Faith

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 06:07:17 am
A nonreligious person is also taking personal responsibility for their decision, as well.  It's done because they choose to not put faith in something they cannot see, or maybe because they don't understand, or even because they just plain don't want anything to do with the subject.  Either way, both are making their decisions based on whatever reason and so are responsible for their own decisions.

Quote from falcon9:
I disagree since the religious persons are emphactically Not using _reason_ as opposed to many nonreligious persons using reason to question and ascertain the actual basis instead of taking an unwaranted 'leap of faith'

I still say both are using reason to arrive at their conclusion.  Religious people, whatever faith they have chosen, have arrived at their decision by researching, questioning and "ascertaining" the actual basis and have taken the warranted (to them) "leap of faith."  I do agree that others are still researching, etc.  Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc., and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision.  If someone has figured out the answer for their questions and research, then that is their freedom of choice and religion to accept what they choose.  If someone else has not found an answer, then that is their choice, as well, to keep looking. 

[Falconer02]

While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken.  Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint.  Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.

I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.

We already know why the wind is there, scientifically, but you cannot actually prove its source is not part of God's scientific inventions he created.

You would be inviting trouble upon yourself if you disagreed to their face that they were lying or irrational or delusional.  The fact is, is that unless you are in their shoes, so-to-speak, you don't know what they experienced.  You may never experience what they say they have, but it doesn't mean it didn't really happen to them.  Therefore, they believe in God, though they can't actually see Him, Himself.

Faith healing comes to mind. By chance are you defending that mind frame?

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 07:57:27 am
Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.  [/color]

Quote from falcon9:
The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them.  Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them.  In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational.  One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational.  Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position). 

As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices.  Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless).  Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it.  In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).

Who's complaining?  So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that?  What is there to complain about?  I thought people in here were debating, or maybe arguing would be a closer term, but complaining?  Would it make it non-complaining if I were to instead say that irrational and delusional hurt me?  It is no complaint in saying that those words do not bother me.  It also is not complaining when I say my choice does not interfere with yours and vice versa.  That is stating truth.  You still live your life by your choices as I do mine.  We are on a forum, openly discussing this, but I see no complaining going on.

Why do you consider humor illogical?  (It sounds like something Spock, from Star Trek, would say.  Humor intended.)  Humor is part of our very make-up.  Are you saying that we should always be serious, grave, no smiles, and only indulge in certain circumstances?  Humor and smiles are a lot of what calms "hot spots", worries, making someone else feel better when down, etc.  I don't consider that "illogical."

[jcribb16]

Quote from jcribb:
You would be inviting trouble upon yourself if you disagreed to their face that they were lying or irrational or delusional.  The fact is, is that unless you are in their shoes, so-to-speak, you don't know what they experienced.  You may never experience what they say they have, but it doesn't mean it didn't really happen to them.  Therefore, they believe in God, though they can't actually see Him, Himself.

Quote from Falconer:
Faith healing comes to mind. By chance are you defending that mind frame?

Absolutely not.  That's a different subject altogether. 

[jcribb16]

Quote from Falconer:
While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken.  Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint.  Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.

I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.

Thank you for your clarification.  You make some good points there that both sides have to look at and delve into.

[jcribb16]

While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken.  Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint.  Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.

I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.

We already know why the wind is there, scientifically, but you cannot actually prove its source is not part of God's scientific inventions he created.

What would we do without your sense of humor? 

[falcon9]

I still say both are using reason to arrive at their conclusion.  Religious people, whatever faith they have chosen, have arrived at their decision by researching, questioning and "ascertaining" the actual basis and have taken the warranted (to them) "leap of faith." 

There is an enormous difference between having "reasons" for making a decision and using 'Reason' itself as a process for making decisions.  In regards to choosing a "faith", (belief system), they are employing the former; with reliance upon 'faith-based' rationales, (as opposed to a reasoning process).  Interestingly, it is "faith" which apparently cannot stand up to reason while reason easily stands up to "faith".

I do agree that others are still researching, etc.  Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc. ...

