We have yet another thread running on the historicity issue (yawn ...) but it's been getting quite a bit of attention.
So, let's have ourselves another thread on the divinity issue ...!
I'm in a state of the mind that assents to the proposition that it's make-believe.
What do we have to demonstrate that it's true ...?
The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth
Moderator: Moderators
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14000
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Post #91
[Replying to post 83 by Tcg]
I heard the voice of GOD in the songs of the Earthly Critters.Even with the Holy Spirit stacking the deck in their favor, we get nothing but more opportunities to learn the cricket's song.
Post #92
"Replying to post 88 by William"
The paradigm is that the person upholding proper English usage and definitions (as delineated in English dictionaries and studies on English usage and etymology) is NOT the person misusing language. Yet in your puzzling logic, you somehow see that person as misusing language.
If, rather, one chooses to be sloppy and casual, or views adding additional words a burdensome chore to be avoided, then yes, explanations in English can be imperfect.
We agree here. Faith-based beliefs are things one trusts in as true. Depending on what it is that people are trusting as true, depends upon whether the faith trusted in is nonnegotiable.
And Christian faith is one such thing, which makes this forum antithetic and self-defeating since you and your other atheist comrades label faith-based arguments as non-negotiable.
Hopefully you will answer my request that you list topics about Christianity that can be devoid of faith-based statements.
Ex. two people can share common ground about what a Christian is, but have differences of belief about things like the Rapture or Predestination. Those topics are faith-based but can be debated as negotiable. Each can appeal to their understanding of the thing they hold in common, the Bible.
7+5 = 12 is a statement of pure reason WITHOUT a shred of evidence required to make it true. It is true by simple appeal to the definitions involved (what 5 means, what 7 means, what addition means). That's called analytic by folks like Hume and Kant. So are all syllogisms based on terms true by definition.
Here are the two I'm referring to: a) Atheists claim that there is no god. b) Agnostics claim they don't know whether god exists or not because there is a lack of evidence thus far.
And b) happens to be what all supposed atheists are doing in this thread. It's not rocket science for be to conclude they are agnostics. But as they insist I'm wrong in doing so, I've held them to the folly of the atheist position, and asked them to prove what they claim to know.
The number of atheists and agnostics worldwide who affirm those definitions is truly immense. So, unless you're disclosing that you, William, are the designated controller of definitions for atheists everywhere, taking exception to these as though I'm blowing smoke does not command respect.
On the other hand, you are free to declare for yourself what you agree with or don't, in which case you change the label under which you organize yourself.
The corollary is true for me regarding the label Christian. A Christian is defined by the NT. I am free to personally disavow certain defining beliefs. But in doing so I cease to Christian and must find another label.
What I'm not allowed to do is re-define the definition of Christian for all other Christians or the NT concept.
[StuartJ - am I waxing too philosophical for you? Too many highfalutin terms?]
What is written is open to evaluation.
So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.
Are we now going to set our Spirits against each other to see who's Spirit wins?
In that we are kindred.
I like the way 'Proof' and 'Truth' rhyme. That is something I do appreciate about English as a language.
If I adjust what I wrote to now read;
"I still fail to see how something metaphysical can be proven with material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument." would that change your assessment any?
But I also read in the Bible that this is not always the case, although if those examples are meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally, then "GOD is actually immaterial" can be agreed with...if that is what you are saying.
You are here to speak the truth as you believe it to be even when not asked.
And;
You are here to defend the truth as you believe it to be, whenever you believe it is being attacked.
Welcome to the forum mrhagerty. That is precisely why we are all here. Kindred.
Lets say for the moment that I believe your beliefs are indeed nonnegotiable.
Would I be incorrect about that? Would my belief about that be a misunderstanding of your beliefs?
But is your answer a reflection of your beliefs in that your beliefs include the right to attack other beliefs which are not exactly your beliefs?
You're controverted logic is a thing to behold.Why would you assume I would want respect from anyone who actively participates in misusing language?
The paradigm is that the person upholding proper English usage and definitions (as delineated in English dictionaries and studies on English usage and etymology) is NOT the person misusing language. Yet in your puzzling logic, you somehow see that person as misusing language.
This point is utter rubbish. English is more than adequate to express ideas without misleading inferences. You simply have to use enough words to make an idea clear and comprehensible.I would settle for acknowledgement that English is not the perfect use of language when it comes to this type of thing, and efforts to change that would garner my respect.
If, rather, one chooses to be sloppy and casual, or views adding additional words a burdensome chore to be avoided, then yes, explanations in English can be imperfect.
You make my point there mrhagerty. "Not all belief requires faith."
It does if you trust in it.
We agree here. Faith-based beliefs are things one trusts in as true. Depending on what it is that people are trusting as true, depends upon whether the faith trusted in is nonnegotiable.
And Christian faith is one such thing, which makes this forum antithetic and self-defeating since you and your other atheist comrades label faith-based arguments as non-negotiable.
Hopefully you will answer my request that you list topics about Christianity that can be devoid of faith-based statements.
Yes, provided that participants can discuss them on a common ground,such as a source of faith-based declarations (Something here in this thread that has been ruled out in advance.)Are you saying that not all faith-based beliefs are nonnegotiable?
Ex. two people can share common ground about what a Christian is, but have differences of belief about things like the Rapture or Predestination. Those topics are faith-based but can be debated as negotiable. Each can appeal to their understanding of the thing they hold in common, the Bible.
Things can be true without evidence. You prefer Rationalism. You must then be aware that the second criteria for establishing truth by Rationalistic means is the operation of reason.About that, I have this to say.
1: I recognize you have the belief that I believe there is no GOD.
2: I recognize that the belief you express above is NOT faith-based.
3: I also recognize that the belief you express above is not based in any knowledge you have acquired from evidence.
7+5 = 12 is a statement of pure reason WITHOUT a shred of evidence required to make it true. It is true by simple appeal to the definitions involved (what 5 means, what 7 means, what addition means). That's called analytic by folks like Hume and Kant. So are all syllogisms based on terms true by definition.
Here are the two I'm referring to: a) Atheists claim that there is no god. b) Agnostics claim they don't know whether god exists or not because there is a lack of evidence thus far.
And b) happens to be what all supposed atheists are doing in this thread. It's not rocket science for be to conclude they are agnostics. But as they insist I'm wrong in doing so, I've held them to the folly of the atheist position, and asked them to prove what they claim to know.
The number of atheists and agnostics worldwide who affirm those definitions is truly immense. So, unless you're disclosing that you, William, are the designated controller of definitions for atheists everywhere, taking exception to these as though I'm blowing smoke does not command respect.
On the other hand, you are free to declare for yourself what you agree with or don't, in which case you change the label under which you organize yourself.
The corollary is true for me regarding the label Christian. A Christian is defined by the NT. I am free to personally disavow certain defining beliefs. But in doing so I cease to Christian and must find another label.
What I'm not allowed to do is re-define the definition of Christian for all other Christians or the NT concept.
And as a belief, I don't have a problem with that. But you go further. You use that belief to show me that I'm mistaken for believing the opposite. And you disallow faith-based arguments, which you don't have a credible basis to do, since your criteria for that restriction comes from Rationalism, which fails in its rules for testing the things that comprise reality.
About that, I have this to say;
My belief is that the Bible is not 'The Word' of any GOD. That -specifically - is what I consider to be 'make believe' about the Bible.
[StuartJ - am I waxing too philosophical for you? Too many highfalutin terms?]
I never made thHow much did this cost you in terms of time and money? (An estimate will suffice.)
You don't have to believe what they said,...
What is written is open to evaluation.
What is written is open to evaluation....but you can't disbelieve they said them.
So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.
I go with The Spirit Who Leads Me Into All Truth.The rest of the proof I needed came from the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Are we now going to set our Spirits against each other to see who's Spirit wins?
So I haven't avoided the search for proof.
In that we are kindred.
I like the way 'Proof' and 'Truth' rhyme. That is something I do appreciate about English as a language.
I still fail to see how something can be proven without material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument.
Rationalism doesn't seem to cost as much and fits in with my budget mrhagerty. I am rather thrifty, there's no denying that.Because you've bought into Rationalism, William. And it's been abandoned.
If I adjust what I wrote to now read;
"I still fail to see how something metaphysical can be proven with material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument." would that change your assessment any?
You won't find any argument anywhere on this board or any other place where I myself demand material evidence to support notions of immaterial GODs.
Indeed, the idea of the Christian GOD has been expressed in that way, I agree.The Christian God is Spirit, i.e. immaterial.
But I also read in the Bible that this is not always the case, although if those examples are meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally, then "GOD is actually immaterial" can be agreed with...if that is what you are saying.
No we don't. I am confident you cannot provide any evidence where I have written anything of the sort. I am equally confident that you got such an impression through misunderstanding and even presumption.Yet we have a demand from you for material evidence.
No I don't. I am confident you cannot provide any evidence where I have written anything of the sort. I am equally confident that you got such an impression through misunderstanding and even presumption.You want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified. Those are scientific requirements, hence material requirements.
So explain to the reader if you will mrhagerty, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified, by what I said in the above.You said:
♦There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.
So you are here why? Why are you participating in a debate forum if not to try and convince others that your beliefs are true?
This is what I think, from reading the above;To speak the truth as I believe it to be, and to defend it when asked.
You are here to speak the truth as you believe it to be even when not asked.
And;
You are here to defend the truth as you believe it to be, whenever you believe it is being attacked.
Welcome to the forum mrhagerty. That is precisely why we are all here. Kindred.
And why would you want to convince others that your beliefs are true (and theirs are not) if not to try and persuade them to adopt your beliefs?
Are the beliefs you have and wish to defend, nonnegotiable mrhagerty?Simple. To correct misunderstandings about those beliefs, untrue statements or lies about those beliefs. That doesn't have to be interpreted as a call to believe. Unless you feel conviction. In which case that would be your own experience.
Lets say for the moment that I believe your beliefs are indeed nonnegotiable.
Would I be incorrect about that? Would my belief about that be a misunderstanding of your beliefs?
What about your belief can be seen by someone else as an attack against theirs?
I specifically asked about YOUR belief mrhagarty. I was not asking for a commentary on religious truth in general.Religious truth isn't democratic. There isn't a board of governors in the sky making sure everyone has a fair shot. I know that's how atheists see all religions, but its an artificial dogma.
But is your answer a reflection of your beliefs in that your beliefs include the right to attack other beliefs which are not exactly your beliefs?
What makes your belief okay to attack other beliefs but not other beliefs okay to attack yours?
I have to say that the list of questions I wrote were done in a manner of 'these are questions that your arguments are begging' rather than implying that you have done some/all of those things. I want to know what your beliefs entitle you to do in relation with other beliefs.I haven't attacked another religious belief in my comments here.
This is the job of "The Spirit Who Leads Me Into All Truth" I go with and mentioned earlier.If two religions make claims for the truth and you wish to follow the one most likely true, you have to assess the truthfulness or probability that one is truer than the other.
That is precisely my argument mrhagerty. If Christian beliefs are nonnegotiable, then the existence of Christian debate forums begs the question.
Why would you say that? Stick around long enough yourself and your will discover that there is ample opportunity to debate without proselytizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.[/quote]So you'll be quitting, right?
Post #93
"Replying to post 88 by William"
The paradigm is that the person upholding proper English usage and definitions (as delineated in English dictionaries and studies on English usage and etymology) is NOT the person misusing language. Yet in your puzzling logic, you somehow see that person as misusing language.
If, rather, one chooses to be sloppy and casual, or views adding additional words a burdensome chore to be avoided, then yes, explanations in English can be imperfect.
Hopefully you will answer my request that you list topics about Christianity that can be devoid of faith-based statements.
