All people live on faith

[JohnnyJersey]

All people live on faith. There is not a soul in the world who KNOWS everything about everything. People all live on faith to some extent or another. By and large, most (if not all) people temper their faith with reason; it is rare that people believe things on blind faith. Someone may not know how or why his car works, but he has faith that it does. He may have enough knowledge about the car to satisfy (or PROVE to) himself that the car is worthy of his putting faith into it to do what he expects it to do. He need not get an education in engineering and auto mechanics to reasonably believe that a car will work as he expects.

People - theists and atheists alike - do this on a daily basis, with (virtually? probably absolutely) everything in their lives. We truly, at the root of it, don't KNOW anything. We use the word "know" to describe those things in which we have the greatest faith.

It is irrational for atheists to presume that theists don't know about God due to a lack of "proof" or due to the fact that there is faith involved. Most of those very atheists claim to "know" a lot of things which they, in fact, only "know" because they put their faith in what they have learned from others. Someone who has not been to Australia cannot claim to KNOW that Australia exists EXCEPT by accepting as valid evidence the reports and tales of others.

Many an atheist has admitted to accepting something as "true" based on a certain amount of evidence. It is implicit in their use of "evidence" that they refer to that evidence which they accept as valid, where someone else may reject that very same "evidence". Yet, they will turn around and decry the "fanciful tales and stories" about "gods and imaginary [sic] beings" that theists and supernaturalists accept as real.

There is a definite disconnect on the part of the anti-faith crowd.

Can anyone reasonably deny that faith plays a huge role in every person's life?

[Zzyzx]

.

What a Fricking JOKE.

Rather than making "jokes" and being a "comedian", it might be appropriate in DEBATE to show readers that one can defend a position. When that is not possible, it is common to attempt diversions (including inappropriate "jokes" and extensive personal comments).

If there is a topic that you feel qualified to debate without diversions, tricks, and personal comments, kindly specify -- and I will be happy to help you demonstrate that "ability" or lack thereof.

You trashed the "Solomon" thread over a spelling error when you obviously could not defend the irrational bible story. Is there ONE bible "miracle story" (supernatural tale) that you CAN defend as truthful and accurate, or is "wordplay" and "sharpshooting" the extent of your "contribution"?

I am confident that readers can, intelligently and with discernment, evaluate the merits of what is presented -- and realize that the Solomon tale is a myth (that some attempt to defend as "literal truth" because it is "in the bible" -- perhaps recognizing that admitting the bible contains myth (or fairy tales), opens the entire work to doubt and challenge.

[JohnnyJersey]

.

What a Fricking JOKE.

Rather than making "jokes" and being a "comedian", it might be appropriate in DEBATE to show readers that one can defend a position. When that is not possible, it is common to attempt diversions (including inappropriate "jokes" and extensive personal comments).

I'm not making jokes or being a comedian; I don't know where you get that from. The fricking joke I was referring to is the clown act that goes on around here, from the double standards to the lack of logic to the downright lack of basic skills in English grammar and spelling. I'm not making jokes anywhere; I don't have to. The sad thing is that most of the comedians here are unwitting.

If there is a topic that you feel qualified to debate without diversions, tricks, and personal comments, kindly specify -- and I will be happy to help you demonstrate that "ability" or lack thereof.

I think you should work on your spelling and other logic and comprehension skills, first. How can I debate someone who can't even keep the simplest things straight, like a name or a simple spelling, or a definition of a word???

You trashed the "Solomon" thread over a spelling error when you obviously could not defend the irrational bible story. Is there ONE bible "miracle story" (supernatural tale) that you CAN defend as truthful and accurate, or is "wordplay" and "sharpshooting" the extent of your "contribution"?

I am confident that readers can, intelligently and with discernment, evaluate the merits of what is presented -- and realize that the Solomon tale is a myth (that some attempt to defend as "literal truth" because it is "in the bible" -- perhaps recognizing that admitting the bible contains myth (or fairy tales), opens the entire work to doubt and challenge.

See what I mean? Here you talk about the "Solomon" thread. I never posted in a "Solomon" thread. I posted in a "Sampson" thread.

Of course, the "Sampson" thread was supposed to be about "Samson". Of course, despite pasting a passage from the Bible which had the name spelled correctly many times, he was still referred to as "Sampson".

Now he has morphed into "Solomon".

How can I debate with THIS? How does one debate a person whose spelling and attention to significant details is on this low a level?

Go play with someone else, or go play with your Wikipedia, your source of all knowledge.

[Flail]

.

What a Fricking JOKE.

Rather than making "jokes" and being a "comedian", it might be appropriate in DEBATE to show readers that one can defend a position. When that is not possible, it is common to attempt diversions (including inappropriate "jokes" and extensive personal comments).

I'm not making jokes or being a comedian; I don't know where you get that from. The fricking joke I was referring to is the clown act that goes on around here, from the double standards to the lack of logic to the downright lack of basic skills in English grammar and spelling. I'm not making jokes anywhere; I don't have to. The sad thing is that most of the comedians here are unwitting.

If there is a topic that you feel qualified to debate without diversions, tricks, and personal comments, kindly specify -- and I will be happy to help you demonstrate that "ability" or lack thereof.

I think you should work on your spelling and other logic and comprehension skills, first. How can I debate someone who can't even keep the simplest things straight, like a name or a simple spelling, or a definition of a word???

You trashed the "Solomon" thread over a spelling error when you obviously could not defend the irrational bible story. Is there ONE bible "miracle story" (supernatural tale) that you CAN defend as truthful and accurate, or is "wordplay" and "sharpshooting" the extent of your "contribution"?

I am confident that readers can, intelligently and with discernment, evaluate the merits of what is presented -- and realize that the Solomon tale is a myth (that some attempt to defend as "literal truth" because it is "in the bible" -- perhaps recognizing that admitting the bible contains myth (or fairy tales), opens the entire work to doubt and challenge.

See what I mean? Here you talk about the "Solomon" thread. I never posted in a "Solomon" thread. I posted in a "Sampson" thread.

Of course, the "Sampson" thread was supposed to be about "Samson". Of course, despite pasting a passage from the Bible which had the name spelled correctly many times, he was still referred to as "Sampson".

Now he has morphed into "Solomon".

How can I debate with THIS? How does one debate a person whose spelling and attention to significant details is on this low a level?

Go play with someone else, or go play with your Wikipedia, your source of all knowledge.

Your byline includes a claim that you 'try to be civil'. You might consider removing that 'fricking' reference. Your diversions from substantive debate into obsession over grammar and misspelled words and silly sports references expose your lack of substantive ideas and are indicative of underlying emotional problems. Perhaps you should consider medication.

[bernee51]

Also, declaring victory in a debate is generally considered bad form.[/color]

Funny that you tell ME this when you have Grumpy declaring victory by saying I've "failed" and Bernee declaring that I "equivocate", neither of whom has backed up their declarations. Ridiculous how selective your judgment and commentary are.

I can't speak for Grumpy but in termns of your obvious equivocation I refer you (yet again) to Post# 8 (which I reposted later) where your equivocation is clearly demonstrated.

I note that you have not addressed either of these posts.

Your equivocation on the word faith has been soundly demonstrated (by myself and others) and you have offered nothing of any substance to counter this.

[Zzyzx]

.

What a Fricking JOKE.

Rather than making "jokes" and being a "comedian", it might be appropriate in DEBATE to show readers that one can defend a position. When that is not possible, it is common to attempt diversions (including inappropriate "jokes" and extensive personal comments).

I'm not making jokes or being a comedian; I don't know where you get that from.

Evidently someone else was posting with your ID in the Sampson / Samson thread.

The fricking joke I was referring to is the clown act that goes on around here,

Demeaning comment about the forum.

If you think that someone other than yourself is clowning, it should be taken up with Moderators.

from the double standards

Demeaning comment about the forum.

Again, if there are double standards, call that to the attention of Admin and Moderators.

to the lack of logic

Demeaning comment about the forum.

Kindly supply examples by verbatim quote and URL

to the downright lack of basic skills in English grammar and spelling.

Uncivil personal comment.

Do you claim to have never made a mistake in spelling or grammar?

Are spelling and grammar more important than the ideas presented? Of course, criticizing the spelling errors of others might allow one to weasel out of actually trying to debate issues " particularly when they realize there is no chance that they can counter what has been presented.

I'm not making jokes anywhere; I don't have to.

Decorum and Forum Rules prevent me from commenting.

The sad thing is that most of the comedians here are unwitting.

Speaking for yourself?

If there is a topic that you feel qualified to debate without diversions, tricks, and personal comments, kindly specify -- and I will be happy to help you demonstrate that "ability" or lack thereof.

I think you should work on your spelling and other logic and comprehension skills, first.

Uncivil personal comment.

I can understand that you would seek an excuse to avoid actual debate of issues.

How can I debate someone who can't even keep the simplest things straight, like a name or a simple spelling, or a definition of a word???

Uncivil personal comment.

Agreed, you may not be able to debate. I challenge you to defend the Samson tale or any Christian miracles as being literally true in Closely Moderated Head to Head.

With my limited logic, debating skill, frequent misspellings and name mistakes, it should be no problem for someone with claimed superior skills and abilities to demonstrate to readers that the bible tales are true and accurate.

You trashed the "Solomon" thread over a spelling error when you obviously could not defend the irrational bible story. Is there ONE bible "miracle story" (supernatural tale) that you CAN defend as truthful and accurate, or is "wordplay" and "sharpshooting" the extent of your "contribution"?

I am confident that readers can, intelligently and with discernment, evaluate the merits of what is presented -- and realize that the Solomon tale is a myth (that some attempt to defend as "literal truth" because it is "in the bible" -- perhaps recognizing that admitting the bible contains myth (or fairy tales), opens the entire work to doubt and challenge.

See what I mean? Here you talk about the "Solomon" thread. I never posted in a "Solomon" thread. I posted in a "Sampson" thread.

My mistake. Sampson / Samson thread.

What is important is the information presented that you cannot show to make any sense.

Of course, the "Sampson" thread was supposed to be about "Samson". Of course, despite pasting a passage from the Bible which had the name spelled correctly many times, he was still referred to as "Sampson".

Now he has morphed into "Solomon".

Unforgivable error. How could anyone have known that Sampson was a misspelling of Samson? That would require quite a leap of intelligence.

How can I debate with THIS? How does one debate a person whose spelling and attention to significant details is on this low a level?

Uncivil personal comment.

Is Sampson vs. Samson so significant a detail that one who is sincere about debate cannot debate the issue raised (perhaps with a civil, You misspelled the name)?

Here is the information that I challenge you to show makes sense as anything but a legend or fable

1. Was born to a married woman and impregnated by an angel
2. Married a Philistine woman (who was later given by her father to a friend)
3. Caught three hundred foxes and tied their tails together
4. Destroyed the crops of the Philistines
5. Killed a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey
6. Led Israel for twenty years
7. Found a prostitute and spent half the night with her
8. Tore down city gates and carried them away
9. Fell in love with Delilah, who was paid to learn the secret of his strength
10. Lied repeatedly to Delilah about the secret of his strength and embarrassed her
11. Finally told her that his hair was the secret " and she cut it off while he slept unaware -- and lost his superhuman strength
12. Had his eyes gouged out
13. Prayed and had his strength restored
14. Pushed down two pillars of the temple causing it to collapse and kill him and all the rulers and people inside (more than a thousand)

Is this a literally true tale? Is the book from which it is taken truthful and accurate?

If you can show that any of the above is true or even rational, have at it. Since you cannot, you can criticize spelling. The information is there regardless if the name was spelled wrong.

Go play with someone else, or go play with your Wikipedia, your source of all knowledge.

Uncivil personal comment.

[otseng]

.

What a Fricking JOKE.

Rather than making "jokes" and being a "comedian", it might be appropriate in DEBATE to show readers that one can defend a position. When that is not possible, it is common to attempt diversions (including inappropriate "jokes" and extensive personal comments).

I'm not making jokes or being a comedian; I don't know where you get that from. The fricking joke I was referring to is the clown act that goes on around here, from the double standards to the lack of logic to the downright lack of basic skills in English grammar and spelling. I'm not making jokes anywhere; I don't have to. The sad thing is that most of the comedians here are unwitting.

If there is a topic that you feel qualified to debate without diversions, tricks, and personal comments, kindly specify -- and I will be happy to help you demonstrate that "ability" or lack thereof.

I think you should work on your spelling and other logic and comprehension skills, first. How can I debate someone who can't even keep the simplest things straight, like a name or a simple spelling, or a definition of a word???

You trashed the "Solomon" thread over a spelling error when you obviously could not defend the irrational bible story. Is there ONE bible "miracle story" (supernatural tale) that you CAN defend as truthful and accurate, or is "wordplay" and "sharpshooting" the extent of your "contribution"?

I am confident that readers can, intelligently and with discernment, evaluate the merits of what is presented -- and realize that the Solomon tale is a myth (that some attempt to defend as "literal truth" because it is "in the bible" -- perhaps recognizing that admitting the bible contains myth (or fairy tales), opens the entire work to doubt and challenge.

See what I mean? Here you talk about the "Solomon" thread. I never posted in a "Solomon" thread. I posted in a "Sampson" thread.

Of course, the "Sampson" thread was supposed to be about "Samson". Of course, despite pasting a passage from the Bible which had the name spelled correctly many times, he was still referred to as "Sampson".

Now he has morphed into "Solomon".

How can I debate with THIS? How does one debate a person whose spelling and attention to significant details is on this low a level?

Go play with someone else, or go play with your Wikipedia, your source of all knowledge.

Your byline includes a claim that you 'try to be civil'. You might consider removing that 'fricking' reference. Your diversions from substantive debate into obsession over grammar and misspelled words and silly sports references expose your lack of substantive ideas and are indicative of underlying emotional problems. Perhaps you should consider medication.

Moderator intervention:

Flail, suggesting that someone should take medicine does not help matters.

JohnnyJersey, you have had a slew of uncivil comments lately. I would highly suggest you tone down the sarcasm and disrespectful comments.

To all, If rules are violated, simply report it and do not comment on it. I repeat, do not make any comments and let the moderating team deal with it. If you do comment, more than likely you will also violate the rules and be prone to moderator action.

