General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 6842 times

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2011, 02:18:46 pm »
Composer wrote:
Quote from: mwalimu
 
Quote from: Composer

I was responding to mwalimu's ongoing false claims -

mwalimu wrote -

It is blasphemy to spread the LIES about Jesus being some of sort of Divine weakling who would tolerate and even indulge evil! His Words and Actions eloquently expressed the EXACT OPPOSITE! He was fair but stern!

Composer responded: -

Jesus the biblical fraud. (Part 1.)

The earliest Orthodox Jews (Pharisees & Sadducees) recognised from their TORAH (First 5 books of the bible), the fraudulent claims of this biblical Jesus.
 
The Christian misunderstanding is that the messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed to be a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin.

But we are taught in this proven self contradicting bible story book that no one can die for the sins of another. -

In Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV) it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 1.)
 
cf.
 
Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET story book
 
This was later confirmed by -
 
Ezekiel 18:20 RSV
"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)  

More so -

Jews correctly also, do not believe in original sin.

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin simply states that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. Every human being dies because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and for their sin, all humans are punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them IMmortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become IMmortal, then they were created mortal to begin with. They did not bring Death into the world, and we don't die because they sinned. As a matter of Biblical fact, the answer to Question One shows that one person cannot die as the punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created. That is why God told the animals, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. God also told the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 5.)




I can indeed also start a new thread about this if you wish?



mwalimu wrote:  
This is just DRIVEL - but I have no time to address it in detail now. I'll come to it later.

So far the DRIVEL is exclusively ALL YOURS deary!

Better luck IF you do return and try later and we'll see if you fair any better next time. LOL!







I'm NOT the one claiming that SH*T JUST HAPPENS - FOR NO REASON, dolt! That's YOU and your fellow atheistic boneheads! If that is not DRIVEL, what is? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

1

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2011, 02:21:43 pm »
saibomb wrote: It interests me as to how many atheists, rather than being happy for Digitalos, are attacking his faith.

"I don't know why you have to give credit to God whahah".

NO, you do need to give credit to God. He created the world, he has given us this wonderful opportunity to experience life - and He is the reason why donating anything at all makes sense. So God DOES deserve all the credit in the world. Only arrogance could possibly keep someone from seeing this.


If one sleeps with chickens one's bound to acquire the odour of chicken sh*t! Digitalos has chosen to embrace atheists, so......!
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

2

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2011, 05:28:11 pm »
saibomb wrote: It interests me as to how many atheists, rather than being happy for Digitalos, are attacking his faith.
Oh it interests you does it? I think what's interesting is the presumption that "atheists" (how many?) are "unhappy" (does asking questions make you unhappy?) and are attacking (because clearly asking questions, wanting to learn about other worldviews is the same as attacking).

saibomb wrote:
"I don't know why you have to give credit to God whahah".
Excellent rebuttal I can see now why I've been so wrong. Let me write that down.

saibomb wrote:
NO, you do need to give credit to God.
That's your belief.


He created the world, he has given us this wonderful opportunity to experience life.

That's your belief.

saibomb wrote: He is the reason why donating anything at all makes sense.
If you think without God there can be no good, then no wonder you're a Christian and I think I can safely say your worldview is based on ignorance.

saibomb wrote: Only arrogance could possibly keep someone from seeing this.
You are closing yourself off from possibility of reasonable scrutiny of your worldview. Insecure much?

My advice, don't weigh into a discussion by painting everyone who doesn't share your view as arrogant, complaining, hostile, deluded and shortsighted.


3

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2011, 05:56:33 pm »
The US ranks fifth in charitable aid among 153 countries that include 95% of the world’s population.


Although on the chart it appears fifth, my statement was relevant to monetary matters - where USA does not appear fifth.

If one compares total amounts, the USA does not rank the lowest, but in fact ranks the highest


Not on the very chart you previously linked to. On that it's behind countries such as Malta, Iceland and Qatar - although interestingly a lot more than France, (learn something new every day).

Still, I suppose it's neither here nor there given that I can't remember what we were talking about.

4

Composer

  • **
  • 858 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2011, 06:31:22 pm »
mwalimu wrote:  
Quote from: Composer
Quote from: mwalimu
 
Quote from: Composer

I was responding to mwalimu's ongoing false claims -

mwalimu wrote -

It is blasphemy to spread the LIES about Jesus being some of sort of Divine weakling who would tolerate and even indulge evil! His Words and Actions eloquently expressed the EXACT OPPOSITE! He was fair but stern!

Composer responded: -

Jesus the biblical fraud. (Part 1.)

The earliest Orthodox Jews (Pharisees & Sadducees) recognised from their TORAH (First 5 books of the bible), the fraudulent claims of this biblical Jesus.
 
The Christian misunderstanding is that the messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed to be a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin.

But we are taught in this proven self contradicting bible story book that no one can die for the sins of another. -

In Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV) it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 1.)
 
cf.
 
Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET story book
 
This was later confirmed by -
 
Ezekiel 18:20 RSV
"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)  

More so -

Jews correctly also, do not believe in original sin.

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin simply states that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. Every human being dies because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and for their sin, all humans are punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them IMmortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become IMmortal, then they were created mortal to begin with. They did not bring Death into the world, and we don't die because they sinned. As a matter of Biblical fact, the answer to Question One shows that one person cannot die as the punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created. That is why God told the animals, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. God also told the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 5.)




I can indeed also start a new thread about this if you wish?



mwalimu wrote:  
This is just DRIVEL - but I have no time to address it in detail now. I'll come to it later.

So far the DRIVEL is exclusively ALL YOURS deary!

Better luck IF you do return and try later and we'll see if you fair any better next time. LOL!






mwalimu wrote:   I'm NOT the one claiming that SH*T JUST HAPPENS - FOR NO REASON, dolt!

Your alleged story book god is the cause! -

. . . . all things were created by  him,  and   for   him : (Col. 1:16) KJV story book (LOL!)

mwalimu wrote:   That's YOU and your fellow atheistic boneheads! If that is not DRIVEL, what is? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm NOT an atheist! - Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I believe in some form of Intelligent Designer / god for want of a better word, however it is unworthy of my worship and especially unworthy is the alleged trinitarian one! -

Meanwhile you have failed to legitimately refute a single story book based fact I presented in the above Post.
-    NT size=3 face=Arial>Jesus the biblical fraud. (Part 1.)

Better luck next time!




Composer (Successful religion buster)

5

lancia

  • ****
  • 6172 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2011, 07:14:14 pm »
Snakeystew wrote:
Not on the very chart you previously linked to. On that it's behind countries such as Malta, Iceland and Qatar - although interestingly a lot more than France, (learn something new every day).

But that very chart, the first chart referred to, (i.e., the World Giving Index) is based on a per capita, not a total, expenditure, where US ranks fifth out of 153 countries, as I said.

The ODA index chart (the second chart referred to) measures total expenditure, and here US ranks first, as I said.

Still, I suppose it's neither here nor there given that I can't remember what we were talking about.

I was responding to your ancillary statement, “The US military has an annual budget of a couple of hundred billion $, whereas the annual charity coming out of the US is the lowest of all industrial nations.”


6

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2011, 07:31:54 pm »

But that very chart, the first chart referred to, (i.e., the World Giving Index) is based on a per capita, not a total, expenditure, where US ranks fifth out of 153 countries, as I said.

As a percentage, not fifth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries



7

lancia

  • ****
  • 6172 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #52 on: January 18, 2011, 11:01:13 pm »
Snakeystew wrote:
As a percentage, not fifth:

But you were originally contrasting the total amount annually spent on defense (i.e., “The US military has an annual budget of a couple of hundred billion $”) with the “annual charity coming out of the US.” The appropriate measure of charity, following your lead, then would seem to involve the total amount annually spent on charity, and by that measure, the US is not last as you earlier said, but first.

