Total posts: 3,520
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
You stand by me sharing a password. Well then Stevie Blunder, you must believe in Miracles. And I have this nice little bridge in Sydney at the moment which is for sale. If you PM me, I will give you some more details and a bank account number for you to make your payment.
The fact is - I do not share my password with anyone. And all your endless lies and speculations are just a means of trying to get me banned. Chuckle.
I am trying or pretending to be something I am not. Unlike you.
Yes, I do support my theories and opinions with sound arguments and facts from the Scriptures. Of course - I don't need to do that everytime because you hardly produce anything more than sheer assertion and questions. People are sick of playing your games. Take for instance - your nonsense about God and Mary. What is there to respond to. I have my views and could well provide reasonable explanation. Yet you assert in the first place from silence - hardly a spot where anyone with any ounce of credibility would start from. And then you draw a conclusion - completely non-sequitur and expect people to gasp and wonder at your amazing insights. Seriously. IF someone does not produce evidence - it would disrespectful to answer it with evidence.
I have one username. I have always only used one username. I don't share passwords. Please remember these things - when you wish to quote me in future. Or will you just continue to cherry pick - as you typically do?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“opinion. Not a shred of evidence.
Ok, brainiac,
where did Stephen produce any evidence from the text that God did not tell Mary?
His argument is from silence. It is speculation based on a prejudiced premise.
The reason he asks questions in contexts like this is not because he asks questions of the text. The text obviously does not answer it because the text itself is running a different narrative to Stevie Blunder.
So his questions are not coming from the Bible says or even what it does not say - but rather from a set of narratives that exist in his mind. His immaterial mind - that proves that miracles exist - if he wishes to rely on logic and reason. But please don't try and ask Stephen if he gets that - we don't want to confuse him with the facts. LOLL!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Your homework Stevie blunder keeps coming up with dum dum ideas like Ethang and Tradesecret are the same person. Dum dum. That is your research skills to a tee.
You have no idea.
you are full of yourself. You have nothing to add but speculation and opinion. No one cares what you think.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Begs the question.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
opinion. Not a shred of evidence.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Barney
Typical nutsy response.
I was talking about Ragnar as a lead mod. But hey - I suppose if you get your tickles by being pedantic - go for it.
I concede I did not use lead. I even said he resigned as mod - but surely anyone with any sense of intelligence would know it was from being the boss, not from everything.
So go for it - Stevie Blunder.
You must be having another bad day. 🤣
Oh and since you decided to bring a "real" mod in - can we please ask the mod to find out AGAIN whether Ethang and Tradesecret are the same person or whatever Stevie Blunder thinks we are. And if AGAIN - the evidence demonstrates that Stevie Blunder is a F Wit. please ban him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Talk about baiting. We gotta love it.
I can challenge you whenever you I want to. But when you merely speculate and make assertions without even giving a hint of an argument - I don't need to do anymore than simply repeat back assertions.
You concede you speak opinions. Excellent - I will simply respond with opinions. I don't need to give an argument to respond to an opinion - especially the tripe you produce. LLOL!
You don't get to make the rules. I thought you would have figured that out by now - but I guess I was wrong. You don't have the capacity to figure it out.
So throw out those opinions and I will respond when I choose to do so. Go for it Stevie Blunder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Your job is to prove me wrong
No it's not.
Everything you say is your belief and opinion.
no one cares about your belief or opinion. I certainly don't.
In any event, this thread is about the OP's view. I have responded.
You make so much stuff - and then pretend to pass it off as intelligent. That is the funny part.
But my job - ?????
Wow! You are so arrogant. It makes me smile. 😊
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
LOL! @ the fake Brother,
Ragnar resigned as lead moderator. Are you denying this?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not sure if you realise but Ragnar is no longer a mod. He resigned a while ago.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
We know what we think we know.
What does that even mean? Do you know it or do you think you know it? Or are you just guessing?
And people believe that it is possible to know more than it is currently possible to know.
Which people think this? How do you know that is the case? Why do you think it is the case?
Which is a truism.
Wow! That is huge jump of logic. A non-sequitur of enormous proportions. And without a shred of evidence or proof. Nothing but an assertion.
But believing in something that might be possible doesn't make it true.
And yet that is what is you have just done by suggesting the first two premises led to your conclusion or truism.
Just because you believe something - does not make it true. or a truism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Loads of replies, but the atheists can't post one reasonable contradiction. Instead, they prattle about stupidity like ELOs, slapping people, and being fake.They will not, or cannot, stay on topic, but will later shout "runaway!" Over and over like a childish skipping record.The only reason they are allowed to continuously ruin the religion board is because the head mod wants the board to fail.Yeah, I said it. It's true.
I am not such the cynic as you. You are correct - they go around and around in circles. I am just hoping for an intelligent conversation. There are a couple of interesting discussions on the philosophy board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.
This is an excellent topic.
I would disagree though with your first statement. Science is not built on experience. It is built on a premise. A premise which is inconsistent with current scientific thought. This presumption is that logic is true. How does one prove logic is correct? By further logic or by experience. Nevertheless, why should experience be able to prove logic or reason? What makes something repeatable - a proof? Just because I repeat something over and over again - doesn't suddenly make it true. Unicorns are true. Unicorns are true. Unicorns are true. Even if I repeat that ad finitem, does not make it true.
It is interesting watching advocates of different positions here. Reason v Experience. Where is the pragmatist who says - who cares about this reasoning, let's just see what works to discover what works?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I doubt therefore I am.
He should doubt that he has the ability to doubt. He proves himself wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Brother, Stephen and Dim tim, the unholy trinity of fake frauds.Nothing fraudulent about me Reverend "Tradey". I haven't change my stance on where I stand on these unreliable ambiguous and anomalous half stories that make up the scriptures.
Everything about you is fraudulent. Your stance changes all of the time. Are you an atheist or a theist? You and Brother and and dimtim are all frauds.
"fake fraud"Whatever does that mean?🤣 Its either fake or fraud, you idiot ,🤣
You are not a true fraud - a fraud that is good at what they do. You are a fake one - a false one - a not very good one - a fake fraud. When I first wrote it down I thought it was idiotic to say so - and deleted the first word - but then after thinking about it - thought it very well captured the essence of you and Brother and Dimtim. All of you are frauds - just not very good ones. Hence why you are a fake fraud.
You all pretend to be something you are not. Hence - fraud. But over and above that - you are so terrible at it - that the only word to describe it is fake.
and yes, this makes me a hypocrite because once again I am dishing on you rather than engaging with the arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"When you ask a theological question - that is not personal, then I will choose to answer."
As we can see, you used your #3 childlike excuse shown below of running away from biblical axioms, and because of your ever so wanting Biblical stupidity, you have to take this embarrassing position all the time! LOL!
So let's see.
TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #1: Tradesecret will now call you a “bully,” for making them the Bible fool, or for asking questions that they could not answer, even though the questions asked were logically valid!
Personal attack. Not a theological one.
TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #2: Tradesecret will now accuse you of “stalking” them if you repeat more than once why Tradesecret hasn’t addressed your questions in the first place! LOL!
Personal Attack, Not a theological one.
TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #3: Tradesecret will now use the ruse of “attacking them personally,” by name calling, which has nothing to do with the questions asked to them. Where the irony is “her/him/unknown/him/unknown performs this act as well. Can Tradesecret spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? LOL
Personal Attack. Not a theological one.
TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #4: Tradesecret will just go “SILENT” to your questions in the hopes that you will forget about the fact that you presented them to “her/him/unknown/him in the first place! Shhhhh, with Tradesecret, mums the word!
Personal attack. Not a theological one.
TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #5: Tradesecret will give you “cutesy” excuses and images to try and take your mind off of the FACT that they are running away again from your valid questions!
Personal Attack. Not a theological one.
TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #6: Now if you want to make Tradesecret the continued Bible fool, they “may” answer you if your question or statement to them is, “properly put to them" LOL!
Personal attack. Not a theological one.
TRADESECRET, DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOW YOU AND THE MEMBERSHIP IN HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE RECENTLY HAVE RAN AWAY FROM MY JESUS' INSPIRED POSTS TO YOU BY YOU FOLLOWING YOUR RUNAWAY EXCUSES ABOVE?
Dear Brother, show the membership anything you like. If you want me to respond to you. Ask me a theological or religious question which is not personally attacking anyone.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
I'm fairly certain it's not the answer you're looking for, nor am I sure my answer is applicable, but the absolute bare minimum foundation of truth is that truth exists at all.
I'm not looking for a particular answer. I am asking questions. So your answer is applicable. I agree that the for truth to exist there must be truth. But what is truth? Ah there is the rub.
If one would like to claim that truth does not exist, I'd question if they consider said claim to be true in the first place?
Yes, and that is an excellent question. A little like - there are absolutely no such things as absolutes. A self contradicting statement - proving that absolutes do exist. How does someone know it is true that there is no truth? Of course it begs the question. A circular construct. An axiom.
We can also be certain that a sufficient process or sufficient cause could lead to a sufficient result or sufficient effect if we perform the process and get that result.
Only if we can be certain that the universe is not a random event that randomly occurred. Cause and effect are useful only if our underlying epistemology presumes that.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
One study on mortality rates of paleolithic hunter-gatherers investigates the famous Indian Knoll archaeological site from around 2,500 BCE, located in today’s area of Kentucky. For this community the estimates suggest that mortality at a young age was even higher than the average for modern-day hunter-gatherers: 30% died in their first year of life, and 56% did not survive to puberty.It is Reason that has brought the global infant mortality rate down to 2.9%.
So you base your knowledge for truth on reason and logic? Ok. You are an atheist aren't you? Forgive me if I am incorrect. So don't you consider that the world is only material? And if so, why do you subscribe to the basis of knowledge based on something that is not material. The laws of logic or reason are not material. They are clearly immaterial. You can't touch them. You can't taste them. They exist apart from the human and its material world.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Theoretical deductions. Basically, logical and mathematical structures.
So the first one then. Reason and logic.
Immaterial things. How do you reason this with the notion that there is only the material? The principles of logic and the laws of mathematics are immaterial not material. You cannot touch or taste these rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Jesus is fully man as well as fully God.
This means he has every part of a human including something to sit upon.
Of course - sitting on a throne - is both literal and metaphorical. The Queen of England sits on the throne every second of every 24 hours. Yet this is not the same as her sitting literally.
I am not even sure that it every involves her literally sitting on a throne - maybe at her coronation.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
For the atheist, it's his subjective feelings. He rationalizes this by concluding that everyone goes by this metric too.But then will insist that his claims are objectively true. Go figure.
Yes, as I said in another topic thread - the atheist is arbitrary and irrational. The point is to get that person to start to actually think. It however is an exhausting process.
...none of the others can consistently and rationally make sense by themselves.I agree, but would like to hear how you came to this conclusion.
I am happy to do that- and I will. But first I would like to see where others go with their thinking. my point of view is based on the issue of the contrary. It works best when people start to examine their own logic and see the futility of it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
All of the above is generated by a developed physiological function and it's processes.Amazing but seemingly true.
How do you know that is true?
To speculate otherwise is simply to speculate otherwise and not to exceed internal function and processes.
So do you want people not to think about the things you say - just "believe"?
We are currently switched on and working.
Do you mean alive people think? Or are you suggesting that we are all living in the matrix?
And one day in the not to distant future we will cease to be switched on and working.
Dead, do you mean? Or off? Are you a bot answering questions on this site? That may well explain a lot of your responses.
As far as we can actually know that will be the end of our particular story.
How do you know that? Why are you so sure? What made you come to this conclusion? What is the basis of this knowledge?
Though some people benefit from avoiding the known truth and speculating otherwise.
Again, how do you know this? What people can benefit from avoiding he truth? How do you know it is true?
Though that is not to say that there might be an unknown truth.
So I am not really sure what you are saying. Is there truth or not? How would you know? How can you know?
But we don't actually know that.
You have just conceded that you know something. How do you know it? How do you know that "we don't actually know that"?
It seems to me that your statement is self-contradictory - proving its very opposite. Of course this is proof, but proof is not necessarily persuasive. Persuasive is an entirely different ballgame.
Created:
Although this might seem a question for philosophy and I suppose on one level it is a question of epistemology, it is also pertinent to understand in order to under religious knowledge.
I would suggest that there are 4 basis for knowledge and truth.
Reason - we sit and we think - requires a belief in the immaterial because the laws of logic are not material. We cannot touch them or taste them.
Empiricism, evidential evidence, we see and touch and feel etc. Relies on the material and denies the immaterial.
Pragmatism. If it works it must be true. Says we should not waste our time on the above, because we are here and we think - in the material and immaterial. But indicates that the end justifies the means. There is no real knowledge save except what works.
Transcendental. Revelation. Based on the view that none of the others can consistently and rationally make sense by themselves.
I wonder where you sit. No-one can be more than one consistently. We might give credence to all of them - but one of them is our fall back position.
We cannot flit from one to the next - there is a hierarchy of knowledge and truth for each of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
But what is a conscience?It is that little voice inside that makes you feel like shit when you've made someone else feel like shit. Disharmony.What is this little voice? And why does it make you feel so bad?Who knows? Maybe it's just part of being concsious. We can intuitively tell when things are out of balance.
It does not sound very reliable. Would you trust it? And why would anyone else?
Is it material or immaterial?Everything is immaterial.I am not immaterial. I exist in the here and now.What is current physics leads you to believe you are material? Existing just means you exist, nothing more. It says nothing about whether you are a material thing or not.
You might just exist. I am living. And enjoying life. Even in the midst of Covid-19 I am enjoying life as best I am able. Yet, I am material - and although I did say I am not immaterial, I meant I am not all immaterial. I do live in the present though,
Is it part of the soul or part of the brain?I am not sure what a soul is. I suspect it must have something to do with consciousness and how that is heirarchichally set up.Ok, Are you suggesting the soul has something to do with the consciousness? What do you mean hierarchically set up?I mean our consciousness is a part of a larger one. And that is a part of a larger one and so on. And it goes down as well. I am sure the bacterial cells and mitochondria that make us up have their own consciousness.
What do you mean ours is part of a larger one? I have no idea what you are talking about. And unless you can demonstrate that - I will need to reject it at first glance. I do believe in God - but I am not part of God. God is not part of me. But you will need to explain your bacterial cells and mitochondria more.
Is the brain the mind?Maybe. I think the brain is a limiter of consciousness. It's what breaks off a seperate consciuosness from a larger one (ultimately, God).How does the brain limit the consciousness? I don't understand. Are you hindu?I have wide ranging beliefs,and some are Hindu beliefs. The brain limits consciousness by giving us the barriers of only five senses. I'm sure you know there are other creatures with more senses than that. Electric and magnetic senses are two I know for sure.
Ok. So what would you label yourself as? Or do you choose to be unlabable? And how does that fit with a higher consciousness? Yes lots of animals can do things which humanity cannot. Birds can fly. Etc.
Do Atheist's have a conscience?Yes of course. They are human.I reckon many would dispute that they are human. I think they are just apes in human skin.That's a shitty way to think of your fellow humans.
Ok. I accept they are human. But not very rational and very arbitrary. I also think they are very simplistic - otherwise they might be able to notice that their only doctrine naturally implies much more than they desire.
How did it evolve?I don't know. I am not sure that things evolve. They might. I am open minded about it.Do you believe in special creation then?Yes.
Wow! What kind of special creation do you believe in? What does it look like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The obsession found you when I left huh?
Repeating something ad nauseum does not suddenly make it true.
If only the spammers knew that!I liked your expansive take on death. The Bible uses multiple meanings of death too, not just the physical passing of people.That is why I like reading your posts, you always have an inventive and novel way of approaching a topic.
The nation of Israel could be said to have "died" and been revived in 1948. A type of Lazerus.
Interesting!! Are you a pre-mill? I used to be once upon a time. PGA.02 has an interesting perspective as well - he is a full preterist. Me, I am probably more properly a partial preterist - leanings towards post mill or perhaps optimistic Amil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not an alter of Timid or timid in the least.
It's pretty hard to be dimtim - since that he is part of the evil trinity of Stephen, Brother, and Dimtim.
All are frauds. All pretend to be either a theist when they are an atheist like Brother, to be a theist like Stephen when he does not beleive in the supernatural. Or Dimtim who is not an atheist - or a theist - but a non-theist.
Brother, Stephen and Dim tim, the unholy trinity of fake frauds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
When you ask a theological question - that is not personal, then I will choose to answer. Until then, we all just will get on with our lives.
If you wish to remain a tool - go for it.
No one has to play your games. And I won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I also demonstrated that when Ludo says he would do good because it was the right thing to do - was nonsense. It is as arbitrary a thought process as many others. To do good - is subjective. And "because it is the right thing" is subjective. Who determines what is the right thing? Who determines what good is? Unless there are absolutes, then these things ARE arbitrary by definition. That is the meaning of subjective.Uh, I never disagreed that these things are subjective. I determine it, for me, in the moment. I determine what I think good is, then I act accordingly. Sometimes I'm wrong, most times I'm right. It's arbitrary but many, many, many people agree that it's 'good' to hold a door for an old woman. I don't need to check with Jesus.
Well then you agree that atheists are subjective and arbitrary. Thank you for your honesty. But that also produces a dilemma doesn't? Why do good? What is your motivation? Obviously, your good today might be bad tomorrow. Is it to make yourself feel good? Is that your motivation? Obviously it cannot be just be "it's the right thing". How do you know sometimes you are wrong and most times you are right? That sounds pretty arrogant! How can you make such an absolute statement when it is clearly a subjective assessment? Again arbitrary reasoning.
Again just because many people say it is good to hold a door for an old woman is a good thing, doesn't explain why it is a good thing. Is it always good to hold a door for an old woman? Is it just in the moment? Are you doing good to please the majority of people at the moment? It is too arbitrary. You need to explain it further. Why is it good? What makes it good?
When our world becomes totally subjective. And that is logical conclusion and the inescapable position of there being no god. I am still waiting for someone - anyone to refute this. Saying there are humanist worldviews - does not produce a standard and agreed definition of good. Saying it changes over time does not assist either. Arbitrary understandings of good or "the right thing" simply don't cut it.What exactly is your objection to an entirely subjective view of morality or good? Saying "doesn't cut it" doesn't explain why. On the other hand, if 'objective good' is just code for god, then something is either ALWAYS good or NEVER good. Of course you're going to say it's never good to have sex with a one month old baby (about the straw-iest straw man there ever was), but was it ever "good" to have sex with your dad? Is it ever good to stone a woman in the streets?
My objection to a totally subjective view on morality is that it means there is no good or bad. That is the point. It removes measurements. and it pretty much means people can do whatever they like. It means that pedophilia is only subjectively bad, not objectively evil. It means killing a human life is only wrong subjectively, not because it is objectively wrong. It means that trying to help the world becomes meaningless, because what you want to do to improve the world is going to be different to what I want to do to improve the world. When morality becomes totally subjective - (ironically even the word totally or "entirely" presumes absolute and objective) then morality loses its meaning.
I never said objective good is a code word for God. I do take the view that without God there can be objectivity. Having sex with a one month old baby is an offence and activity that takes place many times all over the world. It is a sick and perverted act by people who say "I can't help it, I was born this way". And anyway, who is going to tell me how to live my life? It is not a strawman argument. It is on the point to demonstrate that somethings are objectively wrong. And most people would agree that this is true. To call it a strawman argument is to concede the point since it is a relevant argument.
You raise an interesting point about absolutes. Since I have argued against totally subjective laws, you seem to consider that this implies that I believe in absolute morality absolutely. Yet, I did not say that and I do not believe it. I think that in the world there are some morals which are absolute and objective but I also think that there are some morals which are subjective, even cultural. I hold to a mixed view and I can demonstrate why I hold to this view. Plato/ Aristotle - holds to the view you imply I hold to. Indeed Catholics do - after Aquinas. They hold to a very black and white world. What I would consider two -dimensional.
There is an interesting correlation here to economic systems. The market economy and the command economy. Theories exist in economics for both end of the spectrum - but interestingly, every economy is actually a mixed one. There is no underlying epistemology for a mixed economy. Mostly, it ends up being explained in terms of pragmatics. Yet there is a very plausible underlying rational for a mixed economy and it is the same one as for morality. The mix between absolutes and subjectivity.
The Garden of Eden is an interesting picture of this mix. God placed humanity into the garden and told them - they could eat from any tree except one.
An Absolute concept. Don't eat from that one tree. Subjective and relative concept. You can eat from any other tree.
It is freedom within a boundary. It is not all absolutes. You must eat from that tree. It is not all subjective. You must not eat from that tree.
True freedom - true subjective morality - exists within boundaries - within absolutes or objectivity.
Your position is eat from every tree. Just eat from a different one when you feel like it etc. The Catholics after Aquinas and Aristotle and Plato say - you must eat only from that tree and then that tree.
This is not pragmatism. It is freedom within boundaries. Atheists choose to not believe in boundaries. They choose to be free. Yet they don't realize that freedom means nothing unless there are boundaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I have not looked at that thread - why would I? It seems to be addressed to single men. And single men looking for a wife. It did not arouse my interest.
And it was not a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am not scared to respond to a religious question. Please ask. And start your own thread.
I am not going to respond to your personal attacks.
I can't be bothered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
I am pleased you are able to read.
You are the swine that Jesus talks about. Absolutely. That is not me calling you a name. That is me applying the words of Jesus to a person in the context who loves to tramp over the words of God. If you can't tell the difference, it does not surprise me.
Yes, I did say you you were dumb as @#$. Again I don't deny it. It is the truth. Yet, I should not have used that language. I apologized. For me that is the end of it. That you want to keep holding it against me is small minded and petty. Yet, again that simply goes with your character. Small minded and petty.
Referring to you as the slime after a snail. Again - not my best language - but it describes you to a tee.
I could care less for your words - as I have said - words are words - water of a duck's back. Yet that does not mean that words cannot be used meanly or incorrectly. I think it behooves us to use better words for persuasion.
Yes, I have indicated you are a bully. And again I don't regret saying that. My point was not that you made me upset - or some kind of victim. It was a reflection of your character. I prefer to discuss things with people who like to think and argue about facts - not the person. And very often I have been sucked into your little world and have played your little game. It does not mean I have to like it or continue it. There are plenty of people on this site who actually know how to argue and read the bible. and are not out to belittle Christianity or Islam at every opportunity they get. You are not one of them. And your alto egos Brother and your now silent ego Timid simply reflect your views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As we've see many times before, many Bible inept pseudo-christians frequent this esteemed Religion forum, whereas it's latest entry is the ever so Bible stupid 949HAOC, which reminds me of ethang5's pseudo-christian style, where what he thinks he knows, he doesn't subsequent to easily correcting this Bible fool! Its like these pseudo-christians in question peruse this forum to see who is the outstanding Bible ignorant of the lot, which is TRADESECRET, and then venture in to this forum to over take TRADESECRETS total Bible stupidity! Because of TRADESECRET'S mounting runaways from my godly inspired posts, I am getting close to actually having to hire a secretary to keep track of all of them which is my godly duty to do so, praise!
Typical cowardly behavior but we really shouldn't expect otherwise, should we?
Name calling is what you are best at doing.
Running away?
I am still waiting for you to start a thread and ask a normal question on religion. If you did what I ask - then you would not need a secretary. It would all be on one thread. And that would be nice wouldn't? but given your fear of actually starting a new thread that actually is about a question on religion and not a question designed to attack someone's character I can understand your temerity to do so.
Still - the ball is in your court.
You may start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
But what is a conscience?It is that little voice inside that makes you feel like shit when you've made someone else feel like shit. Disharmony.
What is this little voice? And why does it make you feel so bad?
Is it material or immaterial?Everything is immaterial.
I am not immaterial. I exist in the here and now.
Is it part of the soul or part of the brain?I am not sure what a soul is. I suspect it must have something to do with consciousness and how that is heirarchichally set up.
Ok, Are you suggesting the soul has something to do with the consciousness? What do you mean hierarchically set up?
Is the brain the mind?Maybe. I think the brain is a limiter of consciousness. It's what breaks off a seperate consciuosness from a larger one (ultimately, God).
How does the brain limit the consciousness? I don't understand. Are you hindu?
Do Atheist's have a conscience?Yes of course. They are human.
I reckon many would dispute that they are human. I think they are just apes in human skin.
How did it evolve?I don't know. I am not sure that things evolve. They might. I am open minded about it.
Do you believe in special creation then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Question to the Bible: Should foreigners be treated the same way as native born people?Bible: Yes"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”" Exodus 12:49
Hi TheUnderdog,
Exodus 12:49 is suggesting that all (male) foreigners who want to celebrate a Jewish festival (Passover) must be circumcised. It in the context is NOT suggesting that Jewish females nor foreigner females should be circumcised to celebrate the Passover. So the law where both the native born and non-native born was requiring those from outside Israel who wanted to be part of a Specific Jewish festival required to undertake the ceremonial sign of the covenant.
Bible: No“At the end of seven years, you shall have a release of debts … Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother” (Deuteronomy 15:1-3)
Exactly. Since the promised land was to Jews not to Gentiles, the debt in respect of the land was canceled to Jews and not Gentiles. Different rules applied to people within the covenant as opposed to those outside it. Hence in both cases - if one outside the covenant wanted to participate within the covenant celebrations they needed to demonstrate respect for the covenant. Hence circumcision but also an understanding of the promise and who it was for.
Me: If God exists, he can't be all knowing otherwise he would have foreseen his contradiction and rectified it.
Me, I look at these two laws and recognise a wonderful and beautiful harmony for God's people over and above those outside of the covenant. There is NO contradiction.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.I thought you were a protestant. I seem to remember you distancing yourself from Catholicism. Did you change your mind?
I am a protestant.. This does not mean I reject all of Catholicism. I personally don't go for the RC definition of Saint either. But one assumes that even in the RC they must have some standard definition of a miracle and also a standard of proof that needs to be met in order to make a person a saint. After all, if there were no definite standards then there would be more saints - and not too much difficulty to become one.
For the gate to be managed effectively, there must be a standard of proof - for a miracle. That is my point.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Miracles have occurred in the past.Please define miracle. Specifically, please address whether the involvement of a deity or the supernatural is required for an event to qualify.
Miracles are identified by various people in our world. Some who are theists and some who are not. Sometimes it simply refers to an unexplained situation. Sometimes it refers to situations specifically caused by a deity or something supernatural. In the bible God in the OT used miracles to get Egypt to drive Israel out. In the NT Jesus was observed to do miracles by the power of the Spirit of God. In the NT a little girl in Acts foretold the future through the power of a demoniac spirit. These miracles obviously were all quite different. Ranging from causing plagues and significant weather events to raising an axe head in water, to changing water to wine, walking on water, healing the sick, and even raising the dead. They are events - or incidents -unable to be proved except by eyewitnesses at the time and the circumstantial evidence for those who consider them. I presume God not only creates but also sustains the universe. I don't believe in random events. As for a particular definition - I have simply used a descriptive sense here - since ordinarily definitions of miracles fall apart.
The bible is evidence for thisThe Bible is the source of the claim, not the evidence.
I see your point. It is the source of some of the claims for miracles. I would also suggest from my worldview that it never tries to prove miracles are true - it makes certain premises or presumptions if you like. In that sense it is also evidence for miracles. Indeed the bible is a miracle book. It is a book which is fully written by both man and God. Talking about a Christ who is both fully God and fully Man.
On the other hand atheists are irrational if they say that miracles have not happened.An atheist who makes the claim that miracles have never occured are making a positive claim and have therefore adopted a burden of proof, so you are technically correct.
Thank you for your honesty.
The problem here is that you are taking what is overwhelmingly offered as a colloquialism and treating it as a literal claim.
Then perhaps atheists need to be more careful with their generalizations and colloquialisms.
Atheists by and large recognize that you cannot prove miracles have never occurred.
I think there are some atheists who are more honest than others. Most have never actually thought about what they believe or why they say it. In my experience most have jumped on a bandwagon and believe it because they were taught the bare basics at school. When tested they tend to descend into rudeness and ad hominin attacks. I concede this is the case in most systems of beliefs. There are those who have thought about it and there are those who have simply been indoctrinated but have never thought it through.
Rather, the statement is made in response to those who are claiming miracles do or have occurred. Those individuals have never met their burden of proof, so if you actually cared about rationality that would be the place where you would begin.
Again, I would reject that statement. Some people begin with a presumption that miracles don't occur. This is a natural deduction to people who don't believe in God. If God does not exist, then supernatural miracles cannot happen. (By the way, this is a secondary doctrine for atheists despite the fact that atheists tend to say they have only one doctrine) What is the burden of proof that is necessary? And to whom must this burden be sustained? For instance Jesus healed a blind man in John 9. He was a man blind from birth. One day Jesus meets him and heals him. He can see. People at the time who knew him saw the change. His parents saw the change. He was blind and now he can see. The religious leaders question - first they doubted the miracle - and probably continued to do so - because they could not believe that Jesus could be from God. Hence they were skeptical. Yet there were many eye-witnesses of what happened at the time.
How do we test the burden of proof here? Is it the actual event? Or would we remain skeptical because we don't believe in miracles? We can't repeat this situation. We can't ring up any of the witnesses today. All we have is a book written thousands of years ago. So then does it come to the credibility and the reliability of the book?
Surely, events that took place 2000 years ago are relevant for us today. We would not dispute that. Yet how would we ascertain the credibility of such history? Do we presume that the book is simply myth? We could do that. Many do. But would that be rational or simply prejudice?
As I have said above - I have not seen a miracle take place personally. Although I certainly know people - reliable people - trustworthy people - who would swear it and even have medical records. But the records - show what? A miracle or something unexplained? If it is unexplained, then an atheist could never say it was a miracle - just that one day we might know. There are plenty of examples of medical records that one day show a significant medical issue and then next day it has gone. GPs would not ordinarily call it a miracle. Is it though? I don't know. But they do call it unexplained - and it gets filed as such.
What is the expected standard of proof to prove a miracle? Is it beyond lingering doubt? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Is it on the balance of probabilities? Is it the pub test? And why is it that particular standard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Again I deny it. You have not offered any evidence to refute my denial.
Repeating something ad nauseum does not suddenly make it true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
It matters not in whether you conceded to the FACT or not
If I had confessed to something, I would continue to confess to it. That is the entire intention of what a confession is.
NOUN
Under the first dot point - it is admitting one is guilty of a crime. the synonyms include accepting blame and responsibility.
Under the second dot point - it is an acknowledgment that one has done something - ashamed of or embarrassed about
Under the third dot point - it is a formal admission with a desire to be absoluted by a religious person.
