UN anti-blasphemy measures

[Geekzilla]

No, that is not the way science works.
I suggest you look up Kuhn,

Thomas Samuel Kuhn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a lot more controversy over Kuhns' Structure of Scientific Revolutions than you realise:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Clanrickard]

Grow up Clan.

So your allegation is false? Have I that right? Ducks out of answering my post on US freedom of speech makes a sneaky allegation he can't back up....hm.....is your second name Egan?

[Almanac]

However, your Christian "faith" is not like that at all. You clearly think about it a lot, and it is said that Christians are often subject to doubt (even famous ones like Mother Theresa, for example). If there was an "abundance of evidence" for your belief then they wouldn't even bother to call it "faith" or discuss "doubt" at all.

I personally have no doubts at all. Mother Teresa underwent a spiritual trial, an advanced purgation that many saints undergo.

And yet, they do call they "faith". And they don't stop there. They say that "faith" is a virtue, "faith" is difficult, "faith" is subject to doubt but to keep believing despite the doubts is a virtue. I know this because I was once a Christian.

One's faith rests on the word of God. You believe him, trust him. This is the virtue and merit. "Faith" is not arrived at by a process of reasoning. It is implanted into the soul, equipping it with new powers. One can arrive at a general belief in God by a process of reasoning, reflection on the universe, from effect to cause etc.

This would all seem to point to the fact that the evidence of belief in Jesus, unlike the belief that the building won't fall down, is scant, and one needs a lot of faith to believe. I am fully prepared for you to admit that and declare proudly that your faith is strong and great, and I will accept that. Of course, you can go on claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for your belief and I will then accept that your faith is weak, small and so insignificant as to not even be worth consideration.

You appear to have a Protestant conception of faith. In Catholicism faith is not blind belief, but rather an intellectual act. It enables the mind to do more not less, like being equipped with a pair of eyes in the land of the blind.

You might want to give the Pope and your local priest a call to tell about this abundance of evidence as I think they might think that belief in Jesus requires a lot of faith not a little.

No I doubt that you would find that. In fact "Apologetics" is a Catholic discipline which presents the abundance of evidence for Catholicism. Google the two words and you might get a surprise- to put it mildly.

[Almanac]

I am 100% sure you are a theist now. Why lie about it?

P.S. I'm not interested in debate with you anymore either. Anyone with a modicum of interest in debate would have accepted that the argument that "one shouldn't condescend an idea because "greater minds" accepted it" is a bad argument. You could of just said that and we could of moved on, but now you're engaged in pettiness.

You're very quick to accuse people of lying. I have seen no evidence at all that Bob is a Christian or theist. He is contributing here because of his opposition to Islam, no other reason. He sees Christianity as being infinitely more civilised and benign that Islam; right or wrong, that's his basis for defending it. Much the same as Trampas I imagine.

[tmesis2008]

Okay, Almanac,

Your faith and someone else's faith can't both be true. They can write the same sort of stuff as you have above and there is no way to discern the truth of their claims or yours.

So, you say, that even so, you believe things to be true for whatever reason and that must be respected. Presumably this must be respected for all religious claims? (If not, why is your offense more important than another's?)

So, you are saying that in this instance, "respect" is more important than "truth".

[bob3344]

I am 100% sure you are a theist now. Why lie about it?

P.S. I'm not interested in debate with you anymore either. Anyone with a modicum of interest in debate would have accepted that the argument that "one shouldn't condescend an idea because "greater minds" accepted it" is a bad argument. You could of just said that and we could of moved on, but now you're engaged in pettiness.

Are you going to take your toys and run home to your mammy ?

The reason I picked an argument with you is that I am sick and tired of idiots preaching on the back of reading a couple of books by Dawkins & deciding that all christians are retarded.
50 years ago, the likes of you were the insufferable catholics in this country - mediocre minds with a superficial grasp of philosophy convinced they were 100% right.

You display a lot of arrogance for someone that knows fk all about philosophy. My argument stands - do you think Descartes was an Idiot ? Have you even heard of descartes ?
Did Dawkins not tell you about him ? What about Plato & Aristotle ? Obviously they didn't have the huge advantage of being able to slavishly recite the ideas of Dawkins.

I have no faith. I wish I had. Why the hell would I lie in an anonymous forum ?

Read some books - thats what you're fond of saying isn't it ? Follow your own advice, and lose the sneer, because you know fk all.

"one shouldn't condescend an idea because "greater minds" accepted it"

Is that english, or some new language you've invented ? My basic, basic point was that your arrogant attitude to people with faith ignores the fact that geniuses throughout the ages have had faith.

For someone who bangs on & on about logic and science, your inability to construct a logical argument is shocking.

[tmesis2008]

Bob,

The argument is very simple. Why are you repeating it?

You've said that geniuses throughout the ages have been "faithful" and therefore we shouldn't dismiss "faith" too readily. I've pointed out that Isaac Newton, an indisputable genius (maybe the greatest), believed in and dedicated much of his time to ALCHEMY.

So, by your logic, we shouldn't dismiss alchemy too readily. Or, of course, we could accept that great men can do and think silly things. Hmmm?

If you know about the characters behind the history of great science, many of them were very, very ordinary in many ways and were given to just as many human failings as other men. Many of them were petty, jealous, vindictive, mean, obtuse etc.: I would add "faithful" to the list of human failings of otherwise great people.

Of course, if you disagree then perhaps you could construct an argument which shows that "faithfulness" is not a failing. You obviously think so, as you say you are an atheist but you would like to be "faithful": why?

Bringing up the names of philosophers without a further point, just to demonstrate that you know some names, is strange. It's like losing a p*ssing competition and then turning around and saying "well at least my dick is bigger than yours". Odd.

[bob3344]

You've said that geniuses throughout the ages have been "faithful" and therefore we shouldn't dismiss "faith" too readily. I've pointed out that Isaac Newton, an indisputable genius (maybe the greatest), believed in and dedicated much of his time to ALCHEMY.

ok, let's dismiss the history of Philosophy & all its Contributors because Newton believed in Alchemy.

Make sense to you ? Probably.

Bringing up the names of philosophers without a further point, just to demonstrate that you know some names, is strange. It's like losing a p*ssing competition and then turning around and saying "well at least my dick is bigger than yours". Odd.

'Just to demonstrate that I know a few names' ? - I feel really sorry for anyone who hasn't heard of Plato & Aristotle. The fact that you think I'm trying to impress anyone by mentioning them reveals quite a lot.

[tmesis2008]

ok, let's dismiss the history of Philosophy & all its Contributors because Newton believed in Alchemy.

Make sense to you ? Probably.

For someone who has apparently "studied" you can't grasp a simple argument (or don't want to). You say "great minds have been faithful" so we shouldn't dismiss it too readily. My argument is that Newton, probably the greatest mind, believed alchemy was possible. According to your logic we should take alchemists seriously because of that.

Or, how about this: how about we let people argue for "faith" on its merits and not resort to inane arguments from authority which are neither here nor there.

'Just to demonstrate that I know a few names' ? - I feel really sorry for anyone who hasn't heard of Plato & Aristotle. The fact that you think I'm trying to impress anyone by mentioning them reveals quite a lot.

I'd be more impressed if you could grasp a simple argument instead of trying to score stupid points. Of course I know who Plato and Aristotle are. My point is that there's no point in bringing their names up if they don't relate to this argument, it seems that you just want to impress people (which is, of course, given the names you quote are so well known, as you say, rather stupid).

The fact that this person or that person thought something is wholly uninteresting. What is interesting is why they thought so, something you would grasp if you did understand philosophy.