Twat lol

Faith is something you just made up Chas. Right. The argument from ignorance again.

Guys you can't be serious.

What is going on here? Faith is trust in things that aren't seen, so Chas isn't wrong in his definition. I know the man is perfectly capable of defending himself, but I feel there's some confusion going on and it needs to stop.

(August 9, 2013 at 12:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So let me make this personal then stimbo. What if I were to say something depraved and reprobate about your precious loved one. Taking her memory in vein in a deliberate ruse to rile you. Now how do you feel about my freedom to say what I want?

If your sole intent was to rile me, of course I'd get upset. That you haven't, as others have done before, speaks volumes as to the way you feel about that. But that wouldn't be addressing my personal beliefs, merely mocking my personal and deeply treasured memories in order to get a reaction from me. If you knew the two of us in real life and had some opinion or knowledge you felt the need to impart, of course I would listen. That in no way equates to someone questioning a person's beliefs. I'm not aware that doing so constitutes an attack on the person, nor any case where such was the sole purpose of the exchange (though I'm willing to accept the possibility), whereas what you describe would be a personal attack - indeed, as you describe it, that is the entire reason for doing so. Regardless, such exchanges of belief can be made amicably - at least at first. It seems to be when religious beliefs demand instant respect that the nastiness starts.

Incisentally, the word is "vain".

(August 9, 2013 at 12:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There would be no fun in you guys taking the piss as you do if it wasn't hurtful to someone. That's why you do it right? If it had no effect/ if no one could take offense, you'd have to find something else.

Wrong. If that were the case there would be no such thing as humour. Or indeed expression of one's beliefs of any kind. Some time ago I was paid a compliment here, in which I was described as being able to "disagree without being disagreeable" or words to that effect. You yourself have given kudos to many of my posts, humorous or otherwise. Obviously you could have done so for any number of reasons, but it does seem that you think that I at least can take the piss without the need to be hurtful.

(August 9, 2013 at 1:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Twat lol

Faith is something you just made up Chas. Right. The argument from ignorance again.

Guys you can't be serious.

How, pray tell, is faith something I just made up?

That isn't the Christian definition of faith Chas.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: That isn't the Christian definition of faith Chas.

Please enlighten me. What evidence is there for your beliefs?

Pro tip: The Bible is not evidence. "Feeling the presence of Jesus" is not evidence.

To Christians, they "know" God.

Just as I know my father.

If I said I had faith in my dad to be there for me, it would be the definition of faith that means something closer to belief based on experience and interaction.

Of course, I would never say that I have faith that my father is real. I could produce evidence of that.

I would say that I know.

Christians tend to say the same things about their God, but their evidence can't be seen without an act of blind faith in the beginning. The part where they decide they're willing to start a relationship with this "God" character and accept that there is no reason to do so in the beginning, however, after you swallow the God-pill, everything in the universe becomes justifiable evidence.

(August 9, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Chas Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 2:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: That isn't the Christian definition of faith Chas.

Please enlighten me. What evidence is there for your beliefs?

Pro tip: The Bible is not evidence. "Feeling the presence of Jesus" is not evidence.

Maybe it's just your reading skills that are out of whack.

zombie atheist: "evidence"

(August 9, 2013 at 2:10 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: To Christians, they "know" God.

Just as I know my father.

If I said I had faith in my dad to be there for me, it would be the definition of faith that means something closer to belief based on experience and interaction.

Of course, I would never say that I have faith that my father is real. I could produce evidence of that.

I would say that I know.

Christians tend to say the same things about their God, but their evidence can't be seen without an act of blind faith in the beginning. The part where they decide they're willing to start a relationship with this "God" character and accept that there is no reason to do so in the beginning, however, after you swallow the God-pill, everything in the universe becomes justifiable evidence.

As I said, belief without evidence.

It's putting the cart before the horse. But of course, they don't see it that way. They want to believe that they know God, therefore saying its "blind" becomes insulting to their claims of a close relationship with It.