| NolSinkler said: By the way, there are lots of logical fallacies in this thread. If we think that logic is important, then we ought to check our arguments for logical consistency. For example, it was said above "All religions are fundamentally wrong, but so is atheism, though not as wrong. You don't have to choose a religion, it is much better for you to ignore them all and carry on as an agnostic/atheist." This is an opinion which is presented as a fact. If discovering truth is important to us, then we ought not present fallacies or opinions as facts to others who do not know the truth. We may mislead them. If we value the truth, when we mislead another we have stood against something that we value. It was also said, "You cannot have a "correct" belief. Believing is all about trust, not facts. One belief can turn out to be true though, but that's when you stop believing." No. Actually, belief can be either true or false, just as any statement can be. That "I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and eternal Son of God the Father" is true. But is Jesus Christ Lord, Savior and eternal Son of God the Father? This is what I assert. There is definitely a right answer to this question, and so one's resulting belief about Jesus is either true or false. I believe one does well when one examines such questions. Another silly quote from above is as follows: "None is right. They are all wrong and the work of charlatons eager to get a piece of the fools pie. God doesnt exist, heaven and hell dont exist. You are a group of atoms that will continue to exist after your consciouness and body fades. Its the cold hard thruth. This whole religion thing doesnt help anyone in the big scheme of things and its only an excuse to kill and commit suicide. We would be better off without it." This is again a lot of assumptions presented as fact. This is what the religious zealot does; present assumptions as fact. Sadly, this means you will not even allow me to question your assumptions, because you hold them as immutable as the tree outside your window. But question them I will! God does not exist? Prove this. Heaven and Hell do not exist? Show me your argument. I am a group of atoms that will continue to exist after my consciousness and body fades? Why, then, do I separate THIS group of atoms from THE OTHER group of atoms? What a silly division! And yet, we all divide the world as such, as "me", "you", and "the other". And then you say we would be better off without it. Please, define "better off". You have subscribed to no religious beliefs. You cannot tell us what it means to be "better off". |
Well, while I did write my previous post under quite a lot of alcohol influence (and hence, my unusual rudeness), I do not stand corrected. I will not accept your assertion that my bolded claim is merely an opinion (though it should be clear that I speak only about the first sentence. The second sentence is obviously an opinion since it is certainly a suggestion) I may concede that it may not be comprehensively right, but nevertheless the statement I put above does hold more value than other simple opinions about religion (not trying to belittle anybody's opinion here; I mean stereotypical opinions about religion). What I said is as much a fact as Newton's Laws (which, as you may point out, are not quite as correct as Einstein's General Relativity, but still it does hold more ground than any wacko assertion about physics).
Some "opinions" are worth much more than others in the sense that honesty and science are valued. This is the truth, even if it does make most people mad.
So in conclusion, my bolded assertion above is indeed worth more than most other opinions. It may not be the ultimate truth (and in fact, there's a non-trivial chance it isn't, considering that there may be no god, and thus atheism would be accidentally right, though unsupported in its claim at this point in time), but it's still way closer to truth than saying "Nobody can possibly know the answer in any way" or "It hasn't been proven that God doesn't exist. So theoretically all kinds of religions could be right and nobody should dispute this since logically they can't."
Actually this is quite an interesting topic to debate about, namely the worthiness of opinions in morality. Nevertheless this is not the topic to do it. I will post a new topic on this sometime today or tomorrow and if you're unconvinced by what I said here (it is honestly quite rational to be unconvinced, given the apparent consensus among intellectuals that all opinions/cultures should be respected and left alone without "western" intrusion) then you can follow that topic or argue. Or you can start the topic if you have more time today. If you reply to this post, I'll answer but I'll attempt to keep it shorter so as to not derail the topic.
