Gunny's Thread on Religion

[Al Gunn]

Christianity = Roman Catholic = Pedophiles

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes. The truth hurts my child.

Christianity = Roman Catholicism = Eternal Life

You're not seriously gonna try to stick with that, are you?

First, please don't insult or patronize me. I'm not your child. What truth would that be, exactly? I'm intrigued.... Really....

 

[Barb]

Don't need prime time TV, nor do I bother. All I need is to pick up the newspaper, turn on the cable news, log on my computer.... If there was an overwhelming "good in people", there'd be no escaping it because there would be nothing else to report.

Good luck with that, and peace be with you. Keep plenty of antacid on hand.

what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for

You're right. I do need luck and a life-time supply of Pepcid. See.... the thing is, I have a personality flaw.... always lookin' for the good in people, desperately trying to find something that justifies their existence. You, on the other hand, apparently are one of those "followers" being led by the nose. Don't fret over it too much, though. You're absolutely not alone. It's how Presidents are elected....

Where do you jump from what I've written to your "followers" comment? I think I've kept a civil tone in all that I've posted to this thread. Who spit in your bean curd?

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. The truth hurts my child.

The truth only hurts the wicked. That's because they live contrary it. Those who accept truth and live it take joy in truth.

Should I take it that since the truth hurts you that you are indeed wicked?

Since your statement neither hurts me, nor is something I take joy in, I must either conclude that I am not wicked, or that your statement wasnt truth.

Either way, I am confident that my faith in Christ will more than compensate for rejecting your statement as false. Especially when the Lord has whispered other truth's to my soul. After all, who am i to ignore what God reveals to me?

 

[DamnYankee]

Good luck with that, and peace be with you. Keep plenty of antacid on hand.

what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for

You're right. I do need luck and a life-time supply of Pepcid. See.... the thing is, I have a personality flaw.... always lookin' for the good in people, desperately trying to find something that justifies their existence. You, on the other hand, apparently are one of those "followers" being led by the nose. Don't fret over it too much, though. You're absolutely not alone. It's how Presidents are elected....

Where do you jump from what I've written to your "followers" comment? I think I've kept a civil tone in all that I've posted to this thread. Who spit in your bean curd?

Hmmm.... Must have been something in the "body language".....

 

[LOki]

Once again the atheist comes to project a false premise as truth, and to take a stand on those shifting intellectual sands...

Once again, PubliusInfinitum has to resort to unfounded ad-hominem accusations and patent fabrications to distract from the fact that he has failed to bring a validated point.

To wit: "Atheist" - Unfounded ad-hominem.

"project a false premise as truth" - Patent fabrication.​

[EDIT: BTW, the prediction made HERE 11-17-2008, 09:23 AM remains fully valid on 06-29-09 @1:53PM]

. . . As usual, your projection is that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic, . . .

Right from the very beginning a verifiable falsehood. I said beliefs in faith are not founded in evidence and/or valid logic. I also said belief in a creator is not founded in evidence and/or valid logic. But not once did I say that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic.

This is typical of PubliusInfinitum's disinformation campaigns against those who he disagrees with, but cannot legitimately refute. His other tactic is an obtuse embrace of logical fallacy, which is soon to come below.

. . . and despite your chronic attempt to establish that your position is superior, due to your demand that such rests or the bed rock of valid reasoning, such is demonstrably false.

But you're just not about actually demostrate my position is false--are you? You will make up positions that are demonstrably false, then falsely attibute them to me, and then declare that you have demonstrated that my reasoning is demonstrably false. When all along, it is clearly your own reasoning that is demonstrably false, and has been demonstrated to be false.

To wit:

With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; . . .

Logical fallacy = Denying the Antecedent. Creation is contingent upon existence, existence is not contingent upon creation.

. . . you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.

See, this is irrelevent. It's irrelevent because no part of the fact that I did not create myself makes it necessary that someone else created me. [Being an idiot, you will likely try to frame this as an assertion from me that I was not created--but like I said, you're an idiot.]

Having not created myself certainly says nothing about the location of my creator, if such creator exists. If my creator exists they could very well be here on this earth.

Your argument just complete bullshit. An utter failure.

Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistently, which is to make some shit up about my position that you're more comfortable refuting than my actual position.

Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistantly, that what I define as Creation is merely the biological happenstance; and you'll base this upon your means, or the means of human science, to understand and observe the biological mechanics which are present in the developement of all biologics; mechanics which have been tested and observed. And it is through this means to test thee natural processes that you conclude that such is occuring without the aid and without assistance of any design established by an outside force.

But you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is impossible, due to your inability to observe such.

Thus, the lie delivered. Despite the meager grain of truth regarding why such a force has not been measured or observed, the lie resides in the assertion that I have concluded that such a force is impossible.

This intellectually dishonest Cupcake just can't hope to invalidate any point I have made, so he fabricates points such as the one above to "prove" my point invalid. The logical fallacy is the Strawman. The moral deviation is the lie.

Nothing logical about that... its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability to recognize such.

No such appeal to ignorance has been made by me, Cupcake. However, you insistently demand that your belief in a creator is valid soley upon the fact that "you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is . . ." As if the possibility for the existence of "the Creator" validly asserts the existence of "the Creator" to be unconditionally true. This is the true appeal to ignorance.

You'll now return to rename the outside force with a witticism...

What outside force, exactly? The one that has no relationship with reality what-so-ever? Or the one that is . . . how have you previously put it? "Whatever"?

. . . such as the great BigMac and large coke force...and demand that such could also exist... Which of course is false, as a Bigmac and Large coke are perfectly observable, and thus readily subject to a test which would easily determine the existance of such... yet where you would then return to assert that you were simply renaming the original force, with an innocuous term, to lesson the perceived authority of such, wherein you'd be right back where you started; as it doesn't matter what name is given to the Creator; . . .

Presented as if I ever claimed the name you choose for your "Creator" is at all relevent to the obervation that "the Creator" is arguably imaginary.

. . . the fact remains that science simply is not sufficiently heeled to understand what exist beyond what we, as a species are capable of observing; and it is wholly illogical to relegate as logical any conclusion which rests on such circumstances, asserting such as authoritative, thus providing for the means to render same as illegitimate.

Entirely and unambiguously irrelevent to my position--yet ironically, perectly and unambiguously relevant to yours. But, lacking any intellectual integrity, you'll continue on as if it is otherwise.

As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts; . . .

Such was in no way demonstrated above.

A belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing. A rational belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Faith, generously defined, is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. There are those less generous who will insist (and validly so) that faith is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, of the contrary has been denied; the obtuse strength of that denial is the "validating" quality of faith.

Argumentative charity set aside, the actual fact is that faith is founded upon unvalidated facts. Which brings us right back to my response to Gunny:

No one has to deny the evidence of reality or valid logic--only the faithful have to do this.​

The premise is true: There no reason what-so-ever that any human being must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.​

The reason there's no reasonable argument against your "Creator" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contigent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things--the actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.

. . . and theories exist which reasonably extrapolate from those known facts, projecting hypothesis to explain the unknown; . . .

Yet since every such fact is unvalidated, every extrapolation and hypothesis derived from such unvalidated facts, are in turn, unvalidated.

. . . just as is the case in science, which, FTR, historically stems from; and owes its existence to, the same curiosity and the ensuing quest for answers to that which is unknown.

However, the sailient difference is that science is concerned with facts validated by reality, in evidence and valid logic; whereas faith is concerned with denials of facts validated by reality in evidence and valid logic.

Christianity in no way contests science; and as a church, we do not challenge objective science at ANY LEVEL...

Christians certainly have a rich history of contesting science, and currently have a rich and patently obvious pracice of contesting science.

We do however vehemently contests the pseudo-sciences, such as Atheism, . . .

Atheism is no science--it's no pseudo-science--it's not related to science. No one should be surprised that you suggest otherwise--and no longer derserving of the benefit of the doubt--it is yet more evidence of you intellectual dishonesty.

. . . which exists for no other purpose than to reject our beliefs on the intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments, such as those you chronically pose.

I defy you to present one of these "intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments" that I have made. But I shall insist that you present one that I actually made, rather than one of the "intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments" you fabricate and then assign to me.

I will note again . . .

The purpose of the example Cupcake presents is to suggest--as a valid argument against the validity of human knowledge-- that human beings failing to know everything, are therefore incapable of knowing ANYTHING. I will stipulate that there is a boatload that humanity fails to understand about gravity and other things, and SNIP this irrelevent crap. But I won't stipulate to the patently ridiculous suggestion or the argument it implies.​

. . . within a realm of sub-atomic reality, beyond out means of observation.

Now you're reasoning, to remain consistent, would thus be forced to reject gravity... except for the base Newtonian observation that what goes up must come down; as we simply do not understand, nor can we observe much more than the realization of this force, as it plays on our reality; being some form of attraction between bodies of matter.

This is probablay a clue as to why you think there is any compatiblity between valid reasoning and faith--your intellectual paradigm insistently puts the cart in front of the horse. The rational believe what they see, and the faithful see what they believe.

You believe in a "Creator," and seeing the effects of gravity, you see the hand and will of this "Creator." You are seeing what you believe, which is entiely consistent with your superstitious "reasoning." The fact reamins howeverm that the existence of your "Creator" has not been validated by evidence or valid logic. Your conviction of certainty in the of the reality of your "Creator" nothing but a belief borne out of a superstitious appeal to ignorance, or a willful denial of reality.

To be consistent with my reasoning, I need only observe that masses are attracted to each other, and that the strength of that attraction appears to be a function of the masses in question. To be consistent with my intellectual integrity, any claims I make as statements of uncontestable and immutable fact will simply not venture into the realm of an invisible uber-pixie being responsible for what I observe.

It is however gratifying to see you fabricating "my reasoning" for the purposes of refutation, rather than attempting to refute my actual reasoning. You're stoically true to your bullshit form.

As to the legitimacy of declaring unproven scientific as fact, you rest your entire argument, with regard to the Creator, on such which is subject to change without notice, and which is not FACT, but stands in every conceivable facet, no more fact than that which you come to declare as FICTION.

What are you claiming, regarding my argument about the existence of "the Creator," that is not fact exactly? Describe it precisely. But when you do, make absolutely sure it's my argument you're addressing, rather than one of the "intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments" you fabricate and then assign to me.

Again, those who

Irrelevent crap snipped​

consider such to be viable...

THUS: THE SCIENTIC COMMUNITY IS JUST AS PRONE TO DOGMATIC BELIEF, . . .

Well, well ,well . . . here's what it comes to. Logical fallacy = Moving Goal Posts. You can't validly refute the actual point, so you change the point to one you feel better suited to refuting. Typical of you and your intellectually dishonest ilk. The dogmatic nature of the beliefs was not at issue, it's the validity of the belief that was at issue, and it is entirely possible to be dogmatic about one's beliefs without that dogmatism invalidating those beliefs. It is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT that any of the scientific community is prone to dogmatic belief to any degree--the actual point, the point you are desperately attempting to divert attention from, is that beliefs validated by faith--such as a belief in a "Creator"--are ENTIRELY absent of any validation in evidence or valid logic. This is not to say they can't be correct, it is just to say that they are ENTIRELY absent of any validation in evidence or valid logic.

As far as those who assert the absence of "the Creator" absence of evidence or valid logic for the presence of said "Creator," you can demand all day long that they are wrong, but you cannot fault their reasoning if valid logic does not necessitate the existence of a "Creator" and the evidence of such existence is absent. You see Cupcake, absence of evidence, while not being proof of absence, is actually evidence of absence.

AS ARE THOSE YOU CONSISTANTLY COME TO LAMENT IN THE "RELIGIOUS" COMMUNITY...

Like I said, irrelevant.

proving the point brought by the Gunny... that faith is inevitably a natural function of all...

This point has really not been proven . . . unless you point is really to say that faith is a natural common failing of us all. Then point taken.

and frankly, this is a result of a distinct lack of options and while some consider it a pyshosis... others consider it a virtue...

I just consider it an error of judgement. It is faulty reasoning.

I fall into the virtue camp; where as long as the faith is open to the possibilities, it does not bend to every potential alternative, until such can be established through reason.

Considering your proven intellectual dishonesty, it is no wonder that you should demand that whatever conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing you hold, should remain valid until an alternative is established through a procees you insist "simply is not sufficiently heeled" to validate that alternative. This is nothing but a restatemnt of the arrogant credo of the faithful: "What I assert is absolute and true fact, is immutably, undenaibly, and incontroverably fact, because (and only because) I believe it is fact."

I believe in the Creator... and in the teachings of Christ and the goods news presented through his teachings; as such rests upon immutable reasoning; the principles of which are self sustaining and incontrovertible; representing rare perfection and where such perfection exist... reason requires that it originates from a source far beyond the severely limited means of humanity, who have yet to create a sustained perfection of any kind.

"Once again [a superstitious retard] comes to project a false premise as truth, and to take a stand on those shifting intellectual sands..."

 

[LOki]

It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created...

ROFLMNAO... The Indoctrination is complete; you've earned your IDIOT Certifications!

 

[WhiteLion]

if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....

Jesus the Christ was the most controversial and extremist of all times, however he wasnt a zealot(Peter was the Zealot, cut off the soldiers ear and Christ put it back on). Fact of the matter much like Christ(the first sacrifice of real freedom) you could give your life for some and they still couldnt see the forest for the trees? the following scriptures explain;

2 Timothy, Chapter 3 (King James Bible) - ChristianAnswers® WebBible™ i post a link to 2 Timothy chp 3 to long.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness...

2Thesalonians 2 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

2Thesalonians 2:12: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

2Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[JBeukema]

The Abrahamic faiths = a shortened rehashing of the Sumerian texts

 

[Yukon]

Mr. Loki,

Are you coloured my son ?

 

[Bootneck]

Mr. Loki,

Are you coloured my son ?

Fancying a bit of black arse again Yukon?

 

[AllieBaba]

It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created...

ROFLMNAO... The Indoctrination is complete; you've earned your IDIOT Certifications!

And still it's more worthwhile and edifying to read PI's posts than it is to wade through your ponderous rantings.

Go figure. You really DO like to hear yourself blather, don't you?

 

[JBeukema]

Mr. Loki,

Are you coloured my son ?

Fancying a bit of black arse again Yukon?

[youtube]slzVuHIpoDw[/youtube]

 

[tigerbob]

It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created...

ROFLMNAO... The Indoctrination is complete; you've earned your IDIOT Certifications!

Was that a post or did you forget to type something?

 

[mattskramer]

"Killing in the name of God" is a red herring. If you look at each and every instance where killing has been done in the name of God, you will find not only killing that goes against what Christianity teaches, but you will find a mortal man behind it with an agenda that also will not be in concert with the teaching of Christianity.

Fred Phelps is a perfect example. That man is as much a Christian as Adolf Hitler was. He uses the name to try and justify his sick, twisted beliefs. But detractors are QUICK to pick up on his claim to Christianity in an attempt to label all Christians as the same.

I think that I have been guilty of that. Then I matured (not to say that I am perfect now) and decided that God (assuming that he, she, it, or they exist) will be the ultimate judge. Adolph Hitler might have called himself a Christian for all that I know about his statements. If he said so, then he might have been right or he might have been wrong. I’m in no position to judge. I think that I know the Bible pretty well but I would not presume to know enough to decide who God would allow into heaven (assuming that Biblical instructions on salvation are true). I’ll be civil and just leave it up to God and/or Jesus to decide. I have enough to do to just keep my house in order. Know what I mean?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think that I have been guilty of that. Then I matured (not to say that I am perfect now) and decided that God (assuming that he, she, it, or they exist) will be the ultimate judge. Adolph Hitler might have called himself a Christian for all that I know about his statements. If he said so, then he might have been right or he might have been wrong. I’m in no position to judge. I think that I know the Bible pretty well but I would not presume to know enough to decide who God would allow into heaven (assuming that Biblical instructions on salvation are true). I’ll be civil and just leave it up to God and/or Jesus to decide. I have enough to do to just keep my house in order. Know what I mean?

I think thats probably a good attitude to have. so how many of us truly have our houses in order?

 

[Yukon]

Mr. Loki,

Ill use more political correctness. Are you of the Negroid race my child ?

 

[JenT]

mmmmm, religious zealot checking in wondering how long I'll last...

 

[JenT]

btw, when I said a certain someone referred me here, I was lying, he had nothing to do with it

 

[xotoxi]

mmmmm, religious zealot checking in wondering how long I'll last...

Welcome.

You will last FOREVER. No problems.