Page 31 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2126272829303132 LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 639
  1. #601  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    With this, you once again prove that you have absolutely zero idea what I've been talking about, or are engaging in willful ignorance, perhaps because you have no argument to make, but have a need to argue anyway.
    Someone who uses the Faith excuse at every turn has little argument to make and is definitely engaging in willful ignorance.


    You've run from every challenge you've been presented, while claiming that you've not been challenged, and have demonstrated that in several cases that you haven't even been able to grasp what's been said--instead thinking that it is some justification for religion, when its all really been about your supposed "logic." You've also denied what you actually said, because you can't even maintain consistency in your own statements.
    Because I refused to engage in your silly, irrational dialogue doesn't mean I ran away from a challenge. Asking me to prove thoughts or time exists is not a challenge. It's just a means for you to try to once again equate your blind Faith with my belief in scientific theories. I knew where it was going to go so I decided not to play along.

    Oh and your entire discussion this whole time IS about the justification for your Faith. But I don't expect you to see that.


    Your "logic" (and you have a VERY generous definition of this as applied to your reasoning) is apparently leading you make nonsensical claims like above, and you've clearly demonstrated an inability to break from your preconceived script and respond to what I've actually said, so, you'll excuse me if I don't spend any more time on your so-called "logic."
    You will only be satisfied when I see things your way (which will require me to reject logic), so I agree, what's the point of continuing?
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #602  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Someone who uses the Faith excuse at every turn has little argument to make and is definitely engaging in willful ignorance.

    Because I refused to engage in your silly, irrational dialogue doesn't mean I ran away from a challenge. Asking me to prove thoughts or time exists is not a challenge. It's just a means for you to try to once again to equate your blind Faith with my belief in scientific theories. I knew where it was going to go so I decided not to play along.

    Oh and your entire discussion this whole time IS about the justification for your Faith. But I don't expect you to see that.

    You will only be satisfied when I see things your way (which will require me to reject logic), so I agree, what's the point of continuing?
    Thanks for again confirming you have NO idea what you've been reading.

    KAM
  3. #603  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I can use Google. Thanks. I'd prefer to debate you on those assertions you made. If you can't argue the point, I understand. Just don't pretend you are.
    For starters my time was short, also i'm not sure what you wanted. You said back those claims up, I found and posted a few things, historically, which support what I stated as fact. What did you want me to do, hold your hand through a history lesson? Unless you can dispute any of it, then it is you that are pretending, perhaps based on blind faith. I'm sorry if you can't read through something you don't want the facts on. But it's like the joke I just read.

    how many christians does it take to change a light bulb?


    none, light bulbs aren't in the bible.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #604  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    For starters my time was short, also i'm not sure what you wanted. You said back those claims up, I found and posted a few things, historically, which support what I stated as fact. What did you want me to do, hold your hand through a history lesson? Unless you can dispute any of it, then it is you that are pretending, perhaps based on blind faith. I'm sorry if you can't read through something you don't want the facts on. But it's like the joke I just read.

    how many christians does it take to change a light bulb?


    none, light bulbs aren't in the bible.
    Oh I heard it was "One. But for the message of light to continue, send in your donation today."
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #605  
    how many christians does it take to change a light bulb?


    none, light bulbs aren't in the bible.

    LOL!! Good one
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #606  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    how many christians does it take to change a light bulb?

    none, light bulbs aren't in the bible.
    Aw come on--there has GOT to be a better joke than that. I mean you've got "let there be light" to start with if nothing else.

    How about:
    "Zero, they have faith that God will provide." Or
    "Zero, its God's will." Or

    OR, if you want to get really creative you can get into the footsteps in the sand thing.

    KAM
  7. #607  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You [KAM] will only be satisfied when I see things your way (which will require me to reject logic), so I agree, what's the point of continuing?
    Anyone truly confident of their position would not mind approaching what is said from an opponent's viewpoint. The logic and science you've relied on so far has brought you far, but your conclusion that "miracles" were fabrications can only be taken on "faith". I'm not sure you have tested what's been documented about "miracles" throughout history or in the current day. I think you owe it to yourself (and your future capability to really win ("nail", "stick". and/or "cement" your case)) to continue forward in this discussion as a research project. Not showing this sort of resolve weakens your arguments to other readers (and if your positions are correct, allowing KAM and his ilk to continue weakens society).

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Someone who uses the Faith excuse at every turn has little argument to make and is definitely engaging in willful ignorance.
    I don't consider faith as an "excuse" as much as a philosophical tool you can use to see if it brings you further than not using it. I understand it might feel like "giving up" or "giving in" to you, and that's part of the challenge. If you remain careful, methodical, and scientific in your approach, you'll find that you won't run a risk of getting "sucked in" unless you find reason to do so. The very least this approach will give you will be the capability to see how/why others get sucked in to all this hokus-pokus. Everyone on both sides should be willing to understand the reasoning of others whose opinions/beliefs/conclusions are incongruent with their own. I realize this challenge might seem immense, but given the amount of time you spent in this discussion so far, I see you as a person capable of doing this and coming out stronger in the end.

    Perhaps I'm selfish in wanting to see a reasoned, objective discussion continue, but I'd really like to learn from you and you may be able to prove me and some others wrong. At the very least, we all will win from having practiced and sharpened our reasoning (and interpersonal) skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Oh and your entire discussion this whole time IS about the justification for your Faith. But I don't expect you to see that.
    I think this is a fair point to raise. KAM, I, and others should be willing to modify (even completely turn around) our viewpoints if data proves our current viewpoints are illogical. We all start from a different point and that needs to be acknowledged. Some of us have a "pre-conceived" notion of a God and others think this is hogwash. We might have to live with another not being willing to change in the end, but to me that would only be to admit stubbornness.

    I'm willing to lead portions of the discussion into areas of philosophy and reasons why one might or might not want to believe in a God. I'm not sure how well I'll be able to represent the "not wanting to believe" side, so I'd probably need your (or someone else's help).

    Another approach would be to have KAM and darreno1 to take each other's side in a debate where you each argue for the opposite side of your view. That might be hard to do in practice, but it would be really fun to do in a private discussion. We could have myself and Kenanator each acting as coaches where Kenanator helps KAM and I help darreno1! (I don't expect everyone to agree to this idea, but I think it would be the most effective way to move the discussion forward.) Another approach is to substitute groovy for my role as coach, and I could remain neutral and try to center and focus the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You will only be satisfied when I see things your way (which will require me to reject logic), so I agree, what's the point of continuing?
    To stop is to admit defeat without really giving it a try. I also think this could be a great learning experience for all involved.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #608  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I think this is a fair point to raise. KAM, I, and others should be willing to modify (even completely turn around) our viewpoints if data proves our current viewpoints are illogical. We all start from a different point and that needs to be acknowledged. Some of us have a "pre-conceived" notion of a God and others think this is hogwash. We might have to live with another not being willing to change in the end, but to me that would only be to admit stubbornness.
    Please don't encourage this person in regards to me--I've wasted enough time.

    First, I feel absolutely no need to justify my faith to some random person on the internet. I'm not a big seeker of validation. Second, I didn't use my faith in place of reasoning for any of my points, and really only mentioned it in passing, which SHOULD be clear, given that my entire premise is that you cannot logically prove or disprove religion. Suffice it to say--this person was unwilling or unable to follow what I was saying and because of that imagined something else so they could keep talking.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Another approach would be to have KAM and darreno1 to take each other's side in a debate where you each argue for the opposite side of your view.
    That would require this person to understand what my position even was, and I believe it has been demonstrated that is not the case. Based on the responses (if you can refer to something highly detatched from what I said as a "response") there wasn't even a base level of comprehension, let alone understanding. You are going to a dry well I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    To stop is to admit defeat without really giving it a try. I also think this could be a great learning experience for all involved.
    You are a very optimistic person I think.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 02/16/2010 at 01:33 PM.
  9. #609  
    man I wish I had more than my pre right now.
  10. #610  
    trying to argue that logic doesn't go against the existence of god is defensive at best. You have done nothing to even scrape at evidence that god exists. If you at least read what i've posted, you'll see that what you believe in as christianty isn't right to begin with. Historical evidence proves that. If gods word and the bible are absolute, than how is it that man was allowed to alter the original holy word and teachings, to the degree which they have?
  11. #611  
    How can you say any of this when we all well know that Ninjas don't believe in God.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    trying to argue that logic doesn't go against the existence of god is defensive at best. You have done nothing to even scrape at evidence that god exists. If you at least read what i've posted, you'll see that what you believe in as christianty isn't right to begin with. Historical evidence proves that. If gods word and the bible are absolute, than how is it that man was allowed to alter the original holy word and teachings, to the degree which they have?
    Additionally....whether she believes in God, is a Republican, Democrat or a Independent, Mrs Palin is bat s-h-i-t crazy.
  12. #612  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    trying to argue that logic doesn't go against the existence of god is defensive at best. You have done nothing to even scrape at evidence that god exists. If you at least read what i've posted, you'll see that what you believe in as christianty isn't right to begin with. Historical evidence proves that. If gods word and the bible are absolute, than how is it that man was allowed to alter the original holy word and teachings, to the degree which they have?
    I may have to review your posts. I would not want to limit "religion from being illogical" based on a belief that "Christianity is illogical". You are correct that one can't conclude with 100% certainty whether a God does or does not exist. I'd argue though, with enough diligence, once can apply logic to weigh a set of evidence in such a way as to draw their own conclusions.

    So far (in this thread), I did not see the argument for even why "Christianity is illogical" to be well presented. Someone (I can't remember if it was you or someone else) took a series of "pot shots" against my arguments in support of a Catholic Christian understanding. I responded but nothing I said was further discussed or challenged (or at least nothing that I said was quoted or directly responded to). It probably wouldn't be fair for me to argue only from a Catholic viewpoint (as many here may subscribe to other religions). I'm happy to defend my own faith in terms of the logic I used to get where I am, and I can try to defend other faiths (in terms of how I might understand their logic and beliefs). For instance: If one does not accept the New Testament and Jesus as the Son of God, one should then look back to Judaism and see whether or not they can find logic in those beliefs. Not all religions base their beliefs on the Bible, so you might find a religion that accepts only parts of the Bible (or some other book) that you do find believable or useful. You might have already gone down this road (and I'm willing to assume most serious agnostics and/or atheists have). The idea of revisiting and reviewing your previous conclusions might seem counterproductive. I respect this, but I've concluded (at least for myself) that logic tells me a God is possible (and more probable than there not being a God). This is why I believe logic can be applied to why a person or group of people may draw this same conclusion. I don't think KAM was persuasive in identifying logical reasons for believing in a God. I might not do much better, but I'm willing to lead a discussion that explores this. I don't think this is the sort of thing we'll answer quickly, but I'll do my best to provide support while also carefully listening and trying to understand viewpoints that differ from my own.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #613  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    How can you say any of this when we all well know that Ninjas don't believe in God.

    Additionally....whether she believes in God, is a Republican, Democrat or a Independent, Mrs Palin is bat s-h-i-t crazy.
    AWWWW, you said a Bad Word! (Sort of).

    KAM
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #614  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I don't think KAM was persuasive in identifying logical reasons for believing in a God.
    What in anything I said gives you the impression that this was my goal?

    Given that I didn't even attempt that, it would be natural that I didn't succeed (in doing something I didn't attempt).

    KAM
  15. #615  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    If gods word and the bible are absolute, than how is it that man was allowed to alter the original holy word and teachings, to the degree which they have?
    This is going to require some "Bible study" (and research on my part to provide some initial information, as well as answering your specific comments and questions). Let's start by selecting what we're willing to call "God's word". I'd suggest we include both the OT and NT of the Bible and try to exclude the 7 OT books that Catholics have declared as canonical but Protestant variants of Christianity reject. We should also be willing to look at historical documents as well as books or statements of belief from various religions as pertinent. We're likely also going to want to see what philosophy has said from time to time.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    ...how is it that man was allowed to alter the original holy word and teachings, to the degree which they have?
    You need to define what these "original holy word and teachings" were. Then we have to see if/how/why they were altered.

    Your ball (if you choose to accept the challenge).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #616  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    What in anything I said gives you the impression that this was my goal?

    Given that I didn't even attempt that, it would be natural that I didn't succeed (in doing something I didn't attempt).

    KAM
    Fair enough. I don't think I said whether or not this was a goal of yours, just that this is an area that you didn't follow or argue (for whatever reason).

    Thanks for the clarification.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  17. #617  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    AWWWW, you said a Bad Word! (Sort of).
    KAM
    I was going to go with sensor safe excrement but it just didn't have the same ring to it.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #618  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    I was going to go with sensor safe excrement but it just didn't have the same ring to it.
    That's true. 'Bat-Excrement crazy' doesn't have that much zing.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #619  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Fair enough. I don't think I said whether or not this was a goal of yours, just that this is an area that you didn't follow or argue (for whatever reason).

    Thanks for the clarification.
    Always happy to clarify. It is why I'm so popular and well liked.

    It seems when you say "KAM wasn't Persuasive..." that implies that I was attempting to persuade someone in regards to that subject. Rather, I was merely pointing out the fallacy that many people cling to--usually during an attempt to point out how "logical" they are.

    In some cases, it doesn't amount to more than declarations devoid of any sort of logical reasoning. I've witnessed this sort of "reasoning" since about 6th grade, and often it doesn't progress beyond that level.

    KAM
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #620  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    You need to define what these "original holy word and teachings" were. Then we have to see if/how/why they were altered.

    Your ball (if you choose to accept the challenge).
    You might first want to establish how the New Testament was established in the first place. There seem to be various conspiracy theories (thanks Dan Brown) floating around out there, and chasing that around for weeks probably isn't something you will want to do.

    AND, if you have participants, you might also want to start a fresh thread with a proper topic heading.

    KAM

Posting Permissions