this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
63 points (81.2% liked)

Asklemmy

48279 readers
812 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason. Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife. Proof is unexisting by definition of faith.

[โ€“] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason.

Assertion

Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife.

Applying material requirements to the metaphysical and transcendental

Proof is unexisting by definition of faith

Transcendental Argument for God makes an affirmative pre-suppositional argument for God.

[โ€“] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I.. Yes? That's a correct interpretation, but you denied an answer to me. Or perhaps I misunderstood your position, that nobody should ever convert or consider any religion?

[โ€“] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm saying that your assertion isn't justified (e.g. it's just a subjective opinion). That you can't expect to apply the scientific method to something that transcends the material world and that there are indeed logical arguments for why someone should believe in God as opposed to not believing in God.

I'm an Orthodox Christian.

[โ€“] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think you're correct with your argument. Why would someone choose any particular religion? That's the argument. There is no logical argument for that. There are arguments for choose one in general, although logically very flawed. Still, there's no logical argument I'm aware of to choose a specific one.

[โ€“] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is argumentation beyond the transcendental argument to believe, for example, the Christian God. It has to do with prophesy, metaphysics, theology etc

[โ€“] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So... Feelings. I would really like to explore this rationale in your mind. Nobody should convert or join any religion on feelings. Yet, prophecy, metaphysics, theology.. So the edge of scientific reasoning but just slightly outside? Or because their father and mother practice it?

[โ€“] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To prove you have any good faith in your "critique". State my argument back to me.

[โ€“] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

A feeling should not be the reason you convert to any religion

My refute: it is always feelings, the alternative is science

you are wrong

Can you explain?

you are wrong to even ask

Then the other person stated how there is no logical argument, that you have to use "feelings" (explaining again the same refutal)

you can't expect to use science to explain

What we refer to then is feelings?

state my argument back at me to prove your faith, peasant

This is this discussion so far from my viewpoint. To add to that, I have to say also that it is clearly triggering for you and difficult to discuss. I don't mind but take a breather whenever. It makes for a better quality enlightenment.

( Small aside: The supposition that we don't use science in matters of theology and metaphysics is very important to examine. What do we use? )

[โ€“] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

state my argument back at me to prove your faith, peasant

Ironically you tried to push this back in my face as if I'm some pedant when it's the most pragmatic way to make sure we aren't talking past one another. If you just said "I have no idea" it would have been a better response.

clearly triggering for you and difficult to discuss

I've had some great discussions in this thread and everyone is better for it. You haven't bothered to even understand what I'm arguing though so this exchange is a waste of time.

[โ€“] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Classic run away tactic. Not even one response just more personal attacks. Okay thanks for trying! It was pretty unpleasant to talk to you.

[โ€“] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I never personally attacked you.

[โ€“] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You don't really understand what personal attacks means, do you?

[โ€“] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

I know what asserting without evidence means.