Religion Cannot StandThe Scrutiny Of A Good Education

[Cecilie1200]

In other words, you're arguing a straw man. It's called an analogy, since I'm tired of saying "that's a straw man" since that's all idiots like you ever do, as if it were your job to construct these things.

What in the **** are you babbling about? WHAT "straw man"? WHAT "analogy"? You're just throwing out words at random now.

Oh, I don't know, you arguing this straw man where I hate all christians, which I've said that I DON'T, TWICE, yet you continually argue against this fabled person who does. Hence the analogy, of you putting me in a box, labeling it, and putting in a place that is easy for you to handle. Same ******* thing as a straw man, just put differently. GET IT YOU ******* IDIOT?

I'm going to help you out, although God knows you're likely too psychotic at this point to even receive partial signals from this dimension.

A "straw man argument" is not, as you seem to think, an argument you don't like, or one you disagree with. It is defined as "An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated". That term, therefore, does not apply to arguments ACTUALLY BASED ON YOUR OWN WORDS. I'm not inventing the idea that you hate Christians and Christianity out of thin air, bigot; I'm saying it because YOU SAID IT. Multiple times.

It really doesn't matter how many times you earnestly declare that you DON'T hate Christians. Ever hear the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"? It means that what you REALLY believe is what you DO, not what you SAY. And if what you say you believe doesn't match what you do, you're a hypocrite. Which then explains why I keep calling you THAT, as well.

GET IT, YOU DELUSIONAL BIGOT?

 

[logical4u]

If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your ******* lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.

Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.

Sonny, please tell us where you "earned" respect. Was it when you attacked all Christians as ignorant (and then back-paddled)? Was it when you implied a threat: you are lucky I am a nice guy? Just when did you "earn" our respect.

Cause you still look like a little man with a small mind to me....

Perhaps I should not have said what I said here. I was being inflammatory, but... stop playing the victim role here. Many christians in this country are massively ignorant when it comes to science and especially evolution, yet pretend to have the truth and knowledge about everything. This hubris is maddening. This is because of religious indoctrination, and the encouragement to believe and have faith above all else, including above critical thought. This kind of hemming of intellectual curiosity by the forced adoption of religious ideas in order to fit in socially in certain communities, is what I find morally objectionable to religious thought, and it christianity and islam that are most guilty of this.


Any religious claims that effectively consist of a god-in-the-gaps argument, are arguments from ignorance. No christian KNOWS that the universe was created by god, or that we were created by intelligent design. We don't have a scientific explanation for something? "god must have done it." Sorry, this is a logical fallacy. So ironic that an insistence on metaphysical naturalism by someone like me, be given the name "scientism" as a pejorative by the same people who's evidence for this supernatural claims rest on a 2,000 year old book which itself, is of very dubious credibility: no signatures, copies of copies of translations of copies, no contemporary extra-biblical scholars to back up ANY of what is mentioned in the bible. The whole attempt by christians to belittle science is absurd.

You attack "Christians" and then tell me (as a Christian) to stop playing the "victim"? Then you go on to attack "Christians" again (no mention of muslims/hindus/buddahists) again over the theory (get it theory) of evolution.
Since you proclaim yourself to be so much more knowledgeable than "Christians" on the subject, please provide the proof that all forms of life came from the same incidental cell that just happened to form (billions of years ago); provide the proof that all mammals have the "same" ancestor. Since I am just an ignorant "Christian" that does not believe "man's" version of something that happened without any living witnesses or concrete evidence to prove it.

Please give evidence where "Christians" claim to know everything (because their faith is based on M Y S T E R I E S: for you that is something that has not been answered in a form that "people" can comprehend).

The Lord gave all people the "gift of reason", as a Christian, to not use that would be insulting the Lord. Choosing to believe the One that said He created the Light, the World, and life on earth over a "man" that contradicts that "witness" with a fantastic story does not seem reasonable to me. (If you want to believe that, I will not tell you that you are "ignorant" or "indoctrinated" even though I feel that you are. I will give you the time to figure it out for yourself.)

Intellectual curiosity is the basis for most "adult" faith. People consider their lives, the world, and the answers to questions they seek. As adults, they choose what to believe based on what seems "reasonable". Some do seek to "fit in" and I would tell you that , spiritually, these people are not spiritual adults, but still adolecents, spiritually.

The Lord "told" us that He created the earth, and life. With the displays of His power throughout the OT, and the Commandments that He gave that all men might live by, in peace, why would we "doubt" HIM?

Maybe it would help if you did some research on how the Bible was written? The OT matches the Jewish Torah. For thousands of years, those books were protected above all other knowledge, why? Can you give evidence of any other knowledge that was so widely published and passed to future generations? Why do you think that was?

Please site evidence of Christian "belittling" "science". I am not talking about questionable, politically correct science. I am talking about biology, physics, mathmatics. Theories are not "proven" and until they can be "reproduced" or a historic linkage established, they are just a "man's" story.

The statements and generalization that you continue to make about Christians, even as you are declaring that you do not have them are appalling.

 

[logical4u]

You baselessly assert that my words have no meaning, yet this is simply because you are unable to be honest about your own behavior. It is you who is being a bigot, shoving me into a classification as a christian hater because I said I am an anti-theist. I suspect you're understanding of the word "anti-theism" is flawed, and that is the problem.

Anti-theism means "against religious beliefs." I'm assuming you want the definition to mean "against religious people" and will argue for this definition, but this is illogical. You might look at a word like "anti-semitic" and use a cognitive heuristic to infer that "anti-theist" must mean something similar, except against theists, but the roots "semitic" and theism" are categorically distinct. "Semitic" refers to an ethnic group of PEOPLE, while "theism" refers to a class of BELIEF. GET IT? GREAT!

You would be more believeable if you lumped those that believe in aliens with the "religious" or those that believe in Santa Claus. Because "you" specifically targeted Christians as being "ignorant" and uneducated makes you a bigot. Do you attack homosexuals because you don't live that lifestyle (or heterosexuals because you don't live that lifestyle)? Your own words have exposed you as a bigot. Now you can tell us all day long that you are not one, but you have already given evidence that you are a bigot. You can accept that, or try to grow into a bigger person, but the arrogance that you have displayed here, probably would prevent that from happening. Just embrace who you are: a small minded man that is convinced he knows all about Christians.

I'm not a bigot for the simple fact that I don't hate people, I hate ideas.

By you're logic, I have to love christianity, or else I am a bigot. I can't be vocal about my opinions about christianity, or else I am a bigot. In others words, if my views about the universe don't match yours, I'm a bigot. You are attempting to control me, and I won't have it. I won't be scared into keeping my opinions to myself. I don't like christianity. I think it is full of shit. Yet, there are thousands of denominations. I understand people are indoctrinated by this religion, so I can't blame them, and I also understand religion can save people from a lot of pain.. but that doesn't make ANY of it true. Let's get something straight. I am against all religion that tries to impose itself onto others. Christianity is by far the biggest offender here, at least in the USA, with its constant proselytizing and evangelicals who judge the world. Christianity is a huge problem, and I would only hope that people would question their beliefs a little more.

You are a bigot because of your ideas about Christians (nothing there about hate, thought thru your continuous insults to those that believe, it is apparent). Bigotry implies a superstitious, or unproven belief about a specific subject (your beliefs about Christians). Yes, your opinions of "Christians" make you a bigot. If you were refering to a specific group of "Christians" and related personal experience or could site specific beliefs that you could prove to be false, then you would not be a bigot. When you make broad, all inclusive statements that can be proven to be false (such as Christians don't use science or similar statement).

How am I attempting to "control" you? (here we go again with statements without basis) Your statement: "I don't like christianity." is the most honest thing you have said, yet. Please give evidence of Christianity being "imposed" on you. Did someone hold you down and "baptize" you? Did someone torture you to give your spirtual confession? Did someone force you to take communion? Christians have NO AUTHORITY to "judge" you or anyone else. Unless they are a saint, and are punished for their personal sins here on earth, every Christian, will be punished (along with those that become Christians on judgement day) for their sins after being judges by the LORD.

You state that Christianity is a huge problem. You are a bigot. Christianity is responsible for more charities, education, and care than any gov't on earth. Christians are the first into disaster relief efforts, and the most generous on earth. I have asked you to give evidence of a better way. All I get is how Christianity is wrong (with the token "other faiths" too). You are a "son": immature spiritually and mentally, and it would benefit you greatly to try and comprehend some of the Bible before wrongly "judging" those that follow it.

 

[logical4u]

You use an appeal to ridicule, especially when you talk about shoving it up my "bigoted ass". You argue a straw man, being someone that hates christian, which you deduced by your own subjective interpretation of my words, even though I made it explicitly clear that I don't hate christians. I used the analogy of disliking pizza but not disliking all italians- because I don't agree with someones beliefs about something, doesn't mean I don't like that person. Yet, you continually put me in a box as a christian hater. This could be seen as one big red herring from the discussion thread topic. We went from talking about the OP to me being a christian hater, on your say so. If that isn't a red herring, I don't know what is. Without being able to establish this, it serves no purpose and is utterly subjective without you explaining or backing up any of your assertions about this claim, or responding to my objections to this claim, instead you simply kept re-asserting that I was a christian hater and calling me a bigot and a hypocrite, without explaining how, after DEMONSTRATED how I am not a christian hater just because I disagree with christianity. Then you hypocritically accuse me of throwing out meaningless accusations using the words "bigot" and "hypocrite" when you are doing the exact same thing. It's absolutely ******* hilariously juvenile. This is usually the frustration of debating christians. You are completely self-unaware. I tried to avoid having to bring all of this up because it is a pain in the ass.

I was hoping we could move on and get to some actual points, but you continued to call me a bigot and hypocrite, without explaining how, simultaneously accusing me of throwing out meaningless words like "red herring."

Satisfied, you wise-ass?

We are STILL, patiently waiting for you to explain to us, a better way to live your life, than Christianity. We are STILL waiting for you to demonstrate a community built on something else that has offered the productivity and opportunities (for everyone) that Christianity does (notice there is no mention of installing a theocracy, just that the majority of 'citizens' are Christian), if you are interested in making an "actual point".

Sweden. Lower crime rates than the USA. Better education. 80% atheistic.

De je vu! Are you suggesting that people bow to gov't before bowing to the Lord? Would you prefer Sweden's tax rates?

 

[Unkotare]

I am pretty thin-skinned as a matter of fact.

And you came here?!

 

[Unkotare]

You use an appeal to ridicule, especially when you talk about shoving it up my "bigoted ass". You argue a straw man, being someone that hates christian, which you deduced by your own subjective interpretation of my words, even though I made it explicitly clear that I don't hate christians. I used the analogy of disliking pizza but not disliking all italians- because I don't agree with someones beliefs about something, doesn't mean I don't like that person. Yet, you continually put me in a box as a christian hater. This could be seen as one big red herring from the discussion thread topic. We went from talking about the OP to me being a christian hater, on your say so. If that isn't a red herring, I don't know what is. Without being able to establish this, it serves no purpose and is utterly subjective without you explaining or backing up any of your assertions about this claim, or responding to my objections to this claim, instead you simply kept re-asserting that I was a christian hater and calling me a bigot and a hypocrite, without explaining how, after DEMONSTRATED how I am not a christian hater just because I disagree with christianity. Then you hypocritically accuse me of throwing out meaningless accusations using the words "bigot" and "hypocrite" when you are doing the exact same thing. It's absolutely ******* hilariously juvenile. This is usually the frustration of debating christians. You are completely self-unaware. I tried to avoid having to bring all of this up because it is a pain in the ass.

I was hoping we could move on and get to some actual points, but you continued to call me a bigot and hypocrite, without explaining how, simultaneously accusing me of throwing out meaningless words like "red herring."

Satisfied, you wise-ass?

We are STILL, patiently waiting for you to explain to us, a better way to live your life, than Christianity. We are STILL waiting for you to demonstrate a community built on something else that has offered the productivity and opportunities (for everyone) that Christianity does (notice there is no mention of installing a theocracy, just that the majority of 'citizens' are Christian), if you are interested in making an "actual point".

Sweden. Lower crime rates than the USA. Better education. 80% atheistic.

That example fails because Sweden, regardless of the professed faithlessness of its populace today, was built upon the same history as the rest of Europe. The ability to develop a liberal society and political system came in large part due to the dramatic changes that the growth and spread of Christianity brought. They may want to reject that heritage, but they cannot change their foundation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

(wiki)

"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

Note the bolding of the word "pejoratively." That's key. Somehow, not even indicated in your definition, although it was obvious to me, even before looking up this word, that it was used as such.

OF COURSE it's pejorative, numb skull. That's because he was making an insulting comparison between REAL science and your wild vacillation between pretending to revere science while actually knowing nothing at all about it. It was his whole frigging POINT.

That's it. I'm going to go talk to my three-year-old for a while. Not only is his conversation slightly more sensible and intelligent than yours, he's also a hell of a lot cuter and more entertaining.

You're an idiot. That's all there is to it.

We haven't even discussed science yet, dumbass, so what "vacillation between pretending to revere science while actually knowing nothing at all about it" are you talking about? It's so ironic that you talk about meaningless words, when you throw out entire sentences that have nothing to do with reality.

We didn't discuss science? Really? So it wasn't you vehemently declaring that Christianity and the Bible are incompatible with science, and Christians don't like science, and that that's proof that religion and ignorance go hand-in-hand?

Seems like ONE of us is hallucinating. Let's see which one of us it is, shall we?

"I agree with the notion that a lack of education, especially scientific education... allows for greater faith and religion, because the two seem to be contradictory. That's a simple enough idea. A fundamentalist belief in the bible is incompatible with scientific thought. This, at least partially, demonstrates this notion empirically and in concept. Not all those religious are fundamentalists, but still many disbelieve scientific claims on similar grounds. So, you get the trend we see and would expect. In places where education is not valued highly, there is greater religious and fundamentalist thought."

Well, since that's YOUR frigging quote, I guess that means you're the one hallucinating. Better get the docs to adjust those meds again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it means, if I wanted to slam you for all of the red herrings an inaccurate statements you posted about me, I could, but it would take a lot of energy because there are so many of them, and I sense that you simply won't care, because all you care about is your own image.

Oh, look, everyone! Psycho Lib has been allowed out into the dayroom so he can blither at us some more.

You really don't understand that words have actual, specific meanings, do you? You think "hypocrite" and "bigot" mean "someone I don't like", and apparently that "red herring" means "arguments I don't like and don't want to respond to". This is the only explanation I can find for the facts that 1) you have not so much as MENTIONED any "red herrings" of mine before this, and 2) you cannot and have not cited a single one of these alleged "red herrings".

The truth is, if you could "slam" me for anything, you'd do it in a heartbeat. We know this, because you've been trying DESPERATELY to slam me for some time now, and every one of your swings misses and hits you in the head.

Oh, and I particularly enjoy your return to "I'm rubber and you're glue", in which you merely repeat my remarks about you back at me, assuming that because they were devastating when I did it, they'll be the same for you. Yet another example of you not understanding that words mean things . . . but at least you're consistent.

You baselessly assert that my words have no meaning, yet this is simply because you are unable to be honest about your own behavior.

1) Nothing baseless about it. You use words as though you have no idea what their meaning is, or even that they have one. Just lately, you're in love with the term "straw man", despite the fact that what I'm saying is MANIFESTLY not a straw man argument at all. You may disagree with it, but that's not the same thing. It's CLEARLY based on your actual words, which would be why I KEEP QUOTING THEM.

2) In what way am I "not honest about my own behavior"? Particularly since we haven't really been discussing me at all, other than your occasional attempt to blindly throw my observations about you back at me as though they're just generic insults . . . which brings us back to Number One.

It is you who is being a bigot, shoving me into a classification as a christian hater because I said I am an anti-theist. I suspect you're understanding of the word "anti-theism" is flawed, and that is the problem.

Sorry, Sparkles, but no soap . . . on several levels, in fact.

1) I didn't make the observation that you're a hate-filled bigot because of your pathetic attempt to rationalize and justify yourself with the term "anti-theist". I made it based on your hate-filled attacks on Christians and, to a lesser extent, "people of religion". If you bother to go back and read my posts, you will see that I QUOTED THE ATTACKS on which I based my observation, and did NOT quote your claim to "anti-theism".

2) I understand the term just fine, and for a semi-literate putz like you to try to attack me on the grounds of vocabulary is just too ******* funny for words. What I don't understand is why ANYONE would be stupid, pointless, and just frigging nosy enough to bother ACTIVELY opposing the belief in gods. What possible business could it be of yours what other people believe? Why would you care?

Anti-theism means "against religious beliefs." I'm assuming you want the definition to mean "against religious people" and will argue for this definition, but this is illogical.

You're going to try to adopt the pose of educating ME on vocabulary? Really? You're REALLY going to go there? What, you're not a big enough object of ridicule yet?

Once again, Delusion Boy, the problem isn't whichever coined word you want to try to hide behind. The problem is your ACTIONS, not the bullshit you blather to try to cover for them.

You might look at a word like "anti-semitic" and use a cognitive heuristic to infer that "anti-theist" must mean something similar, except against theists, but the roots "semitic" and theism" are categorically distinct. "Semitic" refers to an ethnic group of PEOPLE, while "theism" refers to a class of BELIEF. GET IT? GREAT!

Give it up, fucktard. You're fooling no one but yourself, and given the utter, incoherent sputtering you've been reduced to, I suspect you're having trouble fooling yourself, too.

You're still a hate-filled bigot, and more to the point, EVERYONE SEES YOU AS A BIGOT. No matter how much you WISH you were presenting a picture of a really nice guy who's educated and holding a reasoned, principled view on religion, you're not. You're just as ignorant, nasty, and vile as any Klan member. All you're missing is the sheet.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your ******* lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.

Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.

Sonny, please tell us where you "earned" respect. Was it when you attacked all Christians as ignorant (and then back-paddled)? Was it when you implied a threat: you are lucky I am a nice guy? Just when did you "earn" our respect.

Cause you still look like a little man with a small mind to me....

Perhaps I should not have said what I said here.

Ya think?!

I was being inflammatory, but... stop playing the victim role here.

It's a funny thing about trying to be inflammatory, especially when you're not very experienced or good at it: it has a way of revealing a lot more about who you truly are than you might think it will. Take it from an expert at verbal bomb-throwing: if you're not into serious self-examination and -knowledge, it's not for you. And if you're convinced that you're "really a nice person", the odds are really high that you're not into self-examination and -knowledge, because very few people meet that description.

Many christians in this country are massively ignorant when it comes to science and especially evolution, yet pretend to have the truth and knowledge about everything.

See, here you go with spewing the bigotry, and the fact that you're spewing it to defend yourself against accusations of bigotry is just the cherry on top of the irony parfait.

Tip for you: any time you're making generalized, blanket negative statements about a large group of people of which you can't POSSIBLY know every, or even most, members, you're almost certainly being a bigot.

This hubris is maddening.

Well, you finally said something that was true.

This is because of religious indoctrination, and the encouragement to believe and have faith above all else, including above critical thought. This kind of hemming of intellectual curiosity by the forced adoption of religious ideas in order to fit in socially in certain communities, is what I find morally objectionable to religious thought, and it christianity and islam that are most guilty of this.

What amazes me is the sheer hypocrisy of a person who appears never to have given a single thought to really examining the beliefs of the people he reviles or the belief that HIS beliefs result from his great intellectual superiority making these broad, sweeping, prejudiced statements.

Oh, and your complete and total blindness to what you're doing, even though it's being pointed out to you repeatedly.

Any religious claims that effectively consist of a god-in-the-gaps argument, are arguments from ignorance.

And, of course, you merely assume that all, or most, Christians make and believe such claims.

No christian KNOWS that the universe was created by god, or that we were created by intelligent design.

Nor have any of them CLAIMED to "know" any such thing. Indeed, this very thing is the reason it's called "faith".

In contradistinction, no "anti-theist", atheist, or Christianity-hater KNOWS that the universe was NOT created by God (by the way, Mr. Education, in the English language, we capitalize proper names), or that we were not created by intelligent design, but for some reason, that doesn't stop them for a second from declaring vociferously that they DO "know" it.

So who's the real idiot in that scenario? The person asserting knowledge he cannot possibly have, or the person admitting he doesn't have it, and must therefore believe one thing or another on the subject until the knowledge is available?

We don't have a scientific explanation for something? "god must have done it."

Now, see, THIS is one of those "straw man arguments" you were trying to pretend I was using. Rather than discussing any SPECIFIC words uttered by a SPECIFIC person, you just credited an entire group of people you don't know and have never talked to with propounding the argument you WANT to refute.

Sorry, this is a logical fallacy. So ironic that an insistence on metaphysical naturalism by someone like me, be given the name "scientism" as a pejorative by the same people who's evidence for this supernatural claims rest on a 2,000 year old book which itself, is of very dubious credibility: no signatures, copies of copies of translations of copies, no contemporary extra-biblical scholars to back up ANY of what is mentioned in the bible. The whole attempt by christians to belittle science is absurd.

The whole attempt to prove your rationality and lack of bigotry by launching yet another hate-filled attack on an entire group of people is absurd.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your ******* lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.

Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.

LOL!

Are you always this thin-skinned?

I'm much older than you. "Son" is not an insult.

That was an invitation to discuss, not fight.

Somehow or another, you took a term writ by me to be a personal insult directed at you and then thought to derisively dismiss me without really knowing what I had in mind.

Of course, scientism and science are not synonymous terms, just as methodological naturalism and mechanistic naturalism are not synonymous metaphysical presuppositions.

I'm a theist, not a materialist.

What's wrong with you?

Jeez, it's late for me. I'm normally in bed much earlier than this, but I had to fix some links on my blog.

Good night.

First of all, I think you meant metaphysical naturalism, not mechanistic naturalism, which is what is contrasted against methodological naturalism.

I don't like when people call me son. Where I live, it carries a negative connotation or is used as means to demean.

I am pretty thin-skinned as a matter of fact. I am working on it. I fully admit that I am over-sensitive to criticism and is why I get so angry. I am simply trying to have a discussion, but some here like to put words in my mouth, and I am forced to defend something I don't believe. That pisses me off, and when I get pissed about this, I lose the ability to be rational and calm, and I become simply vengeful. I am working on this.

Well, actually, I meant to write metaphysical as opposed to mechanistic (or methedological).

Sleepy.

But, yes, you followed it.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'll simplify the whole deal. I lived the church life till I was over 60 years old. I tithed my net pay, taught Sunday school and vacation bible school, coached and reffed the RA boys, mowed and raked old folk's yards, was a member of the Brotherhood...basically was in the church about three days a week. Know what? I never believed it.....not for a minute.

Hi Cbell. Not to worry. Look at our govt and taxpayers. Many people pay taxes into it, and support the system WITHOUT believing in actually ACHIEVING equal justice under law, perfect due process, and all the Constitutional values the govt and laws are supposed to be about. Many do not even believe these ideals are POSSIBLE. And yet we don't reject Constitutional laws as "false or fiction" and not reality. We forgive our govt for making bigger messes of the laws that are being violated instead of followed. Why can't we forgive the church? Why do we reject church laws but not state laws as false when they aren't working?

This man put my feelings into words much better than I ever could have:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." ~Dr. Albert Einstein~

OK so you don't believe in a conditional God who punishes based on flaws he himself would have been responsible for creating in humans; and neither do I.

So what makes you equate faith/Christianity with something you don't believe in?
Can you make a distinction between the OT relationship with God that was about judgment and punishment; versus the NT relations that are based on "restorative justice" and breaking out of the old ways that were conflicting and caused these problems you mention?

As for life continuing on after physical death, what is wrong with seeing contributions and heritage that people leave behind, legacies that are positive, as a way of achieving this?
Don't the ideals and contributions of Jefferson, Einstein, Mozart live on after they are gone?

Doesn't the spirit of the Constitution and Founding Fathers still live on in society and influence us today? How it that different from the Wisdom in Buddhism that lives on, or the love in Christianity that heals one generation from abuses past down from before and contributes to the next generation that no longer repeats the cycles of war or abuse?

Do you believe in the power of good will, truth and love to overcome the ill effects of negative relationships based on falsehood and fear-based control.

My ultimate curiosity is if you don't believe in negative judgment and punishment, then why do you project negative rejection when you judge Christianity? Aren't you practicing the very type of approach you DON'T believe in? if you don't believe God should be doing that, or taught as doing that judgment punishment stuff, then why are you projecting judgment?

 

[emilynghiem]

...I am not a christian hater just because I disagree with christianity. .... I was hoping we could move on and get to some actual points, but you continued to call me a bigot and hypocrite, without explaining how, simultaneously accusing me of throwing out meaningless words like "red herring."

We are STILL, patiently waiting for you to explain to us, a better way to live your life, than Christianity. We are STILL waiting for you to demonstrate a community built on something else that has offered the productivity and opportunities (for everyone) that Christianity does (notice there is no mention of installing a theocracy, just that the majority of 'citizens' are Christian), if you are interested in making an "actual point".

Dear NP: What are the points or issues where you disagree with Christianity?
I believe the valid ones can be addressed and corrected, and will take equal work on the side of Christians as nonChristians who have these same grievances.

Can you name some points and we can see how many of these can be resolved,
and which are the fault of Christians for teaching in a biased way causing problems?

For example:
1. whether salvation includes all people of all tribes or becomes this exclusive conditional game of judging which people are in or out, right or wrong; and if there are certain steps or factors necessary for universal peace/salvation, how do you define these without falsely excluding people who have this (based on assuming or discriminating by affiliation) or falsely including people who don't follow this (again, based on assuming by their affiliation).

2. whether Constitutional systems of organizing and governing people are more universal than Christianity, and provide better check and balance against abuses, or whether these depend on Christian faith in order for them to work so they are not fully independent of the church community, but the church and state are necessary complements; natural laws and scriptural laws check and balance each other where a harmonious relation is the key.

 

[logical4u]

Consider if you will: Christian religions are like different universities. They all teach knowledge, but each one offers a different atmosphere or style of learning. Those that are terrified of Christianity should take a long hard look a "graphic" crucifix. If you cannot stand to look at it, you might have a visitor, a demon invading your space. If you feel terrible and are filled with compassion or sorrow that the Son of God had to die such a terrible death for us, you might be human.

 

[newpolitics]

What in the **** are you babbling about? WHAT "straw man"? WHAT "analogy"? You're just throwing out words at random now.

Oh, I don't know, you arguing this straw man where I hate all christians, which I've said that I DON'T, TWICE, yet you continually argue against this fabled person who does. Hence the analogy, of you putting me in a box, labeling it, and putting in a place that is easy for you to handle. Same ******* thing as a straw man, just put differently. GET IT YOU ******* IDIOT?

I'm going to help you out, although God knows you're likely too psychotic at this point to even receive partial signals from this dimension.

A "straw man argument" is not, as you seem to think, an argument you don't like, or one you disagree with. It is defined as "An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated". That term, therefore, does not apply to arguments ACTUALLY BASED ON YOUR OWN WORDS. I'm not inventing the idea that you hate Christians and Christianity out of thin air, bigot; I'm saying it because YOU SAID IT. Multiple times.

It really doesn't matter how many times you earnestly declare that you DON'T hate Christians. Ever hear the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"? It means that what you REALLY believe is what you DO, not what you SAY. And if what you say you believe doesn't match what you do, you're a hypocrite. Which then explains why I keep calling you THAT, as well.

GET IT, YOU DELUSIONAL BIGOT?

In one ear and out the other with you... let me school you a bit.

A straw man is when someone misrepresents their opponents argument, and then attacks that misrepresentation, instead of the actual argument: what you have been doing since I mentioned my anti-theism. I suspect that you have misconstrued anti-theism to mean something it isn't: opposition to people who hold religious beliefs, and have run with this. This is the basis of your ignorance and you're turning my position into a bigoted one. Let me quickly correct this:

"Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods."
(wiki)

When I said "all christians are ignorant," I should have clarified. I did not mean ignorant in a general sense, but only with respect to two epistemic claims: Creation Ex Deo, and Abiogenesis, because these two claims rest on arguments from ignorance. A scientific claim is made about abiogenesis (intelligent design) or creation Ex Deo, and because it can't be disproved, it must be true. So, my claim was an epistemological one, not a general one about the character of any given christian, because I simply don't believe that all christians are ignorant. That's simply illogical and ignorant. I believe christians can be very nice, good-willed people, however, I will never attribute this good will to their christianity. It is an attribute of their character independent of their religious beliefs, in my opinion. Although, I do respect them for their faith. If it helps people personally, that's cool, but when they try to effect legislation that effects me, then I have a problem. This, and only this manifestation of religious belief, is why I am an anti-theist and why I am posting on a POLITICAL discussion forum to argue with theists.

Faith it is something I could never do, because I believe the judaeo-christian god to be logically incoherent/impossible/contradictory on a number of levels. Two examples: a perfect being would never need a relationship with anything or anyone. This is clearly the human writers of the bible projecting human characteristics, like jealousy, onto a supposedly perfect being. Also, omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory. If one knows the future of his/her own actions, he/she is powerless to change them. Nearly every single christian I have ever met will posit that god either created the universe (creation ex deo) or started life at some point (anywhere from abiogenesis to young earth creationism). In other words, I have yet to find a christian that espouses the views of metaphysical naturalism. The bible, if taken literally, makes this impossible.

Lastly, the reason I specifically target christians in discussion is simple. The vast majority of the US population is christian, and if that majority is represented on these boards, i would expect to find the majority of theists here to be Christian, not Muslim, Jewish, or any other. I would have no audience were I to challenge Islam. I don't have a problem with judaism much. They don't proselytize like Christians. It is ego that bothers me, and the action of pushing ones beliefs on others to me, is a manifestation of ego, which isn't really a crime, but this god has no empirical evidence bearing on it. Religion is clever in that it convinces the people that they are not being egotistical, because they believe their actions are for an invisible being with which they have no evidence, and for whose conception in their mind is entirely subjective. In other words, indistinguishable from a manifestation of the ego.

 

[newpolitics]

You would be more believeable if you lumped those that believe in aliens with the "religious" or those that believe in Santa Claus. Because "you" specifically targeted Christians as being "ignorant" and uneducated makes you a bigot. Do you attack homosexuals because you don't live that lifestyle (or heterosexuals because you don't live that lifestyle)? Your own words have exposed you as a bigot. Now you can tell us all day long that you are not one, but you have already given evidence that you are a bigot. You can accept that, or try to grow into a bigger person, but the arrogance that you have displayed here, probably would prevent that from happening. Just embrace who you are: a small minded man that is convinced he knows all about Christians.

I'm not a bigot for the simple fact that I don't hate people, I hate ideas.

By you're logic, I have to love christianity, or else I am a bigot. I can't be vocal about my opinions about christianity, or else I am a bigot. In others words, if my views about the universe don't match yours, I'm a bigot. You are attempting to control me, and I won't have it. I won't be scared into keeping my opinions to myself. I don't like christianity. I think it is full of shit. Yet, there are thousands of denominations. I understand people are indoctrinated by this religion, so I can't blame them, and I also understand religion can save people from a lot of pain.. but that doesn't make ANY of it true. Let's get something straight. I am against all religion that tries to impose itself onto others. Christianity is by far the biggest offender here, at least in the USA, with its constant proselytizing and evangelicals who judge the world. Christianity is a huge problem, and I would only hope that people would question their beliefs a little more.

You are a bigot because of your ideas about Christians (nothing there about hate, thought thru your continuous insults to those that believe, it is apparent). Bigotry implies a superstitious, or unproven belief about a specific subject (your beliefs about Christians). Yes, your opinions of "Christians" make you a bigot. If you were refering to a specific group of "Christians" and related personal experience or could site specific beliefs that you could prove to be false, then you would not be a bigot. When you make broad, all inclusive statements that can be proven to be false (such as Christians don't use science or similar statement).

How am I attempting to "control" you? (here we go again with statements without basis) Your statement: "I don't like christianity." is the most honest thing you have said, yet. Please give evidence of Christianity being "imposed" on you. Did someone hold you down and "baptize" you? Did someone torture you to give your spirtual confession? Did someone force you to take communion? Christians have NO AUTHORITY to "judge" you or anyone else. Unless they are a saint, and are punished for their personal sins here on earth, every Christian, will be punished (along with those that become Christians on judgement day) for their sins after being judges by the LORD.

You state that Christianity is a huge problem. You are a bigot. Christianity is responsible for more charities, education, and care than any gov't on earth. Christians are the first into disaster relief efforts, and the most generous on earth. I have asked you to give evidence of a better way. All I get is how Christianity is wrong (with the token "other faiths" too). You are a "son": immature spiritually and mentally, and it would benefit you greatly to try and comprehend some of the Bible before wrongly "judging" those that follow it.

Yeah, no thanks. The bible is a fairy tale, as far as I'm concerned. If that's insulting, too bad. I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting a book. I can back this up by citing how christian mythologies are forgeries of many ancient mythologies (Horus/Osiris, Dionysis, Krishna). Yahweh himself was an Israelite war god, since the Israelites were themselves polytheists at one point. They became polytheistic monolatrists with Yahweh, and then monotheistic sometime around 600 ad, evidenced by the first two commandments which were written around this time, which only act as injunctions against worshipping any other gods.

Therefore, it does me no good to read into the bible, when the supposed deity behind it, is something I do not believe is real, at all. I know this is hard for you to understand. The burden of proof is on the theists to prove their god is real. Atheism is the default position. Theists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I remain an agnostic atheist. I don't "know" that no gods exist, but I am unconvinced by the proposition that one does.

The idea of using faith to overcome this lack of evidence is illogical. How do I know which god is the right god? The only reason any of you are christian and think this is the right god, is geography. You were born or grew up or "saved" by people surrounding you, who happened to be christian. Were you born in the middle-east, you would be muslim; India, you would hindu. Tibet or China, buddhist, etc... This does not bode well for the theological claims that mutually exclusive religions try to make. You're justification for this discrepancy is probably "the devil planted those other religions to lead people away from god." Yet, Islam is probably saying the exact same thing about Christianity, and neither or any religion has any actual evidence for their supernatural claims. They rely on text alone, written millennia ago.

Every single syllogistic argument for the existence of god: ontological, transcendental, teleological, cosmological falls short of being valid and sound, despite how much William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga would argue otherwise, as well as any other non-syllogstic arguments for god (fine-tuning, beauty, etc...). It all comes back to faith in order to believe, and faith to me, is gullibility. It is touted as virtuous both in the bible and by those who hold faith, and I believe it is simply to cover over the embarrassing fact of this gullibility.

I deal with much emotional pain, and is the reason for my anger and outbursts. Because of this, I sometimes wish there was an all-loving god. It's a nice thought, and i wish something would save me sometimes from all this pain. I mention this to prove to anyone here that I am not against god. I would welcome god were he to show himself to me, however I am aware of the psychology of belief, and how good we are, as humans of convincing ourselves of something. Just because I were to believe something doesn't mean it is true. I'd rather believe something because it is true, not because it feels good.

 

[Avatar4321]

i find it amusing that you assume you know why someone believes the faith they do when you really have no clue unless they told you.

I don't believe in Christ because of geography. I believe in Christ because the Father revealed to me through the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ and that He atoned and suffered for my sins. You don't have to believe that my reasoning. But it's still why I believe. If I hadn't found out for myself, I would still have doubts. Thankfully, God is merciful and He allows those who ask to recieve, those who seek to find, and opens doors for those who knock.

The Bible is true. The Book of Mormon is true. They teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The same one that was taught to Adam in the beginning and was taught to the Patriarchs and Prophets.

The only way to know the truth is to humble yourself before God and learn it from Him. And yet so few do.

 

[newpolitics]

i find it amusing that you assume you know why someone believes the faith they do when you really have no clue unless they told you.

I don't believe in Christ because of geography. I believe in Christ because the Father revealed to me through the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ and that He atoned and suffered for my sins. You don't have to believe that my reasoning. But it's still why I believe. If I hadn't found out for myself, I would still have doubts. Thankfully, God is merciful and He allows those who ask to recieve, those who seek to find, and opens doors for those who knock.

The Bible is true. The Book of Mormon is true. They teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The same one that was taught to Adam in the beginning and was taught to the Patriarchs and Prophets.

The only way to know the truth is to humble yourself before God and learn it from Him. And yet so few do.

You're equivocating on the definition of the word or idea of "cause," referring to a different category of cause: necessary versus sufficient cause. You are attempting to posit god as a necessary cause for your belief, while I am saying that geography a large part of the sufficient cause. You can not demonstrate that god is a necessary cause without first showing that god actually exists. Since you can not do this empirically, you can not say god was the necessary cause of your faith.

More importantly, I am not saying that geography directly caused your faith, but that it created the specific conditions that led to or allowed your faith. Your faith in christianity, at its inception, was contingent upon circumstance, specifically geographical and cultural. It is inferable, that had you been born or lived in a culture that was predominated by Islam or Buddhism, you would be Islamist or buddhist, respectively. Therefore, in no way does your faith reflect any truth about the universe ontologically, merely that you were in a certain place when you were introduced and convinced of these ideas. I'm not saying that Christianity isn't true because of this. This wouldn't falsify the claims of Christianity, necessarily. But, this distribution of different faiths across distinctly drawn geographies does cast doubt on the veracity of each religions' claims, as belief seems to be so contingent upon region.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, I don't know, you arguing this straw man where I hate all christians, which I've said that I DON'T, TWICE, yet you continually argue against this fabled person who does. Hence the analogy, of you putting me in a box, labeling it, and putting in a place that is easy for you to handle. Same ******* thing as a straw man, just put differently. GET IT YOU ******* IDIOT?

I'm going to help you out, although God knows you're likely too psychotic at this point to even receive partial signals from this dimension.

A "straw man argument" is not, as you seem to think, an argument you don't like, or one you disagree with. It is defined as "An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated". That term, therefore, does not apply to arguments ACTUALLY BASED ON YOUR OWN WORDS. I'm not inventing the idea that you hate Christians and Christianity out of thin air, bigot; I'm saying it because YOU SAID IT. Multiple times.

It really doesn't matter how many times you earnestly declare that you DON'T hate Christians. Ever hear the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"? It means that what you REALLY believe is what you DO, not what you SAY. And if what you say you believe doesn't match what you do, you're a hypocrite. Which then explains why I keep calling you THAT, as well.

GET IT, YOU DELUSIONAL BIGOT?

In one ear and out the other with you... let me school you a bit.

A straw man is when someone misrepresents their opponents argument, and then attacks that misrepresentation, instead of the actual argument: what you have been doing since I mentioned my anti-theism. I suspect that you have misconstrued anti-theism to mean something it isn't: opposition to people who hold religious beliefs, and have run with this. This is the basis of your ignorance and you're turning my position into a bigoted one. Let me quickly correct this:

"Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods."
(wiki)

When I said "all christians are ignorant," I should have clarified. I did not mean ignorant in a general sense, but only with respect to two epistemic claims: Creation Ex Deo, and Abiogenesis, because these two claims rest on arguments from ignorance. A scientific claim is made about abiogenesis (intelligent design) or creation Ex Deo, and because it can't be disproved, it must be true. So, my claim was an epistemological one, not a general one about the character of any given christian, because I simply don't believe that all christians are ignorant. That's simply illogical and ignorant. I believe christians can be very nice, good-willed people, however, I will never attribute this good will to their christianity. It is an attribute of their character independent of their religious beliefs, in my opinion. Although, I do respect them for their faith. If it helps people personally, that's cool, but when they try to effect legislation that effects me, then I have a problem. This, and only this manifestation of religious belief, is why I am an anti-theist and why I am posting on a POLITICAL discussion forum to argue with theists.

Faith it is something I could never do, because I believe the judaeo-christian god to be logically incoherent/impossible/contradictory on a number of levels. Two examples: a perfect being would never need a relationship with anything or anyone. This is clearly the human writers of the bible projecting human characteristics, like jealousy, onto a supposedly perfect being. Also, omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory. If one knows the future of his/her own actions, he/she is powerless to change them. Nearly every single christian I have ever met will posit that god either created the universe (creation ex deo) or started life at some point (anywhere from abiogenesis to young earth creationism). In other words, I have yet to find a christian that espouses the views of metaphysical naturalism. The bible, if taken literally, makes this impossible.

Lastly, the reason I specifically target christians in discussion is simple. The vast majority of the US population is christian, and if that majority is represented on these boards, i would expect to find the majority of theists here to be Christian, not Muslim, Jewish, or any other. I would have no audience were I to challenge Islam. I don't have a problem with judaism much. They don't proselytize like Christians. It is ego that bothers me, and the action of pushing ones beliefs on others to me, is a manifestation of ego, which isn't really a crime, but this god has no empirical evidence bearing on it. Religion is clever in that it convinces the people that they are not being egotistical, because they believe their actions are for an invisible being with which they have no evidence, and for whose conception in their mind is entirely subjective. In other words, indistinguishable from a manifestation of the ego.

No, I already gave you the dictionary definition of "straw man argument", and there's really nothing worth commenting on in the rest of your post, since it's predicated on you redefining terms to suit your delusions.

Next time you're going to waste this much time and that many words, try to make it at least vaguely relating to reality.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm going to help you out, although God knows you're likely too psychotic at this point to even receive partial signals from this dimension.

A "straw man argument" is not, as you seem to think, an argument you don't like, or one you disagree with. It is defined as "An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated". That term, therefore, does not apply to arguments ACTUALLY BASED ON YOUR OWN WORDS. I'm not inventing the idea that you hate Christians and Christianity out of thin air, bigot; I'm saying it because YOU SAID IT. Multiple times.

It really doesn't matter how many times you earnestly declare that you DON'T hate Christians. Ever hear the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"? It means that what you REALLY believe is what you DO, not what you SAY. And if what you say you believe doesn't match what you do, you're a hypocrite. Which then explains why I keep calling you THAT, as well.

GET IT, YOU DELUSIONAL BIGOT?

In one ear and out the other with you... let me school you a bit.

A straw man is when someone misrepresents their opponents argument, and then attacks that misrepresentation, instead of the actual argument: what you have been doing since I mentioned my anti-theism. I suspect that you have misconstrued anti-theism to mean something it isn't: opposition to people who hold religious beliefs, and have run with this. This is the basis of your ignorance and you're turning my position into a bigoted one. Let me quickly correct this:

"Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods."
(wiki)

When I said "all christians are ignorant," I should have clarified. I did not mean ignorant in a general sense, but only with respect to two epistemic claims: Creation Ex Deo, and Abiogenesis, because these two claims rest on arguments from ignorance. A scientific claim is made about abiogenesis (intelligent design) or creation Ex Deo, and because it can't be disproved, it must be true. So, my claim was an epistemological one, not a general one about the character of any given christian, because I simply don't believe that all christians are ignorant. That's simply illogical and ignorant. I believe christians can be very nice, good-willed people, however, I will never attribute this good will to their christianity. It is an attribute of their character independent of their religious beliefs, in my opinion. Although, I do respect them for their faith. If it helps people personally, that's cool, but when they try to effect legislation that effects me, then I have a problem. This, and only this manifestation of religious belief, is why I am an anti-theist and why I am posting on a POLITICAL discussion forum to argue with theists.

Faith it is something I could never do, because I believe the judaeo-christian god to be logically incoherent/impossible/contradictory on a number of levels. Two examples: a perfect being would never need a relationship with anything or anyone. This is clearly the human writers of the bible projecting human characteristics, like jealousy, onto a supposedly perfect being. Also, omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory. If one knows the future of his/her own actions, he/she is powerless to change them. Nearly every single christian I have ever met will posit that god either created the universe (creation ex deo) or started life at some point (anywhere from abiogenesis to young earth creationism). In other words, I have yet to find a christian that espouses the views of metaphysical naturalism. The bible, if taken literally, makes this impossible.

Lastly, the reason I specifically target christians in discussion is simple. The vast majority of the US population is christian, and if that majority is represented on these boards, i would expect to find the majority of theists here to be Christian, not Muslim, Jewish, or any other. I would have no audience were I to challenge Islam. I don't have a problem with judaism much. They don't proselytize like Christians. It is ego that bothers me, and the action of pushing ones beliefs on others to me, is a manifestation of ego, which isn't really a crime, but this god has no empirical evidence bearing on it. Religion is clever in that it convinces the people that they are not being egotistical, because they believe their actions are for an invisible being with which they have no evidence, and for whose conception in their mind is entirely subjective. In other words, indistinguishable from a manifestation of the ego.

No, I already gave you the dictionary definition of "straw man argument", and there's really nothing worth commenting on in the rest of your post, since it's predicated on you redefining terms to suit your delusions.

Next time you're going to waste this much time and that many words, try to make it at least vaguely relating to reality.

Ummm... yes. How hilariously ironic that you attack me for bad definitions and misuse, which is a tactic you use to escape the actual charge, when once again you are incorrect about the definition of the terms you think you understand. You're also using ad hominem debate fallacies left and right. You attack my personal character without addressing any of my points. I'll define this term now, so we can avoid you being any more self-rigthteous, while simultaneously being self-delusional about how smart you think you are.

Ad Hominem Debate Fallacy:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)." (http://www.nizkor.org



Definition of a strawman (wikipedia):

"A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Here's another definition, in case your in the habit of ridicule for any links from wikipedia (http://www.nizkor.org):

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position"

What was my definition?

"A straw man is when someone misrepresents their opponents argument, and then attacks that misrepresentation, instead of the actual argument."

Your definition:

"An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated."

Do I need to explain why this definition is insufficient for what this term actually means? You need to stop using whatever dictionary you are using. Oh, and try to come back down to reality from off that high-horse on which you are perched.

 

[logical4u]

Oh, I don't know, you arguing this straw man where I hate all christians, which I've said that I DON'T, TWICE, yet you continually argue against this fabled person who does. Hence the analogy, of you putting me in a box, labeling it, and putting in a place that is easy for you to handle. Same ******* thing as a straw man, just put differently. GET IT YOU ******* IDIOT?

I'm going to help you out, although God knows you're likely too psychotic at this point to even receive partial signals from this dimension.

A "straw man argument" is not, as you seem to think, an argument you don't like, or one you disagree with. It is defined as "An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated". That term, therefore, does not apply to arguments ACTUALLY BASED ON YOUR OWN WORDS. I'm not inventing the idea that you hate Christians and Christianity out of thin air, bigot; I'm saying it because YOU SAID IT. Multiple times.

It really doesn't matter how many times you earnestly declare that you DON'T hate Christians. Ever hear the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"? It means that what you REALLY believe is what you DO, not what you SAY. And if what you say you believe doesn't match what you do, you're a hypocrite. Which then explains why I keep calling you THAT, as well.

GET IT, YOU DELUSIONAL BIGOT?

In one ear and out the other with you... let me school you a bit.

A straw man is when someone misrepresents their opponents argument, and then attacks that misrepresentation, instead of the actual argument: what you have been doing since I mentioned my anti-theism. I suspect that you have misconstrued anti-theism to mean something it isn't: opposition to people who hold religious beliefs, and have run with this. This is the basis of your ignorance and you're turning my position into a bigoted one. Let me quickly correct this:

"Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods."
(wiki)

When I said "all christians are ignorant," I should have clarified. I did not mean ignorant in a general sense, but only with respect to two epistemic claims: Creation Ex Deo, and Abiogenesis, because these two claims rest on arguments from ignorance. A scientific claim is made about abiogenesis (intelligent design) or creation Ex Deo, and because it can't be disproved, it must be true. So, my claim was an epistemological one, not a general one about the character of any given christian, because I simply don't believe that all christians are ignorant. That's simply illogical and ignorant. I believe christians can be very nice, good-willed people, however, I will never attribute this good will to their christianity. It is an attribute of their character independent of their religious beliefs, in my opinion. Although, I do respect them for their faith. If it helps people personally, that's cool, but when they try to effect legislation that effects me, then I have a problem. This, and only this manifestation of religious belief, is why I am an anti-theist and why I am posting on a POLITICAL discussion forum to argue with theists.

Faith it is something I could never do, because I believe the judaeo-christian god to be logically incoherent/impossible/contradictory on a number of levels. Two examples: a perfect being would never need a relationship with anything or anyone. This is clearly the human writers of the bible projecting human characteristics, like jealousy, onto a supposedly perfect being. Also, omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory. If one knows the future of his/her own actions, he/she is powerless to change them. Nearly every single christian I have ever met will posit that god either created the universe (creation ex deo) or started life at some point (anywhere from abiogenesis to young earth creationism). In other words, I have yet to find a christian that espouses the views of metaphysical naturalism. The bible, if taken literally, makes this impossible.

Lastly, the reason I specifically target christians in discussion is simple. The vast majority of the US population is christian, and if that majority is represented on these boards, i would expect to find the majority of theists here to be Christian, not Muslim, Jewish, or any other. I would have no audience were I to challenge Islam. I don't have a problem with judaism much. They don't proselytize like Christians. It is ego that bothers me, and the action of pushing ones beliefs on others to me, is a manifestation of ego, which isn't really a crime, but this god has no empirical evidence bearing on it. Religion is clever in that it convinces the people that they are not being egotistical, because they believe their actions are for an invisible being with which they have no evidence, and for whose conception in their mind is entirely subjective. In other words, indistinguishable from a manifestation of the ego.

You demonstrate the difference between "intelligence" and "wisdom", well.