Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fallacy of Composition in Religion

MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know that if some parts of a book or something is true, this does not make the entire thing true. This is very important for religion because if proofs are shown for it it doesn't mean the entire religion is true.

However, what about if 60%-80% of the book was proven to be accurate and sound, would it be a huge leap to assume the other 20%-40% were true? Is this still a fallacy of composition??
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:16:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anything short of 100% is a fallacy of composition.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:18:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:16:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Anything short of 100% is a fallacy of composition.

The logic behind it is that things are either true, or they are false. Whether or not one line in the bible is true has nothing to do with whether the line before it, after it, or 100 pages away is true.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:22:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
then wouldn't be impossible to prove a religion is true? Is the fallacy of composition as strong as the low of non-contradiction?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 12:54:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This does not commit the fallacy of composition. For one thing, most fallacies are not always fallacies. For example, the argument: The wall is made up of red bricks, therefore the wall is red does not commit the fallacy of composition.

Not everything in the Bible is provable. However, the Bible is reliable in the things that can and has been tested, therefore it can be held as reliable in the things we can't test/prove. History and archaeology has been a consistent friend to the Bible.
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 8:14:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:22:17 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
then wouldn't be impossible to prove a religion is true? Is the fallacy of composition as strong as the low of non-contradiction?

My reply: As has been noted, scripture has unwavering acknowledgement in archaeology. There are finds directly attributable to scriptural claims featured in museums around the world. That would not be so unless there was a reality in the writings. For instance, atheists roundly pounded scripture concerning its writings on the existence of a Hittite kingdom. It wasn't until archaeologists discovered artifacts and buildings, etc. that atheists were forced to eat their mocking.

Fallacy is not necessarily fallacy in particular matters. Fallacy is the denial of what proves itself sufficiently to claim a preponderance of evidence. There is no absolute where conflicting world views are not reconciled by what's true. Atheists do not exhibit character in the acknowledgement of what's true, thereby they are not reliable reporters of what they consider to be fallacy.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:03:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 12:54:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
This does not commit the fallacy of composition. For one thing, most fallacies are not always fallacies. For example, the argument: The wall is made up of red bricks, therefore the wall is red does not commit the fallacy of composition.

Not everything in the Bible is provable. However, the Bible is reliable in the things that can and has been tested, therefore it can be held as reliable in the things we can't test/prove. History and archaeology has been a consistent friend to the Bible.

Yes, it still commits the fallacy of composition. I have a wall made up of red bricks. I also have a coat of green paint over the wall. Therefore, the wall is red.

Fallacies can be well hidden.

Moreover, Fallacies can still exist even if something happens to be true.

e.g.

P1 - You're an idiot
C1 - Therefore, Socrates was a man.
Ad hominem.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:06:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 8:14:12 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:22:17 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
then wouldn't be impossible to prove a religion is true? Is the fallacy of composition as strong as the low of non-contradiction?

My reply: As has been noted, scripture has unwavering acknowledgement in archaeology.

Flinders Petrie would be turning in his grave.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:10:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 12:54:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
This does not commit the fallacy of composition. For one thing, most fallacies are not always fallacies. For example, the argument: The wall is made up of red bricks, therefore the wall is red does not commit the fallacy of composition.

Not everything in the Bible is provable. However, the Bible is reliable in the things that can and has been tested, therefore it can be held as reliable in the things we can't test/prove. History and archaeology has been a consistent friend to the Bible.

That's not a good analogy. When you describe something as red, there is leniency as to how much of it is red.

When you describe something as true, it either is, or it isn't. Something that is true must be completely true.

I believe the argument he is trying to use is:

1. The bible contains true verses
2. Therefore, the Bible is true.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:26:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thing thing you have to remember about the Bible is it was written by many different men.
1. Men make mistakes(spelling errors etc.)

2. Just because one part of the Bible has false information doesn't mean we should automatically assume it is not true. The reason is because the man who wrote that part didn't write the rest.

3. The Bible is not infallible, therefore, mistakes are in the Bible

4. You need to look at the whole of the Bible, not just one verse, for the truthfulness of it.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
devout_skeptic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:42:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 8:14:12 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:22:17 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
then wouldn't be impossible to prove a religion is true? Is the fallacy of composition as strong as the low of non-contradiction?

My reply: As has been noted, scripture has unwavering acknowledgement in archaeology. There are finds directly attributable to scriptural claims featured in museums around the world. That would not be so unless there was a reality in the writings. For instance, atheists roundly pounded scripture concerning its writings on the existence of a Hittite kingdom. It wasn't until archaeologists discovered artifacts and buildings, etc. that atheists were forced to eat their mocking.



Fallacy is not necessarily fallacy in particular matters. Fallacy is the denial of what proves itself sufficiently to claim a preponderance of evidence. There is no absolute where conflicting world views are not reconciled by what's true. Atheists do not exhibit character in the acknowledgement of what's true, thereby they are not reliable reporters of what they consider to be fallacy.

Straw man fallacy and ad hominem.
Peace,
Doug
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:48:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 8:14:12 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:22:17 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
then wouldn't be impossible to prove a religion is true? Is the fallacy of composition as strong as the low of non-contradiction?

My reply: As has been noted, scripture has unwavering acknowledgement in archaeology. There are finds directly attributable to scriptural claims featured in museums around the world. That would not be so unless there was a reality in the writings. For instance, atheists roundly pounded scripture concerning its writings on the existence of a Hittite kingdom. It wasn't until archaeologists discovered artifacts and buildings, etc. that atheists were forced to eat their mocking.



Fallacy is not necessarily fallacy in particular matters. Fallacy is the denial of what proves itself sufficiently to claim a preponderance of evidence. There is no absolute where conflicting world views are not reconciled by what's true. Atheists do not exhibit character in the acknowledgement of what's true, thereby they are not reliable reporters of what they consider to be fallacy.

The only sources I could find about Atheist arguing about Hittites, were from Christian propaganda sources saying that Atheists argued about Hittites. In my entire career debating Religion, I have never once heard an argument centering around the Hittites.

I think that whenever something significant gets discovered, Theists just accuse Atheists of having once argued against it, regardless of whether or not they have actually argued against it or not.

Besides, none of that is relevant. If you don't do anything short of digging God out of a plot of dirt, you haven't proven Christianity.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:20:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What about if one has shown that 60%-70% of the religion is sound wouldn't it be sceptical to reject it? Also is the fallacy of composition as strong as the law of non-contradiction?

This is huge for many religions. They have to prove so much and explain so much. Each religion has a mountain of work ahead of itself.Most religious book covers laws, morals, teachings, science, history etc. All of these have to be addressed and be shown or heavily argued to be sound.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:36:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:20:59 AM, MattDescopa wrote:
What about if one has shown that 60%-70% of the religion is sound wouldn't it be sceptical to reject it? Also is the fallacy of composition as strong as the law of non-contradiction?

I don't think you have any idea what it means for something to be true, or false. You know what the Fallacy of Composition is, but you have absolutely no idea what the significance of it is, and it irritates me a little.

If I rattle off, in a book, a list of 500 facts, and at the very end of it, write "Fact: You should send me your ATM card and pin#", are you going to simply accept that since it's in the book along with 500 facts, it must be true?

By that irrational logic, Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, and Ares exist because of The Iliad.

This is huge for many religions. They have to prove so much and explain so much. Each religion has a mountain of work ahead of itself.Most religious book covers laws, morals, teachings, science, history etc. All of these have to be addressed and be shown or heavily argued to be sound.

No, they don't, and I have absolutely no respect for anyone who tries to make the claim that they do, and now, I've crossed over from being slightly irritated to quite annoyed.

Religion is founded on faith, THAT'S IT. They don't have to show or prove *anything* Faith is a legitimate enough foundation for a theist to practice his religion. Faith has absolutely no reason to require logic or science to justify it, and if you personally believe in God, you should believe in God because you have faith.

There is absolutely no mechanism by which we can apply logic to prove the existence of God. To assume that we can is ludicrous. If God has the ability to shape reality, then we lack the proper tools to ever be able to decide if he does or does not exist.

That's the end-all-be-all of it.

Do not lament at the seemingly immense burden that religion has, because it does NOT have that burden. Religion doesn't need to justify itself using logic and science, it never can, and it never will.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:04:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 12:54:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
This does not commit the fallacy of composition. --- For example, the argument: The wall is made up of red bricks, therefore the wall is red does not commit the fallacy of composition.
You're misunderstanding the meaning of the fallacy of composition. A correct example would be: Some of the wall is made up of red bricks, therefore the wall is red.

This is fallacious because some of the wall being made of red material does not necessarily mean that all of it is.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:13:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:36:29 AM, Kleptin wrote:

I don't think you have any idea what it means for something to be true, or false. You know what the Fallacy of Composition is, but you have absolutely no idea what the significance of it is, and it irritates me a little.

If I rattle off, in a book, a list of 500 facts, and at the very end of it, write "Fact: You should send me your ATM card and pin#", are you going to simply accept that since it's in the book along with 500 facts, it must be true?

By that irrational logic, Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, and Ares exist because of The Iliad.

No, they don't, and I have absolutely no respect for anyone who tries to make the claim that they do, and now, I've crossed over from being slightly irritated to quite annoyed.

Religion is founded on faith, THAT'S IT. They don't have to show or prove *anything* Faith is a legitimate enough foundation for a theist to practice his religion. Faith has absolutely no reason to require logic or science to justify it, and if you personally believe in God, you should believe in God because you have faith.

There is absolutely no mechanism by which we can apply logic to prove the existence of God. To assume that we can is ludicrous. If God has the ability to shape reality, then we lack the proper tools to ever be able to decide if he does or does not exist.

That's the end-all-be-all of it.

Do not lament at the seemingly immense burden that religion has, because it does NOT have that burden. Religion doesn't need to justify itself using logic and science, it never can, and it never will.

OHHHHHHHH I get it now. Thanks so much. It's true what your saying that most people today's religious beliefs are founded on faith (complete trust in the religion). However proof such as logic and science will strengthen that faith even further.

When explaining one's religion to a non-believer of that religion you can't just say you need faith, that is insufficient. HOWEVER, if you can show at least 50%-70% of the religion is sound (makes sense) has proofs etc than you can tell them to have faith in the other 50%-30%. It's a mixture of faith and proofs for trying to convert non-believers.

For people who are born believers of a religion it is a foundation of faith further strengthened by proofs and reasoning. WOW thanks a lot man even though you may hate this response.

Pure reason and proof isn't realistic, you need a good percentage of faith in the religion too. This then negates the fallacy of composition HA! THANKS MAN
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:52:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 12:54:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
This does not commit the fallacy of composition. For one thing, most fallacies are not always fallacies. For example, the argument: The wall is made up of red bricks, therefore the wall is red does not commit the fallacy of composition.

Not everything in the Bible is provable. However, the Bible is reliable in the things that can and has been tested, therefore it can be held as reliable in the things we can't test/prove. History and archaeology has been a consistent friend to the Bible.

"most fallacies are not always fallacies"

The fallacy of composition exceptions only usually work for simple things, like saying every part of a table is wood therefore the table is wood. The more complex something is though, the more likely a fallacy of composition is a reality (like the humans being invisible because the cells we are made up of are example).

The universe having a cause most certainly would fall victim to this fallacy, especially considering the fact we only know the parts within the universe.

As far as The Bible is concerned, I don't like debating it because it has no authority in my eyes and 0 accuracy regarding describing reality and how it really is (If Moses received the theory of relativity from God, I'd be a believer, but we see nothing like this in The Bible, just primitive myths).
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:13:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:13:13 AM, MattDescopa wrote:
OHHHHHHHH I get it now. Thanks so much. It's true what your saying that most people today's religious beliefs are founded on faith (complete trust in the religion). However proof such as logic and science will strengthen that faith even further.

No no no no no, there's no such thing. You either have faith, or you don't. It's like being pregnant or dead. There's no "extra pregnant" or "A little bit dead". Logic and science are the things by which we justify a materialistic, natural truth. Faith is the means by which you justify a supernatural, spiritual truth.

You don't mix and match. You don't get "extra faithful" by mixing in logic and science. All you do is pervert logic and science.

When explaining one's religion to a non-believer of that religion you can't just say you need faith, that is insufficient. HOWEVER, if you can show at least 50%-70% of the religion is sound (makes sense) has proofs etc than you can tell them to have faith in the other 50%-30%. It's a mixture of faith and proofs for trying to convert non-believers.

Good evangelists don't try to prove God with logic and science. They open people up to the possibility, they try to initiate a close, personal connection between a potential worshiper and God, and that's it. I'm not sure if you're Christian, but there's a parable about seed being sown in fertile soil. It's not the job of the person bringing the Good News to break down walls in order to convert people. They need to find people who are receptive to it in the first place.

If you have the capacity to be lured into a religion with "logic", you're an idiot. Do you see the types of response you got trying to peddle the "70%" argument? That's the type of response you get from any intelligent non-believer. You can't convert an atheist who can think logically.

Even if you convert someone with anything less than 100% faith, then there's absolutely no integrity in your conversion. I can very easily snatch him back up and turn him into an atheist. You can't do that to someone who bases their religion solely on faith. It's unshakable.

For people who are born believers of a religion it is a foundation of faith further strengthened by proofs and reasoning. WOW thanks a lot man even though you may hate this response.

There's no such thing as a legitimate proof or reasoning for any theistic religion. There are bad arguments, misplaced logic, deliberate trickery, etc. I have not yet heard one sound argument and I've been pressing theists for them for over 12 years.

Pure reason and proof isn't realistic, you need a good percentage of faith in the religion too. This then negates the fallacy of composition HA! THANKS MAN

If you are going to be theistic, pure reason and proof is NOT realistic, nor is it necessary. That's something a lot of atheists don't understand, that's something that a lot of theists know in their hearts.

If you speak to a true theist, they validate their faith in God with personal feelings. They describe a close, personal relationship to God that they simply can't describe or pass on to other people in an objective way. That's the way religion should be.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:43:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 9:42:57 AM, devout_skeptic wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:14:12 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:22:17 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
then wouldn't be impossible to prove a religion is true? Is the fallacy of composition as strong as the low of non-contradiction?

My reply: As has been noted, scripture has unwavering acknowledgement in archaeology. There are finds directly attributable to scriptural claims featured in museums around the world. That would not be so unless there was a reality in the writings. For instance, atheists roundly pounded scripture concerning its writings on the existence of a Hittite kingdom. It wasn't until archaeologists discovered artifacts and buildings, etc. that atheists were forced to eat their mocking.



Fallacy is not necessarily fallacy in particular matters. Fallacy is the denial of what proves itself sufficiently to claim a preponderance of evidence. There is no absolute where conflicting world views are not reconciled by what's true. Atheists do not exhibit character in the acknowledgement of what's true, thereby they are not reliable reporters of what they consider to be fallacy.

Straw man fallacy and ad hominem.

My reply: Facts speak for themselves labels have been used liberally in human history. Your "Strawman fallacy and ad hominem" are mantra out of the atheist playbook. You see a coherent statement you cannot successfully debate. There are duckers, there are dodgers, either way your label is already sinking in my response. My response is you can deal with me on the debate level. You don't want to, you don't think it would be a situation where you could get away with your wily ways.

My response is quite simple. Your use of the phrase to categorize me is bogus. If you think you have a presentation to take mine out of the picture lets see it. Do it in response to my writing, since it's my writing you've been inspired to go out on the limb. You made a mistake. Your thought is rejected. The ball is in your court to quote from my writing and to speak directly to what I wrote. You're in trouble attempting to put a label on me without a chicken bone to stand on.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:53:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:43:32 PM, astrocometman wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:42:57 AM, devout_skeptic wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:14:12 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:22:17 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
then wouldn't be impossible to prove a religion is true? Is the fallacy of composition as strong as the low of non-contradiction?

My reply: As has been noted, scripture has unwavering acknowledgement in archaeology. There are finds directly attributable to scriptural claims featured in museums around the world. That would not be so unless there was a reality in the writings. For instance, atheists roundly pounded scripture concerning its writings on the existence of a Hittite kingdom. It wasn't until archaeologists discovered artifacts and buildings, etc. that atheists were forced to eat their mocking.



Fallacy is not necessarily fallacy in particular matters. Fallacy is the denial of what proves itself sufficiently to claim a preponderance of evidence. There is no absolute where conflicting world views are not reconciled by what's true. Atheists do not exhibit character in the acknowledgement of what's true, thereby they are not reliable reporters of what they consider to be fallacy.

Straw man fallacy and ad hominem.

My reply: Facts speak for themselves labels have been used liberally in human history. Your "Strawman fallacy and ad hominem" are mantra out of the atheist playbook. You see a coherent statement you cannot successfully debate. There are duckers, there are dodgers, either way your label is already sinking in my response. My response is you can deal with me on the debate level. You don't want to, you don't think it would be a situation where you could get away with your wily ways.

My response is quite simple. Your use of the phrase to categorize me is bogus. If you think you have a presentation to take mine out of the picture lets see it. Do it in response to my writing, since it's my writing you've been inspired to go out on the limb. You made a mistake. Your thought is rejected. The ball is in your court to quote from my writing and to speak directly to what I wrote. You're in trouble attempting to put a label on me without a chicken bone to stand on.

I won't disrepect your thoughts by just immediately rejecting what you write with a label.

I just have one question:

Did they manage to dig God out of the Hittite ruins? Because if not, then nothing else matters.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:18:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:13:05 PM, Kleptin wrote:

No no no no no, there's no such thing. You either have faith, or you don't. It's like being pregnant or dead. There's no "extra pregnant" or "A little bit dead". Logic and science are the things by which we justify a materialistic, natural truth. Faith is the means by which you justify a supernatural, spiritual truth.

Faith means complete trust and obedience. If I have complete faith in the bible and one day someone comes to me and says this place in the bible has been discovered by archaeologists would this not further strengthen my convictons?? Yes.


Good evangelists don't try to prove God with logic and science. They open people up to the possibility, they try to initiate a close, personal connection between a potential worshiper and God, and that's it. I'm not sure if you're Christian, but there's a parable about seed being sown in fertile soil. It's not the job of the person bringing the Good News to break down walls in order to convert people. They need to find people who are receptive to it in the first place.

If you have the capacity to be lured into a religion with "logic", you're an idiot. Do you see the types of response you got trying to peddle the "70%" argument? That's the type of response you get from any intelligent non-believer. You can't convert an atheist who can think logically.

Oh you believe that religion is illogical? I completely disagree with you. You're saying a smart atheist is impossible to convert and the only ones who get converted are through emotions? I completely disagree, why would people blindly follow a religion if it doesn't make any sense?


Even if you convert someone with anything less than 100% faith, then there's absolutely no integrity in your conversion. I can very easily snatch him back up and turn him into an atheist. You can't do that to someone who bases their religion solely on faith. It's unshakable.

Well actually faith is shakable. Its a foundation of faith followed by reasoning which allows that faith to be unshakable. People who don't understand their religion can be asked difficult questions which make them doubt. Faith doesn't mean blind faith.


For people who are born believers of a religion it is a foundation of faith further strengthened by proofs and reasoning. WOW thanks a lot man even though you may hate this response.

There's no such thing as a legitimate proof or reasoning for any theistic religion. There are bad arguments, misplaced logic, deliberate trickery, etc. I have not yet heard one sound argument and I've been pressing theists for them for over 12 years.

What do you believe about God?


If you are going to be theistic, pure reason and proof is NOT realistic, nor is it necessary. That's something a lot of atheists don't understand, that's something that a lot of theists know in their hearts.

If you speak to a true theist, they validate their faith in God with personal feelings. They describe a close, personal relationship to God that they simply can't describe or pass on to other people in an objective way. That's the way religion should be.

Yeah I agree that's the major aspect of the religion without a doubt. That's extremely important to have that connection with God. However there should also be proofs supporting it so it isn't blind faith.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:29:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:18:52 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Faith means complete trust and obedience. If I have complete faith in the bible and one day someone comes to me and says this place in the bible has been discovered by archaeologists would this not further strengthen my convictons?? Yes.

If an archaeologist came at you with information against your religion, would it weaken your convictions?

Oh you believe that religion is illogical? I completely disagree with you. You're saying a smart atheist is impossible to convert and the only ones who get converted are through emotions? I completely disagree, why would people blindly follow a religion if it doesn't make any sense?

I think you put a little too much value in logic and too little value in faith, friend.

Well actually faith is shakable. Its a foundation of faith followed by reasoning which allows that faith to be unshakable. People who don't understand their religion can be asked difficult questions which make them doubt. Faith doesn't mean blind faith.

People who allow their faith to be shaken by "reasoning" are the ones who don't understand their religion. Let me ask you, if God is the mater of reality, who are we to dictate by our limited knowledge, whether or not he is real?

If you let your faith get shaken by something as silly as that, then you need to rethink your faith.

What do you believe about God?

I believe that if God exists, mankind does not have the capacity to be able to prove or disprove it, because the machinery we use to understand reality is far too imperfect to allow for us to make those assumptions about God.

I have been told by many of my theistic friends that God reveals himself to individuals in ways that cannot be described or expressed. Thus, it is insane for them to think that tangible evidence against his existence can shake the foundations of their faith when they feel that connection so strongly.

Yeah I agree that's the major aspect of the religion without a doubt. That's extremely important to have that connection with God. However there should also be proofs supporting it so it isn't blind faith.

Why? What's bad about blind faith? Did you get brainwashed by all the atheists who make the claim that blind faith is inferior to logic and proof in terms of validating a religious belief?

What kind of theist are you that you are so weak in the soul AS TO BASE THE VALIDITY OF YOUR GOD ON THE MENTAL SCALE OF MEN?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:40:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:29:45 PM, Kleptin wrote:

Why? What's bad about blind faith? Did you get brainwashed by all the atheists who make the claim that blind faith is inferior to logic and proof in terms of validating a religious belief?

What kind of theist are you that you are so weak in the soul AS TO BASE THE VALIDITY OF YOUR GOD ON THE MENTAL SCALE OF MEN?

yo are you playing around with me or something? How can one show whether one religion is false or true if everyone just says its true because I believe. Are you joking or are you serious I cant tell
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:40:48 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
yo are you playing around with me or something? How can one show whether one religion is false or true if everyone just says its true because I believe. Are you joking or are you serious I cant tell

Let me ask you something, friend. Is your connection to God something between you and God, or something between you, and someone else, and God?

And does it matter whether or not you SHOW your religion is true, or if you SHOW someone else's religion is false? If that's even a LITTLE bit important to you, then you're religious for all the wrong reasons, friend.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And here's another question:

Can logic ever really show that someone else's religion is true and yours is false? Can it ever really show that your religion is true and someone else's religion is false?

Can logic determine whether or not God truly exists, no matter what it says?

I think you should consult your Imam. You don't sound very sure of your faith.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:58:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why wouldn't I want to show whether my religion is true or not if I want to bring people to the truth and save them from hell? You think religion is just some pastime one does when they are by themselves. It should be ingrained in every aspect of society and civilization if it is true.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:59:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:46:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
And here's another question:

Can logic ever really show that someone else's religion is true and yours is false? Can it ever really show that your religion is true and someone else's religion is false?

Can logic determine whether or not God truly exists, no matter what it says?

I think you should consult your Imam. You don't sound very sure of your faith.

Yes I do think logic, reasoning, science, mathematics, and history can prove Islam. Logic can determine whether God exists, where do all those theistical arguments come from, nothing? They are all illogical? I don't think so
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 5:05:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:58:11 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Why wouldn't I want to show whether my religion is true or not if I want to bring people to the truth and save them from hell? You think religion is just some pastime one does when they are by themselves. It should be ingrained in every aspect of society and civilization if it is true.

You will spread your Religion to those who are open to faith, who have an open space for God in their hearts, and who won't outright refuse you on the grounds that Religion is illogical.

And it is a FACT that religion is illogical. The question is whether or not logic is important to an issue of the supernatural, which it is not.

Religion has no place in society or civilization. Society and civilization are there to cultivate the body so that it can free the soul. Can you think on your faith when you have your hunger and thirst to care for first?

Leave society and civilization to logic and science, because that is the realm in which those two things are useful. You can't apply logic and science to God, and you can't rely on God to feed and clothe man.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 5:06:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:59:56 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Logic can determine whether God exists, where do all those theistical arguments come from, nothing? They are all illogical? I don't think so

HAHAHA, You just blasphemed and you don't even know it!
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.