Faith without any reason vs Faith without any evidence (Baptists, Freemasons, teaching)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You are pathetic, old mate. The debunking has been done, and noted and so has your denial of it, and putting, (tediously) the same debunked old arguments again and again. You are the one with a deep Psychological need for denying that you are ever wrong because you have invested Faith in your own beliefs. And you prop this up by denying that you have been shown wrong or at least without a sound case, repeatedly, and you try to force this belief of yours by denial, deprecation, and dishonesty.

All you have ever been able to engage with intellectually are my BELIEFS because I have adopted the Christian narrative as an overlay for my scientific hypotheses. You have never and simply cannot grasp anything about my Synthesis because the concepts are beyond your knowledge base. So any claims of debunking me or even recognizing someone else debunking me are patently absurd. That is the definition of pathetic, my old friend.

This is something that You cannot grasp, Mystic. What Science can tell us about Reality is not affected in the least by not knowing what it is as base. It is looking like some kind of nothing with the potential to act as something. The nature of the Big bang Event suggests this. The solution to Infinite regression requires this. But we don't know. Neither does anyone.

But that "nothing with the potential to act as something" is responsible for the existence of our entire reality (that is NOT nothing!). It is responsible for all the laws and processes that operate our reality (that is NOT nothing!). It is responsible for life and consciousness including the ability to contemplate and discover its processes and laws (that is NOT nothing!). I believe it is God you believe it is not. Neither of us have any basis for deciding that question unequivocally.

So it leaves you in the same place. Except that you pop "God" in there. The fundamental illogic of all Theism. Using unknowns as some kind of evidence.

Yes, we are in the same place and my popping God belief into it is no different than popping your "no God" belief into it. But when you try to make YOUR belief an unwarranted claim by presumption that is way beyond presumptuous!

At least you see that Philosophy goes on the basis of what science knows to speculate about what might be. I remember (if you don't) that I have said this from the start: Philosophy can suggest ideas that Science might prove, though come to think of it The Big Bang, Black holes, Quantum, the Higgs -Boson and the Holographic universe have all been found by science and Philosophy contributed nothing. Even the discussions on qualia seem to founder because Philosophy seemed unable to grasp some basics of what we Do know about the mind, the limitations of perception and how we counter that, the nature of light, and instead seemed to go off into rabbit-holes of Philosophic rules that led to error.

You simply do not even know what you don't know about the issues in philosophy so it is pointless to pretend there is any chance you will understand what the issues ACTUALLY are.

That's the benefit of 'concrete thinking'; it keeps one's feet on the ground and prevents the mind from floating off into the blue, as yours has done.

They do say ignorance is bliss!

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You know, folks, while I'm fine with puncturing bubbles, I would much rather discuss with amicable agreement, with my (our) understanding of what they believe and why, and their understanding of it being Faith and accepting that, and ceasing to batter us because we show that faith is not a sound reason..but it's Their reason.

If they just accepted that and our reasons for not accepting, we really could discuss amicably. But it is just too Personal for them. And there is the agenda. It really wouldn't hurt them if America was secular humanist and not allowing this mix of politics and religion. But they see the drive for a society Not dominated by religion as a threat. They cannot help but hate us.

If they could see that we are doing what is in their real interest - their religious freedom to choose just how much Christianity they do, and how much of it they believe (because the Ted Cruze Christian Sharya law would not give them the option) they would see that our interests are really the same.

But the prejudice is hard to break through - faith, fighting for their religion, and a hatred of the very name 'atheist'. It's hard to break. So we have to stick with trusting in the rise of irreligious, who may yet simply come to dominate and the prejudice will melt away.

But wasn’t America founded by those who were mostly Christians? They could've enforced Christian Sharia law right from the beginning if they wanted to, no? Who would’ve stopped them?

I think you should be thankful to Christians for providing you with a country to live freely where you can even blabber against Christianity because those Christians gave you a right of free speech.
Ironic, isn't it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

All you have ever been able to engage with intellectually are my BELIEFS because I have adopted the Christian narrative as an overlay for my scientific hypotheses. You have never and simply cannot grasp anything about my Synthesis because the concepts are beyond your knowledge base. So any claims of debunking me or even recognizing someone else debunking me are patently absurd. That is the definition of pathetic, my old friend. But that "nothing with the potential to act as something" is responsible for the existence of our entire reality (that is NOT nothing!). It is responsible for all the laws and processes that operate our reality (that is NOT nothing!). It is responsible for life and consciousness including the ability to contemplate and discover its processes and laws (that is NOT nothing!). I believe it is God you believe it is not. Neither of us have any basis for deciding that question unequivocally. Yes, we are in the same place and my popping God belief into it is no different than popping your "no God" belief into it. But when you try to make YOUR belief an unwarranted claim by presumption that is way beyond presumptuous! You simply do not even know what you don't know about the issues in philosophy so it is pointless to pretend there is any chance you will understand what the issues ACTUALLY are. They do say ignorance is bliss!

At least you recognise that I have a handle on your Beliefs and see the problems with them. Your Synthesis is speculativce and you have heard (if you "Forgot") that those who do understand these matters have found your science incorrect and you have had to argue that science is merely an analogy of an unknown 'science' that nobody knows about but you.

You again demonstrate you persistent flawed logic by equating the God -claim with not accepting the claim, and you play thos old 'You don't know as much about Philosophy as i do' card, without addressing any of the limitations of the expertise.

Your snobbery is no winning you anything here, any more than it has over the past couple of years of persist plonking Faith -claims and sneering at anyone who dares to disagree.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

But wasn’t America founded by those who were mostly Christians? They could've enforced Christian Sharia law right from the beginning if they wanted to, no? Who would’ve stopped them?

I think you should be thankful to Christians for providing you with a country to live freely where you can even blabber against Christianity because those Christians gave you a right of free speech.
Ironic, isn't it?

America was indeed colonised by Christians both Catholic and Protesteant and their efforts at Christian Sharya law led to some horrors. The Constitutional basis of America was founded on the views of those who saw how church and temporal authority backed each other up to keep control and they wanted none of it.

I sometimes wonder whether a state church could have prevented the problem you now have, but at least there is a way out through discussion and persuasion. And that very useful rule on separation of church and state has at least legally prevented the Fundies from swamping government, though random Factors knows, they have come pretty close to it, at it feels that the US ship of state could founder any moment. A vice president if you can believe it denouncing in the Senate a science he does not understand and isn't thrown out of office within five minutes.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

America was indeed colonised by Christians both Catholic and Protesteant and their efforts at Christian Sharya law led to some horrors. The Constitutional basis of America was founded on the views of those who saw how church and temporal authority backed each other up to keep control and they wanted none of it.

I sometimes wonder whether a state church could have prevented the problem you now have, but at least there is a way out through discussion and persuasion. And that very useful rule on separation of church and state has at least legally prevented the Fundies from swamping government, though random Factors knows, they have come pretty close to it, at it feels that the US ship of state could founder any moment. A vice president if you can believe it denouncing in the Senate a science he does not understand and isn't thrown out of office within five minutes.

So those who colonized the country were brushed aside by a few unknown people, and that little group of known people (presumably, Atheists) were powerful enough to write the constitution?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

So the Christianity forum is the only place for me to discuss SPIRITUALITY in a non-debate setting? Gee, that really makes sense.

No it isn't but it is probably the only place where, because they will probably agree with everything that you say, you won't be constantly bursting into tears and crying for your mummy every time someone smashes your faith based claims to pieces. I mean, I know you're only 14 years old and therefore prone to these tear tantrums when you can't get your own way but 'Gee', if you are going to come here, you'll need to grow up a little.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

So those who colonized the country were brushed aside by a few unknown people, and that little group of known people (presumably, Atheists) were powerful enough to write the constitution?

well, I half think trans is paid to come to american forums and spew the nonsense he does. The united isn't perfect and we did some pretty horrible things. If you look, he is about breaking apart people, not bringing them together using evidence and observation.

he wouldn't say .. we (the united states) didn't do as much harm, nor cause as much suffering, as anti-religious people did in the last 200 years. We also, even though we come up way short sometimes, try to help far more than our anti-religious counter parts.

for the most part, countries with freedom of religion do better than anti-religious countries. europe and the united states are a good example.

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by Rafius

No it isn't but it is probably the only place where, because they will probably agree with everything that you say, you won't be constantly bursting into tears and crying for your mummy every time someone smashes your faith based claims to pieces. I mean, I know you're only 14 years old and therefore prone to these tear tantrums when you can't get your own way but 'Gee', if you are going to come here, you'll need to grow up a little.

Why did I have a sudden vision of children playing in a sandbox.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

So those who colonized the country were brushed aside by a few unknown people, and that little group of known people (presumably, Atheists) were powerful enough to write the constitution?

Are you suggesting that James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington were Atheists? Certainly, several of the prominent politicians of the day left writings behind that left specifics about their religious beliefs in question, several of them might best be classified as Deists, but none of these people left any evidence that they did not believe in God. It is certainly possible that some were Atheists. Nobody in 17th Century Philadelphia would have admitted it if it had been so, but it is possible that a few of them actually did not Believe and knew better than to ever say so.

A number of the men at the Constitutional Convention were Freemasons, including Washington, Franklin, and Madison. Joining the Freemasons requires that a man be willing to state that he has a belief in a Supreme Being, thus eliminating Atheists from membership.

Who are these Atheists that you think wrote the Constitution?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Why did I have a sudden vision of children playing in a sandbox.

Dunno! Perhaps because you are used to being in one yourself?