[Flail]

.

What a Fricking JOKE.

Rather than making "jokes" and being a "comedian", it might be appropriate in DEBATE to show readers that one can defend a position. When that is not possible, it is common to attempt diversions (including inappropriate "jokes" and extensive personal comments).

I'm not making jokes or being a comedian; I don't know where you get that from.

Evidently someone else was posting with your ID in the Sampson / Samson thread.

The fricking joke I was referring to is the clown act that goes on around here,

Demeaning comment about the forum.

If you think that someone other than yourself is clowning, it should be taken up with Moderators.

from the double standards

Demeaning comment about the forum.

Again, if there are double standards, call that to the attention of Admin and Moderators.

to the lack of logic

Demeaning comment about the forum.

Kindly supply examples by verbatim quote and URL

to the downright lack of basic skills in English grammar and spelling.

Uncivil personal comment.

Do you claim to have never made a mistake in spelling or grammar?

Are spelling and grammar more important than the ideas presented? Of course, criticizing the spelling errors of others might allow one to weasel out of actually trying to debate issues " particularly when they realize there is no chance that they can counter what has been presented.

I'm not making jokes anywhere; I don't have to.

Decorum and Forum Rules prevent me from commenting.

The sad thing is that most of the comedians here are unwitting.

Speaking for yourself?

If there is a topic that you feel qualified to debate without diversions, tricks, and personal comments, kindly specify -- and I will be happy to help you demonstrate that "ability" or lack thereof.

I think you should work on your spelling and other logic and comprehension skills, first.

Uncivil personal comment.

I can understand that you would seek an excuse to avoid actual debate of issues.

How can I debate someone who can't even keep the simplest things straight, like a name or a simple spelling, or a definition of a word???

Uncivil personal comment.

Agreed, you may not be able to debate. I challenge you to defend the Samson tale or any Christian miracles as being literally true in Closely Moderated Head to Head.

With my limited logic, debating skill, frequent misspellings and name mistakes, it should be no problem for someone with claimed superior skills and abilities to demonstrate to readers that the bible tales are true and accurate.

You trashed the "Solomon" thread over a spelling error when you obviously could not defend the irrational bible story. Is there ONE bible "miracle story" (supernatural tale) that you CAN defend as truthful and accurate, or is "wordplay" and "sharpshooting" the extent of your "contribution"?

I am confident that readers can, intelligently and with discernment, evaluate the merits of what is presented -- and realize that the Solomon tale is a myth (that some attempt to defend as "literal truth" because it is "in the bible" -- perhaps recognizing that admitting the bible contains myth (or fairy tales), opens the entire work to doubt and challenge.

See what I mean? Here you talk about the "Solomon" thread. I never posted in a "Solomon" thread. I posted in a "Sampson" thread.

My mistake. Sampson / Samson thread.

What is important is the information presented that you cannot show to make any sense.

Of course, the "Sampson" thread was supposed to be about "Samson". Of course, despite pasting a passage from the Bible which had the name spelled correctly many times, he was still referred to as "Sampson".

Now he has morphed into "Solomon".

Unforgivable error. How could anyone have known that Sampson was a misspelling of Samson? That would require quite a leap of intelligence.

How can I debate with THIS? How does one debate a person whose spelling and attention to significant details is on this low a level?

Uncivil personal comment.

Is Sampson vs. Samson so significant a detail that one who is sincere about debate cannot debate the issue raised (perhaps with a civil, You misspelled the name)?

Here is the information that I challenge you to show makes sense as anything but a legend or fable

1. Was born to a married woman and impregnated by an angel
2. Married a Philistine woman (who was later given by her father to a friend)
3. Caught three hundred foxes and tied their tails together
4. Destroyed the crops of the Philistines
5. Killed a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey
6. Led Israel for twenty years
7. Found a prostitute and spent half the night with her
8. Tore down city gates and carried them away
9. Fell in love with Delilah, who was paid to learn the secret of his strength
10. Lied repeatedly to Delilah about the secret of his strength and embarrassed her
11. Finally told her that his hair was the secret " and she cut it off while he slept unaware -- and lost his superhuman strength
12. Had his eyes gouged out
13. Prayed and had his strength restored
14. Pushed down two pillars of the temple causing it to collapse and kill him and all the rulers and people inside (more than a thousand)

Is this a literally true tale? Is the book from which it is taken truthful and accurate?

If you can show that any of the above is true or even rational, have at it. Since you cannot, you can criticize spelling. The information is there regardless if the name was spelled wrong.

Go play with someone else, or go play with your Wikipedia, your source of all knowledge.

Uncivil personal comment.

Excellent example to all of us on how to 'take the high road' when subjected to off-hand uncivil behavior. I 'morphed' into something less when I responded in defense and was justly called on it.