fr0d0 Wrote:Yes. Why wouldn't I?

Really now! The Popol Vuh? The Book of the Dead? The Book of Mormon? In fact, please tell me why you didn't like holy book x from the ones I don't even know of as well: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

Colostomy:

You seeing weakness: proof of your bigotry

---

(August 18, 2013 at 8:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Yes. Why wouldn't I?

Really now! The Popol Vuh? The Book of the Dead? The Book of Mormon? In fact, please tell me why you didn't like holy book x from the ones I don't even know of as well: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

I already did FTR

You haven't weighed out all the probable unverifiable explanations for why we're here. In fact, I don't think *any* single human being has spent the time to go through all those holy books in order to see which one lives up to its claims the most.

So long as you believe in the Bible for absolutely *no reason*, I'll hold on to the notion that believing in lawn-growing gnomes is just as logical. Do you see the problem yet? What's your methodology for excluding my faith in gnomes but yet retaining faith in the Bible - two things that are just as unverifiable?

You keep saying "no reason" like I have no reason, like you. I don't claim to have considered every permutation if religious endeavour. I've certainly considered seriously all those I've heard about. Even those without texts. My reasons for choosing as I did are laid out already.

I've also covered here your problem of the ridiculous, and Mike provided the perfect summation. Go check it out (it's not many posts ago). (then keep you're tired worn out cliches to yourself )

---

(August 18, 2013 at 12:19 pm)EvidenceVersusFaith Wrote: The logically impossible is both undetectable and non-existent.

Here you go FTR

Quote:My reasons for choosing as I did are laid out already.

If you could point me to the post #, that would be much appreciated.

~

"The logically impossible is both undetectable and non-existent."

I don't see how this is refuting what I've said. All I see here is that from *your perspective* your god is half way to being logically impossible. The question is, how do you know that your god's undetectable attribute doesn't stem from pure non-existence?

I've said it before but maybe it applies even more broadly.

Should one question everything for which one lacks evidence? If one is born in a particular country and city and grow up to be patriotic, should he purge himself of those patriotic feelings? Same question regarding local sports teams: should he toss all such affiliations, sell off the paraphernalia and strive for a more neutral posture when watching sporting events? One is born into the family one gets and forms all manner of bonds but, wait, there is no evidence for thinking these people more deserving of our loyalty and regard than anyone else, right?

Now suppose one is born into a Christian family and grows up believing that God listens to prayers and comes to believe he has an inner relationship with that god. Lets suppose he comes to value this relationship. Upon realizing that if he'd been born somewhere else or at a different time that he would have grown up worshiping other gods, should he toss aside the practices he has grown up with?

To some degree, every particular custom, pastime, taste and interest one acquires may be 'tainted' by the happenstance of ones particular origins. Does that mean we should root out everything that lacks evidence to recommend it beyond the personal level? I don't think so. Thus if Frodo decides to hang on to this personal artifact of his experience without evidence that would satisfy a reasonable bystander, what business is that of mine? I'd say none at all.

(August 19, 2013 at 1:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Colostomy:

You seeing weakness: proof of your bigotry

Only if by bigotry you mean making any choice above and beyond it's alternatives. Kind of a broad definition this. Am I a black brassiere bigot for choosing a white brassiere?(No, seriously...I think white flatters my back fat better.)I see the term bigotry as a negative connotation; an epithet, really...not so much as a term of discernment. Quite a rabbit hole you would lead me down.

No...my 'weakness' was seeing you equate Ryan's 'pushing back' as a sign his methods are no better than Christian practices of same. What you seem to forget is that 'bullies' gonna bully'...until someone knocks their dick in the dirt. Accusing the 'victim', as it were, of stooping to the same level does little to stop the cycle...sometimes you have to acknowledge the rights of the other to defend himself. The bullies have had their turn. I'm no bigot for seeing the logic of the underdog.

(August 19, 2013 at 2:36 am)whateverist Wrote: I've said it before but maybe it applies even more broadly.

Should one question everything for which one lacks evidence? If one is born in a particular country and city and grow up to be patriotic, should he purge himself of those patriotic feelings? Same question regarding local sports teams: should he toss all such affiliations, sell off the paraphernalia and strive for a more neutral posture when watching sporting events? One is born into the family one gets and forms all manner of bonds but, wait, there is no evidence for thinking these people more deserving of our loyalty and regard than anyone else, right?

Now suppose one is born into a Christian family and grows up believing that God listens to prayers and comes to believe he has an inner relationship with that god. Lets suppose he comes to value this relationship. Upon realizing that if he'd been born somewhere else or at a different time that he would have grown up worshiping other gods, should he toss aside the practices he has grown up with?

To some degree, every particular custom, pastime, taste and interest one acquires may be 'tainted' by the happenstance of ones particular origins. Does that mean we should root out everything that lacks evidence to recommend it beyond the personal level? I don't think so. Thus if Frodo decides to hang on to this personal artifact of his experience without evidence that would satisfy a reasonable bystander, what business is that of mine? I'd say none at all.

This isn't about preference though. We all know fr0d0 isn't fond of Christianity for similar reasons that he's fond of his favourite baseball team. He's fond of Christianity because he believes it to be the truth, and such as statement requires thorough investigation just like if he said his favourite baseball team is the best. The validity of said claims are begging the question.

You think theists are in the majority colostomy? And since when does one bad action deserve another? The hypocrisy is strong with you.

(August 19, 2013 at 2:42 am)FallentoReason Wrote: This isn't about preference though.

You may be right but I'm not so sure. Perhaps it is just a preference. I've never heard him argue that he has reasons which he believes should convince us to believe too, have you? On the personal level we have many beliefs which amount to pre-made preferences. These don't all have to be justified.