(December 31, 2012 at 12:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I agree with a lot of what you say FIDEL from your perspective apart from the apologist point, i use my own ideas and words and can be clumsy as a result. Of course my ideas can't be separated entirely from what I have read and digested elsewhere just as a musician does not compose entirely independent of what they have head before. Common sense is a very vague term. whether you take me seriously or not is your choice. As far as an out and out lie that's also false because from my belief system I cannot change anyone's mind so all I do is stimulate discussion in the hope that I may move people to explore their position more and be open to another truth. As far as you are free to ridicule my posts and I expect such but i'm free to respond. I will leave it to every member to decide if what i'm saying is worth the read or not and do what is sensible for them. If what you are saying is that this forum is only open to athiests and anyone else who has an opinion different from this should stop posting or expect ridicule then its a strange forum and if it is the consensus of the forum then I shall depart and leave you to your one handed clap.

I may say, it's not that I don't take you seriously, its your ideas & beliefs (on god etc) that I find lacking.

I'm also not saying that this forum isn't open to theists (we have a lot of theists on here, including mods/admins and regular members).

What I am saying however is that, by virtue of this being a forum that advocates wherever possible a free-thinking and open minded attitude towards any/all ideas (though, to paraphrase Dawkins, not so open our brains fall out), beliefs that we find crazy (and I'm looking at your beliefs on your god specifically here) will be focused on and criticized to the nth degree.

From my own personal experience (emphasis on that), theists that I encounter on an online (atheist) forum fall into two categories:

1. Folk who want to troll/proselytize
2. Folk who actually want to see the other side of the debate/argument.

However, a ubiquitous trait is that, more often than not, they have never had their ideas critiqued or ridiculed. They've always been held aloof from critique, beyond ridicule or analysis. Then they come on here expecting either that we're all nasty atheist trolls who hate them (not true, I don't hate anyone based on their beliefs unless they attempt to force me to believe them) else that we're illogical because we don't see the world that they see in the same way they see it.

Exposure to the other way of thinking is one step to evaluating ones beliefs, which is one way that I think this and other forums contribute well (regardless of what you personally view of it or take away from it).

Theists shouldn't expect us to pussyfoot around their deeply held beliefs simply because their friends/family/religious officials do. That's not how it works.

(December 31, 2012 at 12:50 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(December 31, 2012 at 12:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I agree with a lot of what you say FIDEL from your perspective apart from the apologist point, i use my own ideas and words and can be clumsy as a result. Of course my ideas can't be separated entirely from what I have read and digested elsewhere just as a musician does not compose entirely independent of what they have head before. Common sense is a very vague term. whether you take me seriously or not is your choice. As far as an out and out lie that's also false because from my belief system I cannot change anyone's mind so all I do is stimulate discussion in the hope that I may move people to explore their position more and be open to another truth. As far as you are free to ridicule my posts and I expect such but i'm free to respond. I will leave it to every member to decide if what i'm saying is worth the read or not and do what is sensible for them. If what you are saying is that this forum is only open to athiests and anyone else who has an opinion different from this should stop posting or expect ridicule then its a strange forum and if it is the consensus of the forum then I shall depart and leave you to your one handed clap.

I may say, it's not that I don't take you seriously, its your ideas & beliefs (on god etc) that I find lacking.

I'm also not saying that this forum isn't open to theists (we have a lot of theists on here, including mods/admins and regular members).

What I am saying however is that, by virtue of this being a forum that advocates wherever possible a free-thinking and open minded attitude towards any/all ideas (though, to paraphrase Dawkins, not so open our brains fall out), beliefs that we find crazy (and I'm looking at your beliefs on your god specifically here) will be focused on and criticized to the nth degree.

From my own personal experience (emphasis on that), theists that I encounter on an online (atheist) forum fall into two categories:

1. Folk who want to troll/proselytize
2. Folk who actually want to see the other side of the debate/argument.

However, a ubiquitous trait is that, more often than not, they have never had their ideas critiqued or ridiculed. They've always been held aloof from critique, beyond ridicule or analysis. Then they come on here expecting either that we're all nasty atheist trolls who hate them (not true, I don't hate anyone based on their beliefs unless they attempt to force me to believe them) else that we're illogical because we don't see the world that they see in the same way they see it.

Exposure to the other way of thinking is one step to evaluating ones beliefs, which is one way that I think this and other forums contribute well (regardless of what you personally view of it or take away from it).

Theists shouldn't expect us to pussyfoot around their deeply held beliefs simply because their friends/family/religious officials do. That's not how it works.

Agreed , i would say that I want to present the other side of the arguement as best I can. And I want to meet the debaters rather than the mockers. And I do understand that people can hold an athiest perspective and still be a good person at heart. Trolling never ( whats the point ) proselytize depends what you mean , if you mean just shouting at you guys "the end is nigh" etc never but if you mean trying to persuade some of the forum to reconsider their view about Theism then yes but I would try and do this within the framework of exploring questions that do stimulate debate and thought I hope on both our parts.

Mark, saying atheism is a faith-based position is like saying being bald is a hair dye choice.

The sooner you get over that silly mental block, the sooner we can actually get to the core of what the actual discussion is: why you believe in a sentient universe creator/designer being/force that you've labelled as "god".

(December 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Mark, saying atheism is a faith-based position is like saying being bald is a hair dye choice.

The sooner you get over that silly mental block, the sooner we can actually get to the core of what the actual discussion is: why you believe in a sentient universe creator/designer being/force that you've labelled as "god".

In reality I don't have a mental block, I can accept that my position is faith based but for some reason my acceptance of this seems to be taken is by default by a lot of athiest I have discussion with to mean anything else I have to say is worthless. I am just trying to level the playing field a little by asking athiest to accept that to Theists, an athiests position at its core has to be faith based (even if they word play faith by saying non faith or belief as non belief). So I believe its not Theists that have a block about the word faith.

and as why as I believe in God, well long before I heard of the First Cause arguement I had thought my way to it as a teenager and realised that at the end of that process I had a decision to make about God or Not God and my decision based on my inner self call it intuition or soul decided God.

(December 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: In reality I don't have a mental block,

Nine pages on a thread dealing with said topic suggest otherwise.

(December 31, 2012 at 2:23 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(December 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: In reality I don't have a mental block,

Nine pages on a thread dealing with said topic suggest otherwise.

well i hope my last post clear any said suggestion.

Let's examine the passage alluded to in your namesake, Mark 13:13:

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." (NASB)

You come to an atheist forum, declaring yourself a Christian, bearing a name that alludes to confrontation and religious persecution, and present a thesis you know the majority of atheists will not accept, and then you express amazement and offense when people become confrontational in return.

What a disingenuous and dishonest little twat you are.

Yes, many of the same processes of mind are used in coming to the atheist, secular or agnostic position as are used in coming to theistic conclusions; and even where they are not the same, it's often difficult for non-specialists to differentiate between different forms of reasoning. The human mind relies on a limited bag of tricks by virtue of its limited nature, and because of the properties of those tricks. But when you imply that when atheists or others come to the conclusion that your god (or any god) does not exist, they are using the same tricks in the same ways, making their results epistemically equivalent, you are in error. This is simply not true. While there is overlap in methods used, and distinctions between various meanings of ambiguous terms like 'faith' can further blur distinctions, implying that the same process is used in both instances in the same way is simply false and unsupported. Implying that because similar processes are used in both to arrive at their conclusions, when such similar processes are used in different ways or different senses, means that your thesis is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, and is therefore invalid. (Not necessarily false, but not justifiably true based on what you've presented.)

And I read your citation of Wisdom 2. I'm unfamiliar with its context and standing (aside from it being deuterocanonical), but what I found interesting was its structure. Up until 2:21-24 it is an unremarkable set of questions and assertions about mortality (and a few naive opinions on the nature of ethics, biased against godlessness). Then in 2:21-24, it switches modes and changes into a rant composed entirely of bare assertions, wholly unjustified by the preceding text. (see below) I suppose the passage hopes to lull the reader into complacency prior to springing the unsupported claims on them. I reject the claims in 21-24 as unjustified, and, unlike your implication, not historically common, except among religious apologists attempting to disarm people's skepticism with sophistry. Regardless, that a theme is old and perennial is no evidence that one religion's treatment of it has any validity, simply because it asks the same questions.

21 Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them.
22 As for the mysteries of God, they knew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls.
23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

---

"If indeed the Prince likes good men and hates bad men, why would you try to change him? If he does not, you would be better off saying nothing; for if you do speak, the Prince will expose your weak points and win the argument. You will look confused and ashamed; you will find one excuse after another and you will seem to yield. Your mind will be molded to his way of thinking. This is putting out fire with fire, adding water to a flood; it is called adding to the excess. If you start by giving in, there will be no end to your concessions. And if you speak out strongly against him, he will not listen to you and will undoubtedly put you to death.”

“In ancient times, Chieh killed Kuan Lung Pang and Chou killed Prince Pi Kan. These two victims were virtuous men who tried hard to comfort and aid the common people. In this way they offended their superiors. Their rulers had them put to death because of their goodness. This was the result of seeking fame for their virtue.”

. . . .

“Let me tell you something else I have heard. If states have close ties, their mutual trust is demonstrated by deeds. If they are far apart, their good faith has to be renewed with words in the form of messages. But carrying messages of delight or anger between two parties is the most difficult thing in the world. When they are both pleased, there is bound to be exaggeration of flattery; when they are both angry, there is bound to be exaggeration of criticism. Exaggeration leads away from truth. Without truth, there will be no trust. When there is no trust, the messengers will be in danger. Therefore, it is said, ‘Speak the truth and do not exaggerate; then you will not be harmed.’ ”

— The Zhuangzi, excerpts, Feng/English trans.

[quote='apophenia' pid='379761' dateline='1356983355']



Let's examine the passage alluded to in your namesake, Mark 13:13:

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." (NASB)

You come to an atheist forum, declaring yourself a Christian, bearing a name that alludes to confrontation and religious persecution, and present a thesis you know the majority of atheists will not accept,
TRUE i was making it clear that the usual bully boy tactics I have encountered before wont worry me

and then you express amazement and offense
Untrue I neither expressed amazement or offense I just took my lead from what they posted, if i did appear to express either it was in jest (some jokes do go down like a lead balloon)
when people become confrontational in return.

What a disingenuous and dishonest little twat you are.
the point of this being

Yes, many of the same processes of mind are used in coming to the atheist, secular or agnostic position as are used in coming to theistic conclusions; and even where they are not the same, it's often difficult for non-specialists to differentiate between different forms of reasoning. The human mind relies on a limited bag of tricks by virtue of its limited nature, and because of the properties of those tricks. But you are implying that when atheists or others come to the conclusion that your god (or any god) does not exist, they are using the same tricks in the same way, making their results epistemically equivalent, you are in error.
easy to state hard to prove

This is simply not true. While there is overlap in methods used, and distinctions between various meanings of ambiguous terms like 'faith' can further blur distinctinctions, implying that the same process is used in both instances in the same way is simply false and unsupported. Regardless, implying that because similar processes are used in both to arrive at their conclusions, when such similar processes are used in different ways or different senses, means that your thesis is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, and is therefore invalid. (Not necessarily false, but not justifiably true based on what you've presented.)

the point you make in brackets is the point I was trying to make and If I failed in the attempt as i'm not a specialist I'm glad you have made it clearer than i did.

And I read your citation of Wisdom 2. I'm unfamiliar with its context and standing (aside from it being deuterocanonical), but what I found interesting was its structure. Up until 2:21-24 it is an unremarkable set of questions and assertions about mortality (and a few naive opinions on the nature of ethics, biased against godlessness). Then in 2:21-24, it switches modes and changes into a rant composed entirely of bare assertions, wholly unjustified by the preceding text. (see below) I suppose the passage hopes to lull the reader into complacency prior to springing the unsupported claims on them, perhaps. I reject the claims in 21-24 as unjustified, and, unlike your implication, not historically common, except among religious apologists attempting to disarm people's skepticism with sophistry. Regardless, that a theme is old and perennial is no evidence that one religion's treatment of it has any validity, simply because it asks the same questions.

I was not saying that one religion's treatment of it has any validity but rather that the debate between Athiests and Theists has remained very similar in essence for a very very long time and the concept of God is just to go away and become a myth for a large proportion of humanity just because Athiests want it to is going against the evidence of history.

though I would suggest that what may happen is instead of the God-man society will substitute the Man-god because whatever we think is the truth is its clear that humanity is hardwired to look beyond the physical and try to reach to the spiritual..

hey, Mark.... a word: when you click the Reply button, DO NOT DELETE anything of what appears in the text-box of the reply. Just type at the end.
It's frustrating reading your posts with the quote tags half missing.
Some mods have been covering some of your tracks, but they can't keep up with all the crap you make on that subject.
Please, pay attention to that.

quote tags are used like this:

I used the code tags so you can see everything verbatim

[/off topic] <- fictional tag

Yes, please...................