Blind Faith - Page 3

He made an assumption and attempted to use that assumption as validity. This entire time I have tried to get him to discuss this and he has refused.

Im not being an ass hole by telling someone how I trully feeling about their thought patterns. If I find them not worth respecting, I feel it is only fair to tell them.

"1. Pegged Manbible as being angry.
2. Pegged him as being weary in faith.
3. Pegged him as a profiler. "

He IS all of these things.

"4. Gave him an if/then scenario in which you said you wouldn't learn from him if he didn't change his stance"

Never said I wouldnt learn from him, but that I would lose respect for his ability to remain rational.

"5. Condescended to give some spoonfed definition of faith to him"

The entire point of this thread is to discuss my definition of faith. Was I not supposed to defend it?

"6. Pegged HIM as the aggressor, while YOU were, in fact, the one with aggression."

I did do this. But I see in him many passive agressive tactics that I have come in contact with countless times. Was I supposed to ignore this out of respect?

Btw, he told me in a personal PM that when he entered the conversation he had no intention what so ever of changing his view on faith from the start.

Why exactly then would he be entering the conversation if not for some agressive porous?

7. Pigeonholed him into the "all theists" category

Not true. I specifically said to him that although he may have chosen to educate himself, a lot of theists dont.

8. Gave him another, even bigger, if then scenario.

Am I not supposed to use scenarios?

And I didn;t mock his beliefs just because I expressed how I feel they are irrational. I didnt call him a single name this entire time.

What brought about me being agressive was me wanting to hash a lot of problems in him I saw.

I hold no value in being right or wrong here...

What ever, this isnt working

I'll tell you that Im very open to have been the bad guy here. I do it all the time on this forum. And I always miss it, but I really dont see how me being frank, up front and unwilling to hear irrational illogical fear based emotion as a good conversation makes me a bad guy.

AW,

I also told you in that pms that you should give me a reason to consider changing. That was the original challenge. Then you bombarded my mail box while blocking me from responding. Typical agenda driven atheism is to omit damaging facts from a debate on purpose.

I only wish that you didn't turn this into a pissing match. Perhaps we could have all learned something...

Maybe it's not too late, or maybe it is. Who knows.

WHAT?!?! Your deleted the message man, mines still fucking there.

How did I turn this into a pissing contest by disagreeing? Its a fucking debate forum!

And if you can't understand that no one has to prove to you they are worth listening to, and that entering a conversation with this mentality is OBVIOUSLY agressive and close minded then.... why am I talking to you?

quote:

---

And this is what irritates me about it. If you know anything at all about history you know that it is a pretty unreliable scource. First of all, history is written by the winner's of the dispute, and everybody wants to be the winner. Secondly, politics have always used religion as a tool to persuade large groups of people into thinking likely as to push agenda, almost always designed for the personal gain of the poloticians themselves, and not the people they govern.

---

quote:

---

You are not discussing MY points. This is MY thread. These are MY ideas under scurtiny. If you are going to try to prove me wrong, at lesat try to prove my IDEAS wrong. This doesn't have anything to do with history. Your just clinding on to it to avoid my point.

---

quote:

---

And I always miss it, but I really dont see how me being frank, up front and unwilling to hear irrational illogical fear based emotion as a good conversation makes me a bad guy.

---

The first quote is from your first post.
The second is after the discussion progressed a bit.
The last is an assessment from you as you try to figure out why the discussion turned sour.

Perhaps the answer lies within?

You've been taking me out of context from the beggining.

You have been incredibly irrational and I don't trust you for anything.

You hung onto an example of mine as to why faith can be blind, and used an argument against that example as a way to ignore every other example, and the point of the conversation.

Many times you have expressed to me that you are hurt because you believe i am trying to disprove god, and many times you have ignored that that is not what this conversation is about.

Like I said in that second qoute. You clung to the first qoute to ugnore the topic of the conversation, because you felt attacked by me simply posing the problem with faith to begin with.

quote:

---

And I always miss it...

---

Says it all.

I can dismantle any argument you present. And show that faith isn't blind just because one can't scientifically prove the object of faith. But first you must acknowledge that you were wrong about history because you dismissed it when you believed doing so enhanced your position that all theist have blind faith and then invoked parts of it when you thought it saved your argument...with the caveman myth about them only having sticks and hallucinations. And that being all we know of them.

And will you acknowledge the countless other points you have ignored?

"This is what you said. "The truth is
from before the time of religion primitive man has looked into the sky and concluded upon observing nature that it must be the wondorous works of a supreme being, a creator."

My whole argument against you, and my claim of your personal blind faith all lies with in this one statement. You said before religion, meaning at lease 4 or 5 thousand B.C. You said "concluded" meaning that you believe they made some sort of study, in 5 thousand B.C., that you found to be a reliable scource of godly evidence. You then used the phrase "it must be", which in of itself litterally means, I do not know so I am assuming. Then you said that they determined that a creator designed these things, because they had no fucking idea how they got their, in 5 thousand B.C. Because when they looked at the clouds, they had no idea that they were just water vapor. When they looked at the night time sky, that had no idea that it was the atmosphere distorting the color. They thought it was magic. They litterally did. They believed in magic. They had no idea that the plants aren't just growing out of thin air with out anything to eat but dirt. They didn't know that they used the sun as their main scource of nutrition. When they looked at massive canyons and rivers in the land that they were create by, yes, hundreds of thousands of years of the earth slowing moving deep beneath the surface cause cracks in the land. They thought a really big "thing" put it there.

So, based off of this "conclusion" they made, you can see that they had no clue what was going on. And their assumption, cause thats what it was, not a conclusion, was soley based off of their inability to SEE what was actually happening in the world.

Then you go and claim their assumption as a valid, insightful, reason to put faith in god. Can't you see they were blind as hell? Can't you see that taking a blind mans word for it is becoming blind yourself? "

Will you adress any of these points? Or continure to cling to a mistake of mine in order to ignore me?

"I can dismantle any argument you present"

Presumptious agressive and closeminded.

You do not deserve my time.

quote:

---

Will you adress any of these points? Or continure to cling to a mistake of mine in order to ignore me?

---

Now we can move on since you admitted your error.

I made no such claim as you describe. My faith never hinged on what the ancients believed or disbelieved. My statement that you take such issue with was inspired by your erroneous statements about history. Though to your credit the kinds of rewritten histories you have issues with did happen to some extent. They just weren't near as successful at doing so as you believe.

Yes, I said before religion and used the term "concluded" in the context that they observed and passed their observations on from one generation to the next. This could only be done by word of mouth until the first forms of written communications could be invented and established. And yes, the form of observation and prediction they used like realizing the rising of the sun always appeared in a certain part of the sky are primitive forms of scientific study. Obviously early on they believed that kind of 'order' was vindictive of a signature of intelligence and mistakenly thought the sun was "GOD." And yes as you said too, they ignorantly thought 'magic' was used. We can know this because of what was passed on by word of mouth would be revealed in a future point in their histories as the ability to write their beliefs became actualized. We know that "word of mouth" passing on of information took place because there is no point in all of known history that it didn't. And later records would show that it did. We are social creatures. Even in this modern era today 'word of mouth' is the best advertisement one can have.

And as you correctly pointed out the first forms of it was used for practical purposes like ledgers first and then as communication by writing progressed the first educational and doctrinal types of texts started appearing. But can you see that all this is just a small piece of information and not even close to being entirely what my faith is based on? And that there is a lot of thought behind my faith as a theist as opposed to your aggressive stance that all theists blindly believe?

quote:

---

Presumptious agressive and closeminded.

You do not deserve my time.

---

For someone who is so concerned about others believing "no one has to prove to you they are worth listening to" you seem quite willing to dismiss others who disagree with you.

Oh, I didn't mean to leave this out. "it must be" in the context of my statement was just an inference relating to their conclusions of observed natural facts. Why would you isolate that phrase out of context and try and build the case that it was a blind "assumption" and I saw that same blind "assumption" as insightful? You said that statement was the whole issue you had with me so it's only fair you address these things in light of my clarifications in these last two posts.