1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

addx: Yes, you made your argument there, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THAT THREAD ACCEPTED YOUR ARGUMENT AS VALID.

So? What now? You still think you've proven it, ALL OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN YOUR PROOF ON THIS FORUM DENY THIS.

Is it then proven in any measure? Can you answer this simple question?

We didn't have an election or poll so how can you say this?  There were only a couple involved in the discussion.  I didn't use the word "proven," you did.  No one else denied it even though they were mostly atheists.  What nonsense.

Yes. Nothing in the created cosmos can explain itself by mathematics which is used by science to describe things.  In the end it all requires faith which is my point.  Godel was a theist driven by the incompleteness theorem but that's another story.  See the discussion in "Is there Evidence For Atheism?" 
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 July 2014 - 08:02 PM.

[serp777]

 

addx: Yes, you made your argument there, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THAT THREAD ACCEPTED YOUR ARGUMENT AS VALID.

So? What now? You still think you've proven it, ALL OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN YOUR PROOF ON THIS FORUM DENY THIS.

Is it then proven in any measure? Can you answer this simple question?

We didn't have an election or poll so how can you say this?  There were only a couple involved in the discussion.  I didn't use the word "proven," you did.  No one else denied it even though they were mostly atheists.  What nonsense.

Yes. Nothing in the created cosmos can explain itself by mathematics which is used by science to describe things.  In the end it all requires faith which is my point.  Godel was a theist driven by the incompleteness theorem but that's another story.  See the discussion in "Is there Evidence For Atheism?" 
 

 

Create a poll then. I think the poll is not very relevant anyways, but it would show that most people do not agree with your arguments. I think the fact that you've lost all of your rep points is a good example of people disagreeing with you. I remember when you had 50 reputation points when I first signed up, and now you're down to 19. If you scroll through those posts here, you'll notice most of the negative comments and feedback has been on your posts. Again, i don't think that alone reflects that you are inherently wrong, but most people recognize that you are probably wrong. 

[Duchykins]

And that's not even counting the random guests that read the threasd from time to time.

[Lewis Carroll]

 

 

addx: Yes, you made your argument there, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THAT THREAD ACCEPTED YOUR ARGUMENT AS VALID.

So? What now? You still think you've proven it, ALL OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN YOUR PROOF ON THIS FORUM DENY THIS.

Is it then proven in any measure? Can you answer this simple question?

We didn't have an election or poll so how can you say this?  There were only a couple involved in the discussion.  I didn't use the word "proven," you did.  No one else denied it even though they were mostly atheists.  What nonsense.

Yes. Nothing in the created cosmos can explain itself by mathematics which is used by science to describe things.  In the end it all requires faith which is my point.  Godel was a theist driven by the incompleteness theorem but that's another story.  See the discussion in "Is there Evidence For Atheism?" 
 

 

Create a poll then. I think the poll is not very relevant anyways, but it would show that most people do not agree with your arguments. I think the fact that you've lost all of your rep points is a good example of people disagreeing with you. I remember when you had 50 reputation points when I first signed up, and now you're down to 19. If you scroll through those posts here, you'll notice most of the negative comments and feedback has been on your posts. Again, i don't think that alone reflects that you are inherently wrong, but most people recognize that you are probably wrong. 

 

 

I remember when he had over 130 rep points xD

[addx]

addx: Yes, you made your argument there, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THAT THREAD ACCEPTED YOUR ARGUMENT AS VALID.

So? What now? You still think you've proven it, ALL OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN YOUR PROOF ON THIS FORUM DENY THIS.

Is it then proven in any measure? Can you answer this simple question?

We didn't have an election or poll so how can you say this?  There were only a couple involved in the discussion.  I didn't use the word "proven," you did.  No one else denied it even though they were mostly atheists.  What nonsense.

They ALL denied it, some of them were not atheists.

 

It is not the computer that is incomplete, it is the program run on it, so this whole silly exercise in trying to apply unconnected ideas to religion is futile.

I knew more about Godel's theorem than you have shown me before I even entered into this discussion. And his personal beliefs do not change the fact that his Theorem says nothing about God, Atheism, or any of the things that you're attempting to force it to say. Talking down to everyone who comes into this thread and showing explanations of the theorem does nothing to change that. God is not Mathematics. Atheism is not mathematics. You are trying to bend a logical mathematical theorem to try and disprove a rejection of bad evidence. It's not working.

and dont forget little old me. All three of us gave up on that topic and others as well.

Then came duchykins and serp, bluecloud and further rejected your ideas and it all turned your thread into a place to make jokes.

The thread is still there open and obviously showing that NOONE considers your claims to hold value.

So, this is "how I can say that". It also shows how much perspective you lack. And it also shows that your "nonsense" claims are really "that part of reality is denied" claims.

Your conduct eventually even caused a thread to be created to make jokes about you.

You are proving the world a bully by acting like an asshole and getting teased. Your ability to provoke this scenario seems highly evolved by use of cognitive dissonance denial tactics.

Focusing on anticipating others as bullies or ignorants causes you to actually "create" them out of normal people by making you discuss and dismiss things in an obnoxious way, tone, and emotion. It causes others to RESPOND antagonistic towards you (most of them took a few posts to change attitude towards you) and when you see this behavior you conclude that others trully are bullies and ignorants as predicted meaning you and your ideas must be "true" causing reinforcement of the maladaptive denial tactic and so you further engage in this "inside-out" validation of your concepts as if it were some sort of a drug, making you "truer and truer" with each insult provoked.

You do not infact think that your ideas are true. They are just something you whip out to provoke these scenarios.
What you really think(in fact need) is that others are bullies and ignorants and you provoke these scenarios to prove it. Causing others to behave as bullies and ignorants makes you ecstatic and at that time you think your theories are most proven. But infact your idea about others being bullies and ignorants is most proven and this is where your cognitive dissonance happens, you like to see this emotion of success stemming from your written concepts rather than written provocations that make people go off on you. This causes you to feel like you've "proven it more" and it causes you to feel even more confident causing you to have an even more obnoxious attitude towards other peoples ability to reason causing an escalation in bullying towards you. Others disengage from this cycle while you remain here, causing it repeatedly, because you can't see it.

You think making someone go off like a bully confirms that he is one at all times and this way of thinking supports that you are something (truth owner?) also all of the time.

But the truth is all people can be made to go off like a bully. All people can be made to act in all ways. They can be made to act sad, mad, angry, smart, stupid. It's how they manage and resist this that's important. If you can't see yourself for how you're acting you can't really judge if the other person responded "fair" or not to your engagement. The response to your godels theorem was a clear and evident dismissal by most people engaged in it. You don't see it. You see them "calling names" and "talking nonsense". You also don't see the obnoxious attitude(condescending emotion) you have towards peoples ability to reason(you needing them to be ignorant) which insults them which provokes the name callling.

Edited by addx, 16 July 2014 - 08:01 AM.

[shadowhawk]

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 July 2014 - 06:34 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Is Christianity Growing?

 

http://www.reasonabl...-more-religious

 

 

 

[serp777]

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Way to ignore more than half the arguments presented to you. This is why you've lost all your rep. Major deflections and then reverting back to smiley faces and crying about alleged name calling. Basically everyone here recognizes that your debate tactics are miserable

Then you talk about religious growth, as if that has anything to do with evidence for religion

Edited by serp777, 17 July 2014 - 03:39 AM.

[Duchykins]

Is Christianity Growing?
 
http://www.reasonabl...-more-religious
 
 
 

Organized Christianity has lost a significant portion of its younger adherents 18-35 in the past ten years. Not that they're becoming atheist but they are increasingly disappointed and disgusted with the activities and beliefs of politically active and conservative Christians. Antihomosexuality alone has backfired, followed by overinvolvement in politics, hypocrisy, sexism and general intolerance. The Catholic Church recently had a small panic attack when they recognized the generational gap... which meant that when the older generation dies, their numbers of adherents plummets with them, and there goes a lot of money. So that is why the Vatican has changed some of their policies recently, and is why the new Pope is such a swell guy. It's all about regaining Christians who want a more tolerant Christianity.

And lol, don't think Protestant denominations haven't suffered either. Most of the 'liberal' denominations are okay, but several of the more fundamentalist denominations, including Evangelicalism, have lost and are continuing to lose the young adult and middle aged adherents. That's why you see this pop culture nonsense "I'm not religious, I have a personal relationship with Jesus", other silly denials of religioisity, refusals to identify as Christian (while actually still being Christian)... etc etc all of this is a result of people trying to distance themselves from the dark side of organized Christianity (of which you are a part)

Popular Evangelical blogger appeals to fellow Christians

http://rachelheldeva...-north-carolina

How to win a culture war and lose a generation


When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was antihomosexual. For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : judgmental, hypocritical, and too involved in politics.) 

In the book that documents these findings, titled unChristian, David Kinnaman writes: 

The gay issue has become the big one, the negative image most likely to be intertwined with Christianitys reputation. It is also the dimensions that most clearly demonstrates the unchristian faith to young people today, surfacing in a spate of negative perceptions: judgmental, bigoted, sheltered, right-wingers, hypocritical, insincere, and uncaring. Outsiders say [Christian] hostility toward gays...has become virtually synonymous with the Christian faith.

 Later research, documented in Kinnamans You Lost Me, reveals that one of the top reasons 59 percent of young adults with a Christian background have left the church is because they perceive the church to be too exclusive, particularly regarding their LGBT friends.  Eight million twenty-somethings have left the church, and this  is one reason why. 

In my experience, all the anecdotal evidence backs up the research. 

When I speak at Christian colleges, I often take time to chat with students in the cafeteria.  When I ask them what issues are most important to them, they consistently report that they are frustrated by how the Church has treated their gay and lesbian friends.  Some of these students would say they most identify with what groups like the Gay Christian Network term Side A (they believe homosexual relationships have the same value as heterosexual relations in the sight of God). Others better identify with Side B (they believe only male/female relationship in marriage is Gods intent for sexuality).  But every single student I have spoken with believes that the Church has mishandled its response to homosexuality. 

Most have close gay and lesbian friends. 

Most feel that the Churchs response to homosexuality is partly responsible for high rates of depression and suicide among their gay and lesbian friends, particularly those who are gay and Christian. 

Most are highly suspicious of ex-gay ministries that encourage men and women with same-sex attractions to marry members of the opposite sex in spite of their feelings. 

Most feel that the church is complicit, at least at some level, in anti-gay bullying.

And most...I daresay all...have expressed to me passionate opposition to legislative action against gays and lesbians. 

When evangelicals turn their anti-gay sentiments into a political campaign, one college senior on her way to graduate school told me, all it does is confirm to my gay friends that they will never be welcome in the church. It makes them bitter, and it makes me mad too.  This is why I never refer to myself as an evangelical. Ugh. Im embarrassed to be part of that group. 

I can relate. 

When Tennessee added an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage (even though it was already illegal in the state), members of my church at the time put signs in the yard declaring support for the initiative. From my perspective, the message this sent to the entire community was simple: EVERYONE BUT GAYS WELCOME. 

Dan and I left the church soon afterwards. 

Which brings me to North Carolina and Amendment One. 

Despite the fact that the North Carolina law already holds that marriage in the eyes of state is only between a man and a woman, an amendment was put on the ballot to permanently ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution. The initiative doesnt appear to change anything on a practical level, (though some are saying it may have unintended negative consequences on heterosexual relationships), but seems to serve primarily as an ideological statement

....an expensive, destructive, and impractical ideological statement. 

Conservatives in the statewho you would think would be more opposed to tampering with constitutionssupported the amendment, and last night it passed. Religious leaders led the charge in support of the amendment, with 93-year-old  Billy Graham taking out multiple ads in publications across the state supporting the measure. 

As I watched my Facebook and Twitter feeds last night, the reaction among my friends fell into an imperfect but highly predictable pattern. Christians over 40 were celebrating. Christians under 40 were mourning.  Reading through the comments, the same thought kept returning to my mind as occurred to me when I first saw that Billy Graham ad: Youre losing us. 

Ive said it a million times, and Ill say it again...(though Im starting to think that no one is listening): 

My generation is tired of the culture wars. 
We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for. 

And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-and-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere issue. These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell. 

Regardless of whether you identify most with Side A or Side B, (or with one of the many variations within those two broad categories), it should be clear that amendments like these needlessly offend gays and lesbians, damage the reputation of Christians, and further alienate young adultsboth Christians and non-Christianfrom the Church. 

So my question for those evangelicals leading the charge in the culture wars is this: Is it worth it? 

Is a political victory really worth losing millions more young people to cynicism regarding the Church?

Is a political victory worth further alienating people who identify as LGBT?

Is a political victory worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with gays and lesbians?

And is a political victory worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that askswhat if we get this wrong? 

Too many Christian leaders seem to think the answer to that question is yes, and it's costing them.  

Because young Christians are ready for peace.

We are ready to lay down our arms. 

We are ready to stop waging war and start washing feet.   

And if we cannot find that sort of peace within the Church, I fear we will look for it elsewhere. 

Edited by Duchykins, 17 July 2014 - 05:46 AM.

[Duchykins]

Why we are losing so many churches in the United States

http://www.patheos.c...-united-states/


Statistics on religion in the United States


http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Key Findings and Statistics on Religion in America

More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion - or no religion at all. If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

The Landscape Survey confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%. Moreover, the Protestant population is characterized by significant internal diversity and fragmentation, encompassing hundreds of different denominations loosely grouped around three fairly distinct religious traditions - evangelical Protestant churches (26.3% of the overall adult population), mainline Protestant churches (18.1%) and historically black Protestant churches (6.9%).

While those Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion have seen the greatest growth in numbers as a result of changes in affiliation, Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration. The Landscape Survey finds that among the foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant); among native-born Americans, on the other hand, the statistics show that Protestants outnumber Catholics by an even larger margin (55% Protestant vs. 21% Catholic). Immigrants are also disproportionately represented among several world religions in the U.S., including Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

Although there are about half as many Catholics in the U.S. as Protestants, the number of Catholics nearly rivals the number of members of evangelical Protestant churches and far exceeds the number of members of both mainline Protestant churches and historically black Protestant churches. The U.S. also includes a significant number of members of the third major branch of global Christianity - Orthodoxy - whose adherents now account for 0.6% of the U.S. adult population. American Christianity also includes sizeable numbers of Mormons (1.7% of the adult population), Jehovah's Witnesses (0.7%) and other Christian groups (0.3%).

[Duchykins]

Pope Francis gives candid speech on 'exodus' of followers from Catholic Church


http://www.businessi...c-church-2013-7



Increases in identifying 'none' for religious affiliation





http://harvardpoliti...e-nonbelievers/



Mapping and graphing irreligion in the US: the rise of the Nones

http://sperglord.wor...gion-in-the-us/


The rise of irreligion: Greg Epstein and Phil Zuckerman speak


http://harvardhumani...uckerman-speak/


Christian losses in the UK are worse

Edited by Duchykins, 17 July 2014 - 06:15 AM.

[Duchykins]

Your brand of Christianity is so vile it's even repulsing other Christians, a lot of other Christians.

And you can't even blame this one on atheists, we had little to no part in it.

[Duchykins]

Even the Repiblican Party has recognized that they may have to change their tactics because of BOTH loss of Christian adherents to the irreligious side and loss of conservative Christians to more liberal side of Christianity. They finally realized this when they got the results of the breakdown of votes in the last Presidential election. I remember Fox News making a fuss about it, and laughing my ass off at them. The GOP is in trouble if they don't shape up quick and change to better represent the public, just like the Catholic Church

[addx]

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

 

 

We are discussing your claims from this thread

 

 

Let me again define faith:

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

The bold parts is an unsubstantiated claim and bad logic, just as your interpretation of Godel.

 

Godel:

 

- Every mathematical system can not be proven from within it, one axiom always remains the subjective part outside the system.

 

Shadowhawk:

 

- Universe is a mathematical system (unsupported claim)

- Universe can not be proven from within it (stemming from the first unsupported claim combined with Godels theorem)

- Everything in the universe therefore lives by faith. (shortcircuited logic, it seems that in this claim "living" is "having faith", it doesnt seem possible to exist without faith with these premises, therefore the definition imposes on the definition of existence and life and so on)

 

Your definition also includes parts that are obviously meant to provide further ground for your persuasion games, rather than actually provide a discerning difference against other phenomena.

 

So, "faith is not blind, but intelligent" is completely arbitrary and goes towards your further argumentation that most people believe in christianity thus making christianity a "most intelligent faith" which you then sum up to being the one true faith. 

 

Same goes for "based on adequate but incomplete evidence" - the claim of the mind(brain) being a flawless judge of adequacy of evidence is completely blinding, it attempts to make the reader ignore a whole part of reality(neurology, psychology, brain complexity, brain disorders making people believe in wrong things). The mere existance of shizotypal disorder proves your statement false and shizotypal personality disorder is real as it gets unlike your claims. 

 

Neither of those two "additions" to your basic definition in fact enable the one who knows the definition to discern faith from acting on impulse or whatever else. He would have to recognize faith by estimating the intelligence of the actions committed and the adequacy of them which is purely subjective and so adds no objective value to your definition but merely creates a system with holes to insert your subjective opinions and control further discussion. 

 

Your definition of faith is therefore established to be an unreasonable proposal, rendered wrong, useless for objective recognition, misleading and so on. You interpretation of Godel in the other thread which serves as a base for your claims here is also established to be wrong in that other thread. So that's x2 wrong

 

So, we are discussing your lack of ability to reason, accept reality, accept arguments and accept that there are many many people smarter than you.

 

Edited by addx, 17 July 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Way to ignore more than half the arguments presented to you. This is why you've lost all your rep. Major deflections and then reverting back to smiley faces and crying about alleged name calling. Basically everyone here recognizes that your debate tactics are miserable

Then you talk about religious growth, as if that has anything to do with evidence for religion

 

We were talking about Godel.  And it is off subject here though we have discussed it elsewhere.  So what is this?  Ad honinems.  Religious growth is evidence of the power of Christianity to win minds and hearts so it is evidence for Christianity.

[Lewis Carroll]

 

 

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Way to ignore more than half the arguments presented to you. This is why you've lost all your rep. Major deflections and then reverting back to smiley faces and crying about alleged name calling. Basically everyone here recognizes that your debate tactics are miserable

Then you talk about religious growth, as if that has anything to do with evidence for religion

 

We were talking about Godel.  And it is off subject here though we have discussed it elsewhere.  So what is this?  Ad honinems.  Religious growth is evidence of the power of Christianity to win minds and hearts so it is evidence for Christianity.

 

 

I really hope you don't plan on ignoring adxx and Duchykins' posts...

 

But, then again, I guess that's indeed your best plan of action given that you can't retort anything said.

 

"Your definition of faith is therefore established to be an unreasonable proposal, rendered wrong, useless for objective recognition, misleading and so on. You interpretation of Godel in the other thread which serves as a base for your claims here is also established to be wrong in that other thread. So that's x2 wrong

So, we are discussing your lack of ability to reason, accept reality, accept arguments and accept that there are many many people smarter than you."

-adxx

[serp777]

 

 

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Way to ignore more than half the arguments presented to you. This is why you've lost all your rep. Major deflections and then reverting back to smiley faces and crying about alleged name calling. Basically everyone here recognizes that your debate tactics are miserable

Then you talk about religious growth, as if that has anything to do with evidence for religion

 

We were talking about Godel.  And it is off subject here though we have discussed it elsewhere.  So what is this?  Ad honinems.  Religious growth is evidence of the power of Christianity to win minds and hearts so it is evidence for Christianity.

 

I haven't done ad hominem here. But now an argument from popularity is evidence? So many fallacies. If belief that the world was flat was growing, it wouldnt mean the world was flat. Fallacy 101. 

[serp777]

 

 

 

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Way to ignore more than half the arguments presented to you. This is why you've lost all your rep. Major deflections and then reverting back to smiley faces and crying about alleged name calling. Basically everyone here recognizes that your debate tactics are miserable

Then you talk about religious growth, as if that has anything to do with evidence for religion

 

We were talking about Godel.  And it is off subject here though we have discussed it elsewhere.  So what is this?  Ad honinems.  Religious growth is evidence of the power of Christianity to win minds and hearts so it is evidence for Christianity.

 

 

I really hope you don't plan on ignoring adxx and Duchykins' posts...

 

But, then again, I guess that's indeed your best plan of action given that you can't retort anything said.

 

"Your definition of faith is therefore established to be an unreasonable proposal, rendered wrong, useless for objective recognition, misleading and so on. You interpretation of Godel in the other thread which serves as a base for your claims here is also established to be wrong in that other thread. So that's x2 wrong

So, we are discussing your lack of ability to reason, accept reality, accept arguments and accept that there are many many people smarter than you."

-adxx

 

I honestly think we should just give up. it's clear that nothing would ever convince SH. That's the issue here: nothing about his claims are falsifiable, which means that no matter what, we will not be able to prove or disprove anything to him. He's assumed the answer before he's even asked the question or analyzed the evidence. He could be defined as a presuppositionalist that wants to be an evidentialist. He discards all the evidence against Christianity by making a forum particularly for the evidence for Christianity, and then dismisses evidence against it as off topic, and suggests you post it in one of his ten other threads. That way he can keep strong arguments against his case encapsulated and disorganized. It's deplorable really, and in all 40 pages of this thread, he hasn't budged an inch on anything at all. 

[shadowhawk]

Actually Evangelicals are doing very well in Church growth.  But so is Christianity.  It is the fastest growing religion if you take Europe out of the mix.  Europe is becoming Muslim.

Homosexuals only represent 1.3% of the population.  They are discussed far fewer times in the scriptures than heterosexuals and nether is condemned for who they are.  There is a reason for the human body according to Christianity and for that matter almost the entire human race.  Adultery is wrong for Christians and they do not accept it even if the culture does.  Most children do not like it in their parents either.  So we have a culture war.  Christianity is growing all over the world despite it.  This has happened before and if history is a teacher the culture will get enough and we will have another revival.

By the way my church has a number of Gay and Lesbian members and I refer you to this wonderful intellectual gay Christian scientist.    http://ldolphin.org/  

He is an evangelical from Stanford.  We do not condone rape or bestiality or child molestation either.  So there is a theology of the human body and how it is to be used.  Both the man and woman are to love each other as Christ loved us and to cherish and be true to one another.  Children are the result.  Your body was not made solely for you in Christianity, but for someone else.  So it is not about selfishness either.

Polygamy. Polyamory, Bestiality, Necrophilia, and all kinds of sexual practices are rejected by Christianity if they don’t serve the purpose of the human body.   Our sexual desires are dumb things and can fixate on all sorts of things.  Pornography, sadism, bondage, fantasy, even death are objects of our lust.  Are ethics to be applied to any of these things?  No matter what you say you are making a moral judgement.  So are Christians when they talk about sexual behavior.

As for students my life is surrounded by them.  I still have high school and college students at home.  Many do not know what they believe and I enjoy teaching them daily.  You certainly do not speak for the vast majority of students I know.

 
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 July 2014 - 09:17 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Way to ignore more than half the arguments presented to you. This is why you've lost all your rep. Major deflections and then reverting back to smiley faces and crying about alleged name calling. Basically everyone here recognizes that your debate tactics are miserable

Then you talk about religious growth, as if that has anything to do with evidence for religion

 

We were talking about Godel.  And it is off subject here though we have discussed it elsewhere.  So what is this?  Ad honinems.  Religious growth is evidence of the power of Christianity to win minds and hearts so it is evidence for Christianity.

 

 

I really hope you don't plan on ignoring adxx and Duchykins' posts...

 

But, then again, I guess that's indeed your best plan of action given that you can't retort anything said.

 

"Your definition of faith is therefore established to be an unreasonable proposal, rendered wrong, useless for objective recognition, misleading and so on. You interpretation of Godel in the other thread which serves as a base for your claims here is also established to be wrong in that other thread. So that's x2 wrong

So, we are discussing your lack of ability to reason, accept reality, accept arguments and accept that there are many many people smarter than you."

-adxx

 

Godel has been discussed a great deal in another thread.  I invite you to take it up there with me.  My definition of faith is sound and you have given none.  So....Nonsense.  You give no reason at all just name calling and attempts at derailment.  Retort something you say?  You are right you have said nothing and so I cant retort it.

[shadowhawk]

serp777: I haven't done ad hominem here. But now an argument from popularity is evidence? So many fallacies. If belief that the world was flat was growing, it wouldnt mean the world was flat. Fallacy 101.

 
An argument from popularity can be evidence as I have defined it.  Christianity is growing rapidly and many are finding it convincing.  It is very convincing.  That is what I have given evidence for.  Most people do not believe the world is flat because they have been convinced otherwise.  It is not convincing.  So it is evidence but not decisive.    I didnt say it was and you jumped to a false conclusion.  You are right you havent done an ad hominem HERE.  Thanks.

[shadowhawk]

serp777: I honestly think we should just give up. it's clear that nothing would ever convince SH. That's the issue here: nothing about his claims are falsifiable, which means that no matter what, we will not be able to prove or disprove anything to him. He's assumed the answer before he's even asked the question or analyzed the evidence. He could be defined as a presuppositionalist that wants to be an evidentialist. He discards all the evidence against Christianity by making a forum particularly for the evidence for Christianity, and then dismisses evidence against it as off topic, and suggests you post it in one of his ten other threads. That way he can keep strong arguments against his case encapsulated and disorganized. It's deplorable really, and in all 40 pages of this thread, he hasn't budged an inch on anything at all.

 
I started off this topic to present evidence for Christianity.  That was my goal and what I set out to do.  But you are trying to convince me of something but don’t say what.  That there is no evidence?  That there is no God?  That you don’t believe in God or Christianity.  I do believe there is a God and Christianity has the best evidence for that.  I do believe you don’t.  I even created a topic for Atheists to present their evidence.  I have repeatedly said That there is a problem with using PROOF as you have just done.  And you have presented the evidence for what?  Against Christianity.  All you have done is rave and call names.  Do you know what the topic is?  “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY??”  Yes.  Don’t believe it?  OK.  That is your choice.  What your post is about is me personally.  You have said I am not open to evidence.  You cant PROVE anything to me.  I assumed the answer.  I disregard all the so called competing evidence.  It is deplorable.  I have listened to this kind of post over and again.  It is content less and when examined says nothing but is really a personal attack.  This has happened hundreds of times.  Ho humm

[Lewis Carroll]

Shadowhawk: "As for students my life is surrounded by them.  I still have high school and college students at home.  Many do not know what they believe and I enjoy teaching them daily.  You certainly do not speak for the vast majority of students I know."

 

Out of curiosity, are you referring to your own kids who are "high school and college students at home"?

 

The idea of you preaching this stuff to impressionable kids is frightening. 

Edited by MajinBrian, 18 July 2014 - 12:03 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk: "As for students my life is surrounded by them.  I still have high school and college students at home.  Many do not know what they believe and I enjoy teaching them daily.  You certainly do not speak for the vast majority of students I know."

 

Out of curiosity, are you referring to your own kids who are "high school and college students at home"?

 

The idea of you preaching this stuff to impressionable kids is frightening. 

I guess you will have to be frightened then.  Poor guy, good thing you never attended a university you would really be scared.  To much for you?

 

[serp777]

 

serp777: I haven't done ad hominem here. But now an argument from popularity is evidence? So many fallacies. If belief that the world was flat was growing, it wouldnt mean the world was flat. Fallacy 101.

 
An argument from popularity can be evidence as I have defined it.  Christianity is growing rapidly and many are finding it convincing.  It is very convincing.  That is what I have given evidence for.  Most people do not believe the world is flat because they have been convinced otherwise.  It is not convincing.  So it is evidence but not decisive.    I didnt say it was and you jumped to a false conclusion.  You are right you havent done an ad hominem HERE.  Thanks.

 

Ok now you define what evidence is, and an argument from popularity is valid? Are you serious? Propaganda has always been very convincing; same with childhood indoctrination; same with fear mongering. 

 

And furthermore, since fallacies are now evidence, I now declare that ad hominem is good evidence. Whoever has the best ad hominem is clearly correct. /jokes, but this is your logic. 

 

" The CIA's World Factbook gives the population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.).^[1]"

^{http://en.wikipedia....ous_populations}

 

Islam is also very convincing, and same with Hinduism. Both Hinduism and Islam combined are more convincing that all of the sects of Christianity. 

 

I could also argue that 70% of the worlds population doesnt find Christianity convincing. How's that for an argument from popularity? It's evidence in your book right? 

[serp777]

 

serp777: I honestly think we should just give up. it's clear that nothing would ever convince SH. That's the issue here: nothing about his claims are falsifiable, which means that no matter what, we will not be able to prove or disprove anything to him. He's assumed the answer before he's even asked the question or analyzed the evidence. He could be defined as a presuppositionalist that wants to be an evidentialist. He discards all the evidence against Christianity by making a forum particularly for the evidence for Christianity, and then dismisses evidence against it as off topic, and suggests you post it in one of his ten other threads. That way he can keep strong arguments against his case encapsulated and disorganized. It's deplorable really, and in all 40 pages of this thread, he hasn't budged an inch on anything at all.

 
I started off this topic to present evidence for Christianity.  That was my goal and what I set out to do.  But you are trying to convince me of something but don’t say what.  That there is no evidence?  That there is no God?  That you don’t believe in God or Christianity.  I do believe there is a God and Christianity has the best evidence for that.  I do believe you don’t.  I even created a topic for Atheists to present their evidence.  I have repeatedly said That there is a problem with using PROOF as you have just done.  And you have presented the evidence for what?  Against Christianity.  All you have done is rave and call names.  Do you know what the topic is?  “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY??”  Yes.  Don’t believe it?  OK.  That is your choice.  What your post is about is me personally.  You have said I am not open to evidence.  You cant PROVE anything to me.  I assumed the answer.  I disregard all the so called competing evidence.  It is deplorable.  I have listened to this kind of post over and again.  It is content less and when examined says nothing but is really a personal attack.  This has happened hundreds of times.  Ho humm

 

It's obvious our goal has been to convince you that there is no good evidence for Christianity. What's the point of a thread that only asks is there any evidence at all for christianity, no matter if it's terrible? WHy would you want a thread that would consist of bad evidence for Christianity? It was clear the intention of this thread is about good evidence for Christianity. Historical evidence, as has been shown for example, is not at all reliable, particularly about biased superstitious claims from ignorant peasants. Other religions were brought up to demonstrate the unreliability of this evidence. I even included ancient aliens evidence that is based on claims from hundreds of people, and yet you scoff at that and ignore it. 

 

In addition, we often have included evidence that goes against Christianity because it shows that the evidence for Christianity is poor, like it is for Islam, and like it is for the thousands of other religions that you are an athiest towards. You're actually more of an athiest than me. By saying you know Christianity is right, you're implying all other religions are wrong; I simply say I do not know what I cannot know.  

 

" I disregard all the so called competing evidence. "

 

And that is why this "personal attack" has been ensued on you. How can you argue with someone who just denies your arguments and provides no justification or reasoning for why your arguments are wrong? It is no longer a debate at that point, it is just you ignoring the opponent and evoryone else getting frustrated with you. Why do you think you have lost all your rep, and almost no one has supported your claims or defended your arguments here?  

[serp777]

Shadowhawk: "As for students my life is surrounded by them.  I still have high school and college students at home.  Many do not know what they believe and I enjoy teaching them daily.  You certainly do not speak for the vast majority of students I know."
 
Out of curiosity, are you referring to your own kids who are "high school and college students at home"?
 
The idea of you preaching this stuff to impressionable kids is frightening. 

I guess you will have to be frightened then.  Poor guy, good thing you never attended a university you would really be scared.  To much for you?
 

Nonsense. A red herring.

[addx]

 

 I have listened to this kind of post over and again.  It is content less and when examined says nothing but is really a personal attack.  This has happened hundreds of times.  Ho humm

 

 

Exactly. You're being an ass. It will happen until you accept that and change it.

Edited by addx, 18 July 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[addx]

 

 

 

 

We are talking about Godel in the Evidence for Atheism.  If you want to talk some more about it there I would be happy to.  You have made no points with no evidence.  This is nothing but name calling.  So I am going to go on.  Again, if you want to continue the Godel discussion lets do it.  See  you in the Atheism topic.  Will you be there? 

Way to ignore more than half the arguments presented to you. This is why you've lost all your rep. Major deflections and then reverting back to smiley faces and crying about alleged name calling. Basically everyone here recognizes that your debate tactics are miserable

Then you talk about religious growth, as if that has anything to do with evidence for religion

 

We were talking about Godel.  And it is off subject here though we have discussed it elsewhere.  So what is this?  Ad honinems.  Religious growth is evidence of the power of Christianity to win minds and hearts so it is evidence for Christianity.

 

 

I really hope you don't plan on ignoring adxx and Duchykins' posts...

 

But, then again, I guess that's indeed your best plan of action given that you can't retort anything said.

 

"Your definition of faith is therefore established to be an unreasonable proposal, rendered wrong, useless for objective recognition, misleading and so on. You interpretation of Godel in the other thread which serves as a base for your claims here is also established to be wrong in that other thread. So that's x2 wrong

So, we are discussing your lack of ability to reason, accept reality, accept arguments and accept that there are many many people smarter than you."

-adxx

 

I honestly think we should just give up. it's clear that nothing would ever convince SH. That's the issue here: nothing about his claims are falsifiable, which means that no matter what, we will not be able to prove or disprove anything to him. He's assumed the answer before he's even asked the question or analyzed the evidence. He could be defined as a presuppositionalist that wants to be an evidentialist. He discards all the evidence against Christianity by making a forum particularly for the evidence for Christianity, and then dismisses evidence against it as off topic, and suggests you post it in one of his ten other threads. That way he can keep strong arguments against his case encapsulated and disorganized. It's deplorable really, and in all 40 pages of this thread, he hasn't budged an inch on anything at all. 

 

 

I did give up

 

My interest here is to play around with him and defraud his arguing tactics. I don't read any of his evidence crap or get involved with "evidenting" anything to him anymore, it's futile, it could stare him in the face and he wouldnt budge.

 

He doesn't want to know the truth, he feels he owns the truth and so it can not possibly be presented to him by someone else. It can not be told to him. We must listen and be told what the truth is. He will pretend to care about what we have to say only to transfer the discussion back to what he has to say. And he will do this repeatedly and tirelessly until he gets insulted for it which he considers proof of him being right and further supports him being the owner of truth. 

[addx]

 

Shadowhawk: "As for students my life is surrounded by them.  I still have high school and college students at home.  Many do not know what they believe and I enjoy teaching them daily.  You certainly do not speak for the vast majority of students I know."

 

Out of curiosity, are you referring to your own kids who are "high school and college students at home"?

 

The idea of you preaching this stuff to impressionable kids is frightening. 

I guess you will have to be frightened then.  Poor guy, good thing you never attended a university you would really be scared.  To much for you?

 

 

 

It seems majin you hit some buttons to have him discredit himself by comitting an obvious ad hominem.

 

More so, he is endangering his now only remaining tactic of "defeating people in debates" - provoking an ad hominem and using it to ignore whatever he feels like ignoring to reach a conclusion of "victory in debate".