3 words will help you conquer fear in this election year

  
Via:  Donald J Trump fan  •  6 months ago  •  252 comments

By:   Mike Novotny

 3 words will help you conquer fear in this election year
Nothing in 2020 has the power to shove GOD away from your side. An impeachment is impotent in that regard. Elections are unable to evict our King from the throne of your heart. Supreme courts and border policies have no say where GOD goes. Brother or sister, that means that GOD is here. No matter what. No matter who. No matter when. Those are the three words that can change your election-year fear.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

In times like these our national motto is a true refuge from all the troubles the rest of the world can cause our exceptional nation.  No matter what side we are on the three words will calm our fearful hearts and give us internal peace.  This is key to us coming together as a nation, one nation, under God.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




The year  2020 , it appears, is the year of fear.

As I write these words, there’s no emotion that seems to have gripped more  hearts than fear. Despite all the things we might be afraid of (nuclear war, school shootings, national debt, rising suicide rates), what seems to be chattering more teeth than ever is the election.

It doesn’t matter whom you are for or against, what party you support or oppose, or what  political  animal is most likely to be bumper-stickered to your vehicle; people are afraid.

Republicans are afraid of the possible implications of President Trump’s impeachment, afraid of a Democratic sweep in November, afraid of being swept away in a sexual revolution, afraid of a liberal-leaning Supreme Court, afraid of the changing/trampling of religious liberties, afraid of short-term social solutions that leave America in long-term financial peril, and _________ (fill in the blank with the latest conservative fear).

Democrats are afraid of President Trump’s triumph over impeachment, afraid frustrated Americans will punish the left for the recent political partisanship, afraid of four more years of presidential tweets, afraid of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, afraid of the changing/trampling of human dignity, afraid of short-term financial solutions that leave America in long-term social pain, and ___________. (You get the point.)

How about you? Are you afraid for our future?

Although I’m not as deeply political as some of my family members and friends, I will confess that I find some of the headlines unnerving. It’s hard to know whose opinion piece to believe these days, but everyone seems to be predicting a grim future if ________ stays in/loses power.

I think that’s why I adore the three words that changed my life (and led me to write an entire book).

That may sound like a sophomoric marketing pitch, but it isn’t. These three words honestly make a massive difference in my life when fear sits on the throne of my heart and rules over my feelings for my children’s future.

What are those three words? I’m glad you asked!

Word #1: GOD

The first, and most vital, word to conquer your election-year fear is GOD. Not a generic, run-of-the-mill god. Not even an officially approved, technically orthodox God. No, I’m thinking of a glorious, box-breaking, entirely enough GOD. The GOD so full of light that the ghouls of fear whimper and hide from his presence. The GOD so full of strength that he makes the strongest fear look as weak as my seventh grade self (think biceps as thin as straws). The GOD so full of wisdom and ability that he can take any political mess and use it for the good of his people.

And, yes, the word any from the previous sentence includes the mess that makes you afraid.

This GOD is better than your handpicked president. Better than a Congress that unanimously agrees with your convictions. Better than a debt-free America where everyone is safe and medically cared for.

Allow this basic logic to persuade your heart. Whatever you want/wish for/pray for politically is less than nothing next to GOD.

Word #2: Is

The GOD you just imagined is presently present. He is not the “I Was” of the past or the “I Will Be” once you’re in a better place. No, he is the great “I AM,” our “ever-present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1). The phrase “ever-present” means that GOD will be present whenever _______ happens. There is no shift in culture, no partisan legislation, and no political power swing that can undo the present presence of GOD.

David, the shepherd/king of biblical times, lived under the terrifying reign of King Saul (where hostile tweets were the least of his problems) and then through the ugly uprising of his own ambitious son Absalom (who used shady marketing to win over the voters), yet he penned these famous words: “Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me ... You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies” (Psalm 23:4,5).

David was not afraid, even in the dark valleys where his political enemies plotted and planned. Why not? “For you [GOD] are with me.” If this stunning GOD always “is,” then there is no reason to be afraid.

Word #3: Here

The GOD who takes away fear is not over “there” with them, but instead right “here” with you. If you’ve turned from your sin and trusted in GOD’s Son, Jesus, then “GOD is here” is your daily reality. “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1 Peter 3:18).

Nothing in 2020 has the power to shove GOD away from your side. An impeachment is impotent in that regard. Elections are unable to evict our King from the throne of your heart. Supreme courts and border policies have no say where GOD goes.

Brother or sister, that means that GOD is here. No matter what. No matter who. No matter when.

Those are the three words that can change your election-year fear.

Still struggling? Can I suggest reading the psalms, all 150 of them, before election night? Study how real the enemies of the ancient world were, how much fear they injected into the hearts of GOD’s people, and (most vitally) how David and friends knew exactly where to run to find peace -- the refuge of GOD’s presence.

They couldn’t control the political future. Neither can you. But every Christian can breathe deeply, find lasting peace, and rejoice at the reality that GOD is here.

Even during an election year.

 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    6 months ago

The GOD so full of wisdom and ability that he can take any political mess and use it for the good of his people.

And, yes, the word any from the previous sentence includes the mess that makes you afraid.

This GOD is better than your handpicked president. Better than a Congress that unanimously agrees with your convictions. Better than a debt-free America where everyone is safe and medically cared for.

Allow this basic logic to persuade your heart. Whatever you want/wish for/pray for politically is less than nothing next to GOD. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7498/3-words-will-help-you-conquer-fear-in-this-election-year

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @1    6 months ago

If god is here he's doing a very shitty job with this piece of shit being 'president'

 
 
 
Heartland American
2  seeder  Heartland American    6 months ago

God is real. He is in evidence in our universe, our planet, our creation, and our humanity.  He is the great creator, the author of nature and science, the source of stability in a troubled world and with all the political trauma affecting America.  Our motto and pledge, In God we trust, and one nation, under God indivisible are the key to healing and unity in our exceptional country. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @2    6 months ago
God is real.

That this must even be asserted is ironic.   If God was so certainly real there would be no need to keep making these kind of bold assertions.

A creator entity might indeed exist.   It is, however, dangerous to take the words of mere human beings (religious authorities) —whether living or dead, whether expressed orally or written in an ancient book— as truth.   The concept of 'Trust in God' is particularly dangerous when people either do not act (let 'God' fix things) or commit heinous acts on command from 'God' (communicated of course by human beings).

A far more grounded approach is to believe in a sentient creator while realizing that nobody knows what this creator (should it exist) wants from us (if anything) and what plans it has (if any) and what it might or might not do.   Instead, if one believes that our reality is the work of a sentient creator, a sensible approach is to learn about the creator through its creations (science is a fine way to start).   This is so much smarter (and safer) than merely accepting as truth what other human beings merely claim as if they could speak for something as grand as God.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    6 months ago

Nothing in 2020 has the power to shove GOD away from your side. An impeachment is impotent in that regard. Elections are unable to evict our King from the throne of your heart. Supreme courts and border policies have no say where GOD goes.

Brother or sister, that means that GOD is here. No matter what. No matter who. No matter when.

Those are the three words that can change your election-year fear.

Still struggling? Can I suggest reading the psalms, all 150 of them, before election night? Study how real the enemies of the ancient world were, how much fear they injected into the hearts of GOD’s people, and (most vitally) how David and friends knew exactly where to run to find peace -- the refuge of GOD’s presence.

They couldn’t control the political future. Neither can you. But every Christian can breathe deeply, find lasting peace, and rejoice at the reality that GOD is here.

Even during an election year.   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7498/3-words-will-help-you-conquer-fear-in-this-election-year

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.2    6 months ago

Ready for the trial?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    6 months ago

3  magic words ,    IMPEACH TRUMP NOW !

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @3    6 months ago

The political clowns 🤡 on your side already did.  God is here so we let even that simply roll off of our backs and move on with our lives.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @3    6 months ago

LOCK HIM UP!

IMPEACH HIS ASS!

 
 
 
squiggy
3.3  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @3    6 months ago

Trump will win.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4  Kathleen    6 months ago

GO RAVENS GO!!

Ooops... wrong thread. : )

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Kathleen @4    6 months ago

The 49ers will avenge their last play loss to the Ravens on a neutral field in the Super Bowl.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.2  Kathleen  replied to  Kathleen @4    6 months ago

Looks like my team is out.. I can’t believe they screwed this one up.  Well maybe next year. The long break may have hurt too.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Kathleen @4.2    6 months ago

I was so hoping for a Super Bowl rematch both from the season and a prior Super Bowl.  Oh well at least my life long favorite team and the one that’s now from the city of my birth (Nashville) are still alive.  My best friend I grew up with lives in Md. and likes the Ravens as well as the 49ers.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5  seeder  Heartland American    6 months ago

Food for Thought: Some Rational Arguments for God’s Existence

1988b7a6-9599-449d-b3db-a5c7e1bf905e.jpg

Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File

Skeptics and atheists insist that belief in God is irrational.  All too many believers in God, due to the same theological illiteracy affecting the non-believers and unbelievers, lend credence to this charge by way of their inability and/or unwillingness to defend their belief in God.

Thankfully, there has been no short supply of men of genius over the centuries who have shown that there is nothing at all irrational about theism.  

In fact, some, like the 12 th  century theologian and philosopher  Anselm of Canterbury  (1033-1109), were at pains to establish that it is  atheism  that’s irrational.

By way of the  “ontological argument” for which he is famous, Anselm tried to show that the atheist doesn’t just  happen to be wrong, but is  necessarily  wrong, for atheism is self-contradictory, and a self-contradiction is always false.  For example, since the proposition, “Bachelors are  not  unmarried men” contradicts the very definition of a bachelor, it doesn’t just happen to be false; it  must always be false. 

The ontological argument is an argument from definition.  Anselm’s version of it goes something like this:

God  must  be, because it is greater to be than to not be and God is, by definition, the greatest conceivable being. 

Consider: Everyone, regardless of whether or not they believe in God, knows that, in theory, God is an  infinite  and  perfect  being. Insofar as He is infinite, He is a being without either a beginning or an end.  And insofar as He is perfect, He is changeless, for any and every change is for either the better or the worse. But God, given His perfection, can neither regress nor progress. Thus, God must be immutable. 

What this means is that God, in theory, can’t be dependent upon anything else.  Nothing brought Him into existence (for there couldn’t be a time when He didn’t exist), nothing can alter Him in any way (for He is changeless), and nothing could extinguish His existence.

Simply put, God  must  exist.  He doesn’t just  happen  to exist, like you, me, and everything else in our experience.  God, by definition, in theory,  necessarily  exists. 

So, the atheist is guilty of absurdity: “God does not exist” is the same proposition as, “The Being that necessarily exists, the Being that cannot not exist, does not exist!”

There have been many other arguments, or “proofs,” for God’s existence.  What is typically known as  “the argument from contingency”  is another with a long history.  

Whatever is contingent is dependent upon other things for its existence.  This would include everything and anything that has ever actually existed within the spatial-temporal universe, as well as  almost  anything and everything that we could imagine.  Human beings; animals; plants; insects; buildings; cars; planets; stars; Superman; King Kong; Santa Claus; unicorns—all are alike contingent upon and limited by other beings.

Now, it is logically impossible for there to exist  nothing but  contingent beings. As the great  Thomas Aquinas  (1225-1274) noted back in the 13 th  century, whatever depends upon another for its existence at some juncture  did not exist .  Think about it: At one point, you did not exist, the laptop upon which I’m typing this did not exist, my home did not exist, the planet Earth did not exist, the sun did not exist, etc.  However, what this means is that  if the  only  things to have ever existed are contingent, then since a contingent thing is something that at one point does not exist, then at some point,  nothing would have existed. 

To repeat: Since whatever depends upon another depends upon that being  to bring it into existence , prior to that point it did not exist.  Thus, if each thing that ever existed is contingent, then at some point there would’ve been nothing.  

But if there was nothing  then,  there would be nothing  now,  for from nothing, comes nothing. 

Or, if you will, something can’t come from nothing. 

Because, then, we know that there  are  things now, the only conclusion that we can draw is that there is at least one being whose existence is most definitely not dependent upon anything or anyone else.  

In order to account for this world of mutually dependent beings, we must look beyond it to a being that exists, not contingently, but  necessarily.  

And the only being that fits this description is what most people call “God.” 

Why is there something rather than nothing?   This question cannot be answered by referring to things—contingent things—within the universe.  What we call “the universe” is the thing, the “something,” that we’re trying to explain, after all, and the universe is simply the sum total of all of its members, i.e. all of its  contingent  parts.  Whether it is one contingent being or an infinity of contingent beings, whatever is contingent points beyond itself to something that is, ultimately, non-contingent. 

The universe is not self-explanatory.  In the final analysis, only something beyond the universe, something that is not contingent, can account for it. 

 The third argument for God’s existence that I’d like to consider here is the  argument from morality .  

Simply put, morality is objective, it is  real , only if God exists.  Both theists and atheists have conceded this point.  

The 20 th  century French existentialist philosopher,  Jean-Paul Sartre  (1905-1980), who was both an atheist and a communist, is insistent upon this point. His whole philosophy presupposes it.   

Historically, Sartre observed, atheists have thought it possible “to eliminate God as painlessly as possible.” They have thought that “nothing will have changed if God does not exist.”  Sartre sums up the atheist’s position. It is the most wishful of wishful thinking to suppose, as atheists have, that we “will encounter the same standards of honesty, progress, and humanism” upon turning “God into an obsolete hypothesis that will die quietly on its own.”  

Without God, human beings have no objective moral standards “to cling to,” “no values or orders” that can “legitimize our conduct.”   

In summary: If God is not real, neither is morality. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5    6 months ago
Skeptics and atheists insist that belief in God is irrational.  

It depends on how one defines 'God'.   Belief that their is likely a sentient creator is not irrational;  it is speculative but not irrational.

Pick any of the above philosophical 'proofs' for the existence of God and I will illustrate how it fails to prove the existence of any God (especially the Christian God).

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    6 months ago

To repeat: Since whatever depends upon another depends upon that being   to bring it into existence  , prior to that point it did not exist.  Thus, if each thing that ever existed is contingent, then at some point there would’ve been nothing.  

But if there was nothing   then,   there would be nothing   now,   for from nothing, comes nothing. 

Or, if you will, something can’t come from nothing. 

Because, then, we know that there   are  things now, the only conclusion that we can draw is that there is at least one being whose existence is most definitely not dependent upon anything or anyone else.  

In order to account for this world of mutually dependent beings, we must look beyond it to a being that exists, not contingently, but  necessarily.  

And the only being that fits this description is what most people call “God.”  https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7498/3-words-will-help-you-conquer-fear-in-this-election-year#cm1234924

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.1    6 months ago

reply @6

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.1    6 months ago

What brought god into existence?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @5    6 months ago

There is no rational argument of gods' existence.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @5.2    6 months ago

Indeed. And I have yet to see any logical argument,  or evidence of any god/s.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6  TᵢG    6 months ago
Since whatever depends upon another depends upon that being  to bring it into existence  , prior to that point it did not exist.  Thus, if each thing that ever existed is contingent, then at some point there would’ve been nothing.  

Simply stated:  that which comes into existence has a cause.   You go one step further and presume the cause is a being.  

Or, if you will, something can’t come from nothing.

We agree here:  something cannot emerge from nothing.   This is by definition of the word 'nothing'.

Because, then, we know that there   are  things now, the only conclusion that we can draw is that there is at least one being whose existence is most definitely not dependent upon anything or anyone else.  

No, the conclusion we can draw is that which comes into existence has a cause and that which exists but did not come into existence has existed perpetually (is eternal).   You presume again that the eternal (first) cause is a being.   

In order to account for this world of mutually dependent beings, we must look beyond it to a being that exists, not contingently, but  necessarily.  

No, we cannot presume that the first cause is a being.   There is a first cause, but it is not necessarily a being.  


To wit, your logic has one critical flaw:  you presume that the first cause is necessarily a being.    You are inserting a requirement that does not logically exist.

 
 
 
charger 383
7  charger 383    6 months ago

If "God Is Here" why doesn't he show himself?  An all knowing god should be able to see some of his imperfect creations need evidence.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  charger 383 @7    6 months ago

He manifests himself in many ways for those willing to believe by faith. 

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.1  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @7.1    6 months ago

So ... you have to want to be be delusional in order to believe in delusions. Got it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @7.1.1    6 months ago

Do you consider all who believe in God to be delusional?

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.3  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    6 months ago

According to the definition of "delusion" - yes, belief in the supernatural is delusional as there is no basis in reality for such a belief.

Although I see it as a matter of degree. Biblical literalists and young earthers are far more delusional than your typical religious person. Many people can have faith without also becoming batshit crazy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @7.1.3    6 months ago

And how do you distinguish between what you consider batshit crazy and just delusional?

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.5  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    6 months ago

People who claim to hear voices are batshit crazy, IMO. People who take the bible literally are far removed from reality as well. Speaking in tongues, holy rolling, handling snakes ... batshit crazy. Those are just some examples.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @7.1.5    6 months ago

So the vast majority of people--over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history-- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.

I see now.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.7  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    6 months ago

Glad you get it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.1.3    6 months ago

One persons delusion is another persons faith.

Definition of faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty lost faith in the company's president
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(3) : complete trust
Emphasis on 2b .....
 
 
 
katrix
7.1.9  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.8    6 months ago

Very true. And most people of faith aren't delusional to the point of being dangerous to themselves or others. For many people, that delusion gives them a happier life and a sense of community.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.1.9    6 months ago

You got that right, except for the delusion part.  

To each their own but I don't consider "faith" to be delusion.   Not in the least.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    6 months ago

Argumentum ad populum.  

Prior to the 17th century, the supermajority believed that the Sun orbited the Earth.  Prior to 1924, the super majority of all people believed that our galaxy (the Milky Way) was the entire universe and that it was fixed (not growing or shrinking).

Commonly held beliefs are not necessarily true.    It is best to believe (falling short of certainty) that which has quality supporting evidence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.11    6 months ago

I made no claim other than to what the author of the comment stated--that all who believe in any God are delusional.

