PDA

View Full Version : Atheism died in the 20th century



shopkinslpskids
July 15th, 2017, 08:49 PM
I honestly think that Islam should be banned until all terror attacks stopped, but this debate shows how even a Muslim can out debate the most well known atheist out there.

https://youtu.be/nQ-Y5NWV9kc


Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Truster
July 15th, 2017, 11:28 PM
Terror and war is a sword in the hands of the Eternal Almighty. “There is no peace unto the wicked says my Elohim”. The Almighty uses the wicked to slay the wicked.

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 07:56 AM
Amen

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

WizardofOz
July 16th, 2017, 10:44 AM
I honestly think that Islam should be banned

How can Islam be "banned"? Explain how this would work...

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 10:53 AM
How can Islam be "banned"? Explain how this would work...It was banned before under Truman. Knock down the mosques, ban the hijab, prevent Muslim refugees, etc Most attacks occur from citizens converted in a mosque. The rest are refugees.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

WizardofOz
July 16th, 2017, 11:26 AM
It was banned before under Truman.

:nono: Are you referring to The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?


Knock down the mosques, ban the hijab, prevent Muslim refugees, etc Most attacks occur from citizens converted in a mosque. The rest are refugees.

Then, when the government knocks down the churches, bans the cross, prevents Christian refugees, et al who will you cry to?

So much for religious freedom.

https://islamfoundingfathers.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jefferson1.jpg

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 11:35 AM
:nono: Are you referring to The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?



Then, when the government knocks down the churches, bans the cross, prevents Christian refugees, et al who will you cry to?

So much for religious freedom.

https://islamfoundingfathers.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jefferson1.jpgAmerica is a Christian nation. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact. I think for common sense security measures, Islam should be temporarily banned.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Rusha
July 16th, 2017, 11:35 AM
:nono: Are you referring to The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

Then, when the government knocks down the churches, bans the cross, prevents Christian refugees, et al who will you cry to?

So much for religious freedom.

/thread

Rusha
July 16th, 2017, 11:37 AM
America is a Christian nation.

No. It's. Not. It is a country that recognizes ALL religions, including Christian, but not exclusively Christianity.

patrick jane
July 16th, 2017, 11:55 AM
No. It's. Not. It is a country that recognizes ALL religions, including Christian, but not exclusively Christianity.This nation was founded on Christian faith

WizardofOz
July 16th, 2017, 01:02 PM
This nation was founded on Christian faith

Do you agree or disagree with her statement: "It is a country that recognizes ALL religions, including Christian, but not exclusively Christianity"?

This nation was founded on liberty and justice for all.

patrick jane
July 16th, 2017, 01:09 PM
Do you agree or disagree with her statement: "It is a country that recognizes ALL religions, including Christian, but not exclusively Christianity"?

This nation was founded on liberty and justice for all.NO muzzies !!!

Rusha
July 16th, 2017, 01:12 PM
Do you agree or disagree with her statement: "It is a country that recognizes ALL religions, including Christian, but not exclusively Christianity"?

This nation was founded on liberty and justice for all.

Yep ... which is exactly why I am against the outlawing of ANY religion. We outlaw *actions* ... not beliefs.

Ktoyou
July 16th, 2017, 01:16 PM
Yep ... which is exactly why I am against the outlawing of ANY religion. We outlaw *actions* ... not beliefs.

Do you mean if I really believed I was a squirrel, I would not be after nuts?

Rusha
July 16th, 2017, 01:21 PM
Do you mean if I really believed I was a squirrel, I would not be after nuts?

Well you would possibly be nuts ... or have a vivid imagination, but I would certainly wouldn't want you treated as a criminal over it. :chuckle:

Ktoyou
July 16th, 2017, 01:26 PM
Well you would possibly be nuts ... or have a vivid imagination, but I would certainly wouldn't want you treated as a criminal over it. :chuckle:

How can anyone believe they are a squirrel? Just stop all thought and react to my environment? This is way people always believe they are something that does believe in something, even wacko's.:hammer:

WizardofOz
July 16th, 2017, 01:26 PM
Yep ... which is exactly why I am against the outlawing of ANY religion. We outlaw *actions* ... not beliefs.

Well said :first:

patrick jane
July 16th, 2017, 01:27 PM
:nono: Are you referring to The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?



Then, when the government knocks down the churches, bans the cross, prevents Christian refugees, et al who will you cry to?

So much for religious freedom.

https://islamfoundingfathers.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jefferson1.jpgMy AK-47

WizardofOz
July 16th, 2017, 01:28 PM
My AK-47

Commie gun. You really love mother Russia, don't you?

:mock: Comrade patrick jane

Rusha
July 16th, 2017, 01:30 PM
How can anyone believe they are a squirrel? Just stop all thought and react to my environment? This is way people always believe they are something that does believe in something, even wacko's.:hammer:

I am going to guess that if someone believes they are a squirrel, they are either super high or nuttier than a fruitcake. In both cases, the belief wouldn't be criminal, though there might be the need for medical or legal intervention if they were a threat to themselves or others.

Ktoyou
July 16th, 2017, 01:37 PM
I am going to guess that if someone believes they are a squirrel, they are either super high or nuttier than a fruitcake. In both cases, the belief wouldn't be criminal, though there might be the need for medical or legal intervention if they were a threat to themselves or others.

If it were real, not silly, then what would be needed is a certificate of mental illness. Then would have to be treated in a mental institution. The same, if anyone's religious beliefs meant to them, they needed to kill nonbelievers.

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 02:21 PM
No. It's. Not. It is a country that recognizes ALL religions, including Christian, but not exclusively Christianity.It actually is.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 02:27 PM
Yep ... which is exactly why I am against the outlawing of ANY religion. We outlaw *actions* ... not beliefs.
Home*>*Beyond the Pilgrim Story*> Text of Mayflower Compact

Search PHM Site**

*

Text of Mayflower Compact:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.

***

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Rusha
July 16th, 2017, 03:25 PM
It actually is.

Yes, you have made that claim and have still not backed it up. America is and always has been a nation for people who are religious as well as non-religious.

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 03:38 PM
Yes, you have made that claim and have still not backed it up. America is and always has been a nation for people who are religious as well as non-religious.Once again, this is not an atheist nation. The founding fathers made this clear in various speeches and documents. It isn't a Muslim nation, either. Separations between church and state occur to protect the church.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 03:42 PM
Yes, you have made that claim and have still not backed it up. America is and always has been a nation for people who are religious as well as non-religious.Please re-read my earlier comments where I quoted the Mayflower Compact, which clearly states the purpose of our conception was to advance Christianity. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Town Heretic
July 16th, 2017, 03:57 PM
America is a Christian nation.
Rather, it is a nation founded largely by and largely comprised of Christians. It is a nation that protects religious liberty. Even the liberty of faiths you find undesirable.


Read the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact.

Rather, read the actual operating manual of our nation, the Constitution.


I think for common sense security measures, Islam should be temporarily banned.
Which only underscores that "common sense" isn't reliable and remains demonstrably inferior to actual reason. Islam is overwhelmingly peaceful. A segment, a sliver of that 1.5 billion strong faith are acting against its interests.

Most of those dying at the hands of ISIS are Muslim. And most of those dying to correct and fight it are also Muslim.


Once again, this is not an atheist nation.
It's a secular republic that professes, as that republic, no particular faith.


The founding fathers made this clear in various speeches and documents.
The only document that controls the operation and foundation of the republic is the Constitution. The founders understood that when they failed to establish a national religion or to reference a particular faith in its operating manual.


It isn't a Muslim nation, either. Separations between church and state occur to protect the church.
Separation of church and state is meant to protect us from a state sanctioned church and the evils that historically attended. We never erased a third of our population over whose exegesis was superior. Catholic and Protestant lived and live in peace here. As does the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, and even those who determine to live their life without a particular faith.

The freedom to hold our own beliefs so long as the exercise thereof fails to encroach upon the free exercise of the rights of others is fundamental to our social compact. What you propose is a violation of the core of that republic and should be opposed by anyone who values it.

The Mayflower Compact has no legal effect on the state or numerous peoples who came after it and formed a new nation among men.

Rusha
July 16th, 2017, 05:59 PM
Once again, this is not an atheist nation.

I never stated it was ... it is a nation that promotes freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. What that means is that you are free to worship whatever deity you please ...

What you are not free to do is use your personal religious beliefs as a way to deny the rights of those who do not believe as you do. It's a simple concept and anyone who truly values freedom would support it.

Stuu
July 16th, 2017, 06:02 PM
This nation was founded on Christian faith
Wasn't it founded by christians running away from other christians?

Stuart

patrick jane
July 16th, 2017, 06:15 PM
The Constitution is under attack by the left

glorydaz
July 16th, 2017, 06:26 PM
I never stated it was ... it is a nation that promotes freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. What that means is that you are free to worship whatever deity you please ...

What you are not free to do is use your personal religious beliefs as a way to deny the rights of those who do not believe as you do. It's a simple concept and anyone who truly values freedom would support it.

Always adding to the Constitution. Freedom "FROM" religion. :chuckle:

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Interplanner
July 16th, 2017, 06:26 PM
Rather, it is a nation founded largely by and largely comprised of Christians. It is a nation that protects religious liberty. Even the liberty of faiths you find undesirable.


Rather, read the actual operating manual of our nation, the Constitution.


Which only underscores that "common sense" isn't reliable and remains demonstrably inferior to actual reason. Islam is overwhelmingly peaceful. A segment, a sliver of that 1.5 billion strong faith are acting against its interests.

Most of those dying at the hands of ISIS are Muslim. And most of those dying to correct and fight it are also Muslim.


It's a secular republic that professes, as that republic, no particular faith.


The only document that controls the operation and foundation of the republic is the Constitution. The founders understood that when they failed to establish a national religion or to reference a particular faith in its operating manual.


Separation of church and state is meant to protect us from a state sanctioned church and the evils that historically attended. We never erased a third of our population over whose exegesis was superior. Catholic and Protestant lived and live in peace here. As does the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, and even those who determine to live their life without a particular faith.

The freedom to hold our own beliefs so long as the exercise thereof fails to encroach upon the free exercise of the rights of others is fundamental to our social compact. What you propose is a violation of the core of that republic and should be opposed by anyone who values it.

The Mayflower Compact has no legal effect on the state or numerous peoples who came after it and formed a new nation among men.





There are however surveys of Islamic youth in the UK where the approval of recent acts is as high as 50%. By and large, the figure I usually hear for the violent percent is 8-10, because it means about 150M. The theological problem that generates violence remains: Medinia naqzic Meccia (doctrines taught in Medina trump tolerant doctrines taught earlier in Mecca).

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 06:32 PM
I never stated it was ... it is a nation that promotes freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. What that means is that you are free to worship whatever deity you please ...

What you are not free to do is use your personal religious beliefs as a way to deny the rights of those who do not believe as you do. It's a simple concept and anyone who truly values freedom would support it.Nowhere is it found that the Constitution has anything that says freedom from religion, sorry.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 06:36 PM
Rather, it is a nation founded largely by and largely comprised of Christians. It is a nation that protects religious liberty. Even the liberty of faiths you find undesirable.


Rather, read the actual operating manual of our nation, the Constitution.


Which only underscores that "common sense" isn't reliable and remains demonstrably inferior to actual reason. Islam is overwhelmingly peaceful. A segment, a sliver of that 1.5 billion strong faith are acting against its interests.

Most of those dying at the hands of ISIS are Muslim. And most of those dying to correct and fight it are also Muslim.


It's a secular republic that professes, as that republic, no particular faith.


The only document that controls the operation and foundation of the republic is the Constitution. The founders understood that when they failed to establish a national religion or to reference a particular faith in its operating manual.


Separation of church and state is meant to protect us from a state sanctioned church and the evils that historically attended. We never erased a third of our population over whose exegesis was superior. Catholic and Protestant lived and live in peace here. As does the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, and even those who determine to live their life without a particular faith.

The freedom to hold our own beliefs so long as the exercise thereof fails to encroach upon the free exercise of the rights of others is fundamental to our social compact. What you propose is a violation of the core of that republic and should be opposed by anyone who values it.

The Mayflower Compact has no legal effect on the state or numerous peoples who came after it and formed a new nation among men.1) The Constitution is a system of laws. It does not state the Christian ideals that we were indeed built on because it is giving laws, not ideals.

2) America put the Japanese in camps. In times of war, you do what is necessary to protect the nation and we are indeed in a time of war.

3) The cemetery stones of the people who gave us our freedoms have crosses.

4) We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that all men are created equal.

5) I pledge allegiance to the flag...one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Town Heretic
July 16th, 2017, 07:02 PM
1) The Constitution is a system of laws.
Well, it sets out the parameters, limitations and underpinnings of codified law found elsewhere.


It does not state the Christian ideals that we were indeed built on because it is giving laws, not ideals.
Not really. Check out the preamble. "We the people, in order to..." no "establish or protect a Christian state" in sight, though it's a clear statement of founding principle and the inclusion would have been easy enough, as it would have been in the Declaration.


2) America put the Japanese in camps. In times of war, you do what is necessary to protect the nation and we are indeed in a time of war.
A decision widely recognized as both unjust and questionable as a matter of law in relation to Constitutional protections. See: Ex Parte Endo. The camps were undone before the war actually ended, in large part because of the challenges to the action. Congress appointed a committee to look into the episode and it concluded it was largely an unreasonable product of wartime hysteria and racism. Reparations were paid out to many in time.

It's a dark moment in our nation's history, but unsurprising given the anti-Semitic and racist streaks that ran through Roosevelt (see: his treatment of Jesse Owens and slow to no action in relation to Jews he knew were being slaughtered, appointment of Klan friendly Justices and general coziness with racist policy).


3) The cemetery stones of the people who gave us our freedoms have crosses.
Do you even know anyone who has been to Arlington? :Plain:

25854

Historically, crosses marked graves because most of the people lying there were Christian.


4) We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that all men are created equal.
You want a list of religions that would be comfortable with the word Creator?


5) I pledge allegiance to the flag...one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Again, you want the list?

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 07:08 PM
Well, it sets out the parameters, limitations and underpinnings of codified law found elsewhere.


Not really. Check out the preamble. "We the people, in order to..." no "establish or protect a Christian state" in sight, though it's a clear statement of founding principle and the inclusion would have been easy enough, as it would have been in the Declaration.


A decision widely recognized as both unjust and questionable as a matter of law in relation to Constitutional protections. See: Ex Parte Endo. The camps were undone before the war actually ended, in large part because of the challenges to the action. Congress appointed a committee to look into the episode and it concluded it was largely an unreasonable product of wartime hysteria and racism. Reparations were paid out to many in time.

It's a dark moment in our nation's history, but unsurprising given the anti-Semitic and racist streaks that ran through Roosevelt (see: his treatment of Jesse Owens and slow to no action in relation to Jews he knew were being slaughtered, appointment of Klan friendly Justices and general coziness with racist policy).


Do you even know anyone who has been to Arlington? :Plain: Historically, crosses marked graves because most of the people lying there were Christian.


You want a list of religions that would be comfortable with the word Creator?


Again, you want the list?1) Allah is not God, or he would be called God instead.

2)Washington, the only President voted in unanimously, that you cannot properly GOVERN a nation without the BIBLE.

3) Last I saw, we don't swear people in on the Koran.

4) Wake up. In the past we killed or deported Communists. Now Muslims are attacking us. It's just war. Common sense!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 07:10 PM
Well, it sets out the parameters, limitations and underpinnings of codified law found elsewhere.


Not really. Check out the preamble. "We the people, in order to..." no "establish or protect a Christian state" in sight, though it's a clear statement of founding principle and the inclusion would have been easy enough, as it would have been in the Declaration.


A decision widely recognized as both unjust and questionable as a matter of law in relation to Constitutional protections. See: Ex Parte Endo. The camps were undone before the war actually ended, in large part because of the challenges to the action. Congress appointed a committee to look into the episode and it concluded it was largely an unreasonable product of wartime hysteria and racism. Reparations were paid out to many in time.

It's a dark moment in our nation's history, but unsurprising given the anti-Semitic and racist streaks that ran through Roosevelt (see: his treatment of Jesse Owens and slow to no action in relation to Jews he knew were being slaughtered, appointment of Klan friendly Justices and general coziness with racist policy).


Do you even know anyone who has been to Arlington? :Plain:

25854

Historically, crosses marked graves because most of the people lying there were Christian.


You want a list of religions that would be comfortable with the word Creator?


Again, you want the list?Roosevelt saved the Jews from camps. Everyone is anti Semitic to you guys.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Jonahdog
July 16th, 2017, 07:13 PM
America is a Christian nation. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact. I think for common sense security measures, Islam should be temporarily banned.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Try reading the Constitution. that is the final document

Jonahdog
July 16th, 2017, 07:15 PM
If it were real, not silly, then what would be needed is a certificate of mental illness. Then would have to be treated in a mental institution. The same, if anyone's religious beliefs meant to them, they needed to kill nonbelievers.
Like the Pilgrims who killed native Americans?

shopkinslpskids
July 16th, 2017, 07:20 PM
Try reading the Constitution. that is the final documentYeah, it says Freedom of Religion. Take your own advice.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Town Heretic
July 16th, 2017, 08:03 PM
In the absence of rebuttal to my counters I'll take it you now understand:

The Constitution is not, in fact, codified law, but the supreme and guiding law in principle of our land.
That the Constitution contains ample room for the declaration it never made regarding a Christian state, as evidenced in the preamble.
That the incarceration and treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII has been widely repudiated by the government that oversaw it.
That you've now seen the monuments to fallen soldiers of all faiths at the Arlington National Cemetery.
That Creator is no more an exclusively Christian term than is the next one on your list of mistaken declarations, God.

