Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
195 online now:
DrJones*, Theodoric (2 members, 193 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,794 Year: 1,542/23,288 Month: 1,542/1,851 Week: 182/484 Day: 105/77 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is your religon true and not the religion of others?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 31 of 47 (584884)
10-04-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-04-2010 4:11 AM


Re: The Other Guy's Proof
Slevesque writes:

I don't know if this was voluntary, but that last phrase was some crudely bad logic. If they are false about the Quran, then they are false about the bible also ???

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't trying some sort of logical exegesis. I was simply making two statements, not trying to say that they logically followed each other.

The claims made by the Muslim website's author (perfection of Quran, fulfilled prophecy, universality) are false.

The same claims though are made by Christians (perfection of Bible, fulfilled prophecy, universality) and those claims are also false. Not because of the Quran; they are just false because they don't bear up to comparison with reality.

In short, you say that you have compared religions, but you nonetheless seem to employ all the same arguments that other religious advocates use. Doesn't this bother you?

Muslim apologist sites are full of Arguments from Design, often the very same arguments that Christian creationists employ;

Harun Yahya writes:

Just like the rest of the miracles of creation, the lobster's eye structure is an open testimony to the Creator's boundless power to create flawlessly. This is nothing but a manifestation of God's endless knowledge, wisdom and might. We can encounter such miracles as these regardless of what we examine in the world of creation.

Sound familiar? It should, this is the same argument we regularly see employed by Christian creationists. Now I can see that arguments for a creator god are going to look similar at a basic level, but what I'm interested in is how you take this to the next level; how do you distinguish between the kind of argument above (which could be made in favour of absolutely any god) and an argument specific to Christianity? What lets us know that Yaweh, not Allah is God's preferred nomenclature? What is it that make Christianity stand out for you? What is Christianity's unique selling point? What separates it from the kind of nebulous arguments that Harun Yahya uses to prop up a faith that we both agree is false?

I distinguish it as you and I do with anything else. Each belief system makes claims, which can be either true or false. Through logic and when it is possible, you determine if it is one or the other.

Okay. Makes sense. So, when you looked at Islam, what struck you as false? And when you look at Christianity, what strikes you as being good evidence that it is true?

How did you distinguish that none of them is right ? (assuming you are not religious).

No, I'm not religious and yes, it went much as you suggest. I have always been sceptical of religion and when I look into it, I see nothing but falsehood, delusion and bad arguments. I am still waiting for one really good piece of evidence for the existence of any god or supernatural being. For me, it's more about the lack of a single good argument than about counting out failed arguments.

You clearly feel different.

With the answer of this question, now simply tell yourself that instead of doing:

wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong

I did

wron-wrong-right-wrong.

That right being christianity.

Okay, I get that. So... what was the "right"? What made you think that Christianity had passed your veracity test where other faiths failed? Looking over the thread so far, you seem a little reticent about specifying what piece(s) of evidence sealed your opinion. But it seems to me that the thread is intended for exactly that purpose. Why the reluctance?

You have been asked why you think Christianity stands out above other religions. So far, your answers seem to be "The Bible" and "Evidence". You understand, people are going to want a little more than that.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2010 4:11 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 32 of 47 (584890)
10-04-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by bluegenes
10-04-2010 2:10 PM


Re: Analysis
Are you actually suggesting that child upbringing influences how a person will view the world when older ???

Wow, and in other news: Water still wet

Don't worry, no worldview is exempt from obvious psychological factors like this one. It does not only apply to religions, but most if not all aspects of human psychology such as political allegiance, line of work, favorite colour and yes, other worldviews such as atheism, agnosticism, Hedonism etc. etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 2:10 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 2:42 PM slevesque has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 865 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 33 of 47 (584892)
10-04-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by slevesque
10-04-2010 2:34 PM


Re: Analysis
slevesque writes:

Are you actually suggesting that child upbringing influences how a person will view the world when older ???
Wow, and in other news: Water still wet

Am I to take this to mean that you agree with me that your upbringing is a far better explanation of your preference for Christianity over other religions than the explanation you gave earlier, which concerned "evidence"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2010 2:34 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2010 3:29 PM bluegenes has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 34 of 47 (584912)
10-04-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bluegenes
10-04-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Analysis
Why would it become a ''far better explanation'' just because I agree it is a factor ?? Amongst many other factors ? This is pretty flawed logic.

Why is it ok for an atheist to claim his worldview is principally based on the evidence he sees but somehow it appears unacceptable that a christian would do the same. Despite both having all the same other factors as influences (family, national identity, geography, education etc.)

The only reason why you want this ''upbringing'' to be applied as ''the far better explanation'' to me, but not to an atheist, is really only an attempted rationalisation. You can't accept the fact that my belief would settle on how I perceive evidence, so you just find some secondary factor and claim it to be the main factor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 2:42 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 3:55 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 865 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 47 (584919)
10-04-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by slevesque
10-04-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Analysis
slevesque writes:

The only reason why you want this ''upbringing'' to be applied as ''the far better explanation'' to me, but not to an atheist, is really only an attempted rationalisation. You can't accept the fact that my belief would settle on how I perceive evidence, so you just find some secondary factor and claim it to be the main factor.

No. I most certainly accept the fact that your belief is settling how you see evidence.

My suggestion is based on observation. The overwhelming majority of the world's religious people do actually follow the beliefs of their recent ancestors, although frequently with slight adjustments.

You can look around the world, and identify many countries or regions that have exactly the same majority religion as they did 100 years ago, when a completely different set of individuals made up the population.

So, if we ask why the majority of Egyptians are Sunni Muslims, the majority of Iranians are Shia Muslims, the majority of South Americans are Catholic Christians, the majority of North Americans protestant Christians, and the majority of Indians, Hindus, our analytical minds can find an easy answer.

Evidence does not seem to play much of a role in their "choices", if any.

So, my conclusion as to the most likely central explanation for your religious preference is perfectly reasonable (and not personal, I might add).

I know that many evidentialists in all religions genuinely believe that they have chosen their religions based centrally on evidence, but I've never been aware of any evidence to support their many different views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2010 3:29 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 10-04-2010 6:21 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6969
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 36 of 47 (584921)
10-04-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
10-04-2010 11:23 AM


Re: Appropriate?
I probably won't be discussing it with you because your approach to it is to win an argument and not discuss.

Winning means nothing. It is all about learning. You make some vague pronouncements that your religion is true because you have evidence, but you refuse to present that evidence. In my mind that puts your evidence and your religion in a very bad position. I do not care if I win, this has nothing to do with winning. But I do care if people make assertions and pronouncements and have no way to back them.

If you don't want the tough questions coming your way, do not post assertions and pronouncements without evidence. I am always going to ask for support of any argument coming from anyone.

If you bother to read some of the conversations I have been in, if a person makes a well reasoned, well evidenced argument, I may change my view or at least acknowledge the person has a valid or compelling argument. But if you present assertions with no evidence or reasoning you will get pointed questions and at time derision from me.

I don't care if you think I am an asshole, I care if you don't support your argument.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2010 11:23 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 329 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 37 of 47 (584931)
10-04-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluegenes
10-04-2010 3:55 PM


Re: Analysis
slevesque writes:

You can't accept the fact that my belief would settle on how I perceive evidence, so you just find some secondary factor and claim it to be the main factor.

bluegenes writes:

No. I most certainly accept the fact that your belief is settling how you see evidence.

Your re-write only goes to underscores slevesques' point

-

You can look around the world, and identify many countries or regions that have exactly the same majority religion as they did 100 years ago, when a completely different set of individuals made up the population.

So, if we ask why the majority of Egyptians are Sunni Muslims..

So, my conclusion as to the most likely central explanation for your religious preference is perfectly reasonable (and not personal, I might add).

I'm inclined to agree with you in a global sense. I mean why does 90% or so of the Irish populace self-identify as Christian (Roman Catholic)? I'd suppose it's for the reason you suggest above. But why does perhaps 90% of that 90% not attend church on Sundays? I'd suppose that the reason for that has something to do with the fact that the vast majority of Roman Catholics aren't Christians (not that church-going in itself is a sure sign of anything). The same thing could possibly be said of the U.S.

In other words, it's impossible to establish your point for want a way of figuring out who the true Christian is. By all means use the measuring stick of self-identification. It need not be a useful one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 3:55 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 6:53 PM iano has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 865 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 38 of 47 (584936)
10-04-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
10-04-2010 6:21 PM


Re: Analysis
iano writes:

Your re-write only goes to underscores slevesques' point

I missed out the "on", but I equally agree that his belief settles on how he perceives evidence. It works both ways.

I'm not doubting that he perceives himself as being Christian based on evidence, as my comment on the beliefs of evidentialists of various religions implies.

iano writes:

In other words, it's impossible to establish your point for want a way of figuring out who the true Christian is. By all means use the measuring stick of self-identification. It need not be a useful one.

You seem to be agreeing with me that most people go with the cultural flow. Of course I'm talking about self-identification, and my point is that most people's self-identification is cultural.

You and slevesque are self-identified Christians from predominently Christian cultures. That's all I've got to go on. I'm hardly in a position to judge whether or not iano is part of a small minority of genuine Christians, am I?

Do you think you are an exception to the rule, and that you would have become a Christian had you been born to Hindu parents somewhere in rural India?

Edited by bluegenes, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 10-04-2010 6:21 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by iano, posted 10-05-2010 5:10 AM bluegenes has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2853
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 39 of 47 (584938)
10-04-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
10-04-2010 11:03 AM


Re: The Other Guy's Proof
Oh really ? There is no 'love your neighbor' in Budhism. I'm pretty sure a homeless is better our western world and it's christian heritage rather then in a Budhist country, where he will simply be told that he must endure the result of Bad Karma in past lives. It either values the life of an insect as highly as the life of a human, or the life of a human as lowly as the one of an insect. Either extremes make for a bad social morality

i can see you did not compare christianety whit buddism when you where 14-15

to summarise it for you

The four noble truths are:

1. There is suffering.
2. There is cause for suffering.
3. There is cessation of suffering.
4. There is path leading to the cessation of suffering.

One does not have to read the Tipitaka from beginning to end to understand the four noble truths. Each chapter is a sutra (synopsis), which Buddha would have used to explain the same four noble truths to his audiences under different circumstances.

1. Right View- To understand wholesome deeds, unwholesome deeds and comprehend the law of Karma.
2. Right Intention- The intention of non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion.
3. Right Speech- Abstaining from false speech, malicious speech, harsh speech and idle chatter.
4. Right Action- Abstaining from killing, stealing and sexual misconduct.
5. Right Livelihood- Abstaining from wrong and corrupt means of livelihood.
6. Right Effort- Awakening zeal for abandoning of unwholesome states and arising & sustaining of wholesome states.
7. Right Mindfulness- The four foundations of mindfulness (satipattana) namely contemplation on body, contemplation on feelings, contemplation on mind and contemplation on mind-objects.
8. Right Concentration- Abandoning of five hindrances namely lust, ill-will sloth-torpor, worry-agitation and doubt through jhanas.

i got this from http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism6.htm

short explenation of the 4 noble truths

1 there is suffering you can see it every day, everywhere
2. the cause of suffering we are the cause, trough our actions desires, greed.....
3. there is cession of suffering, when you stop being greedy you do not suffer from the lack of not having enough. when you act the right way you can stop the suffering of others like you example you help the poor guy not tell him he has to endure...
4. if you follow the path your suffering ends and the suffering of others is at least made better.

so you see you do not have the right idea about buddhism a true budhist would help the poor man not tell him that he should endure

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2010 11:03 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 47 (584954)
10-04-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
10-04-2010 11:03 AM


Buddhism
There is no 'love your neighbor' in Budhism.

"Consider others as yourself." --- Dhammapada 10:1

"Hurt not others with that which pains yourself." --- Udana 5.13

"Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, even so, cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings." --- Sutta Nipata

'm pretty sure a homeless is better our western world and it's christian heritage rather then in a Budhist country ...

Charity ("dana") is the first of the "Ten Perfections" of Buddhism.

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving and sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not know, as I know, the results of giving and sharing, they eat without having given. The stain of miserliness overcomes their minds." --- Itivuttaka 26

"The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." --- Dhammapada

"Giving is the noble expression of the benevolence of the mighty." --- Jatakamala 3:23

... where he will simply be told that he must endure the result of Bad Karma in past lives.

Whereas in a Christian country he might be told to patiently endure the will of God. Same difference, really.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 10-04-2010 11:03 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 329 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 41 of 47 (585015)
10-05-2010 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by bluegenes
10-04-2010 6:53 PM


No True Christian
bluegenes writes:

I missed out the "on", but I equally agree that his belief settles on how he perceives evidence. It works both ways.

Okay..

I'm not doubting that he perceives himself as being Christian based on evidence, as my comment on the beliefs of evidentialists of various religions implies.

I don't think there's any doubt that he is a Christian based on evidence. I think your objection centres on what you feel is a wrong conclusion drawn regarding the evidence. The Bible (for example) is evidence submitted into both his and your court. Slevesque examines it, finds it's astounding wisdom and delicate coherancy an sign of a source beyond man. You examine it and conclude it (perhaps) the musings of a bunch of sheepherders.

Might not be the problem with you .. and not the evidence?

ou seem to be agreeing with me that most people go with the cultural flow. Of course I'm talking about self-identification, and my point is that most people's self-identification is cultural.

And I'd agree with that. What I'm trying to point out though is that 'cultural Christianity' would be different from 'God-instigated Christianity (in the case that God-instigated Christianity existed) and that from your perspective, both would look pretty much the same.

You and slevesque are self-identified Christians from predominently Christian cultures. That's all I've got to go on. I'm hardly in a position to judge whether or not iano is part of a small minority of genuine Christians, am I?

No you're not - but that's not my problem. Even a cursory inspection past the fact of Catholic Ireland would give you reason to question your broad brush stroke argument:

- iano was more of less ignorant of things Christian/Roman Catholic. I went to mass about 6 times in my life, would have answered "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" had someone asked me what the gospel was, wouldn't have known that Samson, David & Goliath and a parted Red Sea were biblical tales. I was astounded to learn that Genesis was other than a rock band.

- the God of Roman Catholicism has far more in common with the Allah of Islam than the God of biblical grace I believe in. I'm as counter-my-culture as the Irish atheist is.

Do you think you are an exception to the rule, and that you would have become a Christian had you been born to Hindu parents somewhere in rural India?

I've pointed out one part of the problem for you: not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of God. Another part of the problem is that not all who are saved will have self-identified as Christians. How could they do so if they've never heard the Christian gospel. Those who are saved yet don't identify so will in all likelyhood come from those parts of the world where Christs name wasn't/ isn't/won't be heard. God isn't limited by geography in his querying the answer of a mans heart.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 6:53 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 10-05-2010 6:08 AM iano has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 865 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 42 of 47 (585023)
10-05-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by iano
10-05-2010 5:10 AM


Re: No True Christian
iano writes:

Rather than 'agree', wouldn't it be fair to say you 'believe' this to be the case?

With the "on", both.

iano writes:

I don't think there's any doubt that he is a Christian based on evidence. I think your objection centres on what you feel is a wrong conclusion drawn regarding the evidence. The Bible (for example) is evidence submitted into both his and your court. Slevesque examines it, finds it's astounding wisdom and delicate coherancy an sign of a source beyond man.

And Muslim scholars examine it, and find it a corruption of the truth. Do you think childhood background could be a factor for both Slevesque and the Muslims in their perception of the evidence?

iano writes:

You examine it and conclude it (perhaps) the musings of a bunch of sheepherders.

I conclude that it's a human work from a specific evolving culture in the middle-east with a strong ethno-centric bias.

iano writes:

Might not be the problem with you .. and not the evidence?

Pretty much anything "might" be. But I certainly wasn't programmed in childhood with the view that the Bible is an entirely human work.

iano writes:

I've pointed out one part of the problem for you: not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of God.

How do you know this?

iano writes:

Another part of the problem is that not all who are saved will have self-identified as Christians.

How do you know this?

iano writes:

How could they do so if they've never heard the Christian gospel.

Indeed. Of course, selecting a number of prophets from each inhabited continent and giving them all the gospel was presumably an option rejected by God.

So, the gospel isn't actually important to God.

Where will the Pope end up, in your opinion? Heaven or hell?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by iano, posted 10-05-2010 5:10 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 10-05-2010 8:17 AM bluegenes has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 329 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 43 of 47 (585039)
10-05-2010 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluegenes
10-05-2010 6:08 AM


Re: No True Christian
bluegenes writes:

And Muslim scholars examine it, and find it a corruption of the truth.

Indeed. Point being, the issue isn't so much the evidence as the view on holds regarding the evidence.

bluegenes writes:

Do you think childhood background could be a factor for both Slevesque and the Muslims in their perception of the evidence?

I don't think Slevesque is a cultural Christian, no.

But I certainly wasn't programmed in childhood with the view that the Bible is an entirely human work.

And I wasn't programmed with the view that the Bible was the word of God. Doesn't that neutralise your contention that people are the inevitable products of their culture?

How do you know this?

It's not relevant how I know. The point is that you're supposing a particular view (cultural influence explains all) correct, yet you have no way of calibrating things to find how how accurate you are being. This becomes problematic when faced with a 'religion' which supposes false professions endemic.

Indeed. Of course, selecting a number of prophets from each inhabited continent and giving them all the gospel was presumably an option rejected by God. So, the gospel isn't actually important to God.

It was important enough for him to scatter disciples to the wind. I'm just not convinced that the preached gospel is the only way for God to act.

Where will the Pope end up, in your opinion? Heaven or hell?

Depends on whether he's a God-called Christian (heaven) or a cultural Christan (hell, if he remains that way). I've no idea which he is.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 10-05-2010 6:08 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 10-05-2010 4:32 PM iano has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 44 of 47 (585040)
10-05-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
10-03-2010 9:43 AM


frako writes:
Why is your religon true ...

My religion is vacuously true.

frako writes:
... and not the religion of others?

jar has already explained that one in Message 3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 10-03-2010 9:43 AM frako has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 865 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 45 of 47 (585065)
10-05-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by iano
10-05-2010 8:17 AM


Re: No True Christian
iano writes:

Indeed. Point being, the issue isn't so much the evidence as the view one holds regarding the evidence.

The point being that we can look at evidence which is external to the religious texts themselves, and observe that the overwhelming majority of those with a Muslim childhood will go one way, and the overwhelming majority of those with a Christian background, the other.

Many in both groups will perceive themselves as being evidence based believers. What does this tell our analytical minds?

Then there's the Hindus, the Jews.......

iano writes:

I don't think Slevesque is a cultural Christian, no.

I don't think he's an unquestioning Christian, but religions are cultural phenomena. People do sometimes adopt religions that are exotic to the culture they are from, but the cultures have to be in contact for that to happen. So, you couldn't have found an Irish Hindu 500 years ago, but you'll find a few now.

All religions originate in one specific area, and spread via human communication, migration and conquest. If they are to maintain their ground over time, they must be successfully passed down generations.

iano writes:

And I wasn't programmed with the view that the Bible was the word of God. Doesn't that neutralise your contention that people are the inevitable products of their culture?

"Inevitable" is your word. Consider. I'd already presented myself as an example of someone whose attitude to the Bible isn't what I was taught as a child, and I think I've used the word "majority" at least once.

You would certainly have heard the Bible referred to with reverence frequently in your childhood, and described as a holy book.

iano writes:

It's not relevant how I know. The point is that you're supposing a particular view (cultural influence explains all) correct....

No. See above. Some people are good at assessing evidence, and can virtually eliminate cultural influence in at least some areas of thought and belief. It is awareness of cultural subjectivity that can lead to increased objectivity, and that point is important in relation to the title of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 10-05-2010 8:17 AM iano has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020