven't thought about it hard enough, and this may explain some of your difficulties here. Open a page in any work of philosophy, and you will see that these are NOT "simple questions".

Ok, then if that is the case even my single claim of what we may know is now not known. Your statement increases what role faith plays in what we falsely claim to know (mostly by your side as Christians do not claim to know) instead of lessening it.

I wasn't talking about Descartes personal faith,

Ok, his argument has no dependence on his faith nor mine. Even if God did not exist what he claimed is unaffected in the slightest degree.

Because of what the word "faith" means in English, and what science consists in...

I will accept any definition of faith you wish to use as long as it means something less sure than certain knowledge. This seems to be yet another post of equivocation and obscuration on steroids. Is it possible for you to simply state in exact and specific terms what you think?

Nobody ever claimed, much less showed, that "you can't show that anything beyond what we think is knowable to factual status", certainly not Descartes anyways.

Even the equivocations you are using make my points even more true. If even the miniscule thing we could know is not knowable my statements about the role of faith gain traction and yours lose it. We are hardly moving here but what movement there is, is in the direction of my claims.

I have absolutely zero need to "establish my credibility".

Then you can not expect to have any. In a debate that is counter productive.

Then you need to read more carefully.

I am starting to conclude it would not help.

Ah, so you're simply going to assert, without proper warrant, that "faith is involved in.... theological claims as well as scientific and all others"- which is precisely what is at issue- and then say that unless I concede this you couldn't justify discussing the matter? What's the point then, who would ever simply concede the point that is in contention because you tell them to?

I could use even the hyper-inefficiency of your statements alone to warrant my claim that faith (belief at less than certainty) is involved with almost every claim humans make about anything. Adding my own justifications as I have which included Descartes and others is almost redundant but at least far more efficient than what you have said.

Your belly-aching about terminology and "semantics" is a flimsy pretext to avoid addressing arguments. If you don't understand something, just ask- but don't hide behind this garbage. If I ask someone with a background in physics a question about physics, I can hardly complain when he tries to uses numbers and equations or starts talking about vectors or velocity.

I do not see any arguments within your semantics and flourish of terminology that justify a contention. I do not even see any effect of what you have said lately on my claims other than slightly re-enforcing them. I prefer technical vocabulary if it is functional. In the old days word use was restricted based on the scarcity of writing materials. Technical language use was for the purposes of efficiency and specificity. It became associated with being smart. That association has been retained in modern academics but the opposite purposes have been adopted for it's use. It now serves to obscure, confuse, and put up a front pretense of academic credibility that people like Aquinas, Descartes, even Lincoln achieved by merit. I have done everything I could to try and determine to what purpose you are employing language. Long after I have felt justified in believing you are using language to substitute for substance I am still trying to supply every opportunity for you to dispel that notion. I am running out of them and you show no signs of willingness to substitute efficient and meaningful dialogue for flourish and obscuration.

Based on what? Because you happen to admire him? Compelling...

Why did you claim to know what you can't possibly know, and then use what you do not know to draw a conclusion? What merit sis there for doing this? I actually accidentally ran across a site that gave statements about Craig from those he has debated. They all put him as the most challenging adversary they faced. I also went back and found every debate in which a vote was taken at the end that he was in. He won every single one of them and most by wide margins and they were at the top universities that exist, I added in the fact he draws greater crowds at those same universities than any other debater does in many cases, plus the comments by the faculty of those same schools who recruited his participation. I would not attempt to place him in a scale as none exists but he is without doubt a very well respected philosopher and scholar which is even more remarkable as just being a Christian in the new secular academic world is a few strikes against him up front.

LOL, riiiight.

That is what his opponents said. An example being both Harris and Hitchens said that Craig and only Craig inspired torrents of e-mails from atheist professionals saying do not blow this one or that only Craig can put the fear of God into an atheist. I will no longer even debate this. If you disagree then I am no longer interested in why.

I'm not going to sit and watch youtube videos. If you have some written sources, I'd be happy to take a look.

So you will sit around for a day or two and review a transcript but will not spend at the most 2 hours to watch an entertaining discussion that was so popular people filled several auxiliary rooms. I have no reason to insist you should but I do reject the reasoning you gave as why.

And just to be clear, Craig, for all his many faults, is an incredibly successful and intelligent man. That much is not in doubt. But, as the h-index proves, he is not among the most frequently cited writers in his field, and a survey of the literature clearly shows he is not generally well-respected by other TOP academics in the field, and is not really a major player in the contemporary scene- students taking philosophy of religion don't read Craig, academics don't really submit papers on or responding to Craig's work in academic journals, and so on. Now, that he is not among the absolute elite of his field is hardly a knock against him- clearly he's incredibly successful, more so than most people will ever be in their field. But he simply is not, as a matter of fact, this giant in the philosophy of religion, as all his little followers like to pretend.

As I have said I no longer will debate this. It could be we have a different standard of what makes one effective or competent.

And really the only qualm I have with him (aside from the fact that he's decided to waste his mind and career on futile attempts to rehabilitate antiquated and oft-refuted arguments) is some of his behavior; choosing to write primarily for the public and engaging in public debates as he does are not marks of a serious scholar, for one thing. And for another, much of what I've read of his work, especially RE other writers, is deliberately deceitful; he is a shameless quote-miner, and in his debates he seems to rely on intuition pumps and appeals to the public sentiment far too often for a serious academic.

This is probably because unlike most of the world he has higher priorities than pride, the approval of other fallible and finite men, more respect for God and the future of humanity and truth than for what academia has morphed into in recent times. Even if I rejected God and his faith I can admire his motivation and his sincerity. He works for effect not recognition and IMO his argumentation is the more meaningful and accurate for it. I suggest this strictly opinion based issue be dropped.

 

[1robin]

You can attempt to twist it but it does not change.

My original sentence -

I have no need to twist anything to contend with what you say. I am also to lazy for the effort even if it was needed.

It is quite funny to see you say there is no way to know if Satan exists - when he is the other half of your religion. But be that as it may -

That is probably why we call our theology faith not fact. So far you have not pointed out a single mistake I made anywhere in my claims concerning faith in Satan or God.

There is no proof of YHVH either, yet without any proof, you chose to believe the info, on FAITH alone.

And if you had mentioned this similarity instead of equating our method or motivation I would have agreed. We both use faith. We both use faith but also have vastly different levels of need for it. That also was not the issue anyway but I would have agreed to this claim if it had been made instead of what you actually did say. Even things that have some common aspects are not equal and can not be equated. My point concerned what texts were used as I have talked to several Satanists before but the main issue was not the faith involved in believing in supernatural entities but in determining that even if they exist that worshiping or adopting them is "right". That meant I had to know what he meant by "right", hence my question. There is not the slightest thing invalid, inaccurate, or inadequate with anything I have said on this matter and not one thing you have said that was appropriate or meaningful on the same issue. If I was not bored to death I would not even address this (whatever it is you are doing).

You are no different then he.

The statement above is not only absolutely false, it is impossible it could ever be true. That is something I do not normally state in those terms, that is how much of an abject absurdity it is. There is not one specific aspect of either of us or our faith that is actually equal. A similarity or two is not an equality and just how similar even they are would render even claiming that much more appropriate claim meaningless. Let me ask what is it that you think you are doing? What are you spending this much time spinning your wheels to accomplish? Why don't you just come out and state what it is you think that you claims even if they were accurate would demonstrate? I might think it either irrelevant or less likely that it could be conceded without any effect on anything I actually care about and save you time in trying to construct what will not support it's own weight and my responding to it.

 

[1robin]

No Such Thing As The Right Religion , Their only Multiple doctrine / teaching / version , of Religion cliaming they have the right Religion . Meaning people have One Version of the many doctrine / teaching / version , that are being taught today
This way they Push , Faith , Belief's !!!!

Assertions without evidence are not arguments. Where is the evidence portion of this claim? Not to mention that even if what you claim was actually true you have no way whatever to even know it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

@robin1-

You haven't offered any justifications or arguments for your assertion, aside from a vague reference to an argument from Descartes, which you obviously are not familiar with and don't understand. I also have no desire to engage with someone on a technical issue if they're going to stamp their foot about terminology which exceeds their 8th grade reading level (but are too proud to ask for clarification on) and hurl baseless ad-hominems. And since, apparently, you're more interested in engaging in a pi$$ing match than learning something, I'm going to make my answer brief.

The extent to which the knowledge of science, math, or sense-evidence appear to "rely on faith" is insofar as, even though these claims are corroborated by the available evidence to a very high degree, there is a logical possibility that they are false nonetheless (logically possible simply means not self-contradictory). Not a physical possibility, but a logical possibility- just as it is logically possible that I sprout wings and fly away, it is logically possible, e.g. that we are brains in vats, or that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

But the word "faith"- faith, as in religious belief- goes much farther than this. With religious belief, and other things taken on faith, it is not only just logically possible that they are false, but practically possible because faith, by definition, is NOT well corroborated by the available evidence. That's what "faith" means. If an item religious belief WAS corroborated to the extent that claims of science are, it would cease to be an article of faith. But this logical possibility of error is common to ALL knowledge or truth-claims; if it is universal, then it cannot be the distinguishing mark of faith as opposed to knowledge.

