Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Opinions on Christianity
View Single Post
Old 06-24-2008, 07:16 PM   #47
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckboy View Post
What I am disputing is the fact that he thinks the point of Job is how evil God is. I am trying to give him a perspective where faith is actually valued since that is probably why the Bible is made. I don't think he is 100% wrong, but he didn't even try to look at our perspective.
Actually, considering how you seemed to use the weasel words of "respect" and "interpretation", I'm not going to bother trying to refute your point about fundamentalism commanding respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckboy View Post
When did I attempt to force you to believe my interpretation. I was giving you an alternative view seeing 99.9% of atheists I meet say how open-minded they are yet they come up with arguments like, "God is evil XD."
Well actually, you seemed to attempt to elucidate an appealing view in order to force readers into adopting it due to their being unable to resist its appeal. Even assuming this is not the case, your question (I assume that's what it was) is irrelevant. Your 'point' just seems to be a variation of the weak 'It's just my opinion' defence oft-used to excuse oneself from actually having to...ya know...back up one's arguments. The rest of this quoted section seems to just be non-sequitur fluff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckboy View Post
I don't have to define right or wrong. This is all I have to tell you.
How can you reasonably expect us to accept your opinions when we can't even know what they are?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckboy View Post
I am a skeptic the way the Greeks invented it. Since no truth can be universal, their is no truth. Not even our own senses we are sure of. This is why a god's existence is not hard for me to except because it is just as probable as this forum having multiple skins.
First, I'd like to note your hypocrisy. You say there is no truth then go on to you are a skeptic and espouse your Christian dogma, contradicting your own variation of 'skepticism'. There's another point: you say you're a skeptic 'the way the Greeks invented it' (probably siding with an old ideology to try and gain your position some credit, as you apparently can't actually [be bothered to] justify it), which is missing what the 'Greek skepticism' you attempt to refer to was about: not taking anything as a universal truth.

However, your hypocrisy doesn't refute your points, so...here I go!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckboy View Post
Prove, using logic, that this forum has multiple templates and retrace your argument as far as you can as to why there are multiple templates. Prove every truth you state to prove this forum has multiple templates. Tell me when you are done.
You gave me tasks to do which you thought were impossible, which wasn't very nice. =) Hopefully you'll forgive me for neglecting to follow these instructions, as I'll agree that your requirement for 'proof' is impossible to fulfil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckboy View Post
See, logic is based on assumptions. Even cognito ergo sum is based on an assumption. It basically says that because I think, I exist, which isn't really enough information to prove someone exists. For instance, "Why does someone thinking prove their own existence?" Why is existence based on thought?
Both your questions can be answered by allowing for existence to be defined in terms of cognition (assuming we can define some things necessary for such definitions), but I see your point (or do I?) that nothing can be proven, and thus that all the knowledge we think we hold is due to assumptions. However, assuming we are wrong, what difference does it make? If the possibilities are believing in reality and not, we obviously pick the former because we only gain and are not adversely affected. In fact, if we choose the latter, we lose our blissful ignorance. If an illusion of something behaves and thus seems exactly like the 'real thing', they are identical and equal and thus indistinguishable. If this reality is just an illusion, then...then what? You showed that we assume certain fundamental views, but didn't actually show why that's a 'bad' thing.

At the end of the day, the kind of argument you presented is possibly the greatest bastardisation of philosophy: attacking existence, philosophy and logic...with philosophy and logic from your existence (I assume =) ).

I've had another thought that can be applied to quite a few of your posts and which is a (somewhat) separate one, so I'll make another post.

How can you prattle on about faith and your beliefs and your 'interpretations' and all the justifications you use for these things (which can be equated with arguments), apparently refuse to justify them (which would surely be necessary when asserting them, as they're not 'fundamental' truths, common values or anything near either) and still think you're actually arguing validly? So far, you pretty much just seem to be stating that it's 'your interpretation' or 'your belief' as if that makes your positions self-evident.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote