Response…
From previous entry:
I mean what the HELL do your feelings about a story have anything to do with REALITY?
“Belief in the non-existence of the holocaust is widely different than belief in a god/s.”
All right, then consider that I’m only concerned with the historical claims made – that Jesus existed, died, rose again – based off of how she feels about that. In that scope, my analogy fits perfectly. [A Thinking BUM]
No, I still don’t believe it is. The time aspect still has to be considered. There are all kinds of people still alive today who ‘purportedly’ lived through the Holocaust. The same can’t be said of Christianity. It’s an unfair example. Try something like the Romans invading Judea in 70 AD or something of that ilk. I guess I’m just being picky, but the examples don’t seem remotely alike to me. [StealthPudge18]
Stealth, in response to my question, “I mean what the HELL do your feelings about a story have anything to do with REALITY?”
You seem to be agreeing that HOW YOU FEEL about a historical event has no bearing on whether that event actually happened – except in the cases where the event happened a while ago.
Can you please explain how a person’s feelings about an event can help inform anyone about what actually happened?
And specifically, can you elaborate how the more removed a person is from an event historically, the more informative that person’s feelings are regarding what actually happened?
“Your holocaust example fits atheism better, a statement of disbelief. The red is a person affirming their belief, the blue a person reveling in their disbelief.
I too lost family in the holocaust, but I think deniers are just silly stupid people, not a scourge that must be made to know the “truth”. I mean what are silly stupid going to do with the truth, bum?” [haredawg]
Ok I’m finally on to you Haredawg…you look for something to talk about that is entirely irrelevant to the entry, or any discussion, or any argument that anyone has.
How else can a person look at an entry and an argument structured like the following:
Person A believes historical event X because of reason Y.
Reason Y is never a good reason to believe anything about any historical event.
Example, hypothetical person B believes historical event Z because of reason Y. And we have very good reasons (accepted by person A even) for having exactly opposite beliefs about historical event Z.
The example was just frosting on the cake. The point is (it was bolded and huge even) that a person’s feelings about a historical event is a terrible reason to believe anything about any historical event.
Your point that the structure of belief Z is like atheism is so far outside the realm of relevant that I don’t even know how to classify it.
feelings are one way we perceive the reality — faith is a matter of personal choice — there is no logic behind it since there is no solid scientific proof of God’s existence — i agree with you that people should think more in general than just going with the flow, but faith is not a valid arena for plain logical thinking [djenve]
All right, couple of questions.
1. Are the boundaries of the “valid arena” of faith logically defined?
2. Should faith be the basis for believing specific things about alleged objects and beings that we have no even conceivable scientific test for detecting that they even exist, much less anything specific about ’em?
If the answer to question 1 is no, then why not base all of your beliefs on faith? My example of bleach not killing you if you drink it, or perhaps that the holocaust happened, or that the moon is an optical illusion would be within the realm of faith – an hence unchallengable. In the face of counter-evidence, it’s easy to just parrot “that’s just a test of my faith”.
If the answer to question 2 is yes, then, since faith is apparently one valid way of knowing or believing and basing actions off of, what would you say to a person who believes that his God is telling him to kill you? (Not in the immediate, “look behind you” but if you were to have a discussion with the guy).
My point, bum, and I’ll type slowly, is that your examples, your analogies, have once again failed miserably to hit the mark. You find yourself often saying ‘what I meant…’. Someone who loves you, like an aunt or a mother, once told you that you were very clever and you believed her.
Warning Comment
And, incidentally; Reason Y is never a good reason to believe anything about any historical event. Isn’t and “argument” it’s an opinion. You don’t support the opinion you assert it and then make an analogy to another historical event and what you beleive to be a ludicrous position. Is this how you were taught to debate? Assertion followed by farce?
Warning Comment
Oh, and I’ve said this before, but I’ll type slower again for you, I would prefer you addressed me in my own notes so I know there is something going on, I only pop in here because I wanna see what the arrogant nutbag sector is up too, it’s possible I could miss your sweet nasty’s whispered at me. Anybody else get this treatment?
Warning Comment
^Apparently, haredawg has confused condescension with rational discourse.
Warning Comment
I tihnk instead of you half wits nitpicking his example, look at what he is saying. Feeling does not equate truth. plain and simple. makes sense. The holocaust wasa documented event, while supposedly so was Jesus. BUT one version of documentation can be trusted more than another. Therefore you tend to want to believe even though you may lack enough info. Frankly Haredog, you sound like a moron.
Warning Comment
You say that eye-witness testimony is irrelevant and not to be believed. Then I submit that you can not prove that John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln….since the only “proof” we have is the eye-witness testimony of those who were in the theater and saw him do it. Shall we rewrite all of history because you can’t believe eye-witnesses???
Warning Comment
“You say that eye-witness testimony is irrelevant and not to be believed.” No I don’t.
Warning Comment
“You find yourself often saying ‘what I meant…'” No I don’t.
Warning Comment
1. depends on where you set the boundaries for logic – are there subjects which humans cannot comprehend with the use of our logic? 2. as far as science goes, something may exist or not until you proove it to either end, in which case agnostics come closer to truth than theists or atheists – to add, science is very much based on logical thinking, which takes one all the way to #1
Warning Comment
I agree with ALL your points in this entry, ATB. Good luck….*sigh*
Warning Comment