The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel What's less wise, assuming that most unbelievers have not done their homework, or assuming most believers care nothing for your soul?

Assuming is unwise. For a "truth" value of a statement (say "most unbelivers have not done their homework. True/False?"), besides "true", "false" there's also "i don't know". Assuming is situation when you replace "I don't know" with the answer you think is correct without having some kind of hard evidence to support your opinion and hope that your assumption turns out to be correct. When used in argument, this is gambling. As a result, when you assume and use statement in argument, you should be prepared for a situation when your assumption turns out to be incorrect.

Of course, if your original intent was to test whether your assumption is correct or not, then it is another story.

The above text applies to situation when you want to discover "truth" by using logic. Besides "truth" there's "opinion"(or "belief"). "Opinion" is something that you believe in, which may or may not be "true". You can have any opinion you want (it doesn't need a proof), but if you claim that your opinion about subject represents the truth, then you should be able to prove it from ground up (which is extremely boring and lengthy process). If you can't prove it from ground up, then it will be unknown whether your opinion/belief represents the truth or not.

The problem with majority of religious discussions I've seen so far is that people have an opinion (faith), but for some unknown reason have a need to prove to the world that their opinion(faith/religion) represents the truth. I mean if your faith makes you enjoy life more, does it really matter whether your faith represents the "truth" or not?

Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post I forgot. This is about arguing. For the technical definition of "arguing", of course.

You don't have to analyze every little thing. Intuition is as credible as analysis oftentimes.

Assuming is unwise.

Always? Be careful how you answer.

Could you guys please be more concise? It's easier to put down your own thoughts than for someone else to interpret them.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Is there a difference, besides one being more structured and civil?

Not more structured and civil. Just more structured.

Not more structured and civil. Just more structured.

Well said.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Always? Be careful how you answer.

As I already said:

Of course, if your original intent was to test whether your assumption is correct or not, then it is another story.

Here's the "truth table" for logical operations on "unknown truth" values.

You can think about it and decide for yourself whether it is wise to use assumptions or not.
Let's say you have 3 different base statements: "all A are B", "all B are C" and "all C are D" (A, B, C, D can represent anything - object categories, qualities, etc). Based those premises you'll obviously come to conclusion that "all A are D". However, the conclusion will be correct only if all base statements represent the truth in 100% of situations. If one of those base statements is an assumption that have 50% chance to represent the truth, then your conclusion also will have only 50% chance to represent the truth. If two base statements are assumptions with 50% chance to represent the truth, then your conclusion will have 25% chance of being correct and so on.

Anyway, long time ago Lewis Carroll wrote a book called "Symbolic Logic", and I'd advise you to read it.

"I'm sorry for the length of this letter. I didn't have time to write a short one."

Come again?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Come again?

It's a famous saying, though I forget who said it. The gist is that it can actually take longer to write a concise piece that to go on at length. Brevity requires more editing and thinking of what exactly you want to say.

You can think about it and decide for yourself whether it is wise to use assumptions or not.

Too cryptic. Are you trying to understand me or wear me out?

I'll give you something very easy. Is it safe to assume when you stand where you are now the ground will support you?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Is it safe to assume when you stand where you are now the ground will support you?

That's a strawman. To prove that your belief represents a truth, you need to support it with solid evidence. Assumptions are not a solid evidence. Or you could accept the idea that it is unknown whether your belief represents the truth.

Old post, but just a point I'd like to make:

Originally Posted by reed9 "[…] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts." --Richard Feynman

I think the reason reductionism tends to "subtract from the beauty" for most people is because of a difference of interests, i.e. most people aren't interesed in the nitty-gritty details of the biological processes of a plant (taking from Feynman's example) or other such things. They're far more interested in the "surface" qualities, i.e. those that are immediately visible, such as the color, shape, scent, etc.

Just a thought; my . I don't claim it's the truth…or even anywhere near it. :-\

Originally Posted by bluegospel Are you trying to understand me or wear me out?

Understand what?
You stated that you're a christian and your chosen belief is christianity - there's nothing to talk about. However, it is unknown to me whether christian systems of beliefs represents the truth - I do not have evidence that would support that.
So, do you wish to attempt to prove that christian belief represents the "truth"? Based on personal life experience I think that if a god exist, then it is not the being described in Bible, but something completely different, and it is unlikely that Christian belief is "correct". I do not know whether my conclusion is correct or not, it is just my personal opinion, and I have no need to find out whether that conclusion is "correct" or not.

Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post Is it safe to assume when you stand where you are now the ground will support you? ----- That's a strawman. To prove that your belief represents a truth, you need to support it with solid evidence. Assumptions are not a solid evidence. Or you could accept the idea that it is unknown whether your belief represents the truth.

Okay, then I won't assume you're afraid to answer the question. I'll ask, are you afraid to answer the question? There's not a right or wrong answer, my point will follow. Or don't you leave room to allow me to prove my point since now we're supposed to be arguing here.

Originally Posted by MrCode Old post, but just a point I'd like to make: I think the reason reductionism tends to "subtract from the beauty" for most people is because of a difference of interests, i.e. most people aren't interesed in the nitty-gritty details of the biological processes of a plant (taking from Feynman's example) or other such things. They're far more interested in the "surface" qualities, i.e. those that are immediately visible, such as the color, shape, scent, etc. Just a thought; my . I don't claim it's the truth…or even anywhere near it. :-\

Yes, I've never understood that. Where is the curiosity, the sense of wonder? People postulate all sorts of ghosts and gods and mystic energies and other banalities like that, and yet remain oblivious or insensitive to the utter beauty and wonder of what's right under their noses.

“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.” -Richard Dawkins