Backsliding

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

Atheists are inconsistent. You falsely believe faith is irrational. Why, maybe it makes you feel better. I don't know.

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

What were you diagnosed with? Or maybe you've posted your testimony here where I can read it?

[blackpudd1n]

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

 

lol I've been up the last three nights studying validity and invalidity of arguments with conditional premises. I guess it's seeped into my subconcious lol

[blackpudd1n]

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

 

Fair enough, BAA He can apologise to you and give you a retraction, and then he can fuck off

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

I use the dictionary.

[florduh]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

 

Does he believe his claim "Faith, by it's very definition is irrational." through faith or evidence?

[Spectrox]

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.

I use the dictionary.

 

Was your dictionary written by an apologist per chance?

 

It doesn't matter anyway. Define your terms (copying from "the dictionary" if you must). What do you mean by "faith"?

 

Then answer these 2 simple questions:

 

What do you believe?

Why do you believe it?

 

If you cannot reply coherently to these questions you are wasting everyone's time on this thread.

[OrdinaryClay]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

[Spectrox]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

 

Which dictionary is this from? The key phrase here is "spiritual apprehension rather than proof" which implies there is insufficient evidence or no good reason.

 

If faith is complete trust, why not just use the word "trust" then? Trust or confidence implies you have good evidence that substantiates your "faith" otherwise what reason would you have to trust it? Please provide the evidence for your faith-belief.

 

The entire argument around the word "faith" is a self-contradictory proposition that implies both evidence and not evidence.

[RipVanWinkle]

Backslider: Do what you believe is right for you. I can empathize with you, not logically, but as a human being. I understand that the friendships you can make in church can be very satisfying. I wish you well. Hey, you can always come back to us. bill

[mymistake]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

 

Which dictionary is this from?

 

If faith is complete trust, why not just use the word "trust" then? Trust or confidence implies you have good evidence that substantiates your "faith" otherwise what reason would you have to trust it? Please provide the evidence for your faith-belief.

 

 

So OC provides the evidence while complaining that V's claim needs either faith to believe or the evidence OC just provided.

 

". . . based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof"

[mymistake]

Fair enough, BAA He can apologise to you and give you a retraction, and then he can fuck off

 

You guys are just setting yourselves up for disappointment.

[florduh]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

Okay then, I guess English is not your primary language.

 

What we're addressing here is definition 2. which you provided. It is belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

What is "spiritual apprehension?" It is defined in your quote, for one thing, as being not proof. Therefore, "spiritual apprehension" is something other than proof. If there is proof, no faith is needed; it is then not a belief but the recognition of a demonstrable fact. "Spiritual apprehension" is an emotional embrace of an idea, and that method of justifying belief can lead to belief in the story and authority of Jesus, Krishna, Jove, Odin or L. Ron Hubbard. In other words, with proof everyone will believe the same fact. Without proof, blind faith can be devoted to many and various things, real and imaginary. Deciding what is true by what you may think or feel independent of objective evidence is not rational.

[OrdinaryClay]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

Okay then, I guess English is not your primary language.

 

What we're addressing here is definition 2. which you provided. It is belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

What is "spiritual apprehension?" It is defined in your quote, for one thing, as being not proof. Therefore, "spiritual apprehension" is something other than proof. If there is proof, no faith is needed; it is then not a belief but the recognition of a demonstrable fact. "Spiritual apprehension" is an emotional embrace of an idea, and that method of justifying belief can lead to belief in the story and authority of Jesus, Krishna, Jove, Odin or L. Ron Hubbard. In other words, with proof everyone will believe the same fact. Without proof, blind faith can be devoted to many and various things, real and imaginary. Deciding what is true by what you may think or feel independent of objective evidence is not rational.

Why does Vigile claim faith is irrational?

[Spectrox]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

Okay then, I guess English is not your primary language.

 

What we're addressing here is definition 2. which you provided. It is belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

What is "spiritual apprehension?" It is defined in your quote, for one thing, as being not proof. Therefore, "spiritual apprehension" is something other than proof. If there is proof, no faith is needed; it is then not a belief but the recognition of a demonstrable fact. "Spiritual apprehension" is an emotional embrace of an idea, and that method of justifying belief can lead to belief in the story and authority of Jesus, Krishna, Jove, Odin or L. Ron Hubbard. In other words, with proof everyone will believe the same fact. Without proof, blind faith can be devoted to many and various things, real and imaginary. Deciding what is true by what you may think or feel independent of objective evidence is not rational.

Why does Vigile claim faith is irrational?

 

You have accepted that faith can be defined as belief without proof.

How do we get proof?

Answer: Through evidence, logic and rational argument (all of which are self-consistent).

Lack of proof is therefore lacking in evidence, logic and rational argument (lack of self-consistency).

Therefore faith could appropriately be defined as being irrational.

 

Getting it now are we?

[OrdinaryClay]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

Okay then, I guess English is not your primary language.

 

What we're addressing here is definition 2. which you provided. It is belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

What is "spiritual apprehension?" It is defined in your quote, for one thing, as being not proof. Therefore, "spiritual apprehension" is something other than proof. If there is proof, no faith is needed; it is then not a belief but the recognition of a demonstrable fact. "Spiritual apprehension" is an emotional embrace of an idea, and that method of justifying belief can lead to belief in the story and authority of Jesus, Krishna, Jove, Odin or L. Ron Hubbard. In other words, with proof everyone will believe the same fact. Without proof, blind faith can be devoted to many and various things, real and imaginary. Deciding what is true by what you may think or feel independent of objective evidence is not rational.

Why does Vigile claim faith is irrational?

 

You have accepted that faith can be defined as belief without proof.

How do we get proof?

Answer: Through evidence, logic and rational argument (all of which are self-consistent).

Lack of proof is therefore lacking in evidence, logic and rational argument (lack of self-consistency).

Therefore faith could appropriately be defined as being irrational.

 

Getting it now are we?

 

Have you accepted faith can be complete trust in something or someone? It is irrational to believe faith is irrational. Every person on this board has faith in someone or something with no evidence or proof. We all place our trust in someone or something.

 

[asanerman]

OrdanaryClay

 

Consider Merriam-Webster's definition

 

Main Entry:1faith

Function:noun

Inflected Form:plural faiths

Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at BIDE

Date:13th century

 

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*

synonyms see BELIEF

–on faith : without question *took everything he said on faith*

 

Main Entry:2faith

Function:transitive verb

Date:15th century

 

archaic : BELIEVE, TRUST

 

Exactly what part of having faith do you not get?

 

If you choose to "faith" something that I feel is not worthy of trust, belief etc. just what part of that do you not understand.

 

If the contextual meaning of the word faith gives you problems, I can't wait until you start teaching us about the trinity or eschatology, or transubstantiation or theological metaphysics.

 

Do you think you could possibly get past the word "faith" long enough to express yourself?

 

All this "tail chasing" is making me nauseous!

 

Just so you know

 

Main Entry:nauseous

 

Function:adjective

Date:1612

 

1 : causing nausea or disgust : NAUSEATING

2 : affected with nausea or disgust

 

Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

[merck]

OrdinaryClay, last time I saw you on here, I asked you a few questions and you never answered them.

 

1. Do you believe God is moral?

2. Do you believe the law in the Bible accurately represents God's morality?

3. Do you believe that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what Jesus' did, said, and represented?

 

Assuming you answer yes to those three questions, then do you believe it is moral to stone a child to death for being rebellious? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Do you believe it is moral to beat a slave to death? (Exodus 21:20-21)

 

If you answer no to either of those two questions, then:

1. Does this mean God is not the same yesterday, today, and forever? (Hebrews 13:8)

2.Was Jesus wrong? (Matt 5:17-18) (John 10:35)

3. Or is it that the Bible is fallible?

 

I look forward to your answers because I have several more questions for you.

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdanaryClay

 

Consider Merriam-Webster's definition

 

Main Entry:1faith

Function:noun

Inflected Form:plural faiths

Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at BIDE

Date:13th century

 

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*

synonyms see BELIEF

–on faith : without question *took everything he said on faith*

 

Main Entry:2faith

Function:transitive verb

Date:15th century

 

archaic : BELIEVE, TRUST

 

Exactly what part of having faith do you not get?

 

If you choose to "faith" something that I feel is not worthy of trust, belief etc. just what part of that do you not understand.

 

If the contextual meaning of the word faith gives you problems, I can't wait until you start teaching us about the trinity or eschatology, or transubstantiation or theological metaphysics.

 

Do you think you could possibly get past the word "faith" long enough to express yourself?

 

All this "tail chasing" is making me nauseous!

 

Just so you know

 

Main Entry:nauseous

 

Function:adjective

Date:1612

 

1 : causing nausea or disgust : NAUSEATING

2 : affected with nausea or disgust

 

Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

I did express myself here http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/53871-backsliding/page__st__80#entry811455

 

Faith is not irrational. To believe so either requires evidence or faith.

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay, last time I saw you on here, I asked you a few questions and you never answered them.

 

1. Do you believe God is moral?

2. Do you believe the law in the Bible accurately represents God's morality?

3. Do you believe that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what Jesus' did, said, and represented?

 

Assuming you answer yes to those three questions, then do you believe it is moral to stone a child to death for being rebellious? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Do you believe it is moral to beat a slave to death? (Exodus 21:20-21)

 

If you answer no to either of those two questions, then:

1. Does this mean God is not the same yesterday, today, and forever? (Hebrews 13:8)

2.Was Jesus wrong? (Matt 5:17-18) (John 10:35)

3. Or is it that the Bible is fallible?

 

I look forward to your answers because I have several more questions for you.

I can't find where you asked me this before.

[merck]

It was a few months ago. You ended up leaving the thread and it devolved into off topic discussions.

[OrdinaryClay]

It was a few months ago. You ended up leaving the thread and it devolved into off topic discussions.

I searched and could not find it. I find it hard to believe I did not answer, but maybe I missed your post in the shuffle. The answers are yes, yes and yes.

[merck]

I'm assuming the "yes,yes and yes" is an affirmation that you believe that god is moral, the Bible accurately depicts god's morality, and that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of Jesus. While it would certainly imply the answers to my other questions, I do not wish to assume your answers. So, I will ask again. Is it moral to stone unruly children? Is it moral to beat a slave to death?

 

 

Just in case you wanted the original thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52378-annoying-christian-thread-continued-here/page__st__200

[asanerman]

OrdanaryClay

 

Consider Merriam-Webster's definition

 

Main Entry:1faith

Function:noun

Inflected Form:plural faiths

Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at BIDE

Date:13th century

 

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*

synonyms see BELIEF

–on faith : without question *took everything he said on faith*

 

Main Entry:2faith

Function:transitive verb

Date:15th century

 

archaic : BELIEVE, TRUST

 

Exactly what part of having faith do you not get?

 

If you choose to "faith" something that I feel is not worthy of trust, belief etc. just what part of that do you not understand.

 

If the contextual meaning of the word faith gives you problems, I can't wait until you start teaching us about the trinity or eschatology, or transubstantiation or theological metaphysics.

 

Do you think you could possibly get past the word "faith" long enough to express yourself?

 

All this "tail chasing" is making me nauseous!

 

Just so you know

 

Main Entry:nauseous

 

Function:adjective

Date:1612

 

1 : causing nausea or disgust : NAUSEATING

2 : affected with nausea or disgust

 

Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

I did express myself here http://www.ex-christ..._80#entry811455

 

Faith is not irrational. To believe so either requires evidence or faith.

 

Just so I understand, "faith" is not irrational, ever?

 

It's fine if I have faith in something I know to be wrong, false, or irrational?

 

Why do I get the sense I'm wasting thread space or my faith that Ordinary Clay is competent.

 

My faith couldn't irrational, could it?

 

Hell, with proof that he not competent, I still have faith!