< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Why Is It Important To Convince Others That There Is No God?

 
SteveMcKerracher
 
Avatar
 
 
SteveMcKerracher
Total Posts:  91
Joined  16-08-2014
 
 
 
28 September 2014 22:38
 
bbearren - 17 September 2014 08:05 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 02 September 2014 05:40 PM

The problem with true faith, is it cannot possibly be tolerant.

And your proof for such a broad statement is exactly what?  Be specific, to the point, and include all possibilities of personal faith.  Otherwise you should, by your own stated standards, withdraw the statement.

Think about it. 

First off, this is a philosophical statement I’m not trying to provide proof of anything.  I can show warrant for my position.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

What is faith?  It is accepting claims of truth without gauging them on the plausibility of their reason and evidence.  Because if you do gauge the truth value of claims using only the plausibility of their reason and evidence, what need have you for faith?

Now, if you believe in a truth claim, by faith, how can you be tolerant of a contrasting truth claim?  Your faith says that contrasting claim is wrong.  And since it is a faith claim, not based on reason or evidence, how can you discuss it rationally?

In the case of Christianity, the faith claims make the issue not just life and death, but eternal suffering vs eternal bliss.  How can you be tolerant if your faith believes the eternal afterlife is on the line? 

Which of course, is an indefensible faith claim written by men with no reason to believe it whatsoever.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
28 September 2014 22:53
 
SteveMcKerracher - 28 September 2014 08:38 PM
bbearren - 17 September 2014 08:05 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 02 September 2014 05:40 PM

The problem with true faith, is it cannot possibly be tolerant.

And your proof for such a broad statement is exactly what?  Be specific, to the point, and include all possibilities of personal faith.  Otherwise you should, by your own stated standards, withdraw the statement.

Think about it. 

First off, this is a philosophical statement I’m not trying to provide proof of anything.  I can show warrant for my position.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

What is faith?  It is accepting claims of truth without gauging them on the plausibility of their reason and evidence.  Because if you do gauge the truth value of claims using only the plausibility of their reason and evidence, what need have you for faith?

Now, if you believe in a truth claim, by faith, how can you be tolerant of a contrasting truth claim?  Your faith says that contrasting claim is wrong.  And since it is a faith claim, not based on reason or evidence, how can you discuss it rationally?

In the case of Christianity, the faith claims make the issue not just life and death, but eternal suffering vs eternal bliss.  How can you be tolerant if your faith believes the eternal afterlife is on the line? 

Which of course, is an indefensible faith claim written by men with no reason to believe it whatsoever.

You did not “include all possibilities of personal faith”.  You stopped short with only your own definition of faith.  Fail.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
29 September 2014 11:44
 
bbearren - 28 September 2014 08:53 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 28 September 2014 08:38 PM
bbearren - 17 September 2014 08:05 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 02 September 2014 05:40 PM

The problem with true faith, is it cannot possibly be tolerant.

And your proof for such a broad statement is exactly what?  Be specific, to the point, and include all possibilities of personal faith.  Otherwise you should, by your own stated standards, withdraw the statement.

Think about it. 

First off, this is a philosophical statement I’m not trying to provide proof of anything.  I can show warrant for my position.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

What is faith?  It is accepting claims of truth without gauging them on the plausibility of their reason and evidence.  Because if you do gauge the truth value of claims using only the plausibility of their reason and evidence, what need have you for faith?

Now, if you believe in a truth claim, by faith, how can you be tolerant of a contrasting truth claim?  Your faith says that contrasting claim is wrong.  And since it is a faith claim, not based on reason or evidence, how can you discuss it rationally?

In the case of Christianity, the faith claims make the issue not just life and death, but eternal suffering vs eternal bliss.  How can you be tolerant if your faith believes the eternal afterlife is on the line? 

Which of course, is an indefensible faith claim written by men with no reason to believe it whatsoever.

You did not “include all possibilities of personal faith”.  You stopped short with only your own definition of faith.  Fail.


You didn’t address all possible interpretations of Steve’s post ... fail!

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
29 September 2014 14:20
 
SkepticX - 29 September 2014 09:44 AM

You didn’t address all possible interpretations of Steve’s post ... fail!

The onus is on Steve; it’s his statement.  And I don’t do interpretations; just ask EN.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
29 September 2014 15:32
 
bbearren - 29 September 2014 12:20 PM
SkepticX - 29 September 2014 09:44 AM

You didn’t address all possible interpretations of Steve’s post ... fail!

The onus is on Steve; it’s his statement.  And I don’t do interpretations; just ask EN.


That’s fine. My point had precisely nothing to do with that. I pointed out the completely ... the non-viable standard you suggested.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
29 September 2014 16:39
 
bbearren - 17 September 2014 08:05 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 02 September 2014 05:40 PM

The problem with true faith, is it cannot possibly be tolerant.

And your proof for such a broad statement is exactly what?  Be specific, to the point, and include all possibilities of personal faith.  Otherwise you should, by your own stated standards, withdraw the statement.

bbearren - 28 September 2014 08:53 PM

You did not “include all possibilities of personal faith”.  You stopped short with only your own definition of faith.  Fail.

SkepticX - 29 September 2014 01:32 PM
bbearren - 29 September 2014 12:20 PM
SkepticX - 29 September 2014 09:44 AM

You didn’t address all possible interpretations of Steve’s post ... fail!

The onus is on Steve; it’s his statement.  And I don’t do interpretations; just ask EN.


That’s fine. My point had precisely nothing to do with that. I pointed out the completely ... the non-viable standard you suggested.

I don’t see completely in my posts.  Steve wrote “cannot possibly”, setting the bar.  I used the term, “all possibilities”, which pretty much echoes “cannot possibly” in scope.

Again, the onus is on Steve, since he suggested the standard, not I.

 
 
SteveMcKerracher
 
Avatar
 
 
SteveMcKerracher
Total Posts:  91
Joined  16-08-2014
 
 
 
01 October 2014 00:10
 
bbearren - 28 September 2014 08:53 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 28 September 2014 08:38 PM
bbearren - 17 September 2014 08:05 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 02 September 2014 05:40 PM

The problem with true faith, is it cannot possibly be tolerant.

And your proof for such a broad statement is exactly what?  Be specific, to the point, and include all possibilities of personal faith.  Otherwise you should, by your own stated standards, withdraw the statement.

Think about it. 

First off, this is a philosophical statement I’m not trying to provide proof of anything.  I can show warrant for my position.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

What is faith?  It is accepting claims of truth without gauging them on the plausibility of their reason and evidence.  Because if you do gauge the truth value of claims using only the plausibility of their reason and evidence, what need have you for faith?

Now, if you believe in a truth claim, by faith, how can you be tolerant of a contrasting truth claim?  Your faith says that contrasting claim is wrong.  And since it is a faith claim, not based on reason or evidence, how can you discuss it rationally?

In the case of Christianity, the faith claims make the issue not just life and death, but eternal suffering vs eternal bliss.  How can you be tolerant if your faith believes the eternal afterlife is on the line? 

Which of course, is an indefensible faith claim written by men with no reason to believe it whatsoever.

You did not “include all possibilities of personal faith”.  You stopped short with only your own definition of faith.  Fail.

I consulted many dictionaries before I wrote these definitions that pertain to the use of Reason and Faith as methodologies.  (As methodologies, I’m not talking all possibilities of personal faith…)

Reason:
Gauging all claims based on the plausibility of the reason and evidence presented, and believing only in direct scale to that plausibility.

Faith:
Believing out of scale with the plausibility of reason and evidence.

If the belief is in scale with the reason and evidence, faith by any definition is not required.


If you don’t agree with the definition, please explain why.  Faith seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, which is why agreeing on the definition of terms is so crucial.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
01 October 2014 00:57
 

You should recognize these.  “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.  For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”  Ephesians 2:8-13

“Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.  Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.  For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.  Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.  Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.” 1 Peter 2:11-17

If one’s “true faith” is that faith comes only as a gift of god’s grace, how then could such a one be intolerant of another whose faith is of himself, who has not yet been given faith from god, but may yet be given such faith at god’s appointed time?

Those are represented in the tenets of a number of small, quiet, peaceful and very tolerant protestant denominations.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21490
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
01 October 2014 01:10
 
bbearren - 30 September 2014 10:57 PM

You should recognize these.  “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.  For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”  Ephesians 2:8-13

“Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.  Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.  For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.  Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.  Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.” 1 Peter 2:11-17

If one’s “true faith” is that faith comes only as a gift of god’s grace, how then could such a one be intolerant of another whose faith is of himself, who has not yet been given faith from god, but may yet be given such faith at god’s appointed time?

Those are represented in the tenets of a number of small, quiet, peaceful and very tolerant protestant denominations.

That’s actually a good point, bb.  Sounds like a Primitive Baptist theology.  I’ve given up trying to figure out where you fit, but the way you deal with the above sounds like something that could be preached in a Primitive Baptist church, a small, quiet, peaceful protestant denomination, whose theology is Calvinistic, but they certainly don’t make a lot of noise.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
02 October 2014 09:53
 
EN - 30 September 2014 11:10 PM

That’s actually a good point

...

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
02 October 2014 13:15
 
EN - 30 September 2014 11:10 PM
bbearren - 30 September 2014 10:57 PM

Those are represented in the tenets of a number of small, quiet, peaceful and very tolerant protestant denominations.

That’s actually a good point, bb.  Sounds like a Primitive Baptist theology.  I’ve given up trying to figure out where you fit, but the way you deal with the above sounds like something that could be preached in a Primitive Baptist church, a small, quiet, peaceful protestant denomination, whose theology is Calvinistic, but they certainly don’t make a lot of noise.

yes, the calvinistic part of christianity of which i was a part of - predestination - God picks.But the Primitive Baptist church i went to had the best 2 and 3 part harmonic singing ever.

 
 
Tim_Jackowicz
 
Avatar
 
 
Tim_Jackowicz
Total Posts:  164
Joined  22-09-2014
 
 
 
02 October 2014 19:47
 
saralynn - 01 September 2014 10:12 PM
GAD - 01 September 2014 09:37 PM
Persuading Others for Eternity - 01 September 2014 09:08 PM

As I read various blogs and posts, I find it interesting that unbelievers are just as evangelical in their approach as believers. If a person who does not believe in God sees merit in convincing others that their belief is misguided or misplaced at best, why do they give believers such a difficult time about their evangelizing as they are motivated to share their belief in a loving, holy, and just God?

The fact that you have to ask the question implies you don’t have the mental capacity to understand any answer.


Because, now and throughout recorded history, people who claim to worship a loving, holy and just God do so many unloving, unholy and unjust deeds. 

Ignore GAD; every Forum has a meanie and he is ours.  We also have a theist meanie, so it all balances out.

That being said, your name is a bit goofy.  You won’t find many atheists who are against eternity. Unless you mean the length of time in which you intend to persuade others….if that is the case, you will have to inform us of that you wish to persuade us.

If “eternity” is a code word for “Heaven”, then, unless you like “spirited” debate, I recommend you leave the premises because I am fairly sure you will be ridiculed.  I don’t say this with ill-will.  I just feel protective of newbies, especially those who choose such hopeful screen names as you did.


I feel compelled to chime in on this one, I haven’t read the entire thread yet but this is just an interesting interaction grin

I’m easily the most vocal person against religion that I know personally, although I don’t hold that same ranking on here as there are those who are more scornful of it than I.  Part of my reason for joining this forum is to fine tune my understanding to a point that I determine what the right thing is and to bounce my opinions off people candidly as a bit of a meter for myself, everyone we talk with should make us consider at least one thing we haven’t considered before regardless of if we agree or not…but that is the entire point of a rational perspective - that our views should be fluid as we gain more information that we previously didn’t have.

My disdain of religion comes from:
- it’s inflexibility to anything outside of it’s own dogma,
- it’s desire to impose it’s rules upon others who hold different views,
- it’s indoctrination of children into a blind faith before they have the capacity to reason for themselves and hold them accountable to those beliefs,
- It’s history of violence and the inherent violence of it’s doctrine
- the hypocrisy with which believers pick and choose from their own beliefs as they see fit
- the lack of personal responsibility (asking forgiveness from an imaginary friend to clear a conscience) associated with much of western religion
- The fact that such a baseless system of beliefs can polarize societies the way it does.
- It rapes he US tax system and has such a large part of it based on greed

If people are good, they are good without religion…regardless of how much they have convinced themselves otherwise. The harm religion does to society EVEN BARRING RADICAL ISLAM from the example far outweighs any true benefit it provides. 

Just my opinion, that and $2.50 will get ya a coffee grin

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
02 October 2014 19:56
 
Tim_Jackowicz - 02 October 2014 05:47 PM
saralynn - 01 September 2014 10:12 PM
GAD - 01 September 2014 09:37 PM
Persuading Others for Eternity - 01 September 2014 09:08 PM

As I read various blogs and posts, I find it interesting that unbelievers are just as evangelical in their approach as believers. If a person who does not believe in God sees merit in convincing others that their belief is misguided or misplaced at best, why do they give believers such a difficult time about their evangelizing as they are motivated to share their belief in a loving, holy, and just God?

The fact that you have to ask the question implies you don’t have the mental capacity to understand any answer.


Because, now and throughout recorded history, people who claim to worship a loving, holy and just God do so many unloving, unholy and unjust deeds. 

Ignore GAD; every Forum has a meanie and he is ours.  We also have a theist meanie, so it all balances out.

That being said, your name is a bit goofy.  You won’t find many atheists who are against eternity. Unless you mean the length of time in which you intend to persuade others….if that is the case, you will have to inform us of that you wish to persuade us.

If “eternity” is a code word for “Heaven”, then, unless you like “spirited” debate, I recommend you leave the premises because I am fairly sure you will be ridiculed.  I don’t say this with ill-will.  I just feel protective of newbies, especially those who choose such hopeful screen names as you did.

 

I feel compelled to chime in on this one, I haven’t read the entire thread yet but this is just an interesting interaction grin

I’m easily the most vocal person against religion that I know personally, although I don’t hold that same ranking on here as there are those who are more scornful of it than I.  Part of my reason for joining this forum is to fine tune my understanding to a point that I determine what the right thing is and to bounce my opinions off people candidly as a bit of a meter for myself, everyone we talk with should make us consider at least one thing we haven’t considered before regardless of if we agree or not…but that is the entire point of a rational perspective - that our views should be fluid as we gain more information that we previously didn’t have.

My disdain of religion comes from:
- it’s inflexibility to anything outside of it’s own dogma,
- it’s desire to impose it’s rules upon others who hold different views,
- it’s indoctrination of children into a blind faith before they have the capacity to reason for themselves and hold them accountable to those beliefs,
- It’s history of violence and the inherent violence of it’s doctrine
- the hypocrisy with which believers pick and choose from their own beliefs as they see fit
- the lack of personal responsibility (asking forgiveness from an imaginary friend to clear a conscience) associated with much of western religion
- The fact that such a baseless system of beliefs can polarize societies the way it does.
- It rapes he US tax system and has such a large part of it based on greed

If people are good, they are good without religion…regardless of how much they have convinced themselves otherwise. The harm religion does to society EVEN BARRING RADICAL ISLAM from the example far outweighs any true benefit it provides. 

Just my opinion, that and $2.50 will get ya a coffee grin

um, Tim,  it costs about fifty cents more than that where i am - but i am so with you on this particular posting

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
02 October 2014 20:06
 
bbearren - 28 September 2014 08:53 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 28 September 2014 08:38 PM
bbearren - 17 September 2014 08:05 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 02 September 2014 05:40 PM

The problem with true faith, is it cannot possibly be tolerant.

And your proof for such a broad statement is exactly what?  Be specific, to the point, and include all possibilities of personal faith.  Otherwise you should, by your own stated standards, withdraw the statement.

Think about it. 

First off, this is a philosophical statement I’m not trying to provide proof of anything.  I can show warrant for my position.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

What is faith?  It is accepting claims of truth without gauging them on the plausibility of their reason and evidence.  Because if you do gauge the truth value of claims using only the plausibility of their reason and evidence, what need have you for faith?

Now, if you believe in a truth claim, by faith, how can you be tolerant of a contrasting truth claim?  Your faith says that contrasting claim is wrong.  And since it is a faith claim, not based on reason or evidence, how can you discuss it rationally?

In the case of Christianity, the faith claims make the issue not just life and death, but eternal suffering vs eternal bliss.  How can you be tolerant if your faith believes the eternal afterlife is on the line? 

Which of course, is an indefensible faith claim written by men with no reason to believe it whatsoever.

You did not “include all possibilities of personal faith”.  You stopped short with only your own definition of faith.  Fail.

jesusfuck bbearren -“all possibilities” every single one? You do remember what socrates informed you of ? ?

how ‘bout all you are thinking of, then give us a crystal ball to see what you’re thinking of.

Post Scriptum: Do please remember that you and i are not always on differenig views, as a matter of fact, i stuck up for you the other day in another thread - someone said that you weren’t fit to sleep with pigs and i said o yes he is - (‘member?)

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
02 October 2014 20:39
 
Gregoryhhh - 02 October 2014 06:06 PM

“all possibilities” every single one?

bbearren - 29 September 2014 02:39 PM
bbearren - 17 September 2014 08:05 PM
SteveMcKerracher - 02 September 2014 05:40 PM

The problem with true faith, is it cannot possibly be tolerant.

And your proof for such a broad statement is exactly what?  Be specific, to the point, and include all possibilities of personal faith.  Otherwise you should, by your own stated standards, withdraw the statement.

bbearren - 28 September 2014 08:53 PM

You did not “include all possibilities of personal faith”.  You stopped short with only your own definition of faith.  Fail.

SkepticX - 29 September 2014 01:32 PM
bbearren - 29 September 2014 12:20 PM
SkepticX - 29 September 2014 09:44 AM

You didn’t address all possible interpretations of Steve’s post ... fail!

The onus is on Steve; it’s his statement.  And I don’t do interpretations; just ask EN.


That’s fine. My point had precisely nothing to do with that. I pointed out the completely ... the non-viable standard you suggested.

I don’t see completely in my posts.  Steve wrote “cannot possibly”, setting the bar.  I used the term, “all possibilities”, which pretty much echoes “cannot possibly” in scope.

Again, the onus is on Steve, since he suggested the standard, not I.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›