Christianity in 105 Words

Originally posted by 667joe
It's the definition of Christianity written in the same fashion as any definition in the dictionary. It's not supposed to be a proper sentence!

That wasn't at all clear. Ok, now I get it.

Originally posted by 667joe
I post here because I hope to show theists how silly they are, and give them a chance to redeem themselves with reason. If I can increased the doubt in a theist even a little bit, I will have made a difference.

And you will have magnified your sin by a magnitude.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And you will have magnified your sin by a magnitude.

Blasphemy is a victimless crime!

Originally posted by Suzianne
And you will have magnified your sin by a magnitude.

sin is non-existent in the absence of a deity to sin against.
without god there is no sin.
we are without god.
so we are without sin.

:-)

relax, there probably really is no hell. have a nice day.

Originally posted by josephw
I do know it.

[b]You say you don't know it. Why should that mean I don't?

That's irrational, in case you don't realise it. What you really don't know is that I know God, and you know you don't.[/b]

Saying you "Know" god, if such a god really existed, it would be like an paramecium saying he knows Einstein. This is the height of arrogance.

Originally posted by 667joe
Blasphemy is a victimless crime!

......until you see the hand writing on the wall, that is. 😛

Originally posted by 667joe
Mother Teresa only perpetuated the problems of the poor. When asked to return stolen money donated to her, she refused, and most of the money donated to her was not used to help the poor, but was kept by the corrupt Catholic Church which has valued its priests at a higher level than the children it has molested. (Churches are dirty institutions. I alway feel unclean after visiting one!)

For the sake of arguement, lets say that what you say is true. It is still reasonable to assume that Mother Teresa reached out to the poor on a level that far surpassed those of her critics.

In all honesty, you could probably tear apart pretty much anyone in such a way, that is, except for maybe Christ himself.

Originally posted by whodey
For the sake of arguement, lets say that what you say is true. It is still reasonable to assume that Mother Teresa reached out to the poor on a level that far surpassed those of her critics.

In all honesty, you could probably tear apart pretty much anyone in such a way, that is, except for maybe Christ himself.

If her critics did nothing, it was not as bad as what Mother T did. She took stolen money, and discouraged birth control thus increasing poverty and suffering. In addition, she defrauded donators by not using most of the money donated to help the poor. No, I am sorry. Mother T was truly despicable!

Originally posted by josephw
Who's upset? I'm not. Not in the least.

What is irrational is to project your own lack of knowledge of the existence of God as evidence for the non-existence of God, and then to assert that because you don't know God that neither do I.

Be honest. You don't [b]know whether there is a God or not. That's the best you can do. There is no evidence for a ...[text shortened]... ll arguments to the contrary are irrational, unsubstantive and without a shred of evidence.[/b]

"In fact, creation is the only plausible rational explanation for the existence of anything."
josephw

Clearly that's not a fact, as if it were then all rational people would be creationists, and that is obviously not the case.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

"In fact, creation is the only plausible rational explanation for the existence of anything."
josephw

Clearly that's not a fact, as if it were then all rational people would be creationists, and that is obviously not the case.

rationality cannot be evaluated by the degree of persons who profess a particular
belief, otherwise, the emperors new clothes would be real.

Christianity in three words,

God is Love.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
rationality cannot be evaluated by the degree of persons who profess a particular
belief, otherwise, the emperors new clothes would be real.

Respectfully, this is nonsense Robbie. As you are well aware, the religionist position is based on faith, not logic and reason. The logical refutation of Pascal's Wager alone demonstrates that no established faith can be claimed to be a rational position.

I have great respect (and a good dash of envy) for those who are able to make the leap of faith, but to claim that this leap is a rational move goes a long way towards undermining that!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Respectfully, this is nonsense Robbie. As you are well aware, the religionist position is based on faith, not logic and reason. The logical refutation of Pascal's Wager alone demonstrates that no established faith can be claimed to be a rational position.

I have great respect (and a good dash of envy) for those who are able to make the leap of faith, but to claim that this leap is a rational move goes a long way towards undermining that!

consider this, indeed, faith without reason, is not faith at all, not according to
the Biblical definition, which i shall now reproduce for your benefit,

(Hebrews 11:1-2) Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident
demonstration of realities though not beheld.  

Please note the term, 'evident demonstration of realities', now if anything is evident,
then by its very nature it requires evidence and if it requires evidence, it cannot be
said to lack either reason, nor substance, can it? For while it is certainly true that
spiritual concepts cannot be subject to the same rationality as mundane happenings,
it cannot be said that those who accept Biblical principles and values, do so, entirely
without reason or rationality, for even at the simplest level, if i say to myself, yes,
this seems more plausible to me, is it not the product of reason, rather than blind
faith?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
consider this, indeed, faith without reason, is not faith at all, not according to
the Biblical definition, which i shall now reproduce for your benefit,

(Hebrews 11:1-2) Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident
demonstration of realities though not beheld.  

Please note the term, 'evident demonstration of realitie ...[text shortened]...
this seems more plausible to me, is it not the product of reason, rather than blind
faith?

Please note the term, 'evident demonstration of realities', now if anything is evident, then by its very nature it requires evidence and if it requires evidence, it cannot be said to lack either reason, nor substance, can it?

What sort of logic is this? Obviously it depends on the nature of the evidence whether or not any conclusion based on that evidence is rational. Simply to assert that you've looked at 'reality' and that it is 'evident' that this leads to belief in god or gods isn't logical or rational. It certainly uses 'reason' but there's a distinct absence of logic and rational thought.

For while it is certainly true that spiritual concepts cannot be subject to the same rationality as mundane happenings, it cannot be said that those who accept Biblical principles and values, do so, entirely without reason or rationality, for even at the simplest level, if i say to myself, yes, this seems more plausible to me, is it not the product of reason, rather than blind faith?

Indeed. The weak point of your argument, however, is that your faith is constructed based on an entirely irrational valuation of scripture. I've argued this with you before, I'm sure you must recall. Why should such value be placed on scripture? It is simply not rational. To argue that it is to blatantly disregard the accepted definition of the word!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
consider this, indeed, faith without reason, is not faith at all, not according to
the Biblical definition, which i shall now reproduce for your benefit,

(Hebrews 11:1-2) Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident
demonstration of realities though not beheld.  

Please note the term, 'evident demonstration of realitie ...[text shortened]...
this seems more plausible to me, is it not the product of reason, rather than blind
faith?

No, because things seeming 'more plausible' to you is not the basis for a rational argument or justification.

There are several facets to this, truth, rationality and logic...

Truth is defined as that which accurately reflects the reality we are in.
We may or may not know if some things are true or not, but they can't be claimed as true unless you have
enough evidentiary backing to support asserting that they are true.
Things that are proven false evidently can't be claimed as true.

Rationality comes in two parts.

First is to try to have an accurate picture of the reality we live in as possible.

Second is to try to detect and apply the optimum method for achieving your goals, whatever those goals are.


Logic is a system of constructing formal arguments such that if the premises of a logical argument are correct and
the logical reasoning employed in the argument are correct then the result MUST also be correct.

Thus to have a rational and logical argument you must employ sound logical reasoning AND base this reasoning on
premises that are verifiably true.

As there is no evidence for the existence of god, or the divinity of JC, or the bible being anything more than the words
of humans thousands of years ago.
Then no rational argument can be built based on premises that assume that any of those things are true.

If you claim god is real, without evidence to prove it.
If you claim JC was the son of god, without evidence to prove that,
Or, if you claim that The bible is the word of god, without evidence to prove that,
Then any beliefs you have based on these unverified and probably false claims is by definition irrational.

Faith is by definition irrational, in any amount.
(please note this is not the same as trust, you don't have to abandon trust to be rational, but you do have to abandon faith)

You can create arguments that are logically flawless, but until such a time as you can prove the premises you base those
arguments on are valid then the arguments themselves can't be considered valid.
It isn't that they are not true, they might be (very unlikely), but you can't rationally or justifiably claim that they are true.