22 Mar 12
Originally posted by googlefudgewhy dont you two get a room, goodness sake, kissy kissy googly wooggly, ewwwwe!
Thank you...
Although I am not sure that I should be referred to as 'THE' Googlefudge...
Makes it sound like a title.
and to think i am missing the European chess championships to remonstrate with you
ingrates, no more!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...man of faith has assurances, based on EVIDENCE of past events as
clearly the Op has no idea what he is talking about nor the source from which he
gleaned his assertions, here is the actual Biblical definition of faith which thoroughly
and soundly refutes these erroneous assertions,
(Hebrews 11:1-2) . . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, [b]the
evident demonstration of realities th ...[text shortened]... the adherent to relate these details to his present situation and how they
may be applicable.[/b]
recorded in the ancient text ...” (my emphasis)
this is certainly not reliable “EVIDENCE” of “past events” to say the least especially if those said “past events” are supposed to involve something absurd such as something supernatural ( such as a god ) because it is blind faith to believe that what is in ancient text must be a wholly truthful record of past events regardless of how absurd the claims made by that ancient text are.
What 'evidence' do you have that the ancient text ( whether the Bible or some other ancient text ) always tells the truth? -answer, none. It is based on blind faith no matter how you define “faith”.
“...Its simply a nonsense to state that this is either dangerous or self delusional, ...”
The 9/11 terrorist attack; this proves faith is both potentially dangerous and self delusional. Were the people that flew the planes into the buildings atheist? -Answer, no. They were THIEST and delusional and dangerous as a result. Their actions are absolute proof of just how dangerous they were and faith can be.
If you want other examples: Both Hitler and Stalin were theists i.e. he had faith that there was a God:
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerQuotesGodReligion.htm
“...Adolf Hitler regularly proclaimed his faith in God, Nazi ideology was committed to supporting Christianity (on its own terms, of course), and Nazi anti-Semitism was firmly grounded in Christian anti-Semitism. Hitler's theism, religiosity, and Christianity are supported in his own words. His beliefs were not quite what most Christians today believe, but they are part of the same family and nowhere near secular atheism. ..."
in the case of Stalin, he thought he WAS God!
http://breakingspells.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/myths-of-atheism-hitlerstalinpot-were-evil-because-of-atheism/
“...Stalin’s position was that he “replaced” God and inserted himself as the national deity with statues and portraits in all public (and many private) lands and buildings. Those that carried out his death warrants did so because they believed in Stalin –because they “worshiped” him. ...”
You have done nothing to effectively argue against my original assertions so all three of them still stand firm:
Faith is dangerous and immoral.
We all have a moral responsibility to use reason, not faith.
It is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate faith.
22 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou have done nothing to effectively argue against my original assertions so all three
“...man of faith has assurances, based on EVIDENCE of past events as
recorded in the ancient text ...” (my emphasis)
this is certainly not reliable “EVIDENCE” of “past events” to say the least especially if those said “past events” are supposed to involve something absurd such as something supernatural ( such as a god ) because it is blind faith that what y to use reason, not faith.
It is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate faith.[/i]
of them still stand firm:
wrong i have demonstrated that the original premise was nothing more than a castle
made of sand, destined to fall into the sea, eventually, such is the way of all
assumptions.
22 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere is room for faith in Christianity. In fact, it defines it.
An interesting comment about the side-effects of "faith" was made by Bruce Bartlett in an interview with Bill Moyers that I saw recently.
The following puts the comment in context. You can watch the interview in its entirety (approx. 25 mins.)
[quote]Bill Moyers talks with conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, who wrote "the bible" for the Reagan Rev ...[text shortened]... than deluding themselves into thinking that they are based in reason.
Comments?
Not so much with economics. Or politics.
22 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyEvil is dangerous and immoral.
Faith is dangerous and immoral.
We all have a moral responsibility to use reason, not faith.
It is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate faith.
We all have a responsibility to use faith, not evil.
It is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate evil.
Fixed.
Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot did not each kill millions of people because they had faith in God.
They killed because they were evil.
These are two vastly different things which have nothing to do with each other. In fact I would submit that they killed because they did not have enough faith in God.
22 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSeems like RC is up to his usual antics.
clearly the Op has no idea what he is talking about nor the source from which he
gleaned his assertions, here is the actual Biblical definition of faith which thoroughly
and soundly refutes these erroneous assertions,
(Hebrews 11:1-2) . . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, [b]the
evident demonstration of realities th ...[text shortened]... the adherent to relate these details to his present situation and how they
may be applicable.[/b]
Evidently for him reality is dependent on what he thinks and what he's been told to think by the JW's.
There's no reason to assume that Bartlett "gleaned his assertions" through the Bible. However in RC-world it is a fact.
What's even more amusing is that he cites the JW Bible which seems to take certain liberties from the orginal text. No matter to RC, if the JWs teach it, he must think it.
For the record following is Young's Literal Translation of the same verses:
Hebrews 11:1-2
1 And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction, 2 for in this were the elders testified of;
22 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianne“...Evil is dangerous and immoral. ...”
Evil is dangerous and immoral.
We all have a responsibility to use faith, not evil.
It is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate evil.
Fixed.
Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot did not each kill millions of people because they had faith in God.
They killed because they were evil.
These are two vastly different things which have nothing to do ...[text shortened]... . In fact I would submit that they killed because they did not have enough faith in God.
correct ( obviously ) .
“...We all have a responsibility to use faith, not evil. ...”
no, we have a responsibility to use neither. We have a responsibility to use reason.
“...It is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate evil. ...”
correct ( obviously ) ; and faith is evil because faith is oxygen to evil therefore it is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate faith.
“...Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot did not each kill millions of people because they had faith in God. ...”
actually, they certainly may have done albeit indirectly. Once you make yourself come to have one absurd belief ( such as there is a God ) then that is just one short step away from making yourself come to have other absurd beliefs ( such as certain races are inferior and should be eliminated because of this etc ) .
“...They killed because they were evil. ...”
-and faith would have made it a lot easier for those evil people to kill for they can more easily justify to themselves cruel acts using the same kind of stupid twisted logic that gives them faith. Once you accept that twisted logic to have faith in a god then it becomes easier to use that same twisted logic to have faith in other absurd beliefs you may want to have and, if you are a person who wants to do evil acts, the absurd beliefs that you would choose to convince yourself of are those that promote those evil acts.
Faith is evil's accomplice to mass murder.
“...they killed because they did not have enough faith in God. ...”
no, they probably in part killed because they DID have faith in God and, the more faith, the greater the absurdity of there beliefs and therefore the easier for them to convince themselves that they are justified in their evil actions. If they had no faith that there is a God then they may have not killed at all because they would have found it a lot harder to use twisted logic to justify to themselves an 'excuse'.
22 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywillNot sure why you insist on trying to pretend that your beliefs are not built purely on faith. It is what it is.
What you consider a blind leap in the dark is not. It is a leap in the dim perhaps, but not in the total dark. And there is a faithful God there to make sure you have a soft landing.
What do you really gain from it? Are you trying to convince others or yourself?
22 Mar 12
Originally posted by SuzianneYes it does define it.
There is room for faith in Christianity. In fact, it defines it.
Not so much with economics. Or politics.
Any idea why so many Christians seem compelled to prove that their beliefs are built upon reason rather than faith?
22 Mar 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnehaha, still living in the middle ages, your translation doesn't even make grammatical
Seems like RC is up to his usual antics.
Evidently for him reality is dependent on what he thinks and what he's been told to think by the JW's.
There's no reason to assume that Bartlett "gleaned his assertions" through the Bible. However in RC-world it is a fact.
What's even more amusing is that he cites the JW Bible which seems to take certain ...[text shortened]... confidence, of matters not seen a conviction, 2 for in this were the elders testified of;
sense, in fact, its barely legible,
'And faith is of things hoped for a confidence', huh? Modern English?
'of matters not seen a conviction', whut? Is this like 1592 or 2012
LOL its mock worthy to censure our superlative translation and then dish up these limp vegetables instead, neeeeext!
22 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know what you are talking about: what “original premise” are you referring to and Which “assumptions” are you referring to?
You have done nothing to effectively argue against my original assertions so all three
of them still stand firm:
wrong i have demonstrated that the original premise was nothing more than a castle
made of sand, destined to fall into the sea, eventually, such is the way of all
assumptions.
I completely debunked and demolished all your claims.
List these assumptions/premise that you say I made that you say my argument is based on so I can check I made them and used them.
Then state how you have shown each one of those assumptions/premise to be false so that I can see how so.