On "Peace"

[JoeyKnothead]

From the General Chat section, I found this'n...

We are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and have his spirit imprinted on our heart (Ezekiel 36:27).

I challenge anyone to show:

1- God exists (for thoroughness) (pick one or more).
2- We are made in God's image.
3- We have His "spirit" imprinted on our hearts.

Therefore, we will find peace only when our spirit resonates in unison with His spirit and we live a life that is attuned to His life (which is a life of selflessness and sacrifice).

I challenge anyone to show:

4- Peace is only found when our "spirit" resonates in unison with God's.
5- Among that peace we must also live a life "atuned" to that of God.

When we do not live His life or are not in unison with Him, we are like fish out of water; because, then, we are not what we are created to be.

I challenge any to show that in the common religious sense we are...

6- Created, and created with a specific purpose implied by the above quote.

...
He commands us to forgive without any limit (Matthew 18:22) and love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34).

I challenge anyone to show:

7- God commands us to forgive, and specifically under the above terms.
8- God "loves" anything or anyone

He loved us by forgiving us and compensating for the offenses we committed against Him.

I challenge anyone to show:

9- God forgives, and specifically in the fashion specified above.

He compensated for our offenses by sacrificing Hs life.

I challenge anyone to show:

10- God has sacrificed His life.

I challenge these statements because I consider placing them in a part of the forums where debate is discouraged (for all the right reasons there) to be not in the spirit of this site's mission, as I understand it.

[JoeyKnothead]

I fear that we might be in danger of equivocating with regard to the term spirit. Besides without clarification, Joey might think that you mean alcohol each time.

It must surely be a reference to alcohol, as one would have to be drunk to believe it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 36:

"Prove it" as a form of argument without positing meaningful alternatives usually stops being cogent around the third grade.

Perhaps if one's education has stopped at that level.

Previous moderator rulings have indicated one is not bound to offer alternative explanations when challenging claims.

Can you address the claims in the OP, or do you seek to continue blaming atheists for not believing folks who can't show they speak truth?

[naz]

From Post 34:

Well a Theist is the belief in one god or creator, which is really multiple, combined into one right? Everything is in unison or as one. A plant cant live without sun, water etc. That is the cycle of its life.

Used up a lot of words not to say anything.

Well good, I'm glad I got no where with all this. LOL

[naz]

The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees it in simple disagreements. -- Hegel

As to prove Hegel right, atheists here freely criticize but never proffer meaningful alternatives for consideration. What they do put up for consideration at best superficial. To say, for example, that man is simply an evolutionary accident does nothing to settle the longings of a restless heart. To an atheist, the self and all its hopes fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of lifeless atoms of matter.

The extent of their argument seems to be prove it.

Couldnt agree more. Prove this, prove that. Then when you ask an atheist to explain their reason and logic behind things they have no reason or logic. Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

[Flail]

The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees it in simple disagreements. -- Hegel

As to prove Hegel right, atheists here freely criticize but never proffer meaningful alternatives for consideration. What they do put up for consideration at best superficial. To say, for example, that man is simply an evolutionary accident does nothing to settle the longings of a restless heart. To an atheist, the self and all its hopes fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of lifeless atoms of matter.

The extent of their argument seems to be prove it.

Although I am not an atheist, I must weigh in here. IMO, it is theism which is limiting. Imagine all the possibilities of life and eternity and what may or may not 'be the case'. Why would we want to guess at endings or concoct a 'god'?

I think it a productive mental exercise to philosophize and even speculate about such things, but somewhat mindless to take such speculations and philosophies to the level of absolute 'truth claims' without verifiable evidence.

What is the problem with asking someone who makes truth claims in debate to prove those claims with verifiable evidence? By what logic is asking for proofs in a debate an unreasonable position? IMO, someone who casts aspersions at requests for evidence, simply doesn't have any.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 44:

Couldnt agree more. Prove this, prove that. Then when you ask an atheist to explain their reason and logic behind things they have no reason or logic.

How do you propose we determine the truth of claims?

Is there some method better than asking folks to show they speak truth?

Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Is it a product of your religious training to besmirch those with whom you disagree, or do you come by it naturally?

You and The Mad Haranguer have done nothing but complain about why asking folks to show they speak truth ON A DEBATE SITE is somehow less than honorable.

QUIT BLAMING AND DISPARAGING THE CHALLENGER OR STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM DEBATE!

Why no attempt to address the challenged claims? Why no attempt to explain why the challenges are invalid? Why no attempt to actually DEBATE the issue?

[The Mad Haranguer]

Couldnt agree more. Prove this, prove that. Then when you ask an atheist to explain their reason and logic behind things they have no reason or logic. Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Perhaps they should read a little Kierkegaard?

Maybe joeyknuccione is right about previous moderator rulings have indicated one is not bound to offer alternative explanations when challenging claims, but that's diatribe, not debate.

What is the problem with asking someone who makes truth claims in debate to prove those claims with verifiable evidence? By what logic is asking for proofs in a debate an unreasonable position? IMO, someone who casts aspersions at requests for evidence, simply doesn't have any.

It is not about "beliefs" or "truth claims." Here's a little book you can down load:

Provocations

Yet, when this activity [demanding and supplying superficial explanations] is taken for more than the mere beginnings of cognition, when it is allowed to pass for actual cognition, then it should be reckoned as no more than a device for evading the real issue, a way of creating an impression of hard work and serious commitment to the problem, while actually sparing oneself both. To judge a thing that has substance and solid worth is quite easy, to comprehend it is much harder, and to blend judgment and comprehension in a definitive description is the hardest thing of all. -- Hegel

[Flail]

Couldnt agree more. Prove this, prove that. Then when you ask an atheist to explain their reason and logic behind things they have no reason or logic. Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Perhaps they should read a little Kierkegaard?

Maybe joeyknuccione is right about previous moderator rulings have indicated one is not bound to offer alternative explanations when challenging claims, but that's diatribe, not debate.

What is the problem with asking someone who makes truth claims in debate to prove those claims with verifiable evidence? By what logic is asking for proofs in a debate an unreasonable position? IMO, someone who casts aspersions at requests for evidence, simply doesn't have any.

It is not about "beliefs" or "truth claims." Here's a little book you can down load:

Provocations

Thanks but my library already contains everything Mr. K has ever written....good stuff.

[Zzyzx]

.

The extent of their argument seems to be prove it.

Couldnt agree more. Prove this, prove that.

Those who cannot or will not substantiate their claims have no ethical defense for making such claims in honorable debate " particularly when substantiation is REQUIRED by Forum Rules and Guidelines.

Is it rational for anyone to present whatever they wish as truth, and NOT be asked to show that they speak truth? Do you believe everything you are told?

Would you NOT ask for evidence before making a major purchase, say real estate? Would you NOT expect that property be described precisely by a competent surveyor and appraised by a competent appraiser? Would you accept the sellers word that the title was free of encumbrances, or would you require a title search by competent attorney or title company?

If you would require proof or evidence of truth in a minor matter, why not demand at least as much if the matter supposedly involves eternity? The currently popular gods may be impostors. How do you know otherwise? Let me guess, you read a book and listen to sermons -- and perhaps listen to "inner feelings". Do you have anything else -- anything from the real world?

Then when you ask an atheist to explain their reason and logic behind things they have no reason or logic.

Correction: It one ACTUALLY asks an Atheist for the reason and logic behind their position, they are likely to answer with I have encountered no evidence to show that supernatural beings exist or influence human affairs.

What additional logic is required?

Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

If there is a superiority complex it seem to be characteristic of those who claim special knowledge of gods and what gods want. The same people often seem to regard themselves as chosen for a superior position in an afterlife.

One who questions the existence of the thousands of proposed gods is NOT claiming special knowledge or superior position " but is asking for evidence from those who DO claim such knowledge and position.


What it boils down to, in my experience, is that religionists typically make claims of knowledge of supernatural characters and events, but when asked to show evidence that they speak truth, they have nothing to offer " and often become indignant, hostile and abusive.

I may protest their actions in debate, but actually appreciate the display of inability to substantiate and accompanying emotionalism.

[WinePusher]

Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Is it a product of your religious training to besmirch those with whom you disagree, or do you come by it naturally?

You and The Mad Haranguer have done nothing but complain about why asking folks to show they speak truth ON A DEBATE SITE is somehow less than honorable.

QUIT BLAMING AND DISPARAGING THE CHALLENGER OR STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM DEBATE!

Why no attempt to address the challenged claims? Why no attempt to explain why the challenges are invalid? Why no attempt to actually DEBATE the issue?

Well, genenerally in debate one side makes a claim and attempts to provide evidence for that claim and that other side makes a claim (usually in opposition to the other claim) and attempts to prove their case. In the context of this site, the theist claims God exists, and tries to substantiate the claim. The atheist claims God does not exist and should try to substantiate that claim. However, some on this forum do not feel compelled to answer the question of whether god exists, and their only motives are to SHOW that the theist cannot substantiate their claims, that is not what debate is. Which is, I think, is the point being underscored by Naz and the Mad Harunger.

It is not "honest" and "honorable" debate when the
atheist/non believer/ignostic/agnostic/non theist only argues that the bible cannot be shown to be true, or that fundamentalists are toxic. Don't simply claim the bible cannot be shown to be true, show me the evidence that would discredit the credibility of the authors, or the evidence that shows the oral tradition to be unreliable. Proving the theist to be wrong does not prove your claims, and if you have no claims than why are you debating? I use the word "you" in a general sense, I'm not directly referring to you Joey .