Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
February 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm (This post was last modified: February 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm by fr0d0.)
If you can't see the difference between that and a fairytale tavarish then I'm worried for you. The burden of proof lies with anyone making a positive claim is my understanding. My logical position is built upon in depth consideration of data presented. I can and have related those to you and continue to form and consider my logical position.
A minority of Christians do think, mistakenly in my honest opinion, that some of the bible should be taken literally. To me, and a majority of sane people, the errors in their thinking is glaringly obvious.
(February 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you can't see the difference between that and a fairytale tavarish then I'm worried for you. The burden of proof lies with anyone making a positive claim is my understanding. My logical position is built upon in depth consideration of data presented. I can and have related those to you and continue to form and consider my logical position.
A minority of Christians do think, mistakenly in my honest opinion, that some of the bible should be taken literally. To me, and a majority of sane people, the errors in their thinking is glaringly obvious.
Funny thing is, you haven't provided any data. None. I even asked you what subjective experiences you had and you ignored the question. Then you say my rejection of your God claim is illogical? Seriously, read what you write before you reply.
On your minority claim:
The 2004 survey of religion and politics in the United States identified the evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3 percent while Roman Catholics are 22 percent and mainline Protestants make up 16 percent.[22] In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6 percent (evangelical), 24.5 percent (Roman Catholic), and 13.9 percent (mainline Protestant.) The latter figures are based on a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York.[23] A 2008 study showed that in the year 2000 about 9 percent of Americans attended an evangelical service on any given Sunday.[24]
A majority are Evangelical, who place great importance on Biblical literalism.
Listen, man. Your avatar clown looks bad ass but your points don't make sense and you dance around topics, spew "logical fallacies ZOMG" while you call me crazy for seeing parallels between fairy tales and your man in the sky. You get into a reasoned debate, but bring nothing but illogic, assumption, circular reasoning, and subjective experiences.
Sometimes it makes me feel good that many people, like yourself, can accept something on the basis that it doesn't make sense, and continue to perpetuate it with their own brand of batshit insanity. It means there is lots of money to be made if you know how to sell your product.
You do whatever makes you feel good. Call it an ad hominem attack, I'm addressing you personally, based on the stuff you continue to post. You seem like a generally articulate person, it's a shame you're stuck trying to put a square in a triangle shaped hole.
Hey I'm not the one applying spurious logic to try to justify my position here. Take a look in the mirror my friend.
My data isn't in subjective experience, but in the logic I'm presenting to you. My subjective experience just serves to affirm that logic, and would be insubstantial to your consideration.
I'm evangelical myself. I find it laughable how you clutch at straws to try to make your claim true.
Deal with the hard facts here. We're dealing with logical points. So far you haven't come up with anything to challenge my position whereas I've destroyed all of yours. and I'm the one applying spin here? I think not.
(February 15, 2010 at 3:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Hey I'm not the one applying spurious logic to try to justify my position here. Take a look in the mirror my friend.
My data isn't in subjective experience, but in the logic I'm presenting to you. My subjective experience just serves to affirm that logic, and would be insubstantial to your consideration.
I'm evangelical myself. I find it laughable how you clutch at straws to try to make your claim true.
Deal with the hard facts here. We're dealing with logical points. So far you haven't come up with anything to challenge my position whereas I've destroyed all of yours. and I'm the one applying spin here? I think not.
This will most likely be my last post in this topic, we've been going around in circles.
I'm going to ask you a few questions, and please answer them with as much detail as possible. No ambiguous or vague answers, no dismissal of the question. Fair enough?
What is your data, if not from subjective experience?
What subjective experience affirms your logical conclusion?
What are the hard facts?
Do evangelicals not believe in the sola scriptura view, that places emphasis on biblical literalism?
Answer those and those alone, if you would be so kind.
(February 15, 2010 at 3:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Hey I'm not the one applying spurious logic to try to justify my position here. Take a look in the mirror my friend.
My data isn't in subjective experience, but in the logic I'm presenting to you. My subjective experience just serves to affirm that logic, and would be insubstantial to your consideration.
I'm evangelical myself. I find it laughable how you clutch at straws to try to make your claim true.
Deal with the hard facts here. We're dealing with logical points. So far you haven't come up with anything to challenge my position whereas I've destroyed all of yours. and I'm the one applying spin here? I think not.
This will most likely be my last post in this topic, we've been going around in circles.
I'm going to ask you a few questions, and please answer them with as much detail as possible. No ambiguous or vague answers, no dismissal of the question. Fair enough?
What is your data, if not from subjective experience?
What subjective experience affirms your logical conclusion?
What are the hard facts?
Do evangelicals not believe in the sola scriptura view, that places emphasis on biblical literalism?
Answer those and those alone, if you would be so kind.
~Toodles.
looks like everyone's been doing doughnuts in here, so I'll chime in if you don't mind.
1-no data exists, to my knowledge, outside subjective experience save the teachings of the bible, which should be subjectively rationalized and logically deduced.
2- one under the avalanche
3- Define hard facts and specify an area please
4-Yes evangelicals, pentacostals as well as I believe the sola scriptura. The difference is I prefer to use more logical deduction or deductive reasoning to indirectly reach my conclusions.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(February 17, 2010 at 1:16 am)tackattack Wrote: looks like everyone's been doing doughnuts in here, so I'll chime in if you don't mind.
1-no data exists, to my knowledge, outside subjective experience save the teachings of the bible, which should be subjectively rationalized and logically deduced.
2- one under the avalanche
3- Define hard facts and specify an area please
4-Yes evangelicals, pentacostals as well as I believe the sola scriptura. The difference is I prefer to use more logical deduction or deductive reasoning to indirectly reach my conclusions.
1. Rationalization is illogical and indistinguishable from finding evidence to fit a delusion or unfounded claim. If no data exists, you cannot make the claim that it exists in reality objectively.
2. I have a few things to add to that, I'll get to it in a bit.
3. I was referring to the hard facts fr0d0 was referring to, I also want to know his definition and experience.
4. In other words, you interpret it to suit your personal beliefs. That is called rationalization. Since there can be no objective standard of God's existence, everyone has their own personal brand of the divine. That's fine, but every once in a while people have to realize that this may just be a hallucination, voices in their head, or something created by the effects of placebo.
If you used deductive reasoning, you'll realize where the pieces of the Bible don't fit. What do you do then? Interpret it differently? Try to take another meaning that makes more sense to you?
thanks
