Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
how is this happening again?
look. it's kinda simple.
what is true is the result of an operation that does not violate the rules that shape operations.
only a religious person might invest in a notion of Truth that transcends particular types of demonstrations.
you, will, are making a religious argument.
|
Not at all. Nowhere did I say "absolute truth", as a matter of fact I just defined it as the most irrefutable answer. That's not absolute and can be either refined or replaced by an even more irrefutable answer. Consider the scientific "theory" expanded to everything: the best answer available, but that can allow for an even better answer if one is discovered.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
you cannot possibly argue that christianity is incapable of reason because there's the god character flitting about at the axiom level.
|
I've never argued that. Christianity is a belief system and as such is incapable of reasoning, I suppose, but I refer only to believers when framing my arguments regarding theism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
you can't even say it about protestants, though at times, i'd like to.
when you, will, talk about "reason" what you designate by it is "arguments that i like" or "what seems true to me based on the rules that i impose for demonstrations"--if it's even that formal. which it isn't.
|
Your definition of reason is quite relative. I don't impose the rules of science and logic. I recognize that they exist based on their demonstrated accuracy. They are objective and I happen to recognize them. They would exist with or without me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
that you can demonstrate to your own satisfaction that this god character doesn't exist means that for you the matter is settled. others, who i might disagree with as well btw, can come to opposite conclusions in this respect--but that doesn't make them drooling idiots and yourself Mister Reason.
if anything, the idiocy resides in the claim to be Mister Reason.
you don't need to make the appeal to argue your position.
it's just your position.
|
I never claimed to be Mr Reason. As a matter of fact I've made it clear that I
don't have all the answers and am constantly trying to improve my perceptions and remove my biases.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
it's a stronger position to argue from consequences--look at what these assumptions have lead to; it's a stronger position to argue that you simply cannot make such claims because you do not and cannot know what they refer to. there are a thousand arguments against belief in some christian god-function.
but you can't say that is it True that there is no god-character.
|
I've stated ad nauseam that I cannot prove the non-existence of god or gods. One cannot disprove that for which there is no evidence. That's the very definition of weak atheism. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem to be me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
if you do it, you're no different from the characters you oppose.
you're playing the same game.
worst of all, it's a boring game.
|
I've never seen you misunderstand me this badly before. If you have any question, please ask away and I will try to clarify.
Edit: this seems to have become a thread about what I believe. As such, I'll try to summarize my particular philosophy in my journal and stop this incredible threadjack.
//threadjack