Fuddam, A Few Moments Of Your Time Please.

[G4Z]

Muslim. But what difference does that make? We are all born into a context, and NO-ONE is born a Christian. Why? Because a Christian is someone who has consciously and rationally made the decision for Christ.

It's clear from this thread and pretty most of the other threads that mention Christianity that atheists et al assume anyone who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian, that going to church makes a person a Christian. Bollocks. If there's one thing I've harped on about, it's that Christianity is about a relationship with Christ. If one doesn't have that, can't be a Christian. Sorry.

Oh, and don't anyone toss your toys out of the cot for me using the word 'rationally'. It will just show you up for being a reactionary.

You are dodging the question yet again so I can see why he might imply you are dishonest. I am sure I have seen you answer this one before and IIRC you said that if you were born in a muslim country you would be a christian anyway. Flying in the face of the reality of the world around you and ironically ignoring the fact that you are a shining example of this yourself. You were brought up in a christian family and surprise, surprise, your a christian. What... a... shocker.

[Blitzen]

You haven't experienced Christ, so reject His existence in totum. If you do experience it, no doubt you'd immediately reverse your position, but the problem is, right now you reject anyone else's claims too. Sad.

and neither have you. YOur imagination tells you that you have and thats all.
Can you not see how 'deep south' you are sounding?

Basically.......from what you are constantly droning on about, you fall into 1 of 2 categories.

Category 1:


OR

Category 2


Personally i would rather take my chances in damnation with the devil himself if heaven is full of happy clappy trambourine bashing crackpots such as yourself!

[iranu]

Okay, you couldn't find any pictures. That could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. However, I made a mistake, and you are making it too. Like Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and anyone, within each set of beliefs and ideals there are differences.

I will concede the point, as I cannot argue against your faith in your beliefs, even if that faith is that you don't have belief in God or Gods.

My atheism/agnostic was mixed up, and for that I also apologise. I should have been more clear and actually made it sound like I knew what I was talking about. However, I am interested how you can doubt the existance of a god you don't believe in... Surely you can be one or the other.

I shall have to think about that more. I think it might come to me how others percieve it.



Okay. You lost me here. Firstly you say and now you are saying that Atheism IS a belief. So which is it? I can't get it when you are using paradoxes across paragraphs.

Unless, of course, you meant that Atheists don't believe in gods, but they do have other beliefs. However, any beliefs whatsoever mean that Atheism is a faith, even if you can provide evidence for those beliefs... so tell me; is atheism a faith - as I said - or not - as you said?



Correct meaning?


Atheism:The doctrine or belief that there is no God
Agnostic: The belief that you do not know if there is a God or not.
Philosophy:Any personal belief about how you live your life.

Any other words?

Oh - and I said Atheism was a lack of belief, which IN CONTEXT, related to gods, meaning that Atheism was a lack of belief in Gods, or rather, a belief that God does not exist.

Of course, I'm sure you knew this.


EDIT: Just realised I made another mistake in my typing. Forgot a word. Now edited.

I see that you are trying to understand so I'll apologise if I was blunt before, it is very frustrating to continually repeat a point time and time again and my patience ran thin, however, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt so to speak.

Please note that when I refer to the word god I am meaning a generic, non-specific god and not a Christian/Muslim/Polynesian one. This is often the cause of the misunderstanding because obviously the theist will automatically assume that the atheist is, when talking about god, talking about the god the theist believes in. It's important to distinguish which god one is talking about first.

There is a subtle difference between lacking belief in a god and believing that god does not exist when talking about a generic god. Most atheists will say they have a lack of belief because they have no knowledge of a god(s). The "a" is translated as "without" so without knowledge = agnosticism, without belief = atheism. That's weak atheism but weak atheism can also be split.

For example, a new born baby doesn't have any knowledge of a god and therefore cannot believe in it. Therefore by definition they are agnostic atheists, however, they have not consciously decided that position so they are implicit. By contrast, I am an explicit weak atheist, that is I have consciously reached the
position. We are both weak atheists it's just I've thought about it and the baby has not. This distinction is not normally made because anyone discussing the subject is obviously concious, well mostly!

Atheists therefore cannot say that a generic god does not exist. Anti-theism would be against god.


With reference to the Christian god I can say that I don't have a belief in it, because I don't believe it exists. The reason I don't believe it exists is because logically it can't. eg; as soon as any of the "omni" properties are assigned then we run into problems, the bible contradicts itself in some parts (obviously this is open to opinion) and it's scientifically inaccurate. That is strong atheism. I personally don't see any evidence for it either. We have to be careful with strong atheism because it's also used when looking at probabilities of the existence of a generic god too. I personally can't see how you can make the statement "there is no generic god" on a balance of probabilities but there you go some people do. That is a subset.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implici...plicit_atheism

It's important to agree which god one is talking about before a position can be taken. For example Fuddam is an <insert type> atheist..... but only with respect to a non-Christian god(s). So yes I can see how the confusion can occur. Does that help?

Atheism is not a faith because normally atheists would define faith as; belief without evidence. We can't have a faith because we lack the belief in the first place.

Collecting stamps is a hobby. Not collecting stamps is nothing, it's passive. There is no positive to assign it, one can't say that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

[TeePee]

If you are only studying the natural, why does that exclude the existence of the supernatural? Or even simpler, your logic excludes the existence of love, of desire, of hate, of fear. One see the effects of love/hate/pain etc, but one cannot measure love, see it, touch it, taste it, PROVE it. Strange, that.

*You* allow no room for the supernatural. That does not mean it doesn't exist. Billions of people would disagree with you, but of course you simply dismiss them as gullible/stupid/ignorant/crazy.

Unfortunately, you
1) won't admit evidence outside your paradigm and
2) aren't prepared to look for it.

another grand statement. without any proof / foundation, and of course tautologous, since you won't admit that there is anything supernatural.

You haven't experienced Christ, so reject His existence in totum. If you do experience it, no doubt you'd immediately reverse your position, but the problem is, right now you reject anyone else's claims too. Sad.

Firstly fuddam, congratulations or repeating your word of the day 'Paradigm' so many times.

The emotions you list aren't supernatural at all, they, like morality, are entirely natural processes with good reasons and explanations.

Surely you wouldn't say that the large number of people who follow Islam don't make Mohammed real?

I've considered the single shred of evidence you've offered objectively. Do you have any more? Again, you're the one with the ridiculous claims, it's up to you to provide the evidence. That's tautologous!

You haven't 'experienced' Mohammed so you reject him.

Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. 'If you experienced christ you'd change your mind'? Seriously? That's the best you can do?

[Stewart]

Fuddam, before we let the thread die (it served its purpose I think ), and appologies if you've already said someone in the wastes of this thread, but are you a Young Earth Creationist?

[fuddam]

You are dodging the question yet again so I can see why he might imply you are dishonest. I am sure I have seen you answer this one before and IIRC you said that if you were born in a muslim country you would be a christian anyway. Flying in the face of the reality of the world around you and ironically ignoring the fact that you are a shining example of this yourself. You were brought up in a christian family and surprise, surprise, your a christian. What... a... shocker.

read what I wrote. sigh.

[fuddam]

and neither have you. YOur imagination tells you that you have and thats all.
Can you not see how 'deep south' you are sounding?

you are very arrogant to rell me what I have experienced. I expect no less. fascist.

[fuddam]

Atheism is not a faith because normally atheists would define faith as; belief without evidence. We can't have a faith because we lack the belief in the first place.

Collecting stamps is a hobby. Not collecting stamps is nothing, it's passive. There is no positive to assign it, one can't say that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

We can separate atheism into weak or strong varieties, but let's get down to the nitty gritty: if someone walks around claiming to be an atheist, it's a pretty safe description to say they don't believe in a god/s.

that belief rests on the *faith* that their foundation is correct, whether that foundation is naturalism, or some other 'ism, or simply that their faculties are intact. No-one has proof of it being correct.

etc.

[fuddam]

Firstly fuddam, congratulations or repeating your word of the day 'Paradigm' so many times.

yes, I'm quote proud of that. It was appropriate and useful, AND I got points on the PUSB.

The emotions you list aren't supernatural at all, they, like morality, are entirely natural processes with good reasons and explanations.

never said or implied they were supernatural. You missed my point.

Surely you wouldn't say that the large number of people who follow Islam don't make Mohammed real?

Sigh. Mohammad was a man who lived a while ago. A man. He didn't claim to be God or a god. No-one has ever claimed he was a supernatural being, or that he was anything other than a man. So your following statement "You haven't 'experienced' Mohammed so you reject him." illustrates how confused you are.

Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. 'If you experienced christ you'd change your mind'? Seriously? That's the best you can do?

lol. The same old confusion again: I have not tried to PROVE God's existence. Read the entire thread again if you want, and show to me where I have done that. Instead, I have emphasised the relationship base of Christianity. Without that relationship, one is simply practising some traditions religiously.

And in order to have that relationship requires first of all a sincere search for Him, and secondly repentance and humility. And thirdly, communication. You are stuck on your side of the fence, and until you experience Him for yourself, you cannot get to my side of the fence. CS Lewis went walking with his brother to the zoo, and he started the walk not a Christian, and arrived at the zoo believing in God. Do you seriously think he suddenly abandoned all his reasoning, his logic, his former atheist enthusiasm because he simply capitulated? He was very seriously atheist earlier in his life.

that's why I can easily state to become a Christian does NOT involve blind faith. It involves rational thinking. A Christian EXPERIENCES Christ for him/herself, and cannot deny that experience. It is a supernatural event.

The Christian has EVIDENCE to base his/her belief on, and you reject that evidence because you claim its hallucination. You can make all the noise you want, but in simply dissing other people's experiences, you show how shallow your argument is. And there is plenty of other evidence to illustrate God's intervention in people's lives, but again you revert to your naturalism. Why? Because your paradigm (see, I used that word again) does not permit you any other explanation. Pity, that.

[fuddam]

Fuddam, before we let the thread die (it served its purpose I think ), and apologies if you've already said someone in the wastes of this thread, but are you a Young Earth Creationist?

nope.

[iranu]

We can separate atheism into weak or strong varieties, but let's get down to the nitty gritty: if someone walks around claiming to be an atheist, it's a pretty safe description to say they don't believe in a god/s.

that belief rests on the *faith* that their foundation is correct, whether that foundation is naturalism, or some other 'ism, or simply that their faculties are intact. No-one has proof of it being correct.

etc.

The problem with this argument is that it leads you to the conclusion that the positions are equal, they are not. eg; do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorns or Pixies/Fairies/Santa Claus? Most people will say of course not, but then you have to ask the question why? Most people will say don't be silly, there's no evidence and they are made up. There is absolutely no difference between them and a god. Once again, the onus is on the positive claimant and extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

Secondly you are twisting the definition of faith that I have given you. Faith is belief without proof, you cannot equate a lack of faith based on no evidence and faith based on no evidence. If you have the evidence then once again we challenge you to provide it. Your argument would fall flat in a court of law. I can imagine the scenario now, in fact lets turn it on it's head to show how silly your argument regarding evidence is.

The State V Mr Fuddum

Judge: Mr Fuddam, you are charged with the crime of murder. How do you plead?
Mr Fuddam: Not guilty your Honour.
Judge: Very well. Council for the prosecution, you may start.
Plaintiff: We have evidence that the defendant committed this heinous crime your Honour, however, we will not present this evidence because we think the it will be dismissed, we therefore intend to prosecute purely on the basis of faith. We know the truth and we know he did it.
Judge: Anything else?
Plaintiff: No, your Honour.
Judge: The defence if you please.
Defence: Your Honour, we have no evidence to the contrary, however, we will point out that the prosecution has no evidence either.
Judge: Mmmn, most strange. Well let's let the jury decide. (30 seconds later)
Mr Foreman: We find the defendant guilty your Honour.
Judge: Very well. Mr Fuddam you have been found guilty of murder. You shall be hanged by the neck until dead.

Secondly - let's look at the punishment through the collective responsibility you believe in as per and in response to these posts.


http://forums.hexus.net/1483420-post223.html - Fuddam - Second paragraph.

http://forums.hexus.net/1484050-post237.html - iranu - Second paragraph in response.

http://forums.hexus.net/1484120-post243.html - Fuddam - First paragraph in response to #237

Judge: As well as this we shall also hang Mr Fuddam's children, and his wife because they share a collective responsibility just as mankind does for the transgression by Eve. What's more just like Eve there will be no right of appeal, this court's judgement is final. Further more, all of Mr Fuddam's other relatives and his friends will also be required to pay an additional 5&#37; taxation. We will not stop there, all the descendants of such people will also pay 5% extra taxation for this crime as will their descendants and their descendants in perpetuity for they are all stained with sin because of Mr Fuddam's transgression.

I'll let people decide for themselves whether they consider this fair.

[G4Z]

read what I wrote. sigh.

I read it and quoted it, come up with a better response to my point that you are a shining example of becoming a Christian due to early indoctrination or just don't bother at all.

[TeePee]

yes, I'm quote proud of that. It was appropriate and useful, AND I got points on the PUSB.

never said or implied they were supernatural. You missed my point.

Sigh. Mohammad was a man who lived a while ago. A man. He didn't claim to be God or a god. No-one has ever claimed he was a supernatural being, or that he was anything other than a man. So your following statement "You haven't 'experienced' Mohammed so you reject him." illustrates how confused you are.


lol. The same old confusion again: I have not tried to PROVE God's existence. Read the entire thread again if you want, and show to me where I have done that. Instead, I have emphasised the relationship base of Christianity. Without that relationship, one is simply practising some traditions religiously.

And in order to have that relationship requires first of all a sincere search for Him, and secondly repentance and humility. And thirdly, communication. You are stuck on your side of the fence, and until you experience Him for yourself, you cannot get to my side of the fence. CS Lewis went walking with his brother to the zoo, and he started the walk not a Christian, and arrived at the zoo believing in God. Do you seriously think he suddenly abandoned all his reasoning, his logic, his former atheist enthusiasm because he simply capitulated? He was very seriously atheist earlier in his life.

that's why I can easily state to become a Christian does NOT involve blind faith. It involves rational thinking. A Christian EXPERIENCES Christ for him/herself, and cannot deny that experience. It is a supernatural event.

The Christian has EVIDENCE to base his/her belief on, and you reject that evidence because you claim its hallucination. You can make all the noise you want, but in simply dissing other people's experiences, you show how shallow your argument is. And there is plenty of other evidence to illustrate God's intervention in people's lives, but again you revert to your naturalism. Why? Because your paradigm (see, I used that word again) does not permit you any other explanation. Pity, that.

Once again you miss the point.

Once again you say 'plenty of evidence' and show none. You seem to think a christians experience is evidence, ignoring the fact that people in other religions all have the same 'evidence' of their own god or gods. Evidence is the wrong word, because it isn't objective.

My paradigm is simply evidence, logic and reason, which is obviously superior to a mindset based on faith, magic and ignorance. Let's use better language and change your last paragraph to: 'I don't believe what the brainwashed say, because evidence, logic and reason have a better explanation.'

You're a smart guy fuddam, why don't you apply some of that intelligence and critical thinking to your religion? Are you smart enough to rise above the indoctrination of your childhood?

[yamangman]

So the vast vast vast vast majority of people don't actually know God exists - even among Christians, except you. That rather skews any weight behind the argument (the 'x many millions of people can't all be wrong' argument) to the left slightly. Not that it is an argument in the first place of course. Such a phenomena can be explained reasonably rationally.

P.S. Rational - having its source in or being guided by the intellect (as distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis" - just FYI in case you haven't come across that one.

Cheers

yes, I'm quote proud of that. It was appropriate and useful, AND I got points on the PUSB.

never said or implied they were supernatural. You missed my point.

Sigh. Mohammad was a man who lived a while ago. A man. He didn't claim to be God or a god. No-one has ever claimed he was a supernatural being, or that he was anything other than a man. So your following statement "You haven't 'experienced' Mohammed so you reject him." illustrates how confused you are.


lol. The same old confusion again: I have not tried to PROVE God's existence. Read the entire thread again if you want, and show to me where I have done that. Instead, I have emphasised the relationship base of Christianity. Without that relationship, one is simply practising some traditions religiously.

And in order to have that relationship requires first of all a sincere search for Him, and secondly repentance and humility. And thirdly, communication. You are stuck on your side of the fence, and until you experience Him for yourself, you cannot get to my side of the fence. CS Lewis went walking with his brother to the zoo, and he started the walk not a Christian, and arrived at the zoo believing in God. Do you seriously think he suddenly abandoned all his reasoning, his logic, his former atheist enthusiasm because he simply capitulated? He was very seriously atheist earlier in his life.

that's why I can easily state to become a Christian does NOT involve blind faith. It involves rational thinking. A Christian EXPERIENCES Christ for him/herself, and cannot deny that experience. It is a supernatural event.

The Christian has EVIDENCE to base his/her belief on, and you reject that evidence because you claim its hallucination. You can make all the noise you want, but in simply dissing other people's experiences, you show how shallow your argument is. And there is plenty of other evidence to illustrate God's intervention in people's lives, but again you revert to your naturalism. Why? Because your paradigm (see, I used that word again) does not permit you any other explanation. Pity, that.

[schmunk]

You're a smart guy fuddam, why don't you apply some of that intelligence and critical thinking to your religion? Are you smart enough to rise above the indoctrination of your childhood?

To be fair, I think he's already stated (or implied, at least) that he's rejected the indoctrination of his childhood and re-found his own faith. 'Born again', and all that...

I do agree with fuddam (and others earlier, IIRC) that there is no such thing as a Christian child, only a child of Christian parents. (replace Christian with the religion of your choice, of course)