Fairytale?

[Inan3]

Are you suggesting that kids succumb to peer pressure because they don't know what it is?

I think they know in concept what it is but I don't think they recognize it in all of their relationships. I'm sure they don't even know when they themselves are doing it to others. I think if it was explained to them that they could then be able to recognize it and learn to say no to it. Kids are wonderful at making a stand if they make the connection. That's why I think they need to learn it together. It's like unmasking the beast in public only to find a small frightened kitten. They now realize "I don't have to put up with this from you and you know that I know it" It then becomes "in" to say no to this lie and "out" to try to practise it.

Sounds noble -- but I know too many adults who could use similar lessons

That's may point. These kids then go on to be adults and have already learned these valuable lessons.

 

[FoeHammer]

FoeHammer, somehow you still don't know what rationalism is despite the fact that I've explained this to you at least a couple of times already, and cited authorative sources to support that explanation.

From an atheistic evolutionary perspective what is rationalism and why does it matter?
From an atheistic evolutionary perspective why should anything you or any ‘’authoritative source’’ say matter?

You were never able to defend your objection, but you've said before that any probability we consider, you think must be an act of faith regardless how we came to whatever opinion we do;

Quote me on it.

and you've said that gods are the only beings which even can think without relying on faith.

Again, quote me on it.

Thus you've rendered that definition meaningless since it includes everything obligately.

I have not as we shall see when you produce the quotes.

Of course the real definition of faith from every definitive source says you're wrong,

Faith = trust.

and even the Bible says that some men do not have faith.

Chapter and verse please.

Faith requires that we assume things as true just because we want to believe them,

No it does not.

and assert them as fact even without any reason to say so at all,

No it does not.

and that we refuse to ever reconsider our position no matter what,

No it does not.

even after being proven wrong

You haven’t proven me wrong.

-which is why you'll never even recognize your own mistakes much less correct them.

I haven’t made a mistake.

I proven you wrong about this before,

Only in your imagination.

and could do it again and again and again,

No chance.

but you'll never admit it because your faith forbids it.

My faith in no way forbids me to admit a mistake and neither does my conscience. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life but none in my dealings with you.

That's why faith is inherently dishonest and offers no way to ever discover the real truth about anything.

Faith is not dishonest, an unwillingness to admit that you have any is.

But rationalism is a philosophy which consciously denies faith for that very reason.

No it does not.

Rational beliefs must be reserved, tentative, and limited only to those things which are posatively indicated by objectively-verifiable logical or physical evidence.

And that applies to your atheism how, exactly?
Your way has nothing to offer, you are a meaningless consequence of a meaningless process in a meaningless universe. Your search for meaning is itself a meaningless exercise… where’s the logic in that? Where is the rationale?
You ignored it previously so how about you rationalize it now?

I have no faith in evolution because the evolutionary conclusion is not priori for me the way the creationist conclusion is for you. What matters is not the conclusion, but the reason and the methodology behind it.

If you believe that it happened but cannot demonstrate that it happened then you have faith in it.

My beliefs are my best estimate of the evidence at hand. I have no emotional attachment to those beliefs, and am free to change my mind in a moment if given reason to.

So you accept that it happened and at the same time are prepared to accept, in a moment, that it didn’t happen? If you really are prepared, in a moment, to accept that it didn’t happen then your willingness to defend it and promote it at present is surely an act of faith.

Somehow you think your purely emotional dependance on logical fallacies and personal incredulity borne of ignorance should count as evidence, but of course it doesn't. I'll need more than the ravings of mad men, charlatans and shysters to convince me of the magical things you're talking about.

I noticed further on down this diatribe that you accuse me of being offensive. You have issues that need to be addressed. Why do you insist on making stuff up when it comes to what I believe rather that ask me?

Yes it is magic, by definition. And yes, the Biblical authors were certainly primitives ignorant of many things, most especially the construct of the cosmos. They've made many erroneous claims on that topic which cannot be true either individually or collectively. But of course you'll never accept that because you have a desperate need-to-believe.

No it is not magic and I do not have a desperate need to believe at all. I have reason to believe.

Others, like myself don't have any such need.

Oh yes, you do have a desperate need. That you are here constantly proclaiming the fact of evolution taking every opportunity to demonstrate, what you believe in your own mind to be, a superior intellect, making stuff up rather than admit that you were wrong to treat every Christian with the same degree of condescension and derision when faced with one that will call you on every point and expose your lack of understanding of what it is that Christians actually believe rather than what you imagine they believe. You have a desperate need to be right but you have been shown to be wrong… Live with it, learn from it. I think have told you this before.

Instead, we have only a desire to understand. So I'm not afraid of any fact like you are.

How about the fact that you are wrong?

I'm perfectly willing to believe in a god again, and would whether I wanted to or not -if someone could show me one good reason to.

‘’Good’’ reason?

I would very much like to believe in something of a spiritual nature, especially something like the Tao. Your notion of God is a bit infantile from my perspective.

You know very little of my ‘’notion’’ of God which would make your ‘’infantile’’ jibe infantile.

When I believed in a deity, and even when I was still a Christian, my version of God was much more appealing than yours, and far superior, largely because MY god didn't depend on that repugnant bigotry in the Bible.

Didn’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Even more than the contradictions and absurdities, the atrocities attributed to God was the primary reason why the Bible could not have been his word. Those are the words of inferior beings, not a supreme one.

I do not accept that there are contradictions or absurdities in The Bible. It is rather a lame argument to say that The Bible could not be the word of God because what it says doesn’t fit with your notion of what God should be like.

Yes, I had a "pre-conceived notion" of God -since everyone told me he was a loving, wise, and just creator. But the horrible thing the Bible worships is not that way. Far from any faith-based preferencial denial, my position is one of resignation rather than resolve. I didn't want to stop believing, either in God, or in the Tao, nor anything in the astral realm, and certainly not in my own soul. But it doesn't do any good to make up something I'd rather believe -even if its not evidently true. Neither do I have any need to invent some external meaning for my existence. I am, that's enough.

I am glad The Bible pulls no punches and deals with life as it is, I can relate to it. I am glad that God has standards and will uphold them even to the point of destroying those who would oppose them. It is arrogant to imagine that God should have to conform to how you would like Him to be and foolish to reject Him when you come to realize that He doesn’t.

Unlike you, I do not base my perspective on arguments from assumed authorities, either scriptural or clerical. If we are discussing what Christians believe

But we are not discussing what Christians believe. You are talking about what you imagine Christians believe and I am talking about what I believe.

then citing famous clergymen is hardly a logical fallacy. But your perspective cannot be independantly discovered from anything outside the articles of religion; it was given to you by men, and they used your faith to deceive you.

Actually it was given to me by God, in my heart and through His Word and between the two I seldom need the opinion of anyone else even ‘’famous clergymen’’.

Neither is it a logical fallacy to note that the Bible cannot be interpreted completely literally without contradicting itself.

What do you mean by ‘’completely literally’’?

This is well-understood by all the Biblical scholars too. You should note also that I make sure to distinguish the creationist subset from the larger Christian collective, though you curiously fail to do this and accuse me of your same failure.

I do not seek to divide Christians.

Were you open to intellectual discussion, I'd be happy to go over all the reasons behind all of this.

This line makes me smile. The thought that anyone out there, having read your posts, is likely to believe that you are capable of intellectual discussion.

But you can't be objective. You can only be offensive…

I can be both.

and inefficiently so.

How do you measure/determine that?

Because for you this is a deeply emotional issue, so you can only retaliate with hostile personal attacks lacking anything substantial. Your arguments are wrong, and all your accusations are both wrong and empty. Having no ability to debate any better than you do, and having to dishonestly evade every point or query put to you, then you can't do your own case any good and can't convince anyone else either. So I would suggest you not talk to me anymore, and I will ignore you as well -until or unless you come up with something of substance which you can show to be actually true.

Fortunately for me everything I have said is in print for everyone to see and decide for themselves. I doubt that all (if any) of them will be able to so confidently declare how much of an emotional issue this is for me but then they’re not as clever as you are they? As for hostile personal attacks, I have made some but I make no apology, this is, after all, a war of worldviews but I do find this a bit rich coming from someone whose posts are riddled with them.

The rest of it is hog-wash, you are just looking for a way out because your ego will not allow you to just walk away. You first have to convince it that you have won… how sad.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

You refused to participate, that's true. But if you had, or if you ever do, then I will also prove that it is not "arbitrary" by any means. The fact that you are an ape is objectively determinable, and not "dictated" by anything either of us would rather believe. Quit trying to project your own feeble childishness onto me.

It's a man devised classification system... of course it is arbitrary.

FoeHammer.

 

[TheOutsider]

It's a man devised classification system... of course it is arbitrary.

FoeHammer.

arbitrary - based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.

I would say that homology and genetics fall under "intrinsic nature".

 

[FoeHammer]

I would say that homology and genetics fall under "intrinsic nature".

From an atheistic evolutionary perspective you are a meaningless consequence of a meaningless process in a meaningless universe and as such everything becomes arbitrary.

FoeHammer.

 

[Blayz]

From an atheistic evolutionary perspective you are a meaningless consequence of a meaningless process in a meaningless universe and as such everything becomes arbitrary.

Indeed!...and the point is...?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

From an atheistic evolutionary perspective.

It is my belief that Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light, has reserved a special place in Lower Heck for people who continue to falsely equate evolution with atheism.

 

[FoeHammer]

Indeed!...and the point is...?

I'm right.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

It is my belief that Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light, has reserved a special place in Lower Heck for people who continue to falsely equate evolution with atheism.

Really?



FoeHammer.

 

[thaumaturgy]

No but I know him.

[bible]Matthew 7:21[/bible]

Come on, TM. Are you saying that you never forgive people?

Ya know, Inan, I think the most important part of forgiving others is recognizing that I am also not blameless.

If I were to have posted the FOLLOWING, I'd feel kinda bad for then "Lording" over others my forgiveness for them!

Let's review the tape (I love doing this, in case you missed it)

It's obvious that none of you have any integrity. You lie, you twist the truth, you manipulate, you insult, you cry like babies, you are just plain mean individuals.

because I could not believe that intelligent people would believe evolution

too many porkers on here (source)

Don't confuse useful science with you guys. You give yourselves too much credit.

If you are talking to me, I'll assume as I like for if they are are deceptive as all of you I'm sure they are doing that.

I was right I regret answering your questions. You are no different from the rest.

That's kind of sad isn't it!

Yeah. It is.

But don't worry, Inan3, I forgive you for calling us integrity-lacking swine. It's all good. I just hope you can forgive yourself.

In case you have trouble, I can keep reminding you. It's the least I can do.

Christians: Not Perfect, Just Forgiven

It's just plain loving them more than yourself. We can hate TM but it's better to choose to love. It's a happier, more peaceful life.

You're right. I apologize for pointing out this repeatedly:

It's obvious that none of you have any integrity.

too many porkers on here (source)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From an atheistic evolutionary perspective you are a meaningless consequence of a meaningless process in a meaningless universe and as such everything becomes arbitrary.

FoeHammer.

Arbitrary is not synonymous with meaningless. Stop conflating the two.

 

[Blayz]

Arbitrary is not synonymous with meaningless. Stop conflating the two.

Even without the conflation, it is still true. Everything is meaningless.

 

[Split Rock]

I have no faith in evolution because the evolutionary conclusion is not priori for me the way the creationist conclusion is for you. What matters is not the conclusion, but the reason and the methodology behind it. My beliefs are my best estimate of the evidence at hand. I have no emotional attachment to those beliefs, and am free to change my mind in a moment if given reason to.

So you accept that it happened and at the same time are prepared to accept, in a moment, that it didn’t happen? If you really are prepared, in a moment, to accept that it didn’t happen then your willingness to defend it and promote it at present is surely an act of faith.

This is a great example of the dishonesty you spew here on a regular basis. Aron wrote that he is willing to abandon evolution if provided with a reason to do so. This is the opposite of what characterizes a faith-based view. You then twist his statement into a pretzel to try and force your own dogmatic, intransigent mind-set on Aron, where it does not belong.

You continue to serve as an excellent example to the lurkers here of why Creationism has nothing honest to offer them, and I salute you!

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm perfectly willing to believe in a god again, and would whether I wanted to or not -if someone could show me one good reason to.

‘’Good’’ reason?

"Good" meaning something more than the ravings of mad men, charlatans and shysters; something that actually makes sense, is verifiably accurate, and posatively indicative of such a thing. Because it didn't give me any comfort to believe in a god. In fact, when I believed, it was always uncomfortable and confusing trying to figure out how the supernatural realm was integrated with the real one. Once I hit on the explanation that the "supernatural" wasn't really there, then everything finally made sense. So a "good reason" for God has to make sense or it can't be compelling.

Thus far, you have only been offensive, and ineffective in all your arguments because they're all entirely emotional, and you've been unable to demonstrate any academic accuracy or accountability on anything. Each of your attempted points have been disproved, and all you have done was to try and fail to project your own faults and fallacies onto others.

I've already explained to you what a rationalist is from the atheist perspective, the Christian evolutionist perspective, or from any perspective.

"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia

I don't know why you're obsessed with associating atheism and evolution, but that mindset is proving to be the most divisive in the history of Christianity. Your earlier of explanation pales compared to that of our emergence as a societal animal, a condition which evokes natural compassion for our brethren and fellows. And I still don't know why you think nothing matters if you're wrong. But I've already explained why nothing would matter if you were right.

I've also already shown from every authorative source what faith is, proving that it is not simply synonemous with trust, because faith is the condition of either trust, confidence, or belief that it be unreasonably stoic, and that it be assumed and maintained regardless of evidence.

I would love to quote your sqirming on these in the past, but I can't because threads like Can we get an honest admission and A dozen lies behind creationism's "absolute truth were deleted by the mods. But I suppose it would be just as well to ask you to explain that again; what could I possibly do to further minimize or remove faith from my perspective more than I already have?

Throughout the New Testament Jesus and his followers claim their judgment is based on whether they have faith, and 2 Thessalonians 3:2 states plainly that not everyone does. In Matthew 21:21, Jesus gives the condition under which any of his followers might cause living things to wither and die simply by wishing it so, but only "if" they have faith. In Mark 4:40, Jesus asked the fishermen why they had no faith. Of course he said something different at the same moment in Luke 8:25, which is strange because you don't accept that there could be any internal inconsistencies, conflicts or contradictions in the Bible. Never the less, they are there.

• God good to all, or just a few?
• War or Peace?
• Who is the father of Joseph?
• Who was at the Empty Tomb?
• Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
• Which first--beasts or man?
• The number of beasts in the ark
• How many stalls and horsemen?
• Is it folly to be wise or not?
• Human vs. ghostly impregnation
• The sins of the father
• The bat is not a bird
• Rabbits do not chew their cud
• Insects do NOT have four feet
• Snails do not melt
• Fowl from waters or ground
• Odd genetic engineering
• The shape of the earth
• Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
• Earth supported?
• Heaven supported too
• The hydrological cycle
• Order of creation
• Moses' personality
• Righteous live?
• Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
• Jesus' last words
• Years of famine
• Moved David to anger?
• The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
• God be seen?
• CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD
• Tempts?
• Judas died how?
• Ascend to heaven
• What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
• How many time did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow?
• Who killed Saul
• How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
• Does every man sin?
• Who bought potter's field?
• Who prophesied the potter's field?
• Who bears guilt?
• Do you answer a fool?
• How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
• How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
• Marriage?
• Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
• Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
• How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
• Judging
• Good deeds
• For or against?
• Whom did they see at the tomb?
• God change?
• Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
• Who's sepulchers?
• Strong drink?
• When second coming?
• Solomon's overseers
• The mother of Abijah
• When did Baasha die?
• How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
• Who was Josiah's successor?
• The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah
• What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
• What did they give him to drink?
• How long was Jesus in the tomb?

the Bible cannot be interpreted completely literally without contradicting itself.

What do you mean by ‘’completely literally’’?

Insisting that everything in the Bible actually happened as stated, all conversations verbatim and absolutely true without error of any kind, and refusing to accept that some of the stories may be parables rather than historic chronicles.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Even without the conflation, it is still true. Everything is meaningless.

Eventually yes. But you may as well make the best of what you can while you can.

I personally never had a problem with the whole "meaning of life" thing. I never thought anything had a meaning or that any seemingly random thing ever happened "for a reason". Yet strangely, it bothers me that one day, perhaps a septillion years from now, the universe itself will end. I don't know why that should bother me since I myself won't exist more than a few decades at most.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You refused to participate, that's true. But if you had, or if you ever do, then I will also prove that it is not "arbitrary" by any means. The fact that you are an ape is objectively determinable, and not "dictated" by anything either of us would rather believe. Quit trying to project your own feeble childishness onto me.

It's a man devised classification system... of course it is arbitrary.

It is not arbitrary because it is a verifiable factual circumstance which was discovered by man. All we "devised" were the names we applied to various aspects of it. And even those are being continuously corrected, not by any arbitrary means, but by objective determination by the facts themselves. Were you honest and accountable enough to systematically address every point or query in the challenge I made to you, then you could prove all that for yourself.

 

[FoeHammer]

This is a great example of the dishonesty you spew here on a regular basis. Aron wrote that he is willing to abandon evolution if provided with a reason to do so. This is the opposite of what characterizes a faith-based view. You then twist his statement into a pretzel to try and force your own dogmatic, intransigent mind-set on Aron, where it does not belong.

I am sure Aron-ra will be only to happy that you have chosen to interject on his behalf He's obviously in need of some help.
Either something is true or it isn't. To state that something is true whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility that it may not be makes it a statement of faith.

You continue to serve as an excellent example to the lurkers here of why Creationism has nothing to honest to offer them, and I salute you!

I have not been dishonest, I can defend everything I have said.

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Even without the conflation, it is still true. Everything is meaningless.

Agreed. But I still don't like conflation

 

[Aron-Ra]

Either something is true or it isn't.

Or it is "probably" true, or "evidently" so, which is the way people without faith usually speak of these things.

 

[Split Rock]

Either something is true or it isn't. To state that something is true whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility that it may not be makes it a statement of faith.

But science does not seek the "Truth." It provides the best answers based on the available information. Only philosophy and theology seek the "Truth."

Your definition of "faith" continues to be confused. Here are two simple questions.

1. Which of these two positions are based on "faith," in the religious sense of the word.

A. My belief will not change regardless of the physical evidence I find.

B. My belief may change based on the physical evidence I find.

2. Which of these two positions best represents your position and which best represents Aron's position?