| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2010 02:37:49 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
Probably some of all of them? |
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the implications of that statement. |
Will do. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 02:44:59 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ? |
Probably some of all of them? |
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the implications of that statement. |
Can you elaborate? You're very elusive in your posts. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 02:54:45 PM · #178 |
Now that I think about it, this is an interesting exercise:
Abram was Sumerian.
Nebuchadnezzar II was Babylonian
The Ninevites were Assyrian
Moses was Egyptian, at least in upbringing.
Too many greeks in the NT to name. Jason was one.
Paul was a Roman citizen.
Inca...that's a tougher one to give a specific name. Mayan too.
Geronimo was Apache.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 03:29:08 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now that I think about it, this is an interesting exercise:
Abram was Sumerian.
Nebuchadnezzar II was Babylonian
The Ninevites were Assyrian
Moses was Egyptian, at least in upbringing.
Too many greeks in the NT to name. Jason was one.
Paul was a Roman citizen.
Inca...that's a tougher one to give a specific name. Mayan too.
Geronimo was Apache. |
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the multiple fallacies of your response. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 03:40:39 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now that I think about it, this is an interesting exercise:
Abram was Sumerian.
Nebuchadnezzar II was Babylonian
The Ninevites were Assyrian
Moses was Egyptian, at least in upbringing.
Too many greeks in the NT to name. Jason was one.
Paul was a Roman citizen.
Inca...that's a tougher one to give a specific name. Mayan too.
Geronimo was Apache. |
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the multiple fallacies of your response. |
Let's see:
Nullix said some people have faith because they have encountered God.
You listed a bunch of people groups and asked about them.
I said some of the people in each group likely had.
You gave some smart ass response.
I gave an example from most of the groups.
You give another smart ass response.
I'd say the conversation is going like it usually does. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 03:43:04 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the multiple fallacies of your response. |
Be sure to let us know if you ever stop being snide and just come out and SAY what it is you want us to realize, instead of baiting people right and left with an oh-so-superior tone... Any reasonable debater would be happily *listing* the "multiple fallacies", but you're apparently too slippery for that?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 03:44:28 PM · #182 |
| Don't worry Bear. He's more concerned with Smart Ass Style Points. SASPs to you and me... |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 03:52:57 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the multiple fallacies of your response. |
Be sure to let us know if you ever stop being snide and just come out and SAY what it is you want us to realize, instead of baiting people right and left with an oh-so-superior tone... Any reasonable debater would be happily *listing* the "multiple fallacies", but you're apparently too slippery for that?
R. |
and guess who took the bait :) |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 04:23:35 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the multiple fallacies of your response. |
Be sure to let us know if you ever stop being snide and just come out and SAY what it is you want us to realize, instead of baiting people right and left with an oh-so-superior tone... Any reasonable debater would be happily *listing* the "multiple fallacies", but you're apparently too slippery for that?
R. |
This is the problem, right there Bear. You're (all of you religious people) always taking that road in trying to make us feel like we're talking down to you. You're dead wrong dude!
How many damn ways are there to say that we believe you're wrong about what YOU'VE BEEN TOLD TO BELIEVE? How would you put it Bear? I think you're a doubter and just do not have the balls to say it, just like Doc. You're more than interested in these threads because you want to know what it takes to be an atheist and not live your life by the holy book.
Doc Achoo, attacking me personally in this thread is against the forum rules but I won't report your post as offensive because I understand how emotions can make you say things you may regret later. I forgive you. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 04:34:29 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Doc Achoo, attacking me personally in this thread is against the forum rules but I won't report your post as offensive because I understand how emotions can make you say things you may regret later. I forgive you. |
Aww, c'mon Jac. You are a decent guy, but you deserved it. You took a post that was two months old in a thread that had been dead for a month just so you could equate religious people with kids who believe in Santa Claus. What am I supposed to think? It sounds to me like you had a bad day and wanted someone to kick around. I just stood up to it. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 04:37:14 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Jac:
This is the problem, right there Bear. You're (all of you religious people) always taking that road in trying to make us feel like we're talking down to you. You're dead wrong dude!
How many damn ways are there to say that we believe you're wrong about what YOU'VE BEEN TOLD TO BELIEVE? How would you put it Bear? I think you're a doubter and just do not have the balls to say it, just like Doc. You're more than interested in these threads because you want to know what it takes to be an atheist and not live your life by the holy book. |
Say what? I don't live my life by any holy book, and I have never said I do. I don't believe the Holy Bible is the word of God, I don't believe in a personal God that involves himself in the affairs of humans, I don't believe any religion has an inside track to the One True God, none of the above, whatever gives you that idea?
I do believe there is a Creator. I do believe it's the right of any human being to forge whatever relationship s/he desires or needs with the Creator. I don't know who's right, who's wrong, or if any of it matters.
But one thing I absolutely DO know, with all my heart, is that all humans should be treated with respect regardless of their beliefs. That's why I keep weighing in here; I hate seeing believers of any stripe ridiculed, and the more so when the ridicule is cloaked with a veneer of "logic", as if somehow that excuses the disrespect.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 04:40:40 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't worry Bear. He's more concerned with Smart Ass Style Points. SASPs to you and me... |
It's been said a gazillion times before and you've heard it that many times too. What's more to say? You know how atheists think in general so why do we have to post a 2 000 word essay to make our point every time an anti religious thread pops up? We're not the ones asking for proof, you believers are. We don't need proof in something that plainly does not exist. It's pretty simple actually.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 04:47:00 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't worry Bear. He's more concerned with Smart Ass Style Points. SASPs to you and me... |
It's been said a gazillion times before and you've heard it that many times too. What's more to say? You know how atheists think in general so why do we have to post a 2 000 word essay to make our point every time an anti religious thread pops up? We're not the ones asking for proof, you believers are. We don't need proof in something that plainly does not exist. It's pretty simple actually. |
If there is nothing more to say, why are you the one resurrecting the thread? ;) |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 05:06:35 PM · #189 |
| He believes in The Resurrection. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 05:18:26 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Be sure to let us know if you ever realize the multiple fallacies of your response. |
Nullix said some people have faith because they have encountered God.
You listed a bunch of people groups and asked about them.
I said some of the people in each group likely had.
You gave some smart ass response.
I gave an example from most of the groups.
You give another smart ass response.
I'd say the conversation is going like it usually does. |
I'll take that as a "never," but agree with your last line. Let's recap...
Nullix said, and I quote: "People of faith don't ignore reality, they are a product of it. In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God." He said nothing about SOME people, but made the bare assertion that people have faith due to an encounter with God in reality. I responded with a listing of other faiths in the hope that some of you might realize the problem with that statement: people have had unshakeable beliefs in a wide variety of gods over the eons, so unless you're saying that they had actual encounters with Zeus, Horus, Odin, etc., the assertion is clearly false. People have faith because they want to believe a given storyĂ¢€” whether that means their parents' god (usually), the recently invented scientology, or a ride to heaven on the Hale-Bopp comet. As demonstrated by Orson Welles, Area 51 stakeouts, Loch Ness searches, and moon landing deniers, reality has never been a prerequisite for people to believe something.
Jason subsequently posted a list of individuals from the aforementioned religions. Fallacy #1: some of those listed (Moses, Abraham...) are only presumed to exist because the Bible says they did. Fallacy #2: his list attempts to dodge the question of faith in Zeus or other gods. Then he posted a few ad hominems and Bear_Music chimed in on cue. So, yes, the conversation is going exactly like it usually does. :-/ |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 05:43:43 PM · #191 |
Thanks for the longer post Shannon. It does reveal the fallacy in your argument. You are basically stating that since Belief A is held to be incorrect then Belief B must also be incorrect. This is by no means a logical necessity and you know it.
As far as your listing of my fallacies. Which of the individuals that I listed do you feel are make believe? Moses and Abram likely have the least non-biblical evidence, but they are also the oldest. Do you have any evidence for any Sumerian that rises above the level of biblical history? It's ALL going to amount to someone writing that someone else did such and such. The rest are historical figures (although Jason probably doesn't count as such, but why would he be made up?). It's such a nitpick Shannon as to be below you.
Fallacy two was my main point. Some people may have had an encounter with the living God despite their beliefs in other worldviews. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 05:54:34 PM · #192 |
Not only that, but Christian (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever) beliefs aside, there's no reason to assume that ALL these Gods are not just manifestations of the One God, as perceived by different peoples in different eras. So there's no logical disconnect such as Shannon is implying with his list.
Would that be so surprising? That different cultures, from different geographical areas, in different eras, have *perceived* God differently? It makes perfect sense to me, since we always tend to couch the imponderable in terms and forms that are meaningful to us.
Just because humans have always put their own faces on God is not any sort of evidence that God himself does not exist.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 05:58:30 PM · #193 |
About attack, the default assertion is that the atheists are always on the offensive (and are being offensive), and that believers are always victimized. As otherwise a fine a human being as he is, it seems to me that Jason is usually the one to lose his cool, to make false assertions, and to be downright nasty. Nobody -- including Bear_Music -- has ever called him on that kind behaviour.
There is a rush to defend believers. There is a shying away from defending non-believers. This is true even in situations where character is being discussed, and not issues.
That's one of the issues that is most bothersome for atheists: that mere belief is inviolate, and addressing the weaknesses of that belief constitutes an attack. Believers and their apologists routinely fail to live up to the most basic standard of argument, and, frankly, make hypocritical assertions about others' motives that are easily turned back on them.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 06:02:18 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just because humans have always put their own faces on God is not any sort of evidence that God himself does not exist. |
I would say that is very good evidence that God does not exist. To my mind, it is irrefutable evidence that the personal gods of Christianity, Islam, etc., are fantasies.
But the point of this thread, of course, and all the others, is to point out that negative proof is itself a fallacy, and, if the believers engage in the discussion, their first order of business is to offer actual proof. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 06:08:36 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Louis:
About attack, the default assertion is that the atheists are always on the offensive (and are being offensive), and that believers are always victimized. As otherwise a fine a human being as he is, it seems to me that Jason is usually the one to lose his cool, to make false assertions, and to be downright nasty. Nobody -- including Bear_Music -- has ever called him on that kind behaviour.
There is a rush to defend believers. There is a shying away from defending non-believers. This is true even in situations where character is being discussed, and not issues.
That's one of the issues that is most bothersome for atheists: that mere belief is inviolate, and addressing the weaknesses of that belief constitutes an attack. Believers and their apologists routinely fail to live up to the most basic standard of argument, and, frankly, make hypocritical assertions about others' motives that are easily turned back on them. |
Aw Louis, that hurts. Is that your take on the current little thing? It was all kosher until I lost my cool? I don't see it like that at all. I probably only seem nasty to you because I'm on the other side. You know me better than that and I could equally label such bluntness by yourself. I know you better than that though and chalk it up to your manner of argument rather than "nastiness".
Seriously though. I'm asking you specifically because I know you. You don't find anything offensive (meaning aggressive, antonym defensive) about Jac's pulling up a two month old post in a one month old thread to say "Remember as a child how Santa Claus meant so much to you? Go back there and continue the dream because that's exactly what the faithful do each and every day of their lives". That doesn't reinforce the "default assertion that the atheist is on the offensive"? Honestly?
If Jac hadn't posted his post, this thread would still currently have ended with Jeb's silly question on 5/14/2010. End of story.
Message edited by author 2010-06-16 18:10:25. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 06:42:58 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
He believes in The Resurrection. |
Of a thread, yes. Of a human being, lol, come on now. lol |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 06:51:56 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are basically stating that since Belief A is held to be incorrect then Belief B must also be incorrect. This is by no means a logical necessity and you know it. |
Nullix didn't make any distinction between belief A or B. If faith is a product of an actual encounter with God as he declares, then ALL gods ever worshipped must be real. This would be heresy in virtually every religion, and the various gods are/were far too different to be explained away as different interpretations of the same being. If the overwhelming majority of the faithful throughout history believed in something other than your particular god (and they did), then they cannot have encountered your god. If they encountered some other god (the origin of faith according to Nullix), then you declare that other gods exist, and that's also heresy.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Which of the individuals that I listed do you feel are make believe? ...Fallacy two was my main point. Some people may have had an encounter with the living God despite their beliefs in other worldviews. |
Self-referencing literary characters like Moses, Perseus or King Arthur cannot be reliably considered real just because their authors say so. Moreover, your "main point" is a cherry picking fallacy: pointing out individuals who might agree with some form of your own belief is no more relevant or compelling than using John Travolta or David Koresh as examples of people who have faith in the "correct" god despite mainstream belief. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 07:35:17 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks for the longer post Shannon. It does reveal the fallacy in your argument. You are basically stating that since Belief A is held to be incorrect then Belief B must also be incorrect. This is by no means a logical necessity and you know it. |
Mmm.....I understand his point a little differently. It seems to me he is merely pointing out that there has bee a *really* long track record of believers, who over time, have proven to be mistaken. Some by/through your own beliefs.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 07:41:12 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Jac hadn't posted his post, this thread would still currently have ended with Jeb's silly question on 5/14/2010. End of story. |
So my question wasn't any more valid than my asking you if you have anything firsthand that genuinely gave you a feeling of personal invlovement of God in your life?
Yes, it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but honestly, the speculation of how it all came about is just that.......speculation, no matter how sound your theory is. So although slightly flippant, you don't have an answer, do you?
|
|
|
|
06/16/2010 07:43:24 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
People of faith don't ignore reality, they are a product of it. In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
How does one know this? I ask out of genuine curiosity.
|
|
