Total posts: 459
-->
@zedvictor4
Although this might be true, I suggest there is an ordinary and typical position on traditional christianity. I have referred before to the largest umbrella of christian denominations in the world, the World Council of churches. If this does not cover the aspect of traditional christian position, I don't know what will. And I am certainly prepared to start there - and given this is a topic I initiated, I think that is fair.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So this is in contrast to what traditional Christians would say is true.Define a "traditional Christian " for us. And what is it they " say is true"?I think that you have provided several contrasts to ChristianityBut haven't you made it clear often that ;#36: Most people interpret the bible the same way.where as now you have pointed out yourself the "contrasts " and that they clearly do not?
Firstly, thanks for not dropping the bone.
Secondly, I have asked fauxlaw a question. Let him answer first. He knows what a traditional christian is as I suspect most others do.
Thirdly, again fauxlaw understands the contrasts. Let him answer first.
There is nothing further of import or of new information in your post to address further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
edited to delete everything I wrote.
In fact I refuse to engage with you from this time forth - unless you are properly contributing to a topic.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
First, we prefer to not be referred to as "Mormons."
So do you find the term Mormon derogatory?
We know Jesus Christ to be the Savior and Redeemer of the world,
What does this mean? Savior and redeemer of what and from what?
the only mortally begotten Son of the Father,
So this is in contrast to what traditional Christians would say is true. For they would agree that Jesus is begotten - but eternally begotten. And they would also say that Jesus is not mortal.
who are, as well as the Holy Ghost,
Is this the same as the Holy Spirit?
three distinct personages of perfect glory, who are one only in terms of their absolute unification of thought and action.
So would it be fair to say this is in contrast to the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. Three persons in One Godhead?
The Articles of Faith:https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/articles-of-faith?lang=eng. click on the link "Articles of Faith 1: 1 - 13"These summarize our core beliefs.
Thanks for supplying this document summary. But I am hopeful that you will be able to address the above responses.
I think that you have provided several contrasts to Christianity. What would be some of the similarities?
Created:
What are the primary points of similarity that put it in the Christian camp? And what are the points of doctrine which distinguish it from the traditional Christian position? And what are the unique and distinct perspectives of the Mormons that radically uplift it into weird territory?
Please do not use this as a slanging board against the LDS. Use it as an opportunity to compare and contrast and analyze the Mormons and the veracity of its doctrines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You won't find a single comment of mine that suggests any of the above, princess. NO, all of the complaining has been coming from you and that other idiot the Reverend.I notice you are in discussion with one of your other personalities at the moment. Must be odd commenting and then replying to yourself.But I suppose its the only type of conversation someone like you, with your condition can ever actually have.
Your ignorance is astounding. You never attack so you say, and yet here you accuse me of being someone I am not. Or that I am talking to myself. I suppose I must be making it all up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why would you care?
You don't have any opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheist and non- theist. Seriously stephen calling you idiot might not be far wrong. Can you please explain how the two are different? Neither believe in God. Surely that is the nexus.
I told you I am not getting involved in your lovers' tiff with Stephen.
Atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It cannot be more than this by virtue of their own definition. A non-theist is someone who not only does not believe in god, but has a positive position to put forward. Some find this a difficult thing to fathom. Non-theists have a worldview. They know where we come from. We know why we are here. And we know what the end of life is. An atheist has no conception about these things. They abdicate any right to have a say about anything. Take Stephen for instance - he spouts nonsense about theology - but he cannot contribute. This is why if you cast your mind over his posts - most are attacking other people. There is very little that actually goes further than that. Sometimes he raises interesting posts - but then he does not take it any further. Yet that is his call as an atheist. It is what defines him.
Me on the other hand have attempted to find some form of dialogue between those who believe and those who don't. Ironically enough it is Stephen - he who does not have a position - who is the one who fights tooth and nails and winges and complains and attacks the person. So as you can see there is a difference between the two.
Do you expect theists to treat you differently?
I hope so. I am not the same. Atheists who take the narrow approach are out of touch with reality. They hide in their little cubby holes. They pretend they know everything while denying the same. Theists - and don't misunderstand me, I think you are abysmal as well. And I have indicated what I think of Christianity and the bible. I think it is trouble and ought to be condemned - even burnt in the fire. Yet that is because it is dangerous. But atheists come close too. They refuse to add anything positive. They don't have a response. The only thing an atheist can do is ask one question" prove there is a god". That's it. After that they are done. So it is in their interests to never really articulate or define a god. Nor is it in their interests to provide any reasonable means of ascertaining the reality of god.
My business is my business. Christian.
Ok. But what kind of christian are you? Are you Lutheran? OR Catholic? OR Charismatic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
tradey,
I am not getting involved in your little lover' spat with Stephen.
And I am not an atheist. I am a non-theist. There is a difference between the two. The atheist does not have a worldview. The non-theist admits that they do.
The first thinks everything is up to others to prove. The second, that the world is our oyster and that we ought to grab it with both hands.
Stephen contributes nothing to most conversations. At least he is consistent with his view that atheists don't have an opinion about anything. After all if he started contributing, then he might actually prove his own lie. But don't hold your breath.
Why haven't you been around lately? And which sect of christianity do you belong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are the one saying the bible is supposed to be factual. And you keep rewriting the narrative because you think it is.
This is why I think you are a fraud. You do believe the bible. And you have said as much. Jesus is the jewish messiah - he is the true king - son of god.
You take every little bit - like you do with John the Baptist - change the narrative - and the wedding feast and turn it into something you think is true - you fraud.
So many times you keep tripping over your little messes.
So Mr gnostic. Believer of Thomas - and Mary and the holy grail. Fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
There is no need to be patronizing. A syllogism's premise to conclude a 100% response requires an all. I could say some men are mortal and that too would be true. Yet, that could only lead me to conclude that perhaps Socrates is mortal. And even with that I could be 100% confident that might be mortal, but I want to know that he is mortal. And therefore I need an all.
Your suggestion of martians however was not based on anything of reasonable confidence. It was created by you to try and refute my logic. Yet you did not achieve what you wanted because you were unable to do more than try and compare apples with oranges. You needed to provide an example to allow you to compare apples with apples.
Your suggestion about me attending a logic class is like water of a ducks back because it is you who appears to have a problem with understanding logic. But that is ok. If you are a teachable person and humble then perhaps your god or someone's god will enable you to learn some logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Most people interpret the bible the same way.Nope. One Christian faction will interpret the bible in many different ways. You are just far too stupid to realise this and will say anything that you believe will stop you looking stupid. So here once again is an example of how wrong you are.Jehovah's' Witness do not believe that Jesus is god.Preterist believe the second coming has already happened in the first century.Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was resurrected spiritually from the dead, but not physically.Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus' resurrection was physical.Mormons believe other Christians are apostates and that their churches have little or no authority.While the BIBLE ITSELF appears to be saying that Jesus' resurrection was physical AND spiritual!!!!?? NEED I GO ON!!!?
But they all understand what the narrative is. They don't change that. Interpretation is completely different to narrative. You actually change the narrative.
The rest of your email condescends into nothingness. For example, I say the book clearly says Jesus died and rose. You then accuse me or not of believing. I don't have to believe it. That is a totally irrelevant ding dong of a silly thing to say. I read the Great Gatsby. I understand the narrative and can read a story. I don't have to believe it.
The gospels of Jesus are clearly presenting a story of Jesus living and dying on a cross and coming back to dead. That is the story. Only a ding dong would think it is not saying that. Do we have to believe it? Of course not. But that is the story. Not that he did not die on the cross or that he survived the cross. The story says he died. You change the narrative. That is what I mean you are not agreeable. Not that you have to agree with the bible - That is entirely a different conversation. Yet, the story - is he died on a cross and rose from the dead. Not that he pretended to die on the cross or that there was a conspiracy between him and the Romans - but that he died. And rose again.
What we do with story is a different thing altogether. but only someone with a different kind of agenda is going to rewrite the narrative. And that Stephen is you. You are not in agreement with the bible - for your own agenda. And that is fine - just admit it and do that. Don't pretend you have the secret magical understanding of what it is saying. The joke is on you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
With respect it was not sound. You did not a sound premise either 1 or 2. The two premises lacked more than existential import - it lacked any evidence whatsoever.
Reason requires premises which are sound - in order to make sound conclusion. And if the two premises are sound then the conclusion will be.
So with respect it was not a sound syllogism which is why it does not work. Premises requires generalisations that are sound. they are not simply a statement made out of thin air.
To say all men are mortal is a proven fact in our world. But to say all martians are immortal is not a proven fact here or indeed anywhere else.
Socrates is a man. Now it is possible I suppose to say Socrates is a dog. But it is a statement really which everyone knows to be true.
Zog is a Martian suggests that Martians exist. Yet we have no evidence at all that any martians exist. We know humans exist. And we know that humans are mortal.
If you are merely suggesting that for logic to be correct - we need correct premises - then I agree. But I don't believe it is accurate to call a syllogism correct when it has faulty premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It really surprises me how dense you are.
Everything you quote of me is correct. I don't resist my words. They all make sense to me.
