|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Money Isn't a False God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Now I fully expect you will plead willful ignorance yet again by claiming Asimov was an atheist. I have reconsidered asimov for several reasons.1) He was also Jewish. One cannot escape that anointing even if they claim atheism. 2) He was a skillful writer and knew how to tell a story. Thus I found the book and downloaded it for free. YOU and all of the Christian Cult of Ignorance make the error of placing SOURCE over content.
SOURCE is every bit as important as CONTENT when it comes to describing a God who is the Creator of all seen and unseen. That fact alone is the ultimate definition of SOURCE. Some may well argue (or at least assert) that humans are the SOURCE for all written material ever found. The argument can then focus on the CONTENT of the human character in one culture versus another. To dismiss SOURCE is to hand your belief over to science and make choosing the correct God a matter of probability and culture. I choose to reject this argument.My critics may rightfully claim that I am not being a good critical thinker and engaging in selective bias. I will plead guilty to that with no regret. jar writes: You have no clear understanding of reality. If, however, you think that all knowledge and understanding was built solely on human wisdom and acquired knowledge, you will tend to think in those terms. Science is but a tool. Critical thinking and the empirical method are recent developments and are not the holy grail. You dismiss reality and honesty and evidence and facts all in the name of your Willful Ignorance. I'm not simply on the same level as someone who believed in a flat earth or Santa Claus. I believe though cannot so far prove that I was strongly influenced by a SOURCE outside of human understanding. You always say that I cannot argue for the goodness or badness of this SOURCE or wheteher IT even exists as opposed to my having been influenced by a carny barker or a bad burrito. I consider your argument yet I never stop at it. Anyway, here is an excerpt I read from Asimovs Guide:
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE page 772 Am reading Asimov now. Your shaming worked. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given. "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: SOURCE is every bit as important as CONTENT when it comes to describing a God who is the Creator of all seen and unseen. That fact alone is the ultimate definition of SOURCE. I'm sorry but that is simply stupid Phat unless you can provide a reasoned argument to support why SOURCE is relevant at all.My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
But dont you see what you are doing? You are attempting to frame all of human understanding on the scientific method, a rather recent development. You are claiming infallibility using this method, even though the method itself is not infallible. You and ringo are attempting to trivialize belief with the assumption that no actual God exists. You are suggesting that some humans, armed with a methodology and critical thought discipline, can define the validity of the freewilled beliefs of others. Again, the mistake you make is assuming that no God exists. I reject your argument as well. And no, you cannot use your argument to prove me wrong. I have a free will and I have a brain the equal of any of yours.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: You are claiming infallibility using this method, even though the method itself is not infallible. That is simply not true Phat and if you had any respect for honesty you would acknowledge that fact. I have never claimed infallibility. The whole basis of the Scientific Method is an acknowledgement of fallibility; that EVERYTHING is subject to independent verification and conclusions must always be held tentatively and be subject to revision if new and additional evidence contradicts those conclusions. You like all of the rest of the CCoI simply willfully misrepresent the meaning of words and the positions that are presented to you from outside the CCoI.
Phat writes: Again, the mistake you make is assuming that no God exists. And for a second time in the same post you once again lie!My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
jar writes: I'm sorry but that is simply stupid Phat unless you can provide a reasoned argument to support why SOURCE is relevant at all. Are you suggesting that all gods are equally valid in the academy of ideas? If so, I laugh at you as the SOURCE of framing an argument. You claim to be a believer, yet you waffle out of it by declaring that you are most certainly wrong. In the context of your argument, being right--being correct is to pay homage to the SOURCE of your belief. Belief s not simply some human creed that we make up for you to join our secret tree-house club. Religion in general may well be a human construct, Christianity included, but in the club that I belong to, the validity of Jesus Christ being the Creator is more important than what good deeds the club does or what merit badges we earn. Granted our CONTENT is our Resume. We cannot simply profess belief in Jesus and use THAT as our sole Resume. GOD gave us a brain for a reason. And I can sorta see where this argument could go. You might ask me how I am so sure that my SOURCE is greater than I, arguing instead that humans make up their own gods and stories. Its a tough argument to beat, and you may have me on the ropes, but in the end I feel it is a matter of belief combined with actions. SOURCE combined with CONTENT. MLK once quoted a bedrock value for our people today:
quote:Perhaps you guys have a point in that Christianity and Christ as soley a SOURCE are not as important as the CONTENT of our character. And if so, I wont disagree, because for one thing I feel the Holy Spirit in that quote. "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sheesh.
You get close and then ruin it by saying something truly stupid like "I wont disagree, because for one thing I feel the Holy Spirit in that quote." You do not feel the Holy Spirit in that quote an if you had any respect for the truth you would admit you have never even been able to explain what the hell the Holy Spirit is or how you could "feel" it or taste it or test it.My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
I have never claimed infallibility. OK, im on a rant. But ringo throws down a gauntlet and challenges MY infallibility (being 100% certain of my belief) which I see as his insistence that I allow for doubt. I believe that if a man does not STAND for something he will FALL for anything. Thus I may well claim infallibility and exclusivity in Jesus Christ. You will again tell me to throw it away. Throw away my certainty or my illusion (delusion?) of certainty and infallibility. The problem is, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Hey, I am being honest. I can tell when something feels true. Granted I ascribe it to the Holy Spirit because I believe that Jesus Christ *is* the truth.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Read what YOU write Phat and actually think about it.
Phat writes: Granted I ascribe it to the Holy Spirit because I believe that Jesus Christ *is* the truth. Actually read that Phat. It has absolutely no meaning beyond you believing what you believe is fact. It is all what YOU create and there is no substance beyond that. AbE:
Phat writes: I can tell when something feels true. See above. You don't say "when something is supported by evidence" but rather "when something feels true". It is all simply a product of YOUR imagination, what you want to be true; it is all simply YOUR creation. Edited by jar, : see AbE:My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Hey, I am being honest. I can tell when something feels true. As can millions of other individuals, if not billions others exactly identical to your (109 -- "half" the world sees "billion" as 1012; refer to my large number names page). All of them being totally honest, all able to "tell when something feels true", all of them ascribing it to the "Holy Spirit" of whatever they believe is the absolute source of Truth. No different from you, so what the hell makes you and you alone so special all of a sudden? Some kind of Messiah complex maybe with your own omniscience?
Granted I ascribe it to the Holy Spirit because I believe that Jesus Christ *is* the truth. JHC as the source of truth? (why that middle intial of "H"? look at my research on that here) Or Shiva? Or Horus? Or Ahura Mazda? But why should the Ultimate Source ever matter, since you are being fed everything through an intermediary anyway, the Holy Spirit. The credence that you give to the Holy Spirit is solely because of you happen to believe that, which is the basic definition of the gullibility of the victim of a confidence (AKA "bunko") crime: placing his trust where it most definitely did not belong. And what kind of "straight and consistent story" has that "Holy Spirit" ever given out? None whatsoever by all appearances. Over and over again from all the "true Christians" I've encountered (at least all the ones, the rare few, who ever tried to carry on something even remotely resembling a discussion) have pointed out that they are all guided by the Holy Spirit to the proper interpretation of Scripture. So why has that "Holy Spirit" handed out so many different and conflicting interpretations so as to create so many different and warring denominations? Why? And yet again, so what makes you so fracking special?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
You are attempting to frame all of human understanding on the scientific method, a rather recent development. Oh, I understand that quite well. Science has shown itself, even in its fledgling infancy, to have explanatory powers no other philosophy can begin to approach let alone match.
You are claiming infallibility using this method, even though the method itself is not infallible. Phat, you've been around these parts long enough to know science claims no such thing. What we claim is best evidence and the preponderance of the evidence. Can you match that?
You and ringo are attempting to trivialize belief with the assumption that no actual God exists. I won't try to speak for ringo who speaks very well for himself, but I for one do not wish to trivialize your god or its existence. I want to kill your god. I don't want the idea of your god trivialized, I want it extinct ... extinctified ... extincticated.
You are suggesting that some humans, armed with a methodology and critical thought discipline, can define the validity of the freewilled beliefs of others. Yep. Or at least point out where their errors lay and give them the knowledge and the tools to correct their thinking. If you are suggesting I want to force the situation on society, yah, that might fit my emotional state but it won't work. Evolution (fast, sped-up, escalated) not revolution.
I have a free will and I have a brain the equal of any of yours. Absolutely. I assume your brain operates well within the bell curve of human normal as does mine. But your brain has a couple screws loose in the circuitry defining your god. It seems disconnected from the critical logic regions which seem to operate just fine in other realms knocking around in there. It's hard going but I'm still working on you. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2341 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.9 |
You have no clear understanding of reality.
says the guy who believes in magic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No, that's not what I'm trying to argue. I haven't said a word about probability. What you are trying to argue is that a free will decision to believe is based on probability rather than communion. I'm pointing out that if you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong, then you are claiming to be infallible - because that is the definition of infallible, the inability to be wrong. "Communion" doesn't enter into it. Jesus' ability to speak to you infallibly is not related to your ability to understand infallibly.
Phat writes:
I couldn't care less what you buy. I'm just pointing out the sheer stupidity of your theology in the hope that some lurker won't be fooled by you. Feel free to stand on that argument till the cows come home but there is a 100% chance that im not buying it."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Nope. I have never "assumed" that no actual God exists. I'm just pointing out that the God that YOU have made up makes no sense. It is inconsistent with your own source, the Bible. And if it did exist, it would be unworthy of communion with humans.
You and ringo are attempting to trivialize belief with the assumption that no actual God exists. Phat writes: You are suggesting that some humans, armed with a methodology and critical thought discipline, can define the validity of the freewilled beliefs of others. Well, of course they can. YOU define the validity of other people's beliefs based on nothing but your prejudice. Why can't people define the validity of YOUR belief based on reality?
Phat writes:
But you're using it wrong. I have a free will and I have a brain the equal of any of yours."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Well, that's what the word means.
But ringo throws down a gauntlet and challenges MY infallibility (being 100% certain of my belief) which I see as his insistence that I allow for doubt. Phat writes:
You're the one who falls for the nonsense that the apologists spew. You should probably leave that statement stuck on your bumper where it belongs.
I believe that if a man does not STAND for something he will FALL for anything. Phat writes:
So you DO claim to be infallible. Why did you deny it for so long?
Thus I may well claim infallibility and exclusivity in Jesus Christ. Phat writes:
It's the same thing. Granted I can question but I shall not doubt."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024