Super Moderator buffettphan Posted August 11, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 11, 2014 You're back again, funguyrye? At least you've got an appropriate user name this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefungus Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Alright then, since what I have communicated is misinterpreted, misunderstood or just not heard (as you will say the same thing about myself), I believe I have nothing else to contribute in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 The Prof said something to the effect of he loves his son more than he loves his own life. Essentially saying he would die for his son if he had to. Where or where have we heard that before? Isn't the greatest act of love is to lay down one's life for somebody else? That's the same thing the bible God says and the same thing the Prof says. So the comparison is very valid. Wonder why the saying is God the Father? Obiwan Konobi died to save the entire universe. Fictional sacrifices are fictional. The saying is "God the Father" because when Rome created the Bible the teachings of the New Testament didn't make sense. Rome had gathered writing from all sorts of sects with various beliefs regarding their mythical Christs. Trinity was invented to force all these ideas together. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Alright then, since what I have communicated is misinterpreted, misunderstood or just not heard (as you will say the same thing about myself), I believe I have nothing else to contribute in this thread. Oh we heard you, understood you and correctly interpreted you. Your ideas are wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Alright then, since what I have communicated is misinterpreted, misunderstood or just not heard (as you will say the same thing about myself), I believe I have nothing else to contribute in this thread. No, you haven't been misinterpreted, misunderstood, or just not heard. You are comparing apples to pineapples and claiming they are the same. You ignore and fail to address the differences, simply by brushing them off as "minor details". What you are doing is just plain dishonest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator buffettphan Posted August 11, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 11, 2014 Alright then, since what I have communicated is misinterpreted, misunderstood or just not heard (as you will say the same thing about myself), I believe I have nothing else to contribute at Ex-C and will comply with Matt 10:14 to shake the dust from my sandals and depart. in this thread. Fixed it for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 This one again? I thought he was banned. His prior posts are gone. If he sticks around, I sure hope he resurrects one or more of those conspiracy speculations he promoted. That stuff was funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Pick on someone your own Size. Now you dealing with Me....you afraid yet? ::::takes shoes off::: Sits on couch turns on Atheist Experience.. Now...i know your every move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 12, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted August 12, 2014 Alright then, since what I have communicated is misinterpreted, misunderstood or just not heard (as you will say the same thing about myself), I believe I have nothing else to contribute in this thread. Oh, come on, Fungi! Where's your pluck, man? Where's that old fightin' spirit you showed last time? Is THIS really funguyrye, my nearly worthy opponent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 12, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted August 12, 2014 Pick on someone your own Size. Now you dealing with Me....you afraid yet? ::::takes shoes off::: Sits on couch turns on Atheist Experience.. Now...i know your every move. Fungi's grandma is a better apologist than you'll ever be, A1 sauce. You could learn a lot from him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 is your defense mechanism kicking in? its ok thats natural when people face me. Muwahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 pulling your leg, its late in the game I dont know exactly what is being debated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 pulling your leg, its late in the game I dont know exactly what is being debated Christians take it on faith. It would be cool if they would wear that on their shoulder. Admit you don't need evidence. Admit you don't want evidence. Admit you don't have evidence. It's all faith. There is no reason to believe Christianity is even remotely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 pulling your leg, its late in the game I dont know exactly what is being debated Christians take it on faith. It would be cool if they would wear that on their shoulder. Admit you don't need evidence. Admit you don't want evidence. Admit you don't have evidence. It's all faith. There is no reason to believe Christianity is even remotely true. Yes, Christianity is to be taken on faith. Indeed, that is a major tenet of its dogma. It is an edict from the religion itself, a command, an instruction. Rational thinking and related actual evidence is foreign to this mandate, and demonstrates the paucity, emptiness and poverty of relying on religious faith. Religious faith is for cowards, the willfully ignorant and the intellectually lazy. There are many takers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ok i will jump in Atheists say they dont have faith well lets take a look a dcitionry single you believe