Commonly held beliefs are not necessarily true.   

I made no such claim that they were.

It is best to believe (falling short of certainty) that which has quality supporting evidence.

Perhaps best to you. Not to others.

Once again, the usual fallback position--"Prove it".

Sigh.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.12    6 months ago
I made no such claim that they were.

The following by you ...

Texan @7.1.6 - So the vast majority of people--over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history-- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.

... suggests that beliefs held by a vast majority of people cannot be delusions.   I noted that "Commonly held beliefs are not necessarily true." to illustrate the  argumentum ad populum fallacy in your statement.    Your argument is a fallacy.   

Once again, the usual fallback position--"Prove it".

I never demand that people prove their beliefs.   Pay attention.  Understand the difference between beliefs supported by evidence and beliefs in spite of contradicting evidence.

It is best to believe (falling short of certainty) that which has quality supporting evidence.   As an example, consider the heinous acts committed by people based on religious beliefs alone (no supporting evidence that the beliefs are true) such as suicide bombers (martyrs).

Proof is profoundly different from supported by solid evidence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.13    6 months ago
 suggests that beliefs held by a vast majority of people cannot be delusions.   I noted that "Commonly held beliefs are not necessarily true." to illustrate the  argumentum ad populum fallacy in your statement.    Your argument is a fallacy. 

Not at all. I didn't suggest anything. You chose to read something into it that simply isn't there. That is your prerogative, but I don't have to play into it.

I made no argument. Therefore, logic will tell you there is no fallacy in something that doesn't exist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.14    6 months ago

Okay, so by this ...

Texan @ 7.1.6  -  So the vast majority of people--over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history-- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.

... you are not trying to suggest that katrix was wrong because of the number of people (historically) holding religious belief in a God?

If you were , that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.   And your statement then, regardless of your predictable equivocation, is most definitely an argument.   It would be an argument that the more people who believe something, the more likely it is true. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.15    6 months ago
 you are not trying to suggest that katrix was wrong because of the number of people (historically) holding religious belief in a God?

No, just stating his beliefs. You do get that, right?

If you were , that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.  

But I wasn't, so there's that anyways.

You will continue to misconstrue or take whatever you wish from what I actually write.

I'm good with that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @7.1    6 months ago

Make believe or pretending something is there does not mean it's so. That might work for children with imaginary friends. But adults are supposed to be more rational than that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    6 months ago

More irrational than delusional. The delusion is manifest more when people claim god talks to them or thinks certain images, patterns, events, ect is proof of God or a manifestation of god.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    6 months ago

Simple rationality, logic, and critical thinking is usually enough to make a distinction.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    6 months ago

That's right. Let's face it, people are just plain nuts.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.8    6 months ago

Faith and delusion seems to be synonyms.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.21    6 months ago

Not according to Merriam Webster or about 7 billion people in the world

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.18    6 months ago
More irrational than delusional.

Sell that to the one who made the claim--not me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.23    6 months ago

I'm not selling anything. Just stating a fact.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.22    6 months ago

That's why I said it "seems" that way. The rest of your statement is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.26  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.17    6 months ago
Make believe or pretending something is there does not mean it's so. That might work for children with imaginary friends.

" Do not try and bend the spoon , that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth... there is no spoon . Then you will see it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

Sadly, few are awake enough to realize their God is most likely an imagined spoon of their own making. For some, a rigid inflexible God with exacting demands for humans, and for others a flexible God that changes every few centuries to fit what people need at the time.

"Whether you think you can or can't, you're right" - Henry Ford

For those who think there is a God, for them it's as real as you or me. And every moment of their lives they attribute to their God being an active participant and believe their prayers are being heard and given either a thumbs up or down by some invisible listener. For those who don't believe, those Gods will never be real until some empirical evidence is found which all humans can collectively agree is absolute proof of something "divine" or supernatural existing.

Whether you think there is or isn't a God, you're right, for you. Whether you think there is or isn't a spoon, you're right, for you. It's the reason some studies have shown placebos to work up to 72% of the time. So those who believe some God is active in their lives, go ahead, embrace that placebo effect, find that silver lining in life's dark clouds, just remember that when you take your placebo out and try to convince someone else to try it you're likely going to get people asking for some actual evidence to back up your claims and you risk being accused of false advertising. And from what I've seen, there's nothing that gets a believers panties in a bunch like being effectively called liars or accused of being false in their claims that their God is real and will fix anyone's problems if they'd only believe. So believe, employ your chosen God in your life to your hearts content. Just don't be surprised when there is push back if you start marketing the effectiveness of your God without any actual empirical evidence of its existence. So debating anyone's chosen Gods existence without any empirical evidence is pointless. And when their claim is not just that their God exists but that their God is the only God and every other believed in deity is a false God, well, now they've started a fight over something they can't prove thus guaranteeing at best a frustrating stalemate of back and forth "prove it...", "no you prove it...", "no, you prove it...".

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-sense/201201/the-placebo-effect-how-it-works

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.16    6 months ago
No, just stating his beliefs

Katrix is a woman.    ( For future reference. )

And you are not simply stating her beliefs.   You introduced the billions of believers notion, not katrix.   Thus you engaged in argumentum ad populum.   And that is true in spite of your lame denials.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.27    6 months ago

[deleted] does that all the time 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.29  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.25    6 months ago
That's why I said it "seems" that way.

Super, its nice to see you don't really believe they are the same.

The rest of your statement is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Nah, yours is clearly a Contrarian Argument fallacy.   Otherwise you are in deep do-do there buddy.

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.28    6 months ago

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.31  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.27    6 months ago
You introduced the billions of believers notion, not katrix.

No he didn't.   I did and its not an argumentum ad populum but Gordys IS clearly a Contrarian Argument Fallacy.

See .... we can go on and on and on ..... rather than just agree to disagree.   Which is much more pleasant in the long run.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.31    6 months ago
See .... we can go on and on and on ..... rather than just agree to disagree.  

So you want to make a false claim [" No he didn't "] and then agree to disagree?    Why even be on a forum then?

No he didn't. 

Yes, Sparty, he did.   Plain as day:

Texan @  7.1.6   -  So the vast majority of people-- over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history-- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.
 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.29    6 months ago

It seems as if you don't understand what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is. And do tell, how am I in "deep do-do" exactly? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.31    6 months ago

Not contrarian at all. Belief itself is irrational, based on personal desire, emotion, or wishful thinking. 

 
 
 
GregTx
7.1.35  GregTx  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.34    6 months ago

I disagree, without belief in a higher purpose/meaning I don't think humanity would have progressed as far as we have from the knuckle dragging hole-dwellers we came from. Although at times that doesn't seem very far.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @7.1.35    6 months ago

That's nonsense 

 
 
 
GregTx
7.1.37  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.36    6 months ago

What's nonsense?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.38  Gordy327  replied to  GregTx @7.1.35    6 months ago
I disagree, without belief in a higher purpose/meaning I don't think humanity would have progressed as far as we have from the knuckle dragging hole-dwellers we came from.

Actually, I'd say its humanity's desire for knowledge, exploration, understanding, and with a little bit of imagination, that spurred our progress. Religious belief has historically sought to suppress such progress, especially if it was against religious teachings or leanings. More like religion (especially certain religious mentalities) that would keep us as Bronze Age knuckle draggers. One does not need belief, especially in a higher power, to find purpose, meaning, or progress.

 
 
 
cjcold
7.1.39  cjcold  replied to  GregTx @7.1.37    6 months ago

What's nonsense?

Just how badly my Chiefs beat your Texans after being 21 points down at the end of the first quarter. Final score Chiefs 51 … Texans 31. Obviously God was on our side.

 
 
 
GregTx
7.1.40  GregTx  replied to  cjcold @7.1.39    6 months ago

I would have to agree completely with your assessment, however it was a 24 point first quarter  lead that your Chiefs overcame. Even more impressive! 😁 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.27    6 months ago

Nothing more than unadulterated bullshit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.41    6 months ago

Brilliant.  jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.42    6 months ago
Brilliant

Oh, I don't think I'd go that far.

Perhaps true, or correct, or some such word.

But brilliant ?

Naw.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.44  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.34    6 months ago

Faith is completely rational as defined.   It's a lack thereof that's not.

Your views on faith are clearly contrarian.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.45  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.44    6 months ago

What totally ass backwards nonsense.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.46  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.44    6 months ago

Do tell, how is a lack of faith not rational? Faith is believing something as factual or true when there is no supporting objective evidence. That's not rational. It's emotionally based rather than logically based.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.47  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.46    6 months ago

Not accepting a definition of "faith" is not logical and quite irrational.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.48  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.44    6 months ago
Faith is completely rational as defined.   It's a lack thereof that's not

How is it irrational to not believe in something for which there is zero evidence? I don't believe in flying red-spotted hippos, either - is that irrational?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.49  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.47    6 months ago

I am familiar with the definition of faith. That doesn't refute what I said. But having faith without proof is irrational,  as there is nothing objective about it. Essentially it boils down to wishful thinking.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.50  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.47    6 months ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Veronica
7.1.51  Veronica  replied to  katrix @7.1.48    6 months ago
flying red-spotted hippos

I saw one the other day, but that was after a few Jack & cokes.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.52  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.1.48    6 months ago

Like i said, this is why i try not to get into these discussion here.   They are pointless and usually end up with a bunch of angry Atheist dishing the usual hatred towards folks who are NOK to them.   Which is honestly meaningless to anyone with firm convictions on either side of the debate.

