Thread: Hey I back home!!!

Originally Posted by MacGyver

You speak of reasoning, but display prejudice. Prejudice implies blindness, and blindness prohibits good reasoning, which is something you believe to have, I take it.

I am more than open to the possibility of there being a god. It is also possible that the bible is true.

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

I am not judging the situation without knowledge. If I am displaying prejudice then please point out the folly in my reasoning. I advocate neutrality but it is only reasonable to lean toward the standpoint that offers the most reasonable, logical, and tested evidence on the matter.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Would you do me the honor of attempting to sound less bigoted by trying, in a non-offensive way, to demonstrate what you think makes believers of the Bible inferior in intellect than to such a person as yourself?

I didn't say that I had superior intellect to the believers in the bible. I just believe that they are not exploiting their intellect efficiently and am certainly not implying that they are stupid.

Originally Posted by cerin

I am more than open to the possibility of there being a god. It is also possible that the bible is true.

This is a contradiction in no uncertain terms. You say that those that believe the Bible have chosen to "forfeit their reasoning skills", and yet you say that it is possible that at the same time, the Bible is true. If this be the case, how can it be possible that people that have chosen to forsake reasoning are somehow holding to truth?

I think you greatly mistake the matter. If the Bible is true, then the fact it is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness since the Bible itself speaks on this matter (and therefore would be truthfully speaking of it).

Originally Posted by cerin

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Taking this definition, your opinion was definitely unfavorable and was stated without any given reason that I could see. I also was of the belief that you would not be able to provide a solid reason for the statement of yours that I quoted, hence why I asked you for a response. I am satisfied that I was correct.

Originally Posted by cerin

I am not judging the situation without knowledge. If I am displaying prejudice then please point out the folly in my reasoning. I advocate neutrality but it is only reasonable to lean toward the standpoint that offers the most reasonable, logical, and tested evidence on the matter.

Your view of neutrality is skewed. If someone said that they liked using if and goto statements in C/C++ instead of for and while loops, and I stated that they willfully lacked reasoning in the matter, I would not think anyone to believe me to be behaving in a neutral sense. I would be counting them as ignorant and blind.

Originally Posted by cerin

I didn't say that I had superior intellect to the believers in the bible. I just believe that they are not exploiting their intellect efficiently and am certainly not implying that they are stupid.

However you wish to phrase it, I was simply asking for your line of reasoning that prompted you to make the statement I quoted, and led to this above quote.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

This is a contradiction in no uncertain terms. You say that those that believe the Bible have chosen to "forfeit their reasoning skills", and yet you say that it is possible that at the same time, the Bible is true. If this be the case, how can it be possible that people that have chosen to forsake reasoning are somehow holding to truth?

They have at least forfeit the reasoning for the time being because there isn't the proof to prove the bible true or not true. Based on the current proof reason only leads to a 'neutral' position.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

I think you greatly mistake the matter. If the Bible is true, then the fact it is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness since the Bible itself speaks on this matter (and therefore would be truthfully speaking of it).

IF the bible is true, then the fact that is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness. This is true. Never did I say it if it was true that the fact that some believe would be random.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Taking this definition, your opinion was definitely unfavorable and was stated without any given reason that I could see. I also was of the belief that you would not be able to provide a solid reason for the statement of yours that I quoted, hence why I asked you for a response. I am satisfied that I was correct.

I will give you the honor and I gave the basis that there is not enough evidence for people to consider the bible to be true. Would you like me to cite a lack of proof?

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Your view of neutrality is skewed. If someone said that they liked using if and goto statements in C/C++ instead of for and while loops, and I stated that they willfully lacked reasoning in the matter, I would not think anyone to believe me to be behaving in a neutral sense. I would be counting them as ignorant and blind.

Maybe. If that's the case then I will phrase it in a different manner. I am attempting to persuade people to keep their options open rather than proclaiming something or other as the one and only truth.