Is Faith Enough? - page 3

I use to think that faith was enough- that if I had enough faith, I could accomplish anything. Faith is something that I think can lead us into the belief of being able to have a stronghold on life.... Read More

  1. by   ChryssyD
    Wow, Phil, you've really drunk the Kool-Ade!

    Again, the hostility of atheists to believers, no matter HOW compelling the argument, is a continual mystery to me. Because, most likely, I'm on your side, in any other way than belief in something higher than ourselves.

    I do apologize, because I know the question will anger you, but, what are you so angry about?

    And no, although most of the people operating the gas chambers probable weren't true believers (although some of them undoubtedly were), the fact that they were terrified of the evil regime they knew they were subject to, and understood the consequences of disobedience, is reason enough--I think--to give them, if not a pass, at least a grudging "OK, I understand"?

    Can you not deal with the argument as it was intended without concerning yourself with petty details? You understand what was being said even if the facts weren't totally accurate? (And I'll have to look into it, no doubt, although, really, to the people who died at Pearl Harbor it really doesn't matter whether the Japanese pilots were bombers or suicide bombers--random murder is random murder no matter how it's done) Who CARES if the attack at Pearl Harbor didn't include kamikaze pilots? (And if you weren't there, how do you know for sure that it didn't? Not trying to make a point, but seriously--were you there?) They (Japanese suicide bombers) existed. Do you dispute that? The argument that their faith had little if nothing to do with their actions still stands. Whether you like it or not.

    Do you really not accept that mass-murders are abnormal? Or do you think that they're sometimes justified? I happen to think war is wrong, no matter what the supposed justification. You?

    This isn't the debate team, where stuff is completely theoretical. This is reality, where caring more about whether the method of murder is suicide bombing or just plain bombing is just beside the point. Whether you want it to be or not.

    I'm sorry, Phil. I'm not angry...just disappointed.

    And me, I don't volunteer anywhere--but my dog was the puppy of an abandoned pregnant female, my cat was a stray living behind the prison where I worked, and my horse was a badly abused (he still isn't able to tolerate men after 16 years) rescue. Thank you, though, for your service to the animals--they so need friends in this world!
    Last edit by ChryssyD on Mar 22
  2. by   ChryssyD
    I had to add, I really am not the sort of person to push an argument. But I like your style, Phil, and it just kind of bothers me that you can't deal with the substance of the argument rather than trying to lawyer the particulars. Prove me wrong--give me something meaningful. Please!
  3. by   Phil-on-a-bike
    I may have to break the 'no text-speak' rule long enough to say... LOOOOL!

    Attack ad hominem ? So early? From someone who reckoned they could 'do this all week'?

    Heheheh... never mind that my tone has been civil, amiable... jocular even. That I slipped in subtle hints like "chewing the topic over in a (here's the clue) friendly way".

    No... I disagree with you, therefore I must be angry. It's the only possible conclusion. Priceless!

    Here's a little reality check for you: it is possible for someone to examine the same information as you - and draw a different conclusion from it - without getting worked up about it.

    Anyway, moving on:

    I did indeed deal with the substance of the argument, as intended, in the first statement of my first post:

    "Is faith enough? Far from it, in my view."

    Which I went on to state my rationale for.
    That's... y'know... how it's done. Fairly basic, I thought. Not too hard to get a handle on.

    The 'gas chambers' example is a broad and troubling one. It's a tar-pit for believers and non-believers alike, and the only certainty is that there are no easy answers.
    My feelings, though?
    We're considering a situation in which one group of people whose motto is "God With Us" is herding another group of people wearing yellow stars onto cattle trucks.
    When a rational person tries to tell me, straight-faced, that it had nothing to do with religion, my instinct is to sit back and let that person keep digging.

    Who cares about "Petty details" re. Pearl Harbor? Well, my post makes it kind of obvious that I do.
    If you don't, then what the heck, let it go.

    But no... instead, you present not one, but two strawman arguments!
    (Ah, the strawman - your posts are like an 'I-spy' of spurious debate techniques. Have you even done this before?)

    For the uninitiated: a strawman argument is when somebody can't answer, or wishes to avoid, what you actually said, so sets up an argument based on something which sounds similar to what you said, But, crucially, is a bit easier to refute.

    Here we have "were you at Pearl Harbor?" and "do you dispute that there were Japanese suicide bombers?"

    Not biting. Flimsy strawmen, clumsily presented.
    Suffice to say that everybody sees what you did, there.

    "This isn't the debate team, where stuff is purely theoretical"

    LOL again! We're talking religion! My whole point is that it is entirely theoretical!
    (In fact, I'm being generous with the definition of 'theory' there.)


    "I could do this all week" and "I'm not the sort of person to push an argument"?

    What?! Make your mind up - which is it?

    In conclusion: you appear to be out of your depth here.
    You are demonstrably unfamiliar with basic religious terminology such as the concept of faith.
    You have resorted to personal attack and attempted to present strawmen.

    Speaking as someone who has an actual grounding in theology and who enjoys "chewing the topic over in a friendly way", I feel let-down in all departments here.

    (Insert sound of mic dropping)
  4. by   ChryssyD
    Awww...don't be like that! I'm the menopausal one here!

    First: About the kamikazes, etc.--rebuke accepted. You're right, of course--the fact that a statement seems maddeningly irrelevant to me does not make it so. I now see the insensitivity of my remarks. Thank you for educating me. As for the hysterical screeching, I can only plead temporary insanity. I truly apologize.

    Second: I must say, in my own defense, that the accusation of ad hominem attack is a bit odd coming from one who asserted that the "kind of person" who sees "omens" in ordinary events (in reference to me) makes him think of "medieval peasants" right out of the gate!

    Third: I have also tried to keep this light. I really am sorry I hurt your feelings, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm not playing fair. I don't use straw men--they make my hands itch; and also because I don't have to--the arguments stand on their own. We differ in opinion, that's all.

    So, if you choose to pick the mic back up, I'll be thrilled. If not, then peace out!
  5. by   GrumpyRN
    Quote from ChryssyD
    Awww...don't be like that! I'm the menopausal one here!

    First: About the kamikazes, etc.--rebuke accepted. You're right, of course--the fact that a statement seems maddeningly irrelevant to me does not make it so. I now see the insensitivity of my remarks. Thank you for educating me. As for the hysterical screeching, I can only plead temporary insanity. I truly apologize.

    Second: I must say, in my own defense, that the accusation of ad hominem attack is a bit odd coming from one who asserted that the "kind of person" who sees "omens" in ordinary events (in reference to me) makes him think of "medieval peasants" right out of the gate!

    Third: I have also tried to keep this light. I really am sorry I hurt your feelings, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm not playing fair. I don't use straw men--they make my hands itch; and also because I don't have to--the arguments stand on their own. We differ in opinion, that's all.

    So, if you choose to pick the mic back up, I'll be thrilled. If not, then peace out!
    Whoa.....Back up there.

    You were abusive - "Kool Ade?" Yes it was an Ad Hominem attack

    Ad hominem | Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

    You went straight to abuse of Phil who it appears is British so that particular insult is wasted.

    He very politely took apart your arguments and told you why. You are now talking menopausal - are you looking for special treatment because you are female or because you are older or both?

    Medieval peasants - I would have gone further back, stone age man looking around and seeing tree gods, water sprites etc. all the stuff that has hindered us for years.

    I personally find it offensive that I cannot do something good or right unless some magic sky person is doing it through me - utter contemptible nonsense.

    You have demanded Phil "prove" things but you are the one making claims (Russell's Teapot?).
    "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
  6. by   britt85w
    Quote from merlee
    You apparently don't fully understand the 'mustard seed' reference. I am not Christian, but know that parable.

    Your entire article is an affront to those who are non-believers. Without faith there is no reason to live???

    Sorry that I read this.
    Oh well. Get over it.

Must Read Topics


close
Is Faith Enough?