Spirituality

Originally posted by FMF
Why does the fact that you just so happen to find something to be compelling create such an obligation for twhitehead?

There is no obligation, he can cop out like you and hide behind "I don't find it compelling, and I won't tell you why." Or if you want to know why read by entire post history.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
There is no obligation, he can cop out like you and hide behind "I don't find it compelling, and I won't tell you why." Or if you want to know why read by entire post history.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the kind of beliefs we are discussing. We are talking about supernatural events and beings. For whatever personal reasons you happen to have, you have found certain things to be believable and you have done so based on stuff that you claim is "evidence" - although, to me, they are just an elaborate set of assertions. None of these reasons and none of this "evidence" and none of your assertions have the same effect on me or on twhitehead. The reason why: they are not credible to us. If they were, then we would share your beliefs.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
There is no obligation, he can cop out like you and hide behind "I don't find it compelling, and I won't tell you why."

But he has told you why. He doesn't find any of the so called "evidence" you present to be credible.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If I believe something to be true and you don't and I give you reasons why I find that belief to be compelling, you should surely be able to tell me on what basis you reject the reasons I have given you. Saying you don't find them compelling is a cop out in my opinion. Surely there has to be a reason why you don't find them compelling that you are aware of.

If its you asking, choosing not to answer isn't always a cop-out because many of your questions are simply not worth bothering with.
Having said that, I would typically tell you why I don't find your reasons compelling. In addition, I would typically tell you why I think you are lying about your reasons.

Originally posted by FMF
But he has told you why. He doesn't find any of the so called "evidence" you present to be credible.

Actually, I don't recall being asked.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, I don't recall being asked.

Yes I was being presumptuous with regard to this particular conversation and this poster, but I think what I said is valid for the stance you have consistently taken with the fantastical and far-fetched claims that superstitious religionists have made on this forum for years.

Originally posted by FMF
You don't seem to understand the nature of the kind of beliefs we are discussing. We are talking about supernatural events and beings. For whatever personal reasons you happen to have, you have found certain things to be believable and you have done so based on stuff that you claim is "evidence" - although, to me, they are just an elaborate set of assertions. No ...[text shortened]... ad. The reason why: they are not credible to us. If they were, then we would share your beliefs.

But still you cannot tell me why you don't find them credible or what would qualify as credible evidence.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But still you cannot tell me why don't find them credible or what would qualify as credible evidence.

Something seems "credible" if it seems like it is true or - at least plausible. I have no reason to believe the stuff you say about demons, angels, torture, immortality and other fanciful metaphysical things is true. Tell me something that strikes me as being true and I will have no choice but acknowledge that it is credible. You and are not talking about something empirical. You are presenting something to me that appeals to your imagination and offer nothing that I perceive as "evidence" to back it up.

Originally posted by FMF
Something seems "credible" if it seems like it is true or - at least plausible. I have no reason to believe the stuff you say about demons, angels, torture, immortality and other fanciful metaphysical things is true. Tell me something that strikes me as being true and I will have no choice but acknowledge that it is credible. You and are not talking about someth ...[text shortened]... that appeals to your imagination and offer nothing that I perceive as "evidence" to back it up.

What criteria do you use to establish whether or not something 'strikes you as being true'? This is what you have been dodging all along.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What criteria do you use to establish whether or not something 'strikes you as being true'? This is what you have been dodging all along.

I can only say that I will tell you if and when it happens. It hasn't happened yet. I took a long look at Christianity and in the end I realized that I didn't believe the things that Christians claim about God, Christ and themselves. Islam and Hinduism, similarly, are unconvincing. If you ever start telling me things about god and I realize that I believe them I will let you know. I don't really know what those "things" might be, but you certainly haven't said a single thing since you have been on the web site that seemed like it was inspired by a deity.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
This is what you have been dodging all along.

Just tell me some things that you think I should accept are true and I will have no choice but acknowledge that them is credible. We can do it item by item for a while, just until you get the picture. Give me the best stuff you've got. If I believe it, in each case, I will say so.

Originally posted by FMF
I can only say that I will tell you if and when it happens. It hasn't happened yet. I took a long look at Christianity and in the end I realized that I didn't believe the things that Christians claim about God, Christ and themselves. Islam and Hinduism, similarly, are unconvincing. If you ever start telling me things about god and I realize that I believe them I ...[text shortened]... a single thing since you have been on the web site that seemed like it was inspired by a deity.

So you just magically realize that you believe something, you don't think anything through and make a decision to accept or reject a belief?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you just magically realize that you believe something, you don't think anything through and make a decision to accept or reject a belief?

Of course I think about it. Don't be daft. But I cannot somehow make a decision to believe something that is unbelievable ~ which seems to be what you want me to do.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you just magically realize that you believe something...

Why have you added the word "magically" to the verb "realize"? What are you trying to achieve?

Originally posted by FMF
Of course I think about it. Don't be daft. But I cannot somehow make a decision to believe something that is unbelievable ~ which seems to be what you want me to do.

Once you have thought about it and weighed up the evidence you decide whether or not it is believable. In terms of Christianity, you used to believe it until some 'new evidence' came up which must have changed your mind. If as you say Christianity is unbelievable, why did you believe it before? And what specifically changed your mind?