Ex. two people can share common ground about what a Christian is, but have differences of belief about things like the Rapture or Predestination. Those topics are faith-based but can be debated as negotiable. Each can appeal to their understanding of the thing they hold in common, the Bible.
7+5 = 12 is a statement of pure reason WITHOUT a shred of evidence required to make it true. It is true by simple appeal to the definitions involved (what 5 means, what 7 means, what addition means). That's called analytic by folks like Hume and Kant. So are all syllogisms based on terms true by definition.
Here are the two I'm referring to: a) Atheists claim that there is no god. b) Agnostics claim they don't know whether god exists or not because there is a lack of evidence thus far.
And b) happens to be what all supposed atheists are doing in this thread. It's not rocket science for me to conclude they are agnostics. But as they insist I'm wrong in doing so, I've held them to the folly of the atheist position, and asked them to prove what they claim to know.
The number of atheists and agnostics worldwide who affirm those definitions is truly immense. So, unless you're disclosing that you, William, are the designated controller of definitions for atheists everywhere, taking exception to these as though I'm blowing smoke does not command respect.
On the other hand, you are free to declare for yourself what you agree with or don't, in which case you change the label under which you organize yourself.
The corollary is true for me regarding the label Christian. A Christian is defined by the NT. I am free to personally disavow certain defining beliefs. But in doing so I cease to Christian and must find another label.
What I'm not allowed to do is re-define the definition of Christian for all other Christians or the NT concept.
[StuartJ - am I waxing too philosophical for you? Too many highfalutin terms?]
If you're interested: see Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation.
The reliability that the NT materials represent WHAT the authors actually wrote is no longer questioned by careful, intellectually honest scholars, secular included. Greenleaf, and F. F. Bruce demonstrate this. That doesn't stop people of bias from still doing so.
The decision ahead of time that no knowledge can come through faith experience is prejudicial, especially if being decided by people who have never experienced faith in order to tell.
♦There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.
which you say applies to immaterial gods, because you have been under the impression that I've been arguing for a non-immaterial God of the Bible.
That's why according to your rules you've been asking me to provide evidence (you took me as believing in a God who was NOT immaterial).
And are now surprised that I am clarifying that my God is immaterial. So, according to you own rule above, there is no expectation for material evidence.
However, that doesn't rule out such a God from being real or true. That's the rule I believe you are making a mistake about. That if a God is immaterial then such a God can't be real or true. Truth or reality doesn't depend on only what is demonstrable from material evidence.
I've always maintained that they are negotiable or debatable once we arrive at a common ground about what constitutes evidence.
But that's completely arbitrary. No one actually knows that all beliefs ought to have equal standing. It's something we impose on religious beliefs because we treat them like all other ideologies - that no single belief should be exclusive and de-legitimize all others. That's viewed as unfair. But it's arbitrary.
You're controverted logic is a thing to behold.Why would you assume I would want respect from anyone who actively participates in misusing language?
The paradigm is that the person upholding proper English usage and definitions (as delineated in English dictionaries and studies on English usage and etymology) is NOT the person misusing language. Yet in your puzzling logic, you somehow see that person as misusing language.
English is more than adequate to express ideas without misleading inferences. You simply have to use enough words to make an idea clear and comprehensible.I would settle for acknowledgement that English is not the perfect use of language when it comes to this type of thing, and efforts to change that would garner my respect.
If, rather, one chooses to be sloppy and casual, or views adding additional words a burdensome chore to be avoided, then yes, explanations in English can be imperfect.
And Christian faith is one such thing, which makes this forum antithetic and self-defeating since you and your other atheist comrades label faith-based arguments as non-negotiable.We agree here. Faith-based beliefs are things one trusts in as true. Depending on what it is that people are trusting as true, depends upon whether the faith trusted in is nonnegotiable.
Hopefully you will answer my request that you list topics about Christianity that can be devoid of faith-based statements.
Yes, provided that participants can discuss them on a common ground,such as a source of faith-based declarations (Something here in this thread that has been ruled out in advance.)Are you saying that not all faith-based beliefs are nonnegotiable?
Ex. two people can share common ground about what a Christian is, but have differences of belief about things like the Rapture or Predestination. Those topics are faith-based but can be debated as negotiable. Each can appeal to their understanding of the thing they hold in common, the Bible.
Things can be true without evidence. You prefer Rationalism. You must then be aware that the second criteria for establishing truth by Rationalistic means is the operation of reason.About that, I have this to say.
1: I recognize you have the belief that I believe there is no GOD.
2: I recognize that the belief you express above is NOT faith-based.
3: I also recognize that the belief you express above is not based in any knowledge you have acquired from evidence.
7+5 = 12 is a statement of pure reason WITHOUT a shred of evidence required to make it true. It is true by simple appeal to the definitions involved (what 5 means, what 7 means, what addition means). That's called analytic by folks like Hume and Kant. So are all syllogisms based on terms true by definition.
Here are the two I'm referring to: a) Atheists claim that there is no god. b) Agnostics claim they don't know whether god exists or not because there is a lack of evidence thus far.
And b) happens to be what all supposed atheists are doing in this thread. It's not rocket science for me to conclude they are agnostics. But as they insist I'm wrong in doing so, I've held them to the folly of the atheist position, and asked them to prove what they claim to know.
The number of atheists and agnostics worldwide who affirm those definitions is truly immense. So, unless you're disclosing that you, William, are the designated controller of definitions for atheists everywhere, taking exception to these as though I'm blowing smoke does not command respect.
On the other hand, you are free to declare for yourself what you agree with or don't, in which case you change the label under which you organize yourself.
The corollary is true for me regarding the label Christian. A Christian is defined by the NT. I am free to personally disavow certain defining beliefs. But in doing so I cease to Christian and must find another label.
What I'm not allowed to do is re-define the definition of Christian for all other Christians or the NT concept.
And as a belief, I don't have a problem with that. But you go further. You use that belief to show me that I'm mistaken for believing the opposite. And you disallow faith-based arguments, which you don't have a credible basis to do, since your criteria for that restriction comes from Rationalism, which fails in its rules for testing the things that comprise reality.
About that, I have this to say;
My belief is that the Bible is not 'The Word' of any GOD. That -specifically - is what I consider to be 'make believe' about the Bible.
[StuartJ - am I waxing too philosophical for you? Too many highfalutin terms?]
I never made the statement that my rules of engagement are meant to save time and effort. You did.How much did this cost you in terms of time and money? (An estimate will suffice.)
But not just any wild evaluation that comes to mind. Over the centuries the NT material has been available to study, rules of interpretation have developed that assure students and scholars they are understanding the intent correctly.What is written is open to evaluation.
If you're interested: see Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation.
Not as to what they said, only what it means or if it is true. If you think you can question THAT the NT authors wrote what they did, you'll have to question that Julius Caesar ever said, "the die is cast" or that he ever crossed the Rubicon.mrhagerty ...but you can't disbelieve they said them.
William: What is written is open to evaluation.
The reliability that the NT materials represent WHAT the authors actually wrote is no longer questioned by careful, intellectually honest scholars, secular included. Greenleaf, and F. F. Bruce demonstrate this. That doesn't stop people of bias from still doing so.
And how do you do that investigating? If you're investigating a murder, do you decide up front to eliminate blacks from possible suspects because you have social justice bent to your process?So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.
The decision ahead of time that no knowledge can come through faith experience is prejudicial, especially if being decided by people who have never experienced faith in order to tell.
As to what kind of evidence is being expected yes. But you wouldn't now be saying that there are thus no other reasons for affirming metaphysical truthsIf I adjust what I wrote to now read;
"I still fail to see how something metaphysical can be proven with material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument." would that change your assessment any?
In post 74 you quote your post in Member Rules where you list arguments that can't pose evidence for immaterial gods, which includes the following:So explain to the reader if you will mrhagerty, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified, by what I said in the above.
♦There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.
which you say applies to immaterial gods, because you have been under the impression that I've been arguing for a non-immaterial God of the Bible.
That's why according to your rules you've been asking me to provide evidence (you took me as believing in a God who was NOT immaterial).
And are now surprised that I am clarifying that my God is immaterial. So, according to you own rule above, there is no expectation for material evidence.
However, that doesn't rule out such a God from being real or true. That's the rule I believe you are making a mistake about. That if a God is immaterial then such a God can't be real or true. Truth or reality doesn't depend on only what is demonstrable from material evidence.
Not by my definition, but I believe they are by yours. When I have agreed above that they are non-negotiable, it is within the context of your definition.Are the beliefs you have and wish to defend, nonnegotiable mrhagerty?
I've always maintained that they are negotiable or debatable once we arrive at a common ground about what constitutes evidence.
Yes. Because it's an understanding of my beliefs through your lens that faith-based statements can't convey evidence. I'm forced to acknowledge they are deemed nonnegotiable here, but not that they are nonnegotiable in truth.Lets say for the moment that I believe your beliefs are indeed nonnegotiable.
Would I be incorrect about that? Would my belief about that be a misunderstanding of your beliefs?
It's only an attack if others believe that all religious beliefs should exist in a democratic environment, where every belief has equal standing.I specifically asked about YOUR belief mrhagarty. I was not asking for a commentary on religious truth in general.
But that's completely arbitrary. No one actually knows that all beliefs ought to have equal standing. It's something we impose on religious beliefs because we treat them like all other ideologies - that no single belief should be exclusive and de-legitimize all others. That's viewed as unfair. But it's arbitrary.
But is your answer a reflection of your beliefs in that your beliefs include the right to attack other beliefs which are not exactly your beliefs?
Only where such beliefs speak lies or untruths about my beliefs.
Ex. Mormons promote a belief that Jesus is not deity. That's a contradiction of what the NT proclaims and can be seen as a lie about what the Bible teaches.
But I don't launch a campaign that marches to their door to attack their beliefs.
But when they come to my door and try to purvey their misstatements about biblical claims, I have an obligation to disclose what is wrong with theirs.
Or if I'm asked by someone what I think or believe, the obligation is the same.
When I joined here and posted, I was responding to claims made against biblical statements or about the nature of faith. Once a claim is made, the author has invited critique.
As above, if they attack the foundation of my beliefs or make claims that contradict them, I am entitled to defend my beliefs and also to show where such claims are in error.I have to say that the list of questions I wrote were done in a manner of 'these are questions that your arguments are begging' rather than implying that you have done some/all of those things. I want to know what your beliefs entitle you to do in relation with other beliefs.
Ex. It's an error to propose that faith cannot prove that what is believed is true. Because it has an assumption that proof must always and only mean scientific or material evidence.
That is precisely my argument mrhagerty. If Christian beliefs are nonnegotiable, then the existence of Christian debate forums begs the question.So you'll be quitting, right?You just said if they are nonnegotiable then Christian debate forums beg the question, implying they are a waste of time and effort (that's the whole point of saying they beg the question).Why would you say that?
You've established that proof for immaterial gods is nonnegotiable, Ergo, it's begging the question, Ergo, it's a waste of time, Ergo, shouldn't you be somewhere else more productive.
Stick around long enough yourself and your will discover that there is ample opportunity to debate without proselytizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs
Last edited by Deleted on Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14000
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Post #94
[Replying to post 92 by mrhagerty]
Hi mrhagerty
I haven't read your post. If it is mostly about our debate regarding nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, I posted this recently and suggest that we take the debate to the thread I created for that purpose.
Cheers
Hi mrhagerty
I haven't read your post. If it is mostly about our debate regarding nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, I posted this recently and suggest that we take the debate to the thread I created for that purpose.
Cheers
- StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #95
[Replying to post 92 by mrhagerty]
That post had NOTHING to with the topic.
I suggest that Christianity is make-believe and a fraud.
I find that Christians generally avoid addressing the very bases of their belief system ...
Because when they do ...
They too recognise that they are playing a game of Pretend.
That post had NOTHING to with the topic.
I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate that the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological deity Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost) on a human virgin.I'm in a state of the mind that assents to the proposition that it's make-believe.
What do we have to demonstrate that it's true ...?
I suggest that Christianity is make-believe and a fraud.
I find that Christians generally avoid addressing the very bases of their belief system ...
Because when they do ...
They too recognise that they are playing a game of Pretend.
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am
Post #96
I suggest that this latest and woefully predictable series of denials, question-begging assertions, and self-serving generalizations does nothing to advance understanding of the topic ...StuartJ wrote: I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate that the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological deity Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost) on a human virgin.
I suggest that Christianity is make-believe and a fraud.
I find that Christians generally avoid addressing the very bases of their belief system ...
Because when they do ...
They too recognise that they are playing a game of Pretend.
I find that people who consistently rely on denials, question-begging assertions, and self-serving generalizations either cannot or will not answer the arguments confronting them ...
Because when they try ...
They recognize that they have no arguments of their own.
Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism.
Transcending Proof
Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism.
Transcending Proof
- StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #97
Don McIntosh wrote:I suggest that this latest and woefully predictable series of denials, question-begging assertions, and self-serving generalizations does nothing to advance understanding of the topic ...StuartJ wrote: I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate that the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological deity Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost) on a human virgin.
I suggest that Christianity is make-believe and a fraud.
I find that Christians generally avoid addressing the very bases of their belief system ...
Because when they do ...
They too recognise that they are playing a game of Pretend.
I find that people who consistently rely on denials, question-begging assertions, and self-serving generalizations either cannot or will not answer the arguments confronting them ...
Because when they try ...
They recognize that they have no arguments of their own.
Wow ...
All you needed to do was demonstrate that your Divine Leader WAS sired by Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost).
Should be simple if it's true.
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Post #98
Indeed. Instead, all we get is this:StuartJ wrote:Don McIntosh wrote:I suggest that this latest and woefully predictable series of denials, question-begging assertions, and self-serving generalizations does nothing to advance understanding of the topic ...StuartJ wrote: I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate that the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological deity Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost) on a human virgin.
I suggest that Christianity is make-believe and a fraud.
I find that Christians generally avoid addressing the very bases of their belief system ...
Because when they do ...
They too recognise that they are playing a game of Pretend.
I find that people who consistently rely on denials, question-begging assertions, and self-serving generalizations either cannot or will not answer the arguments confronting them ...
Because when they try ...
They recognize that they have no arguments of their own.
Wow ...
All you needed to do was demonstrate that your Divine Leader WAS sired by Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost).
Should be simple if it's true.
We are asked to pretend that this is a gun, not the claimant's hand. When we point out that there is no gun in the picture, we get blamed for having our eyes open.
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
Post #99
"Replying to post 94 by StuartJ"
In contrast, you lot have the obligation to pretend, when you claim you know there is no God despite not knowing any such thing.
That's only because you've placed limitations on where knowledge can come from. If Christians experience an act of knowing, they don't need to pretend or play a game.I suggest that Christianity is make-believe and a fraud.
I find that Christians generally avoid addressing the very bases of their belief system ...
Because when they do ... They too recognise that they are playing a game of Pretend.
In contrast, you lot have the obligation to pretend, when you claim you know there is no God despite not knowing any such thing.
- StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #100
[Replying to post 98 by mrhagerty]
We're "you lot" now ....
I'm going to call you out loudly on this one.
You have been told REPEATEDLY and politely that NONE of "us lot" here claim we know there is no God.
REPEATEDLY
And yet YOU continue to post that we do.
I put it to you that your behaviour is downright dishonest and insulting.
So ...In contrast, you lot have the obligation to pretend, when you claim you know there is no God despite not knowing any such thing.
We're "you lot" now ....
I'm going to call you out loudly on this one.
You have been told REPEATEDLY and politely that NONE of "us lot" here claim we know there is no God.
REPEATEDLY
And yet YOU continue to post that we do.
I put it to you that your behaviour is downright dishonest and insulting.
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.