Critical thinking and education is linked to loss of faith

[Romanov2488]

That's because there is no such thing as this. So, I don't struggle, I reject it out of hand. The 2 manifestations are due to TWO things being manifested.

Your thinking is so corrupted, you assert antonyms are synonyms.

 

[Romanov2488]

A lie.

It is Eastern philosophy, long identified as God forsaken.

How do you know what light is without dark then?

 

[Wrangler]

Isn’t your belief in God appeal to authority?

Great question.

The logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority is when one relies on an authority in an unfounded manner. There are legitimate reasons to defer to authority. This is particularly in those areas where one has authority, such as special knowledge. For instance, do not defer equally to a gastro-intestinal specialist and the bag boy at the local grocery store when you have a stomach ailment. However, just because a gastro-intestinal specialist says your car needs a new battery does not mean he is an authority on THAT subject to legitimately defer.

Now this is a case study in logic. Logic is the art of the non-contradictory identification of truth. Logic has nothing to do with my first hand knowledge of God's existence. (This is why revelation is so often cited in Scripture; truth of God is not derived using a chain of logical conclusion but experience).

To pretend this 1st hand knowledge hinges on unfounded belief, is itself, another logical fallacy; Appeal to Strawman.

My beliefs merely outline the limits of blasphemy, i.e., doctrines, especially regarding the doctrines of God's nature. Sadly, you are stuck on STEP 1, in denial of God's existence. By way of comparison, no one should deny the existence of the sun in the sky. Reasonable men may disagree on the nature and effect of this central object of our lives.

 

[Wrangler]

That's because there is no such thing as this. So, I don't struggle, I reject it out of hand. The 2 manifestations are due to TWO things being manifested.

Your thinking is so corrupted, you assert antonyms are synonyms.

View attachment 29769

Source is epistemology. It's so funny that you claim superiority of critical thinking skills to stupid religionists, yet your thinking is so corrupted, you assert antonyms are synonyms AND suppose a source is needed in order for you to reject such foolishness.

 

[Romanov2488]

Source is epistemology. It's so funny that you claim superiority of critical thinking skills to stupid religionists, yet your thinking is so corrupted, you assert antonyms are synonyms AND suppose a source is needed in order for you to reject such foolishness.

I don’t claim superiority, I think both atheists and religionists are clowns.

And epistemology isn’t infallible, so why are you treating it as such? Epistemology is nothing but the theory of knowledge, right? So in other words, your source is merely a theory?

 

[Wrangler]

How do you know what light is without dark then?

Good question. A question of epistemology. We can know things despite not knowing it's antonym.

It is untrue that light requires the dark in order to exist. This is a matter of metaphysics. I think you are confusing the two.

Light and a source of light are different things. The existence of light and knowing what is light - in comparison to dark - are different things, different branches of philosophy.

 

[bbyrd009]

18“Why do you ask my name,” said the angel of the LORD, “since it is beyond comprehension?”

 

[Romanov2488]

Great question.

The logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority is when one relies on an authority in an unfounded manner. There are legitimate reasons to defer to authority. This is particularly in those areas where one has authority, such as special knowledge. For instance, do not defer equally to a gastro-intestinal specialist and the bag boy at the local grocery store when you have a stomach ailment. However, just because a gastro-intestinal specialist says your car needs a new battery does not mean he is an authority on THAT subject to legitimately defer.

Now this is a case study in logic. Logic is the art of the non-contradictory identification of truth. Logic has nothing to do with my first hand knowledge of God's existence. (This is why revelation is so often cited in Scripture; truth of God is not derived using a chain of logical conclusion but experience).

To pretend this 1st hand knowledge hinges on unfounded belief, is itself, another logical fallacy; Appeal to Strawman.

My beliefs merely outline the limits of blasphemy, i.e., doctrines, especially regarding the doctrines of God's nature. Sadly, you are stuck on STEP 1, in denial of God's existence. By way of comparison, no one should deny the existence of the sun in the sky. Reasonable men may disagree on the nature and effect of this central object of our lives.

Who are you to determine what is legitimate and illegitimate? Are you God? Liberals think it’s legitimate to defer to Dr. Fauci, you don’t. Whose right? You?

Personal experience is an unfounded manner of the existence of God. Personal experiences differ from person to person. Just because a schizophrenic thinks God exists doesn’t mean he does.

As someone who lambasts against subjectivity, you are one of the most subjective-based people I’ve ever met.

 

[Romanov2488]

Good question. A question of epistemology. We can know things despite not knowing it's antonym.

It is untrue that light requires the dark in order to exist. This is a matter of metaphysics. I think you are confusing the two.

Light and a source of light are different things. The existence of light and knowing what is light - in comparison to dark - are different things, different branches of philosophy.

Epistemology is merely the theory of knowledge. It is a theory, just like the Big Bang. You are treating theory like the word of God.

 

[Wrangler]

Who are you to determine what is legitimate and illegitimate?

Who do I have to be?

One of my favorite Bible verses is when God invited us to "reason together." Ever hear that one?

 

[Wrangler]

Epistemology is merely the theory of knowledge. It is a theory, just like the Big Bang. You are treating theory like the word of God.

No. Epistemology is no more a theory than any science is. There is a difference between the existence of evolution and the theory of the mechanisms that cause and drive evolution.

 

[bbyrd009]

7I form the light and create the darkness;

I bring prosperity and create calamity.

I, the LORD, do all these things.

 

[Wrangler]

Liberals think it’s legitimate to defer to Dr. Fauci, you don’t. Whose right? You?

Yes, I am right. God gave us liberty when he gave us life. Dr. Fauci did not do that for us.

 

[Wrangler]

As someone who lambasts against subjectivity, you are one of the most subjective-based people I’ve ever met.

Have we met?

How am I the most subjective-based people you’ve ever met?

 

[Romanov2488]

Yes, I am right. God gave us liberty when he gave us life. Dr. Fauci did not do that for us.

You may have a case of serious narcissism. To make matters worse, you think that just because something was your experience, that it must also be the experience of everyone else so long as they are not blind to it.

 

[Romanov2488]

Have we met?

How am I the most subjective-based people you’ve ever met?

You base your unfounded claim of a god existing on your experience. That’s being subjective

 

[Romanov2488]

7I form the light and create the darkness;

I bring prosperity and create calamity.

I, the LORD, do all these things.

 

[Romanov2488]

No. Epistemology is no more a theory than any science is. There is a difference between the existence of evolution and the theory of the mechanisms that cause and drive evolution.

I don’t believe in anything. I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in science.

 

[Romanov2488]

Great question.

The logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority is when one relies on an authority in an unfounded manner. There are legitimate reasons to defer to authority. This is particularly in those areas where one has authority, such as special knowledge. For instance, do not defer equally to a gastro-intestinal specialist and the bag boy at the local grocery store when you have a stomach ailment. However, just because a gastro-intestinal specialist says your car needs a new battery does not mean he is an authority on THAT subject to legitimately defer.

Now this is a case study in logic. Logic is the art of the non-contradictory identification of truth. Logic has nothing to do with my first hand knowledge of God's existence. (This is why revelation is so often cited in Scripture; truth of God is not derived using a chain of logical conclusion but experience).

To pretend this 1st hand knowledge hinges on unfounded belief, is itself, another logical fallacy; Appeal to Strawman.

My beliefs merely outline the limits of blasphemy, i.e., doctrines, especially regarding the doctrines of God's nature. Sadly, you are stuck on STEP 1, in denial of God's existence. By way of comparison, no one should deny the existence of the sun in the sky. Reasonable men may disagree on the nature and effect of this central object of our

Here you said that logic has nothing to do with your firsthand knowledge of God. Therefore, any claims about God from you are illogical. You outed yourself.

“To pretend this 1st hand knowledge hinges on unfounded belief, is itself, another logical fallacy; Appeal to Strawman.” You are conflating a counter argument with appeal to strawman.

 

[Romanov2488]

You seem to struggle with the concept of ONE thing manifesting as 2 different opposing qualities. Not sure how to make it more simple to understand TBH. Light and dark are extreme ends of the same thing. As said in prev post, you can not have light without dark. The existence of darkness is a prerequisite for light and vice-versa. If Christianity believes you can simply eradicate one then it is fundamentally in error which would be no surprise for most of the mainstream doctrine equally doesn't stand up to rational analysis. You must surely have enough intrinsic innate reasoning to realise that you can not have UP if there is no DOWN for with the down, there is nothing to come up from. You can not have light without darkness for the same reason. Light is the increasing absence of dark and vice-versa. They are gradations of the same thing. Sound and silence likewise. These are quite simple concepts in all honesty.

It follows then that there can not exist a truly benevolent being without there being an opposing wicked being. For if there were no wicked being the concept of benevolence would be meaningless. No good can exist without evil equally existing. Good is the absence of evil and vice-versa. To deny this most basic concept is to deny the reality around you.

I too, have gotten the vibe that he struggles with it. When confronted about it, he defaults to “but epistemology” as a means of moving the goal post. If he were to truly believe that this is purely an epistemic issue, then he would end up with more questions and more uncertainty, but he doesn’t due to his bias.

He says there is no such thing as one that manifesting as two, and that it’s two things instead. If you take a coin with heads and tails, you still have one coin.