that. Deny the definition and i need to say no more. There are two definitions of Faith, the other one is one we all know, but still....this definition gets ignored, peopel run away from it like a theif runs away from the cops. the second definiton may not apply to atheits but the below defintion DOES apply REGARDLESS unless you want to prove this SPecific definition does NOT apply. You cant ignore a definition unless it literally CANNOT be applied at all in any sense in any shape or in any form. dictionary Definion 1st definition"complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Science does this in everything in logic, mathematics,natural laws, it has "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." People use this definition in everyday meals in resturant medicine from doctors and marriages with their spouse. Driving a car not expecting a crash, you don't mathmatically examine the length of a car and distance and speed to determine if your in a safe spot on the highway or flying a plane with a pilot you dont know just a researched airline but You dont do a background check on every flight attendent. So do not accuse us of having specific Faith, sure we apply BOTH definitions of Faith but we also use the first one Just as well as the second. But Atheists use the first definition, So they cannot say they dont use it all. IF atheists want to wiggle out of using the word Faith fine, use TRUST...guess what? same thing. In fact the very definition of Faith has the word TRUST in IT and the definition of TRUST actually describes 1st definition of FAITH or if you want to say REASONABLE Certainty based on patterns in the past then you can get out, but i can gaurantee there are many things you do that didnt require multiple patterns in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ok i will jump in Atheists say they dont have faith well lets take a look a dcitionry single you believe that. Deny the definition and i need to say no more. There are two definitions of Faith, the other one is one we all know, but still....this definition gets ignored, peopel run away from it like a theif runs away from the cops. the second definiton may not apply to atheits but the below defintion DOES apply REGARDLESS unless you want to prove this SPecific definition does NOT apply. You cant ignore a definition unless it literally CANNOT be applied at all in any sense in any shape or in any form. dictionary Definion 1st definition "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Science does this in everything in logic, mathematics,natural laws, it has "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." People use this definition in everyday meals in resturant medicine from doctors and marriages with their spouse. Driving a car not expecting a crash, you don't mathmatically examine the length of a car and distance and speed to determine if your in a safe spot on the highway or flying a plane with a pilot you dont know just a researched airline but You dont do a background check on every flight attendent. So do not accuse us of having specific Faith, sure we apply BOTH definitions of Faith but we also use the first one Just as well as the second. But Atheists use the first definition, So they cannot say they dont use it all. IF atheists want to wiggle out of using the word Faith fine, use TRUST...guess what? same thing. In fact the very definition of Faith has the word TRUST in IT and the definition of TRUST actually describes 1st definition of FAITH or if you want to say REASONABLE Certainty based on patterns in the past then you can get out, but i can gaurantee there are many things you do that didnt require multiple patterns in the past You are using the fallacy of equivocation. Fallacies are the tool of those who are wrong. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 when you show the first definition does not apply then. you can use equivocation fallacy. There are 2 definitions i accknowledge christians used the second definition. but the first definition Atheists use. try and refute it give an example how you have never had,.....never used....never implemented (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.") First definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I think you know, or should know where I am going with this. Calling God cruel and sick for knowing we would sin and would face a lifetime of misery when he created us, is the same as calling you sick and demented when you brought children into this fallen and harsh world. You know the world's present circumstances, and you still went along and did it anyways. Why then? Maybe because having children is an outward expression of our NEED to have purpose, to show and give love, to have the image of us and our spouses living for subsequent generations. Maybe that is why God created us, so he could love us and we him. That's my take. So God is a flawed, ignorant, impotent being who is just following his animal instincts. Okay . . . I think it makes more sense to see God as a fictional character but to each his own. No we are, I look to God, who is perfect, to guide, teach and how to live in this unloving, uncaring, immoral world. I dont expect my child to kiss my ass for all eternity. My child can love me if he wants to. I won't demand it. In any case I won't condemn him to death or eternal agony if he chooses not to love me. I hope my child lives his own life and does what he wants to do. I want him to derive his own sense of success and sense of purpose instead of conforming to a life based on my memoirs. I'm not a jealous father. Children should be free to think and do and live however they want. I differ from bibleGod a bit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 when you show the first definition does not apply then. you can use equivocation fallacy. There are 2 definitions i accknowledge christians used the second definition. but the first definition Atheists use. try and refute it give an example how you have never had (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.") First definition As a woman was straitening clothes with an IRON a highrise construction worker walked accross the IRON before that IRON was used by a golfer to get out of the rough. It's the same word so we can change the meaning around as often as we wish and make it all work - right? This is why equivocation is a fallacy. In a generic sense faith (little "f") means trust. In the specific context of religion faith (also little "f") means assuming something (usually religious dogma) is true without questioning it. The word Faith is a feminine name but Christians sometime write Faith when they mean faith because in Christianity ideas are often personified or capitalized to denote divine power. Fact is that the faith Christians use is not the generic trust of the other meaning for the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Faith has 2 definitiosn you uses the second one. I used the first one. There is no equivocation unless i was using the Second definition when the first one should be used or vise verse. Im talking specifically, I am Presenting which definition I am actually are referring TO and not just using it in a random sentence. I am using the first definition only....That is the Faith Christians use, but it is true we use both the first and second definitions. The second definition which is what most people think of when religion comes into paly. But im not talking about the second definition. But it doesnt change the fact The first definitions still applies to Atheists. again feel free to show where you have NEVER had (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.") I am referring to this phrase this definition alone. nothing else. IT can be applied to athiests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ok i will jump in Atheists say they dont have faith well lets take a look a dcitionry single you believe that. Deny the definition and i need to say no more. There are two definitions of Faith, the other one is one we all know, but still....this definition gets ignored, peopel run away from it like a theif runs away from the cops. the second definiton may not apply to atheits but the below defintion DOES apply REGARDLESS unless you want to prove this SPecific definition does NOT apply. You cant ignore a definition unless it literally CANNOT be applied at all in any sense in any shape or in any form. dictionary Definion 1st definition "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Science does this in everything in logic, mathematics,natural laws, it has "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." People use this definition in everyday meals in resturant medicine from doctors and marriages with their spouse. Driving a car not expecting a crash, you don't mathmatically examine the length of a car and distance and speed to determine if your in a safe spot on the highway or flying a plane with a pilot you dont know just a researched airline but You dont do a background check on every flight attendent. So do not accuse us of having specific Faith, sure we apply BOTH definitions of Faith but we also use the first one Just as well as the second. But Atheists use the first definition, So they cannot say they dont use it all. IF atheists want to wiggle out of using the word Faith fine, use TRUST...guess what? same thing. In fact the very definition of Faith has the word TRUST in IT and the definition of TRUST actually describes 1st definition of FAITH or if you want to say REASONABLE Certainty based on patterns in the past then you can get out, but i can gaurantee there are many things you do that didnt require multiple patterns in the past Atheists and non-Christians have 'faith' in the same things that everyone else have faith in...except for Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 when you show the first definition does not apply then. you can use equivocation fallacy. There are 2 definitions i accknowledge christians used the second definition. but the first definition Atheists use. try and refute it give an example how you have never had,.....never used....never implemented (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.") First definition Is it important that atheists admit to having complete trust or confidence in someone or something? Or is the main issue on the site here really that atheists don't believe in God, specifically Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ok i will jump in Atheists say they dont have faith well lets take a look a dcitionry single you believe that. Deny the definition and i need to say no more. There are two definitions of Faith, the other one is one we all know, but still....this definition gets ignored, peopel run away from it like a theif runs away from the cops. the second definiton may not apply to atheits but the below defintion DOES apply REGARDLESS unless you want to prove this SPecific definition does NOT apply. You cant ignore a definition unless it literally CANNOT be applied at all in any sense in any shape or in any form. dictionary Definion 1st definition "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Science does this in everything in logic, mathematics,natural laws, it has "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." People use this definition in everyday meals in resturant medicine from doctors and marriages with their spouse. Driving a car not expecting a crash, you don't mathmatically examine the length of a car and distance and speed to determine if your in a safe spot on the highway or flying a plane with a pilot you dont know just a researched airline but You dont do a background check on every flight attendent. So do not accuse us of having specific Faith, sure we apply BOTH definitions of Faith but we also use the first one Just as well as the second. But Atheists use the first definition, So they cannot say they dont use it all. IF atheists want to wiggle out of using the word Faith fine, use TRUST...guess what? same thing. In fact the very definition of Faith has the word TRUST in IT and the definition of TRUST actually describes 1st definition of FAITH or if you want to say REASONABLE Certainty based on patterns in the past then you can get out, but i can gaurantee there are many things you do that didnt require multiple patterns in the past This is the same canard you raised the first time you were here. It was refuted and buried. Yet here you are again promoting the same PRATT. Fancy that. The difference, regardless of what semantic diversions you use to define "faith", is the application of rational thinking and related empirical evidence. Trust and confidence, based on empirical evidence, which trust and confidence can evaporate based on other empirical evidence, is quite different from trust or confidence based on wishful thinking and/or religious indoctrination, which trust or confidence will remain despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Next, you raise a strawman claiming science has "complete trust or confidence in logic, mathematics and natural laws." It doesn't. Not at all. You are either lying or grossly ignorant. Since this was explained to you in the past, I have trust and confidence that you are intentionally lying. Note that I did not say I have complete trust and confidence that you are lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Faith has 2 definitiosn you uses the second one. I used the first one. Right. The fallacy of equivocation. You use the wrong definition. There is no equivocation unless i was using the Second definition when the first one should be used or vise verse. So when the topic is religious faith then the religious faith definition should be used. You are trying to show that scientists have the generic trust so it's religious faith. It isn't. But it doesnt change the fact The first definitions still applies to Atheists. again feel free to show where you have NEVER had (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.") I am referring to this phrase this definition alone. nothing else. IT can be applied to athiests Of course atheists have generic trust. What is your point? Why else roll it back into religious faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Thanks for removing the minor irritant, Buffetphan. Nice to see you again to BAA. (Snip) Knowing that we do not have foreknowledge like God then, is it even more irresponsible to bring forth children not knowing what tomorrow will bring? Now that TheFungus (aka, Funguyrye) has been given his marching orders, I'll tie up this loose end. This was addressed to me, so I'll respond to it, demolish it and expose it for the nonsense it is. "Knowing that we do not have foreknowledge like God then, is it even more irresponsible to bring forth children not knowing what tomorrow will bring?" This question rests on the following points. That we do not foreknowledge, but God does. That by having children when we don't know what tomorrow brings... we might be even more irresponsible than God. Yes. You read that right. TheFungus is saying that both parties (humans and God) are irresponsible, when it comes to creating children. The perfect, all-knowing, all-wise God is... irresponsible, according to this Christian. Ok, humans are more irresponsible than God is, but he's still irresponsible. Nice going FGR! You just shot yourself and your argument in the butt. . . . And then it gets better. (Or worse, depending on your p.o.v.) Thefungus asks if it's more irresponsible to create children if we don't have foreknowledge. The illogic of this question being as follows. By having perfect foreknowledge, God is less irresponsible for his actions than humans, who have no foreknowledge at all. So, if the Prof had some measure of foreknowledge, he'd be less irresponsible? And if he could foresee a week into the future, he'd be less irresponsible than someone who can only foresee a day? And the further into the future anyone can foresee, the less irresponsible they are, when bring children into the world? Which brings us to the illogical conclusion of the argument. Someone with perfect foreknowledge of everything (God) must therefore be the least irresponsible person of all. Double doh! But this conclusion generates another problem. One concerning the nature of God. If God is perfect, then according to this train-wreck of an argument... he can't be the least irresponsible being. Because he's God, he must be the most perfectly irresponsible being of all. The Christian God is perfect in ALL of His attributes. So, by attributing any measure of irresponsibility to God, thefungus is therefore attributing PERFECT irresponsibility to God. Way to go, FGR! That's worth a triple 'doh!' in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts