Should the religious abstain from politics?

Barnardot

@Factfinder Weather we like it or not those nog head religious freaks should have a say. Whose to say that red necks shouldnt have a say or that anti abortionists shouldnt have a say or hippies shouldnt have a say in politics. Thats what politics is all about in this country and in the end what comes out is legislation for all the people and if one group doesnt like it then its tough tites for them. 
The only acceptions to the rule I reckon would be @just_sayin and @Bogan but it doesn't matter too much any way since neither of them even live on this planet.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@Factfinder Weather we like it or not those nog head religious freaks should have a say. Whose to say that red necks shouldnt have a say or that anti abortionists shouldnt have a say or hippies shouldnt have a say in politics. Thats what politics is all about in this country and in the end what comes out is legislation for all the people and if one group doesnt like it then its tough tites for them. 
The only acceptions to the rule I reckon would be @just_sayin and @Bogan but it doesn't matter too much any way since neither of them even live on this planet.

Hey Bernie, nice to know that I live rent free in your head.  Anyway, I agree with your basic premise that everyone should have a say.  

just_sayin

***Trigger Warning to leftists and atheists - the following contains truth.  You will be offended.  You have been warned.***

If religious people should not be involved in politics, then the founding fathers really had it wrong.  2/3rds of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence were... wait for it... clergy.  Yep, they just weren't religious, they were the leaders of religious groups.  The very first official act of the Continental Congress was a 4 hour prayer meeting.  Pretty good for a bunch of so called 'deists'.  LOL.  

It would anger our atheists to learn just how much faith and politics were not just mixed, but considered inseparable.  All 13 original colonies charters say they were founded for God, and most explicitly state for Christianity.  Same goes for the Magna Carta.  

The Library of Congress use to have a really good exhibit on the Faith of our Founding Fathers.  Liberals have whittled it down considerably, but you will still learn a lot:  see here:

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9805/religion.html

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/ - then click the links off of this webpage for more detailed info

Also check out this site for a brief history of prayer in the US government:

https://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/about/history_of_prayer_in_america

Leftists and atheists will often mention the 'separation of church and state'.  But do you know the history?  Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter on a Friday to the Danbury Baptists who lived in state that had a different primary religious denomination.  They were concerned that they would not have freedom of religion.  Jefferson assures them by telling them that the government will stay out of their business.  He did not mean that religion should stay out of government.  In fact, after mailing the letter on Friday, he attended religious services in congress, on Sunday where the chaplain was paid with federal money.  This was his regular custom.  Yep, every Sunday, Congress had church in it paid for by the government.  Gotta love that.  

Factfinder

@Barnardot

I agree completely with that premise. I was thinking more from the theist perspective when I posted this yesterday, not from a legal one. The founders of our country were actually in a frame of revolutionary mind against an established national church and its resulting power. They realized how the doctrine of a religion destroys governmental attempts of equally disseminating due process to its citizenry. The theists of the time were also aware of their history, the 13 colonies being proclaimed for god was a duty to the church of England more than god. And they knew that in their time open discrimination against nonbelievers was systematically an acceptable practice. People had to lie about their world views to get a job. This in part was the concern I believe behind the motivation when jefferson sent a certain letter to the Danbury Baptists and introducing the establishment clause. Everything suggests they themselves wanted to reduce and limit religious authority within the government. The Danbury Baptists was concerned  government might exhort its authority into religious beliefs as had happened in England. So to the theist at the time it was a win/win. That's why I'm wondering if the more informed theist today, would abstain willingly if they felt in the heat of the moment, with lives on the line; their indoctrination would interrupt the ability to logically reason out a rational decision? 

jack

Factfinder said:

Can a theist honestly separate their indoctrination from real time decision making?

Hello F:

No, and why should he?  The religious and his church aren't the same thing.

excon

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

Can a theist honestly separate their indoctrination from real time decision making?

Hello F:

No, and why should he?  The religious and his church aren't the same thing.

excon

Hi Jack

Are you're alluding to the possibility their indoctrination could help them stay rational during an extreme situation? Like their faith gets them through, type thing?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; The Establishment Clause was instituted out of concerns over one Christian denomination taking precedent over all others as representing the will of the people through Federal legislation and policies. The separation of government from religion was instituted NOT to prevent religion from entering into Government but to keep Government from meddling in religion.

jack

Factfinder said:

Are you're alluding that their indoctrination could help them stay rational during an extreme situation? Like their faith gets them through, type thing?

Hello F:

Nahh..  This is simple..  A religion and a church aren't the same thing.  One is governed.  The other is not.

If you're asking me about belief, I'm an atheist.  One religion is no more bonkers than the other.  What differentiates them for me, is their violence or lack thereof.

If you're asking me should crazy, , ignorant, dumb, and/or mean people be allowed to vote.  Of course, they can.  That's the way it is NOW.

excon

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Starting off with a sweeping proclamation lumping atheists and liberals together wreaks...

Doesn't surprise me since in those days atheists were not allowed jobs for the most part. Especially ones of a historic nature. But one thing consistently remains in their deliberations concerning the new government. Along with taxation, and freedom of speech concerns, were the need to reduce religions role within government. Obviously that wasn't the right time to abolish religious influence altogether. Not sure it would be a good idea now even. Religion did give us the beginning of expressing our desire to learn philosophically. Back to the mindset of the founders, they saw the writing on the wall. The society and culture they wanted to created was less discriminatory to atheists as it was becoming increasingly apparent it was an irrational position to move into the future with. Do you as a theist see any wisdom in their thinking? Should that wisdom prevail on? The link below describing bigotry against atheism world wide and what some backwards extremist countries have instituted would tell me 'yes' let's let that kind of thinking continue on...

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8B9006/

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@Barnardot

I agree completely with that premise. I was thinking more from the theist perspective when I posted this yesterday, not from a legal one. The founders of our country were actually in a frame of revolutionary mind against an established national church and its resulting power. They realized how the doctrine of a religion destroys governmental attempts of equally disseminating due process to its citizenry. The theists of the time were also aware of their history, the 13 colonies being proclaimed for god was a duty to the church of England more than god. And they knew that in their time open discrimination against nonbelievers was systematically an acceptable practice. People had to lie about their world views to get a job. This in part was the concern I believe behind the motivation when jefferson sent a certain letter to the Danbury Baptists and introducing the establishment clause. Everything suggests they themselves wanted to reduce and limit religious authority within the government. The Danbury Baptists was concerned  government might exhort its authority into religious beliefs as had happened in England. So to the theist at the time it was a win/win. That's why I'm wondering if the more informed theist today, would abstain willingly if they felt in the heat of the moment, with lives on the line; their indoctrination would interrupt the ability to logically reason out a rational decision? 

*** Trigger Warning - the following contains historical facts that leftists and atheists won't like ***

Jefferson is a great example of how wrong atheists and leftists are about what the founding father's believed about faith.  To hear leftists, you'd be told that Jefferson was a deist and not very religious.  Here's a few factoids for you though:

• Jefferson was the president of the National Bible Society WHILE president
• Jefferson wanted a Bible story to be the national emblem
• Jefferson ordered a program to evangelize the American Indians as president
• Jefferson ordered Bibles be given to American Indians
• Jefferson had chaplains installed in federal offices and paid with by federal dollars and he attended their services

While Jefferson did speak of dangers of the state imposing religion upon others, he did not believe that religion should not influence the state as his own actions demonstrate.  And he is one of the 'heroes' of atheists among the founding fathers.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Like other Founding Fathers, Jefferson was considered a Deist, subscribing to the liberal religious strand of Deism that values reason over revelation and rejects traditional Christian doctrines, including the Virgin Birth, original sin and the resurrection of Jesus. While he rejected orthodoxy, Jefferson was nevertheless a religious man.  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/godinamerica/people/thomas-jefferson.html#:~:text=Like other Founding Fathers, Jefferson,and the resurrection of Jesus.

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

Are you're alluding that their indoctrination could help them stay rational during an extreme situation? Like their faith gets them through, type thing?

Hello F:

Nahh..  This is simple..  A religion and a church aren't the same thing.  One is governed.  The other is not.

If you're asking me about belief, I'm an atheist.  One religion is no more bonkers than the other.  What differentiates them for me, is their violence or lack thereof.

If you're asking me should crazy, , ignorant, dumb, and/or mean people be allowed to vote.  Of course, they can.  That's the way it is NOW.

excon

Yes, I suppose I'm simply wondering if very many theist would recognize a conflict of interest should it present itself and have the integrity to abstain say, maybe high office where potentially millions of lives are at stake? Don't know but probably not many...

MayCaesar

I do not think Putin hears the voice of god; I think he just experiences the "eternal dictator syndrome", when someone who has had an almost absolute power for a long time stars losing touch with reality, believing his own propaganda, and thinking that he can get away with anything.

To your question, if having a system of beliefs that can conflict with one's political objectivity is a reason for them to not participate in politics, then no one should be a politician (and that is actually something that I can subscribe to!). Me and you are not religious, but we certainly have other systems of beliefs that are not entirely rational and that significantly affect our political views. If you make me a soft dictator, I will make Javier Milei look like an extreme statist compared to what I do. I will start, for example, with complete abolishment of all taxation and replacement of it with a 1% flat income tax. Most people would say that, therefore, I should never be let anywhere near the Congress or the White House.

So who is allowed to do politics then? A small minority of people who conform with every societal tradition, are not religious, are not ideological... We might as well go full AI route in that case.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

I do not think Putin hears the voice of god; I think he just experiences the "eternal dictator syndrome", when someone who has had an almost absolute power for a long time stars losing touch with reality, believing his own propaganda, and thinking that he can get away with anything.

To your question, if having a system of beliefs that can conflict with one's political objectivity is a reason for them to not participate in politics, then no one should be a politician (and that is actually something that I can subscribe to!). Me and you are not religious, but we certainly have other systems of beliefs that are not entirely rational and that significantly affect our political views. If you make me a soft dictator, I will make Javier Milei look like an extreme statist compared to what I do. I will start, for example, with complete abolishment of all taxation and replacement of it with a 1% flat income tax. Most people would say that, therefore, I should never be let anywhere near the Congress or the White House.

So who is allowed to do politics then? A small minority of people who conform with every societal tradition, are not religious, are not ideological... We might as well go full AI route in that case.

I robot vs agenda driven corrupt politicians? Now there's the question of the century. hmm

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Starting off with a sweeping proclamation lumping atheists and liberals together wreaks...

Doesn't surprise me since in those days atheists were not allowed jobs for the most part. Especially ones of a historic nature. But one thing consistently remains in their deliberations concerning the new government. Along with taxation, and freedom of speech concerns, were the need to reduce religions role within government. Obviously that wasn't the right time to abolish religious influence altogether. Not sure it would be a good idea now even. Religion did give us the beginning of expressing our desire to learn philosophically. Back to the mindset of the founders, they saw the writing on the wall. The society and culture they wanted to created was less discriminatory to atheists as it was becoming increasingly apparent it was an irrational position to move into the future with. Do you as a theist see any wisdom in their thinking? Should that wisdom prevail on? The link below describing bigotry against atheism world wide and what some backwards extremist countries have instituted would tell me 'yes' let's let that kind of thinking continue on...

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8B9006/

LOL. I guess I see your point about how it would be offensive to atheists to be lumped in with leftists.  

Personally, I have very strong libertarian tendencies. That's not because I agree with everyone else, but because I want to have my rights respected also.  I've mentioned this in another thread, that atheism has a deficient view of morality.  It has no foundation for it, so morality is reduced to what the strongest person or group believe.  That's just might makes right and not a very good moral foundation.  Atheist leaders like Joseph Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Trotsky, Mussolini , Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong killed more than 150 million in the 20th century alone - most of them their own people.  Throw Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) in there and you have atheists having killed more people in the 20th century, than all other religions for the past 1,000 years.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Starting off with a sweeping proclamation lumping atheists and liberals together wreaks...

Doesn't surprise me since in those days atheists were not allowed jobs for the most part. Especially ones of a historic nature. But one thing consistently remains in their deliberations concerning the new government. Along with taxation, and freedom of speech concerns, were the need to reduce religions role within government. Obviously that wasn't the right time to abolish religious influence altogether. Not sure it would be a good idea now even. Religion did give us the beginning of expressing our desire to learn philosophically. Back to the mindset of the founders, they saw the writing on the wall. The society and culture they wanted to created was less discriminatory to atheists as it was becoming increasingly apparent it was an irrational position to move into the future with. Do you as a theist see any wisdom in their thinking? Should that wisdom prevail on? The link below describing bigotry against atheism world wide and what some backwards extremist countries have instituted would tell me 'yes' let's let that kind of thinking continue on...

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8B9006/

LOL. I guess I see your point about how it would be offensive to atheists to be lumped in with leftists.  

Personally, I have very strong libertarian tendencies. That's not because I agree with everyone else, but because I want to have my rights respected also.  I've mentioned this in another thread, that atheism has a deficient view of morality.  It has no foundation for it, so morality is reduced to what the strongest person or group believe.  That's just might makes right and not a very good moral foundation.  Atheist leaders like Joseph Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Trotsky, Mussolini , Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong killed more than 150 million in the 20th century alone - most of them their own people.  Throw Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) in there and you have atheists having killed more people in the 20th century, than all other religions for the past 1,000 years.

I meant that atheism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive to one another so lumping them together is irrelevant and falsely casting aspersions. 

The content of your post is grossly misleading. For instance Mussolini followed the lead of the christian adolph hitler notoriously missing from your list. As well Margaret Sanger was an Episcopalian. 

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

LOL. I guess I see your point about how it would be offensive to atheists to be lumped in with leftists.  

Personally, I have very strong libertarian tendencies. That's not because I agree with everyone else, but because I want to have my rights respected also.  I've mentioned this in another thread, that atheism has a deficient view of morality.  It has no foundation for it, so morality is reduced to what the strongest person or group believe.  That's just might makes right and not a very good moral foundation.  Atheist leaders like Joseph Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Trotsky, Mussolini , Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong killed more than 150 million in the 20th century alone - most of them their own people.  Throw Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) in there and you have atheists having killed more people in the 20th century, than all other religions for the past 1,000 years.

As usual, in your arguments you willfully ignore a large chunk of data and select only the pieces that seem to support your conclusion in isolation. Your claim that atheists' morality is reduced to the belief of the strongest person in the group - and ignore examples of countless dissidents in communist regimes who, without any religious beliefs, fought for freedom. You ignore countless examples of atheist libertarians and other free thinkers such as me, or Ayn Rand, or Garry Kasparov. You pick a few communist and fascist villains who happened to be atheist - out of tens of billions of atheists - and claim that their actions are somehow illustrative of the atheistic morals. This would be like me pointing finger at Ivan the Terrible and claiming on this basis that the Christian morals are reduced to slaughtering everyone who opposes the king.

Atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in the supernatural. It has nothing to do with "might makes right", or nihilism, or any other ill that you attribute to atheists. There are atheists who believe in pacifism, and there are atheists who believe in rivers of blood - just like there are theists who believe in pacifism, and there are theists who believe in rivers of blood.

The fact that within every single religion there have been countless divisions and rivers of blood have been spilled between people disagreeing on what the religion was about suggests that no one - despite what they claim - actually derives their morals from "the source". People derive their morals from certain observations they make about the world, and then they use religion, or non-religious ideology (such as fascism or communism), to rationalize their morals. 

If religious morals were objective, then things like the Crusades, or the Hundred Years' War, or the endless conflicts between the Sunni and the Shia, would not exist. Which suggests that your moral foundation is as shaky as that of Trotsky or Mussolini, you just lack the tools and desire to force it on others.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Starting off with a sweeping proclamation lumping atheists and liberals together wreaks...

Doesn't surprise me since in those days atheists were not allowed jobs for the most part. Especially ones of a historic nature. But one thing consistently remains in their deliberations concerning the new government. Along with taxation, and freedom of speech concerns, were the need to reduce religions role within government. Obviously that wasn't the right time to abolish religious influence altogether. Not sure it would be a good idea now even. Religion did give us the beginning of expressing our desire to learn philosophically. Back to the mindset of the founders, they saw the writing on the wall. The society and culture they wanted to created was less discriminatory to atheists as it was becoming increasingly apparent it was an irrational position to move into the future with. Do you as a theist see any wisdom in their thinking? Should that wisdom prevail on? The link below describing bigotry against atheism world wide and what some backwards extremist countries have instituted would tell me 'yes' let's let that kind of thinking continue on...

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8B9006/

LOL. I guess I see your point about how it would be offensive to atheists to be lumped in with leftists.  

Personally, I have very strong libertarian tendencies. That's not because I agree with everyone else, but because I want to have my rights respected also.  I've mentioned this in another thread, that atheism has a deficient view of morality.  It has no foundation for it, so morality is reduced to what the strongest person or group believe.  That's just might makes right and not a very good moral foundation.  Atheist leaders like Joseph Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Trotsky, Mussolini , Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong killed more than 150 million in the 20th century alone - most of them their own people.  Throw Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) in there and you have atheists having killed more people in the 20th century, than all other religions for the past 1,000 years.

I meant that atheism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive to one another so lumping them together is irrelevant and falsely casting aspersions. 

The content of your post is grossly misleading. For instance Mussolini followed the lead of the christian adolph hitler notoriously missing from your list. As well Margaret Sanger was an Episcopalian. 

Sanger had her funeral at an Episcopalian church, yet her most well known motto was 'No Gods, no masters'.  Sanger, as a liberal, held a world of evil beliefs, such as eugenics.  She said she wanted to create a 'cleaner race'.  Her allegiances were notoriously political.  She initially was a Republican because she thought they were more supportive of Planned Parenthood.  She spoke out against more radicalized people, even though they shared her views, because it was unpopular to hold some of the views she did.  

I get you want to distance yourself from atheists.  Who wouldn't?  My point is that the evil things such as starving your own people to death, have been committed by atheists because they have no moral foundation other than might makes right.  The massive body count is exhibit A in that case that atheism is a poor moral system.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Starting off with a sweeping proclamation lumping atheists and liberals together wreaks...

Doesn't surprise me since in those days atheists were not allowed jobs for the most part. Especially ones of a historic nature. But one thing consistently remains in their deliberations concerning the new government. Along with taxation, and freedom of speech concerns, were the need to reduce religions role within government. Obviously that wasn't the right time to abolish religious influence altogether. Not sure it would be a good idea now even. Religion did give us the beginning of expressing our desire to learn philosophically. Back to the mindset of the founders, they saw the writing on the wall. The society and culture they wanted to created was less discriminatory to atheists as it was becoming increasingly apparent it was an irrational position to move into the future with. Do you as a theist see any wisdom in their thinking? Should that wisdom prevail on? The link below describing bigotry against atheism world wide and what some backwards extremist countries have instituted would tell me 'yes' let's let that kind of thinking continue on...

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8B9006/

LOL. I guess I see your point about how it would be offensive to atheists to be lumped in with leftists.  

Personally, I have very strong libertarian tendencies. That's not because I agree with everyone else, but because I want to have my rights respected also.  I've mentioned this in another thread, that atheism has a deficient view of morality.  It has no foundation for it, so morality is reduced to what the strongest person or group believe.  That's just might makes right and not a very good moral foundation.  Atheist leaders like Joseph Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Trotsky, Mussolini , Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong killed more than 150 million in the 20th century alone - most of them their own people.  Throw Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) in there and you have atheists having killed more people in the 20th century, than all other religions for the past 1,000 years.

I meant that atheism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive to one another so lumping them together is irrelevant and falsely casting aspersions. 

The content of your post is grossly misleading. For instance Mussolini followed the lead of the christian adolph hitler notoriously missing from your list. As well Margaret Sanger was an Episcopalian. 

Sanger had her funeral at an Episcopalian church, yet her most well known motto was 'No Gods, no masters'.  Sanger, as a liberal, held a world of evil beliefs, such as eugenics.  She said she wanted to create a 'cleaner race'.  Her allegiances were notoriously political.  She initially was a Republican because she thought they were more supportive of Planned Parenthood.  She spoke out against more radicalized people, even though they shared her views, because it was unpopular to hold some of the views she did.  

I get you want to distance yourself from atheists.  Who wouldn't?  My point is that the evil things such as starving your own people to death, have been committed by atheists because they have no moral foundation other than might makes right.  The massive body count is exhibit A in that case that atheism is a poor moral system.

Sanger said all her life she was episcopalian and identified with that denomination. Her being a liberal rubs your religious bravado the wrong way, but she was christian, not atheist.

What makes you think I'm distancing myself from atheism? I'm an apostate because the fallacies of the bible didn't reflect reality.  Atheism is simply unbelief. It doesn't attempt to posit an alternative view. Yet here I am, every bit as moral as you.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

Atheism is simply unbelief. It doesn't attempt to posit an alternative view.

It truly is bizarre how hard of a time many theists have understanding this simple point.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

Atheism is simply unbelief. It doesn't attempt to posit an alternative view.

It truly is bizarre how hard of a time many theists have understanding this simple point.

Lack of a moral foundation is more than just unbelief.  It does affect the atheists world view.  You'd think with 150 million dead in the last century alone from atheism, you could see that.  May, by your own words, no amount of evidence would every convince you of God or his goodness.  Miracles are just things for you to pretend didn't happen.  Can you give me a 'even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen'.  That would really make my day  I've had a blast watching you and @Factfinder deny tons of evidence, science, and medical records.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist, and I'm just too committed to justice to be an atheist - whose sole purpose is to do what they think is best for them.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I wonder, what fraction of all atheists do you think support that bloodshed? If you ask even peaceful Muslims similar questions, the statistics of their answers are pretty damning. With Christians, similarly, you will routinely hear arguments for justification of the Crusades, or genocides that are described in the Bible. 
But you will not find many atheists today who support Hitler's or Stalin's actions (the latter you will find in Russia and Belarus, but in those countries both atheists and Christians support them about equally, so it is not a good counter-example either). So I do not think that you want to maintain this line of reasoning.

You, in particular, consistently put words in my mouth, just as you did here. This part

May, by your own words, no amount of evidence would every convince you of God or his goodness.  Miracles are just things for you to pretend didn't happen.  Can you give me a 'even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen'.

is blatantly untrue, and I have told you many times that it is untrue - but you do not care about the truth, do you? I think that this is what it really takes to be a theist of this stubborn kind (I am not talking about all theists, just about those similar to you): intellectual cowardice, the fear of the inconvenient truth.

I do not have such fear, and I have faced brutal truth many times in my life. I was just rejected from a firm today I have worked for months from morning to evening to get into. "Nope, not good enough for us". My reaction? It was not, "Oh, well, their loss", or, "Blind bastards". It was, "Okay, I can see 7 things that I could improve upon. Time to get to work".

What about you? When you are afraid to even face the fact that some random stranger on the Internet may have a position that threatens your self-assurance, then what do you do when life shows you harsher truth? I have always said this, and I will say it again: living a life of lies in one particular domain is not sustainable - it is going to seep into the rest of it. This is something Ayn Rand understood very well: you lie to yourself a bit - you lie to yourself a lot. We can witness it here very well. There is absolutely nothing you have to gain from consistently misrepresenting my simple position (which, I think, everyone except for you got months ago) - yet you do it out of habit. Small lies have become a part of your intellectual routine, and you have started decaying as a thinker.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

I wonder, what fraction of all atheists do you think support that bloodshed? If you ask even peaceful Muslims similar questions, the statistics of their answers are pretty damning. With Christians, similarly, you will routinely hear arguments for justification of the Crusades, or genocides that are described in the Bible. 
But you will not find many atheists today who support Hitler's or Stalin's actions (the latter you will find in Russia and Belarus, but in those countries both atheists and Christians support them about equally, so it is not a good counter-example either). So I do not think that you want to maintain this line of reasoning.

You, in particular, consistently put words in my mouth, just as you did here. This part

May, by your own words, no amount of evidence would every convince you of God or his goodness.  Miracles are just things for you to pretend didn't happen.  Can you give me a 'even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen'.

is blatantly untrue, and I have told you many times that it is untrue - but you do not care about the truth, do you? I think that this is what it really takes to be a theist of this stubborn kind (I am not talking about all theists, just about those similar to you): intellectual cowardice, the fear of the inconvenient truth.

I do not have such fear, and I have faced brutal truth many times in my life. I was just rejected from a firm today I have worked for months from morning to evening to get into. "Nope, not good enough for us". My reaction? It was not, "Oh, well, their loss", or, "Blind bastards". It was, "Okay, I can see 7 things that I could improve upon. Time to get to work".

What about you? When you are afraid to even face the fact that some random stranger on the Internet may have a position that threatens your self-assurance, then what do you do when life shows you harsher truth? I have always said this, and I will say it again: living a life of lies in one particular domain is not sustainable - it is going to seep into the rest of it. This is something Ayn Rand understood very well: you lie to yourself a bit - you lie to yourself a lot. We can witness it here very well. There is absolutely nothing you have to gain from consistently misrepresenting my simple position (which, I think, everyone except for you got months ago) - yet you do it out of habit. Small lies have become a part of your intellectual routine, and you have started decaying as a thinker.

May, I don't have time to respond fully to your post but I am truly sorry that you did not get the job you wanted.  

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

I wonder, what fraction of all atheists do you think support that bloodshed? If you ask even peaceful Muslims similar questions, the statistics of their answers are pretty damning. With Christians, similarly, you will routinely hear arguments for justification of the Crusades, or genocides that are described in the Bible. 
But you will not find many atheists today who support Hitler's or Stalin's actions (the latter you will find in Russia and Belarus, but in those countries both atheists and Christians support them about equally, so it is not a good counter-example either). So I do not think that you want to maintain this line of reasoning.

You, in particular, consistently put words in my mouth, just as you did here. This part

May, by your own words, no amount of evidence would every convince you of God or his goodness.  Miracles are just things for you to pretend didn't happen.  Can you give me a 'even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen'.

is blatantly untrue, and I have told you many times that it is untrue - but you do not care about the truth, do you? I think that this is what it really takes to be a theist of this stubborn kind (I am not talking about all theists, just about those similar to you): intellectual cowardice, the fear of the inconvenient truth.

I do not have such fear, and I have faced brutal truth many times in my life. I was just rejected from a firm today I have worked for months from morning to evening to get into. "Nope, not good enough for us". My reaction? It was not, "Oh, well, their loss", or, "Blind bastards". It was, "Okay, I can see 7 things that I could improve upon. Time to get to work".

What about you? When you are afraid to even face the fact that some random stranger on the Internet may have a position that threatens your self-assurance, then what do you do when life shows you harsher truth? I have always said this, and I will say it again: living a life of lies in one particular domain is not sustainable - it is going to seep into the rest of it. This is something Ayn Rand understood very well: you lie to yourself a bit - you lie to yourself a lot. We can witness it here very well. There is absolutely nothing you have to gain from consistently misrepresenting my simple position (which, I think, everyone except for you got months ago) - yet you do it out of habit. Small lies have become a part of your intellectual routine, and you have started decaying as a thinker.

Beautifully articulated point of view, yet lacking one thing. 'Presumptuous' that's what's missing. Just-saying is presumptuous in expressing his opinions. He just presumes things that aren't so. No matter the evidence anyone presents to the contrary. And what motivates people, he's presumptuous. Total disregard to his book's advice, 'pride goeth before the fall'. 

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

May, I don't have time to respond fully to your post but I am truly sorry that you did not get the job you wanted.  

Thanks, but I think it is for the best. The more times you fail, the more holes in your armor you find and patch up.

Factfinder said:

Beautifully articulated point of view, yet lacking one thing. 'Presumptuous' that's what's missing. Just-saying is presumptuous in expressing his opinions. He just presumes things that aren't so. No matter the evidence anyone presents to the contrary. And what motivates people, he's presumptuous. Total disregard to his book's advice, 'pride goeth before the fall'. 

I would not claim to understand people's motivations, and I try to not be confrontational. That said, I think that I explain my position somewhat well and people generally understand it, so I cannot connect systematic misunderstanding of it to anything other than desire to not understand it.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

May, I don't have time to respond fully to your post but I am truly sorry that you did not get the job you wanted.  

Thanks, but I think it is for the best. The more times you fail, the more holes in your armor you find and patch up.

Factfinder said:

Beautifully articulated point of view, yet lacking one thing. 'Presumptuous' that's what's missing. Just-saying is presumptuous in expressing his opinions. He just presumes things that aren't so. No matter the evidence anyone presents to the contrary. And what motivates people, he's presumptuous. Total disregard to his book's advice, 'pride goeth before the fall'. 

I would not claim to understand people's motivations, and I try to not be confrontational. That said, I think that I explain my position somewhat well and people generally understand it, so I cannot connect systematic misunderstanding of it to anything other than desire to not understand it.

Cool, I can understand that. Still just-sayin rubs me as presumptuous. Can't help that feeling either. 

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;I agree with your basic premise that everyone should have a say.  

Well good because so long as you under stand that I am not knocking religion. Its just that even loonies have a right to have a say because they contribute to society. How on earth would we get the high quality coat hangers and number plates and baskets if it wasn't for them?

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

I wonder, what fraction of all atheists do you think support that bloodshed? If you ask even peaceful Muslims similar questions, the statistics of their answers are pretty damning. With Christians, similarly, you will routinely hear arguments for justification of the Crusades, or genocides that are described in the Bible. 
But you will not find many atheists today who support Hitler's or Stalin's actions (the latter you will find in Russia and Belarus, but in those countries both atheists and Christians support them about equally, so it is not a good counter-example either). So I do not think that you want to maintain this line of reasoning.

You, in particular, consistently put words in my mouth, just as you did here. This part

May, by your own words, no amount of evidence would every convince you of God or his goodness.  Miracles are just things for you to pretend didn't happen.  Can you give me a 'even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen'.

is blatantly untrue, and I have told you many times that it is untrue - but you do not care about the truth, do you? I think that this is what it really takes to be a theist of this stubborn kind (I am not talking about all theists, just about those similar to you): intellectual cowardice, the fear of the inconvenient truth.

I do not have such fear, and I have faced brutal truth many times in my life. I was just rejected from a firm today I have worked for months from morning to evening to get into. "Nope, not good enough for us". My reaction? It was not, "Oh, well, their loss", or, "Blind bastards". It was, "Okay, I can see 7 things that I could improve upon. Time to get to work".

What about you? When you are afraid to even face the fact that some random stranger on the Internet may have a position that threatens your self-assurance, then what do you do when life shows you harsher truth? I have always said this, and I will say it again: living a life of lies in one particular domain is not sustainable - it is going to seep into the rest of it. This is something Ayn Rand understood very well: you lie to yourself a bit - you lie to yourself a lot. We can witness it here very well. There is absolutely nothing you have to gain from consistently misrepresenting my simple position (which, I think, everyone except for you got months ago) - yet you do it out of habit. Small lies have become a part of your intellectual routine, and you have started decaying as a thinker.

May, you have indeed said that miracles are impossible, and that since only nature exists only natural explanations are real.  Is that or is it not true?  Did you not complain when the doctor's for Barbara Commiskey said her getting her eyesight back and walking, and her instantaneous healing of her lungs and other organs was a miracle, because you didn't like them using the term 'miracle'?  Considering that some of these doctors are some of the best in their respective fields, working with the Mayo Clinic, it seems like they could determine if the blind seeing and the lame walking is possible in a specific case.  Yet, you insisted that science must have an answer.  When I asked you what the scientific explanation was, you said that just because there wasn't one doesn't mean science can't explain it (hence the quote 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, it knows).  

Your faith in atheism is not based on facts, evidence and science, it exists in spite of them.  I mention the miracle of Calanda where there are 24 eye witness accounts supported with medical records.  Spain held a tribunal to verify the account and all evidence points to it being real, but you bitterly cling to your faith claim that it was not real - even though there are medical records and eye witness accounts that say otherwise.  You didn't base your faith in atheism on evidence, its just your faith belief, that actual stands in opposition to what the evidence says.  You seemed to be willing to believe the evil twin theory that only exists in soap operas and wrestling storylines rather than accept the medical records and eye witness testimony.  Are there any records of a twin?  Nope. 

You quite literally have put your faith in nothing.  You are much more faith driven in your conviction of nothing creating the universe than any other person on the site.  Your faith in nothing, exceeds @RickeyHoltsclaw's faith in God.  At least his faith is based in historical evidence, such as the life and death of Jesus.  Yours is...well...literally based on nothing.  

I don't need any of the miracles that I have discussed with you to be true.  Falsifying an individual miracle does not disprove God.  But your faith won't allow the admission of a single miracle.  You must deny all facts, medical records, news reports, medically reviewed studies, recorded evidence, and eye witness testimonies of miracles.  You mock people for their faith, but it is at least rooted in facts.  Your faith in nothing, isn't based on facts.  It's based on nothing but your hopes and wishes.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

You mock people for their faith, but it is at least rooted in facts. 

@MayCaesar doesn't mock people for their faith, he mocks the arguments claiming their object of faith is rooted in fact. Your fairy clown book is what you have faith in, not facts or reality. If it were facts or reality, it wouldn't be faith. Faith takes an unproven assertion and blindly accepts it even when reality aligns against said faith. That's what makes you a theist. Atheism is just unbelief in your faith. That doesn't require faith at all. Atheism makes no assertions requiring faith. When confronted with a question where the answer is unknown, an atheist will say so where a theist asserts 'god did it'. Understand? 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You mock people for their faith, but it is at least rooted in facts. 

@MayCaesar doesn't mock people for their faith, he mocks the arguments claiming their object of faith is rooted in fact. Your fairy clown book is what you have faith in, not facts or reality. If it were facts or reality, it wouldn't be faith. Faith takes an unproven assertion and blindly accepts it even when reality aligns against said faith. That's what makes you a theist. Atheism is just unbelief in your faith. That doesn't require faith at all. Atheism makes no assertions requiring faith. When confronted with a question where the answer is unknown, an atheist will say so where a theist asserts 'god did it'. Understand? 

When you ignore facts to cling to your faith in nothing, you are not basing that faith on facts and evidence.  You don't like it when I point out to you that your belief is a faith claim, but it is.  When I pointed out the evidence for the miracle at Calanda, you denied it was real.  Did you do that based on the evidence?  Nope.  All the evidence says the guy's leg grew back 2 years and 7 months after being amputated.  The atheists desperation was so extreme that someone even suggested the evil twin referee theory, without a shred of evidence to support it.  No amount of evidence could convince you or May.  You aren't swayed by facts and evidence, yours is a faith based belief, that rejects facts and evidence that dispel and disprove it.

As much as you may hate Christianity, the historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are there.  I've gone into this before also.  Even Jesus' enemies admitted he could perform miracles and predict the future.  In fact, no one in antiquity denied Jesus' existence and ability to perform miracles.  The only ones who have done so are modern atheists, who are faith driven, because to admit otherwise would destroy their religious belief system.  

You believe that nothing created you, and that to when you die, you will go and spend eternity with your creator - nothing.  This is an illogical faith belief for nothing can only create nothing, for it can do nothing else.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You mock people for their faith, but it is at least rooted in facts. 

@MayCaesar doesn't mock people for their faith, he mocks the arguments claiming their object of faith is rooted in fact. Your fairy clown book is what you have faith in, not facts or reality. If it were facts or reality, it wouldn't be faith. Faith takes an unproven assertion and blindly accepts it even when reality aligns against said faith. That's what makes you a theist. Atheism is just unbelief in your faith. That doesn't require faith at all. Atheism makes no assertions requiring faith. When confronted with a question where the answer is unknown, an atheist will say so where a theist asserts 'god did it'. Understand? 

@Factfinder ;  @MayCaesar ;  @just_sayin   @ZeusAres42 ; There are no "facts" or "logic" relevant to atheism...it's a religion of fools (Psalm 14:1) and arrogance and narcissism defending aberrant sin and a deathstyle of nihilism. 

Christianity looks at the World from a Biblical perspective and the Bible simply aligns with what we see in nature and life around us. The Bible explains everything relevant concerning our creation and our existence within it while atheism explains NOTHING but provides only obfuscation for a debased and sinful life of addiction to narcissism and hedonism. 

In its most basic assertions, the Bible tells you that we are the product of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, Designer and all that we see in nature and in the Heavens lends credence to this assertion; this, while the confounded and disturbed atheist has no explanation for creation or how or why; therefore, Atheism truly does not exist...it is an illogical form of escapism, nihilism, that under girds a life of aberrant lust and destructive desires and narcissism unrestrained which inevitably culminates in a death defined by nihilism. 

Atheism is demonic deception; Atheism is illogical based in nihilism asserting ignorance. There are no true Atheists lest the one claiming same is mentally incompetent and completely unable to discern the World around him/her/he-she. The Atheist cannot truly say that a Designer - a Creator does not exist but they can only wish that He did not exist as they have NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION concerning the supernatural World around us and its origin. You can say you don't "believe" but you cannot say in the affirmative that there is no God because you don't KNOW and you possess not relevant counter argument that negates the reality of God or explains that reality. Atheists live a lie.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

When you ignore facts to cling to your faith in nothing, you are not basing that faith on facts and evidence

Yawn, unbelief doesn't require faith in 'nothing', just means no faith in your book. When your faith requires you to lie and speak in circles such as 'lack of faith is faith' then you need help, professional help. And should, if you were honest, abstain from politics till okayed by a doctor. A guy with two legs is evidence the guy didn't have an amputation based on facts and reality. You choose to assert the intentionally buried cult story put out for public consumption by a notoriously deceptive denomination 400 years ago is real, just because when all is said and done, the guy had two legs, but I don't believe it. You need the assertion of a supernatural event occurring to believe it, I simply don't believe the assertion. No one says 'look, he has two legs! One must of been amputated and grew back!'

Your argumentation actually points to why I posted this thread to begin with. Knowing your proclivity to make such irrational leaps of faith, would you consider staying out of politics as a sign of your integrity?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

When you ignore facts to cling to your faith in nothing, you are not basing that faith on facts and evidence

Yawn, unbelief doesn't require faith in 'nothing', just means no faith in your book. When your faith requires you to lie and speak in circles such as 'lack of faith is faith' then you need help, professional help. And should, if you were honest, abstain from politics till okayed by a doctor. A guy with two legs is evidence the guy didn't have an amputation based on facts and reality. You choose to assert the intentionally buried cult story put out for public consumption by a notoriously deceptive denomination 400 years ago is real, just because when all is said and done, the guy had two legs, but I don't believe it. You need the assertion of a supernatural event occurring to believe it, I simply don't believe the assertion. No one says 'look, he has two legs! One must of been amputated and grew back!'

Your argumentation actually points to why I posted this thread to begin with. Knowing your proclivity to make such irrational leaps of faith, would you consider staying out of politics as a sign of your integrity?

I love engaging with you and @MayCaesar on this topic because it highlights which one of us has a faith supported by facts, and which one will ignore facts to fit their faith.

Let's go through some facts.  While it is true the Bishop did investigate the miracle at Calanda, the tribunal where the testimonies were recorded was not done by the Catholic church, but by the King of Spain, and overseen by his official record keeper.  I have mentioned this to you before and you must have forgotten.

Now,  you assert, without any evidence that the man did not have his leg amputated.  But what does the evidence say:

1. Licentiate Juan de Estanga, Professor of Surgery testified admits to cutting off the leg, to the time of the amputation, and to the man's recover during the winter at the hospital.

Here's a snip of the tribunal records (taken from a Google translation of the original):

They cut off a leg to said Juan Pelli- zero four fingers below the knee, which he believes, and he is certainly the same one that has been taught to that depositor, and this he said to be true per juramen- tum. = To the tenth third article, being read he answered, and said: That the depositor continued the cure of this leg for a few months, until he was in state that the clothes could be given to him as is customary to the others , and this said to be true per juramentum.

2.  Licentiate Pascual del Cacho, Presbyter Vee-of the Holy Hospital of Our Lady of Grace of the Present City said he witnessed the man at the hospital with an amputated leg, and to seeing the amputated leg:

that there will be two years and seven months, more or less, this depository going through the Stables of said Holy Hospital, taking care of the sustenance of the sick, as this was his job, he saw a young man in a bed in the Cuadra de Cirujía, they had cut off a leg, as he heard him say to Licentiate Juan de Estanga and to other Mencebos who were with him, who had cut him off to that sick, and the depositor saw on the floor the said cut leg

3. Juan Lorenzo Garcia, Mancebo Platicante de Cyrjjano said he saw the leg amputated and that he buried the leg:

the said leg, and the dean saw her cut, and it helped to raise the Cauterios, M, that, the same that has been shown to him and iguel Juan Pellicero, in the article named, is oneself , and not diverse, and this said to be true per jura- mentum. - To the twelfth article he answered, and said: That the depositor is the one who took that leg after being cut off and took it with another companion of his, and having been with her in the Chapel, they took her to bury the Sauto Cimenterio. Hospital, as in fact they buried her, making a hole like a handful of wave, and this said to be true per juramentum.

4.  Diego Millaruelo, Master in Surgery said he saw the patient before and after the amputation, and saw the amputated leg

Having made the above deliberation, they cut the leg, know it because it was present to cut it, and helped the draft, and saw it cut, and this said to be true per juramen- tum.-To article twelve of said cedula. He answered, and said: That he knows, and saw the depositor, that one of the Placists in said Stable took that leg, and the 2 took to bury, and heard say they buried her in the C-menterio; and this said to be true per juramentum.- To article thirteen of said cedula, being read, he answered, and said: That the depositor knows well, and saw, after said leg was cut, said Lic. uan de Estanga continued his cure of the residue of said leg, until it healed, and this said to be true perjuramentum.

The reason I can provide those details is because Spain's King's own record keeper verified the testimony and preserved it.  And your evidence?  Where can I find it?  *** sound of crickets ****  That's what I thought.

You see, that's because my faith is supported by the evidence and facts, and yours has no facts to support it, and you can't provide evidence for it.  If you look at our discussion of prayer - I cited well over 100 sources.  And what did atheists provide?  Well Dee - falsely accused an old white cardiologist of secretly changing into a Black Bishop on the weekends and of stealing money - none of which he had any evidence of.  In fact calling the white guy a Black man was really funny. Not as funny as when Dee produced a Yelp review where he claimed the Yale Cardiologist which headed up his hospital and had pioneered many procedures was a 'quack' because the guy wouldn't honor a coupon for a heart procedure.  LOL - you can't make this stuff up.  Atheists are so funny!!!

 There were lots of accusations and lots of theories, but when it came to evidence - the atheists were lacking objective evidence.  Deny, deny, deny - that was all we got from the atheist side.  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

May, you have indeed said that miracles are impossible, and that since only nature exists only natural explanations are real.  Is that or is it not true?  Did you not complain when the doctor's for Barbara Commiskey said her getting her eyesight back and walking, and her instantaneous healing of her lungs and other organs was a miracle, because you didn't like them using the term 'miracle'?  Considering that some of these doctors are some of the best in their respective fields, working with the Mayo Clinic, it seems like they could determine if the blind seeing and the lame walking is possible in a specific case.  Yet, you insisted that science must have an answer.  When I asked you what the scientific explanation was, you said that just because there wasn't one doesn't mean science can't explain it (hence the quote 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, it knows).  

Your faith in atheism is not based on facts, evidence and science, it exists in spite of them.  I mention the miracle of Calanda where there are 24 eye witness accounts supported with medical records.  Spain held a tribunal to verify the account and all evidence points to it being real, but you bitterly cling to your faith claim that it was not real - even though there are medical records and eye witness accounts that say otherwise.  You didn't base your faith in atheism on evidence, its just your faith belief, that actual stands in opposition to what the evidence says.  You seemed to be willing to believe the evil twin theory that only exists in soap operas and wrestling storylines rather than accept the medical records and eye witness testimony.  Are there any records of a twin?  Nope. 

You quite literally have put your faith in nothing.  You are much more faith driven in your conviction of nothing creating the universe than any other person on the site.  Your faith in nothing, exceeds @RickeyHoltsclaw's faith in God.  At least his faith is based in historical evidence, such as the life and death of Jesus.  Yours is...well...literally based on nothing.  

I don't need any of the miracles that I have discussed with you to be true.  Falsifying an individual miracle does not disprove God.  But your faith won't allow the admission of a single miracle.  You must deny all facts, medical records, news reports, medically reviewed studies, recorded evidence, and eye witness testimonies of miracles.  You mock people for their faith, but it is at least rooted in facts.  Your faith in nothing, isn't based on facts.  It's based on nothing but your hopes and wishes.

You are now starting contradicting yourself. You previously said this:

just_sayin said:

Lack of a moral foundation is more than just unbelief.  It does affect the atheists world view.  You'd think with 150 million dead in the last century alone from atheism, you could see that.  May, by your own words, no amount of evidence would every convince you of God or his goodness.  Miracles are just things for you to pretend didn't happen.  Can you give me a 'even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen'.  That would really make my day  I've had a blast watching you and @Factfinder deny tons of evidence, science, and medical records.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist, and I'm just too committed to justice to be an atheist - whose sole purpose is to do what they think is best for them.

So which is it? Did I say that miracles are impossible, or are miracles things for me to pretend didn't happen? Is my position that "even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen", or is it that "since only nature exists, only natural explanations are real"? For the record, I have said none of these four things - but it is not just that, it is also that these four things contain two pairs of mutually exclusive statements, and you have attributed them all to me.

From now on I employ a new policy for conversations with you: you have to accurately summarize my position before I am going to reply to your criticisms of it. I am tired of correcting you over and over, and I am not going to defend positions that I disagree with.

I will reiterate also what I said before: the more you continue this charade, the more respect I lose for you. At this point I am starting to doubt your ability to make a single accurate statement about something that challenges your positions.

It is clear to me that you do not understand even 1% of my position. What you read in my (fairly straightforward) statements has very little in common with the content of those statements. In my understanding, people do it in two cases: when they are illiterate, or when they are habitual liars (especially to themselves). I am inclined to think that it is the latter in your case, and I have voiced this suspicion multiple times before.
Again, this has nothing to do with your religiosity (I know plenty of religious people that consistently make strong logical arguments and understand and reply to mine). Although I should say that heavily religious people are more prone to this, in my observation.

You do not only do it to me either. You do it to other people, for example here:

just_sayin said:

As much as you may hate Christianity, the historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are there.  I've gone into this before also.  Even Jesus' enemies admitted he could perform miracles and predict the future.  In fact, no one in antiquity denied Jesus' existence and ability to perform miracles.  The only ones who have done so are modern atheists, who are faith driven, because to admit otherwise would destroy their religious belief system. 

At no point did @Factfinder suggest that he "hates Christianity". Are you really comfortable showing so little respect to other people?

Lastly, you just said that you like engaging with me and @Factfinder on this topic... But I have yet to see you engaging with us. To engage with someone means to understand their views and reply to them, and you have demonstrated no such understanding.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

May, you have indeed said that miracles are impossible, and that since only nature exists only natural explanations are real.  Is that or is it not true?  Did you not complain when the doctor's for Barbara Commiskey said her getting her eyesight back and walking, and her instantaneous healing of her lungs and other organs was a miracle, because you didn't like them using the term 'miracle'?  Considering that some of these doctors are some of the best in their respective fields, working with the Mayo Clinic, it seems like they could determine if the blind seeing and the lame walking is possible in a specific case.  Yet, you insisted that science must have an answer.  When I asked you what the scientific explanation was, you said that just because there wasn't one doesn't mean science can't explain it (hence the quote 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, it knows).  

Your faith in atheism is not based on facts, evidence and science, it exists in spite of them.  I mention the miracle of Calanda where there are 24 eye witness accounts supported with medical records.  Spain held a tribunal to verify the account and all evidence points to it being real, but you bitterly cling to your faith claim that it was not real - even though there are medical records and eye witness accounts that say otherwise.  You didn't base your faith in atheism on evidence, its just your faith belief, that actual stands in opposition to what the evidence says.  You seemed to be willing to believe the evil twin theory that only exists in soap operas and wrestling storylines rather than accept the medical records and eye witness testimony.  Are there any records of a twin?  Nope. 

You quite literally have put your faith in nothing.  You are much more faith driven in your conviction of nothing creating the universe than any other person on the site.  Your faith in nothing, exceeds @RickeyHoltsclaw's faith in God.  At least his faith is based in historical evidence, such as the life and death of Jesus.  Yours is...well...literally based on nothing.  

I don't need any of the miracles that I have discussed with you to be true.  Falsifying an individual miracle does not disprove God.  But your faith won't allow the admission of a single miracle.  You must deny all facts, medical records, news reports, medically reviewed studies, recorded evidence, and eye witness testimonies of miracles.  You mock people for their faith, but it is at least rooted in facts.  Your faith in nothing, isn't based on facts.  It's based on nothing but your hopes and wishes.

You are now starting contradicting yourself. You previously said this:

just_sayin said:

Lack of a moral foundation is more than just unbelief.  It does affect the atheists world view.  You'd think with 150 million dead in the last century alone from atheism, you could see that.  May, by your own words, no amount of evidence would every convince you of God or his goodness.  Miracles are just things for you to pretend didn't happen.  Can you give me a 'even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen'.  That would really make my day  I've had a blast watching you and @Factfinder deny tons of evidence, science, and medical records.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist, and I'm just too committed to justice to be an atheist - whose sole purpose is to do what they think is best for them.

So which is it? Did I say that miracles are impossible, or are miracles things for me to pretend didn't happen? Is my position that "even when science says it happened, trust me, it didn't happen", or is it that "since only nature exists, only natural explanations are real"? For the record, I have said none of these four things - but it is not just that, it is also that these four things contain two pairs of mutually exclusive statements, and you have attributed them all to me.

From now on I employ a new policy for conversations with you: you have to accurately summarize my position before I am going to reply to your criticisms of it. I am tired of correcting you over and over, and I am not going to defend positions that I disagree with.

I will reiterate also what I said before: the more you continue this charade, the more respect I lose for you. At this point I am starting to doubt your ability to make a single accurate statement about something that challenges your positions.

It is clear to me that you do not understand even 1% of my position. What you read in my (fairly straightforward) statements has very little in common with the content of those statements. In my understanding, people do it in two cases: when they are illiterate, or when they are habitual liars (especially to themselves). I am inclined to think that it is the latter in your case, and I have voiced this suspicion multiple times before.
Again, this has nothing to do with your religiosity (I know plenty of religious people that consistently make strong logical arguments and understand and reply to mine). Although I should say that heavily religious people are more prone to this, in my observation.

You do not only do it to me either. You do it to other people, for example here:

just_sayin said:

As much as you may hate Christianity, the historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are there.  I've gone into this before also.  Even Jesus' enemies admitted he could perform miracles and predict the future.  In fact, no one in antiquity denied Jesus' existence and ability to perform miracles.  The only ones who have done so are modern atheists, who are faith driven, because to admit otherwise would destroy their religious belief system. 

At no point did @Factfinder suggest that he "hates Christianity". Are you really comfortable showing so little respect to other people?

Lastly, you just said that you like engaging with me and @Factfinder on this topic... But I have yet to see you engaging with us. To engage with someone means to understand their views and reply to them, and you have demonstrated no such understanding.

He can't see things from other people's perspective because his faith requires everything that inundates his senses must be reconciled through his fairy god elf book. Hence circular logic such as nonfaith in his fantasy defaults to faith in an object of his choosing that he projects on you.  

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

He can't see things from other people's perspective because his faith requires everything that inundates his senses must be reconciled through his fairy god elf book. Hence circular logic such as nonfaith in his fantasy defaults to faith in an object of his choosing that he projects on you.  

I do not know... I have had great conversations with some Christians. Fun fact: the only physical copy of a book I have at home (aside from two scientific tomes) is the Bible with commentary. I received it when I approached a very attractive woman from Korea at the downtown who recently converted to Christianity, and I had a wonderful conversation with her: she was openminded enough to agree that there is no evidence that what the Bible says is true, and her argument was more along the lines of, "Even if it is not true, I know that believing that it is true has allowed me to go through very hard times and deal with childhood traumas". She was incredible at articulating her position, and she purchased and sent me the book as a gift. I still keep it in a special place as a memento.

Another fun fact is, I wanted to read that book that summer out of curiosity. But that was exactly when I encountered Rickey here, the guy who later got banned, then came back. Wanting to stay as far away from this kind of thinking as possible, I decided to read a better fantasy instead: Salvatore writes some great books.

My point is, while there are a lot of problems with Christianity, I think that within the Christian population variability is very high, and the people range from those with whom you can have very satisfying intellectual conversations, to those who will not even try to understand what you are trying to say.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

He can't see things from other people's perspective because his faith requires everything that inundates his senses must be reconciled through his fairy god elf book. Hence circular logic such as nonfaith in his fantasy defaults to faith in an object of his choosing that he projects on you.  

I do not know... I have had great conversations with some Christians. Fun fact: the only physical copy of a book I have at home (aside from two scientific tomes) is the Bible with commentary. I received it when I approached a very attractive woman from Korea at the downtown who recently converted to Christianity, and I had a wonderful conversation with her: she was openminded enough to agree that there is no evidence that what the Bible says is true, and her argument was more along the lines of, "Even if it is not true, I know that believing that it is true has allowed me to go through very hard times and deal with childhood traumas". She was incredible at articulating her position, and she purchased and sent me the book as a gift. I still keep it in a special place as a memento.

Another fun fact is, I wanted to read that book that summer out of curiosity. But that was exactly when I encountered Rickey here, the guy who later got banned, then came back. Wanting to stay as far away from this kind of thinking as possible, I decided to read a better fantasy instead: Salvatore writes some great books.

My point is, while there are a lot of problems with Christianity, I think that within the Christian population variability is very high, and the people range from those with whom you can have very satisfying intellectual conversations, to those who will not even try to understand what you are trying to say.

All true. However just-sayin doesn't appear to articulate in transparent fashion like your Korean friend did. Now he may or may not be more open in person like your friend, but on this site he continues to presume what our beliefs are, simply because we reject his faith for various reasons.