www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall VisualFictions arguments.

I have heard numerous objections to the Bible before, and beelif in God, btu the below is one of the most bizzarre.

I present it here for consideration.

************


Exactly. Speaking of Christians, or Numinons, trying for some moral high ground, I'm not sure they realize how offensive the following is: one of them over there, it might have been Z, brought out Paul's Romans. I asked how anyone could look to Paul as an authority on "spiritual" matters when he says in Romans 1:18-20 that we can see proof of God just by looking around at Nature. Paul says that I and Lady and other atheists know that God exists because we see clear proof from Nature, and yet we deny this intuitive knowledge so that we can be sinful (or BECAUSE we are sinful. I'm a little unclear as to that). Either way, it's very offensive. Both Meta and Z agree with Paul. Do they even realize what they're saying?? They can accurately intuit God's existence just by looking out the window, because they are less sinful than me?? And the reason I can't intuit God's existence by looking out the window is because I'm more sinful than Z and Meta?? Do these kind of people really understand just how asinine and offensive those statements are?? It's one of the worst I've ever heard from a Christian. But hey, I guess they're just paraphrasing the mighty Paul, who is "in the Bible". When someone says, "of COURSE you can see proof of God just by looking around you at Nature", I realize I'm dealing with a self-deluded simpleton. It actually does boggle my mind, it's hard to describe my horror that some people have to go through life with minds like that. (shudder)

There are three threads, but two links, the other link is in the firts htread if you wade throguh it where VisualFiction calls me the dumbest person hes met on EZBOard/Yuku in the last 5 years.

I am tired of these sort of arugments, by self-proffessed logical and sicnetific Atheists who htink Richard Dawkins "The God DIlusion" is sicnetific and that their arguments are logicl and raitonal.

They don't listen to anythin close to reason, and are bizzarrely upset when challegned.

Below are the debates, I simply want everyones interjections.

In the Animal Debate thread, I added a link to another baord where he is critical of me.

http://havetheologywillargue.yuku.com/topic/372

http://havetheologywillargue.yuku.com/topic/3021

The last thread is where he doens't even display enough reading comprehension to knwo Im askign him to justify his remarks that Romans is not a Spiritual authroity because he is persoanlly offende dby it, and why he thinks anyoen who disagrees is a Simpleton. He get supset because I don't explaint he Romans text to him!

Sorry, but the "New Atheits" annoy me with their stupidity.

I wouldn't bother with VisualFiction, if I were you. His entire first message (The Animal link you provided) is pretty much incoherent . . . you can't argue logically with someone whose arguments are not logical. I suspect that VisualFiction is very young, very smart, and had recently taken an intro to logic course when he (she?) posted that message.

If I were teaching a philosophy course and received that first argument, I would not even bother to red ink the paper. I would take the person aside and say it may be best to drop the class and study more philosophy, and that it would be especially helpful to gain an understanding of formal and informal logic. Unless that person were to reform how they think and organize their own mind, there's no way they could pass.

About VisualFiction, he makes certain assumptions about the nature of man, the nature of God, and the nature of justice. This can be difficult to argue with. If you disagree with his arguments, you will be in more trouble than if you disagree with his assumptions. Because, by the nature of the correspondence, when taking his argument 'as is' you are accepting the premises which built the argument.

I'd take Priest's Gandson's advice. It may not be worth your time.

I was dealing with silly atheists at Amazon.com's discussion boards. It is often useless and it's rare when a true argument takes place.

Terry

Zarove,

"VisualFiction's" error here is an easy one to make. Based on Romans 1:18-20: He assumes that because St. Paul affirmed that someone has lost this intuitive knowledge of God's existence because of their sinfulness, it follows that anyone who still accepts the proposition that God exists must necessarily be less sinful than they are.

People do tend to assume such things, even without realizing it. People who "believe in God" tend to assume they are less sinful than those who don't, while those who "go to church every Sunday" tend to assume they are less sinful than those who don't, etc. Indeed, few of us really accept the implications of "... sinners, of whom I am the first."

What I'm getting at here is not that I disagree with St. Paul--people really do lose their intuitive ability to perceive and understand truth because of their personal sins--but rather with the idea that we can turn around and use such factors as a kind of measuring rod for a person's sinfulness. That is what "VisualFiction" is doing here:
In other words, I'm not at all surprised at "VisualFiction's" reaction. I'm sure I would feel the same way if I were an atheist and someone came along and told me the reason I didn't believe in God was that I was more "sinful" than they were.

Let us pray for such people, and stop being shocked by their reactions.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

But neither Metacrock nor I actulaly said we where less sinful than VIsualFiction.

Likewise, his use of the enture passage , if you read the admittedly long threa don Animal Sufferage, was not really based on what I had said about RIOmans.

I had mentioend a segment of ROmans CHapter 8, after he had told me that we shoudl sue Binlcial quotes to support our arguments.

The passage I quoted said only that the whoel fo Creaiton suffers due to Mans sins.

VisualFIciton then attemoted to "tear to shreds" inhis words the valididty of the Letter To The Romans based on the verses in the firts chapter that he foudn offensive.

His asusmotion was that, becuase he was offended that St. Paul had said that Atheists such as himself or Lady Valar where more sinful, they cannto see God. And because he was offende dby this, smehow this discredits it.

He later said I had been mistaken in this reaidng of his post ( It is clear form the post hwoever that his offence is centre stage), and that he objected to the statement made by Paul that one can see evidnece fo Gds eixstance in Nature ebcause it had been Emoiriclaly disporoven, and said htat Scientistss do not beliv ein God and investigate nature.


Of coruse, this too is illogical. In addition tot he fac tthat, accoridng to his misreading of Romans, those who do not see God ar emore sinful, and hus we can say the Scientists are great sinenrs and don't see God, he also overlooks the fact that Numerous Scientists are belivers, and some did come to God by examiign the Creaiton.

Even Anthony Flew, who although he did not become a Christain now beleives in God, came o this eelif base dupon examinaiton of the cosmos over a lifetime.

And Collins, the head of the Human Genome project, who is clealry a Sceintists, is now an Evangelical Christian, and his inspiration for convesion was studying nature in deapth.

Numerous Scetists are Christains. Many others beelive in God but are part of another identity.

However, since VisualVFiciton is a Dawkins Fan, and is part of the New Athiest movement, he asusmes that Science and Religon ar eincompatable, and that all Realy smart peopel are Atiests, and the smartest peopel are Scientists.

In his mind, Sceintistss do not beliv ein God , as it is unsicentistfic, and all Scientistss are Ahtists. THis follwos what Dawkins preaches.

Best thing you can do is pray for him . . . you surely cannot "win" an argument with him, as he is not open to any viewpoint but his own, right now.

He may have been trying to write a satire.

Its nto Satire. He actually thinks his arguments are logical, and our responces are illogical.

He also highly reccomends Richard Dawkins "The God Dilusion" as a rational, Empirical way to view the world. He doesn't realise that just because it is an Athiest arging agaisnt religion, that it doens't mean his arguments are logical or even coherant. ( Actually he thinks that because Richard Dawkins is a Sceintist, everythign he writes is Sceintificlaly valid. Which is absurd.)


On other boards, he will mock those of us who disagree.

He particularly hates me. As do the other Atheists I have debated.

This is why I asked how I came accross. The general sentement they now share of me is that I am rude, arrogant, and defensive. I am oversensative and emotional, and cannot stand my rleigion critissed. I also hate all Attheists because they disagree iwht my view of God and threaten me, and will attakc them.

They also see me as possesisng a limite dintellect, greatly infirior to thir own, and VisualVFiciton himself has said I am not as self aware as he is, and he must keep this in mind when tlakign to me lest he htink Im just a jerk.

He of coruse is torn between pity and disgust when thinkign of me.

I know this beuse, even thoguht htye also claim I am obsessed wiht them, somehtign Im not, and follow them around, somehtign I dn't tend to do, The Christian Yahweist had ot show me the thread in which tey attacked me, by sending me th elink.

The thread actually begins iwht mockery aimed toward Metacrock, but swiflty becomes abtu how rotten a person I am.

http://freethinkerspub.yuku.com/topic/5443?page=1

Alas! This is how they manage to deal with me.

Yet the last I heard form VisualFIciton, he PMed me ( after haveing said all this, only a few days later) and said he is of goodwill, and doesn't want arugments or ill will towards us.


So, I think that this is a typical gang-bully mentality. Each of the posters has had a problem in dealign with me as I present arguments agaisnt their views, quasiton their motives, and have addressed their ocnduct toward s me in the past.

And, as each tlak about how bad I am ( without looking at thier own behaviour. I am not perfect but they are harldy as innocent as they pretext themselves to be) the others will accept this assessment, and add to it.

They have, in essence, created a legendary Zarove, a coutnerpart to myself that has a personality that isn't really connected to the real persoanlity I carry, but linke donly to the perceptions f that pesonality they got while debatign me.

This of ocurs eis enhanced in their minds with each retelling, and grows larger.

It si a Phoenominon VisualFicitonhismelf desciebed, but his thoguths baotu my limited intelelgence and self wareness leads him to this.

It is an odd [pattern of conduct form these people, who wudl come to us, in order to argue agaisnt Christainity, and yet complain when e present coutnerarguments. THye also ar fon of calign us blind and indocternated, while repeatign the usual drivel from the Neo-Athiest elites.

I find the repetition rather dull, and don't keep track any longer.

If you can't steer the conversation to being about the debate, rather than about you, then they don't want an argument. Atheists of their type have always seemed somewhat insecure to me.

If you can't find common ground with them so that y'all are discussing the basics of what they belief, then they won't listen to anything you say and it may not be worth the trouble to confront their conclusions on the Internet. Face-to-face discussions can be more productive with them.

Terry

I do avoid them. The only reason I know of this threwad is because I was notified of it by TCY.

I still don't understand why they feel the need ot frthe rinsult me when I am not even engagign them, and on another baord, however.

It could be from immaturity or, if they don't want to address your questions seriously, a lack of intellectual courage.

WELL...


Rambo123UK, though he has mellowed over time due to constantly being banned off boards, is just a typical bully, who wants ot presen himself as a Mental superior to all Religious folk in general, whole belittlign tem for their absurd beleifs.

This is to make himself feel superior, as it any Bully.

Lady Valar is upset because I outright called her sources fraudulent and dismissed basicllay what she had to say based upon the website "Theocracywatch" and "Religoousrightwatch".

According to thise sites, the Christian Right wants to overthrow the Unied States Of America, abolish the COnstitution, and establish Bible Laws, and thus erect a Theocracy. Aftereard, anyone who disagrees with their Crisain Values will be seen as Enemies of the STate, and no one will be free to live as they like, it will be an ppressive dictatorship.

This movement is called "Dominionism".

I called htis a CHeap Conspoiracy theory base don paranoia, and the evidence is alrgley just segments of quotes ot of contexts, often fragmented further with the ... dots to remove relevant peices, andsnippets of half-digested truth mixed wht Rumour and speculation.

It is of the same ilk as the Chick Comics.

She ecame upset firts when I said she was followign COnspiracy theories and insisted this sint a "Consptiacy story".

She then became upset when I told her that her presentaiton sowed that she had not paid attention to the topic when she presented the composiiton fot eh Human Body to shwo that no soul exists. ( Which was moot since my arugment was that the SOul was the life force that animates the body, and sence I was only etablishign a definiiton, I conceeded that this may be a purely natural funciton that ceases with Death. Anyhtign that Animate sus is our SOul. SHowign the composition woudl be irrelevant.)

Finally, I called her a liar when., after shpwign her clear evidence that TheoracyWatch wa sunreliable, she repeated their claims. She knows the truth is not what is presented on this site, but continues to beleive it as it helps her.

VisualFiciton simply came to undermine the Christain Faith (Somehtign he claims he did nto do as he woiuld choose a wider venue. he seems ot not undertand that Imean that he seeks with his arugments that he wants to Undermine it internally and by arugmentaiton, not nessisarily on a gobal scale.)

He wants to boost his own ego by presentign conundrums that Christians cannot answer. He is the typical Neo-Athiest in thinkign that we, as Christains, blifdly beleive the Bible and ur Pastors, and have never thouth deeply about the Religion we are in. Therefore, he thinks that if we ar emade ot thnk abotu it, we shoudl see he obvious cotradicitons. He has stated himself that he follows Dawkisn and wants ot rais eour conciosuness.

The dfficulty is, he then approaches his own arugments as fool proof and wholy invincible, and no one can answer them.

When an answer is provided, rather than look at it fairly, he merely dismisses it, r finds a reason to dismiss it to preserve the original queasiton as an unanswered conundrum.

he also doens't giv emuch thought into the answrs presented. The point was to stump us, not to acutlaly hear alternatives.

We have discussed the fact that, dispite his htinkign so, his arguments aren't very Logical or Empirical.


The others, John Mernet and Padre Mellyn, do not know me. They know only of how I am described by others, and, unforunaltey, this perception of me is now theirs base don the claism pf others. If they did engage me in discussion, they would likely approach me with an idea about hwo I am that wpudl bais them and render acutal conversaiton difficult.

The Christian Yahwist, though he means well, also doens't udnertand me. He is someone who started his own CHrhc and teaches that Jeuss is not God, and is not a Trinitarian.

His views on matters are strnage, but he is not an Atheist.