Why smug atheists are wrong

[Capstone]

[...] The truth of God's words comes in establishing an actual relationship with God and recieving Revelation from the Holy Spirit. It comes through being born again through the Atonement of Christ. If you haven't experienced that, then how can you possible think you know anything about God. because it's only through our Experiences with Him that we can know Him.

All I can say is that my lack of "Experience" in the "actual relationship with [the Christian] God" department ...certainly hasn't been due to a lack of effort on my part. I've prayed for the realization of such a relationship throughout my life, with the honesty and innocence of a child ...as well as with the maturity of an academically informed viewpoint. There's just never been anything there for me.

[...] How can we know the master we haven't served?

And by the same token, in spite of my best efforts to know HIM, how can I serve the master I've never known?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the record, you did not reject Christianity, you rejected the popular interpretation of it, which makes you about as smart as the people that insist that you are wrong for not accepting their idiocy.

And which interpretation have you accepted (or rejected as the case may be)?

What difference does that make? You went out, determined that everyone on the planet but you is an idiot, and declared yourself smarter than God, without ever one bothering to actually think about how stupid that actually makes you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, unlike most Christians (who must be among the "idiots" you mentioned), I never really "settled" on the definition (note the italics in my previous post). I challenged it, not only against my experiences in day-to-day life ...but against what the scriptures often implied WRT the nature of the God of whom they spoke.



Nor have I, and that was a major factor in my decision to reject Christian theism.

FYI, as a pantheist (ala Spinoza), I haven't rejected theism wholesale.

For the record, you did not reject Christianity, you rejected the popular interpretation of it, which makes you about as smart as the people that insist that you are wrong for not accepting their idiocy.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christianity, as it is defined, is satisfied both in the "popular" interpretation and whatever interpretation you have concocted (otherwise, you are the one who is "not a real christian"). Therefore, you can not sit there and claim that Capstone rejected an "unreal" version of christianity, unless you can demonstrate how the mainstream version of Christianity does not satisfy the definition of christianity, which I would be curious to see you try and do.

I see you stumbled across a fallacy and are trying to stuff every situation you come across into it. Want to point out where I said that no "real Christian" would ever do whatever it is you think I said they wouldn't do? All I pointed out was that the thought process one particular poster is using to justify his own beliefs is seriously flawed. If I tried to argue that no real human would think that way, you might have a way to argue I am using the absurd fallacy you fell in love with last week, but, as it is, you just look absurdly stupid.

For the record, I am not saying I am right, nor am I saying the popular definition of Christianity is wrong. What I asked for is evidence supporting it, and stated I have not seen any. Pointing this out in case you are actually as stupid as you seem to be.

 

[Avatar4321]

[...] The truth of God's words comes in establishing an actual relationship with God and recieving Revelation from the Holy Spirit. It comes through being born again through the Atonement of Christ. If you haven't experienced that, then how can you possible think you know anything about God. because it's only through our Experiences with Him that we can know Him.

All I can say is that my lack of "Experience" in the "actual relationship with [the Christian] God" department ...certainly hasn't been due to a lack of effort on my part. I've prayed for the realization of such a relationship throughout my life, with the honesty and innocence of a child ...as well as with the maturity of an academically informed viewpoint. There's just never been anything there for me.

[...] How can we know the master we haven't served?

And by the same token, in spite of my best efforts to know HIM, how can I serve the master I've never known?

By serving him. Knowledge and love comes through service. That's true for everyone, not just God.

If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not. But ask in faith, nothing waivering.

 

[newpolitics]

For the record, you did not reject Christianity, you rejected the popular interpretation of it, which makes you about as smart as the people that insist that you are wrong for not accepting their idiocy.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christianity, as it is defined, is satisfied both in the "popular" interpretation and whatever interpretation you have concocted (otherwise, you are the one who is "not a real christian"). Therefore, you can not sit there and claim that Capstone rejected an "unreal" version of christianity, unless you can demonstrate how the mainstream version of Christianity does not satisfy the definition of christianity, which I would be curious to see you try and do.

I see you stumbled across a fallacy and are trying to stuff every situation you come across into it. Want to point out where I said that no "real Christian" would ever do whatever it is you think I said they wouldn't do? All I pointed out was that the thought process one particular poster is using to justify his own beliefs is seriously flawed. If I tried to argue that no real human would think that way, you might have a way to argue I am using the absurd fallacy you fell in love with last week, but, as it is, you just look absurdly stupid.

For the record, I am not saying I am right, nor am I saying the popular definition of Christianity is wrong. What I asked for is evidence supporting it, and stated I have not seen any. Pointing this out in case you are actually as stupid as you seem to be.

You are claiming the version of christianity that he rejected was not the "real" version of christianity. I don't know how much more clear cut this can be. First of all, you have no idea what it is exactly, that he rejected, you just assert that it "couldn't" have been the "real" christianity, otherwise he wouldn't have rejected it. Second of all, you are not the standard of "christianity" that is able to judge what is and what is not christianity. We have definitions for that.

 

[Capstone]

And which interpretation have you accepted (or rejected as the case may be)?

What difference does that make? [...]

None really; I was just hoping to get a look at some intelligent reasoning for rejecting/accepting whatever view of Christianity you've taken or snubbed. *grins*

[...] You went out, determined that everyone on the planet but you is an idiot, and declared yourself smarter than God, without ever one bothering to actually think about how stupid that actually makes you.

"Idiocy" and "stupidity" (and their derivatives) have been your words, Windbag; not mine.

I've not only acknowledged but embraced the limitations of my intellectual capacity.

Have you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christianity, as it is defined, is satisfied both in the "popular" interpretation and whatever interpretation you have concocted (otherwise, you are the one who is "not a real christian"). Therefore, you can not sit there and claim that Capstone rejected an "unreal" version of christianity, unless you can demonstrate how the mainstream version of Christianity does not satisfy the definition of christianity, which I would be curious to see you try and do.

I see you stumbled across a fallacy and are trying to stuff every situation you come across into it. Want to point out where I said that no "real Christian" would ever do whatever it is you think I said they wouldn't do? All I pointed out was that the thought process one particular poster is using to justify his own beliefs is seriously flawed. If I tried to argue that no real human would think that way, you might have a way to argue I am using the absurd fallacy you fell in love with last week, but, as it is, you just look absurdly stupid.

For the record, I am not saying I am right, nor am I saying the popular definition of Christianity is wrong. What I asked for is evidence supporting it, and stated I have not seen any. Pointing this out in case you are actually as stupid as you seem to be.

You are claiming the version of christianity that he rejected was not the "real" version of christianity. I don't know how much more clear cut this can be. First of all, you have no idea what it is exactly, that he rejected, you just assert that it "couldn't" have been the "real" christianity, otherwise he wouldn't have rejected it. Second of all, you are not the standard of "christianity" that is able to judge what is and what is not christianity. We have definitions for that.

I did not, I pointed out the definition he rejected is not the only definition of Christianity. If you go back an reread my posts you will see that I never said anyone was wrong.

You are dumber than I thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And which interpretation have you accepted (or rejected as the case may be)?

What difference does that make? [...]

None really; I was just hoping to get a look at some intelligent reasoning for rejecting/accepting whatever view of Christianity you've taken or snubbed. *grins*

[...] You went out, determined that everyone on the planet but you is an idiot, and declared yourself smarter than God, without ever one bothering to actually think about how stupid that actually makes you.

"Idiocy" and "stupidity" (and their derivatives) have been your words, Windbag; not mine.

I've not only acknowledged but embraced the limitations of my intellectual capacity.

Have you?

You decided the popular definition was wrong, and used that decision to self justify your rejection of the entire concept of God. That means you think you are smarter than everyone else, even if you think it doesn't.

 

[newpolitics]

I see you stumbled across a fallacy and are trying to stuff every situation you come across into it. Want to point out where I said that no "real Christian" would ever do whatever it is you think I said they wouldn't do? All I pointed out was that the thought process one particular poster is using to justify his own beliefs is seriously flawed. If I tried to argue that no real human would think that way, you might have a way to argue I am using the absurd fallacy you fell in love with last week, but, as it is, you just look absurdly stupid.

For the record, I am not saying I am right, nor am I saying the popular definition of Christianity is wrong. What I asked for is evidence supporting it, and stated I have not seen any. Pointing this out in case you are actually as stupid as you seem to be.

You are claiming the version of christianity that he rejected was not the "real" version of christianity. I don't know how much more clear cut this can be. First of all, you have no idea what it is exactly, that he rejected, you just assert that it "couldn't" have been the "real" christianity, otherwise he wouldn't have rejected it. Second of all, you are not the standard of "christianity" that is able to judge what is and what is not christianity. We have definitions for that.

I did not, I pointed out the definition he rejected is not the only definition of Christianity. If you go back an reread my posts you will see that I never said anyone was wrong.

You are dumber than I thought.

Well, then what was the cause in pointing that out? If you concede that what he rejected was, in fact, christian doctrine, then what could be the nature of your contention? You tried to mock him, saying he rejected a "popular notion" of christianity, which implicitly means he didn't confront the "real thing." Either you are splitting hairs or you are going back on what you said. I can't tell which. Stop resorting to name-calling, too. It just looks dumb.

 

[Capstone]

By serving him. Knowledge and love comes through service. That's true for everyone, not just God.

If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not. But ask in faith, nothing waivering.

That's always been my problem: I don't have the ability to believe in the absence of understanding. For me, understanding has always preceded belief ...and it would do me no good to try to pretend otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are claiming the version of christianity that he rejected was not the "real" version of christianity. I don't know how much more clear cut this can be. First of all, you have no idea what it is exactly, that he rejected, you just assert that it "couldn't" have been the "real" christianity, otherwise he wouldn't have rejected it. Second of all, you are not the standard of "christianity" that is able to judge what is and what is not christianity. We have definitions for that.

I did not, I pointed out the definition he rejected is not the only definition of Christianity. If you go back an reread my posts you will see that I never said anyone was wrong.

You are dumber than I thought.

Well, then what was the cause in pointing that out? If you concede that what he rejected was, in fact, christian doctrine, then what could be the nature of your contention? You tried to mock him, saying he rejected a "popular notion" of christianity, which implicitly means he didn't confront the "real thing." Either you are splitting hairs or you are going back on what you said. I can't tell which. Stop resorting to name-calling, too. It just looks dumb.

What's the cause in pointing out flaws in logic? Probably the same one that got me to point out your misunderstanding of logical fallacies.

 

[newpolitics]

I did not, I pointed out the definition he rejected is not the only definition of Christianity. If you go back an reread my posts you will see that I never said anyone was wrong.

You are dumber than I thought.

Well, then what was the cause in pointing that out? If you concede that what he rejected was, in fact, christian doctrine, then what could be the nature of your contention? You tried to mock him, saying he rejected a "popular notion" of christianity, which implicitly means he didn't confront the "real thing." Either you are splitting hairs or you are going back on what you said. I can't tell which. Stop resorting to name-calling, too. It just looks dumb.

What's the cause in pointing out flaws in logic? Probably the same one that got me to point out your misunderstanding of logical fallacies.

So that you discontinue using flawed logic, which you are a champion at.

Funny, in order for someone to point out a misunderstanding, they would actually have to understand the material. You have demonstrated the opposite of understanding when it comes to logic, in general, so I'm not sure how you consider that you pointed anything out to me. I seem to remember you not knowing a damn thing about logic, despite your incredible arrogance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, then what was the cause in pointing that out? If you concede that what he rejected was, in fact, christian doctrine, then what could be the nature of your contention? You tried to mock him, saying he rejected a "popular notion" of christianity, which implicitly means he didn't confront the "real thing." Either you are splitting hairs or you are going back on what you said. I can't tell which. Stop resorting to name-calling, too. It just looks dumb.

What's the cause in pointing out flaws in logic? Probably the same one that got me to point out your misunderstanding of logical fallacies.

So that you discontinue using flawed logic, which you are a champion at.

Funny, in order for someone to point out a misunderstanding, they would actually have to understand the material. You have demonstrated the opposite of understanding when it comes to logic, in general, so I'm not sure how you consider that you pointed anything out to me. I seem to remember you not knowing a damn thing about logic, despite your incredible arrogance.

Let me get this straight, I called you on your claim that I was using a logical fallacy, proved that you were wrong about it, and that proves that I cannot use logic.

Are you so stupid you don't even realize you are stupid?

 

[newpolitics]

What's the cause in pointing out flaws in logic? Probably the same one that got me to point out your misunderstanding of logical fallacies.

So that you discontinue using flawed logic, which you are a champion at.

Funny, in order for someone to point out a misunderstanding, they would actually have to understand the material. You have demonstrated the opposite of understanding when it comes to logic, in general, so I'm not sure how you consider that you pointed anything out to me. I seem to remember you not knowing a damn thing about logic, despite your incredible arrogance.

Let me get this straight, I called you on your claim that I was using a logical fallacy, proved that you were wrong about it, and that proves that I cannot use logic.

Are you so stupid you don't even realize you are stupid?

You really are a dumb, poor bastard. You were never able to refute my claims about your using a logical fallacy. You just simply deny it, while oblivious to your own employment of logical fallacies. As demonstrated here, tonight. Now, you run from this because you know you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So that you discontinue using flawed logic, which you are a champion at.

Funny, in order for someone to point out a misunderstanding, they would actually have to understand the material. You have demonstrated the opposite of understanding when it comes to logic, in general, so I'm not sure how you consider that you pointed anything out to me. I seem to remember you not knowing a damn thing about logic, despite your incredible arrogance.

Let me get this straight, I called you on your claim that I was using a logical fallacy, proved that you were wrong about it, and that proves that I cannot use logic.

Are you so stupid you don't even realize you are stupid?

You really are a dumb, poor bastard. You were never able to refute my claims about your using a logical fallacy. You just simply deny it, while oblivious to your own employment of logical fallacies. As demonstrated here, tonight. Now, you run from this because you know you are wrong.

I wasn't?

I asked you to show me where I argued that no real Christian, or anything else, would believe the popular definition of God. Where you able to find one I missed? Did you see the only post where I used the word wrong that wasn't a reply to you and how I used it to show that others were claiming that the poster I was responding to was wrong? Can you explain how you get to misuse something, get called on it, fail to refute the argument, and still not be debunked?

Maybe you should ask whoever is paying your bills to stop your access to the internet until you get a brain.

 

[newpolitics]

Let me get this straight, I called you on your claim that I was using a logical fallacy, proved that you were wrong about it, and that proves that I cannot use logic.

Are you so stupid you don't even realize you are stupid?

You really are a dumb, poor bastard. You were never able to refute my claims about your using a logical fallacy. You just simply deny it, while oblivious to your own employment of logical fallacies. As demonstrated here, tonight. Now, you run from this because you know you are wrong.

I wasn't?

I asked you to show me where I argued that no real Christian, or anything else, would believe the popular definition of God. Where you able to find one I missed? Did you see the only post where I used the word wrong that wasn't a reply to you and how I used it to show that others were claiming that the poster I was responding to was wrong? Can you explain how you get to misuse something, get called on it, fail to refute the argument, and still not be debunked?

Maybe you should ask whoever is paying your bills to stop your access to the internet until you get a brain.

I never claimed that you argued that no real christian would believe in the popular definition of god. Once again, you're a total fucking idiot.

You are ceasing to make sense or points relevant to the discussion. I think you need to re-assess your abilities here, because your over-confidence is completely unjustified...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really are a dumb, poor bastard. You were never able to refute my claims about your using a logical fallacy. You just simply deny it, while oblivious to your own employment of logical fallacies. As demonstrated here, tonight. Now, you run from this because you know you are wrong.

I wasn't?

I asked you to show me where I argued that no real Christian, or anything else, would believe the popular definition of God. Where you able to find one I missed? Did you see the only post where I used the word wrong that wasn't a reply to you and how I used it to show that others were claiming that the poster I was responding to was wrong? Can you explain how you get to misuse something, get called on it, fail to refute the argument, and still not be debunked?

Maybe you should ask whoever is paying your bills to stop your access to the internet until you get a brain.

I never claimed that you argued that no real christian would believe in the popular definition of god. Once again, you're a total fucking idiot.

You are ceasing to make sense or points relevant to the discussion. I think you need to re-assess your abilities here, because your over-confidence is completely unjustified...

This wasn't your post?

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christianity, as it is defined, is satisfied both in the "popular" interpretation and whatever interpretation you have concocted (otherwise, you are the one who is "not a real christian"). Therefore, you can not sit there and claim that Capstone rejected an "unreal" version of christianity, unless you can demonstrate how the mainstream version of Christianity does not satisfy the definition of christianity, which I would be curious to see you try and do.

Have you reported to the mods that someone is posting using your account?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Would the OP please change the title of this thread to "I'm rubber and you're glue?"

 

[G.T.]

I'm an agnostic. I think Religion is evil. Who cares?

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm an agnostic. I think Religion is evil. Who cares?

You do. Or you wouldn't have said anything.