If one stops questioning, one stops learning.  If one stops learning, one becomes mired in dogma and relies entirely upon "faith"; eschewing reason for the most part, (the exceptions are selectively applied).

... and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision. 

What coercion; you mean like the nominally-faithful coercing others at the point of a sword?  Surely you aren't referring to nonviolent discussions consisting of words?

If someone has figured out the answer for their questions and research, then that is their freedom of choice and religion to accept what they choose.  If someone else has not found an answer, then that is their choice, as well, to keep looking.  [/color]

Indeed, once someone has ceased searching and labors under the belief, (meaning that which has no supportive evidence and relies solely upon "faith"), that they have found an "answer", (something that comforts them, valid or not), they tend to resent others questioning that promoted choice.  Again, were such a choice held within the confines of the 'believer's' mind, no one else would question it.

[falcon9]

I was aiming at nontraditional beliefs specifically and I should have made that clear earlier- my bad. I was trying to say that anything you, I, or anyone makes up about an afterlife in even a few seconds is just as legitimate as a traditional belief. The only difference is current popularity and the time that belief has had to settle within a culture-- it makes it seem like it has more merit, but outside the bounds of that belief it's just as legitimate as the next (traditional or non-traditional) belief.

I may grok what you're getting at there ... if you are saying that the longevity of a belief system has little to no bearing on whether or not it is as legitimate, (or illegimate, for that matter).  Oddly, many cults have relied upon such a stance and once upon a time, xtianity was considered a "cult" by nonxtians, (Romans, Aegyptians, various pagans, etc.).  Somehow, 'time-in-grade' is considered to lend legitimacy to what started out as cults.  Strangely, even Wicca and Satanism are recognised as legitimate religions by the U.S. government, (much to the chagrin of many xtians).

[falcon9]

Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.  [/color]

Quote from falcon9:
The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them.  Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them.  In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational.  One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational.  Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position). 

Who's complaining?  So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that? 

So far, "SurveyMack10", "Abrupt" and even "jcribb16" have "complained" when their responses have been met with rebuttals, questions or challenges to their cherished beliefs, (although a few others have registered tacit 'complaints' as well).  Sometimes they haven't complained or completely evaded answering rebuttals, questions or other challenges and have attempted to justify their "faith" in some circuitous manner.

Would it make it non-complaining if I were to instead say that irrational and delusional hurt me?  It is no complaint in saying that those words do not bother me. 

I understand; few people would cheerfully-accept that their belief system is considered to be irrational or, delusional, (or, that the 'believer' considers dissent concerning their belief system as a personal attack upon themselves).  Firstly, let me make it clear that the primary focus of my dissenting views has concerned the belief systems themselves and were not intended to be construed as personal attacks, (since I don't know you personally).  While a case can be made for a contention that challenging any particular beleif system constitutes an "attack" on those who have 'faith' in those belief systems, such still do not constitute _personal_ "attacks", (a parallel analogy may be one where the belief systems are likened to a virus and the believers would be carriers, for instance).

It also is not complaining when I say my choice does not interfere with yours and vice versa.  That is stating truth.  You still live your life by your choices as I do mine.  We are on a forum, openly discussing this, but I see no complaining going on.

To an extent, I agree however, it is when your religious choices begin impinging/constricting the choice parameters of others, (as in the instance of conversion at the swordpoint, for example), that I'd emphatically disagree.  Now, I realize that you, personally, aren't likely going around out there attempting to convert anyone by force; that isn't the point of the example.  Others have been and indeed, still are - all under the banner of various religious belief systems.

As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices.  Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless).  Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it.  In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).

Why do you consider humor illogical?  (It sounds like something Spock, from Star Trek, would say.  Humor intended.)  Humor is part of our very make-up.  Are you saying that we should always be serious, grave, no smiles, and only indulge in certain circumstances?  Humor and smiles are a lot of what calms "hot spots", worries, making someone else feel better when down, etc.  I don't consider that "illogical."[/color]

No doubt someone else brought up the illogic inherent in humor before "Spock" or, I did.  Nevertheless, a great deal of humor, (in general), relies upon juxtapositioning outrageous or, illogical situations.  Laughter is good mental health 'medicine' because we can't be serious/grave/logical all the time, (particularly since we haven't suppressed emotional responses as the "Vulcans" fictionally do).  As I said, we humans do plenty of illogical, irrational things on pretty much a daily basis, (enough so that this is much more common that the rarified use of logic on the same basis).

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:09:58 pm
I do agree that others are still researching, etc.  Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc. ...

Quote from: falcon9:
If one stops questioning, one stops learning.  If one stops learning, one becomes mired in dogma and relies entirely upon "faith"; eschewing reason for the most part, (the exceptions are selectively applied).

Even when someone, let's say a new believer in the Lord, comes to make their decision about the Lord, they in no way stop learning.  They are going to research, ask questions, and learn more about the Lord. They will learn more about Him, His ways, grow spiritually, delve into His Word for learning and understanding.  Perhaps I worded or said something in my other comment that made it seem they stop learning after that choice is made.  Sorry about that. They definitely continue learning and branching out within the decision they made. 

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:09:58 pm
... and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision.

Quote from: falcon9:
What coercion; you mean like the nominally-faithful coercing others at the point of a sword?  Surely you aren't referring to nonviolent discussions consisting of words?

Maybe coercion was a strong word.  Instead I will use intimidate.  I'm speaking of some of some really dedicated athiests I know who at first discuss and disagree with believers, and then ultimately, start using stronger terms to try and intimidate the believers with such words as "security blanket," "fairy-tale," "zealot," and more.  Instead of letting them state their view and personal choice, they instead try to make the Christian look foolish, stupid, or just plain crazy for what they believe.  That's not a debate.

Now, on the other side of the coin, before someone says something about the above paragraph, there are "Christians" who go overboard as well toward athiests or nonbelievers.  They try to intimidate and threaten them into "hell" if they don't accept God.  I don't agree with that and would never do that to anyone, no matter who they are.  Threats, intimidation, name-calling, and more, should not be used on either side - all it is going to do is stir up anger and make enemies.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:30:19 pm
Who's complaining?  So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that?

Quote from: falcon9:
So far, "SurveyMack10", "Abrupt" and even "jcribb16" have "complained" when their responses have been met with rebuttals, questions or challenges to their cherished beliefs, (although a few others have registered tacit 'complaints' as well).  Sometimes they haven't complained or completely evaded answering rebuttals, questions or other challenges and have attempted to justify their "faith" in some circuitous manner.

I do not consider my rebuttals back to you as complaining. When defending a personal belief or choice by giving reasons for it, is certainly not complaining.  The subject of name-calling could be brought up as well, but I, myself, realize it would be to no avail, and/or that certain terms are actually directed to the choice or belief, not the actual person. I do believe Spock would tell us that complaining and name-calling are both "illogical" and to get the focus back on the subject of the debate.  {Humor here, I hope...}

[falcon9]

I do agree that others are still researching, etc.  Surely you don't expect everyone to research, question, etc. ...

Quote from: falcon9:
If one stops questioning, one stops learning.  If one stops learning, one becomes mired in dogma and relies entirely upon "faith"; eschewing reason for the most part, (the exceptions are selectively applied).

Even when someone, let's say a new believer in the Lord, comes to make their decision about the Lord, they in no way stop learning.  They are going to research, ask questions, and learn more about the Lord. They will learn more about Him, His ways, grow spiritually, delve into His Word for learning and understanding.  Perhaps I worded or said something in my other comment that made it seem they stop learning after that choice is made.  Sorry about that. They definitely continue learning and branching out within the decision they made. 

Perhaps my response was seen as too generalized; the intention was that they tend to stop learning about _other_ metaphysical subjects once they've decided upon a specific belief system.  There are numerous exceptions to this theory; namely the ones who hop from path to path like spiritual rabbits, (oft termed "fluff-bunnies" as a disparaging remark).  The ones who stay within a belief system may well broaden their information base about various sub-topics within that belief however, they all too often do not expand their awareness beyond that specific belief system, (hence the equally disparaging term, "blinded by the light").

Essentially, the cognizant point at this juncture would be that it is far more common for a religious adherent to a belief system to learn much about other belief systems or indeed, proceed learning without a belief system in place.  On the other hand, I've found that quite a few non-religious persons have a tendency to either explore other philosophies/systems/processes to whatever depth they are able or, eschew religious beliefs altogether, (while still pursuing/researching knowledge and more subtlely, wisdom).

[SurveyMack10]

Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those.  [/color]

Quote from falcon9:
The thing is, were you to keep your personal speculative beliefs to yourself, no one would know about, (let alone challenge), them.  Putting them forth in a public forum means that you've tacitly agreed to "Debate+Discuss" them.  In turn, this means that complaining when challenged on a public forum is a bit irrational.  One of the points of contention within these threads has been an on-going challenge to those who profess various "faiths" to show whether their choice to rely upon "faith" is reasonable or, irrational.  Thusfar, no rational basis supported by reasoning has been presented, (indeed, it has been asserted by some of those of "faith" that faith expressly eschews reason and logic therefore, there are no logical reasons for professing "faith" according to such a position). 

Who's complaining?  So then you are saying that when someone responds with a rebuttal, answer, question, or belief, that it is now complaining, and irrational at that? 

So far, "SurveyMack10", "Abrupt" and even "jcribb16" have "complained" when their responses have been met with rebuttals, questions or challenges to their cherished beliefs, (although a few others have registered tacit 'complaints' as well).  Sometimes they haven't complained or completely evaded answering rebuttals, questions or other challenges and have attempted to justify their "faith" in some circuitous manner.

Would it make it non-complaining if I were to instead say that irrational and delusional hurt me?  It is no complaint in saying that those words do not bother me. 

I understand; few people would cheerfully-accept that their belief system is considered to be irrational or, delusional, (or, that the 'believer' considers dissent concerning their belief system as a personal attack upon themselves).  Firstly, let me make it clear that the primary focus of my dissenting views has concerned the belief systems themselves and were not intended to be construed as personal attacks, (since I don't know you personally).  While a case can be made for a contention that challenging any particular beleif system constitutes an "attack" on those who have 'faith' in those belief systems, such still do not constitute _personal_ "attacks", (a parallel analogy may be one where the belief systems are likened to a virus and the believers would be carriers, for instance).

It also is not complaining when I say my choice does not interfere with yours and vice versa.  That is stating truth.  You still live your life by your choices as I do mine.  We are on a forum, openly discussing this, but I see no complaining going on.

To an extent, I agree however, it is when your religious choices begin impinging/constricting the choice parameters of others, (as in the instance of conversion at the swordpoint, for example), that I'd emphatically disagree.  Now, I realize that you, personally, aren't likely going around out there attempting to convert anyone by force; that isn't the point of the example.  Others have been and indeed, still are - all under the banner of various religious belief systems.

As an aside, there are several instances where people consciously choose to use an irrational basis for choices.  Emotionally-based decisions are mainly inherently irrational, (and many people know this and proceed regardless).  Humor is essentially illogical and yet, laughter makes people feel good so, we indulge in it.  In some areas of human experience, making choices which rest upon an irrational basis can be dangerous, (e.g., running out into heavy traffic and expecting "faith" to keep one from getting whacked, for instance).

Why do you consider humor illogical?  (It sounds like something Spock, from Star Trek, would say.  Humor intended.)  Humor is part of our very make-up.  Are you saying that we should always be serious, grave, no smiles, and only indulge in certain circumstances?  Humor and smiles are a lot of what calms "hot spots", worries, making someone else feel better when down, etc.  I don't consider that "illogical."[/color]

No doubt someone else brought up the illogic inherent in humor before "Spock" or, I did.  Nevertheless, a great deal of humor, (in general), relies upon juxtapositioning outrageous or, illogical situations.  Laughter is good mental health 'medicine' because we can't be serious/grave/logical all the time, (particularly since we haven't suppressed emotional responses as the "Vulcans" fictionally do).  As I said, we humans do plenty of illogical, irrational things on pretty much a daily basis, (enough so that this is much more common that the rarified use of logic on the same basis).

I did not "complain" that you met any of my responses with a rebuttal at all- the only thing I said that may be considered "complaining" is that there is no need for you to call names and degrade others. If you feel differently please so evidence of such complaining and I will explain the context.

[falcon9]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 12:09:58 pm
... and because nonbelievers don't accept what they have decided, coerce the believers to just continue anyway to research until they die and it's too late to make a decision.

Quote from: falcon9:
What coercion; you mean like the nominally-faithful coercing others at the point of a sword?  Surely you aren't referring to nonviolent discussions consisting of words?

Maybe coercion was a strong word.  Instead I will use intimidate.  I'm speaking of some of some really dedicated athiests I know who at first discuss and disagree with believers, and then ultimately, start using stronger terms to try and intimidate the believers with such words as "security blanket," "fairy-tale," "zealot," and more.  Instead of letting them state their view and personal choice, they instead try to make the Christian look foolish, stupid, or just plain crazy for what they believe.  That's not a debate.

Interestingly, one cannot be textually/verbally intimidated unless one allows it.  Even a verbal/textual 'threat', (of which, none have thusfar been made in these discussions), cannot intimidate another unless that other percieves imminent personal harm ensuing.  That said, 'intimidation' of another's _ego_ is also something which fails if the other does not allow it.  By this I mean not being an 'egotist' as a shield against intimidation but, the internal realization that the 'ego' is what informs a person that they'd prefer not to be "wrong" about something.  This seems to be a powerful motivator however, I actually enjoy being _proven_ wrong, (as opposed to simply being accused of it, without merit or valid substantiation).  

Subsequently, words that are perceived as 'intimidating' are sometimes used to prompt an opponent into thinking outside of their comfort zone, (as "Abrupt" alluded to in another post).  Sometimes this is effective, (e.g., it elicits an outside-the-comfy-parameters response), and sometimes it is not, (instead, a defensive posture is taken and any semblance of reason flies out the window).  In the former instance, discussions/debates can take on an unanticipated dimension which could surprise even the most jaded.  In the latter instance, such "discussions" more often degenerate into what could be perceived as mere "pissing contests".  Naturally, people being human, differentation between the two becomes either rational or, very irrational, (and discerning the difference is not a matter of personal opinion).

Now, on the other side of the coin, before someone says something about the above paragraph, there are "Christians" who go overboard as well toward athiests or nonbelievers.  They try to intimidate and threaten them into "hell" if they don't accept God.  I don't agree with that and would never do that to anyone, no matter who they are.  Threats, intimidation, name-calling, and more, should not be used on either side - all it is going to do is stir up anger and make enemies.[/color]

I partially agree with your contentions however, I'll part ways with you on the "name-calling" portion due to subjective variations on what exaactly constitutes "name-calling."  Sometimes, that's fairly easy to determine, ('you're an idiot' would be largely unambiguous), and other times, it isn't as straight-forward as would appear.  For instance, designating an argument as being "irrational" simply means that no, (or few), rational components of such an argument can be seen.  Either such have not yet been presented, there are no/few rational components or, other non-rational assertions have been put forth to substitute for rational rebuttal/refutation/argument, (despite being characterized by those who put such forth as somehow being "rational", even while omitting the line of reasoning/evidence to support the secondary or, tertiary assertions made).

While logic and reason aren't necessarily inherent aspects of a debate, (or a discussion), proceding without those aspects can lead to having a deathgrip on a priori assumptions.  If such a priori assumptions, (regarding belief systems, faith, gnosis, etc.), are never questioned or challenged, how can the seeker consider themselves still truly learning?  What do you think would happen if a "leap of faith" is taken across an abyss of unknown breadth?