When did the Christian mission...

[Gordon]

Method is not ontology Gordon.

I take that this 'method is not ontology' is your latest catchphrase, Vlad.

Have to say it isn't very funny:  it is ridiculous of course, but not funny.

[Stranger]

What works? What is it which is working? Your belief? or what you know?

It works in the sense that I can have some degree of confidence in what I believe because there is objective evidence. It minimizes personal bias and mistakes.

I probably believe everything you believe as objectively true...

Well, you seem to have problems with logic but I suppose there is a large overlap, yes.

...what is it then that is different from us and what is it in that difference is it that makes you objectively true and me objectively false?

To the extent that you can provide objective evidence for what you believe, I am happy to agree with you. Those things that you believe to be objectively true but can't supply evidence for, remain in the realm of guesswork. They may possibly be true but, unless there is evidence or some logical argument, I see no reason to think that they are. NOTE: that is not the same as claiming they are false.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It works in the sense that I can have some degree of confidence in what I believe because there is objective evidence. It minimizes personal bias and mistakes.

Well, you seem to have problems with logic but I suppose there is a large overlap, yes.

To the extent that you can provide objective evidence for what you believe, I am happy to agree with you. Those things that you believe to be objectively true but can't supply evidence for, remain in the realm of guesswork. They may possibly be true but, unless there is evidence or some logical argument, I see no reason to think that they are. NOTE: that is not the same as claiming they are false.

But you believe that 'It works' is a virtue. I believe that that is a misuse of the word virtue.
You need therefore to show that your belief 'It works' is a virtue.

[Stranger]

But you believe that 'It works' is a virtue. I believe that that is a misuse of the word virtue.
You need therefore to show that your belief 'It works' is a virtue.

virtue
A good or useful quality of a thing
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/virtue

It's useful.

What do you mean by the word?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

virtue
A good or useful quality of a thing
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/virtue

It's useful.

What do you mean by the word?

OK, but how is it objectively useful? Since some could construe what you see as utility as inconvenient?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

OK, but how is it objectively useful? Since some could construe what you see as utility as inconvenient?

I don't know why you struggle with this. People make claims (not religious believers) and state that the  substance of those claims is objectively true. It is useful to treat those claims as undemonstrated (not false) until their is a way to establish that claim as objectively true.

If you do it the other way around you will soon find that believe in contradictory things.

That is why it is useful, it stops you accepting contradictory things as true and takes a huge stride to the elimination of personal bias.

I can also see why lot's of people do find this inconvenient, because they are unable to demonstrate their objective claims to be objectively true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know why you struggle with this. People make claims (not religious believers) and state that the  substance of those claims is objectively true. It is useful to treat those claims as undemonstrated (not false) until their is a way to establish that claim as objectively true.

If you do it the other way around you will soon find that believe in contradictory things.

That is why it is useful, it stops you accepting contradictory things as true and takes a huge stride to the elimination of personal bias.

I can also see why lot's of people do find this inconvenient, because they are unable to demonstrate their objective claims to be objectively true.

All it is Stephen is I have trouble with people who say they only believe what they know....Because commitment to that is itself a belief, a step of faith rather than knowledge.

Also the definitions of knowledge and belief and evidence are based on a belief footing rather than the definition of evidence which is being touted.

Science works....I agree with. That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

All it is Stephen is I have trouble with people who say they only believe what they know....Because commitment to that is itself a belief, a step of faith rather than knowledge.

Also the definitions of knowledge and belief and evidence are based on a belief footing rather than the definition of evidence which is being touted.

Science works....I agree with. That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.

We are close on an agreement.

Science works....I agree with.

Me too.

I need to make a slight alteration to the second part in though.

That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.

That any knowledge outside science is necessarily not knowledge I don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We are close on an agreement.

I feel strangely heartwarmed by that remark.

[Stranger]

All it is Stephen is I have trouble with people who say they only believe what they know....Because commitment to that is itself a belief, a step of faith rather than knowledge.

No, it's a practical acceptance that there is an objective world. It's an extension of believing that walls exist, which is useful for not walking into them. The objective world is an in-your-face reality of human experience that everyone shares. It is inescapable; even if it isn't true, it might as well be.

Science works....I agree with. That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.

Fine; but that brings us right back to the question of how we assess claims of objective truth that are not evidenced in the objective world in which we all find ourselves.

This is where you can provide a method of doing so....

[Leonard James]

No, it's a practical acceptance that there is an objective world. It's an extension of believing that walls exist, which is useful for not walking into them. The objective world is an in-your-face reality of human experience that everyone shares. It is inescapable; even if it isn't true, it might as well be.

Fine; but that brings us right back to the question of how we assess claims of objective truth that are not evidenced in the objective world in which we all find ourselves.

This is where you can provide a method of doing so....

Stand by for another dodge. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it's a practical acceptance that there is an objective world. It's an extension of believing that walls exist, which is useful for not walking into them. The objective world is an in-your-face reality of human experience that everyone shares. It is inescapable; even if it isn't true, it might as well be.

Fine; but that brings us right back to the question of how we assess claims of objective truth that are not evidenced in the objective world in which we all find ourselves.

This is where you can provide a method of doing so....

Science is only good for matter energy. You cannot get round that.
Under your own scheme anything else is belief. You have belief which is not objectively proved therefore you cannot lecture people under the pretext that you don't.

You have therefore said everything it is objectively true and we should no longer be hearing anything else from you.....under your own criteria.

Goodbye then.

[Leonard James]

Goodbye then.

If that means you are going to ignore him from now on, he is one lucky guy!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that means you are going to ignore him from now on, he is one lucky guy!

I never ignore anyone particularly if they are in the thick of antitheistic category confusion.

[Stranger]

Science is only good for matter energy. You cannot get round that.

Matter and energy is not a description of what science deals with, but never mind.

Under your own scheme anything else is belief. You have belief which is not objectively proved therefore you cannot lecture people under the pretext that you don't.

Gibberish. I assume you accept that there is (or might as well be) an objective world? You want to claim other things can be objectively true too.

That's fine but we need some way of finding out what else is true. You (and others) keep dodging that question.

This is a very simple concept and a very simple (and practical) question.

Goodbye then.

That you keep running away from....

[Leonard James]

I never ignore anyone particularly if they are in the thick of antitheistic category confusion.

Then you are guilty of giving SKOS false hopes by saying goodbye to him.

[Sassy]

Hmm..  but where did Christianity originate from?

Was it fully fledged before it became the state religion of the Roman Empire?

Was it honed over the centuries to fit Hellenistic musings and adopted by Latin expectations in order to keep the populace subservient?

Or was it organic from its conception?

In Hebrew Scriptures and a Messiah promised before the Roman Empire.

[Sassy]

One of the greatest things about losing my faith was realising that the only person who can save me is me. I screw up, I pay.

It's taking personal responsibility rather than clinging onto the notion of a cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card.

I think you mistook playing Monopoly for Christianity.

Christianity gives you the reason you end up in prison and why there is no get out of jail card just a pardon.

Sometimes you do have to take responsibility for throwing the precious pearl out because you have no understanding of the value...

[Sassy]

Actually the first question should be do I need redemption. Otherwise the second doesn't make sense.

Maybe the truth is do you 'Want' redemption and do you know enough truth to seek it and not self?

[Sassy]

Dear Farmer,

I always enjoy your posts, you are a nutter but my kind of nutter, a void for Christianity to fill, well yes, history, the whole of history tells us we have always had the poor, Christianity sings out to the poor, it gives them a hope but the early Christians gave more than hope, they gave real stuff, like food and companionship.

But thank you, once again an atheist reminds me of what being a True Christian means, helping the less fortunate, helping your Brother and Sister, Farmer that is a Amen.

Gonnagle.

Not that Love conquers all, because God loves us unconditionally?

[Sassy]

Less of the nuts free wee man.

A wee free question ya nutter:

How far west had Christianity advanced before Constantine adopted it?

Was it just an Eastern inconvenience that he had to adopt because of the African influence?

True Christianity is not the Constantine Christianity.
It is the Christ Christianity... Those born of Spirit and Truth....

[Sassy]

Fortunately your opinion has no more value than anyoneelses.

What value would that be?
To himself and God, his opinion has value. Is there something we are missing as I see nothing and no one else whom his opinion should matter to or even value in the world.

Christianinty was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.

Constantines Christianity may indeed in the hands of evil men spread that way.
But the Christianity of Christ is spread by two things... Spirit and Truth and that way being found only in Christ.
The reason you miss the real deal is that you are so taken up with the fake.

You have to love truth and seek it, to find it.

[Sassy]

It is sad that religion has led humanity down a blind alley ... wasting time and effort which could have been spent on scientific investigation.

Had you met Jesus, even in a blind alley, you would never have turned your back on him.

He exemplified everything good about God and had shown us that love and truth is the way forward.
If you cannot respect Gods truth how can you really have any truth in your own truth.
I know you accept what you want for yourself. I know you try to do no harm to others.
But even the Pharisees with their self-righteousness never entered into the Kingdom.
Sometimes people get so caught up at the door displaying their manners they never get to enter.

[Sassy]

It is sad that science has led humanity to nuclear weapons, they were invented and used long before there were any nuclear power stations, and to various mutations and assorted nastinesses that science "had no way of knowing would be the results of scientific investigation".

Sometimes humanity needs a mixture of science and religion - the difficulty is deciding where the balance point is.

MAN

Haven't man done enough without making it worse.
It was not religion who made those weapons. It wasn't religion who took science down the path it now follows.
Science didn't lead man anywhere. Man invented science and used it for his own evil ends.

[floo]

Had you met Jesus, even in a blind alley, you would never have turned your back on him.

He exemplified everything good about God and had shown us that love and truth is the way forward.
If you cannot respect Gods truth how can you really have any truth in your own truth.
I know you accept what you want for yourself. I know you try to do no harm to others.
But even the Pharisees with their self-righteousness never entered into the Kingdom.
Sometimes people get so caught up at the door displaying their manners they never get to enter.

Jesus might have been an ok bloke, although he had faults and failings like the rest of us, but as there is NOTHING good about the deeds attributed to god, hopefully he was not like his 'father'.