Heresy, you green-eyed monster . . . i'd have you burned at the stake, if i weren't so damned lazy . . .
Phoenix32890 wrote:Intrepid wrote:If you attack the persons believes.... you attack the person
That would be relevent only if a person's entire ego revolves in his/her beliefs...
And there's the rub; those who's minds are filled with the Bible and implanted fundamentally may not be expected to react to challenge of their theistic beliefs in any other wise. Such is not merely their individual wont, it is structural to their collective psyche.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Intrepid wrote:If you attack the persons believes.... you attack the person
That would be relevent only if a person's entire ego revolves in his/her beliefs. If the beliefs espoused were accepted as the absolute truth, with no room for modification through greater knowledge, I could understand why a person might feel attacked. The person has been painted into a corner.
For a person who believes in their own mind as the final arbiter of truth, attacks on their beliefs would not only be not threatening, it might very well be welcomed, as a means of checking out their personal premises against new knowledge.
Is this what you believe?
Questioner wrote:Intrepid wrote:That is where faith comes in. I have it.... you do not. Therefore, you cannot understand it.
This is another Christian fallacy, that simply because someone doesn't have/agree with the faith that they therefore must not be able to understand it.
It's not difficult to comprehend faith, it's merely difficult to commit to it.
If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. :wink:
timberlandko wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:Intrepid wrote:If you attack the persons believes.... you attack the person
That would be relevent only if a person's entire ego revolves in his/her beliefs...
And there's the rub; those who's minds are filled with the Bible and implanted fundamentally may not be expected to react to challenge of their theistic beliefs in any other wise. Such is not merely their individual wont, it is structural to their collective psyche.
Thank's for sharing your beliefs.
Setanta wrote:Intrepid wrote:Questioner wrote:Intrepid wrote:That is where faith comes in. I have it.... you do not. Therefore, you cannot understand it.
This is another Christian fallacy, that simply because someone doesn't have/agree with the faith that they therefore must not be able to understand it.
It's not difficult to comprehend faith, it's merely difficult to commit to it.
If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. (idiotic emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)
Sheer nonsense . . .
More opinion's and beliefs...thanks for sharing.
Intrepid wrote:If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. :wink:
Not at all. One can fully understand that jabbing your finger in your eye with great force will result in blindness. Doesn't make it any more likely that I'll decide to do so one day.
How come that joker is tryin' to pass himself off as PDiddie . . . i think it's a plot . . . no, wait, i have faith that it's a plot . . .
Intrepid wrote:Questioner wrote:Intrepid wrote:That is where faith comes in. I have it.... you do not. Therefore, you cannot understand it.
This is another Christian fallacy, that simply because someone doesn't have/agree with the faith that they therefore must not be able to understand it.
It's not difficult to comprehend faith, it's merely difficult to commit to it.
If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. :wink:
They comprehend faith and belief just fine. They just don't comprehend yours in the same way you do That's my belief.
Intrepid wrote:Questioner wrote:Intrepid wrote:That is where faith comes in. I have it.... you do not. Therefore, you cannot understand it.
This is another Christian fallacy, that simply because someone doesn't have/agree with the faith that they therefore must not be able to understand it.
It's not difficult to comprehend faith, it's merely difficult to commit to it.
If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. :wink:
Functional here is the absurity that the religionist proposition, particularly as expressed through the tenets of that subset of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia known as Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, proceeds from an illicit premise and is supported wholly through specious argument; the only authority and validity possessed by the proposition is that claimed for itself within itself. I submit your response is purely circular, and meaningless; "In order to have faith, one must have faith"
Bartikus wrote:Thank's for sharing your beliefs.
I submit my observations per the issue at discussion do not consist of or constitute "beliefs", but rather that they are axiomatic. I present to you the following challenge:
Demonstrate that "Faith" and "Superstition" be functionally differentiable - note the "Functionally" requirement; neither personal preference norsocial convention makes the cut.
I believe i'll have lunch . . .
Phoenix32890 wrote:Setanta wrote:How come that joker is tryin' to pass himself off as PDiddie . . . i think it's a plot . . . no, wait, i have faith that it's a plot . . .
Setanta- And I have faith that you truly believe that it is a plot!
Without 'knowing' what is left?
timberlandko wrote:Intrepid wrote:Questioner wrote:Intrepid wrote:That is where faith comes in. I have it.... you do not. Therefore, you cannot understand it.
This is another Christian fallacy, that simply because someone doesn't have/agree with the faith that they therefore must not be able to understand it.
It's not difficult to comprehend faith, it's merely difficult to commit to it.
If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. :wink:
Functional here is the absurity that the religionist proposition, particularly as expressed through the tenets of that subset of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia known as Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, proceeds from an illicit premise and is supported wholly through specious argument; the only authority and validity possessed by the proposition is that claimed for itself within itself. I submit your response is purely circular, and meaningless; "In order to have faith, one must have faith"
Bartikus wrote:Thank's for sharing your beliefs.
I submit my observations per the issue at discussion do not consist of or constitute "beliefs", but rather that they are axiomatic. I present to you the following challenge:
Demonstrate that "Faith" and "Superstition" be functionally differentiable - note the "Functionally" requirement; neither personal preference norsocial convention makes the cut.
Thanks for sharing....what you don't know!
Well, y'all have been quite busy I see?
Okay, let's get the attacking issue out of the way. Yes, it happens. We all know it happens. Almost everyone has done it at least once. Some admit they do it and some don't. But we all know it happens.
I think I finally have it figured out. As long as you do not 'DIRECTLY' attack someone with your words, it's ok. It's okay to call someone's beliefs assinine but it's not okay to call that person an ass. I understand how it works now and will definitely keep that in mind.
edgarblythe,
I do appreciate you elaborating on what you said about me being strident, in particular. I was going to respond but the thread got locked.
J_B (I believe it was J_B) posted something explaining what a fundamentalist Christian is. Hey, guess what? I agree with only a couple of those things pointed out. How about that? Seems I have been labeled a fundamentalist for my belief in, what? three of those things?
Another word I saw in that article was "vocally". Well, can you consider this forum vocal? Perhaps. But, this is as far as my vocalism goes other than discussing things with friends. I do not go out there and lobby for any of this stuff. I vote my conscience. Yep, sorry, I base that vote on my belief in God. I won't deny it. I won't apologize for it. I will not vote for something I believe to be wrong no matter who else thinks it is right. To me, there is no "it's right for me." There are rights and wrongs. They are for everyone. We do not get to choose what things we want to be okay to do based on what we want. God does not work that way.
So, the plain fact is this, I don't care if you think I am a fundamentalist. I don't care if you think I am an idiot. I don't care if you think I believe in an imaginery anything. I care only what God thinks about it.
As part of my belief system, namecalling and ridiculing is not okay. Do I do it? Very rarely but there is no excuse for it.
There are many non-believers on this forum that have no problem NOT sinking to the level of ridiculing. Special pleading? No. If you call asking for common decency special pleading, well, maybe that is what it is to you because someone wants something from you that you are not wanting or willing to give. Now, I don't mean the you literally so if it does not apply to you, then ignore that.
So, edgar, call me what you want. Feel about me as you want. I don't know you anymore than you know me. From this forum only. You have no effect on my life. There are some in these threads that do; however, those being the ones that honestly do want to exchange ideas and beliefs and talk. Some very fine people I believe and I am honored to include them in my life.
Setanta wrote:Intrepid wrote:Questioner wrote:Intrepid wrote:That is where faith comes in. I have it.... you do not. Therefore, you cannot understand it.
This is another Christian fallacy, that simply because someone doesn't have/agree with the faith that they therefore must not be able to understand it.
It's not difficult to comprehend faith, it's merely difficult to commit to it.
If one fully comprended it, it would be much less difficult to commit to it. (idiotic emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)
Sheer nonsense . . .
One man's nonsense is another man's truth ;-)
