24 May 13
3 edits
Faith is not enough and is often used as an excuse for lack of reason. 'I have my faith and i do not need to provide a reason, its a religious belief'. To the theists I say unless you can substantiate your faith, it is blind and irrational.
Now of course. being outside the realms of what is natural, the supernatural is not subject to the same dynamics as mere mortals, however, please consider the words of sacred text, time and again, it appeals to reason.
(Romans 12:1) Consequently I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.
(1 Peter 3:15) always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 May 13
3 edits
To the theists I say unless you can substantiate your faith, it is blind and irrational.
I really don't know what "blind faith" means to critics of my Christian faith.
But for argument's sake, just because faith is "blind and irrational" does that necessarily mean what is believed is not true?
24 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipits means just what it says, a faith devoid of reason.To the theists I say unless you can substantiate your faith, it is blind and irrational.
I really don't know what "blind faith" means to critics of my Christian faith.
But for argument's sake, just because faith is "blind" and "irrational" does that have to necessarily mean what is believed is not true?
No of course it does not mean that what is believed is untrue simply because the person holding the belief cannot substantiate it.
Never the less, a Christian is under duress to establish faith by means of reason.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 May 13
3 edits
its means just what it says, a faith devoid of reason.
The problem with this is that one person's valid reason may be another person's illogical leap without reason.
It is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
No of course it does not mean that what is believed is untrue simply because the person holding the belief cannot substantiate it.
Never the less, a Christian is under duress to establish faith by means of reason.
There is reasoning which includes God and there is reasoning which excludes God.
The reasoner who excludes the possibility and power of God may consider the reasoning of the person allowing for the possibility and power of God as not reasoning well.
24 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipno reason and non reason are not one and the same thing. Even if the reason is irrational it can be established as such, this is not the same as an illogical leap, for how can the validity of its premise be established, its simply impossible.its means just what it says, a faith devoid of reason.
The problem with this is that one person's valid reason may be another person's illogical leap without reason.
It is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
[quote]
No of course it does not mean that what is believed is untrue simply because the person holding the belief cannot s ...[text shortened]... e reasoning of the person allowing for the possibility and power of God as not reasoning well.
yes there is such reasoning which includes and excludes God, but religious teaching exits irrespective. Yes the reasoner who has limited their perspective to that which is purely material may well consider the reasoning of the believer as being not well reasoned or unconvincing but to do so, they must provide reasons themselves or they are walking blind also.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd you think JW doctrine along with its suppression of questioning attitude exudes and promotes this reason and rational basis you speak of? Well, you're certainly good for a laugh if nothing else.
Faith is not enough and is often used as an excuse for lack of reason. 'I have my faith and i do not need to provide a reason, its a religious belief'. To the theists I say unless you can substantiate your faith, it is blind and irrational.
Now of course. being outside the realms of what is natural, the supernatural is not subject to the same d ...[text shortened]... b]a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.[/b]
This is all a bit rich coming from the likes of you. After all, you just got done stating the following in another current thread:
we are counselled as Christians to use our powers of reason in situations that require it, homosexuality is not one of them, its simply non negotiable.
So, I guess it follows by your own admission and standards that your stance on homosexuality is "blind and irrational". Sounds about right to me, so looks like you got something right for once.
EDIT: By the way, could you educate the audience a bit more on what sorts of situations require our powers of reasons and which do not?
24 May 13
Originally posted by LemonJellohardly, there are issues that i will face that are non issues for you and issues that you may face that are non issues for me. To sate that either stance is unreasoning because of the fact betrays the ad hominemness of your argument, fallacious, illogical and at the man.
And you think JW doctrine along with its suppression of questioning attitude exudes and promotes this reason and rational basis you speak of? Well, you're certainly good for a laugh if nothing else.
This is all a bit rich coming from the likes of you. After all, you just got done stating the following in another current thread:
[quote]we are couns ...[text shortened]... dience a bit more on what sorts of situations require our powers of reasons and which do not?
24 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it is a colossal mistake for religious people to give in to the secular demand for logical proof of their beliefs. Instead of letting secularists lay out the terms of the debate, and failing miserably to cobble together some specious and tortured form of logic, religious people should instead embrace the fact that they have no proof, and that there can likely can never be any proof. They should embrace the illogicality of their position and quit trying to have things both ways. A little honest faith might do you more good than some bad logic.
Faith is not enough and is often used as an excuse for lack of reason. 'I have my faith and i do not need to provide a reason, its a religious belief'. To the theists I say unless you can substantiate your faith, it is blind and irrational.