Agreeble???????
let me repeat it slowly and let us see if you can figure it out? I don't hold much hope for you. But I can try.
Most people interpret the bible the same way. This way people can understand each other and when contradictions arise which they do - then they all sit down together and agree that this is what it is saying - even when it is contradicting itself. But not you. You take the normal agreeable way a passage reads and you say it says something completely different to what it says. So when others come along, not only do they disagree with the way you have interpreted it - but your apparent contradictions get thrown out as well.
If you were more agreeable - with the way people understand it, then perhaps - your so called contradictions would make better sense. But no, rather than realising you actually interpret it in a way that distorts the language, ordinary and otherwise, you just keep digging your hole - hoping that no one else will see you as the fraud you are.
For instance - the NT gospels clearly say Jesus died and rose again. This is clearly a nonsense since people don't rise from the dead. So rather than focusing on the scientific understanding to contradict such a situation, you propose an entirely new narrative. No, he did not rise from the dead, therefore he must not have died. This is not what the passages say. This is why you are disagreeable with the passage. You want to say he never died. He never rose. And that somehow within the pages of the gospels are a secret hidden meaning which you alone can find.
The passages clearly say he died and he rose. That is why it is bonkers. That is why the book is nonsense. This is why the book is unreliable. This is why it ought to be burnt because people are being misled by it. But no not the great Stephen who has magical powers of intuition and understanding - who alone in all of the world is able to identify the secret meanings within the text. You say no - the text is not really saying he died. It just needs to be understood what the entire message is about so that you don't misunderstand. You are disagreeing with the text. You are disagreeing with the narrative of the text. This is why you are so hopeless. You have no clue. You can't even read.
I read the narrative as it is written. It is totally full of contradictions and does not make a lot of sense. Yet what you purport it says makes even less sense. You write your own narrative. You make it out like it a secret message just waiting to be exposed. Yet the only exposing is your stupidity.
Agreeable. I have explained before and I have explained again - I still doubt that you will understand - but at least I tried. AGAIN!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
education???
I am not your student. You are not my teacher. Yes, you really are a funny one. Certainly, humility is not one of your strongsuits.
A syllogism is perfectly true if its premises are perfectly true. That is the point. Anything else is not able to demonstrate the soundness of the same.
Your reasoning in relation to Martians was not a good syllogism because it was in error in its premises.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
its not an interpretation - it is just simple logic. You can't advocate for equality of anything while also favoring one option over others.
I think you can. If secular philosophy is the basis of society, then all views including secular can be equal. If in a Muslim world, it is the top dog, then all religions including its own can be equal. It really depends upon what you mean by equal?
Equality beneath the law - is not the same as equality as our progressives would argue. Yet it is the only way to be truly equal in society. Everyone - needs to comply equally beneath the law.
Otherwise you are suggesting that equality cannot exist on any level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Me - non theist.
I am a reasonably new member. Just a couple of months really.
So why did you leave and why have you come back?
Muslim? Are you hard core or just living the dream? Would you be considered fundamentalist or nominal? Is there a difference?
Were you born into a Muslim family or did you come to it at a later stage in your life?
Were you born into the West or has your family moved to the West? Or even do you live in the West now?
Do you take the view that a person's religion is individual or rather than it is put on them by family, culture, and heritage?
Do you think that the West is identical with christianity or with secularism? Or do you think they are both the same?
Is it possible to be a muslim Christian? Or a secular Muslim?
I am asking lots of questions - I hope you don't mind. If you would prefer to answer them privately - pm me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie is to understand what proof is.- I would say the first thing is to know what God is, but that works too.
I think logic is necessary to prove anything - not necessarily its subjects. god is a nebulas construct. And there is no consensus. So it is pointless to begin with the construct. Hence why the logic to me is a first place of call.
Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof. 100% proof that is not probable.- No scientific "proof" is not not probable...
That is a double negative. Scientific proof is 100%. It is providing a syllogism - and meetings its criteria.
For example - many people try and convince others that something is true - by trying to convince them they are correct. This is typically inductive reasoning - but it is not proof.- Scientific "proof" is inductive...
No scientific proof is deductive. It might well use induction in relation to its premises. But scientific method is not inductive. It uses powers or deduction to reduce the hypothesis to a particular point,
For example - I see 100 swans and they are all white. This means I can infer - or try and convince you that all swans are white. It does not prove it is so - but if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.- Do you have any doubts as to wether the sun will rise from the East tomorrow?
But that is the point isn't? The sun does not rise. The earth turns. My experience is not reliable.
What we need is rational proof. For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true.- How about this. All Marsians are immortal. Zod is a Marsian. Therefore, Zod is immortal.
Sorry that does not even make sense. We have no evidence for the existence of martians. We do have evidence of humans not of martians.
Not probable but true.- No scientific "proof" is ever true.
It is true when it is rational. that is its definition.
It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true.- Indeed.
ok
The Holocaust - demonstrates god is not all powerful or that is he is not all loving -- I can see the issue, but only if you hold the belief that God does what is Good, as opposed to what God does is Good.
Not sure that I understand what you mean. Can you give an example?
because he would have stopped it if he is all loving and all powerful.- If anything, the invasion of the americas should've been stopped.
What do you mean the invasions of the americas should be stopped?
Similarly, if god is all knowing he could have stopped the first people from doing evil - before they did.- If you look at it from a pure materialistic view it does cause confusion... What if the oppressed end up in Heaven & the oppressors end up in Hell. I reckon the oppressed wouldn't mind suffering a short while to gain eternal Paradise. Maybe then, they wouldn't want the "evil" to be stopped, so that's probably a good thing rather than an evil thing.
Then you would be making assumptions about what people think. That is not reason. That is speculation.
As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct.- Fetch those premises first, then we can check wether they are correct.
What do you mean fetch those premises first?
Please proceed to prove me wrong.- Was hard not to.
Well you have not proved me wrong. You have commented on some of my points. Indeed you have made assertions contradicting me. But an assertion is not proof. It is not argument. It does not even get the level of refutation. Thanks for your input though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
You're quite a funny person Yassine.
So what is your background?
Are you religious?
Muslim? Or something else? I am intrigued.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
My question here is legitimate. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am asking a question.What you are doing is going against everything that YOU CLAIM to disagree with. You are just far too dense to see YOUR contradiction.
Asking a question does not make a contradiction? You are the dense one. You are the ones into conspiracies. You are the one who wants to see more in this than is there.
And that somehow makes me a fraud.I will spell it out for you shall I?
Well this will be a delight to read.
I explained this already. Can't you read? My question by the way is not asking what the underdog thinks about god. It is asking about the death penalty.
(2) What difference does it make to someone like YOU that believes the christian religion to be the most dangerous in the world#153 , that someone is looking at the problem through human ("American") eyes and not the gods eyes of the bible? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud..
Boring. I asked the underdog a question - I asked him nothing about religion or how dangerous it is or is not.
(3) What difference does it make to YOU that someone is highlighting the unjustness of a god that YOU do not even believe in and believes that the Christian religion should be "cancelled"?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud..
The underdog made a statement and I asked him a question. You are just unbelievable.
(4) What difference does it even make to someone so anti religion as YOU claim to be that someone has highlighted the flaw in the Christian belief that we should "love our enemies and our" neighbour, while the god of the bible, that YOU do not believe in and want to see his word burned to a crisp, is murdering millions of innocent children that are not "mass murderers". ?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud..
Read my words. I asked the underdog a question in relation to his comments. A fair and legitimate question and now I am the one who is a fraud. You are crazy. A person who sees things in the ether.
You are protecting this god far too much. You slipped up a long time ago sunshine, when you " wished that I was more agreeable with the bible"#25 , the bible that that you don't even believe in and wished to see destroyed by fire. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This makes you a fraud..I have asked you many times now to explain to me why it is that YOU would "wish" ME to be more agreeable with the bible that you don't even believe yourself and want to see put to the flames?
Slipped up???? What in the world are you talking about? I have no clue. Most people interpret the bible in a particular way - a way that makes sense. You come at it with a completely and novel interpretation. Your way actually makes it sound more plausible that god is a good bloke. The way I have been reading it - it is easy to see how awful god is. But you twist it. This is what I have been saying is "more agreeable". With the way that most people read it. You are disagreeable - - in your interpretation. What you say - does not make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Dimtim wrote: I am a non-theist and I think the death penalty is appropriate in our day and age. If we were to put to death all of those who are mass murderers.TheUnderdog wrote: The issue isn't killing people for being mass murderers. The issue is killing people for things they aren't responsible for, like when God killed the first born sons of Egypt as a penalty for their fathers enslaving Jews. If someone commits a mass murder, you don't punish their sons for it legally; you only punish the murderer.Dimtim wrote: Why not?UN-FKN - believable! THIS ^^^^^^^ from the man that doesn't believe in god, that believes the bible should be burned#8 and destroyed #14 and the Christian religion to be the most dangerous in the world#153 and that it should be stamped out and wiped from the face of the earth.#153 . What a complete and utter fraud, you are Dimtim!
This coming from the biggest fraud on this site. I don't think I have seen you actually contribute to a topic recently. Mostly it is just attack other people.
