Message from @moira

Discord ID: 679005055327797268


2020-02-17 16:36:22 UTC  

I asked how is it harmful

2020-02-17 16:36:34 UTC  

Then you provided a definition of religion

2020-02-17 16:36:36 UTC  

Which was flawed

2020-02-17 16:36:41 UTC  

It's harmful because the ideas are placed without a solid axiomatic grounding

2020-02-17 16:36:51 UTC  

As i said above

2020-02-17 16:37:06 UTC  

Is the big bang theory not axiomatic?

2020-02-17 16:37:15 UTC  

??

2020-02-17 16:37:17 UTC  

Mate

2020-02-17 16:37:17 UTC  

Is it without any problems?

2020-02-17 16:37:34 UTC  

Do you even know what an axiom is Lux?

2020-02-17 16:37:48 UTC  

If an idea doesn't have an axiom, then its even more valid than one which does

2020-02-17 16:38:00 UTC  

axioms are unjustified foundations of beliefs

2020-02-17 16:38:13 UTC  

Some axioms are justifiable, via trascendental arguments

2020-02-17 16:38:20 UTC  

Which some Christians use to prove theism

2020-02-17 16:38:23 UTC  

but regardless

2020-02-17 16:38:26 UTC  

A core unjustified belief.

2020-02-17 16:38:30 UTC  

I know

2020-02-17 16:39:07 UTC  

Alright, so what's the point of saying what you say? if its unjustified, what is a "solid unjustification" lol

2020-02-17 16:41:41 UTC  

Yes, a belief in the betterment of people would require the extrapolation of what that means, but to follow that with a god is to neccessisarily presume the god before the betterment of people, resulting in that axiom being ungrounded and being a follow if the axiom of the god. Like I said, if it were more modern and was capable of change, I wouldn't mind as much, but that's not we typically talk about when we say religion

2020-02-17 16:42:54 UTC  

What the hell does any of what you just said mean lol, this is an epitome of a word salad
You just basically said "if its contrary to my axiom, its not solid"

2020-02-17 16:43:40 UTC  

No, I used an example of an axiom being ungrounded by the religion

2020-02-17 16:43:57 UTC  

Your example was terrible, just describe what you mean yourself instead of bringing up non sensical examples

2020-02-17 16:44:42 UTC  

Is this hard to understand?

2020-02-17 16:45:01 UTC  

You tell me, if you understood it you could just explain it instead of bringing up non sensical examples

2020-02-17 16:45:15 UTC  

A theologian presumes a god before the axiom

2020-02-17 16:45:44 UTC  

Then its not an axiom if there is a "before", before the axiom

2020-02-17 16:45:55 UTC  

An axiom is the most foundational fundamental core to your belief

2020-02-17 16:46:05 UTC  

Which is unjustifiable

2020-02-17 16:46:10 UTC  

Exactly

2020-02-17 16:46:11 UTC  

if there's something prior to it, its not an axiom

2020-02-17 16:46:16 UTC  

which is my point

2020-02-17 16:46:19 UTC  

What??

2020-02-17 16:46:28 UTC  

It's not a well-grounded axiom

2020-02-17 16:46:30 UTC  

I just rebutted your sentence

2020-02-17 16:46:36 UTC  

My point is that its not an axioms

2020-02-17 16:46:41 UTC  

If there's something prior to it

2020-02-17 16:47:00 UTC  

You interrupted me

2020-02-17 16:47:02 UTC  

Because an axiom by definition is the foundation, if something is prior to it, its not the foundation, but that thing which is prior to that thing you say is an axiom, is the real axiom

2020-02-17 16:47:47 UTC  

Well yes the axioms come before all other beliefs, that's how they function.

2020-02-17 16:47:55 UTC  

That's what I was already saying

2020-02-17 16:48:01 UTC  

I'm correcting your assertion