….Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance? You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Do you Aussies always start out by deriding someone who does not accept your total view - most I've met in the past have not been that way. It seem difficult to over complicate a very complicated matter. Let's see how the rational part of your mind works. Sans Divine guidance or intervention, do you not think that the experienced human views on the importance and power of faith are quite diverse, and complicated? Do you see the varied human beliefs about faith being easily resolvable into one coherent view? If so, how? If you engage someone who does not flatly accept you rationale - or someone else's rationale - regarding "the" path to truth, do you immediately label them "parable-addled"? If my dictionary were to define you as a bigot, would that be proof that you are a bigot? In my book, a human definition of something such a faith is not a proof - it is an attempt.
Faith complicates everything, because it lacks substance, so it's a case of anything goes, that's why there are the multitudes of religious beliefs and disparity within the clans. Faith came about from a way to understand the world and to try and justify why things happened. It looks like the rules were modified over time to try and cover all bases and scenarios, resulting in particular in the contradicting fairy tale that they call the bible. If your faith works for you, then well and good. Don't come crying to the non-believers and say it's all too complicated. We accept that we don't have all the answers but certainly have no reason to adopt any faith due to all the falsehoods contained within them - we don't share in the fear propaganda either. We don't believe lies.
Your mini-lecture about faith seems coherent, and certainly not unique to such discussions, but I see that you did not answer my inquiries. You seem to miss the point - or, maybe wish to portray a non-existent situation. Have you read from my first post in this thread? It was a request that a poster offer proof for his/her assertion about the path to truth. I made no argument. Further, you had might as well not try to bait someone such as me with " Don't come crying to the non-believers " because, try as you might, you will not find an iota of that in my posts. I do not think of people as being "non-believers" and I certainly do not try to convince folks to "believe". Period. That is their business and they can try to justify it in any way they wish. If you think you saw that, or what you call "crying", kindly re-post it here and I will deal with it. Please note that you open your first line here citing the complication factor. I speak only for myself. For whom do you speak when you say "We"?
DBT provided a logical assertion. He gave you a fact and you questioned it (because you didn't like that it threatened your faith, or ownership of it, maybe?) and it went on from there. Your questions are like a kid having a tantrum to get some response that they are in need of.
DBT did provide an assertion, and no doubt he believed it to be logical. I did not question it at all - I simply asked him for his proof basis. Now, kindly quote the "fact" he gave, to which you refer. A fact now, not a belief or assertion.
By now you might realize that your derogatory speculation about why I would question something amounts to mere hot air - a useless dig to go along with your puerile analogy. Why do proclaimed self-assured folks feel the need to stoop to ad hominem attacks if they are so sure of themselves. Get this: I do not need any response of any type from you or DBT- you could have shut up some time ago and that would have been fine with me. But, for as long as you persist, I may retort just for the exercise. I simply think it good to challenge some of the flimsy things offered up in threads like this. Asking you to justify something on factual grounds does not at all indicate what you speculate to be a need or a tantrum - but it could indicate curiosity and learning.
It wasn't an assertion. People do happen to believe in things without the support of evidence. It happens. There are countless examples of this, in religion, ideology, politics, etc.
Something that is believed to be true without the support of evidence is called faith.
That is not an unfounded assertion or claim, just an observation, basic logic and semantics.
