Intro -- from a Christian :)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2012, 03:40 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(12-12-2012 04:33 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
(12-12-2012 03:20 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  You are right, I don't think I can quote that, mostly because I am far too lazy to look, but that raises the question:
If you only started there, than you must logically have other reasons. So what are they?

I have already stated my intent. Garnering other viewpoints and maybe learn a thing or two (like I had already learned about a-theism).

Quote:Also I am highly dubious that you started with the bibal (yes, pronounced bib al), didn't you say you were raised in the YEC position, thus giving the impression that you were indoctrinated in it and started with your parents, not the bibal?

No. Actually, I began my viewpoint under the auspices that the earth was somewhere north of 15 billion years old. Over several years' time, I changed my viewpoint to the young earth creationist perspective, which was actually different than my parent's perspective.

Quote:As I pointed out to Erxomai, responses like Muffs's are likely a conditioned response due to dealing with people like yourself who spend their time defending the indefensible and are generally very ignorant of the in-defensibility of their position, and of the world around.

To a point, this is understood. I just don't normally start judging anyone I first meet until they give me explicit evidence that they're really off their rocker.

But, to each his/her own.

Quote:2. You've said previously that you dislike things like gay sexual habits, and are opposed to gay marriage, due to a very dumb reason (al la your thing about it voiding marriage itself, or something like that). To a degree that could be described as homophobia, I would not go that far, I simply call you ignorant of the matter however.

3. No, the point is valid. You expressed that you were raised in the faith, did you not? That, and your ignorance of opposing or contradictory christian stances indicates that you were heavily indoctrinated into the faith, or as Muffs put it "brainwashed", and your attempts at avoiding answering some harder questions does indicate some level of sub-conscious fear of being challenged here.

Rationally-speaking, I don't see how ignorance of a point is or should be equated to being heavily indoctrinated with some point.

Personally, I do my best to suspend any previous belief if I'm going to take on a new thought. I kind of have to, else the new viewpoint doesn't stand a chance and learning would never happen.

Quote:... You chosen actions are totally irrelevant to the "fearful accusation" from Muffs, you avoid and dodge questions asked of you as if you are afraid of answering the questions and being faced with rebuttals.

The operative phrase you've just used is, "as if." Not afraid of answering questions, but am afraid of treating a response without the dignity of more than a short answer if it deserves such. And I think these hefty questions do.

Quote:....Of course people will bring up hell, you believe in it, and I feel confident in saying that many people here hold the idea that "All beliefs are to be questioned", similar to my own position. If you cannot answer to questions pertaining to hell, admit you have no good answer.

Yes, I admit to believing in hell, and yes, my particular belief system pretty much demands it. However, the *rationale* for it is a completely different issue, and to this day I continue questioning said rationale.

But you're falling into the propter hoc fallacy. Just because I, per se, do not have an immediate answer to your question, it does not necessarily follow that I *cannot* provide one. While I do have a few answers pertaining to hell, some of those answers are built on other concepts that have to be understood to have a good *overall* understanding of hell.

This is that "dignity of a longer answer" to which I was referring.

Quote:....Didn't you say you were against abortion unless the pregnant woman was at risk (or something to that effect)? At's basically a slightly lenient "pro-life" stance.

Yes. I can agree with that.

Quote:....No, given your stated reasons, it makes you ignorant of the issue at hand, and are simply expressing an uneducated position, as I said previously, that could be taken as homophobic, but I shan't go that far.
....Now here is the fun part. I want you to take a look into the history of the bible, look at all the myths it was based on, and have a look at the Documentary Hypothesis while you are at it, and then look at the well over 41,000 + sects of christanity and whatever other religions you can think of and ask yourself "What is the likelihood that my specific interpretation is correct, and all these others are wrong?" Every single one of them claims to be the truth and that the others are wrong, logically all of them must be wrong, at least to some degree. So why do you presume your's are right above others?
Or at least ask yourself if you have the real story here.

Now *there's* a very good, very specific question. Here's how the logic goes, because I don't think you've taken it out far enough:

Going beyond the question of which religions are claiming to be true (along with the assumption that truth is self-evident and, therefore, knowable), let's say that the Grand Peanut Butter Faith is true, and now we're arguing over interpretations that Peanut Butter is really either chunky or smooth.

Therefore, we have the following posits:

1. They are both wrong;
2. One is wrong, therefore the other is right;
3. Not enough evidence has come to light, so it's a net-net gray area, for the time being.

Now, on the larger question of which *religion* is correct (because at least the Big Three ™ - Judaism, Islam, and Christianity -- claim to be exclusive in their claims), only one of the following can logically be true:

1. One is right and all others are wrong;
2. They are all wrong

In my experience, I don't think the issue is really whether or not the truth is out there, but whether or not the truth is accepted/tolerated.

Quote:I'll end this wall of text here with this final comment.


You have stepped into the arena, you've literally no one to blame but yourself if you cannot answer the questions being shot your way. If you posit something to be true, as you do with your god, you had best be ready to step up to the batters position and be ready to defend your assertion, if you cannot do that, withdraw your assertion of truth or withdraw from the arena.

That being said; I cannot help but think their may be some hope of breaking you out of your indoctrination.

As such, here's a suggestion; You and I (or somebody more knowledgeable) step into the Boxing Ring and have a one on one, I (or whomever) asks, and you can answer and vice versa, no interruptions from anybody else, just the two having a civil sparing match, what do you say?
Can one honestly say that he is convinced of the existence of a being
whose nature is not known, who remains inaccessible to all our senses,
and of whose qualities we are constantly assured that they are
incomprehensible to us? In order to persuade me that a being exists, or
can exist, he must begin by telling me what this being is; in order to
make me believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, he
must tell me things about him which are not contradictory, and which do
not destroy one another; finally, in order to convince me fully of the
existence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can
comprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whom
he attributes these qualities does not exist.

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
13-12-2012, 03:49 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(12-12-2012 11:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-12-2012 04:10 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  Really, I'm not all that bad Smile

You seem all right to me. A bit delusional perhaps, but who the fuck ain't. Hell I'm my own personal Jesus. The fuck's up with that. Wink

(12-12-2012 04:10 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  As much as I know that earmuffs despises my very existence, I figured I'd take a shot at answering some of his ... concerns:

You're taking some 20 yo MuffinHead far too seriously, I don't.

(12-12-2012 04:10 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  First, I don't prance, I skip.

Girly just sashays and does his little turn on the catwalk.



Now *that* is the appropriate response to my most recent wall o'text on this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 03:40 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(12-12-2012 04:33 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  ...
Now *there's* a very good, very specific question. Here's how the logic goes, because I don't think you've taken it out far enough:

Going beyond the question of which religions are claiming to be true (along with the assumption that truth is self-evident and, therefore, knowable), let's say that the Grand Peanut Butter Faith is true, and now we're arguing over interpretations that Peanut Butter is really either chunky or smooth.

Therefore, we have the following posits:

1. They are both wrong;
2. One is wrong, therefore the other is right;
3. Not enough evidence has come to light, so it's a net-net gray area, for the time being.

Now, on the larger question of which *religion* is correct (because at least the Big Three ™ - Judaism, Islam, and Christianity -- claim to be exclusive in their claims), only one of the following can logically be true:

1. One is right and all others are wrong;
2. They are all wrong

In my experience, I don't think the issue is really whether or not the truth is out there, but whether or not the truth is accepted/tolerated.
Can one honestly say that he is convinced of the existence of a being
whose nature is not known, who remains inaccessible to all our senses,
and of whose qualities we are constantly assured that they are
incomprehensible to us? In order to persuade me that a being exists, or
can exist, he must begin by telling me what this being is; in order to
make me believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, he
must tell me things about him which are not contradictory, and which do
not destroy one another; finally, in order to convince me fully of the
existence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can
comprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whom
he attributes these qualities does not exist.

This being an intro thread (and I have apparently been challenged to *two* simultaneous boxing matches on the other side of the building), I will simply respond according to the following.

Your last line said it all:

Quote:"...finally, in order to convince me fully of the existence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can comprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whom he attributes these qualities does not exist."

The first part of the sentence wouldn't be so bad (again, assuming I'm attempting to do any conversions, which I'm not) if it weren't for the second part.

It would be intellectually dishonest of me and my faith to *prove* that it is *impossible* that God does *not* exist, aside from the gargantuan task that would be involved in attempting to prove a negative. After all, isn't that the point of a-theism?

While I wish I could claim this thought as originating from me, I cannot: If I could explicitly prove with 100% certainty based on the natural realm-based evidence that God does, in fact, exist, then you could not have any free will at all (regardless of any philosophical beliefs that might prevent you from possessing free will).

In other words, it would be morally wrong of God to not permit the possibility of disbelief.

That's all I'm saying about this at this time since we are, after all, in an intro thread Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 04:12 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 04:07 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  In other words, it would be morally wrong of God to not permit the possibility of disbelief.
Calvinists don't seem to have a problem with that. Sleepy

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 04:16 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 04:07 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 03:40 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Can one honestly say that he is convinced of the existence of a being
whose nature is not known, who remains inaccessible to all our senses,
and of whose qualities we are constantly assured that they are
incomprehensible to us? In order to persuade me that a being exists, or
can exist, he must begin by telling me what this being is; in order to
make me believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, he
must tell me things about him which are not contradictory, and which do
not destroy one another; finally, in order to convince me fully of the
existence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can
comprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whom
he attributes these qualities does not exist.

This being an intro thread (and I have apparently been challenged to *two* simultaneous boxing matches on the other side of the building), I will simply respond according to the following.

Your last line said it all:

Quote:"...finally, in order to convince me fully of the existence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can comprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whom he attributes these qualities does not exist."

The first part of the sentence wouldn't be so bad (again, assuming I'm attempting to do any conversions, which I'm not) if it weren't for the second part.

It would be intellectually dishonest of me and my faith to *prove* that it is *impossible* that God does *not* exist, aside from the gargantuan task that would be involved in attempting to prove a negative. After all, isn't that the point of a-theism?

While I wish I could claim this thought as originating from me, I cannot: If I could explicitly prove with 100% certainty based on the natural realm-based evidence that God does, in fact, exist, then you could not have any free will at all (regardless of any philosophical beliefs that might prevent you from possessing free will).

In other words, it would be morally wrong of God to not permit the possibility of disbelief.

That's all I'm saying about this at this time since we are, after all, in an intro thread Wink
You fail to understand even your own faith. Mere belief in him doesn't mean that you will automatically be saved. From there you'd have to believe in Jesus, repent for your sins, and follow his law in the bible.

His unavailing of his existence in no way interferes with free will.

Some would even take up a revolt against him.

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
13-12-2012, 07:12 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 04:07 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  [
In other words, it would be morally wrong of God to not permit the possibility of disbelief.

Swing! And a miss. Sad

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
13-12-2012, 07:29 PM
Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 07:12 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 04:07 PM)Phil_GA Wrote:  [
In other words, it would be morally wrong of God to not permit the possibility of disbelief.

Swing! And a miss. Sad

He's probably never met a real prophet before. Cut the kid some slack.

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
13-12-2012, 08:04 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 07:29 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 07:12 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Swing! And a miss. Sad

He's probably never met a real prophet before. Cut the kid some slack.
I got yer slack right here. Care to take it up?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 08:08 PM
Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 08:04 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 07:29 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  He's probably never met a real prophet before. Cut the kid some slack.
I got yer slack right here. Care to take it up?

Perv.

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
13-12-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(13-12-2012 08:08 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 08:04 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I got yer slack right here. Care to take it up?

Perv.
You would know... Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: