Gabriella,
Not when you equate the “benefits” of holding a belief with its truthfulness it isn’t.
I already covered this back on page 856 #21388 so your point is wrong.
That straw man has nothing to do with it because irrationalism and aggressiveness are different issues. When you say things like, “if you have a problem with it“ (about something I hadn’t said I had a problem with at all) then “tough” that seems aggressive to me. If you tell me that that’s just how you converse in real life with no aggressive intent (or at least none that you recognise as such) though, then so be it.
Actually, what I said in #21293 is "I might choose to engage with your posts if they contain explanations and treat them seriously but I still choose to not engage with Ippy seriously. If you don't like my choices, tough - that's your problem. I plan to continue in responding to Ippy in that way if he cannot be bothered to type an explanation of how the thought experiment relates to my post and you can get in the middle of that if you want but your assertions about my conversation with Ippy would still be wrong. "
If you are now saying that you are indifferent to my choice to not engage with Ippy seriously if he cannot be bothered to type out an explanation of how his point or short-hand applies to my post, I'll accept that, though it does make me wonder why you spent so many posts arguing why I should respond to Ippy in a serious manner and how I could face vitriol if I didn't and how it did not do me any favours etc. Your behaviour indicates you thought my choice of how I respond to Ippy was a situation that was unwelcome and you thought you needed to deal with it but if you deny that to be the case, ok.
No you haven’t. If you think you have, then all you need to do is to point me toward your explanation for how deciding that something is not impossible leads to it being not difficult to believe. It seems to me that, if you think something is not impossible (whether rightly or wrongly), then all that tells you is that it’s possible. Reasoning that also makes it “not difficult” to believe on the other hand would be separate to that. As I seem to have missed it, by all means though just let me know please where you drew a logical path from one to the other.
As I have already explained - I took the position of allowing the possibility of something that cannot be established as fact - a fact being something that can be established using methods related to the natural world. I then did not find it that difficult to take a leap of faith that there was a possible something that was undefined in any detail other than that it was a single thing, had no beginning and no end and was eternal and there was nothing comparable in the natural world. I don't know if it falls within your definition of reasoning to say I didn't find it that difficult to believe in one single thing compared to multiple things and compared to other possible concepts with more definition that I find more difficult to believe in because the increased definitions create more things for me to have doubts about.
I only have your word for it after the event that they were inaccurate.
Are you saying it is up to me to disprove your positive claims about me feeling aggressive or waving my fist or being evasive, otherwise they are shown to be accurate? There is a word for that fallacy - give me a minute, it may come to me.
As you seem to be able to communicate both with and without terms generally thought to be aggressive though, why sometimes would you choose to do the latter?
Saying to a poster that if you don't like something I am doing, it is your problem is not generally thought to be aggressive, it's just a description of the situation. It's similar to saying offence is taken, not given, meaning it's your issue to deal with because I can't control what you like or don't like. Saying "tough" was me standing my ground, not me waving a fist. Do you regard me standing my ground as aggressive? Lots of other posters did not detect aggression in my posts or conjure up an image of me waving my fist.
By the way, your tactic of trying to state that something is generally true (i.e. that the terms I used are "generally thought to be aggressive") or true for everyone when it is only your opinion that is true for you and a few others, is noted.
Furthermore, there are posters swearing at and openly ridiculing each other on this message board. It therefore seems an unnecessary distraction to spend many posts discussing my posting style, which does not contain swearing and ridicule, especially when you say it doesn't bother you that much. Would it not be better to just stick to the content of the post rather than nit pick at something that isn't a problem for you?
Anyways, the point rather that you keep ignoring is that “supernatural” isn’t possible/not possible apt for the reasons I explained, so even your “once I realised it wasn’t impossible” position fails a priori.
And as I explained I disagree. Posters on here seem to need a word to discuss the idea that there could be something that does not conform to the natural world, how would you phrase it?
No you didn’t. Here’s what you actually said in 21383:
“I am getting it. You're just not accepting the way words are used in relation to religion. I don't know if God exists outside the pages of a book. I am willing to believe that God exists outside the pages of a book but that doesn't make my belief true because there is no way of demonstrating truth, but truth doesn't matter as the test posed in the book (which I am adopting the position is a message from God) according to my understanding of Islam is faith in something that you have no way of knowing/ demonstrating/ establishing is true.”
Which is entirely irrelevant to the question. You weren’t asked about what you know – just about what you believe to be true. Nor were you asked what you were willing to believe either.
What you were actually asked was whether or not you believe a god exists outside of stories about him in a book. Whether you can validate that belief, whether you’re willing to have it etc are neither here nor there – you were simply asked what you believe.
If you want to say, “I’m not going to tell you”, that’s fine. You should though stop pretending that you have answered it when you’ve done no such thing.
And I answered what I believe - you just seem to have trouble with deciphering my phrasing. The phrase "willing to believe" meant the same to me as "believe" - it just indicates the leap of faith factor. I am aware that my belief may not be true, as I can't demonstrate the truth of it, but I am proceeding on the basis that it is true. That is my understanding of what a leap of faith is.
Judgmental language noted. Your post was “labelled” evasive not only because if ignored the question you were actually asked, but because it used various diversionary answers and then claimed that it had answered it.
Right back at you - judgmental language noted. Not sure what that has to do with anything as being judgmental is a common part of the posts on this forum but your note is noted and I am noting something back for you to note. I am not being evasive - I think I have answered your question
Edited to put the [/quote] in the right place
