A Logical Christianity - Latest Comments

Re: A Logical Christianity – Home

Alamax — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:51:19 -0000

If I blocked you, I am unaware of it. This site is not a full time venture for me, so I do apologize for the delayed reply. Please tell me what indication you have that I have you blocked, so that I can rectify the matter.

Thanks for your offer.

Re: A Logical Christianity – Home

Tigerlily46514 — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:04:13 -0000

If you truly are interested in logical thinking, and the rise of atheism, as your facebook page suggests, why do you refuse to discuss this topic with a real, actual atheist? I'd be happy to politely answer any question you have,

but,
you block me.
why so afraid??

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Fedagent001 — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:07:18 -0000

So, I decided to educate myself on the suppressed correlative fallacy since I've been accused of it so often here. As it turns out, I'm still not guilty of it, but max is. It has far less to do with the math example given and far more to do with mutually exclusive ideas. For example, complex and simple, or dangerous and safe. Here is a good example I have found online. Person 1- earthquakes are difficult to predict so they are mysterious. The human circulation system however is not mysterious. Person 2- everything is mysterious. We still no very little about the human circulation system. By redefining mysterious as "everything" person 2 has suppressed the correlative between mysterious and non-mysterious, and effectively destroyed any useful meaning to the word mysterious. Max has done this with the words "faith" and "evidence". By redefining faith as evidence, max has suppressed the correlative between the two. Faith has lost its distinction from evidence by being included as evidence. How ironic. Max has also committed several other fallacies in his redefinition of Faith including, presentism, fallacy of quoting out of context, etymological fallacy, and poisoning the well. I'd be glad to explain these to you, max, as you don't seem to like doing the research yourself. Best regards.

Re: Unbelievers

Fedagent001 — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:34:08 -0000

First-how do you know that the bible is The word of god? What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Second-evidence is restricted to facts, this is simply because opinions don't prove anything. I almost feel silly having to explain this. Yes, evidence can be "information indicating" but it still must be factual, not opinion. Third-here's what happened, you proposed a definition of "faith" which we will call "x". I said that x was mistaken, gave the reasons why, and proposed my own interpretation of THe same definition which we can call "y". Unless someone else comes along with their own interpretation, you and I are limited to discussing which is correct, x or y. I see no fallacy in this. As I said, I have supported y with logic and reason, I have explained sufficiently why x is incorrect. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support your interpretation of x. Instead, you choose to accuse me of some fallacy which never occurred. If there is a reason which my proposal "y" is wrong, simply state your evidence. If there was some logical fallacy behind my creation of "y" again, state the evidence. Until that happens, I can only continue that y is The correct interpretation and that x fails.

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Fedagent001 — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:36:16 -0000

No offense taken, I know that you can't demonstrate any of my statements to be fallacious simply because they aren't. Your continual refusal to do so only reaffirms this assertion. Like I said, its one thing to call a statement fallacy, another to prove it. Without proof you are left with a weak accusation.

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Max Richey — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:35:41 -0000

Due respect, but I just don't think I can demonstrate your positions to be fallacious any better than the obvious manner demonstrated in your comments. God bless you and best of luck.

Re: Unbelievers

Max Richey — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:56:28 -0000

3 Things:

First and foremost:

It is True because it is the Word of God. But I am well aware that as an avowed atheist, you cannot see Truth in His terms.

Second:

Evidence is not restricted to facts. As the definition states, evidence can also be "...information indicating..." Therefore, since I have information indicating it by virtue of my most recent reply to you on the Top Three Fallacies of Atheism post, I can say with a reasonable certainity that the biblical definition is true.

Third:

Every opposition that you have been able to offer to establish this definition as untrue is fallacious. That is primarily because you have repeatedly insisted that evidence must come in the form of facts. Clearly the definition that you have agreed with does not require that. So, you have redefined faith by redefining evidence not to include "information indicating." As such you have attempted to render the biblical definition as untrue by fallacious means in suppressing the correlative.

Last:

In your immediately preceding reply, you have demostrated another aspect of fallacy by attempting to introduce alternatives, where there are none. By attributing the biblical definition to your opinionated assignment of it to the King James mode of understanding evidence as something other than it is, you are committing the fallacy of denying the correlative.

For me ... that's well established Truth. Yet, I can still see where it simply cannot be for you. You are simply being guided by a fallacious spirit that will not permit you to see the Truth.

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Fedagent001 — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:52:12 -0000

1- you are indeed correct about this page, I spoke in haste and spoke incorrectly, what I meant to say was "the foundation for your premise of this website" not this specific page. 2- you did misunderstand your definition of faith, I have explained this rather well on your "unbelievers" page. If you have a problem with my interpretation of your , definition of faith, please explain why as I feel I have clearly shown you to be wrong and offered you references upon request, since you seem to be uninterested with doing the research yourself. 3-again, you are correct that "need not" is opinion, but since that was offered along with the point I was making, you can discard it and the point remains factual. 4-the statement remains true, I have clearly demonstrated your understanding of your biblical definition of faith to be incorrect. If my understanding of that same definition is also incorrect, you need only to show why. You have yet to do so, but I am curious to hear your response. 5-6 Any accusation of fallacy remains just that, an accusation. You haven't shown why You believe these statements to be fallacy. Accusations and more accusations, you are avoiding the truth of my statements by throwing baseless accusations at them. To say something is fallacy is one thing that you are good at, to prove something is fallacy is something else entirely which you haven't even attempted, let alone failed at.

Re: Unbelievers

Fedagent001 — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:29:17 -0000

Again, wonderful, this is The definition of evidence, but in king James's day this really only referred to evidence as he knew it. He was considered the ultimate authority on all legal matters in his realm. When two men had a legal dispute, he might have been the person required to settle the dispute. How did he do it? Fingerprints, blood samples, dna testing, polygraphs, and really any sort of forensic testing was still unheard of. His idea of evidence came solely from witness testimony, or written documents, or written testimony. So, with this knowledge, we can only assume that when he wrote of "evidence" he meant "the words of men" whether spoken or written is inconsequential. This knowledge divorces his usage of the word "evidence" from how we use it today. Therefore, it also eliminates that particular definition of faith from any basis for a "logical understanding of Christianity". Now that the definitions are clear, I would ask, what do you think makes this definition a "well established truth"? What establishes it as true? Let alone whether it is established well or not.

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Max Richey — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:51:05 -0000

1 - This is not even close to being a fact. The foundation of this post is the top three fallacies of atheism. Now that IS a fact. The definition of faith, is a chosen example in two of the three. And what does string theory have to do with this discussion?

2 - It can only be said that it is a fact that I misunderstood the definition if you can prove my understanding to be false. Which despite your best efforts you have not. The reason you have not demonstrated it is because you are locked on to the fallacy of suppressing the correlative, which goes back to the foundation of this post. So, you are only offering your opinion.

3 - The second line is not a fact because it is merely your opinion that I "need not" spend my time doing anything whatsoever.

4 - You cannot possibly believe that this is a complete statement of fact. If so, I question the validity of any logic you may think you have offered here. Again, you are merely suppressing the correlative. Therefore you are left with fallaciously declaring an obvious opionated viewpoint as fact. This is an example of the fallacy of necessity.

5 & 6 - This is just further evidence that your propositions are fallacious. Not only are you commiting the fallacy of suppressing the correlative, you have stooped to the fallacy of ridicule.

The funny thing here is that you have managed to commit all three fallacies of atheism cited on this post. And this only increases my faith.

My faith is bolstered because the substance of what I hope for is truth. I was hoping for it when I made this post. And the evidence that I clearly could not see is that some anonymous atheist would show up and confirm every bit of it. I could not have scripted it any better. So, for me, this is just God showing out a little.

To God be the Glory!

Re: Unbelievers

Max Richey — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:23:29 -0000

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Re: Unbelievers

Fedagent001 — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:11:13 -0000

Lol wonderful. We're finally getting somewhere. I'll need some clarification though. In your "well established truth"-"faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" what is The definition of "evidence"?

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Fedagent001 — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:50:50 -0000

To avoid copying every quote of mine again, I'll refer to the ones you listed as 1-6 in order of top to bottom. 1-is indeed a statement of fact, while it may of course be incorrect, you haven't shown thisbto be so. Isn't your definition of "faith as evidence" the basis for your premise of a "logical Christianity"? If it isn't, then what is? I'm hoping its not the science of string theory because you haven't shown that to be connected to spirituality or the supernatural in any way, let alone the specific spirituality of Christianity. 2- that is also a fact, you did misunderstand the biblical definition of faith you were using. This is evident when you began comparing the "evidence" referred to in the bible as essentially the same "evidence" that scientists use today. Again, I demonstrated this, perhaps you chose to ignore it? 3-the first line is a question...not an opinion, the second line is fact. If indeed your "logical Christianity" is built upon faith as evidence, then that belief is flawed as I have demonstrated. 4- Again, this entire statement is true, it is fact. If you are ignorant of that fact, it still remains a fact, not an opinion. 5 and 6- since they are just parts of 4 I will elaborate. Using an outdated definition, then misinterpreting that definition as a basis for A premise can be called many things, dishonest, dumb, foolish, deceitful, etc. I chose the words misleading and false because I felt they were the least insulting and they don't speak to your motive for doing so. I don't think you meant to misinterperate the meaning of that passage. But that doesn't make it any less true, its still incorrect.

Re: Unbelievers

Max Richey — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:00:58 -0000

Well established Truth:

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen.”

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Max Richey — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:53:03 -0000

Your opinion?

"I understand that this "definition" of faith that you happened upon is the very foundation for most of your writings on this page, so it must be hard to accept that from the you misunderstood that definitionstart. But aren't you happier now for knowing the truth? You need not waste any more time or efforts following a flawed belief."

Holding the opposing opinion as non-factual?

"you misunderstood that definition"

Holding your opinion as factual?

But aren't you happier now for knowing the truth? You need not waste any more time or efforts following a flawed belief."

Another opinion?

"To say that faith is evidence, according to the king James interpretation, then claim that "evidence in this context is the very same evidence as we use the term today is not just misleading, its blatantly false."

Holding the opposing opinion as non-factual?

then claim that "evidence in this context is the very same evidence as we use the term today is not just misleading,...

Holding your opinion as factual?

...its blatantly false."

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Fedagent001 — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:02:14 -0000

Lol What opinion of mine do you think I am holding as factual? Please show me where I wrote an opinion, then claimed it to factual. I'm fairly certain this never happened, if it did you wouldn't need to dance around it, you could just point it out. Secondly, what terms have I redefined? Coming from a guy who uses a 400 year old definition of "faith" this seems like a silly accusation. If I have bothered to define terms at all, It is because clarity is needed before any proper debate or discussion using said terms. And why all the smoke and mirrors? If you truly believe me guilty of THe accusations you have made why not simply point them out when making the accusation? I can only assume you do this because you know these accusations to be baseless.

Re: Unbelievers

Fedagent001 — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:51:42 -0000

What well established truth are you referring to? I have not seen you support any of the claims You have made on this website with evidence. If I'm simply missing it, please don't keep me in the dark. Tell me what "well established truth" it is that you refer to. Also, while I do go by the proper modern definition of "faith", I have not insisted anywhere that you do the same. If you prefer to use the KJV definition of "faith" I do not have any problem with that, so long as you use it according to its proper context. To say that faith is evidence, according to the king James interpretation, then claim that "evidence in this context is the very same evidence as we use the term today is not just misleading, its blatantly false. I feel I have adequately demonstrated why, but if you prefer, I would gladly provide sources and a deeper explanation of how the good king James would have understood "evidence".

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Max Richey — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:34:45 -0000

Thanks for clearing that up. I hope your experience as a federal agent provides you with more evidence that an opinionated redefinition of terms designed to render an opposing opinion as non-factual, while upholding your own opinion as factual is fallacious.

Re: Unbelievers

Max Richey — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:32:13 -0000

And I believe that you have failed to demonstrate any ability at all but to deny a truth that is well established, while it stares you in the face. That is what I believe to be at the core of fallacy. Your only case, which you deem factual ("The definition of faith is not a matter of opinion however, if you choose a particular definition that is not the modern usage..."), is to embrace the fallacy that a definition more new is necessarily more true.

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Fedagent001 — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:14:07 -0000

The handle I have chosen "fedagent" is only evidence of THe handle I have chosen. Nothing else. It, in of itself, cannot prove or disprove my occupation. True, it is in formation that can be used to make a deduction. That deduction can then be confirmed or disproven using other evidence. But by itself it is evidence of nothing other than my chosen identity. Indeed, it is absolute. If your statement were "is your handle fedagent absolute proof your handle is fedagent?". The answer would've been an easy yes.

Re: Unbelievers

Fedagent001 — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:54:57 -0000

You have failed to demonstrate that having a different opinion from someone else is a fallacy, it simply is not no matter how you try to word it. The definition of faith is not a matter of opinion however, if you choose a particular definition that is not the modern usage, but rather, a usage conceived in the 1600s, then it stands to reason that you must also use meanings of the words in that definition as they stood in the 1600s. Otherwise, it can be said you are simply attempting to manipulate the meanings of words without any regard to their proper usage, meaning, or context. I understand that this "definition" of faith that you happened upon is the very foundation for most of your writings on this page, so it must be hard to accept that you misunderstood that definition from the start. But aren't you happier now for knowing the truth? You need not waste any more time or efforts following a flawed belief.

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Max Richey — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:41:58 -0000

I take it from your nickname that you are somehow linked with a federal agency. As such, I also take it that you are familiar with the concept of circumstancial evidence. For example, the evidence in your chosen handle that leads one to an absolute truth that you are a federal agent. Now perhaps that is an absolute truth, but then again, your handle could be misleading. So, is evidence really absolute? Or can it be subjectively interpreted?

Re: Unbelievers

Max Richey — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:36:06 -0000

I wonder where your desire for Truth comes from. Perhaps it is the one thing that makes your egocentricity self-tolerant.

I likewise wonder why you have made every argument by substituting words and meanings to redefine faith in a way that attempts to render the correlative, biblical definition as an impossible truth, when compared to your own interpretation. Yet, you still have not clued into the concept that you have repeatedly suppressed the correlative, thus confirming my point about this particular fallacy that continues to emerge from practicing atheists. Can you find a way to overlook that truth? Perhaps you just don't have enough evidence. Or should I substitute and say that you lack the necessary faith, Surely, you can agree with that.

Re: Unbelievers

Fedagent001 — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:43:32 -0000

Luckily for you max, this unbeliever's egocentric objectivity and desire for truth has led him to learn more about this definition of faith as evidence. It turns out, the word evidence itself has undergone many changes throughout history. In the time of the king James bible, evidence almost exclusively referred to witness testimony and written testimony. So put into other words without changing the contextual meaning we could write "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the written testimony of things unseen." I daresay, in the context of its day, this makes a lot more sense than imagining a more modern definition of "evidence" that works with the archaic definition of "faith" that you are using. Surely, Christianity is all about believing in the written words of the bible as evidence, not the kind of evidence that supports logic, or science, but a simpler form of evidence back when truth had to be determined by weighing a man's words. I am afraid that this of course, eradicates the notion of a "logical Christianity" since we have long known the failures of witness testimony, whether given orally or written, since they are subject to so many psychological distortions and obstacles. One can hardly call witness testimony "reliable" evidence any longer. I'm sure that you were not avoiding the historical usage of the word "evidence" on purpose. You probably just hadn't considered it or overlooked it altogether. No need to thabk me. I get my satisfaction from knowing that the path of the
unbeliever, in all its glorious objectivity, has once again led me to the truth.

Re: Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism

Fedagent001 — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:34:15 -0000

Actually, evidence is an absolute. It is knowledge of a fact that either supports or denies a claim or propsition. Truth is the reality of facts. Facts exist. THey can be correct or incorrect, but the correct ones determine the truth of reality. Unfortunately, one person's personal experience doesn't create truth. Just because one person's experience may validate their opinion, but someone else may have experiences that validate their opinions. LIke I said before, neither person can be wrong. The values "good" and "evil" are subjectively applied based on personal experience. These values cannot be said to be wrong. If two people state their different opinions, no fallacy has occurred. Different opunions are basically the heart of every debate. if the statements made were regarding a fact, like "the child has been punished" then evidence can be presented to support or reject the statement.