|
|
| Will you ask a question? |
| Yes. |
|
22% |
[ 5 ] |
| No. |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Perhaps. |
|
63% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:11 am
As long as you are willing to admit you make a leap of faith, just as much as any religious person, there is no issue.
Ultimately there is no inherent superiority in any system of faith.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:17 am
zz1000zz As long as you are willing to admit you make a leap of faith, just as much as any religious person, there is no issue. Ultimately there is no inherent superiority in any system of faith. But I can make an educated guess based on what I percieve. Sure, it could be wrong, but I consider certain beliefs to be more likely than others. I make less leaps of faith than most religious people. I take only one, which is a required leap of faith if I want to have any beliefs at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:35 pm
Lethkhar zz1000zz As long as you are willing to admit you make a leap of faith, just as much as any religious person, there is no issue. Ultimately there is no inherent superiority in any system of faith. But I can make an educated guess based on what I percieve. Sure, it could be wrong, but I consider certain beliefs to be more likely than others. I make less leaps of faith than most religious people. I take only one, which is a required leap of faith if I want to have any beliefs at all. At the point you make one leap of faith, there is no basis for claiming superiority over any system of faith. To people who make a different leap of faith, you would be just as incorrect as they are to you. It is silly to apply standards from one system of faith to another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:17 am
zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz As long as you are willing to admit you make a leap of faith, just as much as any religious person, there is no issue. Ultimately there is no inherent superiority in any system of faith. But I can make an educated guess based on what I percieve. Sure, it could be wrong, but I consider certain beliefs to be more likely than others. I make less leaps of faith than most religious people. I take only one, which is a required leap of faith if I want to have any beliefs at all. At the point you make one leap of faith, there is no basis for claiming superiority over any system of faith. To people who make a different leap of faith, you would be just as incorrect as they are to you. It is silly to apply standards from one system of faith to another. How can reality be subjective if there are only two certain truths?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:53 am
Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz As long as you are willing to admit you make a leap of faith, just as much as any religious person, there is no issue. Ultimately there is no inherent superiority in any system of faith. But I can make an educated guess based on what I percieve. Sure, it could be wrong, but I consider certain beliefs to be more likely than others. I make less leaps of faith than most religious people. I take only one, which is a required leap of faith if I want to have any beliefs at all. At the point you make one leap of faith, there is no basis for claiming superiority over any system of faith. To people who make a different leap of faith, you would be just as incorrect as they are to you. It is silly to apply standards from one system of faith to another. How can reality be subjective if there are only two certain truths? I have no idea how that question is supposed to make sense, but since there are no "certain truths" I suppose that is okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:18 pm
zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz As long as you are willing to admit you make a leap of faith, just as much as any religious person, there is no issue. Ultimately there is no inherent superiority in any system of faith. But I can make an educated guess based on what I percieve. Sure, it could be wrong, but I consider certain beliefs to be more likely than others. I make less leaps of faith than most religious people. I take only one, which is a required leap of faith if I want to have any beliefs at all. At the point you make one leap of faith, there is no basis for claiming superiority over any system of faith. To people who make a different leap of faith, you would be just as incorrect as they are to you. It is silly to apply standards from one system of faith to another. How can reality be subjective if there are only two certain truths? I have no idea how that question is supposed to make sense, but since there are no "certain truths" I suppose that is okay. I know that I think and I know that I exist. These are two certain truths. From your perspective, though, I suppose they aren't. So maybe I just answered my own question... Anywho, I understand what you're trying to say. The problem is that it really is a rather silly way to make a point. I mean, you're applying it in a way that technically makes sense, but I could apply it to any debate, not just this one. So really...Eh, I'll just show you the next time we disagree on something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:12 pm
Lethkhar Anywho, I understand what you're trying to say. The problem is that it really is a rather silly way to make a point. I mean, you're applying it in a way that technically makes sense, but I could apply it to any debate, not just this one. So really...Eh, I'll just show you the next time we disagree on something. I think you are confused here. This line of reasoning normally will not apply to a debate, because both parties can simply say, "We agree to these basic assumptions so that we can have this debate." The only reason it is meaningful here is in order to get people to agree to those assumptions. Once we agree unjustifiable assumptions must be made for any position, we can then distinguish between which assumptions are made by which parties. It is as much a leap of faith to say God exists as it is to say I (or you) exist. It is true the former assumption tends to follow the latter, meaning it is a second leap of faith. This means belief in God (generally) requires more faith than say, science. However, both require faith, and neither has any inherent superiority. There is no doubt Christianity requires more faith. The issue is people who criticize faith, yet still rely on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:58 pm
zz1000zz Lethkhar Anywho, I understand what you're trying to say. The problem is that it really is a rather silly way to make a point. I mean, you're applying it in a way that technically makes sense, but I could apply it to any debate, not just this one. So really...Eh, I'll just show you the next time we disagree on something. I think you are confused here. This line of reasoning normally will not apply to a debate, because both parties can simply say, "We agree to these basic assumptions so that we can have this debate." The only reason it is meaningful here is in order to get people to agree to those assumptions. Once we agree unjustifiable assumptions must be made for any position, we can then distinguish between which assumptions are made by which parties. It is as much a leap of faith to say God exists as it is to say I (or you) exist. It is true the former assumption tends to follow the latter, meaning it is a second leap of faith. This means belief in God (generally) requires more faith than say, science. However, both require faith, and neither has any inherent superiority. There is no doubt Christianity requires more faith. The issue is people who criticize faith, yet still rely on it. Which is why I reject strong atheism. We agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
