Gabriella,
Wrong – read the posts for yourself.
Wrong – read the posts for yourself.
I have read the posts and noted your assertions. Your assertions are still wrong. Read the posts for yourself.
Why do you keep avoiding? How profound it is we’ll get to, but all you need to comprehend for now is the category difference between “investigable in their nature” and “not investigable in their nature”.
It’s not difficult.
Why do you keep avoiding the point that for all practical purposes the difference is not important? It's not difficult to understand.
Wrong again – it matters a great deal for the reasons I explained. All faith claims could be put in the “guesses” box and ignored equally; investigable claims on the other hand have evidential traction and so can be evaluated differentially.
It’s not difficult.
You are still avoiding the point that for all practical purposes the difference is not necessarily important. Some non-religious beliefs that cannot be validated are adopted and privileged in society through laws, policies, ideologies and norms to facilitate the way society deems it is most beneficial to function. It is no more problematic that some religious beliefs that cannot be validated are similarly adopted if society deems it beneficial. It's not a difficult point to grasp.
You do know that you’re wrong about that. You fundamentally misunderstand that simple (not “simplistic”) models are routinely used to illustrate larger principles.
It’s not difficult.
It’s the principle that matters. Try to grasp the basic notion that we’re talking about a principle here. How often that principle matters in practical, real world terms is a different conversation.
It’s not difficult.
No it's not the principle that matters. You might try to claim that the principle is all that matters, but you would be wrong to do so. On this forum and on this thread in particular, these discussions cover a lot more than principles. We look at practical real life situations. Until you understand that, your contributions on here are pretty limited.
Wrong. Try reading what your ‘argument” actually attempts.
Dear god but your obdurate wrongness is approaching Alan Burns levels now.
No doubt asserting that makes you feel better about yourself - though your shtick does nothing for your credibility on here.
First, the 9/11 hijackers (to take just one example) were deeply pious men – they were heard shouting “Allahu Akbar” even as they committed their atrocities. It would be idle to suggest otherwise, even for you.
Thank you for asserting your opinion on the definition of "deeply pious" - other opinions are available.
Second, they’re dead. They’re not around to be asked whether they’d use their (and your, and any other) method of “faith” as the common rationale for their actions.
Third though the point you keep avoiding concerns the privileging of faith over just guessing. It’s not just terrorists – all the way down “faith” is used to justify hideous behaviours (the KKK consider themselves deeply Christian and mandated by its tenets remember) as well as perfectly benign ones. What the specific outcomes are on a case-by-case basis from privileging faith isn’t the issue though – what is the issue is that the rationale for all of them is the same. Claim “faith” as any better than guessing to justify your actions and you remove yourself from rebutting anyone else claiming the same “method” to justify his actions, no matter what they are. "But that's my faith" is the same argument regardless of what it justifies.
Groan. You surely can't be so dense as to not be aware of the numerous interviews and studies of terrorists, including Muslim terrorists, and their motivations. Not surprisingly they provide a lot more insight than your simplistic, un-evidenced assertions.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531390-700-anatomy-of-terror-what-makes-normal-people-become-extremists/ Groan. “In the real world” that’s often right because “in the real world” many countries are secular – to a large degree they explicitly do not allow the privileging of faith over just guessing in the running of their affairs. Even then it’s only to a degree though – various faiths still get special exemptions and privileges (exemptions from carrying out equal marriages for example) which in my view is still the rust that never sleeps, but they are at least kept largely in check. “In the real world” too though there are countries that do privilege faith over just guessing in the running of their affairs (ie, theocracies of various stripes) with the predictably grim outcomes we see.
Glad you are looking at the different ways religion is incorporated into society in the real world - rather than adopting a simplistic "principle" approach to complex situations. That's progress I suppose.
Oh, I see what you did there – you just changed my “pretty much all “people of faith”... think that their faith is a more reliable guide to truth than just guessing” to “people who are certain in their belief”.
Was that a mistake, or did you deliberately re-frame the words so as to misrepresent me? Of course most people who go to the trouble of observing the rights and rituals of their various faiths think that “faith” is “a more reliable guide to truths than just guessing” – otherwise why would they bother pursuing one guess instead of any other?
I have no idea why you think it's a misrepresentation but if it is, then you haven't made your point clearly enough. Try again. People bother pursuing one faith and its rituals because having tried it, they perceive that they have received some benefit from it. Are you really so dense that you don't grasp that humans act on their feelings and perceptions?
Susan was right – for as long as you continue to miss the point, evade, avoid, obfuscate, prevaricate and misrepresent you have nothing to contribute here.
Your choice now is that you stop doing these things and finally engage honestly with the argument (in which case we’ll have something talk about) or that you carry on with the same tactics (in which case we won’t).
It’s up to you really.
Susan was wrong, as she and you often are. But rest assured that as long as you have nothing to offer other than your usual empty assertions and opinions, you should fit right in on a discussion forum about ethics and religion.
Enjoyed all the other shtick by the way. Your choice whether you want to construct an actual evidenced argument or continue to entertain by bleating more of your empty assertions about engaging honestly etc etc.