Continuing then...

1) Allah is not God, or he would be called God instead.
:Plain: God is a generic term, not one noting a particular manifestation or set of beliefs. So any adherent of most religions that believe in God or gods will use the term.


2)Washington, the only President voted in unanimously, that you cannot properly GOVERN a nation without the BIBLE.
And other presidents had other ideas. None of which has anything to do with the points you're not addressing that directly rebutted your previous declarations.


3) Last I saw, we don't swear people in on the Koran.
You don't actually have to swear anyone in on a Bible. So far we've had Christian presidents and the tradition has continued.


4) Wake up. In the past we killed or deported Communists.
No, we didn't kill people for being communists. We tried people for espionage acting for communist states. We still deport people for a number of reasons and within the strictures of the law.


Now Muslims are attacking us. It's just war. Common sense!
Common sense is often uncommonly wrong. Reason is a better course, along with fidelity to our principles instead of fearful capitulation. Some Muslims have attacked us. And some Christians too. And a few atheists, some anarchists, ect. When someone breaks the law they're accountable. When we fail our principles we are.

Jonahdog
July 17th, 2017, 05:41 AM
1)
5) I pledge allegiance to the flag...one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Any reason why it doesn't say "under Jesus"? and that was added in the 1950"s.

Jonahdog
July 17th, 2017, 05:43 AM
Yeah, it says Freedom of Religion. Take your own advice.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yep, it does, you get a gold star today. but you wanted to rely on the Declaration and the Mayflower Compact. Interesting, but those 2 documents were drafted for reasons other than to form a working nation. In addition, it is basic contract law that in a series of documents the last one is the applicable one and the one on which any agreement is based.

shopkinslpskids
July 17th, 2017, 07:53 AM
I didn't join this group to argue, much less with atheists. I joined because it was called "Exclusively Christian".

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Rusha
July 17th, 2017, 09:06 AM
Nowhere is it found that the Constitution has anything that says freedom from religion, sorry.

No where in the constitution does it state that ONE religion is allowed to dictate the beliefs and actions of others. Not sorry.

Stuu
July 17th, 2017, 03:48 PM
Once again, this is not an atheist nation.
Give it time...

https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2013/01/09/religion-gallup-none.jpg

The current figure for the 'nones' in the US (Gallup) is 21%. That's about 67 million people.

Stuart

Town Heretic
July 17th, 2017, 06:05 PM
Roosevelt saved the Jews from camps.
In this sense, we went to war with Japan and Germany and the nature of that fight freed what was left of the Jews and others in those camps.

Have you heard of the St. Louis ocean liner? In 1939 over a thousand people, largely Jews, fled Germany on her. Most of the passengers had applied for US visas and planned to wait on them in Cuba then proceed to the states. Despite being aware of both the state of affairs for the Jew in Europe the White House ignored their pleas. The St. Louis was close enough to see the lights of Miami.

He might as well have taken a pistol and killed a few hundred of them personally.

If you want to defend him on the point, be my guest.


Everyone is anti Semitic to you guys.
What guys? :AMR: It's the right wing conservatives who hate him, if for other reasons more often than not. I'm an unaffiliated moderate. But the truth is the truth. Roosevelt snubbed a thousand souls he could have saved with a wave of his hand. If not for the intervention of Great Britain and an effort by some European Jewish groups who knows how many of them would have survived the war?

And Roosevelt snubbed Jesse Owens after his historic Olympic run.

shopkinslpskids
July 17th, 2017, 06:23 PM
In this sense, we went to war with Japan and Germany and the nature of that fight freed what was left of the Jews and others in those camps.

Have you heard of the St. Louis ocean liner? In 1939 over a thousand people, largely Jews, fled Germany on her. Most of the passengers had applied for US visas and planned to wait on them in Cuba then proceed to the states. Despite being aware of both the state of affairs for the Jew in Europe the White House ignored their pleas. The St. Louis was close enough to see the lights of Miami.

He might as well have taken a pistol and killed a few hundred of them personally.

If you want to defend him on the point, be my guest.


What guys? :AMR: It's the right wing conservatives who hate him, if for other reasons more often than not. I'm an unaffiliated moderate. But the truth is the truth. Roosevelt snubbed a thousand souls he could have saved with a wave of his hand. If not for the intervention of Great Britain and an effort by some European Jewish groups who knows how many of them would have survived the war?

And Roosevelt snubbed Jesse Owens after his historic Olympic run.You can take modern day snowflake pc culture and point fingers to what was the norm at the time.

My grandfather set the Jews free. He saw it happen. Americans did it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Town Heretic
July 19th, 2017, 09:32 AM
You can take modern day snowflake pc culture and point fingers to what was the norm at the time.
Or I can point out objective truths observable by anyone in any time. Because there were abolitionists in the colonies and people who weren't actually racist around WWII. So, while most people were racist once upon a time, it doesn't really excuse, say, slavery, or the practices that sponsored laws to combat later, relating to blacks and to Jews and breaking the social ban, the quietly enforced "not in my neighborhood" code of more than the South on where they could live and what jobs they could hold. :nono: Slathering words like pc and snowflake won't alter it either.



My grandfather set the Jews free. He saw it happen. Americans did it.
Which would be a great counter to a point I never made. So...but you were attempting to counter a truth about Roosevelt with another truth that wasn't controlled by it. FDR understood what was happening in Germany enough to know what he was sending those Jews back to...and he understood that anti-Semites constituted a pretty fair bit of the electorate he was counting on for a third term. Same with racists. So no Jesse Owens in the "White" House and good luck back over there, wandering Jews.

That's who he was...the liberators of concentration camps were heroic and did an absolute good. Your grandfather has my respect and, I'm sure, the gratitude of everyone he helped to free, Jewish and other. FDR doesn't merit it.

shopkinslpskids
July 19th, 2017, 06:57 PM
Or I can point out objective truths observable by anyone in any time. Because there were abolitionists in the colonies and people who weren't actually racist around WWII. So, while most people were racist once upon a time, it doesn't really excuse, say, slavery, or the practices that sponsored laws to combat later, relating to blacks and to Jews and breaking the social ban, the quietly enforced "not in my neighborhood" code of more than the South on where they could live and what jobs they could hold. :nono: Slathering words like pc and snowflake won't alter it either.



Which would be a great counter to a point I never made. So...but you were attempting to counter a truth about Roosevelt with another truth that wasn't controlled by it. FDR understood what was happening in Germany enough to know what he was sending those Jews back to...and he understood that anti-Semites constituted a pretty fair bit of the electorate he was counting on for a third term. Same with racists. So no Jesse Owens in the "White" House and good luck back over there, wandering Jews.

That's who he was...the liberators of concentration camps were heroic and did an absolute good. Your grandfather has my respect and, I'm sure, the gratitude of everyone he helped to free, Jewish and other. FDR doesn't merit it.My Grandfather had a picture of FDR on his wall. We elected him for four terms. When I visit state parks, I see that men of the time built things for Americans to enjoy while we struggled for jobs. He said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". He defeated the Nazis.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Town Heretic
July 19th, 2017, 07:49 PM
My Grandfather had a picture of FDR on his wall.
Lots of people did. It took death to get him out of office.


We elected him for four terms.
You mean they did, unless you're a lot older than I expected. I know, I know, the country. He was immensely popular and did a lot of good for a lot of people. No disputing it. And he was an able leader in a time of war. Also undisputed.

You know what else was largely undisputed back then? Racism. It was almost as much fun for the average Joe as night baseball. :Clete:


When I visit state parks, I see that men of the time built things for Americans to enjoy while we struggled for jobs. He said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". He defeated the Nazis.
He certainly galvanized the nation, but I think people like your grandfather defeated the Nazis.

patrick jane
July 19th, 2017, 07:53 PM
Let's all submerge ourselves in white guilt. It was racist back then

Town Heretic
July 19th, 2017, 08:02 PM
Let's all submerge ourselves in white guilt. It was racist back then
That's a one legged horse you're riding, PJ. I don't feel the least bit guilty for what FDR did and failed to do. But it's the truth and yeah, it was powerfully racist back then, unfortunately. And as unfortunately, FDR wasn't exceptional in that particular.

That's one area where we've made real progress, though a lot of people had to suffer and more than a few die to manage the shift. Their sacrifice demands an unflinching and frank look at the preceding history and the people who moved much of it forward or failed to.

Lon
July 19th, 2017, 08:17 PM
In this sense, we went to war with Japan and Germany and the nature of that fight freed what was left of the Jews and others in those camps.

Have you heard of the St. Louis ocean liner? In 1939 over a thousand people, largely Jews, fled Germany on her. Most of the passengers had applied for US visas and planned to wait on them in Cuba then proceed to the states. Despite being aware of both the state of affairs for the Jew in Europe the White House ignored their pleas. The St. Louis was close enough to see the lights of Miami.

He might as well have taken a pistol and killed a few hundred of them personally.

If you want to defend him on the point, be my guest.


What guys? :AMR: It's the right wing conservatives who hate him, if for other reasons more often than not. I'm an unaffiliated moderate. But the truth is the truth. Roosevelt snubbed a thousand souls he could have saved with a wave of his hand. If not for the intervention of Great Britain and an effort by some European Jewish groups who knows how many of them would have survived the war?

And Roosevelt snubbed Jesse Owens after his historic Olympic run.

Can you imagine four terms? :noway:

ok doser
July 19th, 2017, 09:28 PM
Why should blacks (or whites) who are ignorant and uneducated be given full citizenship?

Nick M
July 20th, 2017, 06:30 AM
So much for religious freedom.

https://islamfoundingfathers.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jefferson1.jpg

There is no religious freedom with sharia law. Islam is incompatible with the ideals of the Founding Fathers. In the way of the Founding Fathers, you have liberty. In islam, you have no liberty.

Greg Jennings
July 20th, 2017, 06:46 AM
This nation was founded on Christian faith

I feel like this is something we've gone over again and again.


No, it was not. Too many of the founders were non-Christian pantheists for your statement to hold water

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 07:29 AM
There is no religious freedom with sharia law. Islam is incompatible with the ideals of the Founding Fathers. In the way of the Founding Fathers, you have liberty. In islam, you have no liberty.
Indeed the particular strength of your nation is its secular constitution and the freedom it provides people to practice the religion of their choice, and not to be subjected to any one religion gaining privilege.

Stuart

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 07:58 AM
I feel like this is something we've gone over again and again.


No, it was not. Too many of the founders were non-Christian pantheists for your statement to hold water
Here's a definitive list :) :

John Adams: mostly christian
Benjamin Franklin: mostly deist
Alexander Hamilton: probably deist
John Jay: christian
Thomas Jefferson: deist / atheist
James Madison: deist
George Washington: anyone's guess

Stuart

nikolai_42
July 20th, 2017, 09:01 AM
I honestly think that Islam should be banned until all terror attacks stopped, but this debate shows how even a Muslim can out debate the most well known atheist out there.

https://youtu.be/nQ-Y5NWV9kc


Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

America is not a theocratic republic but is rather a nation whose legal foundation rests on a Christian heritage. Where dissent was publicly squashed in former days, the American experiment takes the stance that the Truth will win the day if it - and its opponents - are given free accord. A sort of Elijah on Mt. Carmel that gives more than fair opportunity for all to do their best against God's revelation. To take it that step further and chase down the prophets of Ba'al and destroy them because they are wrong - that is God's province. Liberty is not an end in itself, but is what provides the stage for the conflict. If we try to end it prematurely, we are not doing anyone service - most especially ourselves. To give in to fear rather than present the gospel and let it stand without excuse or apology should be the heritage of this nation. Not the law of it. The very fact that a theist can be wrong yet still trump an atheist should be an example that we can be victorious over the delusion of Islam. But it won't be military victory (though there is a place for that).

The increasing Islamic hegemony is merely an exclamation point on the scripture :

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.
When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
Proverbs 16:6-7

We will not overcome Islamic deception by war, but by truth and mercy. And as we do and as we submit to the Lord, HE will fight our battles for us. Not that we won't have a military, but recognizing our success comes from Him means we need fear no one. Banning Muslim activity and worship only counters the liberty promised by the founding fathers and removes the primary weapon believers have in defeating the lies of the enemy.

Lon
July 20th, 2017, 11:08 AM
I feel like this is something we've gone over again and again.


No, it was not. Too many of the founders were non-Christian pantheists for your statement to hold water
Here's a definitive list :) :

John Adams: mostly christian
Benjamin Franklin: mostly deist
Alexander Hamilton: probably deist
John Jay: christian
Thomas Jefferson: deist / atheist
James Madison: deist
George Washington: anyone's guess

Stuart
Except it isn't definitive.

Prayers of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/faith-tools/meditation/2005/01/prayers-of-the-presidents.aspx)

On November 11, 1779, Virginia Governor Thomas Jefferson signed a Proclamation of Prayer, which stated: “Congress...hath thought proper...to recommend to the several States...a day of publick and solemn Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for his mercies, and of Prayer, for the continuance of his favour...That He would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that He would grant to His church, the plentiful effusions of Divine Grace, and pour out His Holy Spirit on all Ministers of the Gospel; that He would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth...” On April 6, 1780, at Morristown
www.ndpaustin.org%2Fdocuments%2F2013presidentpraye r.pdf (http://www.ndpaustin.org%2Fdocuments%2F2013presidentpraye r.pdf)

For atheism to be viable, it would have to at the very least be intelligently informed and honest, and that just to get our ear. :Plain:

Don't miss Nikolai's excellent post (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?126070-Atheism-died-in-the-20th-century&p=5066917&viewfull=1#post5066917)page 4 at the bottom of page, btw.

nikolai_42
July 20th, 2017, 11:35 AM
Here's a definitive list :) :

John Adams: mostly christian
Benjamin Franklin: mostly deist
Alexander Hamilton: probably deist
John Jay: christian
Thomas Jefferson: deist / atheist
James Madison: deist
George Washington: anyone's guess

Stuart

Franklin's deism - if it existed - didn't really persist. One of his more popular quotes makes this abundantly clear :


And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.

Franklin as quoted by James Madison in Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 1985), p. 209.


Jefferson was no atheist and he changed views several times in his life.

Washington was an interesting man and had strong Anglican leanings in him. That, mixed with his retiring personality makes him seem odd by today's standards. But it also makes him one of those whose character would have been judged by action more than word. Many testimonies exist to his character and strongly indicate a man of deep Christian conviction.

gcthomas
July 20th, 2017, 11:42 AM
The whole idea that a modern country is tied eternally to the beliefs of it's founders is nonsense.

My nation was founded by the Anglo-Saxons who believed in Wodun and Thunor, and elves, dragons and nicor. Should we have stuck with that when the Germanic Christians arrived on their boats, and told them to go back where they came from because our country was founded on paganism and faeries?

shopkinslpskids
July 20th, 2017, 11:45 AM
I feel like this is something we've gone over again and again.


No, it was not. Too many of the founders were non-Christian pantheists for your statement to hold waterAtheism did not even exist, yet, on an official level. They were all Christians. Even Benjamin Franklin.



From various sources:

. America’s Colonial Origins

Few doubt that Puritans were serious Christians attempting to create, in the words of Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop,*“a shining city upon a hill” (a reference to Matthew 5:14). Puritans separated church and state, but they clearly thought the two institutions should work in tandem to support, protect, and promote true Christianity.

Other colonies, however, are often described as being significantly different from those in New England. Historian John Fea, for instance, contends that “the real appeal of Jamestown was economic opportunity and the very real possibility of striking it rich.”[9]*It is certainly the case that colonists were attracted to the New World by economic opportunity (in New England as well as in the South), and yet even in the southern colonies the protection and promotion of Christianity was more important than many authors assume. For instance, Virginia’s 1610 legal code begins:

Whereas his Majesty, like himself a most zealous prince, has in his own realms a principal care of true religion and reverence to God and has always strictly commanded his generals and governors, with all his forces wheresoever, to let their ways be, like his ends, for the glory of God….

The first three articles of this text go on to state that the colonists have embarked on a “sacred cause,” to mandate regular church attendance, and to proclaim that anyone who speaks impiously against the Trinity or who blasphemes God’s name will be put to death.[10]

Early colonial laws and constitutions such as the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and Massachusetts Body of Liberties*are filled with such language—and in some cases, they incorporate biblical texts wholesale. Perhaps more surprisingly, tolerant, Quaker Pennsylvania was more similar to Puritan New England than many realize. The*Charter of Liberties and Frame of Government of the Province of Pennsylvania(1681) begins by making it clear that God has ordained government, and it even quotes Romans 13 to this effect. Article 38 of the document lists “offenses against God” that may be punished by the magistrate, including:

swearing, cursing, lying, profane talking, drunkenness, drinking of healths, obscene words, incest, sodomy…stage-plays, cards, dice, May-games, gamesters, masques, revels, bull-baiting, ****-fighting, bear-baiting, and the like, which excite the people to rudeness, cruelty, looseness, and irreligion….[11]

An extensive survey of early colonial constitutions and laws reveals many similar provisions. As well, at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches, and all required officeholders to be Christians—or, in some cases, Protestants. Quaker Pennsylvania, for instance, expected officeholders to be “such as possess faith in Jesus Christ.”[12]

If one is to understand the story of the United States of America, it is important to have a proper appreciation for its Christian colonial roots. By almost any measure, colonists of European descent who settled in the New World were serious Christians whose constitutions, laws, and practices reflected the influence of Christianity. Although some authors refer to this “planting” as a “founding,” such a designation is rare among scholars. Instead, most scholars consider America to have been founded in the late 18th century around one of, or some combination of, two major events: the War for Independence and the creation of America’s constitutional order.


The first President: WASHINGTON

1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.






Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

shopkinslpskids
July 20th, 2017, 11:47 AM
America is not a theocratic republic but is rather a nation whose legal foundation rests on a Christian heritage. Where dissent was publicly squashed in former days, the American experiment takes the stance that the Truth will win the day if it - and its opponents - are given free accord. A sort of Elijah on Mt. Carmel that gives more than fair opportunity for all to do their best against God's revelation. To take it that step further and chase down the prophets of Ba'al and destroy them because they are wrong - that is God's province. Liberty is not an end in itself, but is what provides the stage for the conflict. If we try to end it prematurely, we are not doing anyone service - most especially ourselves. To give in to fear rather than present the gospel and let it stand without excuse or apology should be the heritage of this nation. Not the law of it. The very fact that a theist can be wrong yet still trump an atheist should be an example that we can be victorious over the delusion of Islam. But it won't be military victory (though there is a place for that).

The increasing Islamic hegemony is merely an exclamation point on the scripture :

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.
When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
Proverbs 16:6-7

We will not overcome Islamic deception by war, but by truth and mercy. And as we do and as we submit to the Lord, HE will fight our battles for us. Not that we won't have a military, but recognizing our success comes from Him means we need fear no one. Banning Muslim activity and worship only counters the liberty promised by the founding fathers and removes the primary weapon believers have in defeating the lies of the enemy.I tend to side with the Crusaders as they're the reason the majority of us are Christians and not Muslims, today.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

shopkinslpskids
July 20th, 2017, 11:49 AM
The whole idea that a modern country is tied eternally to the beliefs of it's founders is nonsense.

My nation was founded by the Anglo-Saxons who believed in Wodun and Thunor, and elves, dragons and nicor. Should we have stuck with that when the Germanic Christians arrived on their boats, and told then top go back where they came from because our country was founded on paganism and faeries?Christianity civilized the pagans. This has spanned across cultures. They go from being barbarian cannibals to putting on clothes and building cities with decency laws.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

gcthomas
July 20th, 2017, 12:10 PM
Christianity civilized the pagans. This has spanned across cultures. They go from being barbarian cannibals to putting on clothes and building cities with decency laws.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Every invader and empire builder through the centuries had said the same thing.

Yet the Anglo-Saxons had culture before Christians arrived. They were not cannibals, they certainly wore clothes. They had laws and wars. They had organised sports. They sung songs in the mead halls and they created art. The women practised needlepoint and the men wrote poetry. Have you never read Beowulf? Don't you realise that you call the days of the week after their gods?

No, the Christians didn't civilise them, and they brought their own incivilities, immoralities and wars. Different, but not better. But until you study some history how can you judge the present?

nikolai_42
July 20th, 2017, 12:32 PM
I tend to side with the Crusaders as they're the reason the majority of us are Christians and not Muslims, today.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Don't confuse historical happenstance with doing the right thing (even if the result seemed good). God uses who He will and what He will do do what He will do but it doesn't invalidate scriptural directives. If you go down that path then the question becomes "Why didn't the crusaders keep going until they just wiped out the Muslims?". After all, it was largely a religious war against idolaters (ironically, Muslim wars against Christians tended to be driven by perceived idolatry on the Christian side as well). If it was the way to go, why not take the example of Saul not totally wiping out the Amalekites? That displeased God. I would also hasten to add that when the disciples tried to do something similar and Jesus was quick to correct them in their seeking for judgment (Luke 9:54-55). You know not what spirit you are of. And they were going to do precisely what a prophet of God had done previously. Be careful of historical sanction.

Jonahdog
July 20th, 2017, 01:07 PM
Christianity civilized the pagans. This has spanned across cultures. They go from being barbarian cannibals to putting on clothes and building cities with decency laws.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Ask the native south Americans. They wore clothes and had magnificent cities. The Spanish, on behalf of king and cross destroyed the cultures and the cities.

Jonahdog
July 20th, 2017, 01:09 PM
Every invader and empire builder through the centuries had said the same thing.

Yet the Anglo-Saxons had culture before Christians arrived. They were not cannibals, they certainly wore clothes. They had laws and wars. They had organised sports. They sung songs in the mead halls and they created art. The women practised needlepoint and the men wrote poetry. Have you never read Beowulf? Don't you realise that you call the days of the week after their gods?

No, the Christians didn't civilise them, and they brought their own incivilities, immoralities and wars. Different, but not better. But until you study some history how can you judge the present?

Because it is easier to parrot your right wing religious teachers.

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 02:21 PM
Except it isn't definitive.
Well no. Of course it isn't.

Some bemoan the lack of any atheist presidents, but of course there have been many atheist presidents putting on a facade for the Guns 'n' Religion folks...

Stuart

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 02:28 PM
Jefferson was no atheist and he changed views several times in his life.
The Enlightenment gave them deism, which was a kind of atheism. It was very difficult to be an intellectually satisfied atheist those few hundred years ago. While no religion has ever explained anything, that was all the folks had, and I guess they couldn't have gone against that because they couldn't explain the diversity of life on earth or the existence of the solar system and so forth.

Nowdays it is possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist because of Darwin, and then the cosmology of the 20th Century and through to today. I suspect Jefferson still wouldn't be able to call himself 'atheist' if he were running for POTUS today, but that would likely be his personal view.


Washington was an interesting man and had strong Anglican leanings in him. That, mixed with his retiring personality makes him seem odd by today's standards. But it also makes him one of those whose character would have been judged by action more than word. Many testimonies exist to his character and strongly indicate a man of deep Christian conviction.
Yes, I'd say that would be a fair guess!

Stuart

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 20th, 2017, 02:31 PM
Don't confuse historical happenstance with doing the right thing (even if the result seemed good). God uses who He will and what He will do do what He will do but it doesn't invalidate scriptural directives. If you go down that path then the question becomes "Why didn't the crusaders keep going until they just wiped out the Muslims?". After all, it was largely a religious war against idolaters (ironically, Muslim wars against Christians tended to be driven by perceived idolatry on the Christian side as well). If it was the way to go, why not take the example of Saul not totally wiping out the Amalekites? That displeased God. I would also hasten to add that when the disciples tried to do something similar and Jesus was quick to correct them in their seeking for judgment (Luke 9:54-55). You know not what spirit you are of. And they were going to do precisely what a prophet of God had done previously. Be careful of historical sanction.

So here it is... NOT ALL of the Crusades were BAD... I'm siding with shopkinslpskids on this one. Make no mistake... the global force of Islam is destined to bring this house down... but God didn't see it to be the time yet, that more could enter into HIS REST...


Romans 11:25 (AMP) I do not want you, believers, to be unaware of this mystery [God’s previously hidden plan]—so that you will not be wise in your own opinion—that a partial hardening has [temporarily] happened to Israel [to last] until the full number of the Gentiles has come in;

Shops is correct.

You need to search scripture for "The crescent ornaments around their camel's necks"... It's there.

Judges 8:21 Zebah and Zalmunna said, "Get up and kill us yourself, for a man is judged by his strength." So Gideon got up, killed Zebah and Zalmunna, and took the crescent ornaments that were on the necks of their camels.

Psalm 83 Do not keep silent, O God!
Do not hold Your peace,
And do not be still, O God!
2 For behold, Your enemies make a tumult;
And those who hate You have lifted up their head.
3 They have taken crafty counsel against Your people,
And consulted together against Your sheltered ones.
4 They have said, “Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation,
That the name of Israel may be remembered no more.”
5 For they have consulted together with one consent;
They form a confederacy against You:
6 The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites;
Moab and the Hagrites;
7 Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek;
Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Assyria also has joined with them;
They have helped the children of Lot. Selah
9 Deal with them as with Midian,
As with Sisera,
As with Jabin at the Brook Kishon,
10 Who perished at En Dor,
Who became as refuse on the earth.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb and like Zeeb,
Yes, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
12 Who said, “Let us take for ourselves
The pastures of God for a possession.”
13 O my God, make them like the whirling dust,
Like the chaff before the wind!
14 As the fire burns the woods,
And as the flame sets the mountains on fire,
15 So pursue them with Your tempest,
And frighten them with Your storm.
16 Fill their faces with shame,
That they may seek Your name, O Lord.
17 Let them be confounded and dismayed forever;
Yes, let them be put to shame and perish,
18 That they may know that You, whose name alone is the Lord,
Are the Most High over all the earth.

The Psalm 83 Geography...

5 For they have consulted together with one consent;
They form a confederacy against You:
6 The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites;
Moab and the Hagrites;
7 Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek;
Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Assyria also has joined with them;
They have helped the children of Lot. Selah

http://www.prophecydepotministries.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/psalm83map2.jpg

You can't shake the perfection of scripture.

Lon
July 20th, 2017, 02:53 PM
Well no. Of course it isn't.

Some bemoan the lack of any atheist presidents, but of course there have been many atheist presidents putting on a facade for the Guns 'n' Religion folks.

Stuart Tainted and as I said prior, blind. :( I'll never be to talk to/with you over that which is obtuse to you, by preference. We don't get to make it up as we go. Knock yourself out on the fruitless try though.

Lon
July 20th, 2017, 02:54 PM
The Enlightenment gave them deism, which was a kind of atheism. It was very difficult to be an intellectually satisfied atheist those few hundred years ago. While no religion has ever explained anything, that was all the folks had, and I guess they couldn't have gone against that because they couldn't explain the diversity of life on earth or the existence of the solar system and so forth.

Nowdays it is possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist because of Darwin, and then the cosmology of the 20th Century and through to today. I suspect Jefferson still wouldn't be able to call himself 'atheist' if he were running for POTUS today, but that would likely be his personal view.


Yes, I'd say that would be a fair guess!

Stuart
All slanted take and meaningless fiction for opinion. When you deal in reality, and become a U.S. citizen, perhaps an actual conversation could happen. :Plain:

nikolai_42
July 20th, 2017, 03:10 PM
So here it is... NOT ALL of the Crusades were BAD... I'm siding with shopkinslpskids on this one. Make no mistake... the global force of Islam is destined to bring this house down... but God didn't see it to be the time yet, that more could enter into HIS REST...


Romans 11:25 (AMP) I do not want you, believers, to be unaware of this mystery [God’s previously hidden plan]—so that you will not be wise in your own opinion—that a partial hardening has [temporarily] happened to Israel [to last] until the full number of the Gentiles has come in;

Shops is correct.

You need to search scripture for "The crescent ornaments around their camel's necks"... It's there.

Judges 8:21 Zebah and Zalmunna said, "Get up and kill us yourself, for a man is judged by his strength." So Gideon got up, killed Zebah and Zalmunna, and took the crescent ornaments that were on the necks of their camels.

Psalm 83 Do not keep silent, O God!
Do not hold Your peace,
And do not be still, O God!
2 For behold, Your enemies make a tumult;
And those who hate You have lifted up their head.
3 They have taken crafty counsel against Your people,
And consulted together against Your sheltered ones.
4 They have said, “Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation,
That the name of Israel may be remembered no more.”
5 For they have consulted together with one consent;
They form a confederacy against You:
6 The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites;
Moab and the Hagrites;
7 Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek;
Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Assyria also has joined with them;
They have helped the children of Lot. Selah
9 Deal with them as with Midian,
As with Sisera,
As with Jabin at the Brook Kishon,
10 Who perished at En Dor,
Who became as refuse on the earth.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb and like Zeeb,
Yes, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
12 Who said, “Let us take for ourselves
The pastures of God for a possession.”
13 O my God, make them like the whirling dust,
Like the chaff before the wind!
14 As the fire burns the woods,
And as the flame sets the mountains on fire,
15 So pursue them with Your tempest,
And frighten them with Your storm.
16 Fill their faces with shame,
That they may seek Your name, O Lord.
17 Let them be confounded and dismayed forever;
Yes, let them be put to shame and perish,
18 That they may know that You, whose name alone is the Lord,
Are the Most High over all the earth.

You can't shake the perfection of scripture.

Maybe I'm missing yours, but I think you missed my point (or at least part of it).

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 20th, 2017, 03:16 PM
Maybe I'm missing yours, but I think you missed my point (or at least part of it).

Shops made a point and you quoted it, then went on to attempt to disprove his point. I just dropped scripture that binds to Islam and explains why his statement about Christianity being prevalent and Islam only now beginning to gain global momentum... thanks to the crusades... was correct.

I wasn't jumping in on any other aspect of your post... but scripture is very clear about the consistent use of the "Crescent" ornament by a force that is present all throughout scripture.

edit to come...


Acts 19 (Riot at Ephesus) 21Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22And having sent into Macedonia two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.

23About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way. 24For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen. 25These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Do you know who "Artemis" was?

She is associated with the "Goddess of the Moon"... if you follow the Acts Narrative... you can easily see that many demons were connected to her worship. The Apostles were extremely busy casting demons out in the chapter that I quoted.

Moon... Moon worship... Surely you see my point?

https://previews.123rf.com/images/albund/albund1508/albund150800094/43635950-A-closeup-of-the-top-of-a-mosque-minaret-with-a-cupola-dome-and-an-islamic-crescent-moon-and-star-on-Stock-Photo.jpg

Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

If you were a Dispensationalist... you would understand that the woman is National Israel... funny that she has the "moon" "under her feet". That's seen all throughout scripture as a sign of power over something. Kind of like when Jesus put the serpent under His "heal".

Just a quick fact... the Crusaders initially got angry when the Holy Land... AKA Israel (Palestine at the time) was overrun by ... Drum Roll... Islamic Turks.

This was the "First Crusade" and brought Jerusalem out of Islamic control around 1099 A.D.

Zeke
July 20th, 2017, 03:32 PM
In this sense, we went to war with Japan and Germany and the nature of that fight freed what was left of the Jews and others in those camps.

Have you heard of the St. Louis ocean liner? In 1939 over a thousand people, largely Jews, fled Germany on her. Most of the passengers had applied for US visas and planned to wait on them in Cuba then proceed to the states. Despite being aware of both the state of affairs for the Jew in Europe the White House ignored their pleas. The St. Louis was close enough to see the lights of Miami.

He might as well have taken a pistol and killed a few hundred of them personally.

If you want to defend him on the point, be my guest.


What guys? :AMR: It's the right wing conservatives who hate him, if for other reasons more often than not. I'm an unaffiliated moderate. But the truth is the truth. Roosevelt snubbed a thousand souls he could have saved with a wave of his hand. If not for the intervention of Great Britain and an effort by some European Jewish groups who knows how many of them would have survived the war?

And Roosevelt snubbed Jesse Owens after his historic Olympic run.

Well we agree on something almost wish I hadn't read it.

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 03:39 PM
All slanted take and meaningless fiction for opinion. When you deal in reality, and become a U.S. citizen, perhaps an actual conversation could happen. :Plain:
A slanted and fact-free response. Given that a show of piety is essential for anyone wanting the votes of the masses, I would have thought Americans might be the last people to ask about that deception.

I don't think you have claimed this exactly, but is it really important to you that there has 'never been an atheist president'?

Part of the problem is the loaded term 'atheist'. I identify with the word myself because it describes the way I live my life, but as I mentioned earlier I don't like it because it defines me in terms of others' crazy ideas. I am more than just a lack of crazy ideas (and I have other unrelated ideas that are definitely crazy). You can put many public figures who have no belief in a deity in that same category, Einstein probably being the most famous. Even Richard Dawkins resists the term somewhat, putting himself at 6 on his scale of 1-7.

Meantime, that lack of intellectual satisfaction at not having explanations for our existence makes it difficult to analyse non-belief too far into the past. How did all this stuff come to be here? A deist god is the placeholder 'explanation' until you have Big Bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection. We know that all the stuff in the universe is borrowed from the expansion of space-time, and that the living things fittest to survival and reproduction tend to pass on their ever-mutating genes, but that was all unavailable to the desperately curious before the last part of the 19th Century. So almost everyone was at least a deist.

Here (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/blog/entry/cornell_top_four_presidents/) is some speculation on the closeted atheist presidents, but they could have done themselves a favour by calling them the 'nones', in which category you would include most intellectually curious deists from the past, but not all.

Their list of definite (based on their analysis of blasphemous quotes) non-believers: Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Taft.

Their suspects for closeted status, based on less compelling evidence: Harrison, Tyler, Hayes, Arthur, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Stuart

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 20th, 2017, 03:41 PM
Deism is an autonomous form of "Theism", but it roots into agnosticism and identifies that God allows "Free Will".

If God doesn't allow free will, then God is the orchestrater of all chaos... which is a pretty slanderous thing to say about our Lord, God J.C..

However... Deism ain't "Atheism". If you ask what book those Agnostics and founders that are being discussed... embraced as their revelation of God... it would be the old King Jim.

Yup... They were "Christ" based, but knew a "Country" couldn't thrive on Theocracy... since the "Theos" of the matter isn't presently here in Physical form to take His "throne".

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 20th, 2017, 03:51 PM
A slanted and fact-free response. Given that a show of piety is essential for anyone wanting the votes of the masses, I would have thought Americans might be the last people to ask about that deception.

I don't think you have claimed this exactly, but is it really important to you that there has 'never been an atheist president'?

Part of the problem is the loaded term 'atheist'. I identify with the word myself because it describes the way I live my life, but as I mentioned earlier I don't like it because it defines me in terms of others' crazy ideas. I am more than just a lack of crazy ideas (and I have other unrelated ideas that are definitely crazy). You can put many public figures who have no belief in a deity in that same category, Einstein probably being the most famous. Even Richard Dawkins resists the term somewhat, putting himself at 6 on his scale of 1-7.

Meantime, that lack of intellectual satisfaction at not having explanations for our existence makes it difficult to analyse non-belief too far into the past. How did all this stuff come to be here? A deist god is the placeholder 'explanation' until you have Big Bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection. We know that all the stuff in the universe is borrowed from the expansion of space-time, and that the living things fittest to survival and reproduction tend to pass on their ever-mutating genes, but that was all unavailable to the desperately curious before the last part of the 19th Century. So almost everyone was at least a deist.

Here (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/blog/entry/cornell_top_four_presidents/) is some speculation on the closeted atheist presidents, but they could have done themselves a favour by calling them the 'nones', in which category you would include most intellectually curious deists from the past, but not all.

Their list of definite (based on their analysis of blasphemous quotes) non-believers: Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Taft.

Their suspects for closeted status, based on less compelling evidence: Harrison, Tyler, Hayes, Arthur, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Stuart

Lincoln was no "unbeliever". He very clearly "believed" and infact... merely removed himself from the brick and mortar establishment. If you don't see Christian Principles in Lincolns actual writing and leadership... you're deceiving yourself and believing propaganda put out by intellectual morons that have no desire to ponder what proves that they are dwarfed by a "higher power".

Abe at Fort Sumter

"“I charge the whole guilt of this war upon the ambitious, educated, plotting leaders of the South.… A day will come when God will reveal judgment and arraign these mighty miscreants.… And then these guiltiest and most remorseless traitors … shall be whirled aloft and plunged downward forever and ever in an endless retribution.”"

Oh... and Jefferson...

""Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

- In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia,

You are misrepresenting T.J., as well.

In full response to each person you cited as "not being a Christian"... they simply disliked attending services and thus the assumption is made that they weren't "servants" of Jesus.

These men resisted the rule of Theocracy... not Jesus. Speculation... alone... could ever say those men were "unbelievers".

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 04:14 PM
Lincoln was no "unbeliever". He very clearly "believed" and infact... merely removed himself from the brick and mortar establishment. If you don't see Christian Principles in Lincolns actual writing and leadership... you're deceiving yourself and believing propaganda put out by intellectual morons that have no desire to ponder what proves that they are dwarfed by a "higher power".

Abe at Fort Sumter

"“I charge the whole guilt of this war upon the ambitious, educated, plotting leaders of the South.… A day will come when God will reveal judgment and arraign these mighty miscreants.… And then these guiltiest and most remorseless traitors … shall be whirled aloft and plunged downward forever and ever in an endless retribution.”"

Oh... and Jefferson...

""Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

- In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia,

You are misrepresenting T.J., as well.

In full response to each person you cited as "not being a Christian"... they simply disliked attending services and thus the assumption is made that they weren't "servants" of Jesus.

These men resisted the rule of Theocracy... not Jesus. Speculation... alone... could ever say those men were "unbelievers".
And indeed if you read the website (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/blog/entry/cornell_top_four_presidents/), they would admit there is a lot of speculation. And it's worth reading just for the brilliant anti-christian quotes from some of those old presidents.

But look at the makeup of Congress (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-atheists-in-congress_us_586c074ae4b0de3a08f9d487): none of the 535 members of the House and Senate identify as atheist. One calls herself 'unaffiliated' and 10 didn't declare. Obviously some of those 535 people are not admitting they are non-believers.

Many truths are concealed to get elected. A religious lack of belief is just one of them. Where I live, people really don't care, and while our current prime minister is Catholic, the previous two were religious non-believers. We have a slight undertone of mistrust of politicians who declare their religious convictions too strongly. At least that's one pretense our politicians don't feel they need to keep up.

And of course, by stupidly taking out of the running all those who claim not to believe, your electorate severely limits the pool of intelligent and capable candidates who would otherwise be well-qualified to further the interests of your crazy nation on the world's stage. I guess that can't be what the presidency, or even Congress, is about.

Stuart

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 04:15 PM
Oops...missed the edit post button again.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 20th, 2017, 04:19 PM
And indeed if you read the website (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/blog/entry/cornell_top_four_presidents/), they would admit there is a lot of speculation. And it's worth reading just for the brilliant anti-christian quotes from some of those old presidents.

But look at the makeup of Congress (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-atheists-in-congress_us_586c074ae4b0de3a08f9d487): none of the 535 members of the House and Senate identify as atheist. One calls herself 'unaffiliated' and 10 didn't declare. Obviously some of those 535 people are not admitting they are non-believers.

Many truths are concealed to get elected. A religious lack of belief is just one of them. Where I live, people really don't care, and while our current prime minister is Catholic, the previous two were religious non-believers. We have a slight undertone of mistrust of politicians who declare their religious convictions too strongly. At least that's one pretense our politicians don't feel they need to keep up.

And of course, by stupidly taking out of the running all those who claim not to believe, your electorate severely limits the pool of intelligent and capable candidates who would otherwise be well-qualified to further the interests of your crazy nation on the world's stage.

Stuart

Excellent Response! Fair and Honest points! As for the pool of intelligent and capable candidates... I would have voted for Chris Hitch as Pres., before he passed on and learned that there is a God.

- Grinning... but sincere. I know he didn't run or anything and he was a Brit... but he had a good head on his shoulders... other than the theological placement of his head in his rump.

God works through even men and women that think He doesn't exist.

I'm just saying... Yes Stuart.. there is a Santa Claus of the Universe.

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 04:29 PM
Excellent Response! Fair and Honest points! As for the pool of intelligent and capable candidates... I would have voted for Chris Hitch as Pres., before he passed on and learned that there is a God.

- Grinning... but sincere. I know he didn't run or anything and he was a Brit... but he had a good head on his shoulders... other than the theological placement of his head in his rump.
I think Hitchens made some fans by recasting himself as a kind of neocon, and supporting the invasion of Iraq. That must have caused some head-scratching in the GOP.


God works through even men and women that think He doesn't exist.

I'm just saying... Yes Stuart.. there is a Santa Claus of the Universe.
...but one that is just as likely at giving cheap presents (why did I get an appendix likely to inflame, burst and kill me??) as at lighting the fire and throwing people in after it has climbed down the chimney!?

Stuart

nikolai_42
July 20th, 2017, 04:41 PM
Shops made a point and you quoted it, then went on to attempt to disprove his point. I just dropped scripture that binds to Islam and explains why his statement about Christianity being prevalent and Islam only now beginning to gain global momentum... thanks to the crusades... was correct.

I wasn't jumping in on any other aspect of your post... but scripture is very clear about the consistent use of the "Crescent" ornament by a force that is present all throughout scripture.

edit to come...


Acts 19 (Riot at Ephesus) 21Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22And having sent into Macedonia two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.

23About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way. 24For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen. 25These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Do you know who "Artemis" was?

She is associated with the "Goddess of the Moon"... if you follow the Acts Narrative... you can easily see that many demons were connected to her worship. The Apostles were extremely busy casting demons out in the chapter that I quoted.

Moon... Moon worship... Surely you see my point?

https://previews.123rf.com/images/albund/albund1508/albund150800094/43635950-A-closeup-of-the-top-of-a-mosque-minaret-with-a-cupola-dome-and-an-islamic-crescent-moon-and-star-on-Stock-Photo.jpg

Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

If you were a Dispensationalist... you would understand that the woman is National Israel... funny that she has the "moon" "under her feet". That's seen all throughout scripture as a sign of power over something. Kind of like when Jesus put the serpent under His "heal".

Just a quick fact... the Crusaders initially got angry when the Holy Land... AKA Israel (Palestine at the time) was overrun by ... Drum Roll... Islamic Turks.

This was the "First Crusade" and brought Jerusalem out of Islamic control around 1099 A.D.

I think I do see your point, but mine was one of justifying method because it has been done before with great affect. The disciples wanted to do that and got a severe rebuke. When Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest, Jesus healed it. The point is that the crusades of old don't justify banning Islam outright on American soil today - not that military action against Muslim countries and tighter immigration controls on home turf isn't justified.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 20th, 2017, 04:57 PM
I think Hitchens made some fans by recasting himself as a kind of neocon, and supporting the invasion of Iraq. That must have caused some head-scratching in the GOP.


...but one that is just as likely at giving cheap presents (why did I get an appendix likely to inflame, burst and kill me??) as at lighting the fire and throwing people in after it has climbed down the chimney!?

Stuart

Care to carry on a casual, philosophical discussion on why the "alleged Creator" didn't desire or gift you that... starting tomorrow?

nikolai_42
July 20th, 2017, 05:01 PM
Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

If you were a Dispensationalist... you would understand that the woman is National Israel... funny that she has the "moon" "under her feet". That's seen all throughout scripture as a sign of power over something. Kind of like when Jesus put the serpent under His "heal".

Just a quick fact... the Crusaders initially got angry when the Holy Land... AKA Israel (Palestine at the time) was overrun by ... Drum Roll... Islamic Turks.

This was the "First Crusade" and brought Jerusalem out of Islamic control around 1099 A.D.

I hesitated in posting this since we may be getting off topic, but you will note that the imagery in Rev 12:1 is strikingly similar to that found in Genesis 37:9 where Joseph has the dream wherein the sun, moon and stars bowed to him. The only point being that the moon god connection as specifically identifying Islam is a bit of a hit and miss proposition.

As to the dispensational aspect...well, that woman is in heaven - so can it really represent earthly Israel? Further, why allegorize (or spiritualize) that but not Revelation 8 where a third of the sun, moon and stars are darkened? And if that is allegorized, too, on what grounds?

But I think I'm swerving into a different thread here.

Nick M
July 20th, 2017, 05:01 PM
Indeed the particular strength of your nation is its secular constitution and the freedom it provides people to practice the religion of their choice, and not to be subjected to any one religion gaining privilege.

Stuart

God's government as told by our apostle Paul, the real "Pope" is indeed "secular" in the way you mean it. Authorities, as they are authorized by God to act in his name, are to wield the sword of justice. Not to see forced worship, which God does not accept.

Stuu
July 20th, 2017, 05:13 PM
God's government as told by our apostle Paul, the real "Pope" is indeed "secular" in the way you mean it. Authorities, as they are authorized by God to act in his name, are to wield the sword of justice. Not to see forced worship, which God does not accept.
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

Sounds pretty forced to me.

Stuart

Lon
July 20th, 2017, 08:16 PM
A slanted and fact-free response. Given that a show of piety is essential for anyone wanting the votes of the masses, I would have thought Americans might be the last people to ask about that deception.

I don't think you have claimed this exactly, but is it really important to you that there has 'never been an atheist president'?

Part of the problem is the loaded term 'atheist'. I identify with the word myself because it describes the way I live my life, but as I mentioned earlier I don't like it because it defines me in terms of others' crazy ideas. I am more than just a lack of crazy ideas (and I have other unrelated ideas that are definitely crazy). You can put many public figures who have no belief in a deity in that same category, Einstein probably being the most famous. Even Richard Dawkins resists the term somewhat, putting himself at 6 on his scale of 1-7.

Meantime, that lack of intellectual satisfaction at not having explanations for our existence makes it difficult to analyse non-belief too far into the past. How did all this stuff come to be here? A deist god is the placeholder 'explanation' until you have Big Bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection. We know that all the stuff in the universe is borrowed from the expansion of space-time, and that the living things fittest to survival and reproduction tend to pass on their ever-mutating genes, but that was all unavailable to the desperately curious before the last part of the 19th Century. So almost everyone was at least a deist.

Here (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/blog/entry/cornell_top_four_presidents/) is some speculation on the closeted atheist presidents, but they could have done themselves a favour by calling them the 'nones', in which category you would include most intellectually curious deists from the past, but not all.

Their list of definite (based on their analysis of blasphemous quotes) non-believers: Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Taft.

Their suspects for closeted status, based on less compelling evidence: Harrison, Tyler, Hayes, Arthur, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Stuart
Biased data. There are a good number of letters between seminaries and Einstein where he is rather clear, especially later in life, about theology. He struggled, as I have said, with the Holocaust, looking for God to intervene. God did intervene but the tragedy was loss. Stopping it was good. Too late? "Not as some count slowness." I'd always rather be an optimist, than a pessimist.

When it comes down to it, it is about attitude first. Truth is important, but both are necessary for a happy life else you watch the news and grow bitter. Who is that possibly doing damage to? Me? The blind kid in our school was very grumpy. I 'tried' to be a friend and bring good to his life. He spurned it. After that, I may make a passing comment, but this kind of thing was in him, is in you. You carry it with you wherever you go. An atheist president, I expect, would be interested in his/her 1or3%. We have a gay mayor in Seattle. He is interested and promotes it. Seattle and all of WA where I live is a liberal state and so it absolutely carries liberal concerns and is less family-friendly because of it. Good for movie and television production. There is a trade-off, but I'm interested in family. It is about the only wholesome place left. Families values tend to voice the best of us because of the organic nature as well as more committed forms of devotion and love. While we may complain against nonfamily concerns and adverse or disconnected pursuits, what we actually stand for are good things. I'd rather see more of that, less of TOL by contrast, but I think it not too bad that we talk about other issues in connection to any harm done. In that respect, even the theology section is political/sociological. I'd suggest my politics, perhaps sociological expressions might not be as good as my actions and face-to-face interactions, at least it is the endeavor.

That said, the more empathetic fellow for office/least bipartisan. I think our good presidents have bridged gaps. Atheism? He/she will not relate or participate well with the whole country. He/she won't offer a prayer of convocation or thanksgiving in November. Won't attend the prayer breakfast. Perhaps will not raise the Christmas tree, Might try to remove signs of our actual historical faith as a nation, etc. Yeah, I'd wonder if he/she had about 70% of our best interest at heart. We had a guy that recently about did that to us as a nation, following global trends, making global trends. The whole world starts and ends with family. We need somebody interested in that, as foremost and primary. I about guarantee anybody coming to office, that touts that, will make it into office. In the U.S., the government has been tearing at our base since 1963 in an effort to cater to the minority. I think we should treat the minority well, but not overtly as the only reason government exists. Government cannot tear at the foundation of itself, in Brittan, Germany, Australia, or the U.S. Seeking the best for its family and what they value, is also important, if not more important of time, interest, effort, and resources. We can get along because families are strong, but a nation that treasures it greatest resource, will be among the strongest and most admired governments in the world.

Some of this, by attempt, to bridge the hefty gap and answer your question, perhaps meaningfully.

Lon
July 20th, 2017, 10:05 PM
The whole idea that a modern country is tied eternally to the beliefs of it's founders is nonsense.

My nation was founded by the Anglo-Saxons who believed in Wodun and Thunor, and elves, dragons and nicor. Should we have stuck with that when the Germanic Christians arrived on their boats, and told them to go back where they came from because our country was founded on paganism and faeries? Values mean something and they sustain the core of us, our families. Without them, there is no nation, nothing to hold a nation together. Some countries are atheist, and the turmoil that besets them is evident. No country 'can' last that destroys itself. Whatever values we share better be shared across all citizenry or we are no longer citizenry, but sparring factions of meaninglessness and not longer a nation united, but subnation factions of unrest and loss of value. The Christian ethic, so strong, unifies and created these United States. Without a binding of core values, we will be less united, and more states. Regan knew this. Other presidents knew this. Without those commonly held core values, there is no strength. Every nation that has failed, failed upon this. Because we are still very much a nation of Christians, you are that faction of unrest working against the whole for your minority self-interests against love of your neighbor. There comes a point when even you must see the atheist agenda is but self-serving and really doesn't serve the interests of others. If we were to become a nation of atheists, and that was the identity, we'd all suffer, again, as every atheist nation has. People become meaningless. Values, themselves are eschewed, heathen fulfillment is all that is left and there are huge lines for one kind of loaf of bread and a handful of beans. You were better off before you tried killing off the rest of us....

Stuu
July 21st, 2017, 01:20 AM
When it comes down to it, it is about attitude first. Truth is important, but both are necessary for a happy life else you watch the news and grow bitter. Who is that possibly doing damage to? Me? The blind kid in our school was very grumpy. I 'tried' to be a friend and bring good to his life. He spurned it. After that, I may make a passing comment, but this kind of thing was in him, is in you. You carry it with you wherever you go. An atheist president, I expect, would be interested in his/her 1or3%. We have a gay mayor in Seattle. He is interested and promotes it. Seattle and all of WA where I live is a liberal state and so it absolutely carries liberal concerns and is less family-friendly because of it. Good for movie and television production. There is a trade-off, but I'm interested in family. It is about the only wholesome place left. Families values tend to voice the best of us because of the organic nature as well as more committed forms of devotion and love. While we may complain against nonfamily concerns and adverse or disconnected pursuits, what we actually stand for are good things. I'd rather see more of that, less of TOL by contrast, but I think it not too bad that we talk about other issues in connection to any harm done. In that respect, even the theology section is political/sociological. I'd suggest my politics, perhaps sociological expressions might not be as good as my actions and face-to-face interactions, at least it is the endeavor.

That said, the more empathetic fellow for office/least bipartisan. I think our good presidents have bridged gaps. Atheism? He/she will not relate or participate well with the whole country. He/she won't offer a prayer of convocation or thanksgiving in November. Won't attend the prayer breakfast. Perhaps will not raise the Christmas tree, Might try to remove signs of our actual historical faith as a nation, etc. Yeah, I'd wonder if he/she had about 70% of our best interest at heart. We had a guy that recently about did that to us as a nation, following global trends, making global trends. The whole world starts and ends with family. We need somebody interested in that, as foremost and primary. I about guarantee anybody coming to office, that touts that, will make it into office. In the U.S., the government has been tearing at our base since 1963 in an effort to cater to the minority. I think we should treat the minority well, but not overtly as the only reason government exists. Government cannot tear at the foundation of itself, in Brittan, Germany, Australia, or the U.S. Seeking the best for its family and what they value, is also important, if not more important of time, interest, effort, and resources. We can get along because families are strong, but a nation that treasures it greatest resource, will be among the strongest and most admired governments in the world.

Some of this, by attempt, to bridge the hefty gap and answer your question, perhaps meaningfully.

Just a few questions in response:

* Why is having a liberal state with a gay mayor incompatible with 'family'? Surely gay people grow up in families, and they more than most need the support of that social unit.

* Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist president would not be interested in providing for safe family environments? What do you fear would be unsafe?

* Why do you need to have a prayer breakfast? The breakfast was established (I use that word with purpose!) in 1953, and it came along with the same wave of god-bothering that included 'In God We Trust' as your motto and on your quaint cash in 1957 (did you know that US currency is attracted by a magnet because the ink contains powdered iron?). It just sounds discriminatory, and the regular congressional prayer breakfasts look farcical.

https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2016/09/prayer-big.jpg?alias=standard_600x400

Who is winning the piety contest here?

Why don't they save time and just sacrifice a goat?

Stuart

gcthomas
July 21st, 2017, 02:58 AM
Values mean something and they sustain the core of us, our families.
Yup.

Because we are still very much a nation of Christians, you are that faction of unrest working against the whole for your minority self-interests against love of your neighbor.
I no more work for my self interests than you do, Lon. We've discussed this before.

The Christian ethic, so strong, unifies and created these United States. Without a binding of core values, we will be less united, and more states. Regan knew this. Other presidents knew this. Without those commonly held core values, there is no strength. Every nation that has failed, failed upon this.
Please, what are these Christian values that drive your oh so wonderful ethics that are not widely held human values? List them, if you will.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 21st, 2017, 01:58 PM
I hesitated in posting this since we may be getting off topic, but you will note that the imagery in Rev 12:1 is strikingly similar to that found in Genesis 37:9 where Joseph has the dream wherein the sun, moon and stars bowed to him. The only point being that the moon god connection as specifically identifying Islam is a bit of a hit and miss proposition.

I never identified Islam.. but bound the existence of "pre-Islamic roots" that persecuted National Israel in scripture... and showed you that the Crescent Moon symbol has marked Satan's path all throughout scripture. I even showed you the moon goddess huntress in Acts and showed you that many demons were there. You ignored Zeeba and Zalmunda ... ahem... the CRESCENT ornaments around their camels necks... and Psalm 83 connecting the very territory of Islam in conjunction with the quote I gave you from Judges earlier.

You're looking for the leaps and missing the actual... biblical baby steps you conveniently "overlooked" earlier. Maybe you should reread the previous posts.


As to the dispensational aspect...well, that woman is in heaven - so can it really represent earthly Israel?

No. The woman is seen by John, but she "gives birth to the "child". She gives birth to Jesus!!!... moments after that exact quote. Supersessionist error on your part..., but... just to make my point...


Revelation 12:12 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.


Are you now arguing that the BOC "gave birth to Jesus"? That would place the BOC under the Law... are you willing to go there? Are you saying Mary wasn't of the sheep of Israel, but now the BOC?


3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

Again... in recognition of order of events... Satan attempts to "devour the CHILD"... but ends up thrown out of heaven. Note that the order is after the CHILD Ascends... Your Supersessioninsm is waxing old.


6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, ....

If you're going to argue that the BOC fled... you are officially ignoring the literal dominance of Christianity for the last 2000 years that is only now fading away.

Israel disappeared until the 40's ... But... um er... The BOC? :idunno:


Further, why allegorize (or spiritualize) that but not Revelation 8 where a third of the sun, moon and stars are darkened? And if that is allegorized, too, on what grounds?

You're now ready to declare dragons... as in Revelation 12... where I got the scripture from "aren't allegory"? I want you to put it in writing that you believe in seven headed hydras and dragons.

Nope :nono: smacked down... I bound territory and crescent moon to the Devils agents with scripture and followed through.

Come right when you answer and note that you are closing your eyes to certain facts that I have scripturally provided.


But I think I'm swerving into a different thread here.

The author of this OP brought the point up in the first place and I'm backing them. I'm sure we're okay.

And... ahem... Lon ... you tagged in with a like. You're answers are expected as well.

Evil.Grin.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 21st, 2017, 02:15 PM
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

Sounds pretty forced to me.

Stuart

Not hardly... the wicked aren't what "church... brick and mortar" define. God's actual "smiting" has always been towards people that actually practiced child saccrifice and such. You can quote the hardcore verses, but if you tell me that we have done a good job with being in charge... you're stunted.

We get some stuff right... but War, famine and the like occur because humanity has a constant track record of inhumanity.

The humble... self sacrificing God that gives us freedom and breath to even defy Him is the One that can and Will sort this mess out. When the visitation of the sword occurs... it will be just and with Love. It will be by the hearts Judge of judges. The very source of life within all living things knows how to sort all living things.

Did you ever watch Braveheart? Would you have liked the movie if William Wallice was a pacifist that said... "Scotland... be at peace! England can have our freedom, rape our daughters and kill our sons... but we mustn't fight back!" ?!?

You're purposefully trying to make God out to be an A-hole, but you refuse to see the full picture.

Shall I begin taking you out of context now?

Lon
July 21st, 2017, 02:25 PM
Just a few questions in response:

* Why is having a liberal state with a gay mayor incompatible with 'family'? Surely gay people grow up in families, and they more than most need the support of that social unit.
When children were invited and present at the 'naked parade' it was not stimulating family values, individual and sexual values. Adult self-interested values. Ask that mayor when the last time he had a parade for children. :nono: Didn't happen.

* Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist president would not be interested in providing for safe family environments? What do you fear would be unsafe?
Yeah. Atheism is a fairly self-serving position and philosophy. It really doesn't have at its core, the well-being of the rest of mankind. You poster children on TOL attest to that fact.


* Why do you need to have a prayer breakfast? The breakfast was established (I use that word with purpose!) in 1953, and it came along with the same wave of god-bothering that included 'In God We Trust' as your motto and on your quaint cash in 1957 (did you know that US currency is attracted by a magnet because the ink contains powdered iron?). It just sounds discriminatory, and the regular congressional prayer breakfasts look farcical.
There you go. It is a value of 70% or more of us. So, by virtue, the atheist president is isolated and doesn't represent us or our values well.




Who is winning the piety contest here?
Me, not you. Oxymoronic, that (and no ill-hearted tongue in cheek, but I could have done it more congenial by admission). I don't think this part anything but self-serving again. There was no reason for it, just your misplaced angst. I actually tried to eschew such and be meaningful this and that post. We won't agree, but I don't think we always have to show our disdain. The only accomplishment is that we get a glimpse into another's thoughts. It is not poor thing. Don't be grumpy over everything. Sometimes a discussion is just a discussion (barring many TOL conversations). :e4e:


Why don't they save time and just sacrifice a goat?
As you can see, instead of jumping to bias confirmations, listening is okay on TOL. I realize a lot of TOL is simply a place to dump angst and friendly banter. I've ribbed you back on occasion too. I just wanted you to know it was an endeavor to drop that these past two posts. If I rewrote this, I'd simply not 'react' to anything and instead just address the issues perhaps, because any address of those takes away from the subject matter, but as conversation also is about 'us' to some degree, I took this approach. Meaningful is in amongst both somewhere :e4e:


Stuart
I do "-Lon" too. For me, a personal touch. Off-topic, but I wonder why others do it. For me, it is used to be a bit more 'human' to the one I'm talking to. I wonder, if for others, it is because of letter writing, or to remind a poster who they are talking to (that serves a place on TOL too, I've been mistaken for another a few times). :think:

Lon
July 21st, 2017, 02:38 PM
Yup.

I no more work for my self interests than you do, Lon. We've discussed this before.
Amounts to assertion on your part, so it doesn't matter how often we discuss this. Same song, 8th verse. You aren't an American, so your assertions are twice removed on that count. I like your 'we' but politically, you and I have to be us/them. The issues just are not the same. Sometimes I think you want to be an American. I don't blame you but we are a nation of Christians, not well represented by media.


Please, what are these Christian values that drive your oh so wonderful ethics that are not widely held human values? List them, if you will. Our Christian values are deep, life in fact. It puts all of us, even on TOL, on the same page. We'll argue with one another, but our love for God binds us and very strongly. It was naught up for your disdain, but an expression of something that actually does bind. Regan keyed in on this and united a divided nation. Atheists may have felt left-out, but the core of a nation is who/what that nation mostly is. We are a nation mostly of Christian families. As such, both bind us. As to any value you happen to share with us, it'd be the same at least by sentiment: I have a hard time, however, talking about United States issues when you aren't an American. I'm not sure how much you ever relate. You tend to overly assert into our affairs as if you are American and it conflates discussions. European Christians will have to address your political concerns. They are different. -Lon

gcthomas
July 21st, 2017, 02:45 PM
Amounts to assertion on your part, so it doesn't matter how often we discuss this. Same song, 8th verse. You aren't an American, so your assertions are twice removed on that count. I like your 'we' but politically, you and I have to be us/them. The issues just are not the same. Sometimes I think you want to be an American. I don't blame you but we are a nation of Christians, not well represented by media.

Our Christian values are deep, life in fact. It puts all of us, even on TOL, on the same page. We'll argue with one another, but our love for God binds us and very strongly. It was naught up for your disdain, but an expression of something that actually does bind. Regan keyed in on this and united a divided nation. Atheists may have felt left-out, but the core of a nation is who/what that nation mostly is. We are a nation mostly of Christian families. As such, both bind us. As to any value you happen to share with us, it'd be the same at least by sentiment: I have a hard time, however, talking about United States issues when you aren't an American. I'm not sure how much you ever relate. You tend to overly assert into our affairs as if you are American and it conflates discussions. European Christians will have to address your political concerns. They are different. -Lon

How can the core Christian values be different in different regions? Surely that makes them political values?

The upshot is that you couldn't give a specific set of Christian values that are distinctively Christian. That days a lot about your belief that Christian values are superior to mine as an atheist, doesn't it?

Lon
July 21st, 2017, 03:30 PM
And... ahem... @Lon (http://theologyonline.com/member.php?u=6696) ... you tagged in with a like. You're answers are expected as well.

Evil.Grin.<(I)>
"Thanks" have SOOOOO many reasons why they can exist, and perhaps rarely or never against the 'other guy.' Sometimes I imagine they are. In this cases, I thanked him for bringing something to mind as well as a prior rep. :e4e:

Perhaps human-nature has us second-guessing whenever we see a thanks. I do too, at times and try not to react since a 'thank you' is nebulous. If I see a dozen of them in a conversation against me, I start wondering though. Rusha has been doing that a lot to me lately. I'm pretty sure she isn't 'repping' against me, just agrees with the other guy. As such, after about the 10th, I think you can safely draw the other into the conversation :idunno: For what it is worth. In Him -Lon

AND!!!! (be careful about repping me, Nikolai might feel subconscious!) :chuckle: :e4e: :)

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 21st, 2017, 03:34 PM
"Thanks" have SOOOOO many reasons why they can exist, and perhaps rarely or never against the 'other guy.' Sometimes I imagine they are. In this cases, I thanked him for bringing something to mind as well as a prior rep. :e4e:

Both of you have a free flowing respect for scripture with a mild Calvy bend. I enjoy discussion with both of you and may have been goading both of you for such.

But... it would have only been goading If I had posted ... Evil.Grin.<(I)>

Oops... perhaps I did.

All blessings in Him,

EE

:e4e:

Ktoyou
July 21st, 2017, 03:35 PM
There are more people who do not believe in any afterlife, than there are atheists today.

Lon
July 21st, 2017, 03:36 PM
The upshot is that you couldn't give a specific set of Christian values that are distinctively Christian. That days a lot about your belief that Christian values are superior to mine as an atheist, doesn't it?
:chuckle: Not only 'could' 'did.' Loving God is distinctly Christian, and I brought it up. Others? Yep. I started with that one.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 21st, 2017, 03:42 PM
...but one that is just as likely at giving cheap presents (why did I get an appendix likely to inflame, burst and kill me??) as at lighting the fire and throwing people in after it has climbed down the chimney!?

Stuart

One question of a chain designed to hang.... aka... loaded...

What is the difference between a dictatorship and government that is a republic?

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 21st, 2017, 03:47 PM
AND!!!! (be careful about repping me, Nikolai might feel subconscious!) :chuckle: :e4e: :)

Rotfl!!!

I would rep Nik... but... I don't want to ever see him become half as smug you. If I hadn't met someone almost as smug as me... I would be worried... so... that's the logic on some level.

:chuckle:

Town Heretic
July 21st, 2017, 04:01 PM
There are more people who do not believe in any afterlife, than there are atheists today.
Which is sadder than a box full of crackers for Christmas...unless you're starving, of course...or really like crackers. :think: So, mostly parrots and famine victims then.

Stuu
July 21st, 2017, 06:01 PM
When children were invited and present at the 'naked parade' it was not stimulating family values, individual and sexual values. Adult self-interested values. Ask that mayor when the last time he had a parade for children. Didn't happen.
Well, I'm not going to defend him, and it looks like you won't have him as mayor after November anyway. I'm still struggling to see any valid point to your argument. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. One conservative slams him for a lack of 'family-based' activities or else another berates him for wasting public money on children's parades. There are children's parades happening in Seattle, after all.

Public naked events are held internationally, obviously not in islamic countries, so perhaps you would like Washington State to be more like one of those. Naturist groups take their children with them to spend time (away from the public gaze, for good reason) naked all summer, which they would claim is one of the healthiest family-based activities there is, so you must be objecting to the particular people who turn up to be naked in public.

I think the principle is that having a gay mayor should be as family-friendly as having any kind of mayor. Perhaps your current mayor isn't the right man for the job.


Yeah. Atheism is a fairly self-serving position and philosophy. It really doesn't have at its core, the well-being of the rest of mankind. You poster children on TOL attest to that fact.
And what exactly is the 'position and philosophy' of atheism, in your opinion? Atheism is only one single belief: there are no gods. It's expressed in different ways, but that is all atheists have in common. It's not a philosophy at all. We are all self-serving, it's human nature.

But did your nose start to grow once you started typing the bit about not having the well-being rest of the rest of mankind as a concern?? Once you have read even some of the writings of Saul of Tarsus, and the gospel writers (whoever they were) you would have to conclude that christianity is the most bitterly self-serving philosophy ever devised. I don't think it matters how self-serving I might appear to you, christianity trumps me for that just about every time.

You still haven't given anything that should be feared of an atheist president. But as I claimed elsewhere, all those presidents who really were atheists haven't destroyed your fantastically devoted country, have they.

There you go. It is a value of 70% or more of us. So, by virtue, the atheist president is isolated and doesn't represent us or our values well.
So you can't complain about your conditions in Seattle, where 80% vote Democrat and there is a very high average level of education and atheism. You are being represented really well, aren't you! So the tyranny of the majority cuts both ways, right?

You haven't said why there needs to be prayer breakfasts. Is it just a fear you have of what might happen if they stop? Actually what might happen?


For me, a personal touch. Off-topic, but I wonder why others do it. For me, it is used to be a bit more 'human' to the one I'm talking to. I wonder, if for others, it is because of letter writing, or to remind a poster who they are talking to (that serves a place on TOL too, I've been mistaken for another a few times).
Yes, letter writing probably gives it the form. I don't share much private information openly online but I tend to think that by signing off with my real name I am at least standing personally by what I write.

Stuart

Stuu
July 21st, 2017, 06:30 PM
Not hardly... the wicked aren't what "church... brick and mortar" define. God's actual "smiting" has always been towards people that actually practiced child saccrifice and such. You can quote the hardcore verses, but if you tell me that we have done a good job with being in charge... you're stunted.

We get some stuff right... but War, famine and the like occur because humanity has a constant track record of inhumanity.

The humble... self sacrificing God that gives us freedom and breath to even defy Him is the One that can and Will sort this mess out. When the visitation of the sword occurs... it will be just and with Love. It will be by the hearts Judge of judges. The very source of life within all living things knows how to sort all living things.

Did you ever watch Braveheart? Would you have liked the movie if William Wallice was a pacifist that said... "Scotland... be at peace! England can have our freedom, rape our daughters and kill our sons... but we mustn't fight back!" ?!?
The things you describe are exactly what you would expect if humans had evolved by natural selection. So either you can be pessimistic and wait around for some kind of saviour figure, say, or you can be optimistic and acknowledge humanity is far from perfect but at our best we are surprisingly good, and aspiration to that is what really counts. We need to make things better ourselves because waiting for the last 2000 years doesn't seem to have improved things, and indeed some of those keenest for the saviour have made things markedly worse.

So sorry, but there is no room for the dogmas of christianity in that optimistic view because christianity is cast in terms of simplistic kneejerks not the complex thought and nuance that is needed. I need not mention that islam and judaism haven't got much to add either.


You're purposefully trying to make God out to be an A-hole, ...
I don't think that needs me to do much at all.


...but you refuse to see the full picture. Shall I begin taking you out of context now?
I can only approve of your taking scripture out of context.

Stuartart

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
July 21st, 2017, 09:30 PM
The things you describe are exactly what you would expect if humans had evolved by natural selection. So either you can be pessimistic and wait around for some kind of saviour figure, say, or you can be optimistic and acknowledge humanity is far from perfect but at our best we are surprisingly good, and aspiration to that is what really counts. We need to make things better ourselves because waiting for the last 2000 years doesn't seem to have improved things, and indeed some of those keenest for the saviour have made things markedly worse.

So sorry, but there is no room for the dogmas of christianity in that optimistic view because christianity is cast in terms of simplistic kneejerks not the complex thought and nuance that is needed. I need not mention that islam and judaism haven't got much to add either.


I don't think that needs me to do much at all.


I can only approve of your taking scripture out of context.

Stuartart

Within this quote you have confirmed your hatred for God... and your faith in Darwinism to hide it.

What can be said from here? Your mind and Spirit lack the depth, honesty and nuance to converse further. You... Stuu... are deceiving yourself and savvy to claiming to know scripture...

Nope.


https://youtu.be/LPn0KFlbqX8

ok doser
July 21st, 2017, 09:34 PM
Which is sadder than a box full of crackers for Christmas...unless you're starving, of course...or really like crackers. :think: So, mostly parrots and famine victims then.

Ran out of your adhd meds?

Stuu
July 22nd, 2017, 03:04 AM
Within this quote you have confirmed your hatred for God...
I don't believe the god in question exists, so hatred would be absurd.


and your faith in Darwinism to hide it.
I don't have faith in anything, especially Darwinian natural selection. As soon as a better explanation for the diversity of life comes along, Darwin's theory dies. Do you have a better explanation for all the evidence we have? I'd guess not.


What can be said from here? Your mind and Spirit lack the depth, honesty and nuance to converse further.
All right, bye then.


You... Stuu... are deceiving yourself and savvy to claiming to know scripture...
Oh, hi again. Please tell me how I have scripture wrong.

Stuart

exminister
July 22nd, 2017, 05:18 AM
Ask the native south Americans. They wore clothes and had magnificent cities. The Spanish, on behalf of king and cross destroyed the cultures and the cities.

How come the Europeans brought diseases that killed native Americans and not the other way around? Were the Europeans dirtier, more disease ridden people?

Jonahdog
July 22nd, 2017, 07:56 AM
How come the Europeans brought diseases that killed native Americans and not the other way around? Were the Europeans dirtier, more disease ridden people?

That is a really good question. Dont know. I'll ask my MD daughter who specializes in infectious disease.

Town Heretic
July 22nd, 2017, 09:14 AM
I don't believe the god in question exists, so hatred would be absurd.
Hatred is almost always absurd, but it's also fairly human. People live for and hate ideas all the time. Communism, capitalism, theocracy, democracy, to name a few. You have to recognize that you can't say the idea you disdain or hate (enough to spend a decent amount of what you strongly suspect is a finite and diminishing amount of time that you have to exist in opposing) isn't in fact true. Couple that with people you meet claiming experiential truth and furthering the cause of that thought...it's a fairly strong explanation for your activity and the nature of it.


I don't have faith in anything
You likely have faith in all sorts of things. Your faith may be based in experiences of various sorts that cannot confirm the truth of a thing but strongly support it, but that's life.


Oh, hi again. Please tell me how I have scripture wrong.
Talking about scripture with you would be as pointless as talking about aerodynamic principles to a member of a cargo cult.

Stuu
July 22nd, 2017, 10:10 AM
You have to recognize that you can't say the idea you disdain or hate (enough to spend a decent amount of what you strongly suspect is a finite and diminishing amount of time that you have to exist in opposing) isn't in fact true.
It's not true that there are any gods.

Couple that with people you meet claiming experiential truth and furthering the cause of that thought...it's a fairly strong explanation for your activity and the nature of it.
Those claiming 'experiential truth' are deluded. You can make conclusions about what is most likely to be true based on your observations, but even that must be treated very carefully. Those who claim they know a god exists because they felt a spirit, or saw an apparition, or can't explain the diversity of life on earth are almost certainly deluding themselves. These are the lessons of science, which gives us the highest quality of knowledge we possess, because of those skeptical attitudes.


You likely have faith in all sorts of things. Your faith may be based in experiences of various sorts that cannot confirm the truth of a thing but strongly support it, but that's life.
I do things on trust, but that involves a relationship which is based on evidence. I can't think of a single thing I do that requires faith. I have thought about it, and discussed it with other ToLers in the past, and they couldn't think of anything either.

Talking about scripture with you would be as pointless as talking about aerodynamic principles to a member of a cargo cult.
You're still waiting for that special cargo to arrive then, the one that hasn't been back for 2000 years despite all the air traffic control towers and attempts at radio contact, er, I mean churches and praying and stuff.

Stuart

Town Heretic
July 22nd, 2017, 10:45 AM
It's not true that there are any gods.
A statement you can't make rationally. And if the basis for your complaint is irrational you're no better (by your own light) than someone who believes there are.


Those claiming 'experiential truth' are deluded.
No more objective or true than your attempt at negation.


You can make conclusions about what is most likely to be true based on your observations
About many things, certainly, and even then you have to allow, rationally, that your observations might lead you to a mistaken conclusion.


Those who claim they know a god exists because they felt a spirit, or saw an apparition, or can't explain the diversity of life on earth are almost certainly deluding themselves.
Without even approaching the standard for your "almost" its utterance, metaphorically, unhorses your initial answer and makes my point.


These are the lessons of science, which gives us the highest quality of knowledge we possess, because of those skeptical attitudes.
Science is mute on the question of God. Empiricism is necessarily mute on it. Like trying to measure joy with a ruler. Simply outside its function and methodological capacity.


I do things on trust, but that involves a relationship which is based on evidence.
Evidence is often experience. There are likely any number of things you don't understand that function daily in your living and going about. You take those things on a measure of faith. How much you know or don't understand about them speaks to the measure.


I can't think of a single thing I do that requires faith.
Making plans, for one. Any number. If you try harder you'll see it.


I have thought about it, and discussed it with other ToLers in the past, and they couldn't think of anything either.
Then all of you should have thought about it more.


You're still waiting for that special cargo to arrive then
No, he arrived for me years ago in the way that matters to me.

Meanwhile your existence clock keeps ticking down and here you are.

Greg Jennings
July 22nd, 2017, 11:50 AM
How come the Europeans brought diseases that killed native Americans and not the other way around? Were the Europeans dirtier, more disease ridden people?

The Americas were cut off from the rest of the world for the better part of 10,000 years prior to Columbus' "discovery" of the New World. The populations of Africa, Asia, Europe, and even the Pacific had all traded and mixed for thousands of years, and thus had developed at least partial immunities to most illnesses around.

In the New World, smallpox, malaria, certain flu strains, and on and on and on had never been encountered by a single native individual. They had 0 immunity, and therefore a bottlenecking happened when they were exposed: most individuals died off, while the ones that survived were hardier and more disease resistant than the ones that had died, and they passed on their genes

exminister
July 22nd, 2017, 12:22 PM
Evidence is often experience. There are likely any number of things you don't understand that function daily in your living and going about. You take those things on a measure of faith. How much you know or don't understand about them speaks to the measure.


Making plans, for one. Any number. If you try harder you'll see it.


Then all of you should have thought about it more.


No, he arrived for me years ago in the way that matters to me.

Meanwhile your existence clock keeps ticking down and here you are.


I am always interested in the topic of faith, but many (not sure you are included in that TH) blend expectations and faith, which are not the same. Expecting my car to start in the morning is not faith but expectation. Faith is believing in things unseen and many times contrary to evidence. The stories of faith bear that out. In this life the faithful go on the promise and not the expectation the reward will ever be here and now. As Jesus plainly said His Kingdom is not of this world. The prosperity gospel is a false gospel.

Jonahdog
July 22nd, 2017, 12:48 PM
The Americas were cut off from the rest of the world for the better part of 10,000 years prior to Columbus' "discovery" of the New World. The populations of Africa, Asia, Europe, and even the Pacific had all traded and mixed for thousands of years, and thus had developed at least partial immunities to most illnesses around.

In the New World, smallpox, malaria, certain flu strains, and on and on and on had never been encountered by a single native individual. They had 0 immunity, and therefore a bottlenecking happened when they were exposed: most individuals died off, while the ones that survived were hardier and more disease resistant than the ones that had died, and they passed on their genes

sounds good to me

Lon
July 22nd, 2017, 01:56 PM
But did your nose start to grow once you started typing the bit about not having the well-being rest of the rest of mankind as a concern?? Once you have read even some of the writings of Saul of Tarsus, and the gospel writers (whoever they were) you would have to conclude that christianity is the most bitterly self-serving philosophy ever devised. I don't think it matters how self-serving I might appear to you, christianity trumps me for that just about every time.


It was my last attempt to have a normal conversation with you. Bye now.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2017, 02:17 PM
Ask the native south Americans. They wore clothes and had magnificent cities. The Spanish, on behalf of king and cross destroyed the cultures and the cities.

The native Americans also had constant tribal wars, human sacrifice,(some tribes) and most were very cruel.

The misfortune of the native peoples could have been an act of God. (Maybe)

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2017, 02:22 PM
Evolution is a matter of fact, then God created.



Isaiah 43:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isaiah%2043.10). "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

Stuu
July 22nd, 2017, 04:54 PM
It was my last attempt to have a normal conversation with you. Bye now.
Were you attempting that previously?

Stuart

Stuu
July 22nd, 2017, 05:45 PM
A statement you can't make rationally. And if the basis for your complaint is irrational you're no better (by your own light) than someone who believes there are.
And indeed I wasn't going for 'better', just equivalent. In terms of epistemology, and especially by the standards of today, the existence of gods is claimed by bald assertion. So any claim made without unambiguous evidence can be dismissed without unambiguous evidence. And indeed you can't disprove the existence of anything, which is why there exists the badly named 'burden of proof'. So, it is a kind of scientific fact that gods don't exist because there is no unambiguous evidence for them, but of course that is provisional on the appearance of further evidence. Do you have any?

In previous discussions on the question here on ToL, I have set the boundary much lower, and invited whatever kind of reasons for believing that anyone would like to raise. Once the discussion has got beyond 'you would never accept any evidence I gave', it always turns out that the reasons given are not convincing to me, and I present myself as a reasonable person in this. Not reasonable by the moronic level of delusion some christians seem to spend most of their time in (I'm not thinking of you here, naturally) but reasonable in the sense of someone who is not going to perversely deny things that clearly have merit.
So far, nothing. But the invitation is always extended...

Without even approaching the standard for your "almost" its utterance, metaphorically, unhorses your initial answer and makes my point.
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means, but I celebrate your use of 'unhorses'!

Science is mute on the question of God. Empiricism is necessarily mute on it. Like trying to measure joy with a ruler. Simply outside its function and methodological capacity.
That sounds very convenient.

Two points:

1. It is pretty clear that the only mechanism for constructing meaningful knowledge is through information received through the senses. So you have some kind of sensory input, be it listening to bible fables read to you, or you have some experience that you analyse. Well, sensory input followed by analysis is at the core of the scientific method, so the means by which people come to believe in sky friends is a scientific question.

2. I've never heard of a theistic belief system where the god in question does not interfere physically in the universe, so now we are in the realm of physical evidence, the collection of which is part of the scientific method.

So I think you still have your work before you to establish that science cannot pronounce on the existence of a god. The only principle against it is the one that fearful believers have invented.

Evidence is often experience. There are likely any number of things you don't understand that function daily in your living and going about. You take those things on a measure of faith. How much you know or don't understand about them speaks to the measure. Making plans, for one. Any number. If you try harder you'll see it.
Part of the problem is the word 'faith'. You might not agree with my definition. But since the usual response is Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen I think I can claim that faith excludes activities where evidence has been 'seen' (or sensed physically), and actually I make plans on the basis of evidence for the likely outcome of the planning process.

So thank you for your contribution, but the total remains zero.

Stuu: You're still waiting for that special cargo to arrive then

No, he arrived for me years ago in the way that matters to me.
He is your Prince Philip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement), perhaps.

Meanwhile your existence clock keeps ticking down and here you are.
Indeed it does, and I am. And for both of us there is nothing we can do about the former.

Stuart

Town Heretic
July 23rd, 2017, 12:35 AM
And indeed I wasn't going for 'better', just equivalent. In terms of epistemology, and especially by the standards of today, the existence of gods is claimed by bald assertion. So any claim made without unambiguous evidence can be dismissed without unambiguous evidence. And indeed you can't disprove the existence of anything, which is why there exists the badly named 'burden of proof'. So, it is a kind of scientific fact that gods don't exist because there is no unambiguous evidence for them, but of course that is provisional on the appearance of further evidence. Do you have any?
I've always said to anyone who asked for proof, sure, give me the empirical standard that if met would settle the point.

The problem being that it simply and demonstrably isn't a thing empiricism can address. So it is necessarily a philosophical, subjective, and experiential matter. Meaning faith will always be at the heart of it, because objective certainty isn't possible.


I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means, but I celebrate your use of 'unhorses'!
It could have used another comma, but the short of it is that when you say almost you undo any blanket statement of denial. So you can't say "almost" and also say "there is no". Either you hold an absolute or you recognize its absence. I spoke to why that was important prior.


That sounds very convenient.
For whom? Certainly not for anyone who would prefer to settle the question for everyone...which should be just about anyone.


Two points:

1. It is pretty clear that the only mechanism for constructing meaningful knowledge is through information received through the senses.
Spoken like a true empiricist, but not like a rationalist or mathematician.


2. I've never heard of a theistic belief system where the god in question does not interfere physically in the universe, so now we are in the realm of physical evidence, the collection of which is part of the scientific method.
Doesn't help. Mechanism isn't proof of or against God. All theistic claims go to origin and we're back to square one. Now if I tell you I can heal the sick with a power given to me by God that's another thing entirely.


Part of the problem is the word 'faith'. You might not agree with my definition. But since the usual response is Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen I think I can claim that faith excludes activities where evidence has been 'seen' (or sensed physically), and actually I make plans on the basis of evidence for the likely outcome of the planning process.
We have faith in outcomes that have not yet transpired. Faith is the willingness to stand on God's promises which have yet to come to fruition, but there's more to it. It doesn't follow that it stands on nothing. Your own plans require a measure of faith and for much the same reason. Now you may believe yourself more assured in whatever it is you've fashioned as an idea for any number of reasons beginning with your belief that you know yourself and can count on your actions where I only suppose my God. Or you may feel your uncertainty greater for any number of reasons, beginning with an unwillingness to count on the day that might not certainly come, and count mine greater even as you fail to value it. But faith isn't and shouldn't be confused with wishing or a want of any experience in founding, as only those who believe in God will put their faith in His word and those have an experience of Him that is at the center of that faith.

No one just believes. If they tell you they do then they haven't thought it through.

Stuu
July 23rd, 2017, 01:27 AM
I've always said to anyone who asked for proof, sure, give me the empirical standard that if met would settle the point.
Why would it have to be empirical? My only criterion is 'be convincing to a reasonable skeptic'. That's me.


The problem being that it simply and demonstrably isn't a thing empiricism can address. So it is necessarily a philosophical, subjective, and experiential matter. Meaning faith will always be at the heart of it, because objective certainty isn't possible.
I have never required 'objective certainty' of anyone on any topic. You would have to talk to other religious believers about their dedication to that concept.

You have not given a reason why empirical evidence is not applicable. As I have stated before, there is a photograph of Charles Darwin on the cover of my copy of Origin of the Species. Why is there not a photograph of any author on the cover of the Judeo-christian scriptures? I am prepared to accept that there is a proper reason for that, but what exactly is it? Was it written before the advent of photography, and are the authors all now dead? Is the author god shy? Does it not reflect visible light? Does the material the god is made from not interact with electromagnetic radiation? If that is true, how did the god interact with matter to 'create' stuff? You seem to know a lot about this god that is very dull and political, but nothing that is really interesting. At the moment all we have is your assertion about empiricism.

the short of it is that when you say almost you undo any blanket statement of denial. So you can't say "almost" and also say "there is no". Either you hold an absolute or you recognize its absence. I spoke to why that was important prior.
But you know there is a god, right? If you do, then I know there isn't. If you have in mind a probability about whether a god exists, then so do I. Then we have a real topic of conversation.

Mechanism isn't proof of or against God. All theistic claims go to origin and we're back to square one. Now if I tell you I can heal the sick with a power given to me by God that's another thing entirely.
Huh?

We have faith in outcomes that have not yet transpired. Our salvation and the life to come is central to this, so faith is the willingness to stand on God's promises which have yet to come to fruition. It doesn't follow that it stand on nothing.
So why are you so coy about trying to be convincing about it?


Your own plans require a measure of faith and for much the same reason. Now you may believe yourself more assured in whatever it is you've fashioned as an idea for any number of reasons beginning with your belief that you know yourself and can count on your actions where I only suppose my God. Or you may feel your uncertainty greater for any number of reasons, beginning with an unwillingness to count on the day that might not certainly come, and count mine greater even as you fail to value it. But faith isn't and shouldn't be confused with wishing or a want of any experience in founding, as only those who believe in God will put their faith in His word and those have an experience of Him that is at the center of that faith.
Faith is the 'evidence of the unseen', right? Well I think unseen evidence is an oxymoron, and I don't see it as a virtue that you claim to do things on 'unseen'evidence.


No one just believes. If they tell you they do then they haven't thought it through.
I think you have identified there the reason for anyone believing in christianity.

Stuart

Greg Jennings
July 23rd, 2017, 01:45 AM
Misunderstanding.....in regards to my pre-edited post here

Town Heretic
July 23rd, 2017, 09:04 AM
Why would it have to be empirical? My only criterion is 'be convincing to a reasonable skeptic'. That's me.
Why? Because without it the whole thing is simply another subjective exercise.


You have not given a reason why empirical evidence is not applicable.
I've done so numerous times in the past and you've been party to them. The challenge is a short hand way of illustrating why. It's why you will never and no one has ever answered it with a litmus that met could settle the point. And if you don't really know what would suffice empirically you don't really know what it is you're asking for, or what you're asking for is something else, supra.


As I have stated before, there is a photograph of Charles Darwin on the cover of my copy of Origin of the Species. Why is there not a photograph of any author on the cover of the Judeo-christian scriptures?
And the photo makes all the difference does it? Makes any difference then? Just so. What reasonable man would believe or deny him on the existence of that photo? And that is its value.


You seem to know a lot about this god that is very dull and political, but nothing that is really interesting. At the moment all we have is your assertion about empiricism.
You have a bit more than an assertion, you have a puzzle you can't solve that underscores it. Beyond that, your interest is your own. I'm disinterested in it.


But you know there is a god, right? If you do, then I know there isn't.
No, it doesn't follow that your lack of experience is the rough equal of experience. Now you can doubt the experience of another to be sure, but that's another thing than the one you're attempting.


Huh?
I can't be more specific if you aren't.


So why are you so coy about trying to be convincing about it?
Coy is like beauty or a goodly sized plank. It's mostly in your eye.


Faith is the 'evidence of the unseen', right? Well I think unseen evidence is an oxymoron, and I don't see it as a virtue that you claim to do things on 'unseen'evidence.
That you're stepping around what I said to say what you already did illustrates the level and nature of your bias and little else.


I think you have identified there the reason for anyone believing in christianity.
I think you need to think about what I actually said more, on the whole, and use it less frequently as a pause before you say something else.

Stuu
July 24th, 2017, 01:55 AM
Stuu: Why would it have to be empirical? My only criterion is 'be convincing to a reasonable skeptic'. That's me.

Why? Because without it the whole thing is simply another subjective exercise.
Stuu: You have not given a reason why empirical evidence is not applicable.

I've done so numerous times in the past and you've been party to them. The challenge is a short hand way of illustrating why. It's why you will never and no one has ever answered it with a litmus that met could settle the point. And if you don't really know what would suffice empirically you don't really know what it is you're asking for, or what you're asking for is something else, supra.
I know exactly what I am asking for. What are you stalling for? You might be unwilling to try to convince, which is your prerogative of course, but it makes your criticisms very hollow. Or perhaps you don't think you can be convincing, in which case I suggest you might reflect on how you can continue to convince yourself.

And the photo makes all the difference does it? Makes any difference then? Just so. What reasonable man would believe or deny him on the existence of that photo? And that is its value.
No, it's not the photograph itself, it's the reasons for its absence. That's the important factor, but the question is treated with derision by the religiously deluded because they have never been asked to think in that way. And now you are rehearsing all those canards yourself. The god isn't answerable to the demands of empirical evidence etc. But you still have not explained why your god cannot be photographed. The point of the question is very clear. There is fantastic hypocrisy in claiming to know your god's wishes well enough to be able to tell other people exactly what it demands of them, but on the other hand suddenly not knowing even basic things about the god like its appearance, location, composition, abilities to manipulate matter and so forth. That is hugely convenient for people with ambition for power over others without wanting to go through the effort of earning the right to that power: a kind of bullying to gain influence of the gullible. Not nice.


You have a bit more than an assertion, you have a puzzle you can't solve that underscores it.
Huh? What puzzle? I think it's all very obvious.


No, it doesn't follow that your lack of experience is the rough equal of experience. Now you can doubt the experience of another to be sure, but that's another thing than the one you're attempting.
Nothing has changed. You have nothing but assertion, whether it is yours or your unthinking adherence to someone else's. There is a god, but it is so important that no one has the right to question its existence. Or, I fear what the god will do if I allow people to think about it. Or, I fear what will happen to society if the bubble of myth is allowed to burst. Or, I fear that my ability to influence others will diminish if the spell is broken.

But all that is vulnerable to the simple assertion that it's not true. Meantime, you are claiming this is a being that has created (by what exact means you don't seem to be able to say) the entire universe and yet you say that unambiguous empirical traces of that are inapplicable to determining the existence of this being. That's fatuous nonsense for the uncritical. I'd appreciate if it you refrained from insulting me in that way.

Stuart

Jonahdog
July 24th, 2017, 05:34 AM
The native Americans also had constant tribal wars, human sacrifice,(some tribes) and most were very cruel.

The misfortune of the native peoples could have been an act of God. (Maybe)

And western Europe was often embroiled in religious wars and if you were on the wrong-god side with respect to the monarch you might be burned at the stake.
Which burning at the stake was an act of your god (maybe)?

Town Heretic
July 24th, 2017, 10:15 AM
I know exactly what I am asking for.
That's great, so long as what you're looking for is rational and reduces to a meaningful and objective litmus, one that when met must compel a rational being to accept it, without regard for their bias or perspective---using a repeatable, verifiable methodology in approach. If there isn't (and there isn't, which is why you're trying this instead of answering on the litmus) your objections are no more compelling or different in kind than the proffer of a street corner evangelical would be from an opposing perspective.

On the point of tricks.

No, it's not the photograph itself, it's the reasons for its absence.
You mean your supposition in relation. Show me a photograph of everything. If you can't it doesn't exist. Better yet, forget the side bar and try cobbling that litmus that makes your question meaningfully different from any other subjective approach or assumptive stab at negation.


That's the important factor, but the question is treated with derision by the religiously deluded because they have never been asked to think in that way.
That's just an insult stretched out to look like a meaningful statement, which is funny considering your "I'd appreciate if it you refrained from insulting me in that way" conclusion, as well as your sensitivity to derision.


And now you are rehearsing all those canards yourself. The god isn't answerable to the demands of empirical evidence etc.
Rather, I've invited the empirical and you're opening a can of ham. You can't cobble the standard. And the reason you can't is, as I noted prior, it isn't suited to the approach.


But you still have not explained why your god cannot be photographed.
Or weighed. Or been seen riding a unicycle. "Cannot" is your presumption. The answer is, "What God could you be talking about?" And until we answer that question the rest is distraction. If you can't meet the need for creating the standard, piling subsequent and contingent challenges over that is simply the rational equivalent of camouflage .


The point of the question is very clear. There is fantastic hypocrisy in claiming to know your god's wishes well enough to be able to tell other people exactly what it demands of them, but on the other hand suddenly not knowing even basic things about the god like its appearance, location, composition, abilities to manipulate matter and so forth.
A lot of entangled confusion in that, stuu. Hypocrisy would be found in acting contrary to a thing you know. It wouldn't be hypocritical to be unable to do something that can't be done or know something that can't be known. Basic things? I know His nature. I know the implications and promises that attend it. Those are basics in relation to the questions. Asking for a photograph (you're a few thousand years late on that manifestation) is just stuff and nonsense avoiding the one task you have that makes your objection/inquiry different from any subjective approach. And no one who believes in the God who created the universe is unsure about His ability in relation to matter.


That is hugely convenient for people with ambition for power over others
How men can use a thing doesn't have much to do with the thing itself, unless the thing itself is created for the use, which takes us right back to the only real question and litmus that matters.


Huh? What puzzle? I think it's all very obvious.
No, you don't. The puzzle is the empirical, objective litmus. And the obvious thing attending is your inability to meet/create it.


Nothing has changed. You have nothing but assertion
Rather, all you have is the testimony/assertions of those who do believe against the assertions and want of experience you possess. The adherent has more, but that more isn't something you're interested in accepting as truth, which is certainly your right. And the Christian has encountered the means to test the hypothesis, but you want something else. It's an impasse of your own creation, but impasse it remains.


There is a god, but it is so important that no one has the right to question its existence.
Question away. I've never told you not to.


Or, I fear what the god will do if I allow people to think about it.
I think you're talking about some notion you have in your head, which is also funny, when you consider your position.


Or, I fear what will happen to society if the bubble of myth is allowed to burst.
When you say "bubble myth" all you really do is underscore that you aren't really approaching the question objectively, that you arrive with a pretty hard set assumption that will preclude anything short of the litmus you can't manage.


Or, I fear that my ability to influence others will diminish if the spell is broken.
What influence? Are you talking about or to the leaders of flocks? I imagine they'd do something else and that their worry would be something else unless they were rascals, in which case who cares about their worries?


But all that is vulnerable to the simple assertion that it's not true.
No idea why you believe that, but it does provided a measure of insight, so thanks.


Meantime, you are claiming this is a being that has created (by what exact means you don't seem to be able to say) the entire universe
No one can say what means exactly. There are few compelling theories.


and yet you say that unambiguous empirical traces of that are inapplicable to determining the existence of this being.
What I actually said was that if the question is God and you want proof then you have to understand what proof would objectively, empirically settle the question. So far, not a single soul asking for proof and making empirical objection has managed to understand and relate what they're really asking for.

If that standard/litmus doesn't establish the empirically and independently verifiable truth then all your talk of the empirical or objective reduces to is a masque for a particular subjective desire and litmus. In which case I refer you to the manual. It's in there.


That's fatuous nonsense for the uncritical.
That's an insult pretending to be meaningful. You should slap a question mark on the end of it and complete the cycle of nonsense.


I'd appreciate if it you refrained from insulting me in that way.
Funny for the reasons noted above.

patrick jane
July 24th, 2017, 12:05 PM
Town just owned Stuu

Ktoyou
July 24th, 2017, 04:20 PM
Ran out of your adhd meds?

He was speaking to me about some parrots we had known. These parrots did not know if cracker, or Polly gave them an award. They were all atheists because none of them knew what death was, or why they would care to ponder its meaning.

This led me to believe God does not judge parrots, as they are born in perfection, above all humans.

ok doser
July 24th, 2017, 07:16 PM
Town just owned Stuu

Hopefully it's a trial period and he can still return him

patrick jane
July 24th, 2017, 07:22 PM
Ask the native south Americans. They wore clothes and had magnificent cities. The Spanish, on behalf of king and cross destroyed the cultures and the cities.So do the N. Koreans. - they wore clothes :rotfl:

Stuu
July 25th, 2017, 03:16 AM
That's great, so long as what you're looking for is rational and reduces to a meaningful and objective litmus, one that when met must compel a rational being to accept it, without regard for their bias or perspective---using a repeatable, verifiable methodology in approach. If there isn't (and there isn't, which is why you're trying this instead of answering on the litmus) your objections are no more compelling or different in kind than the proffer of a street corner evangelical would be from an opposing perspective.
Nope, I've got absolutely no idea how that works logically. It looks like one big fat strawman, one that has hands over its ears and is shouting, in Strawish, 'I can't hear you'.

Maybe I should ask Patrick Jane what you mean, he seems to be a big fan of your rhetoric.


You mean your supposition in relation. Show me a photograph of everything. If you can't it doesn't exist. Better yet, forget the side bar and try cobbling that litmus that makes your question meaningfully different from any other subjective approach or assumptive stab at negation.
You seem to be arguing with me about me being interested in any reason, not just empirical evidence, and you are applying that same strawman to this separate request for reasons why a photograph isn't an appropriate request. You can tell the difference, right?

I can't show you a photograph of Baal because as far as I can tell, Baal doesn't exist and non-existent things don't bear photographing. I can't show you a photograph of the teapot that Bertrand Russell claimed is in orbit because it is a reasonable conclusion that there is no such teapot, and non-existent teapots are resistant to imaging. I can't show you a photograph of doubt, even though I could show you a photograph of a person's doubtful expression or a scan showing the bits of the brain that 'light up' when doubt is being contemplated, because doubt itself is an abstract concept, and that makes it a poor subject for forming a concrete image.

So, is your god resistant to photographing because it is an abstract noun (in which case how does it manipulate matter?), or is it shy, or is it not photographable because, as far as we can tell, it doesn't exist and so the Baal argument applies?

Stuu: That's the important factor, but the question is treated with derision by the religiously deluded because they have never been asked to think in that way.

That's just an insult stretched out to look like a meaningful statement, which is funny considering your "I'd appreciate if it you refrained from insulting me in that way" conclusion, as well as your sensitivity to derision.
You seem to be identifying yourself with the term 'religiously deluded'. Why did you take that on? I would be happy for you to have excluded yourself. Your case would have been better still if you had not then posted this overall response, a load of beautifully crafted waffle.

Rather, I've invited the empirical and you're opening a can of ham. You can't cobble the standard. And the reason you can't is, as I noted prior, it isn't suited to the approach.
I never insisted on empirical evidence, I asked you to be convincing. I agree that unambigous empirical evidence is very convincing, but I am a reasonable person, although skeptical and one that demands high standards of explanation. I think you have no power to convince, and your ability to convince yourself is paper thin. Why do you really believe the way you do?

Stuu: But you still have not explained why your god cannot be photographed.


Asking for a photograph (you're a few thousand years late on that manifestation)
So this god looked like Jesus, in your opinion, but unfortunately photography wasn't available. Now you have made some progress. Does that mean the god can only be photographed when it has appeared in human form during the time since the invention of photography? What makes it unavailable at other times?


And no one who believes in the God who created the universe is unsure about His ability in relation to matter.
I wasn't really asking you about beliefs. I was asking you about how you can reconcile the two positions of exquisite knowledge and profound ignorance, separated exactly by the interface of moral judgment and practical explanation.


How men can use a thing doesn't have much to do with the thing itself, unless the thing itself is created for the use, which takes us right back to the only real question and litmus that matters.
Yep, that is my proposition. The god was created by power-hungry humans. Or indeed for the benefit of weak tribal leaders who needed a big imaginary stick to wield.


No, you don't. The puzzle is the empirical, objective litmus. And the obvious thing attending is your inability to meet/create it.
You are the only one who seems to care about that. Why do you?

Rather, all you have is the testimony/assertions of those who do believe against the assertions and want of experience you possess. The adherent has more, but that more isn't something you're interested in accepting as truth, which is certainly your right.
Poor me. How little of your real world I have encountered for myself.


And the Christian has encountered the means to test the hypothesis, but you want something else.
Yep, let's wait for Jesus to come again.

Still waiting...

Stuu: Or, I fear what the god will do if I allow people to think about it.

I think you're talking about some notion you have in your head, which is also funny, when you consider your position.
I was thinking more of the likes of 1 Timothy 6:20-21.

Stuu: Or, I fear what will happen to society if the bubble of myth is allowed to burst.

When you say "bubble myth" all you really do is underscore that you aren't really approaching the question objectively, that you arrive with a pretty hard set assumption that will preclude anything short of the litmus you can't manage.
If you think that the geo-political scenario currently does not include bubbles of myth, then that explains why often you can't give coherent answers to simple questions.

Not sure why you keep referring to litmus. What is that supposed to be a metaphor for? My inability to ask you a question you are willing to answer?

Stuu: Or, I fear that my ability to influence others will diminish if the spell is broken.

What influence?
Fair point.

Stuu: But all that is vulnerable to the simple assertion that it's not true.

No idea why you believe that, but it does provided a measure of insight, so thanks.
Why would you respond to the assertion at all, against the demands of scripture, if the counter-assertion didn't make it vulnerable?


No one can say what means exactly.
Is that because there is no unambiguous evidence?


There are few compelling theories.
Go on, humour us then.


What I actually said was that if the question is God and you want proof then you have to understand what proof would objectively, empirically settle the question.
Sure, that is what I have been asking you for all along. Great, let's have it: what proof would objectively, empirically settle the question?


So far, not a single soul asking for proof and making empirical objection has managed to understand and relate what they're really asking for.
You tell me what I am asking for then. I have tried, but you don't seem to believe me.


If that standard/litmus doesn't establish the empirically and independently verifiable truth then all your talk of the empirical or objective reduces to is a masque for a particular subjective desire and litmus. In which case I refer you to the manual. It's in there.
You are the one doing all the talking about empirical and objective. Not me. Reading this is like listening to Gollum having a conversation with himself in the third person.

Stuu: I'd appreciate if it you refrained from insulting me in that way.

Funny for the reasons noted above.
Tell me how I may further amuse you by the same means.

Stuart

patrick jane
July 25th, 2017, 04:17 AM
Stuu just owned Town

Town Heretic
July 25th, 2017, 11:06 AM
Nope, I've got absolutely no idea how that works logically. It looks like one big fat strawman, one that has hands over its ears and is shouting, in Strawish, 'I can't hear you'.
It looks the way it logically is, your emotional reaction to it notwithstanding. If you can't find the empirical measure then all your posturing amounts to nothing more than a subjective reaction and you might as well be the guy on the street corner you likely find offensive.


Maybe I should ask Patrick Jane what you mean, he seems to be a big fan of your rhetoric.
Leave the windsock out of it. I don't care who you ask. But I do care how you answer and so far you're stamping foot a lot.


You seem to be arguing with me about me being interested in any reason
Your "seem" is a lot like your argument, wanting support.

I've been perfectly clear about it. Either there's an objective, empirical (or other equally objective) litmus to meet or there isn't. The isn't underscores the insufficiency of empiricism (or other objective approaches) and the inherently subjective nature of our approach to the question of God.


I can't show you a photograph of Baal
You can't show me a photograph of all sorts of things, existent and non. If I produced a picture of a resurrected Jesus walking across my pond I'm betting that would only begin all sorts of additional challenges and questions that wouldn't settle a thing.

So we're right back to settling. If you want proof you should understand what would suffice. And for the what would suffice to be meaningful beyond your subjectivity it would have to be empirically (or otherwise objectively) verifiable and the means methodologically reproduceable.

What's that litmus again? If you can't name it you can't be satisfied and the question/challenge isn't meaningful.


I never insisted on empirical evidence
When you insist on proof you by and large are absent some other means of objective verification on the point, which you also fail to produce as a standard.


Stuu just owned Town
This is serious business and you're a member of the Body. Playing with it is unseemly, PJ. I'd rather you contribute to the conversation if you think you can improve it or lay off. This is one topic you can't play both sides of without losing both.

patrick jane
July 25th, 2017, 12:53 PM
It looks the way it logically is, your emotional reaction to it notwithstanding. If you can't find the empirical measure then all your posturing amounts to nothing more than a subjective reaction and you might as well be the guy on the street corner you likely find offensive.


Leave the windsock out of it. I don't care who you ask. But I do care how you answer and so far you're stamping foot a lot.


Your "seem" is a lot like your argument, wanting support.

I've been perfectly clear about it. Either there's an objective, empirical (or other equally objective) litmus to meet or there isn't. The isn't underscores the insufficiency of empiricism (or other objective approaches) and the inherently subjective nature of our approach to the question of God.


You can't show me a photograph of all sorts of things, existent and non. If I produced a picture of a resurrected Jesus walking across my pond I'm betting that would only begin all sorts of additional challenges and questions that wouldn't settle a thing.

So we're right back to settling. If you want proof you should understand what would suffice. And for the what would suffice to be meaningful beyond your subjectivity it would have to be empirically (or otherwise objectively) verifiable and the means methodologically reproduceable.

What's that litmus again? If you can't name it you can't be satisfied and the question/challenge isn't meaningful.


When you insist on proof you by and large are absent some other means of objective verification on the point, which you also fail to produce as a standard.


This is serious business and you're a member of the Body. Playing with it is unseemly, PJ. I'd rather you contribute to the conversation if you think you can improve it or lay off. This is one topic you can't play both sides of without losing both.Ok windbag

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 01:49 PM
town, to PJ:



This is serious business ....



you sir, are a retard

good day to you

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 04:41 PM
So, is your god resistant to photographing because it is an abstract noun (in which case how does it manipulate matter?), or is it shy, or is it not photographable because, as far as we can tell, it doesn't exist and so the Baal argument applies?

stuu - what would you expect to see as a photograph of God?

because I can provide you with any number of photographs of God's work, work that only God could do


and i won't even remind you of Gollum when i do it :chuckle:

Town Heretic
July 25th, 2017, 06:23 PM
town, to PJ:
you sir, are a retard

good day to you
You put your obsession with me over your faith. Why doesn't that surprise me.


Ok windbag
Way to prioritize, kid.

You know what, get off the sideline and see what you can do. I won't even short change your efforts.

Sorry Stuu. You have the challenge and as much answer on the point as I can give you without your meeting it. Good luck with Humpty and Dumpty.

patrick jane
July 25th, 2017, 07:19 PM
You put your obsession with me over your faith. Why doesn't that surprise me.


Way to prioritize, kid.

You know what, get off the sideline and see what you can do. I won't even short change your efforts.

Sorry Stuu. You have the challenge and as much answer on the point as I can give you without your meeting it. Good luck with Humpty and DumI have given up trying to convince people that God is real. The best proof I have is the Holy Bible, God's word, and if someone doesn't accept the Bible as truth it's pointless to discuss it with them. I'm done giving effort for a while, I'm tired of thinking and working and I don't feel inspired.

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 07:32 PM
Why doesn't that surprise me.


Because you're a retard :duh:

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 07:33 PM
I have given up trying to convince people that God is real. The best proof I have is the Holy Bible, God's word, and if someone doesn't accept the Bible as truth it's pointless to discuss it with them. I'm done giving effort for a while, I'm tired of thinking and working and I don't feel inspired.

Town thinks that by making convoluted arguments he can persuade stuu of God's existence :dizzy:

Town Heretic
July 25th, 2017, 07:53 PM
I have given up trying to convince people that God is real.
I'm not. Stuu has his mind made up. I'm just denying him the goofy notion that anti-theists hold the rational high ground. They don't.

The best proof I have is the Holy Bible, God's word, and if someone doesn't accept the Bible as truth it's pointless to discuss it with them.


I don't agree with that as a rule. It really depends on the individual. Some, like CS Lewis, come to the faith by a thousand small considerations that mass. God uses all sorts of approaches. I don't discount them. There's even room for everything from gentle example to sinners in the hands of an angry God.



I'm done giving effort for a while, I'm tired of thinking and working and I don't feel inspired.
Okay, I can understand that, but how about don't muddy the water for workers who aren't.

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 07:59 PM
I'm not. Stuu has his mind made up. I'm just denying him the goofy notion that anti-theists hold the rational high ground. They don't.

That may well be true, but you're not helping your cause with your labored and convoluted argumentation


Not when stuu can make an effective rebuttal by comparing you to gollum arguing with Smeagle

glorydaz
July 25th, 2017, 08:02 PM
Town thinks that by making convoluted arguments he can persuade stuu of God's existence :dizzy:

He puts a lot of stock in his persuasive abilities, that's for sure. :chuckle:

Town Heretic
July 25th, 2017, 08:04 PM
Glory is here? Then I just know that she is giving Stuu something to chew on in defense of the faith and not continuing to talk about me. Because surely she has her priorities straight.

Yessiree, she's probably got Stuu reeling.

I'm an optimist. :D

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 08:12 PM
..... how about don't muddy the water for workers who aren't.


And if those "workers" are desperately in need of instruction from those who actually know how to do the job and aren't just interested in satisfying their own ego?

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 08:13 PM
Glory is here? Then I just know that she is giving Stuu something to chew on in defense of the faith and not continuing to talk about me. Because surely she has her priorities straight.

Yessiree, she's probably got Stuu reeling.

I'm an optimist. :D

You misspelled "obsessed"


And are still, ten years in, clueless about the concept of ignore :chuckle:

Town Heretic
July 25th, 2017, 08:16 PM
You misspelled "obsessed"
That's because I give as much thought to spelling as you do to your posts.

Speaking of pointless objections:



Poor poor town

Prepare to be disappointed tomorrow :(
Man, you must live in a different calendar zone. :Plain: :eek:

After this on the 19th...

And if i go into town tonight where they have real computers, I'll be glad to show why the rest of your self serving nonsense is just that :wave:

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 08:28 PM
Awwww - you're still waiting


Isn't that cute? :chuckle:

Town Heretic
July 25th, 2017, 08:39 PM
Awwww - you're still waiting
You think I thought you could, let alone would back your play? :chuckle:




And if i go into town tonight where they have real computers, I'll be glad to show why the rest of your self serving nonsense is just that
:guitar: And "We'll have a good time then, son. You know we'll have a good time then." :eek: Or, sure, take all the time you need to try to find an actual answer and by all means cobble whatever time-buying excuse you need in the meanwhile.

ok doser
July 25th, 2017, 11:00 PM
You think I thought you could, let alone would back your play? :chuckle:

As i said, town, prepare to be disappointed

Prolly again tomorrow :darwinsm:




Hey town!

How do you keep a retard in suspense?

Stuu
July 26th, 2017, 03:04 AM
stuu - what would you expect to see as a photograph of God?

because I can provide you with any number of photographs of God's work, work that only God could do


and i won't even remind you of Gollum when i do it :chuckle:
Too precioussess for photographessess...

Stuart

Stuu
July 26th, 2017, 03:33 AM
It looks the way it logically is, your emotional reaction to it notwithstanding. If you can't find the empirical measure then all your posturing amounts to nothing more than a subjective reaction and you might as well be the guy on the street corner you likely find offensive.
I thought you might be the guy to help me find the measure.

I've been perfectly clear about it. Either there's an objective, empirical (or other equally objective) litmus to meet or there isn't.
Can you be clear on what it is?

The isn't underscores the insufficiency of empiricism (or other objective approaches) and the inherently subjective nature of our approach to the question of God.
So you think empiricism isn't up to the task but subjectivity does it?

Two things then:
* Can you be convincing in a subjective way?
* What is it about the question of the existence of your god that makes a subjective approach more appropriate? Is that god's existence a matter of opinion?

You can't show me a photograph of all sorts of things, existent and non. If I produced a picture of a resurrected Jesus walking across my pond I'm betting that would only begin all sorts of additional challenges and questions that wouldn't settle a thing.
Oh no, not critical inquiry. That would be awful.

So we're right back to settling. If you want proof you should understand what would suffice. And for the what would suffice to be meaningful beyond your subjectivity it would have to be empirically (or otherwise objectively) verifiable and the means methodologically reproduceable.
Why are you telling me what I would or wouldn't believe? Isn't that the point of subjectivity?

I personally think the best argument against the existence of god is an aesthetic one. That is based in both observation and personal taste. Ask me about it some time.

What's that litmus again? If you can't name it you can't be satisfied and the question/challenge isn't meaningful.
Litmus is an extract from a lichen that, when chemically treated responds to changes in hydronium ion concentration by changing colour between red and blue. Can you be as clear about the existence of your god as I can about summarising the chemical nature and behaviour of litmus? Don't forget, I didn't provide any evidence just then. As with the photograph, proper detailed explanations could do it.

But I don't know why you are convinced about your god so I can't know how to ask you to be convincing. Again, all I can conclude from that is you aren't actually convinced yourself.

When you insist on proof you by and large are absent some other means of objective verification on the point, which you also fail to produce as a standard.
I find it amusing that when I post on ToL, and especially when the interlocutor is a creationist, I am always expected to have the highest standards and the best evidence-based responses!

I could have a holiday from that, couldn't I. Maybe I could just baldly assert on every front as is done in scripture and in temples, mosques, synagogues and churches across the world, not just the way I did on the non-existence of gods, but on any topic!

But I do try to set high standards of probity when it's possible.

This is serious business and you're a member of the Body.
Uh oh. Shall I step out for a minute?

Stuart

Stuu
July 26th, 2017, 03:53 AM
I'm not. Stuu has his mind made up. I'm just denying him the goofy notion that anti-theists hold the rational high ground. They don't.
By all means, convince me I'm wrong. Life is always more interesting that way.


The best proof I have is the Holy Bible, God's word, and if someone doesn't accept the Bible as truth it's pointless to discuss it with them.
So it's not really proof, then is it, if it presumes acceptance. It's more like circular logic.

Stuart

Town Heretic
July 26th, 2017, 08:23 AM
I thought you might be the guy to help me find the measure.
I can help you see you're bringing a ruler to a concert to measure the music, but only if you want to understand it.


Can you be clear on what it is?
If you don't know what the litmus is then you can't really be asking for proof. If you just want to be personally convinced then I'd say you can't come to the question believing you have the answer that negates it. Your statements on God and the faithful don't evidence a searcher. You're more a bemused mocker in need of a consistent methodology.


So you think empiricism isn't up to the task but subjectivity does it?
I've demonstrated that Empiricism isn't up to the task. That leaves experience, which is subjective in nature. But that's a useless approach too if you aren't open to it.


Two things then:
* Can you be convincing in a subjective way?
Our subjective need, or the recognition of it always precedes any meaningful intellectual discourse and movement. I don't believe that will happen for you. I suspect that God will have to shake you. You should ask Him to. You don't even have to believe He exists to answer on it. You just have to love the truth, desire the truth, and be willing in that confession to also confess your ultimate ignorance of what that truth is...which is about the most rational statement someone in your position can utter.

In the meantime, I'll love you as Christ loves you, pray for you as men should hope, and desire the best in all things for you.

I think that caps it for me. I went on point for point, but this is really the sum of it and a better place to end my part except for that hope for you, one that may see us meet as brothers in this world or the next.


One other matter.

So it's not really proof, then is it, if it presumes acceptance. It's more like circular logic.

The quote that precedes your answer here isn't mine but appears attributed to me. I'm also a firm believer in proper attribution and would appreciate your editing the post by either attributing it or removing my first part from it.

Stuu
July 26th, 2017, 08:44 AM
I can help you see you're bringing a ruler to a concert to measure the music, but only if you want to understand it.
So you still aren't telling me which is the appropriate 'measure'. What tool would you bring to the concert then?

Have you heard the expression 'Unweaving the rainbow'? It is Keats' accusation that Newton destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to prismatic colours, to which Richard Dawkins (in his book of that title) and others have replied that there is no destruction of the aesthetic involved in scientific analysis, you only add to the experience. Not sure if that applies to your god. It always seems so angry when you read ancient Jewish mythology. Maybe there is beauty in anger, which could be measured with, er, a furiometer?

If you don't know what the litmus is
I don't know what a god is. You're the one making the claim.

I've demonstrated that Empiricism isn't up to the task.
No, you've only ever asserted it.


That leaves experience, which is subjective in nature. But that's a useless approach too if you aren't open to it.
Measuring with a ruler is experience too. And in fact I think I made this point to you earlier: the knowledge you have of this god thing must be sensed, and sensing and analysing for a conclusion is at the centre of the scientific method. I agree that experience is subjective in nature, but science seems to make it work by its checks and balances. Why can't your experiences be subject to that kind of confirmation too? Are you just too special?

Stuu: Can you be convincing in a subjective way?

Our subjective need, or the recognition of it always precedes any meaningful intellectual discourse and movement. I don't believe that will happen for you. I suspect that God will have to shake you. You should ask Him to. You don't even have to believe He exists to answer on it. You just have to love the truth, desire the truth, and be willing in that confession to also confess your ultimate ignorance of what that truth is...which is about the most rational statement someone in your position can utter.
So, no then.

This is circular logic. You assume the existence in the argument for existence.

hope for you, one that may see us meet as brothers in this world or the next.
My preference would be this world. The alternative one promised for the pious appears a miserable prospect.

Stuart

Stuu
July 26th, 2017, 08:59 AM
The quote that precedes your answer here isn't mine but appears attributed to me. I'm also a firm believer in proper attribution and would appreciate your editing the post by either attributing it or removing my first part from it.
Yes, I can see the quoting didn't work out in the format. I am happy to withdraw the remark by stating it here.

Although, my comment still applies to something you did write, I think.

Stuart

Town Heretic
July 26th, 2017, 09:31 AM
So you still aren't telling me which is the appropriate 'measure'. What tool would you bring to the concert then?
I really did and you're all that's needed (no, it really wasn't an insult).


Have you heard the expression 'Unweaving the rainbow'?
I have. It's poetic, but mistaken. I'm about to embark on a teaching career for a third act and I mean to produce poet-astronauts, or mathematical dramatists. :)


It is Keats' accusation that Newton destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to prismatic colours, to which Richard Dawkins (in his book of that title) and others have replied that there is no destruction of the aesthetic involved in scientific analysis, you only add to the experience. Not sure if that applies to your god. It always seems so angry when you read ancient Jewish mythology. Maybe there is beauty in anger, which could be measured with, er, a furiometer?
The OT is both beautiful and horrible, as it's meant to be, as the law was and had to be. And then Christ.


I don't know what a god is. You're the one making the claim.
I'm doing a bit more. I'm telling you how to approach Him. One way, at any rate.


No, you've only ever asserted it.
No, that's not honest and you have to be honest. It's all that you really have as virtue goes. The challenge is proof. Your inability to meet it speaks to the inability of the empirical on the point. It's not an individual criticism, as no one has ever been able to manage it.


Measuring with a ruler is experience too.
In this case a measure of failure and a lesson that not every tool is for every task, which is of some benefit.


And in fact I think I made this point to you earlier: the knowledge you have of this god thing must be sensed, and sensing and analysing for a conclusion is at the centre of the scientific method. I agree that experience is subjective in nature, but science seems to make it work by its checks and balances. Why can't your experiences be subject to that kind of confirmation too? Are you just too special?

I don't goad, really. Else you're just taking another way up the same hill.


Stuu: Can you be convincing in a subjective way?

So, no then.
That's a silly question, Stuu. I already am, only not to you. Which is why you should take my advice on approach if you're interested. If you aren't interested then you have no real complaint and less meaningful inquiry.


This is circular logic. You assume the existence in the argument for existence.
I really don't. Again, you've had the best advice you're going to get on subjective approach. I used a variation on it myself, only I wasn't challenging God to prove anything. I was talking to a couple of friends in the grip of what I thought then was a gentle delusion.

You really have to be careful what you ask for. It's another truth. And good luck with your journey toward it, Stuu.


My preference would be this world. The alternative one promised for the pious appears a miserable prospect.
You're squinting. It happens.

Stuu
July 28th, 2017, 02:37 AM
Have you heard the expression 'Unweaving the rainbow'?
I have. It's poetic, but mistaken. I'm about to embark on a teaching career for a third act and I mean to produce poet-astronauts, or mathematical dramatists.
I wish you well with that.

The OT is both beautiful and horrible, as it's meant to be, as the law was and had to be. And then Christ.
I think people can be shocked that baby Jesus brought the concept of a punishing hell with him.


No, that's not honest and you have to be honest. It's all that you really have as virtue goes. The challenge is proof. Your inability to meet it speaks to the inability of the empirical on the point. It's not an individual criticism, as no one has ever been able to manage it.
Are we talking about proving there are no gods? If you want an answer to that which conforms to the scientific method then it can only be done when testable claims are made for the god. It looks to me that much of the past 2000 years has involved the pruning back of a Judeo-christian god that has been a god of the gaps for many as the various testable claims for it have been refuted with evidence.

From this angle, you can see there are as many Judeo-christian gods as there are believers, with each coming with its own set of imagined qualities. Some of those gods can't be reasonably said to exist because their necessary properties aren't compatible with what we observe. Of course it is always possible to pull out the faith card. But as soon as you claim that the god came to earth in human form and was born of only one parent and walked again after execution, that god is excluded from existence by being incompatible with reality.

That's a silly question, Stuu. I already am, only not to you. Which is why you should take my advice on approach if you're interested. If you aren't interested then you have no real complaint and less meaningful inquiry.
The usual claims of christianity seem to fail even the most basic applications of skepticism. Why should it, if it is so obviously true to so many?

Stuart