Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Religion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Saying things about truth isn't defining it.
    You really don't spend even so much as a second's worth of time reflecting upon what you're writing, do you? I hope, for your sake, that you invested almost no time and/or mental effort into coming up with what you wrote, here. I mean, what an incredibly abysmal, ridiculous thing to say:

    "Saying things about X isn't defining X."
    Amazing!

    So, according to you--whatever (if anything) you imagine it is to define something--to define X is to NOT say anything about X.

    Remember what you said to me:

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    How do you define truth?

    And now, you've just told me that, when you said to me, "How do you define truth?", you were actually requesting me to NOT say anything about truth!

    All right, Professor: Since you wanted me to NOT say anything about truth, then about what were you requesting me to say something when you said to me, "How do you define truth?"

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    At the very least you could have used the dictionary and offered a definition.
    Open whatever source you are referring to, here, as "the dictionary", and find an entry headed by the word, 'truth'. Let me know, Professor Guyver: Is something said about truth, therein? Yes or No?

    If you wish to say that whatever you call "the dictionary" defines truth, then you're just going to have a swell time trying to tell me exactly how it does so WITHOUT SAYING THINGS ABOUT TRUTH.

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    How is it logical to make statements about something that you can't define?
    Notice: I'm not the one idiotically saying that I, 7djengo7, "can't define" truth. On the contrary, I can define, do define, and, in my previous post, have defined, truth. Comprehensively? Of course not! Only an abject idiot could imagine that a finite mind could comprehensively define truth...or comprehensively define anything else, for that matter.

    You, Professor Guyver, are the one idiotically saying--that is to say, making a statement--that I, 7djengo7, "can't define" something about which I "make statements". Would you say it is logical for you, Professor Guyver, to make statements about something which you say that I, 7djengo7, "can't define"?

    And, now, by all means, Professor Guyver, please, oh please, show us exactly how you would go about defining truth WITHOUT SAYING THINGS ABOUT TRUTH. Have fun! (Hehehehe, I wouldn't even be surprised if you require access to a 3D printer in order to try to show us how you imagine you define truth.)

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Wrong. Truth is all around you. You smash your face into a brick wall, it will hurt. That is truth ....

    And yet it can be proven false, and therefore nothing more than a falsifiable belief that may or may not be true, conditionally

    What criteria do you use to determine whether something is a falsifiable belief or is an absolute truth?

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Please don't talk to me, about me, or participate in this thread. I thank you for leaving and not talking.

    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Nang View Post
    TRUTH is found only in Holy Scripture.
    Wrong. Truth is all around you. You smash your face into a brick wall, it will hurt. That is truth and it is not found in the bible. That one's on me....free of charge.

    You're welcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
    Please don't talk to me, about me, or participate in this thread. I thank you for leaving and not talking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    This surely is referring to the hideous doctrine of original sin, which is not biblical and it is not true, not in the way that most Christian's understand it anyway.

    God absolutely does not, would not, will not ever hold anyone responsible for someone else's sin - period.

    Ezekiel 18 is an entire chapter of the bible on this exact issue where God commands Israel to stop saying such things...

    Read it - please! Of all the possible objections to Christianity, this one at least you can put down as something someone lied to you about. It just simply is not true.

    Clete
    Is the book of Romans true? The book of Romans says the exact opposite of what you just said. You said you don't like liars....but you said God wouldn't hold someone accountable for another persons sin. But the bible says he did. So who is lying.....you or the bible?


    "Therefore, as through [h]one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    Is that a truth or a belief?

    You stated it as a fact, so I assume you believe it to be a truth.

    So how do you go about determining the truth of your belief?
    TRUTH is found only in Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is revelation from God and thus is the sole authority and source of TRUTH.

    Scripture studied through comparing Scripture with Scripture is the methodology to finding TRUTH.

    Faith in the Word of God alone justifies a soul.

    Jesus Christ personified the Word of God.

    John 14:6

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    That's another difference between the way you think and the way I think: See, in my book, all knowing IS thinking. You don't think? Then you don't know. If I can say, "I know that T is true", I can just as easily say, "I, therefore, think that T is true", because my knowledge that T is true is nothing other than my thinking that T is true while T is true.

    That's why I, for one, never do the silly, anti-intellectual "I don't think! I know!"-shtick. But, perhaps such silliness is quite acceptable for "Unreflective John Doe-ism"....er, um, I mean, "Rejective Knowism".
    If I were to be insulting to others, like you and the other "Christians" around here do....I wonder if I will start getting thanked for my posts. Then, I think about it....and I realize that it is only the Christians who will be thanked for insulting others.....

    Then, I laugh and think.....what a fail, there's just too much irony there.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    You know what's weird Clete? ... you don't even know Aristotle.
    Is that a truth or a belief?

    You stated it as a fact, so I assume you believe it to be a truth.

    So how do you go about determining the truth of your belief?
    Last edited by ok doser; August 20, 2019, 10:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
    We'll need to see a state issued photo ID along with a recent copy of a utility bill and a recent credit card bill. All with valid current addresses.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Yes. We do disagree on that point and many others. At least it seems that we are doing so somewhat politely, which is the right way to do it, IMO.
    So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by 6days View Post
    We disagree... again. We CAN know the truth. Agnosticism is essentially a unrealistic and dogmatic religious worldview claiming you can't know, no matter how much evidence exists. Romans 1:20 "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
    Yes. We do disagree on that point and many others. At least it seems that we are doing so somewhat politely, which is the right way to do it, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Claiming that someone is guilty because of the sins of another person for starters.
    This surely is referring to the hideous doctrine of original sin, which is not biblical and it is not true, not in the way that most Christian's understand it anyway.

    God absolutely does not, would not, will not ever hold anyone responsible for someone else's sin - period.

    Ezekiel 18 is an entire chapter of the bible on this exact issue where God commands Israel to stop saying such things...

    Read it - please! Of all the possible objections to Christianity, this one at least you can put down as something someone lied to you about. It just simply is not true.


    I should point out that when I ask questions like "What is it that you think is irrational about Christianity?" I'm referring to biblical Christianity, not Catholicism or Calvinism or whatever other "ism" you're likely to think of. Christianity is caricatured on television past the point of recognition and what passes for Christianity on most Christian television channels is so wildly irrational and idiotic that I can hardly believe that anyone buys it at all.
    The Christianity I'm talking about is that which is strictly rational and entirely biblical. As I said in my previous post, I do not claim to have every detail of my doctrine correct but I wasn't kidding when I said that Christianity is the only rational worldview. All things that are true are rational, by definition. Thus, the more rational the worldview the more similar it will look to the biblical worldview. Ayn Rand is an excellent example of this. She was the most Christian atheist that probably ever lived. Don't misunderstand me, she hated God, hated Christianity and hated Christians but every objection she had against Christianity was something that Christians often teach but that is not biblical and most everything she stood in support of is entirely biblical. In fact, the doctrine of original sin was one of the doctrines she most hated and rightly so. Ayn Rand went to hell because of poor Christian doctrine that was born out of mindless traditions and blind belief rather than a sober minded (i.e. rational ) analysis of what the bible actually teaches.

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    You know what's weird Clete? You go on about logical axioms and philosophy and you don't even know Aristotle. What kind of philosopher doesn't know the Greeks? Aristotle said it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    You just pulled this stupidity out of your backside.

    The three laws of reason that you didn't even know existed before I told them to you were first written down (so far as we know) by none other the Aristotle! So don't lecture me about Aristotle until you've read at least one book on the basics of philosophy.

    If one believes that God is immutable, they have Aristotle to thank - not the bible.
    If one believes the everything is predestined, they have Aristotle to thank - not the bible.

    Aristotle was a brilliant mind who was wrong more than he was right in my view but no matter how wrong he was on so many other things, the contribution he made to epistemology with his laws of reason out weigh his errors by a million to one. His laws of reason are the single most important contribution to mankind that any philosopher could ever accomplish. They are responsible for nearly every thing in your life, from the hospital you were born in to the computer screen you're looking at right now and every piece of technology in-between has, at its root, the laws of reason to thank for it's existence.

    It should be pointed out, however, that Aristotle did not invent the laws of reason, he simply figured them out and wrote them down. There is some evidence that these concepts were understood by people before the Classical period but Aristotle gets the credit because his work is the oldest that exists and because his writings are what has educated the west world about these ideas ever since.

    I said I neither affirm or reject your logic axioms at this time. Do you know what that means Clete? It doesn't mean I reject your claims. It also means I don't accept them - AT THIS TIME!!!!!
    I understand fully what it means. It is you who does not. Even your fence sitting on the issue uses the very laws of reason that you're on the fence about. Every word you speak, every keystroke your type is an affirmation of the laws of reason.

    When I have time, interest or inclination to give your logical axioms a complete workover, I will do so thoroughly and respond to it. You may be right, and I may be a fan. At this point I'm not and I'm not too impressed to be honest.
    As if I care about what impresses a man who rejects the world's religions on the basis of a rational thought process but who is completely unfamiliar with the most important feat of epistemological thinking in the history of philosophy.

    And furthermore, do you remember how you said - in so many words - you were judging my worthiness of your time? Well, you're in that same boat in my book. The fact that you would actually read into my comments that I rejected your logical axioms demonstrates an automatic reaction (to something that didn't even occur) called cognitive bias. You actually EXPECTED me to reject your claims whether you knew it or not, and your mind automatically reset to that default.
    I did not read rejection per se, but rather a failure to accept them. My point is that you can't do either accept or reject them without making use of them. It is you who misunderstand me, not the other way around.

    And if you think I'm wasting your time then stop responding to me.

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Of course. There are many. A little search could reveal many more. First, you have the Greeks themselves, they had many religions to choose from and the definitely promoted the laws of reason. Then you have the Ottoman Empire as another example.


    Not even worth a response.

    Lastly, there are the Catholics. Now, I consider Catholics to be Christians, but yet, I know of many Christians who don't consider Catholics to be Christian and you may be one of them - I don't know. And I don't really care because the point itself is not very impressive to begin with.
    Catholics do NOT promote the laws of reason except perhaps on some superficial level. They openly and proudly promote the concept of antinomy in their religious beliefs. That is, they are fully comfortable with accepting a doctrine that is irrational BECAUSE it is irrational. It is the willingness to accept doctrines that do not make rational sense that they call "faith". It is piety, in their minds, to accept the contradictory as true.

    This is true of very nearly every religious system in existence and is even true of most Christian sects! The idea that you could come on here and pretend that the Greek pantheon of gods was in anyway based on, or even promotive, of the laws of reason is perhaps the most laughable thing I've read on this website in years, (not counting the insanity on the flat earth thread of course).

    Who cares if your religion promotes the laws of reason or not?
    Anyone who is in pursuit of a rational worldview, that's who.

    Personally, I'm a fan of logic and reason, but my brand may not be the same as yours. The purpose for logic and reason according to my religion is the pursuit of truth.
    There are not multiple brands of logic and reason, at least not sound logic and reason. And the pursuit of truth is the entire point of this entire discussion. As I said when you first stated that you had rejected the world's religions by means of a rational thought process, reason is a significant step in the direction of biblical Christianity. What has come after has been me simply trying to establish whether your claim of having used a rational thought process was actually true.

    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
    I have yet to meet one. I've met plenty of people who call themselves that but I have yet to discover anyone who actually is a real agnostic. They have all been functional atheists.

    Those that do exist, do not exist for long....

    Proverbs 8:17
    I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me.

    Jeremiah 29:13
    And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.


    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; August 20, 2019, 11:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by 6days View Post
    Clete... Do you think Jesus was religious? Are atheists religious? Is evolutionism a religion? (Yeah... Depends how you define the word). You might have seen this video before... Jesus hated religion. https://youtu.be/1IAhDGYlpqY

    It is interesting that the Bible defines true religion as helping out those in need. (Ie. Widows and orphans)
    Well, you said it. It depends on how you define the word "religious".

    I am using the term in the sense of one's worldview. Does one believe that God exists and if so what sort of God does one believe in. In that sense, everyone is "religious" in one way or another.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    So which apply/applies to you?


    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    I know about fighting because I was a fighter. One of the dudes on this site knows it because he held the pads a time or two.

    OK, so you're brain damaged to some degree from taking one too many uppercuts to the chin

    That explains a lot

    And here I was thinking you were a Canadian

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X