Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cameron to say face veils need to be removed for officials Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    No, in every rational persons mind he is made up
    Really. Isaac Newton is irrational then. And Florence Nightingale. And the Brontë sisters and J.K. Rowling.

    You cannot categorically disprove the existence of God.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    No. God is not fictional. In your mind He is, but not in mine.
    Indeed. You believe he is real, so he is to you. In your mind, he is real.
    However, that has no bearing on whether he is real outside of anyone's mind.
    As far as all the evidence is concerned, he does not exist outside the mind of believers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    You cannot categorically disprove the existence of God.
    Something that cannot be detected, and has no detectable influence on anything else, and is not required for any natural process, is no different from something that isn't there.

    If something isn't there, why assume that it is?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Just to be clear - criticising any aspect of Islamic ideology or practice is not racist.

    Islam is an ideology, and ideologies can be mercilessly ripped to shreds with impunity. Would you call someone who criticised and opposed Fascism, a "racist"?
    No because that wouldn't even be racist....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ikhan94)
    No because that wouldn't even be racist....
    So why would criticism and opposition to Islam be "racist" then, if criticism and opposition to Fascism isn't?

    I do hope that you aren't one of these people who thinks that all Muslims are Brown Foregners, because that is racist!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    Well are you a Christian or not? To be homophobic is to dislike/hate homosexuals or be prejudice against them, that's to have preconceived notions about them or bias'.

    The bible is, for most christians, is more of a suggested reading than strict rules. The stories are intended for study and context, so whether a belief exists in the bible does not mean it must be accepted.

    (Original post by Katty3)

    You cannot categorically disprove the existence of God.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    God, as a concept has no properties untill what you define what it is. Once you attribute properties to god it can be disproved, untill then there is nothing to disprove.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Really. Isaac Newton is irrational then. And Florence Nightingale. And the Brontë sisters and J.K. Rowling.

    You cannot categorically disprove the existence of God.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Irrationality, compassion and intelligence are separate characteristics.

    JK Rowling is part of the Church of Scotland, which doesn't have a set scripture, but is loosely based on the bible. For Issac Newton, he was very secret about his religious views, and only looked in the Bible to help explain some science. The Bronte sisters were actually not overt believers, in fact they felt that they could not be damned to hell because their will was too strong. Florence Nightingale was a Pagan. You don't even know your own facts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    God is not made up.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    :lol:

    Strong argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    As I have said, there is no faulting your logic but the application of your logic is irrational given the fact that it has clearly been contradicted by the person in question.
    Except their contradiction is unverifiable. Logic is, by definition, rational. This includes the application of said logic. Insisting that I place trust in claims I cannot even verify is mind-numbingly idiotic.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Now, you may continue to exercise caution and skepticism but unless you can develop your case further (resorting to contrary proof if necessary), instead of your preferred choice of simply asserting whether someone is indoctrinated or not, then the discussion can progress.
    You really believe that an indoctrinated individual would admit their indoctrination? You are incredibly naïve if you think that.

    The burden of proof is upon them to support their claim that they came to their own conclusions autonomously. I'm not sure how that's physically possible, considering they've already admitted attending a faith school (presumably from a young age). If they have more evidence other than "b-but I am intelligent actually!", I'll reconsider my stance. But since that's extremely unlikely, I don't think this discussion even can progress.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    With all due respect, it was you who has suggested that she is indoctrinated and continue to assert it so, without ever having proven anything of the like.
    If we had to prove something before we believed in it, nobody would be religious, would they? Is it illogical to assume indoctrination unless (valid) evidence is given otherwise? Because if it isn't, then do you want to go ahead and explain to me how one can arrive at a religious conclusion, purely on the basis of logic and independent thought? I've yet to be shown if that is even possible.

    They have admitted they attended a faith school, and that's enough evidence to incline me to believe that indoctrination is the reason for their religious beliefs. Simply stating "I have engaged in rational thought" is not evidence whatsoever, especially when they elect not to explain why they reject other beliefs.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    In your case, there is no distinction to be made, given the position that you have taken.
    You need to understand the difference in order to understand my position; if you understand my position, you would understand the difference. It's really not that difficult. But sure, move the goalposts all you like.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Had the person in question simply stated "This is from my own reasoning" or something similar, then one can remain skeptical and indeed, unconvinced to the notion.
    Why do you place unquestioning trust in this person's claims? Why do you believe that word-of-mouth is infalliable—or, if that's not sufficient—unworthy of scepticism? Look at what has been said for your side of the argument:

    (Original post by Katty3)
    I was not indoctrinated. I have independence of thought. I am intelligent. I look critically at the world
    Can you please enlighten me as to how this is just not an elaborate way of saying "from my own reasoning"? It offers no elaboration on how, nor is it even provable that they've done these things in the first place. I can't help but struggle to take you seriously if you're going believe someone that easily.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    However, where you have claimed that the person is indoctrinated and subsequently refused to accept their experience/s as proof to the contrary (not that they were obliged to present it in any case), one cannot help but assert that you are in denial.
    You cannot prove that is their experience, therefore it is not valid evidence. It is not a matter of me declining it—it's impossible to accept as truth. Honestly, if you can't grasp that by this point, I'm giving up. One that is utterly guillable cannot help but believe what they wish to believe, despite no evidence, apparently.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Unlikely for paranoia is rooted deeply in tangible concepts with irrational reasoning, and one might not be too far off the mark to say that it (paranoia) is quite the opposite of faith.
    Religion isn't a concept with irrational reasoning? Say that again. I really, really hope you did not just say that.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    As for the sarcasm and deflection, it is quite conceivable that you wish to draw attention away from the terrible arguments that you have made
    I am pretty certain I have been asking you to elaborate with logical, objective arguments (that aren't red herrings), on why you hold such strong opposition; however, insofar you have not only failed to do that, but have also made your best effort to conduct psychological diagnoses, yet you're perfectly happy to accuse me of deflection.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    instead, try to find some kind of flaw in my character to justify your own continued belief in what you espouse.
    Weren't you the one preemptively diagnosing me with "paranoia"? I have logic to justify my argument; your flaws simply serve to discredit your own.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You are quite incorrect. It is not incumbent upon a philosopher to study the ways and manners of philosophy for it has no structure, no framework and is entirely dependent on the thoughts and observations of the philosopher.
    And the thoughts and observations are dependent upon the philosopher's approach. There are several approaches to philosophical thought, in which the predominant one is logic, as it is the most useful and applicable. Abstract concepts, which are a common encounter, often require an approach other than logic, hence why I believe that one cannot examine an abstract concept such as religion purely with logic and arrive at a conclusion which supports it.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    On the other hand, a student of philosophy is simply required to regurgitate fixed and historical notions which may or may not necessarily represent the context of which he or she is studying. Of course, the student is at liberty to pursue his own thoughts but this will be made within the context of what he or she has been taught. In very rare cases, does the student disagree with traditional thought.
    I am not taught in an institution. My endeavours and pursuits are my own. Perhaps "explore" is a better verb to use than "study".

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Generally speaking, it is incumbent upon the student of philosophy to peruse traditional thought but the philosopher is unencumbered to pursue his thoughts.
    Not saying anything I didn't already know.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Whilst I try my best to be as understanding of different positions, I have not, as an absolute, ever claimed to possess an open mind.
    Brushing aside the self-flattery, you have evidently made minimal effort to understand my position, seeing as you fail to even acknowledge a fundamental difference between denial and scepticism. Perhaps instead of assuming a position of authority and dictating what I should do and what my flaws are, you should admit and attempt to improve upon your own flaws instead.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You seem to be intent on arguing against an argument that was never made.
    The original argument was that faith schools are perfectly acceptable. I argued against this, as they (more often than not) indoctrinate children. The person in question then argued against this being true, using counterarguments purely from anecdotal evidence. You then interjected yourself and began defending said person from my completely justified scepticism.

    So yes, as you can see, an argument was made. You just failed to follow it.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Your incessant need to "be saved" or assumption that "I have come to save you" is simply a fantasy, a delusion that betrays the negativism of your thoughts.
    Equating rational nihilism with negativism is all the proof I need of your bubble of comforting disavowal.

    I have no need to rectify the damage dealt upon mindless children being fed falsifiable doctrine. I can be assured in my mind that I, at least, don't feel compelled to cling to religion because of its comforting disillusionment, and that I managed to evade the consequences of perpetual brainwashing.

    Perhaps it is a fantasy of mine that humans' beliefs aligned with logic over comfort. The world would be a better place that way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    The bible is, for most christians, is more of a suggested reading than strict rules. The stories are intended for study and context, so whether a belief exists in the bible does not mean it must be accepted.



    God, as a concept has no properties untill what you define what it is. Once you attribute properties to god it can be disproved, untill then there is nothing to disprove.
    Where does Jesus or God say that the entirety of the bible is meant to be interpreted as rough guidelines?

    I don't think you should really call yourself christian if you cherry pick, when the Bible clearly states it's an all or nothing deal.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    Where does Jesus or God say that the entirety of the bible is meant to be interpreted as rough guidelines?

    Nowhere, but it doesn't need to. As per Christian mythology, the bible was created after it's founding by followers of Jesus' teachings, and not essential to the faith.

    An example being how Cathars view the God of the old testament as evil.


    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    I don't think you should really call yourself christian if you cherry pick, when the Bible clearly states it's an all or nothing deal.
    Where does it state that?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Nowhere, but it doesn't need to. As per Christian mythology, the bible was created after it's founding by followers of Jesus' teachings, and not essential to the faith.

    An example being how Cathars view the God of the old testament as evil.




    Where does it state that?
    Did I bring up Catharism anywhere?
    You have to get into the mind of a religious person, to argue with them, to them the Bible is from God, not man-made.

    Look... you either believe the bible in it's entirety, as it says to, or you don't.
    If you don't then most of Bible doesn't apply, there would be nothing to argue in this context.

    "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3: 16,17)

    “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
    Spoiler:
    Show

    I agree that some sections are included for studying purposes, to be used as an example, but that doesn't include what I'm talking about.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    Where did I mention any gnostics? Did I bring up Catharism anywhere?

    The Cathars were Christian.

    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    Look... you either believe the bible in it's entirety, as it says to, or you don't.
    If you don't then most of Bible doesn't apply, there would be nothing to argue in this context.

    "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3: 16,17)

    “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
    None of those say you must accept every word of the bible.

    You are confusing the nature of the Bible with that of the Quran. The Bible is not the sole source of Christianity, rather a way of gaining access to Jesus' teachings, which is the core of the religion.

    In anycase, this is all going waaaay off topic.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    The Cathars were Christian.



    None of those say you must accept every word of the bible.

    You are confusing the nature of the Bible with that of the Quran. The Bible is not the sole source of Christianity, rather a way of gaining access to Jesus' teachings, which is the core of the religion.

    In anycase, this is all going waaaay off topic.
    "Christian" by label.
    Not Christian by the Bible's definition.

    There's only so many ways you can interpret "until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest part or a letter will pass from the law (the old testament laws)" (From Jesus, with love)

    The Quran is very much like the Bible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So why would criticism and opposition to Islam be "racist" then, if criticism and opposition to Fascism isn't?

    I do hope that you aren't one of these people who thinks that all Muslims are Brown Foregners, because that is racist!
    Because people pick on islam as a religion, fascism isnt a religion its a political way of thinking
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ikhan94)
    Because people pick on islam as a religion, fascism isnt a religion its a political way of thinking
    so Islam has no political aspects

    But are you claiming focusing on a religion is racist?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ikhan94)
    Because people pick on islam as a religion,
    So, are people who criticise and oppose Christianity also racists?

    And how is "picking on a religion" racist?


    fascism isnt a religion its a political way of thinking
    Islam is political as well as religious. It inludes rules on legal, economic, military and social matters.
    If you compare the methods and devices of the ideologies of Islamism and Fascism, they are very similar.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Glad we agree

    Perhaps this is the thing we need to promote it is a person choice if they want to interact with a burka wearer and as you say there's nothing wrong in ignoring a person who wears one (although I would prefer to simply turn my back on them if they try and engage with me)
    I agree with you but to some extent! I mean, ignoring people in general is obviously rude regardless of their background, and like someone has pointed out before, isn't that the same as talking on the phone, you can't see their facial expression too!

    And quick question, if you ever worked as a cashier and a women wearing a niqab came up to you to ask you something, would you ignore her??

    And as I say we can't let a persons choice override sexual equality laws so asking for a female should always be refused (it's OK if there's one already working but to specify this is a requirement should of course be dismissed)
    Once again, why the hell would that concern you????

    If we want to ask for a female (even though we still can at the moment) then that's our choice, cos that would make us feel a lot more comfortable than having a man to check us. It has nothing to do with you, I mean would it affect you, ofc not!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluffyCherry)
    I agree with you but to some extent! I mean, ignoring people in general is obviously rude regardless of their background, and like someone has pointed out before, isn't that the same as talking on the phone, you can't see their facial expression too!

    And quick question, if you ever worked as a cashier and a women wearing a niqab came up to you to ask you something, would you ignore her??



    Once again, why the hell would that concern you????

    If we want to ask for a female (even though we still can at the moment) then that's our choice, cos that would make us feel a lot more comfortable than having a man to check us. It has nothing to do with you, I mean would it affect you, ofc not!
    Why do men make you feel uncomfortable, I wonder?
    Surely you can trust a police officer regardless of gender?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    Why do men make you feel uncomfortable, I wonder?
    Surely you can trust a police officer regardless of gender?
    cos it's creepy, obv!!!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.