by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends
Bebu,
No problem with any thing you wrote. I am not implying I am any better than anyone else, just that we all have our own plus-es and minus-es that we must struggle to either foster or overcome. I realize I have a temper (the Irish in me, I'm told?), and do my best to keep it to a simmer. It's a life-long issue I've had, and I have no problem admitting to it.
Good points, all of yours.
Cheers,
Love_Truth.
Patio,
I (almost) always find myself nodding in agreement whenever I read your posts. I think you've made some excelent points in this thread! I love it when people bring out points that make me think "why didn't I think of that!" :)
Cheers,
rem
PS too bad we couldn't hook up when we were both in Europe. Maybe next time!
Love_Truth,
Glad you could hear me...
Perhaps it might help if you define some personal limits before you hit the keyboard? Otherwise, knee-jerk responses easily take over.
Listening is a hard skill... but if you listen well, you will also be heard better because you show a good example. It is an easy way to show love thru courtesy. Relax and drink some . (Decaf, preferably!! )
bebu
who has learned too much the hard way
rem
,
Your dictionary games (appeal to authority? lol) are tiresome. Where did you learn this technique? Sixth grade?
All this time we have been discussing "faith" we've been using the word as described in definition number two. The fact that the word "faith" has multiple definitions does not give you license to go off on a red herring and apply an alternate definition of the word to atheists. I hope you don't think yourself overly clever, you little bastard.
My faith (and many others) is based on definitions 1,2,4 & 6, not just # 2:
So your attempt to dismiss the meaning(s) of the word ?faith? is disingenuous and not pertinent to the argument at hand.
Now, as for this:
bas·tard
n.
1. A child born out of wedlock.
2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.
3. Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable.
Note that I used "bastard" as described in definition #3. I hope (gasp, have faith?) you won't object on grounds that you weren't born out of wedlock. (I don't really think you are a bastard... at least I'd never call you that to your face. You look like you could beat my ass) :)
My Mom and Dad were married a few weeks before my birth, so I?m technically not a bastard, but I?m not easily offended by that term (I nearly am one). http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/66430/1033409/post.ashx#1033409 I would never willfully fight anyone except in self-defense (though sometimes my quick temper causes me to do things I later regret). Believe me, I?m a pussycat over a few beers Just don?t get me started on politics or religion.
Note, that I have no problem applying the word "faith" to myself as it stands in definitions 1 and 6. But that's not what we've been discussing this whole time, is it. Again, I disagree. I define my faith by definitions 1,2,4 & 6, and there are many others (most?) who feel likewise.
Cheers,
Love_Truth
P.S.- Incidentally, neither of my statements you pointed to are fallacies (neither red herring nor appeal to authority). For a good discussion, with examples, of commmon logical fallacies, go here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Love Truth,
I bet we'd have a blast over a few beers. We'd have to make sure not to get into any heavy conversation until we've downed a few, though. ;)
The first fallacy reference (appeal to authority) was a joke. I was referring to your appeal to authority fallacy claim in a past thread which was quite off the wall. You claimed an expert opinion by a group of scholars was an appeal to authority and then (ironically) used a dictionary (authority) to prove one of your claims. Anyway, I thought it was funny, at least.
The second fallacy reference (red herring) was not a joke and I'm quite familiar with the Nizkor site. Your argument is a red herring because you brought in an irrelevant definition of faith that no one else was discussing.
*Your* faith may be defined as numbers one through 6 (incidentally exempting 3 & 5 - do only you get to pick and choose?), but that's not the point. The point is that the rest of us were using the word "faith" in a narrowly defined sense, that of definition #2. To make the claim that an atheist also has faith based on other definitions of the word is irrelevant (red herring) and I thought my "Bastard" reference made that clear. In English words can have multiple meanings, so it is important to keep our definitions clear if we are going to have a productive discussion.
Just to make it clear, when we talk about "faith" we are talking about belief without evidence. This is not something that can be applied to an atheist regarding non-belief in god because faith in this sense requires a positive belief. Otherwise you'd have to say that I have to have faith to not believe in the invisible pink unicorns in your basement. I find that type of reasoning stretching the term past the limits of nearly universal use of the word.
rem
Love_Truth:
You beat me to the punch, because I intended making mention of the fact that you probably find my posting style equally unsettling. Alas, I had to go out.
I said I take "issue" with, not that I'm offended, coz I'm not. It's a shame that you find me "offensive" to you, because of assumed Political Correctness. I'm not PC (my theology leans towards Calvinism, much to Abaddon's chagrin - LOL), but suspect that I'm a darned sight more tactful.
Regarding your definitions of "faith", I suspect that they are inadequate. "4" might be the nearest to the mark, for me, but still doesn't cut it, IMHO.
Christianity is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It?s about telling it like it is.
Oh? And here I was thinking it was all about Jesus.
The "way" is not supposed to be a cause of offense for the sake of causing offense.
Is it not, rather, the message that often causes offense?
Why wrap up "grace" in a 10 megaton warhead?
Just so you can say that you disturbed and offended people, when there was no need?
The JW's historically attempted to bring persecution on themselves, so that they could point to it and say they were "God's people". Were they correct?
I am not a troll.
If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I made no such statement. Quite the contrary.
What ?folks bring into question? is their inability to listen to a differing viewpoint without being offended by it
On the contrary, they bring into question your ability to deliver your viewpoint in an inoffensive manner. (Col.4:6)
Nonetheless... every blessing, in Christ,
Ross.
Watson:
IMHO the writers of the bible tried to express their experience of "God".
To state that this was a complete view of God is anachronistic.
Rem:
You and I know that you needn't have descended to that level. I'm glad you guys finished with a beer, though, coz I like ya
You are quite correct in identifying that we are often working from different definitions. It makes it difficult, when we're not on the same page, huh?
To Rem:
I (almost) always find myself nodding in agreement whenever I read your posts. I think you've made some excelent points in this thread! I love it when people bring out points that make me think "why didn't I think of that!" :)
Funny, that's just the way I've felt about your posts and arguments! Thanks and the same to you
Little Toe,
You HAVE to be one of the nicest persons I could know. It's good to see your charm all the time!
Pat
Very interesting thread! I cant believe how much I missed in only a day! I am with whoever said something to this effect; Here we have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who supposedly inspires a bible that is almost impossible to put together cohesively and leaves us to figure it out before he suddenly decides show himself at some future point in time and then destroy us for not worshipping him.
Good morning Loves_Truth
Abaddon,
I'm glad you agree my opinion?.I never agreed with your opinion, nor is your conclusion evident. You know what I was getting at, and. I won?t repeat myself.
Yes you will
?Nuff said.
If only...
If the way you put things is vauge enough to poke fun at, I'll poke fun at it. 'Nuff said.
Obviously if I had god 'sat' in front of me in conversation, I wouldn't dispute whether he existed? I would, however, in such a circumstance make a mental inventory of any substances I had recently ingested that might give rise to hallucinations.It?s not the point whether you would dispute God to his face, it?s that afterwards, IMO, you would rationalize in your mind that it must have been a hallucination, or some other way to ?explain away? God.
Wrong, and to the point of wrongness that means you kid yourself. If I had discourse with god that was a objectively provable, i.e. not some internalised dialog but me + god + burning bush, or even a flaming daffodil... a shriveled daisy would do at a streach, and this was observed and recorded, I would be unable to rationalise it as anything other than a fact.
Again we see the utter vacuum ... You haven't proved god exists, yet ask me whether I have forgotten what he has done, when I don't believe in him and you've not proved him?.You?re playing games, Abaddon.
I'm just sick of you playing with yourself in public, so I thought I'd join in...
We?ve been to this movie before, and I?ve already stated many of my reasons for believing. You feel it is your duty to dispute others beliefs?
What are you doing that's any different? Well, actually you tend to equate people who don't share your beliefs with moral derrangement of some sort, and imply that those who don't share yuour beliefs had better watch out when the end comes, so there is a difference; I don't equate your unsubstansiated beliefs with your individual morality.
Fine, go ahead and dispute- neither can you prove your beliefs are any more trustworthy.
Wrong. I assert there is no proof (of an objective nature) that god exists. This is a pretty widely accepted fact.
I don?t expect that I?ll change your mind- it is too convinced of it?s superiority.
Cooking impliments exchanging observations on their individual degree of carbonisation...
Incidentally, the hypothetical situation I raised was just that- hypothetical.
Yes, and which part of being made fun of don't you understand? I could post dictionary definitons for different forms of humour if it would help.
It all boils down to this- you take a view based on your ?choice? evidence and conclusions available today. So do I- yet I include the knowledge that nearly all sciences and beliefs have been proven in error, to one degree or another, as time marches on.
What, you mean, like religion? Of course, you include natural philosophy with science, and I don't, and I have never argued that science is without error. All I point out is that it is less liable to error than belief systems which are as provable as something someone makes up.
Your dogmatic views remind me of those who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, simply because that was the popularly held belief at the time.
Utter rubbish. This was never proved, it was a religious dogma; if you disputed it you could get barebecued.
You, Abaddon, may think yourself the heart of the universe,
Where have I ever said that?... keep your logical fallacies in check, won't you? You whine the minute you think someone's committed one yet lay them on liberally yourself. You seem to assert you have the correct understanding of the Bible and that there is only one way to god and those not following that way will suffer adverse consequences. Seems the Universe, in your head, is whirling around you.
but there are many who would disagree with you for good reason. Simply because your belief system hasn?t been proven wrong doesn?t make it any more ?right? than mine. Neither can be irrefutably proven. But I repeat myself?
Yes, I know you do... (see, too easy...) (if this is annoying you this is exactly how you come across, although I admit I am only imitating (palely) a true artist.
God used to be the best explanation we had. We now have better ones, and god has become something that requires an impossible amount of explaning, rather than actually being a solution. Yet, some people with their paradigms in the last millenia persist in 'godism' and even can't agree amongst themselves who god is and what he wants, which normally ends up with some nutter killing someone in the name of god...God still is the best explanation we have. (We obviously define ?we? differently). There are no ?better ones? just different ones, all requiring ? an impossible amount of explaining, rather than actually being a solution?.
Obviously 'we' disagree. I can show theories that explain how the Univese came to be, and how it developed from that point. Many of these are experimentally verifiable or well attested to in nature. You, on the other hand, waze a historically inaccurate book about, say its god's word, and say that your interpretation is the right one, without being ablke to prove it. In what distorted Universe do those two stances qualify as equally valid explanations? That is a rhetorical question, shall I post the definition for that too?
Evolutionists, physicists, chronologists, archaeologists, etc can?t agree amongst themselves, why hold theists to a different standard?
There is a difference, and jokes about your lack of wit (all definitions) aside, you're probably intelligent enough to realise that the methods of determining facts and formulating theories are the same amongst some you mention, and that whilst there may be disputations of detail, the general theory of evolution is not generally disputed... there is total agreement about all aspects of physics we can test experimentaly, and wide argeement about the theory that we can't test. No one's saying the Univese flew out of someone's arse. Dating is an increasingly precise art... archaeology is more open to disputation by its very nature, but the fact is that theists are held to a different standard as their experimental foundation is non-existant, so your above comparison is a bad one.
And ?some nutter? kills both ?in the name of God? and for many other reasons.Yours is a specious argument if there ever were one.
If it's so specious, how come you are incapable of demonstrating how it is not fair, sound or true? Your assertions are worthless, back them up.
Oh, please talk sense, you're easy enough without tripping yourself up on your own syntax. Wrong... you elevate wrongness to an art... it's not about me, its about whether god exists (which can't be proved) and the logical arguments against god existing and not makiing this something that cam be proved. What rubbish. In days past, after a few days all you would have would be stories. Now, if god did prove himself, there would be reliable documentary evidence that no one could reasonably deny. This is a good reason why (e.g.) Jesus (or Muha) logically should have come now rather than then, and the reasons that god doesn't prove himself or Jesus et. al. doesn't come now are just the same tired old excuses that have been trotted out for centuries, exactly the same excuses that would be made up if it was all made up.More of Abaddon?s game playing. Neither can you irrefutably prove your views.So I have ?tired old excuses? and you have ?new excuses?. Give me a break! You are a broken record!
The ones I assert are irrefutable (like 'no objective proof of god') are irrefutable. Others are opinions, but they are opinions backed by facts, not opinions backed by opinions based on some book that can't even get a Global Flood right.
And you still haven't answered, how come if you are right,
Note to Abaddon- grasp your ears firmly and pull head out of your arse. Perhaps means I do not know, it?s hypothetical, period. No prophecy whatsoever. Re-read as necessary.When God is ready, he will undeniably reveal himself to all. Will that be judgement day? Perhaps. Or will it be a time He chooses to reveal Himself to each of us personally? Perhaps. Or in some other way or other time? Perhaps.Yes, proving you exists just before destroying someone for not believing you existed as there was no proof is always a sign of a loving creator... and you're making a prohecy here, which reveals exactly the type of person you are...
You said;
When God is ready, he will undeniably reveal himself to all.
That's a prophecy! If it isn't, what is it, cottage cheese?
The Bible is accurate.
Accurate as in 'asserts certain events happened in a time frame that there is no evidence for them happening in'? That sort of accurate?
Creation is not a myth.
Oh, well that settles it... NOT; my point is (as I think you know) is that rather obviously the account in Genesis is a mythic account of Creation, not an accurate description of Creation. If you dispute that line up with the YEC's and the appearance of age posse in the queue for a clue.
My conviction stems from evidence as well.Most beliefs stem from faith. Atheism is no different. We all individually put faith in something(s).No, you put your faith in nothing other than an idea. I am convinced there is no god in the manner you describe, unless it's a monster, and my conviction stems from evidence, not faith.
Evidence that is objective, demonstrable, reliable, verifiable and repeatable? Okay, please provide evidence the Flood happened when it said it did... you do after all hold the Bible to be accurate, and I can post the definiton of this word if you like. Of course, we know you can't, as it's a myth, but it'll be fun you trying!!
And, like you and everyone else on this planet, I put faith in something(s).
Never said I didn't put faith in anything, just pointed out your semantic weak spots.
?Choose Wisely? is not a threat. Since when is it? Are you paranoid or just delusional?Choose wisely.Oh, more threats... keep it up Loves_Truth, the way you give god a bad name only serves to make my point...
I disagree; you say choose wisely as you believe if I don't I will suffer adverse consequences. You might not deliver the adverse consequences but you pointing them out is still a threat.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you, you self righteous, atheist blowhard.
Way-hey, I think you understand how annoying your overweaning yet unfounded superiority is! If you are nice I think you'll find other people are nice; see how different the reaction you get is from the reaction other people of faith get... you know whose responsible for the difference...? YOU.
But as you no longer have the wit or originality to do anything other than reverse sentences (which, as I had a factual example and you don't doesn't actually work, dummy), I can no longer be bothered to carry on typing...
Editors note: lest the casual observer think my language here harsh: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/68203/1066241/post.ashx#1066241
Oh, come on Loves_Truth, you know I'm utterly unbothered by your behaviour, I don't respect your opinions enough to care about them, as they are poorly founded in other areas and are no less likely to be equally poorly founded when it applies to me. Insult away, your philosophy of ashes is really not that scarey.
Wow, I think this is the first time I've read through an eight page thread. What happened to Czar? Wasn't he the one who started this all?
As a committed fence-sitter on the statement in the Topic heading, I'm kind of dismayed by the lack of evidence for God by the Christian side. I was expecting more picking apart of evolution, with concrete examples, in the posters' own words, and not merely references to web sites where the "evidence" is all stacked up neatly but falls apart when held up to rigorous scientific testing. At least, that's been my experience in reading those types of web sites. I mean, if you really have found irrefutable evidence which destroys any part of evolution as a scientific explanation, then why can't you enunciate it clearly and simply for the benefit of people like me? How can we "make a choice" when it's not presented factually?
For example (and this is just an example, as in: I'm making this up - an example - so don't jump on me, believers or non-believers): "the neck of the giraffe proves evolution wrong because ....... (insert the reason)." At that point refer me to the web site/encyclopedia/scientific journal where I can look into it further.
Failing the above, and based solely on the reasoning and emotions on these many pages, the evidence points to the arguments by rem, Abaddon, Patio34 as being the most reasonable and logical.
Answers to prayers don't cut it. Native peoples who have asked The Great Bear spirit have received "answers" to said prayers, and I seriously don't believe that any type of bear is into answering humans' prayers. If anything, based on their past history with humans, I tend to think that said bears would send flood and famine, not answers.
Having said that, if all Christians were like bebu and Little Toe, I doubt that anyone would be able to fault Christians or Christianity for much of anything, and maybe that would help the "cause" of proving god's existence even more than all these pages of arguments.
Now if god could do my income tax for me, I'd be a definite believer!
Oh dear, I suppose that qualifies as blasphemy for the believers. That's another problem I have with many Christians, mostly of the fundamentalist sort: the Christian God doesn't have a very well-developed sense of humour.
