Your Purpose in Life

Originally posted by FMF
Which beliefs of mine are you talking about?

Lets take your one particular belief that God hasn't revealed himself to anyone. How do you 'know' that to be true? Surely you can't claim to 'know' that God hasn't revealed himself to anyone other than yourself? If God had in fact revealed himself to someone surely that would be the ones to know and you wouldn't?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you know that if God were to exist, no one would know about it?

If you and I were both to literally know that God existed it would be the result of a revelation that would have made His existence absolutely clear to both of us and to every other human.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Lets take your one particular belief that God hasn't revealed himself to anyone. How do you 'know' that to be true? Surely you can't claim to 'know' that God hasn't revealed himself to anyone other than yourself?

The revelation that you claim to have witnessed - for example - is completely unbelievable and morally incoherent, at least in so far as how you talk about it and explain it here, so why should I accept it as "true"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If God had in fact revealed himself to someone surely that would be the ones to know and you wouldn't?

Isn't the revelation - that you are convinced is "true" - for everyone?

Originally posted by FMF
If you and I were both to literally know that God existed it would be the result of a revelation that would have made His existence absolutely clear to both of us and to every other human.

So basically if God were to exist and to give us a revelation it would be God's fault if someone rejected it?

Originally posted by FMF
The revelation that you claim to have witnessed - for example - is completely unbelievable and morally incoherent, at least in so far as how you talk about it and explain it here, so why should I accept it as "true"?

How do you know that your opinion of what is 'morally coherent' is the correct one? Assuming a correct one existed, which you don't even seem to believe in the first place.

Originally posted by FMF
The revelation that you claim to have witnessed - for example - is completely unbelievable and morally incoherent, at least in so far as how you talk about it and explain it here, so why should I accept it as "true"?

I don't think you can rightfully say it is completely unbelievable when in fact you did believe it in the past.

Originally posted by FMF
The revelation that you claim to have witnessed - for example - is completely unbelievable and morally incoherent, at least in so far as how you talk about it and explain it here, so why should I accept it as "true"?

You are once again assuming that your view of what is believable and morally incoherent is the universally correct one. How do you know that to be true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You are once again assuming that your view of what is believable and morally incoherent is the universally correct one. How do you know that to be true?

Yes, my view. Who else's view of what is believable do you propose I use when the issue is whether I find something believable or not?

You are as ever assuming that what you happen to believe is "universally" believable, while I make no such claim.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I don't think you can rightfully say it is completely unbelievable when in fact you did believe it in the past.

Well it wasn't believable enough to continue to be believed, and didn't withstand prolonged reflection and reappraisal. And while I have no regrets about my past beliefs, I do sometimes now wonder what on earth I was thinking.

Furthermore, talking to people like you and sonship ~ and hearing you say the things you say, pout in the way you pout, pull the ripcords that you pull, attribute the things to yourselves that you attribute, and the way that you cite your own certainty as evidence, and so on and so forth, I wonder if I might have lost my faith earlier if I had met you at an earlier point in my life. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, my view. Who else's view of what is believable do you propose I use when the issue is whether I find something believable or not?

You are as ever assuming that what you happen to believe is "universally" believable, while I make no such claim.

So if you don't believe something it means no one else should?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if you don't believe something it means no one else should?

You can believe what you want. If you want to say you are a Sunni Muslim or a Hare Krishna or a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness, it's all fine by me. If being a Christian helps you to cope with the fact that you will die one day, gives you a sense of purpose, and results in you engaging in morally sound behaviour, then good for you. I have no objection.

Originally posted by FMF
You can believe what you want. If you want to say you are a Sunni Muslim or a Hare Krishna or a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness, it's all fine by me. If being a Christian helps you to cope with the fact that you will die one day, gives you a sense of purpose, and results in you engaging in morally sound behaviour, then good for you. I have no objection.

So people shouldn't believe something based on the fact that it is true?

If you thought that your beliefs were true, why wouldn't you want other people to share your beliefs and believe the truth?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So people shouldn't believe something based on the fact that it is true?

True, to you.

Hinduism is true, to the Hindu.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
True, to you.

Hinduism is true, to the Hindu.

Christianty and Hinduism can't both the true at the same time.