How I See Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2013, 06:02 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 06:06 AM by Vosur.)
RE: How I See Christianity
I was going to wait until you have responded to all of my posts so that my answers aren't all over the place again, but here goes anyway.

(04-01-2013 04:08 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It's easy for me to mistakely misrepresent someone, especially in forums or text messages.
I repeatedly have to reread over peoples statements in order to understand them fully.
Anyways, I believe I understand what you're saying - so I'll continue on that.

Basically, what I think you're saying is that until I prove Gods existence, anything else (with a premise concluding his existence) is without value or meaning (null and void).
Correct.

(04-01-2013 04:08 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  What I'm trying to say is that I can still rationalize through premise's to find their validity or logic. It's a way of being Hypothetical to give the claim it's fair trial.
Can you please rephrase that? The odd structuring makes it hard to understand what you meant.

(04-01-2013 04:08 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I am less inclined to believe that God does not exist until otherwise proven to exist. More inclined to find the more probable conclusion and lean on that until a different conclusion is revealed to be more probable.
Now we're finally getting somewhere. As I've said previously, what I'm interested in is the reasoning behind your conclusion. I think that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient creator of the Universe who cares about the affairs of mortals and wants them to be in a place of eternal bliss forever highly improbable. I want to know why you think that the existence of such a being is more probable than improbable.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 06:07 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 01:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(04-01-2013 01:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  Don't think you've answered the question. How are babies evil by *any* moral standard ? And does baby spilling his cereal deliberately really equate to sin ? As in the kind of sin that results in hellfire & punishment.

I indeed gave a response, so I think what you mean is that I didn't answer the question to your satisfaction.

This is honestly a Theological problem, so for me to babble along about something that even I am not even proficient in is firstly a "bad thing" to do.

Let me at least address your "How are babies evil by *any* moral standard?" so I can at least show you where you're misunderstanding something -

If there are different moral standards than humans (Lets use freakn aliens for crying out loud since sometimes Atheists get pissy at me for using God), it would not be far fetched to see these morals as irrational morals from a human standpoint.

Ok, so lets say that these aliens are from a planet that is about 2 billion lightyears away (or whatever).
These aliens have an intelligence somewhat like humans (or whatever), that being said, they consequently have a moral standard (perhaps, but for the sake of this conversation - they do).

If in their moral standard, they believe it is morally wrong to be born of a certain material (ie. human flesh) than that is their standard. Albeit, the standard is relative to these aliens, but it is indeed their standard and not humans.

So back to your question - "How are babies evil by *any* moral standard?"
Even if Humans are the only intelligent beings in existence, then we can still say that it is possible that babies are evil by someones moral standard. The reason is because people are generally relative in their moral standards. So someone from alabama could whole-heartedly believe that we are born with a morally flawed disposition just because that's what they believe (Without religious influence).

SO back to your question again - "How are babies evil by *any* moral standard?" is a relatively flawed question given that we understand humans to have a relative, subjective outlook on morals. You're essentially saying that in all of humanity, you have running knowledge that every moral standard (for which there are as many as there are humans alive) does not include that which believes that babies are evil from birth.

Did I misunderstand you, or did I just OCD you?

lol
Actually the flaw is in your belief. You also don't even understand what you profess.
This is not surprising, as the concept of original sin is an ugly, anti-human fairy tale.

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
04-01-2013, 06:07 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 05:55 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  We are not offended because we think you are somehow superior. We think that you believe that you are, which is why we need to put you in your place.
Please refrain from speaking for anyone but yourself. Thank you.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 05:57 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(04-01-2013 05:55 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  We are not offended because we think you are somehow superior. We think that you believe that you are, which is why we need to put you in your place. By making the statement above, you are pretty much admitting to feeling superior.



By saying I'm not superior, I'm admitting to the opposite? I don't follow your logic.



You are wrong again. By thinking that we are offended for that kind of a reason, you are assuming there is a reason for us to come to the same conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 06:10 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 06:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-01-2013 05:55 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  We are not offended because we think you are somehow superior. We think that you believe that you are, which is why we need to put you in your place. By making the statement above, you are pretty much admitting to feeling superior.
Please refrain from speaking for anyone but yourself. Thank you.


I was mainly speaking for myself, I should have worded that differently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 06:20 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 06:02 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-01-2013 04:08 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  What I'm trying to say is that I can still rationalize through premise's to find their validity or logic. It's a way of being Hypothetical to give the claim it's fair trial.
Can you please rephrase that? The odd structuring makes it hard to understand what you meant.

Basically, the conclusion being false does not make the premises false.
The premise being false does not necessarily make the conclusion false and so on.
The process is Hypothetical to find reason or logic and fit the puzzle peices together.

You see what I'm saying? What it looks like you're saying is that we should assume that God does not exist and that until it is absolutely proven that He does exist, all other premises that lead to the conclusion that he even remotely could exist are thereby false.
Am I close? lol


(04-01-2013 06:02 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-01-2013 04:08 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I am less inclined to believe that God does not exist until otherwise proven to exist. More inclined to find the more probable conclusion and lean on that until a different conclusion is revealed to be more probable.
Now we're finally getting somewhere. As I've said previously, what I'm interested in is the reasoning behind your conclusion. I think that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient creator of the Universe who cares about the affairs of mortals and wants them to be in a place of eternal bliss forever highly improbable. I want to know why you think that the existence of such a being is more probable than improbable.

The reasons that convince me of this probability are the very reasons you find the conclusion improbable.
That's the nature of different human perspectives I suppose.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 06:44 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 06:48 AM by Vosur.)
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 06:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Basically, the conclusion being false does not make the premises false.
The premise being false does not necessarily make the conclusion false and so on.
The process is Hypothetical to find reason or logic and fit the puzzle peices together.
Indeed, a conclusion can be valid independent of the validity of the argument's premises and vice versa. However, if you want to demonstrate that either of them have any merit, your argument needs to be sound. If your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises, then your argument is fallacious and essentially useless in a debate.

(04-01-2013 06:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You see what I'm saying? What it looks like you're saying is that we should assume that God does not exist and that until it is absolutely proven that He does exist, all other premises that lead to the conclusion that he even remotely could exist are thereby false.
Am I close? lol
No, I'm saying that assuming his existence without any supporting evidence is irrational. If the premises of your argument for the existence of god are correct and the conclusion follows from them, there is no reason for me to claim that it's false.

(04-01-2013 06:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The reasons that convince me of this probability are the very reasons you find the conclusion improbable.
I think that his existence is improbable because we have no evidence of his existence and because the attributes commonly ascribed to him contradict each other and don't match with reality.

How could that possibly be the reason you think that his existence is probable? If you don't mind, I'd like you to give me a brief summary of the reasons you think his existence is probable.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(04-01-2013 06:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Basically, the conclusion being false does not make the premises false.
The premise being false does not necessarily make the conclusion false and so on.
The process is Hypothetical to find reason or logic and fit the puzzle pieces together.

You see what I'm saying? What it looks like you're saying is that we should assume that God does not exist and that until it is absolutely proven that He does exist
As for the first point, in a valid argument if the conclusion is false, then the premises cannot all be true.


As for your second point, it does not need to be ABSOLUTELY proven that God exists. That is an exaggeration of the atheist position. Absolute certainty is impossible anyways. For all I know, I could be a brain in a jar dreaming everything. For me the standard would be the legal term "preponderance of evidence" -demonstrate that it is more likely than not.

Even if you were to demonstrate that a God exists, the next question would be "which God?" With the thousands of religions, current and extinct, and the millions of different interpretations of those religions, I don't see any reason to assume that Christianity is true. With Christianity's bloody history, I would say the evidence against that particular religion is overwhelming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: