Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Traditional Catholics

Posted Jul 7, '13 at 11:52pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,436 posts

The parent or friend could not provide proof to the child that the monster didn't exist.

In the same way that you can't prove a pink invisible intangible elephant isn't flying over your head right now.

neither side is willing the accept the other

And yet, here I am. Living proof that one can change.
 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 12:16am

Wyrzen

Wyrzen

327 posts

And yet, here I am. Living proof that one can change.


From what to what?
 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 12:27am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,700 posts

Argh, I think that's not right as well. What I'm trying to explain is that it doesn't matter if the monster is or is not real, what matters is that the child believes in it.


But to believe in it on the pure basis of a "gut feeling" is both fallacious and paranoia on the child's part.

The parent or friend could not provide proof to the child that the monster didn't exist.


1) Have the kid look under the bed himself

2) It isn't up to the parent or friend to provide proof of the monster's non-existence. The child is making the claim of its existence, he must then provide the evidence.

I find it a fruitless argument; they won't dissuade your faith, nor will you convince them.


Arguments are great for improving critical thinking..even if it is an argument that will lead to neither side changing their position.


And yet, here I am. Living proof that one can change.


*cough and pang *cough*

From what to what?


Emp was of Christian faith, if I remember correctly.


-----

I and many atheist will flat out reject faith as it is a baseless position.


Oh ****..I'm doing it..going to my natural side O.o joinin the Theist's team. Batter up!

Now..I resent this statement of "baseless" position. If the person holding faith, such as myself, is actually aware of what they are doing by holding faith..then that person can admit that the position isn't baseless..but senseless.

There is a base, but..I admit..it is fallacious. The position is faith.
This is why I always make sure to assert myself as agnostic theistic...to allow whomever I'm speaking to a chance to understand that I do not assert any evidence or reason for my belief.

As long as the person doesn't assert their belief as the undeniable truth, guidelines to follow by, etc., then faith is a stance.
 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 1:01am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,436 posts

From what to what?

JW to atheist/secularist/etc. I tend to prefer the naturalistic pantheist label because it gets generally to what I do believe instead of what I don't. If one were to ask if I believe in god(s), I'd ask what they mean by that. If they use a common definition like "transcendent supernatural conscious personal entity which controls/creates/etc, such as the Abrahamic God," I'd answer no. If they use the "higher power/being" definition, I'd say yes, as Nature on the whole is the highest/greatest/etc thing that I presently accept, but I don't hold to absolute certainty that nothing is beyond it.
 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 1:25am

Wyrzen

Wyrzen

327 posts

JW to atheist/secularist/etc. I tend to prefer the naturalistic pantheist label because it gets generally to what I do believe instead of what I don't. If one were to ask if I believe in god(s), I'd ask what they mean by that. If they use a common definition like "transcendent supernatural conscious personal entity which controls/creates/etc, such as the Abrahamic God," I'd answer no. If they use the "higher power/being" definition, I'd say yes, as Nature on the whole is the highest/greatest/etc thing that I presently accept, but I don't hold to absolute certainty that nothing is beyond it.


I can see where you're coming from.
 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 3:41am

Bladerunner679

Bladerunner679

2,534 posts

neither side is willing the accept the other


I'm also proof against this. AG was instrumental in my deconversion, and I'm quite happy that it happened.

-Blade
 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 4:29am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

I would like to try and give another perspective on the use of gut feelings as any sort of proof.

I feel that God doesn't exist and my feeling that God doesn't exist is more real than yours. I know this because I feel it's true.

By the rational that gut feels are proof that statement disproves God.

If you can see the flaw here then you are seeing the flaw in your own argument.

 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 4:49am

OperationNilo

OperationNilo

4,065 posts

If you think I'll answer the arguments of multiple users simultaneously, then you are very very wrong ;:P I'm kinda happy how I'm living my religion, so if you don't want to convert to it, okay. I'm not gonna force you, much less over the nets.

 

Posted Jul 8, '13 at 8:30pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

If you think I'll answer the arguments of multiple users simultaneously, then you are very very wrong ;:P


Why are you taking such a dismissive dodgy attitude? If you feel you can't reply to everyone just pull key points to reply to.

I'm kinda happy how I'm living my religion, so if you don't want to convert to it, okay. I'm not gonna force you, much less over the nets.


That was totally irrelevant to the points being made.
 

Posted Jul 9, '13 at 1:36am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,436 posts

so if you don't want to convert to it, okay.

I'd be happy to convert, if there was evidence beyond personal experience, fallacies, and blind acceptance.

I've also felt God

If your God is giving specific people true feelings of His presence, He's directly playing favorites for who goes to hell and who doesn't. If He's loving and He's fine with letting you personally know that He's there so strongly that you can't put the feeling into words, why wouldn't He grant that feeling to everyone? Better yet, why wouldn't He announce Himself to the world directly into everyone's mind so it can effortlessly be understood? If feelings were enough, there wouldn't be 40000 denominations of Christianity alone with hundreds of differing translations of holy texts and millions (maybe billions) of differing interpretations of said texts.

Well, the point of scripture is trying to find out what each part means and how it can be applied to real life (that's what I try to do ;:P).

Alright, what was the true meaning and real-life application behind God maliciously killing a baby [2 Samuel 12:15-19] in contradiction to Ezekiel 18:20? What about Leviticus 25:44-46 in which God tells His people who they may enslave permanently?
 
Reply to Traditional Catholics

You must be logged in to post a reply!