Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on May 31, 2015, 02:37:40 PM
-
deleted
-
The dear boy is sitting in his comfortable armchair by the side of the eternal bonfire, drinking a single malt, and contemplating the good life. Satan doesn't need to lift a finger as he has so many willing slaves, namely extreme Christians who do his bidding. Their nastiness and bigotry brings the faith into disrepute and puts people right off it!
I have been posting on a couple of other forums in the past week, which are exclusively Christian fundamentalist. OMG if I thought one or two of the Christian posters on here were Satan's spawn, the majority of posters on those two forums are his generals. Their extremist nastiness is eye watering. As you can imagine some of my comments haven't gone down too well, so I am expecting a lifetime ban very soon! ;D
What do you want Floo?
Someone to commend you and tell you that your doing Satans work really well or should that be doing your own work but supporting Satan?
You think you are any better than any one else who taunts and sets out to deliberately cause friction with those who are not harming you?
Be careful if you poke the bear you are likely to get hurt....
So how do those Christians compare to your own Christian daughter a vicar?
Does she believe homosexuality is wrong for Christians?
Does she condemn homosexuals? Does she believe anything like those others believe.
Glass houses and Stones... You are not in a position to judge anyone unless judging your own daughter too.
Those people are someones Sons and Daughters, too.
Do you think all believers are like those people? Why those forums?
I think if you lie down with dirt then you are going to get dirty.
They are fair game for you who is not a believer. Why do to others what you do not want done to yourself?
-
Sass, my dear you make my case so well, I do thank you so much! ;D ;D ;D
-
Not sure why you seek those sites out and your obsession with fundies floo. Wouldn't you be the first to scream about them knocking on your door and bothering you, yet you seek them out? Just asking. How's your spider?
-
Not sure why you seek those sites out and your obsession with fundies floo. Wouldn't you be the first to scream about them knocking on your door and bothering you, yet you seek them out? Just asking. How's your spider?
The spider went to spider heaven last year, and I am not replacing it.
-
Satan is probably on his hols at the moment, having left his throne in heaven in the safe hands of one particular 'Christian' poster on this forum, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds! ::)
-
Satan is probably on his hols at the moment, having left his throne in heaven in the safe hands of one particular 'Christian' poster on this forum, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds! ::)
Poor Floo. She is such a mess. :(
-
Satan reckons his main man is doing a splendid job in his absence! ;D ;D ;D
-
Not sure why you seek those sites out and your obsession with fundies floo. Wouldn't you be the first to scream about them knocking on your door and bothering you, yet you seek them out? Just asking. How's your spider?
That's the mystery, isn't it? What's her problem?
-
Sass, my dear you make my case so well, I do thank you so much! ;D ;D ;D
Never answer a question, do you, Floo?
-
Sass, my dear you make my case so well, I do thank you so much! ;D ;D ;D
Never answer a question, do you, Floo?
She can't her half brain cell is lonely and is impregnated with the atheist and bias side of human nature... Poor Floo, couldn't even get the nice half of the one half of brain cell she has... ;D :)
-
Blimey Satan must have taken Sass on to provide the entertainment in Hell, and is in a love tryst with his right hand man! ;D
-
Sass, my dear you make my case so well, I do thank you so much! ;D ;D ;D
Never answer a question, do you, Floo?
She can't her half brain cell is lonely and is impregnated with the atheist and bias side of human nature... Poor Floo, couldn't even get the nice half of the one half of brain cell she has... ;D :)
How come Sass when anyone asks you to tell us how you manage to verify the source of the knowledge you keep telling us is in your workshop manual, the bible? It all goes quite we don't hear anything about how you can possibly know they are the words of this he she or it thing you refer to as god?
Nobody else has supplied any evidence that would support the veracity of your book, perhaps you can? So that we can all check it and see if it is in fact true as you keep telling us it is at some length?
Look forward to hearing how you verify the evidence that could support your book, or will it all go quite again?
ippy
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
-
Sass, my dear you make my case so well, I do thank you so much! ;D ;D ;D
Never answer a question, do you, Floo?
She can't her half brain cell is lonely and is impregnated with the atheist and bias side of human nature... Poor Floo, couldn't even get the nice half of the one half of brain cell she has... ;D :)
How come Sass when anyone asks you to tell us how you manage to verify the source of the knowledge you keep telling us is in your workshop manual, the bible? It all goes quite we don't hear anything about how you can possibly know they are the words of this he she or it thing you refer to as god?
Source of what knowledge?
Well explain in details really tired of your half baked excuses called posts which say absolutely nothing as you are never clear about what knowledge the source is about.
So give us the KNOWLEDGE and what part of the bible you are referring to and what the bible states...
Nobody else has supplied any evidence that would support the veracity of your book, perhaps you can? So that we can all check it and see if it is in fact true as you keep telling us it is at some length?
Jesus Christ said:
King James Bible
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
TRUTH IS, if you have never kept his commandments then you cannot say the bible does not prove anything... So perhaps your damn ignorance is the most likely cause for writing
such stupid posts.
Look forward to hearing how you verify the evidence that could support your book, or will it all go quite again?
ippy
Looking forward to the day you actually read the bible and know enough of it'a contents to make a reasoned and well thought out posts. Instead of posts which blatantly show how ignorant you really about the bible and Christianity...
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
Okay, Sassy, I'll help them out of that ditch their in.
Look you two, you must read the Bible! Read it right through and never argue with one word it says! Never ever question any of it because God actually sat and wrote every word - Sassy guarantees it!
Now, every time you post on here, quote a page of verses ... in Bold and at least using a 72 font!
If anyone else posts a reply, just tell them they haven't read the Bible - and always ALWAYS add 50 columns of great big verses, just in case they don't understand.
Get it, you heathens!
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
Okay, Sassy, I'll help them out of that ditch their in.
Look you two, you must read the Bible! Read it right through and never argue with one word it says! Never ever question any of it because God actually sat and wrote every word - Sassy guarantees it!
Now, every time you post on here, quote a page of verses ... in Bold and at least using a 72 font!
If anyone else posts a reply, just tell them they haven't read the Bible - and always ALWAYS add 50 columns of great big verses, just in case they don't understand.
Get it, you heathens!
GOT IT! ;D ;D ;D You have to admit though that reading Sass's nonsense is good for a giggle as it is so silly!
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
Same sweet old BA enjoy the rest of your day matie.
ippy
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
Okay, Sassy, I'll help them out of that ditch their in.
Look you two, you must read the Bible! Read it right through and never argue with one word it says! Never ever question any of it because God actually sat and wrote every word - Sassy guarantees it!
Now, every time you post on here, quote a page of verses ... in Bold and at least using a 72 font!
If anyone else posts a reply, just tell them they haven't read the Bible - and always ALWAYS add 50 columns of great big verses, just in case they don't understand.
Get it, you heathens!
GOT IT! ;D ;D ;D You have to admit though that reading Sass's nonsense is good for a giggle as it is so silly!
Why is it silly? You never actually take up anything she says, just this blanket dismissal. I don't think you even read the posts.
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
Same sweet old BA enjoy the rest of your day matie.
ippy
I didn't realise you cared. ;)
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
Okay, Sassy, I'll help them out of that ditch their in.
Look you two, you must read the Bible! Read it right through and never argue with one word it says! Never ever question any of it because God actually sat and wrote every word - Sassy guarantees it!
Now, every time you post on here, quote a page of verses ... in Bold and at least using a 72 font!
If anyone else posts a reply, just tell them they haven't read the Bible - and always ALWAYS add 50 columns of great big verses, just in case they don't understand.
Get it, you heathens!
There goes a third ignorant person...
Can't you reason without bias and without allowing yourselves to have the wrong end of the stick. It is a fact that Floo and Ippy show no knowledge of having read the bible hence their posts are really based in ignorance.... Fools rush in where angels fear to tread... You could apply that to yourself. You saw the post and had NO KNOWLEDGE of the back ground to that post regarding the posts of these two people...
Is it any wonder that ignorance abounds about Christianity and when the blind try to help the blind out of the ditch.. three in a ditch.. no bad going..
-
Sass you are absolutely HILARIOUS, ;D I am willing to bet I have read the Bible as many, if not more times, than you. Your posts are generally ill put together nonsense, I suspect if some deity is reading them he gets a fit of the giggles too.
Anyway Satan's henchman will no doubt step in and defend Hell's court jester from the comments made by us terrible heathen! Funny he is quick to pull anyone else up on ill constructed posts and poor English (even when his own aren't perfect), but Sass gets away with it. It must LOVE! ;D ;D ;D
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
You need to know what you are talking about and take the forest out of your eye to see and remove a speck in someone elses.
Personally your posts are drone, drone,, drone,,,.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Had you read the bible understood Christianity you would know that answer...
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
Prove Christ was not the Son of God... You see you are really ignorant when it comes to what FAITH is and how Faith and the word of Christ works.. What are Christs teachings about evidence for the individual?
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
Verify for who? Again lack of knowledge about Christianity and the bible shows you have no understanding and what you say is absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Had you known the bible and Christianity you could have tried it for yourself. As you have never done what it says you cannot make that assertion/assumption you are not educated enough to do so.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Ahh the fatal mistake of ignorance.. No believers uses the bible to support the bible. Supporting the NT by the OT is sound but had you known Christianity and the bible then you would not make such silly remarks because no believers believes because the OT must support the NT. Had you understood the bible and followed it, you would not ask such things out of ignorance.
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
Assumption is the mother of all F*ck ups I believe is the saying..
Christianity and the truth does not rely on the bible for it's existence or proof of God. Had you read the bible you would know this.. Your mind is so closed and so brainwashed that you cannot see the truth that everyone else can who has read the bible. Abraham did not have a bible... You see where your logic is off ?
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
Who says I don't have evidence?
Did Jesus Christ show any evidence? Of course he did... he did what was written about him in the bible.. But what do you think made him sure he was the son of God? How did he perform the miracles and why did he allow himself to be put to death?
You cannot reason even with what does exist. How can you assume to think you can tell someone what the evidence of God actually is?
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Your ignorance of what the evidence is and what evidence is shown to the believer...
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
What case? You are not educated enough concerning the bible or Christianity to question or ask anyone to prove a "case". In fact that ignorance means you ask things out of ignorance you would not need to ask if you knew Christianity and the bible. YOU are simply not qualified to question or ask a believer for proof... Because you don't even know how to seek it for yourself and never have done.
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
Okay, Sassy, I'll help them out of that ditch their in.
Look you two, you must read the Bible! Read it right through and never argue with one word it says! Never ever question any of it because God actually sat and wrote every word - Sassy guarantees it!
Now, every time you post on here, quote a page of verses ... in Bold and at least using a 72 font!
If anyone else posts a reply, just tell them they haven't read the Bible - and always ALWAYS add 50 columns of great big verses, just in case they don't understand.
Get it, you heathens!
GOT IT! ;D ;D ;D You have to admit though that reading Sass's nonsense is good for a giggle as it is so silly!
What you fail to understand in your own ignorance is neither any Christian here or myself are actually bothered by anything you write. To be honest I feel embarrassed for yourself and Ippy. Because no amount of mockery or self-subterfuge concerning that mockery will hide the embarrassment that it is simply a ploy to try and cover your own ignorance...
We don't find it funny we feel sorry that the rest of the board can see how you are trying to defend your ignorance with mockery and insult.
But it remains what it is.. You and Ippy are both ignorant when it comes to the bible and Christian truths...
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
As I said, Floo and Ippy, everyone here is aware of you not knowing anything about Christianity and the bible... You would not repeat yourselves over and over and over again if you did... :(
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
As I said, Floo and Ippy, everyone here is aware of you not knowing anything about Christianity and the bible... You would not repeat yourselves over and over and over again if you did... :(
The problem is that you refer to the bible, and expect everyone to accept it as some sort of wisdom.
Why should I care what it says in the bible?
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
As I said, Floo and Ippy, everyone here is aware of you not knowing anything about Christianity and the bible... You would not repeat yourselves over and over and over again if you did... :(
The problem is that you refer to the bible, and expect everyone to accept it as some sort of wisdom.
Why should I care what it says in the bible?
Then why do you post on here, knowing what will be said? Why?
-
Perhaps some people live in hope that they might have a discussion with somebody able to put down the Bible and argue rationally in their own words.
The triumph of hope over experience, I know.
-
Perhaps some people live in hope that they might have a discussion with somebody able to put down the Bible and argue rationally in their own words.
The triumph...
Thank you, BR, for that predicable response! ;)
-
Errr, no ... ???
-
Errr, no ... ???
Errr, eh?
-
Why did you call me BR?
-
Why did you call me BR?
Because I was addressing BR, and, as usual, you butted in - it was sarcasm, the lowest form of wit; but that's what you drive me to! :)
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
Okay, Sassy, I'll help them out of that ditch their in.
Look you two, you must read the Bible! Read it right through and never argue with one word it says! Never ever question any of it because God actually sat and wrote every word - Sassy guarantees it!
Now, every time you post on here, quote a page of verses ... in Bold and at least using a 72 font!
If anyone else posts a reply, just tell them they haven't read the Bible - and always ALWAYS add 50 columns of great big verses, just in case they don't understand.
Get it, you heathens!
GOT IT! ;D ;D ;D You have to admit though that reading Sass's nonsense is good for a giggle as it is so silly!
What you fail to understand in your own ignorance is neither any Christian here or myself are actually bothered by anything you write. To be honest I feel embarrassed for yourself and Ippy. Because no amount of mockery or self-subterfuge concerning that mockery will hide the embarrassment that it is simply a ploy to try and cover your own ignorance...
We don't find it funny we feel sorry that the rest of the board can see how you are trying to defend your ignorance with mockery and insult.
But it remains what it is.. You and Ippy are both ignorant when it comes to the bible and Christian truths...
Thus spake the garbage monger! ;D ;D ;D
-
Why did you call me BR?
Confusion could be setting in methinks. ;D
-
Why did you call me BR?
Confusion could be setting in methinks. ;D
That would be Shaker's confusion, then.
-
Hardly, since you were the one who referred to me by a screen name not my own.
-
Hardly, since you were the one who referred to me by a screen name not my own.
I explained why, but you choose to be obtuse: or are you actually unable to comprehend a perfectly sensible explanation?
-
Your conception of 'sensible' is evidently different to mine; but then, we knew that already.
-
Satan's henchman is definitely confused Shaker, they think they are serving their version of the deity when in actual fact it is the Great God Satan whom they are worshipping! ;D
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
As I said, Floo and Ippy, everyone here is aware of you not knowing anything about Christianity and the bible... You would not repeat yourselves over and over and over again if you did... :(
The problem is that you refer to the bible, and expect everyone to accept it as some sort of wisdom.
Why should I care what it says in the bible?
Then why do you post on here, knowing what will be said? Why?
Is it too much to hope that the person quoting from the bible, will actually explain why anyone should be interested.
You must know that atheists do not accept that the bible is anything more than a book written by humans?
So why do I care what it says, when I have other sources of information that differ.
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
As I said, Floo and Ippy, everyone here is aware of you not knowing anything about Christianity and the bible... You would not repeat yourselves over and over and over again if you did... :(
The problem is that you refer to the bible, and expect everyone to accept it as some sort of wisdom.
Why should I care what it says in the bible?
Then why do you post on here, knowing what will be said? Why?
Is it too much to hope that the person quoting from the bible, will actually explain why anyone should be interested.
You must know that atheists do not accept that the bible is anything more than a book written by humans?
So why do I care what it says, when I have other sources of information that differ.
Ah but the Bible is always RIGHT, even when it is very WRONG! ;D
-
Sass where you have written, "Jesus Christ said", shows exactly what it is that doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
How can you or anyone else possibly know what this Jesus has said or not said?
Without some form of credible supporting evidence to back up your word that he did in fact say the these things.
You keep asserting knowledge that you nor anyone else can verify.
To use the bible to support the bible, surly you can see this isn't the way to prove your case?
Before you can introduce the bible as evidence you need to verify the bible is what it says it is first, this is something neither you or anyone else has been able to do.
So because you don't have any evidence how can you possibly know for certain that all of these endless quotes you keep giving us from your bible have anything in them that would prove there is such a thing as this he, she or it thing you refer to as god.
What is it Sass no evidence so no answer?
Is that why you either go quite or go into one because someone has had the cheek to ask you to prove your case?
ippy
The points you make here have been made before, and answered. Either you did not read the answers, or did not understand; or, most likely, are just a trouble-maker trying to score cheap points without any attention to proper debate.
As I said, Floo and Ippy, everyone here is aware of you not knowing anything about Christianity and the bible... You would not repeat yourselves over and over and over again if you did... :(
The problem is that you refer to the bible, and expect everyone to accept it as some sort of wisdom.
Why should I care what it says in the bible?
Well, would you need to ask that if you had read and understood the bible?
You could remind us and yourself, as to why you are posting on a religion and ethics board?
Why should you care about religion or ethics at all?
Maybe you need to go away and ask yourself that question and why you feel the need to post on such a forum.
-
Perhaps some people live in hope that they might have a discussion with somebody able to put down the Bible and argue rationally in their own words.
The triumph of hope over experience, I know.
When in truth you would not and could not tell the difference if they did.
Because like many other atheists you do not understand Christianity or the bible.
-
Ippy you will be waiting a heck of a long time if you are waiting for Sass to come up with anything bordering on a sensible post. Meanwhile, Satan's pit bull, with the intelligence to match their status, will probably jump in to defend her honour! ;D ;D ;D
Blind leading the blind... Someone help floo and ippy out of the ditch.... second thoughts don't. Wait till they have realised they are in the ditch... ;D ::)
Okay, Sassy, I'll help them out of that ditch their in.
Look you two, you must read the Bible! Read it right through and never argue with one word it says! Never ever question any of it because God actually sat and wrote every word - Sassy guarantees it!
Now, every time you post on here, quote a page of verses ... in Bold and at least using a 72 font!
If anyone else posts a reply, just tell them they haven't read the Bible - and always ALWAYS add 50 columns of great big verses, just in case they don't understand.
Get it, you heathens!
GOT IT! ;D ;D ;D You have to admit though that reading Sass's nonsense is good for a giggle as it is so silly!
What you fail to understand in your own ignorance is neither any Christian here or myself are actually bothered by anything you write. To be honest I feel embarrassed for yourself and Ippy. Because no amount of mockery or self-subterfuge concerning that mockery will hide the embarrassment that it is simply a ploy to try and cover your own ignorance...
We don't find it funny we feel sorry that the rest of the board can see how you are trying to defend your ignorance with mockery and insult.
But it remains what it is.. You and Ippy are both ignorant when it comes to the bible and Christian truths...
Thus spake the garbage monger! ;D ;D ;D
There speaks the epitome of ignorance..
-
Your conception of 'sensible' is evidently different to mine; but then, we knew that already.
Only natural... since bash knows what he is talking about when it comes to Christianity and you don't.
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
-
Your conception of 'sensible' is evidently different to mine; but then, we knew that already.
Only natural... since bash knows what he is talking about when it comes to Christianity and you don't.
More silliness from Sass. At least her posts ensure one has a good laugh! ;D
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
There's no such thing as Satan: grow up! You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people. So, again, grow up!
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
There's no such thing as Satan: grow up! You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people. So, again, grow up!
You see you Christians are so confusing - not to mention inconsistent.
This is a brief extract I just found:
If you disbelieve that Satan exists or that he is a mere myth, then you are saying that God has lied to us and placed myths and fables in the Bible. Just because Satan has been portrayed in inaccurate ways down through history or through Hollywood movies, does not negate the truth that Satan exists as we have seen in the verses we looked at up to this point. When we begin to arrogate to ourselves a mindset of I know more than God, which is exactly what people do who deny any cardinal doctrine of Scripture, you can be sure that person is unsaved. If a person calls themselves a Christian and then goes and attacks God’s word, they are no better than the cults who do it which means they are on the same ground as they are, unsaved. Let us proceed to the second part of this study which contain verses with euphemisms for Satan which name his attributes or character. You will notice that I did not hit every verse with the name Satan or will I hit every verse in part 2. This is simply for brevity sake but nothing is stopping you from studying those other verses since you now have a good foundation laid for you.
From here: http://www.scionofzion.com/satanexist.htm
Now this is just from a quick gogglle because I haven't much time - and I have no idea who this person is or indeed what his website is trying to achieve - I merely post it as proof that some Christians do believe in Satan.
I am sure if you looked around some more, or even talked to some of the posters on here they would also affirm their belief in Satan.
I'm glad you recognise it for the rubbish it clearly is - but you can't really have a go at Floo when clearly many Christians do believe.
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
There's no such thing as Satan: grow up! You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people. So, again, grow up!
You see you Christians are so confusing - not to mention inconsistent.
This is a brief extract I just found:
If you disbelieve that Satan exists or that he is a mere myth, then you are saying that God has lied to us and placed myths and fables in the Bible. Just because Satan has been portrayed in inaccurate ways down through history or through Hollywood movies, does not negate the truth that Satan exists as we have seen in the verses we looked at up to this point. When we begin to arrogate to ourselves a mindset of I know more than God, which is exactly what people do who deny any cardinal doctrine of Scripture, you can be sure that person is unsaved. If a person calls themselves a Christian and then goes and attacks God’s word, they are no better than the cults who do it which means they are on the same ground as they are, unsaved. Let us proceed to the second part of this study which contain verses with euphemisms for Satan which name his attributes or character. You will notice that I did not hit every verse with the name Satan or will I hit every verse in part 2. This is simply for brevity sake but nothing is stopping you from studying those other verses since you now have a good foundation laid for you.
From here: http://www.scionofzion.com/satanexist.htm
Now this is just from a quick gogglle because I haven't much time - and I have no idea who this person is or indeed what his website is trying to achieve - I merely post it as proof that some Christians do believe in Satan.
I am sure if you looked around some more, or even talked to some of the posters on here they would also affirm their belief in Satan.
I'm glad you recognise it for the rubbish it clearly is - but you can't really have a go at Floo when clearly many Christians do believe.
I readily include anybody, Christian or otherwise, in what I say. It is an absurdity to believe there is some sort of malign being, stalking around, attempting to ensnare people. We are all totally responsible for our own actions, good or bad, and to suggest a devil is at work behind the sins, is all but laughable.
-
Nearly there Bashers ... nearly there ... ;)
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
There's no such thing as Satan: grow up! You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people. So, again, grow up!
You see you Christians are so confusing - not to mention inconsistent.
This is a brief extract I just found:
If you disbelieve that Satan exists or that he is a mere myth, then you are saying that God has lied to us and placed myths and fables in the Bible. Just because Satan has been portrayed in inaccurate ways down through history or through Hollywood movies, does not negate the truth that Satan exists as we have seen in the verses we looked at up to this point. When we begin to arrogate to ourselves a mindset of I know more than God, which is exactly what people do who deny any cardinal doctrine of Scripture, you can be sure that person is unsaved. If a person calls themselves a Christian and then goes and attacks God’s word, they are no better than the cults who do it which means they are on the same ground as they are, unsaved. Let us proceed to the second part of this study which contain verses with euphemisms for Satan which name his attributes or character. You will notice that I did not hit every verse with the name Satan or will I hit every verse in part 2. This is simply for brevity sake but nothing is stopping you from studying those other verses since you now have a good foundation laid for you.
From here: http://www.scionofzion.com/satanexist.htm
Now this is just from a quick gogglle because I haven't much time - and I have no idea who this person is or indeed what his website is trying to achieve - I merely post it as proof that some Christians do believe in Satan.
I am sure if you looked around some more, or even talked to some of the posters on here they would also affirm their belief in Satan.
I'm glad you recognise it for the rubbish it clearly is - but you can't really have a go at Floo when clearly many Christians do believe.
I readily include anybody, Christian or otherwise, in what I say. It is an absurdity to believe there is some sort of malign being, stalking around, attempting to ensnare people. We are all totally responsible for our own actions, good or bad, and to suggest a devil is at work behind the sins, is all but laughable.
Of course, BA, you're quite right to say it's laughable. Why the Christian Fathers invented this clown to keep God squeaky clean just shows how desperate they were to suck in the hard of thinking!
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
There's no such thing as Satan: grow up! You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people. So, again, grow up!
You see you Christians are so confusing - not to mention inconsistent.
This is a brief extract I just found:
If you disbelieve that Satan exists or that he is a mere myth, then you are saying that God has lied to us and placed myths and fables in the Bible. Just because Satan has been portrayed in inaccurate ways down through history or through Hollywood movies, does not negate the truth that Satan exists as we have seen in the verses we looked at up to this point. When we begin to arrogate to ourselves a mindset of I know more than God, which is exactly what people do who deny any cardinal doctrine of Scripture, you can be sure that person is unsaved. If a person calls themselves a Christian and then goes and attacks God’s word, they are no better than the cults who do it which means they are on the same ground as they are, unsaved. Let us proceed to the second part of this study which contain verses with euphemisms for Satan which name his attributes or character. You will notice that I did not hit every verse with the name Satan or will I hit every verse in part 2. This is simply for brevity sake but nothing is stopping you from studying those other verses since you now have a good foundation laid for you.
From here: http://www.scionofzion.com/satanexist.htm
Now this is just from a quick gogglle because I haven't much time - and I have no idea who this person is or indeed what his website is trying to achieve - I merely post it as proof that some Christians do believe in Satan.
I am sure if you looked around some more, or even talked to some of the posters on here they would also affirm their belief in Satan.
I'm glad you recognise it for the rubbish it clearly is - but you can't really have a go at Floo when clearly many Christians do believe.
I readily include anybody, Christian or otherwise, in what I say. It is an absurdity to believe there is some sort of malign being, stalking around, attempting to ensnare people. We are all totally responsible for our own actions, good or bad, and to suggest a devil is at work behind the sins, is all but laughable.
Hmm. The gospel writers recorded Jesus as believing in Satan.
-
...
Of course, BA, you're quite right to say it's laughable. Why the Christian Fathers invented this clown to keep God squeaky clean just shows how desperate they were to suck in the hard of thinking!
It wasn't the Church Fathers.
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
There's no such thing as Satan: grow up! You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people. So, again, grow up!
You see you Christians are so confusing - not to mention inconsistent.
This is a brief extract I just found:
If you disbelieve that Satan exists or that he is a mere myth, then you are saying that God has lied to us and placed myths and fables in the Bible. Just because Satan has been portrayed in inaccurate ways down through history or through Hollywood movies, does not negate the truth that Satan exists as we have seen in the verses we looked at up to this point. When we begin to arrogate to ourselves a mindset of I know more than God, which is exactly what people do who deny any cardinal doctrine of Scripture, you can be sure that person is unsaved. If a person calls themselves a Christian and then goes and attacks God’s word, they are no better than the cults who do it which means they are on the same ground as they are, unsaved. Let us proceed to the second part of this study which contain verses with euphemisms for Satan which name his attributes or character. You will notice that I did not hit every verse with the name Satan or will I hit every verse in part 2. This is simply for brevity sake but nothing is stopping you from studying those other verses since you now have a good foundation laid for you.
From here: http://www.scionofzion.com/satanexist.htm
Now this is just from a quick gogglle because I haven't much time - and I have no idea who this person is or indeed what his website is trying to achieve - I merely post it as proof that some Christians do believe in Satan.
I am sure if you looked around some more, or even talked to some of the posters on here they would also affirm their belief in Satan.
I'm glad you recognise it for the rubbish it clearly is - but you can't really have a go at Floo when clearly many Christians do believe.
I readily include anybody, Christian or otherwise, in what I say. It is an absurdity to believe there is some sort of malign being, stalking around, attempting to ensnare people. We are all totally responsible for our own actions, good or bad, and to suggest a devil is at work behind the sins, is all but laughable.
Hmm. The gospel writers recorded Jesus as believing in Satan.
So what? No doubt many people of his time believed him to be an entity. Just because Jesus believed something to be true doesn't mean it was!
-
Floo
"So what? No doubt many people of his time believed him to be an entity. Just because Jesus believed something to be true doesn't mean it was!"
::)
Christians believe Jesus can't get it wrong, they believe he was God, remember!
Funny I didn't know that! ::)
-
Why the Christian Fathers invented this clown to keep God squeaky clean just shows how desperate they were to suck in the hard of thinking!
So which of the holy fathers are you referring to then? Or are you just talking bollocks?
-
Christians believe Jesus can't get it wrong, they believe he was God, remember!
Is, not was.
-
Christians believe Jesus can't get it wrong, they believe he was God, remember!
Is, not was.
Without any evidence to support that claim!
-
Christians believe Jesus can't get it wrong, they believe he was God, remember!
Is, not was.
Without any evidence to support that claim!
For you, no evidence would be enough.
-
Christians believe Jesus can't get it wrong, they believe he was God, remember!
Is, not was.
Without any evidence to support that claim!
For you, no evidence would be enough.
There is not one shred of verifiable evidence.
-
Christians believe Jesus can't get it wrong, they believe he was God, remember!
Is, not was.
Without any evidence to support that claim!
For you, no evidence would be enough.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?
-
Why the Christian Fathers invented this clown to keep God squeaky clean just shows how desperate they were to suck in the hard of thinking!
So which of the holy fathers are you referring to then? Or are you just talking bollocks?
Yes, it's all bollocks. I know that and you know that, but it still goes round and round (Pun intended)!
-
Christians believe Jesus can't get it wrong, they believe he was God, remember!
Is, not was.
Ok, is 😜🌹
Is, as in, still is, rather than was.
-
That is of course simply a belief with not a scrap of evidence to substantiate it.
Probably didn't need to say that but it never hurts to point out when people are talking about their beliefs and not facts, so that we all remember the difference.
-
...Hmm. The gospel writers recorded Jesus as believing in Satan.
So what? No doubt many people of his time believed him to be an entity. Just because Jesus believed something to be true doesn't mean it was!
Actually, again you are making a positive claim, i.e. that Jesus was not the Son of God and did not know whether Satan existed. However, the reason I pointed it out is because BA's claim about Satan seems at variance with his belief that Jesus being divine unless, as appears to be the case, he thinks the gospel records about Jesus are inaccurate on this point. IIRC, he also thinks they are inaccurate in recording Jesus' views on judgement and, it seems, on Jesus' understanding of who God is.
Now it may be that I've misunderstood some of what BA believes, but I am sure he will correct me right if that is the case.
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
Well yes, that's fundamental to any rationalist and sceptical view of the world. As soon as we hear any new claim being made we all - or mostly - do a lightning calculation in our heads as to how likely it is to be true or untrue based on how well it slots into our prior knowledge of the world which we've all been collecting and reinforcing since we left the womb. If somebody tells me that their boyfriend has gone to the local pool for a nice swim, I have no reason to disbelieve her (but could, if I felt it necessary, do various things to verify the claim), whereas if she tells me that he walks on water I instantly disbelieve the claim as forming absolutely no part of my or anyone's knowledge of the behaviour of the world. Such things have to go into the "Exceedingly improbable and vastly more likely to be false than true: investigate further" tray.
-
Exactly!
-
Your conception of 'sensible' is evidently different to mine; but then, we knew that already.
Only natural... since bash knows what he is talking about when it comes to Christianity and you don't.
More silliness from Sass. At least her posts ensure one has a good laugh! ;D
It is indeed a strange statement to say the least, since Sass believes the OT to be the inerrant word of God (but does not consider the NT to be inerrant), whereas BA rejects the OT as largely irrelevant.
Nevermind, these believers come in all shapes and sizes (as do atheists and agnostics).
-
True!
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
-
Nearly there Bashers ... nearly there ... ;)
Oh, I'm there, Shaky, and have been for a long time - maybe you'll join me some day. ;)
-
Unlikely.
-
Unlikely.
Hope springs eternal.
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
What do you mean?
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
What do you mean?
You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"? Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
What do you mean?
You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"? Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?
Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
What do you mean?
You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"? Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?
Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!
If there is no supernatural?
-
Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.
-
Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.
Or indeed any method by which such 'evidence' could even be defined.
-
Yes, I was steering in the direction of methodology, NS ;)
-
Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.
If you think evidence is naturalistic, as some here claim, then so what? If however evidence is not naturalistic then there is evidence, e.g. the life of Jesus Christ (amongst other things).
-
"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement. If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.
What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
What do you mean?
You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"? Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?
Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!
If there is no supernatural?
For which there is no evidence! Good grief, I have probably had more MEGA weird experiences throughout my life than most people, but in spite of them all I still think there is a natural explanation for all that is thought to be 'supernatural'.
-
"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement.
Says who? It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people. If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.
So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.
What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?
Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe. There is also the existence of objective morality and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But then you knew that already.
-
"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement.
Says who? It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people. If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.
So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.
What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?
Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe. There is also the existence of objective morality and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But then you knew that already.
The existence of objective morality is not a fact. It's not even likely.
It is as certain as it is possible to be certain, that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
If he died, then he remained dead, and would be dead now at any rate.
-
Says who?
Not a who but a what - reality.
It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people.
They know what they're on about, then.
So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.
Yes, that makes every bit as much sense (i.e. none whatever).
Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe
No evidence of an "absolute" beginning.
the fine-tuning of the universe
Which you may or may not know is perfectly well explained without recourse to any woo. If you're unaware of the demolition of FT as a serious would-be argument, I'd be more than happy to walk you through it.
There is also the existence of objective morality
I had no idea that objective morality had been determined to exist. Who did this, where and when, and why wasn't I told?
and the life, death
Too poorly documented to mean anything.
and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Didn't happen.
But then you knew that already.
I knew that such pseudo-examples are horseshit, yes.
-
Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.
If you think evidence is naturalistic, as some here claim, then so what? If however evidence is not naturalistic then there is evidence, e.g. the life of Jesus Christ (amongst other things).
Given that if I am one of the some you claim to have done this, that it is a misrepresentation of a my position, I will assume that despite having covered it Many times in detail in the past, it is simply that you have missed what is being said. In order to avoid this misrepresentation happening yet again in the future I will try and break down this into a simple set of statements. You can them indicate agreement or not on these and where you disagree we can have further discussion.
1. Evidence is what is defined as valid based on axioms of methodology e.g
Repeatability in the scientific methodology
2. There are a number of differing definitions of evidence based on a differing methodology so that what is regarded as evidence in law courts is different from science journals
3. Each methodology may be unclear on certain points e.g. what is defined as hearsay in law may differ in different jurisdictions
4. However each methodology seeks to be as uniform as possible
5. Methodologies such as history, science and law while separate are sought to be consistent accepting the different approaches e.g. in a law case scientific assumptions are accepted for scientific evidence in court
6. All these methodologies are naturalistic in their assumptions, I.e law, science, history.
7. This is the method taught in all recognised UK universities on these subjecis
8. Supernaturalistic claims are not in the purview of these, ergo to evaluate any such claim a methodology would need to be proposed which could evaluate such claims
If you are still in agreement up to that point, then it is incumbent on you to suggest such a methodology. I would note that you have been asked for such a methodology multiple times before but, to my knowledge,have yet to present one
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
What do you mean?
You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"? Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?
Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!
If there is no supernatural?
For which there is no evidence! Good grief, I have probably had more MEGA weird experiences throughout my life than most people, but in spite of them all I still think there is a natural explanation for all that is thought to be 'supernatural'.
Yes, I think this is interesting, as for example, there are tons of visions of the Virgin Mary. Does this mean that they are accurate or real? How would we know? And in India, there are also tons of weird experiences which are reported in villages and towns - person X levitated or materialized jewelry from thin air, or healed someone. And people will swear that it's true. How do you separate the supernatural which is true from the supernatural which isn't? Wishful thinking? Guesswork?
-
I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.
That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?
What do you mean?
You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"? Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?
Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!
If there is no supernatural?
For which there is no evidence! Good grief, I have probably had more MEGA weird experiences throughout my life than most people, but in spite of them all I still think there is a natural explanation for all that is thought to be 'supernatural'.
Yes, I think this is interesting, as for example, there are tons of visions of the Virgin Mary. Does this mean that they are accurate or real? How would we know? And in India, there are also tons of weird experiences which are reported in villages and towns - person X levitated or materialized jewelry from thin air, or healed someone. And people will swear that it's true. How do you separate the supernatural which is true from the supernatural which isn't? Wishful thinking? Guesswork?
Until there is verifiable proof to substantiate claims of the supernatural, one should be sceptical, imo.
As I have mentioned on many occasions I saw a 'vision' of what appeared to be the picture book version of Mary in our 'miracle field' at our previous property. I knew without any doubt in my mind that what I was seeing wasn't real. As others had claimed to see visions of Mary in our field I was seeing what I hoped to see.
-
Until there is verifiable proof to substantiate claims of the supernatural, one should be sceptical, imo.
This begets (not begs ... that's something else ;) ) the question as to whether verifiable proof to substantiate a supernatural claim therefore still leaves a supernatural claim standing. I would say no, by definition.
This is why the supernatural is, on its own terms, for ever out of reach, never graspable, in the same way that the concept of 'tomorrow' is something that we can never actually reach.
-
Until there is verifiable proof to substantiate claims of the supernatural, one should be sceptical, imo.
This begets (not begs ... that's something else ;) ) the question as to whether verifiable proof to substantiate a supernatural claim therefore still leaves a supernatural claim standing. I would say no, by definition.
This is why the supernatural is, on its own terms, for ever out of reach, never graspable, in the same way that the concept of 'tomorrow' is something that we can never actually reach.
Good point.
-
"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement.
Says who? It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people. If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.
So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.
What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?
Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe. There is also the existence of objective morality and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But then you knew that already.
The existence of objective morality is not a fact. It's not even likely.
It is as certain as it is possible to be certain, that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
How did you calculate that?
If he died, then he remained dead, and would be dead now at any rate.
He would be dead even if God raised him from the dead and he then ascended to heaven?
-
Says who?
Not a who but a what - reality.
OK. Demonstrate it then.It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people.
They know what they're on about, then.
Yes. Thank you for asking.So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.
Yes, that makes every bit as much sense (i.e. none whatever).
So why did you make that claim then?Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe
No evidence of an "absolute" beginning.
Except that some scientists believe it to be so. Why is that?the fine-tuning of the universe
Which you may or may not know is perfectly well explained without recourse to any woo. If you're unaware of the demolition of FT as a serious would-be argument, I'd be more than happy to walk you through it.
Good man. Off you go.
There is also the existence of objective morality
I had no idea that objective morality had been determined to exist. Who did this, where and when, and why wasn't I told?
Perhaps you missed the thread or did not see that the choice is between objective morality or a "morality" which has no obligation on anyone. Several of our atheist friends here don't get that and continue to argue for a "morality" which has an obligation on people when they (appear to) think it ought to, yet have no proper basis.
and the life, death
Too poorly documented to mean anything.
In your opinion.
and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Didn't happen.
You seem very certain.
But then you knew that already.
I knew that such pseudo-examples are horseshit, yes.[/quote]In your opinion.
-
It's easy, albeit time-consuming (it's a lot of writing ...) to demonstrate why the fine-tuning argument is a large pile of unwashed underwear, Alan, but the recent and rapid proliferation of rather sullen-teenagerish "In your opinion" and "So what?" doesn't fill me with confidence that you're actually interested in having it explained to you why something that you believe is nonsense. Or, if you prefer, not based on sound reasoning.
I don't blame you - I fully understand; not many people positively enjoy having it pointed out to them that something they take to be true is wibble.
-
It's easy, albeit time-consuming (it's a lot of writing ...) to demonstrate why the fine-tuning argument is a large pile of unwashed underwear, Alan, but the recent and rapid proliferation of rather sullen-teenagerish "In your opinion" and "So what?" doesn't fill me with confidence that you're actually interested in having it explained to you why something that you believe is nonsense. Or, if you prefer, not based on sound reasoning.
I don't blame you - I fully understand; not many people positively enjoy having it pointed out to them that something they take to be true is wibble.
That sounds very much like a cop out to me.
-
That sounds very much like a cop out to me.
It may sound that way, I fully agree, although it isn't. I'm making the point that "So what?" and "In your opinion" (a statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one - when debating or discussing a particular issue with someone else, whose opinion are you seeking?) are discussion-terminating statements which, as I say, don't engender a great deal of confidence that you're amenable to patient explanation.
-
That sounds very much like a cop out to me.
It may sound that way, I fully agree, although it isn't. I'm making the point that "So what?" and "In your opinion" (a statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one - when debating or discussing a particular issue with someone else, whose opinion are you seeking?) are discussion-terminating statements which, as I say, don't engender a great deal of confidence that you're amenable to patient explanation.
If you claim something the onus is on you to back it up. If you see that as "discussion-terminating", so be it.
-
Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.
-
Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.
Good man. Would it be best on a new thread? We seem to have moved a long way from the actual subject of this thread.
-
I don't mind starting or your starting a new thread ("Why fine-tuning isn't a good argument" or some such) as long as it's a placeholder for when I can get around to giving it my all.
-
It's easy to do away with the fine-tuned argument so that intelligent life can exist. Just reference your contrasting belief that intelligent life exists outside the fine-tuned universe in that realm you call heaven.
-
Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.
Are you finally being neutered? ;)
-
Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.
Are you finally being neutered? ;)
And cut out a larger part of the joys of existence? Have you run mad, man? Goodness, me, no, not this chap. However, the cat may have worms, hence the brief and for once (mirabile dictu) not particularly expensive trip to the vet.
-
No, the cat's already neutered years ago; it may be that he has w ... oh, never mind ::)
-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/07/homer-simpson-doh-400x288.jpg
:)
-
Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.
Are you finally being neutered? ;)
And cut out a larger part of the joys of existence? Have you run mad, man? Goodness, me, no, not this chap. However, the cat may have worms, hence the brief and for once (mirabile dictu) not particularly expensive trip to the vet.
Seriously, hope the fella is okay. :-* (For the cat!!)
-
Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!
As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in! ;D
There's no such thing as Satan: grow up! You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people. So, again, grow up!
You see you Christians are so confusing - not to mention inconsistent.
This is a brief extract I just found:
If you disbelieve that Satan exists or that he is a mere myth, then you are saying that God has lied to us and placed myths and fables in the Bible. Just because Satan has been portrayed in inaccurate ways down through history or through Hollywood movies, does not negate the truth that Satan exists as we have seen in the verses we looked at up to this point. When we begin to arrogate to ourselves a mindset of I know more than God, which is exactly what people do who deny any cardinal doctrine of Scripture, you can be sure that person is unsaved. If a person calls themselves a Christian and then goes and attacks God’s word, they are no better than the cults who do it which means they are on the same ground as they are, unsaved. Let us proceed to the second part of this study which contain verses with euphemisms for Satan which name his attributes or character. You will notice that I did not hit every verse with the name Satan or will I hit every verse in part 2. This is simply for brevity sake but nothing is stopping you from studying those other verses since you now have a good foundation laid for you.
From here: http://www.scionofzion.com/satanexist.htm
Now this is just from a quick gogglle because I haven't much time - and I have no idea who this person is or indeed what his website is trying to achieve - I merely post it as proof that some Christians do believe in Satan.
I am sure if you looked around some more, or even talked to some of the posters on here they would also affirm their belief in Satan.
I'm glad you recognise it for the rubbish it clearly is - but you can't really have a go at Floo when clearly many Christians do believe.
God isn't a liar...
Job 1.
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Satan is the enemy of man who denies the truth about God.
Satan knows he cannot defeat God.. How does he know? Because God has told him and yet he persists in trying to destroy Gods creation by making them like himself.
Satan is the epitome of everything EVIL and against God.
Like Man in the face of truth they both choose to ignore the truth about God and make God out to be something evil breeding mistrust.
Epitome of disbelief and epitome of not caring how much suffering he causes to man. He is going to hell and the lake of fire and those like him are following... because like man he sees things only his/their own way...
King James Bible
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
With God, it is about TRUTH and always has been about TRUTH.
He keeps his words he is not a liar...
-
'God isn't a liar'
Another daft assumption made by Sass. ::) You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!
-
I don't mind starting or your starting a new thread ("Why fine-tuning isn't a good argument" or some such) as long as it's a placeholder for when I can get around to giving it my all.
That's fine. Perhaps it would be best for you to start the thread when you are ready. That would be good for me too as I am well behind in responses on other threads at present.
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.
I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'. Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe. I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.
I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'. Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe. I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.
A pure assumption, and not verifiable.
-
The same as theism.
-
The same as theism.
There are at least arguments for it. Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.
-
It's all always seemed to me to be some kind of strange testing ground with experimental stuff going on all the time.
I can iimagine God almost like some kind of professor, mad??, or doctor etc watching things 'unfolding' all the time.?!!?!?
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.
I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'. Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe. I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.
An interesting thought.
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.
I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'. Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe. I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.
An interesting thought.
Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.
Usually at this point I apologise for ''pissing on one's bonfire'' but since it's Wigginhall, I won't be.
-
Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.
It doesn't "suffer" and there's nothing "fatal" or "anthropocentric" about it. Living things are built out of chemical elements, most of which (i.e. everything past hydrogen) have to be created in the deaths of large numbers of stars; therefore the universe has to be old enough and large enough to have been through the process of stellar evolution.
This in and of itself says nothing about theism or atheism, but it does explain the presence of living things at all.
Whether you regard human beings as made of stardust (Carl Sagan) or spent nuclear waste (John Gribbin) is a matter of personal preference, but it all amounts to the same in the end.
-
Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.
It doesn't "suffer" and there's nothing "fatal" or "anthropocentric" about it. Living things are built out of chemical elements, most of which (i.e. everything past hydrogen) have to be created in the deaths of large numbers of stars; therefore the universe has to be old enough and large enough to have been through the process of stellar evolution.
This in and of itself says nothing about theism or atheism, but it does explain the presence of living things at all.
Whether you regard human beings as made of stardust (Carl Sagan) or spent nuclear waste (John Gribbin) is a matter of personal preference, but it all amounts to the same in the end.
And what if it all happened in a much longer time in part of the multiverse and indeed in the blink of an eye in another?
Your statement is at least ''Carbocentric''.
Sorry to Piss on your Bonfire.
-
The same as theism.
There are at least arguments for it. Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.
I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.
It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.
Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.
The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.
We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.
That's the problem.
We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.
It doesn't follow at all, Rose. We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!
-
The same as theism.
There are at least arguments for it. Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.
I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.
It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.
Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.
The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.
We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.
That's the problem.
We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.
It doesn't follow at all, Rose. We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!
Not quite, that would be more like thinking we would find human beings somewhere else.
It's possible another species has a sport which involves kicking something around that involves teams 😀😉
There is zero evidence for any kind of life, even primitive life, like Man U. supporters! :)
-
The same as theism.
There are at least arguments for it. Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.
I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.
It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.
Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.
The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.
We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.
That's the problem.
We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.
It doesn't follow at all, Rose. We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!
Not quite, that would be more like thinking we would find human beings somewhere else.
It's possible another species has a sport which involves kicking something around that involves teams 😀😉
There is zero evidence for any kind of life, even primitive life, like Man U. supporters! :)
There is proof that life can exist though, because it exists here, although we have no proof of life elsewhere YET, I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate it could exist elsewhere even if it was a sort of algae.
😉🌹
Again, no evidence.
-
The same as theism.
There are at least arguments for it. Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.
I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.
It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.
Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.
The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.
We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.
That's the problem.
We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.
It doesn't follow at all, Rose. We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!
Not quite, that would be more like thinking we would find human beings somewhere else.
It's possible another species has a sport which involves kicking something around that involves teams 😀😉
There is zero evidence for any kind of life, even primitive life, like Man U. supporters! :)
There is proof that life can exist though, because it exists here, although we have no proof of life elsewhere YET, I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate it could exist elsewhere even if it was a sort of algae.
😉🌹
Whilst as yet we have no substantial evidence that there are other life forms on other planets, I would find it very hard to believe that our planet is the only one to host life.
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.
I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'. Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe. I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.
An interesting thought.
Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.
Usually at this point I apologise for ''pissing on one's bonfire'' but since it's Wigginhall, I won't be.
I think you pissed on yourself there. How you get from life occurring in a very large very old universe to the anthropocentric, beats me. I would think that it's the theistic use of fine tuning which is human-centred.
It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life. Why not just produce it ab initio?
-
It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life. Why not just produce it ab initio?
Your thinking is dangerously logical at times, Wiggy! :)
-
I think you pissed on yourself there. How you get from life occurring in a very large very old universe to the anthropocentric, beats me. I would think that it's the theistic use of fine tuning which is human-centred.
It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life. Why not just produce it ab initio?
What else is there for the theist but the hasty flight into the warm and loving embrace of mystery?
-
Again, no evidence.
Interesting.
Life = abundant evidence of it in one place in the universe and strong though not yet conclusive suggestions of the necessary conditions and components elsewhere in the cosmos; strong arguments based upon these and upon a probabilistic basis; theist's reply: "no evidence."
God = no coherent definition. Absolutely no evidence whatever, anywhere, ever, at all. Theist's reply: "I'll take it as true anyway."
You couldn't make it up (until somebody does).
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.
I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'. Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe. I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.
An interesting thought.
Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.
Usually at this point I apologise for ''pissing on one's bonfire'' but since it's Wigginhall, I won't be.
I think you pissed on yourself there. How you get from life occurring in a very large very old universe to the anthropocentric, beats me. I would think that it's the theistic use of fine tuning which is human-centred.
It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life. Why not just produce it ab initio?
It's good that God has confounded you....after all I did by spotting your anthropocentric bollocks.
-
Anthropocentric ... you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
In fact I'm bleeding sure of it.
-
It doesn't follow at all, Rose.
She didn't say that it follows.
Try again, this time I hope basing your comments on what was actually written and not on what you wanted to be written.
-
Again, no evidence.
Interesting.
Life = abundant evidence of it in one place in the universe and strong though not yet conclusive suggestions of the necessary conditions and components elsewhere in the cosmos; strong arguments based upon these and upon a probabilistic basis; theist's reply: "no evidence."
God = no coherent definition. Absolutely no evidence whatever, anywhere, ever, at all. Theist's reply: "I'll take it as true anyway."
You couldn't make it up (until somebody does).
There is no evidence for life elsewhere, none. End of. There is at least an argument for the existence of God, even though you may not subscribe to it, in your sadly closed outlook. It is possible to make up people with your mind-set: but it's called, "having nightmares."
-
There is no evidence for life elsewhere, none. End of.
No; there is indirect evidence that the components of life as we know exists elsewhere other than Earth.
Life has a coherent definition; a god does not and never has had. We would know what life elsewhere would look like if we found it and are able to look for it on that basis; the same doesn't apply to a god.
There is at least an argument for the existence of God, even though you may not subscribe to it, in your sadly closed outlook.
There are no arguments worthy of the name of argument.
-
There is no evidence for life elsewhere, none. End of.
No; there is indirect evidence that the components of life as we know exists elsewhere other than Earth.
Life has a coherent definition; a god does not and never has had. We would know what life elsewhere would look like if we found it and are able to look for it on that basis; the same doesn't apply to a god.
There is at least an argument for the existence of God, even though you may not subscribe to it, in your sadly closed outlook.
There are no arguments worthy of the name of argument.
Really? But nothing worthy of the name of argument! :)
-
Really?
Yes, really. It's easily findable online.
But nothing worthy of the name of argument! :)
Plenty worthy of argument; yet again you're confusing argument with evidence.
-
Really?
Yes, really. It's easily findable online.
But nothing worthy of the name of argument! :)
Plenty worthy of argument; yet again you're confusing argument with evidence.
There is no evidence for life elsewhere, only hypothetically. You do not accept such an approach for religion, then why would it be acceptable for extra-terrestrial life? Which bit of "no" is giving you a problem?
-
There is no evidence for life elsewhere, only hypothetically.
Yes, I know.
You do not accept such an approach for religion, then why would it be acceptable for extra-terrestrial life? Which bit of "no" is giving you a problem?
I explained why in my previous posts, but just for you I'll give the same answer all over again in slightly shorter words. We know what it means to look for life (and when I say life, I mean only the sort with which we're already familiar, never mind other potential kinds). On that basis we have good ideas about where to look for it. We know what it would mean to find it - we would know it and recognise it when we found it. Gods? Nah.
-
There is no evidence for life elsewhere, only hypothetically.
Yes, I know.
You do not accept such an approach for religion, then why would it be acceptable for extra-terrestrial life? Which bit of "no" is giving you a problem?
I explained why in my previous posts, but just for you I'll give the same answer all over again in slightly shorter words. We know what it means to look for life (and when I say life, I mean only the sort with which we're already familiar, never mind other potential kinds). On that basis we have good ideas about where to look for it. We know what it would mean to find it - we would know it and recognise it when we found it. Gods? Nah.
Give me some, any, evidence for life elsewhere. That's what this is about, though you seem to be finding some difficulty following. You usually attempt to side-track: so, in simple English: s h o w s o m e e v i d e n c e.
-
Give me some, any, evidence for life elsewhere. That's what this is about, though you seem to be finding some difficulty following. You usually attempt to side-track: so, in simple English: s h o w s o m e e v i d e n c e.
There isn't any.
I've said so repeatedly, on this thread and on others where this issue has arisen.
That being the case I don't know why you're struggling as much as you obviously are.
What I've also said - and if you didn't get the point about there being no direct evidence, you won't have grasped this either - is that there's a fairly clear and comprehensive definition of life as we know it, in fact a definition so workable that as far as technology c. 2015 allows we've been able to look for it for the past few years.
So we have (a) a definition of the kind of life with which we're familiar and (b) the means of beginning to look for it beyond Earth and (c) indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it are not unusual extra-terrestrially and (d) a strong probabilistic argument, drawing on sound science (i.e. astronomy; cosmology; biology; astrobiology etc.), that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth.
Everything that goddists don't have, in other words.
-
Give me some, any, evidence for life elsewhere. That's what this is about, though you seem to be finding some difficulty following. You usually attempt to side-track: so, in simple English: s h o w s o m e e v i d e n c e.
There isn't any.
I've said so repeatedly, on this thread and on others where this issue has arisen.
That being the case I don't know why you're struggling as much as you obviously are.
What I've also said - and if you didn't get the point about there being no direct evidence, you won't have grasped this either - is that there's a fairly clear and comprehensive definition of life as we know it, in fact a definition so workable that as far as technology c. 2015 allows we've been able to look for it for the past few years.
So we have (a) a definition of the kind of life with which we're familiar and (b) the means of beginning to look for it beyond Earth and (c) indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it are not unusual extra-terrestrially and (d) a strong probabilistic argument, drawing on sound science (i.e. astronomy; cosmology; biology; astrobiology etc.), that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth.
Everything that goddists don't have, in other words.
You are talking palpable nonsense, and merely unsubstantiated hypothesis. There is not a "a strong probabilistic argument." You can say that till the cows come home. But there is not a shred of actual evidence, despite decades of search.
"... indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it..." is another way of admitting, "there is no evidence."
"...that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth." Again, a meaningless statement without some actual evidence to support it, and not mere hypothesis.
-
You are talking palpable nonsense
Nope.
and merely unsubstantiated hypothesis.
A hypothesis, by definition, has to be testable, which extra-terrestrial life is and a god isn't.
There is not a "a strong probabilistic argument."
Yes there is. Obviously you're unaware of it.
"... indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it..." is another way of admitting, "there is no evidence."
It's a way of saying indirect evidence.
"...that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth." Again, a meaningless statement without some actual evidence to support it, and not mere hypothesis.
See previous response with regard to what a hypothesis actually is instead of what you think it is.
-
You are talking palpable nonsense
Nope.
and merely unsubstantiated hypothesis.
A hypothesis, by definition, has to be testable, which extra-terrestrial life is and a god isn't.
There is not a "a strong probabilistic argument."
Yes there is. Obviously you're unaware of it.
"... indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it..." is another way of admitting, "there is no evidence."
It's a way of saying indirect evidence.
"...that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth." Again, a meaningless statement without some actual evidence to support it, and not mere hypothesis.
See previous response with regard to what a hypothesis actually is instead of what you think it is.
Well done for sticking to your unverifiable position, despite its glaring weakness: ie, lack of evidence, which you cannot supply. End of.
-
I'll remember that the next time you wibble on about God or Jesus or Shrek or whatever it is.
-
I'll remember that the next time you wibble on about God or Jesus or Shrek or whatever it is.
Here'a bit of "wibble," then:
"In recent years we’ve witnessed the rise of a vocal atheist community, particularly on the Internet. Some are angry and condescending towards people of faith, some not, but one of the common arguments they make — regardless of attitude — is there is “no evidence” that God exists. This statement has always puzzled me. I could understand that they may not be persuaded by the available evidence, but “no evidence”? Really? What is “evidence”? A decent legal definition is “every type of proof legally presented at trial . . . which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.” This proof can include eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, scientific evidence, and circumstantial evidence. The types of evidence are too numerous to list. But whatever its form, the bottom line is the same: It is proof that is intended to convince another person of the truth of the matter asserted. Evidence is often contradictory. Eyewitnesses conflict, scientific evidence is often subject to different interpretations or can be tainted by mistakes or corruption in collection and analysis, statistics can often be more confusing than illuminating, but as anyone with even a few seconds of courtroom experience understands, the mere existence of alternative explanations does not — by itself — nullify evidence presented. Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations certainly increase the difficulty in discerning truth, but saying that one is not persuaded by the evidence presented, or believes that the evidence for one proposition is stronger than the evidence for another proposition, is a materially different statement than the assertion that there is no evidence at all."
D. and N. French.
-
Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.
-
Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.
Nancy, actually. Maybe she's Dawn's clever sister, though I accept you are more on Dawn's wavelength.
-
Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.
Nancy, actually.
So who, if not Dawn, is the D. in D. and N. French?
Maybe she's Dawn's clever sister, though I accept you are more on Dawn's wavelength.
No; I like my comedy to be funny. I'm old-fashioned that way.
-
Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.
Nancy, actually.
So who, if not Dawn, is the D. in D. and N. French?
Maybe she's Dawn's clever sister, though I accept you are more on Dawn's wavelength.
No; I like my comedy to be funny. I'm old-fashioned that way.
David.
And I don't believe you; I think you are a"Vicar of Dibley" fan. ::)
-
'God isn't a liar'
Another daft assumption made by Sass. ::) You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!
It there no end to the display of your ignorance?
Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.
Why persist with making yourself look ignorant? :(
-
'God isn't a liar'
Another daft assumption made by Sass. ::) You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!
It there no end to the display of your ignorance?
Floo is not ignorant, and she is spot on in her assessment of your claim. You do NOT know that "God" exists, it is just your belief.
Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.
The people that lie are the ones who claim to have knowledge of "God".
Why persist with making yourself look ignorant? :(
She doesn't. You are the one who persists in being pig-headed enough to claim knowledge that you don't have. It's all belief, Sass, and you know it.
-
'God isn't a liar'
Another daft assumption made by Sass. ::) You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!
It there no end to the display of your ignorance?
Floo is not ignorant, and she is spot on in her assessment of your claim. You do NOT know that "God" exists, it is just your belief.
Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.
The people that lie are the ones who claim to have knowledge of "God".
Why persist with making yourself look ignorant? :(
She doesn't. You are the one who persists in being pig-headed enough to claim knowledge that you don't have. It's all belief, Sass, and you know it.
I very much doubt if she knows it, Len, she is so rooted in the Good Book that she believes every word - and thinks everyone else should too!
-
I very much doubt if she knows it, Len, she is so rooted in the Good Book that she believes every word - and thinks everyone else should too!
Unless she is very stupid, and I don't think she is, she MUST know it, even though she persists in denying it.
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old. ...
That's interesting. As I understand it it is completely against what scientists in general argue. The term "fine tuning" is perhaps not a good one as it seems to imply a tuner, but it is generally accepted that the actual combination of constants and quantities of stuff are so on a razor's edge that if any of them had been even very, very, very, very slightly different then there would have been no intelligent life in this universe.
This, in itself, is not a purely Christian claim.
Where did you see that claim about fine tuning being an argument for atheism, please?
-
...
It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life. Why not just produce it ab initio?
Why shouldn't he? Is that not just an argument from personal incredulity.
-
...
God = no coherent definition. Absolutely no evidence whatever, anywhere, ever, at all. Theist's reply: "I'll take it as true anyway."
You couldn't make it up (until somebody does).
You just did.
-
Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.
So no sensible response to BA's quote then. Please do feel free to provide one. It seemed worthy of a sensible reply to me.
Note the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "evidence":
Definition of evidence in English:
noun
1 The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
(e.g.) the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
1.1 Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
(e.g.) without evidence, they can’t bring a charge
1.2 Signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in
-
I just love it when Shaker's ugly arrogance does this to him. Too funny that Shaker.
-
'God isn't a liar'
Another daft assumption made by Sass. ::) You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!
It there no end to the display of your ignorance?
Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.
Why persist with making yourself look ignorant? :(
That is a good one coming from the mistress of ignorance. ;D You lie if you state the deity doesn't lie, as a FACT. You want to assume that but you don't even KNOW if it exists as there is no evidence to support its existence! ::)
-
Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.
So no sensible response to BA's quote then. Please do feel free to provide one. It seemed worthy of a sensible reply to me.
Note the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "evidence":
Definition of evidence in English:
noun
1 The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
(e.g.) the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
1.1 Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
(e.g.) without evidence, they can’t bring a charge
1.2 Signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in
And, as ever, evidence as described there and in law and history is methodologically naturalistic. When you eventually get back with a supernaturalistic methodology, you know the one you have been asked for over years and hundreds of times, then you can talk about evidence.
-
That's interesting. As I understand it it is completely against what scientists in general argue. The term "fine tuning" is perhaps not a good one as it seems to imply a tuner, but it is generally accepted that the actual combination of constants and quantities of stuff are so on a razor's edge that if any of them had been even very, very, very, very slightly different then there would have been no intelligent life in this universe.
This, in itself, is not a purely Christian claim.
Where did you see that claim about fine tuning being an argument for atheism, please?
http://bfy.tw/RUz
-
I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism. Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation. It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot. Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old. ...
That's interesting. As I understand it it is completely against what scientists in general argue. The term "fine tuning" is perhaps not a good one as it seems to imply a tuner, but it is generally accepted that the actual combination of constants and quantities of stuff are so on a razor's edge that if any of them had been even very, very, very, very slightly different then there would have been no intelligent life in this universe.
This, in itself, is not a purely Christian claim.
Where did you see that claim about fine tuning being an argument for atheism, please?
There wouldn't even be this universe, so what does intelligent life matter? It really is a "no shit Sherlock" argument of the tautological variety.
-
...
It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life. Why not just produce it ab initio?
Why shouldn't he? Is that not just an argument from personal incredulity.
It's not an argument. I just wonder if theists who use fine tuning as an argument, have given some pointers about why God would require so much time and so much space, when he only needs one planet. If you're going to say, why wouldn't he, never mind.
-
Dear Wigs,
On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against.
I am reading at the moment, The science of Discworld, Judgement Day, which devotes a whole chapter to denouncing the fine tuning argument.
Human centred thinking verses universe centred thinking, it all smacks to me of, I think they doeth protest to much.
The fact is we are here to wonder and awe at the universe and we can in a very small way understand that the universe has rules, why!!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against.
I am reading at the moment, The science of Discworld, Judgement Day, which devotes a whole chapter to denouncing the fine tuning argument.
Human centred thinking verses universe centred thinking, it all smacks to me of, I think they doeth protest to much.
The fact is we are here to wonder and awe at the universe and we can in a very small way understand that the universe has rules, why!!
Gonnagle.
I think that fine tuning was seized on by some theologians as a killing argument for God, and subsequently, different people have begun to argue against it. It also struck me as a very detached kind of argument, in any case, as if God was sitting there twiddling dials, hmm, better reduce gravity a bit, and the proton/neutron balance is looking a bit iffy, better adjust. And some of it just looks incorrect.
-
Fine tuning is just updated watchmaker argument, since that leads to either an infinite regress or special pleading, it is flawed from the start
-
Dear Wigs,
On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against.
I am reading at the moment, The science of Discworld, Judgement Day, which devotes a whole chapter to denouncing the fine tuning argument.
Human centred thinking verses universe centred thinking, it all smacks to me of, I think they doeth protest to much.
The fact is we are here to wonder and awe at the universe and we can in a very small way understand that the universe has rules, why!!
Gonnagle.
Gonners I note you have pointed this out:
"On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against".
=====
If anyone has no case in any kind of argument you quite often see them clutching at straws, well there you are there's your answer it's no different to any other virtually lost cause.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Clutching at straws, well here's the thing, one of the things the book chunters on about is the story telling chimpanzee.
We all love a good story, but it seems to me that they forget scientists are also story telling apes.
Gonnagle.
-
Far better to be a more evolved ape than created in the image of the unpleasant deity!
-
Dear ippy,
Clutching at straws, well here's the thing, one of the things the book chunters on about is the story telling chimpanzee.
We all love a good story, but it seems to me that they forget scientists are also story telling apes.
Gonnagle.
I know religion means a lot to you Gonners but surly you're not one of the creationist nutters? I've never seen or thought of you as being that far gone. No pun intended.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Course not, simply saying religion has their stories which they cling to and scientists have their stories which they cling to, we are story telling apes, but I see no difference, we all want our way to be the truth.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
Course not, simply saying religion has their stories which they cling to and scientists have their stories which they cling to, we are story telling apes, but I see no difference, we all want our way to be the truth.
Gonnagle.
The difference is that the scientific story is backed by evidence.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
I will leave you to that thought, the scientists want to think their story is true, but another scientist will come along to say bunkum, if you think we have all the answers, good luck!!
Gonnagle.
-
Far better to be a more evolved ape than created in the image of the unpleasant deity!
It has yet to be established that you have evolved! :)
-
Glad you agree it IS an unpleasant deity, then !!! ;) ;D
-
Glad you agree it IS an unpleasant deity, then !!! ;) ;D
As I have said, umpteen times, the OT God is unpleasant. But since He is a total mis-interpretation of reality, it is irrelevant.
-
So the NT should have NO connections at all with the OT then?
-
the scientists want to think their story is true, but another scientist will come along to say bunkum,
And scientists are fortunate indeed that it is possible to tell which of two conflicting scientific ideas is bunkum. They just have to check both stories against reality. The one that agrees with it is not bunkum.
if you think we have all the answers, good luck!!
I don't think anybody suggests that we do. Who did you have in mind?
-
So the NT should have NO connections at all with the OT then?
The New Testament stands on its own. The Old Testament is the religion of Judaism.
-
So the NT should have NO connections at all with the OT then?
The New Testament stands on its own. The Old Testament is the religion of Judaism.
That's effectively saying that Judaism as a religion, and therefore religious Jews, have a nasty and unpleasant God, according to you.
Is this what you're saying and the message you wish to convey? Or have I missed something?
-
So the NT should have NO connections at all with the OT then?
The New Testament stands on its own. The Old Testament is the religion of Judaism.
That's effectively saying that Judaism as a religion, and therefore religious Jews, have a nasty and unpleasant God, according to you.
Is this what you're saying and the message you wish to convey? Or have I missed something?
It's the business of those believing in Judaism to explain what they believe, and why. Though I think it would be interesting to know how they explain the OT God's killing of between 2 and 26 million people - according to the figure you accept - and the explicit claim of God that: "Vengeance is mine: a belief at total variance with the Christian ideal of "love thy neighbour." You may be aware that I have asked this question frequently on here, to be met, mostly from Christians it must be said, with nothing but waffle.
-
You may be aware that I have asked this question frequently on here, to be met, from Christians it must be said, with nothing but waffle.
Absolutely know that feeling inside out on a daily basis.
-
Doesn't it get a bit boring after a while floo? I used to look on one or two a few years ago and it seemed to me that everyone said the same things and there wasn't much in the way of discussion.
-
Just ONE question...
Was Jesus A Jew or a Christian?
-
Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. That religion was created well after he was dead. I reckon like the Jews of his time he believed the stories in the OT to be true. The NT deity is no nicer than the OT one, imo!
-
Doesn't it get a bit boring after a while floo? I used to look on one or two a few years ago and it seemed to me that everyone said the same things and there wasn't much in the way of discussion.
Absolutely correct. We simply go round and round in circles.
-
So the NT should have NO connections at all with the OT then?
The New Testament stands on its own. The Old Testament is the religion of Judaism.
What about Jesus' own words in Matt 5:17-20?
I take your point but explicitly Jesus does not do away with the OT; rather he embraces it, particularly the Law. I think that rather than seeing the OT as purely Judaic it is more accurate to see the NT as the result of a progression in thought from old ideas (such as the erroneous belief that God kills as punishment) to the new - the unconditional love of Christ.
If you discount the OT you then throw out the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job - all speak to us down the centuries and are worth engaging with even as non-believers. Why ignore such richness of writing on the human condition and how we relate to God?
-
Yes we do go round in circles that is true. It is highly unlikely anyone poster is going to change their minds on the topic of religion because of something said on a forum. I still post on forums as displacement activity.
The one thing I have learned the hard way about Cyberland, is never to trust anyone you have only met on the NET, and not face to face. I thought I had learned my lesson a few years ago when I tripped up BIG TIME. However there is no fool like an old fool, :o and I discovered once again I have been taken for a ride by someone, but fortunately this time there is no loss to my bank balance!
-
Whilst meeting someone face to face is no guarantee, at least you have some idea from the body language what they are like. With only one exception, the people I have met in person, whom I first became acquainted with on line, have been absolutely NOTHING like the way portrayed themselves on the INTERNET! I was shocked when I discovered how unpleasant some were.
-
I think I can be more authentically 'me' on-line. IRL I'd be too shy or too driven by convention to say the things that I do here.
-
Rose how many people have you met in person whom you first met on line?
-
So the NT should have NO connections at all with the OT then?
The New Testament stands on its own. The Old Testament is the religion of Judaism.
What about Jesus' own words in Matt 5:17-20?
I take your point but explicitly Jesus does not do away with the OT; rather he embraces it, particularly the Law. I think that rather than seeing the OT as purely Judaic it is more accurate to see the NT as the result of a progression in thought from old ideas (such as the erroneous belief that God kills as punishment) to the new - the unconditional love of Christ.
If you discount the OT you then throw out the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job - all speak to us down the centuries and are worth engaging with even as non-believers. Why ignore such richness of writing on the human condition and how we relate to God?
The words you quote from Matthew are particular to him, and it needs to be understood that Matthew was the Jewish writer, writing for a Jewish audience. He was concerned in presenting Jesus as a "good" Jew, and not a divisive teacher. These claims are not a feature of other Gospel writings. If we are to take the exhortation literally, then today Christians should be involved in animal sacrifices plus all the other numerous rituals including ceremonial washings etc etc, as recorded in books like Leviticus. Jesus said, "You have heard it said in times of old," or, "I bring you new wine for old." It is quite clear that Jesus was introducing a new and up-dated teaching. I am with Marcion who used the passage to justify a total separation between the religion that Jesus espoused and that of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I readily accept that there is much good teaching in Proverbs, the Psalms and Ecclesiastes, but they are not dependent on a belief in Judaism.
-
Really?
People are normally much more reserved in real life.
I should think it is almost impossible to portray yourself on the Internet in the way you do in real life.
How you see yourself isn't the way others see you in real life.
How I express my ideas on here isn't the same as real life, that isn't because I am deceiving anyone but because in real life you don't get the same chance to express yourself uninterrupted etc, in a way body language " gets in the way"
Shyness doesn't apply here in quite the same way,also there is no criticism of physical appearance etc.
Sometimes people can feel awkward in real life which causes them to say things in a way that is less that ideal. You can edit a post, but not first impressions.
It would be interesting to meet some of you in real life because I expect we are all different to how people imagine us.
🌹
I feel an R&E meet-up coming on :)
-
So the NT should have NO connections at all with the OT then?
The New Testament stands on its own. The Old Testament is the religion of Judaism.
That's effectively saying that Judaism as a religion, and therefore religious Jews, have a nasty and unpleasant God, according to you.
Is this what you're saying and the message you wish to convey? Or have I missed something?
It's the business of those believing in Judaism to explain what they believe, and why. Though I think it would be interesting to know how they explain the OT God's killing of between 2 and 26 million people - according to the figure you accept - and the explicit claim of God that: "Vengeance is mine: a belief at total variance with the Christian ideal of "love thy neighbour." You may be aware that I have asked this question frequently on here, to be met, mostly from Christians it must be said, with nothing but waffle.
You mean answers you don't like.
-
You mean answers you don't like.
No, I don't mean that. I mean answers that actually address the question. Have you any, or are you merely commenting in ignorance?
-
I did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
-
I did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
-
Rhiannon said: "What about Jesus' own words in Matt 5:17-20?
I take your point but explicitly Jesus does not do away with the OT; rather he embraces it, particularly the Law. I think that rather than seeing the OT as purely Judaic it is more accurate to see the NT as the result of a progression in thought from old ideas (such as the erroneous belief that God kills as punishment) to the new - the unconditional love of Christ.
If you discount the OT you then throw out the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job - all speak to us down the centuries and are worth engaging with even as non-believers. Why ignore such richness of writing on the human condition and how we relate to God?"
Just wanted to say I agree with all that Rhiannon.
I've never met anyone from an online forum, couldn't be bothered with it now but I know a couple of people who have met and formed rewarding friendships. Years ago many of us posted on a couple of forums where there were many young people, students, and they got together quite successfully. They were a good laugh on the forums.
Floo I'm sorry you've met some nasties and been taken advantage of. It's so difficult sometimes, especially when you hear a sob story. We all learn from experience. Whoever said, above, that we should keep our wallets closed is quite right. A little bit of money is alright but we need to be sure the need is genuine and how can we know that from internet acquaintance?
Over my year of posting on Christian forums I have changed my mind, slowly and with much thought, on one or two issues. That is because of posting on forums where there are differences of opinion and some good discussions.
-
I did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
-
Rhiannon said: "What about Jesus' own words in Matt 5:17-20?
I take your point but explicitly Jesus does not do away with the OT; rather he embraces it, particularly the Law. I think that rather than seeing the OT as purely Judaic it is more accurate to see the NT as the result of a progression in thought from old ideas (such as the erroneous belief that God kills as punishment) to the new - the unconditional love of Christ.
If you discount the OT you then throw out the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job - all speak to us down the centuries and are worth engaging with even as non-believers. Why ignore such richness of writing on the human condition and how we relate to God?"
Just wanted to say I agree with all that Rhiannon.
I agree with most of what Rhiannon wrote, especially with her speaking of the relevance of such texts to non-believers (however, that would necessarily preclude the clause "how we relate to God").
Also, though I agree that there appears to be a progression of ideas from OT to NT, it is not necessarily linear, and whether Jesus' message of love was totally unconditional is still up for debate. There are certain passages where Jesus appears to speak of unconditional love, and others where his message is much more judgmental. We have to decide which sayings are authentic, and it doesn't do just to say "This contradicts that, so I'll go with the nicer one, which I like". Of course, if you're into biblical inerrancy, then you have to find some way of reconciling everything, and the results of this approach are a tad unconvincing, to say the least.
-
I did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
The link doesn't work. Just tell: the odds are I've answered somewhere anyway.
-
:o
I did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
The link doesn't work. Just tell: the odds are I've answered somewhere anyway.
Link worked for me
I have copied ad_o' s reply that it links to but since it is in the middle of a run of replies, it lacks context
'The only thing my conscience has to deal with is conformng itself to the will of God, even in his judgements, which are always just. Yes, even when the whole earth, except Noah and company, were destroyed in the flood; or when he brought fire and brimstine upon Sodom and Gomorrah; or when he brought seven plagues upon the Egyptians. It's the same kind of judgement Christ speaks of in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (unless, of course, you're going to throw that out with the OT) when he will judge the living and the dead (even those who died in the flood, or fire and brimstone, or the seven plagues). And who is to say that all of them will be damned, for did our Lord not descend into Hades and preach the Gospel there too?'
-
:oI did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
The link doesn't work. Just tell: the odds are I've answered somewhere anyway.
Link worked for me
I have copied ad_o' s reply that it links to but since it is in the middle of a run of replies, it lacks context
'The only thing my conscience has to deal with is conformng itself to the will of God, even in his judgements, which are always just. Yes, even when the whole earth, except Noah and company, were destroyed in the flood; or when he brought fire and brimstine upon Sodom and Gomorrah; or when he brought seven plagues upon the Egyptians. It's the same kind of judgement Christ speaks of in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (unless, of course, you're going to throw that out with the OT) when he will judge the living and the dead (even those who died in the flood, or fire and brimstone, or the seven plagues). And who is to say that all of them will be damned, for did our Lord not descend into Hades and preach the Gospel there too?'
I have answered the point this very day, in discussion with Rhiannon - he is free to look it up. I might say, I have referred to this more than once.
-
:oI did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
The link doesn't work. Just tell: the odds are I've answered somewhere anyway.
Link worked for me
I have copied ad_o' s reply that it links to but since it is in the middle of a run of replies, it lacks context
'The only thing my conscience has to deal with is conformng itself to the will of God, even in his judgements, which are always just. Yes, even when the whole earth, except Noah and company, were destroyed in the flood; or when he brought fire and brimstine upon Sodom and Gomorrah; or when he brought seven plagues upon the Egyptians. It's the same kind of judgement Christ speaks of in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (unless, of course, you're going to throw that out with the OT) when he will judge the living and the dead (even those who died in the flood, or fire and brimstone, or the seven plagues). And who is to say that all of them will be damned, for did our Lord not descend into Hades and preach the Gospel there too?'
I have answered the point this very day, in discussion with Rhiannon - he is free to look it up. I might say, I have referred to this more than once.
a simple 'thank you' would have sufficed
-
Floo I'm sorry you've met some nasties and been taken advantage of. It's so difficult sometimes, especially when you hear a sob story. We all learn from experience. Whoever said, above, that we should keep our wallets closed is quite right. A little bit of money is alright but we need to be sure the need is genuine and how can we know that from internet acquaintance?
I like to help people out, but have wised up where giving money is concerned to folk I don't know personally, apart from charities of course. I have decided not to give out my e-mail address to anyone I meet on-line, and have blocked, in the last few days, all those who already have it, just in case it goes wrong.
-
:oI did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
The link doesn't work. Just tell: the odds are I've answered somewhere anyway.
Link worked for me
I have copied ad_o' s reply that it links to but since it is in the middle of a run of replies, it lacks context
'The only thing my conscience has to deal with is conformng itself to the will of God, even in his judgements, which are always just. Yes, even when the whole earth, except Noah and company, were destroyed in the flood; or when he brought fire and brimstine upon Sodom and Gomorrah; or when he brought seven plagues upon the Egyptians. It's the same kind of judgement Christ speaks of in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (unless, of course, you're going to throw that out with the OT) when he will judge the living and the dead (even those who died in the flood, or fire and brimstone, or the seven plagues). And who is to say that all of them will be damned, for did our Lord not descend into Hades and preach the Gospel there too?'
I have answered the point this very day, in discussion with Rhiannon - he is free to look it up. I might say, I have referred to this more than once.
a simple 'thank you' would have sufficed
Thank you , for what? You didn't need to post on ad_o's behalf, and I'm not sure you did so with the most helpful motive: maybe I'm wrong.
-
But you didn't answer me. You're just avoiding it again.
-
:oI did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
The link doesn't work. Just tell: the odds are I've answered somewhere anyway.
Link worked for me
I have copied ad_o' s reply that it links to but since it is in the middle of a run of replies, it lacks context
'The only thing my conscience has to deal with is conformng itself to the will of God, even in his judgements, which are always just. Yes, even when the whole earth, except Noah and company, were destroyed in the flood; or when he brought fire and brimstine upon Sodom and Gomorrah; or when he brought seven plagues upon the Egyptians. It's the same kind of judgement Christ speaks of in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (unless, of course, you're going to throw that out with the OT) when he will judge the living and the dead (even those who died in the flood, or fire and brimstone, or the seven plagues). And who is to say that all of them will be damned, for did our Lord not descend into Hades and preach the Gospel there too?'
I have answered the point this very day, in discussion with Rhiannon - he is free to look it up. I might say, I have referred to this more than once.
a simple 'thank you' would have sufficed
Thank you , for what? You didn't need to post on ad_o's behalf, and I'm not sure you did so with the most helpful motive: maybe I'm wrong.
A couple of things I have posted and seen posted recently,there has been a problem with links, I thought I would look at the one that caused you problems, it worked so I posted it and gave some detail that I had just taken the direct reply. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do. Having my motive questioned is sad. I forgive you
-
:oI did once and you never responded. No doubt you'll just wave that off though.
I don't recollect it. I'm here, ask again.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10121.msg510433#msg510433
The link doesn't work. Just tell: the odds are I've answered somewhere anyway.
Link worked for me
I have copied ad_o' s reply that it links to but since it is in the middle of a run of replies, it lacks context
'The only thing my conscience has to deal with is conformng itself to the will of God, even in his judgements, which are always just. Yes, even when the whole earth, except Noah and company, were destroyed in the flood; or when he brought fire and brimstine upon Sodom and Gomorrah; or when he brought seven plagues upon the Egyptians. It's the same kind of judgement Christ speaks of in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (unless, of course, you're going to throw that out with the OT) when he will judge the living and the dead (even those who died in the flood, or fire and brimstone, or the seven plagues). And who is to say that all of them will be damned, for did our Lord not descend into Hades and preach the Gospel there too?'
I have answered the point this very day, in discussion with Gabriella, I think it was - he is free to look it up. I might say, I have referred to this more than once.
a simple 'thank you' would have sufficed
Thank you , for what? You didn't need to post on ad_o's behalf, and I'm not sure you did so with the most helpful motive: maybe I'm wrong.
A couple of things I have posted and seen posted recently,there has been a problem with links, I thought I would look at the one that caused you problems, it worked so I posted it and gave some detail that I had just taken the direct reply. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do. Having my motive questioned is sad. I forgive you
Excellent.
-
But you didn't answer me. You're just avoiding it again.
Well, Bash?
-
But you didn't answer me. You're just avoiding it again.
Well, Bash?
Answer what? It's like being on trial!
-
But you didn't answer me. You're just avoiding it again.
Well, Bash?
Answer what? It's like being on trial!
Regarding the post of mine I linked to.
-
Floo I'm sorry you've met some nasties and been taken advantage of. It's so difficult sometimes, especially when you hear a sob story. We all learn from experience. Whoever said, above, that we should keep our wallets closed is quite right. A little bit of money is alright but we need to be sure the need is genuine and how can we know that from internet acquaintance?
I like to help people out, but have wised up where giving money is concerned to folk I don't know personally, apart from charities of course. I have decided not to give out my e-mail address to anyone I meet on-line, and have blocked, in the last few days, all those who already have it, just in case it goes wrong.
I suppose that's wise if you've had problems with people online. I've blocked some today - but they were all flipping adverts! They drive me potty.
-
But you didn't answer me. You're just avoiding it again.
Well, Bash?
Answer what? It's like being on trial!
Regarding the post of mine I linked to.
I told you,it doesn't come up with me. Tell me what you want me to answer, and I will try my best, Your Honour!!
-
But you didn't answer me. You're just avoiding it again.
Well, Bash?
Answer what? It's like being on trial!
Regarding the post of mine I linked to.
I told you,it doesn't come up with me. Tell me what you want me to answer, and I will try my best, Your Honour!!
Nearly Sane quoted it for you, but I see you're not interested. You pose a question but when you receive an answer you don't like you duck and dive. I should have guessed. You make our Lord to be a liar.
-
But you didn't answer me. You're just avoiding it again.
Well, Bash?
Answer what? It's like being on trial!
Regarding the post of mine I linked to.
I told you,it doesn't come up with me. Tell me what you want me to answer, and I will try my best, Your Honour!!
Nearly Sane quoted it for you, but I see you're not interested. You pose a question but when you receive an answer you don't like you duck and dive. I should have guessed. You make our Lord to be a liar.
Now who's ducking and diving? I'm asking you what you said, not Nearly Sane. Why won't you repeat it? Well? Ask me and I will answer. Can't be clearer than that. You are the liar, because you mis-represent me. Ask me.
-
NO!!!!
-
Well, he did, as St. Peter tells us in one of his epistles..
-
Well, he did, as St. Peter tells us in one of his epistles..
OH It MUST be right then ?!?!!?!? ;) :o
-
Well, he did, as St. Peter tells us in one of his epistles..
And he was right of course! ;D
-
Well, he did, as St. Peter tells us in one of his epistles..
And he was right of course! ;D
Of course!
-
Moderator:
This thread has had a number of posts by BA and ad_o removed, along with some posts that involved quotes or references to the 'problem' posts.
-
I apologise for letting my irritation overcome my better judgement! :-[
-
The dear boy is sitting in his comfortable armchair by the side of the eternal bonfire, drinking a single malt, and contemplating the good life. Satan doesn't need to lift a finger as he has so many willing slaves, namely extreme Christians who do his bidding. Their nastiness and bigotry brings the faith into disrepute and puts people right off it!
To get back to the point of the thread.
Satan must reckon he can leave Hell in capable hands for a very long time. There have been quite a few quotes of comments made by a number of pastors just lately, which make my case very well indeed, imo. ::)
-
Satan could easily have bilocation. It's not unknown.