Now, many other measures of charity are possible, e.g., those that divide charity amount by some denominator like Gross National Income, such as in your link, or sample size, such as in the World Giving Index that I presented earlier. But neither of these indices we presented shows the US to be last. And neither seems appropriate for the sort of contrast you were making with the annual budget of the US military, which is a total amount.


8

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2011, 11:20:33 pm »
“annual charity coming out of the US.” The appropriate measure of charity, following your lead, then would seem to involve the total amount annually spent on charity, and by that measure, the US is not last as you earlier said, but first


With respect, I would take it as a given to consider amount spent as a percentage of amount earned. If I earn £10000 a week and you earn £5 a week, there's little point in saying I "give more" by handing out £10 to your £4.50.

But neither of these indices we presented shows the US to be last


Admittedly my data is a little bit old and clearly out of date. For this you have my apologies. I am unsure how relevant this is given that I haven't gone back to check the point of the entire thing. I might do so if it's that important. It need be noted that while I am here for a couple of days on the trot, I then tend to vanish for a week or two due to a very busy schedule. As a result, I sometimes forget what we're even talking about and my utter fatigue and exhaustion often leaves me  little concerned with checking

In this instance I have just taken the time to check - because it's clearly a sticking point with you. The purpose of the statement was to express my concern with a god taking the time and effort to aid this individual in getting a lower apartment but not taking the time to help the countless people I see every single day that die in abject agony - 99% of whom are very young children. I suggested that a loving god would get slightly more involved - and of course I would hope that even a fallen creature such as humans would do more than they actually do. The money spent on weapons of mass destruction outranks the money spent on saving lives - but, as stated, he seems more fixated on petty trivialities like helping this gentleman into a lower apartment, unless this man is mistaken, which I sincerely hope he is.

In all of this, I don't think we need to focus too much on precise donation statistics although I acknowledge and apologise for my error. It seems, upon further reflection, that the US currently donates slightly more (percentage) than some other industrial nations.



9

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2011, 03:02:02 am »

Hi noseeum, sorry I've not replied until now.  I've been hugely busy with a series of things, the largest of which is setting up my own business, so my time has been pretty limited.

noseeum wrote: Thanks for the thoughtful reply Digitalos. I have been thinking about it for a few days, but I have to say there is still a lot I don't understand about why it is that you feel that through "Conviction from the Holy Spirit, God brought about His will." I'm not even sure what this means. You say "I don't think God magicked things to work out like this," which to my mind effectively rules out the possibility that God intervened in any way to alter events to fit "His plan", whatever that is.

So there are a few things here.  I may go in reverse order as it may make more sense.  I believe God's plan is to create free moral agents, and to bring them into a freely chosen relationship with Him.  Thus giving them a way out of death and into life eternal, as to anything beyond that, I am not sure.  I could speculate, but that would be all it is.

In regards to the Holy Spirit, it is an aspect of God, equal with God and Christ and also separate from them, one of the Trinity.

John 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Holy Spirit convicts sin, guides and comforts.  So when I say "through conviction from the Holy Spirit", I mean quite literally that I was made aware of something (in this case an opportunity to use my gain, for God).

noseeum wrote: Rather than go through every point of contention, perhaps it would be better if I simply outlined what I find to be most problematic. The way I see it is this.

(1) I have a sixth sense which provides me with knowledge of "God's will." This sense is as real to me as sight or hearing, and knowing Jesus is comparable to knowing my wife.
(2) It is possible to assess the likelihood that events are in line with "God's will."
(3) Coming to a realisation that my circumstances are God's will increases my faith in God.

There's also something about the nature of evil and suffering but I think I will leave that aside for now, because I'm not convinced that, how you redefine evil or suffering, revelation of God's will can be meaningful or plausible.
Consider (1). I think this is a pretty outrageous claim! Even with mind-body dualism and all the rest of theism taken as a given, it is something else to claim you can have direct experience of the supernatural. Now I know that this is "within your worldview," so I suppose this is a bit of a stalemate. Can I ask if the primary reason you believe in mind-body dualism is for academic reasons, or is it through sensory experience? Or at least, which came first? Also, I doubt that it can be fairly said that knowing Jesus is anything like knowing a normal human. The traditional 5 senses cannot by definition be involved, and there is no way to test your perceptions to see if you aren't just delusional. In fact, this is probably my main contention about claim of having a sixth sense at all.

Well I'm not sure I agree that this is an outrageous claim, last time I checked, over 95% of the world's population make this claim quite regularly.  The primary reason for my trust in this dualism, is from experience.  I grant that may not get us very far, but that's really all I have, I find the academic information about it interesting too, but that's just fluff as ultimately with all that aside, based on my personal experience I would believe in this dualism.

I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that our traditional senses cannot be used to know Jesus.  If not directly, then I think we can know some truths about Jesus based on our sense, such as we know how He suffered and what that must have been like, not from our experience, but we've all experienced pain, and the magnitude of His suffering is so far beyond that, I think we can know a lot about His character, and convictions from that comparison.  But I'm not hugely invested in that line of argument, I just think it's interesting that even by proxy, we can know things from our sense about Him, in a way that is as real as a relationship with another living being.

noseeum wrote: I'm afraid it's late and I can't give this the time I think it deserves, so I'll just leave you with my thoughts for now.
Thanks!  Sorry again it took me so long to reply, things have calmed down a bit now.  Cyas o/

10

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2011, 03:09:56 am »
Arrrrrrgh!  This forums !@#$ formatting kills me.  >:|

11

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2011, 06:40:50 pm »
Digitalos wrote:

John 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

So.... the world, which is presumably made up of people, cannot know him, ie the holy spirit, but you know him. It follows from this that you are not part of the world. How does this make sense? I will make an obvious statement for you: everybody is part of the world.

Digitalos wrote:

Well I'm not sure I agree that this is an outrageous claim, last time I checked, over 95% of the world's population make this claim quite regularly.
I'm not sure making an outrageous claim regularly makes it less outrageous. If you don't like the word "outrageous" then perhaps "extraordinary" is better?

Digitalos wrote: I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that our traditional senses cannot be used to know Jesus.  If not directly, then I think we can know some truths about Jesus based on our sense, such as we know how He suffered and what that must have been like, not from our experience, but we've all experienced pain, and the magnitude of His suffering is so far beyond that, I think we can know a lot about His character, and convictions from that comparison.  But I'm not hugely invested in that line of argument, I just think it's interesting that even by proxy, we can know things from our sense about Him, in a way that is as real as a relationship with another living being.
We can relate to Jesus in the same way we can relate to Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker. Empathy toward what you perceive the character of Jesus to be doesn't make him real, and I don't think it's on par with knowing a real person who you can interact with.

People make claims that they have communicated with the spirit of Elvis. I'm afraid I am not going to believe this until some extraordinary evidence is given to back up their extraordinary claims. Why should I treat Jesus any differently?

12

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #57 on: February 03, 2011, 01:51:22 am »
noseeum wrote: So.... the world, which is presumably made up of people, cannot know him, ie the holy spirit, but you know him. It follows from this that you are not part of the world. How does this make sense? I will make an obvious statement for you: everybody is part of the world.
Well the main thing I wanted to illustrate from that is that the Holy Spirit is a guide.  As that's what we were discussing prior.  In respects to the world idea, I believe this is an illustration to indicate that there will be those who are in the world and believe that they are of the world - ie not of God, which is where Christians and non-Christians differ - we are in the world, but not of the world, we are of God.  This shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, because you yourself are evidence of this claim - you do not accept the Holy Spirit and do not know it.  Whereas I do, so straight away we have an example where we can see this in play.

noseeum wrote: I'm not sure making an outrageous claim regularly makes it less outrageous. If you don't like the word "outrageous" then perhaps "extraordinary" is better?

Well that's a fair point actually.

Digitalos wrote: I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that our traditional senses cannot be used to know Jesus.  If not directly, then I think we can know some truths about Jesus based on our sense, such as we know how He suffered and what that must have been like, not from our experience, but we've all experienced pain, and the magnitude of His suffering is so far beyond that, I think we can know a lot about His character, and convictions from that comparison.  But I'm not hugely invested in that line of argument, I just think it's interesting that even by proxy, we can know things from our sense about Him, in a way that is as real as a relationship with another living being.
noseeum wrote: We can relate to Jesus in the same way we can relate to Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker. Empathy toward what you perceive the character of Jesus to be doesn't make him real-
Right, but I never said it did make Jesus real.  I just said we can know Jesus like that - we are both operating, for the sake of this point, on the assumption Jesus is real.

noseeum wrote: - and I don't think it's on par with knowing a real person who you can interact with.
Well this is an opinion, and I grant perhaps I've not given you reason to think otherwise, but I would say it's trivially easy to show that it is on par.

For example, we can interact directly with someone, who then goes on to tell others of us, and then when/if we get to meet those others, our character and actions are already known, and we are greeted on par with them.  Even though to these people we were not directly known, or interacted with, they never saw us or touched us, they feel they know us, based on this proxy interaction.

noseeum wrote: People make claims that they have communicated with the spirit of Elvis.
Yes they go, but that's not analogous.  I really wish atheists would get this part right - you can't make ad-hoc claims, that on the surface, seem like they are 1:1 matches in analogy, and then that's that.  It doesn't work like that.  Every argument is assessed on it's own merits.  If you want to talk about contact with a spiritual Elvis, then ok, we can look at the evidence for that and then draw a conclusion from it.  But I can tell you two things about this right now:

i) The evidence for a spiritual Elvis is but a speck of sand compared to the mountain of evidence for the historical Jesus.
ii)  I'm not saying anywhere, that you need to believe in God, due to my testimony of the Holy Spirit.  This isn't evidence for God, in fact I said right at the start, this is not something I can prove.  So the idea that I'm talking about these things, WITH, the notion of you believing in God, is not from my side at all.

noseeum wrote: I'm afraid I am not going to believe this until some extraordinary evidence is given to back up their extraordinary claims. Why should I treat Jesus any differently?
See (ii) I was merely responding to questions about my experience. (which is subjective, personal and not an argument for people to believe in God).

Secondly, I don't agree that extraordinary claims require evidence of the same magnitude.  I think this is a catchphrase, that has been adopted as it sounds pretty good, but there are extraordinary things we believe all the time, without evidence of a comparable magnitude.  Numerous war stories in fact, fit into this category.  Acts of extraordinary valor, sacrifice, heroes and compassion.  Many of which are based on personal testimony, and we believe those, enough to award medals, titles and so forth.  That's just one of many possible examples, so the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I think is false.

13

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2011, 07:10:02 am »
Sorry about my last post, it was a bit reactionary. I lost track of the conversation a bit. My inner atheist tends to say "but it doesn't prove god is real!" whenever I run our of things to say

Well this is an opinion, and I grant perhaps I've not given you reason to think otherwise, but I would say it's trivially easy to show that it is on par.

For example, we can interact directly with someone, who then goes on to tell others of us, and then when/if we get to meet those others, our character and actions are already known, and we are greeted on par with them.  Even though to these people we were not directly known, or interacted with, they never saw us or touched us, they feel they know us, based on this proxy interaction.
I don't think this is just an opinion. I would contend that it is simply a matter of fact that meeting someone face to face allows you to know them better than reading a book about them and have other tell you what they're like.

Yes they go, but that's not analogous.  I really wish atheists would get this part right - you can't make ad-hoc claims, that on the surface, seem like they are 1:1 matches in analogy, and then that's that.  It doesn't work like that.  Every argument is assessed on it's own merits.  If you want to talk about contact with a spiritual Elvis, then ok, we can look at the evidence for that and then draw a conclusion from it.
I think that's a bit disingenuous. No analogy is analogous in every detail. You are missing the point of the analogy. The claim of contact with Elvis is an extraordinary claim, and we therefore pretty much dismiss it until such time as some really, really great evidence comes forth that it could be real. When you say it isn't analogous because there is lots of evidence for Jesus, and not for Elvis (although we know Elvis existed!) it seems to me you are really saying that yes, there is extraordinary evidence for you claim, and that's what differentiates it from the Elvis thing.

The catchphrase about extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is a legitimate point. Extraordinary claims require more evidence, stronger evidence, than ordinary claims. If I claim "I went to London last week," you don't say "Ha! I have not seen any evidence of sort! You never went to London!" Sure, I might be lying, but the fact is that it's perfectly plausible that I went to London, given what you know about me. If I told you I went to the moon last week, you would not be inclined to believe me until such time as I gave you some evidence. And the evidence would need to roughly correlate with the plausibility of the claim. Getting my Dad on the phone to say "he really did go to the moon," probably wouldn't allay your fears that is was a joke. A story on the news mentioning my name perhaps might. So I don't think there is anything wrong with the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" catchphrase.

I would like to know what extraordinary claims you think we believe without evidence of the same magnitude? Not sure I understand the war medals thing. I'm not familiar with what it takes to get a war medal. You may very well have a legitimate point - maybe we should be confiscating some war medals!

So again I'm sorry I was reactionary in my last post. You have been very generous with your responses to me.

14

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
O I C Wut U Did Thar
« Reply #59 on: February 03, 2011, 11:13:14 pm »
Ooh, it's this post. Wondered where it went. This is your response from page 1. I can only apologise for not responding to it until now - I just lost track of this entire conversation.

As a reminder, my goal has been to understand how and on what basis you have declared that a god was in any way involved in the earlier mentioned events, (water bills and charity).

What I mean is, not amount of explaining will help you here, as it's a personal conviction, a strong feeling and connection.


I see. So basically you have a "strong feeling" and that is enough to establish reality? In short: "I feel that this is true, therefore it is"?

So if A was successfully defeated as in the theoretical, why do you think he should change his mind?


Because (A) is the only thing he can make claim to having any basis in reality. (B) which are in this instance his personal feelings, are of no value to truth.

He stated that if everyone accused him of being a murderer - and all the evidence suggested that he was the murderer, he'd still ignore it because "I know that I'm not". He considers this a valid and justified statement but it is not. If all the evidence is against you, presuming yourself innocent because that's what you consider to be true is baseless. Why does WLC not accept that maybe he was under the influence of some mind-altering drug when he murdered the victim? Why does he not accept that maybe he has some multiple personality disorder and hence doesn't remember killing the victim? [ad nauseum].

Instead, WLC just says he's innocent and the evidence doesn't mean anything. This is simple foolishness. The evidence means everything, his personal feelings don't mean squat.

This is his problem. Even if all the evidence went against christianity, (as it in fact does), he would still believe it because he feels it inside. What utter closed-minded nonsense.

In the case of this donation saga, how was a god involved? What did he do?
I think the question is probably more, what didn't God do


No, the question is "what did he do"?  You started off by saying that god intervened - somehow - to get you to donate. How did he intervene?

to start with, He taught me how to live life, according to His desires.  He taught me to think carefully about my actions, and He taught me to test everything and to retain that which is good.


Interesting. I was taught these things by my very human parents. What were yours doing at the time? How did he teach you these things? Is there a god school somewhere that you attended?

It's also my personal belief that He brought about this situation, so that I could carry out His desire


And that is what I am asking: How? Did he make you walk in a certain direction, make you save money? What?

and He brought about a strong convinction in my through inner workings of the Holy Spirit to draw my focus onto putting this money into an area where I help  Him


With all due respect but I am unsure how donating some money to charity helps him and if it does help him, I'm sure he can donate more than you can and thus - as the rest of us must seemingly do - go about helping himself instead of relying on others to do the job for him.

Regards,

-----

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah! STILL trying to claim that SH*T HAPPENS - FOR NO REASON and NO ONE and NOTHING is RESPONSIBLE for ANYTHING in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, eh dolt? You sure are dedicated to MAGIC, aren't you! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!


1. Calm down child, this isn't playschool.

2. I am unsure what any of your childish rant has to do with anything here.

3. No, it is you who is dedicated to magic. I'd add some hahahas but it's somewhat beneath me.