Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby General Discussion topic #13300371

Subject: "Does God Exist? Debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens" Previous topic | Next topic
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 08:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Does God Exist? Debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens"
Wed Dec-05-18 08:42 AM by Case_One

  

          

If you have the time to invest, I think you'd do well to watch this debate that will provide education about both positions.

This is a really great debate between a Turek (a Christian) and Hitchens (an Atheist). Both men make powerful openings statements and the follow-up rebuttals are very keen. The question and answer debate portion is very good too, but you'll notice the difference between the person who answers the questions and the person who sidesteps the question via disrespect, introducing jokes, or trying to change the question so that they can escape the response that would cause them to arrive at a conclusion that is contrary to their initial response. Let the debate show who has the capacity to respond honestly and who chooses to play to the crowd because they cannot betray their alliance. Notice that both men have a chance to ask each other questions but only one ask questions and the other disbands their opportunity because they have nothing. Next, there is an opportunity for the audience to ask a question and response, and even then, there is only one person that honestly answers the questions without trying to play to the crowd via jokes, dismissive responses or out of context answers to direct questions.

I leave this debate for you to arrive at a conclusion of who is prepared and who is honestly ready to have a conversion.

Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens)
https://youtu.be/S7WBEJJlYWU



.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
Way to not influence people with preconceptions going in.
Dec 05th 2018
1
Oh, give it a rest. People are intelligent. They can make conclusion.
Dec 05th 2018
2
your observations made me not watch it.
Dec 05th 2018
3
How?
Dec 05th 2018
5
      the spin that you put on that
Dec 05th 2018
7
           OK. It's your choice.
Dec 05th 2018
8
Show me a "complaint". I pointed out the insidious, biased tact
Dec 05th 2018
4
      What biased tact? See my responses
Dec 05th 2018
6
           ^^---- I'm Not going beyond this point ----^^
Dec 05th 2018
9
           You predisposed the audience to your observations
Dec 05th 2018
11
all of the this
Dec 07th 2018
35
Answer the 4 questions or stay out of my post.
Dec 11th 2018
70
      You need to correct question 3, for starters.
Dec 11th 2018
72
You're in some sort of loop
Dec 05th 2018
10
Nah, there's no loop. But I will check out a few of the books you ref'd
Dec 05th 2018
13
      I'll jsut shit in a hat
Dec 05th 2018
15
           That's might progressive of you.
Dec 05th 2018
16
           Posting about taking a shit in a hat is more productive
Dec 06th 2018
28
a transcript would help speed thru the schlock
Dec 05th 2018
12
I find Turek to be more consistent and honest about his position.
Dec 05th 2018
14
      Hm interesting
Dec 05th 2018
17
           Cool
Dec 06th 2018
26
Hitch was my hero when i used to consider myself atheist
Dec 05th 2018
18
You're a glutten for punishment lol
Dec 05th 2018
19
What punishment?
Dec 05th 2018
20
imagine listening to Christopher Hitchens
Dec 06th 2018
21
even if I weren't already a Christian, I'd become one....
Dec 06th 2018
22
like 100 times out of a hundred
Dec 06th 2018
30
i would give you 24 dollars
Dec 06th 2018
23
      what
Dec 06th 2018
29
Why are people still having this debate?
Dec 06th 2018
24
Why shouldn't people still have this debate?
Dec 06th 2018
25
      Because he thinks god exists and is a settled subject
Dec 06th 2018
27
      So where is your 20 pg commentary about the debate?
Dec 06th 2018
33
           I wrote it on your heart.
Dec 06th 2018
34
                lmfao
Dec 07th 2018
36
                Classic Hitchens technique
Dec 07th 2018
37
                     Apple didn't fall far if we're both made in the image of your god
Dec 07th 2018
38
                     Also, this is a great example of your snake tendencies
Dec 07th 2018
39
                          Can you know evil without knowing good?
Dec 10th 2018
48
                               Can you stop being snake and engage honestly for once?
Dec 10th 2018
53
                                    Save the ad hominem and answer the question
Dec 10th 2018
55
                                         No ad hominem. I'm accurately describing your approach.
Dec 10th 2018
57
                                              Where did Space, Matter, and Time come from?
Dec 10th 2018
58
                                                   Where does your complete lack of honesty and integrity come from?
Dec 10th 2018
59
                                                        You're Done.
Dec 10th 2018
60
                                                             You'd rather bow out than engage honestly and sincerely
Dec 10th 2018
61
                                                                  You're and Atheist and I'm a Christian
Dec 10th 2018
63
                                                                       You sarcastically asked where my 20 page commentary is.
Dec 10th 2018
66
                                                                            Man, you’re the master of saying a whole lot of nothing -
Dec 10th 2018
67
                                                                                 Stop with the generalizations. Be specific for once.
Dec 10th 2018
68
                                                                                      Since you like directness, answer these 4 Questions
Dec 11th 2018
69
                                                                                      Substantiate the the bullshit you said in the previous post.
Dec 11th 2018
71
                                                                                      Facts, you can't answer the 4 question
Dec 11th 2018
73
                                                                                      No, I just refuse to enable your dishonest tactics.
Dec 11th 2018
74
                                                                                      ^ Again, saying a lot to not say anything.
Dec 11th 2018
75
                                                                                      Don't just make assertions. Show your work, liar.
Dec 11th 2018
76
                                                                                      Ok, Since you're my accuser. Tell the truth and answer this question.
Dec 11th 2018
77
                                                                                      I said show your work, not shift the burden of proof yet again.
Dec 11th 2018
78
                                                                                      Show me where I lied.. And answer the 4 questions.
Dec 11th 2018
79
                                                                                      Wow, you really are a Trumpian-American. Entirely divorced from reality.
Dec 11th 2018
80
                                                                                      I see right through you now and it's sad.
Dec 12th 2018
84
                                                                                      RE:
Dec 20th 2018
96
      Becuase you don’t have to prove that God exists...
Dec 08th 2018
44
The concept of a creator from a Christian concept
Dec 06th 2018
31
What do you mean by that?
Dec 06th 2018
32
      Its diluted, stepped on a rehash of a rehash of a rehash
Dec 08th 2018
40
Why come there's no dinosaurs in the bible?
Dec 08th 2018
41
If God is all powerful...
Dec 08th 2018
42
They resolve this through the ontological argument
Dec 08th 2018
45
Thanks for that answer, really.
Dec 08th 2018
46
Ok, He's the answer to your question
Dec 10th 2018
47
      I already answered his question, but thanks
Dec 10th 2018
49
      You answer was misleading and pedestrian.
Dec 10th 2018
50
           False, on every possible point.
Dec 10th 2018
52
                Gist
Dec 10th 2018
54
                     Your problem is that I understand perfectly well
Dec 10th 2018
62
                     Nope. You're STUCK and can't admit it. So just answer #63
Dec 10th 2018
64
                          Riiight so stuck that I consistently point out specific problems
Dec 10th 2018
65
                     God lied when he said he would destroy the gods of Egypt
Dec 11th 2018
81
                          Answers
Dec 12th 2018
88
      so walking on water is logical?
Dec 13th 2018
89
           RE: so walking on water is logical?
Dec 13th 2018
91
If Adam and Eve were the first people...
Dec 08th 2018
43
the alternate interpretation of Adam & Eve & the serpent...
Dec 12th 2018
82
has this ever been a poll in GD ???
Dec 10th 2018
51
IDK know, but if you make one I'm sure the response would be good
Dec 10th 2018
56
Faith vs Logic = Everybody loses
Dec 12th 2018
83
I respect your response and truly appreciate you commentary.
Dec 12th 2018
85
The problem is that faith does not exist in a vacuum.
Dec 12th 2018
86
      Damn it CT...this is long lol
Dec 12th 2018
87
           yikes
Dec 13th 2018
90
           What up Ric?!?!
Dec 13th 2018
93
           Sorry/not sorry! It just got longer though
Dec 17th 2018
94
                RE: Sorry/not sorry! It just got longer though
Dec 18th 2018
95
yes, god exists but he's Odin, the Allfather.
Dec 13th 2018
92
Delete this bullshit
Dec 20th 2018
97
Eh. There's a worthwhile discussion starting at 83
Dec 20th 2018
98
      Voldomort. That's rich Buffington
Dec 20th 2018
99
           There's a reason for that, and you know what it is
Dec 20th 2018
100

Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 09:02 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "Way to not influence people with preconceptions going in."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

If you simply wanted people to simply form their own conclusions, you'd have allowed the debate, and it's participants, to speak for themselves.

Instead of actually presenting the debate without bias, you went full Fox News, poisoning the well with a passive-aggressive description that, given your position, makes it clear who you think did what.

Further, this was a debate. Not a conversation. So if one perso. Wasn't ready for a conversation, that's because they understood what they were there to do.

But the best part though? You're clearly describing your own tactics, which I've demonstrated and pointed to with specificity, time and again.

Bottom line: if wanted people to watch with an open mind, you wouldn't have presented it the way you did.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 09:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Oh, give it a rest. People are intelligent. They can make conclusion."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Stop complaining. All I did was point out my observations.


.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
tariqhu
Charter member
14077 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 09:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "your observations made me not watch it. "
In response to Reply # 2


          

nah, you trippin

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "How?"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

I'll just ask that simple question first.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
tariqhu
Charter member
14077 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
7. "the spin that you put on that"
In response to Reply # 5


          

immediately put a bias on it. given, I'm completely assuming based on your normal stance.

the way you presented this makes me think you viewed the atheist as the one dodging the questions.

nah, you trippin

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "OK. It's your choice. "
In response to Reply # 7


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 10:01 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Show me a "complaint". I pointed out the insidious, biased tact"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

And then cited a very apt comparison between you and Fox News.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "What biased tact? See my responses "
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

Your complaint is all of what you said in quotes below.

"If you simply wanted people to simply form their own conclusions, you'd have allowed the debate, and it's participants, to speak for themselves."

^^ An observation of my observation in the form of a passive complaint.


"Instead of actually presenting the debate without bias, you went full Fox News, poisoning the well with a passive-aggressive description that, given your position, makes it clear who you think did what."

^^ Deming my observation as a passive-aggressive description, which is your way of offering a passive-aggressive complaint


"Further, this was a debate. Not a conversation. So if one perso. Wasn't ready for a conversation, that's because they understood what they were there to do."

^^ The dang subject said DEBATE!



"But the best part though? You're clearly describing your own tactics, which I've demonstrated and pointed to with specificity, time and again.

Bottom line: if wanted people to watch with an open mind, you wouldn't have presented it the way you did."


^^ Claiming via passive complaining about how I should have done something in a manner that suits you.





.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "^^---- I'm Not going beyond this point ----^^"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

Watch the video or not. Save the arguments.

.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 12:08 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "You predisposed the audience to your observations "
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

>Your complaint is all of what you said in quotes below

False.

>"If you simply wanted people to simply form their own
>conclusions, you'd have allowed the debate, and it's
>participants, to speak for themselves."
>
>^^ An observation of my observation in the form of a passive
>complaint.

No, merely a statement of fact. You chose to present the debate through the lense of your person opinion on the way the debate went ahead of time.

>"Instead of actually presenting the debate without bias, you
>went full Fox News, poisoning the well with a
>passive-aggressive description that, given your position,
>makes it clear who you think did what."
>
>^^ Deming my observation as a passive-aggressive description,
>which is your way of offering a passive-aggressive complaint

Not a complaint. An observation. Further, it was very direct, stated plainly. Nothing passive or aggressive about it.

>"Further, this was a debate. Not a conversation. So if one
>perso. Wasn't ready for a conversation, that's because they
>understood what they were there to do."
>
>^^ The dang subject said DEBATE!

Yes, and in the closing remark of your well-poisoning, you said the following"

"leave this debate for you to arrive at a conclusion of who is prepared and who is honestly ready to have a conversion"

I gave you the benefit of the doubt here, since "conversion" makes absolutely no sense within the context of the discussion.

So I naturally assumed that this was a simple typo and you meant "conversation".

>"But the best part though? You're clearly describing your own
>tactics, which I've demonstrated and pointed to with
>specificity, time and again.
>
>Bottom line: if wanted people to watch with an open mind, you
>wouldn't have presented it the way you did."

>^^ Claiming via passive complaining about how I should have
>done something in a manner that suits you.

Nothing passive. It's very direct, actually.

And certainly not a complaint. This a very clear, concise statement about the obvious attempt to predispose potential viewers to your perspective. Nothing more or less.

It has nothing to do what what "suits" me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
MiracleRic
Member since Oct 21st 2002
45058 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 03:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
35. "all of the this"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Let me sport my Air Hyperbole 2010s in peace. (c) ansomble

Building repetoires (c) spm since 1983

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 07:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "Answer the 4 questions or stay out of my post."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Man the heck up. Do your research and get back to me. In the meantime save all of the dribble-drab commentary and crying.



.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 09:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "You need to correct question 3, for starters. "
In response to Reply # 70
Tue Dec-11-18 09:30 AM by Cold Truth

  

          

Save us both the trouble of pointing out the obvious error there.

And way to ruin your own post out the gate lmao. You couldn't even be honest and sincere in the OP.

It's clear you wanted chaos, not conversation. You don't create conversation by presenting a subject with a clear agenda.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
15521 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 12:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "You're in some sort of loop"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I suggest reading Oolon Colluphid's four book trilogy on the subject:

Where God Went Wrong
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes
Who is this God Person Anyway?
and Well That About Wraps It Up For God

Note: Christopher Hitchen KNOWS if there is a god or not - your boy's a coward who chose to continue living instead finding out the answer for himself.

------------
My prayers have been answered!

Gone
My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "Nah, there's no loop. But I will check out a few of the books you ref'd"
In response to Reply # 10
Wed Dec-05-18 04:35 PM by Case_One

  

          

I would like to suggest reading on or two of the following if you have time.


Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World
by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell

Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message
by Ravi Zacharias

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel


Jesus Among Secular Gods: The Countercultural Claims of Christ
by Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale

.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
handle
Charter member
15521 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "I'll jsut shit in a hat"
In response to Reply # 13


          

It'll be more productive.

And god bless.

------------
My prayers have been answered!

Gone
My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "That's might progressive of you."
In response to Reply # 15


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:40 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Posting about taking a shit in a hat is more productive "
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

Setting one of those books on fire in a trash can would at leats make them useful.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

fif
Member since Feb 23rd 2004
1439 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 01:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "a transcript would help speed thru the schlock"
In response to Reply # 0


          

There are a lot of unknowns at play but in the main Turek is of course wrong, but it's interesting how people respond to this sort of debate/combat. To be honest, I know I'm not going to watch a 2 hour video and change my mind about intelligent design and so my interest becomes wanting to see Hitchens slide in and slice the dude with his dry razor wit. Which leaves me maybe worse off than before because rather than updating my beliefs by trying to learn something of worth from Turek, I'm thirsting for confirmation of my priors. But yea, it's 2018, I don't have time for this. I've been glancing into Spinoza some lately. His God is physics in some sense but he's got some things to say about how we can best adapt our selves to the natural world within and all around us. Seems like he may survive neuroscience cracking open the mind.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "I find Turek to be more consistent and honest about his position. "
In response to Reply # 12
Wed Dec-05-18 04:30 PM by Case_One

  

          

Hitchens makes very compelling arguments and I can agree with him on a few points, but he's not consistent or responsible with his comments. To me, he likes to divert the topic like a magician when he's in a corner. That kind so nuance plays well and sounds good but falls flat when the questions demand a direct and honest response.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
fif
Member since Feb 23rd 2004
1439 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 05:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "Hm interesting"
In response to Reply # 14


          

If I've got some free time the next couple days, I'll try to watch the whole thing and let you know what I think

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "Cool"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

araQual
Charter member
42097 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 07:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "Hitch was my hero when i used to consider myself atheist"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

nowadays i find both positions to be untenable.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

IsaIsaIsa
Member since May 01st 2008
5646 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 08:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
19. "You're a glutten for punishment lol"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


www.Tupreme.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "What punishment?"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

Punishment is the consequence of penalty as retribution for an offense.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Rjcc
Charter member
89261 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 02:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
21. "imagine listening to Christopher Hitchens"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

for any reason other than someone putting a gun to your head and demanding you do it.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
rorschach
Member since Nov 10th 2004
7693 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 03:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "even if I weren't already a Christian, I'd become one...."
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

just to spite a guy like Hitchens. He was a dick.

---------------------------------------


---------------------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
89261 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
30. "like 100 times out of a hundred"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

he is the best advertisement for religion going.

his only issue with religion is that he didn't invent it himself.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
fif
Member since Feb 23rd 2004
1439 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 04:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "i would give you 24 dollars"
In response to Reply # 21


          

for 24 hours of footage showing a day in your life. what are you looking at on screens and in real life that makes you type this way? you clearly have access to a higher order of being. can you share any secrets? i find the world complex and often confusing. you seem to have transcended uncertainty. how? maybe i don't have the hardware to get to where you are, but if i can inch closer, i'd like to try.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
89261 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "what"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

hip bopper
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
6790 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 04:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "Why are people still having this debate?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "Why shouldn't people still have this debate?"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:13 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "Because he thinks god exists and is a settled subject"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 08:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "So where is your 20 pg commentary about the debate?"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 09:56 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "I wrote it on your heart. "
In response to Reply # 33
Thu Dec-06-18 10:02 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

Trust me, it's there.

I mean, can't actually show you, plainly, because that's too easy.

I wrote it on your heart, and you know that it's there, but you suppress that truth in your unrighteousness.

But know that there are very serious, eternal consequences if you don't believe in my 20 pg commentary.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
MiracleRic
Member since Oct 21st 2002
45058 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 03:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
36. "lmfao"
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

Let me sport my Air Hyperbole 2010s in peace. (c) ansomble

Building repetoires (c) spm since 1983

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 04:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "Classic Hitchens technique "
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

Nothing.
.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 04:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "Apple didn't fall far if we're both made in the image of your god"
In response to Reply # 37
Fri Dec-07-18 04:56 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

>Nothing

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 05:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "Also, this is a great example of your snake tendencies "
In response to Reply # 37
Fri Dec-07-18 05:38 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

You asked a nothing question, brimming with sarcasm.

I provided an answer that was perfectly in line with the tone of that question.

Then you respond with ima jab at Hitchens, as though I had responded to a question asked honestly and with sincerity.

Yes, you got a non-answer to a sarcastic non-question. Go figure.

Also, as I've pointed out countless times already, you engage with complete dishonesty. You dip, dodge, duck,dive, deflect and divert from the subject at all times. You've proven too many times to count that you are not at all interested in honest discussion when the merits of your beliefs are challenged.

You'll answer questions directly if you think you have a chance to proselytize, but you become quite evasive when pressed on the innumerable holes in your beliefs.

So no, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "Can you know evil without knowing good?"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:24 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "Can you stop being snake and engage honestly for once? "
In response to Reply # 48
Mon Dec-10-18 04:29 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

Can you stop being a wolf in a lamb costume long enough to do that?

Because I'd be more than happy to have that discussion when you're able to suppress your natural tendencies long enough to engage honestly, without simply dodging or deflecting things that don't appeal to your worldview.

Because here's the thing: Time and again, I've replied to you in detail. As you've demonstrated here, your usual tactic is to ignore everything said and move on to another question.

So no, you don't get to completely no-sell criticism, refuse to answer direct challenges to you, your beliefs, or your tactics, and then present a question after you've ignored everything I've said.

If you want to actually discuss this shit, you'll fucking discuss it without your bullshit deflections and sidestepping.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "Save the ad hominem and answer the question"
In response to Reply # 53


  

          

It's a simple question. You should be able to respond as ever so brash and eloquent as you normally do.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:58 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "No ad hominem. I'm accurately describing your approach."
In response to Reply # 55


  

          

A description, in fact, you perfectly illustrated in that response.

You do not get to sidestep 90% of everything that comes your way while demanding answers.

You want me to stop referring to you as a snake who deflects and dodges at a times, stop being a snake who deflects and dodges at all times.

Start engaging honestly and sincerely and you'll get honest and sincere answers.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 05:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "Where did Space, Matter, and Time come from?"
In response to Reply # 57


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 05:53 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "Where does your complete lack of honesty and integrity come from? "
In response to Reply # 58


  

          

Are you going to engage honestly, or continue to ignore every response you get by posing another question that's entirely irrelevant to what I said to you?

We both know I'm absolutely game to answer these questions.

But it's a two way street and you need to have some integrity here.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 06:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "You're Done. "
In response to Reply # 59


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 06:20 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "You'd rather bow out than engage honestly and sincerely"
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

Not a surprise, but wow.

You not only have no integrity when it comes to this subject, but when pressed to the point that your diversions will not be accepted, you would rather simply take your ball and go home.

When it's clear that you cannot simply change the subject at will, you'd rather fold than actually play the hand and address the subject honestly.

Thanks for showing yourself for the dishonest wolf you truly are though, I couldn't have done it better myself.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 08:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "You're and Atheist and I'm a Christian"
In response to Reply # 61


  

          

I've answered your questions with clarity, honesty, and transparency. You don't have to like my answers. That's your bag, not mine. I have provided you with plenty of chances to dialog and to have a real conversation, not just debate. You chose to be disrespectful like ya homie Hitchens.

Since then, I've asked you to answer a few simple questions and you've avoided all of them. So, if you're able, answer them now.

1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 09:40 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "You sarcastically asked where my 20 page commentary is."
In response to Reply # 63


  

          

I met a sarcastic question with a sarcastic answer.

You said I had "nothing".

You asked a nothing question, brimming with sarcasm.

I point out the problematic nature of the question, and explained how it is in line with your usual responses. Rather than say that your question was sincere, you ignored my response with a question immaterial to the things i addressed,

"can you know evil without knowing good"

^^^that's a complete non sequitur as a response. Completely.

When I point out this habit you have, and explain that i'd sincerely answer these questions if you were to engage honestly and without all this sidestepping that you do, what do you do?

You tell me to just answer the question, telling me to "skip the ad hominem" of explaining the dishonest tactics you use.

I tell you to engage honestly, and I would provide sincere answers. Instead of addressing the issue that I've addressed, you again ran with another non sequitur about the origin of space and time.

I, again, point out the dishonesty of this tact. You then quit the discussion.

Below, I point out that theists get around the issue of omnipotence by defining god as a maximally great being. You incorrectly asserted that nobody has done this, and I explained that a maximally great being is central to the ontological argument.

You tried to skip the specific issues that I cited by summing things up in a very dishonest way, asserting that I don't understand omnipotence, but not explaining how that is.

I explained that you cannot do away with the omnipotence paradox by creating the omnipotence tautology, which is exactly what you did with your bit about the lie.

Your response what that I was "stuck", because I wasn't answering the questions you posed, that were asked in a complete sidestep of issues I addressed regarding your tact.

Now, you're trying to take me to task for choosing not to answer questions that were asked as a means of avoiding answering for very specific issues regarding your tact, while avoiding specific issues I cited with your omnipotence replies.

No, you don't get to ignore the issues I've presented regarding your tact, and you don't get to paint a broad brush response to the specific issues I cited regarding the concept of omnipotence, and you don't get to then hold me to questions you asked dishonestly, as a means to avoid the issues I addressed.

No. You don't get to do that shit. Engage honestly, without all this other bullshit, again, which I've addressed specifically and directly, and I'll give you a sincere answer.

And yes, you're fucking delusional if you think I'm somehow stumped by your questions. You deal in such kindergarten level theological arguments that you should be fucking embarrassed.

I did this in your bullshit "science and faith" post where I dug into both you and the nonsensical article you posted, again with specificity, and you did the same shit there.

You even tried to pull the Kirk Cameron tactic. I've called out your horseshit arguments time and again, by name, several times skipping to the conclusion with ease because you used such obvious canned openers to well known arguments.

I also provided several answers to the morality question in the morality thread, at times in direct response to things that you quoted. As usual, you ignored those response in their entirety...... but then opted to ask that question as a direct response to avoid giving an actual answer to things I actually fucking said.

So no, not only do you NOT get to do this bullshit , you don't get to do it without being called out for it.

You're dishonest. Disingenuous. You're completely lacking in integrity, and if/when you're ready to cutout the fucking circus of dodging and deflecting that I've pointed out in real time, too many times to count, you'll get some genuine answers to these questions.

But you're smoking crack if you think your elementary school apologetic dogshit stumps anyone.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 11:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "Man, you’re the master of saying a whole lot of nothing - "
In response to Reply # 66


  

          

as a way of avoiding the direction question that put you in a corner and force you to respond. Yet, in this case you spent all that time literally saying nothing as a way to NOT respond to the 4 direct question that I have asked you - some repeatedly. But you continue to evade. And you still don’t understand what Omnipotence means. It’s like you want to pretend that you don’t have a clue, but you’re ego is choking you because you really know the deal, but you don’t want to put your foot in your mouth. It’s like your fighting yourself with your own words. It’s wild to see.

Now stop being a coward and answer these 4 simple questions. If not, then kick rocks.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?



.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 11:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "Stop with the generalizations. Be specific for once. "
In response to Reply # 67
Mon Dec-10-18 11:26 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

I listed your bullshit by chapter and verse. You don't get to deflect your way i'l nto a false narrative.

Be specific. Have some fucking integrity for once. A spine. A backbone.

You don't get to make unfounded assertions. Back up your statements by pointing out the specifics.

No twisting the truth.
No lies.
No distortions.
No dishonesty.

Show your work.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 07:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "Since you like directness, answer these 4 Questions "
In response to Reply # 68


  

          

Lets go. Answer these 4 simple questions concisely and we can get busy with the dialogue.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?




.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 09:17 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
71. "Substantiate the the bullshit you said in the previous post. "
In response to Reply # 69


  

          

Show your work. Chapter and verse.

You don't get to further deflect by creatingthis false dichotomy. You don'tget to do that.

These questions were asked as a means of deflecting direct challenges to your tact, here and in other posts.

You do not get to completely avoid accountability for the bullshit lies you tell. Justify your claims. Stop being general.

Have some integrity. Be that person worthy of the calling you have recieved. Because you do not approach this subject with any integrity or uprightness.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 12:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "Facts, you can't answer the 4 question"
In response to Reply # 71


  

          

My integrity nor my character or faith is in question. Say what you want I'm intellectually honest about my faith, beliefs, and responses.

Your ability to answer the 4 questions below is in question. And your ability to understand what the meanings of the following two words Atheist and Omnipotence is also in question.

I've answered you and have given you straight answers many times. You don't like my responses because I wont dance to your beat.

Also, you can't handle being on the Hot Seat or being put in a corner to justify your views when it comes to my questions.

Still, I could care less about your views in general because they don't bother me. But you hate God. That's why you constantly run up into my post trying to debate, bash, disrespect and challenge my beliefs.

You never ask questions without issues a passive aggressive or an aggressively disrespectful comment. You never ask for the sake of getting to know why I believe anything. So, save the crying and have seven seats or answer the questions.


Answer these 4 simple questions concisely and stop crying.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:07 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "No, I just refuse to enable your dishonest tactics."
In response to Reply # 73


  

          

My integrity nor my character or faith is in question.

Your integrity and character are absolutely questionable, and I explained why. I've pointed to specific examples of your dishonesty.

I'm not questioning your faith.

>what you want I'm intellectually honest about my faith,
>beliefs, and responses.

No, you're intellectually dishonest in the way that you engage. You seem to confuse the fact that you believe the things you say with whether or not your responding honestly to the question or statement being posed.

The bulk of your responses have been non sequiturs that dodge, deflect or divert from the points that were raised, and fun fact: your four questions have been, in great part, what you've used to dodge, divert, and deflect.

These have been pointed out in real time, time and again.

>Your ability to answer the 4 questions below is in question.

And here you are, grandstanding.

You've created a situation where I either enable your dishonest tact by giving your dishonest diversions an honest response, or I hold your feet to the fire you created with your dishonesty.

>And your ability to understand what the meanings of the
>following two words Atheist and Omnipotence is also in
>question.

lol. seriously. lol. atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Simple.

Which means that if there is a god that you do not believe in, you are an atheist in regard to the notion of that particular god. Your belief in a different god does not change this.

Omnipotence is to have unlimited power or authority.

If there is a logical limit, then that is a limit, which is not unlimited. Creating an internally consistent tautology to define your god doesn't make that god omnipotent.

I clearly have a firm grasp on both terms.

>I've answered you and have given you straight answers many
>times.

No, I'm specifically referring to the non-sequitur answers you've given countless times, and specifically in the use of these four questions as a response. You don't get to pretend that providing such responses are intellectually honest.

>You don't like my responses because I wont dance to
>your beat.

First, it has nothing to do with whether or not I “like” your responses. It’s about whether your responses make sense as response to what I’ve actually said, and ignoring my statements in entirety and replying with a question irrelevant to my responses is an intellectually dishonest response. Period.

But here you are, actively changing the terms to fit a fictional narrative you’re creating in real time.

And here I am, pointing out exactly what you’re doing with specificity.

>Also, youcan't handle being on the Hot Seat or being put in a
>corner to justify your views when it comes to my questions.

LMAO is the random, unnecessary capitalization a byproduct of a condition you have, or just plain trolling?

>But you hate God.

No, I don't believe in a god. Any god. I think you may be genuinely incapable of grasping that difference though.

That's why you
>constantly run up into my post trying to debate, bash,
>disrespect and challenge my beliefs.

Way to blame your god for your actions. That’s a fantastic bonus.

Debate? Challenge? Sure. But then, you posted things about reconciling faith with science and another making the grandiose statement that there must be a moral lawgiver. Both were question begging train wrecks, and I pointed out those problems, directly.

My issue was with the premises presented in the articles, not with a deity for which no good supporting evidence exists.

Bash? Disrespect? I call out your dishonesty where and when it happens, directly and specifically. If you don’t like being called out for things like, oh, I don’t know….. posting a debate, asking people to watch, and poisoning the well by setting up a very biased perception of what will take place before they hit change your approach.

Because me calling that out has zero to do with a fictional deity created by bronze age sheep herders, and everything to do with the tactics you employed in the process.

And that’s the best part of all this:

You watched your Charlemagne post fall like a delusional person at Benny Hinn show, and decided to get your numbers by going pop with a post deliberately designed to garner the response it got.

>You never ask questions without issues a passive aggressive or
>an aggressively disrespectful comment.

No, I’m usually pretty direct. My disrespect is… where, exactly? If you’re referring to the times where I call a snake tactic for what it is, I’ll Bee Dat © Redman

Gladly.

And it’s not passive aggressive to point out the obvious issues in a post based around a question-begging article that did nothing but present logical fallacies and false dichotomies left and right.

>You never ask for the
>sake of getting to know why I believe anything.

I ask for the sake of getting down to the rationale behind it. That you can’t provide anything more substantial than an argument from ignorance is your problem. If you don’t like those beliefs to be challenged, keep them to yourself or save it for the usual safe spaces.

Your beliefs are all good. But when you present an article about faith reconciling with science, it’s going to get challenged. When you post about a moral “law” that requires a “law giver”, that’s going to get challenged.

You don’t get to deflect direct, detailed responses to your kindergarten apologetics by asking a question of your own, and then grandstand when I don't further enable your dishonest tact.

Sorry.

As I said in my initial reply to your farce of a post:

If you wanted genuine discussion, you would have presented this without prejudice. But you showed your hand from jump and got what you were fishing for.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "^ Again, saying a lot to not say anything."
In response to Reply # 74


  

          

Man do yourself a favor and get some friends that are willing to actually spend the time you need to talk in circles.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:33 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "Don't just make assertions. Show your work, liar. "
In response to Reply # 75


  

          

Look, it's easy to stunt in the header. It's easy to make a statement without supporting that assertion.

Show your work. Explain. In detail.

You know, actually provide supporting evidence, reason and context.

For once.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
77. "Ok, Since you're my accuser. Tell the truth and answer this question."
In response to Reply # 76


  

          

What have I lied about or have been untruthful about? Provide the evidence and make it plain. All of my responses to you are here for all of OKP to see. Go on and post your evidence.



Oh, Why are you unable to snswer these 4 simple questions?


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "I said show your work, not shift the burden of proof yet again."
In response to Reply # 77
Tue Dec-11-18 04:58 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

Your very response here is a stinging examole.

You said I wrote a lot and said nothing.

That's a fun little missive, but not at all accurate. It's a cute lil message board tact that allows you to avoid the work of actually addressing the points that were made.

I told you to show your work on that statement.

Trying to shift that burden of proof back onto me- AGAIN- is not an example of you showing your work.

In fact, it's the exact sort of deflection I've called you on over and over again.

I am calling you on that dishonest tact, here and now, in real time, as I've done up and down this post.

I've also done that earlier in this very string of posts.

So, again: you say I wrote alot and said nothing. Show your work on that.

And please, stop with the subtle appeal to the crowd bullshit

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 08:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "Show me where I lied.. And answer the 4 questions."
In response to Reply # 78


  

          

It’s my opinion that you write a lot and you DON’T say anything. Live with that understanding.

Now point to a a Lie that I have told. And stop running from my 4 simple question.









.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 08:23 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "Wow, you really are a Trumpian-American. Entirely divorced from reality."
In response to Reply # 79


  

          

Opinions can be and, as with most of yours, are often wrong

An opinion that is directly contradicted by observerable and demonstrable facts is wrong.

And your opinion on this matter is factually incorrect. You're just plain wrong.

The only reconciliation that needs to be made here is your seeming inability to reconcile your opinions with reality.

You dont get to be behind a wall of opinion when reality directly contradicts said opinion.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 03:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
84. "I see right through you now and it's sad. "
In response to Reply # 80


  

          

Man. What happened to you dude. You went on a tangent about the word Opinion and talked yourself into a circle. How does that even happen? It's my Opening that your long-windedness results in noting actually being said that has any real substance - saying a lot only to say nothing.


Now if you really want to say something meaningful answer these 4 simple questions concisely and stop crying.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused




>Opinions can be and, as with most of yours, are often wrong

^^ Your Opinion.

>
>An opinion that is directly contradicted by observerable and
>demonstrable facts is wrong.
>

Still is not a refute of the word Opinion. And YES you can have an opinion and that opinion be found to be based on an error.



>And your opinion on this matter is factually incorrect. You're
>just plain wrong.
>

I'm not wrong about you. You just can't handle the truth that breaks your little wet bubble.



>The only reconciliation that needs to be made here is your
>seeming inability to reconcile your opinions with reality.
>

The reality is that you're scared to answer the 4 questions because you know that these questions lead down a path that you can't control.

>You dont get to be behind a wall of opinion when reality
>directly contradicts said opinion.


No one is hiding. You're just scared.




.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
fontgangsta
Member since Sep 04th 2005
4715 posts
Thu Dec-20-18 10:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "RE: "
In response to Reply # 84
Thu Dec-20-18 11:05 AM by fontgangsta

  

          

>1. Where do you get your morals from?

My experience has been that (at least for me) morals are built into us. When i do something wrong, i feel like there is a rock in my gut. When i do something good I can feel the fullness in my chest. I believe we are programmed to know right from wrong in that very physical and visceral way. I don't need a book to tell me that. But we do need to be trained to recognize those signals. And we do have to be taught basic rights and wrongs which are largely a collective societal decision (and some would argue quite arbitrary)


>3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?
>4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it

Your answer to both of these questions might be "god".
My answer to both of these questions is "i dont know".
i would argue that we both answered those questions in the exact same way using different words.
I am no less filled with awe about my existence just because i dont know what to attribute it to, than you are about yours just because you are attributing it to "god"
A relationship with God is about faith (right?), which (to me) means trusting in the unknowable, the unprovable. I just don't feel the need to put a "face" on that unknown, im simply comfortable with it as it is.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
hip bopper
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
6790 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 05:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "Becuase you don’t have to prove that God exists..."
In response to Reply # 25


          

to an unbeliever.

The only that way that a unbeliever will know that there is a God is in death.

The debate between God and science is old. God is the Master Scientist. He put everything into existence by just speaking it. Man has been left to figure things out that are beyond our comprehension. So such debates are pointless.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Musa
Member since Mar 08th 2006
15118 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "The concept of a creator from a Christian concept"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

is limited.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "What do you mean by that?"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          


You Said, "The concept of a creator from a Christian concept is limited."

What do you mean by that?



.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Musa
Member since Mar 08th 2006
15118 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 12:56 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "Its diluted, stepped on a rehash of a rehash of a rehash"
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

A 3rd remix.

A terrible country song cover of a Motown classic.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1926 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 04:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "Why come there's no dinosaurs in the bible?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Or is there?

It's been so long since I've read it.

But simple questions like that always cast doubt for me and I have yet to have anyone answer them seriously.

With no disrespect intended whatsoever, I'd like to post some questions, maybe that can get answered here.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1926 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 04:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "If God is all powerful..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

Could he/she create a rock so large that he/she could not move it?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 05:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "They resolve this through the ontological argument"
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

Basically they realized obvious flaws in the idea of omnipotence, so they re-defined their god as a "maximally great" being, able to do all things that are logically possible.

It's still just a concept that exists solely as a definition, but that's how they get around the dilemma of omnipotence.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1926 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 07:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "Thanks for that answer, really."
In response to Reply # 45


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "Ok, He's the answer to your question "
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

>Could he/she create a rock so large that he/she could not
>move it?

I've said it to ColdTruth and other before, these kinds of statements like this, in which people try to put God against himself sound good to some folks that want to be SNARKY or sound really basic deep, but they fail on every level upon deeper analysis. The kind of question was used by the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees when questioning Jesus.

The goal of this kind of question is framed to affirm the premise that God is not omnipotent. The question is framed but a lack of understanding when it comes to the omnipotence of God. Again, it sounds good, but it really nonsense. And my man C.S Lewis once said, “Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.” Folks like asking nonsense questions like can the Being of unlimited power produce something to limit Him.

So, let's just deal with the facts. Omnipotence does not mean being able to do the logically impossible or logically contradictory for the God - the creator of Space, Time, and Matter.

The fact is that God cannot create square circles or one ended sticks. God can do anything that’s logically possible - but not logically contradictory. The Lord God can create something out of nothing, He can make divide a sea, make city walls fall, turn a river into blood, cause a virgin to become pregnant, but He can’t make something exist and not exist at the same time, He can’t cause a man to speak and be silent at the same time, and he can't make a newborn baby be 90 years old at the same time. The logically impossible has nothing to do with Omnipotence.




.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "I already answered his question, but thanks"
In response to Reply # 47


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "You answer was misleading and pedestrian. "
In response to Reply # 49
Mon Dec-10-18 04:02 PM by Case_One

  

          

There is no flaw with omnipotence. The flaw is with peoples ability to understand. And no one has tried to re-defined God as a "maximally great" being. God is able to do all things that are logically possible - fact.

So no one is trying to get around the dilemma of omnipotence. You just don't understand what it really means.



.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "False, on every possible point. "
In response to Reply # 50


  

          

>There is no flaw with omnipotence.

Yes, there is. This isn't up for debate. At all. You are factually incorrect.

>The flaw is with peoples
>ability to understand. And no one has tried to re-defined God
>as a "maximally great" being.

I love how you cite the inability of people to understand, and then go on to make a factually false statement, because the ontological argument for the existence of god hinges on the concept of "maximal greatness".

>God is able to do all things
>that are logically possible - fact.

You can't cite this as a "fact". You can cite the existence of this argument as a fact, but as you cannot and have not proven the existence of god, you cannot cite the argument itself as a statement of fact.

I could have gone further and explained the flaw in the way the ontological argument is normally presented, because they always skip the fact that omnipotence is included in the concept of "maximal" greatness, and is thus still inherently flawed, but there was no need to go that deep.

The fact that I didn't go down every rabbit hole presented by the flawed nature of the ontological argument hardly makes it a pedestrian response.

>So no one is trying to get around the dilemma of omnipotence.
>You just don't understand what it really means.

Sorry, but no. True omnipotence is a paradox that requires the ability to do things that are not logically possible, and if a being cannot do something that is logically impossible, then that is a demonstrable limitation, which means that said being is not omnipotent.

True omnipotence also requires the ability to commit immoral acts, which actually does support the concept of your god, but that's another rabbit hole you do not want to follow.

Omnipotence is to have unlimited power, and any limit to power means that power is not omnipotent.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "Gist"
In response to Reply # 52


  

          


>Omnipotence is to have unlimited power, and any limit to power
>means that power is not omnipotent.

All of your commentary boils down to this fact, you don't understand omnipotence. Like you cannot understand the fact that God cannot lie because it is not within his nature to lie and yet he is still omnipotent.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 06:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "Your problem is that I understand perfectly well"
In response to Reply # 54
Mon Dec-10-18 06:26 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

And it's why you avoid dealing with the details at every possible turn.

Because I understand very well the arguments and evasive tactic you so consistently employ.

Sorry, you don't get to use special pleading to reach a definition of omnipotence that hinges on internal consistency. You can't resolve a paradox by creating a tautology, and that's exactly what you're doing here.

Again, where you stick to broad, general terms... not only do I point out the inherent flaw with your assertions, I do so with specificity.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 08:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "Nope. You're STUCK and can't admit it. So just answer #63"
In response to Reply # 62
Mon Dec-10-18 08:23 PM by Case_One

  

          

.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 09:16 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "Riiight so stuck that I consistently point out specific problems "
In response to Reply # 64


  

          

Often times identifying the specific argument and/or logical fallacy you employ, by name.

Your response, time and again, is a broad brush stroke that avoids addressing the specific issues I've pointed out directly, and/or moves to a question that has nothing to do with those points.

Saying I'm "stuck" is laughable.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Garhart Poppwell
Member since Nov 28th 2008
17762 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 09:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "God lied when he said he would destroy the gods of Egypt"
In response to Reply # 54


  

          

because a) the god of Egypt is Allah, which is the same god as the Christian god and b) Kemet has no gods, the Neteru are just concepts in nature given a human form so people can tell stories with them

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 11:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
88. "Answers"
In response to Reply # 81


  

          



God has never lied and cannot lie. With that said, which scripture are you referring to in your subject "God lied when he said he would destroy the gods of Egypt"? I have an idea, but I don't want to assume before I answer you.




>because a) the god of Egypt is Allah, which is the same god
>as the Christian god


This is not True. Christians and Muslims DO NOT worship the same God

First, Christians believe Jesus is God, but the Quran opposes this belief and condemns those who worship Jesus to Hell (5.72). For Christians, Jesus is certainly God, and for Muslims Jesus is certainly not God.

Second, there is the matter of the Christian and the claim of Fatherhood. According to Jesus, God is our Father, yet the Quran very specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.1-4). In fact, in 5.18, the Quran tells Muslims to rebuke Jews and Christians for calling God their loving Father because humans are just things that God has created.

Third, there is the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam condemns worship of the Trinity (5.73), establishing, in contrast, its own core principle: Tawhid, the absolute oneness of god. Tawhid specifically denies the Trinity, so much so that the doctrine of God in Christianity is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Islam. Not just different but completely opposed to one another.

Therefore, in short, the differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God can be cast solidly based on the evidence mentioned. The Christian God, both in terms of what He is (Triune) and who He is (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not just different from the Muslim god; He is fundamentally incompatible. According to Islam, worshiping the Christian God is not just wrong; it sends you to Hell. They are not the same God.






and b) Kemet has no gods, the Neteru are
>just concepts in nature given a human form so people can tell
>stories with them


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
MiracleRic
Member since Oct 21st 2002
45058 posts
Thu Dec-13-18 10:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
89. "so walking on water is logical?"
In response to Reply # 47


  

          

even if i was stupid this would sound like a terrible argument

Let me sport my Air Hyperbole 2010s in peace. (c) ansomble

Building repetoires (c) spm since 1983

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Thu Dec-13-18 11:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
91. "RE: so walking on water is logical?"
In response to Reply # 89


  

          

>even if i was stupid this would sound like a terrible
>argument

Your response "sounds good" but fails with understanding the context and meaning of logically impossible or logically contradictory for God.

The walking on the water is a miracle that is based on one's faith (Peter) and Jesus' Lordship and ruler of time, matter and space to include the earth. When examined further walking on the water for Jesus his not a logical contradiction since he has the ability to control water (the elements of the earth (matter), time and space). He turned water into wine, quieted a raging storm on the sea with his words, etc. He's the Logos - the Word of God in Incarnate. The same word that formed the earth and everything in it.

So, Jesus walking is not the rub for many, but maybe Peter's walking is a point of contention for some - that may appear to be the logically impossible or logical contradictory for God. But that isn't a contradiction either because one Peter asked Jesus to call him out the boat the responsibility of the providing the means to walk on the water fell to the Logos of God - the ruler of time, matter and space. Jesus allows Peter to walk on the water because of Jesus controlled the path and that path affirmed peters faith in Jesus. Peter only began to sink when his faith was drawn away by the circumstances, so Jesus allowed him to sink as a means of reinforcing the message that Peter could do anything if he maintained his faith in Jesus' provision and support for everything that He called/ instructed Peter to do in this eath.





.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1926 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 04:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "If Adam and Eve were the first people..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

And they had children, are all remaining descendants a product of incest? Either between siblings, or even worse, mother and son.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
araQual
Charter member
42097 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 05:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
82. "the alternate interpretation of Adam & Eve & the serpent..."
In response to Reply # 43
Wed Dec-12-18 05:04 AM by araQual

  

          

...talks about satan tricking Eve into sleeping with him, on top of coupling with Adam, and creating two diverging bloodlines. same mother, two fathers. one line is of god. one is of the devil. so you get Cain and Abel being from two separate lineages (Cain being the devil's bloodline and Abel being god's bloodline).

so i guess either way it's still a little incesty?

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

My_SP1200_Broken_Again
Charter member
55400 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:17 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
51. "has this ever been a poll in GD ???"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

....just curious how that would play out, especially since voting is anonymous

https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1992-mixtape
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1993-mixtape
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1996-mixtape-part-1
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1996-mixtape-part-2
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1996-mixtape-part-3

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "IDK know, but if you make one I'm sure the response would be good"
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

If I ask there may not be a great response.
.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

auragin_boi
Member since Aug 01st 2003
20305 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 02:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
83. "Faith vs Logic = Everybody loses"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed Dec-12-18 02:18 PM by auragin_boi

  

          

Faith lacks evidence. One can't actually apply fact to faith. It's believing without seeing, without grasping, without fully understanding. To attempt to explain it is a fallacy because one could never understand something it has no full grasp of.

Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new circumstances or evidence has been introduced. As humans, we only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through. So things we deem logical today, could be illogical tomorrow. To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles (4>3).

I say, "I'm buying insurance just in case something bad happens."
You say, "That's a waste of money as most people don't experience enough bad that simply saving that money for such occasions wouldn't satisfy."

In the end, those that believe in Faith (God) are saying, I want to be prepared, just in case.

Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus on the tangible and provable. Whatever happens after this life is beyond our knowledge and control.

My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and respect what's beyond you.

Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.

My $0.02 opinion.

____________
My Kids:
https://youtu.be/Tti0SHGkpVk
The W5 – “Swerve”
Official Video

Available on:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5ZkYYasL3k8JlvjyN5w1kL
https://tidal.com/browse/album/95038805
iTunes/Apple Music
Google Play

Thanks4UrSupport

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 03:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
85. "I respect your response and truly appreciate you commentary. "
In response to Reply # 83


  

          

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.




.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 04:28 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. "The problem is that faith does not exist in a vacuum."
In response to Reply # 83


  

          

>Faith lacks evidence. One can't actually apply fact to
>faith. It's believing without seeing, without grasping,
>without fully understanding. To attempt to explain it is a
>fallacy because one could never understand something it has no
>full grasp of.

That's the central issue with faith: that it relies on nothing of actual substance. This isn't necessarily problematic in a vacuum, but the problem is that beliefs do not exist in a vacuum, and our beliefs drive our decisions in the real world.

So if your faith in a particular god drives your overall worldview, and that worldview drives the way you vote, for example, on things like whether or not two people of the same sex can get married, or a woman's right to choose, that's problematic.

If someone is going to decide that their faith in a particular being, and thus the rules and regulations handed down by said being, should be applied not only to oneself as an individual, but to others they share this world with, then their faith is an insufficient foundation to press those views on the rest of us.

>Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much
>misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances
>that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic
>has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new
>circumstances or evidence has been introduced.

Going to circle back on this point.

>As humans, we
>only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights
>into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through.
>So things we deem logical today, could be illogical tomorrow.

I'd like you to expound on this, if you don't mind.

>To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and
>is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles
>(4>3).

I'd say logic is being used rather loosely, and I think "logic vs faith" is potentially a false dichotomy. I'm not sure it's faith vs logic at all. I'd say the actual dichotomy is faith vs evidence.

>I say, "I'm buying insurance just in case something bad
>happens."
>You say, "That's a waste of money as most people don't
>experience enough bad that simply saving that money for such
>occasions wouldn't satisfy."

>In the end, those that believe in Faith (God) are saying, I
>want to be prepared, just in case.

Here's the thing: That insurance policy actual exists, and the terms are clearly written and understood by both parties. You pay X in return for Y in the event of circumstances a, b, and c.

There is no faith involved. There is no mystery to solve.

Further, this insurance policy is specific not in terms of what is covered and under what circumstances, though there may be holes in certain places.

There's a business office for the insurance company, a name to attach the sales person, a paper trail to follow for the payments you've made, terms and conditions, the whole nine.

Further, we can look at tangible numbers, can we not?

I.e, how often do people actually have to make claims on, say, renters insurance.

Lastly, insurance is clearly meant to be just that: Insurance.

It's entire purpose is "just in case", and there is a definite in what you get for your payment for that "just in case". There's a contract. Sure, it's not airtight. Imperfect.

But purchasing insurance is the definitive opposite of faith, because there are checks and balances and verification in place for both parties.

The prospect of faith in a god is that said god *might* or *could* be true, but is much more akin to buying a lottery ticket in actuality.

To keep this practical, if person A makes this choice, and keeps this faith within themselves, cool. But the second person A uses said faith, regardless of the reasoning behind said faith, to imposes laws and rules upon others, that's a no-go.

And that's just once facet of how and why faith can be extremely problematic.

>Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus
>on the tangible and provable.

I'll expound on this. My break is ending soon so I may need to come back to it.

But in general, we go with what we know, believers and non believers alike. The vast majority of theists who had cancer and then went into remission and attribute said remission to god, also went to doctors and underwent treatment.

The vast majority of believers in a god get up and go to work, clock in and out, and get a paycheck, though they'll attribute that income to their particular god.

I do have some more nuanced thoughts on this though, because while I do see certain situations where faith can be beneficial, I still see that in and of itself as a massive net negative. But I'll expound further.

>Whatever happens after this
>life is beyond our knowledge and control.

Agreed. I don't think faith in anything actually changes this though.

>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front
>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and respect
>what's beyond you.

>Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve
>humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.

I'll have to circle back on these points. Break's about up, but I have a lot to say on the morality issue. I'd love to hear your thoughts in response to what I've addressed thus far though.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
auragin_boi
Member since Aug 01st 2003
20305 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 06:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "Damn it CT...this is long lol"
In response to Reply # 86


  

          

>That's the central issue with faith: that it relies on nothing
>of actual substance. This isn't necessarily problematic in a
>vacuum, but the problem is that beliefs do not exist in a
>vacuum, and our beliefs drive our decisions in the real world.
>
>
>So if your faith in a particular god drives your overall
>worldview, and that worldview drives the way you vote, for
>example, on things like whether or not two people of the same
>sex can get married, or a woman's right to choose, that's
>problematic.
>
>If someone is going to decide that their faith in a particular
>being, and thus the rules and regulations handed down by said
>being, should be applied not only to oneself as an individual,
>but to others they share this world with, then their faith is
>an insufficient foundation to press those views on the rest of
>us.

The idea behind faith though is that we all believe in a greater good. As society evolves, some of those principles become dated but the core of them should still be respected.

-The root of opposition to SS marriage is population growth. Prior to modern tech, there was only one way to keep multiplying. We have various ways to achieve this now. Faith says "it's wrong", logic says, the reason why you think it's wrong is dated and won't affect society the way it once could.

-The root of choice vs life is also rooted in the same fears. Additionally, there's the moral dilemma of killing a living thing. While both sides disagree on it, there's rationale behind both stances.

The same way one could see imposing religious laws on society as a bad thing, lots of laws are based on religious morality and changing those laws feels like an attack on established morals. Control vs radicalism. One side feels oppression is bad, the other feels a lack of moral structure is. Both are right. The problem is, Faith and Logic typically fail to compromise. There in lies the best solutions.


>>Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much
>>misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances
>>that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic
>>has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new
>>circumstances or evidence has been introduced.
>
>Going to circle back on this point.

Feel free.

>>As humans, we
>>only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights
>>into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through.
>>So things we deem logical today, could be illogical
>tomorrow.
>
>I'd like you to expound on this, if you don't mind.

Sure, as humans, we want to understand more about existence. But we don't have the capacity to learn as much as we'd like. This limits us in our ability to create certain logical laws beyond our scope. We make assumptions to help us understand things and the more widely accepted, the easier it is for is to try to move on to the next cue and box that in.

As far as logic changing, yesteryear, we though moons were planets, humans couldn't fly, AI was a fantasy. Some think freedom is logical but not so if everyone can attain it. Sometimes, logic fails. Example, tear (cry) and tear (to rip). Two words spelled the same, sound different and have different meanings. That isn't logical but we logically accept that.

>>To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and
>>is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles
>>(4>3).
>
>I'd say logic is being used rather loosely, and I think "logic
>vs faith" is potentially a false dichotomy. I'm not sure it's
>faith vs logic at all. I'd say the actual dichotomy is faith
>vs evidence.

Evidence applied to faith is simply an exercise in logic. In essence, trying to box faith into a logical explanation with proof, when the essence of the word is devoid of proof.

This is like someone saying there's a 'soul' inside their body and someone asks them to prove it. Only way to prove it is to die and even then, the only evidence that there is a 'soul' is that the body no longer functions and the essence of the person is gone forever.

And even then, the living person may not agree on the terminology of 'soul'.

>Here's the thing: That insurance policy actual exists, and the
>terms are clearly written and understood by both parties. You
>pay X in return for Y in the event of circumstances a, b, and
>c.
>
>There is no faith involved. There is no mystery to solve.
>
>Further, this insurance policy is specific not in terms of
>what is covered and under what circumstances, though there may
>be holes in certain places.
>
>There's a business office for the insurance company, a name to
>attach the sales person, a paper trail to follow for the
>payments you've made, terms and conditions, the whole nine.
>
>Further, we can look at tangible numbers, can we not?
>
>I.e, how often do people actually have to make claims on, say,
>renters insurance.
>
>Lastly, insurance is clearly meant to be just that: Insurance.
>
>
>It's entire purpose is "just in case", and there is a definite
>in what you get for your payment for that "just in case".
>There's a contract. Sure, it's not airtight. Imperfect.
>
>But purchasing insurance is the definitive opposite of faith,
>because there are checks and balances and verification in
>place for both parties.
>
>The prospect of faith in a god is that said god *might* or
>*could* be true, but is much more akin to buying a lottery
>ticket in actuality.
>
>To keep this practical, if person A makes this choice, and
>keeps this faith within themselves, cool. But the second
>person A uses said faith, regardless of the reasoning behind
>said faith, to imposes laws and rules upon others, that's a
>no-go.
>
>And that's just once facet of how and why faith can be
>extremely problematic.

You example fails when it comes to life insurance (and in some instances, regular insurance).

1) You agree to pay something in expectation that when the time comes, you'll be taken care of.

2) There's no guarantee the company will be able to take care of you (a myriad of things could go wrong, bankruptcy, fraud, lack of funds to cover your particular issue...even if contractually agreed upon).

3) In the case of life insurance, you're dead, there is no way for you to confirm your wishes were carried out. You just have to believe that the company you paid penance to will honor it's side of the bargain.

To your example, faith is indeed just as you stated it, an 'imperfect contract' to which behaviors and beliefs are attributed with the understanding that once one departs this existence, a better one will rest on the other side for those who abide those behaviors and beliefs.

And logically, we don't know where we were before we got here and we don't know where we go when we leave. That window of ignorance lends to anything being possible.

To your final point, a huge portion of this faith is rooted in love. The only way to understand the final part is to look at yourself as a parent. Your beliefs based on your years of experience allowed you to develop what you see as key things your children need to learn to have a better path through their lives. The only right you have to levy these beliefs is that you created them via your DNA. You have likely created household laws/rules to govern their growth. Ultimately, they won't see some of those rules as fair or logical or relevant but it's what you think is best for their development. They may choose to ignore your rules but that might also make their lives exponentially more difficult.

In the same sense that some parents abuse this power for their own personal benefit, some will do the same with faith. That doesn't discount the value of faith. Context just needs to be applied and a compromise with logic should prevail.


>>Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus
>>on the tangible and provable.
>
>I'll expound on this. My break is ending soon so I may need to
>come back to it.
>
>But in general, we go with what we know, believers and non
>believers alike. The vast majority of theists who had cancer
>and then went into remission and attribute said remission to
>god, also went to doctors and underwent treatment.
>
>The vast majority of believers in a god get up and go to work,
>clock in and out, and get a paycheck, though they'll attribute
>that income to their particular god.
>
>I do have some more nuanced thoughts on this though, because
>while I do see certain situations where faith can be
>beneficial, I still see that in and of itself as a massive net
>negative. But I'll expound further.

Your point here is valid, but there are also people who get cancer and don't win that battle even if they go to the doctor and received treatment. There are also people who got to go to work today and got laid off with no indication it was going to happen.

While some might attribute this to chance or a group of inevitable circumstances, others might see it is favor via faith. Always two sides to that coin.

Ultimately, faith is needed. Humanity fails without faith. Without the small possibility that what we do on Earth, in this existence, matters beyond the moment that we do it in, all of our societal structures fall.

I akin it to a "if you knew you were going to die tomorrow" theory. The things you did today would have less consequence because you wouldn't care about the personal ramifications as much.

You want to know what a world without faith looks like? Let something like the movie 'Deep Impact' play out in real life. Say we don't find out about a comet hurling at Earth until it's too late to do anything about it or it's too huge to do anything about it.

>Agreed. I don't think faith in anything actually changes this
>though.

Didn't say it would change it. But, think, if someone told you to save up because the economy is going to crash but as a keen economist, you looked at the markets like 'there's no proof that it's going to do so, where's your proof?' and the guys is like, 'I don't have any, I just know.'

Do you really wanna be piss broke if the guy is right? Or would you rather at least save something and hope that he's wrong?

>>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front
>>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and
>respect
>>what's beyond you.
>
>>Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve
>>humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.
>
>I'll have to circle back on these points. Break's about up,
>but I have a lot to say on the morality issue. I'd love to
>hear your thoughts in response to what I've addressed thus far
>though.

Feel free.

____________
My Kids:
https://youtu.be/Tti0SHGkpVk
The W5 – “Swerve”
Official Video

Available on:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5ZkYYasL3k8JlvjyN5w1kL
https://tidal.com/browse/album/95038805
iTunes/Apple Music
Google Play

Thanks4UrSupport

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
MiracleRic
Member since Oct 21st 2002
45058 posts
Thu Dec-13-18 10:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
90. "yikes"
In response to Reply # 87


  

          

Let me sport my Air Hyperbole 2010s in peace. (c) ansomble

Building repetoires (c) spm since 1983

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
auragin_boi
Member since Aug 01st 2003
20305 posts
Thu Dec-13-18 03:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "What up Ric?!?!"
In response to Reply # 90


  

          

Was that 'yikes' toward the response or the length? lol

____________
My Kids:
https://youtu.be/Tti0SHGkpVk
The W5 – “Swerve”
Official Video

Available on:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5ZkYYasL3k8JlvjyN5w1kL
https://tidal.com/browse/album/95038805
iTunes/Apple Music
Google Play

Thanks4UrSupport

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Mon Dec-17-18 04:05 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "Sorry/not sorry! It just got longer though"
In response to Reply # 87


  

          

>-The root of opposition to SS marriage is population growth.
>Prior to modern tech, there was only one way to keep
>multiplying. We have various ways to achieve this now. Faith
>says "it's wrong", logic says, the reason why you think it's
>wrong is dated and won't affect society the way it once
>could.

I don’t see how this is the case at all. This may be true for some, but the root of opposition to SS marriage has long been religious dogma, a view that it is just plain wrong, unnatural, things like that. I wouldn’t put population growth in the top five reasons people give, now or ever.

Further, how many societies have ever been so completely consumed with homosexuality that a decrease in population was a serious and real threat, regardless of perception? Has there ever been a justification for this based on the threat of this actually happening?

Further, it’s not just SS marriage, but the treatment of homosexuality as a whole that is at issue, and I was simply giving but one practical example of how people impose their religious views on others, and this is absolutely one of them.

>-the root of choice vs life is also rooted in the same fears.
>Additionally, there's the moral dilemma of killing a living
>thing. While both sides disagree on it, there's rationale
>behind both stances.

There’s rationale, and there’s good rationale, but again, I’m speaking specifically as an example of the way people use their religion to impose those beliefs on others. And whether or not each side has “a” rationale, what matters is whether or not they have *good* rationale based on reality.

>The same way one could see imposing religious laws on society
>as a bad thing, lots of laws are based on religious morality
>and changing those laws feels like an attack on established
>morals.

What laws are based on religious morality?

The truth is that religious morality is far more broad than people would like to admit, and by and large our laws are, in reality, based on a foundation of harm in contrast to well-being.

I.E, lust is considered a sin, even thinking such thoughts, but that’s not illegal.

Murder, by contrast, is listed as a sin, and is illegal. Killing in general is treated with layers of contextual qualifiers to classify the nature of the offense in order to hand down a sentence.

And to be clear, the actual legal process is an entirely different subject from the laws themselves.

Also, which laws based on religious morality are being changed, exactly? Because morality that is supposedly based on religion is, in actuality, the morality they’ve plucked from the panacea of morality present in their religion, generally discarding the things that the morality of their time has also discarded.

>Control vs radicalism. One side feels oppression is

>bad, the other feels a lack of moral structure is.

This is a false equivalency.

I’d also say this needs further clarification. On the face, it seems that your referring to religious conservative views as the other feels that a lack of moral structure is bad. If that’s the case, I’d say a more accurate assessment is that a deviation from the moral structure they’ve culled from their particular interpretation of their religious views is bad, not a lack of moral structure.

“Moral structure” is a broad term that could include any number of moral concepts, many of which would directly conflict with one another. I think nearly everyone would cite a lack of moral structure as a societal negative, with the disagreement centering on what constitutes a good moral structure.

>Both are
>right. The problem is, Faith and Logic typically fail to
>compromise. Therein lies the best solutions.

What are those compromises and solutions between faith and logic?

>Sure, as humans, we want to understand more about existence.
>But we don't have the capacity to learn as much as we'd like.

Thing is, we’re always learning more. And simply choosing to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and understanding with a god is not a way to gain that knowledge.

>This limits us in our ability to create certain logical laws
>beyond our scope. We make assumptions to help us understand
>things and the more widely accepted, the easier it is for is
>to try to move on to the next cue and box that in.

What things are understood through assumptions?

Sure, we can just select random answers on a Scantron and hope for the best, but that’s not a good way to determine if those answers are correct.

Making assumptions in this regard doesn’t help us understand anything, not in a vacuum. I’ll grant you that the more an assumption is widely accepted, the easier it is to move on to the next thing, because ignorance is bliss.

>As far as logic changing, yesteryear, we though moons were
>planets, humans couldn't fly, AI was a fantasy.

That’s not a change in logic, that’s a change in the understanding and application of available information. Logic itself did not change. Sure, the application of logic is used to reach those discoveries, but that’s not an example of any changes in logic itself.

>Sometimes, logic fails. Example, tear (cry) and tear (to
>rip). Two words spelled the same, sound different and have
>different meanings. That isn't logical but we logically
>accept that.

I don’t see what’s illogical about two different words with entirely different usages that are spelled the same but are pronounced differently.

This isn’t a failure of logic at all. It’s an example of semantic versatility, for lack of a better term, but this is not a demonstration of logic “failing” in any way. If anything, it demonstrates an application of logic.

That said, I think “logic vs faith” is increasingly showing itself to be a false dichotomy in this discussion, with “logic” being a red herring.

There’s faith, and there’s reality.

>Evidence applied to faith is simply an exercise in logic. In
>essence, trying to box faith into a logical explanation with
>proof, when the essence of the word is devoid of proof.

But that’s just the thing: it’s not about boxing faith into a “logical explanation.”

It’s about showing how faith does not hold a foundation that comports with reality. There’s faith, and there’s reality. There’s belief, and there is what can be demonstrated to be true.

And because faith does not hold a foundation that comports with reality, it is not a foundation for decisions that impact our reality.

>This is like someone saying there's a 'soul' inside their body
>and someone asks them to prove it. Only way to prove it is to
>die and even then, the only evidence that there is a 'soul' is
>that the body no longer functions and the essence of the
>person is gone forever.

So if there's no evidence that there is a soul, there's no reason to believe such a thing exists. The inability to prove it isn't really the problem of the person requesting proof; if someone is asserting things they cannot prove, they don't get to duck that problem by pointing out that they can't prove it. The inability to prove it demonstrates the problem.

>And even then, the living person may not agree on the
>terminology of 'soul'.

>You example fails when it comes to life insurance (and in some
>instances, regular insurance).

Nope, and it’s not my example, it was yours. You likened faith to having insurance, and I explained the problems with that comparison.

>1) You agree to pay something in expectation that when the
>time comes, you'll be taken care of.
>2) There's no guarantee the company will be able to take care
>of you (a myriad of things could go wrong, bankruptcy, fraud,
>lack of funds to cover your particular issue...even if
>contractually agreed upon).

Correct, and even then., the fact that these things happen are also demonstrable. We can point to examples of these things actually happening. The fact that it is not airtight or guaranteed to pay off 100% of the time is immaterial.

>3) In the case of life insurance, you're dead, there is no way
>for you to confirm your wishes were carried out. You just
>have to believe that the company you paid penance to will
>honor it's side of the bargain.

Yes, but we can actually look and see whether or not a company actually pays out. We know for a fact that they do pay out, regardless of the times that they don’t. Further, there's no way for *me* to know, but my heirs do, and again, these companies won't last long if they reliably failed to pay out just claims. It's a calculated risk to be sure, but it hardly "fails". It's a real, genuine thing, and even the risks of loss can be accounted for in reality.

>To your example, faith is indeed just as you stated it, an
>'imperfect contract'
>to which behaviors and beliefs are
>attributed with the understanding that once one departs this
>existence, a better one will rest on the other side for those
>who abide those behaviors and beliefs.

An insurance policy is an imperfect contract.

Faith isn’t a contract of any kind. It’s a belief one holds and hopes to be true. It’s a belief that there is not only a second party to fulfil the other end of a contract they hope exists, but also that this second party is the one is the one they believe in. Faith is very far from a contract.

An insurance policy, flaws and all, is an actual contract. You can call an actual person who represents an actual company and talk about said policy.

Faith is a far, far cry from a contract.

>And logically, we don't know where we were before we got here

This is a false premise. There’s no good evidence to suggest we were anything before we were born. Saying “we don’t know where we were” implies that we preexisted in some form prior to our physical birth, and that has to be demonstrated.

>and we don't know where we go when we leave. That window of
>ignorance lends to anything being possible.

Possibility must be demonstrated.

“Anything” is not possible. Is it possible for you to shoot fire from your fingertips? Not through technology, but actually shoot flames from your fingertips.

It’s possible that you can buy a lottery ticket and win a million dollars. We have enumerable examples of this happening.

It’s not possible for you to purchase a lottery ticket that then physically turns into a million dollars. We have never observed this happening, nor have we observed anything suggesting it could happen.

It’s possible that I can own a Lamborghini some day.

Regardless of how likely this is, the possibility exists because I exist, as do Lambo’s, and they can be obtained for a price.

>That
>doesn't discount the value of faith. Context just needs to be
>applied and a compromise with logic should prevail.

What *is* the value of faith? And the value of faith in…. what? Is the value of faith in one deity equal to the value of faith in another?

And is there any good thing accomplished by faith that cannot be accomplished be reasoned examination of real-world evidence and the application of the actual information gained in the process, to govern our choices and behaviors?

>Your point here is valid, but there are also people who get
>cancer and don't win that battle even if they go to the doctor
>and received treatment.

Correct. The fact that every doctor cannot save every patient with cancer doesn’t detract from my point.

Faith does not then become a “stronger” cure for cancer, and in fact there’s no good evidence to suggest that faith has any impact on curing anyone, for anything.


>There are also people who got to go
>to work today and got laid off with no indication it was going
>to happen.

>While some might attribute this to chance or a group of
>inevitable circumstances, others might see it is favor via
>faith. Always two sides to that coin.

Whether one “sees” it as favor via is immaterial to whether or not that’s what it actually is, and I think that’s critical. If you apply and interview for a job, and pray that you get this new job, and get it, was the prayer why you got the job?

How would we demonstrate that to be the case? Attributing something to faith doesn’t lend faith a own side to a coin, because what people think/feel/attribute believe is immaterial to whether or not those things can be demonstrated to be true.

>Ultimately, faith is needed.

For what, exactly? Sure, I understand certain arguments for how faith can help someone get through a tough period, form a psychological standpoint, not the standpoint of some intervening deity or other guiding force, and even then, faith isn’t “needed”. It’s just convenient.

>Humanity fails without faith.
>Without the small possibility that what we do on Earth, in
>this existence, matters beyond the moment that we do it in,
>all of our societal structures fall.

In what way does humanity and our societal structures fail without faith?

Philosophically, even.

If we only get one shot at life, with no second life to live, no promise of reward or punishment for what we do here and now, this life then becomes far more valuable and important.

But still, that’s just philosophical musing. Is it demonstrable that humanity fails without faith?

Also, we need to define faith in some of these statements, because faith seems like it’s being used as a generic catch-all.

>You want to know what a world without faith looks like? Let
>something like the movie 'Deep Impact' play out in real life.
>Say we don't find out about a comet hurling at Earth until
>it's too late to do anything about it or it's too huge to do
>anything about it.

That’s not a world without faith. That’s a world at its end. Does faith knock the meteor off it’s path? Does the lack of faith create the meteor? Because this would simply be a world at it’s end, with people doing whatever they wind up doing. Some people will loot, rob, steal, kill, others will go to church, others will hunker down and board up their home.

We can unpack this scenario forever and for that reason, I’m not sure how much time such a scenario is even warranted to explore. Why not use the here, the now, the readily observable reality instead?

>Didn't say it would change it. But, think, if someone told

>you to save up because the economy is going to crash but as a
>keen economist, you looked at the markets like 'there's no
>proof that it's going to do so, where's your proof?' and the
>guys is like, 'I don't have any, I just know.'
>Do you really wanna be piss broke if the guy is right? Or
>would you rather at least save something and hope that he's wrong

Why would anyone make their long term financial decisions based on a thing a guy said for which he had no proof? This is Pasqual’s Wager, through and through, and by that standard, you need to simply accept every proposition everyone makes without evidence, just to hedge your bets.

And telling people to “save up” is always sound advice, under any scenario, rain or shine, yes?. Adding a doomsday scenario without sound supporting evidence doesn’t make that advice any more sound.

Contrarily, let’s look at a real life example if this:

Harry Markopolis, who had Bernie Madoff pinned from jump, could prove with ease, and was completely ignored by everyone from people who were investing in Madoff, on up to the SEC. This was a simple catch, but willful ignorance and greed prevailed until the levee broke.

The investors stuck with him for two reasons: Madoff had a stellar reputation, and his returns were consistently on point. Comically consistent, actually, once you get into the details, and that’s what should have tipped everyone off early.

So they had trust in this guy, as did everyone else who invested in him, and this was a “who’s who” clientele, further reinforcing their happy delusion, because they could set their watch to their returns. So they stuck with Madoff because he was giving them the goods.

>>>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in

>front

>>>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and

From what I’ve seen and experienced first-hand, faith keeps people grounded in the tenets of that particular faith, but little else. Now, if you’re talking in a very general sense, sure. If you decide, hey, I want to do the right thing because god is watching/I don’t want that karma/etc, and that drives you to good, so be it. That’s how some folks hold it together. That’s what some people need to be able to go on and do right. I do have minor, less passionate issues with this, but certainly not enough to push back in a significant way. The issue is when faith, as it often does, becomes a foundation to determine how others should live, walk, talk, have relationships, etc that deserves the lion’s share of pushback.

Logic is used to make sense of the facts we can observe about reality in order to remain grounded, which is why people with cancer go to the doctor, even as they pray.

It’s also why people with amputated limbs don’t ever seem to regrow their limbs, because that’s not something that has been demonstrated to be possible, no matter how much someone may or may not pray for it.

>>respect

>>>what's beyond you.

If something is beyond me, I can’t respect it, because I can’t even disrespect it, because it’s beyond me. I’m not being pedantic, but if there’s something that’s beyond me, it’s beyond my ability to react to it, either way.


>>>Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve

>>>humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.

So getting to the end here, I still think logic is a problematic term that creates a false dichotomy. Logic is a tool, a means to make sense of, and form conclusions about, the facts of reality around us, i.e, information, evidence, etc.

Faith, depending on the usage and application, has varying degrees of usefulness, but as a governing factor for morality and human progress? It’s sorely lacking, and I think this is demonstrable.

Arbitrarily killing your neighbor is demonstrably bad for you, by nearly every possible metric.
This would change if you did so and somehow managed to not get caught, but that presents a separate set of issues.

But getting caught, going to jail, losing your job, potential impact to your family, the list of ways in which this would negatively impact your life is rather long. And unless you’ve been desensitized or are a sociopath (among other possibilities, to be sure) or something along those lines, this not likely bode well for your emotional or psychological health either.

You have innumerable reasons not to kill your neighbor that are demonstrably pertinent to your own well-being and survival, and that’s before we get into the issue of the general empathy you (presumably, lol, and hopefully) feel toward your fellow man.

This isn’t because a book says some old guy in the desert wrote down a commandment he received from a deity on a stone tablet.

And until/unless we can prove- actually prove, not assert, not assume, not take on faith, but actually prove in the same way that we can prove that their factual negative consequences- that said commandment came from the aforementioned deity, it’s an arbitrary moral standard that does not provide a foundation based in reality.

Conversely, we can and do logically assess things like harm, fairness, loyalty, etc, and our moral decision making demonstrably comports with these.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
auragin_boi
Member since Aug 01st 2003
20305 posts
Tue Dec-18-18 05:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "RE: Sorry/not sorry! It just got longer though"
In response to Reply # 94


  

          

>I don’t see how this is the case at all. This may be true
>for some, but the root of opposition to SS marriage has long
>been religious dogma, a view that it is just plain wrong,
>unnatural, things like that. I wouldn’t put population
>growth in the top five reasons people give, now or ever.
>
>Further, how many societies have ever been so completely
>consumed with homosexuality that a decrease in population was
>a serious and real threat, regardless of perception? Has there
>ever been a justification for this based on the threat of this
>actually happening?
>
>Further, it’s not just SS marriage, but the treatment of
>homosexuality as a whole that is at issue, and I was simply
>giving but one practical example of how people impose their
>religious views on others, and this is absolutely one of
>them.

Let's start with this. The bible isn't a collection of real accounts nor are most of, if not all of the stories a direct revelation from 'God'.

Me personally, I can't rule out that there could be something greater than humanity that we've labeled as "God" that passed on wisdom to our kind during it's infancy to ensure we advanced as a species.

I also can't rule out that the bible wasn't created or altered by humanity; those early humans who learned a few key things about our nature and sought to help us progress but also control us.

Historically, there were less of us in earlier generations. If each gender evolved to the point that they didn't desire each other, the species could become endangered. We likely weren't smart enough back then to figure out alternatives. So rules were levied, tied to morality and placed in the 'good book', no matter its origin, to circumvent the fear of extinction.

Hence, it became moral law/code, whatever you want to call it. And some societies indeed deemed it against the law and punishable. Religious Dogma is the gate keeper for status quo. Without it, the laws don't hold. Shame and punishment are tied to them to ensure obedience to it.

It's just like parenting. Not sure why people don't get this. But just like parenting, the techniques evolve with the child's understanding of the world.

>There’s rationale, and there’s good rationale, but again,
>I’m speaking specifically as an example of the way people
>use their religion to impose those beliefs on others. And
>whether or not each side has “a” rationale, what matters
>is whether or not they have *good* rationale based on reality.

Good is subjective so it has no place in this discussion. You and 7.5 billion people won't see 'good' the same way. And what if you're in the minority rationale? Does that make you right or wrong?

You frame this argument as if our existence is absolute. "A wise man knows that he knows nothing" or however the parable goes. God, or the concept of, is part of our reality. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist.

If I told you my 3rd cousin removed, from 10 states over, slept with Beyonce yesterday, how could you prove it did or didn't happen? For all we know, it could be true but neither of us was there to confirm it. Ask her and she might lie for obvious reasons. My cousin might not have had the ability to net concrete proof suitable to your belief system. Society didn't have tools to record the way we do now and those that did record events, actually gave accounts of what they deemed "Gods" or higher powers.

Were they all liars? Ignorant of what they saw with their own eyes? One might question why we don't see this entity with such clarity today and again I relay it to the parenting example. Once your kids are of age, you become less prevalent in their lives and eventually, you pass on and they lose you completely in this existence. Who's to say this entity hasn't done the same (as in, become less hands on)?

>What laws are based on religious morality?
>
>The truth is that religious morality is far more broad than
>people would like to admit, and by and large our laws are, in
>reality, based on a foundation of harm in contrast to
>well-being.
>
>I.E, lust is considered a sin, even thinking such thoughts,
>but that’s not illegal.
>
>Murder, by contrast, is listed as a sin, and is illegal.
>Killing in general is treated with layers of contextual
>qualifiers to classify the nature of the offense in order to
>hand down a sentence.
>
>And to be clear, the actual legal process is an entirely
>different subject from the laws themselves.
>
>Also, which laws based on religious morality are being
>changed, exactly? Because morality that is supposedly based on
>religion is, in actuality, the morality they’ve plucked from
>the panacea of morality present in their religion, generally
>discarding the things that the morality of their time has also
>discarded.

I've already given an example (homosexuality is against the law in some societies) but most of our laws are based on morality derived from religion.

-Do not harm others (murder, assault, sexual deviancy...pedo, rape).
-Do not covet others property (theft, polygamy)
-Pay your fare share/tithes (taxes, etc)

Beyond legality, there are social laws that people are shamed for as well that are all tied to religious morality, such as the example you listed (lust, also lying to name a few).

>This is a false equivalency.
>
>I’d also say this needs further clarification. On the face,
>it seems that your referring to religious conservative views
>as the other feels that a lack of moral structure is bad. If
>that’s the case, I’d say a more accurate assessment is
>that a deviation from the moral structure they’ve culled
>from their particular interpretation of their religious views
>is bad, not a lack of moral structure.
>
>“Moral structure” is a broad term that could include any
>number of moral concepts, many of which would directly
>conflict with one another. I think nearly everyone would cite
>a lack of moral structure as a societal negative, with the
>disagreement centering on what constitutes a good moral
>structure.

I think the equivalency is very true. Forgive my assumption but I believed your 'more accurate assessment' was implied based on the discussion we're having. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

However, perception is the key to all of this. Some have evolved in their views, others hold to prior established structures. I don't disagree that morality is often conflicted. But that doesn't negate my argument.

Look at it this way; if you've been doing something for 35 yrs that you deem successful and then all of a sudden, someone comes along and tells you that it's not successful and you need to change what you're doing, are you just going to up and change your process on that persons stance?

>What are those compromises and solutions between faith and
>logic?

Faith can be respected and logic can be applied.

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" - Pope Francis

^^^This is what evolution looks like. It's not an overnight process and will be tweaked along the way, but logically applying faith with logic leads to these views. This is where morality gets adjusted (I mean if a Pope said it...) and we begin to alter things based on modern society.

>Thing is, we’re always learning more. And simply choosing to
>fill in the gaps in our knowledge and understanding with a god
>is not a way to gain that knowledge.

Who said this was what we were supposed to be doing? Seeking to know more should absolutely be our focus but a fool would speak in absolutes when we can't even travel to another galaxy and report back accurate information yet. God could ultimately be a crutch by which some of us need to rely on for confidence as we explore the unknown. But to kill the God theory out of discomfort through evolution or because of an arbitrary theory that we'd learn more is a bit arrogant.

Maybe there is indeed a God. One can't prove otherwise to date.

>What things are understood through assumptions?

The human existences.

Scientific theories (until their proven and even then, to my earlier point, it's just to get a concensus on the discovery), what the universe is like, how humanity came to be, or hell, why it even exists. All assumptions we've made to try to understand why we are here. No man was there at the beginning and can't, with 100% definitive certainty say they know.

>Sure, we can just select random answers on a Scantron and hope
>for the best, but that’s not a good way to determine if
>those answers are correct.
>
>Making assumptions in this regard doesn’t help us understand
>anything, not in a vacuum. I’ll grant you that the more an
>assumption is widely accepted, the easier it is to move on to
>the next thing, because ignorance is bliss.

All humanity does is make assumptions as we don't definitively KNOW anything. The things we think we understand, we box into a universally accepted principle (let's all agree that this hue is called...Blue, that gravity keeps us on the planet) so that we can capture new info pieces.

>That’s not a change in logic, that’s a change in the
>understanding and application of available information. Logic
>itself did not change. Sure, the application of logic is used
>to reach those discoveries, but that’s not an example of any
>changes in logic itself.

The only thing that can change logic is logic lol. And indeed, logical information changes prior logical beliefs. This is like saying "Math isn't changed by math". If someone found a logical way to make 2 = 1 without breaking prior established mathematical law, it would change math. I wonder what other's thought when coefficient equations were introduced to math "You can't make letters represent numbers! That's not logical!". Until it was called a variable and made so.

>I don’t see what’s illogical about two different words
>with entirely different usages that are spelled the same but
>are pronounced differently.

Of course you don't, because you've been taught it all your life.

>This isn’t a failure of logic at all. It’s an example of
>semantic versatility, for lack of a better term, but this is
>not a demonstration of logic “failing” in any way. If
>anything, it demonstrates an application of logic.

This makes no sense. Two things that are exactly the same, are different. And that's logical? LMAO @ semantic versatility.

This is a logic fail if there ever was one.

1 does not equal 1
Red is not Red
Tear is not Tear

Tell me where's the logic here?

>That said, I think “logic vs faith” is increasingly
>showing itself to be a false dichotomy in this discussion,
>with “logic” being a red herring.
>
>There’s faith, and there’s reality.

I think logic falls insecure of the things it can't grasp and dismisses them as failing reality. Reality is the existence in front of you. By definition, it dismisses idealism. Without idealism, humanity doesn't evolve. Doesn't learn more. Doesn't question whats beyond. I believe reality needs a God to push exploration (which is likely why the concept exists in our reality). Logic is the practice of trying to capture God in a box aka trying to understand the grand design, if there is such a thing.

>But that’s just the thing: it’s not about boxing faith
>into a “logical explanation.”
>
>It’s about showing how faith does not hold a foundation that
>comports with reality. There’s faith, and there’s reality.
>There’s belief, and there is what can be demonstrated to be
>true.
>
>And because faith does not hold a foundation that comports
>with reality, it is not a foundation for decisions that impact
>our reality.

This is short sighted. Before humans could travel beyond our atmosphere all we could do is believe there was something there. By your argument, we shouldn't have explored what's beyond our planet because it wasn't part of our reality. Science and mathematical principles have all been developed around belief in something that wasn't yet provable.

Exploration is the action of traveling in or through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it. Many humans have had the testimony that they've been in contact with a higher being. There's recollection, spanning centuries, of these types of encounters.

We have a duty as humans to continue to explore this theory.

>So if there's no evidence that there is a soul, there's no
>reason to believe such a thing exists. The inability to prove
>it isn't really the problem of the person requesting proof; if
>someone is asserting things they cannot prove, they don't get
>to duck that problem by pointing out that they can't prove it.
>The inability to prove it demonstrates the problem.

Ok, so why is that when a body is damaged and ones life ends, we can't simply repair the body and restore the life? Soul is a descriptive term, like "Red" is used to describe a color. Life-force, electric current that keeps you alive, etc, could be used. It just describes the essence of humanity. The evidence is that we can't simply restore that life-force to the body once it is gone.

But none of us can see it, can touch it, can smell it. Life is there, then it isn't. We can't explain that yet. Where does that essence of humanity come from or go to if from and to anywhere?

>Correct, and even then., the fact that these things happen are
>also demonstrable. We can point to examples of these things
>actually happening. The fact that it is not airtight or
>guaranteed to pay off 100% of the time is immaterial.

>Yes, but we can actually look and see whether or not a company
>actually pays out. We know for a fact that they do pay out,
>regardless of the times that they don’t. Further, there's no
>way for *me* to know, but my heirs do, and again, these
>companies won't last long if they reliably failed to pay out
>just claims. It's a calculated risk to be sure, but it hardly
>"fails". It's a real, genuine thing, and even the risks of
>loss can be accounted for in reality.

The counter to this is to say, you don't know what happens when someone dies, but the person who dies does. If someone is dead, they can't prove anything from where ever they go.

So the dead person, if we could contact dead people, could testify as to what happens when we die.

You can't reach across the isle here. If there's no guarantee that a life insurance company will pay your heirs and you can't verify that they do as you'll be gone, why buy insurance?

You want proof that the contract you might enact with a God is verifiable on 'this' side of the isle. Other's may have testified on the behalf of this God but you don't believe it because those people have never died and had the promise delivered in a verifiable way or you find it hard to believe that they might have had an experience you can't fathom.

>An insurance policy is an imperfect contract.
>
>Faith isn’t a contract of any kind. It’s a belief one
>holds and hopes to be true. It’s a belief that there is not
>only a second party to fulfil the other end of a contract they
>hope exists, but also that this second party is the one is the
>one they believe in. Faith is very far from a contract.
>
>An insurance policy, flaws and all, is an actual contract. You
>can call an actual person who represents an actual company and
>talk about said policy.
>
>Faith is a far, far cry from a contract.

This is your perspective and you're limited by only the things you've experienced. But, to materialize your example:

-You engage with a company you hope to be legit (could be a scam). You believe there's a secondary party who will fulfill the other end of the bargain (though you'll likely never meet the person who will process payment if they do). You meet a representative from the company to discuss this contract which you've allowed your faith to believe will be honored when you die.

-A person who's been introduced to the theory of God chooses to believe the entity exists based on the many questions they/humans have about existence (and our inability to answer them) and the immense scope of the design of our existence (though, it could be a scam). This person believes there is a secondary party (God) who will fulfill the other end of the bargain (though, if they ever meet this entity, it'll be when their life ends). This person goes to a Church to meet representatives of said entity (akin to a company rep) to discuss this contract which they've allowed their faith to believe will be honored when they die.

>This is a false premise. There’s no good evidence to suggest
>we were anything before we were born. Saying “we don’t
>know where we were” implies that we preexisted in some form
>prior to our physical birth, and that has to be demonstrated.

There's tons of evidence to suggest we were something before we were born. Biology itself explains the construction of the body pre-birth, but where exactly does 'essence' originate from (i.e. Life force)?

Again, we can't explain these things, humanity hasn't figured them out so to call it false demonstrates an intellectual arrogance in light of rabid ignorance. "A wise man knows..."

>>and we don't know where we go when we leave. That window of
>>ignorance lends to anything being possible.
>
>Possibility must be demonstrated.
>
>“Anything” is not possible. Is it possible for you to
>shoot fire from your fingertips? Not through technology, but
>actually shoot flames from your fingertips.

With atmospheric and genetic evolution/mutation...who knows? Possibly.

>It’s possible that you can buy a lottery ticket and win a
>million dollars. We have enumerable examples of this
>happening.
>
>It’s not possible for you to purchase a lottery ticket that
>then physically turns into a million dollars. We have never
>observed this happening, nor have we observed anything
>suggesting it could happen.
>
>It’s possible that I can own a Lamborghini some day.
>
>Regardless of how likely this is, the possibility exists
>because I exist, as do Lambo’s, and they can be obtained for
>a price.

Lottery tickets in 2087 might actually be a credit card where it turns to a million dollars instantly. And lets not act like we don't have instances of one thing becoming multiple things via processes.

A lack of observation doesn't mean a lack of possibility. The evolution of society is grand evidence of this. If someone who was 45 in 1915 were dropped into today's society, I'm sure they'd see things they never imagined were possible.

>What *is* the value of faith? And the value of faith in….
>what? Is the value of faith in one deity equal to the value of
>faith in another?
>
>And is there any good thing accomplished by faith that cannot
>be accomplished be reasoned examination of real-world evidence
>and the application of the actual information gained in the
>process, to govern our choices and behaviors?

At some point, society might well kill the Theory of God. Maybe we evaporate into nothingness and cease to exist in the mass universe when we die and there is no consequence to our humanitarian/Earthly decisions beyond what happens to us on Earth.

But I don't think society is mature/evolved enough to handle the finality of that declaration. I mean, Trump is President.

The looming possibility that if we don't make, what are seen as, positive choices in life, it could have consequences should there be something beyond this existence keeps us somewhat honest as a species.

Removing that safety net too soon could cause havoc. And, again, we don't know if the theory is simply a control mechanism or if it's rooted in some sort of truth.

I've never seen a singular atom in my life...but I believe they exist.

>Correct. The fact that every doctor cannot save every patient
>with cancer doesn’t detract from my point.

But it does, you made it seem that they were only healed because they went to the doctor. Why them and not the person who wasn't healed?

>Faith does not then become a “stronger” cure for cancer,
>and in fact there’s no good evidence to suggest that faith
>has any impact on curing anyone, for anything.

Again, faith isn't about evidence. We've established this.

>Whether one “sees” it as favor via is immaterial to
>whether or not that’s what it actually is, and I think
>that’s critical. If you apply and interview for a job, and
>pray that you get this new job, and get it, was the prayer why
>you got the job?
>
>How would we demonstrate that to be the case? Attributing
>something to faith doesn’t lend faith a own side to a coin,
>because what people think/feel/attribute believe is immaterial
>to whether or not those things can be demonstrated to be
>true.

But the thing is, we also can't prove the opposite. You can go through the entire logic tree of why and the defense could always point to inception.

We, as a species, never know origin. Ever.

The problem with this (your) method is, the word faith exists. Things have been enacted in reality due to faith, devoid of proof. So to devalue faith because one disagrees with it is short sighted and counter productive to humanity (I've covered why earlier).

>For what, exactly? Sure, I understand certain arguments for
>how faith can help someone get through a tough period, form a
>psychological standpoint, not the standpoint of some
>intervening deity or other guiding force, and even then, faith
>isn’t “needed”. It’s just convenient.

This entire statement was contradictory. You just listed reasons, I've listed reasons earlier with the most important being, humanity doesn't evolve to what it is today without faith.

>In what way does humanity and our societal structures fail
>without faith?
>
>Philosophically, even.
>
>If we only get one shot at life, with no second life to live,
>no promise of reward or punishment for what we do here and
>now, this life then becomes far more valuable and important.
>
>But still, that’s just philosophical musing. Is it
>demonstrable that humanity fails without faith?
>
>Also, we need to define faith in some of these statements,
>because faith seems like it’s being used as a generic
>catch-all.

I think I've covered a chunk of this prior but I'll ask this; How many people do you think would commit murder if they thought they could get away with it and had to endure no guilt built around religious faith based social norms?

If we thought logically about the advancement of society/humanity, population control would be plausible and scientific testing on humans and animals should be fair game as we'd advance much further without these restrictions. Less people equal more resources for everyone, testing would lead to advances that might allow us to live longer, heal faster and facilitate travel through the universe.

>That’s not a world without faith. That’s a world at its
>end. Does faith knock the meteor off it’s path? Does the
>lack of faith create the meteor? Because this would simply be
>a world at it’s end, with people doing whatever they wind up
>doing. Some people will loot, rob, steal, kill, others will go
>to church, others will hunker down and board up their home.
>
>We can unpack this scenario forever and for that reason, I’m
>not sure how much time such a scenario is even warranted to
>explore. Why not use the here, the now, the readily observable
>reality instead?

My example was to imply that, humanity without the idea of faith would devolve. An immediate, unavoidable certain extinction would expedite that scenario. I think more people would lose that restraint with certain death staring them in the face.

>Why would anyone make their long term financial decisions
>based on a thing a guy said for which he had no proof? This is
>Pasqual’s Wager, through and through, and by that standard,
>you need to simply accept every proposition everyone makes
>without evidence, just to hedge your bets.
>
>And telling people to “save up” is always sound advice,
>under any scenario, rain or shine, yes?. Adding a doomsday
>scenario without sound supporting evidence doesn’t make that
>advice any more sound.

All good points, all concluded with the response I would have given you; better safe than sorry so may as well listen to the sound advice. We are encouraged all our lives that we need to be good. But what if we chose the opposite?

There's an inclination that people who choose the opposite might actually live pretty exciting lives. And if we only live once and then we are nothing, why waste it on 2.5 kids, a small/moderate home and sludging away for some big-wig's corporate money making machine?

Why not thoroughly plan a bank robbery and live it up?
Why not steal some trade secrets and make a fortune selling them?
Why not do whatever you want, regardless of others affected by it?

>Contrarily, let’s look at a real life example if this:
>
>Harry Markopolis, who had Bernie Madoff pinned from jump,
>could prove with ease, and was completely ignored by everyone
>from people who were investing in Madoff, on up to the SEC.
>This was a simple catch, but willful ignorance and greed
>prevailed until the levee broke.
>
>The investors stuck with him for two reasons: Madoff had a
>stellar reputation, and his returns were consistently on
>point. Comically consistent, actually, once you get into the
>details, and that’s what should have tipped everyone off
>early.
>
>So they had trust in this guy, as did everyone else who
>invested in him, and this was a “who’s who” clientele,
>further reinforcing their happy delusion, because they could
>set their watch to their returns. So they stuck with Madoff
>because he was giving them the goods.

This example fails. This is about investing, not saving. You're trusting someone to grow your money, not preserve it in this scenario. To your point, greed was the motivation here.

>>>>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in
>
>>front
>
>>>>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and
>
>From what I’ve seen and experienced first-hand, faith keeps
>people grounded in the tenets of that particular faith, but
>little else. Now, if you’re talking in a very general sense,
>sure. If you decide, hey, I want to do the right thing because
>god is watching/I don’t want that karma/etc, and that drives
>you to good, so be it. That’s how some folks hold it
>together. That’s what some people need to be able to go on
>and do right. I do have minor, less passionate issues with
>this, but certainly not enough to push back in a significant
>way. The issue is when faith, as it often does, becomes a
>foundation to determine how others should live, walk, talk,
>have relationships, etc that deserves the lion’s share of
>pushback.

So your issue is with, what you deem, the oppressive nature of some moral obligations levied by religion? But you do value morality? However, naively, you believe humanity has natural ingrained morality and doesn't need constructs like religion to hold it together (though religion is heavily ingrained into the moral fabric of society)?

>Logic is used to make sense of the facts we can observe about
>reality in order to remain grounded, which is why people with
>cancer go to the doctor, even as they pray.
>
>It’s also why people with amputated limbs don’t ever seem
>to regrow their limbs, because that’s not something that has
>been demonstrated to be possible, no matter how much someone
>may or may not pray for it.

But there are species in our ecosystems that regenerate limbs. We just haven't figured out how to harness that for humanity which would first require a complete change in our morality about altering human DNA. But even those walls are falling;

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/health/gene-edited-babies-rice-investigates-professor/index.html

And most people find this scary as sh*t. Why do people cross these lines? Who knows. Some might say, natural selection, other's might say spiritual influence. In the end, if the walls fall and someone successfully harnesses limb regeneration in humans without major side effects, voila! Prayers answered or...natural evolution, whichever tickles your fancy. lol

>If something is beyond me, I can’t respect it, because I
>can’t even disrespect it, because it’s beyond me. I’m
>not being pedantic, but if there’s something that’s beyond
>me, it’s beyond my ability to react to it, either way.

Fair enough. And this is soundly profound. So one has to wonder why you speak so finitely about things none of us understand.

>So getting to the end here, I still think logic is a
>problematic term that creates a false dichotomy. Logic is a
>tool, a means to make sense of, and form conclusions about,
>the facts of reality around us, i.e, information, evidence,
>etc.

This is well said but I disagree with the false dichotomy. You overtly applied logic all throughout your arguments here and it's the only foundation by which you are able argue. When you've just openly admitted, logic is the tool humans use to make sense of things even when they make no sense (tear anyone?).

>Faith, depending on the usage and application, has varying
>degrees of usefulness, but as a governing factor for morality
>and human progress? It’s sorely lacking, and I think this is
>demonstrable.

I agree. And it needs to evolve with society. Evolution is a slow process typically.

>Arbitrarily killing your neighbor is demonstrably bad for you,
>by nearly every possible metric.
>This would change if you did so and somehow managed to not get
>caught, but that presents a separate set of issues.

Let's remove the arbitrary factor from this scenario; If your neighbor infringed on your reality in a negative way and you discerned a way to manage not being implicated, is this ok? Because I think from a self serving stand point, it would be good for the person/killing neighbor as it would remove the negative infringement.

>But getting caught, going to jail, losing your job, potential
>impact to your family, the list of ways in which this would
>negatively impact your life is rather long. And unless
>you’ve been desensitized or are a sociopath (among other
>possibilities, to be sure) or something along those lines,
>this not likely bode well for your emotional or psychological
>health either.

The only reasons they'd not bode well is because of religious based moral norms though. We don't cry when we step on ants, swat flies, eat burgers. Humans are perfectly ok with killing. Hell, in some cases even of other humans. Consequence is typically the deterrent and a huge influence on how we've determined consequence has a skeletal system in religion.

>You have innumerable reasons not to kill your neighbor that
>are demonstrably pertinent to your own well-being and
>survival, and that’s before we get into the issue of the
>general empathy you (presumably, lol, and hopefully) feel
>toward your fellow man.

Why didn't this stop the Holocaust from happening? American slavery? And maybe there were financial reasons but other countries likely got involved due to some sense of moral obligation levied by...you guessed it...religious moral norms.

And even then, killing was on the docket to resolve it.

>This isn’t because a book says some old guy in the desert
>wrote down a commandment he received from a deity on a stone
>tablet.
>
>And until/unless we can prove- actually prove, not assert, not
>assume, not take on faith, but actually prove in the same way
>that we can prove that their factual negative consequences-
>that said commandment came from the aforementioned deity,
>it’s an arbitrary moral standard that does not provide a
>foundation based in reality.
>
>Conversely, we can and do logically assess things like harm,
>fairness, loyalty, etc, and our moral decision making
>demonstrably comports with these.

Prove to me, that humans, inherently care about other's well being, and that supersedes ones own desires (this might be less so with tribalism ties but even then, parents have murdered children and children have murder parents). There's mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I think there are a few norms that hold most of society together and prevent us from going full 'mad max' as a society, religion as a moral shield being one of the biggest keys.

Once you start to break down those morality views, what's beyond that gets...scary, interesting, risky, freeing.

Is that better for humanity? Is not having a God/Parental entity above it all somewhat better for humanity overall? Would whatever replaces it be better or worse?

I dunno and neither do you. Which has been my sole argument. Until we know more (which I doubt we'll figure it all out in my lifetime), I'll pray to God, apply logic to life, evolve it where necessary, based on what I think is the right thing to do and try to enjoy the ride until it's over. Hopefully, the ride will continue somewhere else and not end wherever my body rots.

Lastly, next time, call me man. I hate having to type all this out. lol Matter of fact, if you are going to rebut, do it that way!




____________
My Kids:
https://youtu.be/Tti0SHGkpVk
The W5 – “Swerve”
Official Video

Available on:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5ZkYYasL3k8JlvjyN5w1kL
https://tidal.com/browse/album/95038805
iTunes/Apple Music
Google Play

Thanks4UrSupport

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

shockzilla
Charter member
37750 posts
Thu Dec-13-18 02:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "yes, god exists but he's Odin, the Allfather."
In response to Reply # 0


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Amritsar
Member since Jan 18th 2008
28676 posts
Thu Dec-20-18 11:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
97. "Delete this bullshit"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

and stop upping your old lame posts

_______________________________________________
"Ran through enough dope for Castro to build schools in Cuba. Teach ya kids how to read and write. And use the Ruger."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Thu Dec-20-18 01:32 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
98. "Eh. There's a worthwhile discussion starting at 83"
In response to Reply # 97
Thu Dec-20-18 01:33 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

In Voldomort's defense, me an AB have been the ones upping the post with, IMO, a rather productive dialogue on the subject.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Case_One
Charter member
53256 posts
Thu Dec-20-18 04:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
99. "Voldomort. That's rich Buffington "
In response to Reply # 98


  

          

Anyway, I'm glad that you and AB are having s conversation. You seem to not be so antagonistic, SNARKY, or disrespectful. I guess evolution is possible with humans.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40222 posts
Thu Dec-20-18 04:42 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
100. "There's a reason for that, and you know what it is"
In response to Reply # 99


  

          

>Anyway, I'm glad that you and AB are having s conversation.
>You seem to not be so antagonistic, SNARKY, or disrespectful.
>I guess evolution is possible with humans.

You won't admit it, for obvious reasons, but the reason for this crystal clear.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby General Discussion topic #13300371 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com