Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 4:20PM #11
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

I don't understand the point of your parable.


Please don't quote your scripture as a response to me. I don't know how other people feel about it, but personally it's the same as when Christians quote the Bible to prove their religion, which is circular. It also shows no ability or desire to think and speak for oneself.


Regarding what you did quote though, it seems discussing anything with you on the premise of logic is a waste of time, since you scorn logic and evidence. Your religion teaches blind faith is more honorable than trying to discern things for yourself, and that's fine, but it does mean I can't have a logical conversation with you (as our other thread proved), and frankly I'm now regretting having wasted so much time that could've been spent on much less futile things.


Please be honest, are you here to discuss and understand agnosticism, or to preach your religion? It's really starting to look like the latter, to me.

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 11:30PM #12
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,802



"I don't understand the point of your parable."



 


That last post was a joke, not a parable.

 



"Please don't quote your scripture as a response to me. I don't know how other people feel about it, but personally it's the same as when Christians quote the Bible to prove their religion, which is circular."

 



Sorry, didn't think that quoting our writings might be offensive to you."


"Regarding what you did quote though, it seems discussing anything with you on the premise of logic is a waste of time, since you scorn logic and evidence."

 



Am seeing a trend here which seems a bit ad hominem.

 



"Your religion teaches blind faith is more honorable than trying to discern things for yourself,"

 



Could quote you passages from our writings that directly deny that. But of course am concerned about giving further cause for conflict.


The Bahá'í Faith teaches the independent investigation of truth as a central principle. 


" It also shows no ability or desire to think and speak for oneself." 


Didn't realize it could give you such an opinion of this person. 



"... and that's fine, but it does mean I can't have a logical conversation with you (as our other thread proved), and frankly I'm now regretting having wasted so much time that could've been spent on much less futile things."

 



The question arises as to why you would continue on after such a finding.Undecided

 


"Please be honest, are you here to discuss and understand agnosticism, or to preach your religion? It's really starting to look like the latter, to me."

 


Thought this thread was about humility. Decided to explore the aspect of humility before the facts, a principle in the philosophy of science. Am assuming us to both be adults and uncoerced to be conversing here.

 


We all have the right to make decisions as to how we spend our time as we want. The fact that religion exists and is a part of one person's allegiance and thoughts, does not imply that other folks are bereft of the right to believe as they want, nor should anyone lack confidence in denying what they don't or can't accept.




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 12:10AM #13
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:30PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


That last post was a joke, not a parable.




Okay then I don't get the joke...


Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:30PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


 


 


Sorry, didn't think that quoting our writings might be offensive to you."




It's okay, just explaining why it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. I don't mind bits and pieces, but when it's all or most of the entire response, I don't like it. I didn't think you did it to offend me intentionally. That's why I was letting you know.


Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:30PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


"Regarding what you did quote though, it seems discussing anything with you on the premise of logic is a waste of time, since you scorn logic and evidence."


 


 


Am seeing a trend here which seems a bit ad hominem.




Trend? This was the first time I had mentioned this, as far as I'm aware. The scripture you quoted seemed to say "you don't need logic and reasoning to know the truth, in fact, seeking evidence is counter-productive and pointless." Maybe I misinterpreted it? But, based on the way I did read it, I came to the conclusion that someone who subscribes to that belief wouldn't be interested in evidence, logic, reasoning, etc. So I said it, for the first and only time. How is that ad hominem...?


Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:30PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


 


"Your religion teaches blind faith is more honorable than trying to discern things for yourself,"


 


 


Could quote you passages from our writings that directly deny that. But of course am concerned about giving further cause for conflict.


The Bahá'í Faith teaches the independent investigation of truth as a central principle. 




If there are passages that deny that, then they would appear to be contradictory to the one you quoted earlier. At least, to me. Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I'm not Bahai, don't know a lot about it, so I don't have much context to put your quoted scripture in. But taken by itself, that's how it came across.


Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:30PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


" It also shows no ability or desire to think and speak for oneself." 


Didn't realize it could give you such an opinion of this person. 




Based on my experience, people whose reply is almost entirely scripture quotes tend not to be able to provide a solid answer without scripture quotes, in their own words, using logic. They tend to be the sort of people who don't have independent thought, who just regurgitate what they hear in church. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's been the vast majority of my experience, and that's why I like to avoid it.


Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:30PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


 


"... and that's fine, but it does mean I can't have a logical conversation with you (as our other thread proved), and frankly I'm now regretting having wasted so much time that could've been spent on much less futile things."


 


 


The question arises as to why you would continue on after such a finding.




I didn't really realize it until the end of the long reply, that's why. And I was frustrated. If it seems like I've been going in circles with someone, if I have a headache after trying to make sense of their logic, then yeah after a while I wonder if it's worth it. But I don't want to jump to that conclusion, because it could just be a misunderstanding and once we start understanding each other we could have great conversations where we both learn a lot. It's happened before. Then again, it might not happen. It might really be futile. Just letting you know I'm at that questioning point right now.


 


Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:30PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


"Please be honest, are you here to discuss and understand agnosticism, or to preach your religion? It's really starting to look like the latter, to me."


 


Thought this thread was about humility. Decided to explore the aspect of humility before the facts, a principle in the philosophy of science. Am assuming us to both be adults and uncoerced to be conversing here.


 


We all have the right to make decisions as to how we spend our time as we want. The fact that religion exists and is a part of one person's allegiance and thoughts, does not imply that other folks are bereft of the right to believe as they want, nor should anyone lack confidence in denying what they don't or can't accept.


 


 


 




And now I'm back to confusion... I interpreted that to say "everyone has the right to their own beliefs." So... that means you have no intention of converting anyone to Bahai? I thought you might have that agenda because you seem to be very Bahai-centric rather than discussing agnosticism and the topics people have posted about it. You always bring it back to your religion, quoting your scripture and such. After a while that does start to look suspicious, to some of us anyway. I don't claim to speak for everyone.


I'm sorry, I just feel like I'm talking to Sarah Palin or something. You ask her a simple question and she gives an extremely complicated, wordy, convoluted, confusing answer, usually off-topic from the actual question, leaving you staring at her going "uhh what?". Maybe you're sincerely trying to give logical answers, but I'm having trouble understanding them, I dunno...


Anyone else care to step in and help clarify this whole conversation? Heh.

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 1:05AM #14
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,802

"Okay then I don't get the joke..."


Okay, am definitely at fault there!Embarassed


The joke was secularized, freed of gender, cleared of social class, pared of ethnic context and linguistically limited.


The original clergy were highly revered Rabbis; the soul was a custodian (the tears, clothes and upturned face were thrown in for pathos); the congregants were matrons; the cultural matrix was a northeastern American German/Polish, second or third generation immigrant subculture; speaking a variant of Hoch Deutch known as Yiddish.


One might say a lot was lost in translation.Innocent


But am thinking at least the explanation might have been a little funny. (Strictly from hunger!)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 1:23AM #15
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,802

" Since we have no way of knowing for sure, the only way to be "right" that I can see is to admit that we have no way of knowing!"


Was responding to these two assumptions by inferring that one might actually want to know for sure, and that to admit honestly that the task is impossible, is the only way to be right.


The quoting speaks to having (perhaps mistakenly) assumed a desire to know.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 11:22AM #16
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:23AM, in_my_opinion wrote:


" Since we have no way of knowing for sure, the only way to be "right" that I can see is to admit that we have no way of knowing!"


Was responding to these two assumptions by inferring that one might actually want to know for sure, and that to admit honestly that the task is impossible, is the only way to be right.


The quoting speaks to having (perhaps mistakenly) assumed a desire to know.




Ah... I see... So all this was from a misunderstanding. You inferred that I had no desire to know, just because I said we can't know. I never said that. I'm sorry if I was unclear.


I do spend some time thinking about it, but when I spend too much time thinking about it, I start getting overwhelmed and anxious, and I honestly don't think I'm going to solve all the mysteries of the universe anytime soon. I find it most productive to spend more of my time and energy on other things.


So, I'm not uninterested, but I don't think we can know at this point, either. Hope we understand each other better now...

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook