Atheist!

[Liar]

Wmrs2 is defending faith.

See, that's what I don't see. I see her trying to redefine faith as knowledge. When it's not. It's faith. Conviction without knowledge. That's what the word means.

There's nothing wrong with faith. We humans need to have faith in something, to trust ideas and concepts, or we're all headed down a nihilist vortex of suck.

But it doesn't change what faith is. In fact, calling it knowledge is devaluing it.

 

[wmrs2]

My position too.

No matter how many strong words you use such as "self-evident" and "eternal, stable unchanging truth" they are just your emphasis of your beliefs. They prove nothing unless the person you are addressing shares your beliefs.

I don't. Your arguments are therefore based on foundations of sand and dialogue or "reasoned argument" between us are both impossible.

Og

I am not arguing with you. I am answering the question of the thread. You are simply saying that I am incorrect and I am showing you that you are running from the issues of life by not responding in the purpose the thread calls for. I am game-fully participating, you are not.

 

[wmrs2]

Defend or support stipulations? I stopped giving any thought to your confused ramblings on this thread days ago.

Your inability to understand what you yourself posted--that there hasn't been an agreement on the definition of basic concepts here--is your problem, not mine.

If you gave up long ago to my confused ramblings, why do you keep responding to my assertions? If you would either offer another alternative to my point of view or ignore my post altogether, that would end your problem with me. You seem to be only interested in say some smart ass remark. Am I stepping into some private territory where you think you are the king? Move over, you are just not that good to claim all the territory.

 

[wmrs2]

A "freethinker" is defined as someone "free" of supernatural or paranormal beliefs while using logic and reasoning to reach conclusions.

I think you are using the wrong dictionary.

I did not use any dictionary. Where on earth did you come up with that definition of "freethinker"? What you describe is not logical ore reasonable thinking. It is more like Scramble with all the letters thrown to the wind.

 

[Guest]

Wrms -

Is Red Ass Dog Bitch in the Bible, too?

 

[xssve]

Chuckles....was it Admiral Nimitz who messaged Admiral Halsey in the Pacific in world war two, "The world awaits..."

ami

Pure posted this in the Moral Matrix thread, it's rather more involved than what I had in mind, but it is robust logic: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion

I have not gotten through it myself all the way, but rather than reinvent the wheel, for which I may have to beg SubJoes permission as it might get lengthy, I suggest you read this and attempt to refute her reasoning.

I might have a quibble or two with it myself, although I haven't spotted any significant boners thus far.

 

[amicus]

See, that's what I don't see. I see her trying to redefine faith as knowledge. When it's not. It's faith. Conviction without knowledge. That's what the word means.

There's nothing wrong with faith. We humans need to have faith in something, to trust ideas and concepts, or we're all headed down a nihilist vortex of suck.

But it doesn't change what faith is. In fact, calling it knowledge is devaluing it.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Liar...I doubt you need me to remind you of a long line of Theologians, who, in my view, attempted to reconcile science, logic and faith. St. Thomas Aquinas, come to mind although it has been a very long time since my formal studies took place.

I suggest it is germane to accept that faith and belief preceded scientific method by a millennium and that the reconciliation of all knowledge has had a long and arduous path.

Like it or not, wmrs2 has earned, in my book, the top place in those of faith who make the effort to explain how both science and faith offer answers.

The curious thing, and that which keeps the thread alive, is those who deny faith and reason as a foundation for their moral and ethical conclusions, and are enraged that anyone would maintain an objective foundation for human actions.

And then of course, the oft argued, 'self evident' axiomatic truths, also acknowledged for thousands of years, but remain an anathema to humanists and relativists alike.

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

I did not use any dictionary. Where on earth did you come up with that definition of "freethinker"? What you describe is not logical ore reasonable thinking. It is more like Scramble with all the letters thrown to the wind.

Actually, you were right before, Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin did all use reason to justify their actions, greed is a reason for example, but just as you claim the superiority of true revelation over false, in reason one is required to demonstrate ones reasoning, and it is open to scrutiny and repudiation by means of further reasoning, which is where it departs sharply from revelation.

Hitler tried to take over the world, eradicate Jews, homosexuals, gypsy's, and communists among other things, using reasoning which many in this country actually applauded at the time.

In the fullness of time however, his reasoning was disputed, and it was determined that his reasoning was insufficient to justify his acts, and thus, after repudiating his reasoning, we proceeded to repudiate him, and in the end, we won both arguments.

It is enshrined in our laws that if you seek to violate the rights of others, you are required to demonstrate your reasoning for doing so, and we have evolved through much reasoning tested through trial and error, a system whereby you may demonstrate that reasoning, and by which we may evaluate the soundness and vigor of that reasoning, and further, if need be, provide reasoning of our own as to why we dispute your reasoning.

 

[xssve]

Lincoln, I'm sure, said it better.

 

[xssve]

See, that's what I don't see. I see her trying to redefine faith as knowledge. When it's not. It's faith. Conviction without knowledge. That's what the word means.

There's nothing wrong with faith. We humans need to have faith in something, to trust ideas and concepts, or we're all headed down a nihilist vortex of suck.

But it doesn't change what faith is. In fact, calling it knowledge is devaluing it.

Faith can only be asserted, it cannot be demonstrated, at least not with absolute certainty - and that's just the faith itself - whatever thing one claims to have faith in is not demonstrated to be valid based on that faith, it's two separate subjects.

To accept faith requires an act of faith: I have to have faith that you have faith - and even so, I can reserve the right to not have any faith for that in which I take it on faith that you believe.

No?

 

[wmrs2]

Not being a believer yourself, Amicus, I would suppose you would have no idea how repulsive mwrs2's representation of a believer is to a Christian. But then, you're just toying with her anyway--and are intellectually dishonest yourself. So, what the hey?

I certainly hope that you are not referring to yourself as a Christian that is repulsed by representation of Christianity. between the two of us, I have given the only facts about God or Christ that can be defended. You have joined with the atheist, the detractors of reasoning, those who ridicule others because of their religious and political beliefs, and shown yourself to be a very intolerant person.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if Christ were here today, you would be one of those religious people who cried out for his blood. Speaking of dishonesty, that is what your whole philosophical position is. Like you tell Amicus, it is time for you to put up or shut up. You can fake your religious sojourn here among these atheist but if you want to be counted with Christ, you must be more than fake. You can not be a Christian and stand for nothing. You call for a real representation of Christianity but you set back in the shadows lurking to find fault with those who are willing to stand for what they believe. It is your representation of a Christian that makes Christianity seem so thoughtless and repulsive. How has Christianity helped you? Give us your testimony if you have one or are you ashamed that believing in Christ might threaten your intellectual standing on this forum?

 

[xssve]

I certainly hope that you are not referring to yourself as a Christian that is repulsed by representation of Christianity. between the two of us, I have given the only facts about God or Christ that can be defended. You have joined with the atheist, the detractors of reasoning, those who ridicule others because of their religious and political beliefs, and shown yourself to be a very intolerant person.

Oooh, you're in trou-ble Pilot!

 

[cloudy]

Oooh, you're in trou-ble Pilot!

coffee spew!

I'm so glad real Christians aren't anything like wormie.

 

[Liar]

To accept faith requires an act of faith: I have to have faith that you have faith - and even so, I can reserve the right to not have any faith for that in which I take it on faith that you believe.

No?

Maybe tomorrow. it's 3 AM here, and reading that made me cross eyed.

Good night.

 

[sr71plt]

If you gave up long ago to my confused ramblings, why do you keep responding to my assertions? If you would either offer another alternative to my point of view or ignore my post altogether, that would end your problem with me. You seem to be only interested in say some smart ass remark. Am I stepping into some private territory where you think you are the king? Move over, you are just not that good to claim all the territory.

I don't "keep responding"; I just check in every once and a while and rarely--very rarely--post something. Why does it bother you? You seem to want to keep this circus rolling on?

As I said before, I find you a very poor representative of Christianity, which embarrasses me. So I'd rather you stopped your silly game myself. If you don't want me to post something every once and a while, take your own medicine and stop posting.

 

[xssve]

Maybe tomorrow. it's 3 AM here, and reading that made me cross eyed.

Good night.

Say it Three times fast.

Nighty nite.

 

[sr71plt]

I certainly hope that you are not referring to yourself as a Christian that is repulsed by representation of Christianity. between the two of us, I have given the only facts about God or Christ that can be defended. You have joined with the atheist, the detractors of reasoning, those who ridicule others because of their religious and political beliefs, and shown yourself to be a very intolerant person.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if Christ were here today, you would be one of those religious people who cried out for his blood. Speaking of dishonesty, that is what your whole philosophical position is. Like you tell Amicus, it is time for you to put up or shut up. You can fake your religious sojourn here among these atheist but if you want to be counted with Christ, you must be more than fake. You can not be a Christian and stand for nothing. You call for a real representation of Christianity but you set back in the shadows lurking to find fault with those who are willing to stand for what they believe. It is your representation of a Christian that makes Christianity seem so thoughtless and repulsive. How has Christianity helped you? Give us your testimony if you have one or are you ashamed that believing in Christ might threaten your intellectual standing on this forum?

Actually, I decided some time ago that you're not worth my discussion of Christianity. I did make a stab at it several days ago, but you were buried someplace in the Pentateuch--and couldn't even figure the meaning of any of that out.

Between you and the athiests here, yes, I'll go for a drink with the athiests. They won't make me want to curl my toes every time they make a statement about what faith is and what I have to believe.

I've decided you are just a gamester. Thus, this has nothing to do with discussion of faith vs. disbelief.

 

[wmrs2]

The tree may appear to be self evident, but I notice you still bump you head against it to confirm your perceptions that it is substantial and not a hallucination.

My comment is addressed to your assertion that we are "attacking" her faith, which is subjective, and cannot even be objectively established, much less used as the basis for further logical extension, any such would have to necessarily be equally subjective.

I don't believe anyone here is attacking her alleged faith at the moment, in fact I believe several of the poster involved in this discussion are not without a certain degree of faith themselves - we are attacking her reasoning which is subject to objective procedural rules.

Logically, to assert, as you have, that to attack her logic is to attack her faith is illogical, since they are not the same thing, neither is patriotism and faith, or even patriotism and logic, for that matter.

There seem to be a lot of logical inferences and connections being made here that do not stand up to scrutiny. One does not accept reason logic and evidence at face value, particularly on such flimsy pretext; it would be illogical, since logic, by it's very nature, invites argument. To do so, i.e., to accept any statement as logical simply because it contains large and important sounding words, would be to render the concept meaningless.

It has an established meaning: if you want to play, you should stick to that meaning, because otherwise, it isn't logic, it's sophistry.

I would like to address this post, not to be augmentative, but to set the record straight.

My comment is addressed to your assertion that we are "attacking" her faith,

It does not bother me for you to attack my faith. If my faith can't take it, I would get the hell out of here. The fact is that my faith has not been attack, although many have tried. On this thread alone there are over 30 post in succession that are void of any intellectual comment about my faith and are given by people who only want to ridicule. After all this ridicule I have every right to challenge the ethics of those who participated in this farce of an intellectual conversation. What do I do? I use this chase and ridicule as "show and tell" to show that people are evil and that as such they will not offer a good reason for their behavior.

much less used as the basis for further logical extension, any such would have to necessarily be equally subjective.

Think about what you are saying here. Should one make "logical extensions" based on "nothing" or would it be best to base them on common sense and self-evident truths (even if these were feigned)?

I believe several of the poster involved in this discussion are not without a certain degree of faith themselves

This may be true but for the most of them, they do not have the same faith as I have. My faith is based on logical extension. I am not the one trying to cram the Bible down peoples throat. It is those do good Christians that want to tell me how wrong I am that pull the Bible out on me. I simply prove they don't know shit about the Bible and they put the Bible away.

There seem to be a lot of logical inferences and connections being made here that do not stand up to scrutiny.

This may be true but instead of just saying this, list one or two so we can examine them for scrutiny.

It has an established meaning: if you want to play, you should stick to that meaning, because otherwise, it isn't logic, it's sophistry.

This is what I have been saying. I have pointed out how atheistic thinking has no premise for reasoning. Now to prove you are not using sophistry, lets see where the premises in my rational process is missing or changing? Please do it if you can.

 

[wmrs2]

I can-- by the empirical evidence of her words, she is terribly confused as to the meaning of "objective" and of "truth."

Stating this does not make it true. Can you explain "objective" and "truth"? I may not be the one confused and I can defend my behavior. Please answer the question and put me back on ignore.

 

[amicus]

Pure posted this in the Moral Matrix thread, it's rather more involved than what I had in mind, but it is robust logic: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion

I have not gotten through it myself all the way, but rather than reinvent the wheel, for which I may have to beg SubJoes permission as it might get lengthy, I suggest you read this and attempt to refute her reasoning.

I might have a quibble or two with it myself, although I haven't spotted any significant boners thus far.

~~~

Had I wished to 'refute' someone, anyone, I would have stated that.

Xssve...time to put your money where your mouth is...

I am not going to search for a post in which you supported abortion and if I am in error to assume that you do, then I will pick another issue.

As you seem to be the most lucid and consistent of the bunch here, those in opposition to objective reality; I ask that you lay out, explain and justify your contention that abortion is a moral and ethical value.

If you don't mind, since most present that position as, 'absolute', please include that in your dissertation.

Thank you...

Amicus...


~~~

The world still waits, xcssve, for you to state your position and defend it.

I could always paste excerpts from Ayn Rand's Objectivist Epistemology and ask you to refute that, but that is hardly the point, now, is it?

Take a deep breath now and astound us all with your ability to reason.

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

Look, let's keep this simple: you cannot form a logical proposition using self evidence as a proposition, as self evident as ami's tree might be, in order for him to form a logical proposition using it, he'll have to prove it exists - this should pose no particular problem for him, unless he was hallucinating.

The definition of self evidence is that a thing that requires no proof - and in logic, everything requires proof in order to be accepted as a proposition in a logical statement.

Your syllogism is simply: I believe god is self evident, therefore god is real.

Doesn't pass because of the evidence test, it doesn't matter what you believe in terms of logic, it's all about what you can demonstrate, and you're dead in the water at this point, there is no point in going any further.

Religious thinkers has been trying this since language was invented, it didn't pass then, and it doesn't pass now - the Catholics gave it up back during the Renaissance - and those cats could talk the ears off a Brass Monkey.

Trust me, keep your faith, study logic if you like, but remember it's a discipline, not a bag of parlor tricks; you never had a chance in this argument, if Aquinas and Descartes couldn't do it, you're not going to either.

 

[sr71plt]

I could always paste excerpts from Ayn Rand's Objectivist Epistemology and ask you to refute that, but that is hardly the point, now, is it?

That should put us all to sleep. Might be a good idea.

 

[xssve]

See, that's what I don't see. I see her trying to redefine faith as knowledge. When it's not. It's faith. Conviction without knowledge. That's what the word means.

There's nothing wrong with faith. We humans need to have faith in something, to trust ideas and concepts, or we're all headed down a nihilist vortex of suck.

But it doesn't change what faith is. In fact, calling it knowledge is devaluing it.

I agree with this statement by the way.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree with this statement by the way.

The dictionary isn't all that relevant to Christian faith. True faith would be the same as knowledge in the Christian understanding. This is the basic misunderstanding here. You guys just aren't on the same page and never will be. Can you guess what the best thing to do is in that circumstance? Come on, you can reason it out.

 

[Guest]

The dictionary isn't all that relevant to Christian faith. True faith would be the same as knowledge in the Christian understanding. This is the basic misunderstanding here. You guys just aren't on the same page and never will be. Can you guess what the best thing to do is in that circumstance? Come on, you can reason it out.

Does it have something to do with some kind of red ass dog or something?

No, wait. I know this. Don't tell me.