Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Religion

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

  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children

    or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"
    So which apply/applies to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    You're dismissed, OK.
    Dismissed by a troll

    I don't think guyver quite understands how things work here

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Doser asks, repeatedly:
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    What proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
    Guyver throws a little hissy fit, squirms and finally answers:
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    The answer is no.
    Right, just as I suspected - there is no proof you will accept of Jesus' resurrection

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    You're dismissed, OK.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Wow. That’s something.

    BTW....looks like you went through a whole lot of work to say nothing and attempt to somehow save face there okdoser.

    You’re dismissed. Since you can’t answer the question, I’ll help you out. The answer is no.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
    agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children

    or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Guyver gives Clete a challenge:
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    ... all you have to do is prove Jesus is alive (resurrected)...
    doser asks:
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    What proof would you accept?
    Guyver responds, vaguely:
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Real proof would be fine thank you.
    doser offers a form of proof that often is considered "real", at least in courtrooms and historical investigations:
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    How about eyewitness accounts?
    Guyver, still avoiding the original question (what proof would you accept?) responds with three questions:
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    How about it?

    Do you believe that alien abductions are real since there are eyewitness accounts? Do you believe that sasquatch, bigfoot or yeti exists because there are eyewitness accounts?
    doser responds to the first of Guyver's three questions and restates the original question that has still gone unanswered:
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, in the flesh, after His resurrection

    Do you accept those eyewitness accounts as proof?

    If not, I'll revisit my earlier question and ask you again, what would you accept as "real proof"?
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Based on your track record, it's quid pro quo with you.
    ok, but you haven't yet responded to my original question with anything substantial

    I'll ask again: What "real proof" would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?

    I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. I asked you if eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the existence of alien abduction and bigfoot. Well?
    i'll be glad to follow your bunny trail after you answer my first question:

    What proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
    Last edited by ok doser; August 19, 2019, 10:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 6days
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    I define truth by saying that such and such is true about truth, and that this or that is false about it, 'cause that's what definin' is: sayin' that such and such is true about the thing being defined, and that this or that is false about the thing being defined.
    Saying things about truth isn't defining it. At the very least you could have used the dictionary and offered a definition.

    How is it logical to make statements about something that you can't define?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post

    I make no claim to having every aspect of my doctrine correct but yes, Christianity is the only rationally consistent worldview.


    Clete
    Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post

    Further still, if Christianity is in fact rational, one would expect an apologetics ministry to fully understand, endorse and promote the laws of reason. Have you ever discovered another major world religion that does so?


    Clete
    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.

    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.

    Who cares if your religion promotes the laws of reason or not? 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    So, we've actually taken a step backward here.

    First of all, it doesn't claim to be science. Science has to do with a systematic and rational analysis of nature (i.e. with the physical world). Science has little to say about philosophy. In fact, science is an outworking of philosophy. In other words, properly done science presupposes that logic works, that reality is real (there's that law of identity again!) and that it can be understood. Thus it is philosophy that is primary here not science.

    Further, your rejection of the paper's point based on its source is irrational. The point the paper makes is either valid or it is not. The religious beliefs of the author are not relevant to whether his statements are true.

    Clete
    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.

    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!!!!!

    Get it?

    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guyver
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, in the flesh, after His resurrection

    Do you accept those eyewitness accounts as proof?

    If not, I'll revisit my earlier question and ask you again, what would you accept as "real proof"?
    Based on your track record, it's quid pro quo with you. I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. I asked you if eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the existence of alien abduction and bigfoot. Well?

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    That's what I said

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
    Great. Now all you have to do is prove Jesus is alive (resurrected) and you win.
    Your problem, here, is that all you're doing is trying to get someone to play, with you, a game you've rigged. See, here is all you mean when you say "you have to prove Jesus is alive (resurrected)":

    "you have to CAUSE ME TO BELIEVE Jesus is alive (resurrected)"

    Until you're willing to believe that Jesus lives, you will, because of your pride, always tell yourself that you "win", and you will always tell us Christians that we "lose". What an easy game for you to "win" at, though! To always "win", all you have to do is continue to be willing to refuse to believe that Jesus lives. Do you really think we are so stupid as to imagine that we have any ability, whatsoever, to force your anti-Christ will to go from refusing to believe in Jesus to being willing to believe in Him??

    THAT's why, whenever somebody takes your silly bait, and says to you, "OK: X, Y, and Z prove that Jesus is alive (resurrected)!", you will always, without fail, be ready, and eager, to rejoin them with, "That's no proof!", or, "You did not prove it!", or something similar.

    Now, if you do not mean "cause me to believe" when you say "prove", then, by all means, please tell us exactly what (if anything) you imagine you do mean by it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X