Originally posted by DarfiusThat's not a good enough reason for assuming in advance that my religious beliefs are irrationally motivated.
Because this is a forum for debate. Unless we knew each other in real life or had had many experiences with each other, 'character' is something that must be evidenced, not taken for granted.
It's merely uncharitable of you to assume this in advance.
The burden of proof is on you to show that my beliefs are irrationally motivated.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHow can I do without knowing precisely what your beliefs are and why you have them? Surely you see that you cannot expect me to take your integrity for granted and have that 'refute' my claim!
That's not a good enough reason for assuming in advance that my religious beliefs are irrationally motivated.
It's merely uncharitable of you to assume this in advance.
The burden of proof is on you to show that my beliefs are irrationally motivated.
Originally posted by DarfiusYou're missing the point Darfius.
How can I do without knowing precisely what your beliefs are and why you have them? Surely you see that you cannot expect me to take your integrity for granted and have that 'refute' my claim!
Let's suppose you *don't* know the reasoning behind my agnosticism.
Why should you assume, in the absence of such knowledge, that my reasoning lacks integrity?
I don't mind you being open-minded about my integrity. But what justifies you in starting from such an uncharitable assumption? Are you trying to be invidious?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholePerhaps the problem is that you take it personally. Thinking you wrong somehow (whether it's a lack of integrity, laziness, etc.) is a necessary consequence of holding my worldview while you hold yours. Certainly I cannot think that we are both right simultaneously!
You're missing the point Darfius.
Let's suppose you *don't* know the reasoning behind my agnosticism.
Why should you assume, in the absence of such knowledge, that my reasoning lacks integrity?
I don't mind you being open-minded about my integrity. But what justifies you in starting from such an uncharitable assumption? Are you trying to be invidious?
I get the feeling Darfius sees anyone who is not a Christian to be wrong by definition. If you hold a view contrary to his because you are not a Christian he will presumably decide you are false before your views are presented. This requires a belief that he is right on all accounts by virtue of being a Christian; since god guides his hand, and is also somewhat Calvinist.
Originally posted by StarrmanRight on all counts? Where did I say that? Save the snide remarks for an actual discussion. What I said is completely valid.
I get the feeling Darfius sees anyone who is not a Christian to be wrong by definition. If you hold a view contrary to his because you are not a Christian he will presumably decide you are false before your views are presented. This requires a belief that he is right on all accounts by virtue of being a Christian; since god guides his hand, and is also somewhat Calvinist.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat you're saying is proof that some of the most pig-headed, ignorant prejudiced people in this world are strict followers of Christianity. The irony of course being that they are living against the very values they claim to uphold. I would tell your friends that they are simply wrong, and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one, true God. Just ask scottishnz.
Several people of an evangelical persuasion have told me that I am morally culpable for not believing that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.
They claim that, having witnessed to me, I now have the choice to believe them or not. And because I freely choose not to believe them, I am therefore morally culpable, and indeed running the risk of damnation.
W ...[text shortened]... s strikes me as a very odd belief to maintain. Maybe if I only tried harder to believe it...
B.