WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist. Owlswing has said as much and atheists are happy that that, as far as pagans are concerned, is the case.

The only God Owlswing treats as though he exists is the God of Christianity.

My deities, male and female do exist, in exactly the same way as your god exists.

IN YOUR BELIEF, YOUR FAITH. IN MY BELIEF, IN MY FAITH.

What does that mean? Because you are assuming that we are believing in the same way or on the same level. Your definitions can only be understood if you were to state them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,

What arguments cannot be rebutted?

All of them. Whenever your efforts are dismantled you just ignore or misrepresent the rebuttals. So far as I recall you've never once had the decency to say either "OK, fair enough" or, "I think you're wrong for the following reasons".

QED.

As far as yours are concerned my greatest joy is when Nearly Sane pulls you up whenever you claim that methodological materialism backs up your core beliefs.

He doesn't, and it only "backs up my core beliefs" inasmuch as it provides a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true - and thus to avoid the arbitrary guesswork of your core beliefs.

Then there is the matter of you trying to avoid categorisation of your core beliefs.''I'm not a philosophical materialist'' and then you are because '' Vlad cannot possibly understand my philosophical materialism.

Whether you ever can is moot, but that you don't is obvious.

All that means is that you want the inquisitorial role.

Funny innit - you ask questions; I'm an inquisitor. Worse, I answer question; you never do.

What does that say about you do you think?

Here are our objections to you Hillside.

Who's "our"?

Your definitions -Non standard, self generated and fluid.

Wrong - you could look them up too if you could be bothered.

Your categorisation-wrong in many cases.

Wrong - you never have understood category error, and having an unironic and entirely literal mind means you often mistake analogy for a category mistake. As you just ignore me every time I correct you on this though I guess it'll never sink in.

Your moral philosophy- a mere act of labelling.

It's not "labelling" but, even if it was, what's so "mere" about it? To be otherwise - absolute for example - you'd have all your work ahead of you both to establish the principle and to suggest a method to identify it. As you just run away whenever this is pointed out to you, neither will ever happen though.

Your Zeitgeist hypotheses- debateable and wooly.

It's neither, as even a cursory reading or the literature would tell you if you could be bothered. 

Your Ad hominems.

This from the king of the ad hominem? Good grief! As my replies to you are characterised by arguments whereas your to me consist entirely of evasions, distortions and abuse do you not think that you're on awfully thin ice here?

Your appeal to science as the basis of your core beliefs...

Oh, and I forgot your relentless use of the straw man of course...

-it isn't- and from which we can draw your adherence to the science vs religion schtick.

...which you've just made up.

Oh, and it looks as though I really am the master of prophecy - rather then misrepresent the dismantling of your hopeless PM argument I see you've just ignored it again.

I guess we never will know why you reject my stork theory then will we?

Will we?

Look, as you have nothing to contribute to these exchanges except for your deep dishonesty and misunderstandings do you mind if I leave you to your personal grief and delusions? I will though reply in the vanishingly unlikely event that you do ever a least to attempt an answer to a question that's been put to you.

Ta.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,

What arguments cannot be rebutted?

All of them. Whenever your efforts are dismantled you just ignore or misrepresent the rebuttals.

Yes I did ask where they had been rebutted and you have merely repeated that they have been rebutted!!!!!!!

Really Hillside you need to do better than this.

Please add ''merely asserting'' to that list of objections to what you do around here to the list.

Other than that this is just becoming a personal exchange with no content. I think people would enjoy things more if you didn't get personal everytime I get a handle on your.....E-jaculations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingallovertheplace,

Owlswing doesn't believe they do otherwise he would be stating it. In any case You have taken what I have said out of context. You must be getting desperate.

Whether or not he believes them to be real says nothing to whether they are real. That's why I asked how you or anyone else would know them not to be real.

This reading for comprehension thing really has got you foxed hasn't it.

My position on other gods is this.

I believe there is one God of whom Jesus is the incarnation.
I believe this God is the unity widely sought by people everywhere.
I believe other monotheist faiths to be an expression of the search for this unity.
I believe any faith based on the experience of the numen to be an expression of the search for that unity.
I am ignorant of pagan beliefs and what they mean by the word god or goddess because they are reluctant to provide information on the grounds that it would constitute somehow proselysation.
I believe that the Hindi pantheon is easier to understand because Hindu scholars have on the whole been non secretive and more explicit.
I do not disbelieve the existence of gods as entities of other religions or the religious experiences within as often touted by BLUEHILLSIDE and HIS FOLLOWERS (because that fits in with Hillside's argument or he 's not reading what I am saying.)

First, "BLUEHILLSIDE" neither "touts" any such thing and nor do I have "followers".

Second, thanks for this statement of your personal beliefs. I believe that storks fly babies into maternity wards and dupe us into thinking they come from Mums' tummies.

Can you suggest even one reason for me to take your belief any more seriously as an objective truth than you take mine?

Something?

Anything?

Mind the door as you disappear though it.

Again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingalloverthefloor,

Yes I did ask where they had been rebutted and you have merely repeated that they have been rebutted!!!!!!!

Really Hillside you need to do better than this.

Please add ''merely asserting'' to that list of objections to what you do around here to the list.

Other than that this is just becoming a personal exchange with no content. I think people would enjoy things more if you didn't get personal everytime I get a handle on your.....E-jaculations.

That you cannot grasp the arguments that rebut your dullardry says nothing to whether they do rebut your dullardry.

I'll leave you to your evasions, straw men and insults of that's ok.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Second, thanks for this statement of your personal beliefs. I believe that storks fly babies into maternity wards and dupe us into thinking they come from Mums' tummies.

Bzzzzzzzzzz.

Add Hillside's use of argumentum ad ridiculum( The fallacy ) to the list.

Really, there should be a law against it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingalloverthefloor,

Yes I did ask where they had been rebutted and you have merely repeated that they have been rebutted!!!!!!!

Really Hillside you need to do better than this.

Please add ''merely asserting'' to that list of objections to what you do around here to the list.

Other than that this is just becoming a personal exchange with no content. I think people would enjoy things more if you didn't get personal everytime I get a handle on your.....E-jaculations.

That you cannot grasp the arguments that rebut your dullardry says nothing to whether they do rebut your dullardry.

That's not the point. I asked what they were. This is the third time today you have refused to say.

[wigginhall]

Vlunderingabout,

But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist.

How would you - or anyone else - know that?

Yes, that is the point, isn't it?   Well, one of them.  How can anyone cite their own beliefs as gold standard, and others' beliefs as fools' gold?   What is the difference?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingfittotbustthechina,

Bzzzzzzzzzz.

Add Hillside's use of argumentum ad ridiculum( The fallacy ) to the list.

Really, there should be a law against it.

By way of a sign off, this'll be way above your intellectual pay grade but...

...your position here supposes that your personal belief should be afforded some kind of special privilege a priori to distinguish it from claims you think to be ridiculous. Why?

That's the point - some of us do find your beliefs to be every bit as ridiculous as you find stork theory to be, especially as we can use precisely the same arguments ("I intuit it", "It gives my life meaning", "You can't disprove it" etc and wearingly etc) to reach the conclusion "stork" as you use the reach the conclusion "god".

If you really don't like stork theory, pick any other conclusion you like that could also be reached with the "arguments" you use for god - it doesn't really matter much which one.

Yeah there ought to be a law - one that outlaws your dull-witted obtuseness on this.

I live in hope...

 


     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingaroundstill,

That's not the point. I asked what they were. This is the third time today you have refused to say.

BULLSHIT! TRY EVERY SINGLE EFFING REBUTTAL ARGUMENT I'VE POSTED ON THIS THREAD AND ELSEWHERE THAT YOU'VE SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORED, DISTORTED, MISREPRESENTED AND THROWN ABUSE AT!

Well really...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Yes, that is the point, isn't it?   Well, one of them.  How can anyone cite their own beliefs as gold standard, and others' beliefs as fools' gold?   What is the difference?

Quite so. When those beliefs rely on the same arguments to get you there ("I intuit it" etc) I cannot for the life of me see why one outcome should be privileged above the other. We'll never get an answer from Vlud as to why his intuition about a god is a better guide to an objective truth than my intuition about storks, but there it is nonetheless.

(And then he has the front to accuse me of avoiding questions! Ah well.) 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingfittotbustthechina,

Bzzzzzzzzzz.

Add Hillside's use of argumentum ad ridiculum( The fallacy ) to the list.

Really, there should be a law against it.

By way of a sign off, this'll be way above your intellectual pay grade but...

...your position here supposes that your personal belief should be afforded some kind of special privilege a priori to distinguish it from claims you think to be ridiculous. Why?

That's the point - some of us do find your beliefs to be every bit as ridiculous as you find stork theory to be, especially as we can use precisely the same arguments ("I intuit it", "It gives my life meaning", "You can't disprove it" etc and wearingly etc) to reach the conclusion "stork" as you use the reach the conclusion "god".

If you really don't like stork theory, pick any other conclusion you like that could also be reached with the "arguments" you use for god - it doesn't really matter much which one.

Yeah there ought to be a law - one that outlaws your dull-witted obtuseness on this.

I live in hope...

 


     

No....You are peddling the myth again that I am dismissing Owlswings faith and experience. You are the man for that kind of dismissal not me.

If anyone is giving their beliefs privilege it is you, partly through your insistence at being in the inquisitorial seat and in presenting your position as axiomatically the unalloyed truth.

Read the posts Owlswing says his gods are real but only real in his faith. He diminishes the status of his god to impress and keep in with the likes of you.

In terms of your argument appealing to ridiculousness. They all do.
If not to storks then Leprechauns.

If you were put on trial for lying about these so called ''convictions'' about storks and Leprechauns  you would be pronounced guilty of taking the piss based on the evidence of everything else you write.

It also confirms your assumed position of special privilege.

in short Hillside cut the hypocritical humbug about special privilege.

Now back to where you think I have been debunked.

The sensible money is on not making category fuck ups like you make them. maybe that is why you languish here like a Budget Christopher Hitchens. Sad considering that niche is already occupied by.....er, Christopher Hitchens.

[Owlswing]

Read the posts Owlswing says his gods are real but only real in his faith. He diminishes the status of his god to impress and keep in with the likes of you.

My gods are real in my faith - you ignore, as per usual, that the same applies to your god, he is only real in YOUR faith.

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Read the posts Owlswing says his gods are real but only real in his faith. He diminishes the status of his god to impress and keep in with the likes of you.

My gods are real in my faith - you ignore, as per usual, that the same applies to your god, he is only real in YOUR faith.

I don't ignore it, I just disagree with it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

[Owlswing]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

Their influence is rather more subtle that your god's "hit 'em with a flood - that'll teach 'em"

They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.

They then allow us to use the intellect and free-will that we have been given to choose the path we follow; following it in the certain knowledge that if it is the wrong one we will reach a fork (an indeterminate number of possible alternative paths) in our path that will allow us decide how we attempt to correct the error. What they do not tell us is which paths correct the problem and which make it worse.

Our, my, deities are more human than yours. They have the same emotions, etc as we, the same capriciousness, the same failings. They are not, just becasue they are deities, perfect.

Let's face it, the last supposedly perfect person who came ot earth got nailed to a cross and thus created a religion that has murdered billions over the centuries since its founder died.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.

And how do they do that?

[Gonnagle]

Hi diddly de a posters life for me.

Budget Christopher Hitchens come on that was funny

Gonnagle.

[Owlswing]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.

And how do they do that?

They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.

And how do they do that?

They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
 

How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?

[Owlswing]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.

And how do they do that?

They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
 

How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?

Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.

And how do they do that?

They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
 

How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?

Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!

And what is that based on?

[Nearly Sane]

Can't answer for Owlswing but the problem of omniscience is that it means there can only be what there is. It means no choice for the deity and makes everything a mere parade of time. That's fair enough as a view but unless you want to shout out HI Ho Silver Calvin, it makes other generalised Christian theologies logically ridiculous.

[ippy]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

The point is Sass, I'm sure the part of the bible you have quoted is word for word correct, trouble is it's only something you believe to be true.

To date not one single person has come up with any viable evidence that would support any of the mystic, magical or superstitious parts of your bible, so you are unable to prove any of the mystic, magical or superstitious parts of your bible have any truth in them.

Because there is no credible proof of these mystic, magical or superstitious parts of your bible, there never has been, this automatically makes it to be a work of fiction until such a time it can be proved otherwise and in turn whatever point you try to make, using quotes from the bible can also be ruled out as you're trying to use a fiction in support of your arguments; I don't know why but you seem to be totally unable to grasp this?

I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult.

ippy

[Owlswing]

I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.

How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.

They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.

And how do they do that?

They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
 

How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?

Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!

And what is that based on?

You are supposed to be intelligent - work this one out for yourself it ain't that hard!