Faith is Born from Fear

[AtheistBuddah]

Sadly, Hollie, trying to have a discussion about this stuff is often like trying to play chess with a rooster. The rooster will just kick all pieces off the board and crow in triumph every time.

It is nice that you see what your arguments amount to.

Seriously? What you said is basically just a slightly less childish way of saying "I know you are but what am I?" Do think no one will notice the child level quality of your posts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Claiming things like that don't require proof because they are with the realm of everyday occurrences. Now if you said that the cats, dogs and cars were talking back you would then have to give proof if you wanted anyone to believe you. Again, in the technical sense, you can't be forced to do anything you don't want to. But to gain the belief of others you must convince them with proof..

Like I said, what is it you want me to prove? That I can talk? That the things I talk to respond? Care to point out where I made any claim that anything, or anyone, I talk to actually listens to me? Since I never made that claim, I see no reason to address your idiotic belief that I did.

I have nothing to prove because all I said I do is talk.

You, on the other hand, have a whole shitload of unsubstantiated claims that need to be backed up.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

You read into my sentence that I admire reincarnation when no such words can be found in it. And then go on to say that you are not reading anything into anything. Ironic. I admire Buddhism for its non supernatural teachings. Such as the emphasis on humility, mindfulness, and non violence. I think reincarnation is just as unlikely as the Christian afterlife.

And no I don't reject the Christian philosophy out of hand because of my own personal bias. I reject it because it has little to nothing of value that can't also be found elsewhere without the additional baggage.

FYI, mocking you is not reading anything into your sentence, it is simply mocking you.

What about treating other people as you want to be treated is distasteful to your sensibilities? Would it prohibit you attacking people based on their beliefs? Is that why you started a thread about being met with hostility every time you attack someone?

Firstly, mocking me only reinforces the image that you have painted of yourself as a child with no place in this discussion.

And second, please tell me where "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found in the Bible. And I do not attack people based on their beliefs, merely their actions. A belief, no matter how stupid, is permissible. Any stupid actions inspired by it, however, are most certainly not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously? What you said is basically just a slightly less childish way of saying "I know you are but what am I?" Do think no one will notice the child level quality of your posts?

What, exactly, did your stupid statement amount to? Was it a secret example of how adults treat things they disagree with? Do you think I am under some obligation to treat your nonsense with respect simply because it falls from the infinite lack of wisdom that is you?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Claiming things like that don't require proof because they are with the realm of everyday occurrences. Now if you said that the cats, dogs and cars were talking back you would then have to give proof if you wanted anyone to believe you. Again, in the technical sense, you can't be forced to do anything you don't want to. But to gain the belief of others you must convince them with proof..

Like I said, what is it you want me to prove? That I can talk? That the things I talk to respond? Care to point out where I made any claim that anything, or anyone, I talk to actually listens to me? Since I never made that claim, I see no reason to address your idiotic belief that I did.

I have nothing to prove because all I said I do is talk.

You, on the other hand, have a whole shitload of unsubstantiated claims that need to be backed up.

You're just bogging the conversation down with semantics now so I think we're done here.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Seriously? What you said is basically just a slightly less childish way of saying "I know you are but what am I?" Do think no one will notice the child level quality of your posts?

What, exactly, did your stupid statement amount to? Was it a secret example of how adults treat things they disagree with? Do you think I am under some obligation to treat your nonsense with respect simply because it falls from the infinite lack of wisdom that is you?

This statement literally drips with irony seeing as how you consistently ridicule me for attacking the nonsense of others and not treating their beliefs with respect. You're a hypocrite in true form. Well done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Firstly, mocking me only reinforces the image that you have painted of yourself as a child with no place in this discussion.

And second, please tell me where "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found in the Bible. And I do not attack people based on their beliefs, merely their actions. A belief, no matter how stupid, is permissible. Any stupid actions inspired by it, however, are most certainly not.

What actions have I made that are offensive to you?

Can't think of any? What a surprise, which proves that you are not attacking me based on my actions.

This entire thread is an attack on people based solely on the fact that they believe something you disagree with. You can attempt to pretend it isn't, but the only people that believe that are all so stupid that they can't actually use a computer, so you are not going to get a lot of support for that claim here on this forum. That explains why I keep mocking you, despite your attempt to pretend it makes me look stupid. Mocking stupidity is actually a time honored tradition among people who can think for themselves.

By the way, how is it that a person who is an intelligent as you think you are is completely unaware that the Golden Rule is actually in the Bible? Could it be that you are actually not as informed as you think? Could it actually be that you are dumber than everyone you have been trying to prove is stupid? If you have access to a Bible I suggest you read Mathew Chapter 7 just so you can come crawling back here and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're just bogging the conversation down with semantics now so I think we're done here.

Semantics: the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.​

I can see why you don't like to concentrate on what words actually mean, it kind of destroys your credibility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This statement literally drips with irony seeing as how you consistently ridicule me for attacking the nonsense of others and not treating their beliefs with respect. You're a hypocrite in true form. Well done.

Care to point out where I ever said I wasn't attacking you based on your beliefs? Or that I have any respect for you or your beliefs?

Can't find it, can you?

I guess that proves one of us is a hypocrite.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Firstly, mocking me only reinforces the image that you have painted of yourself as a child with no place in this discussion.

And second, please tell me where "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found in the Bible. And I do not attack people based on their beliefs, merely their actions. A belief, no matter how stupid, is permissible. Any stupid actions inspired by it, however, are most certainly not.

What actions have I made that are offensive to you?

Can't think of any? What a surprise, which proves that you are not attacking me based on my actions.

This entire thread is an attack on people based solely on the fact that they believe something you disagree with. You can attempt to pretend it isn't, but the only people that believe that are all so stupid that they can't actually use a computer, so you are not going to get a lot of support for that claim here on this forum. That explains why I keep mocking you, despite your attempt to pretend it makes me look stupid. Mocking stupidity is actually a time honored tradition among people who can think for themselves.

By the way, how is it that a person who is an intelligent as you think you are is completely unaware that the Golden Rule is actually in the Bible? Could it be that you are actually not as informed as you think? Could it actually be that you are dumber than everyone you have been trying to prove is stupid? If you have access to a Bible I suggest you read Mathew Chapter 7 just so you can come crawling back here and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

None, but who said I was attacking you? Have I vocalized disagreement with points you've made? Sure. Have I called you out on some of your childish or hypocritical remarks? Certainly. But those aren't attacks. That is just the name of the game on here.

As to this post, it is a criticism. One I have every right too. You could call it an attack if you want. Either way it is my right. I never claimed that others couldn't do so to me as well, only you would be so hypocritical. And I would judge by the amount of support my posts get on this forum that the sentence in bold is just wrong on its face. So why you actually mock me is more likely why you think I started this thread. To belittle those that disagree with you. Which is, of course, your right, but it is also my right to point out that it's in bad taste.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

You're just bogging the conversation down with semantics now so I think we're done here.

Semantics: the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.​

I can see why you don't like to concentrate on what words actually mean, it kind of destroys your credibility.

I simply don't like to waste time on someone that likes to twist words and their meaning to destroy my credibility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None, but who said I was attacking you? Have I vocalized disagreement with points you've made? Sure. Have I called you out on some of your childish or hypocritical remarks? Certainly. But those aren't attacks. That is just the name of the game on here.

As to this post, it is a criticism. One I have every right too. You could call it an attack if you want. Either way it is my right. I never claimed that others couldn't do so to me as well, only you would be so hypocritical. And I would judge by the amount of support my posts get on this forum that the sentence in bold is just wrong on its face. So why you actually mock me is more likely why you think I started this thread. To belittle those that disagree with you. Which is, of course, your right, but it is also my right to point out that it's in bad taste.

I did.

I haven't made a single hypocritical remark, all I have done is point out your hypocrisy. I never condemned you for attacking me, I condemned you for claiming that your attack is not an attack. That leaves me free to attack you because I did not stake out a position where I don't attack people. In fact, I have openly objected to calls on this board to be more civil and not attack other posters.

But, please, keep trying to pretend I am not following my own code of conduct. In the meantime, I will continue to attack idiots like you that want to pretend they aren't being assholes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I simply don't like to waste time on someone that likes to twist words and their meaning to destroy my credibility.

I said what I meant, and refused to let you claim that what I said means something else. If that meets your definition of twisting words I would suggest you are very confused as to how the universe actually works.

 

[ninja007]

FAITH is born of trust in Jesus.....

 

[Hollie]

FAITH is born of trust in Jesus.....

.... or L. Ron Hubbard, or Jimmy Swaggert.

 

[ninja007]

FAITH is born of trust in Jesus.....

.... or L. Ron Hubbard, or Jimmy Swaggert.

except only one man can save your soul....Jesus.

 

[ninja007]

and God is the finisher of our faith.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Putting an even finer point on the point in the above. Hawking is famous—or is it infamous?—for claiming that "[p]hilosophy is dead." Yet the work in which he makes that amazingly obtuse claim is in fact pure philosophy, scientifically unfalsifiable assertions regarding the metaphysics of ontology. Dude! But then the philosophers of the new atheism are notoriously bad thinkers and utterly unaware of the fact that the historical cannon of ideas rendered their "new" objections to theism moot centuries ago. LOL!

Putting a “finer point” on a bankrupt argument will not save the argument. I guess we must put it in the same category as failed “pwoofs” of your imaginary philosophical, scientific and logical pwoofs for your gawds; A vacuous claim that you were unable to actually support.

Why would any qualification in philosophy or theology be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical or theological. The natural world (to exclude such supernatural inventions as your partisan version of gawds) is entirely a scientific issue. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect., tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

Sadly, Hollie, trying to have a discussion about this stuff is often like trying to play chess with a rooster. The rooster will just kick all pieces off the board and crow in triumph every time.

Don't be silly, AtheistBuddah, Hollie doesn't know anything worth knowing about science either. He/she always writes this very same drivel about philosophy and science, which is utterly wrong, of course, as science rests on a metaphysical presupposition, and then runs the moment I do get into the science.

So since neither one of you are packin' any intellectual heat worth engaging, how about a duck joke?
_______________________________________

A duck walks into a bar, bellys up and orders up a charcoal-filtered nice on the rocks. This quack likes his smooth chilled, see. The bartender serves the duck his drink, and the duck tells the bartender to bring him some gumballs.

"Sorry, don't have any gumballs," the bartender tells the duck.

So the duck downs his smooth, pays and leaves, see.

The very next day the duck returns and orders another nice on the rocks. "Let me get some gumballs with that," says the duck.

"Like I told you yesterday, I don't have any gumballs."

The duck downs his smooth, pays and leaves.

Same thing the very next day: the duck orders a nice on the rocks and gumballs.

"Look here, you stupid quack. I've told you twice already that I don't have any gumballs. Ask me about gumballs one more time and I'll nail you to that wall by your bill. Check?"

So the duck downs his smooth, pays and leaves.

The duck comes back to the bar again the very next day and orders a nice on the rocks and a box of nails.

"Does this look like Ace Hardware? I ain't got any nails either."

"I'm glad to hear that," says the duck. "I'll have me some gumballs instead."

 

[THE LIGHT]

.... or L. Ron Hubbard, or Jimmy Swaggert.

Yeah, don't put your trust in man.

 

[ninja007]

Acts 17 11 Bible Study Faith