Does it not bother you when 'they' attempt to 'evangelize' you into 'their' Truth??
Why do you do the same?
Speaking for myself, I think correct conceptualization important to correct decision making, and thus to the state of the world.
world? You mean 'the'
world as in 'the'
world that I
Perceive? From this
world? The "state of (your)
perceived/conceived world" at any particular moment?
Thus I oppose incorrect conceptualization where I find it.
Hmmm, I'm smelling the assumption of a 'one-size-fits-all' world that 'you' Perceive, over and above all others, 'correctly'? And if something 'works' for someone else that conflicts with the notions of your concepts/Perspective, it must, therefore, be 'wrong'?
How can there possibly be 'incorrect conceptualisation' when every Perspective is unique unto itself? Many areas of Perspective can be in 'common' with other Perspectives, to one extent or another, but in totality, all are unique. So, who can arbitrarily and say that one Perspective/conceptualisation is 'incorrect' or another 'correct'? Would that not simply be a manifestation of ego?
Religion is a systematic source of incorrect conceptualization,
Having said the above;
I cannot 'believe' in 'cause and effect', so I might interpret what you are saying (I think) as; as a particular religion is basically a 'congregation' of similar 'beliefs'/Perspectives. Wherever one finds a gathering of similar Perspectives, one can find certain common manifestations of (some) thought patterns and 'concepts'. As you would be from a differing 'congregation/grouping' of similar Perspectives, instead of a 'churchful' of 'believers' in Jesus or Allah, you MIGHT be one of a 'lab-full' of 'believers in 'empiricism/objectivity' and 'cause and effect', which would all have to be 'beliefs' by definition.
Again, incorrect according to what criteria? What 'one-size-fits-all-universal' standard? Besides ego?
but there are other, individual intances that may have nothing to do with religion, faults of reason, logic, or just plain ignorance that I will seek to correct with equal enthusiasm.
'Faults', according to, again, what criteria?
(Juxtaposing 'reason' and 'faith/belief' (as I am inferring) seems like an apples and oranges fallacy.)
To 'correct'? As in to 'evangelize' them to your Perspective of the elephant? Of course, one 'corrects' with enthusiasm, it feels so good (to the ego) to win another 'convert'! Makes Pinnoccio (egoic image) feel like a 'real' boy! *__-
You perhaps may think this high-handed of me but the quid pro quo is that I will not defend an argument I know to be incorrect.
One; it has been said that unless one is conversant with three or four differing
('disagreeing' with your's) Perspectives on/in one's area of interest/study, one really has no understanding at all. That includes being aware of their interpretations of the evidence and reasoning thereof.
Personally, I have found that the more Perspectives that one understands, the 'wider' one's Perspective, the less possible to hold any one 'position' from which to 'argue' or 'defend'.
And how much did you, at one time, 'know' to be 'correct', and defended it vociferously and passionately, only to find, later, that you were not 'correct' after all? You certainly 'did' then, and no doubt you do now (these days). If you continue to exist, you will find that which you 'know' (believe) to be 'correct', Now, to be a 'lie' later. We stand and argue/defend, we 'evangelize', not to upgrade the
world, but to attempt to gain some stability for our
(ego) own world
Nor, as in the case of mashiaj's argument, will I defend an argument just because I agree with the conclusion
Of course not; you would be defending what you perceive to be a 'lie'/error. I think that is ethics.
- if I believe the logic to be faulty.
Ah yes, the holy scripture (divinity; perceived universality) of your 'belief community', 'Logic', by which you measure the holy scripture/beliefs of 'them', the non-logical/non-rational (to you, anyway) 'god' of the Xtians.
My fundamental objection here is that one cannot disprove the existence of God using religious concepts
Apples and oranges. The workings of 'belief' manifest differently and by different 'rules' than the workings of 'critical scientific thought', for instance. To demand that one manifest according to the rules of the other is an error in cognition, apples and oranges.
Why even try to 'disprove' something that 'works' for you
so well? Do you?
- and the proof of this will come when some slow witted religious nutter realizes you haven't accounted for omnipotence, which is certainly claimed by Christians of thier imaginary God. If it is accounted for your argument will run into contradiction - and this is why religious premises can't be employed. They are inherently contradictory. ...and that's the mystery! adds the Christian with smug condecension.
This is what happens when Xtians are tricked and seduced into your demand for them to step into YOUR appleish arena and play by your applish rules and try to defend their oranges (that need no defence in the first place), and don't stand a chance, as the game was rigged from the beginning. They are seduced so readily due to, perhaps, their ready acceptance and usage of the tools of 'logic/rationality' in areas of their lives unaffected by 'belief'. They do already value logic so... just 'reel' them in for a shearing (ego masturbation). I repeat, the game is rigged!!
They fail, you fail. No one 'evangelizes' the other to conversion (ego vs ego) and the frustrating resultant rancor casts a pall on an otherwise beautiful day for all. No fruit from that tree. The evidence is all over these boards..
Even here, where you react with;
We both know that logic is not your favored ground...
Get stuffed you snotty prick!
(Calling him a 'protty snick', though, might not have incurred the mod's ire.)
A fine illustration of the frustration when the 'kill' doesnt go as planned. *__-
Any 'quality' attributed to a 'god' is easily refutable and always leads to the paradox that is a sure sign of error.
LOGICAL error. Not an 'error', for the 'believers', but a 'necessary' and (emotionally) 'meaningful' quality (of their god). That's why a 'believer' doesn't stand a chance, if he engages by 'your' rules. An easy pluck for a 'weak' ego, though. We all do it at times of egoic weakness.. a shot in the arm, as it were, to walk away from a debate/kill with a 'wet spot' on one's egoic undies...
If the Xtian 'god' is not a 'thing', the Xtians have 'nothing
' to defend!