Do you believe in God

And I think, in essence, Alma, that's the point so many people disagree with. You don't have to have intimate knowledge of anything to reject it. You just have to have intimate knowledge of it if you're trying to justify why that's the RIGHT decision.

 

I also noticed that Alma glossed over the quote which was previously posted.

Continuing to place the burden on non-believers as being illogical really is an interesting take. It doesn't make sense in any sort of logical discussion based on any rules of debate that someone can declare a belief and justify said belief based on the belief alone.

 

Mainstream Christianity?
I don't know what defines that term, but if it's what I think it is, it's so far off the tracks it doesn't even coincide with the teachings of the person for whom the movement is named.
Those "Christians" who demonize homosexuality -- challenge one of them to show you where, in the words of Jesus Christ, that homosexuality is condemned to the level where "mainstream Christianity" stands today. That'll shut them up pretty quickly, because it's not there.
I don't give a hoot about being called a "cafeteria Catholic."
How "Christian" is it for someone else to be judging me?

 

I'm not judging you in that regard, Twoback. I'm saying I'm a cafeteria Christian as well, in that I choose what to believe and what to reject.

But I think we can agree there is most definitely a concept of mainstream Christianity in existence today. If you walk into almost any Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, etc. church, it's a good bet the parishioners there will resoundingly be against homosexuality, to name just one social issue.

 

Oh, you can say it. People do all the time. It's just fraudulent.

As for your list, I'd argue it's partial, and that you may discover a religion in your process of rigorous denial that you find is based in fact.

 

Sure it makes logical sense. Look at cult members. Do you think the followers of Jim Jones drank the Kool-Aid bcause they thought they <i> shouldn't </i>? Of course not. However whacked they were, I think you'd have a hard time arguing their belief in Jim Jones was insincere.

 

Alma, either you're not explaining yourself well enough, or your logic is actually making some huge shortcuts, because that last post makes no sense.

 

I'm with Mert here, Alma.

You are one of my favorite posters here, and usually very well-written and coherent.

On this thread you're either leaving out some steps or assuming a frame of reference the rest of us aren't, because you aren't making any sense.

 

Logical does NOT equal sincere.
I can be sincere in my efforts to jump into a burning building without any protection, which could result in two deaths, while also acting illogically.

Jim Jones' cult did not act logically when they died. They didn't question how their faith was derived. They illogically accepted their faith as fact and acted sincerely in their belief.

This is why you aren't posting along logical lines. You are arguing that sincerity and logic are one in the same and they are not.

 

Live and let live has never really been a tenet of religious belief.

Sure, some Buddhist teachings have it, but it really comes down to justifying your own belief. If you allow for the existence of other beliefs, you are allowing for their justification.

 

OK, let's reduce it to a SAT question then…

1. THE BELIEVER QUESTION

Joe believes in scads. Some scads are burts. No burts are dupes. All dupes are groats. The following is true…

A. Joe doesn't believe at all in groats
B. Joe believes in some dupes, but not all.
C. No burts are groats
D. None of the above

2. THE ATHEIST QUESTION

Joe does not believe in any scads. Some scads are burts. No burts are dupes. All dupes are groats. The following is true…

A. Joe doesn't believe at all in any scads, burts, dupes or groats.
B. Joe doesn't believe in some burts.
C. Joe is more likely to believe in dupes than scads
D. None of the above