None of these describe the situation you falsely accuse me of doing. The post you quote "out of context" and I quote it below:
Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess. She would be proud of us. I am not proud - but she would.They are quite nice. We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.
This is clearly talking about someone who is Indian. I am not Indian. I have never lived in India. I do not have a goddess. Nor do I have uncles. Nor do I have a brother who lives in or who has ever been to India.
So not only I do I deny I have ever made a confession of such sexual deviancy on the the DebartArt. Nor have I ever made a confession on Debate.org. There is no evidence of me - ever making such a confession.
If you were to read the entire conversation in context - you would see it all about Harikrish, who is an Indian from India who says he now lives in Canada. You would also note that the entire conversation was totally distorted by Harikrish who was overwhelmed by the evidence against him.
Please get back to the topic or leave. Once again you are revealed to be unable to put together even a half baked argument.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Your proof of miracles existing is that there is no proof of them not existing.
No.
Miracles have occurred in the past. The bible is evidence for this.
Miracles also exist today. There are many reliable and credible persons who have provided such evidence.
You can read the bible and see what miracles have been identified.
You can also go to the local GP. I imagine most GP's have their own little file of unexplained healings. Do they call them miracles? Sometimes. And sometimes not.
I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.
So the answer to your question is no.
On the other hand atheists are irrational if they say that miracles have not happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Would your quote stating; "that would make me personally happy" shown above include SEXUAL DEVIANCY
I deleted your lies and continued fake stupidity about any such alleged confessions. You are the sexual deviant - not me and you do confess it on your profile page.
As for the hypothetical situation that God does not exist - why would there be any rules or cares about what anyone does in that situation? You still have not answered that. You have not produced any valid reason why it would matter to me. Are you even going to try or do I take this ANOTHER concession that you are irrational and arbitrary? That seems to be about a dozen by now.
A social contact is nonsense. Social Contracts exist only to ensure the protection of the individual who is not the strongest has an opportunity to negotiate to live together. Again it only works - if people agree to it - and it can be enforced. But it does not prevent people doing what they like so far as they don't get caught. The rule of the majority is nonsense. Why should the majority of people in any society determine what is right and what is good? Especially when we know they can get it wrong. The French for hundreds of years refused to think the people could get it wrong - but finally had to change their tune in the early 2000s because others were introducing irrefutable evidence they were wrong. The natural law of Plato is nonsense. There are no absolutes - just whatever makes me happy, is important.
When our world becomes totally subjective. And that is logical conclusion and the inescapable position of there being no god. I am still waiting for someone - anyone to refute this. Saying there are humanist worldviews - does not produce a standard and agreed definition of good. Saying it changes over time does not assist either. Arbitrary understandings of good or "the right thing" simply don't cut it.
Hey Brother - surely it is time you manned up - and tried to address the question. I think you continue to avoid - because you don't have an answer.
So sexual deviancy in a world where God does not exist - also does not exist. People can do whatever they want - to whomever they want - and so far as they don't get caught or there are no laws preventing them to do that - it if makes them feel happy, why not?
This is the consistent and logical and inevitable and inescapable problem that atheists have. In a world where there is no final accountability except for death, what else would be expected? People don't do good things for the sake of doing the right thing - unless they borrow from a worldview which insists that they should. Atheism - it seems is a doctrine. Perhaps it is a doctrine of humanism. Perhaps it is not. It is a standalone doctrine which is not related to anything in life - because ultimately it is a doctrine of death. It's ultimate intent is no law. The existence of God is about rules. It is about law. It is about principles. It is about logic. It is about justice. It is about righteousness. It is about goodness. It is about life.
You have nothing.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
So explain the cause and effect side of this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Sorry Brother,
I was not schooled. I simply revealed the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the atheist. When the Atheist says they can be good - it is not because they are an atheist - it is because they hold to a worldview which is NOT atheism. Not one person disagreed with that premise.
Ludo tried to trip me up by saying that if I suddenly realised God did not exist - would I still do good. I said - If I knew irrefutably that God did not exist then I would do things differently. I indicated that I would live life according to things that would make me personally happy in a universe where I was god. This would remove such things as having rules control me. For me there would no final arbitrator of the things I do on earth - except me. That changes everything.
I also demonstrated that when Ludo says he would do good because it was the right thing to do - was nonsense. It is as arbitrary a thought process as many others. To do good - is subjective. And "because it is the right thing" is subjective. Who determines what is the right thing? Who determines what good is? Unless there are absolutes, then these things ARE arbitrary by definition. That is the meaning of subjective.
Hitler thought he was doing good - by exterminating the Jews. And why did he do this good? Because he thought it was the right thing to do. Subjective good and right is ARBITRARY. Nobody on this site actually attempted to refute that.
Atheists are by DEFINITION arbitrary and irrational. They don't actually comprehend the nature of this because it is too difficult to actually think about. I don't think you actually have the capacity to 1. either understand this - and 2. refute it.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
In other words,
you don't have a proper response. That does not surprise me?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
No, miracles still bide by the principle of cause and effect. They are caused, and they do have effect. Miracles have such simple simplicity to them, they occur, and repetitively occur, much more often than you might imagine. A miracle is simply an event occurring by means and for purpose we may not understand, but our lack of understanding does not necessarily mean they defy natural law. We just call them supernatural because they are beyond our understanding, much as we once considered the sun rising and setting a miracle. Miracles are simply events beyond our ability to reason how and why they occur. That they occur cannot be denied. Is God always the cause of miracles? No, I believe we, ourselves can cause them to occur, as long as God allows them to be caused.
Who says so? Why can you be so confident that miracles abide by cause and effect?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you give us an example of a documented miracle outside the bible? I mean besides the Miracle On Ice in 1981. I don't think we can have a fruitful discussion if we aren't understanding what you think a miracle is first.
Really,
please show us there is a murder, but please do it without producing the dead body, the weapon or the witness who said he did it.
Unless you can produce some evidence that disqualifies the bible from being used, then why would I want to go along with your prejudiced opinion. Only people who don't know anything about the Bible would make such a naive comment.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The status quo is nothing, and proof or counterproof shifts the status around. If there are pretty much equal amounts of proof and disproof, it returns back to the Status Quo.The status quo of whether miracles exist is null: We can't prove whether if it exists or not. That is the status quo. Unless there are presented information that amounts to something about whether miracles exist or not, we cannot say that miracles exist or not due to the lack of information.The center-ground or status quo on the God issue would quite literally be agnosticism. Both sides present proof of why their side is more correct. If there is no proof, then we cannot prove anything. A toddler who just got introduced to the idea of "god" would have no proof of it existing or not, and the default settings to any problem, without proof shifting anything anywhere, is in the center where we cannot know anything.
In other words, you are saying you don't have a reason to excuse atheists for being irrational and arbitrary on this matter. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is a concession in this thread.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
For this reply I am using a tentative definition of miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws that is thought to be the work of a deity.Personally, I don't believe in miracles because of a few reasons.1. The frequency of 'miracles' decreases as our knowledge (and ability to investigate) has increased.This suggests people attribute miracles to misunderstood events (we know this has happened) or are dishonest (we know this has happened).2. Miracles have not been shown to be something other than misattribution or fraud. The burden of proof still rests firmly on those who claim miracles are real.
And yet they do happen.
How many doctors have confirmed very surprising results in relation to different matters? Things that cannot be explained naturally? the problem of course is not the dishonest matters - but rather the ones which are confirmed. I am not sure I agree with you definition. I am pretty sure most religious people would not attribute every miracle to a deity. When an unexplained situation occurs - even non-religious people tend to call it a miracle - but they certainly would attribute it to a deity. Just unexplained.
The fact that fraud happens - indeed as it does in science as well - is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
BTW my point even from the OP is that it is arbitrary and irrational for atheists to say miracles don't exist. Your response does not address that at all. However thanks for your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Are there any idiots or mentally challenged at DArt who still think covid2/covid19 is just a conspiracy?There is an idiot ---mentally disturbed?-- person in another forum who keeps ranting about there is no such thing as a contagion.
I can't speak for others, And I certainly don't think Covid-19 is fake. But how much more deadly is it than many other diseases in the world?
It has changed our lives. But I think that if there is a conspiracy it in the reverse direction. The way governments around the world have locked things down is like they have been privy to information that nobody else has. I wonder if it is much worse than we have been told, to be honest.
Having said that, I live in Australia and compared to the rest of the world, our Covid-19 deaths have been very low. It is the restrictions which have been causing us grief. I don't know ANYONE who has had covid-19, let alone, anyone who had died from it. It is only every news items about people I don't know anything about. And people in other countries I have never heard of before.
And yet - we are locked down. We are not allowed to move more than 5 ks from our home. We have to wear masks inside and out. We can't leave the home except for 5 reasons - we can't even go to church. We even have a curfew. We are not allowed outside after 9pm.
It is crazy. Yet it has changed our lives. Why are governments so petrified? What do they know that we don't know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I have never admitted to be a sexual deviant. I have never conceded that this lie is true.
Your continual lie about me is evidence of nonsense. It is you who is the sexual deviant in any event. Anyone who says that they do nudey bus runs is obviously a sexual deviant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes, good and evil are subjective and change over time. Sorry, that's just the way life is. It was at one time viewed as moral to sell your duaghter into se slavery, in the Old TEstament. Now it isn't. If morality didn't change, then that would still be going on all over the world. Why exactly do I need an absolute morality, again? Is it impossible to understand morality through the lens of the society and time in which I live? Yes, I understand that it changes this way, but that's good. At one point, it was moral to shun gay people, for example. Are we not glad that changed?
so true. they change over time. So why would you make a judgment statement about me saying I am not good? What is good today won't be good tomorrow. Gay people might have been shunned in the past - and they might well be shunned in the future. Is that good or bad?
Absolute morality means that some things are evil no matter what. It will always be evil to have sex with a 1 month old baby. This is an absolute truth of morality. It will always be wrong to rape someone. Absolute morality. It will always be wrong for states to legislate unconditional abortion. It will always be wrong to be an atheist. Moral absolutes. They exist. It is not relative. It is not an opinion.
When morality becomes arbitrary - Hitler takes over the world and thinks it is right to kill Jews. And if good is subjective - why not? This is the dilemma for moral relativists. For Atheists in general. They want their cake and they want to eat it as well.
Created: