Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he ...
February 25, 2014 at 9:21 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2014 at 9:22 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(February 25, 2014 at 3:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(February 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Part of the problem I see in this thread is there is no attempt to divide the non-objective Truth beliefs people arrive at by faith, and objectively justified true beliefs derived empirically without faith.
They aren't interchangeable terms the religious want to believe they are.
Saying you have personal evidence for beliefs and are unwilling to disclose it doesn't qualify your personal evidence as scientific evidence, and the fact you believe it can disproven shows it definitely isn't.
Really?!
I see quite the opposite. The Christians are repeatedly stating the difference between objective and subjective truth beliefs. The nonsense that scientific objective beliefs have to be applied to subjective religious beliefs.
The religious are saying they're not interchangeable, the non religious are saying they are.
The personal evidence is freely available to all. Have you not heard of the bible?! It is actually objectively established that religious truths cannot be proven scientifically. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to keep pummeling their head into a post over that.
I'm not going to force you not to do that, but I feel I must stand up for reason and point out your folly.
Subjective truth is an illusion. Someone repeatedly stating their beliefs is not the same as a verified true belief about the world at large. There is nothing rational about presenting subjective personal beliefs as true for anyone but the self: To do so would be utter nonsense.
You're arguing that "x is true because it is true to me" or "x is true because I say it is" should be held in equal regard to testable, verifiable empirical evidence.
As far as "having heard of the bible," in what sense do you mean? That there are those who hold beliefs derived from an antiquated text that only they can verify as true because they believe them but defy empirical testability?
You can't fathom why anyone would disbelieve "truths" that do not stand up to empirical verification?
Really?
Because the term "truth" does not apply to strongly held beliefs if they're not rational beliefs, and religion is #hashtagging on a descriptor that doesn't apply to a belief doesn't make a belief "true" in the absence of empirical data.
