Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Why should I be?
Well, you are giving yourself as an example of an honest skeptic. I am awaiting the reasons why you're a skeptic so as to determine whether you are indeed honest.
Originally posted by Darfius Well, you are giving yourself as an example of an honest skeptic. I am awaiting the reasons why you're a skeptic so as to determine whether you are indeed honest.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Why should the presupposition be against me?
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.
Originally posted by Darfius 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.
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.
there are two ways to slide easily through life to believe everything or to doubt everything both ways save us from thinking A korzybski. manhood of humanity
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole 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.
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!
Originally posted by 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!
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?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole 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?
Perhaps 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!
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 Starrman 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.
Right on all counts? Where did I say that? Save the snide remarks for an actual discussion. What I said is completely valid.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole 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...
What 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.
B.
Originally posted by LemonJello Actually, in this thread you formally stated one "argument" (Page 4). And it wasn't even close to being (logically) valid.
Originally posted by Darfius Right on all counts? Where did I say that? Save the snide remarks for an actual discussion. What I said is completely valid.
I'm not being snide, I believe this to be part of your psychology. Perhaps if you did not take it so personally?....
Belief and choice
19 Aug '06 22:11
Back to Top