brainiacsub
Posts: 1209
Joined: 11/11/2007 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So I'll give you the same opportunity that I've given three other atheistic posters. Using short sentences and small words, explain to me what the atheistic argument is, exactly, and how I am "straw manning" it. Firm Here it is in a nutshell, Firm. I and Vincent have tried to explain this to you on two different occasions each, and each time you dismiss what we say and instead opt to debate the meanings of words - words which you and Treasure have repeatedly misused over and over. So let me make this real simple for you... short sentences, small words: Julia posted a link to an article that was universally rejected as fantasy by the usual posters who prefer the scientific method to determine truth. A few other posters disagreed because the premise of the article made them "feel good." So be it, to each his own. In typical Firm fashion, you defended this article by posting links of your own suggesting that "scientific scholars" are also entertaining the idea that science can provide evidence to validate the existence of a "soul," God," and an "afterlife." Several atheists ridiculed your initial assertion, not because they ridicule your Faith, but because you constantly misuse science to try and validate your Faith. The atheists didn't buy your arguments. As usual, your claim turned what would have been a 2 page thread into 2 ten page threads that have done nothing more than debate the meanings of words. Treasure threw out the first strawman by trying to tell me what I as an atheist believed, and she got it wrong. I, Vincent, GotSteel and others immediately jumped on this to correct her and thus the remainder of that thread was derailed so you and Treasure (and a couple others) could debate the meanings of "faith" and "belief." GotSteel started this thread because he was frustrated by how often this tactic is used to derail almost every thread where religion is discussed. I and Vincent (and many others) tried to point out to you in both threads that Faith is the antithesis of reason, and both systems are not equally valid for determining what is fact. You choose to counter by endlessly debating the definitions of "faith," "belief" and "fact" even after you have been repeatedly shown that you misuse the words for your own purposes. So these semantic debates become the strawman that keep you from addressing the atheist objections to your arguments - that you continuously misuse logic, reason, and the scientific method to defend your Faith, as opposed to acknowledging that no evidence exists for your beliefs beyond your Faith (if it did, you would present it). There are acceptable arguments for defending Faith that don't include equating it with Reason. Too bad you can't think of any.
|