I Lost My Religion

[Working Poor]

I don't want to steal any of Erowe1's thunder here because there is no way I can show it more plainly than he already has. But yeah, all reasoning at its foundation is based on certain axioms that are not proven to be true.

I am trying to figure out what all this has to do with me loosing my religion?

 

[idirtify]

I don't want to steal any of Erowe1's thunder here because there is no way I can show it more plainly than he already has. But yeah, all reasoning at its foundation is based on certain axioms that are not proven to be true.

Let’s not beat around the bush. Either you believe what you are advocating, or you don’t. And if you do, you should know that it applies to you first and foremost. But I want clear confirmation that you know this: Do you admit that all of YOUR reasoning is based on leaps of faith? I mean if you can’t first admit it for yourself, how can you expect to claim it for everyone else?

 

[erowe1]

I am trying to figure out what all this has to do with me loosing my religion?

It goes back to idirtify's question of why you wanted to believe in anything supernatural.

 

[idirtify]

I am trying to figure out what all this has to do with me loosing my religion?

I believe the relevance goes something like this: A couple here are trying to argue that it’s impossible to lose your religion, because every claim/belief you make/have is based on faith. And I’m pointing out that the only thing their argument accomplishes is to discredit their own claims.

 

[erowe1]

Let’s not beat around the bush. Either you believe what you are advocating, or you don’t. And if you do, you should know that it applies to you first and foremost. But I want clear confirmation that you know this: Do you admit that all of YOUR reasoning is based on leaps of faith? I mean if you can’t first admit it for yourself, how can you expect to claim it for everyone else?

While we're doing that, since you claim to follow logic, will you follow logic when it requires you to admit that it is logically impossible for you to base all of your beliefs on it? Or will you violate the laws of logic by claiming that you can base all your beliefs on it.

 

[idirtify]

It goes back to idirtify's question of why you wanted to believe in anything supernatural.

Yes, and your argument about claims being supernatural would appear to be just as self-defeating as your faulty “faith logic” argument.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, and your argument about claims being supernatural would appear to be just as self-defeating as your faulty “faith logic” argument.

What argument did I make about claims being supernatural? I'm not even sure what it means for a claim to be supernatural. Also, you keep mentioning faith logic, but I'm not familiar with it. What is it?

 

[Theocrat]

Don't Go

Don't let one church ruin your duty to worship God together with the saints. Not all churches endorse candidates like George W. Bush and Rick Perry, after all. From my experience, it has been conservative churches of the Presbyterian and Reformed type who have supported candidates like Ron Paul becuase of their theological views on civil government. I know the majority of members in my church support Ron Paul, and my pastor is a huge fan of his.

So, don't give your hopes up. Just try to find another church to be part of for your spiritual growth. Churches just have different worldviews when it comes to politics/government/law.

 

[erowe1]

Don't let one church ruin your duty to worship God together with the saints. Not all churches endorse candidates like George W. Bush and Rick Perry, after all. From my experience, it has been conservative churches of the Presbyterian and Reformed type who have supported candidates like Ron Paul becuase of their theological views on civil government. I know the majority of members in my church support Ron Paul, and my pastor is a huge fan of his.

So, don't give your hopes up. Just try to find another church to be part of for your spiritual growth. Churches just have different worldviews when it comes to politics/government/law.

Great advice.

 

[idirtify]

While we're doing that, since you claim to follow logic, will you follow logic when it requires you to admit that it is logically impossible for you to base all of your beliefs on it? Or will you violate the laws of logic by claiming that you can base all your beliefs on it.

Why do you claim to know anything about what I am required to admit? You already confessed that your ability to know anything is severely limited to leaps of faith. Among other things, your admittedly fallible perception would certainly mean that you have no credibility in areas dealing with people other than yourself.

At this point, it is excruciatingly obvious that you are aware that your faith-logic philosophy and admission only served to reduce your own credibility and no one else’s; but you cannot bring yourself to publicly admit that self-defeating effect (that your method backfired). But it doesn’t really matter, since the effect is the same; and you will likely keep debating as if you are not aware. That’s fine, since it’s such a good exercise and you are such a good sport.

 

[erowe1]

Why do you claim to know anything about what I am required to admit?

Because it's logically necessary. I don't even have to wonder about it. It's like how I know that you have to admit 2 + 2 = 4. You could pretend to deny it, but you wouldn't be fooling anyone.

I also would like to see you give a straight answer to my question.

And what is it that I haven't publicly admitted? Every time you ask me if I have beliefs based on faith, I've admitted it. Does that entail an admission that beliefs based on faith must be false? No. Since that would be an illogical claim.

 

[idirtify]

What argument did I make about claims being supernatural? I'm not even sure what it means for a claim to be supernatural. Also, you keep mentioning faith logic, but I'm not familiar with it. What is it?

I believe technically (IIRC, since I wasn’t involved or following it closely) your argument was that all BELIEFS are based in supernatural. That all CLAIMS would be same is only an extension of that argument.

And of course “faith logic” is my name for your philosophy that argues that all reasoning/claims are “leaps of faith”.

 

[erowe1]

I believe technically (IIRC, since I wasn’t involved or following it closely) your argument was that all BELIEFS are based in supernatural. That all CLAIMS would be same is only an extension of that argument.

And of course “faith logic” is my name for your philosophy that argues that all reasoning/claims are “leaps of faith”.

I don't think I've ever said either of those things. Can you link to the post where I did?

 

[idirtify]

Because it's logically necessary. I don't even have to wonder about it. It's like how I know that you have to admit 2 + 2 = 4. You could pretend to deny it, but you wouldn't be fooling anyone.

I also would like to see you give a straight answer to my question.

And what is it that I haven't publicly admitted? Every time you ask me if I have beliefs based on faith, I've admitted it. Does that entail an admission that beliefs based on faith must be false? No. Since that would be an illogical claim.

How would you confidently know what is “logically necessary”, considering that you admitted that everything you know is a leap of faith? Do you think you can exempt certain things from your all-encompassing philosophy, such as claims that YOU make?

I’ll gladly give a straight answer to what you have not publicly admitted. You have not admitted the self-defeating effect of your faith-logic philosophy, and of your admission that all YOUR claims are based on leaps of faith.

 

[erowe1]

How would you confidently know what is “logically necessary”, considering that you admitted that everything you know is a leap of faith?

I never admitted that. I said that it's impossible for me not to have any leaps of faith. I didn't say every single thing I believe is a leap of faith.

Yes, it takes a leap of faith to accept the validity of the laws of logic. I have no trouble exercising that faith, so there's nothing internally contradictory in my system when I appeal to logic. What about you? Do you have the faith it takes to be logical? Or would you prefer to be illogical in order to pretend to be faithless?

 

[idirtify]

I don't think I've ever said either of those things. Can you link to the post where I did?

First, let me be clear on what you’re denying. Are you denying that you made those kinds of claims or that those are your quotes?

 

[erowe1]

First, let me be clear on what you’re denying. Are you denying that you made those kinds of claims or that those are your quotes?

I'm denying that I made either those claims or claims that mean the same thing as those.

 

[erowe1]

I’ll gladly give a straight answer to what you have not publicly admitted. You have not admitted the self-defeating effect of your faith-logic philosophy, and of your admission that all YOUR claims are based on leaps of faith.

Of course you know that the question you're not giving a straight answer to is the one in post #87. You're going through obvious contortions to avoid answering it. Why is that?

 

[idirtify]

I never admitted that. I said that it's impossible for me not to have any leaps of faith. I didn't say every single thing I believe is a leap of faith.

Yes, it takes a leap of faith to accept the validity of the laws of logic. I have no trouble exercising that faith, so there's nothing internally contradictory in my system when I appeal to logic. What about you? Do you have the faith it takes to be logical? Or would you prefer to be illogical in order to pretend to be faithless?

Oh, so now you are claiming that only SOME of your claims are leaps of faith? Are you sure you want to claim that’s what you have been saying?

 

[erowe1]

Oh, so now you are claiming that only SOME of your claims are leaps of faith? Are you sure you want to claim that’s what you have been saying?

Yes.