But it doesn't require a philosophy major to tell you that belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is on very different epistemic footing than belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that it is far more open to error- the only reason you have for clouding this obvious gap by presenting this false dilemma is in a dishonest attempt to vindicate your pet religious beliefs. In any case, we're done here.

 

[1robin]

@robin1-

You haven't offered any justifications or arguments for your assertion, aside from a vague reference to an argument from Descartes, which you obviously are not familiar with and don't understand. I also have no desire to engage with someone on a technical issue if they're going to stamp their foot about terminology which exceeds their 8th grade reading level (but are too proud to ask for clarification on) and hurl baseless ad-hominems. And since, apparently, you're more interested in engaging in a pi$$ing match than learning something, I'm going to make my answer brief.

The extent to which the knowledge of science, math, or sense-evidence appear to "rely on faith" is insofar as, even though these claims are corroborated by the available evidence to a very high degree, there is a logical possibility that they are false nonetheless (logically possible simply means not self-contradictory). Not a physical possibility, but a logical possibility- just as it is logically possible that I sprout wings and fly away, it is logically possible, e.g. that we are brains in vats, or that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

But the word "faith"- faith, as in religious belief- goes much farther than this. With religious belief, and other things taken on faith, it is not only just logically possible that they are false, but practically possible because faith, by definition, is NOT well corroborated by the available evidence. That's what "faith" means. If an item religious belief WAS corroborated to the extent that claims of science are, it would cease to be an article of faith. But this logical possibility of error is common to ALL knowledge or truth-claims; if it is universal, then it cannot be the distinguishing mark of faith as opposed to knowledge.

But it doesn't require a philosophy major to tell you that belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is on very different epistemic footing than belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that it is far more open to error- the only reason you have for clouding this obvious gap by presenting this false dilemma is in a dishonest attempt to vindicate your pet religious beliefs. In any case, we're done here.

Oh we have been done here for quite some time but the electrical impulses were causing your argument to twitch so I attempted to revive it. Apparently the rhetoric has no remedy and the simplest of questions will never receive simple answers. I knew that we were very close to the point where you would assert the lack of resolution that has been obtained must be because I am too stupid to see the genius in what you have said. The only mystery is why I even bother as this is pretty much where I knew this would wind up from the beginning and if it was not offensive and prohibitive to have stated such, would have. Carry on.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I knew that we were very close to the point where you would assert the lack of resolution that has been obtained must be because I am too stupid to see the genius in what you have said.

No, not "too stupid"- more that you're too lazy to try to understand anything that isn't immediately obvious to you, and too dishonest to approach the matter in anything resembling an impartial fashion. In any case, as we saw above, your claim is refuted simply by referring to a dictionary- what "faith" means, in English, does not entail merely a logical possibility for error, but rather a lack of evidentiary corroboration. And this is something you likely knew already (as does most any competent English speaker), but are simply unwilling to apply it to your pet beliefs because you dislike the implication (that religious belief is less rationally warranted than scientific claims- another self-evident truth).

 

[1robin]

No, not "too stupid"- more that you're too lazy to try to understand anything that isn't immediately obvious to you, and too dishonest to approach the matter in anything resembling an impartial fashion. In any case, as we saw above, your claim is refuted simply by referring to a dictionary- what "faith" means, in English, does not entail merely a logical possibility for error, but rather a lack of evidentiary corroboration. And this is something you likely knew already (as does most any competent English speaker), but are simply unwilling to apply it to your pet beliefs because you dislike the implication (that religious belief is less rationally warranted than scientific claims- another self-evident truth).

I thought we were through. I was actually kind of relieved to think we were. You can pin me with whatever reason you find convenient for the points you either could not carry or refused to attempt if you wish as that is what will take place regardless. However these insinuations of my bias concerning beliefs do not apply because I had abandoned even hoping to discuss theological beliefs long ago and was only making a last ditch effort to see if you grasp the simplest and most obvious principles I could think of. I still believe you have the capacity but will not employ it for reasons it would not make a difference to post. I concur with you conclusion we are done and will adopt it until the simplistic basics requested of you are provided. You may disparage away if you find value in it, but it is you who failed to provide what was asked. I mean literally did not even attempt it. Not bad answers, nor good answers, nothing. It is hard to debate with nothing regardless how many words it takes to construct the nothing. I think you are far more qualified for Berkley or some other progressive campus than debate, but that is my opinion.

 

[Ingledsva]

I have no need to twist anything to contend with what you say. I am also to lazy for the effort even if it was needed.
That is probably why we call our theology faith not fact. So far you have not pointed out a single mistake I made anywhere in my claims concerning faith in Satan or God.

I, and others, have pointed out many mistakes, and attempted twists, you have made.

