Atheists Protest Ground Zero Cross

WorldNetDaily ^ | Posted: June 18, 2002 | By Ron Strom

[Kevin Curry]

"You can't take government funds to promote religion

Not all religions. You can certainly use government funds to promote the atheist faith.

[VRWC_minion]

If he (or she) wants to convert me to become a brother (or sister) in Christ,

Only the Holy Spirit can convert you heart, mind and soud to believe in Jesus Christ, not words from a man.

If he hasn't then its possible God doesn't like you.

[Kevin Curry]

I don't see it as "evidence" that a god . . .

I don't doubt that you're blind. You convinced me completely.

[VRWC_minion]

Are you attempting to make a point?

Yes, simply that even in the time immediately after Christ died and rose from the dead many Christians were confronted with people like yourself that felt they were wise when in fact they were considered fools by Christians. Nothing has changed.

[Dimensio]

In other words, you have only ad hominem (calling me a fool) rather than real evidence for your position.

When you have objective, testable evidence for the truth of your religion I'll be willing to try it out.

[Dimensio]

I don't doubt that you're blind. You convinced me completely.

Are you suggesting then that I'm simply physically incapable of believing that Christianity is truth?

[The Man]

Whether or not that was the intended meaning of the poster, it is the case with you.

[Dimensio]

Hrmm. I could argue that my mind is far too rational and logical to accept Christianity, but it just seems like too easy a comment to make.

[VRWC_minion]

In other words, you have only ad hominem (calling me a fool) rather than real evidence for your position.

I am pointing out that there is a natural impass between Christians and those who think they are wise but don't believe.

Even before the wise knew the earth was round Christians believed that the unbeliever was a fool. Seeing that this condition existed for nearly 2000 years, it is highly unlikely that you and nonbelievers will ever find common ground. Implied in your posistion is that Christians are also fools.

In the eyes of all Christians you would be considered a fool, in your eyes you consider yourself wise. It has been that way for nearly 2000 years.

[Dimensio]

In the eyes of all Christians you would be considered a fool, in your eyes you consider yourself wise.

You've basically just told me that you don't know what you are talking about.

[VRWC_minion]

Are you suggesting then that I'm simply physically incapable of believing that Christianity is truth?

Without the holy spirit, no Christian is capable of believing that Jesus was the Christ. Its not up to man to convince another, its up to Christ and according to him he never lost one of His own. So if you are one of his own you will be saved by Him and be eternally thankfull, if not then you won't be saved by Him and you probably wouldn't care.

[The Man]

The issue is your mind, I grant.

Your problem, and it is a very real problem, is that rather than being too logical or rational to accept Christianity, you are simply too biased and corrupted to accept the truth, rationality, and logic of it.

[Dimensio]

Perhaps the problem is that no one has bothered to present or at least direct me to a logical, rational argument for its validity. Instead I just see "you are a fool" and "all of Creation points to God's existence" or various other logical fallacies. I see arguments appealing to the consequences of there not being a god, I see arguments that use the assumption that Christianity is true as their premise and I see arguments that amount to little more than ridiculing my lack of belief. I've not seen any attempt at a logical argument in favour of Christianity that did not appeal to a logical fallacy. I'm not saying that there are no logical arguments for Christianity -- I'm saying that I've never seen any.

[Ladybug1]

You can study any religion all you want, but in the end, you have to believe what was written was true or false, for there is no proof for or against God being real. If you believe fine, if you don't that's fine also.

[VRWC_minion]

I'm not saying that there are no logical arguments for Christianity -- I'm saying that I've never seen any.

In the final analysis there are no logical arguments because the premise of "I am" which establishes God is just that a premise which cannot be accepted without the holy spirit. Any attempts at it would be no different than explaining color to a person blind from birth.

[Dimensio]

Any attempts at it would be no different than explaining color to a person blind from birth.

In other words, I'm physically incapable of accepting Christianity as truth because I refuse to accept an inital proposition without evidence.

[The Man]

Well, I am assuming that you are familiar with the traditional or more philosophical proofs for the existence of God, since you mentioned the argument from design (which, while logically sound in my opinion, only gets you to a generic God and not a Christian one). But in addition to those, I offer you the following two syllogisms:

MAJOR PREMISE: Only God, if God exists, has the ability to accurately predict the future.

MINOR PREMISE: The future was accurately predicted in the Bible concerning the rise of the Roman Empire, the fate of other political entities, and the events in the life of Jesus Christ centuries before they occurred.

CONCLUSION: God exists.

And another:

MAJOR PREMISE: Only God, if God exists, has the ability to raise human beings from the dead.

MINOR PREMISE: Human beings have been raised from the dead.

CONCLUSION: God exists.

[RichInOC]

Getting back to the original topic...I'm not angry at American Atheists for doing this. I feel sorry for them. This is not a First Amendment issue. Period. Preserving the girder cross on site is not going to establish Christianity as a state religion. Nor is it going to restrict anybody's right to freely exercise their own religion or lack thereof. That cross is a memento of the buildings which used to stand there and by extension, the people (in the buildings, on the planes and on the ground) who died there. Anybody who knows that, and whose first thoughts still run to whether preserving it on site would be a civil rights violation is so withered in their soul (or psyche, if you don't believe in the soul) as to be pitied, not flamed.

[general_re]

Both of your syllogisms are sterling examples of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, and are, sadly, invalid...

[Dimensio]

Even if I accept that humans have been raised from the dead and that the future has been predicted accurately, I'm not sure from where you obtained the premises that only God could be responsible for such things. While the arguments you offered are logically sound, they are meaningless unless you can demonstrate that their premises are true.