M
MysticRose
Guest
David Brown:
Also you might want to take things a little less personally if you actively want to debate. It seems that this is the second time that you have nearly chopped someone’s head off because we have done something to offend you when it was not meant to. Also in this, you actively enter into a debate area of which you know that it will mean that it is argument and then counter-argument, and when a counter argument is given to you, it is you that has appeared not so cgharitable on several occasions and nothing until this point has really been said to you, but you take no time to point out to us the first time we do it to you even when it is not even meant to be that way. Do you not think maybe asking first would have been a better course of action …
This is simple, really it is and I had thought it was simple to begin with …
If you have a theoretical argument that cannot be proven and then another theoretical argument that cannot be proven Scientifically then I guess you are at a stalemate are you not? Then it is subjective to the person holding the opinion as to which side of theory they which to believe. This then by definition includes the factor of Faith.
This is the very same factor that most Atheists or actually true Atheism will deny.
The constant contention is that in order to have Faith it has to be on something that is non-existent, and that is false… that is not what it has to be on at all. That is merely the Christian definition of Faith, but it is not the complete defintion of Faith; it is only the defintion as it is applied in Christianity.
They do have to place belief and Faith in the Theory of Non-Existence. Thereby, this then qualifies them as a religion. Which again they will deny. Another misnomer is that in order to be a religion there has to be existence of a deity, and this is not true by defintion, it is only the defintion for those that hold a belief in Christianity that there has to be the existence of a Deity or God in order for it to qualify as a religion, therefore it is a specialized or specific definition in part of the whole definition…
rre·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj’ən)
n.
1a)Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b)A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2)The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3)A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4)A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Technically, I could say that definition 1b also fits the criteria as well to qualify them too then as a religion. The reason I could say this … Worship has many definitions and does not always denote specifically worship of a Deity… Therefore you could worship a man’s work as well as God … thereby then man could fit this defintion as well when they place Science as their definitve means of verification. This then would indicate that they worship to a degree the works of man as being infallible instead of fallible …thus worship.
And this critical analysis of my statement of my belief that you have avoided the the original statment made by me, which was clear, that Atheists cannot say factually that God does not exist and therefore due to this do not have a Factual argument but a Theoretical one, was what another way making someone feel less than you because of the fact that you have so much more education than we do? Sir, do you have any idea what education I have? Or to what level I have gone with that education and how it has been applied?
Also you might want to take things a little less personally if you actively want to debate. It seems that this is the second time that you have nearly chopped someone’s head off because we have done something to offend you when it was not meant to. Also in this, you actively enter into a debate area of which you know that it will mean that it is argument and then counter-argument, and when a counter argument is given to you, it is you that has appeared not so cgharitable on several occasions and nothing until this point has really been said to you, but you take no time to point out to us the first time we do it to you even when it is not even meant to be that way. Do you not think maybe asking first would have been a better course of action …
This is simple, really it is and I had thought it was simple to begin with …
If you have a theoretical argument that cannot be proven and then another theoretical argument that cannot be proven Scientifically then I guess you are at a stalemate are you not? Then it is subjective to the person holding the opinion as to which side of theory they which to believe. This then by definition includes the factor of Faith.
This is the very same factor that most Atheists or actually true Atheism will deny.
The constant contention is that in order to have Faith it has to be on something that is non-existent, and that is false… that is not what it has to be on at all. That is merely the Christian definition of Faith, but it is not the complete defintion of Faith; it is only the defintion as it is applied in Christianity.
They do have to place belief and Faith in the Theory of Non-Existence. Thereby, this then qualifies them as a religion. Which again they will deny. Another misnomer is that in order to be a religion there has to be existence of a deity, and this is not true by defintion, it is only the defintion for those that hold a belief in Christianity that there has to be the existence of a Deity or God in order for it to qualify as a religion, therefore it is a specialized or specific definition in part of the whole definition…
rre·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj’ən)
n.
1a)Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b)A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2)The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3)A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4)A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Technically, I could say that definition 1b also fits the criteria as well to qualify them too then as a religion. The reason I could say this … Worship has many definitions and does not always denote specifically worship of a Deity… Therefore you could worship a man’s work as well as God … thereby then man could fit this defintion as well when they place Science as their definitve means of verification. This then would indicate that they worship to a degree the works of man as being infallible instead of fallible …thus worship.