The Original Messages of Religion

[Clueless Morgan]

I believe that arguing shall do nothing to promote an idea where the use of rhetoric would be able to gain more.

Once again, you are demonstrating either that you don't understand what kind of argument I am talking about (which I have provided definitions for) or you are willfully ignoring the definitions I have provided and equivocating a logical argument (a statement or series of statements for or against something; a discussion in which people express different opinions about something; discourse intended to persuade; the act or process of arguing : [argumentation]; a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion) with two people having an argument (an angry disagreement). When I say "argument" I am referencing the former, the logical argument definition; I am talking about you providing premises that lead to a conclusion, so that we can evaluate your logical arguments to see if they are valid and sound and thus reach a logically valid and sound conclusion.

If I argue, you believe I am worng how then should I make you believe I am right if you already have the predisposition to believing me wrong?

Again, you're poisoning the well by concluding ahead of time that the only reason I, or we, are not agreeing with you is because we have a predisposition to believe that you are wrong.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE!

What we are asking you to do is to provide reasons for and evidence that your conclusions are true. In other words, we are asking you to provide us with a logical argument: lay out your premises, and show how they necessarily lead to your preferred conclusion. You have not done this. All you have done in this thread is make bald assertions and then said "If you don't agree with me/my conclusions, you're biased against me/my conclusions!"

Evidence? No more than a mere coincidence you would say. And where it could not possibly be a coincidence you would then say that the evidence must be wrong in some way.

How about instead of assuming how we react, you provide the evidence and we can have a discussion about whether that evidence is truly evidence for your conclusions? How do you know that I, or anyone here, would say that all of your evidence is just coincidence? How did you come to the conclusion that it wasn't?

This is a discussion forum. If all you desire to do here is make pronouncements and assertions without defending your position by being open to discussing how you reached your conclusions, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

Yes I have tried to argue before and it is a tree which bears no fruit.

Why do you think that is?

---

Silly question, seeing as you've repeatedly stated that you believe the reason to be that everyone who disagrees with you is simply biased against you.

Have you ever considered that we're not biased against you, but that you simply aren't adequately defending your position?

Have you ever thought about thinking about your (logical) arguments (see the beginning of this post for a refresher on what kind of arguments I'm talking about) from your the position of those you're trying to convince and tried constructing them in a way that would be more convincing to those people?

Have you tried constructing them in such a way that you do not rely on fallacies to make your point?

---

My quote is meant, that as a critical thinker, it is your job to look things up, you should not have to wait for the house to burn down before realizing there is a fire.

And my point is that as the person asserting the position, it's your job to provide us with reasons to believe that the house is on fire in the first place.

If all you do is run into the house and scream "The house is on fire!!!" but there's no smoke, no flames, no change in temperature, no faulty wiring, no gas leaks, no lit matches, nor smokers who didn't extinguish their cigarettes, and upon inspecting the house we can see no evidence that anything is on fire, then why should we believe you?

Need I prove to you that a rock is indeed a rock? We have defined such traits as virtues amongst ourselves that is why they are called virtues.

Begging the question

Wikipedia:
"A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being."

Merriam-Webster:
: morally good behavior or character

: a good and moral quality

: the good result that comes from something


I agree that some things on your OP list can be considered virtues. What I am asking you to do is provide me reasons for why you conclude that abstinence is a virtue, more so than moderation.

If you provide me, or us, with these reasons then we can have a discussion about whether we agree or not, but you also have to be willing to concede that your assertions might not be justifiable if we can demonstrate that your (logical) arguments are found to be invalid or unsound. It seems that you are unwilling to make even this small effort toward an honest discussion seeing as how you repeatedly poison the well by stating that we just won't agree with you. Give us a reason to!

If you are interested in having a discussion about your position then you need to provide us with reasons. If you are only interested in maintaining your position and fortifying your confirmation biases (both that your conclusions are correct and that we are dogmatically opposed to being convinced) then by all means ignore my requests for reasons and evidence.

I am absolutely willing to change my mind, but you have to convince me that I have good reason to change my mind. Don't simply assume that if you get blow back from us that we are just dead set on proving you wrong.

If you have the reasons and evidence on your side, it won't be hard to convince us.

And the reason for his death was to sacrifice himself for the salvation of all humanity. Why would you try and make it sound differently if not to villainize religion?

Jesus (if he was a real person, I'm undecided on this, though I lean toward historicity) was given a torturous execution to atone for the supposed original sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which they passed down through the generations of Jews and was the whole reason that mankind required this supposed salvation at all.

The problem with this is that Adam and Eve never existed. Why would humanity require a savior if the thing that he supposedly was supposed to absolve us of never actually happened? That's what the NT is about: Jesus being tortured and killed in order to absolve humanity of the crime of being sinful, which only happened because Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (That's why sin only makes sense in a religious context, and why I whole heartedly disagree when you state that sin is a wonderful concept. How? Why is it wonderful? Defend this assertion to me because I don't understand how an atheist can look at a thing like sin and think "Yup, that's cool with me!")

If Adam and Eve never existed, and thus never could have brought sin (which is the act of violating the Abrahamic God's will) into the world, than what was Jesus's death for? What do you think it did? What salvation does humanity require if you don't accept the claims that a god exists, and thus sin doesn't exist?

Are you saying that we have to saved from our own nature? I fully concede that humans can be cruel to each other - but how is that sin? And how does a Jew being tortured to death 2000 years ago provide humanity salvation from its own nature? Are you saying that we should all be willing to sacrifice ourselves for others? Then humanity would kill itself off in a wave of suicide-for-salvation.

What are you saying?

I worry that you are biased and that your bias is affecting your ability to comprehend what I am writing, and that instead of comprehension it is replaced by aggression.

Poisoning the well... again...

How can I be biased against your position when I don't even understand what you're trying to communicate? You say that Jesus's death was meant to be the salvation for humanity, an yet you claim to be an atheist. What salvation do we require? Do you think his execution brought about some kind of salvation? Was it actually effective? What is this salvation? How does this make sense outside of a religious context?

And the perceived aggression you're reading into my posts is because you repeatedly dodge requests for explanations, refuse to provide evidence for your assertions and when asked to defend yourself you call us biased against you. That's completely disingenuous.

A sin by definition is an offense against religious or moral law. When I said that there was an acknowledgment of sin, it was the acknowledgment that we have done something we view as morally wrong. I never said sin existed, it is simply a word to define an action after all.

You may want to consider using a less religiously loaded word than sin when posting in these forums, as sin is more commonly understood as the act of defying the will of a god.

Somehow though, you came to the conclusion that I was saying sin existed. I am concerned that you missed the point of that message entirely

Then explain yourself.

You think sin is a wonderful concept. Go.

and I am concerned that you are not here to view what I have to say objectively or engage in helpful discourse, but rather that you wish to argue with me due to extremism, and conceited reasons.

If we are to have a discourse, helpful or not, you have to provide reasons why your assertions should be accepted by others, which you haven't done.

If we are to make progress in this discourse, helpful or not, you have to be willing to defend your position with reasons and evidence, which you have not provided.

If we are to have a dialogue, you have to be willing to come off your high horse and concede that you might not be holding the most defensible position, and you, as well as anyone participating in this thread, have to be willing to change their mind if they are demonstrated to be in error.

I am absolutely willing to provide reasons in defense of my positions. Are you?

I am willing to change my mind should you demonstrate that your OP list are, in fact, all virtues. Are you?

I will do my best not to base my arguments (remember: logical arguments with premises and conclusions, not angry disagreements) on logical fallacies and will do my best to provide evidence and demonstrations when I can. Will you?

I have gotten this feeling from you in your other posts as well, and that is why I have not replied to them. Should I see this in future posts I will not respond to them either.

I'm sorry that you feeling that my requests for you to defend your position in an effort to convince me to change my mind is unreasonable.

Have you defended your position that they are all humbling virtues to observe?



No.

By pure definition they are a virtue, why then need I defend them?

Once again, this is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Simply defining something as a virtue does not make it a virtue for everyone. Different cultures have different virtues. For example, some cultures don't accept that sexual abstinence is a virtue, and it was culturally acceptable for anyone to have consenting sex with anyone else at any age. Some cultures don't accept modesty (in reference to nakedness) as a virtue, and little to no clothing is worn, an nobody is bothered by it.

If you want us to accept your list as virtues then you need to convinces us that they are virtues.

Feel free to do so.

Convince me.

I specifically asked you to defend abstinence as a virtue. Do so. Explain to me why abstinence is virtuous, in lieu of moderation? Why should one totally deny oneself something if partaking or indulging in that thing in moderation is not harmful, and has even been shown to be a good thing?

Thus I refute thee, for verily there has never been a more accurate meme.

I also love that you're embracing the concept of logical arguments, even if it's in a meme... It at least shows me that your equivocation is deliberate and that you're being intentionally obtuse.

Yes religion is a culture, a system, that bore deep inside of me and brought good with its bad. Now yes, I have purged myself of what was bad, but I also seek to regain what was good.

Find the good that is good in spite of what religions says.

Abstinence and the concept of sin are not those things.

I look forward your explanation for why they are, but I suspect you will think I'm being mean and ignore me again.

Prove me wrong. I welcome it.