what faith you

mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
what faith you

 

You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.

 

I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.

I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.

Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I'm not

Watcher wrote:

I'm not impressed with your faith or your beliefs. Santa can be "real" to my four year old child, that doesn't make Santa a reality.

 

Watcher,

I was always a guy to get bored with anything in no more than 3 weeks. Ever since I have found Jesus (45 years ago) I have never tired of seeking and following and learning about and worshipping Him. This is totally unique. He has and is proving Himself to and inspiring me every moment.

He is also spiritual GPS. He has paid for the past. He has taken away anxiety of the future. He is with me in the moment.

I can easily see why the Bible says "knowing Jesus IS eternal life" (paraphrased). I have no doubts an eternity will easily be spent without beginning to completely know Jesus. The untiring joy of eternity has already started and will eternally get better.

The thing you can do in a day is change your mind about Christ. Like Zaccheus you can get a personal invitation and come down out of your tree of wrong turns in your thinking. It would take courage to change on this forum. You'd be the ultimate non conformist, and probably experience virtual crucifixion.

 

Mephibosheth (a palace within) (PS Santa makes people "feel good" but under close scrutiny doesn't accomplish any real good in my opinion).

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The thing you can

Quote:

The thing you can do in a day is change your mind about Christ. Like Zaccheus you can get a personal invitation and come down out of your tree of wrong turns in your thinking. It would take courage to change on this forum. You'd be the ultimate non conformist, and probably experience virtual crucifixion.

Why should the onus be on him or any of us be to change our minds when you have not provided us sufficient reason to do so? Contrarily, what in the above sentence could not be easily applied to you. I could easily reverse the equation to apply to your own beliefs and the meaning would be left unchanged. Which means, of course, you'll have to do better than this appeal.

Quote:

 PS Santa makes people "feel good" but under close scrutiny doesn't accomplish any real good in my opinion).

But whether or not Santa makes people feel good must be examined wholly indepedantly from any knowledge claims made by anybody pertaining to the existence of Santa. You seem incapable of grasping this concept.  Or, to put it another way, what is unique to your proposition that I could not simply remove the words Jesus and Christian and replace them with Muslim and Allah to find an identical syntax and meaning? Nothing. Again, for demonstrating sufficient reason to hold your propositions, you'll have to do better than this appeal.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


dave805
dave805's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Meph i have a couple

Meph i have a couple questions for you.

1. Have you ever worked on a sunday ?

2. Do you have children and have they/he/she ever cussed at you?

3. Do you think slavery should be legal ?

4. Do you think Rape Victims who don't cry out loudly enough should be put to death ?

5. Do you think men should be able to have more then 1 wife ?

We will start off there.. I could ask many many other questions but lets start here. These are pretty simple questions mate a simple yes or no will do on each question.

(You see i am not asking you why you believe in each of the questions above. Simply if you believe in them or not)  (Except for the first 2 which are nothing more then historical questions of your life)

 

 


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
dave805 wrote: Meph i have

dave805 wrote:

Meph i have a couple questions for you.

1. Have you ever worked on a sunday ?

2. Do you have children and have they/he/she ever cussed at you?

3. Do you think slavery should be legal ?

4. Do you think Rape Victims who don't cry out loudly enough should be put to death ?

5. Do you think men should be able to have more then 1 wife ?

We will start off there.. I could ask many many other questions but lets start here. These are pretty simple questions mate a simple yes or no will do on each question.

(You see i am not asking you why you believe in each of the questions above. Simply if you believe in them or not) (Except for the first 2 which are nothing more then historical questions of your life)

 

 

 

Hi Dave805,

First, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God or not?

Mephibosheth (000)

 


dave805
dave805's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth wrote:   Hi

mephibosheth wrote:

 

Hi Dave805,

First, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God or not?

Mephibosheth (000)

 

Answering a question with a question is general rude mate. I asked you a series of questions and you failed to reply to a single one of them.

And as for your question.  No...  Would you care to answere my questions as clear as i answered yours ? 

Yes/No...... See it is simple..  

 


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Why

deludedgod wrote:

Why should the onus be on him or any of us be to change our minds when you have not provided us sufficient reason to do so?

 

 

You're right I haven't provided sufficient reason for you to change your mind.

Jesus has, however.

 

deludedgod wrote:

Contrarily, what in the above sentence could not be easily applied to you. I could easily reverse the equation to apply to your own beliefs and the meaning would be left unchanged. Which means, of course, you'll have to do better than this appeal.

 

It does apply to me and I am applying it to me; however, non-perfectly.

 

I aim to change as Jesus leads.

deludedgod wrote:

But whether or not Santa makes people feel good must be examined wholly indepedantly from any knowledge claims made by anybody pertaining to the existence of Santa.

Whether or not Santa makes people feel good doesn't matter anyway. I'm saying when evaluated it doesn't do any real good.

Why would you want to take advantage of a kid's trust of you and inexperience by lying about Santa?

deludedgod wrote:

You seem incapable of grasping this concept. Or, to put it another way, what is unique to your proposition that I could not simply remove the words Jesus and Christian and replace them with Muslim and Allah to find an identical syntax and meaning? Nothing. Again, for demonstrating sufficient reason to hold your propositions, you'll have to do better than this appeal.

Like I said in my OP, I believe in Jesus. I believe, though I don't understand everything Jesus said totally, I understand enough to believe without doubt whatsoever that He Is Who He says He Is, the Son of God, and the Very Image of God.

I believe He was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, and died as the Perfect Lamb of God. The shedding of His Blood, which He took to the Real Tabernacle (the one Moses used for a pattern) and offered for the sins of anyone who believes in Him. After 3 days He was raised from the dead and now lives in His church.

It's hard to describe the joy of having Jesus in your spiritual house.

 

I don't see any other Savior out there.

It's like habinero. It makes all the others "cool".

 

 

Mephibosheth (treasure found)

 


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth wrote: Hi

mephibosheth wrote:

 

Hi Dave805,

First, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God or not?

Mephibosheth (000)

 

Dave805 wrote:
Answering a question with a question is general rude mate. I asked you a series of questions and you failed to reply to a single one of them.

And as for your question. No...

 

I think I'm getting the hang of it.

Dave805 wrote:

Would you care to answere my questions as clear as i answered yours ?

Yes/No...... See it is simple..

 

NO!

Mephibosheth (N000)


dave805
dave805's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Ok.... You say you do not

Ok.... You say you do not believe the bible is the word of god Smiling (Good for you)

Lets be specific.. Because i don't want any confusion on this.

Am i correct in asuming that this also means you do not believe the bible is the word of Jesus also ?

 

Edit..... One second. After rereading your reply your "NO" Could be construed to mean No you do not believe or No you will not answer my question. Which one it it sir.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Here is a typical game I

Here is a typical game I play when discoursing on religion. If I find claims pertaining specifically to one religion, and I find that I can replace any words pertaining specifically to that one religion with another one religion, and leave the meaning unchanged, then my opponent has an unbacked argument. To give an example, I cannot change the meaning of the sentence:

The application of a magnetic X-Y field to an electron fired across a phosphorescent screen proves the negative charge on the electron because the electron deflects towards the positive plate

I cannot change the meaning of this sentence to mean that I have made an argument in favor of the existence of, say, protons, because then it would be false (protons curve towards the negative plate).

On the other hand, this sentence:

It's hard to describe the joy of having Jesus in your spiritual house. I don't see any other Savior out there.

Makes precisely the same sense reading:

It's hard to describe the joy of having Allah in your spiritual house. I don't see any other Savior out there.

Makes precisely the same sense as:

It's hard to describe the joy of having Lord Glaxon in your spiritual house. I don't see any other Savior out there.

Quote:

believe in Jesus. I believe, though I don't understand everything Jesus said totally, I understand enough to believe without doubt whatsoever that He Is Who He says He Is, the Son of God, and the Very Image of God.

I believe He was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, and died as the Perfect Lamb of God. The shedding of His Blood, which He took to the Real Tabernacle (the one Moses used for a pattern) and offered for the sins of anyone who believes in Him. After 3 days He was raised from the dead and now lives in His church.

I do not need a refresher in the vapid theology to which you hold. Nor is it possible for someone to be born of a virgin, because that would entail that they are not diploid and no multicellular organism can be haploid, that is to say that without insemination, because the spermatazoa contains the male gamete, and the fundamental laws of genetics dictate with ruthless necessity that such recombination is the necessary precursor to the formation of the embryo, that both parents must make a precisely equal contribution in terms of DNA to any progeny from whence derives.

Trust me, I'd bet a great deal more money, as would David Hume, that a Jewish minx told a lie, and not that the laws of nature suspended.

At any rate, as I said, I care not for a refresher in your beliefs, only that you can establish them.

Quote:

You're right I haven't provided sufficient reason for you to change your mind.

Jesus has, however.

You see, I can perform the same test again?

Allah has, however

Lord Glaxon has, however

This same logic cannot be applied to the empirical example I gave, because that stands on proper methodological grounds.

WIthout further justification, you just entertain a special pleading fallacy.

Quote:

Whether or not Santa makes people feel good doesn't matter anyway. I'm saying when evaluated it doesn't do any real good.

I don't care. Knowledge claims about Santa could be evaluated as any others, and such evaluation would not take into consideration whether or not Santa makes people feel good. You are commiting a Red Herring fallacy, trying to steer away from my point that consequence and validity are not two sides of the same coin.

Quote:

Why would you want to take advantage of a kid's trust of you and inexperience by lying about Santa?

Coming from a religious fanatic...the irony is delicious.

Quote:

I aim to change as Jesus leads.

This sentence presupposes that Jesus is leading. Which means you are commiting a fallacy of begging the question (the very issue under consideration is the validity of your theology. You can't presuppose the truth of said theology in order to defend it as being propositionally sound. That you cannot see this, is well and truly frightening. Are you, perchance, allowed outside?

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
You missed one

You missed one DG. 

mephibosheth wrote:
Whether or not Santa makes people feel good doesn't matter anyway. I'm saying when evaluated it doesn't do any real good.

Whether or not Jesus makes people feel good doesn't matter anyway.  I'm saying when evaluated it doesn't do any real good.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Here is

deludedgod wrote:

Here is a typical game I play when discoursing on religion.

 

 

DG, maybe you're typical, but that doesn't mean you're right.

 

deludedgod wrote:

I do not need a refresher in the vapid theology to which you hold. Nor is it possible for someone to be born of a virgin, because that would entail that they are not diploid and no multicellular organism can be haploid, that is to say that without insemination, because the spermatazoa contains the male gamete, and the fundamental laws of genetics dictate with ruthless necessity that such recombination is the necessary precursor to the formation of the embryo, that both parents must make a precisely equal contribution in terms of DNA to any progeny from whence derives.

 

 

DG, you're up a tree again talking like you created these things instead of just observing and pontificating.

 

deludedgod wrote:

Trust me, I'd bet a great deal more money, as would David Hume, that a Jewish minx told a lie, and not that the laws of nature suspended.

 

 

I won't bet because you won't be able to pay.

Did David Hume really talk his mother out of her religion then not come to comfort when she needed him and was dying - that's unbelievable isn't it?

 

 

deludedgod wrote:

At any rate, as I said, I care not for a refresher in your beliefs, only that you can establish them.

 

 

You don't need a refresher you need a starter set.

 

 

deludedgod wrote:


Allah has, however

Lord Glaxon has, however

 

 

You forgot your buddy David Hume. Just call, he'll answer.

 

 

 

deludedgod wrote:

This same logic cannot be applied to the empirical example I gave, because that stands on proper methodological grounds.

WIthout further justification, you just entertain a special pleading fallacy.

 

 

Try putting that to music and see if it sells.

 

 

deludedgod wrote:


I don't care. [Knowledge claims about Santa could be evaluated as any others, and such evaluation would not take into consideration whether or not Santa makes people feel good. You are commiting a Red Herring fallacy, trying to steer away from my point that consequence and validity are not two sides of the same coin.

 

 

You caught me Deludedgod, I was trying to commit a Red Herring fallacy and steer away from your point that consequence and validity are not two sides of the same coin.

 

 

deludedgod wrote:


Coming from a religious fanatic...the irony is delicious.

 

Coming from you I consider that a compliment - about as far away from you and David Hume as I can get would be great.

 

 

deludedgod wrote:


You can't presuppose the truth of said theology in order to defend it as being propositionally sound. That you cannot see this, is well and truly frightening. Are you, perchance, allowed outside?

 

 

Yeah but it's freezing out there.

 

Mephibosheth (presupposing said theology with half my brain tied behind my back - just to make it fair)

 


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
dave805 wrote: Ok.... You

dave805 wrote:

Ok.... You say you do not believe the bible is the word of god Smiling (Good for you)

Lets be specific.. Because i don't want any confusion on this.

Am i correct in asuming that this also means you do not believe the bible is the word of Jesus also ?

 

Edit..... One second. After rereading your reply your "NO" Could be construed to mean No you do not believe or No you will not answer my question. Which one it it sir.

 

 

Dave805,

 

Sorry I don't dance. I do notice you pipe though.

 

Mephibosheth (but do you love me?)


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: DG, maybe you're

Quote:

DG, maybe you're typical, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Nor does it mean I am wrong. Addressing one's arguments as opposed to making such useless comments would indeed be a novel thing for you.

Quote:

  DG, you're up a tree again talking like you created these things instead of just observing and pontificating.

 And the observations I have made from said study dictate the laws of genetics I described, and you cannot entertain a special pleading fallacy to escape, and now you are simply presupposing that the thing in question which breaks the laws of nature exists in order to defend it from an internal contradiction I raised. Unacceptable. 

Quote:

 Did David Hume really talk his mother out of her religion then not come to comfort when she needed him and was dying - that's unbelievable isn't it?

Did you not bring this point up several hundred posts ago? My answer remains unchanged. The man could have raped puppies, and that does not change the truth of his observation pertaining to this matter.

However, there is no evidence that such a thing occured, nor can I find it in the man's biography. At any rate, I could not care less if he did. Are you going to address the man's argument as opposed to making ad hominid attacks against him? I suppose not, being that you do not have the intellectual capacity to do so.

Quote:

You forgot your buddy David Hume. Just call, he'll answer.

The implication therein commits a moving the goalpost fallacy. Furthermore, David Hume is long dead, having died in 1776. This makes your suggestion rather dubious.

Quote:

  Try putting that to music and see if it sells.

I don't have the proper decoder ring for this. No doubt honest lucidity is not your strong suit. Could you kindly address my arguments and write propositionally coherent sentences that make sense beyond the syntax?

Quote:

 

You caught me Deludedgod, I was trying to commit a Red Herring fallacy and steer away from your point that consequence and validity are not two sides of the same coin.

Hmmm. An honest admission of your own vapidity. I am impressed.

Quote:

 Coming from you I consider that a compliment - about as far away from you and David Hume as I can get would be great.

You seem to have more infatuation with Hume than anyone I have ever met. However, you will, if we are discoursing on the man's philosophy, kindly pay him the respects he deserves, for his achievements outnumber those of your fictional God by orders of magnitude. The man virtually founded modern philosophy on his own, and had a large hand in the Enlightenment in English speaking countries, thence laying the groundwork for modern philosophy and science. As the first prominent atheist philosopher, he laid the groundwork with a set of treatises largely eviscerating religion and especially the concept of miracles, by means of his problem of induction.

However, I still have no idea what your above sentence means, nor do I understand your reference to Hume within said sentence. Perhaps if you learned to express propositions coherently, we would not be having this trouble.

Quote:

 presupposing said theology

Well, there you are. You openly admitted to commiting a logical fallacy. You shot yourself in the foot.

Quote:

 with half my brain tied behind my back - just to make it fair

You flatter yourself. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Sorry I don't

Quote:

Sorry I don't dance. I do notice you pipe though.

 

Mephibosheth (but do you love me?)

What the hell does that even mean? 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The only thing good I can

The only thing good I can say about mephiboseth so far is that at least he didn't get hooked by the muslim faith.

He would have blown himself up as a suicide bomber years ago and killed alot of innocent people.

Watcher(Finding the best in everything)

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


dave805
dave805's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Sorry I don't dance. I do notice you pipe though.

 

Mephibosheth (but do you love me?)

What the hell does that even mean?

 

I dono ether... Maybe it is a admission of defeat on the issue.

I mean.. HE fails to answer a simple question but skirts around the issue. I say he isn't worth talking to anymore because of this.

It is obvious that he doesn't want to debate the issue.. Not like answering a simple question is all that hard. Mehh.. Well it is .. If you know the answer you give will lead to a unwinable position .

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
dave805 wrote: deludedgod

dave805 wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Sorry I don't dance. I do notice you pipe though.

 

Mephibosheth (but do you love me?)

What the hell does that even mean?

 

I dono ether... Maybe it is a admission of defeat on the issue.

I mean.. HE fails to answer a simple question but skirts around the issue. I say he isn't worth talking to anymore because of this.

It is obvious that he doesn't want to debate the issue.. Not like answering a simple question is all that hard. Mehh.. Well it is .. If you know the answer you give will lead to a unwinable position .

 

Funny how theists expect those on the other side of the aisle to answer all their questions in detail (so they can disregard them and preach anyway). When we ask them to reciprocate, they respond with such crap as "I don't dance to your tune" or "Stop trying to bait me" or even "Why are you persecuting me because of my faith?"

If Meph has been a Christian for 40+ years, he's not going to change. My own suspicions (that's all they are) work along these lines - If he's 63, I can suck my own genitalia.  

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth wrote: DG,

mephibosheth wrote:

DG, you're up a tree again talking like you created these things instead of just observing and pontificating.

deludedgod wrote:

And the observations I have made from said study dictate the laws of genetics I described, and you cannot entertain a special pleading fallacy to escape, and now you are simply presupposing that the thing in question which breaks the laws of nature exists in order to defend it from an internal contradiction I raised. Unacceptable.

 

DG,

If you could divide what you know with what there is to know - the answer would have zeros after the decimal point and before the 1 stretching to the next solar system and that is not a exaggeration - yet you talk like you made these things. I for one don't buy any of your strut. It blinds you from the Word of God which I am only pointing you to as a friend. Yet you call bad good and good bad. You choose blind guides like David Hume.

You're pretty stuffy company too. I'd rather have a dinner of beans with the lowly, though you're producing plenty of gas on your own.

 

Mephibosheth (a worshipper not a creator)


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm not responding to you

I'm not responding to you anymore until you produce a coherent, proper argument.  The argument you just raised was an argument from ignorance, which is fallacious.

Why do you keep bringing up David Hume? You are talking as though I study Humian philosophy the way you salivate over Jesus. Hume was simply a  philosopher who along with John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and their predecessors Baruch de Spinoza and Rene Descartes, founded modern philosophy (I think I missed somebody, but no matter). THe reason I brought up Hume was because my argument pertained to an argument originally made by David Hume: No testament be sufficient to establish a miracle unless sucha testament is of such kind thats is falsehood would be more miraculous than its validity. This is not a particularly novel argument today, it is in common usage, I don't think it even originates with David Hume (Lucretius may have written something on the matter. I'll have to look through On the Nature of Things again).

So, I shall no longer flatter you by responding, unless your response is of quality or deserves a sarcastic rebuke as an opportunity that cannot be missed. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Li Yuki
Li Yuki's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Why, Hello there

Hey, mephibosheth, you have gotten me interested in this person you speak of, Jesus and his god.  Now, me being an atheist, don't really know who or what Jesus is. In fact I only know the basics of this persons history.  However, when i hear someone saying that he was the son of god and the savior of the human race, well, that sounds kinda interesting and something that i should know about.  Though, oddly the only thing i recall about him is that he died on the cross and walked around with a bunch of liked minded people for a long time.  So i guess what I'm asking is, would you take some time out of your day to enlighten me and possiably other atheist on this forum about your faith and ideals. 

So let me start out with some questions and requests.

1. Could you tell me when and where this person was born, please?

2. Could you give me a detailed time line of Jesus's life?

3. What was this person's beleifs and what was his stance on issues at the time and what would his stance be on current issues today(ex:abortion, war in iraq, education, and killing innocent animals for a source of food when there are clearly many healthy plants that could be eaten instead)?

4. You said that he helps you out in many ways today and I could of sworn I heard somewhere that you talk to him.  So, my question is, is he still alive today, how would i get in contact with him, do i need to fill out some type of survey or something?

 5.  How has he benifited the human race, what contributions has he made scientifically and otherwise? 

6.  You said he was born of a virgin, correct?  So, tell me, how in the world would that work,  was the sperm injected directly to his mothers uterus(spelling?) or something.  Sounds kinda weird...

Now i would like to ask you some things about the god that you worship, if that would be ok with you.

1. Has he performed any miracles recently? If so, what miracles has he performed and how could we be sure this was from your god and not another god, like, i dunno, Allah?

2. How did he come about into existance and what has he done for the world?

3.  Why are there so many bad things still going on today.  Such as torture, abuse, murder, killiing of innocent animals for food, death, stupidity, people of different faiths killing each other, and many, many more things?

4.  Is he/she/it all loving, all knowing, and planned out the master plan for the universe?

5. Where is this being, what is he/she/it made of, can i see it, how does he/she/it react to the rest of the elements in the universe.  What language can it speak?(I'm just going to call your god it sense I don't know what your god is, so please dont be offended)

6. What is it's position on all of the issues in todays world?

7. Lastly, how do you know all of these things? 

I know these questions may be difficult for you but I would be very thankfull if you would take some time to answer them truthfully and honestly.

Thanks in advance!!! 

 

Warning the following post may be offensive to certain people. Theist are not advised to read unless they are prepared to debate!
Side effects include possible deconversion, rational thought, and the lack of fear in the easter bunny.


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Li Yuki wrote: Hey,

Li Yuki wrote:

Hey, mephibosheth, you have gotten me interested in this person you speak of, Jesus and his god. Now, me being an atheist, don't really know who or what Jesus is. In fact I only know the basics of this persons history. However, when i hear someone saying that he was the son of god and the savior of the human race, well, that sounds kinda interesting and something that i should know about. Though, oddly the only thing i recall about him is that he died on the cross and walked around with a bunch of liked minded people for a long time. So i guess what I'm asking is, would you take some time out of your day to enlighten me and possiably other atheist on this forum about your faith and ideals.

So let me start out with some questions and requests.

1. Could you tell me when and where this person was born, please?

This is 2008. Time is numbered since Jesus' death. Jesus was born in Bethlehem at just the right time. Joseph and Mary went to the City of David because Joseph belonged to the line of David. He went there to register concerning a census by Caesar Augustus.

LiYuki wrote:

2. Could you give me a detailed time line of Jesus's life?

 

He lived 33 years, the last 3 was His ministry. There's not much recorded about His teen years except the incident in the Temple where He was talking to the teachers of the law.

There is a question about whether Jesus was born in AD 1 or 4 BC. I don't know.

 

Li Yuki wrote:

3. What was this person's beleifs and what was his stance on issues at the time and what would his stance be on current issues today(ex:abortion, war in iraq, education, and killing innocent animals for a source of food when there are clearly many healthy plants that could be eaten instead)?

Jesus' Kingdom was and is not of this world. He didn't get involved in the world's politics. His Kingdom is the ecclesia - the "called out", the church, His body of which He is the Head, it's not an organization, rather an "organism" in which He and God and the Holy Spirit live.

It's a mistake to try to connect Christianity to politics or to bring politics into the Church. One reason the Jews were so disappointed with Jesus was the fact that He wasn't the political/military "this world" deliverer they wanted. They piped but He wouldn't dance.

 

Li Yuki wrote:

 

4. You said that he helps you out in many ways today and I could of sworn I heard somewhere that you talk to him. So, my question is, is he still alive today, how would i get in contact with him, do i need to fill out some type of survey or something?

Yes Jesus is alive today, He lives in His church. He said if you accept Him, He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit will come and make their home in you.

You see Him with the eyes of faith. It is a sight that springs from the soul, the inner man, man's spirit and heart.

The Scripture says, "The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts" - this is the part of man that sin kills and dims, but the Word of God is able to bring to life.

Li Yuki wrote:

5. How has he benifited the human race, what contributions has he made scientifically and otherwise?

Jesus has solved the main problem of man - the debt and enmity between man and God. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Jesus shed His blood in our lace and paid that price. All men sinned and fell and need this price paid. We are reborn into Him in baptism.

We give up our pursuit of our own righteousness, which is comparable to Adam's leaves for clothes, and we accept the wedding garment of God - Jesus' Righteousness. He lived a perfect life. He was the Perfect Lamb, the Lamb of God.

He has delivered man from bondage to the fear of death. He has brought the spirit of men from death to life in His Son, and given us the strength to fight sin and Satan and get better at it.

Li Yuki wrote:

6. You said he was born of a virgin, correct? So, tell me, how in the world would that work, was the sperm injected directly to his mothers uterus(spelling?) or something. Sounds kinda weird...

I don't have any problem with that question. Birth in itself is a miracle. I don't have any question that the God that made man and woman able to have children could do it different if He wanted to.

Li Yuki wrote:

Now i would like to ask you some things about the god that you worship, if that would be ok with you.

1. Has he performed any miracles recently? If so, what miracles has he performed and how could we be sure this was from your god and not another god, like, i dunno, Allah?

Well, I see He has performed a miracle in me, bringing me from death to life. I can still remember what death was like - living in darkness, sin, and fear and not knowing what I was stumbling over.

I don't know about Allah, I found out about God in the Bible. I have picked up other books, but they don't compare.

Li Yuki wrote:

2. How did he come about into existance and what has he done for the world?

I didn't make my God and I don't know. He made me. I would hate to have a God that was below me.

Li Yuki wrote:

3. Why are there so many bad things still going on today. Such as torture, abuse, murder, killiing of innocent animals for food, death, stupidity, people of different faiths killing each other, and many, many more things?

That is an interesting question for people like those on this forum to ask when they so much like the fact of their independence - I mean they defend it in every way, "don't tell me this or that" or, "I'll do what I want".

This is the very independence that allows the things you are complaining about . You can't have it both ways.

Li Yuki wrote:

4. Is he/she/it all loving, all knowing, and planned out the master plan for the universe?

Yes, but a disadvantage of man is not knowing what God is doing.

 

Li Yuki wrote:

5. Where is this being, what is he/she/it made of, can i see it, how does he/she/it react to the rest of the elements in the universe. What language can it speak?(I'm just going to call your god it sense I don't know what your god is, so please dont be offended)

God is everywhere. In Jesus all things hold together. All things were created through Him. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.

Li Yuki wrote:

6. What is it's position on all of the issues in todays world?

7. Lastly, how do you know all of these things?

As I said Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world. For instance, Jesus didn't condemn slavery - He just put in place how Christian slaves should regard their masters, and vise versa.

I know these things because I believe the Bible. I see them strongly with the eyes of faith, from my inner man. Because I believe in Jesus He has brought these things into stronger focus.

Li Yuki wrote:
I know these questions may be difficult for you but I would be very thankfull if you would take some time to answer them truthfully and honestly.

Thanks in advance!!!

 

 

Mephibosheth (Check out the Lamb of God - the Sacrifice of God is Perfect, I'm not)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm... If you read parts of

Hmmm... If you read parts of this last post it would indicate Mephib is NOT a fundie - notice he says it is wrong to connect Christianity to politics - fundies would not agree with that at all.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Hmmm... If you read parts of this last post it would indicate Mephib is NOT a fundie - notice he says it is wrong to connect Christianity to politics - fundies would not agree with that at all.

 

MS,

The thing I want people to do is see Jesus.

Think about how sophisticated and quick sight is. Just by going outside in the evening and opening our eyes we can see the moon 240K miles away - in a flash!

Sight and all the senses are just miracles we have gotten used to - they are every day miracles. We use them but most of us don't have the slightest idea how they work.

 

 

 

It's the same with the eyes of faith - our "inner sight". We don't know how it works but it's sophisticated and quick and we can use it too even though we don't understand it.

With the eyes of faith we can go back and get acquainted with even the patriarchs - even our most distant relatives Adam and Eve.

We can see Moses on the mountain and move on to Jesus praying in the garden, dying on Calvary and move on to the open tomb. We can see Jesus walking on the road with the disciples to Emmaus where He ask, "what things?"

We can see how serious God is - how badly He wants us to spend eternity with Him. In Jesus' we see exactly what God is like and what God wants man to be like - with the eyes of faith.

With the eyes of faith we can see beyond the horison of death into eternity.

 

 

 

But the greatest thing the eyes of faith can do are take us from darkness to light - from death to life, from the weight of sin's guilt to the joys of salvation in Jesus. It can happen quick just by opening your eyes. The question is - do you want to see Jesus?

You don't have to say, "where can I find Jesus?" "I'll go into Hell's den if I have to" He is near, and if you open the eyes of your heart you can have Him.

I pray this for all of you. This is great, "seeing Jesus".

 

 

We all have an appetite for seeing things - and it's not satisfied. It's just being pushed back by continually seeing new things - like a honeymoon with new ideas.

Well, what if you FOUND what you are looking for? What if you found what it is you want to see in life? What if every moment was like the joy of finding your way when lost or finding your keys - only much greater.

 

 

It's Jesus you want to see and keep in sight and trust in and follow - with the eyes of faith. It's quick. It's miraculous (like physical sight). Open your eyes. It can happen in a day.

 

 

 

 

 

Mephibosheth (enjoying but not understanding the miraculous)


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
  2 Kings 4 Naaman was a

 

2 Kings 4

Naaman was a great man, courageous, a victorious warrior - but - (there's always a blemish with man) - he was a leper.

He had a Israelite slave girl that told him he could be healed of his leprosy by the prophet of God - Elisha.

He went about it wisely and by the time he reached Elisha's door he had the backing of 2 Kings and about a million $ with him.

Elisha didn't even come to the door - he sent his servant Gehazi to tell him to dip 7 times in the Jordan and be healed.

Naaman said, "I thought" - he had pre-conceived ideas about what it would be, and evil questions.

He was mad. Again his servants calmed him down.

It would have been a tragedy for him to have gone back home a leper. The solution was so simple. He did it. He was healed.

It would or will be a tragedy for you here on this forum to ride to hell on your pre-conceived ideas. They won't comfort you there.

Just follow the instructions and "believe in Jesus and be saved". It seems too simple? Should God have consulted you all about how to be saved?

Let's say you could "earn" your salvation with good works. What would the motive be except selfishness? The whole thing would be polluted at the source.

Plus, you insult God by trying to earn salvation. He has set the price of eternal life - the death of His Only Begotten Son. Will anything you present compare? It won't work.

It will never give peace to try to do it your way. Upon reflection you will know something is lacking. It's not enough. It is a tragedy to face death with only what you have done for your own salvation. You are resting on rotten rags of your own righteousness. You could have God's Wedding Garment - the Righteousness of Christ.

Instead God's Way of saving you through faith in Jesus Christ works! Why don't you try it?

 

Mephibosheth "Keep your heart with all vigilance - for from it flow the springs of life".


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Your vapid, unsubstantiated,

Your vapid, unsubstantiated, self-praising, smug, vitriolic, idiotic, holier-than-thou, mendacious, pernicious, noxious, insipid, tiring, virulent, empty rants are being ignored for a reason.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:
Your vapid, unsubstantiated, self-praising, smug, vitriolic, idiotic, holier-than-thou, mendacious, pernicious, noxious, insipid, tiring, virulent, empty rants are being ignored for a reason.

 

Dulce et Decorum est Pro Dei mori

 

Deludedgod,

Yes, it's indeed too simple a solution for you.  Those who are well have no need of a physician.  

Mephibosheth 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth wrote:   2

mephibosheth wrote:

 

2 Kings 4

Naaman was a great man, courageous, a victorious warrior - but - (there's always a blemish with man) - he was a leper.

He had a Israelite slave girl that told him he could be healed of his leprosy by the prophet of God - Elisha.

He went about it wisely and by the time he reached Elisha's door he had the backing of 2 Kings and about a million $ with him.

Elisha didn't even come to the door - he sent his servant Gehazi to tell him to dip 7 times in the Jordan and be healed.

Naaman said, "I thought" - he had pre-conceived ideas about what it would be, and evil questions.

He was mad. Again his servants calmed him down.

It would have been a tragedy for him to have gone back home a leper. The solution was so simple. He did it. He was healed.

It would or will be a tragedy for you here on this forum to ride to hell on your pre-conceived ideas. They won't comfort you there.

Just follow the instructions and "believe in Jesus and be saved". It seems too simple? Should God have consulted you all about how to be saved?

Let's say you could "earn" your salvation with good works. What would the motive be except selfishness? The whole thing would be polluted at the source.

Plus, you insult God by trying to earn salvation. He has set the price of eternal life - the death of His Only Begotten Son. Will anything you present compare? It won't work.

It will never give peace to try to do it your way. Upon reflection you will know something is lacking. It's not enough. It is a tragedy to face death with only what you have done for your own salvation. You are resting on rotten rags of your own righteousness. You could have God's Wedding Garment - the Righteousness of Christ.

Instead God's Way of saving you through faith in Jesus Christ works! Why don't you try it?

 

Mephibosheth "Keep your heart with all vigilance - for from it flow the springs of life".

Ah, you're back.

I was hoping you'd have new material.

I hate being disappointed. Just the same old appeal to fear and the hope of Jesus - the sacrifice that wasn't.

Why can't you get it that people can have happy, fulfilled lives without having to debase themselves before Yahweh? I had the self-esteem of a rock when I was a Christian, mostly because I was constantly told garbage like, "You're nothing without God", "Your righteousness is as filthy rags", "Would He devote that sacred Head for such a worm as I?"

Are Christians really that jealous? 

When I stopped groveling before God, I finally felt like I was worth something. 

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:   Ah,

jcgadfly wrote:

 


Ah, you're back.

I was hoping you'd have new material.

I hate being disappointed. Just the same old appeal to fear and the hope of Jesus - the sacrifice that wasn't.

Why can't you get it that people can have happy, fulfilled lives without having to debase themselves before Yahweh? I had the self-esteem of a rock when I was a Christian, mostly because I was constantly told garbage like, "You're nothing without God", "Your righteousness is as filthy rags", "Would He devote that sacred Head for such a worm as I?"

Are Christians really that jealous?

When I stopped groveling before God, I finally felt like I was worth something.

 

JC Gadfly,

Herod was once somewhat "moved" by John the Baptist's message but he didn't apply it to his life. Later he was capable of mocking Jesus - he led his soldiers in making Him out to be nothing. Jesus answered lepers and beggars and full time businesswomen and helped them but was silent before Herod's novel curiosity.

Notice at Jesus' surely most painful moment, after the cross was dropped, the crowd jeering and mocking His prayer was, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

Here God has set the value on us - and eternal life: the death of His Only Begotten Son. Do you see something in yourself that is worth more, that gives you higher esteem?

Have you done any good works that measure up to the death of God's Son? If you are saying they are worth more you insult God because Jesus ask if there was another way in the Garden. If there had been God wouldn't have let Jesus go through that. You have only partial ignorance about the gospel. I'm guessing you never made it out of the wilderness and crossed over into full assurance.

As to your self esteem subject, I don't find true peace focusing on myself. I find it to be a downward spiral. Upon reflection the thought creeps in "something isn't right" and the conscience is like the leaches' daughter, "give, give they cry" - the good works are never enough to lie down in peace on. They are filthy rags. You have an idol in yourself that can't save and isn't God.

Plus, if you are going to do good works to earn eternal life isn't the motive in that pursuit selfishness? The whole thing is polluted at the source. But following Jesus in faith and accepting the gift of His death, trusting in the blood of Jesus...simple, but it works! Maybe God should have consulted you about all this.

And as for your "feelings" subject (now you feel worth something) - you are trusting in a truly volatile thing trusting in feelings. That is a case of "seeking the living with the dead". Feelings are like Illinois weather.

But I think you could retrace your steps and find Christ - He would gladly receive you back, throw a party, etc; however it's a door with a knob on the inside only.

Mephibosheth (never trust Illinois weather)

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

 


Ah, you're back.

I was hoping you'd have new material.

I hate being disappointed. Just the same old appeal to fear and the hope of Jesus - the sacrifice that wasn't.

Why can't you get it that people can have happy, fulfilled lives without having to debase themselves before Yahweh? I had the self-esteem of a rock when I was a Christian, mostly because I was constantly told garbage like, "You're nothing without God", "Your righteousness is as filthy rags", "Would He devote that sacred Head for such a worm as I?"

Are Christians really that jealous?

When I stopped groveling before God, I finally felt like I was worth something.

 

JC Gadfly,

Herod was once somewhat "moved" by John the Baptist's message but he didn't apply it to his life. Later he was capable of mocking Jesus - he led his soldiers in making Him out to be nothing. Jesus answered lepers and beggars and full time businesswomen and helped them but was silent before Herod's novel curiosity.

Notice at Jesus' surely most painful moment, after the cross was dropped, the crowd jeering and mocking His prayer was, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

Here God has set the value on us - and eternal life: the death of His Only Begotten Son. Do you see something in yourself that is worth more, that gives you higher esteem?

Have you done any good works that measure up to the death of God's Son? If you are saying they are worth more you insult God because Jesus ask if there was another way in the Garden. If there had been God wouldn't have let Jesus go through that. You have only partial ignorance about the gospel. I'm guessing you never made it out of the wilderness and crossed over into full assurance.

As to your self esteem subject, I don't find true peace focusing on myself. I find it to be a downward spiral. Upon reflection the thought creeps in "something isn't right" and the conscience is like the leaches' daughter, "give, give they cry" - the good works are never enough to lie down in peace on. They are filthy rags. You have an idol in yourself that can't save and isn't God.

Plus, if you are going to do good works to earn eternal life isn't the motive in that pursuit selfishness? The whole thing is polluted at the source. But following Jesus in faith and accepting the gift of His death, trusting in the blood of Jesus...simple, but it works! Maybe God should have consulted you about all this.

And as for your "feelings" subject (now you feel worth something) - you are trusting in a truly volatile thing trusting in feelings. That is a case of "seeking the living with the dead". Feelings are like Illinois weather.

But I think you could retrace your steps and find Christ - He would gladly receive you back, throw a party, etc; however it's a door with a knob on the inside only.

Mephibosheth (never trust Illinois weather)

 

Again, you bring up Jesus' three day weekend you like to call "Crucifixion and Burial" What did Jesus sacrifice again? Oh, that's right, not a thing.

I don't compare my works to Jesus' "sacrifice" becaus I don't compare what I do to what didn't happen. That's also why I see my self-worth - it's real. 

As for your accusing me of hedonism - you don't know me or why I do what I do.  Even if it were purely hedonistic, it would be so much better than the masochism you're trying to sell. Emotional self-flagellation at its finest - "I'm worthless but God loves me any way" *thwack*.

"Feeling" was the wrong word. What I was trying to say was that now I have an assurance that I have worth simply because I'm a human being who contributes to society. That was something I never got in all my groveling before your God.

I have to go find Christ? Whatever happened to "Behold I stand at the door and knock..."? 

That's the "door with the knob on the inside" on the painting you allude to. What you said just made my point - that I have to debase myself and treat myself like dirt so that Yahweh might "save" me. 

 

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Again, you

jcgadfly wrote:

Again, you bring up Jesus' three day weekend you like to call "Crucifixion and Burial" What did Jesus sacrifice again? Oh, that's right, not a thing.

I don't compare my works to Jesus' "sacrifice" becaus I don't compare what I do to what didn't happen. That's also why I see my self-worth - it's real.

As for your accusing me of hedonism - you don't know me or why I do what I do. Even if it were purely hedonistic, it would be so much better than the masochism you're trying to sell. Emotional self-flagellation at its finest - "I'm worthless but God loves me any way" *thwack*.

"Feeling" was the wrong word. What I was trying to say was that now I have an assurance that I have worth simply because I'm a human being who contributes to society. That was something I never got in all my groveling before your God.

I have to go find Christ? Whatever happened to "Behold I stand at the door and knock..."?

That's the "door with the knob on the inside" on the painting you allude to. What you said just made my point - that I have to debase myself and treat myself like dirt so that Yahweh might "save" me.

 

 

JCGadfly,

I don't think I accused you of hedonism as I understand hedonism - pursuit of pleasure being the highest good? Didn't mean to anyway.

I sense that you don't believe Jesus died on the Cross, came back to life, born of a virgin, ascended to heaven, etc. I don't know what to say or do about that - probably can't do anything, sorry. Believe me I wish I could.

Concerning humility versis pride - in my experience, humility is a position of strength and security, because it is reality. To have the esteem of a rock I think you said - ok, I like it. It's relaxing to let God be God and me be me. I don't have to try to solve God's problems, or even know how He's going to do something, etc.

As an example of humility being strength I would cite the apostle Paul. He viewed himself as the "chief of sinners" yet he would get beat up and left for dead for his message then get up and return to town.

Contrast Pilate. "Don't you know I have the power to turn you loose?" Ha, he didn't even have the power to live out his own perception of things. "Because he feared the people..." That's not strength though to the lower wattage he would appear strong due to appearance trappings of strength.

The condition of pride however is a false insecure state in my experience. There is concern how this position is going to be held up on fresh air. One is a little worried the domino is going to get pushed and the whole thing will cascade. The haughty state will get tripped.

As in the story 2 Kings 5 the misconception of Naaman was his enemy. "I thought" it was going to be this way, but it wasn't. Your misconception about faith in Jesus and following Jesus is a barrier.

Probably the biggest barrier between you and the gospel though is not sin but your righteousness. You don't have leprosy thus you don't need the cure. The doctor at the door is sent packing, "nobody sick here".

As far as your questioning whether Jesus finds us or we find Him - I don't know how that works. The Bible examples of conversion all seem to be different. I believe you could even become an example of a unique conversion but I don't know how it would happen. But I hope it does.

Mephibosheth (I have a "living hope" in Christ)


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:

Quote:
I sense that you don't believe Jesus died on the Cross,
 

Probably never existed.  If he did, he sacrificed nothing.. I'll gladly die so that I can be re-born and attain eternity w/ infinite power, yes even w/ the torture (oh sure he didn't invoke his jesus power and instead let himself suffer human pain. Uh-huh !).  Also I liked the story better when it was Dionysus/Bacchus who was sacrificed on the cross 500 yrs earlier.. Stay tuned.. More plagiarisms to come.

Quote:
came back to life,
  Common mythological theme told hundreds of times about hundreds of "others" before the jesus story was invented.   A way to circumvent our own mortality and provide a remedy for human's greatest fear....death?  Hey I'll bet that plays real well among the masses.. Yawn !  Plagiarism re-visited.

Quote:
born of a virgin
  Read a history book for the massive overuse of this theme... Ding ! Plagiarism yet again !

Quote:
ascended to heaven

See above.

Quote:
in my experience, humility is a position of strength and security, because it is reality.

I'm not sure this even makes sense, however, humility is only reality, if you actually embrace it.  There is nothing humble about believing you have a secret hotline to an omnipotent being that only hears you and those that think like you do and consequently can be heard by you.  Neither is there anything humble about reading a plagiarized myth and declaring it exclusive truth that according to the myth's sacred scriptures, must be followed by everyone.  In fact it's a complete and total surrender to one's own ego.  See also.."Violence in History" for why this so reprehensible.

Quote:
You don't have leprosy thus you don't need the cure

The age old problem:  How in the hell do you control the ignorant, uneducated masses if they're not convinced there is anything wrong w/ them ?

Quote:
As far as your questioning whether Jesus finds us or we find Him - I don't know how that works.

Lucky for both of us.. I do.  See when you educate yourself about where all religions come from, free yourself from your own ego which insists that your own religion has to be the correct one, realize the coincidence that it just almost always happens to be the dominant religion in the country from whence you were born, learn what common basic human fears/needs are and study how "bad" humans create, propagate & market myths to exploit these fears/needs and thereby control other humans for power and profit, you'll have your answer.

Our fear and insecurities compel us to lie to ourselves and search for the things that give us comfort (a powerful thing, myth), but if the myth is marketed well enough and often enough....sometimes the myth finds us.

But every so often, some brave soul decides they don't need to live w/ the myth any longer and they find that it wasn't as frightening as they thought to let the myth go.. and they might even find that life is richer, fuller and even more genuine when one doesn't lie to themselves any longer.

I don't know if this will happen in your case.......but I hope it does !

That's not true.. I do sort of know.  Damn I hate this blatant honesty that comes with being honest w/ one's self.  Here's the red pill. Go back to sleep !

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I have a useful, universal

I have a useful, universal acid test when dealing with such people and topics. As has been openly stated, the OP (Mephiboseth) has come in the attempt to prosetylize. That is to say, he is aiming that some of us should embrace his religious views.

When such dogged pursuers come to my attention with such tactics, I always propose an acid test. Is it conceivable that this situation could function in reverse?

It is fully conceivable that somebody could come to me and prove my current philosophical position pertaining to the non-existance of God as an incorrect position. In the various disciplines of philosophy in which I engage, there have been periods during which I have changed my position on matters on a virtually daily basis, positions regarding such things as induction, anomolous monism, epistemic skepticism, supervenience, emergent property, bundle theory, etc. etc. Throughout this, the existence or lack thereof of God has been a recurring fascination of mine, probably the single most consistent fascination of mine, to the point where, at the height of my ponderance, my obsession with philosophical argumentative discourse on the matter became borderline unhealthy. I was concocting all sorts of different arguments and propositions in relation to the existence of God, and at that point that I became firmly convinced the answer to the question was no, I narrowed those areas of interest in the matter to eight subsections which were prime areas of philosophical concern regarding the existence of God. Those eight areas were:

1. Supervenience (the necessity of certain beings and properties to generate higher-order beings and properties and the associated relationship, such as that, for example, atoms can exist without human society, but not human society without atoms). The conclusion which I still retain, to this day, is that such principles necessarily eviscerate the concept of a conscious, intelligent being with control over the physical world yet without constituting a physical being itself).

2. Monism (The concept in philosophy of mind and neuroscience that the mind, the source of a conscious, intelligent being, does not have a component of a non-physical ontology, so eviscerating the assertion that such a being could be intelligent)

3. Ex Nihilo (the coherency of the theistic suggestion that an eternally existing being is ontologically seperate from the physical universe, such that because it was the entity that created the universe in the first place). My eventual resolution was that the theistic assertion pertaining to the creation of a seperate ontology of physical beings and things, of which this being is not of the same substance with, is an impossible contradiction, and is an assertion that requires the propogation of ex nihilo creation by God, which is impossible. I also used this suggestion to propogate the idea within ontology that existence of some form, bare-order properties of being, are uncaused.

4. Infinity (the coherency or lack thereof of suggesting the actual infinite nature of this being while at the same time maintaining that it was an entity and being unto itself, with providence and control, hence ontologically discrete from other discrete beings such as the physical universe) (the conclusion which I still retain in this matter is that there is an internal contradiction between the two)

5. Bare-order property (the question of what substance or property describes a discrete conscious being and agent if it is asserted that such a being has no physical body, and what bundles of properties constituted this being). I eventually resolved that no description was being given, and that the theistic assertion was not giving any ontological properties describing precisely of what this entity is comprised, hence the theistic school of thought is overly vague regarding the assertion that some "intelligent agent" exists, and this is not acceptable in proper philosophical discourse. During this process, I also argued for the philosophical school called reism, which I still hold to.

6. Universe of discourse (The necessity of descriptors of property of an ontology, ie, that the theistic assertion regarding "supernaturalism" was/is untenable because it is ruled from a universe of discouse, and is defined solely by virtue of negation to the physical. If I can prove this (and I did) it strengthens the idea of #5. My resolution is that I still hold to this today.

7. Causality (The coherency of arguing that God is an immutable, unchanging being with the suggestion that it is a conscious agent with a mind with thoughts that acts upon whims and has causal powers over the physical universe). I worked on this one for quite some time. I eventually argued there was an internal contradiction present in the doctrine.

8. Termination (Self-refuting arguments that rely on special pleading fallacies to bolster the thesis that existence of God is valid by the assignation of ad hoc special characteristics that refute the premise of the argument that establishes them. The Cosmological Argument is especially guilty). My current stand on this is that there is an internal contradiction present in arguments that operate in a similar fashion.

 So, you see? I have given much thought to this topic. In fact, I would fully wager that I have poured vastly more time and energy and study into the question of God's existence than you have. Yet, it is fully conceivable that I could be outargued in any one of these 8 areas, and then I would have to revise my beliefs, which is something I do all the time...as is necessary in philosophy. It's just that nobody has ever put forth arguments that properly undermined my own. The resolutions that I put forth as I hold to today could very conceivably be changed if I was convinced that I was incorrect.

So, this is my acid test. I have shown myself open to a switch in my philosophical beliefs. I do it all the time. What about you...is it conceivable in any fashion that you could be convinced of the falsity of your beliefs?

If not, why are you here?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Again, you bring up Jesus' three day weekend you like to call "Crucifixion and Burial" What did Jesus sacrifice again? Oh, that's right, not a thing.

I don't compare my works to Jesus' "sacrifice" becaus I don't compare what I do to what didn't happen. That's also why I see my self-worth - it's real.

As for your accusing me of hedonism - you don't know me or why I do what I do. Even if it were purely hedonistic, it would be so much better than the masochism you're trying to sell. Emotional self-flagellation at its finest - "I'm worthless but God loves me any way" *thwack*.

"Feeling" was the wrong word. What I was trying to say was that now I have an assurance that I have worth simply because I'm a human being who contributes to society. That was something I never got in all my groveling before your God.

I have to go find Christ? Whatever happened to "Behold I stand at the door and knock..."?

That's the "door with the knob on the inside" on the painting you allude to. What you said just made my point - that I have to debase myself and treat myself like dirt so that Yahweh might "save" me.

 

 

JCGadfly,

I don't think I accused you of hedonism as I understand hedonism - pursuit of pleasure being the highest good? Didn't mean to anyway.

I sense that you don't believe Jesus died on the Cross, came back to life, born of a virgin, ascended to heaven, etc. I don't know what to say or do about that - probably can't do anything, sorry. Believe me I wish I could.

Concerning humility versis pride - in my experience, humility is a position of strength and security, because it is reality. To have the esteem of a rock I think you said - ok, I like it. It's relaxing to let God be God and me be me. I don't have to try to solve God's problems, or even know how He's going to do something, etc.

As an example of humility being strength I would cite the apostle Paul. He viewed himself as the "chief of sinners" yet he would get beat up and left for dead for his message then get up and return to town.

Contrast Pilate. "Don't you know I have the power to turn you loose?" Ha, he didn't even have the power to live out his own perception of things. "Because he feared the people..." That's not strength though to the lower wattage he would appear strong due to appearance trappings of strength.

The condition of pride however is a false insecure state in my experience. There is concern how this position is going to be held up on fresh air. One is a little worried the domino is going to get pushed and the whole thing will cascade. The haughty state will get tripped.

As in the story 2 Kings 5 the misconception of Naaman was his enemy. "I thought" it was going to be this way, but it wasn't. Your misconception about faith in Jesus and following Jesus is a barrier.

Probably the biggest barrier between you and the gospel though is not sin but your righteousness. You don't have leprosy thus you don't need the cure. The doctor at the door is sent packing, "nobody sick here".

As far as your questioning whether Jesus finds us or we find Him - I don't know how that works. The Bible examples of conversion all seem to be different. I believe you could even become an example of a unique conversion but I don't know how it would happen. But I hope it does.

Mephibosheth (I have a "living hope" in Christ)

No, you accused me of doing good deeds solely for self-gratification. I think I was more self-absorbed when I was living Christianity (doing good deeds to avoid Hell and enter Heaven).

You are correct. I don't believe that Jesus did any of those things attributed to him in the Bible. I believe the gospel writers took Paul's concept of Christ, combined it with OT Messianinc prophecies and savior myths and made their messiah.

You have confused a lack of self-esteem with humility as well. Nothing wrong with being humble. Feeling so worthless you don't even try to function - that's a problem.

The latter is the "humility" that Christianity likes to build in its followers. It's the "You're completely and utterly worthless without God. You need God to have a reason to live - wihtout him you may as well kill yourself now because you can't do anything in your humanity. Don't try to be a part of society - just be proud that you're in the world but not of it, then go flagellate youself emotionally because you're still nothing without God".

It's masochism mixed with the pride you're accusing me of.

I never claimed to be righteous - That's for you guys. I'll let you do that in between you're reminding yourself how worthless you are in the sight of God. You can deal with that self contradiction as you will. I'm just trying to live the only life I have the best way I know how.

I was just questioning what you said about seeking Christ because it contradicts your Christ's words as recorded in your Bible. I always thought God was supposed to draw me to him. Where does it say I have to pester him to get in the club?

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

AmericanIdle wrote:

Probably never existed. If he did, he sacrificed nothing.. I'll gladly die so that I can be re-born and attain eternity w/ infinite power, yes even w/ the torture (oh sure he didn't invoke his jesus power and instead let himself suffer human pain. Uh-huh !). Also I liked the story better when it was Dionysus/Bacchus who was sacrificed on the cross 500 yrs earlier.. Stay tuned.. More plagiarisms to come. Common mythological theme told hundreds of times about hundreds of "others" before the jesus story was invented. A way to circumvent our own mortality and provide a remedy for human's greatest fear....death? Hey I'll bet that plays real well among the masses.. Yawn ! Plagiarism re-visited. Read a history book for the massive overuse of this theme... Ding ! Plagiarism yet again ! See above. I'm not sure this even makes sense, however, humility is only reality, if you actually embrace it. There is nothing humble about believing you have a secret hotline to an omnipotent being that only hears you and those that think like you do and consequently can be heard by you. Neither is there anything humble about reading a plagiarized myth and declaring it exclusive truth that according to the myth's sacred scriptures, must be followed by everyone. In fact it's a complete and total surrender to one's own ego. See also.."Violence in History" for why this so reprehensible. The age old problem: How in the hell do you control the ignorant, uneducated masses if they're not convinced there is anything wrong w/ them ? Lucky for both of us.. I do. See when you educate yourself about where all religions come from, free yourself from your own ego which insists that your own religion has to be the correct one, realize the coincidence that it just almost always happens to be the dominant religion in the country from whence you were born, learn what common basic human fears/needs are and study how "bad" humans create, propagate & market myths to exploit these fears/needs and thereby control other humans for power and profit, you'll have your answer. Our fear and insecurities compel us to lie to ourselves and search for the things that give us comfort (a powerful thing, myth), but if the myth is marketed well enough and often enough....sometimes the myth finds us. But every so often, some brave soul decides they don't need to live w/ the myth any longer and they find that it wasn't as frightening as they thought to let the myth go.. and they might even find that life is richer, fuller and even more genuine when one doesn't lie to themselves any longer. I don't know if this will happen in your case.......but I hope it does ! That's not true.. I do sort of know. Damn I hate this blatant honesty that comes with being honest w/ one's self. Here's the red pill. Go back to sleep !

 

American Idol,

One thing that is an interesting recurring thing on American Idol auditions is that some of the contestants with the most ego and confidence can't sing at all.

Their confidence (and maybe others have contributed) has led them astray. Simon and Randy and even Paula sometimes tell them they can't but some of them still don't believe them.

 

Mephibosheth (at rock level)


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
  JCGadfly, I appreciate

 

JCGadfly,

I appreciate how you keep my quote all together - then attack, rather than taking it letter by letter and attacking every letter.

From my perspective you have the wrong perspective on Christ, Christians, walking by faith - and everything I'm trying to get across.  We have a fundamental communication problem.

Yet, I bet we could sit down to lunch together and enjoy each other's company.  

I just don't know what to say.

 

Mephibosheth (dumb as a rock) 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

Probably never existed. If he did, he sacrificed nothing.. I'll gladly die so that I can be re-born and attain eternity w/ infinite power, yes even w/ the torture (oh sure he didn't invoke his jesus power and instead let himself suffer human pain. Uh-huh !). Also I liked the story better when it was Dionysus/Bacchus who was sacrificed on the cross 500 yrs earlier.. Stay tuned.. More plagiarisms to come. Common mythological theme told hundreds of times about hundreds of "others" before the jesus story was invented. A way to circumvent our own mortality and provide a remedy for human's greatest fear....death? Hey I'll bet that plays real well among the masses.. Yawn ! Plagiarism re-visited. Read a history book for the massive overuse of this theme... Ding ! Plagiarism yet again ! See above. I'm not sure this even makes sense, however, humility is only reality, if you actually embrace it. There is nothing humble about believing you have a secret hotline to an omnipotent being that only hears you and those that think like you do and consequently can be heard by you. Neither is there anything humble about reading a plagiarized myth and declaring it exclusive truth that according to the myth's sacred scriptures, must be followed by everyone. In fact it's a complete and total surrender to one's own ego. See also.."Violence in History" for why this so reprehensible. The age old problem: How in the hell do you control the ignorant, uneducated masses if they're not convinced there is anything wrong w/ them ? Lucky for both of us.. I do. See when you educate yourself about where all religions come from, free yourself from your own ego which insists that your own religion has to be the correct one, realize the coincidence that it just almost always happens to be the dominant religion in the country from whence you were born, learn what common basic human fears/needs are and study how "bad" humans create, propagate & market myths to exploit these fears/needs and thereby control other humans for power and profit, you'll have your answer. Our fear and insecurities compel us to lie to ourselves and search for the things that give us comfort (a powerful thing, myth), but if the myth is marketed well enough and often enough....sometimes the myth finds us. But every so often, some brave soul decides they don't need to live w/ the myth any longer and they find that it wasn't as frightening as they thought to let the myth go.. and they might even find that life is richer, fuller and even more genuine when one doesn't lie to themselves any longer. I don't know if this will happen in your case.......but I hope it does ! That's not true.. I do sort of know. Damn I hate this blatant honesty that comes with being honest w/ one's self. Here's the red pill. Go back to sleep !

 

American Idol,

One thing that is an interesting recurring thing on American Idol auditions is that some of the contestants with the most ego and confidence can't sing at all.

Mephibosheth (at rock level)

I'm not sure how interesting it is but...

The problem:  We humans hardly know how to live without lying to ourselves about ourselves.  Perhaps no place moreso than the U.S.  We are a country of myth makers.  We hold these lies and these myths as sacred while placing little to no value on self examination and honesty.  How is it possible to subvert the ego w/o this ?  

We create idols and then we worship them.  We believe in the power of belief, whether that belief has merit or not.  This is not a recipe for individuation or for personal growth.  It weakens us as humans. 

American Idol is a showcase for karaoke.  No music was created, no instrument was played, no lyrics were written and Americans can't get enough of it.  We are flash without substance.  We are image makers.  We spend far too much time celebrating the insignificant.  What a perfect metaphor for our culture.  And most of all we are intellectually lazy.........  

That's why it's AmericanIdle.....not Idol.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:   I'm

AmericanIdle wrote:

 

I'm not sure how interesting it is but...

The problem: We humans hardly know how to live without lying to ourselves about ourselves. Perhaps no place moreso than the U.S. We are a country of myth makers. We hold these lies and these myths as sacred while placing little to no value on self examination and honesty. How is it possible to subvert the ego w/o this ?

We create idols and then we worship them. We believe in the power of belief, whether that belief has merit or not. This is not a recipe for individuation or for personal growth. It weakens us as humans.

American Idol is a showcase for karaoke. No music was created, no instrument was played, no lyrics were written and Americans can't get enough of it. We are flash without substance. We are image makers. We spend far too much time celebrating the insignificant. What a perfect metaphor for our culture. And most of all we are intellectually lazy.........

That's why it's AmericanIdle.....not Idol.

 

American Idol,

Yes, it is fascinating. They come with "out the roof" confidence in themselves they can perform/sing. They have thought positive and buttressed with more positive thoughts. Others have contributed and confirmed their belief as true and real. Yet, it is obvious to the casual detached observer they have been led into a false perspective about themselves. They have believed a lie. They really believed, maybe their friends really believed. But it was a lie.

It seems some accept the opinion of the judges; some don't. They are emotional. Some attack. Some mourn but look to next year. They go away holding tighter to their false state. How are they going to be brought to a right perspective of themselves and the world around them?

 

Mephibosheth (can't idolate)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth wrote: Yes,

mephibosheth wrote:

Yes, it is fascinating. They come with "out the roof" confidence in themselves they can perform/sing. They have thought positive and buttressed with more positive thoughts. Others have contributed and confirmed their belief as true and real. Yet, it is obvious to the casual detached observer they have been led into a false perspective about themselves. They have believed a lie. They really believed, maybe their friends really believed. But it was a lie.

Change the words "can perform/sing" to "are saved" and you just described the "born again" experience. 

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

mephibosheth wrote:

Yes, it is fascinating. They come with "out the roof" confidence in themselves they can perform/sing. They have thought positive and buttressed with more positive thoughts. Others have contributed and confirmed their belief as true and real. Yet, it is obvious to the casual detached observer they have been led into a false perspective about themselves. They have believed a lie. They really believed, maybe their friends really believed. But it was a lie.

Change the words "can perform/sing" to "are saved" and you just described the "born again" experience.

 

JCGadfly,

No, there's a stark difference. Our Lord/model/example washed the disciples' feet. He told us the first will be last the last first. He said "If I glorify Myself My glory means nothing".

Jesus re-defined greatness and True Royalty and true leadership. He took the lowest position, seeking only the glory of God - God lifted Him up.

He didn't seek applause - that was a temptation in the wilderness He parlayed with Scripture. He laid down His life for the sheep.

You see His disciples following His example. Paul considered himself the chief of sinners - wanting only to give glory to Christ. Peter said "stand up, I too am a man".

It's a totally different pursuit don't you see.

 

Mephibosheth (trying to be last and doing a last rate job of it)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

mephibosheth wrote:

Yes, it is fascinating. They come with "out the roof" confidence in themselves they can perform/sing. They have thought positive and buttressed with more positive thoughts. Others have contributed and confirmed their belief as true and real. Yet, it is obvious to the casual detached observer they have been led into a false perspective about themselves. They have believed a lie. They really believed, maybe their friends really believed. But it was a lie.

Change the words "can perform/sing" to "are saved" and you just described the "born again" experience.

 

JCGadfly,

No, there's a stark difference. Our Lord/model/example washed the disciples' feet. He told us the first will be last the last first. He said "If I glorify Myself My glory means nothing".

Jesus re-defined greatness and True Royalty and true leadership. He took the lowest position, seeking only the glory of God - God lifted Him up.

He didn't seek applause - that was a temptation in the wilderness He parlayed with Scripture. He laid down His life for the sheep.

You see His disciples following His example. Paul considered himself the chief of sinners - wanting only to give glory to Christ. Peter said "stand up, I too am a man".

It's a totally different pursuit don't you see.

 

Mephibosheth (trying to be last and doing a last rate job of it)

So Jesus isn't God in your theology?

Why would your Bible tell you to pray in his name?

If you claim he is God then everything he supposedly did in the Bible (as I have said earlier, I consider him a fictional character) was to his glory. That makes "If I glorify Myself My glory means nothing" and "He took the lowest position, seeking only the glory of God - God lifted Him up." nonsensical statements.

Funny, I see Paul sitting in direct contradiction of Jesus (paticularly in their positions on the Law).

Oh, and try not to be so proud of your humility (your sig). That's a trap I've seen drop many Christians. 

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
  JCGadfly, I think we

 

JCGadfly,

I think we were talking about how the ego of man - man looking within himself - could lead him astray (as illustrated by American Idol contestants that think they can sing but obviously can't).

You said this was perfect parallel to following God in Christ. But what I tried to answer is how there are safeguards against the pitfalls of self delusion in following Christ.

First, Jesus didn't seek His own glory but God's. There is a difference in looking within ourselves and trying to glorify ourselves /vs/ focusing on Jesus and trying to glorify God in Him (as following His example)


He was the King of Kings, yet content to be born in a stable, have a crown of thorns, no home, wash the disciples' feet, and wear as His ornaments the holes in His hands and feet and the gash in His side. Death sucked it's own poison from His innocent side.

I said He was different than the American Idol contestants in this. He didn't say "look at how I perform" to the world, He laid down His life as the welcome mat to heaven.

Instead the self delusion of looking within yourself and your own ego represents a metaphor for man trying to find his own way without God's help. The answer is not within man himself - we are told that in Scripture. "It is not within man to direct his steps".

 

We Christians have eyes fixed on Jesus. We are living to glorify Jesus not ourselves if we are truly following Jesus. There is a stark difference in living to glorify Jesus versus trying to glorify yourself.

For instance, no truly educated man will try to show and tell you how intellectual he is. We have seen "American Idol" contestants on this forum that are the victims of their own self deception parade. They have applause too, but can they sing? They can only truly sing with God's help and grace which they refuse.

 

Mephibosheth (the target is up, fire away)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:

 

JCGadfly,

I think we were talking about how the ego of man - man looking within himself - could lead him astray (as illustrated by American Idol contestants that think they can sing but obviously can't).

You said this was perfect parallel to following God in Christ. But what I tried to answer is how there are safeguards against the pitfalls of self delusion in following Christ.

First, Jesus didn't seek His own glory but God's. There is a difference in looking within ourselves and trying to glorify ourselves /vs/ focusing on Jesus and trying to glorify God in Him (as following His example)


He was the King of Kings, yet content to be born in a stable, have a crown of thorns, no home, wash the disciples' feet, and wear as His ornaments the holes in His hands and feet and the gash in His side. Death sucked it's own poison from His innocent side.

I said He was different than the American Idol contestants in this. He didn't say "look at how I perform" to the world, He laid down His life as the welcome mat to heaven.

Instead the self delusion of looking within yourself and your own ego represents a metaphor for man trying to find his own way without God's help. The answer is not within man himself - we are told that in Scripture. "It is not within man to direct his steps".

 

We Christians have eyes fixed on Jesus. We are living to glorify Jesus not ourselves if we are truly following Jesus. There is a stark difference in living to glorify Jesus versus trying to glorify yourself.

For instance, no truly educated man will try to show and tell you how intellectual he is. We have seen "American Idol" contestants on this forum that are the victims of their own self deception parade. They have applause too, but can they sing? They can only truly sing with God's help and grace which they refuse.

 

Mephibosheth (the target is up, fire away)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again I ask, Is Jesus God in your theology?

If he is, you uttered the sentence "God didn't seek his own glory but God's" which is a nonsensicla statement.  

If God simply worked through him, he was nothing special as your Bible is filled with instances of God working through people. None of the others deserved worship, why should Jesus?.

If Jesus isn't God but is God's son in your theology, I'll ask you to stop denying your polytheism. 

I never said that the American Idol scenario was analgous to following God - I said it was analogous to the born-again experience. One comes up from the altar with the salvation and the confidence to convert the world for Jesus. He is buttressed in that belief by his friends at the church who contribute to and confirm that his salvation is real. The outside obseerver sees that he is still human and has all the problems that humans have. He believes God fixed him despite what reality says.

"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


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth ...friend.

mephibosheth ...friend. Christianity is one among thousand different religions, it is not even the oldest one. What makes you so sure that you follow true God ? Bah even Christianity has a lot of different sects and factions.

Ecrasez l'infame!


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:   Again I

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Again I ask, Is Jesus God in your theology?

If he is, you uttered the sentence "God didn't seek his own glory but God's" which is a nonsensicla statement.

If God simply worked through him, he was nothing special as your Bible is filled with instances of God working through people. None of the others deserved worship, why should Jesus?.

If Jesus isn't God but is God's son in your theology, I'll ask you to stop denying your polytheism.

I never said that the American Idol scenario was analgous to following God - I said it was analogous to the born-again experience. One comes up from the altar with the salvation and the confidence to convert the world for Jesus. He is buttressed in that belief by his friends at the church who contribute to and confirm that his salvation is real. The outside obseerver sees that he is still human and has all the problems that humans have. He believes God fixed him despite what reality says.

 

JCGadfly,

As to your theological question (first part) Jesus is God's Son and part of the "Let us make man in our own image" godhead along with the Holy Spirit. There's a lot of mystery with this. I don't see it as a bad thing that I don't understand a whole bunch about my God - that's why He's called God!, JC, and you're JC. Thankfully I can see the difference.

As to your second scenerio, I think rather the American Idol phenomenon is analogous to the false "faith" we have here on "rational response atheist website".

They have "looked for the living among the dead" within themselves and many around them to sing their praises. But it is a false faith with an empty end. It is light for darkness. It is calling good evil and evil good. Yet they are tone deaf and don't know it.

 

Mephibosheth (atheism is a faith just like the original premise says - a false one)


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   Mephibosheth

Quote:

 

Mephibosheth (atheism is a faith just like the original premise says - a false one)

It is probably best for you not to dredge up points on which you have already been ceaselessly refuted, several times over. Speaking of which, being that you decided to bring this point up, could you acknowledge my previous post?

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Blind_Chance

Blind_Chance wrote:

 

mephibosheth ...friend. Christianity is one among thousand different religions, it is not even the oldest one. What makes you so sure that you follow true God ? Bah even Christianity has a lot of different sects and factions.

Ecrasez l'infame!

Ecrasez l'infame! ("Whatever you do, crush the infamy." --- Voltaire)

Bllind_Chance,

I am a trader in fine pearls. Since I have seen this Pearl, no pearl has even caused a second look.

Ah, you see imperfection, but where! - in fallen man! Focus on the Sacrifice, the Lamb of God, the King of Kings - He is Perfect! You will find no flaw in Him! My confidence is in Him - not in man's perfection. "Fix your thoughts on Jesus".

Mephibosheth (this Pearl's for you!)

 

 


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

I have a useful, universal acid test when dealing with such people and topics. As has been openly stated, the OP (Mephiboseth) has come in the attempt to prosetylize. That is to say, he is aiming that some of us should embrace his religious views.

When such dogged pursuers come to my attention with such tactics, I always propose an acid test. Is it conceivable that this situation could function in reverse?

It is fully conceivable that somebody could come to me and prove my current philosophical position pertaining to the non-existance of God as an incorrect position. In the various disciplines of philosophy in which I engage, there have been periods during which I have changed my position on matters on a virtually daily basis, positions regarding such things as induction, anomolous monism, epistemic skepticism, supervenience, emergent property, bundle theory, etc. etc. Throughout this, the existence or lack thereof of God has been a recurring fascination of mine, probably the single most consistent fascination of mine, to the point where, at the height of my ponderance, my obsession with philosophical argumentative discourse on the matter became borderline unhealthy. I was concocting all sorts of different arguments and propositions in relation to the existence of God, and at that point that I became firmly convinced the answer to the question was no, I narrowed those areas of interest in the matter to eight subsections which were prime areas of philosophical concern regarding the existence of God. Those eight areas were:

1. Supervenience (the necessity of certain beings and properties to generate higher-order beings and properties and the associated relationship, such as that, for example, atoms can exist without human society, but not human society without atoms). The conclusion which I still retain, to this day, is that such principles necessarily eviscerate the concept of a conscious, intelligent being with control over the physical world yet without constituting a physical being itself).

2. Monism (The concept in philosophy of mind and neuroscience that the mind, the source of a conscious, intelligent being, does not have a component of a non-physical ontology, so eviscerating the assertion that such a being could be intelligent)

3. Ex Nihilo (the coherency of the theistic suggestion that an eternally existing being is ontologically seperate from the physical universe, such that because it was the entity that created the universe in the first place). My eventual resolution was that the theistic assertion pertaining to the creation of a seperate ontology of physical beings and things, of which this being is not of the same substance with, is an impossible contradiction, and is an assertion that requires the propogation of ex nihilo creation by God, which is impossible. I also used this suggestion to propogate the idea within ontology that existence of some form, bare-order properties of being, are uncaused.

4. Infinity (the coherency or lack thereof of suggesting the actual infinite nature of this being while at the same time maintaining that it was an entity and being unto itself, with providence and control, hence ontologically discrete from other discrete beings such as the physical universe) (the conclusion which I still retain in this matter is that there is an internal contradiction between the two)

5. Bare-order property (the question of what substance or property describes a discrete conscious being and agent if it is asserted that such a being has no physical body, and what bundles of properties constituted this being). I eventually resolved that no description was being given, and that the theistic assertion was not giving any ontological properties describing precisely of what this entity is comprised, hence the theistic school of thought is overly vague regarding the assertion that some "intelligent agent" exists, and this is not acceptable in proper philosophical discourse. During this process, I also argued for the philosophical school called reism, which I still hold to.

6. Universe of discourse (The necessity of descriptors of property of an ontology, ie, that the theistic assertion regarding "supernaturalism" was/is untenable because it is ruled from a universe of discouse, and is defined solely by virtue of negation to the physical. If I can prove this (and I did) it strengthens the idea of #5. My resolution is that I still hold to this today.

7. Causality (The coherency of arguing that God is an immutable, unchanging being with the suggestion that it is a conscious agent with a mind with thoughts that acts upon whims and has causal powers over the physical universe). I worked on this one for quite some time. I eventually argued there was an internal contradiction present in the doctrine.

8. Termination (Self-refuting arguments that rely on special pleading fallacies to bolster the thesis that existence of God is valid by the assignation of ad hoc special characteristics that refute the premise of the argument that establishes them. The Cosmological Argument is especially guilty). My current stand on this is that there is an internal contradiction present in arguments that operate in a similar fashion.

So, you see? I have given much thought to this topic. In fact, I would fully wager that I have poured vastly more time and energy and study into the question of God's existence than you have. Yet, it is fully conceivable that I could be outargued in any one of these 8 areas, and then I would have to revise my beliefs, which is something I do all the time...as is necessary in philosophy. It's just that nobody has ever put forth arguments that properly undermined my own. The resolutions that I put forth as I hold to today could very conceivably be changed if I was convinced that I was incorrect.

So, this is my acid test. I have shown myself open to a switch in my philosophical beliefs. I do it all the time. What about you...is it conceivable in any fashion that you could be convinced of the falsity of your beliefs?

If not, why are you here?

Deludedgod,

I left your quote together (hint, hint). I looked up practically all the words, dived into your world if you will. Again I met up with your old buddy David Hume in "bundle theory".

The impression I get from your post is that since you can't understand God, then "God isn't", according to Deludedgod.

Your words are a whirl of dance moves that dazzle the eye and make the onlooker wonder "how did he remember all that?", but even more, sorry, "why?". I am not lifted by it, inspired, as Simon Cowell might say, "It was horrible from start to finish, I can think of nothing good about it, it was a absolutely horrible, I couldn't stand any more of it. Terrible audition. It's a 'no'. I'm sorry, you can't sing nor dance".

I've exaggerated but there is a lot of truth in that for me. Like I have said before, the fact that I can't understand a lot of God, and marvel at how He does things and don't know how He is going to do the next fits perfectly the term: "God"

You want a god you understand? You want a god that's beneath you?

As to your assertion that you "change your positions almost on a daily basis" the change of repentance is a much more radical change, one you can't do on your own (you could fake it) without the help of the grace of God and the Holy Spirit.

 

Ok, I have to answer your question, your "acid test". Of course it is possible for my faith to shipwreck. Otherwise there wouldn't be all these warnings in the Scriptures for me to be on guard for "the lion that seeks to devour". It is great that the gospel has a quality that keeps me at ground level, that by the grace of God I am saved - just I might add like you could be saved and I hope you will be saved. What a tragedy it will be if you aren't. You can learn, and nothing could be simpler than the gospel.

Your "false knowledge" however is probably your biggest obstacle. You "claim to be wise, but ...." You can look that up and it's not in David Hume.

I never had to go through the "prove God exists" exercise. I never had a problem with that. My problem was my understanding what He wants and doing it.

The Bible you will notice doesn't start off trying to prove God. It starts out "In the beginning God...." I believe you have no excuse understanding there is a God even without your reasoning problem. The Scripture says you are without excuse in that (Romans early on) and I believe it's true.

 

Mephibosheth (yes I can and no I don't plan to)


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Deludedgod, I left

Quote:

Deludedgod,

I left your quote together (hint, hint). I looked up practically all the words, dived into your world if you will. Again I met up with your old buddy David Hume in "bundle theory".

The impression I get from your post is that since you can't understand God, then "God isn't", according to Deludedgod.

Your words are a whirl of dance moves that dazzle the eye and make the onlooker wonder "how did he remember all that?", but even more, sorry, "why?". I am not lifted by it, inspired, as Simon Cowell might say, "It was horrible from start to finish, I can think of nothing good about it, it was a absolutely horrible, I couldn't stand any more of it. Terrible audition. It's a 'no'. I'm sorry, you can't sing nor dance".

I've exaggerated but there is a lot of truth in that for me. Like I have said before, the fact that I can't understand a lot of God, and marvel at how He does things and don't know how He is going to do the next fits perfectly the term: "God"

You want a god you understand? You want a god that's beneath you?

 

Ok, I have to answer your question, your "acid test". Of course it is possible for my faith to shipwreck. Otherwise there wouldn't be all these warnings in the Scriptures for me to be on guard for "the lion that seeks to devour". It is great that the gospel has a quality that keeps me at ground level, that by the grace of God I am saved - just I might add like you could be saved and I hope you will be saved. What a tragedy it will be if you aren't. You can learn, and nothing could be simpler than the gospel.

Your "false knowledge" however is probably your biggest obstacle. You "claim to be wise, but ...." You can look that up and it's not in David Hume.

I never had to go through the "prove God exists" exercise. I never had a problem with that. My problem was my understanding what He wants and doing it.

The Bible you will notice doesn't start off trying to prove God. It starts out "In the beginning God...." I believe you have no excuse understanding there is a God even without your reasoning problem. The Scripture says you are without excuse in that (Romans early on) and I believe it's true.

 

Mephibosheth (yes I can and no I don't plan to)

This is not acceptable. This is philosophy. You must address your interlocutors and their argument. You cannot dismiss your interlocutors out of hand.  Taking quotes from American Idol does not constitute, in any way, shape, or form, a proper response to an argument or set of arguments. If you are to engage in proper discourse, you must do precisely what I have done in this regard. Here, on this forum, you cannot be silenced simply for these actions, but I can assure you with confidence, that if, for example, I began the debate with the opening statement and list in my previous post, and you started in the manner that you did, the arbiter and the moderator would tell you to stand down.

If you are to claim to have addressed my post, you must do so in a coherent manner, with proper rational argument and discourse. Your prose does not do this and is of unacceptably poor quality. You are not a judge on American Idol. You cannot tell me "It was horrible from start to finish" without a full and proper dissection of why. You began your paragraph with "I had to look up all the words" and ended with "your argument was terrible". This is clearly highly problematic. Furthermore, the parables and metaphors are unnecessary and do not serve a purpose. Cut them out. It is necessary, in proper discourse, for you to be cold and objective in your evaluation of your interlocutor.

Allow me to demonstrate what I ask of you. This below is my dissection of your post. My request is that you return with a similar style of response, from which proper discourse can proceed.  Observe:

Quote:

  The impression I get from your post is that since you can't understand God, then "God isn't", according to Deludedgod.

This does not constitute a proper argument. It is called an argument from incoherence. If it were applied to any area of discourse, it would quickly be reduced to the absurd. This is because if somebody points out inconsistencies, incoherencies, contradictions, problems etc. they are not claiming to lack an ability to understand that concept which is under discussion. In order to demonstrate that your interlocutor does not understand a concept he is attempting to demonstrate incoherent, you must attack his understanding of that concept first, in a proper fashion. For example, suppose I was having a discourse on the scientific method, and my opponent said "Protons cannot be seen with the naked eye, and therefore cannot be investigated". It would be unacceptable for me to simply assert "You do not understand the scientific method". Rather, it would be necessary to explain the concept of indirect empericism and how proper scientific methodology can glean complex information about properties and things which cannot be directly observed. To put it shortly, "You cannot understand X" is ad hoc and does not constitute a response to an argument. In order to make this knowledge claim, you must demonstrate where your opposition erred.

Quote:

 Your words are a whirl of dance moves that dazzle the eye and make the onlooker wonder "how did he remember all that? but even more, sorry, "why?".

Unless you can demonstrate, in a line-by-line fashion, that certain words or concepts employed in my post were incoherent or nonsensical, this merely constitutes rhetoric on your part. It is similar to claiming

X is verbose

Therefore, X is wrong

Comments along this line, as an introduction to an attack on your opposition's argument, would constitute a variant on the poisoning the well fallacy, since judgemental language is immediately employed which hence raises questions about the objectivity of the opposition. For example, suppose I was debating the possibility of the Higg's Boson particle existing, and I was arguing against it, and I opened my statement with "The stupid, idiotic, refuted idea of the Higg's Boson..." I would hence undermine my claim to Objective judgment.

Quote:

 I am not lifted by it, inspired, as Simon Cowell might say, "It was horrible from start to finish, I can think of nothing good about it, it was a absolutely horrible, I couldn't stand any more of it. Terrible audition. It's a 'no'. I'm sorry, you can't sing nor dance".

This is simply a personal insult coupled with more judgemental language coupled with an argument from assertion. It does not actually address any of the arguments made. This entire paragraph has no relevance whatsoever to the argument at hand, and in formal debating, it would be rejected by the arbitration committee or the moderator. In addition, it is comprised mostly of your personal feelings on the matter, which are irrelevant.

Quote:

 I've exaggerated but there is a lot of truth in that for me.

Again, this constitutes an assertion about your own opinion unbacked. Your personal feelings pertaining to this matter are irrelevant to the discourse. You must address the arguments of your opponent in a proper fashion. That is to say, you must address them directly, not sidetrack towards rhetorical assertions that use analogies from television shows.

Quote:

 Like I have said before, the fact that I can't understand a lot of God, and marvel at how He does things and don't know how He is going to do the next fits perfectly the term: "God"

Hence see my previous refutation of the same assertion. This argument is fallacious.

 

Quote:

 You want a god you understand? You want a god that's beneath you?

This is emotional rhetoric combined with judgemental language combined with a non sequitur. As a variant on the argument I refuted above, refer to Section II of my line-by-line rebuttal to your statements.

Quote:

 . It is great that the gospel has a quality that keeps me at ground level, that by the grace of God I am saved

Keep your personal feelings out of the debate. They are irrelevant.

Quote:

 ust I might add like you could be saved and I hope you will be saved. What a tragedy it will be if you aren't. You can learn, and nothing could be simpler than the gospel.

Judgemental language combined with an Argument From Pity. This, again, is not relevant to the discourse.

Quote:

 Your "false knowledge" however is probably your biggest obstacle.

This is poisoning the well combined with judgemental language. If you start off an attack on your interlocutor's arguments in this manner, you have hence undermined your objective judgement. Since you did not follow this assertion with any proper, rational examination of the arguments under discussion, it becomes even more unacceptable.

 

Quote:

 You "claim to be wise

See above. This is a textbook poisoning the well fallacy combined with Judgemental Language. It is a also a variant on a red herring fallacy, since you have yet to address the arguments in a proper fashion.

Quote:

 I never had to go through the "prove God exists" exercise.

Keep your personal feelings and emotions out of the debate.

Quote:

 The Bible you will notice doesn't start off trying to prove God.

This is not relevant to the discourse. I must remind you of the arguments you are supposed to be addressing.

Quote:

 I believe you have no excuse understanding there is a God even without your reasoning problem.

This is an argument from assertion combined with judgemental language. You claim I have a "reasoning problem". This is a form of judgemental language and, in addition, it is an assertion on your part. Furthermore, the fragment "I believe you have no excuse understanding there is a God" is unclear, and irrelevant for several reasons:

The first is, asserting that your interlocutor "has no excuse for X" constitutes your personal feelings and is an irrelevant assertion.

The second is that this sentence fragment is not clear

Quote:

he Scripture says you are without excuse in that (Romans early on) and I believe it's true. 

What you "believe" is irrelevant to the discoure. What you can justify is not.

I hence await a proper examination of the arguments under discussion.

 There. This is precisely the sort of cold, objective debate response that is necessary in this sort of discourse. Do not take a quote en bloc and respond in that fashion. Do not insert parables or metaphors. Do not combine judgemental language with your own opinion on the status of your interlocutor. Do not insult your interloctur directly. Do not insert your emotions into the debate. Do not divert towards different topics. 

Good Luck. It is now your turn to make a rebutal. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

 

Again I ask, Is Jesus God in your theology?

If he is, you uttered the sentence "God didn't seek his own glory but God's" which is a nonsensicla statement.

If God simply worked through him, he was nothing special as your Bible is filled with instances of God working through people. None of the others deserved worship, why should Jesus?.

If Jesus isn't God but is God's son in your theology, I'll ask you to stop denying your polytheism.

I never said that the American Idol scenario was analgous to following God - I said it was analogous to the born-again experience. One comes up from the altar with the salvation and the confidence to convert the world for Jesus. He is buttressed in that belief by his friends at the church who contribute to and confirm that his salvation is real. The outside obseerver sees that he is still human and has all the problems that humans have. He believes God fixed him despite what reality says.

 

JCGadfly,

As to your theological question (first part) Jesus is God's Son and part of the "Let us make man in our own image" godhead along with the Holy Spirit. There's a lot of mystery with this. I don't see it as a bad thing that I don't understand a whole bunch about my God - that's why He's called God!, JC, and you're JC. Thankfully I can see the difference.

As to your second scenerio, I think rather the American Idol phenomenon is analogous to the false "faith" we have here on "rational response atheist website".

They have "looked for the living among the dead" within themselves and many around them to sing their praises. But it is a false faith with an empty end. It is light for darkness. It is calling good evil and evil good. Yet they are tone deaf and don't know it.

 

Mephibosheth (atheism is a faith just like the original premise says - a false one)

Ok. Your Jesus is God also. So he was never doing anything that wasn't seeking his glory. Please don't claim otherwise because ir makes no sense. 

Really, it's less of a mystery than you build it up to be. God was thought up by a small group of people who wanted to control others. It wasn't enough to simply encourage people to live a good life and benefit their society. They had to scare people into it.  

As for atheism being a faith or a belief...When you're through watching TV or listening to the radio (if you do), do you turn them off or change them to the "off" channel?  

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:   This

deludedgod wrote:

 

This is not acceptable. This is philosophy. You must address your interlocutors and their argument. You cannot dismiss your interlocutors out of hand. Taking quotes from American Idol does not constitute, in any way, shape, or form, a proper response to an argument or set of arguments. If you are to engage in proper discourse, you must do precisely what I have done in this regard. Here, on this forum, you cannot be silenced simply for these actions, but I can assure you with confidence, that if, for example, I began the debate with the opening statement and list in my previous post, and you started in the manner that you did, the arbiter and the moderator would tell you to stand down.

If you are to claim to have addressed my post, you must do so in a coherent manner, with proper rational argument and discourse. Your prose does not do this and is of unacceptably poor quality. You are not a judge on American Idol. You cannot tell me "It was horrible from start to finish" without a full and proper dissection of why. You began your paragraph with "I had to look up all the words" and ended with "your argument was terrible". This is clearly highly problematic. Furthermore, the parables and metaphors are unnecessary and do not serve a purpose. Cut them out. It is necessary, in proper discourse, for you to be cold and objective in your evaluation of your interlocutor.

Allow me to demonstrate what I ask of you. This below is my dissection of your post. My request is that you return with a similar style of response, from which proper discourse can proceed. Observe:

This does not constitute a proper argument. It is called an argument from incoherence. If it were applied to any area of discourse, it would quickly be reduced to the absurd. This is because if somebody points out inconsistencies, incoherencies, contradictions, problems etc. they are not claiming to lack an ability to understand that concept which is under discussion. In order to demonstrate that your interlocutor does not understand a concept he is attempting to demonstrate incoherent, you must attack his understanding of that concept first, in a proper fashion. For example, suppose I was having a discourse on the scientific method, and my opponent said "Protons cannot be seen with the naked eye, and therefore cannot be investigated". It would be unacceptable for me to simply assert "You do not understand the scientific method". Rather, it would be necessary to explain the concept of indirect empericism and how proper scientific methodology can glean complex information about properties and things which cannot be directly observed. To put it shortly, "You cannot understand X" is ad hoc and does not constitute a response to an argument. In order to make this knowledge claim, you must demonstrate where your opposition erred.

 

Unless you can demonstrate, in a line-by-line fashion, that certain words or concepts employed in my post were incoherent or nonsensical, this merely constitutes rhetoric on your part. It is similar to claiming

X is verbose

Therefore, X is wrong

Comments along this line, as an introduction to an attack on your opposition's argument, would constitute a variant on the poisoning the well fallacy, since judgemental language is immediately employed which hence raises questions about the objectivity of the opposition. For example, suppose I was debating the possibility of the Higg's Boson particle existing, and I was arguing against it, and I opened my statement with "The stupid, idiotic, refuted idea of the Higg's Boson..." I would hence undermine my claim to Objective judgment.

This is simply a personal insult coupled with more judgemental language coupled with an argument from assertion. It does not actually address any of the arguments made. This entire paragraph has no relevance whatsoever to the argument at hand, and in formal debating, it would be rejected by the arbitration committee or the moderator. In addition, it is comprised mostly of your personal feelings on the matter, which are irrelevant.

 

Again, this constitutes an assertion about your own opinion unbacked. Your personal feelings pertaining to this matter are irrelevant to the discourse. You must address the arguments of your opponent in a proper fashion. That is to say, you must address them directly, not sidetrack towards rhetorical assertions that use analogies from television shows.

Hence see my previous refutation of the same assertion. This argument is fallacious.

This is emotional rhetoric combined with judgemental language combined with a non sequitur. As a variant on the argument I refuted above, refer to Section II of my line-by-line rebuttal to your statements.

Keep your personal feelings out of the debate. They are irrelevant.

Judgemental language combined with an Argument From Pity. This, again, is not relevant to the discourse.

This is poisoning the well combined with judgemental language. If you start off an attack on your interlocutor's arguments in this manner, you have hence undermined your objective judgement. Since you did not follow this assertion with any proper, rational examination of the arguments under discussion, it becomes even more unacceptable.

See above. This is a textbook poisoning the well fallacy combined with Judgemental Language. It is a also a variant on a red herring fallacy, since you have yet to address the arguments in a proper fashion.

Keep your personal feelings and emotions out of the debate.

This is not relevant to the discourse. I must remind you of the arguments you are supposed to be addressing.

This is an argument from assertion combined with judgemental language. You claim I have a "reasoning problem". This is a form of judgemental language and, in addition, it is an assertion on your part. Furthermore, the fragment "I believe you have no excuse understanding there is a God" is unclear, and irrelevant for several reasons:

The first is, asserting that your interlocutor "has no excuse for X" constitutes your personal feelings and is an irrelevant assertion.

The second is that this sentence fragment is not clear

What you "believe" is irrelevant to the discoure. What you can justify is not.

I hence await a proper examination of the arguments under discussion.

There. This is precisely the sort of cold, objective debate response that is necessary in this sort of discourse. Do not take a quote en bloc and respond in that fashion. Do not insert parables or metaphors. Do not combine judgemental language with your own opinion on the status of your interlocutor. Do not insult your interloctur directly. Do not insert your emotions into the debate. Do not divert towards different topics.

Good Luck. It is now your turn to make a rebutal.

 

 

Deludedgod,

I read your this post, looked up the words, etc, whew...

The "poisoning the well" thing I would liken to "muddying the water" which seems to be what your approach is and does.

You have certain ways you want me to present myself to you, argue with you, PROVE myself to you....

I see a similarity between that and how you DEMAND God present Himself and prove Himself to you, old deludedgod. Yes, the universe looks on, waiting for God to impress deludedgod. No, God sending His Son, fulfilling all the prophecies, Jesus raising the dead, healing the blind, preaching good news to the poor, dying for our sins, saying "Father forgive them for they don't know what they are doing, destroying Death, ascending to the throne of God, all things put in subjection to Him - didn't impress deludedgod....

I certainly in my simplemindedness, my vapant earth-level comparisons throwing practice soft balls to the rational high level moderator slugger haven't impressed deludedgod.

It's like you're looking for God with a magnet.

What product have philosophers come up with? They were asking the same tired questions when Paul addressed them at Mars Hill!

I have ask you what your product is and/or application - you have tried to take me through a maze that essentially says, "there is none" and "ain't it great!"

If you have such great answers to the questions you raise why - as the great teacher you try to present yourself as - can't you make them so a child can understand them? Don't keep the children's bread from them!

Jesus, the TRULY GREAT TEACHER OF ALL TIME used simple parables and metaphors which didn't withhold the Bread of Life from even children. You obscure your teachings and delight in making them hieroglyphic such that only the Phylosophy PHD can follow their ramblings which go nowhere.

Time is flying Deludedgod. It would be most efficient for you to read the Bible from first to last. About half way in you will find this proverb: "The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts." Hopefully this light will come on for you and the search will turn productive.

 

 

 

 

Mephibosheth (simply simple simplicity)