RE: Theists: What makes your claims right and the claims of other theists wrong?
March 16, 2014 at 11:58 am
This is good. A triangular discussion.
Interesting choice of word. Would you describe your beliefs as 'superior'?
I think we're all doing the same sort of thing. We're trying to form a worldview that best fits the data. When we meet someone who doesn't share the worldview, we share data and processes to run through why we differ in our worldviews.
So from time to time I'll run some ideas past someone who disagrees with me, to check my thinking, and to invite them to check theirs.
At least that's the theory. In practice, people have all sorts of reasons for all sorts of beliefs that have little to do with reason. Jaffa cakes tend to work better than apologetics. I try to keep both in.
This is interesting, because I've known a number of Muslims (the online ones, anyway) who think that the arguments are there for Islam. For example, the impossibility of producing one sura like that of the Quran. Things they believe are scientific knowledge in the Quran that weren't known at the time. However ISTM there is more 'suck it and see' from Muslims, whereas ISTM more common for Xians to get excited about the arguments. (Although the majority would be 'suck it and see' to at least some degree).
To both of the other sides of the 'triangle'- for me, it would be the historical argument. Getting from C1 Judaism to emerging C1 Judeo-Christianity requires an historical explanation; atheism's had hundreds of years to provide this, and we're still waiting for a plausible alternative to the rather simple explanation “What they saw is what happened”.
I'm off to buy a protractor to work out some of the angles on this triangular discussion.
(February 18, 2014 at 5:17 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:
- What makes your claims superior to those which aren't yours?
- Can you empirically prove the superiority of your beliefs to anyone who doesn't share them?
- If the answer to the last question is no, why should anybody share your beliefs?
- Do you understand that theological arguments and apologetics only work on those who already believe what you do?
- When you proselytize to us, do you ever stop to consider that atheists aren't just rejecting your specific dogma?
Interesting choice of word. Would you describe your beliefs as 'superior'?
I think we're all doing the same sort of thing. We're trying to form a worldview that best fits the data. When we meet someone who doesn't share the worldview, we share data and processes to run through why we differ in our worldviews.
So from time to time I'll run some ideas past someone who disagrees with me, to check my thinking, and to invite them to check theirs.
At least that's the theory. In practice, people have all sorts of reasons for all sorts of beliefs that have little to do with reason. Jaffa cakes tend to work better than apologetics. I try to keep both in.
(February 18, 2014 at 8:37 am)Rayaan Wrote: A variety of things, the top 3 being the strong emphasis on the oneness of God in Islam, the inimitable beauty of the Quran, and the perpetual increase of an unexplainable inner peace and a change of perspective that I have experienced as a result of remembering and reflecting on the words of the Quran. Fourthly, also the life and the extraordinary character of the Prophet Muhammad which many people are ignorant of today.
No, not empirically ... and I would say that demanding an empirical proof is insulting to ourselves especially when the truth is already something ingrained in us.
This is interesting, because I've known a number of Muslims (the online ones, anyway) who think that the arguments are there for Islam. For example, the impossibility of producing one sura like that of the Quran. Things they believe are scientific knowledge in the Quran that weren't known at the time. However ISTM there is more 'suck it and see' from Muslims, whereas ISTM more common for Xians to get excited about the arguments. (Although the majority would be 'suck it and see' to at least some degree).
To both of the other sides of the 'triangle'- for me, it would be the historical argument. Getting from C1 Judaism to emerging C1 Judeo-Christianity requires an historical explanation; atheism's had hundreds of years to provide this, and we're still waiting for a plausible alternative to the rather simple explanation “What they saw is what happened”.
I'm off to buy a protractor to work out some of the angles on this triangular discussion.