And if you had mentioned this similarity instead of equating our method or motivation I would have agreed. We both use faith. We both use faith but also have vastly different levels of need for it. That also was not the issue anyway but I would have agreed to this claim if it had been made instead of what you actually did say.

LOL! I did point it out. What do you think those sentences about you not having an actual encounter with Deity, and therefor choosing on faith, just as he, meant?

Even things that have some common aspects are not equal and can not be equated. My point concerned what texts were used as I have talked to several Satanists before but the main issue was not the faith involved in believing in supernatural entities but in determining that even if they exist that worshiping or adopting them is "right". That meant I had to know what he meant by "right", hence my question. There is not the slightest thing invalid, inaccurate, or inadequate with anything I have said on this matter and not one thing you have said that was appropriate or meaningful on the same issue. If I was not bored to death I would not even address this (whatever it is you are doing).

Baloney, go back and reread it.

Only in your eyes are they unequal. We just see two people who chose different religions.

The statement above is not only absolutely false, it is impossible it could ever be true. That is something I do not normally state in those terms, that is how much of an abject absurdity it is. There is not one specific aspect of either of us or our faith that is actually equal. A similarity or two is not an equality and just how similar even they are would render even claiming that much more appropriate claim meaningless. Let me ask what is it that you think you are doing? What are you spending this much time spinning your wheels to accomplish? Why don't you just come out and state what it is you think that you claims even if they were accurate would demonstrate? I might think it either irrelevant or less likely that it could be conceded without any effect on anything I actually care about and save you time in trying to construct what will not support it's own weight and my responding to it.

As stated over and over, and TRUE; how you came to your religious choice, is no different then how he came to his, or any other religion that people conclude is right for them, correct, etc.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

@robin1-

You haven't offered any justifications or arguments for your assertion, aside from a vague reference to an argument from Descartes, which you obviously are not familiar with and don't understand. I also have no desire to engage with someone on a technical issue if they're going to stamp their foot about terminology which exceeds their 8th grade reading level (but are too proud to ask for clarification on) and hurl baseless ad-hominems. And since, apparently, you're more interested in engaging in a pi$$ing match than learning something, I'm going to make my answer brief.

The extent to which the knowledge of science, math, or sense-evidence appear to "rely on faith" is insofar as, even though these claims are corroborated by the available evidence to a very high degree, there is a logical possibility that they are false nonetheless (logically possible simply means not self-contradictory). Not a physical possibility, but a logical possibility- just as it is logically possible that I sprout wings and fly away, it is logically possible, e.g. that we are brains in vats, or that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

...

But it doesn't require a philosophy major to tell you that belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is on very different epistemic footing than belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that it is far more open to error- the only reason you have for clouding this obvious gap by presenting this false dilemma is in a dishonest attempt to vindicate your pet religious beliefs. In any case, we're done here.

It is just wrong to use personal attacks and belittling words such as "stamp your foot," or other phrases implying immaturity, or claiming they have low levels of education, when you don't like someone's answer, etc.

I have told 1Robin the same thing when he tries this on me. Perhaps he will understand why with your post.

*

 

[Muffled]

the right religion is which ever one you chose to practice, otherwise you wouldnt practice it...

I don't believe this is the case. God destroyed Jerusalem and had the Jews taken captive to Babylon for practicing the wrong religion.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't believe this is the case. God destroyed Jerusalem and had the Jews taken captive to Babylon for practicing the wrong religion.

From a purely historical perspective...it looks like Israel was destroyed because they decided to side against the Babylonians.....

 

[Muffled]

then you missed the point, which is that God doesnt care what song and dance you put on for him, God just wants your love

I can agree with the song and dance part. I am just as comfortable with rock worship music as I am with organ worship music andI believe God is also. However it is God's desire to remove sin and only one religion does that. A man who sins does not really love God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I can agree with the song and dance part. I am just as comfortable with rock worship music as I am with organ worship music andI believe God is also. However it is God's desire to remove sin and only one religion does that. A man who sins does not really love God.

Everyone Sins, no religion takes away sin...but everyone needs to ask for forgivness.

If we didn't then we wouldn't have said "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive our tresspasers...or those who sin against us"

 

[Muffled]

Isnt being a child of God enough?

I believe a person can only become a child of God through Jesus.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe a person can only become a child of God through Jesus.

have you not heard we are all sons of God?

 

[Muffled]

Everyone Sins, no religion takes away sin...but everyone needs to ask for forgivness.

If we didn't then we wouldn't have said "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive our tresspasers...or those who sin against us"

I beleive John the Baptist whenhe said "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

I believe everyone sins before recieving Jesus as Lord and Savior and those sins need to be forgiven. Why would God sin and have to forgive Himself? It just wouldn't happen. So as long as Jesus is Lord there is no sin that needs to be forgiven.