»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 stinkz: I believe my religion rationally. BUT YOU CANNOT DEDUCT from your belief that anything else is irrational. "I believe that god came as a gay elephant 3000 years ago to Peru. Tiefling, please stop with your irrational statements." Noticing something, stinkz? Words like "irrational" are completely misplaced out of the mouth of a believer. The only exception would be if you OBJECTIVELY could PROVE that your religion has a positive effect (= makes the criminals moral, makes the insane sane, makes the dumb intelligent). You will lose stinkz. Abstain from statements like "I am rational you are illogical" and you will have a much clearer case to make. Simply accept it that your truth is SUBJECTIVELY your truth and is not necessarily someone else's truth. You CAN NOT make a logical case for your belief. For any belief. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 knn: Completely misplaced words for belief systems What you are really saying is, "the words rational and irrational can only be used by people who hold to MY secular/naturalistic belief system." I'm sorry, but you're wrong. And besides, naturalism is NOT RATIONAL. A belief that the supernatural exists is much more plausible. And, if we take out the option of blind faith in happy coincidence, it is the only logical belief. knn: Words like "irrational" are completely misplaced out of the mouth of a believer. Wow. You are so steeped in your biases that you can't even recognize them anymore. You have such complete and utter faith in your naturalism, that you just assume that it is the only rational outlook. I'm impressed by your faith. You are a true believer. knn: Simply accept it that your truth is SUBJECTIVELY your truth and is not necessarily someone else's truth. Oh, so Truth is subjective? I could have guessed you believed that. No wonder you can simply invalidate the opinions of anyone who holds a different belief than you. How can their belief possibly be right? It can't be, it's not yours! If all beliefs are totally subjective, then how can we judge Hitler, and know that his actions were wrong? According to you, we can't, and what Hitler did could have been morally right "for him." knn: You CAN NOT make a logical case for your belief. For any belief. What about the belief you just stated? Why must I BELIEVE you when you say that belief is irrational? It's as if I walked into a room full of people, and I first meet a guy named Knn. Knn tells me to trust no one in the room. Why should I trust knn? Quote: 1) You believe Christianity
2) Christianity is obiviously irrational 3) Therefore, you have no right to talk about rationality. Knn, there is your post in a nutshell. Notice the absurdity. You have not even scratched the surface of a discussion of point 2. But even if you "disproved" Christianity, point 3 does not logically follow from point 2. You see why I call you illogical? You repeatedly fail to use logic in your responses! posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||
|
stinkz: Oh, so Truth is subjective? Again you misrepresent what I say. I was not talking about absolute truths. I was talking about belief = subjective truth. stinkz: What you are really saying is, "the words rational and irrational can only be used by people who hold to MY secular/naturalistic belief system." I'm sorry, but you're wrong. OK, let me repeat again if I didn't myself clear enough. If you have a RELIGIOUS belief then you SHOULD NOT use words like "irrational" to invalidate others beliefs. That-is-my-whole-statement-full-stop I do
And I definitely do
I never ever stated that and it's a mystery for me where you have your opinion from that I am a naturalist (aside from the fact that "naturalist" is a nother word for "nude beach swimmer"). I never ever said that there is no god, and I never ever refused to accept that Jesus came back. I just say: "Stop accusing other of irrationality, while you yourself have an unprovable (or only subjectively provable) standpoint". Can you PROVE that Jesus was resurrected? No! How can you then accuse other of irrationality when they claim "Jesus simply died"? You can't. stinkz: . Knn tells me to trust no one in the room. Why should I trust knn? I never told to to not trust. I told you to not invalidate others with words like "illogical" and "doesn't make sense" when you yourself sitting in a similar boat. It would make your arguing much easier. Because in your your current state it goes like "The bible, the bible, the bible, and everything else doesn't make sense". You are hurting your own argument chain, because so many other people can see that you are wrong simply by recognizing: "Wait a second, but it DOES MAKE sense, what Fatpie is saying, whether true or not. Fatpie is NOT completely mad". posted by knn |
||||||
|
||||||
|
|||
|
knn: I was talking about belief = subjective truth. Belief is not in the same subjective category as a distaste for anchovies. You (hopefully) believe something because you think it's true. Your religious belief can be either true or untrue. But it cannot merely be "true for you." It may be helpful to you, but that doesn't make it true. knn: If you have a RELIGIOUS belief then you SHOULD NOT use words like "irrational" to invalidate others beliefs. Religious belief is not outside the realm of rational inquiry. Some may choose to put it there, and believe blindly. But those who are looking for the Truth should examine their beliefs logically. knn: I told you to not invalidate others with words like "illogical" and "doesn't make sense" when you yourself sitting in a similar boat. Here is yet another instance where you call my beliefs irrational. You know, I don't mind that you do call them that, I just wish you would add something to the argument to attempt to substantiate this claim. knn: because so many other people can see that you are wrong simply by recognizing: "Wait a second, but it DOES MAKE sense, what Fatpie is saying, whether true or not. Fatpie is NOT completely mad". I have never claimed that fatpie is completely mad. I do not doubt that his arguments make perfect sense to him. However, his point of view is either true or untrue. Therefore, a necessary part of argument is to point out logical errors. If something does not logically follow from something else, I am going to point it out, and call it irrational. End of story. Now can we please stop arguing about my method of arguing, and get back to the topic? posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: Belief is not in the same subjective category as a distaste for anchovies. You (hopefully) believe something because you think it's true. Your religious belief can be either true or untrue. But it cannot merely be "true for you." Stinkz, a belief which known to be true is a 'fact'. If you think your views are completely rational and that you know Christianity is true then you can give up using the word "belief" entirely and replace it with the word "fact". You are not about to start talking about the "facts" of Christianity for the simple reason that you already know that they are beliefs without sufficient backing to be called 'knowledge'. Anyway I am not going to get back into this discussion because I already know that Stinkz doesn't listen to anything I say. I had a good attempt to get him to understand me, but he's not interested in other points of view. Maybe that's why he doesn't think people should be educated about other religious traditions in schools. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||||
|
stinkz: Here is yet another instance where you call my beliefs irrational. I never ever called you irrational. But since you have a religious belief that can be contrary to a religious belief of others puts you in the SAME BOAT as them. You can not call them irrational. As simple as that. stinkz: Now can we please stop arguing about my method of arguing, and get back to the topic? It's not about your METHOD. It's about your wording. Simply stop to use "illogical". None of fatpie's statements are illogical. And none of your statements are illogical.
... are neither logical nor illogical statements. They are based on unprovable assumptions (= only subjectively true) thus terms like "irrational" do not apply. Please stop using such words. posted by knn |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: You are not about to start talking about the "facts" of Christianity for the simple reason that you already know that they are beliefs without sufficient backing to be called 'knowledge'. There are many Christian facts. But, there is also an area of belief. Fact: Jesus died on the cross. Belief: through this act, he has taken away the sins of the world. fatpie42: Anyway I am not going to get back into this discussion because I already know that Stinkz doesn't listen to anything I say. If you'd take a second to go back and look, you were the one who failed to reply to my last post which was directed to you. Who doesn't listen? fatpie42: I had a good attempt to get him to understand me, but he's not interested in other points of view. Lol. I'm glad you approve of your own arguments. I guess, because I argue against you, I must be uninterested in other points of view.  fatpie42: Maybe that's why he doesn't think people should be educated about other religious traditions in schools. Laughable. Not only do you not listen, but you intentionally misrepresent people. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Fact: Jesus died on the cross. For the sake of this thread let's ASSUME that Jesus LIVED. Scientifically even that is unproven. There are no proofs, only forgeries from later centuries. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: You can not call them irrational. As simple as that. I most certainly can. If I did not believe that Christianity was any more rational than the next religion, why would I believe it? knn: ... are neither logical nor illogical statements. They are based on unprovable assumptions (= only subjectively true) thus terms like "irrational" do not apply. None of the statements you mention resemble mine. When discussing the possibility that God exists, or even when discussing the possibility that God wrote the Bible, rational discussion is still possible! If someone says, "God did not write the Bible because my CD player won't work," this is an IRRATIONAL proof. A more rational argument might be "terrible events happen in the Old Testament, so with the assumption that God is Perfect, He cannot be the God of the Old Testament." Though I do not think that last argument proves its thesis, it is most definitely a more LOGICAL argument against God's writing of the Old Testament. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: If I did not believe that Christianity is any more rational than the next religion, why would I believe it? Because it feels good to. FOR YOU. Because it makes more sense. FOR YOU. Because it changes persons to the better. YOU THINK. Whatever it is. It's only a subjective truth. You simply cannot call the others irrational only because they see the world differently. You have even more right to call them "evil" or "anti-christians" or something like that. But not "illogical". stinkz: "God did not write the Bible because my CD player won't work," Then read your posts again, and tell me whether you use your words "irrational" only in such cases. I don't think so. You use them in 10% of your posts. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Because it makes more sense. FOR YOU Again you prove that you believe Truth is relative. knn: You simply cannot call the others irrational only because they see the world differently. I don't call people irrational for this reason. I call them irrational when, instead of arguing, they merely state that they have won the argument. I call them irrational when they say things tend to go from disorder to order. I call them irrational when they say truth is subjective. It is most certainly irrational to present no argument, yet claim you have won. It is most certainly illogical to believe that things naturally go from disorder to order. And, it is most certainly irrational to believe that Truth is relative. If you think that, in a particular instance, I have used the term "irrational" or "illogical" in an improper manner, please point it out. If I have indeed used it incorrectly, I will gladly change it. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Again you prove that you believe Truth is relative. No, I didn't. Subjective truth is relative. Objective truth is of course not relative. But can you name a truth that is so true and so objective that it doesn't change through time? stinkz: If you think that, in a particular instance, I have used the term "irrational" or "illogical" in an improper manner, please point it out. If I have indeed used it incorrectly, I will gladly change it. Yes for example at IMO → Is homosexuality immoral?#32211 by stating "Knn... you're irrational opinion has been stated on plenty of other threads." There is NOTHING irrational about the assumption you call "irrational" Quote: the Christian cult may be under the influence of gay priests ( up to 50% of Catholic priests are gay). In other words: The same persons that are ATTRACTED by a religion who says that they are sinners, may be the same who claim that it's a happy message while it's a message of death. It's completely rational and logical. You simply cannot call that irrational. You can DISAGREE with my hypothetical statements, of course. But never the less they make complete sense. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: But can you name a truth that is so true and so objective that it doesn't change through time? A cannot be be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. knn: It's completely rational and logical. You simply cannot call that irrational. You can DISAGREE with my hypothetical statements, of course. But never the less they make complete sense. I'm sorry, after careful examination, I should have called those claims "vague." What does it mean that Chrstianity is "under the influence of gays?" They obviously can't be affecting the message or teachings of Christianity. What exactly are gays influencing? posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: What exactly are gays influencing? Post in the other thread, please. stinkz: A cannot be be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. I don't understand how this is an answer to my question: "Can you name something so sbsolutely true that it doesn't change ever and is always true?" posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Finding things that are always true and never change is EASY Knn! Electrons have negative charge. If something has positive charge it is not an electron. Sugar is soluble in water. If sugar isn't soluble in water then it isn't sugar. In metaphysics this called 'dispositional kinds' and many metaphysicists believe these to be necessary truths. Another more obvious example of a necessary truth is "water is H2O". How could something be water if it was not H2O? I haven't even needed to say "2+2=4" yet! But then again it is not entirely obvious what that is a true statement about. Still it's an easy enough step to say "2 apples + another 2 apples = 4 apples". posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 4 December 2008, 01:35 php B.B. |