Backsliding

[TrueFreedom]

Believing something based on reason or evidence is completely different from believing something on faith.

 

"When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it."

"Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas than true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one's mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one's world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction." http://www.importanc...onal_Faith.html

[OrdinaryClay]

Believing something based on reason or evidence is completely different from believing something on faith.

No one is disputing this. No one I know of anyway. How is this relevant to Vigile's irrational claim?

 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/53871-backsliding/page__p__810867#entry810867

[Spectrox]

we humans are so desperate for 'comfort' on this earth that we will even believe in an imaginary god without proof.

 

The proof of a creator is in the creation. Romans 1:20 Have you forgotten that one

Adam5,

 

 

Spend time at this site. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ You will find a large collection of writings and a forum with many people who have given the subject of Christianity a very through intellectual review and believe very deeply that Christ is who He says He is and that Christianity is very rational. I myself have spent my life asking the most difficult questions and my faith in Christ is stronger then it has been been in decades.

 

After I post this you will get many responses saying what I'm saying is un-true. Seek for yourself.

 

(Isa 57:15) For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, "I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.

 

I agree with Ordinary Clay in so far as you should "seek for yourself".

 

If you do visit www.reasonablefaith.org ( a contradiction in terms if you ask me) bear in mind that it's run by Dr William Lane Craig. I don't doubt the sincerity of his underlying belief but I think he is disingenuous about the way he expresses that belief. My ultimate goal in terms of finding an answer to the God Hypothesis was driven by the need for truth. Craig's motivation is in winning an argument using word-play and sophistry which is a lawyer's trick. Why does God need a lawyer? Why does God need any apologist, come to think of it? God's existence should be self-evident.

 

Craig's tactics revolve around various "proofs" of the existence of God (why this necessarily leads him to the Christian-flavoured God is never explained) such as the Kalam Cosmological argument which is basically a devious re-working of the First Cause argument.

 

Thing is, did Craig find God by using these "brilliant" proofs or does he simply use them to bolster the faith he already had and the whole thing became a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

Either way, Craig is simply a used car salesman for God and the shoddy goods he is selling is the Bible. And if God truly wanted to use him as his mouthpiece, he would have given him a less irritating voice.

[mymistake]

Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value.

Your statement is irrational. It is self-refuting. You have no evidence other than faith that your statements are true.

 

Time to bring out the Lions.

 

I find that OrdinaryClay is not worth the effort. The way he misuses language - well conversations with him quickly degenerate into defining what the meaning of "is" is. But all of that is a mere distraction tactic to him. He carries on ignoring the points made by opponents as if it never happened.

[mymistake]

You are the one who has made a positive claim. You claimed faith is irrational did you not? You claim that this is so because it takes evidence for a person's claim to be true. You have no evidence other than faith that your positive claim is true. If you wish to be coherent than you must provide evidence that your claim is true, else we just assume you simply have faith and are irrational according to your claim. But if you are irrational how can we trust your claim?

 

You are a moron. That statement does not require faith in order to accept as true.

 

OrdinaryClay is the kind of guy who can assert "Your statment is irrational." and "It is self-refuting" without realizing that he has made positive claims. "You are the one who has made a positive claim."

 

Too funny!

 

 

Edit:

Of course if we take "irrational" to mean "not rational" then OC's first statement is negative . . . but that would also mean that V's statement was also negative and all this fuss is about nothing. I'm sure OC has no comment.

[Vigile]

You claim that this is so because it takes evidence for a person's claim to be true.

 

Nope. I claimed believing in something you have no evidence for is by its very definition irrational. Example, I believe Santa is real and lives in Siberia even though I have no evidence for this belief. Am I being rational?

 

Try again.

 

You have no evidence other than faith that your positive claim is true.

 

You seem very confused with the rules of logic and evidence.

[raoul]

Believing something based on reason or evidence is completely different from believing something on faith.

No one is disputing this. No one I know of anyway. How is this relevant to Vigile's irrational claim?

 

 

http://www.ex-christ...867#entry810867

This is the typical cultist game playing - talk in circles, tapdance, change the argument, etc. To wit: Vigile initially provided a definition of 'faith' and went on to show it was something that wasn't on the same logically sound level as evidence based on empirical observation, scientific approach, et. al. You come back with nonsense about his argument not being rational or something along those lines. Arguing with someone like you in the cult is futile because of the indocrination you've been exposed to. I know because I used to play the same apologetic game with atheists and other non-theists.

 

And to further support my premise regarding you, I simply take your own words from your profile in which you state you believe in the ot god of Abram, Isaac, etc. Interesting that there's no mention of Jesus anywhere so one can conclude you're probably mired in the myths and fantasy depicted in the ot. This should strenghten what I've already posited regarding a waste of time trying to convince you of anything. You're in a cult, mired in myths and nothing will change that unless you really seek the truth.

 

MyMistake summed it up perfectly about your style of discourse when he wrote I find that OrdinaryClay is not worth the effort. The way he misuses language - well conversations with him quickly degenerate into defining what the meaning of "is" is. But all of that is a mere distraction tactic to him. He carries on ignoring the points made by opponents as if it never happened

 

I couldn't have put it any better.

[Spectrox]

Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value.

Your statement is irrational. It is self-refuting. You have no evidence other than faith that your statements are true.

 

Awesome, demonstrate for me how my statement is self-refuting.

 

While you're at it, demonstrate for me how belief without evidence is a rational act. And do so without equivocating the definition of religious faith with the colloquial "I have faith this chair will support my weight."

 

You are the one who has made a positive claim. You claimed faith is irrational did you not? You claim that this is so because it takes evidence for a person's claim to be true. You have no evidence other than faith that your positive claim is true. If you wish to be coherent than you must provide evidence that your claim is true, else we just assume you simply have faith and are irrational according to your claim. But if you are irrational how can we trust your claim?

 

Faith does not require explanations - explanations are unnecessary. In fact, if you could explain it, if you had evidence for it, it wouldn't require Faith and it would therefore be bad.

 

The Myth of Original Sin and Exultation of Faith are an insidious masterstroke for the human Agents of God. In one fell swoop, they completely insulate themselves from any and all criticism, any and all rational inquiry, any and all accountability for discrepancies and inconsistencies in their 'Revelations.' Any irrationality can be quickly dismissed for to seek knowledge and understanding is bad, a part of our fallen and debased nature. And to have Faith in spite of contrary evidence is good. Therefore any troublesome question can be quickly dismissed with a simple admonition that the questioner lacks the proper amount of Faith.

 

This is, of course, complete lunacy.

 

What is truly ironic is that while Faith is a perfectly valid salve for any and all inconsistencies, errors, inaccuracies and unexplainable or irreconcilable problems within a given belief structure, Faith in other belief structures is wholly invalid. Christians, Jews, Muslims all extol the virtues of Faith. When asked why they do not believe in the belief systems advocated by others, however, what do they cite? Evidence of inconsistencies, errors, inaccuracies, unexplainable or irreconcilable problems within that belief structure and deviations from their own belief structure. In other words, THEY CITE EVIDENCE! They appeal to REASON! They reject OTHER FAITHS based on evidence and reason, yet fail to apply the same standard to their own.

 

As an outsider, all of their criticisms appear valid and their reasons for rejecting one another's faiths all appear wholly rational. The problem here is NOT rationality, NOT reason, NOT understanding or our desire to know. The common problem is Faith. The common problem is irrationality. Which leads, of course, to the old saying 'When you understand why I have rejected all other Faiths, you will understand why I have rejected yours.'

[OrdinaryClay]

Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value.

Your statement is irrational. It is self-refuting. You have no evidence other than faith that your statements are true.

 

Awesome, demonstrate for me how my statement is self-refuting.

 

While you're at it, demonstrate for me how belief without evidence is a rational act. And do so without equivocating the definition of religious faith with the colloquial "I have faith this chair will support my weight."

 

You are the one who has made a positive claim. You claimed faith is irrational did you not? You claim that this is so because it takes evidence for a person's claim to be true. You have no evidence other than faith that your positive claim is true. If you wish to be coherent than you must provide evidence that your claim is true, else we just assume you simply have faith and are irrational according to your claim. But if you are irrational how can we trust your claim?

 

Faith does not require explanations - explanations are unnecessary. In fact, if you could explain it, if you had evidence for it, it wouldn't require Faith and it would therefore be bad.

 

If we take Vigile's claim that "Faith, by it's very definition is irrational." simply on faith then he is claiming himself to be irrational. He clearly did not provide evidence for his claim.

[raoul]

If we take Vigile's claim that "Faith, by it's very definition is irrational." simply on faith then he is claiming himself to be irrational. He clearly did not provide evidence for his claim.

 

Well, if we take the definition right from YOUR book, the bible, I believe Hebrews mentioned the definition of faith as being something that is 'hoped for yet not seen'.

If we then attempt to reconile that with RATIONALITY, we are unable to because:

1. How can you hope for something you cannot see or, by expanding it with the scientific model, not feel, hear, smell, or observe via any of our senses?

2. I hope that I'll see Santa Claus some day although I've never seen him. Does that sound rational to you? I hope not.

 

Oh, my bad - you're an ot xtian so I guess a quote from Hebrews which is in the nt is alien to you, correct? LOL

[OrdinaryClay]

Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value.

Your statement is irrational. It is self-refuting. You have no evidence other than faith that your statements are true.

 

Time to bring out the Lions.

So far your "lions" are pretty toothless. They are very good at avoiding the point though. They like red herring I guess.

[mymistake]

If we take Vigile's claim that "Faith, by it's very definition is irrational." simply on faith then he is claiming himself to be irrational. He clearly did not provide evidence for his claim.

 

Well, if we take the definition right from YOUR book, the bible, I believe Hebrews mentioned the definition of faith as being something that is 'hoped for yet not seen'.

If we then attempt to reconile that with RATIONALITY, we are unable to because:

1. How can you hope for something you cannot see or, by expanding it with the scientific model, not feel, hear, smell, or observe via any of our senses?

2. I hope that I'll see Santa Claus some day although I've never seen him. Does that sound rational to you? I hope not.

 

Oh, my bad - you're an ot xtian so I guess a quote from Hebrews which is in the nt is alien to you, correct? LOL

 

But of course Vigile's claim isn't to be taken on faith. OC is just up to his old tricks of pretending posts were not made and pretending words were not written. Defeat OC's argument? That is okay because he will just pretend you didn't. Nothing you write will bring him back to reality.

[blackpudd1n]

Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value.

Your statement is irrational. It is self-refuting. You have no evidence other than faith that your statements are true.

 

Time to bring out the Lions.

So far your "lions" are pretty toothless. They are very good at avoiding the point though. They like red herring I guess.

 

You don't have the first clue of what logic is, nor how to think critically for yourself, nor that logical fallacies are things to help identify flaws within an argument and are best used so that one does not make those flaws themselves. You have not provided an argument for any of us to refute, you've just come into this thread throwing out words you don't understand the meaning or context of, trying to make yourself sound like some intellectual giant when all you are is a joke.

 

Not only that, but this was Adam5's thread to begin with, and he has gone away to do something we don't hear christians do very often around here- spend some time thinking. So we all backed off, out of respect for that. If you want to go flouncing around being verbose, why not go and start your own topic instead of derailing this one?

 

You're a dick. We get it. You've proved your point, now fuck off.

[raoul]

 

But of course Vigile's claim isn't to be taken on faith. OC is just up to his old tricks of pretending posts were not made and pretending words were not written. Defeat OC's argument? That is okay because he will just pretend you didn't. Nothing you write will bring him back to reality.

Yeah, I know it's a lost cause (reality) but still... Perhaps I'm trying to make up for all of the times I acted like a complete asshole, like him, tossing out frivilous arguments at atheists just to rile them up with no objective for anything remotely resembling the truth.

 

In fact, when I see people like this clown doing what he's doing, it embarrasses the crap out of me because of my former behavior when I was a cult apologist. I don't know how any of the non-theists even took time to talk to me.. geesh...

[florduh]

So far your "lions" are pretty toothless. They are very good at avoiding the point though. They like red herring I guess.

 

 

Irony, thy name is Clay.

[raoul]

 

You're a dick. We get it. You've proved your point, now fuck off.

Gawd but you can be so logical Pudd even when derisively tossing someone off. Those 3 comments prove it once more:

1. He's a dick (major premise)

2. He proved it (his numerous comments which support #1)

3. Now, fuck off (conclusion)

 

You actually built a philosophical argument but you already knew that didn't you? LOL

[Vigile]

Throw out a few random logical words and phrases. Misapply them in horrendous fashion. Pretend no one notices you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do a little victory dance for Jesus. Go tell your friends atheists are stupid.

[raoul]

So far your "lions" are pretty toothless. They are very good at avoiding the point though. They like red herring I guess.

 

 

Irony, thy name is Clay.

He's probably like End3 - crying out for companionship or something similiar.

[raoul]

Throw out a few random logical words and phrases. Misapply them in horrendous fashion. Pretend no one notices you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do a little victory dance for Jesus. Go tell your friends atheists are stupid.

Exactly what I used to do when I was in the cult. You've embarrassed me... LOL

[midniterider]

we humans are so desperate for 'comfort' on this earth that we will even believe in an imaginary god without proof.

