David, The Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 2.6 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2012, 11:44 AM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 11:29 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 08:41 AM)The Theist Wrote:  What bridge are you trying to build? What do you mean by that? I certainly wouldn't want to destroy anything someone was trying to build.

A relationship of mutual respect and understanding between atheists and theists. An understanding that we aren't at odds with each other; we simply believe differently - and your beliefs are all right as well as mine because they are our own.

An understanding that theists shouldn't try to convert atheists through preaching and debate. A person cannot convert - that is God's job.

An understanding that theists should first build a relationship with others before sharing their beliefs, and to not force their beliefs onto anyone; and to only discuss beliefs if the other person asks.

I also try to promote that not all theists are:
1) unintelligent
2) arrogant
3) self promoting
4) closed minded
5) mental gymnasts
6) unwilling to have fair debates
7) try to prove a point through vague, complicated theological gibberish (opposite of lucid)

So far, this crusade on TTA has been wildly unsuccessful - as most theists violate these things multiple times in their intro post alone.

Man, why is everyone so hard on the guy? Maybe it's time for the atheists (and Calvinists) to chill out some. KC, you fit in well here, and you've figured out a good way of interacting to achieve positive results. But I think David needs to find his own way to communicate here, and I, for one, am optimistic that he'll be successful.

Remember, the intro thread is always the most volatile when a new theist joins the forum. You can't call a new endeavor wildly unsuccessful when it's still in it's fledgling stages.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
19-10-2012, 12:40 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 11:44 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 11:29 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  A relationship of mutual respect and understanding between atheists and theists. An understanding that we aren't at odds with each other; we simply believe differently - and your beliefs are all right as well as mine because they are our own.

An understanding that theists shouldn't try to convert atheists through preaching and debate. A person cannot convert - that is God's job.

An understanding that theists should first build a relationship with others before sharing their beliefs, and to not force their beliefs onto anyone; and to only discuss beliefs if the other person asks.

I also try to promote that not all theists are:
1) unintelligent
2) arrogant
3) self promoting
4) closed minded
5) mental gymnasts
6) unwilling to have fair debates
7) try to prove a point through vague, complicated theological gibberish (opposite of lucid)

So far, this crusade on TTA has been wildly unsuccessful - as most theists violate these things multiple times in their intro post alone.

Man, why is everyone so hard on the guy? Maybe it's time for the atheists (and Calvinists) to chill out some. KC, you fit in well here, and you've figured out a good way of interacting to achieve positive results. But I think David needs to find his own way to communicate here, and I, for one, am optimistic that he'll be successful.

Remember, the intro thread is always the most volatile when a new theist joins the forum. You can't call a new endeavor wildly unsuccessful when it's still in it's fledgling stages.

It's the method of presentation.

I didn't come in trying to explode my theological knowledge on everyone. I just wanted to be a part of a community.

Others who have done it: Sharks, Spectre, Anothersinner... and... and I think that's about it...

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 12:57 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 12:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 11:44 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Man, why is everyone so hard on the guy? Maybe it's time for the atheists (and Calvinists) to chill out some. KC, you fit in well here, and you've figured out a good way of interacting to achieve positive results. But I think David needs to find his own way to communicate here, and I, for one, am optimistic that he'll be successful.

Remember, the intro thread is always the most volatile when a new theist joins the forum. You can't call a new endeavor wildly unsuccessful when it's still in it's fledgling stages.

It's the method of presentation.

I didn't come in trying to explode my theological knowledge on everyone. I just wanted to be a part of a community.

Others who have done it: Sharks, Spectre, Anothersinner... and... and I think that's about it...
And I very much admire your approach. All I'm sayin is, it's not the only one. Perhaps David IS here to share/test his theological knowledge. Some forum members may not like that, but it doesn't make the presentation wrong. Just less popular.

My opinion is that if you, me, David, or anyone else here, takes even the smallest bit of knowledge, change in critical thinking, or positivity from the discussion, I would call it wildly successful.

But what the hell do I know? Wink

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
19-10-2012, 01:02 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 12:57 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 12:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  It's the method of presentation.

I didn't come in trying to explode my theological knowledge on everyone. I just wanted to be a part of a community.

