Jesus Lives, and He Loves.

ImAJesusFreak
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Lives, and He Loves.

Jesus still loves all people. And you can still be saved. Why would you not want to believe in God? There's so much bad in the world that it's amazing to know He is there to protect and love. And after life, I love knowing that I'm going to be in an amazing place called Heaven with all my loved ones that have passed on before me, instead of just going in the ground.

I am praying for each and everyone one of you hoping that you will come to know Christ as your personal savior.

Any questions about Christ? Contact me at karabo95@yahoo.com

God Bless.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13857
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ImAJesusFreak wrote:You can

ImAJesusFreak wrote:

You can fight back and try to make reason all you want. I believe in God. I wish you guys would consider it.

We have considered it, which is WHY! we ARE! atheists. And don't think your pet god is special to us. Any claim of a non-material thinking "entity" is absurd. You could call your pet god Frank or Thor, or Goobygoo, and it still amounts to the same thing. Humans invent gods. Humans merely project their own qualities on a a fictional super hero because the idea of having a super hero save you is appealing.

We reject the Jews and Muslim gods as well. For the same reason we reject claims of Big Foot and Ouija Boards and vampires. Humans like believing bullshit because it is easier than actually testing a claim to insure quality of data.

So you have a pet god, big whoopty doo. The Ancient Egyptians were beautiful masterful builders and were ahead on science as far as architecture, but that did not make the sun a thinking being. It turns out that the sun is merely a giant ball of burning gas.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The "codifier" of DNA

Quote:

The "codifier" of DNA is the process of natural selection. The nature of the 'code' is such that there is a direct physical relationship between the sequence of each codon and the amino acid that it most readily bonds to. Given this fact, no 'conscious' coder is required.

This is the fantasy of the evolutionary position. In fact is, the above statement is a complete non sequitur.

Note how you put "code" in inverted commas. Suddenly the term "code" has become inconvenient to you. Suddenly the issue is a semantic one. This is how it ends up for atheists. Christians hold that nothing is impossible with God but atheists hold that nothing is impossible with evolution......"give it enough time" they say, and anything can happen!!! In  this case information can create itself! Unfortunately information theory disagrees with you. From the outset it PRESUPPOSES the input of information by an intelligent source.

The case is a very simple one:

1] DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a "code".

2] Empirically, we observe that no code ever creates itself.

3] Therefore the working hypothesis that the information which rides on DNA has an intelligent source is, scientifically speaking, the most rational to hold.

4] From this point, it is rational to conjecture that an  intelligent creator, having created intelligent beings, will have  communicated with his creation and from thence to conjecture that the Bible constitutes that communication.

Quote:
It would be a very crude kind of 'code' in human terms, as if, say, the code for a given letter was simply the number corresponding to its position in the alphabet.

Bob, I am well aware from previous encounters that you are nowhere near as stupid as this statement suggests! If you wish me to wax lyrical on the sophistication of the DNA code, I am more than happy to do so. I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode. Having said that, it took us a while!

En passant, I would point out that atheists are always rattling on about "evidence" yet high priest Dawkins can declare that, "the universe  appears to be designed for life" [this may not be verbatim - I'm sure some pedant will correct me]. Well, Dawkins had good cause. Einstein himself said, "if God exists, he must be a mathematician". The problem is, that all this gives the lie to the atheist mantra that, "there is no evidence". We all know that our solar system in particular is finely balanced in the extreme. In fact, since Dawkins agrees, the first rational course of action would be to investigate whether it WAS designed, not to arbitrarily conclude that it wasn't! This indeed, would be the normal response of real science......as it was [and still is] of all those real scientists who also happen to be theists. The fact that this isn't the case, that uunscientific codswallop is habitually repeated, ad nauseum, as 'fact' and then disingenuously marketed as "hypotheses" by adherents of scientism, betrays the fact that the issue is not an intellectual one at all.......that this is but a micron thin veneer to conceal the simple fact that the issue is one of human autonomy and the desperate effort to cling on to it in the face of reality. 

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
PS. the reason that my use

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This is the fantasy of

Quote:
This is the fantasy of the evolutionary position. In fact, the above statement is a complete non sequitur.

No, but yours is.

Quote:
Note how you put "code" in inverted commas.

DNA is not a code. You don't find instructions when you pull it apart, you find chemicals. Chemicals which interact with other chemicals. At it's most base, that is all DNA is.

Quote:
This is how it ends up for atheists.

Projection. You and other theists never bother taking the time to learn what you're arguing about, and as a result you don't even know what the definitions of words used to describe processes are in the first place.
In fact, theists get their definitions SO wrong that even common words like truth and belief escape them.

Quote:
but atheists hold that nothing is impossible with evolution...

That is simple bs. Even a theist should know better. But then, you don't know what evolution actually is...

Quote:
1] DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a "code".

False

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:2 3 4 Since your

Quote:
2
3
4

Since your premise is false, what follows is also false.

Quote:
I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode.

Then why is it so inefficient?

As for your final paragraph, your logic is so flawed and so commonly observed in theists that it's been refuted hundreds of times on this site. It's demonstrated in the first line. A perfect example is the solar system, which happens to be dynamic. The solar system hasn't and won't always support life as we know it. That it does now suggests only that it has remained sufficiently stable for a sufficiently long period of time for life to develop.
Neither is there any indicator of design in the solar system. What's the point of all the stuff other than the Earth if the point was to create life on Earth? All those extra rocks merely serve to put that life at risk, if the solar system were designed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:PS. the

freeminer wrote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

 

Depravity in the theological sense is a condition one is allegedly born into so your definition is completely divorced from actual behavior.   Such abstract definitions are only important to those who choose to immerse themselves in religions in which the only requirement for being depraved is mere existence.

So even if I were the most sexually chaste, non-violent, charitable, kind hearted, self responsible, ad infinitum person who ever lived you would still identify me as "depraved"  and that itself is where the real perversion lies.  Christianity is a religion founded upon self debasement, sort of like a religious form of masochism.

 

Christian theology has a nasty habit of redefining and twisting definitions to accommodate it's bizarre theories.   Even in the Christian lexicon the concept of "perfection" has been distorted beyond recognition.

How many times did God create, declare a state of "perfection" only to have it unravel due to some "glitch"  ( free will ? ) and then the whole thing devolved into utter chaos ?  Adam and Eve were created sinless and "perfect" then placed on an Earth that was so utterly lacking in sin and evil that God himself is said to have "walked through the Garden"  ..... and now look at everything.  Even God has difficulty understanding the concept, apparently.

 

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You can fight back and

Quote:

You can fight back and try to make reason all you want. I believe in God. I wish you guys would consider it.

Quote:
And don't think your pet god is special to us.

why do you think the thought would occur? 

Quote:
Any claim of a non-material thinking "entity" is absurd.

on which grounds? Don't you just mean, "unknown to me"?  

Quote:
You could call your pet god Frank or Thor, or Goobygoo, and it still amounts to the same thing. Humans invent gods. Humans merely project their own qualities on a a fictional super hero

if I projected my qualities on to a god, I can assure you the result would not be God!! This really is a bizarre notion.  

Quote:
because the idea of having a super hero save you is appealing.

on the contrary, the idea of being answerable to a holy God is anything but appealing......which is your problem of course. As a proposed rationale, this doesn't say much for the depth of your "consideration".

Quote:
We reject the Jews and Muslim gods as well. For the same reason we reject claims of Big Foot and Ouija Boards and vampires.

 for all your advocation of "evidence", this seems to be an admission thaat you haven't considered much of it!

Quote:
Humans like believing bullshit because it is easier than actually testing a claim to insure quality of data.

Why is bullshit "easier" to believe? It is "easier" to believe propositions which are plausible and far more comfortable when a belief doesn't threaten one's autonomy. In this statement you attribute plausibility to belief in God while deploring mere plausibility. Yet you constantly express the view that belief in God is anything BUT plausible. It's an irrational contradiction. Evolution amasses huge plausibility by its capacity for piling unevidenced speculation upon speculation and it is backed by the comforting notion of human autonomy. Yet, as you correctly imply, plausibility does not indicate the presence of truth.  

Quote:
So you have a pet god, big whoopty doo. The Ancient Egyptians were beautiful masterful builders and were ahead on science as far as architecture, but that did not make the sun a thinking being. It turns out that the sun is merely a giant ball of burning gas.

  your point is........? Are you somehow trying to assert that the works of Man prove the existence of God? If the constructional intelligence of the Egyptians was derived from the God of the Bible as being created in his image, why would that tell us anything about the nature of the sun? This appears to be irrational rambling.  

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:2 3 4  Since your

Quote:
2 3 4  Since your premise is false, what follows is also false.

I love it when atheists   resort to mere assertions which are so easily rebutted. Quote me anything in Shannon's thesis which explicitly excludes the requirement of an information source. Atheists try to comfort one another with this sort of nonsense.

I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode.

Quote:
Then why is it so inefficient?

you must know that, despite entropy, it remains, statistically, remarkably efficient........an order incidentally, for which the atheist can give no reason. Surely you knew  this.........? 

Quote:
As for your final paragraph, your logic is so flawed and so commonly observed in theists that it's been refuted hundreds of times on this site. It's demonstrated in the first line.

but you seem unable to do so. Are you arguing with your high priest? 

Quote:
A perfect example is the solar system, which happens to be dynamic. The solar system hasn't and won't always support life as we know it.

 Whether it always has in the past is a matter of debate. I wasn't there and rather suspect you weren't either. I don't recall saying it always would in the future........neither did Dawkins. The Bible says that it will wear out like a garment and God will wrap it up. The issue is irrelevant to the point which was being made......which you would have realised had you been thinking clearly. 

 

Quote:
That it does now suggests only that it has remained sufficiently stable for a sufficiently long period of time for life to develop.

this is your very own unsubstantiated presupposition. 

Quote:
Neither is there any indicator of design in the solar system.

you are perfectly free to disagree with Einstein if you wish to.......I think I would have drawn the line at Dawkins!!!! 

Quote:
What's the point of all the stuff other than the Earth if the point was to create life on Earth? All those extra rocks merely serve to put that life at risk, if the solar system were designed.

this is, at least, not a stupid question. God creates because he enjoys creating. We do it for the same reason, among others. In fact, all the things which really make life worth living result from his creation, ours or a combination of both. This intention of Man joining in God's creative enterprise is set out right from Genesis. So, "all the stuff other than the earth" is there for us to enjoy [and if a clear night sky doesn't send a tingle up your spine it should] and to investigate......which we are doing.........'curiosity' off to Mars yesterday and we probe the depths of the universe even though we haven't figured out how to get there yet. The short answer is - the Bible tells us God is an infinite God and that human beings were created with an infinite need for challenge, discovery and creativity. That is, at root, what makes eternity such a great prospect!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:I love it

freeminer wrote:
I love it when atheists   resort to mere assertions which are so easily rebutted.

I love it when theists say things like this then fail to follow through.

freeminer wrote:
Quote me anything in Shannon's thesis which explicitly excludes the requirement of an information source.

Irrelevance. Prove DNA is a code containing information, and not an assemblage of chemicals.

freeminer wrote:
I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode.

And yet it is not efficient. You can't tell me that all the useless chemicals in DNA have efficiency. It's the opposite of efficient.

freeminer wrote:
you must know that, despite entropy, it remains, statistically, remarkably efficient

Clearly your ignorance of both DNA and evolution have lead you to some remarkably wrong conclusions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This is the fantasy of

Quote:
This is the fantasy of the evolutionary position. In fact, the above statement is a complete non sequitur.
Quote:
No, but yours is.

but you can't say why. 

Quote:
Note how you put "code" in inverted commas.

Quote:
DNA is not a code. You don't find instructions when you pull it apart, you find chemicals. Chemicals which interact with other chemicals. At it's most base, that is all DNA is.

RRS would  be so much less appealing were it not for the amusement one gets from this sort of thing. If one didn't find "instructions" one wouldn't be able to decode it! Furthermore, the assertion that it is "just chemicals" highlights the unadulterated absurdity of the materialist position far better than I could ever hope to! Were it "just chemicals" ie unselected to fulfil a specific role, clearly the result wouild be total chaos. It is this inability of the materialist to distinguish between hardware and software which gives the lie to his oft professed profundity and claim to the rational high ground. The whole thing is a  joke. You should occasionally ask who perpetrated it on you.            

Quote:
This is how it ends up for atheists.
Projection. You and other theists never bother taking the time to learn what you're arguing about,

do you mean that I'm not keeping up?- fine, demonstrate it.

do you mean that I lack knowledge of the facts? There's nothiing clever about obtaining knowledge but the ability to discern what constitutes knowledge and to use it effectively is another matter. 

Quote:
and as a result you don't even know what the definitions of words used to describe processes are in the first place.

aaaah semantics! The constant refuge of the atheist. You'll stand before God and claim you didn't understand him. I'll ask to be there just to see it! Correct terminology will save your soul........not. Did you have a specific point or was it just a generalised flailing about? 

Quote:
In fact, theists get their definitions SO wrong that even common words like truth and belief escape them.

oh, this is irresistable! I ask atheists so  may questions which get ignored....please define 'truth' 

Quote:
but atheists hold that nothing is impossible with evolution...
Quote:
That is simple bs. Even a theist should know better. But then, you don't know what evolution actually is...

yes, the presumed ignorance of the deist is yet another refuge - so much for empiricism. 

Quote:
1] DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a "code".
Quote:
False

when all else fails resort to blind denial

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:but you seem

freeminer wrote:
but you seem unable to do so. Are you arguing with your high priest? 

My lack of interest in providing you with a highschool education has to do with my time and finances. If you start paying me a teachers salary, I'll be happy to provide you with an education. Until then, google is your friend.

freeminer wrote:
 Whether it always has in the past is a matter of debate.

No, it isn't. Not even in your warped version of history and the universe.

freeminer wrote:
I wasn't there and rather suspect you weren't either.

Irrelevant. Material which exists today also existed then, allowing us to study then.

freeminer wrote:
this is your very own unsubstantiated presupposition. 

No. That is what we call a fact.

freeminer wrote:
you are perfectly free to disagree with Einstein if you wish to.......I think I would have drawn the line at Dawkins!!!! 

Neither of whom said the solar system was designed, despite your attempts to misquote them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:God creates

freeminer wrote:
God creates because he enjoys creating.

Then why did he stop? Nothing has been added to the universe in 13.7-some billion years.

freeminer wrote:
So, "all the stuff other than the earth" is there for us to enjoy

Then why can we only see 4% of it, presuming we had the technology to observe the universe in it's entirety (which is impossible so far as we know), reducing that 4% further to less than 1%?

freeminer wrote:
the Bible tells us God is an infinite God

Circular logic proves only your complete lack capacity to apply critical thinking skills to your beliefs.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:but you

freeminer wrote:
but you can't say why. 

Sure I can. You made the original claim, the onus is on you. You didn't provide evidence or even an argument, so by definition it's a non-sequiter.

freeminer wrote:
RRS would  be so much less appealing were it not for the amusement one gets from this sort of thing. If one didn't find "instructions" one wouldn't be able to decode it!

One doesn't "decode" DNA, one studies the chemicals and the way they interact to form processes.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand.

freeminer wrote:
Were it "just chemicals" ie unselected to fulfil a specific role, clearly the result wouild be total chaos.

Which is further evidence of your ignorance of evolution.

freeminer wrote:
do you mean that I'm not keeping up?- fine, demonstrate it.

You already demonstrate it with every post.

freeminer wrote:
aaaah semantics! The constant refuge of the atheist.

