this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
63 points (81.2% liked)
Asklemmy
48437 readers
592 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
There is argumentation beyond the transcendental argument to believe, for example, the Christian God. It has to do with prophesy, metaphysics, theology etc
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?
To prove you have any good faith in your "critique". State my argument back to me.
My refute: it is always feelings, the alternative is science
Can you explain?
Then the other person stated how there is no logical argument, that you have to use "feelings" (explaining again the same refutal)
What we refer to then is feelings?
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? )
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.
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.
Classic run away tactic. Not even one response just more personal attacks. Okay thanks for trying! It was pretty unpleasant to talk to you.
I never personally attacked you.
You don't really understand what personal attacks means, do you?
I know what asserting without evidence means.
Yeah, because that's what all religious practicioners engage in at every point of their study. I just haven't ever heard someone whine at others for doing so without evidence, since from our adolescence we learn that people don't come back from or report from any afterlife making every single belief about it a guess, aka belief. I don't know what you are smoking to hold these in your head simultaneously but it seems intensely frustrating honestly.
Does your Dad know that you're making epistemologically unjustified arguments on the internet?