Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on March 28, 2016, 03:47:44 PM
-
deleted
-
Which are unreasonable, Floo? and can you explain why you believe that they are.
-
The word 'sin' is a little word, which seems not only to apply to wrongdoing on which all decent people would agree, but also to things which no decent person would consider wrong, like disbelief in the Biblical deity
God dodging could come over as disbelief.
-
The word 'sin' is a little word, which seems not only to apply to wrongdoing on which all decent people would agree, but also to things which no decent person would consider wrong, like disbelief in the Biblical deity, homosexuality, sex before marriage in a consenting adult relationship, masturbation
Antipathy towards masturbation is very common and that means of course among the non religious majority.
-
Which are unreasonable, Floo? and can you explain why you believe that they are.
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
As there is no evidence it exists that is totally unreasonable.
2.You shall not make idols.
Why not?
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Why not, as again there is no evidence it exists.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I am a non believer
5.Honor your father and your mother.
I would only give them respect if they deserved it.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.
Commandments 6/10 are valid.
-
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
As there is no evidence it exists that is totally unreasonable.
2.You shall not make idols.
Why not?
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Why not, as again there is no evidence it exists.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I am a non believer
5.Honor your father and your mother.
I would only give them respect if they deserved it.
OK, Floo, you argue on the basis that you don't believe in this God. It should be remembered that the Commandments were given to a people who did believe in his existence, and had good reason to do so - their experiences of him.
So, your argument is somewhat moot, and since it is your opinion, I'm not really sure that there is any need to argue against that, since you have provided us with no evidence for your opinion whereas others have, over the years, provided evidence for their opinion that he does exist.
However, I'd also suggest that since these commandments were and remain the bedrock of Jewish social cohesion, the latter 5 are dependent upon the validity of the first 5. If the first 5 don't stand up, why should the second 5?
[/b]6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.
Commandments 6/10 are valid.
On what basis do you suggest that these are valid?
-
OK, Floo, you argue on the basis that you don't believe in this God. It should be remembered that the Commandments were given to a people who did believe in his existence, and had good reason to do so - their experiences of him.
So, your argument is somewhat moot, and since it is your opinion, I'm not really sure that there is any need to argue against that, since you have provided us with no evidence for your opinion whereas others have, over the years, provided evidence for their opinion that he does exist.
However, I'd also suggest that since these commandments were and remain the bedrock of Jewish social cohesion, the latter 5 are dependent upon the validity of the first 5. If the first 5 don't stand up, why should the second 5?
On what basis do you suggest that these are valid?
Well do you think stealing, murdering, lying and being jealous is good? I don't!
-
whereas others have, over the years, provided evidence for their opinion that he does exist.
Such as?
-
The 'evidence', such as it is, they provide, is not verifiable, like 'because it is in the Bible it must be true' . ::)
-
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
As there is no evidence it exists that is totally unreasonable.
2.You shall not make idols.
Why not?
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Why not, as again there is no evidence it exists.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I am a non believer
5.Honor your father and your mother.
I would only give them respect if they deserved it.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.
Commandments 6/10 are valid.
Another way of looking at sin might be as follows:
There is only one sin .... hamartia ..... to miss the mark, the mark being God,( or perhaps from Jesus' perspective the Will of God) but there are many ways of creating deviation. The first 4 Commandments are about this relationship.
1. No other Gods otherwise your attention strays from the one God.
2. No images as these are likely to be man made and distracting.
3. Don't use the name of God pointlessly as the 'mark' is single pointed
4. Keep the Sabbath free from distractions and dedicate it to whole heartedly communing with God. Half heartedness will lead to loss of direction.
The last 6 Commandments are about relationship with others so that social conflict doesn't create distractions.
If you are not a believer in the God then you are not a sinner (except perhaps in the eyes of the believer) but you might be a deviant from the moral code of the society in which you live and have to suffer the consequences.
-
5. Honor your father and your mother.
I would only give them respect if they deserved it.
Why the American spelling, Floo? Which bible/website did you copy this from?
-
Why the American spelling, Floo? Which bible/website did you copy this from?
I went into Google and copied the short version of the commandments, I am sorry about the American misspelling! :D
-
I went into Google and copied the short version of the commandments, I am sorry about the American misspelling! :D
You have no reason to be sorry! You used what you were offered.
-
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
As there is no evidence it exists that is totally unreasonable.
2.You shall not make idols.
Why not?
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Why not, as again there is no evidence it exists.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I am a non believer
5.Honor your father and your mother.
I would only give them respect if they deserved it.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.
Commandments 6/10 are valid.
You live in Wales Floo doesn't it say something about Sheep and goats as well, when I lived in London it wasn't that long before any new Taffy was asked, "has your Dad got a beard"?
I know that's very unkind, but hell and all funny, well I thought so.
ippy
-
You live in Wales Floo doesn't it say something about Sheep and goats as well, when I lived in London it wasn't that long before any new Taffy was asked, "has your Dad got a beard"?
I know that's very unkind, but hell and all funny, well I thought so.
ippy
Sorry what on earth has Wales got to do with this thread?
-
Sorry what on earth has Wales got to do with this thread?
Sheep, Goats, Sin, lots of sheep, goats in Wales, yes/no.
Wakey wakey Floo, sometimes it can help to lighten the tone, if we're not quite so serious about everything for all of the time.
It's called a gentle leg pull, not a belly laugh, it looses something when it has to be explained, never mind.
ippy
-
Sheep, Goats, Sin, lots of sheep, goats in Wales, yes/no.
Wakey wakey Floo, sometimes it can help to lighten the tone, if we're not quite so serious about everything for all of the time.
It's called a gentle leg pull, not a belly laugh, it looses something when it has to be explained, never mind.
ippy
There are plenty of sheep in Wales as elsewhere, you rarely see goats though.
-
Well that must mean that Wales is predominantly saved, floo! So no worries, forget about sin.
-
Well that must mean that Wales is predominantly saved, floo! So no worries, forget about sin.
Blimey, it's hard work sometimes.
ippy
-
Well that must mean that Wales is predominantly saved, floo! So no worries, forget about sin.
The only sin about Wales these days is that the only decent things to come out of it are the M4 and Male Voice Choirs!
-
Tom Jones
I am cooking Welsh lamb right now, fed on grass.
Stoned lamb - mmmmmmmmmmmm
-
Tom Jones
I am cooking Welsh lamb right now, fed on grass.
Stoned lamb - mmmmmmmmmmmm
At the very least it died euphoric!
-
It was very tasty.
(This is for floo who didn't seem to understand the reference to sheep and goats:
Matthew 25:31-46 (NIV)
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.)
-
It was very tasty.
(This is for floo who didn't seem to understand the reference to sheep and goats:
Matthew 25:31-46 (NIV)
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.)
Of course I understood the reference! ::) I have no wish to be a sheep, who are so easily lead, goats do their own thing, as I do! (we used to own goats)
-
I got into serious trouble once talking about Wales;
I was in a pub and said that only two good things come out of Cardiff, rugby players and prostitutes.
This big mean looking bloke came up to me and said, my wife's from Cardiff.
Quick as a flash I replied, what position does she play.
I'll leave a space for Hopey to tell us he heard it 30 years ago.
-
I got into serious trouble once talking about Wales;
I was in a pub and said that only two good things come out of Cardiff, rugby players and prostitutes.
This big mean looking bloke came up to me and said, my wife's from Cardiff.
Quick as a flash I replied, what position does she play.
I'll leave a space for Hopey to tell us he heard it 30 years ago.
Forty - more like!
-
Well Cardiff is the capital and capital cities are never typical of the wider country. I lived in Cardiff for six months when I was very young, before married. Interesting experience!
Floo, sorry if I appeared to be insulting your intelligence, it wasn't meant that way. You seemed to miss the humour in the references to sheeps and goats.
-
The word 'sin' is a little word, which seems not only to apply to wrongdoing on which all decent people would agree,
but also to things which no decent person would consider wrong,
Being decent has nothing to do with what the sin applies to. Here we are an atheist (by evidence of their posts) trampling in and making assertions which she can neither prove or support with evidence. They are merely your opinion and therefore no basis in truth about the discussion of sin.
like disbelief in the Biblical deity, homosexuality, sex before marriage in a consenting adult relationship, masturbation, women being equal to men in all respects and much, much more.
Where does the definition and existence of the meaning of sin come from?
In religious context it is the violating of Gods will. Which has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact in it's own right.
If homosexuality not against the law on earth, it does not make it any less a sin by Gods laws and the violating of those laws.
As an atheist, what does God or the bible have to do with you? No one stops you being gay or living a gay life. It does not stop you having sex before marriage, masturbating if it be your pleasure or women being equal to men.
So what is the problem? Or are you saying that people have no freedom to believe what God teaches that you are right and everyone else wrong?
The fact is the Christian and Christ has absolutely NOTHING to do with you or the world. They are chosen people set aside for the Glory of God and live accordingly. We understand what Christ says when he said:- " My kingdom is not of this world".
Like you tell Christians they have no right to 'force' their faith on others (they tell you it cannot be done -deaf ears) you do the very same thing in trying to force your views and beliefs on others.
You lose everytime because you are more guilty of the things you accuse other believers of doing.
I put into practise some of the ten commandments, not stealing, lying, murdering or being jealous of others, but the rest are unreasonable, in my opinion.
So you have never hated or disliked a person in such a way to treat them differently?
Arrogantly you are bragging by saying you have never lied, been jealous of murdered.
But Christ likened hatred to murder. How do you feel about your grandmother and parents?
So even how you perceive murder and treat others does not really match up to biblical proportion of things.
-
Jesus was daft if he likened hate to actual murder! I didn't hate my parents, and I didn't actually hate my paternal grandmother, even though I disliked her intensely because of the ghastly way she treated me as a child. >:(
-
The fact is the Christian and Christ has absolutely NOTHING to do with you or the world.
That sorts out the Bishops in the House of Lords then ;)
-
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
As there is no evidence it exists that is totally unreasonable.
So who wrote the laws on stone with his finger and gave them to Moses?
2.You shall not make idols.
Why not?
You need an answer to that one? How about all the children sacrificed to those pagan idols in history.
Do you ever real think beyond the command to the reasoning?
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Why not, as again there is no evidence it exists.
There in that one word lies the clue. If he is not your God does it apply to you. If he doesn't exist why are you using his name?
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I am a non believer
So you never go to a service at your daughters church or anyone elses and take part by being in the congregation?
So how is anyone to know you are a none believer if you attend services. I take it you never attended when she was made a priest officially, receiving holy orders. Or when she came to her own first parish?
Just because a none believer it did not stop you attending religious services and ceremonies, did it?
5.Honor your father and your mother.
I would only give them respect if they deserved it.
They clothed, fed and kept you till you could support yourself. That type of respect should be given without hesitation it was definitely earned.
[/b]6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.
Commandments 6/10 are valid.
And you have broken most of them, if God is real.
You bear false witness against God.
You covet your way of life in such a way you despise and attack those different to yourself.
You steal eternal life from those whom you preach there is no God, to.
[/quote]
Maybe you might want to rethink what you assume your life is and isn't by other thoughts and beliefs. That is other than your own. You might want to accept you might be wrong.
-
That sorts out the Bishops in the House of Lords then ;)
Made me laugh, Trent... ;D
All I can say is... you wish!..
-
So who wrote the laws on stone with his finger and gave them to Moses?
You need an answer to that one? How about all the children sacrificed to those pagan idols in history.
Do you ever real think beyond the command to the reasoning?
There in that one word lies the clue. If he is not your God does it apply to you. If he doesn't exist why are you using his name?
So you never go to a service at your daughters church or anyone elses and take part by being in the congregation?
So how is anyone to know you are a none believer if you attend services. I take it you never attended when she was made a priest officially, receiving holy orders. Or when she came to her own first parish?
Just because a none believer it did not stop you attending religious services and ceremonies, did it?
They clothed, fed and kept you till you could support yourself. That type of respect should be given without hesitation it was definitely earned.
And you have broken most of them, if God is real.
You bear false witness against God.
You covet your way of life in such a way you despise and attack those different to yourself.
You steal eternal life from those whom you preach there is no God, to.
Maybe you might want to rethink what you assume your life is and isn't by other thoughts and beliefs. That is other than your own. You might want to accept you might be wrong.
Sass as usual you are talking complete garbage. If you really cared about your faith you wouldn't be bringing it into disrepute as you are doing with each of your posts. Instead of pointing out the faults of others maybe you should be searching your own conscience and asking your version of god to forgive you. One day you might be held accountable for your actions and end up in hell like the rest of us nasty heathen! >:(
-
Sass as usual you are talking complete garbage. If you really cared about your faith you wouldn't be bringing it into disrepute as you are doing with each of your posts. Instead of pointing out the faults of others maybe you should be searching your own conscience and asking your version of god to forgive you. One day you might be held accountable for your actions and end up in hell like the rest of us nasty heathen! >:(
All lies... I thought you never told lies??? My post has nothing harmful in. Your faults are really self-evident in that you just like being nasty to others. There you go again with the remarks about you being a nasty heathen.
If that was what you believed you would not be insulting others and attacking them.
You see how every time you show no love for anyone but yourself. If anyone disagrees or shows a different understanding you attack. Had you read correctly they were all valid points. Points which you could not answer just attacked the writer. There goes your sincerity through the window.
My actions are that we are to love one another. Your actions are to destroy and tear down.
Truth hurts, doesn't it.
-
The only sin about
I'm not sure but I think you have to pay to come out of Wales on that bridge of theirs but it's free to go there, I don't know if their's any significance in that?
ippy
-
You might want to accept you might be wrong.
There's certainly no chance of you doing that, is there? :)
-
There's certainly no chance of you doing that, is there? :)
Reality Check!
There is absolutely no chance of you accepting that the fact that it is not wrong to believe something we have experienced to be correct. Furthermore it would be untruthful to think what we have personally experienced could be wrong to please others.
Truth is about our own acceptance and our own reasons for believing it to be so.
How about some sincerity on your part that you could be wrong about what we believe and our reasons for doing so.
This would give you the chance to prove that it is not you who believes they cannot be wrong.
It would also show you accept you do not know if you are right or wrong.
:)
-
Reality Check!
There is absolutely no chance of you accepting that the fact that it is not wrong to believe something we have experienced to be correct. Furthermore it would be untruthful to think what we have personally experienced could be wrong to please others.
Truth is about our own acceptance and our own reasons for believing it to be so.
How about some sincerity on your part that you could be wrong about what we believe and our reasons for doing so.
This would give you the chance to prove that it is not you who believes they cannot be wrong.
It would also show you accept you do not know if you are right or wrong.
:)
I am always prepared to admit that I might be wrong. You never are.
That is the difference between us.
-
I was, and am, under the impression that 'sin' was in the breach of the laws laid down (supposedly) by the God of the Christians as set out in the bible.
These laws have never, so far as I am aware, had any authority, in so far as it is possible, in this country (the U K), to be taken to either the criminal or the civil courts for breaching any of said God's laws.
Thus any 'sin' only has a value when committed by a committed Christian and, therefore, has absolutely no relevance to any or all non-Christians.
The only relevance that I can think that 'sin' might have had to a non-Christian was if they were charged with blasphemy, however on May 8, 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 abolished the common-law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales, with effect from 8 July 2008, so even that 'sin' no longer has any meaning for non-Christians.
This being the case I cannot see why any non-Christian, including myself, need waste another second in worrying about what any Christian, no matter how committed, thinks on the matter.
Basically sin has, to the non-Christian population, no relevenace whatsoever!
Except possibly the sin of putting water into a 21-year-old malt whiskey, and this 'sin' is usually only committed by Americans.
-
Jesus was daft if he likened hate to actual murder! I didn't hate my parents, and I didn't actually hate my paternal grandmother, even though I disliked her intensely because of the ghastly way she treated me as a child. >:(
Murder must start off as 'hate', surely? Or complete indifference (which sounds somewhat psychopathic), which is a type of hate. The thought is father to the deed, doesn't automatically end up in a deed but is a seed.
-
I am always prepared to admit that I might be wrong. You never are.
That is the difference between us.
I will admit when I am wrong, but as you say, Sass is never wrong! ;D ;D ;D
-
Murder must start off as 'hate', surely? Or complete indifference (which sounds somewhat psychopathic), which is a type of hate. The thought is father to the deed, doesn't automatically end up in a deed but is a seed.
Psychopathic, lack of empathy, no special feelings either way hate or otherwise, there's a problem and murder is the answer to solving the problem well murder it is, no hate involved, even so these people are aware of the social niceties needed to get on in life and usually quiet intelligent too, so murder is ruled out due to the highly likely disruptive prison factor etc.
The profession that employs the most psychopaths because their qualities suit the things that are needed to be done in order to make a successful career is Banking, surprise surprise.
Channel 4 did a very good documentary about psychopaths sometime last year they, surprisingly, made,a much better job than I've done describing them and how they operate, it might still be available on Chan 4 catch up, a really good dock.
ippy
-
It sounds familiar ippy, I may have seen it. I'll check.
PS: Was it ''Psycopath Night'' ?
-
It used to be said that one of the hallmarks of the sociopath is a lack of empathy and therefore a lack of guilt and remorse, but more recent research indicates that sociopaths may well have as much empathy as anyone else, just that they're able to be selective about it and can turn it on and off at will:
https://goo.gl/7JL7uU
-
It sounds familiar ippy, I may have seen it. I'll check.
PS: Was it ''Psycopath Night'' ?
I'm sorry I don't know, wish I could help.
ippy
-
It used to be said that one of the hallmarks of the sociopath is a lack of empathy and therefore a lack of guilt and remorse, but more recent research indicates that sociopaths may well have as much empathy as anyone else, just that they're able to be selective about it and can turn it on and off at will:
https://goo.gl/7JL7uU
The stuff I was referring to was specifically about psychopaths and I have no idea if sociopaths and psychopaths are one and the same, my niece is heavily into this kind of thing in her professional life but we've been friends since it feels like forever and are usually pleased to see each other when we meet up from time to time and we're more into family when we do but if I remember we'll have a chat about this very interesting type of mindset, psychopaths, when I have spoken to her I can pass on whatever she has said about them; I'm no expert on the subject, she is.
ippy
-
I'm sorry I don't know, wish I could help.
ippy
That's the only one I can find and it is two hours long. I suppose it could be watched in bits and pieces. I haven't seen it, though have a recollection of something along the same lines.
Sociopaths and psychopaths do differ somewhat.
Later: Found a BBC documentary and it is on Youtube, in its entirety. I'm pretty sure this is the one I have seen, or some of it, but will watch it again. I've already started and it is really interesting (imnsho). Here is a link if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVRg4Xgo7Pc
-
That's the only one I can find and it is two hours long. I suppose it could be watched in bits and pieces. I haven't seen it, though have a recollection of something along the same lines.
Sociopaths and psychopaths do differ somewhat.
Later: Found a BBC documentary and it is on Youtube, in its entirety. I'm pretty sure this is the one I have seen, or some of it, but will watch it again. I've already started and it is really interesting (imnsho). Here is a link if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVRg4Xgo7Pc
I could be wrong about Channel 4 but I still think it was on that channel the programme I'm thinking of, feel free to shoot me down in flames if you find I'm wrong.
The bit of that programme I can remember was that bit about banking is a profession to which psychopaths are well suited, because I've often thought to myself in the past that it's the sort of job that would suit someone that can chop off your financial legs during the day and have a good nights sleep on the same night, going by that program I wasn't that far out.
ippy
-
I could be wrong about Channel 4 but I still think it was on that channel the programme I'm thinking of, feel free to shoot me down in flames if you find I'm wrong.
The bit of that programme I can remember was that bit about banking is a profession to which psychopaths are well suited, because I've often thought to myself in the past that it's the sort of job that would suit someone that can chop off your financial legs during the day and have a good nights sleep on the same night, going by that program I wasn't that far out.
ippy
The same goes for the consultants that companies call in to help them decide who gets chopped when they "downsize".
Bastards!
-
You're both right about that and I seem to remember something of that ilk in the programme I saw originally, also the media mogul, the late Robert Maxwell was considered by some 'experts' to have been a psychopath. I really don't know how true that is and it didn't seem fair to me to label him as such, posthumously, on the basis of anecdotes. Ah well, I'll let you know about the BBC documentary.
-
You're both right about that and I seem to remember something of that ilk in the programme I saw originally, also the media mogul, the late Robert Maxwell was considered by some 'experts' to have been a psychopath. I really don't know how true that is and it didn't seem fair to me to label him as such, posthumously, on the basis of anecdotes. Ah well, I'll let you know about the BBC documentary.
My wife has her A levels in psychology and tells me that most psychopaths are not murderers most of them live very normal, whatever normal is, lives, my niece is a doctor of psychology I will give her the third degree when we next meet you've got me going now and I would like to have a bit of revision and perhaps take the opportunity to straighten out my niece at the same time, good thing for her there's altruistic people like me about.
ippy
-
:D
Your wife is right, most psychopaths are not murderers, we hear about the ones that are. They are the 'successful' psychopaths, clever, cunning, ruthless etc, but stay on the right side of the law. It is an interesting subject ippy but also quite scary so I am watching the documentary slowly :-[. 'Successful' psychopaths have been mentioned but, so far, the ones shown and interviewed are those in prison for violent crimes, the details of which I would rather not know. Still it is a TV programme, designed to attract viewers.
Later: Finished watching it! It was extremely absorbing albeit chilling and the second half of the programme which dealt with psychological and neuroscientific research was so interesting, I almost wish I was 20 and could redirect my studies into that area! I hadn't seen it before.
I may attempt to watch Ch 4's 2 hour marathon at some stage. Thanks for the tip ippy!
-
:D
Your wife is right, most psychopaths are not murderers, we hear about the ones that are. They are the 'successful' psychopaths, clever, cunning, ruthless etc, but stay on the right side of the law. It is an interesting subject ippy but also quite scary so I am watching the documentary slowly :-[. 'Successful' psychopaths have been mentioned but, so far, the ones shown and interviewed are those in prison for violent crimes, the details of which I would rather not know. Still it is a TV programme, designed to attract viewers.
Later: Finished watching it! It was extremely absorbing albeit chilling and the second half of the programme which dealt with psychological and neuroscientific research was so interesting, I almost wish I was 20 and could redirect my studies into that area! I hadn't seen it before.
I may attempt to watch Ch 4's 2 hour marathon at some stage. Thanks for the tip ippy!
,
It was a two parter originally, fascinating subject well worth taking the time, I may well do a repeat myself I'm in my seventies, long term memory is pretty good.
I was telling my friend today about a Yorkshire firm that have developed a new algorithm it combines Gumtree with E Bay when looking for specific goods, they're marketing it as E Bay Gum; you probably didn't want to know that but the problem for me with that was it took me about an hour and a half to get it back into my memory, it's like the rota-file wheel is rusty, grit in the bearings.
ippy
-
I've been reading about the amygdala, (which I first 'inputted' as 'Amylglada' or something similar, doh! :-[, despite having been familiar with the word in the past), and limbic system. Fascinating and engrossing stuff ippy!
The ebay and Gumtree thing sounds like good stuff to me. I buy a lot from ebay (and occasionally from Amazon) so may be useful. Never tried Gumtree though it pops up sometimes when I do a search.
Thanks.
-
I've been reading about the amygdala, (which I first 'inputted' as 'Amylglada' or something similar, doh! :-[, despite having been familiar with the word in the past), and limbic system. Fascinating and engrossing stuff ippy!
The ebay and Gumtree thing sounds like good stuff to me. I buy a lot from ebay (and occasionally from Amazon) so may be useful. Never tried Gumtree though it pops up sometimes when I do a search.
Thanks.
Did you like the Yorkshire and E Bay Gum? (Joke)?
ippy
-
I am always prepared to admit that I might be wrong. You never are.
That is the difference between us.
Wrong:
Because we do not believe the same things. So as we do not believe the same things you cannot admit you were wrong about something you do not experience in any way. A negative like " I do not believe in God" requires no belief or set reasoning.
In fact is requires NOTHING at all from experience for you. But a positive like " I believe in God" requires belief and a set reasoning. It does requires experiences and some proof to the individual.
So how can you admit you were wrong about something which requires absolutely nothing for your to maintain?
The difference is that for you Gods existence matters not. You have nothing which to change your mind about for any reason it is a dead negative. I as a believer have experiences a positive which means what I believe can be changed because it affects my life positively. But yours does absolutely NOTHING for you in your life.
So you cannot be prepared to admit you are wrong because you have nothing to change to show it.
You have nothing in your life which matters regarding belief in God. So how can you admit being wrong when it is already a negative belief in that it changes nothing because you have nothing?
No! you are not ready to admit you are wrong. You simply have nothing to change to show you can be wrong and no way to change it.
Where as we do. So it isn't the same. You have to have faith to lose it. You cannot lose or change something you don't already have. So if you are prepared and ready as you say to admit you are wrong, then why are you not doing anything to change what you believe and see if you were wrong?
You and I both know Leonard, for you to admit you could be wrong you would need to have something to change.
You do nothing to see if God is true so you are not open to change.
-
Wrong:
Because we do not believe the same things. So as we do not believe the same things you cannot admit you were wrong about something you do not experience in any way. A negative like " I do not believe in God" requires no belief or set reasoning.
In fact is requires NOTHING at all from experience for you. But a positive like " I believe in God" requires belief and a set reasoning. It does requires experiences and some proof to the individual.
So how can you admit you were wrong about something which requires absolutely nothing for your to maintain?
The difference is that for you Gods existence matters not. You have nothing which to change your mind about for any reason it is a dead negative. I as a believer have experiences a positive which means what I believe can be changed because it affects my life positively. But yours does absolutely NOTHING for you in your life.
So you cannot be prepared to admit you are wrong because you have nothing to change to show it.
You have nothing in your life which matters regarding belief in God. So how can you admit being wrong when it is already a negative belief in that it changes nothing because you have nothing?
No! you are not ready to admit you are wrong. You simply have nothing to change to show you can be wrong and no way to change it.
Where as we do. So it isn't the same. You have to have faith to lose it. You cannot lose or change something you don't already have. So if you are prepared and ready as you say to admit you are wrong, then why are you not doing anything to change what you believe and see if you were wrong?
You and I both know Leonard, for you to admit you could be wrong you would need to have something to change.
You do nothing to see if God is true so you are not open to change.
Show me convincing, testable evidence that your "God" is real, and I will be unable to deny it.
-
Show me convincing, testable evidence that your "God" is real, and I will be unable to deny it.
Unfortunately Len we have the capability to deny everything and anything Len.
-
Unfortunately Len we have the capability to deny everything and anything Len.
You may have, but I don't. If evidence convinces me it is true, I can't deny it, except by lying.
-
You have nothing which to change your mind about for any reason it is a dead negative. I as a believer have experiences a positive which means what I believe can be changed because it affects my life positively. But yours does absolutely NOTHING for you in your life.
But surely you can't change?
It is after all the unchanging word of God that you follow.
It is much more likely that LJ would br more open to change as new evidence emerges about different things because he is not forever shackled to a book that is self-contradictory and limiting.
And why do you think unbelievers can't experience positives?
-
If god convinces me it exists, I wouldn't be able to deny the fact. But even when I was a Christian I never had any sense if its presence.
-
Definitely ippy :). With a straight face to boot. A combination of that and Amazon (with all its connotations), would be - quite a contortion too.
Sass, your post is very difficult to follow. I get the gist of it but the way it is phrased, accusatory with 'you' this and 'you' that obscures the point. It's ranting which is very offputting. Why use two words when one will do? Precis is a virtue.
-
But surely you can't change?
It is after all the unchanging word of God that you follow.
It is much more likely that LJ would br more open to change as new evidence emerges about different things because he is not forever shackled to a book that is self-contradictory and limiting.
And why do you think unbelievers can't experience positives?
Too true, Trent. My realisation that "God" was just a myth was probably the most liberating moment of my life.
-
Why use two words when one will do? Precis is a virtue.
Head meet wall. Wall meet head. ;)
-
Definitely ippy :). With a straight face to boot. A combination of that and Amazon (with all its connotations), would be - quite a contortion too.
Sass, your post is very difficult to follow. I get the gist of it but the way it is phrased, accusatory with 'you' this and 'you' that obscures the point. It's ranting which is very offputting. Why use two words when one will do? Precis is a virtue.
Brownie,
If you want to score points, please do not do it replying to my posts.
I am all for "live and let live". I was not ranting at Leonard. There is nothing accusatory it was about Leonard and his atheism.
It is Leonard I am talking to and about. It is replying to what he actually said. Truth and sincerity are better than Precis when it comes to virtue. Because I was telling truth not trying to show the virtue of Precis.
Thanks for your comments but could you please ask me in future before throwing accusations.
-
Brownie,
If you want to score points, please do not do it replying to my posts.
I am all for "live and let live". I was not ranting at Leonard. There is nothing accusatory it was about Leonard and his atheism.
It is Leonard I am talking to and about. It is replying to what he actually said. Truth and sincerity are better than Precis when it comes to virtue. Because I was telling truth not trying to show the virtue of Precis.
Thanks for your comments but could you please ask me in future before throwing accusations.
Sass, WHAT A PORKIE! ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh Sass, I wasn't trying to score any points and you must know that. What should I have done? PMd you and then had four paragraphs in reply? We all have to face some criticism on forums Sass, even from those who like us, it's the nature of the beast.
Whoever said, ''Head meets wall'', ''Wall meets head'' - was using three words instead of two, in each case. What a waste :D! There used to be a smiley that conveyed the sentiment, wish we had it here.
-
Sassy,
A negative like " I do not believe in God" requires no belief or set reasoning.
That's wrong. The reasoning for atheism entails looking at the arguments made for "god", identifying what's wrong with them and rejecting them accordingly. That's not to say necessarily that there is no god (which is why atheism doesn't overreach by making that claim) but it is to say that there's no cogent reason to think that there is a god.
In the event that anyone ever did manage to make an argument for a "true for you too", objective god that was not fallacious then atheism would fail. So far as I'm aware though, no-one ever has managed to do that so an atheist I must continue to be.
-
Sassy,
That's wrong. The reasoning for atheism entails looking at the arguments made for "god", identifying what's wrong with them and rejecting them accordingly. That's not to say necessarily that there is no god (which is why atheism doesn't overreach by making that claim) but it is to say that there's no cogent reason to think that there is a god.
In the event that anyone ever did manage to make an argument for a "true for you too", objective god that was not fallacious then atheism would fail. So far as I'm aware though, no-one ever has managed to do that so an atheist I must continue to be.
This is all wonderful but there are several claims in here that need to be backed up if they are to make it out of Mereassertionville.
First let's start with the claim that there is no god. If that isn't part and parcel of atheism what happens to the guys on here who actually subscribe to that claim?
Secondly, no cogent reason? Even Dawkins has said the universe gives the overall impression of having been designed in this way. Belief in God is therefore cogent particularly when you are also saying you aren't claiming that there is no God.
Your no cogency idea coupled with a not making a claim there is no God seems to have hit the buffers straight away.
-
The word 'sin' is a little word, which seems not only to apply to wrongdoing on which all decent people would agree, but also to things which no decent person would consider wrong, like disbelief in the Biblical deity, homosexuality, sex before marriage in a consenting adult relationship, masturbation, women being equal to men in all respects and much, much more.
I put into practise some of the ten commandments, not stealing, lying, murdering or being jealous of others, but the rest are unreasonable, in my opinion.
"Sin" is one of those words religites love using which don't actually refer to anything real or factual.
There are plenty of words they use which fit this category. Here are a few more:
Blaspheme
Grace
Holy Ghost
Spirit
Heaven
Hell
Supernatural
Jehovah
Satan
Damnation
-
In the event that anyone ever did manage to make an argument for a "true for you too", objective god that was not fallacious then atheism would fail. So far as I'm aware though, no-one ever has managed to do that so an atheist I must continue to be.
If God were true and you are trying to assure us that you can never say there is no God then of course God is going to be true for everyone.
You cannot dismiss the existence of God therefore not all arguments for God can be fallacious can they?
-
First let's start with the claim that there is no god. If that isn't part and parcel of atheism what happens to the guys on here who actually subscribe to that claim?
Who here subscribes to that claim, Vlad? (apart from Mr & Mrs Straw and their assorted strawlets)
-
Who here subscribes to that claim, Vlad? (apart from Mr & Mrs Straw and their assorted strawlets)
Ippy, Leonard and Floo.
Congratulations on your conversion to theism or at least deism if you think a god could exist.
-
You cannot dismiss the existence of God therefore not all arguments for God can be fallacious can they?
Yes.
Classic non sequitur.
-
Ippy, Leonard and Floo.
Congratulations on your conversion to theism or at least deism if you think a god could exist.
Deism is the belief that a hands-off, non-intervening god does exist, not merely the possibility that one could exist.
-
Ippy, Leonard and Floo.
Congratulations on your conversion to theism or at least deism if you think a god could exist.
You are misrepresenting me, and I'll leave the others you mention to speak for themselves.
I haven't said that I think a god could exist: my position is quite simply that is I see no basis to consider it a valid proposition in the first place since; a) the arguments advanced in favour of 'God' by its supporters are all inherently fallacious in one way or another, and b) the idea of 'God is so poorly defined as to be meaningless.
-
You are misrepresenting me, and I'll leave the others you mention to speak for themselves.
I haven't said that I think a god could exist: my position is quite simply that is I see no basis to consider it a valid proposition in the first place since; a) the arguments advanced in favour of 'God' by its supporters are all inherently fallacious in one way or another, and b) the idea of 'God is so poorly defined as to be meaningless.
Add Be Rational to your list of people you are trying to pass off as one of my Straw me. He believes there is no God and would probably say that he knows it.
Let's face it you are trying to dodge and defy labelling or categorisation.......a common or garden pisstaker if you like.
-
Ippy, Leonard and Floo.
Congratulations on your conversion to theism or at least deism if you think a god could exist.
That isn't converting anyone! Of course it is just possible a deity of some sort could exist somewhere, although I bet the one featured in the Bible isn't it, it is far too human. ;D
-
Add Be Rational to your list of people you are trying to pass off as one of my Straw me. He believes there is no God and would probably say that he knows it.
Let's face it you are trying to dodge and defy labelling or categorisation.......a common or garden pisstaker if you like.
Nope - I'm telling you, and quite clearly too, what I think: I'm sure BR doesn't need my help.
You can think what you wish about my reasons for adopting the views I have: I've set them out quite neatly a couple of posts or so ago.
-
Nope - I'm telling you, and quite clearly too, what I think: I'm sure BR doesn't need my help.
You can think what you wish about my reasons for adopting the views I have: I've set them out quite neatly a couple of posts or so ago.
So....are you an atheist or not?
-
Ippy, Leonard and Floo.
Congratulations on your conversion to theism or at least deism if you think a god could exist.
Congratulations on skinning your bear before you've caught it! :)
-
So....are you an atheist or not?
Of course I am - I don't hold any beliefs about 'Gods': it isn't rocket science, Vlad, or a game of 'Call My Bluff'.
-
Gordon,
I haven't said that I think a god could exist: my position is quite simply that is I see no basis to consider it a valid proposition in the first place since; a) the arguments advanced in favour of 'God' by its supporters are all inherently fallacious in one way or another, and b) the idea of 'God is so poorly defined as to be meaningless.
Quite (though there's a "not" missing in there somewhere). It's simple enough to conceptualise I'd have thought, though predictably I see that Trollboy has thrown various straw man versions at it. It can be set out even more clearly thus:
1. All fallacious arguments are necessarily wrong arguments
2. The only arguments presented here (and so far as I know anywhere else) for an objectively true god are fallacious
3. Therefore there is no reason to think that those arguments demonstrate "god"
QED
-
Add Be Rational to your list of people you are trying to pass off as one of my Straw me. He believes there is no God and would probably say that he knows it.
Let's face it you are trying to dodge and defy labelling or categorisation.......a common or garden pisstaker if you like.
Why do you say that about me.
I have on many occations explicitly pointed out that NOT believing god is NOT the same as believing a god does not exist.
I do NOT believe a god exists. That's all.
Should you present evidence I could change my mind, but you never do, you just lie about other peoples actual position and what they have posted.
-
Gordon,
Quite (though there's a "not" missing in there somewhere). It's simple enough to conceptualise I'd have thought, though predictably I see that Trollboy has thrown various straw man versions at it. It can be set out even more clearly thus:
1. All fallacious arguments are necessarily wrong arguments
2. The only arguments presented here (and so far as I know anywhere else) for an objectively true god are fallacious
3. Therefore there is no reason to think that those arguments demonstrate "god"
QED
You called me Trollboy and got away with it...................a fine bit of pisstake on your part.......and they come away worshipping you too!!!
Part of me wants to give your chutzpah the full salute and part of me wants to tuck three fingers and the thumb of that salute leaving the middle finger.
-
I found this on another forum. You don't have to be religious to be a bad person, but it certainly helps!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/03/31/walter-white-lives-indiana-pastor-pleads-guilty-to-producing-almost-100-tons-of-synthetic-drugs/
A pastor in Indiana pleads guilty to producing synthetic drugs!
-
Blimey, you'd think a pastor would at least be able to produce real ones. Did his customers know they were getting polyester instead of silk?
-
I really need to wear my glasses when on here. I thought this was a thread about Siri, which I would have joined with alacrity. We've managed to get him to sing If I Only from the Wizard of Oz.
-
What I don't understand is why some Christians make excuses for the 'sins' god is supposed to have perpetrated, according to the Bible? If humans had committed them they would be rightly condemned by The Court of Human Rights, and an effort made to bring them to justice.
-
What I don't understand is why some Christians make excuses for the 'sins' god is supposed to have perpetrated, according to the Bible? If humans had committed them they would be rightly condemned by The Court of Human Rights, and an effort made to bring them to justice.
It comes down to ultimate authority, I think, and the fact that in the mind of the theist there's nobody further up the food chain, no higher court than God.
It's a crazy situation, I agree. An analogous example would be capital punishment, where the state arrogates to itself the right to kill people ... for killing people.
-
It comes down to ultimate authority, I think, and the fact that in the mind of the theist there's nobody further up the food chain, no higher court than God.
It's a crazy situation, I agree. An analogous example would be capital punishment, where the state arrogates to itself the right to kill people ... for killing people.
But we are all higher courtists that's why we are all functional moral numenists believing there is a right which we all hope we are on the right side of rather than the faulty moral judgment of an individual or committee or even concensus or, heaven forbid, a zeitgeist.
-
But we are all higher courtists that's why we are all functional moral numenists believing there is a right which we all hope we are on the right side of rather than the faulty moral judgment of an individual or committee or even concensus or, heaven forbid, a zeitgeist.
I see that you are having another 'ist' attack again. ::)
Maybe best see someone about getting that fixed? :-\
-
I see that you are having another 'ist' attack again. ::)
Maybe best see someone about getting that fixed? :-\
Best sort yourself out.
-
"Sin" is one of those words religites love using which don't actually refer to anything real or factual.
There are plenty of words they use which fit this category. Here are a few more:
Blaspheme
Grace
Holy Ghost
Spirit
Heaven
Hell
Supernatural
Jehovah
Satan
Damnation
Not to mention the other associated words like murder, lying, bullying, rape, cheating, fraud, infidelity, etc., etc.
-
Not to mention the other associated words like murder, lying, bullying, rape, cheating, fraud, infidelity, etc., etc.
They're all demonstrably real things. You can tell because they exist within, or I should rather say between, other demonstrably real things, i.e. human beings.
-
They're all demonstrably real things. You can tell because they exist within, or I should rather say between, other demonstrably real things, i.e. human beings.
And you have evidence that the terms Khatru mentions aren't equally demonstrably 'real'?
-
And you have evidence that the terms Khatru mentions aren't equally demonstrably 'real'?
Bingo!!!!!!!
I've been waiting for the NPF, and here it is.
Where do I go to get my prize money?
-
It was bound to come, Stephen; it was only a matter of when, not if ;)
He just can't post without it, can he?
-
It was bound to come, Stephen; it was only a matter of when, not if ;)
He just can't post without it, can he?
All he has to do is demonstrate them.
I think on the balance of probabilities I will get my apology from Sassy for her libel against me first.
-
Ah, the optimism of youth :)
-
Ah, the optimism of youth :)
Well if not in this life maybe the next!
Oh no what have I said!
The next life!
Vlad was right I must be a God dodger!
-
Bingo!!!!!!!
I've been waiting for the NPF, and here it is.
Where do I go to get my prize money?
Of course you have, becuase you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with - just neatly batted it away by claiming that, because it isn't naturalistic evidence it isn't evidence (even though life is more than just naturalistic) - and none of you have any evidence to support, let alone prove your rather narrow view of life. I, for one, quite enjoy the accusations becaue it means that yet again you can't give an answer. It's rather like the occurrence of words like bigot/bigoted on other topic threads.
-
Of course you have, becuase you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with
Where is said evidence then? You haven't presented any.
and none of you have any evidence to support, let alone prove your rather narrow view of life.
Straw man: I'm not trying to prove anything. You do love your fallacies.
I, for one, quite enjoy the accusations becaue it means that yet again you can't give an answer. It's rather like the occurrence of words like bigot/bigoted on other topic threads.
Non sequitur this time - well done you!
-
Where is said evidence then? You haven't presented any.
As I and others have said - a sizeable amount has been produced since I joined the board in June 2011.
Straw man: I'm not trying to prove anything. You do love your fallacies.
Did I say that you were trying to prove anything? However, by arguing against something given in evidence, you are trying to prove that the evidence doesn't stand up/hold water. If you really weren't trying to prove anything, you wouldn't be debating the issue.
Non sequitur this time - well done you!
By no means a non-sequitur. Simply a result of some of us starting from starting point G, and others of us starting from starting point T.
-
As I and others have said - a sizeable amount has been produced since I joined the board in June 2011.
Where? Some links to some posts would be nice.
Did I say that you were trying to prove anything?
You implied that -re-read your own post, especially where you wrote 'prove'.
However, by arguing against something given in evidence, you are trying to prove that the evidence doesn't stand up/hold water.
You haven't presented any evidence, all you've done is claim you once did: not the same thing.
If you really weren't trying to prove anything, you wouldn't be debating the issue.
I'm not: there you go again accusing me of trying to prove things when all I'm doing is pointing out your fallacious reasoning.
By no means a non-sequitur. Simply a result of some of us starting from starting point G, and others of us starting from starting point T.
Which reads as yet another non sequitur, since it is a meaningless sentence,
-
As I and others have said - a sizeable amount has been produced since I joined the board in June 2011.
So where is it? Don't wave your hands and pretend that it exists somewhere or other, specify. Provide details. Quote it. Link to it.
-
Of course you have, becuase you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with - just neatly batted it away by claiming that, because it isn't naturalistic evidence it isn't evidence (even though life is more than just naturalistic)
This of course is your constant assertion, just as the negative proof fallacy is your constant form of aberrant reasoning. It goes without saying that it is also yet another iteration of the aforementioned negative proof fallacy, without which it is becoming increasingly clear that you cannot even post. Twice today alone to my knowledge, for example. (The other instance being on this very thread less than five hours ago, viz., http://goo.gl/goW2Rn ).
You haven't been asked to provide a naturalistic methodology to evaluate these so-called claims of the supernatural; you have been asked to provide any methodology which is objective (that's to say, is shareable and can be investigated and employed by anyone) by which such claims can be scrutinised. That you have consistently failed to provide any such methodology speaks volumes, and lends itself to the entirely reasonable stance that no such methodology even exists.
and none of you have any evidence to support, let alone prove your rather narrow view of life.
Anything other than a naturalistic view of the universe stands in need of demonstration. You claim to believe in such a thing and claim that you are in possession of a methodology by which supernatural claims can be evaluated, therefore the burden of proof is squarely yours. You have to demonstrate this to be the case. It doesn't go through on the nod with a wave of the hand as you seem to expect; if you intend to be taken seriously (a dubious proposition at best, given your posting history), back up your claims.
But you don't, because you cannot.
You know this; I know this; we all know this. Absolutely nobody is in any way fooled by your constant waffling and hand-waving and the interminable prevarication, evasion and bloviating ... except, very possibly, you.
You bore on about there being more to life than the merely natural (i.e. natural broadly construed here as the world of matter-energy as revealed by physics), and so have been asked multiple times by any number of posters here over a long period of time (many months) to provide an appropriate methodology for the evaluation of these claims. Not a naturalistic methodology, as that's a straw man on your part, adding to your already formidable arsenal of logical fallacies; any methodology which is objective and capable of scrutinising these claims of the soi-disant supernatural and of evaluating their truth or falsity. You have utterly failed to provide any such thing. You recently claimed* that you have previously provided such a methodology somewhere else online and indeed in more than one place, but cannot provide so much as a link to these other places.
Therefore, after so many requests to provide such a methodology, so many ducks, dodges, dives and evasions of the request, claims that it exists elsewhere but a stonewall refusal to provide evidence of this claim, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that no such methodology exists, that it has never been provided elsewhere as asserted by you, and that as well as being a homophobe, a hypocrite and a pompous braggart, you're no more than a plain old common (very common) or garden liar. The methodology you assert doesn't exist and it has never been provided elsewhere on other online forums.
After all, in saying this there's no evidence that I'm wrong, is there? Where's the evidence that I'm not right?
Remember how easy it is to refute this charge: a clear and thorough exposition of this supposed methodology written up here, or if that is too much work, a URL or URLs to where it has allegedly been posted elsewhere in more than one place (as claimed by you)* would do. If those URLs are too long as-is, a URL tidier such as Tinyurl or Google URL Shortener would do the job beautifully. This is easy stuff.
The floor's all yours.
* Here: http://goo.gl/7raQfK
-
You do love your fallacies.
I've never known anybody to love his massive long-standing fallacies as much as Hope does.
-
I've never known anybody to love his massive long-standing fallacies as much as Hope does.
Do you think he is not smart enough to understand?
Why would any sensible person continue to make the same mistake?
-
This of course is your constant assertion, just as the negative proof fallacy is your constant form of aberrant reasoning. It goes without saying that it is also yet another iteration of the aforementioned negative proof fallacy, without which it is becoming increasingly clear that you cannot even post. Twice today alone to my knowledge, for example. (The other instance being on this very thread less than five hours ago, viz., http://goo.gl/goW2Rn ).
You haven't been asked to provide a naturalistic methodology to evaluate these so-called claims of the supernatural; you have been asked to provide any methodology which is objective (that's to say, is shareable and can be investigated and employed by anyone) by which such claims can be scrutinised. That you have consistently failed to provide any such methodology speaks volumes, and lends itself to the entirely reasonable stance that no such methodology even exists.
Anything other than a naturalistic view of the universe stands in need of demonstration. You claim to believe in such a thing and claim that you are in possession of a methodology by which supernatural claims can be evaluated, therefore the burden of proof is squarely yours. You have to demonstrate this to be the case. It doesn't go through on the nod with a wave of the hand as you seem to expect; if you intend to be taken seriously (a dubious proposition at best, given your posting history), back up your claims.
But you don't, because you cannot.
You know this; I know this; we all know this. Absolutely nobody is in any way fooled by your constant waffling and hand-waving and the interminable prevarication, evasion and bloviating ... except, very possibly, you.
You bore on about there being more to life than the merely natural (i.e. natural broadly construed here as the world of matter-energy as revealed by physics), and so have been asked multiple times by any number of posters here over a long period of time (many months) to provide an appropriate methodology for the evaluation of these claims. Not a naturalistic methodology, as that's a straw man on your part, adding to your already formidable arsenal of logical fallacies; any methodology which is objective and capable of scrutinising these claims of the soi-disant supernatural and of evaluating their truth or falsity. You have utterly failed to provide any such thing. You recently claimed* that you have previously provided such a methodology somewhere else online and indeed in more than one place, but cannot provide so much as a link to these other places.
Therefore, after so many requests to provide such a methodology, so many ducks, dodges, dives and evasions of the request, claims that it exists elsewhere but a stonewall refusal to provide evidence of this claim, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that no such methodology exists, that it has never been provided elsewhere as asserted by you, and that as well as being a homophobe, a hypocrite and a pompous braggart, you're no more than a plain old common (very common) or garden liar. The methodology you assert doesn't exist and it has never been provided elsewhere on other online forums.
After all, in saying this there's no evidence that I'm wrong, is there? Where's the evidence that I'm not right?
Remember how easy it is to refute this charge: a clear and thorough exposition of this supposed methodology written up here, or if that is too much work, a URL or URLs to where it has allegedly been posted elsewhere in
more than one place (as claimed by you)* would do. If those URLs are too long as-is, a URL tidier such as Tinyurl or Google URL Shortener would do the job beautifully. This is easy stuff.
The floor's all yours.
* Here: http://goo.gl/7raQfK
Shaker the best you are saying for materialism is that the universe just is..........just what you think it is at this point I don't know............but then a load of questions seem to follow that and it's all to do with being a human being............But hey, at the end of all this we find a group of people who have gone through all the rigmarole of self awareness, of creativity, of harnessing nature, of time, of beginnings and endings and yet after all that......opt to stick with ''the universe just is''.
Now I would just like to sit back and hear what you think the universe is and why it just is according to you guys.....................................but no.....even at this point you guys are so tight, according to Gordon you aren't prepared to make the case for anything.
What's going down Guys? Why haven't you got the balls to make the case for naturalism?
-
Of course you have, becuase you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with - just neatly batted it away by claiming that, because it isn't naturalistic evidence it isn't evidence
Well let us review this situation shall we.
Firstly I hope you don't include Vlad in the group of people who have supplied a methodology for us.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11809.375
Msg 399.
After all the bluster the best he got to was he believes he has personally experienced God and therefore God is objective for him. Further that, if I tried to find God I too could have an experience of God that would convince me of an objectively true God.
So what, all we would have then would be two people who held the subjective view that God was objective. This get's us not one inch down the road of demonstrating God to be objective. No amount of sincerely held subjective views get you to objectively true.
Secondly, please could you also show me where I have specifically asked for a naturalist methodology.
Thirdly, could you also show me where you have presented a non naturalistic methodology. In the past you have hinted at emotions and personal experience as methodologies or non natural aspects of life. You will need to show that these have a non naturalistic element. They certainly have a naturalistic element. Drink a bottle of Whisky and you will alter both your emotions and ability to recall events (necessary for personal experience). As dead people don't seem to show any emotions or learn from experience then I think we are justified in saying these aspects have at least some naturalistic element. It's up to you show that they have a non naturalistic element.
(even though life is more than just naturalistic)
Pure assertion.
- and none of you have any evidence to support, let alone prove your rather narrow view of life.
What is my rather narrow view of life?
This seems a bit rich coming from someone who thinks that people who don't share his sexuality are damaged or have a medical condition and that when they form loving relationships that these are somehow damaging to society.
I, for one, quite enjoy the accusations becaue it means that yet again you can't give an answer.
I have given you an answer. Your question is a text book example of the negative proof fallacy.
-
Bravo that chap *applause*
-
Shaker the best you are saying for materialism is that the universe just is..........just what you think it is at this point I don't know............but then a load of questions seem to follow that and it's all to do with being a human being............But hey, at the end of all this we find a group of people who have gone through all the rigmarole of self awareness, of creativity, of harnessing nature, of time, of beginnings and endings and yet after all that......opt to stick with ''the universe just is''.
Now I would just like to sit back and hear what you think the universe is and why it just is according to you guys.....................................but no.....even at this point you guys are so tight, according to Gordon you aren't prepared to make the case for anything.
What's going down Guys? Why haven't you got the balls to make the case for naturalism?
Why should we want to?
What is wrong with not knowing? Why do you seem so frightened of not knowing?
I don't know why the universe is and I don't feel the need believe something, anything, rather than simply not know - why should I?
I would be very interested to hear that somebody has found a credible answer, and can offer evidence or reasoning to support their case, but none have done so.
"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
-
Do you think he is not smart enough to understand?
Why would any sensible person continue to make the same mistake?
Because he relies on self delusion and lies to shore up his position?
-
...merely natural (i.e. natural broadly construed here as the world of matter-energy as revealed by physics)...
Off topic, I know, but please not "matter-energy"! I get what you mean, but there really is no such beast in physics.
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
http://tinyurl.com/lnc3oz3
-
Do you think he is not smart enough to understand?
I genuinely do not know.
Why would any sensible person continue to make the same mistake?
Why indeed. I wonder about that too.
-
As I and others have said - a sizeable amount has been produced since I joined the board in June 2011.
Did I say that you were trying to prove anything? However, by arguing against something given in evidence, you are trying to prove that the evidence doesn't stand up/hold water. If you really weren't trying to prove anything, you wouldn't be debating the issue.
By no means a non-sequitur. Simply a result of some of us starting from starting point G, and others of us starting from starting point T.
No evidence, which could be substantiated has ever been produced to prove beyond any doubt that a deity exists. As I have said before, if god does exist it is playing a nasty game by not making it presence clear to all in a totally irrefutable way, if the penalty for unbelief is hell. >:(
-
Oh Sass, I wasn't trying to score any points and you must know that. What should I have done? PMd you and then had four paragraphs in reply? We all have to face some criticism on forums Sass, even from those who like us, it's the nature of the beast.
Whoever said, ''Head meets wall'', ''Wall meets head'' - was using three words instead of two, in each case. What a waste :D! There used to be a smiley that conveyed the sentiment, wish we had it here.
No! I must not know it. What is more, I did not know that. May be, what you should have done is remembered that Leonard and I, have been posting together for a long time. We all have to face criticism but that was not criticism that was an accusation. Criticism would have reflected on what I wrote not questioned the reason I wrote it.
-
No! I must not know it. What is more, I did not know that. May be, what you should have done is remembered that Leonard and I, have been posting together for a long time. We all have to face criticism but that was not criticism that was an accusation.
An accusation such as, for example, that Stephen Taylor discriminates against Christians which you are yet to substantiate or retract and apologise for.
-
Of course I am - I don't hold any beliefs about 'Gods': it isn't rocket science, Vlad, or a game of 'Call My Bluff'.
So why are you saying that God doesn't exist? Oh, wait a minute, you are admitting that atheists have no faith and
that disbelief is not a belief rather a statement for you like " There is no God" rather than " I do not know if there is a God."
So requires nothing from you which can be changed whether you have an open mind or not. So atheists do not have an open mind and cannot be willing to admit they were wrong?
Gordon, What have you ever done to check if God exists?
That question is for all other atheists too...
-
Gordon, What have you ever done to check if God exists?
That question is for all other atheists too...
I will tell you my answer after you have apologised for the libellous statement you made about me.
-
What I don't understand is why some Christians make excuses for the 'sins' god is supposed to have perpetrated, according to the Bible? If humans had committed them they would be rightly condemned by The Court of Human Rights, and an effort made to bring them to justice.
Therein lies your reasoning problem again.
What is the difference between a judge passing a death sentence and God?
God is righteous without sin, the judge is not unless he knows Christ and God having been forgiven.
There has to be people who do certain jobs. God cannot sin he is righteous and carries out that which justice.
"Reap what you sow" at one time it was "an eye for an eye" and the Egyptians reaped what they sowed.
But now we are called to turn the other cheek. What is it that you cannot understand about justice.
Without the laws people could do as they did thousands of years ago. Kill anyone they liked and get away with it.
Floo, you have to get some understanding of the reality of the world and what people have to do.
When the hangman kill people sentenced to death, is he a murderer?
The method matters not, he is killing the person so does that make him a murderer or was the death justified?
You need to sort out in your mind and remember God is without sin. One time for the people of Israel and to save us all he had to punish those who made others suffer. The Egyptians did make the Israelites suffer.
-
Well let us review this situation shall we.
Firstly I hope you don't include Vlad in the group of people who have supplied a methodology for us.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11809.375
Msg 399.
After all the bluster the best he got to was he believes he has personally experienced God and therefore God is objective for him. Further that, if I tried to find God I too could have an experience of God that would convince me of an objectively true God.
So what, all we would have then would be two people who held the subjective view that God was objective. This get's us not one inch down the road of demonstrating God to be objective. No amount of sincerely held subjective views get you to objectively true.
Secondly, please could you also show me where I have specifically asked for a naturalist methodology.
Thirdly, could you also show me where you have presented a non naturalistic methodology. In the past you have hinted at emotions and personal experience as methodologies or non natural aspects of life. You will need to show that these have a non naturalistic element. They certainly have a naturalistic element. Drink a bottle of Whisky and you will alter both your emotions and ability to recall events (necessary for personal experience). As dead people don't seem to show any emotions or learn from experience then I think we are justified in saying these aspects have at least some naturalistic element. It's up to you show that they have a non naturalistic element.
Pure assertion.
What is my rather narrow view of life?
This seems a bit rich coming from someone who thinks that people who don't share his sexuality are damaged or have a medical condition and that when they form loving relationships that these are somehow damaging to society.
I have given you an answer. Your question is a text book example of the negative proof fallacy.
There is a lack of honesty and truth about this post.
Both Vlad and Hope and sought God and experienced God having done so.
What exactly have you done Stephen to find out if God is real?
If nothing the above all becomes useless. Why not tell everyone on this forum exactly what you have done to find God.
Why do the others not give their examples of searching for God. It would be good to know if replies come from being read on up on other atheists offerings or a real experience of the individuals writing.
-
So why are you saying that God doesn't exist?
I'm not saying that.
Oh, wait a minute, you are admitting that atheists have no faith and
that disbelief is not a belief rather a statement for you like " There is no God" rather than " I do not know if there is a God."
I'm not 'admitting' anything, and I haven't said 'there is no God', especially since the term 'God' seems like so much white noise.
Gordon, What have you ever done to check if God exists?
I have expended the same amount of effort that I devoted to my search for clockwork-powered jellyfish.
-
After all the bluster the best he got to was he believes he has personally experienced God and therefore God is objective for him. Further that, if I tried to find God I too could have an experience of God that would convince me of an objectively true God.
I'm sorry that is grossly underrepresenting my input.
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.
I have pointed to philosophical means of making a case for an ontology.
And I have countered the assumption that science, reason, philosophy and logic are naturalistic.
That is a pretty big CV compared to the fat sultans of axiomatic naturalism and their ''don't know but isn't God'' routine.
-
Why should we want to?
What is wrong with not knowing? Why do you seem so frightened of not knowing?
I don't know why the universe is and I don't feel the need believe something, anything, rather than simply not know - why should I?
I would be very interested to hear that somebody has found a credible answer, and can offer evidence or reasoning to support their case, but none have done so.
"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
You look at the world and would not like to know the creator, that is if created the person called God who did it?
Richard Feynman can only speak for himself... Tell me if sick and finding a lump is not knowing more interesting than not finding and in that case an answer which would make a difference if your first thoughts wrong?
Logically, that man is defeating his own purpose? It is seeking the truth we find it, not knowing is not the way of man.#
God promises if people seek him, seek him with a good heart then they will find him.
Sincerity and truth is what God requires in our inner parts. The ability to think for ourselves is clearly beneficial when finding answers.
-
An accusation such as, for example, that Stephen Taylor discriminates against Christians which you are yet to substantiate or retract and apologise for.
My reply is:- Does he support your point and post against Christians or vice versa?
I rest my case. Had he posted from a side not supported by atheists or Christian then we could say he does not discriminate against believers. But his post reflect negatively against Christians and had they not you would not be cheering him on.
Think before you reply. Your support for him shows he is not supporting Christianity or even neutral in his replies.
-
My reply is:- Does he support your point and post against Christians or vice versa?
I rest my case. Had he posted from a side not supported by atheists or Christian then we could say he does not discriminate against believers. But his post reflect negatively against Christians and had they not you would not be cheering him on.
Think before you reply. Your support for him shows he is not supporting Christianity or even neutral in his replies.
He challenges and criticises beliefs.
That's not discrimination.
-
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.
I have pointed to philosophical means of making a case for an ontology.
And I have countered the assumption that science, reason, philosophy and logic are naturalistic.
That is a pretty big CV compared to the fat sultans of axiomatic naturalism and their ''don't know but isn't God'' routine.
Yes, Vlad, you have spouted endless -isms and -ists and you have constructed and ritually slaughtered a veritable army of straw men.
Any time you want to address the argument people are actually making, do feel free...
-
Why should we want to?
"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
Ah, dogmatic agnosticism and if you will, intellectual wanking.
Feynman is asking us to believe that a man of knowledge like himself is at base a simple ignoramus. Self indulgent bollocks.
-
I will tell you my answer after you have apologised for the libellous statement you made about me.
Look at my reply to shaker.
Your posts are not neutral they show you support atheism at the detriment to Christians and their beliefs.
Your replies leave atheists like Shaker applauding you.
So please feel free not to reply to my posts and I shall no longer reply to yours.
The other believers are free to choose. But wolves in sheeps clothings I don't want to answer.
Even Satan can don the 'angel of light' disguise. In this case your slip is well and truly showing.
Bait other believers all you want under the false banner of being neutral but not this believer.
Your replies show nothing neutral.
-
You look at the world and would not like to know the creator, that is if created the person called God who did it?
Clearly, you failed to read or understand what I said.
Richard Feynman can only speak for himself... Tell me if sick and finding a lump is not knowing more interesting than not finding and in that case an answer which would make a difference if your first thoughts wrong?
Ditto, the Feynman quote.
Logically, that man is defeating his own purpose?
That doesn't even make sense.
-
He challenges and criticises beliefs.
That's not discrimination.
If not a believer you can only produce atheistic arguments.
He has not brought any arguments which show neutralism.
Had he been neutral his arguments would not have support Christianity or Atheism.
Ever wondered why there is no middle in the belief in God.
Believer verses athiest/agnostic.
The believer saved but the atheist/agnostic both going the same road. No inbetween.
-
even at this point you guys are so tight, according to Gordon you aren't prepared to make the case for anything.
What's going down Guys? Why haven't you got the balls to make the case for naturalism?
As usual, Vlad, you mangle and strangle in your on-going quest to deploy an army of straw men: I simply noted that where a fallacious argument is being deployed all that is required is to rebut the fallacy being offered: this doesn't necessarily entail making a counter-argument since there is nothing of substance to counter.
-
Yes, Vlad, you have spouted endless -isms and -ists
You shouldn't be frightened of isms and ists in fact you keep contradicting yourselves....first it's an endless list...then it's the same isms....at least get your story straight.
In terms of straw men, He has a name....Be rational.
The trouble is...... yer yeller...intellectually.
-
As usual, Vlad, you mangle and strangle in your on-going quest to deploy an army of straw men: I simply noted that where a fallacious argument is being deployed all that is required is to rebut the fallacy being offered: this doesn't necessarily entail making a counter-argument since there is nothing of substance to counter.
Blah, Vlad, blah,blah,blah,blah army of straw men:Blah, blah, blah, blah ,blah fallacious argument blah, blah, blah, blah the fallacy blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!
Hot waffle noted Gordon.
-
If not a believer you can only produce atheistic arguments.
He has not brought any arguments which show neutralism.
Had he been neutral his arguments would not have support Christianity or Atheism.
Ever wondered why there is no middle in the belief in God.
Believer verses athiest/agnostic.
The believer saved but the atheist/agnostic both going the same road. No inbetween.
Whatever this semi-literate babble may have meant in what passes for your brain before you started typing, the point that the challenging and criticising of beliefs isn't discrimination still stands.
-
Blah, Vlad, blah,blah,blah,blah army of straw men:Blah, blah, blah, blah ,blah fallacious argument blah, blah, blah, blah the fallacy blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!
Hot waffle noted Gordon.
Don't be too hard on yourself Vlad: this post of yours, as quoted here, is one of your more lucid efforts.
-
There is a lack of honesty and truth about this post.
Both Vlad and Hope and sought God and experienced God having done so.
What exactly have you done Stephen to find out if God is real?
If nothing the above all becomes useless. Why not tell everyone on this forum exactly what you have done to find God.
Why do the others not give their examples of searching for God. It would be good to know if replies come from being read on up on other atheists offerings or a real experience of the individuals writing.
Vlad and Hope have had experiences which they thought were from god, that is not the same as it actually being so.
I tried to find god as a kid, but in spite of sincere prayers I never had an sign of its presence. If it exists that doesn't do it any credit whatsoever. >:(
-
Richard Feynman can only speak for himself...
Yes there are certain things about which we can only speak for ourselves.
There are scientists and scientism which believes broadly that what science doesn't know isn't worth knowing.
In scientism circles Scientists become the high priests mediating the last word on pretty well everything.
In this scheme of things scientists tend to become the greatest thinkers, moralists, philosophers and yes human beings..........all at the expense of people who really are.
Unfortunately I think some scientists tend to believe that the above is a bit true.
-
Don't be too hard on yourself Vlad: this post of yours, as quoted here, is one of your more lucid efforts.
Ah,shucks........you have to take some credit. I only put in the meaningful words into what you said.
-
Yes there are certain things about which we can only speak for ourselves.
There are scientists and scientism which believes broadly that what science doesn't know isn't worth knowing.
In scientism circles Scientists become the high priests mediating the last word on pretty well everything.
In this scheme of things scientists tend to become the greatest thinkers, moralists, philosophers and yes human beings..........all at the expense of people who really are.
Unfortunately I think some scientists tend to believe that the above is a bit true.
Relevance? Is anybody here arguing for this particular -ism...?
-
Vlad and Hope have had experiences which they thought were from god, that is not the same as it actually being so.
Prove they are illusion, delusion and mental aberration or mistake then....without argumentum ad ridiculum which is always embarrassing but gets the antitheists going.
-
Prove they are illusion, delusion and mental aberration or mistake then....without argumentum ad ridiculum which is always embarrassing but gets the antitheists going.
Who needs an argumentum ad ridiculum when you can borrow, as you have here, Hope's argumentum ad ignorantiam?
-
you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with
You can't demolish nothing.
-
Relevance? Is anybody here arguing for this particular -ism...?
well.......You quoted Feynman to support dogmatic agnosticism.
-
In terms of straw men, He has a name....Be rational.
Even if one poster is making a specific argument (and I'll need a citation to accept that), countering that argument in response to different posters making different points, is still a straw man fallacy.
The trouble is...... yer yeller...intellectually.
I can't help feeling you are projecting your own fear. You seem scared of not knowing and appear to think the rest of use should be afflicted in the same way.
-
Therein lies your reasoning problem again.
What is the difference between a judge passing a death sentence and God?
The judge is real.
-
well.......You quoted Feynman to support dogmatic agnosticism.
No, I did not. I suggest a refresher course in English comprehension.
[edit]
PS Even if I was arguing for 'dogmatic agnosticism' (which I wasn't), it would not make your post about scientism relevant.
-
I'm sorry that is grossly underrepresenting my input.
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.
I have pointed to philosophical means of making a case for an ontology.
And I have countered the assumption that science, reason, philosophy and logic are naturalistic.
That is a pretty big CV compared to the fat sultans of axiomatic naturalism and their ''don't know but isn't God'' routine.
All those big words in one post. I think you had better go and have a lie down.
-
He missed out Stalinism, though.
Son, I am disappoint :(
-
You can't demolish nothing.
First of all you haven't been able to show his experience is delusion, illusion etc.
Secondly if you say his experience isn't evidence that suggests you only accept scientific evidence and therefore that makes you ontologically materialist.....something you are all falling over yourselves to deny being!
What you guys need is a bit of honesty and admit that ontologically and Hillside is going to hate me for this............we are on a level playing field debate wise.
-
Blimey, Vlad, delusional to the hilt.
-
Ah, dogmatic agnosticism and if you will, intellectual wanking.
THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.
Feynman is asking us to believe that a man of knowledge like himself is at base a simple ignoramus. Self indulgent bollocks.
No, really he is not. If you really think that is his meaning, you need to stop posting on forums with grown ups.
-
THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.
Come again?
-
THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.
No, really he is not. If you really think that is his meaning, you need to stop posting on forums with grown ups.
Vlad claims that anything that anyone says means whatever he wants it to. Haven't you noticed? It's one of the ways in which he lies.
-
THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.
Blimey that's an -ism I haven't been accused of by Shaker......Jism.
-
First of all you haven't been able to show his experience is delusion, illusion etc.
Whose experience?
Secondly if you say his experience isn't evidence that suggests you only accept scientific evidence and therefore that makes you ontologically materialist.....something you are all falling over yourselves to deny being!
Again I say "whose experience"? I was merely responding to Sassy's question about what the difference between a judge and a god is.
What you guys need is a bit of honesty and admit that ontologically and Hillside is going to hate me for this............we are on a level playing field debate wise.
We are on a level playing field. I demand the same level of evidence for the divine judge and human judges. The former fails the test, the latter do not.
-
I demand the same level of evidence for the divine judge and human judges.
What do you mean by the same level of evidence........and is the answer just going to confirm you as an ontological materialist?
-
There is a lack of honesty and truth about this post.
Outrageous considering the out and out lie that you told about me.
Both Vlad and Hope and sought God and experienced God having done so.
No, they claim to have experienced God. Not the same thing as demonstrating an objectively true God.
What exactly have you done Stephen to find out if God is real?
I have asked believers to show how they know that their experience of God is objectively true. No one has been able to do so.
Now what about that apology?
-
I'm sorry that is grossly underrepresenting my input.
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.
[/quote[
No people are just saying they you need something to get you from your experience of God to God is objectively real.
All this other shit about methodological materialism is just bluster. No one thinks it but then if they did it would not get you an inch further along the way to an objectively true God.
-
My reply is:- Does he support your point and post against Christians or vice versa?
I rest my case. Had he posted from a side not supported by atheists or Christian then we could say he does not discriminate against believers. But his post reflect negatively against Christians and had they not you would not be cheering him on.
Think before you reply. Your support for him shows he is not supporting Christianity or even neutral in his replies.
So you don't understand what discrimination means then?
I would be careful about using words you don't understand in future. There are laws against libel you know.
And you still owe me an apology and retraction.
-
I'm sorry that is grossly underrepresenting my input.
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.
[/quote[
No people are just saying they you need something to get you from your experience of God to God is objectively real.
I'm afraid you asked me for my experience of God and it was given.
I never put up my experience as a Proof and surely if you followed me on this board you would have seen that I frequently say I cannot hand you God or faith.
You have chosen to ignore all of this in favour of a narrative.
Once again I am not offering my experience as evidence of God.
You need your own.
Just like anybody else's experience of Australia is never going to be my experience.
-
...
What's going down Guys? Why haven't you got the balls to make the case for naturalism?
Why should we want to?
What is wrong with not knowing? Why do you seem so frightened of not knowing?
I don't know why the universe is and I don't feel the need believe something, anything, rather than simply not know - why should I?
I would be very interested to hear that somebody has found a credible answer, and can offer evidence or reasoning to support their case, but none have done so.
"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
Note the dishonest edit:-
Why should we want to?
"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
Ah, dogmatic agnosticism and if you will, intellectual wanking.
Feynman is asking us to believe that a man of knowledge like himself is at base a simple ignoramus. Self indulgent bollocks.
What utter and complete bollocks!
You seem to inhabit a bizarre world of absolutism.
When somebody says they don't know something, you immediately translate it into some dogma about not being able to or not wanting to know.
Admitting lack of specific knowledge translates into being an ignoramus.
Suggesting that it is better, and more interesting, to admit lack of knowledge than to believe any old crap translates into "dogmatic agnosticism".
Are you simply too stupid to understand what is being said here, or is it wilful misrepresentation?
-
I'm afraid you asked me for my experience of God and it was given.
I never put up my experience as a Proof and surely if you followed me on this board you would have seen that I frequently say I cannot hand you God or faith.
You have chosen to ignore all of this in favour of a narrative.
Once again I am not offering my experience as evidence of God.
You need your own.
Just like anybody else's experience of Australia is never going to be my experience.
Just as I said you position was earlier then.
If I have an experience like yours and come to believe that God is an objective reality then all that would demonstrate is that I believed in an objectively real God.
No amount of subjective conviction would make it objective.
I would leave the Australia thing out of it if I were you. You didn't come out of it at all well last time, even by your standards.
-
Vlad and Hope have had experiences which they thought were from god, that is not the same as it actually being so.
I tried to find god as a kid, but in spite of sincere prayers I never had an sign of its presence. If it exists that doesn't do it any credit whatsoever. >:(
I agree with your first paragraph floo, not discounting Vlad's and Hope's experiences but it is more than possible to have an experience which appears to be one thing and isn't.
Your second paragraph is something you say often but I remember, years ago, when you were quite spiritual and considered yourself to be a Christian? What happened in the interim?
-
I agree with your first paragraph floo, not discounting Vlad's and Hope's experiences but it is more than possible to have an experience which appears to be one thing and isn't.
Your second paragraph is something you say often but I remember, years ago, when you were quite spiritual and considered yourself to be a Christian? What happened in the interim?
I have NEVER been spiritual, even when I was a devout Christian. Although I had lost my faith by the time I was nineteen, I did consider myself an out of sight very liberal Christian, more for convenience than anything else. Not a sensible or honest position to adopt, :-[ and I dropped it. I now consider myself an agnostic, who admits a god of some sort could exist somewhere, but if so, it is very unlikely humans have any connection with it.
-
Just as I said you position was earlier then.
If I have an experience like yours and come to believe that God is an objective reality then all that would demonstrate is that I believed in an objectively real God.
No amount of subjective conviction would make it objective.
Acknowledged and always has been.
Now, no amount of methodology makes something objective either.
-
I have NEVER been spiritual, even when I was a devout Christian. Although I had lost my faith by the time I was nineteen, I did consider myself an out of sight very liberal Christian, more for convenience than anything else. Not a sensible or honest position to adopt, :-[ and I dropped it. I now consider myself an agnostic, who admits a god of some sort could exist somewhere, but if so, it is very unlikely humans have any connection with it.
With the ' never' in capitals it makes you sound like some prim old dowager, brows knitted together with disapproval.
Seriously ;D
Floo! You need to swing on some chandeliers ;)
Be a bit spiritual, let your hair down......
-
With the ' never' in capitals it makes you sound like some prim old dowager, brows knitted together with disapproval.
Seriously ;D
Floo! You need to swing on some chandeliers ;)
Be a bit spiritual, let your hair down......
Why, I am content as I am?
-
From Sass, Mess. 119:
Gordon, What have you ever done to check if God exists?
That question is for all other atheists too...
I have never come across any evidence/feelings/experience which remotely suggests that a god exists. How on earth can I check whether a god exists when I don't have any feelings that one exists, when my personal experiences do not suggest that one exists or how he/she/it adequately explains such things as pain, suffering, prayer, free will, existence and development of life, meaning of life, origins of the universe etc, which can either be explained fairly reasonably by natural explanations or by simply saying we do not yet have adequate answers to such questions?
Remember, also, that simply looking at people of faith who believe in a god(s) solves nothing as they are such a diverse bunch and their particular faiths are often at odds with each other. So, other than showing that they actually believe in whatever they believe in, this in no way is any sort of evidence that what they believe in actually exists.
So, go on, explain to me a method for checking whether a god exists or not.
Until I do find evidence that a god exists, therefore, I have no reason to believe that one does. Furthermore I am entirely happy in my unbelief.
-
Well expressed by enki. What strikes me is that the 3-omni type God seems to make no difference to life. Of course, people who believe in it may feel good or inspired or whatever, but apart from that, where is God at work? Does he heal people, does he correct wrongs, does he frustrate the dictator and the torturer?
Well, if he does, he is very discreet! There is an old joke kicking about, that if you are going to invent a god, you must make sure that his operations are silent, invisible, and imperceptible, result!
-
Acknowledged and always has been.
Now, no amount of methodology makes something objective either.
Eh!!!
I don't think anyone has said that a methodology makes something objective, maybe I have that wrong and someone has but I'm not aware of it.
Rather, that you need a methodology to establish if it is objective or not.
Again, I don't think you are listening to what people are saying.
-
Also, without a methodology you have to accept any and all assertions some of which will be contradictory.
-
I have NEVER been spiritual, even when I was a devout Christian. Although I had lost my faith by the time I was nineteen, I did consider myself an out of sight very liberal Christian, more for convenience than anything else. Not a sensible or honest position to adopt, :-[ and I dropped it. I now consider myself an agnostic, who admits a god of some sort could exist somewhere, but if so, it is very unlikely humans have any connection with it.
Fair enough, I just got the impression that you were spiritual or 'revisited your spirituality'.
Anyway, on a lighter note, when I enter this forum I have a giggle at the thread title, '' 'Sin' started by floo''!
-
Vlad is just thrashing about, trying to hide his poverty-stricken defence of theism, and instead using his switcheroo, or as we might say, a giant tu quoque. 'Since I can't mount a defence of theism, I will keep on about ontological bollocks, hoping nobody notices.'
-
Of course you have, becuase you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with - just neatly batted it away by claiming that, because it isn't naturalistic evidence it isn't evidence (even though life is more than just naturalistic) - and none of you have any evidence to support, let alone prove your rather narrow view of life. I, for one, quite enjoy the accusations becaue it means that yet again you can't give an answer. It's rather like the occurrence of words like bigot/bigoted on other topic threads.
Hope. Any chance of a reply to my response to this. Msg 110?
Ta
-
Vlad is just thrashing about, trying to hide his poverty-stricken defence of theism, and instead using his switcheroo, or as we might say, a giant tu quoque. 'Since I can't mount a defence of theism, I will keep on about ontological bollocks, hoping nobody notices.'
No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of) to theism.
What is wrong with that Wigginhall or is this you just claiming that your 'QUOQUE' is bigger than mine.
Isn't it about time your Zen master gave you another slap with his paddle to keep you awake. Wiggs.
-
No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of) to theism.
What is wrong with that Wigginhall or is this you just claiming that your 'QUOQUE' is bigger than mine.
Isn't it about time your Zen master gave you another slap with his paddle to keep you awake. Wiggs.
And who is a ontological naturalist?
I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.
-
No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of) to theism.
What is wrong with that Wigginhall or is this you just claiming that your 'QUOQUE' is bigger than mine.
Isn't it about time your Zen master gave you another slap with his paddle to keep you awake. Wiggs.
Oh, I've had plenty of slaps. I don't see anyone actually defending ontological naturalism, although you seem to be suggesting that some people are.
The solution would be to start a thread on it, and see what happens. To bring it into threads on theism is a classic tu quoque, or, in the vernacular, a derail.
-
And who is a ontological naturalist?
I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.
Yes, I think Vlad is trying to conflate, 'I will make observations of nature', and 'there is only nature'. I don't see anyone saying the latter on this forum.
-
And who is a ontological naturalist?
I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.
whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.
-
No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of) to theism.
One of your favourite straw men.
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that nobody is making that argument?
-
One of your favourite straw men.
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that nobody is making that argument?
I don't think it's stupidity. Vlad knows quite well that his defence of theism has gaping holes in it, putting it charitably. One solution is the venerable tu quoque, that is, instead of talking about my ideas, let's talk about yours, then hopefully my own threadbare arguments will be overlooked. But he also has to invent the other ideas, since nobody is actually putting them forwards.
-
Yes, I think Vlad is trying to conflate, 'I will make observations of nature', and 'there is only nature'. I don't see anyone saying the latter on this forum.
Look harder then. In any case, you used to point it out to people when they made the ontological naturalistic argument.....at least someone with the same screenname did.
-
whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.
So, in Vlad speak, "ontological naturalism" translates to: "the belief that it is reasonable to require some sort of reasoning or evidence before accepting the probable truth of a proposition".
It would help if you used English.
-
Look harder then. In any case, you used to point it out to people when they made the ontological naturalistic argument.....at least someone with the same screenname did.
I don't recollect anyone making the argument for that. Atheism does not equate with it, for sure.
-
So, in Vlad speak, "ontological naturalism" translates to: "the belief that it is reasonable to require some sort of reasoning or evidence before accepting the probable truth of a proposition".
It would help if you used English.
You can gussy ontological materialism into whatever you like just don't involve me.
-
Yes, I think Vlad is trying to conflate, 'I will make observations of nature', and 'there is only nature'. I don't see anyone saying the latter on this forum.
I don't see anybody doing the former .....certainly not in discussions of God.
In any case making observations of nature is science. who is doing science?
-
Professor Davey does it for a living, I believe. A few others have scientific qualifications.
-
You can gussy ontological materialism into whatever you like just don't involve me.
I don't give a toss about it - it's you who won't leave the subject alone.
Anyway, it was ontological naturalism a few minutes ago, at least make your straw men consistent!
-
Actually, there are a number of well-known atheists, who are dualists. Most well known probably, is David Chalmers who has formulated the issue of the 'hard problem' of consciousness in articles and some well-known films (available on YouTube). Also relevant here is Nagel, whose book 'Mind and Cosmos' got wiped all over the kitchen floor by various critics. But anyway Nagel seems to be a dualist, and is famous for his paper, 'What is it like to be a bat?'.
I think also Bertrand Russell at one point was not a materialist or physicalist. So atheism does not equate with materialism. Many Buddhists are atheists, but would not be described as materialist or naturalists or whatever, since they tend to deny that matter or nature actually exist! Plonkers, eh?
-
Professor Davey does it for a living, I believe. A few others have scientific qualifications.
But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.
Game, set and match to me i'm afraid Wiggs and Shakes.....now go of and do something useful.
-
In any case making observations of nature is science. who is doing science?
???
We all make observations of nature all the time - it's how we avoid tripping over stuff, falling down stairs and the like...
-
But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.
Game, set and match to me i'm afraid Wiggs and Shakes.....now go of and do something useful.
You can always tell when Vlad is losing an argument badly, he uses one of his stock phrases, pissing on your bonfire and so on, as a kind of comfort to himself, fiddling while Rome is burning, I suppose.
-
Actually, there are a number of well-known atheists, who are dualists. Most well known probably, is David Chalmers who has formulated the issue of the 'hard problem' of consciousness in articles and some well-known films (available on YouTube). Also relevant here is Nagel, whose book 'Mind and Cosmos' got wiped all over the kitchen floor by various critics. But anyway Nagel seems to be a dualist, and is famous for his paper, 'What is it like to be a bat?'.
I think also Bertrand Russell at one point was not a materialist or physicalist. So atheism does not equate with materialism. Many Buddhists are atheists, but would not be described as materialist or naturalists or whatever, since they tend to deny that matter or nature actually exist! Plonkers, eh?
Now that is something we should open a thread on.
How many atheists on here have admitted though that everything is just material though?......well those who argue that consciousness is a property of matter. For starters and that's evidence of ontological materialism.
-
But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.
Why don't you define exactly what you mean by "ontological naturalism" and then justify that statement...?
Game, set and match to me i'm afraid Wiggs and Shakes.....now go of and do something useful.
Day dreams.
-
But if he is mixing it while discussing God that brings him immediately into Ontological naturalism.
No it doesn't.
-
Now that is something we should open a thread on.
How many atheists on here have admitted though that everything is just material though?......well those who argue that consciousness is a property of matter. For starters and that's evidence of ontological materialism.
No, that's not correct. You can argue that consciousness is a property of matter, and still not claim that 'there is only nature', or 'there is only matter'.
That is just too strong for many people.
-
You can always tell when Vlad is losing an argument badly, he uses one of his stock phrases, pissing on your bonfire and so on, as a kind of comfort to himself, fiddling while Rome is burning, I suppose.
You can tell when Wigginhall is losing an argument badly, he starts playing the man instead of the ball........(several winking smileys)
-
You can tell when Wigginhall is losing an argument badly, he starts playing the man instead of the ball........(several winking smileys)
Vlad, Wigs seems to be very much on the ball, it is you who lost it a good while back, if you ever had it! ;D
-
I was recalling the phrase 'epistemic naturalism', which as far as I can remember, means a view that nature is available for observation and experiment, but holds back from the total claim that nature is all. In other words, holds back from certainty. It's a bit like saying that the supernatural is possible, but implausible.
However, maybe I've got this wrong. Corrections welcome.
-
Vlad, Wigs seems to be very much on the ball, it is you who lost it a good while back, if you ever had it! ;D
Hang about then Floo i'm just about to take him to task for a possible attempted turd polish.
-
I was recalling the phrase 'epistemic naturalism', which as far as I can remember, means a view that nature is available for observation and experiment, but holds back from the total claim that nature is all. In other words, holds back from certainty. It's a bit like saying that the supernatural is possible, but implausible.
Yes on what grounds does it therefore say that the supernatural is implausible......ontological material grounds perhaps?
-
whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.
Ho Ho Ho Ho.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Seriously I need to lie down.
You are a funny guy.
-
I was recalling the phrase 'epistemic naturalism', which as far as I can remember, means a view that nature is available for observation and experiment, but holds back from the total claim that nature is all. In other words, holds back from certainty. It's a bit like saying that the supernatural is possible, but implausible.
However, maybe I've got this wrong. Corrections welcome.
Yes on what grounds does it therefore say that the supernatural is implausible......ontological material grounds perhaps?
Well, reading what was actually said (it's a skill you would do well to learn), I'd say, on the grounds that it is not available for observation and experiment or, perhaps, that it doesn't appear to be available for observation and experiment.
Ontology is being specifically excluded.
-
Yes on what grounds does it therefore say that the supernatural is implausible......ontological material grounds perhaps?
Well, people tend to say that being in the Matrix is possible but implausible. It's because we have zero evidence that we are in the Matrix, but we can't totally exclude it. Same with the supernatural, with the added problem that no-one can define it, whereas we have some idea about the Matrix.
An ontological materialist would exclude the supernatural completely, so not just implausible but impossible. Does anyone here say that? Dunno.
-
Well, people tend to say that being in the Matrix is possible but implausible. It's because we have zero evidence that we are in the Matrix, but we can't totally exclude it. Same with the supernatural, with the added problem that no-one can define it, whereas we have some idea about the Matrix.
An ontological materialist would exclude the supernatural completely, so not just implausible but impossible. Does anyone here say that? Dunno.
Well Wiggs I've put the question ''monist or dualist'' out there for atheists. No responders yet though.
-
Well Wiggs I've put the question ''monist or dualist'' out there for atheists. No responders yet though.
That looks like a false dichotomy to me. There are atheists who are neither. For example, Buddhists are very difficult to classify, as they may have no beliefs at all, not even in Buddhism. Hence, 'kill the Buddha', meaning get rid of the idolatry of belief. Famous book, 'Buddhism without beliefs', Batchelor.
-
No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of) to theism.
In other words theism can't be defended!
Now I have recovered from my massive coughing/laughing fit I can address your earlier MASSIVE non sequitur.
Just because someone does not accept you evidence (if it can be called that) does not mean that they will NOT as a point of principle accept evidence. Really, this was one of you biggest shockers yet.
Now, onto bigger issues.
As you know I joined this board because of the claims that a methodology existed that could demonstrate the truth of non natural, and specifically, divine claims.
You were one of the strongest supporters of this view.
You have just admitted that the defence of atheism is on a par with defence of ontological naturalism (as I say, we assume by this you mean that the natural is all that CAN exist).
Despite your assertions no one here thinks that. However, EVEN IF THEY DID you have now admitted that haven't got a methodology such as Hope claims, and the fact that the ontological naturalist would be equally wrong doesn't help you in any way.
I suspect you won't (understandably) give me your home address, but if you give the address of a PO Box I will send you the sling for your arse.
-
That looks like a false dichotomy to me. There are atheists who are neither. For example, Buddhists are very difficult to classify, as they may have no beliefs at all, not even in Buddhism. Hence, 'kill the Buddha', meaning get rid of the idolatry of belief. Famous book, 'Buddhism without beliefs', Batchelor.
Monism and Dualism a false dichotomy? I can't believe you are even suggesting that.
Perhaps I should have framed it monist or not.
I believe they aren't contributing because they all ponce chav-like around the forum with the philosophical equivalent of a hoodie and don't wish to be identified.
-
.....now go of and do something useful.
I would agree as trying to make any sense out of your posts is a complete waste of time, for anyone!
-
I think Vlad must have a dictionary beside his computer. He goes through it so he can try to dazzle us with the big words he discovers! ;D
-
I think Vlad must have a dictionary beside his computer. He goes through it so he can try to dazzle us with the big words he discovers! ;D
I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads ::)
-
I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads ::)
Be prepared to remain fed up for some time to come!
-
I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads ::)
I am getting bored with that word too. ::)
-
And who is a ontological naturalist?
I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.
whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.
So you are saying that there are theists who are ontological naturalists? That doesn't make sense.
ht
-
whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.
So you are saying that there are theists who are ontological naturalists? That doesn't make sense.
ht
Vlad uses big words in order to try to blind us to the fact he hasn't a clue what he is on about. ;D
-
Dear Horsethorn,
Yes, I am a ontologicalist. Although I am well aware I may be jumping into the abyss, entering the mind of Vlad.
An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that uses ontology. Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with an a priori theory about the organization of the universe. If that organizational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist.
1. The Universe works, oh yes it does!
2. This little world of ours works, oh yes it does!
3. Man, us, spend our whole lives trying to be small gods, oh yes we do! may be that is why God does not make his presence more noticeable, he/she/it is shit scared of what we have become and where we are going.
Gonnagle.
-
1. The Universe works, oh yes it does!
2. This little world of ours works, oh yes it does!
Interesting - what do you mean by 'works' - how could it not work?
3. Man, us, spend our whole lives trying to be small gods, oh yes we do! may be that is why God does not make his presence more noticeable, he/she/it is shit scared of what we have become and where we are going.
So, yours is not an omni- type god?
-
Dear Stranger,
how could it not work?
No gravity, no hydrogen, no entropy, hell I don't know, and neither do the scientists.
So, yours is not an omni- type god?
God is, yes omni is as good a word as any, but please allow me some poetic licence.
Gonnagle.
-
No gravity, no hydrogen, no entropy, hell I don't know, and neither do the scientists.
Why would that not be working?
God is, yes omni is as good a word as any, but please allow me some poetic licence.
Poetic licence; okay, but now I don't see why you think god is hiding.
-
Dear Stranger,
Why would that not be working?
EH!! Without gravity or hydrogen the Universe would not work, yes/no?
Poetic licence; okay, but now I don't see why you think god is hiding.
Well I in fact don't think God is hiding, I was being flippant or just silly, sue me!
Gonnagle.
-
EH!! Without gravity or hydrogen the Universe would not work, yes/no?
It would be different but, again, why would different be 'not working'?
Well I in fact don't think God is hiding...
Why can't I see it, then?
-
Dear Stranger,
EH!! Without gravity or hydrogen the Universe would not work, yes/no?
Well I in fact don't think God is hiding, I was being flippant or just silly, sue me!
Gonnagle.
Without gravity of hydrogen a universe would work yes. Just not this one. There is nothing special about this one though.
If god is not hiding, why can we not detect him easily?
-
Stephen Taylor - interesting point that you made earlier, that ontological naturalism (there is only nature) is on a a par with theism. Well, I think you were saying that.
I think you mean that neither can be defended. Well, there are obviously philosophers who are naturalists, but I'm not sure if they are 100% naturalists, and how they would argue for that. I suppose you could argue that we've never seen anything non-natural, therefore it is very unlikely that it exists. But then 'very unlikely' doesn't rule it out.
You could also argue that since the non-natural has never been defined, (and as you are saying, there is no method for demonstrating it), it can be dismissed. Hmm.
It's the point where the implausible becomes impossible, I don't know if there is such a point.
The comparison with the Matrix is interesting here - since the Matrix is very very unlikely and implausible, but I suppose one could stick one's neck out and say that it's impossible.
-
Dear Stranger,
I know where this is going, Fine tuning get yer fine tuning here, Am I on any safer ground with, this Universe, the one we occupy, the one we can study, or this World the one we occupy and lets not forget my third part of the equation, we are mere mortals trying to be gods.
Why can't I see it, then?
You have your God spot switched off.
Gonnagle.
-
I know where this is going, Fine tuning get yer fine tuning here, Am I on any safer ground with, this Universe, the one we occupy, the one we can study, or this World the one we occupy and lets not forget my third part of the equation, we are mere mortals trying to be gods.
Yes, well, the thing is, if this universe is supposed to be designed to make us (or allow for us) then it's damnably inefficient. There is the anthropic principle; only those parts of reality that are capable of supporting the existence of observers can ever be observed. That's part of an answer.
Thing is, I don't know how much of reality there is or why it is like it is but I see no reason to think there is an intelligence behind it and, even if we posit such a being, how do we then explain its existence? We end up explaining nothing; just moving the mysteries one step away and anthropomorphizing them. I refuse to call my ignorance god and worship it (that's a half remembered quote from somebody - not original).
You have your God spot switched off.
Since your god is omni- that will be its fault then; it's hiding from me.
-
Yes, well, the thing is, if this universe is supposed to be designed to make us (or allow for us) then it's damnably inefficient. There is the anthropic principle; only those parts of reality that are capable of supporting the existence of observers can ever be observed. That's part of an answer.
Thing is, I don't know how much of reality there is or why it is like it is but I see no reason to think there is an intelligence behind it and, even if we posit such a being, how do we then explain its existence? We end up explaining nothing; just moving the mysteries one step away and anthropomorphizing them. I refuse to call my ignorance god and worship it (that's a half remembered quote from somebody - not original).
Since your god is omni- that will be its fault then; it's hiding from me.
Exactly.
-
Ho Ho Ho Ho.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Seriously I need to lie down.
You are a funny guy.
Do you believe mocking believers is acceptable?
Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?
-
I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads ::)
I think, therefore I am....
Just keep thinking Rose you will know you exist... ;D
-
Dear Horsethorn,
Yes, I am a ontologicalist. Although I am well aware I may be jumping into the abyss, entering the mind of Vlad.
1. The Universe works, oh yes it does!
2. This little world of ours works, oh yes it does!
3. Man, us, spend our whole lives trying to be small gods, oh yes we do! may be that is why God does not make his presence more noticeable, he/she/it is shit scared of what we have become and where we are going.
Gonnagle.
Couldn't have anything to do with God revealing himself to mankind through the Prophets and Christ etc?
Revealing himself with Christ to believers in a personal relationship?
When we get to the nitty gritty, people ask for proof. When you ask what type of proof. They ask for him to show himself yet he is telling everyone that if they believe in Christ and obey his words he will show up and reveal himself.
You have God revealing the way to know him. And man ignoring the way wanting things his own way.
Arrogant to say you want to know if God is true and then ignoring the way he has made it possible.
A little like history repeating itself. Man wanting his own way over Gods way and ignoring what he is told.
God is the creator will you ever use your brain as he intended or your will to seek his truth?
A question all can ask themselves and then try and answer.
-
Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?
I wasn't mocking him because he was a believer, but because of the atrocious and dishonesty of the argument.
He was suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar. i.e. that if you don't accept his arguments then you are ontological naturalist.
However, I don't tell out and out lies like you do. How is the apology coming along by the way? Doesn't need to a long one, just to say that you were totally wrong to say that I have discriminated against Christians.
-
Do you believe mocking believers is acceptable?
Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?
And your posts aren't mocking are they? ;D ;D ;D
-
I wasn't mocking him because he was a believer, but because of the atrocious and dishonesty of the argument.
He was suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar. i.e. that if you don't accept his arguments then you are ontological naturalist.
However, I don't tell out and out lies like you do. How is the apology coming along by the way? Doesn't need to a long one, just to say that you were totally wrong to say that I have discriminated against Christians.
How are you getting on with that apology. Really, one line will be sufficient.
-
How are you getting on with that apology. Really, one line will be sufficient.
Stephen. Are you asking for an apology from yourself?
-
Stephen. Are you asking for an apology from yourself?
No, from Sassy - she accused him of discriminating against Christians.
-
Without gravity of hydrogen a universe would work yes. Just not this one. There is nothing special about this one though.
If god is not hiding, why can we not detect him easily?
If their is hiding it might be in the sense you are playing hide and seek with him.
There is nothing special about this universe? You have seen another one?
If not then you are trouser talking again.
-
If their is hiding it might be in the sense you are playing hide and seek with him.
Hide and seek as a game tends to rely on there being at least two parties known to each other however.
-
Do you believe mocking believers is acceptable?
Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?
Why not?
Your holy book refers to unbelievers as fools.
-
Couldn't have anything to do with God revealing himself to mankind through the Prophets and Christ etc?
Revealing himself with Christ to believers in a personal relationship?
When we get to the nitty gritty, people ask for proof. When you ask what type of proof. They ask for him to show himself yet he is telling everyone that if they believe in Christ and obey his words he will show up and reveal himself.
You have God revealing the way to know him. And man ignoring the way wanting things his own way.
Arrogant to say you want to know if God is true and then ignoring the way he has made it possible.
A little like history repeating itself. Man wanting his own way over Gods way and ignoring what he is told.
God is the creator will you ever use your brain as he intended or your will to seek his truth?
A question all can ask themselves and then try and answer.
Did your god show up for you?
-
Stephen. Are you asking for an apology from yourself?
He wants an apology from me because I told the truth about him.
He is wolf in sheeps clothing.. Mocks believers and even their beliefs. He says he is sat on the fence but the fence is imaginary and his posts can be belittling as was his reply to you.
He needs to apologise for pretending.
-
Why not?
Your holy book refers to unbelievers as fools.
Whose book?
That right... it is Gods book. You going to take it up with him? Why is that? Because you haven't the first idea what is written in the book but think you understand what it really says...
-
He wants an apology from me because I told the truth about him.
He is wolf in sheeps clothing.. Mocks believers and even their beliefs. He says he is sat on the fence but the fence is imaginary and his posts can be belittling as was his reply to you.
He needs to apologise for pretending.
Mockery is not discrimination, and you accused him of discrimination.
-
GRRRrrrrrr, sorry I mean Baaaaaaaaaaa
He wants an apology from me because I told the truth about him.
No, you told a straight out lie.
He says he is sat on the fence but the fence is imaginary and his posts can be belittling as was his reply to you.
He needs to apologise for pretending.
What fence? When have I ever claimed to sit on the fence?
-
Whose book?
That right... it is Gods book. You going to take it up with him? Why is that? Because you haven't the first idea what is written in the book but think you understand what it really says...
Such a shame your god couldn't be content with just the one book.
Still, it's funny to hear you complaining about being mocked when your holy book does just that to non-believers.
I guess it's that persecution complex you have.
-
Mockery is not discrimination, and you accused him of discrimination.
Re: Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing
« Reply #55 on: April 08, 2016, 10:43:22 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Stephen Taylor on April 07, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?
I just can't understand it at all.
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
Doesn't work does it? Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.
You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?
Shaker get your facts right before you attempt to stir things up....
Stephen tried to maintain he was on the fence with no beliefs one way or the other. But so far he has disproved any claim by his discrimnation and the fact he mocked Christians.
Do keep up, and keep the above with you. Is it still throbbing the fact you were called out?
-
Re: Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing
« Reply #55 on: April 08, 2016, 10:43:22 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Stephen Taylor on April 07, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?
I just can't understand it at all.
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
Doesn't work does it? Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.
You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?
People can twist things many ways. But I believe it is clear why I called Stephen Taylor out.
He needs to apologise and so does Shaker now....Fat chance, hey?
-
Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?
Doesn't work does it? Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.
You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?
Shaker get your facts right before you attempt to stir things up....
Stephen tried to maintain he was on the fence with no beliefs one way or the other. But so far he has disproved any claim by his discrimnation and the fact he mocked Christians.
Do keep up, and keep the above with you. Is it still throbbing the fact you were called out?
Still telling lies I see.
-
People can twist things many ways. But I believe it is clear why I called Stephen Taylor out.
He needs to apologise and so does Shaker now....Fat chance, hey?
You can barely open your mouth without lying can you.
My comments were directed at those who wanted to treat people differently in law based on their sexuality. e.g. same sex marriage should not be allowed.
That is what discrimination is.
You need to show where I have suggested that Christians should be treated differently in law based on the fact that they are Christians.
You won't be able to find such evidence because that is not what I believe.
So stop lying about me and apologise.