Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

There Is No Reason for Belief in Anything

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 11:24:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The skeptic sees in religion a history with which he, or she, cannot identify, a heritage of superstition and violence.

It is the skeptic's incapacity to relate to religion which makes of religion a repugnancy. It is not as though the skeptic felt the scriptures were calling one to misguided beliefs or acts of violence but merely feels it provides validation for superstitions and violence.

The teachings in the Bible which contradict the reasonable mind of the skeptic are foreign, in nature; by their mere improbabilities, they alienate themselves from the rational mind. The history of violence is also unrelatable to the skeptic.

However, the believer finds validation. He, or she, sees the world through the eyes of intuition. The believer who is brought to witness the atrocities of the Old Testament is reminded of the atrocities within one's heart. The believer finds faith in one's religion not because the religion is foreign, or alien, to the believer but, rather because, within the pages of its sacred scriptures the believer finds oneself. Religion has never been a matter of obligation to something external to the heart and soul of the individual. If the believer does not first find faith in oneself, the believer will not find it in any other. Whether the believer is legalistic or gracious is not due to religious constraints but to the volition of one's heart. The believer does not find reasons to believe; no amount of good judgment could ever compel one to find faith in anything. Rather, that which one believes is a matter of correspondence; there is an undeniable identification between the believer's beliefs and the objects of one's beliefs; there is no cause and effect; beliefs are based on intuitions.
Begin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 11:55:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 11:24:00 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic sees in religion a history with which he, or she, cannot identify, a heritage of superstition and violence.

It is the skeptic's incapacity to relate to religion which makes of religion a repugnancy. It is not as though the skeptic felt the scriptures were calling one to misguided beliefs or acts of violence but merely feels it provides validation for superstitions and violence.

The teachings in the Bible which contradict the reasonable mind of the skeptic are foreign, in nature; by their mere improbabilities, they alienate themselves from the rational mind. The history of violence is also unrelatable to the skeptic.

Are we wanting to talk about, "the skeptic" or what the skeptical thinker is thinking about their skeptical idea's (their opinions) about some random religion, like atheism? By nature, a true skeptic, must be skeptical about their own opinion, and therefore, their opinions goes where the wind blows. Nothing to hold on to. What do you think?

However, the believer finds validation. He, or she, sees the world through the eyes of intuition. The believer who is brought to witness the atrocities of the Old Testament is reminded of the atrocities within one's heart. The believer finds faith in one's religion not because the religion is foreign, or alien, to the believer but, rather because, within the pages of its sacred scriptures the believer finds oneself. Religion has never been a matter of obligation to something external to the heart and soul of the individual. If the believer does not first find faith in oneself, the believer will not find it in any other. Whether the believer is legalistic or gracious is not due to religious constraints but to the volition of one's heart. The believer does not find reasons to believe; no amount of good judgment could ever compel one to find faith in anything. Rather, that which one believes is a matter of correspondence; there is an undeniable identification between the believer's beliefs and the objects of one's beliefs; there is no cause and effect; beliefs are based on intuitions.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 1:04:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Are we wanting to talk about, "the skeptic" or what the skeptical thinker is thinking about their skeptical idea's (their opinions) about some random religion, like atheism? By nature, a true skeptic, must be skeptical about their own opinion, and therefore, their opinions goes where the wind blows. Nothing to hold on to. What do you think?

The skeptic is guided by reason, or logic. He, or she, is looking for order in chaos. In religion, one sees random events in which the believer sees meaningful connections. The skeptic is not able to make sense of this puzzle; for, he, or she, is looking for reason in which no reason exists.

Religion is not about reason but faith; it's not about cause and effect but correlations; it is not about facts but assumptions. The moment a person attempts to turn a sacred texts into a history book or book of science is the very moment it ceases to have meaning. The meaning or significance of any holy book is not being able to make sense out of it but being able to identify with it.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 1:11:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 11:24:00 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic sees in religion a history with which he, or she, cannot identify, a heritage of superstition and violence.

It is the skeptic's incapacity to relate to religion which makes of religion a repugnancy. It is not as though the skeptic felt the scriptures were calling one to misguided beliefs or acts of violence but merely feels it provides validation for superstitions and violence.

The teachings in the Bible which contradict the reasonable mind of the skeptic are foreign, in nature; by their mere improbabilities, they alienate themselves from the rational mind. The history of violence is also unrelatable to the skeptic.

However, the believer finds validation. He, or she, sees the world through the eyes of intuition. The believer who is brought to witness the atrocities of the Old Testament is reminded of the atrocities within one's heart. The believer finds faith in one's religion not because the religion is foreign, or alien, to the believer but, rather because, within the pages of its sacred scriptures the believer finds oneself. Religion has never been a matter of obligation to something external to the heart and soul of the individual. If the believer does not first find faith in oneself, the believer will not find it in any other. Whether the believer is legalistic or gracious is not due to religious constraints but to the volition of one's heart. The believer does not find reasons to believe; no amount of good judgment could ever compel one to find faith in anything. Rather, that which one believes is a matter of correspondence; there is an undeniable identification between the believer's beliefs and the objects of one's beliefs; there is no cause and effect; beliefs are based on intuitions.

So originally there was one and the rest are parodies.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 1:57:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
So originally there was one and the rest are parodies.

With religion, there are no parodies only originality. With each religion, the adherents believe because they can't do otherwise. The religion identifies not with their heads but with their souls, the essence of their being.
Begin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 4:08:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 1:04:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Are we wanting to talk about, "the skeptic" or what the skeptical thinker is thinking about their skeptical idea's (their opinions) about some random religion, like atheism? By nature, a true skeptic, must be skeptical about their own opinion, and therefore, their opinions goes where the wind blows. Nothing to hold on to. What do you think?

The skeptic is guided by reason, or logic. He, or she, is looking for order in chaos. In religion, one sees random events in which the believer sees meaningful connections. The skeptic is not able to make sense of this puzzle; for, he, or she, is looking for reason in which no reason exists.

How do you base this reason, or, who defines reason, or what is this reason that the sceptic is guided by? Came by or from what?

Religion is not about reason but faith; it's not about cause and effect but correlations; it is not about facts but assumptions. The moment a person attempts to turn a sacred texts into a history book or book of science is the very moment it ceases to have meaning. The meaning or significance of any holy book is not being able to make sense out of it but being able to identify with it.

I can identify with the Bible! "Come now let us REASON together, saith the Lord!"
Now we have your assumptions with no proof. Stand and deliver!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:37:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
How do you base this reason, or, who defines reason, or what is this reason that the sceptic is guided by? Came by or from what?

Reason speaks of causation; it orders things using logical sequences. It makes the subjunctive pronouncement: "If this then that." It bases its assumptions on higher degrees of probability than mere intuitions. However predictable, however reproducible, ultimately, it is based on assumptions. The rationalist finds security in predictability; things which are very unlikely are ordered by chance and uncertainty. For the rationalist, this is not cosmos but chaos. The rationalist seeks an ordered universe.

The intuitive one believes all things are possible. Radom events which correlate to each other are seen as magically or supernaturally causally linked. The most unlikely causation of a phenomenon is taken on faith to be the only one. These are unpredictable events; they are deviations from that which is natural. The religious mind defines these events as miracles. The scientific mind defines these events as anomalies or delusions.