Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2014, 09:12 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(26-11-2014 08:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A document used for a rule book isn't a hunch. The Bible contains tests and even uses words that are in English "testing". We don't answer quizzes on school on hunches, or at least we should not. We answer based on texts.

Whether or not your book is correct is unknowable at best, and no one has definitively proven it's contents to be true. Ever. Therefore, when you assert that it is correct, you're making an unfounded assertion. It is your opinion.

Now, you're entitled to that, and you can really, really believe it with your heart of hearts. I can't stop you, but that is what a hunch is. You don't get to redefine words because you don't like how they're used.


(26-11-2014 08:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And I would repeat that you are being inconsistent to only accuse a Christian of NTS rather than yourself or others. Why yourself? Because if I am a True Christian, I can successfully identify the right criteria, and you are saying I cannot do so, and indeed that no one can do so. A person who calls a True Christian inaccurate in their knowledge of what a True Christian is is guilty of NTS!

False equivocation.

I'm not saying you are or are not a true Christian. I'm saying it is impossible to demonstrate what a true Christian is in any way that is definitive. You have your definition, other Christians have other definitions, and neither of you can prove that your definition is correct.

So, I'm not saying your knowledge is inaccurate, because that'd be calling it wrong. I'm calling you not even wrong. Your statements cannot be evaluated as true or false (as much as you'd like to think they are). You need to learn about falsifiability.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RobbyPants's post
02-12-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(28-11-2014 09:12 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 08:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A document used for a rule book isn't a hunch. The Bible contains tests and even uses words that are in English "testing". We don't answer quizzes on school on hunches, or at least we should not. We answer based on texts.

Whether or not your book is correct is unknowable at best, and no one has definitively proven it's contents to be true. Ever. Therefore, when you assert that it is correct, you're making an unfounded assertion. It is your opinion.

Now, you're entitled to that, and you can really, really believe it with your heart of hearts. I can't stop you, but that is what a hunch is. You don't get to redefine words because you don't like how they're used.


(26-11-2014 08:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And I would repeat that you are being inconsistent to only accuse a Christian of NTS rather than yourself or others. Why yourself? Because if I am a True Christian, I can successfully identify the right criteria, and you are saying I cannot do so, and indeed that no one can do so. A person who calls a True Christian inaccurate in their knowledge of what a True Christian is is guilty of NTS!

False equivocation.

I'm not saying you are or are not a true Christian. I'm saying it is impossible to demonstrate what a true Christian is in any way that is definitive. You have your definition, other Christians have other definitions, and neither of you can prove that your definition is correct.

So, I'm not saying your knowledge is inaccurate, because that'd be calling it wrong. I'm calling you not even wrong. Your statements cannot be evaluated as true or false (as much as you'd like to think they are). You need to learn about falsifiability.

It's not a false equivocation, and it would be appreciated if you would address what I said there instead of dismissing it abruptly.

As for proving the Bible true, are you talking about verifying dates and place names and etc. which can be done via archaeology and other sciences or about the supernatural elements of scripture? If the supernatural, I know you know from your own background that the scriptures state in many different verses and books that those who are interested in God or inclined toward God will have God reveal Himself to them in turn.

Any statement on this forum from atheists asking (or chiding or demanding) proof has to be taken with a grain of salt as to whether they are sincere inquiries. This is de facto since the forum includes not merely atheists but those wanting atheist fellowship, atheist-seeker questions answered, and to indulge in the ever-popular pastime of mocking biblical Christianity. A quick look through this sub-forum confirms most threads are about taking potshots at Christians, particularly fundamentalists. You thus have created a straw man, "Q you cannot prove or falsify the truths of the scriptures and thus cannot define a real Christian."

It takes one to know one, and I'm one. Of course I can define what a real Christian is--a task which I take considerable care with, and for decades now, so I can witness to the lost and encourage and exhort the saved, accurately.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(26-11-2014 08:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 08:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Listen, we got off on the wrong foot here. I apologize. I would like to discuss your points from the Greek with you. I'm sure I would learn a lot. I'd ask only that we go a few points at a time because you put out a lot of points at once and my time is sometimes limited.

I always like to learn--but I do repeat that the Bible is clear on this point already. The Bible says Peter and John saw an empty tomb. Jesus had been buried in his sudarion and under pounds of spices. Seeing the empty cloth laying there, they believed in his bodily resurrection.

No. You don't know that at all.
The entire episode is surrounded by myth, (many others rising, (Matthew) the temple curtain being torn, the earthquake). In light of it's mythological setting, *what got written by humans many years later into the texts that ended up in the Bible*, (NOT "THE BIBLE SAYS"), tells of an encounter by two of the followers that insinuates that they experienced (metaphorically ... JUST LIKE THE OTHER METAPHORS IN THE SAME STORY), that the meaning of what they understood Jesus' life had been, had been altered. The Bible is FULL of the uses of literary devices. There is NO REASON not to think "the good news" is *metaphorically* attempting to say the event MEANT to them that Jesus was "exalted". You are interpreting something that is not necessarily there. You don't know
a. the motives of the authors of the text,
b. if the text at all contains any "truth" value, there is no way of knowing what they thought.

I'm open-minded here, but could I rephrase what you wrote as "No miracles can happen, so all miracles in the Bible MUST be metaphors"?

I get your point, I do, and while some people say the gospels are some sort of metaphorical messianic story, by Qumran'ers or other religious thinkers, there is a bias I would point out that underlies that hypothesis.

The other issue that comes to mind--and I'm not trying to fight with you--I'm just spit-balling an idea here, is what is metaphor and what is literal? If all the Bible's miracles are metaphors and not real events, what do we do with the hundreds of people names, place names and dates in the Bible?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(02-12-2014 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It takes one to know one, and I'm one. Of course I can define what a real Christian is--a task which I take considerable care with, and for decades now, so I can witness to the lost and encourage and exhort the saved, accurately.

That may be one of the harshest condemnations of Christianity I've seen on the site.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(02-12-2014 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's not a false equivocation, and it would be appreciated if you would address what I said there instead of dismissing it abruptly.

It was addressed; just not in a way that you liked.


(02-12-2014 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  As for proving the Bible true, are you talking about verifying dates and place names and etc. which can be done via archaeology and other sciences or about the supernatural elements of scripture?

I'm not talking about that. I don't particularly care whether or not a city named Bethlehem existed. That's neither here nor there when discussing the topic of you not being able to prove that your interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" one.


(02-12-2014 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If the supernatural, I know you know from your own background that the scriptures state in many different verses and books that those who are interested in God or inclined toward God will have God reveal Himself to them in turn.

I'm not saying the Bible doesn't say that. I am saying that it's a non-falsifiable statement and you cannot back it up. It holds as much water as Freud saying that people have repressed memories of their mother treating them poorly. If you agree with him, he's proven right. If you disagree with him, he'll simply say you've repressed the memory. So, when you say that God will reveal himself to me, if I agree, you're right. If I disagree, you just say he hasn't revealed himself yet.

Every bit of supernatural stuff in the Bible is nonfalsifiable. That's the whole reason it's even possible to doubt God exists. It's because he's nonfalsifiable.



So, that being cleared up, I can get back to what I was saying.

As much as you'd like to think you can, you cannot prove your god exists. Given that, your religious beliefs are nonfalsifiable. Other people who say they follow the same religion have different nonfalsifiable beliefs than you. Neither of you can prove your interpretation or beliefs are the "correct" ones. Ergo, neither of you has any more authority or credibility to state that you have the true definition of True Christian.

Now, before you tell me that the Bible says very objective things and you're a Biblical Christian and that's your justification: prove to me that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. No presupposition. No assertions. Prove it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
02-12-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
Fucken Q's still going?

OK Q fine. I admit it. You know what the fuck a true Christian is and you're the only one who knows. Just fuck off please. You only write drivel. I hate purveyors of drivel. It's fucken stinky. Go find a forum full of Christians and save them from yourself.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
02-12-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(02-12-2014 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm open-minded here, but could I rephrase what you wrote as "No miracles can happen, so all miracles in the Bible MUST be metaphors"?

I get your point, I do, and while some people say the gospels are some sort of metaphorical messianic story, by Qumran'ers or other religious thinkers, there is a bias I would point out that underlies that hypothesis.

The other issue that comes to mind--and I'm not trying to fight with you--I'm just spit-balling an idea here, is what is metaphor and what is literal? If all the Bible's miracles are metaphors and not real events, what do we do with the hundreds of people names, place names and dates in the Bible?

Open-minded? Fuh Q.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rik's post
02-12-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(02-12-2014 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm open-minded here, but could I rephrase what you wrote as "No miracles can happen, so all miracles in the Bible MUST be metaphors"?

I get your point, I do, and while some people say the gospels are some sort of metaphorical messianic story, by Qumran'ers or other religious thinkers, there is a bias I would point out that underlies that hypothesis.

The other issue that comes to mind--and I'm not trying to fight with you--I'm just spit-balling an idea here, is what is metaphor and what is literal? If all the Bible's miracles are metaphors and not real events, what do we do with the hundreds of people names, place names and dates in the Bible?

Why is this overrated Star Trek character still here?

Your god is fictional mate, suck it up and move on. For shit sake the Bible ain't even an interesting read let alone an accurate one. Time to grow up kiddo can't live in the lad of fairy tales and make believe forever.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
02-12-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(02-12-2014 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If all the Bible's miracles are metaphors and not real events, what do we do with the hundreds of people names, place names and dates in the Bible?

Try this :

[Image: bible-poo.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
02-12-2014, 05:33 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(02-12-2014 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 08:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. You don't know that at all.
The entire episode is surrounded by myth, (many others rising, (Matthew) the temple curtain being torn, the earthquake). In light of it's mythological setting, *what got written by humans many years later into the texts that ended up in the Bible*, (NOT "THE BIBLE SAYS"), tells of an encounter by two of the followers that insinuates that they experienced (metaphorically ... JUST LIKE THE OTHER METAPHORS IN THE SAME STORY), that the meaning of what they understood Jesus' life had been, had been altered. The Bible is FULL of the uses of literary devices. There is NO REASON not to think "the good news" is *metaphorically* attempting to say the event MEANT to them that Jesus was "exalted". You are interpreting something that is not necessarily there. You don't know
a. the motives of the authors of the text,
b. if the text at all contains any "truth" value, there is no way of knowing what they thought.

I'm open-minded here, but could I rephrase what you wrote as "No miracles can happen, so all miracles in the Bible MUST be metaphors"?

I get your point, I do, and while some people say the gospels are some sort of metaphorical messianic story, by Qumran'ers or other religious thinkers, there is a bias I would point out that underlies that hypothesis.

The other issue that comes to mind--and I'm not trying to fight with you--I'm just spit-balling an idea here, is what is metaphor and what is literal? If all the Bible's miracles are metaphors and not real events, what do we do with the hundreds of people names, place names and dates in the Bible?

What do we do with all the place names in Harry Potter?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: