If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
wow dude, sorry to hear that. It's happened to me. I learned to put my longer responses in a word processor and save before posting. It's frustrating, take your time.
Yeah it sucks. Been quite awhile since it happened. Guess I had too many things going on my PS3. It'll probably be another couple days. Whenever I lose that much writing one of two things happen: I get frustrated and it fuels me to rewrite it then and there; or I get apathetic for a few days and need to "recharge" by discussing other subjects. I will get back to it, but number 2 hit me this time around. Fortunately I don't think you're going anywhere any time soon. You've been here longer than most. :P

yea, I'll be around.  It's how I've learned and grown in my faith Smiling  I'm also in a years long discussion on the history of scripture with pjts.  We're not quite half way through yet.  Still talking about kings in history.  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Try not to

Anonymouse wrote:

Try not to get bogged down in a discussion about labels. Big waste of time. You know where you stand and why. That's all that matters.

Yeah, you're right...thanks.  Sorry it took me so long to respond.

 

caposkia wrote:

To be an atheist, you are still adhering to a specific belief system. In the case of atheism; that a god or gods could not possibly have created the universe.

Of all the people I know who call themselves atheists, I don't think a single one believes "a god or gods could not possibly have created the universe". However, if you really want to stop discussing these definitions, I'll simply call myself a non-theist and we'll be done.

 

caposkia wrote:

It's not necessarily lacking the knowledge, but rather claiming that the knowledge is unobtainable.

I think the word 'agnostic' can apply to either one. I may be wrong, however.

 

caposkia wrote:

The only one I'm aware of is from your heart truly seeking out this God of the bible and living your life according to His Law (NT not OT).  All that I'm aware of who have honestly taken the time and fully sought out this god from their heart has been united with this God.

Will you give me a rough estimate as to how many of these people you're aware of?

 

caposkia wrote:

Also, are replicable tests the only way of finding out truth?

For discovering the truth about what exists independent of our minds, I think it is the best, but not they only, way.

 

caposkia wrote:

If you were checking to see if I was actually human by testing whether I'd make the same choice each time you asked for it

If I were checking to see if you were actually human, I would first want to meet and interact with you while several competent witnesses are present.

 

caposkia wrote:

a spirit by direct definition would be the same as a soul or basically the consciousness of a person.  Literally it is an external consciousness that mediates between body and soul.

So, a spirit is basically a disembodied soul? A consciousness without a body?

 

caposkia wrote:

It'd be like trying to study a peice of light from the air.  In fact, that might be a place to start.  Consider how you might study a peice of light or a photon and possibly we might be able to manipulate it to study external consciousness.

There's actually a really cool video about something like this; here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Whether what

caposkia wrote:

Whether what they find are spirits or external stimuli is up for debate.

No, same problem yet again. This is only "up for debate" in the same way that the reality of any fiction your imagination can come up with, is "up for debate". 

You have to draw the line somewhere, and you do. If you didn't, you would be unable to function, stuck in an endless cycle of scratching your head at people for dismissing supernatural claim #12681, #12682, #12683, etc.

So again, what does it take for you to declare a supernatural claim complete nonsense, or do you simply believe anything anyone tells you ? 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Of all

blacklight915 wrote:

Of all the people I know who call themselves atheists, I don't think a single one believes "a god or gods could not possibly have created the universe". However, if you really want to stop discussing these definitions, I'll simply call myself a non-theist and we'll be done.

doesn't bother me either way.  I don't think it's beneficial to our ultimate goal on this thread, but if it's something you feel necessary to discuss, we can go as far as you want with it.  

Just because someone calls themselves "atheist" does not mean they adhere to the true definition of it.  This is seen very clearly in Christianity.  I would say a good chunk of people who call themselves "Christian" haven't a clue what it means to be a Christian.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Will you give me a rough estimate as to how many of these people you're aware of?

in regards to people truly seeking out God from their heart and finding Him.  I'm 'aware' of a lot of people from all over the world in all different cultures...  Personally I know maybe 10 give or take a few.  The latter is probably more pertinent to your question be it that I cannot defend whether the others truly follow God or are just claiming to have had a revelation that could be associated with something else.  Obviously there's a discrepancy between those who 'found god' through the means of a sect that determined it for them and those who truly 'found God'.  

 

blacklight915 wrote:

For discovering the truth about what exists independent of our minds, I think it is the best, but not they only, way.

what other ways would you accept?

blacklight915 wrote:

If I were checking to see if you were actually human, I would first want to meet and interact with you while several competent witnesses are present.

Granted, but the point was, to test God as originally suggested is a poor excuse for determining his existence.  Your suggestion above makes a lot more sense.  The thing with God is, He doesn't just appear at everyone's demand.  That's where seeking him out with your whole heart comes into play.  

blacklight915 wrote:
 

So, a spirit is basically a disembodied soul? A consciousness without a body?

to put it simply, that's the best way we understand it.

blacklight915 wrote:

There's actually a really cool video about something like this; here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA

 

that is a really cool video.  That kind of study would work if we could visually see spirits... which seems to not be consistent and is believed that only those who have the specific ability to see them can... kind of like some people can smell certain smells and others cannot.  With that said, it is clear that spirits... considering light for a moment, don't reflect light in a visible way, but because they are typically understood to have properties of energy.. of some sort, it could be possible to detect, but we'd have to figure out exactly how and once we can detect it, we'd have to figure out how to get a sample of it and study it.  Though that video is good, it still hasn't taken a sample of a photon and studied it, rather it studied the behavior of photons (who knows how many) when traveling through space and when interacting with objects.

Be it that a spirit exists from what we understand, outside the physical, we're going to have a hard time with this approach.  Probably want to go more simplistic 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:No, same

Anonymouse wrote:

No, same problem yet again. This is only "up for debate" in the same way that the reality of any fiction your imagination can come up with, is "up for debate". 

If what you say is true, then this site would not exist be it that the debate inspired the site.

Anonymouse wrote:

You have to draw the line somewhere, and you do. If you didn't, you would be unable to function, stuck in an endless cycle of scratching your head at people for dismissing supernatural claim #12681, #12682, #12683, etc.

So again, what does it take for you to declare a supernatural claim complete nonsense, or do you simply believe anything anyone tells you ?

I tend to draw the line where people can't back themselves up.  One big reason why I'm still a believer.  The best non-believer defense I've gotten to date is; "it's not my job to prove a negative".  Great defense, but not convincing.  Rather, I'm looking for your reason for believing what you do, not for you to prove a negative.  Most get stuck here.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Just because

caposkia wrote:

Just because someone calls themselves "atheist" does not mean they adhere to the true definition of it.

I understand. However, I think the definition of 'atheist' you presented is quite inaccurate.

 

caposkia wrote:

Personally I know maybe 10 give or take a few.

Obviously there's a discrepancy between those who 'found god' through the means of a sect that determined it for them and those who truly 'found God'.

Ah, so that's why the god-searches of previously religious atheists don't count...

 

caposkia wrote:

Granted, but the point was, to test God as originally suggested is a poor excuse for determining his existence.  Your suggestion above makes a lot more sense.  The thing with God is, He doesn't just appear at everyone's demand.  That's where seeking him out with your whole heart comes into play.

Well, I would certainly count meeting and interacting with someone in the presence of competent witnesses as a 'replicable test'. Well, why doesn't this 'God' appear at everyone's demand?

 

caposkia wrote:

what other ways would you accept?

Well, analyzing events that cannot be replicated is part of quite a few fields of study. I'm sure there are some consistent, accurate, reliable methods people use when attempting to determine the truth about said events--these I would likely accept.

 

caposkia wrote:

Be it that a spirit exists from what we understand, outside the physical, we're going to have a hard time with this approach.  Probably want to go more simplistic

But...do they at least sometimes interact with the physical?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I

blacklight915 wrote:

I understand. However, I think the definition of 'atheist' you presented is quite inaccurate.

it was based on the dictionary definition...

blacklight915 wrote:

Ah, so that's why the god-searches of previously religious atheists don't count...

Depends... Did you really think it would apply no matter what path you took?  That's not logical.  I've also talked with atheists who did find God, then after some other research, second guessed their finding and ultimately rejected it... to say they didn't find God would be inaccurate, rather they denied what they originally had accepted due to new information.  That happens a lot.  That's a personal choice and has nothing to do with the process being successful or not.  Just because you 'find' God doesn't mean you stick with Him.  

It's kind of like forgetting someone's name, then associating their face with another name.  Though you knew their name at one point, a lot of other information had caused your mind to reject your original understanding of who the person was and replace that with something else.  This scenario however has nothing to do with a conscious choice.  the choice of accepting or rejecting God is a conscious version of that.  It's simply a change of perspective... it's hard to remember what you knew in the way you knew it when a different perspective comes to mind.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Well, I would certainly count meeting and interacting with someone in the presence of competent witnesses as a 'replicable test'. Well, why doesn't this 'God' appear at everyone's demand?

Consider why a celebrity doesn't do the same.  Unlike a celebrity though, God only wants to give time to those who want to know Him and follow Him and God doesn't need anyone to be successful or get by.  It's not how God wants you to know Him.  

What kind of God would he be if he was like;  *poof* here I am, now worship me!  Why would you worship a god like that?

blacklight915 wrote:

Well, analyzing events that cannot be replicated is part of quite a few fields of study. I'm sure there are some consistent, accurate, reliable methods people use when attempting to determine the truth about said events--these I would likely accept.

There are Christian groups that study the process of God's work around the world, the most notable is the Vatican.  Despite their theological issues, they do have quite the record keeping and process of determining works of God.  Their particular focus seems to be the miracle healings from around the world, but they credit saints rather than God for those healings.  

blacklight915 wrote:

But...do they at least sometimes interact with the physical?

 

Sure, but there's really no way of knowing when or how they would... or even a way of setting up a scenario that would cause them to interact with the physical.  Although it seems some cults have a method ;P


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Jimen

Hello,

I am a trained logician and have shown the complete absurdity of agnostics that use imaginary time and call themselves atheists.

As I have stated before, since most on here are public school "educated", their knowledge towards men and things is very elementary and low. Thus I had to go back and teach them basic subjects just so they can understand basic arguments.

At first I spent a lot of time doing this. Long posts and such. But as I found their complete lack of ability to comprehend and possibly due to smoking so much pot it deemed that many were boarderline retarded and thus enjoyed mocking them as Jesus mocked the people in his day, though the people in his day were not as retarded, they were educated.

However, I would love to briefly point out some of your complete irrational claims of blind faith and narrow mindedness. The OP's point is very good for in logic:

Quote:
To argue against God's existence is to assume God's existence in order to attempt to argue against it.

I would be willing to try to relay this on your level however you must not smoke pot for up to 24 hours so as to try to help you understand.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Jean

Cogito ergo sum
Quid pro quo


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If what you

caposkia wrote:
If what you say is true, then this site would not exist be it that the debate inspired the site.

Read what I write, please. It will save us both time. This is only "up for debate" in the same way that the reality of any fiction your imagination can come up with is "up for debate". Last time I looked, the act of debating wasn't fiction. 

So the problem remains, if you're going to debate the existence of ghosts and spooks, then why not debate the existence of any piece of fiction anyone's imagination can produce ? 


 

caposkia wrote:
I tend to draw the line where people can't back themselves up.

No, I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.

You didn't draw the line at demonic possession, even though there was nothing at all to back up those claims. You don't even draw the line at demons. I'm not sure you even allow yourself to realize, just exactly how ludicrous this concept is. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 One big reason why I'm still a believer.

Really ? Well, okay, so much for your belief then. 

 

caposkia wrote:
The best non-believer defense I've gotten to date is; "it's not my job to prove a negative".  Great defense, but not convincing.  Rather, I'm looking for your reason for believing what you do, not for you to prove a negative.  Most get stuck here.

 

I think you may be confusing this talk with some other discussion. Let me help you out : I'm the person who told you it was 100% accurate to say there was no proof for demonic possession.

You scratched your head at this (and if this was a genuine expression of puzzlement, instead of just an act, you would, as I've pointed out several times already, be scratching your head until you reached your brain), and asked me what I would consider proof for demonic possession.

I told you. Twice.

And then....yeah, someone got stuck, but it wasn't me.

So please, bring me my proof, or admit there is none to found.

And try no to step over the line you just drew yourself.

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:it was based

caposkia wrote:

it was based on the dictionary definition...

Most major dictionaries list roughly the same two distinct definitions for 'atheism'. They are: "lack of belief/disbelief in the existence of deities" and "belief that no deities exist". I think the first is far more accurate, but it seems you think the second is, correct?

 

caposkia wrote:

to say they didn't find God would be inaccurate, rather they denied what they originally had accepted due to new information.  That happens a lot.  That's a personal choice and has nothing to do with the process being successful or not.  Just because you 'find' God doesn't mean you stick with Him.

the choice of accepting or rejecting God is a conscious version of that.  It's simply a change of perspective...

Are belief and disbelief really a matter of 'personal choice' for you? Because they certainly aren't for me...

 

caposkia wrote:

Consider why a celebrity doesn't do the same.

Because celebrities aren't omnipotent...?

 

caposkia wrote:

What kind of God would he be if he was like;  *poof* here I am, now worship me!  Why would you worship a god like that?

Well, I wouldn't worship anything, but that's just me.

 

caposkia wrote:

Unlike a celebrity though, God only wants to give time to those who want to know Him and follow Him and God doesn't need anyone to be successful or get by.  It's not how God wants you to know Him.

Just to be clear, does this 'God' you speak of possess the three classic 'omni-' attributes (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)? I just want to be fully informed before I attempt to address your above comment.

 

caposkia wrote:

Sure, but there's really no way of knowing when or how they would... or even a way of setting up a scenario that would cause them to interact with the physical.

That's very unfortunate...  If spirits are real, they certainly seem to prefer being hidden and poorly understood...

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It's how I've

caposkia wrote:

It's how I've learned and grown in my faith Smiling  

 

Kind of creepy when they're actually proud of it.

Yes, soon you will "grow" strong enough in your faith, so you too can murder your own daughter through neglect and abuse, and then blame it on "demons". 

Way to go. Awesome.

Something to aspire to, I guess.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Read what I

Anonymouse wrote:

Read what I write, please. It will save us both time. This is only "up for debate" in the same way that the reality of any fiction your imagination can come up with is "up for debate". Last time I looked, the act of debating wasn't fiction. 

No... it's not.... missed the point... anyway

Anonymouse wrote:

So the problem remains, if you're going to debate the existence of ghosts and spooks, then why not debate the existence of any piece of fiction anyone's imagination can produce ? 

Sure, ok... why not.  Where would you like to start?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I tend to draw the line where people can't back themselves up.

No, I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.

wow! you know me better than I know myself!  How could you possibly know that about me?  If it's based on your assumption of what's real, then I'm sorry, but you have yet to back yourself up on that belief.  I'm all ears however.

Anonymouse wrote:

You didn't draw the line at demonic possession, even though there was nothing at all to back up those claims. You don't even draw the line at demons. I'm not sure you even allow yourself to realize, just exactly how ludicrous this concept is. 

no, I didn't... but who said there was nothing at all?  Oh wait, it was you.  What are you looking for as evidence here?  Sounds like you haven't found it.  Just because you can't accept it doesn't make it untrue.  Yes, Harry Potter is also a concept you can't accept, but does that make him real to me?  Stop categorizing things with irrelevance and look at the bigger picture.  

The difference with your fictional stories debate vs. the Christianity debate is 80% of the world can agree with Christianity on the idea of a spiritual existence being a reality.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 One big reason why I'm still a believer.

Really ? Well, okay, so much for your belief then. 

righttt......

Anonymouse wrote:

 

I think you may be confusing this talk with some other discussion. Let me help you out : I'm the person who told you it was 100% accurate to say there was no proof for demonic possession.

did I claim that defense was from you?

Anonymouse wrote:

You scratched your head at this (and if this was a genuine expression of puzzlement, instead of just an act, you would, as I've pointed out several times already, be scratching your head until you reached your brain), and asked me what I would consider proof for demonic possession.

I told you. Twice.

And then....yeah, someone got stuck, but it wasn't me.

So please, bring me my proof, or admit there is none to found.

And try no to step over the line you just drew yourself.

 

Ok... lemme back track here.  arrogance isn't going to get you far.  I apparently missed somehow the 'evidence' you were looking for.  I'll post my reply in the next post when I find what you had responded with..  Sorry for missing it...

**edit**

Oh wait... I just went back... Are you referring to the "get me one of those demon things" and the picture post?  You were serious?!  You think that's what demons are... and that I can just pick one up at the corner market?  Sure, ok... and you wonder why I didn't respond to that with rationality.  You're so diluted in reality being only that which smacks you in the face when you walk into it that you honestly thought the fictionalized depiction of demons is what we believe in... and Santa Claus is really Tim Allen and not a folk lore of a Turkish Christian from the 1500's who used to give food to poor families by putting it in stockings hung on window sills.... 

Seems to me that we need to back track quite a bit and talk a bit of education on what demons really are before we talk about what you would accept as evidence for possession.... what do you think demons really are??? according to Christians that is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Most

blacklight915 wrote:

Most major dictionaries list roughly the same two distinct definitions for 'atheism'. They are: "lack of belief/disbelief in the existence of deities" and "belief that no deities exist". I think the first is far more accurate, but it seems you think the second is, correct?

I was going by the 2 dictionaries I have immediate access to which are the Websters unabridged and dictionary.com... both having the same definition; "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"  

Deity in your definitions is key, that would imply divine existence.  In this case, the lack in belief of a divine existence, so they both work to a point.  Either way, if you parse the word, atheism, it's anti/against theism.... and theism is specifically the belief in the existence of one God.   By the definitions you imply, it seems to go beyond the definition of specifically atheism be it that it's talking about deities in general...  Which dictionaries were you using that had the more generalized definition?

blacklight915 wrote:

Are belief and disbelief really a matter of 'personal choice' for you? Because they certainly aren't for me...

Well, we do choose to open our eyes to certain truths.  I think it comes down to accepting evidences as rational.  If you accept the evidences, you're opening your mind to belief in that subject, whatever it is.  If you reject every piece of evidence that is in regards to supporting that subject, then you are choosing to not believe.  Simply put, I do believe in that light that it does come down to a personal choice.... or many personal choices.  

Look at it this way, there's a quote that I favor from the movie "Passion of the Christ".  "Truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it".  If you put a pencil on the table and tell me it's a pencil, I can choose to deny it and convince my mind that it is in fact a pen.  You could show me all the evidences you want, but when it comes down to it, unless I"m willing to hear the truth and accept the truth... in this case, that what you put in front of me really is a pencil, I will not believe it.  

To make it short, belief is the subconscious result of choice.  One thing to make clear though, existence or reality is not dependent on belief, neither is belief dependent on existence or reality.  

 

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Because celebrities aren't omnipotent...?

well, according to some celebrities, they really don't want to know anyone who doesn't care to know them personally.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Well, I wouldn't worship anything, but that's just me.

it has to do with paying respect to a sacred personage.  Be it that you don't believe in God, I'm glad to hear you wouldn't worship anything.  The Bible says, God is the only one worthy of worship.  Anyone who doesn't think God exists who wouldn't worship anything has got it right.  Without God, nothing is worthy of worship.

blacklight915 wrote:
 

Just to be clear, does this 'God' you speak of possess the three classic 'omni-' attributes (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)? I just want to be fully informed before I attempt to address your above comment.

Considering this angle, I'm not sure if my celebrity example was the best choice, but let's see where it goes.  My God is almighty and all knowing... as far as omnibenevolent, I tihnk it would depend on what you mean by omnibenevolent.  My God has undeserving kindness, but he also has wrath.  It is known in the philosophy of religion to be a word used very loosely so I can't answer that until i get a clearer understanding of what you mean.  

blacklight915 wrote:

That's very unfortunate...  If spirits are real, they certainly seem to prefer being hidden and poorly understood...

...or they could be that way by design.  Be it that it's a different level of existence, would this be a surprise to you?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Kind of

Antipatris wrote:

Kind of creepy when they're actually proud of it.

Yes, soon you will "grow" strong enough in your faith, so you too can murder your own daughter through neglect and abuse, and then blame it on "demons". 

Way to go. Awesome.

Something to aspire to, I guess.

Proud of it???  I am excited to learn more, and believe it or not, those who oppose my belief either by contradicting religions or non-belief are the ones who have taught me the most about what i believe.

this sounds to me like you have a history... care to share?  Is this what Christianity is to you?


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I was going

caposkia wrote:

I was going by the 2 dictionaries I have immediate access to which are the Websters unabridged and dictionary.com... both having the same definition; "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"

Um, dictionary.com very clearly lists TWO distinct definitions for 'atheism'. Here's the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

The only online versions of Webster's unabridged I could access dated to 1913 or older, so I decided to go with Merriam Webster instead.

Merriam Webster lists two definitions much like those on dictionary.com. Here's the link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

 

caposkia wrote:

Either way, if you parse the word, atheism, it's anti/against theism.... and theism is specifically the belief in the existence of one God.

It can also be parsed as 'not' or 'without' theism.  No, theism is belief in the existence of AT LEAST one god. Are polytheists and monotheists not both theists?

 

Are you just messing with me or something, caposkia? How could you possibly miss the second definition of 'atheism' on dictionary.com? And, how could you possibly think a polytheist isn't a theist?  You seemed genuine at first, but now I'm starting to think you view posting here as some sort of elaborate joke.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:blacklight915

caposkia wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

That's very unfortunate...  If spirits are real, they certainly seem to prefer being hidden and poorly understood...

...or they could be that way by design.  Be it that it's a different level of existence, would this be a surprise to you?  

 

  Well, since the Old and New Testaments supposedly have angels acting as God's messengers and heralds and manifesting themselves if not in corporeal form then at least in visible form then their "different level of existence" doesn't seem to be a hindrance at all. 

 Their visible / audible appearances to humans is obviously a matter of choosing to do so, not their status as supernatural beings.

 

 

Did the Virgin Mary appear in 1531 to an Aztec peasant or did she just send a registered letter due to her "different level of existence".

     "Dear Juan Diego, I really wanted to show myself to you in order to strengthen your faith but since I am now of the supernatural realm and living in a different level of existence I am unable to make the journey so I had to send a letter instead.  Yours truly, The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God"

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No... it's

caposkia wrote:
No... it's not.... missed the point... anyway

Yes, you did. Normally, this would annoy me, as it's a pretty simple point, but actually, this is encouraging. This suggests you never really thought about this.

caposkia wrote:
Sure, ok... why not.  Where would you like to start?

Me ?? Uhm, no, you're the one who'll believe any supernatural hokum as long as it's popular enough. Not me. Start wherever you like. Should keep you occupied for several lifetimes. Enjoy.

caposkia wrote:
wow! you know me better than I know myself!

I'm familiar with the explaining-nonsense-with-more-nonsense excuse, yes, if that's what you mean.

caposkia wrote:
How could you possibly know that about me?
 

*sigh* I read your posts.

Here's another thing I know about you : If a person you loved dearly suffered from epilepsy, you would never consider calling an exorcist. Never. Not for a second. Your belief in "demons" would magically vanish.

Again, so much for your belief.

caposkia wrote:
If it's based on your assumption of what's real, then I'm sorry, but you have yet to back yourself up on that belief.  I'm all ears however.

Demons not being real ? I already backed that up and so have you. 

caposkia wrote:
no, I didn't... but who said there was nothing at all?  Oh wait, it was you.  What are you looking for as evidence here?  Sounds like you haven't found it.

You keep asking me what I would accept as evidence. I keep telling you. And then nothing happens....until you ask me again. How many more times ?

caposkia wrote:
 Just because you can't accept it doesn't make it untrue.

Give me the evidence and I'll accept it. 

caposkia wrote:
 Yes, Harry Potter is also a concept you can't accept, but does that make him real to me?

I should hope not.

caposkia wrote:
Stop categorizing things with irrelevance and look at the bigger picture.

Stop trying to obfuscate your way out of the bloody obvious. There is nothing irrelevant about explaining to people that there are no demons, as the case you mentioned clearly proves. 

caposkia wrote:
The difference with your fictional stories debate vs. the Christianity debate is 80% of the world can agree with Christianity on the idea of a spiritual existence being a reality.

What's the name of this fallacy again ? Argumentum ad populum, right ? Any others you'd like to try ? Well, you'd better think of something, cause as it stands, there's no difference at all.

caposkia wrote:
righttt......

Something more substantial than a head-scratching smiley-face, I mean.  Well ? Would you perhaps like to ask me what I would accept as proof again ? 

caposkia wrote:
did I claim that defense was from you?

Then don't bring it up.

caposkia wrote:
Ok... lemme back track here.  arrogance isn't going to get you far.

No, I'm sorry, but that wasn't arrogance, that was a fair question.

caposkia wrote:
I apparently missed somehow the 'evidence' you were looking for.

No, you referred to it a few times, you just didn't produce it.

caposkia wrote:
Oh wait... I just went back... Are you referring to the "get me one of those demon things" and the picture post?

I also asked for a demon-powered generator, or a demon-controlling device such as used by a biblical character. (I had to remind you there was such a thing. Apparently I know more about your myths than you do)

caposkia wrote:
You were serious?! 

I was taking you seriously. And I hope you realize just exactly who and what your smiley is laughing at, because again, it isn't me. 

caposkia wrote:
You think that's what demons are... and that I can just pick one up at the corner market?

Yet again, YOU are the one who takes this ridiculous idea seriously, NOT me. At least try to understand this. Where you get your "demons" is not my problem.

caposkia wrote:
Sure, ok... and you wonder why I didn't respond to that with rationality.

You already responded to that. Are you telling me now those responses weren't rational ? Okay, thanks for at least admitting that.

But as I pointed out at the time, if you start of with claiming you take demons seriously, then how is anyone supposed to know when you're just kidding ? 

caposkia wrote:
You're so diluted in reality being only that which smacks you in the face when you walk into it that you honestly thought the fictionalized depiction of demons is what we believe in

You seriously have no idea what that depiction is based on ?? I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but that is exactly what you believe in, unless you're just making up your own mythology now.

Like I said, you seem to be blissfully unaware of whom and what you're laughing at. 

caposkia wrote:
Seems to me that we need to back track quite a bit and talk a bit of education on what demons really are before we talk about what you would accept as evidence for possession.... what do you think demons really are??? according to Christians that is.

I'm sure you'd love to retreat to the safer shores of even more complete fiction, but as I already explained, I'm very familiar with the explaining-nonsense-with-even-more-nonsense defense. 

It doesn't matter if you make up your own "demon" mythology from scratch, or cherry pick it together from other people who also made it up from scratch. That won't get you any closer to proving this ridiculous idea is true, so save yourself the embarrassment.

If I want to read fantasy, I'll go do that. But that's not what I want.

I want proof for this ridiculous thing you claim you believe. I told you what I would accept as proof. (More fiction isn't it)

So now produce it, or admit there isn't any.

 

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
 caposkia wrote:Proud of

 

caposkia wrote:
Proud of it???  I am excited to learn more, and believe it or not, those who oppose my belief either by contradicting religions or non-belief are the ones who have taught me the most about what i believe.

So you learn by not listening to people. 

I think you might be slightly confused about what "learning" actually means.

caposkia wrote:
this sounds to me like you have a history... care to share?

'Kay. 

So I was reading this thread on the board about exorcism, and all the horrible crap done to Anneliese Michel, all because her folks wanted to believe in even more horrible crap, and I thought, gee, this is so dumb, so incredibly cowardly, surely somebody who actually believes this idiotic mumbo jumbo would be too ashamed to admit it.

And then 'lo and behold, you popped up.

 

caposkia wrote:
 Is this what Christianity is to you?

Since we only have christians to represent christianity, such as your sweet self, that's all I have to work with.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Um,

blacklight915 wrote:

Um, dictionary.com very clearly lists TWO distinct definitions for 'atheism'. Here's the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

The only online versions of Webster's unabridged I could access dated to 1913 or older, so I decided to go with Merriam Webster instead.

Merriam Webster lists two definitions much like those on dictionary.com. Here's the link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

yup, those should give you the definition that I posted... my webster unabridged gives the same 2.  The second def. I didn't post said; "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being"... same idea

blacklight915 wrote:

so be parsed as 'not' or 'without' theism.  No, theism is belief in the existence of AT LEAST one god. Are polytheists and monotheists not both theists? By the first definition, no, by the second, yes... this on dictionary.com..  Depends on the context it seems.  It's more commonly used as the single god reference, which is why I posted like i did. 

blacklight915 wrote:

 

Are you just messing with me or something, caposkia? How could you possibly miss the second definition of 'atheism' on dictionary.com? And, how could you possibly think a polytheist isn't a theist?  You seemed genuine at first, but now I'm starting to think you view posting here as some sort of elaborate joke.

no, the second definition of atheism applies to the first.  The thing is, each definition is on its own for a reason.  It apparently depends on the context.  I was mistaken to say it "only" refers to one God, rather it usually refers to one God or supreme being as the first definition and the beginning of the second definition in both words suggests.

This mainly because theism by reference is specifically the belief in a personal god.  There are mono and polytheists who don't believe in a personal God which then might categorize them as atheistic though they still believe in supernatual gods.  sorry about that.  I wouldn't have referenced these if I was messing with you and didn't want you to see it.

check this link to see why I am responding like I do.  It's just the reference page on dictionary.com:  http://www.reference.com/browse/theism.  Simply put, context is key, just as it is when discussing the Bible.  if i say car, you might be thinking of the one that you drive and I might be thinking of the train car... the context of the word would allow both of us to see what we mean by car... same with these words, they can be flexible with their definition... just like with car, the more common term we'd use for car would be the one you drive on the road unless you're a train operator or train car manufacturer.  

going back to what I was saying about atheists.  It is a blanket term, but not all non-believers can fall under the atheism category.  Same with believers falling under the theism category.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Well, since the Old and New Testaments supposedly have angels acting as God's messengers and heralds and manifesting themselves if not in corporeal form then at least in visible form then their "different level of existence" doesn't seem to be a hindrance at all. 

 Their visible / audible appearances to humans is obviously a matter of choosing to do so, not their status as supernatural beings.

That's a very good point... but then does that mean that all spiritual beings have the ability to choose in that way?  Also, this would go back to God, we're specifically talking about angels, and the Bible specifically talks about in many instances; "open their eyes".  In other words, God is intentionally hiding the spiritual realm from our site unless He feels it necessary to see them.  Therefore I conclude that it's not so much the spirits choosing, rather Gods.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Did the Virgin Mary appear in 1531 to an Aztec peasant or did she just send a registered letter due to her "different level of existence".

could have been a letter via angel... I do wonder about the appearance of specific spirits who were once human.  I have the... assumption at this point that when people think they're seeing a specific person, they may be seeing an angel or demon and not necessarily that person... I cannot back that up however, which is why I say I make the assumption at this point in time.  

I only question it because it doesn't sound like Biblically that dead people are wandering around on Earth waiting to be seen by the living.  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

     "Dear Juan Diego, I really wanted to show myself to you in order to strengthen your faith but since I am now of the supernatural realm and living in a different level of existence I am unable to make the journey so I had to send a letter instead.  Yours truly, The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God"

is that the writing found?  I've never heard of such an encounter before


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The second

caposkia wrote:

The second def. I didn't post said; "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being"... same idea

No, the second definition is fundamentally different from the first.

 

caposkia wrote:

There are mono and polytheists who don't believe in a personal God which then might categorize them as atheistic though they still believe in supernatual gods.

You cannot be an atheistic theist--it's literally impossible.

 

caposkia wrote:

It is a blanket term, but not all non-believers can fall under the atheism category.  Same with believers falling under the theism category.

I'm pretty sure all non-believers fall under the category of 'atheism'. However, I suppose you could split believers into theists and deists...

 

You know, caposkia, you've been awfully condescending in almost all your responses to Anonymouse...  You also seem to have a lot of misconceptions about how most non-believers think...

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Yes, you

Anonymouse wrote:

Yes, you did. Normally, this would annoy me, as it's a pretty simple point, but actually, this is encouraging. This suggests you never really thought about this.

My missed the point comment was to say that you misconstrued what I posted originally and... missed the point.  We're beyond that anyway.  If I hadn't really thought of it, then this would be the reason why i talk to people like you.  I have learned a lot from those who oppose my belief.

Anonymouse wrote:

Me ?? Uhm, no, you're the one who'll believe any supernatural hokum as long as it's popular enough. Not me. Start wherever you like. Should keep you occupied for several lifetimes. Enjoy.

no, you're the one who has concluded that from ignorance...(no offense intended)  I offered it to you becasue you brought up the categorization with everything else fictional.  That angle will of course never allow you to seriously persue the topic.... and that's your choice.

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm familiar with the explaining-nonsense-with-more-nonsense excuse, yes, if that's what you mean.

I've learned of that method being on here... By you concluding that by the way, you're insulting the intelligence of those who are having serious extended conversations with me.  I would deem them quite intelligent people... and I know they wouldn't be talking to me if what you said is true about me.

Anonymouse wrote:

*sigh* I read your posts.

no you don't.. you decide the answer before researching... it's a typical response.  that was sarcasm btw.

Anonymouse wrote:

Here's another thing I know about you : If a person you loved dearly suffered from epilepsy, you would never consider calling an exorcist. Never. Not for a second. Your belief in "demons" would magically vanish.

oh I don't know, depends on the context... if it's only epilepsy, then of course not, would not fit the definition of possession.  Just like any illness, one needs to make the diagnosis.  I'm glad you're not a doctor... you're not a doctor are you?!

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, so much for your belief.

right back at ya Eye-wink

Anonymouse wrote:

Demons not being real ? I already backed that up and so have you. 

you and I have not gotten past your fiction association... if that's backing yourself up, I know you wouldn't buy it if I did that to you, so why do you expect me to buy into your belief with that approach?  This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned drawing the line...

Anonymouse wrote:

You keep asking me what I would accept as evidence....*cut*

because you haven't presented anything rational or logical... I'm thinking intentionally.

Anonymouse wrote:

Give me the evidence and I'll accept it. 

... ok so by what you have presented.... if I give you a demon action figure per the picture link you posted, you'll believe?

Anonymouse wrote:

I should hope not.

referring to harry potter.... phew, I was getting worried for a second... you do have a limit to the fictional association.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Stop trying to obfuscate your way out of the bloody obvious. There is nothing irrelevant about explaining to people that there are no demons, as the case you mentioned clearly proves. 

what case?  I haven't gone anywhere with you in this conversation... you've already made the conclusion before the conversation really started which disallows any rational persuit of the topic.

Anonymouse wrote:

What's the name of this fallacy again ? Argumentum ad populum, right ? Any others you'd like to try ? Well, you'd better think of something, cause as it stands, there's no difference at all.

so then your conclusion is that if it's popular, it can't possibly be true... got it.  A rational mind might come up with a better defense here.

Anonymouse wrote:

Something more substantial than a head-scratching smiley-face, I mean.  Well ? Would you perhaps like to ask me what I would accept as proof again ? 

ok, what would you accept as proof... a fictionalized picture and a demon genearator is not rational evidences... it goes right up there with Brian needing to fart out a car to believe...  

I can propose the same irrational expectation using factual science... show me dark matter exists by building me a house out of it... not possible, not rational, not logical to base a conclusion of existence on.

Anonymouse wrote:

Then don't bring it up.

you're not the only one I'm talking to here. I may bring it up in your post responses to tie it in to the general conversation..

Anonymouse wrote:

No, I'm sorry, but that wasn't arrogance, that was a fair question.

it came out as arrogance... and due to the fairness of the question, did I not go back and look?  not arrogance huh...

Anonymouse wrote:

I also asked for a demon-powered generator, or a demon-controlling device such as used by a biblical character. (I had to remind you there was such a thing. Apparently I know more about your myths than you do)

I never claimed to know more than everyone, which is why I talk to people like you... Also, can you reference this demon-controlling device as you suggest is used by a biblical character?  

I apologize, but those types of 'evidences' sound irrational... if there was such a thing in the Bible then I'll stand corrected.  

Also, I don't think you understand what you're asking for... It'd be like you asking to go into north Korea to get a soldier and try to control him... What do you think would happen to you?  What allegedly happened to Mr. Crowley?  

Anonymouse wrote:

I was taking you seriously. And I hope you realize just exactly who and what your smiley is laughing at, because again, it isn't me. 

I don't think you were... and if you were, I'm laughing at the outrageous understand of demons that you seem to have... I"m sorry if that offended you.  Talk about fiction though.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You think that's what demons are... and that I can just pick one up at the corner market?

Yet again, YOU are the one who takes this ridiculous idea seriously, NOT me. At least try to understand this. Where you get your "demons" is not my problem.

right here... this is why I have a hard time taking you serious though... you have already concluded and... I don't know, think you're going to convince me of your belief by throwing fictional irrationalities at me... 

I think you misunderstand my postition on here.  I actually want to have an open minded conversation about it.  If I'm wrong with my belief... it will be revieled in that conversation.  I have changed my stance on things here and there due to open minded conversation.. its how I came to believe what I do. 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Sure, ok... and you wonder why I didn't respond to that with rationality.

You already responded to that. Are you telling me now those responses weren't rational ? Okay, thanks for at least admitting that.

no they weren't rational.. I didn't think you were being serious.  Seems I was wrong.

Anonymouse wrote:

But as I pointed out at the time, if you start of with claiming you take demons seriously, then how is anyone supposed to know when you're just kidding ? 

Same way you'd know when anyone else is just kidding.  Just because you find the concept silly and irrational doesn't make it impossible... just look at the 'impossible' technology we use daily... the telephone, TV, cars that can travel 100's of miles in a few hours, etc.  

Is it true that you will never accept anything that you don't know?  Here's a question... why are so many people convinced of a spiritual existence? 

Anonymouse wrote:

You seriously have no idea what that depiction is based on ?? I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but that is exactly what you believe in, unless you're just making up your own mythology now.

Alright, educate me... please reference scriptures so I can do the homework... if what you say is true, I will accept it.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Like I said, you seem to be blissfully unaware of whom and what you're laughing at. 

That's ok... there are others out there that if what you believe is really true, will convince me of such... So far however, the latter seems to be happening.

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm sure you'd love to retreat to the safer shores of even more complete fiction, but as I already explained, I'm very familiar with the explaining-nonsense-with-even-more-nonsense defense. 

safer shores??? i feel like we haven't even left the parking lot yet.  This is strangely close to a response I'd get from someone who is trying to avoid more dangerous waters. If it's so safe... it seems like we haven't been goign anywhere anyway, why the heasitation to go there?  

Anonymouse wrote:

It doesn't matter if you make up your own "demon" mythology from scratch, or cherry pick it together from other people who also made it up from scratch. That won't get you any closer to proving this ridiculous idea is true, so save yourself the embarrassment.

I'm not worried... as i see it... if you're right... I want to know.  I've been on this site for a long time with an open mind to everything everyone has presented to me... strange how I'm still a believer... you may not believe that I've been accepting and researching everything that everyone is telling me... but then that's you're problem now isn't it?  I make that statement based on our conversation to this point... you're not one to easily accept anything anyone tells you no matter how much truth is rooted in it.

Anonymouse wrote:

If I want to read fantasy, I'll go do that. But that's not what I want.

I want proof for this ridiculous thing you claim you believe. I told you what I would accept as proof. (More fiction isn't it)

So now produce it, or admit there isn't any.

so... ultimately... either demons exist by irrational proof... or they don't... interesting... so there can't be any other way of investigating besides a deomon generator or a demon controlling device?  

First can you reference where requested so I can look into it further?

By the way, either buy me a mercedes, or admit that cars don't exist... Same type of request... What do you think the result's going to be?  I'm willing to bet you either can't or won't buy me a mercedes.  So it'd be logical then for me to conclude that cars don't exist right?

why cars?  it's that obvious to me that demons exist and that irrational to me what you're asking for as far as proof or evidence.  

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:So you

Antipatris wrote:

So you learn by not listening to people. 

To the contrary.  

Antipatris wrote:

I think you might be slightly confused about what "learning" actually means.

I don't believe learning is accepting things at face value.  It's funny how many non-believers do that and then are shocked when I can't accept what they told me.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
this sounds to me like you have a history... care to share?

'Kay. 

So I was reading this thread on the board about exorcism, and all the horrible crap done to Anneliese Michel, all because her folks wanted to believe in even more horrible crap, and I thought, gee, this is so dumb, so incredibly cowardly, surely somebody who actually believes this idiotic mumbo jumbo would be too ashamed to admit it.

And then 'lo and behold, you popped up.

So all this is based on one thread about exorcism?  Not all exorcism stories are real... Do you really associate everything by one occurence?  My assumption about you is that you're smarter than that.  

Antipatris wrote:

Since we only have christians to represent christianity, such as your sweet self, that's all I have to work with.

That's quite a generalization... there are over 5000 different denominations of Christianity in the United States alone, each thinking they're the only ones who have it completely right, how can you categories that into one view?  

There are also many who claim to be christian, yet don't walk the walk.  That would be the Christian worldview.  Most likely, the Christianity your'e most familiar with (hence world view)  

In today's world, there are "christians" and then there are those who follow Jesus Christ.  By definition Christians and those who follow Jesus Christ should be one and the same, but they're not.  Those who follow Christ still in many instances call themselves Christian because of what Christian really means, but they have a chore of trying to keep themselves from being categorized with the rest of Christiandom.  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
To caposkia:Is a demon a

To caposkia:

Is a demon a type of spirit? If so, how are you so certain disembodied consciousnesses exist? Do spirits leave ANY sort of clues behind when they interact with the physical/material world?

Do you understand that not everything the Bible says is reliable?

Do you understand that until there is a replicable way to test for the existence of spirits, studying them scientifically will be nearly impossible?

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
*Tip : Since most of this

*Tip : Since most of this reply consists of me being forced to repeat myself, try reading the whole reply before responding. It will save time.

caposkia wrote:
My missed the point comment was to say that you misconstrued what I posted originally and... missed the point.  We're beyond that anyway.
 

That's a neat trick to ignore someone's point you pulled there. No worries though. I'll explain more clearly

caposkia wrote:
If I hadn't really thought of it, then this would be the reason why i talk to people like you.  I have learned a lot from those who oppose my belief.

It remains to be seen if you actually learned something beyond more elaborate evasion tactics.

caposkia wrote:
no, you're the one who has concluded that from ignorance...(no offense intended)

None taken, since I draw my conclusions exclusively from what you tell me. If you choose to describe your own words as ignorance, well, okay then.

caposkia wrote:
 I offered it to you becasue you brought up the categorization with everything else fictional.  That angle will of course never allow you to seriously persue the topic.... and that's your choice.

The "angle" of reality is all both of us have to work with. It's your choice to pretend your imagination trumps reality. Pretty easy for me to debunk that. I've done it three times already. The trick is to make you realize that.  

caposkia wrote:
I've learned of that method being on here... By you concluding that by the way, you're insulting the intelligence of those who are having serious extended conversations with me.  I would deem them quite intelligent people... and I know they wouldn't be talking to me if what you said is true about me.

People here are extremely kind and knowledgeable about your particular type of delusions, and the tactics you use to defend yourself against reality. That's why some of them prefer the "good cop" approach. This does not mean they share or even respect your delusions. 

caposkia wrote:
no you don't.. you decide the answer before researching... it's a typical response.  that was sarcasm btw.

Meh, I like sarcasm more when it holds a grain of truth.

Oh, and btw, that's really rich coming from a guy who offered up a hollywood movie as proof for "demonic possession"

caposkia wrote:
oh I don't know, depends on the context... if it's only epilepsy, then of course not, would not fit the definition of possession.  Just like any illness, one needs to make the diagnosis.  I'm glad you're not a doctor... you're not a doctor are you?!

You cannot diagnose something that doesn't exist. As I've already explained to you, making up rules and definitions for something that doesn't exist, will not magically make it appear. That is not how reality works. 

So you would actually put a loved one's life in danger purely for the sake of your cherished fantasy ? You would deny them the proper care for their condition, if you judged it to be "demonic possession" ? 

caposkia wrote:
right back at ya Eye-wink

?

We're talking about insane beliefs used as justification for murder through neglect and abuse. Just thought I'd remind you of that. 

caposkia wrote:
you and I have not gotten past your fiction association...

We most certainly did. I asked for proof. You asked what I would accept. I told you. You asked again. I told you again. You asked yet again. I told you again. No proof, though. 

caposkia wrote:
if that's backing yourself up, I know you wouldn't buy it if I did that to you, so why do you expect me to buy into your belief with that approach?  This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned drawing the line...

AGAIN, YOU are the one who believes in demons. NOT ME ! Why is this so hard to understand ? If I where the one believing in this nonsense, then OF COURSE you would be allowed to demand proof. 

caposkia wrote:
because you haven't presented anything rational or logical... I'm thinking intentionally.

And AGAIN : YOU're the one who's presenting his belief in "demonic possession", NOT ME ! I'm the one who's been asking you for proof. You're the one who's not been giving me any. Are we clear on this now ? 

caposkia wrote:
... ok so by what you have presented....

For the last time, YOU're the one who believes in demons, not me !

caposkia wrote:
if I give you a demon action figure per the picture link you posted, you'll believe?

For pete's sake, I told you about 4 times what I would accept as proof. What could you possibly hope to gain from pretending you forgot already ?

caposkia wrote:
referring to harry potter.... phew, I was getting worried for a second... you do have a limit to the fictional association.

Actually, if you believe in witchcraft, then you have a problem there too.

caposkia wrote:
what case?  I haven't gone anywhere with you in this conversation... you've already made the conclusion before the conversation really started which disallows any rational persuit of the topic.

"What case" ? Wow. Are you seriously going to pretend now you don't remember mentioning the Emily Rose movie ? Incredible.

And no, the only conclusion I've drawn is that you haven't given me any evidence yet. You'll need to do more than use words like "rational". If you actually want to be rational, then give me the proof I asked for, or admit there is no such thing.

caposkia wrote:
so then your conclusion is that if it's popular, it can't possibly be true... got it.  A rational mind might come up with a better defense here.

Nope, my conclusion is that you used a fallacy to defend your position (and apparently you don't even know what this particular one even means). And again, I'm not the one who needs a defense here. YOU're the one who believes in demons. I seem to have to remind you of that quite a lot. It's as if you want to forget all about it. 

caposkia wrote:
ok, what would you accept as proof... a fictionalized picture and a demon genearator is not rational evidences...
 

Oh for the love of....I'm going to have to tell you again, aren't I ? Okay, please listen this time : YOU believe in demons. NOT ME. Where you get the evidence for this ridiculous claim is NOT MY PROBLEM. 

caposkia wrote:
I can propose the same irrational expectation using factual science... show me dark matter exists by building me a house out of it... not possible, not rational, not logical to base a conclusion of existence on.
 

We're not talking about factual science. We're talking about religious fantasies for which not a shred of evidence exists. 

caposkia wrote:
you're not the only one I'm talking to here. I may bring it up in your post responses to tie it in to the general conversation..
 

Well, it didn't tie in to anything. You're having enough trouble sticking to this conversation.

caposkia wrote:
it came out as arrogance... and due to the fairness of the question, did I not go back and look?  not arrogance huh...

It is not arrogant to question ridiculous beliefs, especially when they put other people in danger. 

caposkia wrote:
I never claimed to know more than everyone, which is why I talk to people like you... Also, can you reference this demon-controlling device as you suggest is used by a biblical character?
 

Reference it again, you mean. Sure : Solomon. Dude had a magic ring he used to control demons. 

caposkia wrote:
I apologize, but those types of 'evidences' sound irrational... if there was such a thing in the Bible then I'll stand corrected.
 

Oh, don't worry. Just call it "apocryphal", and you're good to go.  

caposkia wrote:
Also, I don't think you understand what you're asking for... It'd be like you asking to go into north Korea to get a soldier and try to control him... What do you think would happen to you?  What allegedly happened to Mr. Crowley?
 

What, again ? *deep sigh* Okay, fine, one more time : YOU're the one who believes in demons, not me. You. Not me. Where and how you get the evidence for your ridiculous claims is NOT MY PROBLEM. YOUR problem. NOT mine. Why ? Because YOU believe in demons. Not me.

caposkia wrote:
I don't think you were... and if you were, I'm laughing at the outrageous understand of demons that you seem to have... I"m sorry if that offended you.  Talk about fiction though.  
 

If I wasn't taking you seriously, I wouldn't talk to you, or I would simply believe anything you told me. And "the understanding of demons" you're so amused by comes straight from other people who believe this nonsense. If you want to apologize for offending somebody, do it to them. Because, guess what, I'M NOT THE ONE WHO BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE. YOU ARE.

caposkia wrote:
right here... this is why I have a hard time taking you serious though... you have already concluded and... I don't know, think you're going to convince me of your belief by throwing fictional irrationalities at me...  

I think you misunderstand my postition on here.  I actually want to have an open minded conversation about it.  If I'm wrong with my belief... it will be revieled in that conversation.  I have changed my stance on things here and there due to open minded conversation.. its how I came to believe what I do. 

You believe there is proof for demonic possession, correct ? You asked me what I would accept as proof, I told you. The only thing I concluded is that you were unable to produce said proof.

Look, if you had no intention of producing the proof I asked for, then why did you even ask me in the first place ? 

If you really want to have an open-minded conversation about this, then you must know that you can't just demand that I accept something that can be explained rationally, as evidence for "demonic possession". 

If you really don't understand why that's the case, then please tell me, so I can explain it to you. 

caposkia wrote:
no they weren't rational.. I didn't think you were being serious.  Seems I was wrong.

Again : YOU're the one who believes in demons. Not me. I'm sorry for the tedious repetition, but you really need to understand this, so you will stop making these mistakes.

caposkia wrote:
Same way you'd know when anyone else is just kidding.
 

I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work on you. Normally when people start talking about mythical creatures as if they were real, I can safely say they're kidding. Apparently not the case with you.

caposkia wrote:
Just because you find the concept silly and irrational doesn't make it impossible... just look at the 'impossible' technology we use daily... the telephone, TV, cars that can travel 100's of miles in a few hours, etc.  

Aren't you the same person who said a demon-powered generator was a silly idea ? And now you're trying to use technology to make a point ? 

caposkia wrote:
Is it true that you will never accept anything that you don't know?  Here's a question... why are so many people convinced of a spiritual existence?  

Because fantasy can be comforting. 

caposkia wrote:
Alright, educate me... please reference scriptures so I can do the homework... if what you say is true, I will accept it.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_demonology#Appearance

They'll make a wiki for anything these days. 

caposkia wrote:
That's ok... there are others out there that if what you believe is really true, will convince me of such... So far however, the latter seems to be happening. 

Aaaaand here we go again : YOU're the one who believes in demons. You're laughing at yourself. 

caposkia wrote:
safer shores??? i feel like we haven't even left the parking lot yet.

We don't need to. You made a ridiculous claim for which you have no evidence. I don't even need to get out of my car.

caposkia wrote:
This is strangely close to a response I'd get from someone who is trying to avoid more dangerous waters. If it's so safe... it seems like we haven't been goign anywhere anyway, why the heasitation to go there?
 

You keep asking me questions I already answered : Because nonsense doesn't prove nonsense. Because fantasy isn't made real by more fantasy. 

And the danger isn't in not believing nonsense, it's in believing it, as the case you mentioned (remember it now ?) clearly proves.

caposkia wrote:
I'm not worried... as i see it... if you're right... I want to know.  I've been on this site for a long time with an open mind to everything everyone has presented to me
 

Your open mind seems to be firmly closed to some rather obvious facts. Remember who believes in demons and who doesn't ? Just checking.

caposkia wrote:
... strange how I'm still a believer.
 

Not really. Saying "I have an open mind" is a lot easier than actually having one.

caposkia wrote:
.. you may not believe that I've been accepting and researching everything that everyone is telling me... but then that's you're problem now isn't it?
 

Problem ? How is that my problem ? 

caposkia wrote:
I make that statement based on our conversation to this point... you're not one to easily accept anything anyone tells you no matter how much truth is rooted in it.
 

Again, give me the proof, and I'll accept it.

caposkia wrote:
so... ultimately... either demons exist by irrational proof... or they don't... interesting...

"Irrational proof" ? Just proof will do, thanks. And again, don't blame me for the ridiculousness of the things you believe in. 

caposkia wrote:
so there can't be any other way of investigating besides a deomon generator or a demon controlling device?
 

Hey, it may sound silly, but so did the telephone or those fast cars before they were invented, right ? 
 

caposkia wrote:
First can you reference where requested so I can look into it further?
 

You're actually going to try and make one now ? Good. About time.

caposkia wrote:
By the way, either buy me a mercedes, or admit that cars don't exist... Same type of request..

What do you think the result's going to be?  I'm willing to bet you either can't or won't buy me a mercedes.  So it'd be logical then for me to conclude that cars don't exist right?

why cars?  it's that obvious to me that demons exist and that irrational to me what you're asking for as far as proof or evidence.  

 

 

Nope, not even close. You keep comparing mythical creatures to things that actually exist, as if making a false analogy is going to make the mythical thing just pop into existence. Again, if you really don't understand why that doesn't work, please speak up.

But I can get you a test-drive if you want.

And you can't get me a go on one of those demon-controlling rings ? Not even for a few minutes ? Awww..

 

Anyway, yeah, read the whole post before responding. That way I might not have to repeat myself so often.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:No, the

blacklight915 wrote:

No, the second definition is fundamentally different from the first.

I'm looking at Supreme being vs. God... To me that seems the same, though if you look at "personal God" vs. supreme being, then I see the fundamental difference... I understand what you're saying.  I stand corrected in that case.

blacklight915 wrote:

You cannot be an atheistic theist--it's literally impossible.  

you saw the link as to why I said what I said though right?

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm pretty sure all non-believers fall under the category of 'atheism'. However, I suppose you could split believers into theists and deists...

It seems so.

blacklight915 wrote:

You know, caposkia, you've been awfully condescending in almost all your responses to Anonymouse...  You also seem to have a lot of misconceptions about how most non-believers think...

My conceptions about how non-believers think has been learned by being on this site... I also explicitly stated that it does not apply to all.  I would say those of my friends whom are not believers themselves have the general understanding of non-theism and aren't really atheistic.. I would also say that most non-believers are not athiest.   I believe we were focusing on atheism specifically right?

I tend to respond to the person in the way that they respond to me.  I have seen little effort from Anonymouse in the way of actually trying to have a serious conversation.  I have apologized to him for not taking him seriously when he said he was being serious.  I made a mistake there.  I'm used to people on here responding like him who actually have an adjenda to "prove me wrong" in any way they can, usually by irrational means.  Anonymouse seemed to be walking down that same path.

If my responses to anonymouse seemed condescending in any way, that was not intentional and I apologize to all and especially to anonymouse.  All in all, If anonymouse feels I'm being condecending, I'm sorry.  I mean all the respect in our conversations.  I will be more careful in my future posts to be sure my responses are not taken the wrong way.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:To

blacklight915 wrote:

To caposkia:

Is a demon a type of spirit?

yes

blacklight915 wrote:

If so, how are you so certain disembodied consciousnesses exist?

There are a lot of reliable witnesses with congruent stories, the near death stories with a lot of congruencies.  Biblical prophesy coming true in history, unexplainable phenomena congruent with spiritual influence, The aspect experiment.

blacklight915 wrote:

Do spirits leave ANY sort of clues behind when they interact with the physical/material world?

Clues as far as like finger prints or entrails?  Not that I'm aware of.  Interaction with the physical world that is reportable is usually witnessed by larger groups of people.  A spirit could knock a tree over in the middle of nowhere with no one around and anyone coming upon the tree could not deduce in any way that a spirit did it vs. any other being unless it used superreal force in the process.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you understand that not everything the Bible says is reliable?

reliable in what sense?  I understand that you can't look at it like a specific timeline with accurate dating.

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you understand that until there is a replicable way to test for the existence of spirits, studying them scientifically will be nearly impossible?

 

Of course.  Which it's why its' hard for scientific minds to wrap their heads around the concept.  Science is... right now, dependent on the physical.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm looking

caposkia wrote:

I'm looking at Supreme being vs. God... To me that seems the same, though if you look at "personal God" vs. supreme being, then I see the fundamental difference... I understand what you're saying.  I stand corrected in that case.

NO! The difference is "belief there are no gods" versus "lack of belief in gods"--the first declares the existence of god(s) to be impossible; the second does not. I say the second is more accurate because I don't know of any atheists who say it's impossible any sort of god exists--they're simply not convinced one actually does. Kind of like how Anonymouse is open to believing in demonic possession IF he's presented with sufficient evidence.

I'll try to go back and respond to everything else later; I just really wanted to clear up this whole definition thing...

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:To the

caposkia wrote:
To the contrary.

No, and you are about to demonstrate this by revealing you don't even know what "non-believers" are. 

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe learning is accepting things at face value.

Yes, you do. That's what believing in demons comes down to, no matter how you slice it. 

caposkia wrote:
 It's funny how many non-believers do that and then are shocked when I can't accept what they told me.

Ah yes, the old "it's funny how", followed by a misrepresentation of the facts trick. Haven't seen that one before. 

caposkia wrote:
So all this is based on one thread about exorcism?

There are more, if you want, if you like to read about what these incredibly cowardly people like to do to children and sick people, using their fantasies as an excuse.

caposkia wrote:
Not all exorcism stories are real...

None of them are. They have that in common. 

caposkia wrote:
Do you really associate everything by one occurence?

You really want more ? Okay, we had one posted on the board a while ago about one of these believers in demons who tortured his 13 year old nephew to death over the course of three days, and forced his nieces to assist him in torturing the "possessed" boy until he finally died from his injuries.

Want more ? Because we can do this all day. For years.

caposkia wrote:
My assumption about you is that you're smarter than that.

I don't need anyone's assumptions to be "smarter" than a person who believes in demons. 

caposkia wrote:

That's quite a generalization... there are over 5000 different denominations of Christianity in the United States alone, each thinking they're the only ones who have it completely right, how can you categories that into one view?  

There are also many who claim to be christian, yet don't walk the walk.  That would be the Christian worldview.  Most likely, the Christianity your'e most familiar with (hence world view)  

In today's world, there are "christians" and then there are those who follow Jesus Christ.  By definition Christians and those who follow Jesus Christ should be one and the same, but they're not.  Those who follow Christ still in many instances call themselves Christian because of what Christian really means, but they have a chore of trying to keep themselves from being categorized with the rest of Christiandom.  

Who will finally win the "real christian" title is something you'll have to fight out amongst yourselves, and also completely irrelevant to what's being discussed here.

But it works great as an excuse, of course. I think they even have a name for it nowadays. Not-a-real-scotsman something ? Man, so many of these things to keep track of. Can't you guys just stop using them ? Would be helpful.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:*Tip :

Anonymouse wrote:

*Tip : Since most of this reply consists of me being forced to repeat myself, try reading the whole reply before responding. It will save time.

Alright, did it.. 

Anonymouse wrote:

It remains to be seen if you actually learned something beyond more elaborate evasion tactics.

you make a lot of assumptions.  I hope assuming is not your truth.

Anonymouse wrote:

None taken, since I draw my conclusions exclusively from what you tell me. If you choose to describe your own words as ignorance, well, okay then.

I have not told you anything in our conversations.  We haven't gone anywhere.  How do you base conclusions on nothing?  I thought that's what you thought I was doing?

Anonymouse wrote:

The "angle" of reality is all both of us have to work with. It's your choice to pretend your imagination trumps reality. Pretty easy for me to debunk that. I've done it three times already. The trick is to make you realize that.  

If you ask people I've had extensive conversations with, they would tell you I am extremely open minded.   I tell everyone and I will tell you the same.  If you tell me something that goes against what I believe and can rationally and empirically back yourself up with it, i will accept it.  You have not done that.  Sorry. 

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh, and btw, that's really rich coming from a guy who offered up a hollywood movie as proof for "demonic possession"

sure, it was never based on a true story... and the fact that it was a movie automatically makes the story fiction.  No movies have ever been based on reality... ever...  Got me there.

Anonymouse wrote:

You cannot diagnose something that doesn't exist. 

thus again concluding based on nothing.... I'll get to more of that in a minute.

Anonymouse wrote:

We're talking about insane beliefs used as justification for murder through neglect and abuse. Just thought I'd remind you of that. 

no, i was talking about demonic possession.  I'm glad you brought that up though, it shows why we haven't been able to talk on the same level.

Anonymouse wrote:

We most certainly did. I asked for proof. You asked what I would accept. I told you. You asked again. I told you again. You asked yet again. I told you again. No proof, though. 

If you didn't get the clear hint by now, I'm looking for something more rational as far as proof you'd be looking for... what else... if that's all you'll accept as proof, I'm sorry.  You'll have to believe I'm delusional or believing in an imagination.  I won't lose sleep over it.  

Anonymouse wrote:

AGAIN, YOU are the one who believes in demons. NOT ME ! Why is this so hard to understand ? If I where the one believing in this nonsense, then OF COURSE you would be allowed to demand proof. 

ok, but YOU are the one predetermining the truth without rational investigation.  It also sounds like you want me to believe what you're telling me.  You are allowed to demand proof.  I have made it clear that what you were looking for is not rational for the subject at hand... you're stuck on that being the only possible proof for the existence of spirits... or more specifically, demons.  We can't go anywhere if you're stuck there.

Anonymouse wrote:

"What case" ? Wow. Are you seriously going to pretend now you don't remember mentioning the Emily Rose movie ? Incredible.

more assumptions again.  Do you see why I'm having a hard time taking you seriously?  You have an adjenda against my belief... you're not thinking rationally... do you see that?  You're reaching for anything that can defend your case without actually supporting it.  Despite the fact that I believe in demons, you dont'... both of us have a positive to prove, me, demons exist, you reality is not spiritual.

Anonymouse wrote:

And no, the only conclusion I've drawn is that you haven't given me any evidence yet. 

Be it that I told you that point blank, I hope you could conclude that... sorry... had to say it.

Anonymouse wrote:

Nope, my conclusion is that you used a fallacy to defend your position (and apparently you don't even know what this particular one even means). And again, I'm not the one who needs a defense here. YOU're the one who believes in demons. I seem to have to remind you of that quite a lot. It's as if you want to forget all about it. 

I'm remembering everything... dont' want to forget any of it... but I do want to move on to more rational grounds with this subject... are you ready to do that?

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh for the love of....I'm going to have to tell you again, aren't I ? Okay, please listen this time : YOU believe in demons. NOT ME. Where you get the evidence for this ridiculous claim is NOT MY PROBLEM. 

Anonymouse.  I am opening the door to you as far as what you would be looking for... i am more than willing to bring you any rational evidence you ask.. however, it has to be rational to the subject at hand... you can't ask for a wand from Harry Potter then tell me to conjure up a demon with it... just doesn't work that way.  Until you can accept that evidence you asked for is irrational, we have a problem.  

Also, I am not willing to "conjure up a demon" for you.  do you realize what we'd be messing with?  It's obvious you don't.  

Tell me strait out... Do you really care to hear evidences or are you truly bent on disproving it once and for all?  If you care at all, read posts on this thread besides your own.  You and I are apparently both type A and at this point likely won't get far.  I'm not going to give in to your fantasies without rationalities to grasp onto and you're not going to give into mine for the same reasons.  Yes, your fantasies are reality I get it... so are mine.  So who's right?

Anonymouse wrote:
 

We're not talking about factual science.

yea, I've noticed

Anonymouse wrote:

Well, it didn't tie in to anything. You're having enough trouble sticking to this conversation.

funny, I typically am the one that tries to bring people back to the conversation and... just like right now... am the one that tries to keep the conversation progressing.  

You've given an irrational ultimatum... either appease your fanatical evidence needs or admit that what I believe is fantasy.  So prove something is not fantasy with fantasy.

Anonymouse wrote:

It is not arrogant to question ridiculous beliefs, especially when they put other people in danger. 

Just to put it in perspective, believers believe that those who try to pull people from their walk with God are "putting them in danger"  Yours is physical, ours is spiritual.  So I question your belief just as you question mine.  Yes, again I have not forgotten that I am the one claiming demons exist, but you're claiming that it's obvious they don't... with such certainty in your understanding you must have something that supports this understanding... that's all I'm looking for from you. ...oh and lack of proof is not proof. I'm still willing to look into rational evidences.

Anonymouse wrote:

Reference it again, you mean. Sure : Solomon. Dude had a magic ring he used to control demons. 

He... did?.... What chapter and verse?  I was just reading through that with PJTS and that never once came up.  Don't remember reading it either... if you can't give chapter and verse, at least what book is it in? 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Also, I don't think you understand what you're asking for... It'd be like you asking to go into north Korea to get a soldier and try to control him... What do you think would happen to you?  What allegedly happened to Mr. Crowley?
 

What, again ? *deep sigh* Okay, fine, one more time : YOU're the one who believes in demons, not me. You. Not me. Where and how you get the evidence for your ridiculous claims is NOT MY PROBLEM. YOUR problem. NOT mine. Why ? Because YOU believe in demons. Not me.

good job ignoring that post.  I asked you a direct question.

Anonymouse wrote:

If I wasn't taking you seriously, I wouldn't talk to you, or I would simply believe anything you told me. And "the understanding of demons" you're so amused by comes straight from other people who believe this nonsense. If you want to apologize for offending somebody, do it to them. Because, guess what, I'M NOT THE ONE WHO BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE. YOU ARE.

Good to know.  Just because other people believe as you seem to think they do doesn't mean I believe the same way.  There are over 5000 different denominations in the USA alone.  Each thinks they have the right understanding... There are many different understandings of what demons/spriits etc are... there's only one right way.. I have worked hard to have a better understanding of all of it... i can't say that I am an expert, but i have been able to eliminate a lot of the fanatical stuff.

Anonymouse wrote:

If you really want to have an open-minded conversation about this, then you must know that you can't just demand that I accept something that can be explained rationally, as evidence for "demonic possession". 

I never once expected you to just accept anything I have said... however, I do expect you to accept your fault when told point blank that your expectation of evidence is irrational.  i have explained quite a few times now that it doesn't work that way.  

I honestly dont' think demons is where you should start...  It seems you have not investigated the topic thoroughly.

Anonymouse wrote:

Because fantasy can be comforting. 

yea, knowing demons exist is quite comforting... I'm so glad there's a being out there that has a passion to destroy my life.  How could I live without that!

Anonymouse wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_demonology#Appearance

They'll make a wiki for anything these days. 

Its true, seeing as the 2 Cor references were actually talking about people decieving and not specifically demons... it did reference to how Satan decieves and that people who do the same are his servants.  Beyond that, it all needed citation.  As far as what they look like, it's an artists depiction, though described by demonologists, it's still fanatical.   Artists also draw pictures of God, but no one alive has seen God.   How do you draw something you haven't seen?  In the greatest way your mind can to grab attention.  To put it into perspective, angels aren't typically small or friendly looking.  A Cherub is something monstrous and threatening looking as well.  They may look threatening, but they look like fallen angels.  That's what they are.   As 2 Cor was describing they work in decieving ways.  They will use others and if they need to appear, will appear different than they look.

What of the Solomon reference?  I was looking for Biblical reference be it that outside of scripture, there really isn't much in the way of information regarding these topics.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

We don't need to. You made a ridiculous claim for which you have no evidence. I don't even need to get out of my car.

Balls been in your court... I need to say it again.. your expectation of evidence was irrational... it doesn't work that way... Do you have another way of accepting it?  if not, then we'll have to talk about possibilities and why you would or would not accept that approach.  

Anonymouse wrote:

You keep asking me questions I already answered : Because nonsense doesn't prove nonsense. 

then why do you keep doing it that way?  

Anonymouse wrote:

Your open mind seems to be firmly closed to some rather obvious facts. Remember who believes in demons and who doesn't ? Just checking.

If these obvious facts include:  'you're the one that believes in fantasy' and what you believe is false... yea, it's hard to accept that as proof of my understanding being wrong.

Anonymouse wrote:

Not really. Saying "I have an open mind" is a lot easier than actually having one.

don't take my word for it... ask around.  You might want to take some self reflection on that statement as well.

Anonymouse wrote:

Problem ? How is that my problem ? 

You're the one that's so determined that I'm wrong and are convinced I don't have an open mind...  If you're not willing to confirm that and it bothers you, your problem.

Anonymouse wrote:

"Irrational proof" ? Just proof will do, thanks. And again, don't blame me for the ridiculousness of the things you believe in. 

What you asked for was irrational proof... I've asked you several times now for another approach and you've ignored that by saying: "don't blame me for the rediculousness of things you believe in"... or other quotes along that line.  I will say again, that is the approach of those who are not willing to change their mind... usually I get that from religious fanatics.

Anonymouse wrote:

Hey, it may sound silly, but so did the telephone or those fast cars before they were invented, right ? 

Those things actually exist now... I have yet to see your evidence for a demon controlling device... I will read through the samuel books and kings, but if you could give me a more specific Bible reference to that special ring, It'd make my job easier.

Anonymouse wrote:

Nope, not even close. You keep comparing mythical creatures to things that actually exist.

...and you're assuming that things that actually exist dont' include anything you're not aware of.  There are a lot of mythical stories based around many creatures, but it does not negate their existence... e.g. wolves. 

Anonymouse wrote:

But I can get you a test-drive if you want.

And you can't get me a go on one of those demon-controlling rings ? Not even for a few minutes ? Awww..

nope, if you can't buy me one, they don't exist.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Anyway, yeah, read the whole post before responding. That way I might not have to repeat myself so often.

well, I did.... and. uh... I have made many references to moving on... if you choose to repeat yourself, that was your choice... I have made it clear what you have told me isn't rational and sufficient for me to change what I know.  Your game here.  I follow your lead... that's what i've been doing from the beginning.  

Others have noticed how I respond to you.  I hope you saw my sincere apology if anything felt degrading to you... however, I hope you also notice how I talk to them in comparison to how I'm talking to you.  It is drastically different... wonder why that is???


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:NO! The

blacklight915 wrote:

NO! The difference is "belief there are no gods" versus "lack of belief in gods"--the first declares the existence of god(s) to be impossible; the second does not. I say the second is more accurate because I don't know of any atheists who say it's impossible any sort of god exists--they're simply not convinced one actually does. Kind of like how Anonymouse is open to believing in demonic possession IF he's presented with sufficient evidence.

I'll try to go back and respond to everything else later; I just really wanted to clear up this whole definition thing...

 

OH... I see what you're saying... That makes sense.  I was taking lack of belief under the same context as believing no gods exist.    That does clear it up.  Thanks.

 

*** edit **** btw, I don't believe anonymouse would accept sufficient evidence because the 'evidence' he is looking for is irrational.  The sufficience is subjective... I believe he would be one of those non-believers that say it's impossible for any sort of god to exist.  Everyone's willing to suggest that evidence would change their minds, but when it comes down to it, who actually would?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:No, and you

Antipatris wrote:

No, and you are about to demonstrate this by revealing you don't even know what "non-believers" are. 

If you're going to base that on the definition discussion, that's poor grounds... they're simply ones who don't believe... PERIOD.  As far as definitions are concerned, there are many categories and cross categories... you'll notice however, I was mistaken in understanding the difference between lack of belief and not believing.  That was a definition issue and not a misunderstanding of the people. 

Antipatris wrote:

Yes, you do. That's what believing in demons comes down to, no matter how you slice it. 

ah. ok.

Antipatris wrote:

Ah yes, the old "it's funny how", followed by a misrepresentation of the facts trick. Haven't seen that one before. 

Ah yes, the redirection of the context to avoid the point... Haven't seen that one before Eye-wink

Antipatris wrote:

There are more, if you want, if you like to read about what these incredibly cowardly people like to do to children and sick people, using their fantasies as an excuse.

I know what people are capable of and the avenues they use as an excuse for doing so...  I also know the truth.

Antipatris wrote:

None of them are. They have that in common. 

k

Antipatris wrote:

You really want more ? Okay, we had one posted on the board a while ago about one of these believers in demons who tortured his 13 year old nephew to death over the course of three days, and forced his nieces to assist him in torturing the "possessed" boy until he finally died from his injuries.

...and you think that's what demon possession is... hmph

Antipatris wrote:

Want more ? Because we can do this all day. For years.

Sure, have a ball... it won't get us anywhere, but go for it if it makes you feel better.

Antipatris wrote:

Who will finally win the "real christian" title is something you'll have to fight out amongst yourselves, and also completely irrelevant to what's being discussed here.

not at all.. it is quite relevant.  You're stuck on the idea that all possession stories are an excuse because that's all you know, yet those are not congruent with Biblical claims.  A real Christian is more of what was... and has been lost in Christiandom for many today.

Antipatris wrote:

But it works great as an excuse, of course. I think they even have a name for it nowadays. Not-a-real-scotsman something ? Man, so many of these things to keep track of. Can't you guys just stop using them ? Would be helpful.

well, let's put it this way... If you publicly burn the American flag and/or fly it below another flag, degrade the american people, try to assassinate government officials, bomb American buildings in the name of your deity,  Spit on national icons etc, yet hold a citizenship are you a true American?  

 

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:That's a very

caposkia wrote:

That's a very good point... but then does that mean that all spiritual beings have the ability to choose in that way?  Also, this would go back to God, we're specifically talking about angels, and the Bible specifically talks about in many instances; "open their eyes".  In other words, God is intentionally hiding the spiritual realm from our site unless He feels it necessary to see them.  Therefore I conclude that it's not so much the spirits choosing, rather Gods.

The more accessible the spiritual realm, the more believers your God would get. I thought your God wanted people to interact with Him?

 

The demon-controlling ring is in an Old Testament book called "The Testament of Solomon". While I can't find it in either of the Bibles I own, it is available to read online.

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:OH... I see

caposkia wrote:

OH... I see what you're saying... That makes sense.  I was taking lack of belief under the same context as believing no gods exist.    That does clear it up.  Thanks.

Oh...well...um...that's wonderful! I'm really, really glad you weren't intentionally misunderstanding.   And, you're quite welcome!

A pleasant, productive conversation with a Christian theist...?  I must have died and gone to heaven... 

Wait...before I get my hopes up...do you think I deserve eternal punishment?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:The more

blacklight915 wrote:

The more accessible the spiritual realm, the more believers your God would get. I thought your God wanted people to interact with Him?

God wants a relationship with people, not just the interaction.  If that were the case, sure, we should be able to see everything, but instead he wants us to make an effort to build a relationship with Him.    He wants everyone to know Him, but not because they feel like they have to, rather because they feel like they want to.  

blacklight915 wrote:

 

The demon-controlling ring is in an Old Testament book called "The Testament of Solomon". While I can't find it in either of the Bibles I own, it is available to read online.

 

So in other words, it's not a Biblical book.  I double checked my 1800's Bible.  I also checked the Orthodox Jewish Bible.  It's not in either of them.   It's not even a part of the apocrypha.  There's a reason why you can't find that book in the Bible's you own... it likely has been found to have many inconsistencies and/or false doctrines that are inconsistent with what Christians AND Jews would consider "truth". 

There are many books that reference to the Biblical God that are not in the Bible... There are reasons why they haven't been included...  Each to its own.

...after looking into it, this one claims to have first hand account, yet was found to be likely written over 1000 years after the date of occurence.  There are other books of the bible that have claimed to be eye-witness accounts and have been dated later as well, but those books have either been found to have been written by scribes who referenced to the eye-witnesses writings, or were written later in the witnesses life.  None who claimed to be eye-witness accounts have been written so far from the date of origin...

It's also suspicious to me that though it's understood to be an OT book, it was only found in Christian sources... the OT is not Christian, it's Jewish.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

OH... I see what you're saying... That makes sense.  I was taking lack of belief under the same context as believing no gods exist.    That does clear it up.  Thanks.

Oh...well...um...that's wonderful! I'm really, really glad you weren't intentionally misunderstanding.   And, you're quite welcome!

A pleasant, productive conversation with a Christian theist...?  I must have died and gone to heaven... 

Wait...before I get my hopes up...do you think I deserve eternal punishment?

 

well, i deserve it, I have not been able to follow God's laws appropriately.  Have you?  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:well, i

caposkia wrote:

well, i deserve it, I have not been able to follow God's laws appropriately.  Have you?

...hopes destroyed...   I don't really want to talk with you any more, caposkia, sorry... 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Alright, did

caposkia wrote:
Alright, did it.. 

Actually, what you did was repeat the same fallacies and add a few more. I'll try to group them all together as much as I can.

caposkia wrote:
you make a lot of assumptions.  I hope assuming is not your truth.

No need for hope. Facts enough for everybody.

caposkia wrote:
I have not told you anything in our conversations.  We haven't gone anywhere.

You sure do talk a lot for someone who's not telling anybody anything. But that's not an evasion tactic ? Right, my mistake.

caposkia wrote:
 How do you base conclusions on nothing?  I thought that's what you thought I was doing?

Since what you tell me is "nothing", according to you, why are you even talking ? Any other loops you'd like to go round-and-round in ? 

caposkia wrote:
If you ask people I've had extensive conversations with, they would tell you I am extremely open minded.   I tell everyone and I will tell you the same.  If you tell me something that goes against what I believe and can rationally and empirically back yourself up with it, i will accept it.  You have not done that.  Sorry.
 

Uhm, again, you're the one claiming demons exist, not me. We'll get into the "irrational evidence" bit right away, but before we do that, I thought I'd give you a chance to figure by yourself why that doesn't make sense....

No ? Okay, moving on then...

caposkia wrote:
sure, it was never based on a true story... and the fact that it was a movie automatically makes the story fiction.  No movies have ever been based on reality... ever...  Got me there.

I got you misrepresenting what I actually said, yes, but you do that so often, it's hardly worth pointing out. 

caposkia wrote:
thus again concluding based on nothing.... I'll get to more of that in a minute.
 

You're making assumptions. 

caposkia wrote:
no, i was talking about demonic possession.

Yeah, me too.

caposkia wrote:
I'm glad you brought that up though, it shows why we haven't been able to talk on the same level.

Again, assumptions. 

caposkia wrote:
If you didn't get the clear hint by now, I'm looking for something more rational as far as proof you'd be looking for... what else... if that's all you'll accept as proof, I'm sorry.  You'll have to believe I'm delusional or believing in an imagination.  I won't lose sleep over it.

Ah, here it is, the admission that you can't prove your claim. Thank you.

And now you're actually telling me what proof I should be looking for. You're looking for me to look for something else. Right.

Again, I'm going to give you a little time to figure out by yourself why that doesn't even begin to make sense...

Nothing ? Okay, I'll explain, but only once this time. If you make the same mistake again, I'll just refer to this :

If demons are real, then of course the proof I'm asking for is going to seem "irrational" to you. You'd be the first person in living history to produce such proof, so it's going to seem even a little more far-fetched than just "irrational".

But if they are real, which you claim, then it's possible for you to produce it, no matter how "irrational" it seems to you and everyone else. 

But since, you already admitted you can't, well, case closed. No proof for demons. 

caposkia wrote:
more assumptions again.

When you say "what case ?" , when we only mentioned one, and you were the one who brought it up, is it then really unfair to assume you forgot ?? Oh, okay then. I'm sorry I assumed you forgot which case when you said "what case". 

caposkia wrote:
Do you see why I'm having a hard time taking you seriously?

Yeah, I do. When you said "what case ?", I assumed you forgot which case. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

caposkia wrote:
You have an adjenda against my belief... you're not thinking rationally... do you see that?  You're reaching for anything that can defend your case without actually supporting it.

Yikes ! Apparently not. 

Well, I guess making assumptions is suddenly okay again. Oh, just about me, you mean ? Oh, okay.

caposkia wrote:
Despite the fact that I believe in demons, you dont'... both of us have a positive to prove, me, demons exist, you reality is not spiritual.

Uhm, yeah, this "spiritual reality" of yours, can you prove it exists anywhere besides your imagination ? I'm afraid we're both stuck in the same reality, sans demons.

caposkia wrote:
Anonymouse.  I am opening the door to you as far as what you would be looking for... i am more than willing to bring you any rational evidence you ask.. however, it has to be rational to the subject at hand... you can't ask for a wand from Harry Potter then tell me to conjure up a demon with it... just doesn't work that way.  Until you can accept that evidence you asked for is irrational, we have a problem.
 

Yeah, I addressed and solved that problem for you already. It's just below the underlined bit. 

caposkia wrote:
Also, I am not willing to "conjure up a demon" for you.  do you realize what we'd be messing with?  It's obvious you don't.
 

Since you haven't yet managed to prove these things even exist, fantasizing about what they can do is ridiculous. 

caposkia wrote:
Tell me strait out... Do you really care to hear evidences or are you truly bent on disproving it once and for all?  If you care at all, read posts on this thread besides your own.
 

So you put the evidence in another post ??? Why ? I'm the one who's been asking for it. Oh, you mean something you consider evidence, such as hollywood movies ? Okay, tell me where it is, and I'll explain why it doesn't prove a thing. I'd be very surprised if the person you were talking to hasn't already done that.

caposkia wrote:
You and I are apparently both type A and at this point likely won't get far.  I'm not going to give in to your fantasies without rationalities to grasp onto and you're not going to give into mine for the same reasons.  Yes, your fantasies are reality I get it... so are mine.  So who's right?
 

Huh ? What ? Your fantasies are reality ? Did you really just say that ? 

caposkia wrote:
funny, I typically am the one that tries to bring people back to the conversation and... just like right now... am the one that tries to keep the conversation progressing.
 

"Funny", followed by a misrepresentation of the facts. See, I do read other people's posts.

caposkia wrote:
You've given an irrational ultimatum... either appease your fanatical evidence needs or admit that what I believe is fantasy.  So prove something is not fantasy with fantasy.
 

See above, under the underlined quote. Oh, and I already explained why asking for evidence in those cases is about as far from "fanatical" as you can get. 

caposkia wrote:
Just to put it in perspective, believers believe that those who try to pull people from their walk with God are "putting them in danger"  Yours is physical, ours is spiritual.  So I question your belief just as you question mine.  Yes, again I have not forgotten that I am the one claiming demons exist, but you're claiming that it's obvious they don't... with such certainty in your understanding you must have something that supports this understanding... that's all I'm looking for from you. ...oh and lack of proof is not proof. I'm still willing to look into rational evidences.
 

Lack of proof is lack of proof. It's 100% accurate to say that there is no proof for "demonic possession". That's the sentence of mine that sparked this little mini-novel writing competition we're having now. Are you now saying you agree ? 

As for the rest of it, look above, below the underlined sentence. 

caposkia wrote:
He... did?.... What chapter and verse?  I was just reading through that with PJTS and that never once came up.  Don't remember reading it either... if you can't give chapter and verse, at least what book is it in? 

Someone else just told you, and you've already dismissed it. As if that even matters. Again, look above, under the underlined bit.

caposkia wrote:
good job ignoring that post.  I asked you a direct question. 

You were being serious ? Sorry, as mentioned before, it's almost impossible to tell. Well, I can easily ignore your hypothetical soldier and Mr Crowley too, as none of them offer proof for demons, which is what I'm after. Again, see above. You should be able to find it by now.

Oh, and if you're suggesting now you can't get me the proof because it would be too dangerous, then I'll happily explain to you again that you can't explain away one fantasy by making up another.  You can't start making up magical powers for your demons before you even prove they exist. 

caposkia wrote:
Good to know.  Just because other people believe as you seem to think they do doesn't mean I believe the same way.  There are over 5000 different denominations in the USA alone.  Each thinks they have the right understanding... There are many different understandings of what demons/spriits etc are... there's only one right way.. I have worked hard to have a better understanding of all of it... i can't say that I am an expert, but i have been able to eliminate a lot of the fanatical stuff. 

As long as you still believe they exist, your denomination doesn't matter.

caposkia wrote:
I never once expected you to just accept anything I have said... however, I do expect you to accept your fault when told point blank that your expectation of evidence is irrational.  i have explained quite a few times now that it doesn't work that way.  

And I just explained why it does. Again, see above.

caposkia wrote:
I honestly dont' think demons is where you should start...  It seems you have not investigated the topic thoroughly. 

Yes, that must be why I knew more about the case you mentioned than you did.

caposkia wrote:
yea, knowing demons exist is quite comforting... I'm so glad there's a being out there that has a passion to destroy my life.  How could I live without that!

When someone has allowed their religious delusions to lead them to murder a child or a sick person, it's indeed a lot more comforting to believe you were defending that person against supernatural evil, rather than just torturing them to death. It's indeed easier to live believing you were a hero, rather than know you are a murderer.

caposkia wrote:
Its true, seeing as the 2 Cor references were actually talking about people decieving and not specifically demons... it did reference to how Satan decieves and that people who do the same are his servants.  Beyond that, it all needed citation.  As far as what they look like, it's an artists depiction, though described by demonologists, it's still fanatical.   Artists also draw pictures of God, but no one alive has seen God.   How do you draw something you haven't seen?  In the greatest way your mind can to grab attention.  To put it into perspective, angels aren't typically small or friendly looking.  A Cherub is something monstrous and threatening looking as well.  They may look threatening, but they look like fallen angels.  That's what they are.   As 2 Cor was describing they work in decieving ways.  They will use others and if they need to appear, will appear different than they look.

Okay then, now you know where the look of the thing is based on. Glad to help.

caposkia wrote:
Balls been in your court... I need to say it again.. your expectation of evidence was irrational... it doesn't work that way... Do you have another way of accepting it?  if not, then we'll have to talk about possibilities and why you would or would not accept that approach.  

Again, see above.

caposkia wrote:
then why do you keep doing it that way? 

See above

caposkia wrote:
If these obvious facts include:  'you're the one that believes in fantasy' and what you believe is false... yea, it's hard to accept that as proof of my understanding being wrong.

The facts include, you believe in demons, and I don't.  I asked for proof. You didn't give me any. It really is that simple. (And the solution to the  "irrational proof" mystery is just below the underlined bit)

caposkia wrote:
don't take my word for it... ask around.

Okay. Hey Brian ! Got a question for ya...

caposkia wrote:
 You might want to take some self reflection on that statement as well.

Open 24/7 for proof. 

caposkia wrote:
You're the one that's so determined that I'm wrong and are convinced I don't have an open mind...  If you're not willing to confirm that and it bothers you, your problem.

All I said was it's easier to say "I have an open mind" than actually having one. This does not cause any problems for me. 

caposkia wrote:
What you asked for was irrational proof... I've asked you several times now for another approach and you've ignored that by saying: "don't blame me for the rediculousness of things you believe in"... or other quotes along that line.  I will say again, that is the approach of those who are not willing to change their mind... usually I get that from religious fanatics.

Again, look for the underlined bit. And I've dealt with the "fanatic" accusation enough times too.

caposkia wrote:
Those things actually exist now

YES ! By George, he's got it !

caposkia wrote:
... I have yet to see your evidence for a demon controlling device

Do I even have to say it ? The sad thing is, I probably do : You're the one who's supposed to produce the demon-controlling ring, not me. 

caposkia wrote:
... I will read through the samuel books and kings, but if you could give me a more specific Bible reference to that special ring, It'd make my job easier.

Been done. Dismissed by you. Explanation as to why that doesn't matter even a little, also done. Yup, we're almost there. Phew.

caposkia wrote:
...and you're assuming that things that actually exist dont' include anything you're not aware of.  There are a lot of mythical stories based around many creatures, but it does not negate their existence... e.g. wolves. 

Wrong again, I'm telling you I can prove a car is real without buying you one. This proof would consist of an actual confrontation between you and the car. Heck, you even get to drive it. I'll take you to a zoo to see some wolves.

caposkia wrote:
nope, if you can't buy me one, they don't exist.
 

So actually driving the car would fit your definition of "irrational evidence" ? And you still don't see why your "irrational evidence" argument doesn't make sense ? Really ?

caposkia wrote:
well, I did.... and. uh... I have made many references to moving on... if you choose to repeat yourself, that was your choice... I have made it clear what you have told me isn't rational and sufficient for me to change what I know.  Your game here.  I follow your lead... that's what i've been doing from the beginning.
 

I've tried to make it easy for you by underlining the most referenced explanation. Hope that helps. 

caposkia wrote:
Others have noticed how I respond to you.
 

Oh dear, I wouldn't get my hopes up about that. TLdr, you know..

caposkia wrote:
I hope you saw my sincere apology if anything felt degrading to you...
 

Degrading ? Don't be silly. 

caposkia wrote:
however, I hope you also notice how I talk to them in comparison to how I'm talking to you.  It is drastically different... wonder why that is???
 

I already explained why that is. Doesn't bother me, though. And rest assured, it doesn't bother them.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Oh dear, I

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh dear, I wouldn't get my hopes up about that. TLdr, you know..

Well...I've actually read every line of it...at least twice!

 

Anonymouse wrote:

And rest assured, it doesn't bother them.

Oh, umm...it actually does bother me...but that's only cuz I thought it bothered you...

I was also concerned for caposkia's feelings...until I realized he thinks I deserve eternal suffering... 

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If you're

caposkia wrote:
If you're going to base that on the definition discussion, that's poor grounds... they're simply ones who don't believe... PERIOD.  As far as definitions are concerned, there are many categories and cross categories... you'll notice however, I was mistaken in understanding the difference between lack of belief and not believing.  That was a definition issue and not a misunderstanding of the people.

Okay, so you do listen sometimes. So by learning you mean you just draw your own conclusions from what people are telling you, even if those conclusions are in direct contradiction to the facts that support what they are telling you ? 

caposkia wrote:
Ah yes, the redirection of the context to avoid the point... Haven't seen that one before Eye-wink

Yeah, I'm sure you can keep stacking misinterpretation upon misinterpretation ad infinitum. Glad I caught you doing that early. 

caposkia wrote:
I know what people are capable of and the avenues they use as an excuse for doing so...  I also know the truth.

"Demons exist" is what you call truth, isn't it ? That's exactly what they use as an excuse for their crimes.

caposkia wrote:
...and you think that's what demon possession is... hmph

No, I don't believe such a thing exists. You do. It's the same pattern as the Anneliese Michel case, which you believe is genuine. Religious people who believe in demons, decide one resides in a child/helpless person, and proceed to torture that person to death, to the tune of their theatrical make-believe rituals. Is it the degree of torture that makes a "real" demonic possession for you ? Because that is the only real difference here.

caposkia wrote:
Sure, have a ball... it won't get us anywhere, but go for it if it makes you feel better.

You asked if I really associated everything by one occurrence. Now you have your answer.

And if you really think this is a "ball", or somehow "makes me feel better", then I guess this is one of those times when you weren't listening.

caposkia wrote:
not at all.. it is quite relevant.  You're stuck on the idea that all possession stories are an excuse because that's all you know, yet those are not congruent with Biblical claims.  A real Christian is more of what was... and has been lost in Christiandom for many today.

No, what I am "stuck" with are people who believe "demon possessions" are real, and who want inflict their belief on other, defenseless people. What may or may not have happened in biblical times cannot be verified, so it's irrelevant. Worse than irrelevant. People will use those stories to strengthen their delusions, and feel even more justified to perform their sick rituals.

caposkia wrote:
well, let's put it this way... If you publicly burn the American flag and/or fly it below another flag, degrade the american people, try to assassinate government officials, bomb American buildings in the name of your deity,  Spit on national icons etc, yet hold a citizenship are you a true American?  

 Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you like. If you want to believe you can do all those things and still be a true American, then you can, and you will. I'm sorry, but your analogies never work. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:
Well...I've actually read every line of it...at least twice!

Dude, really ? Hey thanks, I appreciate that. Sorry it got so long.

 

blacklight915 wrote:
Oh, umm...it actually does bother me...but that's only cuz I thought it bothered you...

I was also concerned for caposkia's feelings..

Sweetheart, have I told you yet you are waaaay too nice ? Because someone should. Really, don't let this stuff get to you.

Anyway, I thought we were doing "good cop", "bad cop". You got him to answer questions I never even knew to ask.

 

blacklight915 wrote:
.until I realized he thinks I deserve eternal suffering... 
 

No worries. When he realizes that's a clincher for you, he'll water it down considerably.

This "eternal damnation" stuff becomes amazingly flexible when they realize it's losing them customers.

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Dude,

Anonymouse wrote:

Dude, really ? Hey thanks, I appreciate that. Sorry it got so long.

You're welcome!  The, uhhh--repetitious nature--of the conversation allows for quicker reading. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Sweetheart, have I told you yet you are waaaay too nice ? Because someone should. Really, don't let this stuff get to you.

Awww, thanks   you're so nice to me--it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

 

No worries. When he realizes that's a clincher for you, he'll water it down considerably.

This "eternal damnation" stuff becomes amazingly flexible when they realize it's losing them customers.

LOL, yeah...   Not so sure about caposkia, though. He seems rather convinced about what is real and not real in the supernatural/spiritual realm...

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

well, i deserve it, I have not been able to follow God's laws appropriately.  Have you?

...hopes destroyed...   I don't really want to talk with you any more, caposkia, sorry... 

 

So... you're saying you haven't?  I'm curious on why?  I understand why you'd want to stop here though.  I've enjoyed our conversation. ciao


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:caposkia

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Alright, did it.. 

Actually, what you did was repeat the same fallacies and add a few more. I'll try to group them all together as much as I can.

I follow your lead

Anonymouse wrote:

Since what you tell me is "nothing", according to you, why are you even talking ? Any other loops you'd like to go round-and-round in? 

I'm ready when you are to progress in the conversation

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
thus again concluding based on nothing.... I'll get to more of that in a minute.
 

You're making assumptions. 

Based on what you've told me so far... please... PLEASE... prove me wrong here.

Anonymouse wrote:

If demons are real, then of course the proof I'm asking for is going to seem "irrational" to you. You'd be the first person in living history to produce such proof, so it's going to seem even a little more far-fetched than just "irrational".

Let's take out the parts that talk about how it's going to seem to me and take your statement literally.... "If demons are real... ...You'd be the first person in living history to produce such proof..."  

Um... heh.. I'm sorry.  Maybe I'm way out in left field here... but... If demons are real... AND I'd be the first person in history to produce the proof you're asking for... doesn't that suggest that the proof you're asking for may just be irrational???

Anonymouse wrote:

But if they are real, which you claim, then it's possible for you to produce it, no matter how "irrational" it seems to you and everyone else. 

If demons are real... why would you automatically assume I have such power or connection to the demonic realm?

Anonymouse wrote:

But since, you already admitted you can't, well, case closed. No proof for demons. 

Right... still no Mercedes in my driveway... Case closed... No proof of cars existing.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Uhm, yeah, this "spiritual reality" of yours, can you prove it exists anywhere besides your imagination ? I'm afraid we're both stuck in the same reality, sans demons.

There is evidence all around... but instead of walking with you into a theological library, it might be easier for you to pick a rational means of proof and then we can go from there... it's illogical to ask for a demon to be brought to your presence...  It'd be more logical to maybe suggest... oh wait.. If I say that, then you're going to suggest that I'm telling you what you should accept for proof... so instead... why don't you tell me something rational that you'd accept... no, what you've asked for is not... for someone who claims that this reality doesn't exist... i don't believe you have a position to suggest what would be rational on the topic... I have explained that it doesn't work that way... If you've followed the other conversations on here.. You'll also see why your "magic demon ring" source is a poor reference to Biblical truth.  It doesn't work in the same way that punching holes in my car tires won't make my car fly.  

Anonymouse wrote:

So you put the evidence in another post ??? Why ? I'm the one who's been asking for it. Oh, you mean something you consider evidence, such as hollywood movies ? Okay, tell me where it is, and I'll explain why it doesn't prove a thing. I'd be very surprised if the person you were talking to hasn't already done that.

Just follow through the last page or so...  You have not been asking for much... You're stuck on your original request... which I've become a broken record about... if you're so sure about your position, why not try other approaches... you have nothing to lose right?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You and I are apparently both type A and at this point likely won't get far.  I'm not going to give in to your fantasies without rationalities to grasp onto and you're not going to give into mine for the same reasons.  Yes, your fantasies are reality I get it... so are mine.  So who's right?
 

Huh ? What ? Your fantasies are reality ? Did you really just say that ? 

Yes, I did just say 'your fantasies are reality'... reread it... I left it up there so you could read it carefully.

Anonymouse wrote:

"Funny", followed by a misrepresentation of the facts. See, I do read other people's posts.

right after you asked me what posts I was talking about???? ok.. so you read some... and select out of everything said the one thing that fits your ideals... are you sure you're not a religious nut?

Anonymouse wrote:

Someone else just told you, and you've already dismissed it. As if that even matters. Again, look above, under the underlined bit.

I replied to that.. recheck.  How do you feel about an alleged OT book only being found in Christian archives?

Anonymouse wrote:

You were being serious ? Sorry, as mentioned before, it's almost impossible to tell. Well, I can easily ignore your hypothetical soldier and Mr Crowley too, as none of them offer proof for demons, which is what I'm after. Again, see above. You should be able to find it by now.

Right you're after the answer, but aren't willing to do the footwork to get to it... good luck

Anonymouse wrote:

When someone has allowed their religious delusions to lead them to murder a child or a sick person, it's indeed a lot more comforting to believe you were defending that person against supernatural evil, rather than just torturing them to death. It's indeed easier to live believing you were a hero, rather than know you are a murderer.

Sure, that has happened... does it make something non-existent?  Let's put it in a different light... there are people out there who do just that, and justify themselves by saying there is no God so it doesn't matter... does that automatically validate God?  Of course not.  Seriously... I mean it's obvious you have an adjenda... don't need to assume when you write it as clear as day... anyone who cared to know would have tried a different approach by now.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Open 24/7 for proof. 

...now... any proof??? or your LOTR demon control ring.

Anonymouse wrote:

All I said was it's easier to say "I have an open mind" than actually having one. This does not cause any problems for me. 

ok good. No worries then

Anonymouse wrote:

Been done. Dismissed by you. Explanation as to why that doesn't matter even a little, also done. Yup, we're almost there. Phew.

you did not give me book and verse... someone else had to tell me... a book they admitted to not being able to find in their Bible... interesting

Anonymouse wrote:

Wrong again, I'm telling you I can prove a car is real without buying you one. This proof would consist of an actual confrontation between you and the car. Heck, you even get to drive it. I'll take you to a zoo to see some wolves.

Right... but you see, I'm playing; you, in this scenario... instead of opening my mind to the possibilities of obvious ways you can prove to me those things exist.. i'm stuck on the only way I see fit for accepting it...  Do you see where I'm going with this yet?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
nope, if you can't buy me one, they don't exist.
 

So actually driving the car would fit your definition of "irrational evidence" ? And you still don't see why your "irrational evidence" argument doesn't make sense ? Really ?

you still don't see that I'm taking your angle here??? really???

Anonymouse wrote:

Degrading ? Don't be silly. 

well, someone else said they felt that way about my posts, so I wanted to make sure you weren't feeling that way... Speaking of Brian, despite our differences in belief, we both agree that we could go out and have a beer together no problem... I'm not here to make enemies.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I was

blacklight915 wrote:

I was also concerned for caposkia's feelings...until I realized he thinks I deserve eternal suffering... 

 

oh wait a minute.. I should have read this first... I quote myself by saying that; "I deserve eternal punishment because I have been unable to keep God's Laws"  I then added a simple question... "Have you?"  How does me asking you that suggest that I was saying you deserve eternal punishment?... unless you are admitting that you're just like me.  and... I don't know why that would hurt your feelings...  Just because I deserve it doesn't mean I will have to endure it.  Same applies to you...

I understand we're done talking... I just felt I needed to say that.. sorry


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:So... you're

caposkia wrote:

So... you're saying you haven't?  I'm curious on why?

I don't need to say or not say anything--I'm already nearly certain you think everyone deserves hell because you think no one can "follow God's laws appropriately".

 

caposkia wrote:

I understand why you'd want to stop here though.

I sincerely doubt you have the slightest clue as to why I want to stop. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt--why do you think I want to stop now?

 

caposkia wrote:

I understand we're done talking... I just felt I needed to say that.. sorry

I said I don't want to talk--not that we're done talking. While I still don't want to talk, I feel I need to for at least a bit longer to help clear things up...

 

caposkia wrote:

there are people out there who do just that, and justify themselves by saying there is no God so it doesn't matter...

Ok, I'd really like some examples before I believe this...

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Okay, so

Antipatris wrote:

Okay, so you do listen sometimes. So by learning you mean you just draw your own conclusions from what people are telling you, even if those conclusions are in direct contradiction to the facts that support what they are telling you ? 

You're just searching for a flaw aren't you?  What really happened?  and dont' blame a post.

...and to answer you directly:  No .

Antipatris wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure you can keep stacking misinterpretation upon misinterpretation ad infinitum. Glad I caught you doing that early. 

no, I actually try to understand what you're saying and research the answer before replying if I understand... If I'm obviously misinterpreting, instead of jumping to conclusions that it's the way I work... why not clarify first?  If you hadn't noticed... it works with others.

Antipatris wrote:

"Demons exist" is what you call truth, isn't it ? That's exactly what they use as an excuse for their crimes.

no... demons just happens to be the topic at the moment in this thread.  Choice is the excuse for their crimes.

Antipatris wrote:

No, I don't believe such a thing exists. You do. It's the same pattern as the Anneliese Michel case, which you believe is genuine. Religious people who believe in demons, decide one resides in a child/helpless person, and proceed to torture that person to death, to the tune of their theatrical make-believe rituals. Is it the degree of torture that makes a "real" demonic possession for you ? Because that is the only real difference here.

I'm not aware of that case actually... and of all possession stories and exorcisms that I'm aware of, torture from other people to the possessed person is NOT part of the process.  

Antipatris wrote:

You asked if I really associated everything by one occurrence. Now you have your answer.

ok, thank you

Antipatris wrote:

And if you really think this is a "ball", or somehow "makes me feel better", then I guess this is one of those times when you weren't listening.

sorry

Antipatris wrote:

No, what I am "stuck" with are people who believe "demon possessions" are real, and who want inflict their belief on other, defenseless people. What may or may not have happened in biblical times cannot be verified, so it's irrelevant. Worse than irrelevant. People will use those stories to strengthen their delusions, and feel even more justified to perform their sick rituals.

I feel like you have a personal connection to this topic somehow... if that's going too far, I'm sorry. 

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
well, let's put it this way... If you publicly burn the American flag and/or fly it below another flag, degrade the american people, try to assassinate government officials, bomb American buildings in the name of your deity,  Spit on national icons etc, yet hold a citizenship are you a true American?  

 Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you like. If you want to believe you can do all those things and still be a true American, then you can, and you will. I'm sorry, but your analogies never work. 

actually, my followup with that would be that most people would deem that person unamerican... just as anyone who does not follow Jesus Christ as they should would be deemd unchristian despite what they call themselves.  Analogy works.  

You're right... the person can do all those things and still believe that they're a true american, but does them believing it make it true?  That is the question in that analogy.  Also I never claimed to be an analogy master, but I think I've made a clear point despite your efforts to avoid it.

Just to recap, this goes back to the association of such persons in question being true Christians.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I

blacklight915 wrote:

I sincerely doubt you have the slightest clue as to why I want to stop. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt--why do you think I want to stop now?

It's typically a hard place to reflect.  No one wants to hear that they deserve anything of such nature if they do.  To admit that one does is extremely difficult.  I was assuming that you answered the question yourself and by answering it have determined that you as well had not followed God's laws appropriately.  I shouldn't assume though.

Maybe.. and this is why I phrased it as a question, you're like Enoch and have found favor with God.  I also don't know you, so I can't make that call for you and I have not decided that you do or don't deserve eternal punishment.  Therefore, instead of making assumptions, why is it that you stopped?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

there are people out there who do just that, and justify themselves by saying there is no God so it doesn't matter...

Ok, I'd really like some examples before I believe this...

I can't find specific stories right now... i tried googling it.  I'll keep looking.  Is it so hard to believe that happens though?   What is stopping a person from deciding their own moral limits?