My question here is legitimate. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am asking a question. And that somehow makes me a fraud. I am sure you will elaborate on how my question makes me a fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why not? Isn't that just an American way of looking at things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have responded to one Christian and have provided examples of fundamental flaws.
I care less whether you agree or not. For me they are.
That you are unable to read or understand is a problem for you - not me honey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Timid8967Just like all your thread show you for who you really areWith a difference. I have never denied or hid my opinions concerning these unreliable , ambiguous half stories that make up the bible that you want to put to the flames. Where as you are just a proven out n out fraud that tells me that YOU wish that my theories and opinions were ;"more easily agreeable with the bible." #25 ..Such an odd AND CONTRADICTORY thing to say for someone that ALSO SAYS:and !!!!
I respond to you again - I do not know why.
Everyone knows you are a fraud and charlatan. I have not seen too many people agree with you. You tend to spend more time trying to dig dirt on other people's character than you do on actually doing any research. You tend to drive people away from you from any walk. I have seen christians, agnostics, atheists and others steer clear of you. I think people vote with their feet.
Your comments against me - never argue a point. They only attempt to somehow ridicule my comments in the past. Good for you. It is water of a duck's back. Ad hominin is your only weapon. Too bad you cannot even wield that well. My views on the bible are my views. I am not trying to make you believe them or anyone else. But they are my views - and honestly, you trying to twist them and your decision to continue to recall them on every opportunity says more about you than me. I give you permission Stephen, you may worship me. You may get down on your knees and continue your undying adoration of me. I accept the fact you find me worthy. I give you permission to relax now.
Ahhh - it seems the reason I have responded has become clear. I am your god. You are my prophet. Now all we need is a scribe. Perhaps the Brother will join us in our unholy trinity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
-->@PGA2.0 @Stephen @TradesecretIs the reverend tradesecrete a presuppositionalist? He doesn't sound like one. Perhaps he might decide to post. I have been waiting for PGA.0.I'm not sure about Tradesecret. I am, among many other things.
thanx for responding. At least I know you will respond without the unnecessary quips of some. I think tradesecret is some kind of evidentialist. But not really sure. He does talk a lot about axioms so I would have presumed presuppositionalist. Yet, he spends lots of time attempting to refute using experience and reason as well. I think he is just confused. Still it is good to know he is not dead. Having said that - he has not been on here for a while. Are you in contact with him?
Sorry, I have been busy lately turning a storage shed into a cottage. I did not notice the thread so I will read it and get back to you in the next few days. And I do believe that people who have examined the weighty issues of life hold some form of worldview on which their basic core beliefs (those that everything else rests upon) are presupposed. We start somewhere. Those core suppositions of their worldview tends to influence how they look at most things in some way, although sometimes (often) a person acts inconsistent with their worldview.
I don't have an issue with people having worldviews - I do think that 99.9% of people have never thought about what theirs is and would probably deny it or act inconsistently with it anyway. I have noticed many christians talking about worldviews - but there is not a lot of consistency about what they believe. Some hold to socialism - some don't. Some hold to social gospel. Others to evanglism only. Some seem to think the bible teaches experiential faith - others believe in soul sleep. some believe in hell. Others believe in evolution others in aliens and others in seven day creation. Given there are so many denominations - it is hard to believe that there is one christian worldview. So it makes it difficult to understand how there could be some kind of unique presupposition.
Ronald Nash notes that Gordon Clark, in the argument for truth, identified six steps (p.162) that favour the Christian worldview of that necessary God; 1) Truth exists, it is 2) immutable, 3) eternal, 4) mental, 5) superior to the human mind, 6) God.
Interesting delineation. I will need to explore that before I comment.
To your queries:1. It is impossible to define any individual thing apart from a worldview.Not necessarily. A person can be inconsistent with their worldview regarding some things. A worldview is a connected web of beliefs that answers questions about the important issues of life that start from basic core beliefs that everything else rests upon; ideas such as looking at life from either God, or no God, or the nature of the universe and its cause, or our causal tree and our nature and cause. Ronald Nash identified our core presuppositions as life's ultimate questions. Worldviews tend to deal with questions of existence, ontology, epistemology, axiology, and other weighty issues; questions like, Who am I? Why am I here? What difference does it make? What happens to me when I die?Andrew Montano identifies many areas each worldview looks at, more involved than Ravi Zacharias or Ronald Nash, Greg Bahnsen, or even Cornelius Van Til. But that does not mean people cannot live inconsistently with their beginning presuppositions. For instance, if the natural realm is all there is then there is no Mind behind the universe and no ultimate meaning. So, why do strong atheists look for meaning and treat life in a meaningful manner? They are being inconsistent with such a universe because it does not reason, doesn't care about us or anything, has no purpose, mean or value.
This is a good response. And it proves my point that presuppostionalism has fundamental flaws using this list of items. Atheists also don't have a worldview. They don't have beliefs - well at least theoretically. I suppose they are inconsistent - but this clearly proves the view that everyone identifies things through a worldview as false.
2. At the outset Christianity is radically different than non-Christianity, on the account that to us, the most fundamental reality is personal and eternal, while in non-Christianity, the most fundamental reality is either impersonal or personal and temporal.I agree wholeheartedly.
Christianity is just another religion preaching that God needs to be appeased. That is no different to other religions. Muslims say they believe in a personal God. And let us for the sake of the argument agree that Christianity is radically different, so what? there are lots of unique religions and sects and worldviews out there. To suggest that because one is unique from the rest - as some how some kind of measure of objectivity or correctness is bad logic.
3. Given that fundamental difference, it follows that an atheist will obviously find Christian beliefs incoherent, because they are incoherent when defined according to his worldview from the foundation.Maybe or maybe not incoherent depending on how well the person has investigated Christianity, but certainly not believed based on the way they gather evidence to fit with their core presuppositions. Sometimes a person once bought into Christianity but later was influenced by the secular world they mostly live with every day. With the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment man increasingly became the measure of all things.
It is not true is it? Christian beliefs include "do not murder, do not kill, do not steal. Love other people. These are all quite acceptable beliefs to atheists. They are not incoherent. They flow from a human position that it is our best interests not to murder people. To respect other people's property. And to treat others the same we want to be treated ourselves. This is a natural extension of an atheist's view to survive - to work in compact with other people.
[a] 4. This means that we can't debate over a singular belief apart from talking about the worldview that defines that belief. [b] We can't debate whether or not God exists when we're operating under different definitions of God and being itself.[a] I agree since the issues are fundamental to how we got here and what difference that makes.[b] There is usually a conflict there that needs us to identify what we mean or much of the time we speak past each other.
It would be helpful to have one definition of god, yet, christians seem to have different definitions. Is it trinity? It is one God? Is it Jesus? It is all powerful and able to do anything it wants or is it limited by own character? Is it all loving or the cause of evil? But that is the problem when we talk about god.
But we don't know how we got here. And Christians dont seem to know either. Big bang, alien's, god?
5. If you want to discuss this sincerely the first question you have to ask is "what is God?" and "what is being?", and then, having resolved that, we can talk about whether or not God exists.Anselm of Canterbury identified God as the greatest being that can be thought of or conceived of. That certainly fits the Christian God.
But then we just add water. It is like asking what is the biggest number and the adding one more. When we ask that question - there is no set criteria. No set measure to know it is correct. It is impossible to resolve.
6. The problem arises when you realize that in Christianity God and being are identical, and that you can't accept that. What do you do then? Then the only way to critique Christianity is to hypothetically adopt our believes and show that we're incoherent. And we'll do the same with atheism. The difference is that you will fail, while we won't.I don't understand what you mean that God and being are identical. Yes, the Christian God is a personal Being.
It is not my question. I have just cut a paste some one's position on presuppositional. If it is not in accord with your understanding, I am sorry. I don't understand it either - and was hopeful you might be able to unpack it.
In any event, it seems that the presuppositionaist point of view is not consistent in its understanding - that others who agree with it in principle don't understand it -and do not agree with it - supports my position that it is fundamental flawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That's funny. I was not thinking politics - but that is funny.
What is an agnostic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Just like all your thread show you for who you really are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hi theunderdog,
so have you really left christianity and come over the right side now? Do you still believe in god too or has that been deleted to from your understanding?
I enjoy your comments- even if sometimes they seem a little cryptic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Oh are you impatiently waiting are you? Good for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That is really quite funny. And weirdly it makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
“Every child is born into something. If they are not born into a religious family it will be a non-religious one. And that non-religious family will assume that the child is non-religious”The difference between being born into an theistic family and an atheist family is that one teaches a belief, and the other does not teach a belief. The definition of atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a supernatural God. Atheism is not a belief system, it does not indoctrinate children into thinking a certain way.
Stop with the nonsense. The old adage is at play here "aim for nothing and you will hit it every time". It is impossible to teach nothing. Most kids learn by their parent's attitudes towards the world. If a parent is an atheist - he will convey his non-beliefs onto his children. That is the reality, however you want to spin it. Atheists are all kinds of people - and your definition does not fit all atheists. Atheism is a non-belief system. A system which is a clayton's system.
“Why should it be ok to call that child non-religious anymore than it would be to call it religious or Marxist to use your comparison?”Again, you conflate a belief and a lack of belief. Atheists simply assert their lack of belief in a God. Take for instance, witchcraft, or any other pseudoscientific magic. Would it be more sensible to teach the child that a) mixing a fog leg with soap in a ceramic mug will conjure up the body of Michael Jackson, or b) refrain from teaching anything and allow them to make a decision when they are natural enough to do so. The difference is that in situation a), the child will be, if indoctrinated enough, eventually believe in witchcraft, while in b, they are able to come to a sensible decision.
Actually I think the reverse is true. You are conflating atheism with "a non-belief view". You can speak for yourself. But you are not appointed to speak on behalf of any other atheists - since atheists don't actually have a belief system. You lack belief - in a supernatural god. That is actually as far as you can take it. You cannot say it is a non-belief system, since that would be adding a doctrine to a system that does not have any doctrines. In fact, the entire atheist philosophy falls over using that reasoning.
It is much more consistent for an atheist to say - yes, we have a system and we believe things about the world. For instance, that science and reason and logic are useful tools to understand the world. Yet an atheist does not permit himself to believe these things are correct. Since an atheist does not have a belief system. OR rather what they say is that do not have a belief system about god or a supernatual being. Yet even this is a lie. Since - for them to say that they have seen no evidence of god or a supernatural being, implies that they have a belief or a measure in which to test that theory which they can't have since they have are a non-belief system.
Hence, why I as someone who is a non theist declare I have a belief. I believe that every god that someone puts up as a possibility is nonsense - since it does not measure up against the science which I also believe in because I am a non-theist as true.
“In any event, what is it that determines someone's religion or politics for that matter?”Free thinking, and certainly not indoctrination.
Everyone is indoctrinated. To deny that one is indoctrinated is the ultimate proof that one is indoctrinated.
“Many religious people love all other religions without fail. Many atheists consider themselves spiritual”Religion is more than just spirituality, it is a belief system which is so powerful that it can make fully grown human beings believe that there’s an all powerful sky man who contradicts quite literally every major branch of science and thinking.
Of course there is sense in what you say- this is why I want to see the end of religion - but we should be doing so intellegently. Not just because we are superior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I guess I don't see the problem.
Every child is born into something. And they will need to be taught something. If they are not born into a religious family it will be a non-religious one. And that non-religious family will assume that child is non-religious.
Why should it be ok to call that child non-religious anymore than it would be to call it religious or Marxist to use your comparison? I am sure children born into Communist China are all communists until they are allowed to think for themselves. And certainly China would consider that the children belonged to the state not to the family anyway.
I think you are coming at this from an individualistic Western value POV.
In any event, what is it that determines someone's religion or politics for that matter? Is it one's own individual ability to think it? Is it the family you were born into, or the country, or even religion of the country?
Are there different levels to how one considers their religion or political allegiance? Can one be part religious and part non-religious? Can one be part Marxist and part Capitalist? America is a mixed economy? The political parties who are moderate are a mixture of various policies from both ends of the spectrum. Religious people have plenty of overlap in their beliefs - but more than that - they can be more fundamental or more liberal depending on a whole range of things. Some atheists are more militant than most religious people I have met. Many religious people love all other religions without fail. Many atheists consider themselves spiritual.
Just my thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Didn't Paul tell Timothy to drink a little wine with his meal - despite their being water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Who cannot help it? Is that 3 x?
This is not about me. It is about you. You are the obsessed one. I like his logical prowess. I am not ashamed of that. Why would I be? Tradesecret seemed very capable- I don't have to agree with him. But I do acknowledge his ability to argue. Why would that be a problem to you unless you are bigoted?
You reject his every word and argument. Good for you.
But not every person agrees with you.
YOU are obsessed. Wow! Why? This is a remarkable situation. I sense the hatred you have for Tradesecret. It is in the air. Wow!
Why? I like his wit but I don't agree with him. I think he is nuts but so what? The world is full of people from every position - so why are you so obsessed with him?
I think he sounds like a fundy. He does not bother me in the least. His words are a dime a thousand. Words. Empty words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
All you have to convince me that you are not obsessed with tradesecret is stop referring to him every time you talk to me. You are like a broken record. A person in the midst of grieving.
I could care two hoots for him - but he is there every time you respond. Stop it. It is almost like you are in love with him. Is he one of your ex lovers?
Is that why you are so possessive? Does his words mean so much to you? It is pathetic.
But your love is so compelling. Is he Romeo or are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not sure about the bible. But a better way is to let people make their own mistakes and die if they desire.
Small government would suggest that there are certain things that the government should do - and the society at large is big enough and ugly enough to make it own decisions.
This is about the government wanting to nanny us. It is about saying - we don't trust people. It is nothing short of this.
The Covid Virus is globally active. Yet it is not as deadly as governments say. Yes, it does kill people. Many people have died from it. And yet many people would have died anyway from the flu or something else. Many people have been reported dying from it - when in fact it was only that at some time in the past they had had it.
On the other hand, people are dying from the vaccination - and yet despite the fact they had it within 2 weeks, the governments are saying it is just coincidence.
I expect the government wants people to get the jab and therefore to maximise people dying from Covid even when they are not and minimise deaths when related to the vaccine for policy reasons - but it is dishonest. And it feeds the conspiracy theories.
I know several doctors who have made their own studies and are refusing to take the vaccine. They are not normay antivaccers. But they are very concerned about the vaccine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
I have read some of trade's posts. Mostly the ones you keep posting. You seem to be obsessed with him. He does have a quick wit. And a dry sense of humor. And it looks like he is an Aussie. So obviously smarter than those in UK or America. Is there a reason apart from your envy that you continue to tell us all how well qualified he is? You really look like a sycophant. But I guess you know that, don't you?
I tagged both tradesecret and PGA2.0 because I thought you might know something more than me since you have been here a whole longer than me. But perhaps I have wrongly understood you.
At least neither PGA2.0 or trade are as bitter as you. Even if they are both a bit nuts in their religious points of view. Both of them seem to be able to carry on a conversation without resorting to twisted comments like you do. It does not want me to be religious, but their example is much more attractive than your cynical and negative comments.
Religion should be abolished. But so should belligerent attitudes such as yours be as well. Bibles should be burnt and destroyed - but negativity and militant idiots ought to be canceled too.
They are both deluded in their positions - but so are you. And you are paranoid as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@PGA2.0
@Tradesecret
Is the reverend tradesecrete a presuppositionalist? He doesn't sound like one. Perhaps he might decide to post. I have been waiting for PGA.0.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Given you are a member of the LDS, do you see yourself as an elder in the church? And would you see all other churches - denominations as apostate?I have some other questions - but perhaps it might be best if I started a new thread in the religious forum.I too have some questions for the LDS 'sect'. When will you start it?
Thanks Stephen,
I had lost this one in the ether of having so much fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Gee you talk rubbish.
My sister in law knows I am not a Christian. She knows I can't stand it. That I think it is nonsense.
you asked me to ask her some questions which I said I would. And I will.
But your last comments don't even make sense. Stop being such a F@#$ knuckle.
She knows what I think - this does not mean that she knows EVERYTHING I have thought. But she knows the general tone of my views.
In any event - it simply is none of your business. Stop being such a jerk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well I am sure it should make for an interesting conversation considering she obviously doesn't know that you are so anti everything religion?
Whatever are you talking about? My sister in law knows exactly my feelings about religion. She sees it as her mission to try and convert me. So every time I ask her a question about religion she sees it as an opportunity to "correct" or teach me. You really stop saying such daft things. It is like you live in a little corner of the world and have not clue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I haven't spoken to her this past week. I said when I see her next, I will ask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
JW's are considered a cult by those that wish to consider them a cult....All very bitchy, I must say.You Arabian based theists need to get together and sort out the GOD Jesus/Jesus GOD thing, once and for all.Club rules...What a palaver.
Yes, it is interesting, isn't? How does one define a cult? It seems to be just the ones who are currently in the majority.
Thanks for the smile. Imagining theists getting together to sort anything out. Especially in relation to God/ Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes it is one of the creeds that the church has universally accepted. Other cults have rejected it. But the church has stood firm.
Well obviously that is not true. Or else this topic would not be a thing. JWs seem to be in agreement with the LDS and the SDAs and the the universalists, and the unitarians that Jesus is not the one and only god. The so called creed has been rejected by most Christians, and even the Orthodox church seems to have issues with it.
So which church has stood firm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So leave it there and simply produce those "fundamental flaws" that you wish to discuss with no one but Christians.
I will when a Christian turns up and wants to argue the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Firstly, are there any Christians who hold to this view and who would be prepared to discuss it further?
This is clearly in my topic opener. I am not avoiding discussing the flaws - I am just not discussing them with you.
You already disagree with the presuppositions so you would not be able to add anything relevantly for me.
You have already distracted the topic far enough anyway. I would like christians who believe it to be true - so that I can test what I perceive to be fundamental flaws on them.
What you think or care is becoming tiresome.
Created: