[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..
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..