 

The proof of a creator is in the creation. Romans 1:20 Have you forgotten that one

Adam5,

 

 

Spend time at this site. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ You will find a large collection of writings and a forum with many people who have given the subject of Christianity a very through intellectual review and believe very deeply that Christ is who He says He is and that Christianity is very rational. I myself have spent my life asking the most difficult questions and my faith in Christ is stronger then it has been been in decades.

 

After I post this you will get many responses saying what I'm saying is un-true. Seek for yourself.

 

(Isa 57:15) For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, "I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.

 

I did seek Christ for 10 years. All that occurred was a case of mental illness. It was a waste of my time. Upon rejecting Christianity I was cured of the mental illness.

 

I no longer look to the bible for wisdom. I think for myself. It works better.

[par4dcourse]

So far your "lions" are pretty toothless. They are very good at avoiding the point though. They like red herring I guess.

 

 

Irony, thy name is Clay.

 

Sure, Clay, just keep your fingers in your ears and ignore what you read and quote the fucking bible at random intervals and you'll be fine.

[Spectrox]

Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value.

Your statement is irrational. It is self-refuting. You have no evidence other than faith that your statements are true.

 

Awesome, demonstrate for me how my statement is self-refuting.

 

While you're at it, demonstrate for me how belief without evidence is a rational act. And do so without equivocating the definition of religious faith with the colloquial "I have faith this chair will support my weight."

 

You are the one who has made a positive claim. You claimed faith is irrational did you not? You claim that this is so because it takes evidence for a person's claim to be true. You have no evidence other than faith that your positive claim is true. If you wish to be coherent than you must provide evidence that your claim is true, else we just assume you simply have faith and are irrational according to your claim. But if you are irrational how can we trust your claim?

 

Faith does not require explanations - explanations are unnecessary. In fact, if you could explain it, if you had evidence for it, it wouldn't require Faith and it would therefore be bad.

 

If we take Vigile's claim that "Faith, by it's very definition is irrational." simply on faith then he is claiming himself to be irrational. He clearly did not provide evidence for his claim.

 

It all depends on what your definition for various words is - here are mine:

 

Belief - accepting a claim as true

Faith - belief in a claim with no evidence or sometimes when there is evidence to the contrary

Trust - acceptance of a claim where there is some evidence although that evidence may be incomplete or insufficent

Rationality - Using logic, reasoned argument and evidence to test a claim. It is to do with internal consistency, validity and soundness.

 

What's your starting point for defining these words? Anyone can use solpsism to try to void any argument but it's a big fat time waster.

[midniterider]

Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value.

Your statement is irrational. It is self-refuting. You have no evidence other than faith that your statements are true.

 

Awesome, demonstrate for me how my statement is self-refuting.

 

While you're at it, demonstrate for me how belief without evidence is a rational act. And do so without equivocating the definition of religious faith with the colloquial "I have faith this chair will support my weight."

 

You are the one who has made a positive claim. You claimed faith is irrational did you not? You claim that this is so because it takes evidence for a person's claim to be true. You have no evidence other than faith that your positive claim is true. If you wish to be coherent than you must provide evidence that your claim is true, else we just assume you simply have faith and are irrational according to your claim. But if you are irrational how can we trust your claim?

 

Faith does not require explanations - explanations are unnecessary. In fact, if you could explain it, if you had evidence for it, it wouldn't require Faith and it would therefore be bad.

 

If we take Vigile's claim that "Faith, by it's very definition is irrational." simply on faith then he is claiming himself to be irrational. He clearly did not provide evidence for his claim.

 

Faith means belief without proof, irrational means not logical... apparently you need to be spoon fed definitions of words as 'evidence' because you are illiterate. A certain amount of intelligence must be brought to a debate for a debate to occur. Vigile was not making a claim...he was showing what faith is by the definition of the word. Look up "faith" in the dictionary.

[midniterider]

I myself have spent my life asking the most difficult questions and my faith in Christ is stronger then it has been been in decades.

 

 

So what? You have spent your life being foolish and now you are an expert in foolishness.

[bornagainathiest]

You're a dick. We get it. You've proved your point, now fuck off.

 

Hey Pudd1n!

 

I don't want OC to fuck off just yet. He owes me a retraction and an apology.

Here...

 

http://www.ex-christ...-and-agnostics/

 

What he does next should be a good indicator of the quality of his spiritual fruit.

 

 

BAA