The Big Question

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, he's already had time to type out an entire Sinead O'Conner song and link a video to it for his Sunday Dispatch thread; but somehow he hasn't had the time to respond to Neverlandrut's question.  Or perhaps he just can't be bothered to respond.

[mymistake]

Plenty of time to provide irrelevant distractions.  No time to answer questions that paint Christianity in a bad light.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

I may have misunderstood, but is little pony labeling Creed as a Christian band? I seem to remember Mark Tremonti saying, "We aren't a fucking Christian band!"

I guess you did misunderstand.

 

Creed was one of the biggest rock bands in the world for a few short years in the late 90s.

They never claimed to be a Christian band, but like U2, the band did have Christian members and many of their songs

were drenched in spiritual images and themes.

 

Wind-Up Records Official website for the band had forums that were really active.

 

Like this site they had several sub forums...one was titled Faith/Religion.

 

They suddenly took the forums down without giving members much notice.

Some members started alternative fan sites. A few of them are still active.

I am well aware of who Creed was. I was a big fan back in the day! Funny how you quickly jumped to respond that post but you still have not answered my question from the previous one. All the while you still maintain that you aren't dodging. Lie!!!

What is the question?

God damn it IH!! You responded to it with useless background info about yourself without even addressing the question! Go back and read my last few posts in this thread. It should not take you two minutes to see the question. I made my points and question perfectly clear.

 

 

 

It's late here. I'm off for some sleep.

 

I will check and see in the morning. I will try to answer your question.

 

It is now 19:04 EDT.  This means that, assuming TinPony woke up around 07:00, which would provide him with plenty of time to get himself together for Sunday worship at his local church, a full twelve hours have passed during which he could have responded to Neverlandrut, but chose not to.  Ironhorse specifically stated that he would "check and see in the morning; yet, here it is the evening and still no word from the man.

 

Lurkers, especially those of you who still hold to christian beliefs, take note of this and ask yourself: "Is this the best my religion has to offer?"  Is it?

[mymistake]

Maybe Jesus commanded Ironhorse to not answer.  We can't expect Ironhorse to rebel against the world of the Lord.

[Neverlandrut]

**drumming finger**

 

Does he really not get that he will look a lot better if he is just honest when he doesn't have a good answer to a question? "I don't know" is a perfectly respectable answer. But when one pretends to know, then stalls and dodges while claiming he isn't stalling and dodging shows blatant dishonesty. I have been giving IH the benefit of the doubt for quite a while now. I used to wonder why BAA felt the need to be so forward with him. I get it now!

 

My Little Pony, up until now you have had a degree of respect from me. You are quickly losing it.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

IH, you are missing the point. The issue is not your judgement on whether a particular indoctrination is good or bad. The issue is whether or not the content of the indoctrination is actually, objectively true. Do you not agree that people have a strong tendency to believe the things they were taught in childhood, whether or not they are true? Do you not see the strong likelihood that you believe what you do because of your upbringing? No matter how much you say that your parents taught you to question, even if they really did, if they were Christians and raised you around a Christian environment, then you are either naive or dishonest to think that your upbringing had no influence on your current state of beliefs.

 

I was raised in a Christian environment, and believed it wholeheartedly for over 20 years. I had all the "life changing" experiences of salvation, filling of the holly spirit, etc. But, I came to a place where I decided to look at it all objectively, putting aside my own bias toward the belief that it's true. I came to the conclusion that it is all man-made, that there is no evidence that it's actually true. It's a comforting and emotionally helpful frame work for many people, true enough. But that does not make the supernatural claims for Christianity actually true.

“Do you not agree that people have a strong tendency to believe the things they were taught in childhood, whether or not they are true?”

 

Yes

 

 

“ Do you not see the strong likelihood that you believe what you do because of your upbringing?”

 

If you mean what I believe today, no.

 

I agree my parents influenced my beliefs in childhood, but I know the most important

thing they taught me was to question everything.

 

I do agree that for some people the answer would be yes. I guess I could go so far as to say many people.

Your answer to the second question is incorrect. I know this by virtue of the fact that you are human. Your current state of beliefs has been and is influenced by your upbringing. That is true for everybody, even us apostates. The degree to which we continue to let our childhood teachings influence us is the difference. I'm sure your specific doctrinal beliefs differ greatly from your parents. But your core beliefs that god exists and that Jesus is his way of salvation are directly informed by your upbringing. You did not discover these teachings. They were given to you. I'm not being presumptuous; you have admitted as much. Therefore, the fact that you believe your belief in them is not influenced by your upbringing shows your naiveté.

I know you have many of us to address so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren't ignoring the quoted post.

 

I thank you for answering my questions directly. I would like your response to my above comment and this question. Do you really think it is just coincidence that your conclusion that Christianity is true just happens to be the same conclusion your parents hold, and that your upbringing had no influence on it? You have all but directly stated as much. If you don't think your upbringing has any influence on your current state of beliefs, then you have cleverly lied to yourself to the point you believe it which shows that you are naive.

 

 

I thank you for answering my questions directly. I would like your response to my above comment and this question. Do you really think it is just coincidence that your conclusion that Christianity is true just happens to be the same conclusion your parents hold, and that your upbringing had no influence on it?

 

 Why would I not consider it true because it was the same belief as my parents? Is it a given, that one must flee from their parent's religious views to declare themselves free thinkers?

 

I know I will be accused here of not answering the question, but It's a rhetorical question.

 

 

You have all but directly stated as much. If you don't think your upbringing has any influence on your current state of beliefs, then you have cleverly lied to yourself to the point you believe it which shows that you are naive.

 

I have answered many times in the Lion's Den to this question. Yes, my upbringing did influence my belief. How many times do I have to repeat that I was taught my my parents to think and question? That is the influence that I am so thankful for.

 

When will some of you acknowledge I was not raised (indoctrinated) in a frenzy emotionally based counterfeit Christianity?

For the past five hours, as I have been working online, I've had Jimmy Swaggart's SON channel on just to what's going on in the Pentecostal TV Land.

 

It's been nothing but five hours of nothing. Hands in the air, people swooning and crying. Jimmy tickling the piano keys and crooning away with tears in his eyes. The so called "Worship Leaders" going into long chants and pleas for the spirit to come. And Jimmy every now and then tells the crowd another word he has received from the Lord.

 

It's all crap. I really feel sad for the congregation (including children) who are being so brainwashed and deceived by snakes like Swaggart. It's a trapped sad prison.

 

 

My faith, which I have thrown my entire heart and soul, is not a current state of beliefs. It is what I believe.

It's not based on my feelings, emotions or following a herd to the next spiritual enlightened  guru.

[Neverlandrut]

No dishonest IH, it was not a rhetorical question. The author of the question (myself) decides whether or not it was rhetorical. It was not rhetorical; it was a yes or no question. Because you are apparently incapable of giving a direct answer to a direct question, I'll answer it for you.

A: Of course the fact that your parents are Christians influences the fact that you are a Christian! To think that you're beliefs are the result of complete objectivity on your part, devoid of influence by upbringing is pure naïveté. In regards to the question, It does not matter two shits what brand of Christian you are and how much that may differ from your parent's brand of Chrisianty. The fact that they are Christians and raised you around Christian influences directly informs the beliefs you hold today. I'm sure you did question a lot, maybe everything at one point. But don't pretend that your conclusion about Christianity is soley the result of skeptical inquiry as you have claimed. Even many of your Christian counter parts would laugh at that. We aren't dumb asses; all of our thinking processes are influenced by our upbringings. The extent to which we are aware of and acknowledge this determines how capable we are of thinking for ourselves. The fact that you won't admit to yourself that, at least in part, the reason you are a Christian is because your parents are proves that you are not as skeptical and freethinking as you think you are. You are trying to suggest that you arrived at Chrisianity via skepticism that is completely detached from the influences of your upbringing. Because of psychology, we know this to be impossible. You say your parents taught you to question. This maybe true. But that's not all they taught you. Even if they taught you to question, you still modeled them and their thought processes because you are a mammal. That's how mammals learn. We are hard wired to look to our parents and implicitly trust them and what they teach us, directly and indirectly. You have obviously questioned a lot. My former Christian beliefs diverged from my parent's more and more as I got older. So, I know one can be skeptical to a degree within a particular frame work of belief. I applaud you for developing your own thoughts to the extent you have. However, you have tried so hard to prove that you came to Christianity via honest skepticism that you have shown yourself to be dishonest to yourself. We all know that claim is total bullshit.

[Neverlandrut]

IH, simple question and I want a simple answer.

 

Obviously you are your own brand of Christian to some extent. But I'm going to assume you believe there is a god and Jesus is his way of salvation (must have beliefs to be called a Christian). What makes you think these are true? Explain what you need to but please keep it concise. You are prone to dance-around-the-question bullshit.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

IH, you are missing the point. The issue is not your judgement on whether a particular indoctrination is good or bad. The issue is whether or not the content of the indoctrination is actually, objectively true. Do you not agree that people have a strong tendency to believe the things they were taught in childhood, whether or not they are true? Do you not see the strong likelihood that you believe what you do because of your upbringing? No matter how much you say that your parents taught you to question, even if they really did, if they were Christians and raised you around a Christian environment, then you are either naive or dishonest to think that your upbringing had no influence on your current state of beliefs.

 

I was raised in a Christian environment, and believed it wholeheartedly for over 20 years. I had all the "life changing" experiences of salvation, filling of the holly spirit, etc. But, I came to a place where I decided to look at it all objectively, putting aside my own bias toward the belief that it's true. I came to the conclusion that it is all man-made, that there is no evidence that it's actually true. It's a comforting and emotionally helpful frame work for many people, true enough. But that does not make the supernatural claims for Christianity actually true.

“Do you not agree that people have a strong tendency to believe the things they were taught in childhood, whether or not they are true?”

 

Yes

 

 

“ Do you not see the strong likelihood that you believe what you do because of your upbringing?”

 

If you mean what I believe today, no.

 

I agree my parents influenced my beliefs in childhood, but I know the most important

thing they taught me was to question everything.

 

I do agree that for some people the answer would be yes. I guess I could go so far as to say many people.

Your answer to the second question is incorrect. I know this by virtue of the fact that you are human. Your current state of beliefs has been and is influenced by your upbringing. That is true for everybody, even us apostates. The degree to which we continue to let our childhood teachings influence us is the difference. I'm sure your specific doctrinal beliefs differ greatly from your parents. But your core beliefs that god exists and that Jesus is his way of salvation are directly informed by your upbringing. You did not discover these teachings. They were given to you. I'm not being presumptuous; you have admitted as much. Therefore, the fact that you believe your belief in them is not influenced by your upbringing shows your naiveté.

I know you have many of us to address so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren't ignoring the quoted post.

 

I thank you for answering my questions directly. I would like your response to my above comment and this question. Do you really think it is just coincidence that your conclusion that Christianity is true just happens to be the same conclusion your parents hold, and that your upbringing had no influence on it? You have all but directly stated as much. If you don't think your upbringing has any influence on your current state of beliefs, then you have cleverly lied to yourself to the point you believe it which shows that you are naive.

 

 

I thank you for answering my questions directly. I would like your response to my above comment and this question. Do you really think it is just coincidence that your conclusion that Christianity is true just happens to be the same conclusion your parents hold, and that your upbringing had no influence on it?

 

 Why would I not consider it true because it was the same belief as my parents? Is it a given, that one must flee from their parent's religious views to declare themselves free thinkers?

 

I know I will be accused here of not answering the question, but It's a rhetorical question.

 

 

You have all but directly stated as much. If you don't think your upbringing has any influence on your current state of beliefs, then you have cleverly lied to yourself to the point you believe it which shows that you are naive.

 

I have answered many times in the Lion's Den to this question. Yes, my upbringing did influence my belief. How many times do I have to repeat that I was taught my my parents to think and question? That is the influence that I am so thankful for.

 

When will some of you acknowledge I was not raised (indoctrinated) in a frenzy emotionally based counterfeit Christianity?

For the past five hours, as I have been working online, I've had Jimmy Swaggart's SON channel on just to what's going on in the Pentecostal TV Land.

 

It's been nothing but five hours of nothing. Hands in the air, people swooning and crying. Jimmy tickling the piano keys and crooning away with tears in his eyes. The so called "Worship Leaders" going into long chants and pleas for the spirit to come. And Jimmy every now and then tells the crowd another word he has received from the Lord.

 

It's all crap. I really feel sad for the congregation (including children) who are being so brainwashed and deceived by snakes like Swaggart. It's a trapped sad prison.

 

 

My faith, which I have thrown my entire heart and soul, is not a current state of beliefs. It is what I believe.

It's not based on my feelings, emotions or following a herd to the next spiritual enlightened  guru.

 

 

When will we acknowledge that you weren't indoctrinated, Ironhorse?

 

The answer to that is ridiculously simple.

When YOU acknowledge the established facts and indisputable evidence that refute your beliefs... that's when.

Which means that you DON'T beg to disagree about something, but you let the facts and the evidence change your mind.

 

Simple, really.

[bornagainathiest]

And you can start proving to us that you weren't indoctrinated, by dealing with these questions.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/64259-ironhorse-not-answered-your-questions-put-them-here-for-all-to-see/#.U_sRfPldVzM

[bornagainathiest]

And this...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/page-28#.U_sSF_ldVzM

 

Posted Yesterday, 09:08 AM

bornagainathiest, on 15 Aug 2014 - 9:04 PM, said:

Ironhorse,

 

Do you agree that the cause of science is attributable only to the skills of observation, analysis and logical deduction?

 

(Bump!)

[bornagainathiest]

And acknowledging that Shermer's definition of skepticism doesn't apply to and can't be used by you.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63715-thomas-the-skeptic-something-for-ironhorse/page-6#.U_sSlvldVzM

 

Posted 22 August 2014 - 12:54 PM

I can see what Ironhorse is doing here!

 

Shermer's definition of skepticism is a secular one.

It wasn't formulated by him to be used by Christians in the context of Biblical Christianity.   So this a case of apples and oranges.  Or oil and water.  Shermer's gradualistic process doesn't apply to Christianity and can't be used to describe a Christian's position on belief in God.  

 

In Biblical Christianity you are either a believer or an unbeliever.

There are no halfway houses.  You are either saved or damned.  Either a sheep or a goat.  Either heaven-bound or hell-bound.  Hebrews 4 : 4 - 6 tells it like it is!

 

The example of Thomas serves to confirm this.

He was skeptical about Jesus' resurrection.  His position on that issue was one on non-belief.  Then, when Jesus gave him the concrete evidence he required, he changed from non-belief to belief.  Nothing gradual about it.  No process of interim stages involved.  

 

Elijah on Mount Carmel is an OT example.

The Israelites were skeptical about Yahweh's preeminence over Baal.  Elijah gave them the concrete evidence they needed and as one they switched from non-belief in Yahweh's supremacy to belief.

.

.

.

So what Ironhorse has been doing (unwittingly perhaps) is claiming that he's a skeptic and also a believer... using Shermer to justify his impossible position.

 

Sorry!  But it don't work like that in Christianity, friend!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

When will some of you acknowledge I was not raised (indoctrinated) in a frenzy emotionally based counterfeit Christianity?

 

 

When will we acknowledge that you weren't indoctrinated, Ironhorse?

 

The answer to that is ridiculously simple.

When YOU acknowledge the established facts and indisputable evidence that refute your beliefs... that's when.

Which means that you DON'T beg to disagree about something, but you let the facts and the evidence change your mind.

 

Simple, really.

 

 

There's no assurance that you can give us that we will believe, Ironhorse.

 

Why?

Because we are skeptics.  We don't use faith and belief, we use facts, data and evidence to decide what's true.

So the only way you can convince us that you haven't been indoctrinated is to act, think and behave skeptically... just as we do.  Nothing else will cut it.

 

No more assurances.

 

Be skeptical.

 

We will know if you aren't.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

IH, we are not saying that childhood indoctrination is a feature of fundie / pentecostal / emotional xianity in particular, as you seem to be asserting.  Mainline / liberal / progressive xianity can be and is also transmitted via childhood indoctrination.  Yet again, you are not demonstrating that you understand what the term childhood indoctrination means.  Any form of religious belief can be transmitted to children by trusted adults.

[Ravenstar]

Unless you were raised on the moon by robots, you are influenced by your upbringing, experiences and culture… there's no way around it. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The funny thing about indoctrination is that you don't realize it has happened until you take an objective, skeptical look at your beliefs.  The teachings, doctrines, beliefs, and behaviors become second nature to you over the years to the point that you never really give them a second thought.  You might change your mind about a few beliefs here and there, become more liberal, or even more conservative; but the basic core of your beliefs never changes.  As a result, you believe that your beliefs are truly unique and original to you; and you believe that they really do stem from some greater truth that you can see through the eyes of faith.  The only thing you are not willing to believe is that all of this is the result of indoctrination.  It is in the very nature of indoctrination to create the denial of indoctrination in the mind of the indoctrinated.

 

Ironhorse will either deny this or claim he doesn't understand it.  Lurkers, this is for you.

[bornagainathiest]

The funny thing about indoctrination is that you don't realize it has happened until you take an objective, skeptical look at your beliefs.  The teachings, doctrines, beliefs, and behaviors become second nature to you over the years to the point that you never really give them a second thought.  You might change your mind about a few beliefs here and there, become more liberal, or even more conservative; but the basic core of your beliefs never changes.  As a result, you believe that your beliefs are truly unique and original to you; and you believe that they really do stem from some greater truth that you can see through the eyes of faith.  The only thing you are not willing to believe is that all of this is the result of indoctrination.  It is in the very nature of indoctrination to create the denial of indoctrination in the mind of the indoctrinated.

 

Ironhorse will either deny this or claim he doesn't understand it.  Lurkers, this is for you.

 

But there is a way Ironhorse can persuade us.

The only way, in fact.  As skeptics, the only thing that will persuade us is for him to conduct himself skeptically in this forum.  Telling us that he is a skeptic, isn't doing that.  A thousand pages about his background isn't doing that.  Nothing except being skeptical will do that.  And his definition of skepticism won't do that either.  

 

So, if Ironhorse is a skeptic, his actions will prove it.

[sdelsolray]

 

I thank you for answering my questions directly. I would like your response to my above comment and this question. Do you really think it is just coincidence that your conclusion that Christianity is true just happens to be the same conclusion your parents hold, and that your upbringing had no influence on it?

 

 Why would I not consider it true because it was the same belief as my parents? Is it a given, that one must flee from their parent's religious views to declare themselves free thinkers?

 

I know I will be accused here of not answering the question, but It's a rhetorical question.

 

 

You have all but directly stated as much. If you don't think your upbringing has any influence on your current state of beliefs, then you have cleverly lied to yourself to the point you believe it which shows that you are naive.

 

I have answered many times in the Lion's Den to this question. Yes, my upbringing did influence my belief. How many times do I have to repeat that I was taught my my parents to think and question? That is the influence that I am so thankful for.

 

When will some of you acknowledge I was not raised (indoctrinated) in a frenzy emotionally based counterfeit Christianity?

For the past five hours, as I have been working online, I've had Jimmy Swaggart's SON channel on just to what's going on in the Pentecostal TV Land.

 

It's been nothing but five hours of nothing. Hands in the air, people swooning and crying. Jimmy tickling the piano keys and crooning away with tears in his eyes. The so called "Worship Leaders" going into long chants and pleas for the spirit to come. And Jimmy every now and then tells the crowd another word he has received from the Lord.

 

It's all crap. I really feel sad for the congregation (including children) who are being so brainwashed and deceived by snakes like Swaggart. It's a trapped sad prison.

 

 

My faith, which I have thrown my entire heart and soul, is not a current state of beliefs. It is what I believe.

It's not based on my feelings, emotions or following a herd to the next spiritual enlightened  guru.

 

 

How convincing.

[midniterider]

I thank you for answering my questions directly. I would like your response to my above comment and this question. Do you really think it is just coincidence that your conclusion that Christianity is true just happens to be the same conclusion your parents hold, and that your upbringing had no influence on it?

 

 Why would I not consider it true because it was the same belief as my parents? Is it a given, that one must flee from their parent's religious views to declare themselves free thinkers?

 

If you're raised by atheists, and as an adult identify yourself as an atheist are you a 'true' atheist? :-)

[Neverlandrut]

"I thank you for answering my questions directly. I would like your response to my above comment and this question. Do you really think it is just coincidence that your conclusion that Christianity is true just happens to be the same conclusion your parents hold, and that your upbringing had no influence on it?" -Neverlandrut-

 

"Why would I not consider it true because it was the same belief as my parents? Is it a given, that one must flee from their parent's religious views to declare themselves free thinkers?" -Ironhorse-

 

There can be no clearer proof that IH dodges questions. Answering a question with questions that don't actually address the original question is DODGING, My Little Pony. Of course it is not a necessary given that one must conclude differently than one's parents to be a freethinker. But that was not my question! Since you are having a hard time comprehening my question, I'll simplify it further. Did the fact that your parents are Chrisians (I don't give a damn how different their Christian brand is from yours) influence your conclusion that God exists and Jesus is his way of salvation? Yes or No?

 

-Neverlandrut-

[Neverlandrut]

A follow up question:

 

Why do you believe God exists?

 

P.S. Don't give me more bullshit about how you read a bunch of Christian and atheist authors and concluded that the Christian ones made more sense. This type of bullshit answer that you are prone to give doesn't answer the question, just like your response to my last question did not answer the question, oh dishonest-should-go-into-politics My Little Pony. Your answers just beg the questions further. Why do the Chrisians make more sense? If that is your position.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse wrote...

 

"My faith, which I have thrown my entire heart and soul, is not a current state of beliefs.  It is what I believe.

It's not based on my feelings, emotions or following a herd to the next spiritual enlightened guru."

.

.

.

 

The illogic of this is... is... mindblowing. 

 

Whatever Ironhorse currently has faith in... that is what he currently believes. 

He can't say that what he currently has faith in is NOT what he currently believes .  That is self-negating nonsense.

.

.

.

 

If he's thrown his entire heart and soul into his faith, then how is his faith NOT based on feelings and emotions?

 

He contradicts himself, (again!) claiming one thing and then negating it with a counter claim, just a few keystrokes later. 

.

.

.

To the lurkers...

 

Please take careful note of what you read here and also take note of what is NOT here.

  

Do you see ANY evidence in what Ironhorse writes, where his intellect, his intelligence and his skepticism have been engaged? 

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he has skeptically examined his beliefs?

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he can think skeptically or be skeptical about anything?

 

Please draw your own conclusions accordingly.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Neverlandrut]

Ironhorse wrote...

 

"My faith, which I have thrown my entire heart and soul, is not a current state of beliefs. It is what I believe.

It's not based on my feelings, emotions or following a herd to the next spiritual enlightened guru."

.

.

.

 

The illogic of this is... is... mindblowing.

 

Whatever Ironhorse currently has faith in... that is what he currently believes.

He can't say that what he currently has faith in is NOT what he currently believes . That is self-negating nonsense.

.

.

.

 

If he's thrown his entire heart and soul into his faith, then how is his faith NOT based on feelings and emotions?

 

He contradicts himself, (again!) claiming one thing and then negating it with a counter claim, just a few keystrokes later.

.

.

.

To the lurkers...

 

Please take careful note of what you read here and also take note of what is NOT here.

 

Do you see ANY evidence in what Ironhorse writes, where his intellect, his intelligence and his skepticism have been engaged?

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he has skeptically examined his beliefs?

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he can think skeptically or be skeptical about anything?

 

Please draw your own conclusions accordingly.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

He's doing what all great preachers do. He uses oxymoronic non-sense so when he is called out on one point, he can always point back to the other point which contradicts it to "prove" that he really meant something else.

[Thackerie]

 

Ironhorse wrote...

 

"My faith, which I have thrown my entire heart and soul, is not a current state of beliefs. It is what I believe.

It's not based on my feelings, emotions or following a herd to the next spiritual enlightened guru."

.

.

.

 

The illogic of this is... is... mindblowing.

 

Whatever Ironhorse currently has faith in... that is what he currently believes.

He can't say that what he currently has faith in is NOT what he currently believes . That is self-negating nonsense.

.

.

.

 

If he's thrown his entire heart and soul into his faith, then how is his faith NOT based on feelings and emotions?

 

He contradicts himself, (again!) claiming one thing and then negating it with a counter claim, just a few keystrokes later.

.

.

.

To the lurkers...

 

Please take careful note of what you read here and also take note of what is NOT here.

 

Do you see ANY evidence in what Ironhorse writes, where his intellect, his intelligence and his skepticism have been engaged?

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he has skeptically examined his beliefs?

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he can think skeptically or be skeptical about anything?

 

Please draw your own conclusions accordingly.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

He's doing what all great preachers do. He uses oxymoronic non-sense so when he is called out on one point, he can always point back to the other point which contradicts it to "prove" that he really meant the something else.

 

 

I've always wondered about those who speak in such "oxymoronic non-sense" -- Are they aware of it and do it purposely, which is actually clever (dishonest and sneaky, but clever)? Or, are their minds so disordered and lacking in logic that they actually believe they are making sense and being honest?

[mymistake]

 

 

Ironhorse wrote...

 

"My faith, which I have thrown my entire heart and soul, is not a current state of beliefs. It is what I believe.

It's not based on my feelings, emotions or following a herd to the next spiritual enlightened guru."

.

.

.

 

The illogic of this is... is... mindblowing.

 

Whatever Ironhorse currently has faith in... that is what he currently believes.

He can't say that what he currently has faith in is NOT what he currently believes . That is self-negating nonsense.

.

.

.

 

If he's thrown his entire heart and soul into his faith, then how is his faith NOT based on feelings and emotions?

 

He contradicts himself, (again!) claiming one thing and then negating it with a counter claim, just a few keystrokes later.

.

.

.

To the lurkers...

 

Please take careful note of what you read here and also take note of what is NOT here.

 

Do you see ANY evidence in what Ironhorse writes, where his intellect, his intelligence and his skepticism have been engaged?

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he has skeptically examined his beliefs?

 

Do you see ANY evidence that he can think skeptically or be skeptical about anything?

 

Please draw your own conclusions accordingly.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

He's doing what all great preachers do. He uses oxymoronic non-sense so when he is called out on one point, he can always point back to the other point which contradicts it to "prove" that he really meant the something else.

 

 

I've always wondered about those who speak in such "oxymoronic non-sense" -- Are they aware of it and do it purposely, which is actually clever (dishonest and sneaky, but clever)? Or, are their minds so disordered and lacking in logic that they actually believe they are making sense and being honest?

 

 

 

I use to think that way about the Bible.  Yes it can be sincere.  My best tool for overcoming logic was my sense of awe.  If anything ever looked like it didn't make sense that was because my reasoning was flawed and confused.  The Bible is so perfect we should all be awed by it.