Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI think this statement is manifestly false, and smacks of defeatism in the face of corrosive theistic lies. I maintain there is a great deal of comfort to be had in a humanist, naturalist position. Perhaps not of the same exact kind as a theistic approach, but at least as effective in it's own particular way.
It's tough to strike the right balance. I personally feel inadequate comforting people, because what I believe doesn't offer a great deal of comfort.
Assuming you are a humanist and/or a naturalist, of course.
Originally posted by rwingettDetail it.
I think this statement is manifestly false, and smacks of defeatism in the face of corrosive theistic lies. I maintain there is a great deal of comfort to be had in a humanist, naturalist position. Perhaps not of the same exact kind as a theistic approach, but at least as effective in it's own particular way.
Assuming you are a humanist and/or a naturalist, of course.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAgain, I do not think this hypothetical is possible practically.
It's not almost like he is saying it: he is saying it!
But even if acceptance of Christianity were rational--or, indeed, the only rational conclusion a thinking person could accept--it would still be possible for a skeptic to reject it without being motivated to reject it. His reasoning could be inadvertently flawed, through no fault of his own.
Originally posted by rwingettIt's not manifestly false that I personally feel inadequate comforting people.
I think this statement is manifestly false, and smacks of defeatism in the face of corrosive theistic lies. I maintain there is a great deal of comfort to be had in a humanist, naturalist position. Perhaps not of the same exact kind as a theistic approach, but at least as effective in it's own particular way.
Assuming you are a humanist and/or a naturalist, of course.
Originally posted by David CI think Darfius's contentions reflect an extreme form of a commonplace bias: people regard their own beliefs as rooted in reason, and the beliefs of others with whom disagree as rooted in motivation.
[b]The Darfius Argument
1) No skeptic has weighed the evidence fairly.
2) I have.
3) Therefore, God exists.[/b]
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOK, what examples of the truth can you give me an example of? Or do you think this is about "THE " central truth that Jesus came and died for our sins to give us eternal life?
That's their skepticism is motivated by a culpable unwillingness to accept the truth of Christianity.
Originally posted by David CNot quite. It goes more like:
[b]The Darfius Argument
1) No skeptic has weighed the evidence fairly.
2) I have.
3) Therefore, God exists.[/b]
1)God exists
2)God's existence entails judgment of mankind
3)Those who find such a judgment discomforting rebel
4)One way to rebel is to claim that no such judgment exists (God does not exist)
5)Disbelief in God is thus grounded in emotion, and not reason