Ah, semantics! The constant refuge of the theist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:oh, this is

freeminer wrote:
oh, this is irresistable! I ask atheists so  may questions which get ignored....please define 'truth' 

The state of being in accord with fact or reality.

freeminer wrote:
yes, the presumed ignorance of the deist is yet another refuge - so much for empiricism. 

Red herring and non-sequiter. My point stands.

freeminer wrote:
when all else fails resort to blind denial

When all else fails, resort to blind denial.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:oh, this is

freeminer wrote:
oh, this is irresistable! I ask atheists so  may questions which get ignored....please define 'truth' 

Vastet wrote:
The state of being in accord with fact or reality.

 

Vastet, your definition of "truth"  will never satisfy a Christian.  Prepare for the more truthful definition of truth which I suspect should be coming your way any minute, now.

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I love it when

Quote:
I love it when atheists   resort to mere assertions which are so easily rebutted.
I love it when theists say things like this then fail to follow through.
Quote:

borrowing my objections hardly distinguishes you as a creative thinker. The whole of Shannon's hypothesis is available on line . If you prefer to collude in your own delusion, be my guest. 

Quote:
Quote me anything in Shannon's thesis which explicitly excludes the requirement of an information source.
Quote:
Irrelevance. Prove DNA is a code containing information, and not an assemblage of chemicals.

if your friends on this site have anything about them they will be recoiling at such a blatantly stupid statement.......which even YOU don't believe! Self- evidently, if information did not ride on DNA, the cell would not be instructed to do ANYTHING. You effectively highlight the sad depths of irrational delusion to which the atheist will sink to maintain the lie to which he clings. 

Quote:
I suggest that the motivation behind its design was simple efficiency rather than to foil efforts to decode.
Quote:
And yet it is not efficient. You can't tell me that all the useless chemicals in DNA have efficiency. It's the opposite of efficient.

it's remarkable that, when the atheist is confronted with a LACK of human knowledge, he wails, "give us time" but when it seems convenient, will claim that OUR lack of knowledge somehow disproves the existence of God! There was, a time, not so long ago, when we didn't understand what an appendix does. Selah........if you can. 

Quote:
you must know that, despite entropy, it remains, statistically, remarkably efficient
Quote:
Clearly your ignorance of both DNA and evolution have lead you to some remarkably wrong conclusions.
another unsubstantiated presupposition. Do you really need me to quote statistics at you? There are seven billion people on this planet. To anyone but the irrational deluded the facts speak for themselves...........but  then, for the atheist, the facts NEVER speak for themselves. It all goes to prove that the reason for the average atheists failure to believe has nothing to do with his intellerct [ though I sometimes wonder] and far more to with his capacity for self-delusion.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:oh, this is

freeminer wrote:


oh, this is irresistable! I ask atheists so many questions which get ignored....

 

You seem to be doing a fine job of ignoring....

 

freeminer wrote:
please define 'truth' 

 

  Yes, please define "truth"

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:oh, this is

Quote:
oh, this is irresistable! I ask atheists so  may questions which get ignored....please define 'truth' 
Quote:
The state of being in accord with fact or reality.

circular reasoning. In order to constitute 'fact', a phenomenon must be rooted in 'truth' ie. it must correspond with 'reality'. If you know what this is, we can dismantle the LHC.  

Quote:
yes, the presumed ignorance of the deist is yet another refuge - so much for empiricism. 
Quote:
Red herring

not so, the point was, as a matter of subjective experience, entirely relevasnt. ie the experience may be subjective but the relevance lies in the fact that I am the one you're talking to and the point explains why, in that experience, you resorted to this particular unsubstantiated presumption.

As for "non-sequitur". In terms of the flow of discussion, it never purported to be a "sequitur". 

Quote:
 My point stands.
Quote:

this is tha attribution of an undeserved status.........it never was a point, just an unfounded assertion.

Quote:
when all else fails resort to blind denial
Quote:
When all else fails, resort to blind denial.

It's heartwarming to note that you see what you've done.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:borrowing my

freeminer wrote:
borrowing my objections hardly distinguishes you as a creative thinker.

Creativity is irrelevant. However, if you desire creative responses, then I recommend making creative statements. Rehashing decades old, and proven wrong, arguments will not inspire creative responses.

freeminer wrote:
The whole of Shannon's hypothesis is available on line . If you prefer to collude in your own delusion, be my guest. 

Irrelevant to DNA being an assemblage of chemicals.

freeminer wrote:
if your friends on this site have anything about them they will be recoiling at such a blatantly stupid statement.......which even YOU don't believe! Self- evidently, if information did not ride on DNA, the cell would not be instructed to do ANYTHING. You effectively highlight the sad depths of irrational delusion to which the atheist will sink to maintain the lie to which he clings. 

Your sheer ignorance of evolution and DNA is once again proven, and once again you offer no argument or evidence

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
to support your

to support your drivel.

freeminer wrote:
it's remarkable that, when the atheist is confronted with a LACK of human knowledge, he wails, "give us time"

Red herring and non-sequiter.

freeminer wrote:
but when it seems convenient, will claim that OUR lack of knowledge somehow disproves the existence of God!

Categorical error, red herring, non-sequiter, strawman. Going for a fallacy record?

freeminer wrote:
Selah........if you can. 

English, if you can.

freeminer wrote:
another unsubstantiated presupposition

Lol, you must not even know what presupposition means.

freeminer wrote:
There are seven billion people on this planet. To anyone but the irrational deluded the facts speak for themselves

Too bad the deluded are the majority. But if you really feel it necessary to commit yet another fallacy, don't let me stop you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:circular

freeminer wrote:
circular reasoning.

The definition of truth is easily found in a dictionary near you. All you've done is further prove how little you understand logic, which you've already sufficiently proven.

freeminer wrote:
not so, the point was, as a matter of subjective experience, entirely relevasnt. ie the experience may be subjective but the relevance lies in the fact that I am the one you're talking to and the point explains why, in that experience, you resorted to this particular unsubstantiated presumption.As for "non-sequitur". In terms of the flow of discussion, it never purported to be a "sequitur".

All you've done is further prove how little you understand logic, which you've already sufficiently proven.

freeminer wrote:
It's heartwarming to note that you see what you've done.

It's saddening that the irony flew over your head.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:circular

freeminer wrote:

circular reasoning. In order to constitute 'fact', a phenomenon must be rooted in 'truth' ie. it must correspond with 'reality'. If you know what this is, we can dismantle the LHC.  

 

 

 

                                             How does this work when validating the truth claims of supernatural  assertions ?

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is an

freeminer wrote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

 

assertion of staggering proportions and amounts to nothing more than a fallacious ad hominem against all human life. We are too evil to ask questions. It's still not proof, mate. You are your own god, freeminer, like it or not. God does not dwell in you, speak to you, guide you. You do this yourself with dubious help from the mythology of the people whose religion you hijacked.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Stutter

dp

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13857
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:PS. the reason that my

Quote:
PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people.

That right there is the coop de grass!

Thank you for pointing out to me that I am a piece of shit. Forgive me for thinking that claims need evidence. Forgive me for not thinking the sun is a thinking being because it was once popular among the Egyptians. Forgive me for thinking that women should vote and blacks are equal. Damn me! If I had only drank the cool aid and had blind loyalty in defending the moon was made of cheese, we wouldn't have to face the fact that reality is not a game of Candy Land.

You're right. If I would just accept Peter Pan and Harry Potter thinking we could get along. Where have you been all my life?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

Depravity in the theological sense is a condition one is allegedly born into so your definition is completely divorced from actual behavior.   Such abstract definitions are only important to those who choose to immerse themselves in religions in which the only requirement for being depraved is mere existence.

The earliest Pauline Christians invented the concept of "depravity" as a way to invent the need for Christianity.  They also invented the belief that G-d runs around zapping people for no damned good reason to =really= scare people right into Paul's re-invention of Jesus's arms.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ImAJesusFreak

EXC wrote:

ImAJesusFreak wrote:

I am praying for each and everyone one of you hoping that you will come to know Christ as your personal savior.

I'm looking for an impersonal savior, you got any?

Flying Spaghetti Monster.  He'll wrap you in his noddlely goodness.  Then you can eat his body and go "Yummy!"

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Any questions about

Quote:
Any questions about Christ? Contact me at karabo95@yahoo.com
I'm trying to be the best constructive I can: why not give us Jesus' email, we could hurry the thing a bit.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:PS. the

freeminer wrote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yay! Another

jcgadfly wrote:
Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 

It never ceases to amaze me that a religion which preaches humility can inspire such arrogance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

Depravity in the theological sense is a condition one is allegedly born into so your definition is completely divorced from actual behavior.   Such abstract definitions are only important to those who choose to immerse themselves in religions in which the only requirement for being depraved is mere existence.

The earliest Pauline Christians invented the concept of "depravity" as a way to invent the need for Christianity.  They also invented the belief that G-d runs around zapping people for no damned good reason to =really= scare people right into Paul's re-invention of Jesus's arms.

 

it's one of the delights of sites like this that one never knows when the previous lunacy barriers will be breached! Firstly, I didn't define 'depravity', in theological or any other terms. Secondly Jesus taught the sinfulness of Man from birth right here:  

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
 

Thirdly you're confused by "total depravity" which is Augustinian not Pauline and is beloved of Catholics, ironically because of their Calvinism.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:but you seem

Quote:
but you seem unable to do so. Are you arguing with your high priest? 

Quote:
My lack of interest in providing you with a highschool education has to do with my time and finances.
Quote:

you couldn't EVEN provide a highschool education.........whereas I have the qualifications to prove it. 

Quote:
If you start paying me a teachers salary, I'll be happy to provide you with an education. Until then, google is your friend.

you flatter yourself.......presumably because you can't find anyone else to. 

freeminer wrote:
 Whether it always has in the past is a matter of debate.
Quote:
No, it isn't. Not even in your warped version of history and the universe.

this looks like a statement of fact. Be my guest , provide your proof. 

freeminer wrote:
I wasn't there and rather suspect you weren't either.
Quote:
Irrelevant. Material which exists today also existed then, allowing us to study then.

unsubstantiated uniformitarianism. 

freeminer wrote:
this is your very own unsubstantiated presupposition. 
Quote:
No. That is what we call a fact.

you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you. Facts require absolutes. You don't have one. 

freeminer wrote:
you are perfectly free to disagree with Einstein if you wish to.......I think I would have drawn the line at Dawkins!!!! 
Quote:
Neither of whom said the solar system was designed, despite your attempts to misquote them.

