• 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!

Why should I have to justify?

Herr Heinrich

Student of Mythology
perhaps

but that doesnt explain why have them

Evolution is a wondrous mechanism for survival. If I had the patience I would look for some source that explains why humans might have this quality. Of course I would also require you to pull up some evidence that God makes those emotions. Of course you couldn't so I am going to drop it.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One

Evolution is a wondrous mechanism for survival. If I had the patience I would look for some source that explains why humans might have this quality. Of course I would also require you to pull up some evidence that God makes those emotions. Of course you couldn't so I am going to drop it.

I could only explain why...i couldn't show you why
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
But I also have to ask why it is people are getting so defensive over what should be an easy question?

People don't necessarily get defensive about a question. To use the example of the thread that inspired this one, it was the OP's attitude and offensive approach that lead to people taking a defensive stance.
 

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
its not biologically imperative for other animals to have them, so why us?

Actually your question is contingent on what animals you are talking about. There are animals that have little to no capacity for self awareness.

It's like asking why don't humans shed their skins like a snake.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Something about the extreme reluctance to do so on theists' part seems very telling to me.

I'm a bit disappointed with some of the things you've been saying lately, because I think of you as one of the very intelligent people on this forum. So why are you generalising in this statement above? I hope that you are not basing this attitude entirely on atomist's thread. That thread was based on another one entirely.

Theists justify their beliefs all the time. On countless threads. In Atomist's thread, we were arguing about why we hadn't done so in his previous thread. Not why we don't do it ever. Because we most certainly do.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Actually your question is contingent on what animals you are talking about. There are animals that have little to no capacity for self awareness.

It's like asking why don't humans shed their skins like a snake.

we are all related according to evolution so pick as many animals as you like

we could even include cabbages according to evolution.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Really. No evidence? Interesting. You can explain if you want.

for material things there is material evidence, but not all things are material and for that reason i cannot hold it up and show it to you.

Im sure you'd agree that an emotion is not a tangible thing just as a memory is not tangible.
 

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
we are all related according to evolution so pick as many animals as you like

we could even include cabbages according to evolution.

I don't even need to do that. You based your question on faulty logic. Namely.

"Evolutionary processes formed a biological imperative of emotions in humans."
"Humans are animals."
"Ergo, all animals should display the same biological imperative."

It doesn't work like that. Refine your question.
 
Last edited:

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
for material things there is material evidence, but not all things are material and for that reason i cannot hold it up and show it to you.

Im sure you'd agree that an emotion is not a tangible thing just as a memory is not tangible.

I assume that you are using material not as a scientific term perhaps denoting "solid" since that would rule out the other scientific states. So I assume by this you mean "that which is not the supernatural". The supernatural has never been shown to exist in the first place. So attempting to swoop in and save naturalism from it's "flaw" is putting the theological horse before the empirical cart.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I assume that you are using material not as a scientific term perhaps denoting "solid" since that would rule out the other scientific states. So I assume by this you mean "that which is not the supernatural". The supernatural has never been shown to exist in the first place. So attempting to swoop in and save naturalism from it's "flaw" is putting the theological horse before the empirical cart.

the supernatural can only be shown if a supernatural person shows it...seeing no human is supernatural, its not surprising that no one has been able to show its existence.

However we know that some have 'seen' supernatural things occur and for that reason we know it exists.

Not everything has a 'natural' explanation... even abiogenesis has no conclusive explanation yet
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I don't even need to do that. You based your question on faulty logic. Namely.

"Evolutionary processes formed a biological imperative of emotions in humans."
"Humans are animals."
"Ergo, all animals should display the same biological imperative."

It doesn't work like that. Refine your question.

evolution is not moving 'upward'

there are many animals with far more advanced features then we humans have...we don't even have a great sense of smell compared to mouse
 

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
the supernatural can only be shown if a supernatural person shows it...seeing no human is supernatural, its not surprising that no one has been able to show its existence.

However we know that some have 'seen' supernatural things occur and for that reason we know it exists.

Not everything has a 'natural' explanation... even abiogenesis has no conclusive explanation yet

Ok so lets see....the supernatural can only be shown if a supernatural person shows it...seeing no human is supernatural, its not surprising that no one has been able to show its existence.

I love circular logic.

However we know that some have 'seen' supernatural things occur and for that reason we know it exists.

Apparently people saw the Buddha too. So Buddhism is the One True Religion to Rule Them All™. And then there was the witnesses to the resurrection of Osiris........

Not everything has a 'natural' explanation... even abiogenesis has no conclusive explanation yet

Actually we do know some things about the basic building blocks of life and what states the early earth would have been in to form those building blocks. But setting that aside you're using more poor logic.

"We don't know something, ergo the answer has a supernatural explanation and not simply a natural explanation whose details are currently unknown or only partially known."

Reminds me of why I like the saying Today's mysteries are tomorrow's mundane common knowledge.
 

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
evolution is not moving 'upward'

there are many animals with far more advanced features then we humans have...we don't even have a great sense of smell compared to mouse

No one's used the word "upward" until you so why you're injecting it now is beyond me.

As for the other part. Yes that's good. On our side humans are pretty damn good at regulating body heat compared to other mammals.

Tomorrow we'll work on colors, shape and numbers.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
No one's used the word "upward" until you so why you're injecting it now is beyond me.

As for the other part. Yes that's good. On our side humans are pretty damn good at regulating body heat compared to other mammals.

Tomorrow we'll work on colors, shape and numbers.

so why cant we survive in extreme cold temperatures like penguins?
 

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
so why cant we survive in extreme cold temperatures like penguins?

You mean other than our capacity for intelligence and tool use allowing us a potential for doing so through a number of ways. Or the way our body is capable of digesting food to be used as fuel, including to maintain a steady body temperature as well as to form body fat which helps insulate us?

Things other than that right?
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
I can justify anything that I believe. I don't understand why it's a big deal to do so. Something about the extreme reluctance to do so on theists' part seems very telling to me.

I am not a Monotheist I am a Monist. Folks on RF generally don't attack my belief system except for a few friends on the Hindu RF. So in many ways I am safe.

I found the OP of that other thread to be offensive and just plain wrong. Thats why I commented the way I did. It was not because I feel a reluctant to answer any question. Even though it did not apply to me in most ways. It was that I saw injustice in the comments. So did many others. The world has suffered under people who refuse to accept the differences of others. It matters not if it is religious, sexual preference or the color of skin. I am more then willing to have this discussion.

I see calling people retarded ( which in of it self a pejorative that I find unnecessary ) because they don't answer a question up to their standard. Is no better then telling someone they will die and go to hell. Science and modernism can be used as judgmental bulging weapon just as well as religion can.

I know I haven't been making many friends by requesting justification and asking tough questions:

I don't see that at all. I think you are respected as an Intelligent poster. I know I love to read your comments.
 

Wotan

Active Member
Just like the finals in college are the transition between the education and the career, this earth life is a transition between pre-mortal and post-mortal life that will point us into the eternities. We are here to have out character tested, character that we all developed to different levels of maturity in the eons of time we spent in pre-mortality. Character can only be truly tested if the absolute proof of the incentive is not given; if it were not so then it would be our lust and greed being demonstrated. True character is only manifest in the face of opposition, for me to be able to "prove" to you beyond the concept of Faith would remove the parameters of the test and we would both fail for the trial would be swallowed up in the pursuit of the sure reward because any animal will do that.

I believe that we are all the children of a living God and not mere animals. For us the parameters of existence are far different than any others in the animal kingdom. To turn away from that reality and responsibility because we do not like the fact that the trial does not provide for temporal proof outside the need for faith and a "personal" relationship with our Heavenly Father is to ignore all that we ARE given. I believe that for most, demanding proof is either a display of ignorance or a convenient excuse and a method for trying to escape the inescapable, to justify failure, and to bury fear.

Well bully for you. I am so happy for you. Seriously. IF that mythology works for you have at it. Few care least of all me.:yes:

BUT

There are goodly number of us who do NOT believe "we are all the children of a living God and not mere animals." We don't believe there IS or ever WAS a living god. OR a dead one. We are simply the most advanced life from we know about. Advanced meaning in our ability to modify the environment to suit us. We are most certainly NOT the most successful life form. Bacteria are - by far.

So our rejection of your mythology involves no motive other than the reason YOU have for rejecting Allah as god. When you understand why you reject Allah you will know why WE reject YOUR favorite invisible fairy god-father.

And why we say NEITHER of you has any rational justification for believing your respective myths.:p
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I'm a bit disappointed with some of the things you've been saying lately, because I think of you as one of the very intelligent people on this forum. So why are you generalising in this statement above? I hope that you are not basing this attitude entirely on atomist's thread. That thread was based on another one entirely.

Theists justify their beliefs all the time. On countless threads. In Atomist's thread, we were arguing about why we hadn't done so in his previous thread. Not why we don't do it ever. Because we most certainly do.

You're right, I didn't notice how much of a sweeping generalization that was... sorry. The context of my statement was just from my personal experience -- I have personally noticed a deficit in many theists I've engaged with directly epistemically justifying their ontologies even when directly asked, but I don't have the right to generalize that as I did in the text you quoted. Thanks for helping to keep me honest :eek:

Do you remember off the top of your head a good thread in which epistemic justifications for theistic ontologies were presented?
 
Last edited:
Top