- This topic is empty.
- Posts
the above was in reference to this:
Quote It is the very best thing I have to offer, and it is the essence of the progress made by humanity. You can be 99.9% sure, but once you are 100% sure then you are intellectually dead. Oh, and this appears to be solid proof, that stu is, according to his own reasoning, and his own words, “intellectually dead.”
Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:08) Oh, and this appears to be solid proof, that stu is, according to his own reasoning, and his own words, “intellectually dead.”
Please explain how?Stuart
Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:06) stu, does the existence of science or the ability to reason and make progress negate the existence of God? Do any of the known laws of science negate the existence of God?
Yet, you are 100% certain there is no God.
I asked if you were an agnostic. You eventually decided you were an “athiest.” An athiest is someone who believes (100%) there is no God. An agnostic is someone who believes they can't be sure.
Then, according to your words and beliefs, what are we to conclude?
This is how.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 07 2008,16:57) Hi Nick Quote You obviously have read the bible and believe from it of the existence of Jesus and Paul. So if the records are true these records speak of healings and resurrections and deliverances.
I do not accept the bible as a reason for believing that Jesus or Paul existed. It is tenuous at best to believe in the existence of either, however, perhaps I can be just convinced by the fleetingly ambiguous mention in the heavily meddled-with writing of Josephus. It’s a close thing.Quote So it is these aspects of the records that you choke on?
There’s no choking, only laughing. The bible is a work of historical fiction.Quote You hear the words but find inconsistencies in them from your viewpoint?
No, I question the motives of those who wrote it, especially in the light of the changes that early christians made to the records written by non-christian contemporaries.Quote Perhaps children would be amazed at what is recorded and they would believe?
We protect children from tobacco, alcohol, pornography and gambling. Perhaps children should be also protected from religion until they are able to think critically about whether they find any truth in it.Quote If you accept the record of Jesus and Paul but cannot agree with their teachings then since they had their works attested to by God in miracles you should be able to tell of of even greater things done through you.
This is where you descend into fantasy. This is all make-believe. Why do you have to swallow the Pauline fictions? Can’t you just accept that Jesus (probably, if he existed and was reported accurately) had some wise observations to make about human nature, without having to inflate his status to the supernatural and make him the hammer with which to beat other people over the head?Quote We hope you ministry of doubt and disbelief is not all you can offer.
It is the very best thing I have to offer, and it is the essence of the progress made by humanity. You can be 99.9% sure, but once you are 100% sure then you are intellectually dead.Stuart
The last sentence of this post.Hi David
OK, I read backwards and found this:
Quote stu, does the existence of science or the ability to reason and make progress negate the existence of God?
No.Quote Do any of the known laws of science negate the existence of God?
No, science can’t prove a negative.Quote Yet, you are 100% certain there is no God.
No, I am not.Quote And I asked if you were an agnostic. You eventually decided you were an “athiest.” An athiest is someone who believes (100%) there is no God.
If you read back over my posts you will see that I am a philosophical agnostic and pragmatically an atheist. There is always open the possibility of gods, but for all practical purposes they do not exist.
I'm sure there are thousands of gods you reject even though you cannot prove they don't exist.Stuart
Quote If you read back over my posts you will see that I am a philosophical agnostic and pragmatically an atheist. I was having a conversation with you once and you seemed to be in a corner where admitting you were an agnostic didn't suit you so you said: “Fine, I'm an atheist.”
So does it change when it suits you then? Is that what you're saying?If you are not truly an atheist (which I find insanely hard to believe based only on every word you've said) then I apologize, and you admit you just can't be sure.
If you are an atheist (which every word seems to prove) then you are “intellectually dead.”
It's tricky.
You don't want to be either. So you claim to be both. Brilliant. But unfair and confusing.
Check the box that applies:
Athiest.
Agnostic.Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:23) Quote If you read back over my posts you will see that I am a philosophical agnostic and pragmatically an atheist. I was having a conversation with you once and you seemed to be in a corner where admitting you were an agnostic didn't suit you so you said: “Fine, I'm an atheist.”
So does it change when it suits you then? Is that what you're saying?If you are not truly an atheist (which I find insanely hard to believe based only on every word you've said) then I apologize, and you admit you just can't be sure.
If you are an atheist (which every word seems to prove) then you are “intellectually dead.”
It's tricky.
You don't want to be either. So you claim to be both. Brilliant. But unfair and confusing.
Check the box that applies:
Athiest.
Agnostic.
I've already explained how I see it, and I'm sorry if I don't fit into your prejudice. The principle of agnosticsm and the practice of atheism work very well together.Stuart
So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
Anyway, as I was saying, if you believe in what you “practice”–athiesm…then you are intellectually dead, according to your statements.
“atheism”–the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
This definition doesn't say that you believe 99.9% that there is not God. It says you believe there is no God, in other words, 100.00%.What are we to conclude, but that you are intellectually dead?
I guess we could add confused or purposely confusing.
Agnosticism: The truth value of God is unknown or unknowable.
If something is unknowable, then we can't know that it doesn't exist. You say you practice “atheism” meaning I suppose you live your life as though there was no God. I understand that.
But philisophically, you believe that any truth about God or if he exists is unknowable.
But that doesn't make sense. Because you mock him quite a bit. This would make you … not smart…if you really weren't sure if he existed, yet took your chances with such words.
So, either you are….not wise…with your words or actions toward someone you are not sure exists or you are just keeping your options open for whatever argument suits you.Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:31) So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
His answer would be No.But he acknowledges the possiblity he is wrong.
His TRUE view is agnostic.
But is life application of the subject is athiestic since he sees no evidence to put for the effort of belief.
Not trying to answer for Stu, just displaying that some of us understand what he means and don't try to trap him by arguing over the definition of words and semantics.
Hi David
Quote So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
Unsure. 0.000000000000000000000000000001% unsure.
99.9999999999999999999999999999% sure. (I hope they add up to 100%!)Quote Anyway, as I was saying, if you believe in what you “practice”–athiesm…then you are intellectually dead, according to your statements. “atheism”–the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
This definition doesn't say that you believe 99.9% that there is not God. It says you believe there is no God, in other words, 100.00%.
It just says I don’t believe there is a god. You can make that conclusion for yourself based on the evidence, and based on evidence it is the only reasonable conclusion. You can also be honest and say that you cannot disprove god. The two are perfectly consistent. I have never said I am 100.00% sure there is no god. As you say atheism is a doctrine, but it is not like the 100.00% doctrines you are used to.Quote What are we to conclude, but that you are intellectually dead? I guess we could add confused or purposely confusing.
Hmmm. I detect the faintest smell of hypocrisy.Quote Agnosticism: The truth value of God is unknown or unknowable.
If something is unknowable, then we can't know that it doesn't exist. You say you practice “atheism” meaning I suppose you live your life as though there was no God. I understand that.
But philisophically, you believe that any truth about God or if he exists is unknowable.
But that doesn't make sense. Because you mock him quite a bit. This would make you … not smart…if you really weren't sure if he existed, yet took your chances with such words.
So, either you are….not wise…with your words or actions toward someone you are not sure exists or you are just keeping your options open for whatever argument suits you.
No, I reject utterly your restatement of Pascal’s Wager. Further I challenge you on your belief in Zeus, or lack of it.Stuart
Seems IF you listen to the scholars both Old and New Testaments have been edited.
So were those who did the editing inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Well no matter because if you are guided by the Spirit as scripture says then even after we go through the flesh we will gradually come to the truth. As we GROW and become as Children leaving the Harlot's teachings we accept the truth MORE easily.
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,17:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:31) So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
His answer would be No.But he acknowledges the possiblity he is wrong.
His TRUE view is agnostic.
But is life application of the subject is athiestic since he sees no evidence to put for the effort of belief.
Not trying to answer for Stu, just displaying that some of us understand what he means and don't try to trap him by arguing over the definition of words and semantics.
Thank you for representing me accurately!I wonder if you agree further, perhaps you don't, that the christian apologetics industry is very concerned with bending the meanings of words left and right to dodge the challenges made regarding what christian tenets actually say?
I am thinking in particular of words like faith, evidence and proof.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2008,14:12) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,17:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:31) So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
His answer would be No.But he acknowledges the possiblity he is wrong.
His TRUE view is agnostic.
But is life application of the subject is athiestic since he sees no evidence to put for the effort of belief.
Not trying to answer for Stu, just displaying that some of us understand what he means and don't try to trap him by arguing over the definition of words and semantics.
Thank you for representing me accurately!I wonder if you agree further, perhaps you don't, that the christian apologetics industry is very concerned with bending the meanings of words left and right to dodge the challenges made regarding what christian tenets actually say?
I am thinking in particular of words like faith, evidence and proof.
Stuart
Yes I agree Stu.What bothers me the most is that Jesus taught absolute honesty and truth should be traits of his followers.
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 08 2008,14:45) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2008,14:12) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,17:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:31) So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
His answer would be No.But he acknowledges the possiblity he is wrong.
His TRUE view is agnostic.
But is life application of the subject is athiestic since he sees no evidence to put for the effort of belief.
Not trying to answer for Stu, just displaying that some of us understand what he means and don't try to trap him by arguing over the definition of words and semantics.
Thank you for representing me accurately!I wonder if you agree further, perhaps you don't, that the christian apologetics industry is very concerned with bending the meanings of words left and right to dodge the challenges made regarding what christian tenets actually say?
I am thinking in particular of words like faith, evidence and proof.
Stuart
Yes I agree Stu.What bothers me the most is that Jesus taught absolute honesty and truth should be traits of his followers.
A christian who follows Jesus!What a rare thing you are here.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2008,14:46) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 08 2008,14:45) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2008,14:12) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,17:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:31) So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
His answer would be No.But he acknowledges the possiblity he is wrong.
His TRUE view is agnostic.
But is life application of the subject is athiestic since he sees no evidence to put for the effort of belief.
Not trying to answer for Stu, just displaying that some of us understand what he means and don't try to trap him by arguing over the definition of words and semantics.
Thank you for representing me accurately!I wonder if you agree further, perhaps you don't, that the christian apologetics industry is very concerned with bending the meanings of words left and right to dodge the challenges made regarding what christian tenets actually say?
I am thinking in particular of words like faith, evidence and proof.
Stuart
Yes I agree Stu.What bothers me the most is that Jesus taught absolute honesty and truth should be traits of his followers.
A christian who follows Jesus!What a rare thing you are here.
Stuart
A follower of The Way.
(at least as closely as I can philosophically speaking).Pauline scismatics where the ones called christians.
It is so much easier than trying to say I am a “real” christian.
I am just one trying to follow the teachings of who I feel is the greatest teacher who ever lived and his God the greatest view of God ever held.
Love the universal Law and the Great Spirit that sustains everything positive and good.
So if someone who is 100% sure of something is “intellectually dead” what is someone who is: “99.9999999999999999999999999999% sure”?
I would argue that if someone is 100% sure is intellectually dead, then someone who is 99.9999999999999999999999999999% sure, is much the same.
In my mind an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God.
And an agnostic is someone who believes he can't be sure.Even if you're .0000000000000000001 % unsure, then you are….unsure.
I only began this silly line of comments when stu, who is for all practical purposes, an atheist who is extraordinary close to 100% sure that there is no God, said that anyone who is 100% sure of something is “intellectually dead.”
It seemed funny to me that he would say that, being so sure there is no God, and hence implying that about himself.
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 08 2008,15:03) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2008,14:46) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 08 2008,14:45) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 08 2008,14:12) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,17:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 07 2008,17:31) So if someone says: “Do you believe in God” and it's a “Yes” or “no” or “unsure” choice, your answer would be…
His answer would be No.But he acknowledges the possiblity he is wrong.
His TRUE view is agnostic.
But is life application of the subject is athiestic since he sees no evidence to put for the effort of belief.
Not trying to answer for Stu, just displaying that some of us understand what he means and don't try to trap him by arguing over the definition of words and semantics.
Thank you for representing me accurately!I wonder if you agree further, perhaps you don't, that the christian apologetics industry is very concerned with bending the meanings of words left and right to dodge the challenges made regarding what christian tenets actually say?
I am thinking in particular of words like faith, evidence and proof.
Stuart
Yes I agree Stu.What bothers me the most is that Jesus taught absolute honesty and truth should be traits of his followers.
A christian who follows Jesus!What a rare thing you are here.
Stuart
A follower of The Way.
(at least as closely as I can philosophically speaking).Pauline scismatics where the ones called christians.
It is so much easier than trying to say I am a “real” christian.
I am just one trying to follow the teachings of who I feel is the greatest teacher who ever lived and his God the greatest view of God ever held.
Love the universal Law and the Great Spirit that sustains everything positive and good.
Hi Sol,
If you knew Christ you would know him in Paul.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
