• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why We All Should Be A Skeptic...Are You A Good One?

Dragonfly said:
More untruths.

You don't speak the original languages, and you're not from those times.

Therefore you MUST rely on fallible and BIASED modern day humans to TELL YOU what those words and phrases mean.

Based on the JW's track record, those telling you what the "original words" mean don't know jack shit about it either.
Click to expand...
Wrong...newsflash...we have the internet....it's very easy to find out what the original word for soul is or hell or any other word the writers used, as well as their original meanings...
 
Elora said:
Wrong...newsflash...we have the internet....it's very easy to find out what the original word for soul is or hell or any other word the writers used, as well as their original meanings...
Click to expand...
Yeah right...we've seen the extent of your "internet" - JW.org and nothing else.
 
Elora said:
Wrong...newsflash...we have the internet....it's very easy to find out what the original word for soul is or hell or any other word the writers used, as well as their original meanings...
Click to expand...
You just choose the version that agrees with your beliefs. That is not critical research or skeptical thinking, but the opposite of it. It's a confirmation bias. This entire thread is a hilariously illogical clusterpuck.
 
Elora said:
That is a lie...
Click to expand...
Prove it. Just once I would love to see an example of skeptical or critical thought from you. Going by your responses in this thread you do not understand the definition of either of those ideas.
 
Elora said:
Dismissed...I am speaking of searching for the truth of the Bible...
Click to expand...
You are assuming something that is not in evidence. IN fact, some of that 'truth' you claim has actually been shown to be false.
 
RAMOSS said:
You are assuming something that is not in evidence. IN fact, some of that 'truth' you claim has actually been shown to be false.
Click to expand...
No, I am convinced the Bible is truth...
 
Lisa said:
This is circular logic...

circular-reasoning-in-creationism.jpg
Click to expand...

Skeptics often call the Bible and the New Testament “circular reasoning” (i.e. God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists. Or you can substitute Jesus for God in that example).

The Gospels / New Testament are not circular logic / reasoning. In fact, they weren't even "the Bible" in the first century. What they were, were some two dozen individual manuscripts, written by mostly different authors at different times in different locales. As such, those manuscripts constitute MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATIONS for the life of Christ, etc. So, the "circular reasoning" claim is not representative of the Gospels / New Testament.
 
Elora said:
It is my conclusion and that's what matters to me...
Click to expand...
I am sure it is what matters to you. However considering the information variable, it is contrary to the concept of being a skeptic.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am sure it is what matters to you. However considering the information variable, it is contrary to the concept of being a skeptic.
Click to expand...
No, it's not...considering my beliefs have changed over the years, it's most relevant to being a skeptic...
 
Elora said:
No, it's not...considering my beliefs have changed over the years, it's most relevant to being a skeptic...
Click to expand...
Yet, you accept the bible as being the literal truth
 
Elora said:
Yeah, didn't always do that, either...
Click to expand...
You push the 'the flood is literal' despite objective and tangible evidence it is not.
 
Elora said:
No, I'm speaking of searching for the truth of the Bible within the Bible, by considering the original words used along with their original meanings...
Click to expand...

You have never read the original words and don't know the original meaning.
 
RAMOSS said:
You push the 'the flood is literal' despite objective and tangible evidence it is not.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a serious case of...😊

df5ef71c3c5f216021b191e25fb67bc9.jpg
 
T
Elora said:
Dismissed...I am speaking of searching for the truth of the Bible...
Click to expand...
Hays not skepticism. It's the exact opposite.
 
Gordy327 said:
T
Hays not skepticism. It's the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
Wrong...there are lies promoted as truth of the Bible and then there is the real truth...it take skepticism to determine the difference...
 
Elora said:
Wrong...there are lies promoted as truth of the Bible and then there is the real truth...it take skepticism to determine the difference...
Click to expand...

All religions are about beliefs, not about lies vs. truth.
 
Elora said:
Wrong...there are lies promoted as truth of the Bible and then there is the real truth...it take skepticism to determine the difference...
Click to expand...
Truth requires facts, not beliefs. What you call lies, others call truth, and vice versa. One needs actual facts to differentiate.
 
Gordy327 said:
Truth requires facts, not beliefs. What you call lies, others call truth, and vice versa. One needs actual facts to differentiate.
Click to expand...
True is still truth even if no one believes it...
 
Elora said:
True is still truth even if no one believes it...
Click to expand...
Belief is irrelevant, especially in skepticism. Where are the facts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom