It works for me!

Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
It works for me!

 

Faith in Jesus works for me - it's exciting.  I love the Bible and believe all of it - though there is mystery.  There is mystery everywhere though, right?  I am a incredibly happy believer in Jesus.  I'm not a theologian, I just believe in Jesus.

I understand you can't make anybody believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I don't personally try to do that.  But I highly recommend it from my experience with it.  I can't get enough of the Bible or Jesus.  I can't imagine trying to navigate through life without it at this point in my life. 

I don't think Jesus or God is a thing you can prove to somebody.  I heard about it a large percentage of my life and it didn't mean anything to me until a certain point - then that all changed. 

So do you guys think that I'm fooling myself, not really happy, you don't believe me, or do you really think I can't be as happy or enlightened as you - are you evangelistic in that sense or what?  What is the purpose of this site?   Do you have something better to offer?  If so, what is your gospel? 

 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
A BAD SENSOR YOU HAVE?

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
You have faith in what you have faith in, or faith in your perception of the object of your faith.

Nah.

I don't have faith in any of those things, and I have not implicated such. You assume I do because you cannot grasp how I could write what I've written without having faith.

There is simply no necessity for me to hold to anything absolutely. I hold to things probabilistically; of course, usually, we can't actually put a percentage on it, but qualitatively is enough. At most, I might have faith in other people, but this is a different definition than the religious idea. Trust in other people is based on experience and is open to change; both of those characteristics directly contradict religious faith. Even in a case where the probability of something might not be higher than 50%, I still don't have 'faith' in it. I can still act on it for other reasons, in way that seems contradictory to people like yourself. For example, I freely admit that I could be a brain a vat; however, I always act like reality is really as I perceive it. I do this simply because I want to or, to borrow from "natural" (the poster), acting like reality is as I perceive it holds pragmatic value. Acting like I am a brain in vat has no such value whatsoever. So, for all intents and purposes, I might as well act like I am not a brain in a vat.

Alright, I'll be patient and address many of your claims individually today.

Quote:
You have faith here in your comparison not being comparable to God.

I'm not sure what that means. But, I certainly don't have faith in atheism. At least, for a generic intelligent first cause, I hold to my non-belief probabilistically, even if the probability is very low. And, I'm willing to change my belief if the evidence arises, so by definition, it's not faith.  

Quote:
You have faith in your experience; i.e. with gravity.

Well...no. Faith is belief without evidence. Since I'm the one that had the experience, I think that's pretty good evidence for me that I had the experience.

Btw, that's almost an oxymoron. Faith has to be independent of experience. 

Quote:
You have faith in the names and jingle you've read in your physics book that enable you to pontificate in a scientific sounding way.

You mean I have faith in the reality described by those names and jingle?

Uuuhh, no.

I know that the scientific method works; I see it working everyday. More specifically, I am often able to observe and verify what I read in books, especially with basic mechanics of course, but also with electromagnetism, optics, electric circuits, thermodynamics, etc. Even in areas where this isn't really the case because of the difficulty of verifying the knowledge (e.g. special relativity and quantum mechanics), I still don't have faith at all. I hold to them tentatively, and I change my beliefs when I observe new evidence.  

Quote:
You have faith in your rating of analogies.
 

The quality of an analogy is actually fairly objective. An analogy is good if it accurately reflects the point being made i.e. if the analogy has all the same relevant characteristics.

Most members of this forum would say that you have faith in God without understanding God at all. You were defending your belief in God by comparing this to science, right? Hey, atheist devote themselves to plant biology, but what do they really know about it? Well, the answer is that we know almost everything about it, so the analogy perfectly fails. We don't have faith in plant biology without understanding plant biology at all. We DO understand plant biology.

Quote:
You have faith in what you think you know precisely, and functions functioning, and that you understand what you see happening, acquiring, energizing, growing, absorbing, etc.

No. We strictly use sound reasoning and empirical evidence. We don't hold to claims absolutely, based on faith, at all. If new evidence arises, we change our positions. By definition, that cannot be faith. Are you going to tell me next that I have faith in evidence?

I find it interesting that so many people have such a hard time grasping this simple concept. It's really emblematic of the way you project your beliefs onto others.

 

 

 

Butterbattle,

How can you prove you were patient?  How can I know you weren't sure about what I meant?  How do I know you are being just about your probabilistic weighing as you say and rather are intuiting yourself from one of your "weigh ins" to the next?  Does a good or bad day affect your measurement or do you have a definite benchmark - and where did you find this.  How do I know you didn't get a bad attitude toward gravity when you toddled or were pushed by one you have less than 50% faith in? 

How do you know what's contradictory to me - did you divine this scientifically?  And doesn't your science teach you that there are no other people like me, even to the iris hue?  Do you have a data base with control groups tested for contradiction?  It's nice to know too that there is this possibility that all bets are off with the brain in a vat theory yet you keep up the act. 

This "we" that "DO understand plant biology" are the same "we" that promoted and planted Multiflora Rose (Rosa Multiflora) here in the midwest and introduced Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) in the south.  I have less than 50% faith in your statement and your group's understanding. 

You are riding through your scientific ideasphere on a magic carpet blown along by your faith in the blowers ready to turn with new evidence - am I going to tell you have faith in evidence?  Does Elmer Fudd have trouble with "R's"?  Yeah, it's a problem reproducing your faith in others I know. 

My perception is that your basic operating program is faith - faith in ideas and perceptions that you can't prove, especially to someone who doesn't have at least 50% faith in you (that would include me).  If you aren't sensing God you might check your sensors. 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:How can you

Fonzie wrote:

How can you prove you were patient?

His continued participation in a thread where the same questions get repeated over and over again, and the answers are simply ignored or forgotten, is certain proof of his extraordinary patience, for anyone who can read (or can be bothered to).

As for the rest of your questions, you already had another 1000+ thread devoted to recycling the same basic premise,  and forgetting all about the answers, or dismissing them as soon as you read them.

If Butter has yet more patience to spare for you, kudos to him, but I don't think you deserve it.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain the reasons behind your lies, and why dishonesty plays such an essential part in your faith.

 


DarkSam
DarkSam's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-24
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie, one cannot have

Fonzie, one cannot have faith in evidence. Faith is beleif in the absence of evidence. Faith in evidence is an oxymoron. You might have well of said, "beleif in the absence of evidence in evidence."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot disprove the existance of God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of an all powerfull, incomprehesible, pink elephant that lives in the boot of my car.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:How can you

Fonzie wrote:

How can you prove you were patient?

I wrote a lot. And here's some more writing.

Fonzie wrote:
 How can I know you weren't sure about what I meant?  How do I know you are being just about your probabilistic weighing as you say and rather are intuiting yourself from one of your "weigh ins" to the next?

I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say, but I'll do my best. 

How do you know that I'm being impartial in my evaluation of evidence? Well, you really don't. I mean, this is an online forum; there's no way I can prove that to you. But, surely you agree that being open-minded and trying to evaluate evidence without personal bias is a good thing.........right?

Fonzie wrote:
 Does a good or bad day affect your measurement or do you have a definite benchmark - and where did you find this.

Does a good or bad day affect my judgment? Probably. 

Do I have a benchmark? Not sure what that means. I just do the best I can.

Where did I find this? Well, there isn't a single source that I can point to. It's what I've concluded after many years of thinking about it.

Fonzie wrote:
How do I know you didn't get a bad attitude toward gravity when you toddled or were pushed by one you have less than 50% faith in?

I don't think I have a bad attitude towards gravity. It's just the least well understood of the three (or four) fundamental forces at this point. In fact, you know what's funny? I wish we understood gravity as well as we understood evolution.

I don't see the point in having anything other than 0% or 100% faith in something. If you don't like it, then you have 0% faith. If you like it, you have 100% faith, right? My beliefs aren't based on faith; they're based on how likely I think something accurately describes reality. That's why I qualify virtually everything with possible, plausible, maybe, kind of, probably, etc.

Fonzie wrote:
How do you know what's contradictory to me - did you divine this scientifically?

I'm not sure what you're saying.

A contradiction is when, well, something contradicts itself. A married bachelor, that's a contradiction. Bachelors, by definition, aren't married.

Fonzie wrote:
And doesn't your science teach you that there are no other people like me, even to the iris hue?  Do you have a data base with control groups tested for contradiction?

If you're talking about Christians that have faith, then there's a lot of people like you. What's a "iris hue?"

Do I have a data base with control groups tested for contradiction? I'm not sure what you mean.

Fonzie wrote:
It's nice to know too that there is this possibility that all bets are off with the brain in a vat theory yet you keep up the act.

It would be an act if I really thought I was a brain in a vat, but I pretended like I wasn't, and that's not what I'm doing, so I don't really think that qualifies as an 'act.' But, you can think of it that way if you want.  

Fonzie wrote:
This "we" that "DO understand plant biology" are the same "we" that promoted and planted Multiflora Rose (Rosa Multiflora) here in the midwest and introduced Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) in the south.  I have less than 50% faith in your statement and your group's understanding.

Multiflora Rose was introduced into the United States in the 1860s. Kudzu was introduced in the 1870s. It would be an understatement to note that our knowledge of invasive species isn't nearly as good then as it is now. Additionally, both species were promoted by an agency under the Department of Agriculture, which is hardly an unbiased group of ecologists, to help reduce soil erosion, etc.

But, even if none of these things were the case, I never intended to imply that our knowledge of plants was perfect or that we never make mistakes. Of course there are things we don't know, but we know all the important parts of how plants function. And of course we make mistakes. Without mistakes, there would be no science. Science tries to correct these mistakes and learn how and why they happened, so that we can learn and make progress.  

It's a bit interesting also, that you wrote, "I have less than 50% faith..." You reached this conclusion by referring to kudzu and multiflora rose, which you used as evidence that science didn't understand plant biology. So, even if you don't realize it, you do value evidence immensely, and you seem to use "faith" to describe belief with evidence AND belief without evidence, depending on which is convenient at the time. 

Fonzie wrote:
You are riding through your scientific ideasphere on a magic carpet blown along by your faith in the blowers ready to turn with new evidence - am I going to tell you have faith in evidence?  Does Elmer Fudd have trouble with "R's"?  Yeah, it's a problem reproducing your faith in others I know.

Lol, bunny wabbit.

As DarkSam already noted, faith in evidence is an oxymoron. Beliefs based on evidence are, by definition, not faith. Faith, by definition, is belief not based on evidence. 

I am not surprised that you really decided to make this claim. However, it's kind of disheartening. I really already addressed this claim multiple times before you even made it. In fact, I even addressed it right before I asked the question. It shows that you're really not comprehending what I'm reading at all. See:

"And, I'm willing to change my belief if the evidence arises, so by definition, it's not faith."  

"Well...no. Faith is belief without evidence."

"We don't hold to claims absolutely, based on faith, at all. If new evidence arises, we change our positions. By definition, that cannot be faith. Are you going to tell me next that I have faith in evidence?"

Fonzie wrote:
My perception is that your basic operating program is faith - faith in ideas and perceptions that you can't prove,

What would be an example of something I have faith in?

Fonzie wrote:
especially to someone who doesn't have at least 50% faith in you (that would include me).

Very good.

The only way to make someone who doesn't agree with you, agree with you, is to provide reason and evidence. In this regard, faith is useless. It seems like you really already understand the value of objective evidence, at least to an extent. I think your religion simply prevents you from making the connection.

Fonzie wrote:
If you aren't sensing God you might check your sensors.

Okay, let's expand on what you said. I don't have at least 50% faith in God. So, since you do, how can you prove to me that God exists?

You mention sensors. How do I check these sensors? If my sensors work, how do I sense God?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
YOU PROVED PATIENT

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

How can you prove you were patient?

I wrote a lot. And here's some more writing.

Fonzie wrote:
 How can I know you weren't sure about what I meant?  How do I know you are being just about your probabilistic weighing as you say and rather are intuiting yourself from one of your "weigh ins" to the next?

I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say, but I'll do my best. 

How do you know that I'm being impartial in my evaluation of evidence? Well, you really don't. I mean, this is an online forum; there's no way I can prove that to you. But, surely you agree that being open-minded and trying to evaluate evidence without personal bias is a good thing.........right?

Fonzie wrote:
 Does a good or bad day affect your measurement or do you have a definite benchmark - and where did you find this.

Does a good or bad day affect my judgment? Probably. 

Do I have a benchmark? Not sure what that means. I just do the best I can.

Where did I find this? Well, there isn't a single source that I can point to. It's what I've concluded after many years of thinking about it.

Fonzie wrote:
How do I know you didn't get a bad attitude toward gravity when you toddled or were pushed by one you have less than 50% faith in?

I don't think I have a bad attitude towards gravity. It's just the least well understood of the three (or four) fundamental forces at this point. In fact, you know what's funny? I wish we understood gravity as well as we understood evolution.

I don't see the point in having anything other than 0% or 100% faith in something. If you don't like it, then you have 0% faith. If you like it, you have 100% faith, right? My beliefs aren't based on faith; they're based on how likely I think something accurately describes reality. That's why I qualify virtually everything with possible, plausible, maybe, kind of, probably, etc.

Fonzie wrote:
How do you know what's contradictory to me - did you divine this scientifically?

I'm not sure what you're saying.

A contradiction is when, well, something contradicts itself. A married bachelor, that's a contradiction. Bachelors, by definition, aren't married.

Fonzie wrote:
And doesn't your science teach you that there are no other people like me, even to the iris hue?  Do you have a data base with control groups tested for contradiction?

If you're talking about Christians that have faith, then there's a lot of people like you. What's a "iris hue?"

Do I have a data base with control groups tested for contradiction? I'm not sure what you mean.

Fonzie wrote:
It's nice to know too that there is this possibility that all bets are off with the brain in a vat theory yet you keep up the act.

It would be an act if I really thought I was a brain in a vat, but I pretended like I wasn't, and that's not what I'm doing, so I don't really think that qualifies as an 'act.' But, you can think of it that way if you want.  

Fonzie wrote:
This "we" that "DO understand plant biology" are the same "we" that promoted and planted Multiflora Rose (Rosa Multiflora) here in the midwest and introduced Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) in the south.  I have less than 50% faith in your statement and your group's understanding.

Multiflora Rose was introduced into the United States in the 1860s. Kudzu was introduced in the 1870s. It would be an understatement to note that our knowledge of invasive species isn't nearly as good then as it is now. Additionally, both species were promoted by an agency under the Department of Agriculture, which is hardly an unbiased group of ecologists, to help reduce soil erosion, etc.

But, even if none of these things were the case, I never intended to imply that our knowledge of plants was perfect or that we never make mistakes. Of course there are things we don't know, but we know all the important parts of how plants function. And of course we make mistakes. Without mistakes, there would be no science. Science tries to correct these mistakes and learn how and why they happened, so that we can learn and make progress.  

It's a bit interesting also, that you wrote, "I have less than 50% faith..." You reached this conclusion by referring to kudzu and multiflora rose, which you used as evidence that science didn't understand plant biology. So, even if you don't realize it, you do value evidence immensely, and you seem to use "faith" to describe belief with evidence AND belief without evidence, depending on which is convenient at the time. 

Fonzie wrote:
You are riding through your scientific ideasphere on a magic carpet blown along by your faith in the blowers ready to turn with new evidence - am I going to tell you have faith in evidence?  Does Elmer Fudd have trouble with "R's"?  Yeah, it's a problem reproducing your faith in others I know.

Lol, bunny wabbit.

As DarkSam already noted, faith in evidence is an oxymoron. Beliefs based on evidence are, by definition, not faith. Faith, by definition, is belief not based on evidence. 

I am not surprised that you really decided to make this claim. However, it's kind of disheartening. I really already addressed this claim multiple times before you even made it. In fact, I even addressed it right before I asked the question. It shows that you're really not comprehending what I'm reading at all. See:

"And, I'm willing to change my belief if the evidence arises, so by definition, it's not faith."  

"Well...no. Faith is belief without evidence."

"We don't hold to claims absolutely, based on faith, at all. If new evidence arises, we change our positions. By definition, that cannot be faith. Are you going to tell me next that I have faith in evidence?"

Fonzie wrote:
My perception is that your basic operating program is faith - faith in ideas and perceptions that you can't prove,

What would be an example of something I have faith in?

Fonzie wrote:
especially to someone who doesn't have at least 50% faith in you (that would include me).

Very good.

The only way to make someone who doesn't agree with you, agree with you, is to provide reason and evidence. In this regard, faith is useless. It seems like you really already understand the value of objective evidence, at least to an extent. I think your religion simply prevents you from making the connection.

Fonzie wrote:
If you aren't sensing God you might check your sensors.

Okay, let's expand on what you said. I don't have at least 50% faith in God. So, since you do, how can you prove to me that God exists?

You mention sensors. How do I check these sensors? If my sensors work, how do I sense God?

 

Butterbattle,

I like you and I appreciate your reasonable answers.  I can't prove God to you and believe me over 50% I wish I could.  I could enjoy your company, drink coffee with you, hear about plants and science and how this and that works and be fascinated.  I think that there are several cliffs in your understanding of your science, plants, gravity that you would have to admittedly leap across in explaining.  You trust someday science will put the rocks there and you will walk across, but now there are leaps of faith you can't prove to even yourself honestly and admittedly. 

When we take this discussion to the spiritual realm rather than the biological, etc. in order to discuss spiritual things it is a different ball game.  In order to talk about "unity in the Spirit (of God)" for instance it is impossible to discuss unless you personally have the Spirit of God.  You get to know somebody when you live with them.  In order for Christ's sheep to "know their Master's voice" they must be enabled by the indwelling Spirit to do this.  This is not something you can't get.  I'm not saying in any way I am better than you, but this (the Spirit of God dwelling in you) is something promised to all who believe in Jesus.  But if it's something you don't have living in you then the sensors aren't active in the discussion.

As we maintain "unity in the Spirit" then since there is only One Spirit of God we are united with each other individually and collectively to the Head which is Christ and we are nourished and supplied in the body and the parts and ligaments fit together and work smoothly.  The body of Christ is not a heap but a body with things in the right place, working in harmony - in unity with the Spirit. 

As to how this faith in Jesus is enabled - this I'm relating to the question of how I can't prove God to you - my understanding of that is that it pleases God to do this through the preaching of the gospel - which I'm sure you are familiar with.  God brings a man to life (from death) spiritually and he sees things differently, painfully, like a man drowning revived from a stupor it is painful when revived.  Then the fragile seed (here's your biology analogy) grows (God is the Gardener) and hopefully survives storms and becomes strong like a mighty oak. 

I have proved all this to myself and I have evidence of this power working in myself, but I have a problem presenting that personal evidence to you.  There were those I had more than 50% confidence in that influenced me reading the Bible seriously and finding it happen to me as they were modeling it and telling me. 

I know I haven't answered your questions adequately.  I'm a little short on time at the moment.  If I knew how to answer with laser precise surgery I would.  You can find any number of loose ends in any answer, but desire plays a part too.  It makes a difference what is desired in the questioner.  I admit I don't have any desire for atheist doctrine.  It would compare to being full on mom's cooking and being offered road kill helper.  Don't take that as an insult, I am not flaunting that, I'm just fully satisfied in every way as I would want all to be.

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:Butterbattle,I

Fonzie wrote:

Butterbattle,

I like you and I appreciate your reasonable answers....

...It would compare to being full on mom's cooking and being offered road kill helper.  Don't take that as an insult..

*sigh*


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
(Poe)

Fonzie, 

I can't prove the Risen Elvis to you, and believe me, over πei I wish I could.

Whe we take this discussion to the spiritual realm, we lose all objective credibility, unless your spiritual search leads us to Elvis.  

It has been scientifically proven that "unity in the spirit of god" is a toxic mind disorder induced by lithium poisoning and extreme exposure to sawdust.  Elvis has developed the technology to rid humanity of this tragic delusion.  But you can only realize this if you personally accept Elvis first. You must put your faith in Elvis to escape the delusion of jesus.  I highly recommend it from my experience.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Fonzie, 

zarathustra wrote:

Fonzie, 

I can't prove the Risen Elvis to you, and believe me, over πei I wish I could.

Whe we take this discussion to the spiritual realm, we lose all objective credibility, unless your spiritual search leads us to Elvis.  

It has been scientifically proven that "unity in the spirit of god" is a toxic mind disorder induced by lithium poisoning and extreme exposure to sawdust.  Elvis has developed the technology to rid humanity of this tragic delusion.  But you can only realize this if you personally accept Elvis first. You must put your faith in Elvis to escape the delusion of jesus.  I highly recommend it from my experience.

Be-Bop-Aloola , He's our Roola !


DarkSam
DarkSam's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-24
User is offlineOffline
. Do you see that fullstop

. Do you see that fullstop at the front of my sentence? Prove to me that it doesn't have ultimate power over your life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot disprove the existance of God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of an all powerfull, incomprehesible, pink elephant that lives in the boot of my car.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:I can't prove

Fonzie wrote:

I can't prove God to you

Why not?

Fonzie wrote:
You trust someday science will put the rocks there and you will walk across, but now there are leaps of faith you can't prove to even yourself honestly and admittedly.

Okay. What leaps of faith am I making?

Fonzie wrote:
When we take this discussion to the spiritual realm rather than the biological, etc. in order to discuss spiritual things it is a different ball game.

Why? How?

Fonzie wrote:
In order to talk about "unity in the Spirit (of God)" for instance it is impossible to discuss unless you personally have the Spirit of God.

But that assumes God exists. How would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?

Fonzie wrote:
You get to know somebody when you live with them.

I'm not asking to personally get to know God. I'm asking how do you know he exists. You don't have to live with someone to know they exist.

Fonzie wrote:
In order for Christ's sheep to "know their Master's voice" they must be enabled by the indwelling Spirit to do this.  This is not something you can't get.  I'm not saying in any way I am better than you, but this (the Spirit of God dwelling in you) is something promised to all who believe in Jesus.  But if it's something you don't have living in you then the sensors aren't active in the discussion.

Okay. How do I get it to live in me?

Fonzie wrote:
It makes a difference what is desired in the questioner.  I admit I don't have any desire for atheist doctrine.

Why is your desire for a claim or idea relevant? Your emotions don't affect reality.

Fonzie wrote:
It would compare to being full on mom's cooking and being offered road kill helper.

Truth is not a matter of taste (pun intended). For example, if the idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is roadkill helper to you, that's fine, but it does not mean that the sun actually orbits around the Earth.

Are you saying that you only believe what you want to believe, and you don't care about what is actually true? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

I can't prove God to you

Why not?

It's not even a thing God tries to do - the Bible starts off assuming you believe in God - "In the beginning God created..."  If you are enabled to believe in Jesus through hearing the gospel it is a thing God would open your eyes to - not me.  "While we were dead God made us alive".  It's something He does.  If it's something you cry out for be assured there will be no man/woman in the end who will be able to say, "I cried out to God to help me believe and He didn't help me." 

Fonzie wrote:
You trust someday science will put the rocks there and you will walk across, but now there are leaps of faith you can't prove to even yourself honestly and admittedly.

Okay. What leaps of faith am I making?

"Of course there are things we don't know"  "our knowledge of invasive species is better now than then"  "science tries to correct these mistakes and learn why they happened" - so you have gaps you have faith your source will fill in.

Fonzie wrote:
When we take this discussion to the spiritual realm rather than the biological, etc. in order to discuss spiritual things it is a different ball game.

Why? How?

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned by those who have their spiritual faculties trained by experience to discern them.  You wouldn't start out in the lab with advanced work with chemicals, micro-organisms, whatever you do in there without a background preparation.  Jesus used a lot of analogies with common things familiar to people to try to ramp people up into what the spiritual realm is like; i.e. "the Kingdom of heaven is like a treasure found in a field.  When a man finds it he goes and sells all he has to buy the field".  I try to use analogies, but it's not really possible to have a serious discussion about, say, unity in the Spirit without having the Spirit personally. 

Fonzie wrote:
In order to talk about "unity in the Spirit (of God)" for instance it is impossible to discuss unless you personally have the Spirit of God.

But that assumes God exists. How would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?

The Bible says it pleases God to save people through the preaching of the gospel - which is foolishness to those being lost but to those being saved is the power of God to salvation.  God enables it through a person's encounter with the gospel of Jesus' atoning death.  That's the turning point, the winnowing floor. 

Fonzie wrote:
You get to know somebody when you live with them.

I'm not asking to personally get to know God. I'm asking how do you know he exists. You don't have to live with someone to know they exist.

  The Bible says that the glory of God is evident in the creation such that men don't have an excuse.  I would paraphrase that to: He made man intelligent enough to know that.  

Fonzie wrote:
In order for Christ's sheep to "know their Master's voice" they must be enabled by the indwelling Spirit to do this.  This is not something you can't get.  I'm not saying in any way I am better than you, but this (the Spirit of God dwelling in you) is something promised to all who believe in Jesus.  But if it's something you don't have living in you then the sensors aren't active in the discussion.

Okay. How do I get it to live in me?

There are promises that if you set out to find wisdom, if you search for it like silver and hidden treasures, and raise your voice for understanding, and cry out for insight - then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.  Then you will find righteousness and justice and equity, every good path.......  If you were to set out to find gold you would have to go to some sustained effort.  Here's another promise:  If you draw near to God He will draw near to you.  In other words He's ready to receive you just like the Father looking for the prodigal son.  You are the one who needs to come to himself.

Fonzie wrote:
It makes a difference what is desired in the questioner.  I admit I don't have any desire for atheist doctrine.

Why is your desire for a claim or idea relevant? Your emotions don't affect reality.

Desire affects sustained attention on what is desired.  If you just give spiritual things a casual glance you can't expect to get anywhere any more than you could learn botany that way.

Fonzie wrote:
It would compare to being full on mom's cooking and being offered road kill helper.

Truth is not a matter of taste (pun intended). For example, if the idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is roadkill helper to you, that's fine, but it does not mean that the sun actually orbits around the Earth.

Are you saying that you only believe what you want to believe, and you don't care about what is actually true?   I am saying that over 40 years ago I finally found what I was looking for and it is proving more and more fulfilling.  I'm saying that he who is stuffed loathes pizza but to him who is hungry even roadkill is sweet.  I'm stuffed. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
That's a bit of a mess,

That's a bit of a mess, Meph.

If you click this link, you'll find user-friendy instructions for using the quote function correctly : http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/7011

Give it a read, eh ?

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:It's not even a

Fonzie wrote:
It's not even a thing God tries to do - the Bible starts off assuming you believe in God

How is this relevant? I'm asking you why you can't prove that God exists.

Fonzie wrote:
"In the beginning God created..."  If you are enabled to believe in Jesus through hearing the gospel it is a thing God would open your eyes to - not me.  "While we were dead God made us alive".  It's something He does.

You just said God doesn't try to prove himself to anybody. Isn't "opening my eyes" proving himself to me?

Fonzie wrote:
If it's something you cry out for be assured there will be no man/woman in the end who will be able to say, "I cried out to God to help me believe and He didn't help me."

How do you know that?  

Fonzie wrote:
"Of course there are things we don't know"  "our knowledge of invasive species is better now than then"  "science tries to correct these mistakes and learn why they happened" - so you have gaps you have faith your source will fill in.

No, I don't. Sorry to disappoint. I don't have faith that science will eventually fill in all of our gaps in knowledge or even any specific gap in knowledge. I think it is likely that we will learn much more from science, but this isn't based on faith either. It is based on my observation that science seems to work. Science has supplied virtually all of our knowledge of the world in the past, which is evidence that it works. Look at the computer you're reading this post on. It exists because of science. In fact, I can observe science working all the time, because the scientific method used by scientists isn't some inaccessible nerdy thing. It's simply the formalization of how we reliably solve problems in everyday life.

It's simple. Make a claim. Is my claim correct? Check with reality. If reality agrees with my claim, then my claim is correct. If not, then I must revise my claim. 

You could even make a case for the usefulness of science from just the definition of science. It's the study of our universe, and thing in it, depending on the field. And for ideas in science to have any merit, they must survive scrutiny from independent observers, who may not even like the original idea.

Fonzie wrote:
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned by those who have their spiritual faculties trained by experience to discern them.

Okay. How do you spiritually discern spiritual things with your spiritual faculties? How do you train someone to do this?

Fonzie wrote:
You wouldn't start out in the lab with advanced work with chemicals, micro-organisms, whatever you do in there without a background preparation.

Right. First, you learn. How do you learn to "spiritually discern spiritual things?"

Fonzie wrote:
I try to use analogies, but it's not really possible to have a serious discussion about, say, unity in the Spirit without having the Spirit personally.

Why not?

Fonzie wrote:
The Bible says it pleases God to save people through the preaching of the gospel - which is foolishness to those being lost but to those being saved is the power of God to salvation.  God enables it through a person's encounter with the gospel of Jesus' atoning death.  That's the turning point, the winnowing floor.

Okay. So how would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?

Fonzie wrote:
The Bible says that the glory of God is evident in the creation such that men don't have an excuse.

How is it evident in the Creation?

Fonzie wrote:
I would paraphrase that to: He made man intelligent enough to know that.

How would they use their intelligence to know that?

Fonzie wrote:
There are promises that if you set out to find wisdom, if you search for it like silver and hidden treasures, and raise your voice for understanding, and cry out for insight - then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.

How do I "set out to find wisdom?" How do I "search for it like silver and hidden treasures?" Raise my voice? Cry out for insight? You mean if I scream really loud, God will reveal himself?

Fonzie wrote:
Here's another promise:  If you draw near to God He will draw near to you.

How do I "draw near to God?"

Fonzie wrote:
In other words He's ready to receive you just like the Father looking for the prodigal son.  You are the one who needs to come to himself.

How do I "come to" him?

Fonzie wrote:
Desire affects sustained attention on what is desired.  If you just give spiritual things a casual glance you can't expect to get anywhere any more than you could learn botany that way.

Okay. But, do you agree that desire does not affect the validity of a claim? 

butterbattle wrote:
Truth is not a matter of taste (pun intended). For example, if the idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is roadkill helper to you, that's fine, but it does not mean that the sun actually orbits around the Earth.

Are you saying that you only believe what you want to believe, and you don't care about what is actually true?

 

Fonzie wrote:
I am saying that over 40 years ago I finally found what I was looking for and it is proving more and more fulfilling.  I'm saying that he who is stuffed loathes pizza but to him who is hungry even roadkill is sweet.  I'm stuffed.

Okay, so stuffed = emotionally fulfilling. Pizza = Christianity. Roadkill = atheism.   

You don't want atheism because you are "stuffed" from Christianity. Correct?

I will ask you again. Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
It's not even a thing God tries to do - the Bible starts off assuming you believe in God

How is this relevant? I'm asking you why you can't prove that God exists.

 

If God doesn't even try to prove He exists it's not needed.

Fonzie wrote:
"In the beginning God created..."  If you are enabled to believe in Jesus through hearing the gospel it is a thing God would open your eyes to - not me.  "While we were dead God made us alive".  It's something He does.
butterbattle wrote:

You just said God doesn't try to prove himself to anybody. Isn't "opening my eyes" proving himself to me?

No, not any more than proving a sunset to a blind man enabled to see.  If he sees - it's there for him to enjoy.

Fonzie wrote:
If it's something you cry out for be assured there will be no man/woman in the end who will be able to say, "I cried out to God to help me believe and He didn't help me."
butterbattle wrote:

How do you know that?

I know that because I know the One Who promised He wouldn't refuse any who come to Him. [/quote=butterbattle]

Fonzie wrote:
"Of course there are things we don't know"  "our knowledge of invasive species is better now than then"  "science tries to correct these mistakes and learn why they happened" - so you have gaps you have faith your source will fill in.
butterbattle wrote:

No, I don't. Sorry to disappoint. I don't have faith that science will eventually fill in all of our gaps in knowledge or even any specific gap in knowledge. I think it is likely that we will learn much more from science, but this isn't based on faith either. It is based on my observation that science seems to work.

 

You have faith in what seems to you to work. [/quote=butterbattle] Science has supplied virtually all of our knowledge of the world in the past,

 

That is not just faith but praise and glory to your object of faith.  [/quote=butterbattle] which is evidence that it works. Look at the computer you're reading this post on. It exists because of science. In fact, I can observe science working all the time, because the scientific method used by scientists isn't some inaccessible nerdy thing. It's simply the formalization of how we reliably solve problems in everyday life.

 

Long before the computer was made the man was made intelligent enough to make it.  You are like the man who cut a tree, cooked his game on part of it, and with the rest of it made a god which he bowed down to.

 

butterbattle wrote:

It's simple. Make a claim. Is my claim correct? Check with reality. If reality agrees with my claim, then my claim is correct. If not, then I must revise my claim.

 

God and spiritual things are the unseen eternal reality.  You are focused on the shadow of the eternal things (material) rather than the reality - and second causes as I mentioned.  Instead of giving glory to the God Who made man you praise man and what he is able to do in the transient material world. 

butterbattle wrote:

 

You could even make a case for the usefulness of science from just the definition of science. It's the study of our universe, and thing in it, depending on the field. And for ideas in science to have any merit, they must survive scrutiny from independent observers, who may not even like the original idea.

 

Yes, science is a form of work.  People work at science, get counsel from others and their work and thereby accomplish things.  In that way you are correct.

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned by those who have their spiritual faculties trained by experience to discern them.
butterbattle wrote:

Okay. How do you spiritually discern spiritual things with your spiritual faculties? How do you train someone to do this?

 

It starts with truly "seeing" Christ.  If your eyes are opened to Christ and His atoning sacrifice you will see things differently.  It is from the power of this you can be enabled by God to be "born again".  Then you start as a spiritual baby, vulnerable, fragile.  But you have help.  You can grow and become mature in Christ and learn how to discern spiritual things.  Just as the spirit in a man is what knows the thoughts of a man, the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God.  When you are born again you are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit.  He makes known the thoughts of God to you, opens the Scripture, lights the heart.  The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD searching out his innermost parts.

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
You wouldn't start out in the lab with advanced work with chemicals, micro-organisms, whatever you do in there without a background preparation.

butterbattle wrote:

Right. First, you learn. How do you learn to "spiritually discern spiritual things?"

 

Like a child.  From another angle, the Gospel is simple yet unfathomably deep; comparable to sailing.  It is said you can be shown how to sail in a day, but it takes a lifetime to become a sailor.

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
I try to use analogies, but it's not really possible to have a serious discussion about, say, unity in the Spirit without having the Spirit personally.
butterbattle wrote:

Why not?

It's kind of like the difference between talking about someone and knowing someone.
butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
The Bible says it pleases God to save people through the preaching of the gospel - which is foolishness to those being lost but to those being saved is the power of God to salvation.  God enables it through a person's encounter with the gospel of Jesus' atoning death.  That's the turning point, the winnowing floor.

 

butterbattle wrote:

Okay. So how would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?

 

That might compare to me looking up some deep science stuff and trying to talk about it as if I know it.  It wouldn't go long to those who know.  To just discuss God as a academic exercise is kind of where this "prove God " stuff is.  There is a different approach - loving and seeking God.   Do you see the difference?

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
The Bible says that the glory of God is evident in the creation such that men don't have an excuse.
butterbattle wrote:

How is it evident in the Creation?

 

How is it not evident in the creation? 

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
I would paraphrase that to: He made man intelligent enough to know that.
butterbattle wrote:

How would they use their intelligence to know that?

Maybe by becoming a fool so that they can become truly wise.
butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
There are promises that if you set out to find wisdom, if you search for it like silver and hidden treasures, and raise your voice for understanding, and cry out for insight - then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.
butterbattle wrote:

How do I "set out to find wisdom?" How do I "search for it like silver and hidden treasures?" Raise my voice? Cry out for insight? You mean if I scream really loud, God will reveal himself?

 

If you truly see Christ as the Prize such that you will give everything you have to gain the Prize - you are promised you will find it.  Nothing is accomplished in life without consecration - that's true in science, it's true when it comes to seeking and finding God. 

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
Here's another promise:  If you draw near to God He will draw near to you.
butterbattle wrote:

How do I "draw near to God?"

 

You make God and Christ your focus, your top priority, your #1 in thought, your heart's treasure.  It's not hard if your heart is in it - if you have truly "seen Christ".  Then the same power that raised Him from the dead will fuel your drawing near.

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
In other words He's ready to receive you just like the Father looking for the prodigal son.  You are the one who needs to come to himself.

How do I "come to" him?

You get off the throne and fix your eyes on Christ. 

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
Desire affects sustained attention on what is desired.  If you just give spiritual things a casual glance you can't expect to get anywhere any more than you could learn botany that way.

 

butterbattle wrote:

Okay. But, do you agree that desire does not affect the validity of a claim?

 

True, but if you have faith Christ is Lord you will have the desire.  The "eye opening" that enables you to have that faith is not something I can do for you.  That's a miraculous thing, opening the eyes of the blind, a thing God does.  But as I said it pleases Him to do the eye opening through the preaching of His Son.  God is intent on giving Christ glory.

butterbattle wrote:
Truth is not a matter of taste (pun intended). For example, if the idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is roadkill helper to you, that's fine, but it does not mean that the sun actually orbits around the Earth.

No, neither does the sun come out of its tent like a bride groom and run its course with joy - it's figurative.  It's the artistry of the Scripture concerning the sun orbiting the earth.  The Bible is not a science book, doesn't claim to be.

butterbattle wrote:

Are you saying that you only believe what you want to believe, and you don't care about what is actually true?

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
I am saying that over 40 years ago I finally found what I was looking for and it is proving more and more fulfilling.  I'm saying that he who is stuffed loathes pizza but to him who is hungry even roadkill is sweet.  I'm stuffed.

Okay, so stuffed = emotionally fulfilling. Pizza = Christianity. Roadkill = atheism.   

You don't want atheism because you are "stuffed" from Christianity. Correct?

 

I can't think of anything more unbelievable to me than atheism.  Sorry, I can't think of a comparison.  I am completely fulfilled with Christ and the Holy Spirit and God in me.  It's a scientifically re producible thing too - I know several brothers and sisters that have the same experience with the same LORD and salvation. 

butterbattle wrote:

I will ask you again. Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do?

I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus is LORD, died for my sins, rose from the dead, now lives in me.  I believe the reality of this more than things I can touch and see.  I know that the Bible is true though my understanding is imperfect.  There is no proof that Christianity is not true.  There's nothing to do with regard to that because it is true. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:It's a

Fonzie wrote:
It's a scientifically re producible thing too - I know several brothers and sisters that have the same experience with the same LORD and salvation. 

What you're "stuffed with" as you put it, is lithium, so of course it's scientifically re-producible. I know some people suffering from your condition who, after getting their meds right, were just as chuffed about it, minus the religious flimflam.

Fonzie wrote:
There is no proof that Christianity is not true.  There's nothing to do with regard to that because it is true. 

So you value your beliefs more than the truth.

I guess that explains why you find lying so easy. (And yes, there is proof that you're a liar )


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:How is

butterbattle wrote:
How is this relevant? I'm asking you why you can't prove that God exists.

 

Fonzie wrote:
If God doesn't even try to prove He exists it's not needed.

I did not ask you why it's not needed. I asked you why you can't you prove that God exists. 

Why can't you prove that God exists?

Fonzie wrote:
No, not any more than proving a sunset to a blind man enabled to see.  If he sees - it's there for him to enjoy.

How does this not prove my point exactly? You are intentionally restoring his eyesight and showing him a sunset with the purpose of proving to him that sunsets exist. 

Fonzie wrote:
I know that because I know the One Who promised He wouldn't refuse any who come to Him.

Okay, how do you know this person?

Fonzie wrote:
You have faith in what seems to you to work.

No, I observe that it works. It reaches conclusions that accurately reflect reality and makes accurate predictions based on those conclusions.

butterbattle wrote:
Science has supplied virtually all of our knowledge of the world in the past,
 

Fonzie wrote:
That is not just faith but praise and glory to your object of faith.

It is a fact. Virtually all of our knowledge of the universe comes from science. Do you disagree?

butterbattle wrote:
which is evidence that it works. Look at the computer you're reading this post on. It exists because of science. In fact, I can observe science working all the time, because the scientific method used by scientists isn't some inaccessible nerdy thing. It's simply the formalization of how we reliably solve problems in everyday life.
 

Fonzie wrote:
Long before the computer was made the man was made intelligent enough to make it.  You are like the man who cut a tree, cooked his game on part of it, and with the rest of it made a god which he bowed down to.

What is your point? Do you agree that the scientific method works?

Fonzie wrote:
God and spiritual things are the unseen eternal reality.  You are focused on the shadow of the eternal things (material) rather than the reality - and second causes as I mentioned.  Instead of giving glory to the God Who made man you praise man and what he is able to do in the transient material world.

How do you know that?

Fonzie wrote:
It starts with truly "seeing" Christ. If your eyes are opened to Christ and His atoning sacrifice you will see things differently.

How do you "open your eyes" and "see" Christ?

butterbattle wrote:
Right. First, you learn. How do you learn to "spiritually discern spiritual things?"
 

Fonzie wrote:
Like a child.
 

What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
From another angle, the Gospel is simple yet unfathomably deep; comparable to sailing.  It is said you can be shown how to sail in a day, but it takes a lifetime to become a sailor.

Okay. How do you learn to discern spiritual things?

Fonzie wrote:
It's kind of like the difference between talking about someone and knowing someone.

Can you discuss whether a person exists without personally knowing them? Btw, that assumes that they exist.

butterbattle wrote:
Okay. So how would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?

Fonzie wrote:
That might compare to me looking up some deep science stuff and trying to talk about it as if I know it.  It wouldn't go long to those who know.  To just discuss God as a academic exercise is kind of where this "prove God " stuff is.  There is a different approach - loving and seeking God.   Do you see the difference?

Loving and seeking God assumes that God exists. How do you discuss God if you don't assume that he exists? Are you implying that you must assume his existence to even discuss the topic? 

butterbattle wrote:
How is it not evident in the creation?

By definition, it is not evident in the Creation if there is no evidence, and there is no evidence.

But, if you want me to make arguments against, then: Illogical designs. Evolution. Disease. Natural disasters. The subjectivity of morality. Etc.  

Overall, God is entirely superfluous for explaining any natural process. 

Fonzie wrote:
Maybe by becoming a fool so that they can become truly wise.

What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
If you truly see Christ as the Prize such that you will give everything you have to gain the Prize - you are promised you will find it.

That assumes that Christ is the son of God. How do I gain insight into Christianity without assuming that Christ is the son of God?

Fonzie wrote:
Nothing is accomplished in life without consecration - that's true in science, it's true when it comes to seeking and finding God.

Consecration is a religious concept.  

Fonzie wrote:
You make God and Christ your focus, your top priority, your #1 in thought, your heart's treasure.  It's not hard if your heart is in it - if you have truly "seen Christ".  Then the same power that raised Him from the dead will fuel your drawing near.

That assumes God exists. How do I learn about Christianity without assuming that God exists?

Fonzie wrote:
You get off the throne and fix your eyes on Christ.

How do I "fix my eyes on Christ?" How do I do it without assuming that God exists? Is there is any way to become a Christian without simply having faith that Christianity is true?

Fonzie wrote:
True, but if you have faith Christ is Lord you will have the desire. The "eye opening" that enables you to have that faith is not something I can do for you.  That's a miraculous thing, opening the eyes of the blind, a thing God does.  But as I said it pleases Him to do the eye opening through the preaching of His Son.  God is intent on giving Christ glory.

So, I need desire to be motivated to become a Christian? In order to have desire, I need to have faith that Christ is Lord?

Fonzie wrote:
No, neither does the sun come out of its tent like a bride groom and run its course with joy - it's figurative.  It's the artistry of the Scripture concerning the sun orbiting the earth.  The Bible is not a science book, doesn't claim to be.

Ah, sorry.

No, I was empathizing the objectivity of facts; I was not criticizing the Bible (not that it doesn't deserve criticism). 

Fonzie wrote:
I can't think of anything more unbelievable to me than atheism.  Sorry, I can't think of a comparison.

Why is it unbelievable?

Fonzie wrote:
I am completely fulfilled with Christ and the Holy Spirit and God in me.  It's a scientifically re producible thing too - I know several brothers and sisters that have the same experience with the same LORD and salvation.
 

Multiple personal accounts does not make it a "scientifically reproducible thing." Science is objective.

Fonzie wrote:
I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus is LORD, died for my sins, rose from the dead, now lives in me.  I believe the reality of this more than things I can touch and see.  I know that the Bible is true though my understanding is imperfect.

Okay.

 

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? In other words, if you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do?

 

Fonzie wrote:
There is no proof that Christianity is not true. There's nothing to do with regard to that because it is true.

Is there proof that it is true?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We fully accept that many

We fully accept that many people experience the same thing you have from accepting the same beliefs and whatever else you do to 'accept Jesus'.

This is the same misconception you had in your original post - we do accept that it 'works' for you, that you feel what you claim to.

You still don't get our point.

What we keep saying is that your experience does not prove that there actually is a God or Jesus character 'out there' communing with you, you have not demonstrated in any way that it needs anything more than certain common brain 'circuits' for you all to experience these same feelings. Pretty much all religions report very similar feelings, despite having often very different details in their beliefs.

So you really need much more than just these feelings you keep describing to prove that there is anything more to your faith than just the beliefs themselves, and the feelings they can induce in your brain. No actual God or Jesus required, just you being convinced that they do exist, even if they don't.

It really isn't a mystery to Science.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
How is this relevant? I'm asking you why you can't prove that God exists.

 

Fonzie wrote:
If God doesn't even try to prove He exists it's not needed.

I did not ask you why it's not needed. I asked you why you can't you prove that God exists. 

Why can't you prove that God exists?

Fonzie wrote:
No, not any more than proving a sunset to a blind man enabled to see.  If he sees - it's there for him to enjoy.

How does this not prove my point exactly? You are intentionally restoring his eyesight and showing him a sunset with the purpose of proving to him that sunsets exist. 

Fonzie wrote:
I know that because I know the One Who promised He wouldn't refuse any who come to Him.

Okay, how do you know this person?

Fonzie wrote:
You have faith in what seems to you to work.

No, I observe that it works. It reaches conclusions that accurately reflect reality and makes accurate predictions based on those conclusions.

butterbattle wrote:
Science has supplied virtually all of our knowledge of the world in the past,
 

Fonzie wrote:
That is not just faith but praise and glory to your object of faith.

It is a fact. Virtually all of our knowledge of the universe comes from science. Do you disagree?

butterbattle wrote:
which is evidence that it works. Look at the computer you're reading this post on. It exists because of science. In fact, I can observe science working all the time, because the scientific method used by scientists isn't some inaccessible nerdy thing. It's simply the formalization of how we reliably solve problems in everyday life.
 

Fonzie wrote:
Long before the computer was made the man was made intelligent enough to make it.  You are like the man who cut a tree, cooked his game on part of it, and with the rest of it made a god which he bowed down to.

What is your point? Do you agree that the scientific method works?

Fonzie wrote:
God and spiritual things are the unseen eternal reality.  You are focused on the shadow of the eternal things (material) rather than the reality - and second causes as I mentioned.  Instead of giving glory to the God Who made man you praise man and what he is able to do in the transient material world.

How do you know that?

Fonzie wrote:
It starts with truly "seeing" Christ. If your eyes are opened to Christ and His atoning sacrifice you will see things differently.

How do you "open your eyes" and "see" Christ?

butterbattle wrote:
Right. First, you learn. How do you learn to "spiritually discern spiritual things?"
 

Fonzie wrote:
Like a child.
 

What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
From another angle, the Gospel is simple yet unfathomably deep; comparable to sailing.  It is said you can be shown how to sail in a day, but it takes a lifetime to become a sailor.

Okay. How do you learn to discern spiritual things?

Fonzie wrote:
It's kind of like the difference between talking about someone and knowing someone.

Can you discuss whether a person exists without personally knowing them? Btw, that assumes that they exist.

butterbattle wrote:
Okay. So how would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?

Fonzie wrote:
That might compare to me looking up some deep science stuff and trying to talk about it as if I know it.  It wouldn't go long to those who know.  To just discuss God as a academic exercise is kind of where this "prove God " stuff is.  There is a different approach - loving and seeking God.   Do you see the difference?

Loving and seeking God assumes that God exists. How do you discuss God if you don't assume that he exists? Are you implying that you must assume his existence to even discuss the topic? 

butterbattle wrote:
How is it not evident in the creation?

By definition, it is not evident in the Creation if there is no evidence, and there is no evidence.

But, if you want me to make arguments against, then: Illogical designs. Evolution. Disease. Natural disasters. The subjectivity of morality. Etc.  

Overall, God is entirely superfluous for explaining any natural process. 

Fonzie wrote:
Maybe by becoming a fool so that they can become truly wise.

What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
If you truly see Christ as the Prize such that you will give everything you have to gain the Prize - you are promised you will find it.

That assumes that Christ is the son of God. How do I gain insight into Christianity without assuming that Christ is the son of God?

Fonzie wrote:
Nothing is accomplished in life without consecration - that's true in science, it's true when it comes to seeking and finding God.

Consecration is a religious concept.  

Fonzie wrote:
You make God and Christ your focus, your top priority, your #1 in thought, your heart's treasure.  It's not hard if your heart is in it - if you have truly "seen Christ".  Then the same power that raised Him from the dead will fuel your drawing near.

That assumes God exists. How do I learn about Christianity without assuming that God exists?

Fonzie wrote:
You get off the throne and fix your eyes on Christ.

How do I "fix my eyes on Christ?" How do I do it without assuming that God exists? Is there is any way to become a Christian without simply having faith that Christianity is true?

Fonzie wrote:
True, but if you have faith Christ is Lord you will have the desire. The "eye opening" that enables you to have that faith is not something I can do for you.  That's a miraculous thing, opening the eyes of the blind, a thing God does.  But as I said it pleases Him to do the eye opening through the preaching of His Son.  God is intent on giving Christ glory.

So, I need desire to be motivated to become a Christian? In order to have desire, I need to have faith that Christ is Lord?

Fonzie wrote:
No, neither does the sun come out of its tent like a bride groom and run its course with joy - it's figurative.  It's the artistry of the Scripture concerning the sun orbiting the earth.  The Bible is not a science book, doesn't claim to be.

Ah, sorry.

No, I was empathizing the objectivity of facts; I was not criticizing the Bible (not that it doesn't deserve criticism). 

Fonzie wrote:
I can't think of anything more unbelievable to me than atheism.  Sorry, I can't think of a comparison.

Why is it unbelievable?

Fonzie wrote:
I am completely fulfilled with Christ and the Holy Spirit and God in me.  It's a scientifically re producible thing too - I know several brothers and sisters that have the same experience with the same LORD and salvation.
 

Multiple personal accounts does not make it a "scientifically reproducible thing." Science is objective.

Fonzie wrote:
I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus is LORD, died for my sins, rose from the dead, now lives in me.  I believe the reality of this more than things I can touch and see.  I know that the Bible is true though my understanding is imperfect.

Okay.

 

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? In other words, if you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do?

 

Fonzie wrote:
There is no proof that Christianity is not true. There's nothing to do with regard to that because it is true.

Is there proof that it is true?

 

 

Butterbattle,

I can prove God exists - to me; I just can't prove it to you because God hasn't opened your eyes yet. 

As far as God proving Himself by opening the eyes of the spiritually blind - it's God revealing Himself not proving.  There is a difference in the attitude of those two.  You wouldn't have the "proving" flippant attitude if God's presence was revealed to you.

I know Christ because I have been "born anew" into Him.  I am a part of Him.  God's law has been written on my heart.  The thing that caused me to be separated from God has been effectively removed by the fountain of Christ's blood - both pardon and means for purifying.

I observe in me what works too - spiritually like you do your scientific things.  Your scientific pursuits will end however.  My relationship with Christ will be eternal.  Consider that and join. 

Like a child means what you think you know isn't a barrier to learning new things for one thing.  Humility is another aspect. 

You learn to discern spiritual things as a new born child into Christ - from toddler up, a little at a time. 

You can discuss a person without knowing them, but it's not like knowing them. 

I'm saying that the door is the gospel.  If you don't want to enter there - there is no other door.  You can talk to the caterpillar about what it's like to fly but if he doesn't want to go through the metamorphous he won't know.

Becoming a fool so that you may become wise means not letting what you think you know be a barrier to learning.

All the creation is evidence to me of God - artistry, everything is a wonder to me. 

The gospel has the power to bring you to seek God through Christ.  The Holy Spirit works through that. 

Consecration is not a religious concept.  You have to be focused and persistent and dedicated to accomplish anything in any respect. 

 

I'm short of time this morning -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
(Poe)

Fonzie wrote:

I can prove God exists - to me; I just can't prove it to you because God hasn't opened your eyes yet.

 

I can prove Elvis exists - to me;  I just can't prove it to you because you haven't de-lithiumized your brain yet.

Fonzie wrote:
I know Christ because I have been "born anew" into Him.  I am a part of Him.  God's law has been written on my heart.  The thing that caused me to be separated from God has been effectively removed by the fountain of Christ's blood - both pardon and means for purifying.

 

You think you know christ because false images of a nonexistent jesus have been digitally seared onto your cerebral cortex.  You are unknowingly part of the covert alien "jesus brainwashing project".  The thing that causes you to be separated from reality can be effectively removed by Elvis' peanut butter.

Fonzie wrote:
Like a child means what you think you know isn't a barrier to learning new things for one thing

Like a christian means what you think you know is false data induced by lithium poisoning, and a barrier to you processing reality.

Fonzie wrote:
  You can talk to the caterpillar about what it's like to fly but if he doesn't want to go through the metamorphous he won't know.

You can talk to a carpenter about what it's like to synthesize sub-atomic particles but if he doesn't want to go through junior college he won't know.

 

Fonzie wrote:

I'm short of time this morning -

Jesus wastes your time; Elvis offers you eternity. 


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:I can prove God

Fonzie wrote:
I can prove God exists - to me; I just can't prove it to you because God hasn't opened your eyes yet.

The eyes on my physical body are open. What are "eyes?" What is meant by opening them?

Proving implies using reason and showing evidence, so you are implying that you have evidence. What is your evidence? Why does God need to open my "eyes" for you to show me evidence? How is that relevant?

Fonzie wrote:
As far as God proving Himself by opening the eyes of the spiritually blind - it's God revealing Himself not proving.  There is a difference in the attitude of those two.  You wouldn't have the "proving" flippant attitude if God's presence was revealed to you.

The attitude is irrelevant. The definition of proving has nothing to do with attitude.

To prove a claim is to establish the truth of it. God "revealing himself" is proving. Revealing himself establishes the truth of the claim that he exists. 

Fonzie wrote:
I know Christ because I have been "born anew" into Him.  I am a part of Him.  God's law has been written on my heart.  The thing that caused me to be separated from God has been effectively removed by the fountain of Christ's blood - both pardon and means for purifying.

You did not get born again. You are still alive. What does being "born anew" mean?

You are not a physical part of him. What does that mean?

Your heart is an organ that pumps blood throughout your body. Nothing is written on it. What does that mean?

How do you know you were with God? What separated you from God? What the the "fountain of Christ's flood?" How does this remove what separated you from God?

Fonzie wrote:
I observe in me what works too - spiritually like you do your scientific things.

What works for science is what is useful and agrees with reality. That is not the same.

Fonzie wrote:
My relationship with Christ will be eternal.

How do you know that?

Fonzie wrote:
Consider that and join.

That assumes that Christ exists and a relationship with him is eternal. How do I become a Christian without begging the question? 

butterbattle wrote:
Right. First, you learn. How do you learn to "spiritually discern spiritual things?"

Fonzie wrote:
Like a child.

butterbattle wrote:
What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
Like a child means what you think you know isn't a barrier to learning new things for one thing.

Okay, so I can discern spiritual things if I take an unbiased approach, correct?

So, how do I discern spiritual things with an unbiased approach?

Fonzie wrote:
I try to use analogies, but it's not really possible to have a serious discussion about, say, unity in the Spirit without having the Spirit personally.

butterbattle wrote:
Why not?

Fonzie wrote:
It's kind of like the difference between talking about someone and knowing someone.

 

butterbattle wrote:
Can you discuss whether a person exists without personally knowing them? Btw, that assumes that they exist.
 

Fonzie wrote:
You can discuss a person without knowing them, but it's not like knowing them.
 

Can you have a serious discussion about whether a person exists without personally knowing them?

Fonzie wrote:
I'm saying that the door is the gospel.

How do I enter the door?

Fonzie wrote:
I would paraphrase that to: He made man intelligent enough to know that.

butterbattle wrote:
How would they use their intelligence to know that?

Fonzie wrote:
Maybe by becoming a fool so that they can become truly wise.

butterbattle wrote:
What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
Becoming a fool so that you may become wise means not letting what you think you know be a barrier to learning.

Okay, so we can use our intelligence to conclude that God exists if we're unbiased. 

Great. Now, how do we conclude that God exists?

Fonzie wrote:
All the creation is evidence to me of God -

What part of the universe contains objective evidence for God?

Fonzie wrote:
artistry, everything is a wonder to me.
 

How is the fact that everything is a wonder to you evidence for God? 

Fonzie wrote:
Consecration is not a religious concept.  You have to be focused and persistent and dedicated to accomplish anything in any respect.

Okay, fair enough. The most common uses of the word are religious in nature, but there are nonreligious definitions.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? In other words, if you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
I can prove God exists - to me; I just can't prove it to you because God hasn't opened your eyes yet.

The eyes on my physical body are open. What are "eyes?" What is meant by opening them?

Proving implies using reason and showing evidence, so you are implying that you have evidence. What is your evidence? Why does God need to open my "eyes" for you to show me evidence? How is that relevant?

Fonzie wrote:
As far as God proving Himself by opening the eyes of the spiritually blind - it's God revealing Himself not proving.  There is a difference in the attitude of those two.  You wouldn't have the "proving" flippant attitude if God's presence was revealed to you.

The attitude is irrelevant. The definition of proving has nothing to do with attitude.

To prove a claim is to establish the truth of it. God "revealing himself" is proving. Revealing himself establishes the truth of the claim that he exists. 

Fonzie wrote:
I know Christ because I have been "born anew" into Him.  I am a part of Him.  God's law has been written on my heart.  The thing that caused me to be separated from God has been effectively removed by the fountain of Christ's blood - both pardon and means for purifying.

You did not get born again. You are still alive. What does being "born anew" mean?

You are not a physical part of him. What does that mean?

Your heart is an organ that pumps blood throughout your body. Nothing is written on it. What does that mean?

How do you know you were with God? What separated you from God? What the the "fountain of Christ's flood?" How does this remove what separated you from God?

Fonzie wrote:
I observe in me what works too - spiritually like you do your scientific things.

What works for science is what is useful and agrees with reality. That is not the same.

Fonzie wrote:
My relationship with Christ will be eternal.

How do you know that?

Fonzie wrote:
Consider that and join.

That assumes that Christ exists and a relationship with him is eternal. How do I become a Christian without begging the question? 

butterbattle wrote:
Right. First, you learn. How do you learn to "spiritually discern spiritual things?"

Fonzie wrote:
Like a child.

butterbattle wrote:
What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
Like a child means what you think you know isn't a barrier to learning new things for one thing.

Okay, so I can discern spiritual things if I take an unbiased approach, correct?

So, how do I discern spiritual things with an unbiased approach?

Fonzie wrote:
I try to use analogies, but it's not really possible to have a serious discussion about, say, unity in the Spirit without having the Spirit personally.

butterbattle wrote:
Why not?

Fonzie wrote:
It's kind of like the difference between talking about someone and knowing someone.

 

butterbattle wrote:
Can you discuss whether a person exists without personally knowing them? Btw, that assumes that they exist.
 

Fonzie wrote:
You can discuss a person without knowing them, but it's not like knowing them.
 

Can you have a serious discussion about whether a person exists without personally knowing them?

Fonzie wrote:
I'm saying that the door is the gospel.

How do I enter the door?

Fonzie wrote:
I would paraphrase that to: He made man intelligent enough to know that.

butterbattle wrote:
How would they use their intelligence to know that?

Fonzie wrote:
Maybe by becoming a fool so that they can become truly wise.

butterbattle wrote:
What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
Becoming a fool so that you may become wise means not letting what you think you know be a barrier to learning.

Okay, so we can use our intelligence to conclude that God exists if we're unbiased. 

Great. Now, how do we conclude that God exists?

Fonzie wrote:
All the creation is evidence to me of God -

What part of the universe contains objective evidence for God?

Fonzie wrote:
artistry, everything is a wonder to me.
 

How is the fact that everything is a wonder to you evidence for God? 

Fonzie wrote:
Consecration is not a religious concept.  You have to be focused and persistent and dedicated to accomplish anything in any respect.

Okay, fair enough. The most common uses of the word are religious in nature, but there are nonreligious definitions.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? In other words, if you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do? 

 

Butterbattle,

The sense of sight is the most noble sense I would say.  Maybe that's why in Scripture God compares it to "faith" in the spiritual realm.  Through faith you can see a long way - to the beginning ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth) and beyond death.  To "see by faith" spiritual things - so faith is compared to physical sight in Scripture.  I made a mistake there anyway.  Even if your eyes were opened I couldn't reveal or prove anything to you - it would be God doing it.

The reason why God would have to open your eyes to the truth of the gospel is because of the effects of sin on the spiritual part of man.  Sin darkens and enslaves the spiritual part of man - conscience, heart, mind, will.  You ask about the heart.  I compare it to the table in your mind of "what's happening now".  There's a limited amount of space.  If you add another thing you bump something off.  That's my personal comparison - not scripture's.  But Jesus says a man's treasure is where his heart is. 

Attitude IS relevant.  For example while on earth Jesus didn't reveal Himself to certain people because of their lack of faith.  God says in scripture He opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.  Attitude does play a part in the spiritual realm.  You're not dealing with chemicals and electrons.  Man is made of earth and has a spirit - a bridge between the material and spiritual world.

And as far as God revealing Himself - He is there to reveal.  The problem lies with you not Him.

I have been born again through the water and the Spirit.  Just like our first birth this one is conceived - only by faith instead of flesh.  Then the seed of faith grows until there is a spiritual birth.  You could read about it happening to Paul Acts 9 and 22 or Phillip Acts 8.  All examples are unique it seems.  But they center on faith in the gospel - the atoning death of Christ.

Near to God: The first Pentecost (50 days after passover) was the giving of the law on Sinai, written on tablets of stone.  The last Pentecost was the day the church was established, (Acts 2).  This time God writes His law on our hearts - draws us near to Him, we are enabled to know Him through faith.  Through the death of Jesus the thing that kept us away from God (got us kicked out of the garden of Eden, separated from God) has been totally removed.  

What works spiritually is salvation by faith.  You could talk morals to men and it would be like taking the body out of a lake and putting it in a grave - no power to transform.  The gospel, the new birth through faith is able to bring a man to life. 

Where to start discerning spiritual things?  Proverbs says the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.  It says that to avoid spiritual vertigo (my paraphrase) stick with the instruments; that is, don't lean to your own understanding.  Totally trust in the Word of God.

How do I know my relationship with Christ will be eternal?  Once you have faith that the gospel is true (which means the whole Bible is true), you have a front row seat on everything in Scripture.  It's just like you were there.  I know my relationship with Christ will be eternal because I believe the Bible totally.  I don't have to work at it either - it proves itself to me every day.

You can beg the question all you want - in fact in order to dig deep for your foundation you would need to sort all these things out to the depth and be sure.  The point is that it should be first priority to seek it out and find out what the gospel is and decide if Christ is LORD or not.  If you truly desire to find out you are promised success.  "He who seeks - finds.  To him who knocks, it will be opened".

 

I can't look at any part of creation and not see miracles and God's glory.  Today I heard a mocking bird and saw some killdeer, beautiful flowers, stars, moon. 

I think you can have a serious discussion about whether somebody exists with one person not knowing him, but you can't cause him to believe.  What I would say to you about Jesus is He was the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world - all men, all sin, all time.  If you examine the Lamb (the Sacrifice) you will find no flaw in Him.  Everything He did was perfect.

How do you enter the door?  You knock, which means actively seek it out.  You could read the Bible.  You could pray - even to the "unknown God" as far as your concerned.  God knows what you are thinking.  There's no communication problem.

Do I value truth or evidence more?  Jesus said He is the Way (spiritual gps) the Truth (the Living Word) and the Life (not just "time" but real life, the abundant life).  I value Jesus more than anything, even my own life.  I hope I would die happily for Him.  I can't conceive of what you are asking.  There is no such thing as evidence that Christ, the Truth is not real. 

 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:  I can't

Fonzie wrote:
  I can't conceive of what you are asking.

You don't understand the concept of evidence ?

Fonzie wrote:
There is no such thing as evidence that Christ, the Truth is not real. 

He already dealt with that objection. It would seem you don't get the concept of reading either.

Let's trying a simpler question. Something you might be able to conceive : Lying. Good or bad ?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Fonzie wrote:The sense of

 

Fonzie wrote:
The sense of sight is the most noble sense I would say. Maybe that's why in Scripture God compares it to "faith" in the spiritual realm.  Through faith you can see a long way - to the beginning ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth) and beyond death.  To "see by faith" spiritual things - so faith is compared to physical sight in Scripture.  I made a mistake there anyway.  Even if your eyes were opened I couldn't reveal or prove anything to you - it would be God doing it.

Okay. So, faith is belief without evidence. "Eyes" are faith. "Opening my eyes" is equivalent to having faith. To "see" God, I must "open my eyes." Correct? Ergo, to believe in God ("see" God), I must believe simply because I want to ("open my eyes," have faith) and not because of any evidence. Correct?

Fonzie wrote:
The reason why God would have to open your eyes to the truth of the gospel is because of the effects of sin on the spiritual part of man.

How do you know that?

Fonzie wrote:
Sin darkens and enslaves the spiritual part of man - conscience, heart, mind, will.

What does "darkens and enslaves" mean? The heart is an organ. How does sin darken and enslave these things?

Fonzie wrote:
You ask about the heart.  I compare it to the table in your mind of "what's happening now".  There's a limited amount of space.  If you add another thing you bump something off.

Heart = emotionally invested, doesn't it? What you're saying is that there is only so much you can really love at one time.

Fonzie wrote:
But Jesus says a man's treasure is where his heart is.

So, my treasure is what I'm emotionally invested in?

Fonzie wrote:
Attitude IS relevant.  For example while on earth Jesus didn't reveal Himself to certain people because of their lack of faith.  God says in scripture He opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.  Attitude does play a part in the spiritual realm.  You're not dealing with chemicals and electrons.  Man is made of earth and has a spirit - a bridge between the material and spiritual world.

We're not talking about the spiritual realm, and we're not talking about chemicals and electrons. We're talking about the definition and the act of proving a claim. God revealing himself to me, proving that he exits, with the intention of proving that he exists is proving, by definition. It fits exactly under the definition of proving; how is his attitude relevant? 

Fonzie wrote:
And as far as God revealing Himself - He is there to reveal.  The problem lies with you not Him.

Okay. How can he be revealed?

Fonzie wrote:
I have been born again through the water and the Spirit.  Just like our first birth this one is conceived - only by faith instead of flesh.

What does that mean? 

Fonzie wrote:
This time God writes His law on our hearts - draws us near to Him, we are enabled to know Him through faith.

The heart is an organ. Nothing is written on it. 

Okay, so if the heart has to do with emotions, then you're saying that you're emotionally predisposed to want God? That makes sense.

Fonzie wrote:
What works spiritually is salvation by faith.  You could talk morals to men and it would be like taking the body out of a lake and putting it in a grave - no power to transform.  The gospel, the new birth through faith is able to bring a man to life.

What does that mean?

Fonzie wrote:
Where to start discerning spiritual things?  Proverbs says the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

...

Totally trust in the Word of God.

That assumes God exists, and it assumes that the Bible is infallible. When I asked you how to discern spiritual things, you said I had to be unbiased. This is not unbiased at all! This is pure question begging.  

How do I discern spiritual things from an unbiased perspective?

Fonzie wrote:
Once you have faith that the gospel is true (which means the whole Bible is true), you have a front row seat on everything in Scripture.

How do I have faith that the gospel is true?

Fonzie wrote:
It's just like you were there.

Then, surely, you have all the details.

How did Noah fit all the animals onto the ark?

Fonzie wrote:
I don't have to work at it either - it proves itself to me every day.

How?

Fonzie wrote:
You can beg the question all you want - in fact in order to dig deep for your foundation you would need to sort all these things out to the depth and be sure.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in the premises. If you want me to take you seriously, you cannot beg the question all you want. 

Fonzie wrote:
The point is that it should be first priority to seek it out and find out what the gospel is and decide if Christ is LORD or not.  If you truly desire to find out you are promised success.

You are equivocating success with the gospel being true. So, you're saying that if you are unbiased, then you will come to the conclusion that the gospel is true. This is only possible if the gospel contains objective evidence. Do you agree?

So, what's the evidence?

Fonzie wrote:
I can't look at any part of creation and not see miracles and God's glory. Today I heard a mocking bird and saw some killdeer, beautiful flowers, stars, moon.

What is miraculous about any of those things? And, how do you see "God's glory" in them. You are merely projecting your sense of wonder.

Fonzie wrote:
I think you can have a serious discussion about whether somebody exists with one person not knowing him, but you can't cause him to believe.

Can you cause him to believe that the person exists?

Fonzie wrote:
What I would say to you about Jesus is He was the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world - all men, all sin, all time.  If you examine the Lamb (the Sacrifice) you will find no flaw in Him.  Everything He did was perfect.

How do you know that?

Fonzie wrote:
You could read the Bible.

I've read the Bible.

Fonzie wrote:
You could pray

I've prayed at an earlier point in my life. It doesn't do anything.

Fonzie wrote:
God knows what you are thinking.  There's no communication problem.

Then why do I need to pray?

Fonzie wrote:
Do I value truth or evidence more?

That is NOT what I asked!!! You are seriously either a very confused or very dishonest individual. I asked, "Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? In other words, if you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do?" 

Fonzie wrote:
Jesus said He is the Way (spiritual gps) the Truth (the Living Word) and the Life (not just "time" but real life, the abundant life).  I value Jesus more than anything, even my own life.  I hope I would die happily for Him.

The question is hypothetical. Your beliefs do not equal truth. Truth exists independent of your beliefs. Now, do you value your belief in Jesus more than you value truth?  Answering this question not require you to assume that you're wrong. Again, it's hypothetical. In other words, if, hypothetically, it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus never existed, would you still worship Jesus? Would you still be a Christian?

Fonzie wrote:
I can't conceive of what you are asking.

So, you cannot understand/answer the question, do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? And, you cannot understand the question, if Christianity was shown to be false like all other religions beyond a reasonable doubt, what would you do?

You have so much faith that not only are you 100% positively certain that you are right, you cannot even conceive of being wrong. If the question is presented to you, your faith prevents you from even comprehending the sentence.

Is this a sound analysis of your belief structure?

Fonzie wrote:
There is no such thing as evidence that Christ, the Truth is not real.

Well, this is very interesting.

You changed my question from truth v. belief to truth v. evidence. Then, you equivocated Christ with truth itself and asserted that there was no evidence against truth. 

Edit: Now, you've inspired me to ask more questions. You might have a hard time conceiving of these too.

Do you value evidence more or do you value faith more?

Can you imagine living without a belief in God? Can you imagine living without a belief in Christianity? 

Do you think atheists actually don't believe in God or are they just rebelling and lying? If they actually don't believe in God, do you think they are all depressed? 

If someone proved to you that there was no God, would you be depressed? Would you be depressed enough to kill yourself?

Do you agree that the definition of faith is belief without evidence? Other than faith, would you say that your beliefs are based more on objective evidence or emotions? If it's objective evidence, can you give one example?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Fonzie

Anonymouse wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
  I can't conceive of what you are asking.

You don't understand the concept of evidence ?

Ugh....notice that wasn't even my question.

He completely changed my question, even though he quoted it in the same post, from truth v belief to truth v evidence. I believe it's because the former disjunction was making Jesus cry. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Ugh....notice that wasn't even my question.

He completely changed my question, even though he quoted it in the same post, from truth v belief to truth v evidence. I believe it's because the former disjunction was making Jesus cry. 

I noticed that, yeah. He does that a lot. It's why his threads are so long.

I tried to make him answer a question with "yes" or "no" once. I believe it took about 4 months, and after that, he totally ignored any implications of his answer.

Just copy and paste your questions untill he answers them. And don't hold your breath. Basically, he's just here to preach.

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Ugh....notice that wasn't even my question.

He completely changed my question, even though he quoted it in the same post, from truth v belief to truth v evidence. I believe it's because the former disjunction was making Jesus cry. 

I noticed that, yeah. He does that a lot. It's why his threads are so long.

I tried to make him answer a question with "yes" or "no" once. I believe it took about 4 months, and after that, he totally ignored any implications of his answer.

Just copy and paste your questions untill he answers them. And don't hold your breath. Basically, he's just here to preach.

 

Which is why I stopped caring. You can promise the pink unicorn exists but promises are easily broken.

Throwing facts against a monkey flinging poo will not solve anything and may incite the monkey to poo more and fling harder.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EVIDENCE AND TRUTH

butterbattle wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
  I can't conceive of what you are asking.

You don't understand the concept of evidence ?

Ugh....notice that wasn't even my question.

He completely changed my question, even though he quoted it in the same post, from truth v belief to truth v evidence. I believe it's because the former disjunction was making Jesus cry. 

Butterbattle,

We are still suffering from the effects of the Tower of Babel, so I'm trying to zero in on this question you are asking.  I didn't mean to change it, but just because my answer isn't what you want doesn't mean it's not my answer.  Your answers are not what I want either.

If I understand it right you have a hypothetical situation you are putting before me that on the one hand there is truth challenging my belief?  Is that right?  And the question is which would I go with? 

And I have evidence of the truth I believe, but it is spiritual evidence not scientific evidence.  I Know the One I believe in and He described Himself as the Way, Truth and the Life.  I believe in Him and He is the Truth. 

What is an example of your evidence that the Truth I believe in is not the Truth?  

I just reread my post and I think I answered your question.  Bring your "evidence" out of the hypothetical and show me what it is.  Again, Jesus is the definition of Truth to me and through faith in the Scripture I know that Jesus is living in me.  I'm not saying that I am the Truth because I have a ton to learn, but He is the Truth and He is living in me.  What's your evidence against He Whom I Know?  You can blow about evidence and maybe that impresses your friends, but not somebody who knows the Truth.  Knowing the Truth frees you from false impressions of Him. 

 

 

 

 

 


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We fully

BobSpence1 wrote:

We fully accept that many people experience the same thing you have from accepting the same beliefs and whatever else you do to 'accept Jesus'.

This is the same misconception you had in your original post - we do accept that it 'works' for you, that you feel what you claim to.

You still don't get our point.

What we keep saying is that your experience does not prove that there actually is a God or Jesus character 'out there' communing with you, you have not demonstrated in any way that it needs anything more than certain common brain 'circuits' for you all to experience these same feelings. Pretty much all religions report very similar feelings, despite having often very different details in their beliefs.

So you really need much more than just these feelings you keep describing to prove that there is anything more to your faith than just the beliefs themselves, and the feelings they can induce in your brain. No actual God or Jesus required, just you being convinced that they do exist, even if they don't.

It really isn't a mystery to Science.

 

 

BobSpence1,

Bob, I said I can't prove it to you because I can't open the eyes of the blind, but I can prove it to me.  Several others - as you mention - have the same scientifically reproducible result.  I don't think "feeling" is the right word - I've said that before too.  This is a spiritually discernible thing - similar to discerning guilt of conscience.

What is not a mystery to science?  

 

 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:BobSpence1

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We fully accept that many people experience the same thing you have from accepting the same beliefs and whatever else you do to 'accept Jesus'.

This is the same misconception you had in your original post - we do accept that it 'works' for you, that you feel what you claim to.

You still don't get our point.

What we keep saying is that your experience does not prove that there actually is a God or Jesus character 'out there' communing with you, you have not demonstrated in any way that it needs anything more than certain common brain 'circuits' for you all to experience these same feelings. Pretty much all religions report very similar feelings, despite having often very different details in their beliefs.

So you really need much more than just these feelings you keep describing to prove that there is anything more to your faith than just the beliefs themselves, and the feelings they can induce in your brain. No actual God or Jesus required, just you being convinced that they do exist, even if they don't.

It really isn't a mystery to Science.

BobSpence1,

Bob, I said I can't prove it to you because I can't open the eyes of the blind, but I can prove it to me.  Several others - as you mention - have the same scientifically reproducible result.  I don't think "feeling" is the right word - I've said that before too.  This is a spiritually discernible thing - similar to discerning guilt of conscience.

What is not a mystery to science?  

 

All you are 'replicating' is the same experience you describe.

Before we talk about 'replication' in Science, we have to have a theory about what is actually happening, and from which we have devised an experiment which will allow us to test whether that theory seems to work in lettings us predict some result which was not expected from existing explanations. 'Replication' refers to someone else repeating the same experiment and getting the same result.

Someone else having the same experience from the same beliefs and applying the same practices just 'proves' that is due to a common underlying process or mechanism, which is not what we are disputing.

When entirely different religious beliefs can lead to broadly similar experiences, it actually casts into some doubt your explanation.

That people can have such experiences as you describe is what is not a mystery to science. Having the complete conviction that you are communing with an external entity of some sort is something which can be induced by chemical or electrical stimulation of particular parts of the brain. IOW, it does not depend on there actually being such an entity, just the strong belief, faith, that such a being, whether God, Jesus, Allah, or whatever, does exist. There is absolutely no way our minds can distinguish between a 'true' perception and a false one, a delusion, without actually checking it against external reality in some way.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:We are still

Fonzie wrote:
We are still suffering from the effects of the Tower of Babel, 

The effect of what God did upon seeing the Tower of Babel was to give people different languages.

We are typing the same language.

Fonzie wrote:
I didn't mean to change it, but just because my answer isn't what you want

It's not an answer. You did not answer my question.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Here, I'll make it even easier for you, multiple choice. Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs. 

Fonzie wrote:
doesn't mean it's not my answer.

It's not an answer at all. You have not answered the question.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
Your answers are not what I want either.

That is not the same. I answered your questions. You simply don't like my answers. You have not answered my question.

Why can't you answer the question? Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If Christianity was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, would be still be Christian? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
If I understand it right you have a hypothetical situation you are putting before me that on the one hand there is truth challenging my belief?  Is that right?  And the question is which would I go with?

Yes, exactly. Which would you go with under the assumption that Christianity is shown to be false. So, you do understand the question, at least to an extent.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
What is an example of your evidence that the Truth I believe in is not the Truth?

How is this relevant? Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical question? 

Do you value truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
I just reread my post and I think I answered your question.

No, you did not. 

Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
Bring your "evidence" out of the hypothetical and show me what it is.

Why do you need evidence to answer the question? Evidence is completely irrelevant for this question. That's why it's called a hypothetical question. 

Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical question?

Fonzie wrote:
Again, Jesus is the definition of Truth to me and through faith in the Scripture I know that Jesus is living in me.  I'm not saying that I am the Truth because I have a ton to learn, but He is the Truth and He is living in me.  What's your evidence against He Whom I Know?  You can blow about evidence and maybe that impresses your friends, but not somebody who knows the Truth.  Knowing the Truth frees you from false impressions of Him. 

You are confusing Jesus with your belief in Jesus. Jesus being infallible does not make your belief in Jesus infallible. Your belief is based on nothing more than your fallible self. Jesus can be defined to define truth, but he does not actually define truth unless he exists. If you have no evidence for Jesus, then you have nothing than your belief in Jesus. Your beliefs do not equal truth. Your belief in Jesus cannot equal truth. It can only conform to the truth. 

The question, do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? It is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to know what is true or what is supported by evidence or to know any measure of validity of any claim to answer the question at all because the question is IF something is the case, then what. The question what would you do under the assumption that there is overwhelming evidence. Even if the situation presented is absolutely impossible, the question can still be asked and answered. That's why it's a hypothetical question! The definition of a hypothetical question is that it's based on a condition, a theoretical premise. 

Ah, well, it's very frustrating, but very interesting that you cannot answer such a simple question (Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs). Based on what you've written in the last several responses, I think you are, in all seriousness, probably one of the most confused and closed-minded individuals I've ever communicated with. If your next post is like this one, then I'll probably just end this conversation. It is simply pointless. 

I think I talked with you on this same thread about a year ago, but it feels lot different this time. Even then, I could tell that you constantly resorted to preaching and weren't discussing these issues with an open mind at all, but I was confused about a lot of things. This time, every topic and issue feels a lot clearer to me; I feel that I've learned a lot about God, religion, science, and the world in general, on and off this site since then. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have changed much at all. If anything, you're using even more doublethink than before. So, it's almost like your religion has effectively prevented you from thinking about anything and/or learning anything new during this entire time; it's like it prevents you from improving yourself or maturing. Hmmm, I think I'm even more convinced now that religion really can and often does enslave the mind in a way that is extremely pervasive. 

I'm glad I'm free.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
IT'S NOT A OR B - IT'S ALPHA AND OMEGA

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
We are still suffering from the effects of the Tower of Babel, 

The effect of what God did upon seeing the Tower of Babel was to give people different languages.

We are typing the same language.

Fonzie wrote:
I didn't mean to change it, but just because my answer isn't what you want

It's not an answer. You did not answer my question.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Here, I'll make it even easier for you, multiple choice. Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs. 

Fonzie wrote:
doesn't mean it's not my answer.

It's not an answer at all. You have not answered the question.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
Your answers are not what I want either.

That is not the same. I answered your questions. You simply don't like my answers. You have not answered my question.

Why can't you answer the question? Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If Christianity was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, would be still be Christian? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
If I understand it right you have a hypothetical situation you are putting before me that on the one hand there is truth challenging my belief?  Is that right?  And the question is which would I go with?

Yes, exactly. Which would you go with under the assumption that Christianity is shown to be false. So, you do understand the question, at least to an extent.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
What is an example of your evidence that the Truth I believe in is not the Truth?

How is this relevant? Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical question? 

Do you value truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
I just reread my post and I think I answered your question.

No, you did not. 

Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
Bring your "evidence" out of the hypothetical and show me what it is.

Why do you need evidence to answer the question? Evidence is completely irrelevant for this question. That's why it's called a hypothetical question. 

Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical question?

Fonzie wrote:
Again, Jesus is the definition of Truth to me and through faith in the Scripture I know that Jesus is living in me.  I'm not saying that I am the Truth because I have a ton to learn, but He is the Truth and He is living in me.  What's your evidence against He Whom I Know?  You can blow about evidence and maybe that impresses your friends, but not somebody who knows the Truth.  Knowing the Truth frees you from false impressions of Him. 

You are confusing Jesus with your belief in Jesus. Jesus being infallible does not make your belief in Jesus infallible. Your belief is based on nothing more than your fallible self. Jesus can be defined to define truth, but he does not actually define truth unless he exists. If you have no evidence for Jesus, then you have nothing than your belief in Jesus. Your beliefs do not equal truth. Your belief in Jesus cannot equal truth. It can only conform to the truth. 

The question, do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? It is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to know what is true or what is supported by evidence or to know any measure of validity of any claim to answer the question at all because the question is IF something is the case, then what. The question what would you do under the assumption that there is overwhelming evidence. Even if the situation presented is absolutely impossible, the question can still be asked and answered. That's why it's a hypothetical question! The definition of a hypothetical question is that it's based on a condition, a theoretical premise. 

Ah, well, it's very frustrating, but very interesting that you cannot answer such a simple question (Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs). Based on what you've written in the last several responses, I think you are, in all seriousness, probably one of the most confused and closed-minded individuals I've ever communicated with. If your next post is like this one, then I'll probably just end this conversation. It is simply pointless. 

I think I talked with you on this same thread about a year ago, but it feels lot different this time. Even then, I could tell that you constantly resorted to preaching and weren't discussing these issues with an open mind at all, but I was confused about a lot of things. This time, every topic and issue feels a lot clearer to me; I feel that I've learned a lot about God, religion, science, and the world in general, on and off this site since then. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have changed much at all. If anything, you're using even more doublethink than before. So, it's almost like your religion has effectively prevented you from thinking about anything and/or learning anything new during this entire time; it's like it prevents you from improving yourself or maturing. Hmmm, I think I'm even more convinced now that religion really can and often does enslave the mind in a way that is extremely pervasive. 

I'm glad I'm free.

 

Butterbattle,

Well it looks like you have come up with your concrete evidence - me.  You remind me of the arrogant hypocrites that came to Jesus trying to trap him concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery.  It was an (a) or (b) limited multiple choice question too - just like yours, what a coincidence. 

To me your question is not about Christianity as you put it.  You would love to look at Christianity (imperfect, much - in name only) rather than Christ.  You can't find any flaw in Him can you?  You for sure can in me, my lack of advancement in your eyes, my shackles of mind.  You didn't produce any evidence against Christ - who is the definition of Truth.  You want to point to man's misrepresentation of Him.  It comes from the source of your rejection of Him, which is the junction where you made your wrong turn.  Re-calculate, dust off your wings, and see if you can find it.  As you say, you don't need me - very true, very true.  I'm a part of the imperfect Christianity that on some level misrepresents the Truth of Christ.  You do, however, need Jesus.  There's no "a" or "b" about that. 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:butterbattle

Fonzie wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
We are still suffering from the effects of the Tower of Babel, 

The effect of what God did upon seeing the Tower of Babel was to give people different languages.

We are typing the same language.

Fonzie wrote:
I didn't mean to change it, but just because my answer isn't what you want

It's not an answer. You did not answer my question.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Here, I'll make it even easier for you, multiple choice. Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs. 

Fonzie wrote:
doesn't mean it's not my answer.

It's not an answer at all. You have not answered the question.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
Your answers are not what I want either.

That is not the same. I answered your questions. You simply don't like my answers. You have not answered my question.

Why can't you answer the question? Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If Christianity was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, would be still be Christian? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
If I understand it right you have a hypothetical situation you are putting before me that on the one hand there is truth challenging my belief?  Is that right?  And the question is which would I go with?

Yes, exactly. Which would you go with under the assumption that Christianity is shown to be false. So, you do understand the question, at least to an extent.

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
What is an example of your evidence that the Truth I believe in is not the Truth?

How is this relevant? Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical question? 

Do you value truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
I just reread my post and I think I answered your question.

No, you did not. 

Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
Bring your "evidence" out of the hypothetical and show me what it is.

Why do you need evidence to answer the question? Evidence is completely irrelevant for this question. That's why it's called a hypothetical question. 

Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical question?

Fonzie wrote:
Again, Jesus is the definition of Truth to me and through faith in the Scripture I know that Jesus is living in me.  I'm not saying that I am the Truth because I have a ton to learn, but He is the Truth and He is living in me.  What's your evidence against He Whom I Know?  You can blow about evidence and maybe that impresses your friends, but not somebody who knows the Truth.  Knowing the Truth frees you from false impressions of Him. 

You are confusing Jesus with your belief in Jesus. Jesus being infallible does not make your belief in Jesus infallible. Your belief is based on nothing more than your fallible self. Jesus can be defined to define truth, but he does not actually define truth unless he exists. If you have no evidence for Jesus, then you have nothing than your belief in Jesus. Your beliefs do not equal truth. Your belief in Jesus cannot equal truth. It can only conform to the truth. 

The question, do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? It is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to know what is true or what is supported by evidence or to know any measure of validity of any claim to answer the question at all because the question is IF something is the case, then what. The question what would you do under the assumption that there is overwhelming evidence. Even if the situation presented is absolutely impossible, the question can still be asked and answered. That's why it's a hypothetical question! The definition of a hypothetical question is that it's based on a condition, a theoretical premise. 

Ah, well, it's very frustrating, but very interesting that you cannot answer such a simple question (Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs). Based on what you've written in the last several responses, I think you are, in all seriousness, probably one of the most confused and closed-minded individuals I've ever communicated with. If your next post is like this one, then I'll probably just end this conversation. It is simply pointless. 

I think I talked with you on this same thread about a year ago, but it feels lot different this time. Even then, I could tell that you constantly resorted to preaching and weren't discussing these issues with an open mind at all, but I was confused about a lot of things. This time, every topic and issue feels a lot clearer to me; I feel that I've learned a lot about God, religion, science, and the world in general, on and off this site since then. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have changed much at all. If anything, you're using even more doublethink than before. So, it's almost like your religion has effectively prevented you from thinking about anything and/or learning anything new during this entire time; it's like it prevents you from improving yourself or maturing. Hmmm, I think I'm even more convinced now that religion really can and often does enslave the mind in a way that is extremely pervasive. 

I'm glad I'm free.

 

Butterbattle,

Well it looks like you have come up with your concrete evidence - me.  You remind me of the arrogant hypocrites that came to Jesus trying to trap him concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery.  It was an (a) or (b) limited multiple choice question too - just like yours, what a coincidence. 

To me your question is not about Christianity as you put it.  You would love to look at Christianity (imperfect, much - in name only) rather than Christ.  You can't find any flaw in Him can you?  You for sure can in me, my lack of advancement in your eyes, my shackles of mind.  You didn't produce any evidence against Christ - who is the definition of Truth.  You want to point to man's misrepresentation of Him.  It comes from the source of your rejection of Him, which is the junction where you made your wrong turn.  Re-calculate, dust off your wings, and see if you can find it.  As you say, you don't need me - very true, very true.  I'm a part of the imperfect Christianity that on some level misrepresents the Truth of Christ.  You do, however, need Jesus.  There's no "a" or "b" about that. 

 

 

 

 

You provide him the evidence and then you complain when he calls you out? Interesting...

I really don't understand why your complaining about the question - you've given the answer multiple times. He just wants you to own up to it - you value your belief system more than evidence. You've renamed your belief system "Truth" to make it more special. Warm fuzzies for the win - facts need not apply.

Perhaps he didn't attack Christ because Christianity stopped being about Christ a long time ago. Yours, in particular, could well be called Fonzie-anity. You've stopped being Christlike and have even abandoned the tenets of your religion's creator, Paul of Tarsus. You've become your own God. Congratulations on being a legend in your own mind.

I'm glad you acknowledge the imperfection of your religion. As your god is also a creation of men, I look forward to acknowledging its imperfection as well. In particular, I'd like you to admit to the imperfection of the god you worship in the mirror.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Gosh, I wonder if he

Gosh, I wonder if he answered the question...

Fonzie wrote:
Butterbattle,

Well it looks like you have come up with your concrete evidence - me.  You remind me of the arrogant hypocrites that came to Jesus trying to trap him concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery.  It was an (a) or (b) limited multiple choice question too - just like yours, what a coincidence. 

Don't like him anymore, eh ?

Let me get this straight, so instead of answering his question, you choose to insult him and compare yourself to jesus ? And you call him an "arrogant hypocrite" ?

 

Fonzie wrote:
To me your question is not about Christianity as you put it.

Did he say it was ? The question is about you, as far as I can tell. Aren't we allowed to ask questions about you ? And why does it even matter what the question is about if you're not going to answer it anyway ?

 

Fonzie wrote:
You would love to look at Christianity (imperfect, much - in name only) rather than Christ.  You can't find any flaw in Him can you?  You for sure can in me, my lack of advancement in your eyes, my shackles of mind.  You didn't produce any evidence against Christ - who is the definition of Truth.  You want to point to man's misrepresentation of Him.  It comes from the source of your rejection of Him, which is the junction where you made your wrong turn.  Re-calculate, dust off your wings, and see if you can find it.  As you say, you don't need me - very true, very true.  I'm a part of the imperfect Christianity that on some level misrepresents the Truth of Christ.

 

Nobody's asking you to be the perfect christian. We're just asking you to answer a question. Which you refuse to do.

 

Fonzie wrote:
You do, however, need Jesus.  There's no "a" or "b" about that. 

Yes, there is. "a": We do. "b" : We don't.

b.

There you go. Now you try it. Answer his question.

Do you value truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

After that, you can answer mine : Why did you lie ?

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:Well it looks

Fonzie wrote:
Well it looks like you have come up with your concrete evidence - me.

I wasn't trying to come up with evidence. I was trying to get you to answer a question, which you still have not answered. Do you value truth more or do you value your beliefs more? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:
You remind me of the arrogant hypocrites that came to Jesus trying to trap him concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery.  It was an (a) or (b) limited multiple choice question too - just like yours, what a coincidence.

"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach him. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." John 8:1-6

This question isn't really deceitful. It does rely on an assumption, that allowing the woman to live would be a transgression against Old Testament law, and thus, would be a transgression against God. However, answering the question does not require you to agree to the assumption, so it's not really a "trap." Also, this assumption is made explicit, so Jesus could simply refrain from stoning the woman and explain why it did not break Moses' Law.

Their complaint is entirely legitimate too. Don't you remember the seventh commandment? "You shall not commit adultery." Exodus 20:14. And, remember, what is the punishment for adultery? "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." Deuteronomy 22:22  "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10 And, when you want to kill someone or something, what's one of God's preferred ways of killing them?

Exodus 19:14 "He shall surely be stoned...."

21:28 "Then the ox shall surely be stoned."

Leviticus 20:2 "the people of the land shall stone him with stones."

20:27 "they shall stone them with stones."

24:16 "all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Numbers 15:36 "and stoned him to death."

Deuteronomy 13:10 "shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

17:5 "stone him with stones, that he die."

21:21 "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones."

22:21 "the men of her city shall stone her with stones."

22:24 "shall stone them with stones that they die."

Joshua 7:25 "Then all Israel stoned him."

1 King 21:10 "stone him, that he may die."

 

So, let's recap. The woman committed adultery. The OT says that adulterers must be killed, preferably by stoning. The Pharisees stated, "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women," which is entirely correct. They ask, "Now what do you say?," which is not multiple choice. So, what does Jesus say? Does he give them an explanation?

"But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."" John 8:6-7    

Nope. Jesus is very good at dodging questions; he didn't address their question at all. Instead, he turns around and introduces an implicit premise that is not supported by anything in the OT, which is that you have to be free from sin to be allowed to stone anyone.

My question is even less deceitful than the one the Pharisees asked. It doesn't make any assumptions at all. It's just, "Do you value truth more or do you value your beliefs more?"

Fonzie wrote:
To me your question is not about Christianity as you put it.

It's not about Christianity. It's really about you. 

Fonzie wrote:
You would love to look at Christianity (imperfect, much - in name only) rather than Christ.  You can't find any flaw in Him can you?

I like Jesus more than most religious figures, but if you're talking about the Jesus presented in the Bible, he certainly has flaws. Just off the top of my head, he disrespected his parents, cursed a fig tree for not being in season, had a short temper at times, boasted about how awesome he is as the son of God, and that situation I wrote about just above this is a fairly good example to think about; I simply didn't point them out because we weren't discussing Jesus. Or, at least, I wasn't.

Also, I usually evaluate evidence, not morals. So, Jesus's personality doesn't matter much. If he is perfect, it is only his character that is perfect. I'm more concerned about his existence. To prove his existence, you need evidence. That he is an awesome guy doesn't prove that he exists. 

Fonzie wrote:
You for sure can in me, my lack of advancement in your eyes, my shackles of mind.  You didn't produce any evidence against Christ - who is the definition of Truth.

I wasn't trying to produce evidence against Christ. I was trying to get you to answer a question, which, by the way, you still haven't answered.

Fonzie wrote:
You want to point to man's misrepresentation of Him.

I want you to answer my question. Go on. Do it. Type "(b)" and prove your unwavering devotion to Christ.

I use the Bible, and what Christians believe. There's nothing else to point to. (Edit: Well, there are other documents that mention Jesus. There are also all the books that the council of Nicea took out via majority rule; I assume that some of those books mentioned Jesus.) Pointing to "Jesus himself" is meaningless, as there is no knowledge of anything about Jesus other than through mere fallible men.

Fonzie wrote:
You do, however, need Jesus.  There's no "a" or "b" about that. 

That's only if Christianity is true and only if I "need" to be saved from hell. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yours, in

jcgadfly wrote:
Yours, in particular, could well be called Fonzie-anity.

Lol. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
A & B

butterbattle wrote:

Why can't you answer the question? Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If Christianity was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, would be still be Christian? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

 

I'm glad I'm free.

 

Butterbattle,

In the Scriptures you lit up this site with notice Jesus didn't set aside the Law or diminish it a bit.  He just qualified the executioner.  To their credit those hypocrites were conscious they weren't the free ones - not you however.  You don't even realize you are enslaved in the most miserable of prisons - sin. 

Above is where you framed the question about Christianity; but ok now you want it to be a) truth or b) evidence, a false dilemma.  But I have a overflowing fountain of truth and evidence (s) within me.  I'll never thirst for truth or evidence.  And you aren't excluded from this either - except by your false view of yourself. 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:butterbattle

Fonzie wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Why can't you answer the question? Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If Christianity was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, would be still be Christian? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

 

I'm glad I'm free.

 

Butterbattle,

In the Scriptures you lit up this site with notice Jesus didn't set aside the Law or diminish it a bit.  He just qualified the executioner.  To their credit those hypocrites were conscious they weren't the free ones - not you however.  You don't even realize you are enslaved in the most miserable of prisons - sin. 

Above is where you framed the question about Christianity; but ok now you want it to be a) truth or b) evidence, a false dilemma.  But I have a overflowing fountain of truth and evidence (s) within me.  I'll never thirst for truth or evidence.  And you aren't excluded from this either - except by your false view of yourself. 

 

 

Do you not read or do your lying circuits automatically kick in when the questions get uncomfortable?

Once more...

Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If Christianity was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, would be still be Christian? Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for your beliefs.

Your "evidence" can be summed up as the warm fuzzy feelings you get from endorphins. In that case, who needs Jesus - I've got chocolate.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
This is gonna take months

This is gonna take months again, right ?

Fonzie wrote:

Butterbattle,

In the Scriptures you lit up this site with notice Jesus didn't set aside the Law or diminish it a bit.  He just qualified the executioner.  To their credit those hypocrites were conscious they weren't the free ones - not you however.  You don't even realize you are enslaved in the most miserable of prisons - sin.

You just called him a hypocrite again, just for asking you a question. You must be really getting scared now. And he's a sinner too ? I suppose lying isn't a sin anymore, cuz you won't stop doing it.

You're about two posts away from calling him the devil, aren't you ?

 

Fonzie wrote:
Above is where you framed the question about Christianity; but ok now you want it to be a) truth or b) evidence, a false dilemma.  But I have a overflowing fountain of truth and evidence (s) within me.  I'll never thirst for truth or evidence.  And you aren't excluded from this either - except by your false view of yourself. 

You have an overflowing fountain of fear, that's what you have. Trying to insult the person who asked you a question doesn't work as an answer. Try again.

I'm not even going to bother with cutting and pasting the question. Just answer it.


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
REPLICATION

BobSpence1 wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We fully accept that many people experience the same thing you have from accepting the same beliefs and whatever else you do to 'accept Jesus'.

This is the same misconception you had in your original post - we do accept that it 'works' for you, that you feel what you claim to.

You still don't get our point.

What we keep saying is that your experience does not prove that there actually is a God or Jesus character 'out there' communing with you, you have not demonstrated in any way that it needs anything more than certain common brain 'circuits' for you all to experience these same feelings. Pretty much all religions report very similar feelings, despite having often very different details in their beliefs.

So you really need much more than just these feelings you keep describing to prove that there is anything more to your faith than just the beliefs themselves, and the feelings they can induce in your brain. No actual God or Jesus required, just you being convinced that they do exist, even if they don't.

It really isn't a mystery to Science.

BobSpence1,

Bob, I said I can't prove it to you because I can't open the eyes of the blind, but I can prove it to me.  Several others - as you mention - have the same scientifically reproducible result.  I don't think "feeling" is the right word - I've said that before too.  This is a spiritually discernible thing - similar to discerning guilt of conscience.

What is not a mystery to science?  

 

 

All you are 'replicating' is the same experience you describe.

Before we talk about 'replication' in Science, we have to have a theory about what is actually happening, and from which we have devised an experiment which will allow us to test whether that theory seems to work in lettings us predict some result which was not expected from existing explanations. 'Replication' refers to someone else repeating the same experiment and getting the same result.

Someone else having the same experience from the same beliefs and applying the same practices just 'proves' that is due to a common underlying process or mechanism, which is not what we are disputing.

When entirely different religious beliefs can lead to broadly similar experiences, it actually casts into some doubt your explanation.

That people can have such experiences as you describe is what is not a mystery to science. Having the complete conviction that you are communing with an external entity of some sort is something which can be induced by chemical or electrical stimulation of particular parts of the brain. IOW, it does not depend on there actually being such an entity, just the strong belief, faith, that such a being, whether God, Jesus, Allah, or whatever, does exist. There is absolutely no way our minds can distinguish between a 'true' perception and a false one, a delusion, without actually checking it against external reality in some way.

 

 

BobSpence1,

This is similar to your replication in a realm foreign to you but your experience should help you understand.  I believe in Jesus, have been "born anew" into Jesus and He has sealed me with the Holy Spirit.  Others have had this same experience.  As long as I maintain my unity in the Spirit, since there is only One Spirit all those who maintain unity in Christ with the One Spirit are in unity.  Christ is the head of this body and though we are individual unique members of this living body we are in unity with each other.  The bones and ligaments fit and work smoothly if we maintain the unity with the One Spirit - and in our fellowship we share our common experience.  In the Spirit there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, rich nor poor - we can discuss our common citizenship and communicate freely about spiritual things.  You are outside the door wondering what is happening and are trying to find an honest man with a lantern. 

Just like there have been false scientific reports, falsified results, etc, there are counterfeit examples.  There are professors who are not genuine.  There may be a broader qualification for atheists - maybe as long as you are at least blasphemous to some degree you're at least a little devil I don't know, but the more valuable something is the more counterfeit examples there are of it.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:BobSpence1

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We fully accept that many people experience the same thing you have from accepting the same beliefs and whatever else you do to 'accept Jesus'.

This is the same misconception you had in your original post - we do accept that it 'works' for you, that you feel what you claim to.

You still don't get our point.

What we keep saying is that your experience does not prove that there actually is a God or Jesus character 'out there' communing with you, you have not demonstrated in any way that it needs anything more than certain common brain 'circuits' for you all to experience these same feelings. Pretty much all religions report very similar feelings, despite having often very different details in their beliefs.

So you really need much more than just these feelings you keep describing to prove that there is anything more to your faith than just the beliefs themselves, and the feelings they can induce in your brain. No actual God or Jesus required, just you being convinced that they do exist, even if they don't.

It really isn't a mystery to Science.

BobSpence1,

Bob, I said I can't prove it to you because I can't open the eyes of the blind, but I can prove it to me.  Several others - as you mention - have the same scientifically reproducible result.  I don't think "feeling" is the right word - I've said that before too.  This is a spiritually discernible thing - similar to discerning guilt of conscience.

What is not a mystery to science?  

 

 

All you are 'replicating' is the same experience you describe.

Before we talk about 'replication' in Science, we have to have a theory about what is actually happening, and from which we have devised an experiment which will allow us to test whether that theory seems to work in lettings us predict some result which was not expected from existing explanations. 'Replication' refers to someone else repeating the same experiment and getting the same result.

Someone else having the same experience from the same beliefs and applying the same practices just 'proves' that is due to a common underlying process or mechanism, which is not what we are disputing.

When entirely different religious beliefs can lead to broadly similar experiences, it actually casts into some doubt your explanation.

That people can have such experiences as you describe is what is not a mystery to science. Having the complete conviction that you are communing with an external entity of some sort is something which can be induced by chemical or electrical stimulation of particular parts of the brain. IOW, it does not depend on there actually being such an entity, just the strong belief, faith, that such a being, whether God, Jesus, Allah, or whatever, does exist. There is absolutely no way our minds can distinguish between a 'true' perception and a false one, a delusion, without actually checking it against external reality in some way.

 

 

BobSpence1,

This is similar to your replication in a realm foreign to you but your experience should help you understand.  I believe in Jesus, have been "born anew" into Jesus and He has sealed me with the Holy Spirit.  Others have had this same experience.  As long as I maintain my unity in the Spirit, since there is only One Spirit all those who maintain unity in Christ with the One Spirit are in unity.  Christ is the head of this body and though we are individual unique members of this living body we are in unity with each other.  The bones and ligaments fit and work smoothly if we maintain the unity with the One Spirit - and in our fellowship we share our common experience.  In the Spirit there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, rich nor poor - we can discuss our common citizenship and communicate freely about spiritual things.  You are outside the door wondering what is happening and are trying to find an honest man with a lantern. 

Just like there have been false scientific reports, falsified results, etc, there are counterfeit examples.  There are professors who are not genuine.  There may be a broader qualification for atheists - maybe as long as you are at least blasphemous to some degree you're at least a little devil I don't know, but the more valuable something is the more counterfeit examples there are of it.

 

 

Fonzie, I'm pretty sure you're safe from Diogenes.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:BobSpence1,This

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1,

This is similar to your replication in a realm foreign to you but your experience should help you understand.  I believe in Jesus, have been "born anew" into Jesus and He has sealed me with the Holy Spirit.  Others have had this same experience.  As long as I maintain my unity in the Spirit, since there is only One Spirit all those who maintain unity in Christ with the One Spirit are in unity.  Christ is the head of this body and though we are individual unique members of this living body we are in unity with each other.  The bones and ligaments fit and work smoothly if we maintain the unity with the One Spirit - and in our fellowship we share our common experience.  In the Spirit there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, rich nor poor - we can discuss our common citizenship and communicate freely about spiritual things.  You are outside the door wondering what is happening and are trying to find an honest man with a lantern. 

Just like there have been false scientific reports, falsified results, etc, there are counterfeit examples.  There are professors who are not genuine.  There may be a broader qualification for atheists - maybe as long as you are at least blasphemous to some degree you're at least a little devil I don't know, but the more valuable something is the more counterfeit examples there are of it.

That's nice, Meph. But if you read Bob's post, you'll notice he made several points, all of which you ignored.

And oh look, he's "a little devil". Isn't that special. I guess we don't have to deal with anything the little devil has to say, do we ? How convenient.

Still, let's just, for politeness sake, pretend he's not a "little devil", and actually deal with the arguments he brought to your attention, shall we ? Here's a couple :

Fonzie wrote:
When entirely different religious beliefs can lead to broadly similar experiences, it actually casts into some doubt your explanation.

That people can have such experiences as you describe is what is not a mystery to science. Having the complete conviction that you are communing with an external entity of some sort is something which can be induced by chemical or electrical stimulation of particular parts of the brain. IOW, it does not depend on there actually being such an entity, just the strong belief, faith, that such a being, whether God, Jesus, Allah, or whatever, does exist. There is absolutely no way our minds can distinguish between a 'true' perception and a false one, a delusion, without actually checking it against external reality in some way.

But first of course, there was Butter's question, which you still refuse to answer. It kinda went like this :

Do you value your beliefs more, or do you value the truth more ? Type "a'" for truth or "b" for your beliefs.

And then there was my question : Why did you lie ?

There's more, of course, but let's try to limit ourselves, for now, to the people you ignored these last two pages or so.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:You don't even

Fonzie wrote:
You don't even realize you are enslaved in the most miserable of prisons - sin.

Begging the question is not a good argument. You might feel good writing it, but it's not productive at all. 

Fonzie wrote:
but ok now you want it to be a) truth or b) evidence,

NO. Omg, how thick are you?

butterbattle wrote:
Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for beliefs.

Does this say truth or evidence? NO. It says (a) truth or (b) beliefs. That is NOT the same. Now, answer the question. Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? 

Fonzie wrote:
a false dilemma.

Yeah, truth or evidence is a false dichotomy. But, guess what? That's not the question I asked. The question is truth or beliefs. Get it?

Fonzie wrote:
But I have a overflowing fountain of truth and evidence (s) within me. I'll never thirst for truth or evidence.

I don't care if you're Chuck Norris. Evidence doesn't do squat here; the question is hypothetical, and the question is whether you value truth or your beliefs more. Is this really that hard to understand?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 934
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ABBA

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
You don't even realize you are enslaved in the most miserable of prisons - sin.

Begging the question is not a good argument. You might feel good writing it, but it's not productive at all. 

Fonzie wrote:
but ok now you want it to be a) truth or b) evidence,

NO. Omg, how thick are you?

butterbattle wrote:
Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for beliefs.

Does this say truth or evidence? NO. It says (a) truth or (b) beliefs. That is NOT the same. Now, answer the question. Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? 

Fonzie wrote:
a false dilemma.

Yeah, truth or evidence is a false dichotomy. But, guess what? That's not the question I asked. The question is truth or beliefs. Get it?

Fonzie wrote:
But I have a overflowing fountain of truth and evidence (s) within me. I'll never thirst for truth or evidence.

I don't care if you're Chuck Norris. Evidence doesn't do squat here; the question is hypothetical, and the question is whether you value truth or your beliefs more. Is this really that hard to understand?

 

Butterbattle,

The Truth is Jesus.  The evidence is the blood and water when He was pierced.  Belief is the pipe that connects me to the evidence.  I haven't made a god out of the pipe, but the pipe is my connection through which the Water of Life and Oil for my lamp flow.  It's a package deal.  It's a treasure in a fragile tent, a breakable clay vessel - but the vessel/tent is not me.  I'm just living here - connected, light lit, water flowing, blood securing, joy overflowing.  You are a scam caller during a feast.  The LORD Who died for me is at the head of the table.  My brothers and sisters are all rejoicing around the table.  We are feasting on every good thing.  And you are ringing my phone about some stupid poll trick question you think is sublime and relevant.  I'm putting you on the mosquito tone ringer; in fact, I think that is a whole lot like what you are - a mosquito at a feast. 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Does this

butterbattle wrote:

Does this say truth or evidence? NO. It says (a) truth or (b) beliefs.

You're asking him to read what you wrote. That's not really his thing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie

Fonzie wrote:

Butterbattle,

The Truth is Jesus.  The evidence is the blood and water when He was pierced.  Belief is the pipe that connects me to the evidence.  I haven't made a god out of the pipe, but the pipe is my connection through which the Water of Life and Oil for my lamp flow.  It's a package deal.  It's a treasure in a fragile tent, a breakable clay vessel - but the vessel/tent is not me.  I'm just living here - connected, light lit, water flowing, blood securing, joy overflowing.  You are a scam caller during a feast.  The LORD Who died for me is at the head of the table.  My brothers and sisters are all rejoicing around the table.  We are feasting on every good thing.  And you are ringing my phone about some stupid poll trick question you think is sublime and relevant.  I'm putting you on the mosquito tone ringer; in fact, I think that is a whole lot like what you are - a mosquito at a feast. 

The guy asks you a question and instead of answering, you try to insult him. Again.

Seriously, what are you even doing here ?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:The Truth is

Fonzie wrote:
The Truth is Jesus.  The evidence is the blood and water when He was pierced.  Belief is the pipe that connects me to the evidence.  I haven't made a god out of the pipe, but the pipe is my connection through which the Water of Life and Oil for my lamp flow.  It's a package deal.  It's a treasure in a fragile tent, a breakable clay vessel - but the vessel/tent is not me.  I'm just living here - connected, light lit, water flowing, blood securing, joy overflowing.  You are a scam caller during a feast.  The LORD Who died for me is at the head of the table.  My brothers and sisters are all rejoicing around the table.  We are feasting on every good thing.  And you are ringing my phone about some stupid poll trick question you think is sublime and relevant.

Um, okay.

Now, can you answer the question? Do you value truth more or do you value your beliefs more?

Fonzie wrote:
I'm putting you on the mosquito tone ringer; in fact, I think that is a whole lot like what you are - a mosquito at a feast.

Lol, yeah. Or maybe a gadfly.  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fonzie wrote:butterbattle

Fonzie wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fonzie wrote:
You don't even realize you are enslaved in the most miserable of prisons - sin.

Begging the question is not a good argument. You might feel good writing it, but it's not productive at all. 

Fonzie wrote:
but ok now you want it to be a) truth or b) evidence,

NO. Omg, how thick are you?

butterbattle wrote:
Type "(a)" for truth. Type "(b)" for beliefs.

Does this say truth or evidence? NO. It says (a) truth or (b) beliefs. That is NOT the same. Now, answer the question. Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? 

Fonzie wrote:
a false dilemma.

Yeah, truth or evidence is a false dichotomy. But, guess what? That's not the question I asked. The question is truth or beliefs. Get it?

Fonzie wrote:
But I have a overflowing fountain of truth and evidence (s) within me. I'll never thirst for truth or evidence.

I don't care if you're Chuck Norris. Evidence doesn't do squat here; the question is hypothetical, and the question is whether you value truth or your beliefs more. Is this really that hard to understand?

 

Butterbattle,

The Truth is Jesus.  The evidence is the blood and water when He was pierced.  Belief is the pipe that connects me to the evidence.  I haven't made a god out of the pipe, but the pipe is my connection through which the Water of Life and Oil for my lamp flow.  It's a package deal.  It's a treasure in a fragile tent, a breakable clay vessel - but the vessel/tent is not me.  I'm just living here - connected, light lit, water flowing, blood securing, joy overflowing.  You are a scam caller during a feast.  The LORD Who died for me is at the head of the table.  My brothers and sisters are all rejoicing around the table.  We are feasting on every good thing.  And you are ringing my phone about some stupid poll trick question you think is sublime and relevant.  I'm putting you on the mosquito tone ringer; in fact, I think that is a whole lot like what you are - a mosquito at a feast. 

 

 

 

First off, Fonzie/Meph, I am amazed that you have other people that buy into Fonzie-anity. I didn't figure you for believing anyone else was worthy of you. What did they have to kiss to get in?

Anyhow, if you want us to quit buzzing around your solo feast, answer our questions. You know what they are.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1263
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
(Poe)

Fonzie wrote:

The Truth is Jesus.  The evidence is the blood and water when He was pierced.  Belief is the pipe that connects me to the evidence.  I haven't made a god out of the pipe, but the pipe is my connection through which the Water of Life and Oil for my lamp flow.  It's a package deal.  It's a treasure in a fragile tent, a breakable clay vessel - but the vessel/tent is not me.  I'm just living here - connected, light lit, water flowing, blood securing, joy overflowing.  You are a scam caller during a feast.  The LORD Who died for me is at the head of the table.  My brothers and sisters are all rejoicing around the table.  We are feasting on every good thing.  And you are ringing my phone about some stupid poll trick question you think is sublime and relevant.  I'm putting you on the mosquito tone ringer; in fact, I think that is a whole lot like what you are - a mosquito at a feast. 

Fonzie, it pains me to see how badly your false beliefs have poisoned your mind.  Your devotion to the despicable story of jesus has forced you to lie, and has curtailed your ability to answer simple binary ('a' or 'b') questions.  The so-called "blood and water when He was pierced" was shown by forensic analysis to actually be kool-aid and LSD.  jesus is the crack pipe through which the Bong Water of Lies and the cheap Candle Wax of your Lava Lamp flow.  

Your jesus psychosis seems to be entering a virulent stage, as your are now hallucinating about hash parties where you trade lithium pills with your brothers and sisters; and making condescending, judgmental remarks to others.  I encourage you to accept Elvis who can purge you of these mind-altering substances, before the cancer of christianity gains full con-troll of your mind.

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)