The Original Messages of Religion

[Celestine]

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.

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!"

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.

Why do you think that is?

[hide]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?

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.

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.

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.

Moderation of Krokodil is ineffective and abstinence from it would be much better. Sin gives us a name to lump all immoral deeds in one name, that is why I like it.

The point of this discussion is not whether or not the things I listed are virtues, the point is the potential of recitation/prayer/meditation (among other things that has been tied into religion over the centuries) revolved around virtues and the increase of willpower. I will never argue something that has a clear definition, as I generally do not argue definitions of a word, what is the point in that? That is being way to focused on a grain of sand on a long stretch of coastline beaches. Beating around the bush, engaging in frivolous discussion. If you wish to change the definition of a word there are people you should contact for that, not me.

According to Christianity that is why Jesus died, for the sins (our sins) of humanity, so that humanity (we) could be saved. That is what CHRISTIANS believe, not what I believe. How you concluded that since I was describing what Christians believe makes me a Christian is beyond me.