Others who have done it: Sharks, Spectre, Anothersinner... and... and I think that's about it...
And I very much admire your approach. All I'm sayin is, it's not the only one. Perhaps David IS here to share/test his theological knowledge. Some forum members may not like that, but it doesn't make the presentation wrong. Just less popular.

My opinion is that if you, me, David, or anyone else here, takes even the smallest bit of knowledge, change in critical thinking, or positivity from the discussion, I would call it wildly successful.

But what the hell do I know? Wink

Fair enough.

@David

While I don't agree in the least with your approach or your theology, you are entitled to it.

I apologize for my quasi-condemnation of it.

Carry on.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
19-10-2012, 02:06 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 09:15 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Your question: Was Adam a real person? Yes. He was listed in the legal genealogy as a father to children, therefore we can safely assume that he was, at least according to the writers of the Bible, a real person. He was referenced as a real person by future writers of the Bible. They didn't think of him as allegorical.

Hahahahaha. What "legal" "geneology" ?
You have not addressed the dating questions ? DNA, Geology.
This is evidence of "confirmation bias".
If a "future" writer talks about Harry Potter, that does not make Harry Potter a real person. You are just so full of your crappy fallacies today, Conflicted Gay Theist. Your confirmation bias is proven by your "there is no sources that can compare to the Bible". You can say that again.The Bible is 100 % mythical. LOL. What is the "standard" for confirmation'. Deluded texts by deluded authors are confirmation of nothing. Try harder please.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2012 02:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 08:36 AM)The Theist Wrote:  How ridiculous is it to say that Adam didn't exist? How you going to test that negative? You going to dismiss, what is, according to the Father of modern Science, Sir Isaac Newton said was the most remarkable of all ancient histories?

Irrelevant. Everyone makes mistakes. Einstein made many. No one appeals to Newton to discuss a field in which he was not an expert. Argument from Authority Fallacy. Deflection. Affirming a Disjunct, Ecological Fallacy, Fallacy of Composition, Fallacy of Division, Historian's Fallacy, etc etc etc. Please provide links to the Harris Project Reason, and your contributions to it. I have this sneaking suspicion you may vastly overrate your contributions, especially if they are anything like the posts here. You are a literalist. Mainline scholarship has moved out of those dark ages, literally hundreds of years ago. If you dismiss the Documentary Hypothesis, (which you did without giving any reasons), there is also the Fragmentary Hypothesis, and other developments. The fact you have shown no knowledge of Form Criticism, Textual Criticism, acknowledged why you dismiss allegory and context as legitimate, or the use of polemic as legitimate, proves you are simply an amateur. "Hell" is not your problem here. It's forest for the trees.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-10-2012, 02:39 PM
David, The Theist
You probably don't understand, because you were self taught, but Adam isn't a name. It's the word for Man. And the word translated Eve roughly means source of living things. So there wasn't an actual couple named Adam and Eve.

I also wish you would go back to the original languages and stop calling the OT god Jehovah. That's a nonsensical name for god created by the German school of Higher Criticism. It was an attempt by German scholars to pronounce an unpronounceable Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Likely the only acceptable pronunciation is Yahweh. People who still say Jehovah are showing their academic ignorance.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Erxomai's post
19-10-2012, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2012 03:14 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 08:30 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 10:22 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  If god is a being which no greater can be conceived than my ability to conceive a god who is capable of doing anything instantly refutes your case.

Refutes my case? You prescribe the God you can't conceive?

The attributes of God are specific characteristics of God discussed in Christian theology.

Aseity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Incomprehensibility
Infinity
Jealousy
Love
Mission
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
Sovereignty
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity
Wrath

(19-10-2012 08:30 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 10:22 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Any god who is limited is not a god, rather a god like being.

What an uninformed statement. In the guise of the intellectual? A god is anything that is mighty or venerated. Dagon, Molech, Baal, the Sumerian King defied upon his death, Tammuz . . . a stick, a stone, money, knitting, boating, sex, fertility, crops, harvest, the sun, the moon, the energy around you. The upper balcony in a theater, the people in that balcony, Eric Clapton, Frodo, anything you want it to be.

You are confused by the Sopherim's superstitious removal of the Tetragrammaton
from the Hebrew scriptures. You think the word God means a mythical magic man in the sky.

Jehovah became the God of Israel. You catch that?
Name: Jehovah.
Title: God.

Or . . .

Name: Tammuz.
Title: God.

Consider

might·y (mt)
adj. might·i·er, might·i·est
1. Having or showing great power, skill, strength, or force: a mighty orator; a mighty blow.
2. Imposing or awesome in size, degree, or extent: a mighty stone fortress.

Definition of VENERATE
1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion

By merits of your own definition so many things are gods that it it would lose its meaning.

(19-10-2012 08:30 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 10:22 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  What you have done is called rationalization. A method in which we lie to our selves to eliminate cognitive dissonance.

Uh-huh.

Rationalization

In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means. Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).

According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."

Now I'm sure your are a very cool person, but I will test the limits of your theology.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
19-10-2012, 03:13 PM
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 11:29 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  7) try to prove a point through vague, complicated theological gibberish (opposite of lucid)

Hmm... yep, that's what drove me away from religion in the first place. The fact that not, as in science, you can do stuff for yourself. Whenever you have a question on religion, the deeper you dig, the more whoever you're asking references "most scholars" or some authority. At least with e.g. maths/physics/chem/any other science you can cross check the facts yourself. David the Theist seems to think that anyone without detailed knowledge of ancient Hebrew is unqualified to dismiss claims about magic allegedly performed 2000 years ago.

All this crap of ancient scriptures is exactly crap. Why if every damn person misinterprets the bible because of lousy translation do we have such lousy translations? You're aware that legions of scholars worked on those translations? My own bible supplies alternate versions of the words. Why now suddenly are you guys all experts on what was *really* said - self taught experts, not caring what any other scholar thinks? *I* think it's because you like a particular way a verse *should* sound, then *force* it to fit, by saying "oh but it was mistranslated".

In addition, before we get to arguing about translations, can we look at the basic content? We're asserting that Mr Invisible *cares* about us, or 144000 of us, or whatever and doesn't like homosexuals. The proof of this is a dodgy badly translated document which is *also* clear and logical proof that some guy saved me (if I so desire) from a dreadful fate by getting nailed by the government of the day and waking up to tell the story 3 days later.

Also, are the JWs keeping count of the possible numbers in heaven yet? 'Cos once it hits 144000 there's no real point in carrying on is there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
19-10-2012, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2012 04:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: David, The Theist
(19-10-2012 02:39 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  You probably don't understand, because you were self taught, but Adam isn't a name. It's the word for Man. And the word translated Eve roughly means source of living things. So there wasn't an actual couple named Adam and Eve.

I also wish you would go back to the original languages and stop calling the OT god Jehovah. That's a nonsensical name for god created by the German school of Higher Criticism. It was an attempt by German scholars to pronounce an unpronounceable Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Likely the only acceptable pronunciation is Yahweh. People who still say Jehovah are showing their academic ignorance.

"Eve" came from the Babylonian system, :

"The most important myth for our purpose here, is Marduk slaying the Dragon of Chaos, (Tiamat). First here are a few of the other well known Babylonian myths, just to get a feel what the themes were, in general. Then I'll tell the Marduk story.
Enki, the (supreme and Water-god, and God of wisdom), impregnates his half-sister, Nin-Hursang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninhursag . Enki wants a boy, but gets a girl. Then he impregnates the daughter, who also has a daughter. Nin-Hursang decides to stop all this immoral stuff by sowing eight poisonous plants in the garden. Enki eats the plants, and becomes ill. One of the sick organs is his rib. Nin-ti is created to heal Enki. Her name means, "she who makes live". Nin-ti means the same thing as the Hebrew word for "Eve". Nin-ti, is usually translated as the "lady of the rib". "Ti" means "to make live". Note : "Eve" is translated from the Hebrew
chavvaòh , for lifegiver, as in "the mother of all living." Its root,
Chaya, means "serpent" in Aramaic. Eve and serpent are taken to be synonymous. Thus a "pun" is set up in the Hebrew, (which was used later).


Adam, is also a link to the "system" in the Talmud. The "Adam-Kademon".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...c+origins.

And guess what folks ? These were not found by me, so I can't take either the credit or the blame.
These are actually somewhat sad, actually. Maybe we could start this whole thing over, from scratch, and set some ground rules for evidence, and Logic. Maybe. Consider

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...clnk&gl=us

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31535

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...clnk&gl=us

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: