Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Post Reply New Topic

Wait...how come cube doesn’t get snipped? That’s not fair!

I'm ever optimistic, still hoping that people will learn to trim back/reduce their own quotes.

Yet, didn't you say every piece of logic is a form of circular reasoning. If that's the case then how can you even call what I say by that fallacy if every piece of logical reasoning is circular reasoning. So, does that mean all logic is a fallacy? You're not even making any sense.



In your analogy in the institution if I prefer delusion to truth because I have certain reasonable doubts (those doubts could be unfounded) I won't be punished to an ever lasting torment by burning in the fires of hell. With Christianity and God or really your interpretation of Christianity and God I will burn. BIG DIFFERENCE AMIGO!! !



No, I don't.



Even you said that I have to go by faith. But one can have faith in many things. If faith is the starting point of it all then which faith am I to have? In Christianity and Jesus? In Islam and Allah? What if I had faith in Jesus Christ, accepted him on faith as you and other Christians define yet it turns out I'm wrong and Islam and Allah were the one true path?

Look at Pascal's wager. I can apply that same logic to Allah and Islam.

If I can't use reason and logic to determine what is truth and delusion because my mind is skewed and facts are unreliable and I must use faith from where do I accept that faith exactly? Which one is correct?

What's being demanded is unreasonable, unfair, and intolerable.



BS! You've all set up a belief system, way of life, truth, etc that is illogical, circular, intolerable, unreasonable, unfair and demanding. And, you all cherry pick what you believe and don't and when you all get trapped by your own inconsistencies you change the goal posts. The only difference between you and other Modern day Christians is that you use sophisticated words while a lot of them don't and you came up with your own pseudo religion that even a number of Christians don't believe in. You're trying to intermesh objectivism with the Bible with the whole idea of the virtue of selfishness which if you read it is absolutely wrong. Even when you go on objectivist websites they reject the bible because of how altruistic it is.

The very idea of Jesus Christ dying on the cross is an altruistic act. Supposedly he died to take on all of our sins. If that's not altruism I don't know what the f**k is. How you are able to take two opposing ideologies and mesh them together is beyond me.

Dude, you've basically admitted that you would lie for personal benefit. So you can do all sorts of mental gymnastics and backpedal but it doesn't take away the fact that you are not trustworthy at all.

And...

The people who wrote the Bible were bronze age to iron age people. They had thoughts that were different then modern men. Example: If I had a flashlight and showed them it those people would probably think I'm all powerful. It's the same with God. Could I accept the idea that there was a very powerful creator who created the heavens and Earth. Would I think he was very powerful? Of course! But, all powerful, infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, etc. Hell No because to accept that idea would be to accept the idea that God defines logic and so he can create a square circle.



I've made the effort! I asked questions. I've tried to reconcile certain things. I've even tried to ignore certain things that were glaring in my face. There are certain things I can't avoid that cause me to have a certain amount of reasonable doubt.

It doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. It doesn't mean that there isn't a creator. Even, I accept that there is a creator. I just don't accept the Christian version and your version of it. Even the Bible said and I quote



Look at this right here. Why would God say something like this? One can't be competent and equipped for every good work if certain aspects of the scripture and the nature of God makes no sense. If the Christian God actually does exist maybe he realized in his wisdom that man would f**k up the scripture sort of like how in a game of telephone the original message will get distorted from what was originally said. So, why couldn't that be the scripture as well?

If you have a person or a group of people asking logical questions and more people are asking these questions and even more questions over time because it makes less and less sense doesn't it say something about the scripture. Shouldn't the scripture be re-looked over at least and re-proofed with all of these questions in mind.

By the way, everyone you all should look at Darkmatter2525 youtube videos. He is even more thorough then I am and entertaining as well




Again, which truth?




So, we use the Bible to verify the Bible. Circular reasoning at its finest.



Apples and Oranges!

And, what if I check it out and I see nothing. I constantly check it out when the other person says so and I see nothing. Would it make sense to continue to check if I constantly see nothing?




Again, that person won't burn in hell because he won't check outside the window but if with the Bible and God and your interpretation of it they will. Apples and Oranges.



That's true! So, why am I still talking to you? And, if you say I've shut my mind off from reasoning then why continue to respond to me at all?





Some say that the end times already took place with nero and nero was the beast.

Go figure!

Last edited by Cornflake on 31 May 2021, 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.: Removed a personal attack

You’re beginning with the assumption that none of it can possibly be true and refuse to consider how it even COULD be. That isn’t logical at all. I’m sorry, but I can’t help a mind that does not wish to understand anything. Best wishes.

Best Wishes..

Let's change this and use your mental institution scenario. Let's say another doctor gives me a different type of pill. Instead of seeing all of these imaginary people I see everyone else as pink elephants and the doctor claims who looks like a pink elephant as well claims this as the truth. Everyone truthfully looks like pink elephants.

Which is correct exactly?

1. The one in which I'm seeing and interacting with all of these people who are there.

2. The one where none of those people are there.

3. Everyone looks like pink elephants.

Number 1 is what I've been seeing for a lot of my life. The doctor for 2 says he's correct and I'm to take him on faith. The doctor for number 3 says that he is correct and I'm to take him on faith. Same thing with Christianity and Islam. Christians say to take them on faith. Muslims say to take them on faith. Who is correct exactly? Which faith exactly?

Let's quote you exactly and change a word or two. "You’re beginning with the assumption that none of the tenets of Islam can possibly be true and refuse to consider how the tenets of Islam even COULD be. That isn’t logical at all. I’m sorry, but I can’t help a mind that does not wish to understand anything. Best wishes." All one has to do is replace the word Christianity and the holy Bible with Islam and the Koran. Which faith am I supposed to have exactly?

How about we stick to my original intent and not bring poor assumptions into this? I’m not discussing pink elephants or Islam.

Christian faith as described in the gospels is the only way to go. I’m not going to accept any premise to the contrary.

The point is that other people have faith in their religions. Muslims have faith in their truth and Allah which they consider the same Biblical God! They see Jesus as more as a prophet. That's their version of the truth and they believe the "truth" is the only way and all others are false doctrines. So, Islam and Pink Elephants were an analogy of my own.

Christians have faith. Muslims have faith. Jews have faith. Hindus have faith. The ancient Greeks had faith. All the people of the ancient world and the modern world today have faith. They have faith their way is correct and the others are wrong.

So, with this being said, how is faith a reliable guide to determining truth and sussing out what is what?

So, which is the one truth faith? How would I truthfully know? Well, by having faith! See the problem everyone with this sort of circular reasoning?

^^^

---

Yes, Indeed, 'The Pink Elephant'

Dilemma; 'The Story' Said It is

True; All Hail And Praise for

The Story, Holding IT to

'The Heavens' Raised;

All Worship

InDeed;

All Faith

Inherent As

Story

Hehe;

Why i Rather

'Naked Dance'

Without All Those

'Clothes of Organized Deceit';

Yes To Be Clear, 'Naked' Here Is

A Metaphor For Shedding Ignorance

of Stories Held As 'Gospel Truth' Before...

Some Folks

Will

Unplug;

Others Will Not;

For As Long As This

Peace, Overall Lasts,

WHeRE i LiVE iN Abundance

A 'Donna Summer Last Dance' To 'Survive i Will', 'Just Do IT'...

True, It's Hard to Even Talk Without Incorporating 'Other Stories';

In Fact,

It's Impossible

That's Why i Dance;

Nature Breathes Naked
Free This Way For Real,

Unless One Goes to Dance School; Hell No FoR Me;

Bare Feet Essence Faith Free Dance Truth iN LiGHT FoR Me

---

The faith of the gospels is the only true faith. I’m not concerned about any other so-called “religion.”

You’re missing the point on circular reasoning. Human cognition and, consequently, human reasoning are inherently flawed to begin with. You cannot draw any conclusions without making assumptions about things you’d be expected to prove. In fact, why is it even so important that you have to prove anything, anyway? It’s an epistemic question. Did someone tell you something must be proven (appeal to authority), or did you discover this on your own by already assuming something must be proven (circular reasoning)?

If knowledge is revealed to you by an omniscient being, then you already know your assumptions are correct to begin with. You don’t have to worry about circularity because you aren’t limited by the assumption that knowledge can only come from the human mind and experience. Those are unreliable without requiring more assumptions than necessary (faith only requires one in this case). Then you know all sorts of things, such as whether you’re worshiping the right God. That’s fairly easy—there’s only one. If you know your religion got it right, why bother worrying about some other religion? For you to say what you just said, you have to make yet another assumption that Christianity is wrong.

For this to convince me that Christianity gets it wrong, you have to incontrovertibly PROVE your case that Christianity is wrong. Still waiting on that, btw.

Acceptability versus unacceptability regarding circular reasoning:

In order to draw logical conclusions, a degree of question-begging is demanded. I’ve seen more atheists defeat pro-Christian arguments because of a refusal to even entertain the possibility that God might exist. They do this by falling back on the realist argument that ONLY things you can perceive with the classical senses exist. Realists don’t assume that supernatural things exist. Scientific empiricism is not in the business of exploring the supernatural world, only the natural one. So that particular argument ASSUMES that everything that is argued must first be proven. In this view, anything that is said ABOUT God assumes the existence of God which they believe is something itself that must be proven. The faulty premise that they work from is that no theological point can be argued because ONLY CHRISTIANS can possibly have the burden of proof, never atheists. The justification is that supernatural beings cannot be naturally proven, cannot exist. No one can be called upon to prove the NON-existence since it is not possible prove the existence nor non-existence of anything that does not exist.

And this is fallacious thinking. If I make the claim that no oranges exist inside an upturned bowl, I can turn the bowl over to show “no oranges.” The mathematical impossibility of square circles can also be proven. There are mathematical proofs of negatives. It’s easy for Christians to fall into “burden of proof” traps because the empiricist premise doesn’t even allow for language that describes a justification for Christian faith. In order to even have this conversation, Christians have to accept lazy assertions and BoP shifts and build their case from there. They miss that the premises are wrong from the start because they assume things THEY should prove but hold Christians to an unreasonable standard. Once the paradigm is reversed, however, it’s easy to have a meaningful discussion about faith.

If one side can accept assumptions, so can the other. There’s a different word for that: presupposition. Islam presupposes Mohammed (or his ideas), Vaidika dharma presupposes the Vedas, and U/U presupposes pretty much everything EXCEPT Christianity, etc. How do you know your presuppositions are the right ones? You can’t prove them. You can’t prove ANY of them, not even the atheist position. ALL presuppositions are based on faith. So despite not being able to prove Christianity to anyone with different presuppositions, it’s ok because I’m under no obligation to. The only thing you can do is look for clues that you’re on the right track. Despite having studied empiricism and other religions, I cannot shake the faith I’ve had since I was a small child, and too many things happened to me since that affirmed what I already knew. Now...of course you can accuse me of confirmation bias or say that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, but then you also have the burden to bear not of proof, but of the fact that you are still subject to that and other biases plus your own personal experience. Who says anecdotal evidence is not evidence? Does that mean no experience you ever have is real? How do empiricists confirm anything outside the use of their own senses? Does peer review not involve the senses when reading about a study and recreating experiments? How do they know if they’ve confirmed someone else’s findings or not? Christian presuppositions also explain my experience because Christians cannot lose their salvation—no matter what Catholics say. If I cannot lose my salvation, neither can I lose my faith. And that’s just another clue to knowing I’m on the right track. You cannot get the same assurances anywhere else.

So the first thing I think you need to understand is that in order to make logical cases for ANYTHING, you are stuck with presuppositions and you don’t bother trying to prove them. Science presupposes a material world, the scientific method presupposes empirical thinking (accepting human observation as reliable. It’s fundamentally wrong, yes, but are there better options? Where does true knowledge come from in the first place?). Christianity presupposes the gospels, among other things, but the gospels are built on other foundations that we presuppose by extension. BASED ON ANY PRESUPPOSITION, you have conclusions drawn from logic specifically concerning those things. The scientific method itself is NOT logical without making certain other external assumptions; all logical conclusions based on the method ARE scientific. And that also means non-scientific ideas must be re-examined in light of those foundational assumptions. That level of assumption is acceptable. Piling on more assumptions does not magically make something wrong, either, but it does mean that the conclusions drawn are generally at a higher risk for being wrong or unreliable. Your typical pattern of argumentation does show a tendency for piling on so many assumptions as to render the point unrecognizable from the original. Misrepresenting a point in such a way builds a straw man. And that’s only one fallacy that can result from this pattern of reasoning. Presups, otoh, minimize how many assumptions are required for an argument. Arguments are never lost when this approach is used.

In order to understand Christianity, you have to accept Christian presuppositions. If all you do is pick it apart for the sport of picking it apart, then you are guided more by an irrational refusal to understand anything. To honestly discuss it, you have to show a willingness to discuss it honestly. I’m not a Muslim, therefore I don’t care to discuss Islam. I’m not under any obligation to consider its validity. I’d rather discuss, say, what Job’s wife meant by “Curse God and die,” or why “do not boil a baby goat in its mother’s milk” is even relevant to present day Christians. There’s no question about whether those sayings are correct in context, but meaning and relevancy are not always quite so clear. I think amicably discussing WHY you choose to believe as you do is also meaningful. My dreams, a car crash, and college years chaos/insanity have all worked to solidify my faith in my younger days, and I know I can always rely on the Holy Spirit moving forward. I don’t waste time on mockery and insults, and I don’t depend on foul language and over-the-top emotion to get my point across.

If I regret anything, it’s not getting to this point sooner in life! It could have saved me a lot of time and energy in discussions that ultimately weren’t worth having.

---

What Ever Works For You Works For You

What Ever Works For me Works For me

This Is Reality

This Is

What

People/Nature With

Any Zest For Living Do/Does...

Whatever Works, The Essence

Now What i Feel And Sense is

All That Exists Now Whatever It Takes Keep

Up the Gusto

And in

My Case

Now Just

Satisfied

Complete

All Whole

Being More

Than Feather
SaMe Wind Now

If Ya Wanna Call

This Holy Creative
Spirit Free That's Up to You too...

---

...

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 04 Jun 2021, 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

I never said that Christianity is wrong but your version and idea of it is wrong. Let's start off.

Let's presume it is correct as in the way you view God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent. God in your vision can do anything he wants with no limits and boundaries and he knows and has access to an infinite amount of knowledge with no borders or boundaries. This is what I'm assuming how you and most Christians view the properties of God.

Now, proof by contradiction says if we have A and it leads to (B and NOT B) which is considered a contradiction then it must be NOT A.

Remember what you said before where you said that nothing can be and not be in the same instance. This is what is called a contradiction. In other words, one can't have a square circle. An entity can't have mutually exclusive properties.

Now, if God is omnipotent then he should have the ability to create objects that can be and not be in the same instance. And, God should be able to have the knowledge in all of his infinite wisdom to create objects and have knowledge of using the power to create objects that can be and not be in the same instance.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent then things with contradictions must be able to exist and can be made by the supreme being. But, since contradictions are not possible as you even claim then therefore God can't be omnipotent and omniscient as God is not as powerful as claimed.

Or else you hold two simultaneously thoughts at the same time.

1. Contradictions can't exist and God is limited.

2. God can can do anything and has infinite knowledge including how to create contradictory things.

Here is your first proof right here.

Second, in the Sodom and Gomorrah story it says that God smited both the young and old. But, God is supposed to be an omni-benevolent and all good God. So, here is my question. If God is all good and omni-benevolent then what did the babies and toddlers and Sodom and Gomorrah do exactly? What was their sin exactly?

I don’t believe God is omnibenevolent. Some Christians say that, but I don’t. That means God can’t hate anything. God hates evil. So the idea of God being omnibenevolent is false.

I’m also not going to defend God’s actions. I used to indulge in these kinds of discussions until I figured out that I had to accept the premise that God was doing something wrong. That’s not what I believe at all. Go back to Genesis 1. God created the heavens and earth. Everything exists for His pleasure alone. If He wants to burn the damned place down along with everyone in it, He’s free to do that for any reason or no reason at all. Still waiting on your PROOF.