'True lies of new Atheism'.

That is an excellent example to demonstrate my point. You may think its 100% wrong to 'molest', a child or to eat someone, however that assessment is faulty, at least outside the concept of absolutism and the idea that I am attempting to clarify ie that nothing is 100% certain or correct. Why is that so? The word ‘correct’ or ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is highly subjective!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Note about source I used i.e. wiki; some know this some don't. Wiki is usually a fairly accurate source. However its entries are provide by readers such as you or I! So take anything on wiki with that grain of salt! When I have time I usually verify the wiki entry with two others.

First let's look at your statement/question from my, a christians understanding, yes I use God as my authority. Its so wrong that if the sodimizer lived in old testament times he would probably be stoned to death. So yes its wrong. Of course my morals that are based on the Christian religion which tells me that to sodomize a child is very wrong. Lets not forget my culture! In my culture its wrong to do so even sans religious belief in every case I know of. Lastly lets look at the laws of man. Yes to sodomize a child is a criminal offence in all 50 states!

However (you knew there would be a however)…

Lets say you are an a member of an imaginary tribe* of indigenous peoples that practice and encourages sex with very young children. Is it wrong in that culture, in their entire world? NO! Its morally correct and even desirable. Its better than cannibalism, head hunting and other taboos (to the western mind) that are not only acceptable but desirable!

* I use the concept of ‘imaginary tribes’ for a couple of reasons; I know what the western mind would call child abuse is allowed and encouraged in some indigenous aboriginal cultures. Not only child sex but other taboo areas such as incest etc. I will not mention them by name because I do not want to insult anyone that may be a living member or a descendent etc of that tribe.

So now you might agree with me?

Rev A

 

Circular reasoning need not apply. The fact that 100% faith is impossible tidily neuters your strawstatment/argument. Its simple, your claims becomes meaningless when one realizes 100% faith is impossible. Most atheists here seem to think like many religious folks claim that faith is a 100% proposition. I would probably get into a fist fight with someone from a Christian congregation if I stood at the pulpit and said ‘100% faith is impossible’ (or nearly so). If I stood in front of a radical Islamic audience my head may roll saying faith was not 100%! When I do rarely preach but when I do guest preach, I tip toe around the eggshells when speaking about faith. There is nothing more to be said, faith doubt and evidence are all co dependent.

RevA

 

Even if this "100% faith is impossible" mantra would have any meaning in the context of a priori knowledge - which is either accepted or not accepted, i.e. 0 or 100% - then it does not exclude what I said. What you call "evidence" is nothing more than external self-justification as a result of cognitive dissonance.

We don't usually like to believe something without any reason. As you recently put it yourself, quote: "of course we all like evdiences [sic] or at least many of us do", end quote. This situation of believing something without proper justification yet being unable to believe differently comes off as very discomforting to the sentient mind. Hence, we will go to great lenghts to come up with reasons for believing what we believe. Which is fine because, believe it or not, there are actually really good reasons why we are able to believe in things for no reason at all. However, since it is indeed belief for no reason, the reason must always be borne from the belief itself. It becomes circular. And whomever believes it to be a reason for his beliefs becomes less discomforted by the actual lack of reason for his beliefs.

 

That faith assumes perfect certainty while perfect certainty is unatainable is a flaw in faith. You can not adjust the implications of faith at a whim.

More...

Remember that cherry-picking we were talking about recently? You are cherry-picking. You accept the implications of faith when it suits you and reject them when it doesn't. Your criteria for acceptance of it change. Some relevent tenets you accept at some times but at other times you reject them if they turn out inconvenient.

I tell people that God (the normal God) is impossible but there are many who still believe in it. I am told that God has "mysterious ways" or is way beyond any possibility of my comprehending it. These answers reject logic. This is another example of cherry-picking. Such people are accepting of logic when it suits them but reject it when it doesn't. It's exactly the same with your faith argument.

 

Exactly Incorporeal ! Unquestionably, precisely, nearly 100% indubitably correct! Took the words right outta' my mouth~

Correct Incorporeal, dreadpiratejaymo admits in his own words that he has faith and is using stats for evidence to support his faith that the chair will not break. How difficult can this be? Maybe atheists just do not like the word ‘faith‘ and the idea that they have ‘faith‘.

We have to use something as an authority to define the meaning of words, and that is called a dictionary. I should not have to do this but a lot of atheists that are members here fabricate their own definitions for words. Faith is one and evidence is another. (more on evidence later). Ok lets look at the definition of faith;

Faith;
n
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
2. religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. religion trust in God: belief in and devotion to God
Her faith is unwavering.

4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
people of different political faiths

5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Where does the dictionary say anything about absolutes? Number one is good enough for me. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. Please do not seize on the last sentence because logical proof is not evidence nor does it say that its absolutely necessary, but is acceptable to use logical proof etc. I don’t think there is need to discuss this thing more its clear that Faith goes with doubt and the need for evidence is acceptable, especially considering that all evidence is fallible. In this case Dr Comforts words ring most true, i.e. "you can lead a (malicious) atheist to evidence but you can not make him think"! I find no joy in agreeing with Dr Comforts words because the truism of that statement means that the non believers will remain atheists due to simply being stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence and common sense.

Rev A

 

Ok to clarify what exactly did you say? You have said so much! I don’t want to give you any wiggle room!

While you work on that;

The ONLY argument here is this; I said 100% faith does not exist (in the temporal universe). Apparently even the disciples that saw Jesus work miracles did not have it. I will do you an atheist or unbeliever (I assume) a favor and expand my OP and claim that non-religious 100% faith does not exist either.

As for your long foray into what ifs, please know that I am not going to be taunted into a derailing straw tangent. In fact I don't have to make any quantifying statements unless you can prove 100% faith does exist. As I said the axiom (100% faith is a fallacy) defeats your claim to the contrary immediately. You can tease and rant but the you have already lost, no amount of pining speculating will reverse your defeat.

RevA

 

What's "lenghts" FreeWare? Oh you mean lengths? Ha ha the karma police kick butt again!

sic indeed! oh the hypocrisy of it all...

Anyway I will answer the rest of your reply after lunch...

RevA

 

PS (ha ha)>>> Freeware;

BTW you are not including enough information in your strangely worded straw man weird word salads. For example how were you using a The term a priori knowledge? Its supposed to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence. However the way you strung together you words I can't tell. Are you saying that my faith claim is not empirically valid? It the reason I answered before getting a clarification was that it really does not matter because my claim that 100% faith is impossible is not a mantra its a axiom. Being an axiom (at least that is my claim) you should know that that answers your claim.

Rev

 

And you are 100% certain of that, I presume?

Then calling this statement correct would be subjective. Right?

Thanks, don't mind if I do.

Verify it with two hundred others and you still won't know what the hell you're talking about.

Sure, just like wiping the Jews off the face of the Earth wouldn't have been wrong had the Nazis merely had sense enough to win.

Sure it is, to people who love evil - not to anyone else.

Please, I've seen the same drivel from atheists for years. That you call yourself a Christian hardly lends any novelty to such threadbare canards.

How about Jesus Himself? Hmmmm?

 

Arrrraaaahhhggg pleaseeee noooo...ok

Provide quotes in quote tags and make sure you do not cut out a piece of my words. When you do that I will show you why and where you are wrong. We have bounced around discussing both faith used in a religious context and faith used in a secular context. I was hoping you could tell the difference. Anyway validate your erroneous claims. I never change to win an debate or argument, what would I gain by that? Nothing thats what.

Define 'normal God'. The probable reason 'many still believe' is because they know you are speaking from ignorance. You have a good general science background, but you are truly lacking in the theology dept. So you are not trusted when you try to explain your ideas that god doesn’t exist.

I may have mysterious ways but I exist.

A chimp may know you exist but it could not comprehend your brains ability to do advanced math etc.

No you do not understand logic. The answers are, or could be logical. Not only that did you ask one man on the street then decide every Christian and every theist and every churchgoer and every one in every domination would answer the same as your orginal source? Now that kind of polling defies all logic! As I said before you are measuring from your own cup in totality. I have never met anyone that has such a ummm' self imposed disability. You should go to a good book store and read about how the other side really is, not how you think it is. I am asking you to do it for your own enrichment.

Again use quote tags. I claim you are wrong. The only thing I said is that 100% faith is not
possible. I have said that evidence and faith are compatible. I have said that doubt is a natural component of faith. I said that and did not deivate from it, if you think otherwise please don’t tell me what I did or did not do SHOW ME. I make mistakes as everyone but I never lie. I do not have to lie because I am correct without lying etc.

RevA

 

You hgave an example of cherry-picking that was not actually an example of cherry-picking. I explained it in a pervious note and will not do it again.

The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent one.

Irrelevant to the actual point I was making. The normal God defies logic. The people who believe in this God and yet usually employ logic are cherry-picking.

You are truly lacking in the theology department. It's hilarious to see. Scholarly Christians would tear you a new one. I have torn you a new one. But you would never notice.

Misisng the point, eternally. I'm talking about cherry-picking, with the selective application of logic as an example.

Missing the point. The chimp does not RELY on his incomprehension to defend his claim of my existence.

YThe normal God is inherently illogical. To the extent you believe in it, you are being illogical. There is nothing wrong in this. What is wrong is that you refuse to admit it.

 

Sic only means that the quote appears exactly as the source. Which it did.

I'm surprised by your pettiness, RevAnarchist.

 

LMAO. You just used a strawman as an argument against why he called your previous argument a strawman. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing classic.

Anyway, to answer your question, everything that disagrees with an atheist isn't a strawman, just everything you say is a strawman. You're not the only one who does it, but you certainly stand out as one of the worst offenders. It's just your horribly flawed method of "debate". If you're getting frustrated with everyone pointing out your strawmen, stop using them. It's pretty simple.

Because that's circular reasoning. You can't use what is written in the Bible as proof of its own validity.

You: "The Bible is of divine origin."
Me: "How do you know?"
You: "Because it says so in the Bible."
Me:

And now it's just a logical fallacy.

Going to cut you off there. You are totally incapable of figuring out why, logically, your religion (and god) is any different than any other that exists currently, has existed in the past, or will ever exist in the future.

Something written down years or decades after the actual occurrence is not dictation. I challenge you to accurately write down a conversation you had with someone even one year ago, let alone a few decades.

You've brought this up before. Here was my response (which you ignored then):

Which you do not pass up any opportunity to demonstrate.

I guess that would mean that you are also intolerant, only slightly less so. (no, I don't actually agree with you on this, just saying)

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen F Roberts

 

No nothing is 100% sure except in Gods realm.

I can not answer word salad.

More nonsensical word salad, I do not know what you are talking about! Do you even know what Wiki is?

Semi babble so I will attempt to answer. The Nazis nor Hitler broke any law in Germany, they thought they were correct both morally and ethically. I doubt if you understood my first answer so I doubt that you will understand this one either.

Who defines evil, you? I use God as my authority and what God defines as evil I do as well. However not everyone has a God. You really should take a course in basic ....er' ...everything we are discussing here.

You have offered not one iota of rebuttal. Probably because you do not understand even the rank basics of theology philosophy or anything beyond what is outside your front door.

Jesus is now in the atemporal universe not the temporal universe …just Google it. Hmmmmm?

RevA

 

No you aren't. You are being deceptive tho’, which is par for course. You thrive on trying to embarrass others, its your nature. If you are so innocent why use [sic] at all ? You wanted to call attention to my typo, right? NEWSFLASH; It was a quote so I suppose everyone knew you didn’t sneak in there and misspell it eh?

That is why I found your misspelling of the word 'length' right after you intentionally highlighted my mistake so sweetly justifying. As I said the karma police just you, and I have to admit that I loved it. And even now with this post you are again trying to cover up your ignorance by attempting to claim I am petty. Ha ha thanks for the comic relief and showing everyone in this forum your hypocritical side.

RevA

 

Seems rather silly and convoluted to me.. Atheism- New Atheism.. ???

Atheists are simply people who don't believe in God..

 

Strawman all.

Ha ha...just kidding. I see kis and freeware called in the Calvary, too bad it the debate war is already lost, but you may address the victors, yes that would be I, Incorporeal and Neutral..

Rev A

 

Man are you in for a shock! See my thread 'lies of the new atheism'. Maybe we can agree on something...Oh wait…this is that post…it's so far off topic I didn’t realize…

Seriously;

Atheists can not defend their paradigm. Or they will not defend their paradigm, ergo the title of this thread.

RevA

 

Then I guess you can't be sure that nothing is 100% sure, huh?

More accurately, you don't have the stones to face your own self-contradiciton.

You don't know what you're talking about either.

I understand it better than you do. That's why I can see how idiotic it is and you can't.

Again, you have no idea what the Hell you're talking about.

So what universe was He in when He raised Lazarus from the dead, Braniac?

 

Atheists don't have to defend any "paradigm".. The just don't believe..

 

Actually we have just begun to touch on a very important feature of religion that I think is quite treacherous.

That faith is unattainable and yet is intended to be flawless is very telling.

First, a concrete example: faith healing. There are those who take the Bible at its word and think that if you can attain perfect faith (actually a redundancy, for if it's not perfect then it's not faith, but left in for the sake of clarity) then you can do anything (through God of course).

Matthew 17

Jesus Heals a Demon-Possessed Boy

14 When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17 “You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.

19 Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

There are people in jail for trying to practice this belief, for the people they tried to heal died.

Oregon City faith-healers sentenced to 90 days in jail

"Other faith-healing cases included Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, an Oregon City couple convicted in the faith-healing death of their 16-year-old son in 2008, who completed a 16-month prison term in the spring.

Also this spring, the Legislature voted to end legal protection for believers in faith healing."

Even if we agreed that you could do anything if you had faith, we have Rev's statement that such faith is literally impossible. The goal is to be faithful, but the goal is unattainable. Christianity has a number of these impossible goals built into it. This same idea underlays the doctirne of original sin. The goal for Christians is to be sinless, but the goal is unattanable due to original sin.

It is my view that the intent, the goal, behind putting unattainable goals in religion is to belittle the believer. This goal is always reached, because the goals of which it is comprised always fail. This is one of the key methods used in religion to maintain power over its adherents. When a believer is sufficiently belittled, the largeness of the power holding him fast is artificially magnified.

If this sounds familiar, it should. This sort of psychic abuse is typical of battered women who do not leave the batterer. The batterer says "You will never find anyone better than me. Who would want someone as ugly, as stupid, as weak as you?" So the battered woman, convinced of her own worthlessness, stays.

This is the function of faith, to humiliate believers into submission. So too of original sin and, even, God himself. No other conception could possibly be more belittling than God. Infininity minus a hunderd or a billion or a vigintillion leaves infinity. No amount of subtraction can diminish God. Hence no amount of addition can approach him. Compared to God we do not exist, literally. God's awesome power resides in this absolute destruction of the value of the believer.

This pscyhological abuse is not limited to Christianity. It exists in many religions, indeed appears to be frequent enough to be considered a general feature of religion. And this is but one example of why I feel justified in saying that religion is damaging.

 

After my own heart.

"I know that I know nothing."

 

Can it be equally well stated then that because Atheists are simply people who don't believe in God, that those same Atheists also make themselves look extremely retarded by spending so much time engaging in arguments about things which they do not believe in?

 

When parts of a quote might draw unusual attention, sic is used to point out that the part actually appears in the source and is not the invention of the one who's quoting the work of another.
It's all very simple. If I corrected the typo you made then I would have altered what you said when quoting you. However, if I did not point out the typo, it could give the impression that it was put there with ill intent.

I know that a poster on this subforum uses sic systematically to point out typos and spelling mistakes of people who don't share his religious beliefs. I couldn't dream of doing such a thing.

 

Oh dear, I'm sure it wasn't your intention to patronize the engagement of the opening poster of this thread.