Now of course. being outside the realms of what is natural, the supernatural is not subject to the same d ...[text shortened]... b]a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.[/b]
24 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWTF? This reply doesn't compute.
hardly, there are issues that i will face that are non issues for you and issues that you may face that are non issues for me. To sate that either stance is unreasoning because of the fact betrays the ad hominemness of your argument, fallacious, illogical and at the man.
Let's go slowly here. Can you substantiate your stance on homosexuality with reasons? If not, then doesn't it qualify as "blind and irrational" according to the standard you yourself laid out in the OP?
Also, still waiting to hear more insight on what sorts of situations require us to use our powers of reason and which do not; and relatedly, how this should temper your view as outlined in the OP.
24 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettno its unreasonable to expect people to accept a stance without some kind of substantiation. The term proof is misleading, all that can be offered from an examination of both scripture and an observation of the natural world is inference and appeals to reason. Its unreasonable to expect more than this.
I think it is a colossal mistake for religious people to give in to the secular demand for logical proof of their beliefs. Instead of letting secularists lay out the terms of the debate, and failing miserably to cobble together some specious and tortured form of logic, religious people should instead embrace the fact that they have no proof, and that there ...[text shortened]... ying to have things both ways. A little honest faith might do you more good than some bad logic.
24 May 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloyes of course, i did, i provided medical and physiological evidence so that anyone can reason on that. Different situations require discernment and its impossible to state anything generally. Just by way of example, for you going to a nightclub might not be an issue, for me it may well be an issue and i would need to reason on the implications.
WTF? This reply doesn't compute.
Let's go slowly here. Can you substantiate your stance on homosexuality with reasons? If not, then doesn't it qualify as "blind and irrational" according to the standard you yourself laid out in the OP?
Also, still waiting to hear more insight on what sorts of situations require us to use our powers of reason and which do not; and relatedly, how this should temper your view as outlined in the OP.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen why did you state that the subject of homosexuality doesn't require your powers of reasons and for you is simply "non negotiable", which implies impervious to reasons?
yes of course, i did, i provided medical and physiological evidence so that anyone can reason on that. Different situations require discernment and its impossible to state anything generally. Just by way of example, for you going to a nightclub might not be an issue, for me it may well be an issue and i would need to reason on the implications.
If you want to know what your problem is, it is that you are, on an intellectual plane, simply a pathological liar. The fact of the matter is that your stances on such issues are as "blind and irrational" as they can possibly be, since they are purely fundamentalist in nature (where 'fundamentalism is at bottom marked by extreme doctrinal seriousness and conformity to doctrine merely for the sake of conformity to doctrine, completely regardless of what reasons are at your disposal one way or another). We have seen this time and time again, where you pretend (i.e., lie through your teeth) that your stances on such things as homosexuality or blood transfusion are tied to reasons at your disposal; but the truth is that, e.g., even if you had overwhelming reasons at your disposal to think blood transfusions are safe and effective, you would still have a stance against them based blindly on doctrinal considerations. So, just stop lying about the true nature of your stances on such issues okay? And for your information, you are absolutely the last person who can start a thread of this topic with any authority or standing on the matter. You get caught up in your lies because, every so often, you are brutally honest, such as when you bluntly state that the topic of homosexuality is for you "simply non negotiable". Kind of ironic and funny, then, that you would turn around and start a thread that implies that such stances are "blind and irrational" and lecture others about the importance of avoiding them. Like I said, you're good for a laugh.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThere are issues which require discernment and there are those which dont, after another of your ludicrous assertions of lying, this time with the rather interesting appellation pathological, another attempt at amateur psychoanalysis I suspect, I did not read any of your text. I generally dont waste my time with people who cannot conduct themselves with a modicum of either civility or decorum.
Then why did you state that the subject of homosexuality doesn't require your powers of reasons and for you is simply "non negotiable", which implies impervious to reasons?
If you want to know what your problem is, it is that you are, on an intellectual plane, simply a pathological liar. The fact of the matter is that your stances on such issues are a others about the importance of avoiding them. Like I said, you're good for a laugh.
24 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipOf course it doesn't mean it is not true. However, it also doesn't mean it is true.To the theists I say unless you can substantiate your faith, it is blind and irrational.
I really don't know what "blind faith" means to critics of my Christian faith.
But for argument's sake, just because faith is "blind and irrational" does that necessarily mean what is believed is not true?
25 May 13
Originally posted by rwingettCredo quia absurdum est?
I think it is a colossal mistake for religious people to give in to the secular demand for logical proof of their beliefs. Instead of letting secularists lay out the terms of the debate, and failing miserably to cobble together some specious and tortured form of logic, religious people should instead embrace the fact that they have no proof, and that there ...[text shortened]... ying to have things both ways. A little honest faith might do you more good than some bad logic.