I'm happy with my belief system and y'all seem to be very content with yours or lack thereof as it were.   I'll leave it at that

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.53  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.52    6 months ago

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.54  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.52    6 months ago

I'm still waiting for you to explain why a lack of faith is not rational. Or are you just going to complain when your arguments fall flat?

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.55  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.54    6 months ago

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you don't accept the accepted definition of faith.   Or are you going to keep cherry-picking whatever suits your argument?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.56  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.55    6 months ago

I already addressed that. Why do you keep dodging the question?

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.57  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.56    6 months ago
I already addressed that.

Lol no you didn't ..... talk about dodging.   Your problem here is you can't escape the definition i've offered no matter how hard you try.   You funny!

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.58  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.57    6 months ago

The definite on of faith does not include rational. The problem is you fail to understand that and instead prefer to play thsee games and dodge questions posed. It's not only obvious,  it's intellectually dishonest .

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.57    6 months ago

You referenced the Merriam-Webster definition for ' faith ' .    This is the religious usage defined there:

2 a (1) :   belief and trust in and loyalty to God
      (2) :   belief in the traditional   doctrines   of a religion
    b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof
      (2) complete trust

Gordy's observation is that it is irrational to firmly believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least convincing, quality evidence).   This is directly addressing usage 2.b (in blue ).    The word ' irrational ' is defined by Oxford, et. al. as:  " Not logical or reasonable ".

Putting this together, Gordy's observation is this:

It is not logical or reasonable to firmly believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least convincing, quality evidence).

Examples of firmly held beliefs for which there is no convincing, quality evidence:

  • I believe aliens secretly live among us
  • I believe dinosaurs coexisted with human beings
  • I believe evolution is a worldwide conspiracy of pseudoscience promoted by godless scientists
  • I believe Allah will reward me as a martyr if a blow myself up to kill as many infidels as possible
  • I believe a powerful entity flooded the planet to kill all forms of life
  • I believe there is life after death
  • I believe that failure to believe in a particular god will doom me to an eternity of damnation
  • I believe that the USA economy will tank if Trump is not re-elected
  • I believe the Bible is the divine word of a perfect god
  • I believe a supreme sentient creator picks all of the world's leaders (including Trump)
  • I believe Sasquatch exists
  • ...

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.60  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.59    6 months ago

It doesn't matter what you or Gordy believe.   It only matters what i believe.   Unlike you two i have no need to "prove" anything to either of you nor do i have any desire to attempt to change your mind.   This isn't a mathematical equation that needs a proof for me and since I have no skin in your game, i simply don't care what your opinion on the matter is.

Nothing either of you have said here changes anything for me so keep going if you want.   It will change nothing with me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.60    6 months ago
It doesn't matter what you or Gordy believe. 

You missed the point.  Intentionally?

I just noted that Gordy's observation is:  "It is not logical or reasonable to firmly believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least convincing, quality evidence).".   

Do you think it is logical / reasonable to firmly believe in something without convincing, quality evidence?   Do you have an example?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.62  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.60    6 months ago

Where have we mentioned our beliefs? We were discussing the irrationality of belief, which your post demonstrates and then some. So thanks for proving our point for us.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.62    6 months ago

The all too common pattern I see in these 'discussions' is never to engage on the actual challenge but to deflect.   While it is understandable why one would not want to engage in an honest debate from the theistic perspective, I think it is much better to just go silent rather than play games.   To wit, if one cannot rise to the occasion, silently move on.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.64  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.63    6 months ago

Indeed. But it also shows a level of intellectual dishonesty and/or cowardice too.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.65  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.62    6 months ago

You two have a nice day now ya hear!

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.66  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.63    6 months ago

Weak arguments against someone with a strong belief system such as myself.   I've made my point here numerous times and you two simply refuse to accept it at face value.   That is to say, a belief in something in that is not intrinsically provable.   Asking for such proof in such cases is the crazy thing to me but you two keep keeping on.

But that is how this usually goes, with the non-believer looking down their nose at the believer.   Using uninformed sophomoric insults like coward and dishonest.    No problem, tell yourself what you need to get by and so will i.   My faith is pretty unshakeable as its been tested by much tougher questions that yours and Gordys.    MUCH tougher!

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.67  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.65    6 months ago
You two have a nice day now ya hear!

Dodging questions yet again I see.

  I've made my point here numerous times and you two simply refuse to accept it at face value. 

What point would that be?

That is to say, a belief in something in that is not intrinsically provable.   Asking for such proof in such cases is the crazy thing to me but you two keep keeping on.

The discussion wasn't about proving a belief per se. It was about the irrationality of belief. You've had ample opportunity to explain why belief is rational. But all you've done is manage to reaffirm that belief is irrational.

Using uninformed sophomoric insults like coward and dishonest.  

No insult, just a description of the type of tactics you used, especially when evading questions and challenges posed to you.

My faith is pretty unshakeable as its been tested by much tougher questions that yours and Gordys.  

That was never the issue. It seems you completely missed the point.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.68  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.21    6 months ago

I have to disagree about that Gordy.  You can have faith in someone and I do not consider that delusional. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.69  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.63    6 months ago

Faith is hard to challenge. It’s something inside you and what you feel. It’s your confidence level about a person or idea. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.70  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.67    6 months ago

You have a nice day now ya hear!

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.71  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.61    6 months ago
"It is not logical or reasonable to firmly believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least convincing, quality evidence).".

Did a "Fallible Human" say that ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.72  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.68    6 months ago
I have to disagree about that Gordy.  You can have faith in someone and I do not consider that delusional. 

I don't think the idea was about faith in someone as in an actual person. 

It’s your confidence level about a person or idea. 

It's important to make the distinction about what the object of "faith" actually is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.73  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.71    6 months ago
Did a "Fallible Human" say that ?

More like a logical one.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.74  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.70    6 months ago

Dodging questions yet again I see.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.75  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.72    6 months ago

Yes, it is, I was just saying the word itself is not delusional. As for having faith in a god or other religions, that is also a personal feeling for some people. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.66    6 months ago
That is to say, a belief in something in that is not intrinsically provable.  

Where do you ever see me suggesting that belief in a god is provable?    I focus on claims of certainty, not beliefs.   

Asking for such proof in such cases is the crazy thing to me but you two keep keeping on.

And this is a fine example of what I noted to Gordy.   I have made myself crystal clear on this matter, for years on NT and even in this thread, and here you go ignoring everything I wrote to argue a strawman that I am asking you to prove that god exists:   

TiG @7.1.13 ☞ I never demand that people prove their beliefs.   

Gordy is also not demanding that people prove their beliefs but rather support their claims.   His signature line: 'that's nice, prove it' is used in response to a claim; he is challenging someone who has made a direct claim and thus bears the burden of proof.    In contrast, his comments regarding belief (which I broke down for you @7.1.59) are not demanding proof but rather noting that it is not logical or reasonable to firmly believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least convincing, quality evidence).   Quite different.

My faith is pretty unshakeable as its been tested by much tougher questions that yours and Gordys. 

Not the question.   Nobody has suggested you have weak faith (arguably the opposite).    There are two fundamental points in this thread:

  1. Claims of certainty (religious or otherwise) bear the burden of proof (or at least solid evidence)
  2. It is not logical or reasonable to firmly believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least convincing, quality evidence).

It does not matter how strong your faith or what color car you drive.   Although easier for you to address, those matters have nothing to do with the above two points.   

  1. If someone makes a claim such as 'evolution is pseudoscience' because it (to the claimer) contradicts his/her beliefs, then that claim bears the burden of proof.   This is basic logic that should be obvious to everyone with a post high-school education.
  2. If someone firmly believes something significant (e.g. aliens live among us, the Christian God exists, ...) for which there is no proof / firm evidence, then that belief is not reasonable or logical.

Talking around these fundamental points in an attempt to portray your interlocutors in a negative fashion is a dishonest tactic.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.77  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.73    6 months ago
More like a logical one.

nirvana fallacy ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.69    6 months ago
You can have faith in someone and I do not consider that delusional. 

That is a different usage of the word 'faith'.   Gordy is talking about firm belief in something for which there is no proof.   See TiG @ 7.1.59 .

Indeed, the something he is talking about belief in is the Christian God.   This is an extremely significant belief (as opposed to, say, belief that it will rain tomorrow).   It is not logical or reasonable to firmly hold such a belief, which has profound consequences and effects (e.g. people act on these beliefs ... sometimes in highly detrimental ways),  without proof (or at least convincing, quality supporting evidence).

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.79  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.69    6 months ago
Faith is hard to challenge. It’s something inside you and what you feel. It’s your confidence level about a person or idea. 

Nobody has challenged faith itself.   The challenge is to claims of certainty.   The other operative point in this thread is that it is not logical or reasonable to firmly believe in something for which there is no proof (or at least convincing, quality evidence).

One can believe that aliens are interbreeding with us right now, but that belief is not logical or reasonable given the lack of evidence. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.80  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.75    6 months ago
Yes, it is, I was just saying the word itself is not delusional.

I didn't say the word itself is delusion. It's the reason for the faith that might be delusional.

As for having faith in a god or other religions, that is also a personal feeling for some people. 

I am aware of that. But people tend to treat their god/s as real or true or tout their religion as more valid than actual facts or science and such. That's where the delusion comes in.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.81  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.77    6 months ago

No.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.82  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.81    6 months ago

No

"Perfect solution fallacy" ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.83  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.82    6 months ago

Not applicable.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.84  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.27    6 months ago
Katrix is a woman.    

Ok.

And you are not simply stating her beliefs.  

So her beliefs aren't what she stated--that people who believe in God are delusional? Did she tell you that, but decided to write something different?

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.85  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.83    6 months ago
Not applicable.

Nirvana fallacy. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.86  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.85    6 months ago

Repeating yourself?

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.87  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.86    6 months ago
Repeating yourself?

Logically speaking.....YES ! jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.88  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.87    6 months ago

Nothing logical about it.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.89  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.88    6 months ago
Nothing logical about it.

But...….But.....But....

I logically deduced that the "Perfect Solution", would be to agree with your response.

I was Wrong to AGREE ?

Are you just arguing, for arguments sake ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

That doesn't seem to be very ……. LOGICAL of you. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.90  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.89    6 months ago

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.91  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.90    6 months ago
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Logically speaking....isn't "Imitation" the highest form of "Flattery" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.92  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.84    6 months ago
So her beliefs aren't what she stated--that people who believe in God are delusional? Did she tell you that, but decided to write something different?

Not even close to what I wrote:

TiG @ 7.1.27 And you are not simply stating her beliefs.   You introduced the billions of believers notion, not katrix.   Thus you engaged in argumentum ad populum.   And that is true in spite of your lame denials.   

The above notes that your statement ...

Texan @   7.1.6    -    So the vast majority of people--over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history-- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.

... is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.    In short, just because billions of people believe something that does not mean it is true or even more likely true.   It was not that long ago that most everyone believed the sun orbited Earth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.93  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.91    6 months ago

Oh, is that what you're trying to do?

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.94  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.92    6 months ago

I quoted her accurately.

You can detract all you want, but it IS an accurate quote.

She CLEARLY said that believers are delusional.

Ergo, that would include believers throughout time.

She thinks that billions of people who have believed in God are delusional.

You can't even argue that simple fact, so I don't know why you keep trying.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.95  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.93    6 months ago
Oh, is that what you're trying to do?

 jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.96  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.80    6 months ago

Okay, I understand what you mean.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.97  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.79    6 months ago

Out of curiosity, what do you hope to accomplish with this debate on this subject? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.98  It Is ME  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.97    6 months ago
Out of curiosity, what do you hope to accomplish with this debate on this subject? 

Superiority complex ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

Nothing more....nothing less. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.99  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.97    6 months ago

In this thread I am almost entirely pointing people to what others have said and correcting misrepresentations.    

Strangely (inexplicably even) basic concepts such as the burden of proof seem to be confusing.   If someone makes a claim of certainty, they bear the burden of proof.  When people make comments that show they do not understand that well established principle of basic logic, I will often provide an explanation.

Other than that, I generally will challenge those who engage in intellectually dishonest tactics ... playing games as a smoke-screen for a losing position.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.100  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.98    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.101  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.94    6 months ago
She CLEARLY said that believers are delusional. Ergo, that would include believers throughout time.

TiG never claimed that I didn't say that. What he has repeatedly pointed out - and which keeps going right over your head - is that your comment seemed to clearly indicate that if billions of people have been religious, that should somehow change the validity of my comment. As if billions of people believing in a delusion make it any more factual than if a single person believed in it.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.102  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.100    6 months ago
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Even "Logic rules" Spock was wrong at times !

" The Galileo Seven " !

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.103  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.94    6 months ago
She CLEARLY said that believers are delusional.

Yes she did (albeit qualified), but that is not the point I made to you.   My point is that you implied that religious belief in God is not delusional because there are and have been "many billions" of believers.    Remember?:

katrix @7.1.5People who claim to hear voices are batshit crazy, IMO. People who take the bible literally are far removed from reality as well. Speaking in tongues, holy rolling, handling snakes ... batshit crazy. Those are just some examples.

Texan @7.1.6 So the vast majority of people--over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history-- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.

TiG @7.1.11Argumentum ad populum.   Prior to the 17th century, the supermajority believed that the Sun orbited the Earth.  Prior to 1924, the super majority of all people believed that our galaxy (the Milky Way) was the entire universe and that it was fixed (not growing or shrinking).  Commonly held beliefs are not necessarily true.    It is best to believe (falling short of certainty) that which has quality supporting evidence.

You are deflecting yet again.    Your response to katrix was a logical fallacy.    (Learn how this works and you will have the opportunity to make stronger arguments in the future.)


Texan @7.1.6  So the vast majority of people--over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history-- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.

... is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.    In short, just because billions of people believe something that does not mean it is true or even more likely true.   It was not that long ago that most everyone believed the sun orbited Earth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.104  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @7.1.101    6 months ago

You are free to interpret English as you wish.

Doesn't mean anyone else has to buy into your theory of the meaning of the written words plainly in front of them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.105  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.104    6 months ago

Faux obtuseness.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.106  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.105    6 months ago

7.1.104 is very apt to you, also.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.107  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.106    6 months ago

Pee Wee Herman is not a good role model for debate.   Best to stick with defensible facts and sound logic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.108  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.107    6 months ago

Sorry I refuse to succumb to the lazy and dishonest attempts of others to tell me what I meant when I write something.

Your PeeWee comment merely proves post 7.1.98 true.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.109  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.108    6 months ago

Never confuse silence with agreement.

My suggestion to you with this one ..... take that advice ...... jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.110  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.109    6 months ago

Well, at the risk of being deleted--I agree with you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.111  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.108    6 months ago
Sorry I refuse to succumb to the lazy and dishonest attempts of others to tell me what I meant when I write something.

I did not tell you what you mean, I noted that your statement was a logical fallacy.

I have quoted your exact words each time.   Just like this:

Texan @ 7.1.6    So the vast majority of people-- over a billion currently, and many billions throughout history -- with a religion believing in any God are just delusional.

Explain how I am telling you what you mean?    Does the above statement by you include the reference to " many billions " of believers?   Did you include that to suggest that their beliefs are not delusional because so many hold the belief?    If you are not making that suggestion, then correct my interpretation.  

The words I quoted seem to be clear with an obvious meaning.   But if that is not what you meant to say then make a correction.   I can only go by what you write unless you offer a correction.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.112  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.110    6 months ago

Lol ... i do seem to have the touch lately don't i?

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.113  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.111    6 months ago

Just. Stop.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.114  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.113    6 months ago

TiG simply asked for clarification of what you meant, since you were complaining about it. So what's the problem now?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.115  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.113    6 months ago

If you cannot take a rebuttal, do not make an allegation.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.116  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.109    6 months ago
Never confuse silence with agreement.

Silence can be viewed as an evasion. Or a surrender. Or that you just have nothing left to offer.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.117  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.112    6 months ago

No, you don't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.118  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.115    6 months ago

post 7.1.98.

'Nuff said!

But take the last word, by all means!

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.119  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.118    6 months ago

If one makes a claim or an allegation, one should expect a challenge / rebuttal.    If one engages honestly, the next exchange would be a counterpoint.   If the next exchange is nothing but deflection (or any other intellectually dishonest debate tactic) one should expect to be called out on it.    

The way to avoid this is to engage others as adults with honest responses to the points made.   That is vastly better than pretending to not understand what is written or other attempts at putting up a smoke screen in an attempt to cover up a failed point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.120  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.119    6 months ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.121  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.120    6 months ago

That "One MUST Count and Counter point logically" statement, is Nothing more than a " NEVER ENDING " story in the world of "I'm the Logical One, your not ". The Only logical conclusion to come from it is...…. NOTHINGNESS ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

You'll be wrong...the "Logical" will always be right (In their minds). Spock tells them so. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.122  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.121    6 months ago

What a logically bankrupt statement.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.123  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.119    6 months ago
The way to avoid this is to engage others as adults with honest responses to the points made.   

I don't know TiG. That might be expecting too much from some people. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.124  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.122    6 months ago
What a logically bankrupt statement.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Do expand....and make it long, as I'm a bit "Slow" at times. jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.125  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.124    6 months ago
Do expand.

What's to expand on? It's a statement devoid of and/or demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of logic.

as I'm a bit "Slow" at times

You said it, I didn't.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.126  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.125    6 months ago
It's a statement devoid of and/or demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of logic.

It's like you "Know Me". jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Did we "Mind Meld" in a past life ?

Logic:

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty 

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.127  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.99    6 months ago

Okay. Thanks for answering the question. I am asking because I am doing something for a college course I am taking. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.128  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.126    6 months ago
Logic:

Quite a narrow view of logic you have there. Here, allow me to provide the full definition:

(1) Definition of logic:: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning 
a professor of logic

(2): a branch or variety of logic 
modal logic
Boolean logic

(3) a branch of semiotics 
especially : syntactics

(4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge 
the logic of grammar

(1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty 
She spent a long time explaining the situation, but he failed to see her logic.

(2): relevance, propriety 
could not understand the logic of such an action
: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable 
By the logic of events, anarchy leads to dictatorship.

d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation 
also : the circuits themselves

2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason 
the logic of war

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty 

And your reasoning thus far has been profoundly faulty. This is demonstrated by your inability to elaborate on your post 7.1.121 (among others) and your juvenile tactics or statements that adds nothing to the discussion. 

 
 
 
Veronica
8  Veronica    6 months ago

Trusting in a sadistic, narcissistic POS that wants my fear is supposed to help me conquer fear - No thank you.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1  katrix  replied to  Veronica @8    6 months ago

It is rather ironic - worshipping an evil, immoral, genocidal maniac is supposed to conquer fear. Perhaps humans created some of their gods as decent beings, but the Abrahamic god is not one of those.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.1  Veronica  replied to  katrix @8.1    6 months ago

Not to mention the whole religion is based on fear.  Be good or go to HELL.

 
 
 
user image
8.1.2    replied to  Veronica @8.1.1    6 months ago

It's the same thing good parents do with children. Be good, or get punished.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.3  Veronica  replied to  @8.1.2    6 months ago

I never told my children they would spend eternity in the burning pit if they misbehave.  

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.4  katrix  replied to  @8.1.2    6 months ago
It's the same thing good parents do with children. Be good, or get punished.

That's amazing. You think good parents drown their children if they misbehave, stone them to death, order them to be raped, kidnapped and enslaved, torture them ...we put people like that in jail. If your god were real, it would be on trial for crimes against humanity. As described in the bible, it is the epitome of evil.

I sure hope you don't have children if you consider murder and torture to be valid punishments for misbehavior.

 
 
 
user image
8.1.5    replied to  katrix @8.1.4    6 months ago

You are being so melodramatic. Most successful systems are built on fear. How do you think the criminal justice system works? Be good or go to jail or even be executed. It's not a foreign concept why would religion be any different?

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  @8.1.5    6 months ago

Please note those 'successful systems built on fear'

 
 
 
user image
8.1.7    replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    6 months ago

I already listed one in the comment you replied to. Why do people follow speed limits? Because if not they could possibly get a fine or lose their license or something that would be a punishment to them. It would probably benefit most people to speed most of the time, but the FEAR of punishment keeps most people driving responsibly. Get it?

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.8  katrix  replied to  @8.1.5    6 months ago
It's not a foreign concept why would religion be any different?

Religion is far worse. Disobedience justifies stoning children to death?

The bible is melodramatic; equating God's torture and murder with what a "good parent" would do is ridiculous.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.9  Veronica  replied to  @8.1.7    6 months ago
but the FEAR of punishment keeps most people driving responsibly. Get it?

Uh huh - sure it does.  

 
 
 
user image
8.1.10    replied to  katrix @8.1.8    6 months ago

You do realize that stoning children was acceptable in society back then? It's not like that was something only religious people did. You can't judge the Bible based on your current SJW standards. Taking the Bible too literally makes you totally miss the whole point of the book.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.11  katrix  replied to  @8.1.10    6 months ago
Taking the Bible too literally makes you totally miss the whole point of the book.

On that, we agree. However, the person who seeded this crap is a biblical literalist and a Christian dominionist.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.12  katrix  replied to  @8.1.10    6 months ago
You can't judge the Bible based on your current SJW standards.

Of course I can. When you're trying to justify your God's atrocious, immoral actions by comparing them to parents punishing their children, I can absolutely judge the biblical God and find it to be evil. The bible specifically tells people to rape and enslave little girls, and to commit all kinds of atrocities. And since people use the bible as an authoritative source, it's worth pointing out its immorality.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  @8.1.7    6 months ago

That one example is a bogus example though.  So is the speeding example.  

And you've given only one example.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  @8.1.10    6 months ago

How many people take the bible literally? There are certain individuals here on NT who do. Also some high profile individuals in society too. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  @8.1.5    6 months ago
... why would religion be any different?

Since religion is an invention of mankind, one would expect it to be based on extremes:   fear for those who do not tow the line and the greatest possibly heavenly rewards for those who do is the masterstroke recipe for controlling minds.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Veronica @8.1.3    6 months ago

My mom was more subtle.  She used to toss me marshmallows or hot dogs if I misbehaved saying  "These might come in handy where you are going."

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8    6 months ago

Who do you know who worships a God like that?

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.1  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    6 months ago

Anyone who's a biblical literalist worships a god like that.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.2  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    6 months ago

I think katrix nailed it.

sadistic - flooding the earth killing all except for Noah & his family, allowing "the devil" to torture Job on a bet, cancer, childhood deaths, accidents, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes etc etc etc 

narcissistic - worship only ME - I am the only true God - even though other enlightened & prosperous civilizations had numerous gods before "God" popped up - and that "God" has no name - really - maybe cuz he doesn't want Christians to know they are worshiping Puck?????

Just a few examples....

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.2.2    6 months ago

So if one isn't a bible literalist, they are just delusional. Got it already, thanks.

it does lead me to wonder why some here try so hard to convince others that they are delusional and wrong for believing in God. Have you ever convinced anyone they are wrong to believe in God? Has anyone on here ever convinced anyone they are wrong to believe in God?

I just wonder why so many try so hard.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.4  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    6 months ago

You mean like HA insinuating if we do not trust in God will we spend 2020 in fear?  I wonder why so many try so hard to make everyone around them worship their god.

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.5  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    6 months ago

I don't think any of us care if someone needs to believe in gods; lots of people need crutches to make it through life. It's when they try to force those beliefs onto others, into our schools and laws, and use them to discriminate against others that we have a problem. Those delusions have led to the deaths of millions and millions of people.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.6  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    6 months ago
it does lead me to wonder why some here try so hard to convince others that they are delusional and wrong for believing in God. Have you ever convinced anyone they are wrong to believe in God? Has anyone on here ever convinced anyone they are wrong to believe in God?

I have to wonder why some here try so hard to put the fear of their god into people that believe other things. HA is known for it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.2.6    6 months ago

If you have any problems with what HA states, you should probably take it up with him.

I wasn;t talking about him. I was talking about the people I responded to on here---people convinced that those who believe in God are delusional, and trying to make sure everyone knows that.

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.8  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.7    6 months ago

If people like HA would stop preaching all the time, nobody would even be discussing it. But he keeps trying to convert everyone to worship his evil god, and posting Christian dominionist bullshit, so people push back. Funny that you have a problem with people responding to bullshit ... and nobody's forcing you to read our responses anyway.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.5    6 months ago
I don't think any of us care if someone needs to believe in gods; lots of people need crutches to make it through life.

I don't believe that statement for a second. On any article remotely to do with religion, or God, the same folks show up to call believers delusional, crutch-needing people.

Seems they spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone who believes that they are wrong to believe because they look at things differently than you do.

And little snide comments like that are one of the reasons why I don't promote any religion. Just not worth any of my time to try to convince anyone otherwise, I just let people believe as they choose regarding God without the petty insults. 

Petty, cheap insults don't convince anyone that you are right and they are wrong. I bet you can't tell me one person on here you have convinced that God doesn't exist.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.10  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.7    6 months ago

No, of course you wouldn't speak about HA & his endless preaching -  you only think people speaking their mind is wrong & bad if it goes against your god.  You spoke to me so I am speaking to you - if you don't want people speaking about your god then stop bringing Puck up & defending the sadistic narcissistic POS. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.8    6 months ago
and nobody's forcing you to read our responses anyway.

Is anyone forcing you to read HA's posts or threads? You came here willingly, right?

That is a mere cop-out.

HA isn't going to convince anyone either.

Difference is I can recognize that from BOTH sides.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.12  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    6 months ago

Just as I believe you & HA are trying to convince people your god is the only god & if we don't believe we are bad people. 

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.13  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    6 months ago
Petty, cheap insults don't convince anyone that you are right and they are wrong. I bet you can't tell me one person on here you have convinced that God doesn't exist.

Maybe you should stop then.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.14  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.11    6 months ago

Free country.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.2.12    6 months ago
Just as I believe you & HA are trying to convince people your god is the only god & if we don't believe we are bad people. 

You are completely free to believe whatever it is you want, but you would be hard pressed to prove that I have ever tried to convince anyone here about my religion or God.

No need to lump all believers together--I am not lumping all nonbelievers together--I am talking specifically in response to what you two have posted.

If you have a problem with what HA says--TAKE IT UP WITH HIM.

No, of course you wouldn't speak about HA & his endless preaching -  you only think people speaking their mind is wrong & bad if it goes against your god. 

That statement is a lie. As I have stated MANY TIMES on here--I don't care what your religion is or if you even have one.

I do consider it cheap and childish to degrade people who believe--just like I think it is cheap and childish to degrade those who don't believe.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.2.13    6 months ago
Maybe you should stop then.

Stop exactly WHAT, Veronica?

Do tell.

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.17  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    6 months ago
I bet you can't tell me one person on here you have convinced that God doesn't exist.

Actually, SW Missouri Mule was raised as a fundie and it was reading comments on NV that freed her from her brainwashing.

And if you see Enoch's articles, you won't see anyone trying to convince him that God doesn't exist - because he doesn't post preachy, idiotic bullshit.

Again, if the responses to HA's idiotic seeds bother you so much, nobody's forcing you to read them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.2.14    6 months ago
Free country.

Was anyone disputing that? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.17    6 months ago
Again, if the responses to HA's idiotic seeds bother you so much, nobody's forcing you to read them.

Again, if HA's posts bother you so much, nobody's forcing you to read them.

Doesn't that sound churlish and childish?

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.20  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.19    6 months ago

Sometimes it's fun to read idiotic things and call out their idiocy.

I'm not the one who always whines about other people's comments .. but clearly the comments bother you since you're always whining about them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.20    6 months ago
Sometimes it's fun to read idiotic things and call out their idiocy. 
I'm not the one who always whines about other people's comments .. but clearly the comments bother you since you're always whining about them.

I sincerely hope one day you will be able to tell the difference between someone attempting to have a discussion and someone whining, but I kind of doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

What I complained about was the fact that some people here can't seem to tolerate any other points of view without resorting to cheap, petty insults.

I suppose that is the best way they can communicate their feelings and thoughts.

Pity.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.17    6 months ago
Actually, SW Missouri Mule was raised as a fundie and it was reading comments on NV that freed her from her brainwashing. 

Congrats on "curing" someone of their delusions through insults and snark.

You should be so proud.

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.23  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.22    6 months ago
Congrats on "curing" someone of their delusions through insults and snark.

Actually, it was the logic and rational discussion that did the trick. Talking about how there is no way the biblical flood actually occurred, and providing proof that the story was plagiarized from a much earlier myth ... She hadn't been exposed to that before, and it made her start thinking, which she had always been told not to do. Many people are told it's a sin to question their faith.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.17    6 months ago
And if you see Enoch's articles, you won't see anyone trying to convince him that God doesn't exist - because he doesn't post preachy, idiotic bullshit.

So it is just the people you don't like who believe in God that get branded as delusional? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.23    6 months ago
Actually, it was the logic and rational discussion that did the trick. Talking about how there is no way the biblical flood actually occurred, and providing proof that the story was plagiarized from a much earlier myth ... She hadn't been exposed to that before, and it made her start thinking, which she had always been told not to do. Many people are told it's a sin to question their faith.

I find it impossible to believe--based on past comments--that you could manage such a discussion without resorting to insults.

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.26  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.24    6 months ago
So it is just the people you don't like who believe in God that get branded as delusional? 

It's the extremists .. the fundies and literalists, primarily. I love my sister and I get along wonderfully with my next door neighbor, but they are both young earth creationists and yes, they are totally delusional since they've managed to convince themselves that people have only been around for 6,000 years despite all the proof to the contrary. It has to do with the degree of delusion.

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.27  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.25    6 months ago

What you believe about me is of zero concern to me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.27    6 months ago
It's the extremists .. the fundies and literalists, primarily. I love my sister and I get along wonderfully with my next door neighbor, but they are both young earth creationists and yes, they are totally delusional since they've managed to convince themselves that people have only been around for 6,000 years despite all the proof to the contrary. It has to do with the degree of delusion.

Do you routinely tell them that they are delusional?

I'm betting you don't.

You already stated that anyone believing in God is delusional.

I bet you can't resist pointing it out to them at every opportunity.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.27    6 months ago
What you believe about me is of zero concern to me.

Defense mechanism?

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.30  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.28    6 months ago
Do you routinely tell them that they are delusional?

Of course not. We don't discuss religion at all. I did ask my neighbor if she was a young earth creationist when I saw Ken Hamm's book on her coffee table, but that's the only time it's even come up. Neither of them preaches or insults non-believers or tries to convince people that science is bullshit, as certain seeders in here do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.30    6 months ago
Neither of them preaches or insults non-believers or tries to convince people that science is bullshit, as certain seeders in here do.

Perhaps you should address your complaints to the seeder if you have objections to what he posts and are unable to ignore it.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.32  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.31    6 months ago

So why do you care what katrix thinks & why comment?  You think katrix and I should ignore HA's posts because we don't agree MAYBE you should take your own advice & ignore our comments.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.2.32    6 months ago
So why do you care what katrix thinks & why comment? 

Because I can do it without insults?

You think katrix and I should ignore HA's posts because we don't agree MAYBE you should take your own advice & ignore our comments.  

Sure, I can and do often ignore comments. I won't ignore insults.

There is a distinct difference.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.33    6 months ago
Sure, I can and do often ignore comments. I won't ignore insults.

Do you have anything to offer other than complaining that people on a public forum challenge bold, unsupported religious claims made on the public forum?

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.35  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.31    6 months ago
Perhaps you should address your complaints to the seeder if you have objections to what he posts and are unable to ignore it.

Perhaps you shouldn't have jumped into a conversation that was initially between me and Veronica if our comments upset you so much.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.35    6 months ago
Perhaps you shouldn't have jumped into a conversation that was initially between me and Veronica if our comments upset you so much.

I can live with the insults. Especially coming from you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.37  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.34    6 months ago
'Do you have anything to offer other than complaining that people on a public forum challenge bold, unsupported religious claims made on the public forum?'

Obviously not.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.38  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.34    6 months ago
Do you have anything to offer other than complaining that people on a public forum challenge bold, unsupported religious claims made on the public forum?

Yes.

Next question?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @8.2.10    6 months ago
No, of course you wouldn't speak about HA & his endless preaching -  you only think people speaking their mind is wrong & bad if it goes against your god.  You spoke to me so I am speaking to you - if you don't want people speaking about your god then stop bringing Puck up & defending the sadistic narcissistic POS. 

What is that babble?

 
 
 
Sparty On
9  Sparty On    6 months ago

Ah yes, nothing gets the old Newstalkers spooled up better than a nice religious discussion.   Not even Trump.

I really don't know why it seems to matter to so many people.   Neither side is going to change their minds.

I know i'm not .... no matter how hard nonbelievers try to insult and look down their noses at me.   Knock yourselves out haters

Honey Badger don't care, Honey Badger don't give a shit ....

 
 
 
Veronica
9.1  Veronica  replied to  Sparty On @9    6 months ago

You mean people like [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Veronica @9.1    6 months ago

I'm confused.   He's hating on you because he places HIS FAITH in God?

??

 
 
 
Veronica
9.1.2  Veronica  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.1    6 months ago

No, and you know exactly what I mean, but decided to play dumb.  He is very condescending when it comes to other's faith and you know it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Veronica @9.1.2    6 months ago
He is very condescending when it comes to other's faith and you know it.

He can be but that knife cuts both ways here and you know exactly what I mean.   He gets dog-piled on here regularly.   I'm not defending his stuff, that's his business but i'm definitely not defending the many dogs on the pile either.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.3    6 months ago
He gets dog-piled on here regularly.  

When someone proudly, stubbornly and repeatedly declares on a public forum that God is real, a particular religion is truth, evolution is pseudoscience - a worldwide conspiracy of godless scientists, etc. there will be (and should be) challenges to that.

Note that the super majority of religious articles are posted here by religious promoters.   It is unreasonable to expect these to stand unchallenged.   The more outrageous the claim the more likely to have multiple challenges.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.4    6 months ago

True but the real magic happens when that debate/disagreement is done respectfully.   On both sides.

That rarely happens.   That said the negativity towards religion here, specifically Christianity, IS very palpable.

Do you deny that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.5    6 months ago

Yes discourse is indeed generally negative.

Here is what I personally experience in these matters.   When I raise a challenge it is based on the claim and is supported by facts and/or reason.   Before I make a claim / rebuttal, I first ensure that I can back it up.

Often, the challenge is met with an intellectually dishonest tactic such as equivocation, deflection, obtuseness, strawman, ... or making it personal.

Rarely do I find a religious interlocutor who will engage in debate without resorting to such tactics.   Often the tactics are used in the first reply.

So unless one is willing to engage challenges honestly and as an adult, it is best to not make bold, unsubstantiated claims in a public forum.   Especially if the claims are hosted by an article.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.6    6 months ago

Like i said, that knife cuts both ways.  

For the most part i try not getting into it anymore with many people here on religion.   There are some here who feel different than i who can debate honestly and respectfully.   Thats cool and all good.   It does get old trying to explain for example, the concept of "faith" to a true nonbeliever and its usually a fools errand.   Not always though as evidenced by today.    But it usually devolves into how stupid people are for believing in something that can't be proven scientifically.    And that really cracks me up since i'm an Engineer by training.   I doubt many people here have more "scientific' creds than i. 

Name calling rarely accomplishes anything.   Especially the Passive Aggressive kind that tries to get around forum rules and regs.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.7    6 months ago
Like i said, that knife cuts both ways.  

Of course, but that is an over-simplification.   That is like saying both R and D partisans cherry-pick to present their positions in the most favorable light.  (Euphemistically stated, by the way, to not use the word 'lying').

Since we are repeating, I will repeat that the super majority of religious articles are posted by pro-religious individuals.   The 'knife cuts both ways' is true simplistically and in the abstract, but there is far more to the story than that.   

For example, do you find people challenging Enoch, et. al.?   The main reason is that Enoch (used as an exemplar) does not wave his religion as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.   He does not make outrageous claims based on religious beliefs such as evolution is a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.   He does not claim that those who do not envision God (G-d) as he does will 'suffer the consequences'.    He does not make claims of certainty that his God (G-d) is real and that Trump was hand-picked by God (G-d).   (on and on ...)

Those who engage in aggressive proselytizing and/or stubbornly obtuse declarations based on religious beliefs and in direct contradiction with well founded evidence and logic should (and will) be challenged on public forums.   Those, like Enoch, who intelligently and honestly engage others in adult discourse are respected and treated in kind.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @9    6 months ago

I don't look down my nose at you. But then, you aren't a literalist and you don't constantly post bullshit articles insulting anyone who doesn't share your faith, or spout off about wanting to deny others equal rights because of your religious beliefs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @9.2    6 months ago
I don't look down my nose at you. But then, you aren't a literalist and you don't constantly post bullshit articles insulting anyone who doesn't share your faith, or spout off about wanting to deny others equal rights because of your religious beliefs.

Right.

He's just delusional, correct?

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @9.2    6 months ago

Thats good and i hear what you are saying but you would have to have you eyes wide shut to not see it here.   There is clearly a anti religion bias with many active members here on NT as HA's articles regarding the same ALWAYS get heavily attacked.   Which is to be expected because they are apparently controversial to many here.

And honestly i think thats great as long as its done respectfully but you and i both know that is not what normally happens.   The hammer of sanctimonious non-belief gets dropped on all of them and usually quickly.   Then both sides, myself included sometimes, are off and running.   It accomplishes little but stroking egos i suppose.

That said and using your on train of thought, why do you care what HA thinks?   Why read/respond to his stuff?

Again, no one here is changing anyone's mind that i can see.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.3  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @9.2.2    6 months ago
That said and using your on train of thought, why do you care what HA thinks?

Honestly, it's just so much anti-science bullshit that I can't resist pointing it out. I just can't read a comment which claims the Earth's axial tilt was caused by a non-existent flood without attacking it for the bullshit that it is. Science is too wonderful a thing to be shit on like that. And if HA would stop posting articles that are clearly intended to insult others, maybe he wouldn't get attacked.

Besides, he has such an emotional attachment to his Christian persecution complex, I'm probably actually doing him a favor.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.4  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.1    6 months ago
He's just delusional, correct?

Most people are delusional about something.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @9.2.4    6 months ago
Most people are delusional about something. 

You base that statement on what?

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @9.2.3    6 months ago
I'm probably actually doing him a favor.

Lol .... well, that would be a whole other complex typical in many tech/science types but lets not get into that here.   There is already enough degrees of freedom in this discussion.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.7  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.5    6 months ago
You base that statement on what?

Human nature. We seem to be wired to invent religions, and there are all kinds of other ways we manage to be delusional. For example, did you ever take a psychology course and learn about the defense mechanisms?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @9.2.7    6 months ago
We seem to be wired to invent religions, 

Wired? How so? You don't seem to be "wired" in that way. Millions aren't, so I don't see the relevancy of stating that.

Wired by what, exactly? And why?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
9.2.9  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @9.2.2    6 months ago
as long as its done respectfully

Well said...separate the wheat from the chaff and agree to disagree. And as you so correctly state..."no one here is changing anyone's mind." 

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.10  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.8    6 months ago
Wired? How so?

I read a lot of scientific articles. You can google it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @9.2.7    6 months ago
'We seem to be wired to invent religions, and there are all kinds of other ways we manage to be delusional.'

Scientology is another good example.  People pour millions into that nonsense.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.1    6 months ago

You said it, we didnt. And it's also made evident by the types of articles posted or seeded.

 
 
 
user image
9.3    replied to  Sparty On @9    6 months ago

I think it's worth discussing. If it gets someone outside of their group think bubble and having a constructive dialogue then I think it's a positive. A lot of people have a negative view of religion because all of their friends do or it conflicts with their political stance. Sometimes you have to be there to represent the other side they rarely get to hear from. That's the way I see it anyways. I'm not even what I would call a practicing Christian but I think it's good for society and worth defending.

 
 
 
katrix
9.3.1  katrix  replied to  @9.3    6 months ago
I'm not even what I would call a practicing Christian but I think it's good for society and worth defending.

My Mom is a retired Episcopal deacon - religion has been wonderful for her. Unfortunately, now that she has dementia, I can't get her interested in going to church services. But I called the priest at her former church and he arranged for a local church to bring Mom communion once or twice a month. When I was at her apartment a couple of days before Christmas, the priest herself showed up with two other women and a small keyboard - we had a small Christmas service with communion and some Christmas carols. The priest had Mom read the gospel, as she would have done when she was a deacon. Then Mom kept going and read most of the priest's part ;)  We just laughed and let her keep going.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  @9.3    6 months ago
I think it's worth discussing.

Agreed, until it gets into the enviable name calling and pro/anti religion sniping.   One of the big three discussion no-no's ..... Religion, Money and Politics.  

But hell. then no one would be here helping Perrie to pay for this fine site ...... jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
9.3.3  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @9.3.2    6 months ago

Money is one of the three no-nos? I mean, I don't tell people how much money I make, but I like talking about money and investments and such and haven't noticed it causing any issues.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @9.3.3    6 months ago

One example that comes to mind:

Me and some friends were talking about our 401k's and investments once.   No dollars amounts were discussed but one of them took offense to the perceived success a couple of us have had.   I mean he was pissed off jealous.   My jaw dropped and i no longer discuss such things with that person around.   Its just not worth it.

Sooner or later It'll happen to you  if you don't put any filters on such discussions ... trust me.   Especially if you are perceived as the successful one

 
 
 
user image
9.3.5    replied to  katrix @9.3.1    6 months ago

That sounds nice of you. I think a belief in God gets a little more important the older you get.

 
 
 
katrix
9.3.6  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @9.3.4    6 months ago

Good point. I guess I do put filters on such discussions, and I have seen people get offended when someone is talking about their beach house or whatever.

 
 
 
katrix
9.3.7  katrix  replied to  @9.3.5    6 months ago
That sounds nice of you

Well, just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I don't respect how important Mom's faith was to her, and try my best to keep religion in her life. I also adore her former priest and talk to him every month or two.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.3.8  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @9.3.6    6 months ago

Yep, its pretty catty and happens all the time

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.3.9  Kathleen  replied to  @9.3.5    6 months ago

It does, I wonder how some on here would react if they knew they only had a few weeks.  I truly think that we all are a little afraid of the “unknown”.

 
 
 
lady in black
9.3.10  lady in black  replied to  @9.3.5    6 months ago

Don't bet on it.  I watched and held my husband as he passed away 7 years ago at the age of 54, received the American Flag 11 yrs ago at the funeral of my son who was 24, and lost my dad who was 45 when I was 14 years old.  

Do you seriously think these deaths brought me closer to God, no it did not, it pushed me further away.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.3.11  Kathleen  replied to  lady in black @9.3.10    6 months ago

Sorry for all those losses Lady, I have had some too. My dad passed away when I was 16. My mom and only sister died within 2 years of each other. It still feels like it was yesterday. It pushed me further away too. Then I started experiencing some signs that they may be giving me. I truly believe that they are still around you and somehow leaving you some signs. 

 
 
 
lady in black
9.3.12  lady in black  replied to  Kathleen @9.3.11    6 months ago

I know my son and my husband are around and looking out for me.  Can't explain it but I know they are there.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.3.13  Kathleen  replied to  lady in black @9.3.12    6 months ago

They certainly are.. : )

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.3.14  Sparty On  replied to  lady in black @9.3.10    6 months ago

Thats too bad and yours is a terrible string of bad stuff to happen to anyone.   Very sorry you had to go through all that but i hope you've found a way to be at peace with it.   Whatever that may be.   We all need to find solace in such situations and in the end it doesn't really matter where it comes from.   It just needs to come.  

Really hoping you have for your sake and the rest of your friends and family.

 
 
 
lady in black
9.3.15  lady in black  replied to  Sparty On @9.3.14    6 months ago

I grieve everyday for them, I cry everyday for them.  

I was with my husband since the age of 14...the only man I have ever been with, the love of my life and my soul mate.

I look at the positives in my life....Great family, wonder friends, my dog Shadow, I have a good job, I own a home and lastly don't have money worries.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.3.16  Gordy327  replied to  @9.3.5    6 months ago

Perhaps more due to fear than anything else. Belief then is more emotionally based. Still irrational too.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10  Gordy327    6 months ago

The definite on of faith does not include rational. The problem is you fail to understand that and instead prefer to play thsee games and dodge questions posed. It's not only obvious,  it's intellectually dishonest .

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Nowhere Man
Paula Bartholomew
Save Me Jebus
Drakkonis
Mark in Wyoming
Gazoo
MUVA
GregTx
JohnRussell


37 visitors