I neither claimed they did nor misquoted them . I stated that what they DID say rationally implied a specific imperative.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The dead zone

No negatives intended Furry or to embarrass.  I'm introducing you to the "dead Zone". What we referr to as the Dead zone is the time when Christianity became extinct between 50AD  to 100AD ----to the time that proper Christianity returns. All the time between is just words going nowhere for no result. You'll notice there is no difference in people's thinking between BC and AD. and all the time to the present---no change. That's because thye proper nature of Christianity is an unknown. If you check the letters of the Apostles you'll find no exact formula for Christianity. They referre to Chritianity but never explain it. The letters merely re-enforces and/or supports something they taught but not exactly what was taught.  The only way to come to an understanding of what it is --is to go back to creation.

  Creation is the making of Adam. The first day/understanding is , they became enlightened. In the 4th day the greater light is the knowledge of the human side, the lessor light the knowing of the elements of one's dark side. Christianity is nothing more then a return to the "Being" of Adam. Every one already has it--it's just telling folks what they have. The Muslims have too, and so does the tribe inhabiting the Berring strait region. Even the original Bushmen tribe of today has it. The reason I'm on this site is because we know Atheist's are damn good thinkers, and if anyone can understand what we getting at--it' these. I am have more trouble getting those who say they are Christians to understand or see anything.  Their best crutch is- I'm not being biblically sound.

OK, now lets have a look at you statement at the bottom of your postings.

Christians who treat people like dirt etc. That's an impossibility---one who treats people like dirt cannot be a Christian.

OK, dig in and do some finding and thinking.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote: you couldn't EVEN

Quote:
you couldn't EVEN provide a highschool education.........whereas I have the qualifications to prove it.

I couldn't provide a christian highschool education, this is true (and I'm glad). But I certainly could provide you with a real highschool education. You'd actually learn facts instead of myths.

Quote:
you flatter yourself.......presumably because you can't find anyone else to. 

You're delusional, and dodging.

Quote:
this looks like a statement of fact. Be my guest , provide your proof. 

You made the claim first, I merely gave a counter claim. The onus is on you.

Quote:
unsubstantiated uniformitarianism. 

Non-sequiter.

Quote:
you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you. Facts require absolutes. You don't have one.

Projection. And prove facts require absolutes, while you're at it. I won't hold my breath seeing as how you've so far failed to prove DNA is a code.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I neither claimed they

Quote:
I neither claimed they did nor misquoted them . I stated that what they DID say rationally implied a specific imperative.

Only in your mind. Try not taking quotes out of context. Your inability to understand the context makes your attempts to quote people laughable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13857
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

Depravity in the theological sense is a condition one is allegedly born into so your definition is completely divorced from actual behavior.   Such abstract definitions are only important to those who choose to immerse themselves in religions in which the only requirement for being depraved is mere existence.

The earliest Pauline Christians invented the concept of "depravity" as a way to invent the need for Christianity.  They also invented the belief that G-d runs around zapping people for no damned good reason to =really= scare people right into Paul's re-invention of Jesus's arms.

 

it's one of the delights of sites like this that one never knows when the previous lunacy barriers will be breached! Firstly, I didn't define 'depravity', in theological or any other terms. Secondly Jesus taught the sinfulness of Man from birth right here:  

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
 

Thirdly you're confused by "total depravity" which is Augustinian not Pauline and is beloved of Catholics, ironically because of their Calvinism.

 

You don't define "depravity" in a theological sense but right after that quote the bible?

First of , if there was only one universal way to define "depravity" not attached to any label, it would be any act on another that lacks consent. "Yuck" is not a factor in morality. "Yuck" merely means you don't like it. If it is not doing harm to others it is not depraved. Being offended by things you find "Yucky" does not qualify as depraved.

By proxy of the fact that right after moving the goal posts you used the bad tactic of circular reasoning in "The bible says so therefore the bible is true" defies your claim that you are not basing the word "depravity" on your own pet deity claim.

The truth is that you are lying when you say you are not basing your moral definition of "depravity" on your bible and Christian deity, otherwise why are you quoting the bible?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 freeminer wrote:  it's

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 it's one of the delights of sites like this that one never knows when the previous lunacy barriers will be breached!

 

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

 

freeminer wrote:
Firstly, I didn't define 'depravity', in theological or any other terms.

 

You just broke the "lunacy barrier", twice !   1.) Yes, you did define the term  and 2.)  you did it in a theological context....

 

freeminer wrote:
Secondly Jesus taught the sinfulness of Man from birth right here: 

 

...and you just defined it in theological terms again  by quoting a religious text from the Christian BIBLE !!!  Is that theological enough for you ?

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
You don't define "depravity" in a theological sense but right after that quote the bible?

 

           Exactly !!!

 

 

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:it's one of the

Quote:

it's one of the delights of sites like this that one never knows when the previous lunacy barriers will be breached! Firstly, I didn't define 'depravity', in theological or any other terms. Secondly Jesus taught the sinfulness of Man from birth right here:  

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
 

Thirdly you're confused by "total depravity" which is Augustinian not Pauline and is beloved of Catholics, ironically because of their Calvinism.

 

Quote:
You don't define "depravity" in a theological sense but right after that quote the bible?

you seem to see a problem with this but don't say why.....were we supposed to guess?

Quote:
First of , if there was only one universal way to define "depravity" not attached to any label, it would be any act on another that lacks consent.

so if  I bought you a beer without your consent, that would be depraved.........you have something very odd going on there.

 

Quote:
"Yuck" is not a factor in morality. "Yuck" merely means you don't like it.

this is your subjective view, for example, the Bible makes clear that it is for God. I suggest that with human beings it depends on degree and how hardened we have become as individuals to particular examples. "Yuck" merely indicates a degree of revulsion. The fact that it is an emotional response doesn't mean that it doesn't contain a moral component. The atheist has a tendency to such reductionism. 

Quote:
If it is not doing harm to others it is not depraved.

from a Christian perspective this is a modern myth. Because you see yourself as autonomous and not made in the image of God, you don't regard yourself as having any responsibility for your own psychological, let alone spiritual, well being. It also implies a certain insight into the psyche of others which is not necessarily present. The problem with sin is that it tends to be cavalier with the sensibilities of others.

Quote:
Being offended by things you find "Yucky" does not qualify as depraved.

well, YOU actually introduced the "yucky" aspect. It was never stated nor implied in my original post. So if "yucky" doesn't fall within the definition of depraved, why are you introducing the idea? It simply isn't necessary to my point.

Quote:
By proxy of the fact that right after moving the goal posts

which goal post has been moved? I was directed to a youtube clip which was literally puerile in showboating behaviour attributable to pubescents. One expects more of anyone older as one tends to give the benefit of the doubt and anticipate some level of maturity. Setting aside the actual behaviour. The presumption that ALL behaviour is somehow eligible as public spectacle evinces an inability to distinguish between the public and private realms ie a crassness which may not be surprising in thirteen yaer olds becomes perversion , that is 'out of place', in someone older.

Quote:
you used the bad tactic of circular reasoning in "The bible says so therefore the bible is true"

except for the small but significant fact that I never said, "The bible says so therefore the bible is true" nor anything like it - though I'm aware you would have loved me to have done so. In fact, in regard to the assertion of " depravity" I haven't so much as mentioned the bible let alone quoted it. This really is sloppy thinking. 

Quote:
defies your claim that you are not basing the word "depravity" on your own pet deity claim.

here is a simple, common dictionary definition of 'depraved':

Quote:

depraved:

adjective

corrupt, wicked, or perverted.

what do you notice about it?  Do you see that it PRESUPPOSES that there is human behaviour which constitutes "perversion"? Do you also see that, by the same token it PRESUPPOSES that there is human behaviour which does NOT constitute "perversion"? Do you suppose that, by virtue of the fact that these implications appear in a common, public dictionary that there is a further inherent implication that certain 'norms' exist? I suggest that, if this is not the case, this dictionary entry is totally and utterly meaningless.

Does the dictionary quote the bible in support of these bold suggestions? No. Neither did I.  Nevertheless, the fact that you chose, unprompted, to attribute a particular moral position to the bible, indicates that you recognise its moral standing. That recognition is significant because it is built in to the human being ie. he may be Vad the Impaler but he will ALWAYS recognise what comprises 'moral' behaviour. That is the basis on which God says he will judge the unregenerate. I would prefer not to be judged on that basis so I've taken the option.  

Quote:
The truth is that you are lying when you say you are not basing your moral definition of "depravity" on your bible and Christian deity,

see above. Whose 'morality' was the youTube clip based on?..........the spurious notion that "no-one is being harmed"? What cavalier nonsense! It was put there with infantile  disregard for any twelve year old girl who might get access.

Quote:
otherwise why are you quoting the bible?

  I'm aware that the actual facts are of precious little interest to you but, if you care to look back you'll note that I quoted the Bible SPECIFICALLY in rebuttal  of a false Biblical attribution. It was your fellow atheist who made it.........I simply corrected her.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  it's one of the

Quote:

 

 it's one of the delights of sites like this that one never knows when the previous lunacy barriers will be breached!

 

Quote:
You took the words right out of my mouth.

agreement!!!!.........thankfulness for small mercies.

Quote:
Firstly, I didn't define 'depravity', in theological or any other terms.

 

Quote:
You just broke the "lunacy barrier", twice !   1.) Yes, you did define the term  and

if you could quote my definition you would have done so.

 

Quote:
2.)  you did it in a theological context....

a presumption of yours.

 

freeminer wrote:
Secondly Jesus taught the sinfulness of Man from birth right here: 

 

Quote:
...and you just defined it in theological terms again  by quoting a religious text from the Christian BIBLE !!!  Is that theological enough for you ?

the fact that this quotation has nothing whatsoever to do with my use of "depravity" and comes way after it totally evades you doesn't it? Context is obviously way too subtle a detail for you.

Brian37 wrote:
You don't define "depravity" in a theological sense but right after that quote the bible?

 

           Exactly !!!

  oh dear!!!!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:PS. the reason that my

Quote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

 

Quote:
assertion of staggering proportions and amounts to nothing more than a fallacious ad hominem against all human life.

never mind...........he paid for it on a Roman gibbet. 

Quote:
We are too evil to ask questions.

who said that?........did I say that?

Quote:
It's still not proof, mate.

it was never intended to be. 

Quote:
You are your own god, freeminer,

I used to be.........it's how I know the difference. 

Quote:
like it or not. God does not dwell in you, speak to you, guide you. You do this yourself with dubious help from the mythology of the people whose religion you hijacked.  

suddenly the advocate of empiricism leaves all his principles in the dust..........didn't last long did they?!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: you couldn't EVEN

Quote:
you couldn't EVEN provide a highschool education.........whereas I have the qualifications to prove it.

Quote:

I couldn't provide a christian highschool education, this is true (and I'm glad). But I certainly could provide you with a real highschool education. You'd actually learn facts instead of myths.

I suppose  to be fair to you, you have to pay your atheist dues with this kind of bluster........even now, talk is cheap. 

Quote:
you flatter yourself.......presumably because you can't find anyone else to. 
Quote:
You're delusional, and dodging.

ok, but as an argument, it's a bit flaccid ain't it? 

Quote:
this looks like a statement of fact. Be my guest , provide your proof. 
Quote:

You made the claim first, I merely gave a counter claim. The onus is on you.

we'll just take it as read that you can't.

Quote:
unsubstantiated uniformitarianism. 
Quote:
Non-sequiter.

it was never intended, nor did it ever need to be. You stated as a priori fact something which you cannot prove empirically and was based on an overtly uniformitarian presupposition.

Quote:
you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you. Facts require absolutes. You don't have one.
Quote:
Projection.

Pojection which is substantiated by the very next statement you make below.

 

Quote:
And prove facts require absolutes,

very simple - the only way you can deny it is with the use of an absolute, without it your denial would be absurd, ie irrational...since a relative absolute cannot exist by definition................irrational, of course, pretty well describes your position. 

Quote:
while you're at it. I won't hold my breath seeing as how you've so far failed to prove DNA is a code.

which assertion is similarly irrational being a plunge into semantic mysticism in the face of the empirical evidence.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:PS. the reason that my

Quote:

PS. the reason that my use of "depravity" generated so much frothing rage among you is that YOU think you are 'good' people. This is the most basic error of Mankind. Your Creator says you aren't...... that in fact no-one IS! That is why Jesus says that regeneration is necessary. You don't like being preached at but then, by your own admission, you blaspheme God, which, while you are perfectly free to do, shows little regard for the sensibilities of deists! Sauce for the goose as they say.......

Quote:
Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 

a] I'm neither a Calvinist nor anything like one.

 

b] it was Christ who made the assertion.........."Why do you call me good, there is none good but God".

 

c] if you're determined on a very tedious eternity, at least make sure you understand the issues. The Christian has no 'goodness' of his own. Christ's is attributed to him.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Thirdly

freeminer wrote:

 

Thirdly you're confused by "total depravity" which is Augustinian not Pauline and is beloved of Catholics, ironically because of their Calvinism.

 

It really is difficult to consistently keep separated the many theological and denominational schisms that represent the One True Faith.  Could you please identify which one you align yourself with ?  That would avoid much of this confusion.  Thank you.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jcgadfly

Vastet wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 
It never ceases to amaze me that a religion which preaches humility can inspire such arrogance.

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: I'm

freeminer wrote:

 I'm neither a Calvinist nor anything like one.

 

 

 

Please waste no more time protesting what you aren't.  Why should anyone here continue to pay any attention to you if you are just playing a theological version of "Whack-A-Mole".  Identify you beliefs in specific terms or move on. 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: oh, this is

Quote:

 

oh, this is irresistable! I ask atheists so many questions which get ignored....

 

Quote:
You seem to be doing a fine job of ignoring....

just taking my time.

 

Quote:
please define 'truth' 

 

  Yes, please define "truth"

Jesus said, "I am the truth" ie he defined himself as the infinite absolute which we know to be necessary for truth to exist. Everything else is relative.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:just wasting

freeminer wrote:

just wasting time.

 

freeminer wrote:
Jesus said, "I am the truth" ie he defined himself as the infinite absolute which we know to be necessary for truth to exist. Everything else is relative.

Gibberish

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

 

Thirdly you're confused by "total depravity" which is Augustinian not Pauline and is beloved of Catholics, ironically because of their Calvinism.

 

It really is difficult to consistently keep separated the many theological and denominational schisms that represent the One True Faith.  Could you please identify which one you align yourself with ?  That would avoid much of this confusion.  Thank you.

I'm an orthodox [small 'o'] christian in the Reformed tradition. Evangelical and Pentecostal........if you  like labels.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

 I'm neither a Calvinist nor anything like one.

 

 

 

Please waste no more time protesting what you aren't.  Why should anyone here continue to pay any attention to you if you are just playing a theological version of "Whack-A-Mole".  Identify you beliefs in specific terms or move on. 

 

giving the mole a name doesn't make it easier to whack him.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:I'm an

freeminer wrote:

I'm an orthodox [small 'o'] christian in the Reformed tradition. Evangelical and Pentecostal........if you  like labels.

Doesn't matter whether I like labels.   These labels weren't created by atheists.   These labels were created by God-believers and reflect the divisive nature of religious faith among people who can't even agree among themselves about what constitutes "Truth".    Your little "o" ( as opposed to big "O" ? )  "Reformed"  "Evangelical" and "Pentecostal" are labels of your own choosing that you use to separate yourself from all those other "labels" who just can't accept your labels.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling