When Dawkins says its "child abuse" to raise a child Catholic...

its already been said

 

I believe he does so, with most every post.

 

Lol!
Where did I say that? Cite the post please.
Oh, and not anti-Christian at all.
Just wish I met people that really cared about it.
Instead I meet you.

 

Faith is faith what ever you want to define it unless you are saying that atheist have no faith, is that it they'll be able to get their wishes and do things with just a snap of their finger? We all know many atheist scientist were able to make great discoveries because they have faith that man can fly, that man can reach the moon, that man can create weapons of mass destruction, that man can find a cure to leprosy and one day man will find a cure to cancer that is faith.
Religious people believe both faith in God and faith in man. Atheist have faith only on man. So do you have faith that there is no God? What makes you think there is no God if God is according to you none existence is it because of your faith? Or are you just going to be irrelevant and trivial?

 

Say what that you do not believe in God, you do not believe in faith? you are obsess with companionship or all of them?
You are not anti Christian you are just against Christian. Do you believe in Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross for our sake and resurrected from the dead?
You should be glad that you met me because without me all your sneaky anti Christian attacks would go unnoticed and unchallenged.

 

Silly equivocation. That's like saying a circle on a Venn Diagram is the same thing as a badger's home, because they're both called a 'set'. Stop being irrelevant.

 

Faith is only for people who don't have FACTS on their side.

 

But maybe "god" is actually Zeus, or maybe actually Thor, or Nanook, or Odin, or Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUHNA), or Michael Jordan, or Apollo, etc., and not the Christian god.

(My money is on MJ, as I truly can't imagine Jesus or Buddha doing a 360 reverse tomahawk dunk....I truly can't.)

 

So you are saying FAITH is only for Christians? and that atheist do not know the existence of faith or the word of it? Just say so that you do not have faith that God does not exist can you say that?

 

This mean all the scientist who do not have facts but believe that the facts will come once they discover it and how can they discover it when they have no faith?
Before you can have facts you need to have faith first.

 

Could be if that is what your faith tells you. The bottom line is what ever faith you believe in a God or gods or MJ this mean there is life after death and that you should ceased in criticizing your gods or God if not MJ will be upset and he'll send you to hell.
Just like scientist believe that they can one day be able to teleport humans from one place to another.

 

You do make a point, in that we modern Secular Humanists do have a sort of "faith", or belief in, the greatness of science. Not blind faith like a religious person has, but belief that, because it's consistent, logical, and not biased as such, that science will trump religion/superstition.
I have more, well, "faith" in logic, science, reason, etc. than I do in ancient unproven illogical inconsistent superstitions designed to aggrandize their founders (like Jesus'/Mohammad's faiths.....neither could produce FACTS, so they gotta wallow down in the "faith" category....sad really.)

 

I know that it will be science that finally cures cancer, and not some magic dead zombie in the sky. The magic dead zombie in the sky, being all-knowing and stuff, HAS THE CURE for cancer, but is too much of a prick to simply tell us. What a prick. Humanity will grow in spite of the zombie, not because of him.

 

Couldn't find a post to cite, huh?
Didn't think so.
That's because you lied.
Again.
When did you guys drop that rule?

 

This is the sort of 'redneck' level argument I am talking about. generally some preacher who's only education is attending some bible school somewhere and has no knowledge of anything else decides to invent an argument and simply lies.

There is this pathetic viral email that has some story about Einstein challenging an atheist professor whilst at university and showing einstein to be a christian which is utter nonsense since for a start he was Jewish. It does point to a deep dishonesty in certain areas of baptist/Pentecostalist/Free church Christianity.

Franklin nd Newton were both deists. Newton also believed in alchemy and horoscopes.

 

Of course you can not find your own lies, remember liars will never admit they lied that is why you continue to distort and lie about Christians and the Bible.
The rule has always been around, the moderators and operators just allowed your type of free speech to go on and it is up to me to debunk you because part of free speech is to allow liars a forum to post their lies and for others to refute those lies.

 

Now we are in agreement faith that it exist and it is faith that moves this world and civilization to modernization.

Science started out as mombo jumbo, mixing and experimenting with snake oil, scorpion tongs, snake poison, spider fangs, ivy, wild herbs, etc. Early scientist were wizards, warlocks, witches all experimenting with those substances and all types of superstitious, geometrism, astro science, until finally they discover actual good discoveries with the help of the Christian church that begun the growth of modern science. Christianity just like science has advance it is called Christian science. The Catholic church has sponsor, supported scientific research for centuries, as far as Christianity is concern science and Christianity co-existed only the atheist or anti Christians that are attempting to push Christianity aside not because they do not believe in God but because of self pride they are only using God as an excuse.

It is no fiction that Jesus or Mohammed did not exist, it is a fact that both Jesus and Mohammed existed and both have substantially influence the course of history that is a fact not an unproven illogical inconsistent superstitions. What is sad is that you will deny the e existence of Jesus Christ against tremendous amount of facts and history that he did existed and he did died on the cross but most of all his followers would succeed with raising a single combat army to convert the empire of Rome.

 

Science that tested their experiments on zambies including on animals cutting them up open making all kinds of mombo jumbo that has not work for centuries and now they are still requesting for human candidates willing to act as human guinea pigs for their experiments.

 

Sorry.
I was referring to the commandment against false witness. That rule.
You seem to have abandoned it altogether.

 

I do not have faith that there is no god. I realise that subtleties of philosophy are a bit beyond you and you cannot understand the difference between the statements "There is no god" and " I do not believe in God. For me to believe in something there must be evidence for its existence that overcomes any rational objection. I have seen no evidence for the existence of god that comes anywhere near challenging rational objection. No faith neccessary.

 

Thanks MDF, I suppose by proof you mean evidence because there is no proof of Gods existence, and in a more philosophical and I think scientific sense there is no proof (100% sure) that anything exists or is real. Maybe we can touch on that later, because that concept plays right into the does God exist question.

That said most people need some type of evidence to believe. Even those Christians that think they believe on faith alone* employs the bible and other similar items as evidence to define and buttress their paradigm (world view). Btw, I admire those that believe on less evidence and more faith because in my world its a strength not a weakness. My atheism began to lose its validity as other evidences of science and philosophy etc emerged especially when pro God PhD types began to be known to me. Then there were the various arguments for the existence of God I discovered over the years and in college. I would be happy to cover those things and the other somewhat less believable items that contributed to my conversion from atheism to agnostics to dabbling and the practice of other religions* to finally Christianity. It has been a twenty year journey and search for truth that began when I was 14 years old or maybe a few years before.

Notes;

* ....Religions practiced and rejected in the search for truth; Buddhism, about a year and half. Eastern mysticism ie transcendental meditation etc. Then briefly paganism, then deism.


reva

 

OK REV Anarchist lets look at this from first principals.

Pretend That I have never heard of religion before, I have grown up in a remote research station amongst Scientists. I am familiar with the sciences and with logic but Know nothing of Jesus, God etc.

Try and convince me that I should become a follower of Jesus.

 

Sab; I think I missed some of your questions in post #695, or you added on after I read the first draft?

If you mean it’s possible that everything (all things) that exists can not be confirmed by direct empirical evidence, yes, I agree. I believe black holes exist, that the quantum model of virtual particles etc is correct, or that other scientific theory is correct sans direct physical evidence to confirm. I also feel the God exist is an axiom (***ha ha*** no, I was making a funny. God exists is a claim and an axiom only to believers) Also 'God exists' is a valid reasonable statement/argument and should be that even to secular types.

Ahh’, if all else fails use the indispensable fall back accusation that hopefully will invalidate all the theists God exists claim before it can begin. Petitio Principii, the begging the question, or circular argument claim. The trouble is my belief does not operate from an unsupported assumption, which does to that argument what you hope the Petitio Principii would do to mine. (see notes) Lol, good try tho’.

Notes ; ...... Example of Begging the Question or THE GODDIDIT CONVO;

Goddidit : "God must exist."
MsMrPFsecular: "How do you know."
Goddidit : "Because the Bible says so."
MsMrPFsecular: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Goddidit : "Because the Bible was written by God."

My beliefs/paradigm (world view) is different from the example above. It goes like this; “It’s more logical that the GID (God the Intelligent Designer) or God exists, primarily because its not reasonable nor rational to believe/assume that the universe began to exist from absolutely nothing and other validating and quantifying evidences.” Since I don’t make an unsupported assumption and use that same assumption for evidence that god exists my argument is valid devoid, of logical fallacies.

Thanks for your reply;



reva

 

I specifically asked in my last post for you to pretend I am an individual who has never heard of God/jesus and tell me why I should follow him. perhaps you missed it.

However you did write:

For an argument to be valid it must have at least two premises and a conclusion.

for instance

All Dogs are Carnivora

Rex is a Dog

Therefore rex is a Carnivorae

An argument is valid if assuming that the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.

If the argument is Valid and the premises ARE true then the argument is sound.
Your argument seems to only have one premise:

i) It is not reasonable to beleive that the universe comes from nothing

Then a conclusion:

ii) Therefore god exists.

You need a second premise. You have made a conclusion based on a single premise and that is NOT a valid argument.

 

I just wanted to play the peacemaker here. I understand why such a statement would seem ah' excessive to you, and reasonable to Blackrook. You and he are diametrically opposed in the way you make sense of the world. You are a prob and stats man Blackroot is more a man of generalities, and both have their advantages/disadvantages. Maybe our brains are hardwired to prefer some paradigms to others. If you are familiar with the particulars of personalities that was the Vienna Circle* its obvious that Kurt Godel even though a brilliant logician that created the incompleteness theorem was a ‘generalities man’** , the other thinkers were precise, no wishey washey thinkers. The western world embraced not Godels way of thinking but rather Waismann’s, which was mistake of sorts.

* Godel was also a theist and created a well a disappointing ontological argument (compared to W. Craigs modified Cosomological argument) that supported the existence of God. I would of expected a profound argument but it wasn’t that at all. ~Sigh~~
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628166/

Vienna-Circle - Cached - Similar
A group of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians formed in the 1920s that
met regularly in Vienna to investigate scientific language and scientific ...Among its members were Gustav Bergmann, Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, Philipp Frank, Kurt Gödel, Otto Neurath, and Friedrich Waismann; and among the members of a cognate group, the Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie (“Society for Empirical Philosophy”), which met in Berlin

I don’t like anyone to deride anyone unless they ask for it ha ha. Well even then as a Christian I should love them but I suppose their crimes/sins is what I really don’t love. As far as moderate Muslims are concerned I don’t know blackroods sensibilities. However, I love my moderate Muslim brothers and sisters, and as I have said my orthopod’ that glued and screwed my bones together is a Muslim woman! The radical extremist Muslims the terrorists are violent criminals, I don’t mind and even like some criminals but violence is never a good thing.

reva