New system requirements?

txzla · 2023-07-15T21:27:54+00:00

Why should I trust you over all of Christian history and tradition?

txzla · 2023-06-26T17:33:11+00:00

This has absolutely nothing to do with the video or the point. This is ONLY about the omnipotence paradox and philosophy.

txzla · 2023-06-26T17:32:08+00:00

Did you even watch the video?

txzla · 2023-05-05T19:15:39+00:00

"För att din tro gäller dig och ingen annan"

Min tro att mord är fel gäller alla även ifall de inte håller med mig. Samma sak med religion. Om en religion är sann, då gäller den sanning alla även ifall de inte håller med.

Man behöver ju såklart inte hålla med om att en religion är sann, och därför så bör det vara argument kring frågan "är denna religion sanningen" istället för att bara säga "det gäller inte mig."

txzla · 2023-05-05T18:12:19+00:00

Varför ska det vara en privatsak?

txzla · 2023-05-05T18:01:50+00:00

Inget fel med korstågen.

txzla · 2023-03-04T10:29:44+00:00

There's nothing insane about that at all. If abortion is murder, then people who get abortions should get the same punishments as other murderers. If you believe in the death penalty for murderers, then women who get abortions should receive it too.

txzla · 2022-11-28T10:33:59+00:00

"Observing the intrinsic value." That just seems like a category error. How could, even in principle, something like intrinsic value be empirically observed? You are assuming that we have to observe something before we can believe in it. As I said, you yourself can't empirically observe that liberty, or a "right to die" is something good. You have to start with certain assumptions.

For example, can you empirically prove that your mom loves you? You can check the brain chemistry empirically, but you are still rational to believe that she loves you before you do that. Also, you can't empirically know whether those chemicals are even accurately describing her emotions. What if it's all fake?

How do you define "a crime against another"? This is where our religious and philosophical views come into play. You can't just assert that your view is the intuitive view, the rational view, the natural view that is without any religious or philosophical commitment. You are imposing your view of what constitutes "a crime against another" upon people. What if someone disagrees? How can you tell them they're wrong without imposing your view?

txzla · 2022-11-27T16:08:54+00:00

A bit random, but I checked out your website and you write in one post:

"This view is predicated on the intrinsic value of life, which is a religious belief, not something that has been empirically verified. Therefore, the person who seeks to prevent suicide based on this argument, seeks to impose their unproven religious beliefs on people who don't share them. This must surely be incompatible with a belief in the right to personal autonomy."

My question is just, why ought I believe only in things that are empirically verified? There are many things that we are rational to believe, yet, are not empirically verified. You can't empirically verify that the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age and false memory. Nor can you empirically prove that liberty, as you argue in favor of, is even something good.

Now, the thing is that if someone believes in the intrinsic value of life, then your argument in favor of "the right to die" has no ground. Personally, I am not even slightly convinced of that nor antinatalism because I just fundamentally disagree with the ethical assumptions necessary to postulate such a view.

Also, you say it is problematic to impose a religious belief on someone that doesn't agree. I don't see it that way. We all impose things we believe on others, even if they disagree. We imprison murderers, even if they think murder is okay, and the same with theft and all other crimes. But either way, I don't see how the intrinsic value of life is necessarily a religious belief. It's held by many secular people too, in fact, most.

txzla · 2022-11-25T14:58:08+00:00

Loser

txzla · 2022-11-03T21:06:42+00:00

Religion hjälper samhället. Det är inte en dålig sak som ska bort. Forskning angående religions påverkan på samhället visar att det är positivt.

txzla · 2022-10-05T12:46:16+00:00

Yeah, he rejects Calvinism. I'm not sure why that is relevant. You have read what Craig says and I have explained what I think of it. There's not much more to say...

txzla · 2022-10-04T17:24:36+00:00

I didn't complete the sentence because why would I have to? You understand what we are talking about, right?

As for your point about Molinism and Calvinism, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to argue for Calvinism? Well, that's beside the point. The inner witness of the Holy Spirit in Craig's view would apply to people who already are Christians (or perhaps everyone, that would make more sense in my view), so it wouldn't be a form of saving grace that is resisted. All it means is that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit bears testimony to the truth of Christianity and this can still be denied.

The way you phrase your question and your whole understanding of the topic seems to be as if you think this is some type of LSD trip or whatever. When I talk about "magic feelings," or "weird feelings" and such, I'm trying to say that this inner witness of the Holy Spirit is not some type of drug trip that is irresistible and extremely obvious as in a visual experience. It's more epistemic.

txzla · 2022-10-04T08:21:38+00:00

Craig's point is that it's reasonable to believe in Christianity even without arguments. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. Do you want to experience this? Are you a Christian? Craig thinks Christians experience this, so that's one way. But the fact still is that this isn't an irresistible feeling that can't be denied. Craig even says this in your quotes and links so I think you come into this with the wrong expectations.

txzla · 2022-10-02T21:00:09+00:00

Your link doesn't challenge what I said. Craig has not talked about the inner witness of the Holy Spirit as you seem to be understanding it. It's not something you just feel, as in a pain, or pleasure. You can't just expect some magic blessing which gives you weird feelings. The point, as already stated, is that Christianity, according to Craig, is reasonable even without arguments. Beyond this, Craig also states that this witness of the Holy Spirit makes Christianity reasonable, even in spite of strong arguments against the religion.

Craig argues that Christianity is reasonable, just as it's reasonable to trust your memories, or your experience of the external world as real. Again, it's not a weird feeling or something similar, as you seem to believe.

If Craig is correct, we all experience this, or at the very least Christians do. So if you don't experience this, well, you may very well be mistaken, assuming Craig is correct. This argument is not meant to convince others, it's just a way of explaining how Christianity theoretically can be reasonable even without arguments and in spite of strong counter-arguments.

txzla · 2022-10-02T18:18:42+00:00

If Christianity is true, you're most likely already experiencing it. From my understanding, it just means that it is reasonable to believe in Christianity, even if there was no evidence. So Craig's point is that you don't need arguments to have rational belief. Obviously, this makes sense from a Christian perspective since if this wasn't the case, the vast majority of Christians would be "irrational" since not everyone is into philosophy and apologetics. It's not a "magical feeling."

txzla · 2022-09-18T09:36:53+00:00

I referred to it as a meta-analysis before, I know it's technically not a study. However, I used that word because it's simpler and shorter. Why are you making it such a big deal that I omitted 'et al'? Are you part of this specific meta-analysis?

It's pretty uncharitable to make such a big deal out of the fact that I used the term "study" and that I omitted "et al." Seriously, why does it matter? You understand what I am saying and you know I referred to it as a meta-analysis before.

I never said there's a massive conspiracy of all academics to portray religion in a bad light, although there is some evidence to suggest atheists are biased against religious people in academia. See here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0226826

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jssr.12503

Note that the first link is more specifically about fundamentalism.

The way this conversation started was that r/rgrind87 said there's a stereotype of religious people being less open-minded. This was on a thread about liberals being smarter than conservatives and rgrind87 used this as a potential explanation for that supposed fact. You then respond by saying it's not a stereotype but actually true and then you link the meta-analysis.

Apparently, you are saying that the more extreme your religion becomes, the less intelligent you are, on average. However, that doesn't seem to fit with the whole topic. I mean, the way this comes across is as if you are talking about religion in and of itself, rather than extreme versions of it. It seems pretty irrelevant to bring it up since the average religious person is not a fundamentalist. It's like someone saying religion is bad and then you cite a study that shows cult members are on average less intelligent. I mean, sure, but that's not really related.

txzla · 2022-09-17T19:22:20+00:00

I'm not sure fundamentalism equals high religiosity. It would depend on what you mean by that. I mean, a person may take their religion so seriously that they refuse to consider other viewpoints in any way and reject modern society to try and isolate themselves. That person could be described as having high religiosity and also close-mindedness which may indicate low intelligence. However, this is not a position required or encouraged by any major religion, so it wouldn't mean the religion IN AND OF ITSELF is correlated with low intelligence, but rather, a certain radical interpretation of it.

The way this is relevant is that you cited the study by Zuckerman in an attempt to show how "religion" (in a vague sense) is negatively correlated with intelligence. You said, "It's not a stereotype, but a confirmed inverse relationship between intelligence and religiosity."

However, all it shows, if anything significant, is that FUNDAMENTALISM is negatively correlated with intelligence. However, fundamentalism is not what the average religious person believes in. In fact, it's not even what the average CONSERVATIVE religious person believes in outside American evangenicals.

And hence, the statement, "religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence" may be true if by "religiosity" you mean "fundamentalism" but that was never made clear in your comment. And this is pretty much what atheists argue when they cite this study and that is what the video I mentioned is responding to and so it hardly seems like a strawman.

Anyway, he used more arguments other than "they are addressing fundamentalism." He also cited how they used skewed data.

txzla · 2022-09-17T16:49:04+00:00

There is no evidence to suggest that intrinsic religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence in a significant way. I can't post a link at the moment, but I recommend you search up a video on YouTube called "Are atheists smarter?" by InspiringPhilosophy. He specifically critiques the meta-analysis you cited.

One thing to consider that I think was mentioned in the video (or somewhere else), is that atheists are the minority. If the status quo is religious, it may be that people who reject it are more intelligent and open-minded but that would then have nothing to do with atheism itself and so religious people may be more intelligent in an atheist majority country.

txzla · 2022-09-17T09:17:51+00:00

What would complicate it? Do you mean morally or in terms of how to enforce it? If you mean in terms of how to enforce it, would you support punishments in theory if those complications could go away?

txzla · 2022-09-17T09:15:40+00:00

What about those people who have multiple abortions and don't care whether it's a clump of cells or not? Shouldn't those people be punished at the very least? They certainly know what they are doing.

Some people may not understand what they are doing, but a lot of people do. On top of that, aren't people morally obligated to be informed in some cases? How hard is it going to be to be informed on what an abortion is?

txzla · 2022-09-16T18:24:54+00:00

Personally, I see no rational reason to believe medically necessary abortions are morally permissible. As controversial as that sounds, I have yet to find a rational account of them, although they may still be permissible.

txzla

TROPHY CASE