|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christian Pride. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
A man is faced with (for example) a God-given realistion of the wrath of God.
This wrath is more terrifying than any raging fire (but we'll use that as an analogy for that is what the Bible does too) The man turns to God and cries for mercy. You say: "The man chose to save himself. He had a choice - he could have chosen otherwise". Only if one is prepared to reject reason to an extreme degree could one go along with such a conclusion. But if you insist on having it that way then be my guest. {AbE} of course it does not have to be the wrath of God that God exposes man to. It could be the love of God. As irresistable in attraction as fire is in repelling. Still no choice. And there are any other number of ways to achieve the same thing inbetween those extremes. Each one will have their own, custom fit scenario to suit them. We are all individuals and he treats us as such. Unless we reject being brought into the light so as to see which it will be for us. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1313 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
come on Iano, You your self said
The opportunity to reject happened all along the way there - before man knew there was a fire all around him.
I'm sure you would be of the opinion that right now I am rejecting God's call. where's the fire? in fact I know of no one who has died having seen raging fire, yet they likely spent their lives rejecting what you would consider to be 'God's call'. this 'raging fire' you speak of may never even be presented to the man, because your God may have chosen not to present it to him, thus dooming him to eternal damnation, what a guy!
Only if one is prepared to reject reason to an extreme degree could one go along with such a conclusion
Your outright dishonesty reminds me why I took a break from posting here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: The man turns to God and cries for mercy. And God replies, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." ABE: Yes, this really is "back on topic". The prideful Christian says, "I chose," or "God chose me," or "I understand this. Let me explain." In fact, there is nothing to choose, nothing to explain. It's done. Edited by Ringo, : Clever link to topic. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Faith, by definition, requires no evidence. That's what the "blind" part means. If you need empirical evidence to believe something, then is isn't faith anymore, but knowledge. Nobody but you has access to your faith, just like every other individual person in the entire world who believes anything on faith.
quote: That's not what Agnosticism requires. All faith is blind, or else it wouldn't be faith. It would instead be "facts which are supported by empirical evidence found in nature that one can demonstrate to a disinterested party".
quote: Sure it's possible. But is it probable? But who cares if you cannot demonstrate it? I have absolutely no reason to believe that you, out of the billions of people on this planet with their own personal, individual beliefs, are any more or less correct (or deluded) than any of the others. Your beliefs are all supported by the same thing; personal testimony and assurances. As such, all such blind, evidenceless beliefs carry the same weight. However, this is getting off the point I want you to address, which is that the scientific method requires no faith at all to use. Do you accept that to be the case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Foxes are known to exist. Foxes are known to live in the part of the world you live in. Foxes are known to live fairly close to human villages in rural areas. Many, many, many, many people over thousands of years have seen, photographed, killed, captured, trapped, chased, stuffed and mounted, worn, kept as pets or in zoos, studied, researched, and otherwise had very close, frequent contact with foxes. Also, it is possible for many people to see a fox at a nearby zoo. You do not have to believe in the existence of foxes before you can see, hear, smell, or touch one. However, if someone said to me that Vignal the Space Alien visited them in their bedroom last night, and she told them to paint all of the houses purple so they won't be destroyed when the Zorlogs come, I am going to have a great deal more skepticism regarding the veracity of that statement, and I am going to require a great deal of evidence before I start slapping the lilac latex on to my house. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6383 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
a fox cross the road in a rural(?) part of the UK Iano lives in Ireland not the UK As a Christian I'm sure he'll forgive your transgression... I don't know about in Ireland but in the East Midlands area of England where I live you're probably more likely to see an urban fox than a rural one - we throw away so much crap it's easier to live off our waste than hunt for a living. Back to the regularly scheduled topic. Edit: I see you spotted your mistake and beat me to it! Edited by MangyTiger, : Changed 'of our waste' to 'off our waste' and added comment. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
"Demonstrate" in what fashion? It may be that you are gunning in the direction of empiricism-only. IF so: when empiriscism demonstrates itself to be the only way to know something then we might get somewhere. That "dogma" suffers from that which you say mine does: it cannot demonstrate itself to be the case. "Empirisicm is the only way which can demonstrate it is the way to know something" ... relies on circular reasoning. You probably do not mean this...
Sorry Ian, the argument isn't really one of "empiricism" vs. "iano's way of knowing". Although it might be an interesting exercise for you to show that "iano's way of knowing" has actually provided some concrete observation of the world. After all, "empricism" has been shown to work, given that you are typing on a computer whose principles and processes are based on an emprical approach. Now if you can show the spiritual (or whatever you wish to call it) can have some practical application - say making a faster computer that didn't require one to type everything out - then maybe you'd have a point that there is more than one way of "knowing" that is valid.
The thing is Quetzel is that you will not be convinced by my argument. For to be convinced by my argument you would have to believe things that I say and for which there is no tangible evidence. If that were the case then you would be saved by my argument. Convinced by me. Salvation by Iano. Whilst I agree that has a nice ring to it I do not hold that that can happen. That would be proud indeed: Salvation by Iano!! Thank you for bringing this back to the topic. Exhibit A: True Christian (tm) arrogance in action. "Believe me and be saved! Only I know the Truth! Only by following my way can you be saved." Thanks, but no thanks. If that's what needs to happen, I guess I'll die a heathen and take my chances.
Your own worldview has little to say about the questions of life we find ourselves dealing with here... Really? And what questions would those be, pray tell? Salvation? 'Fraid you have to buy into the whole faith thingy as a starting premise before that is anything other than meaningless - in other words, it's only an "important" question to you. "Life, the universe, and everything"? Empericism seems to be providing a lot more answers on those subjects than your unprovable, ambiguous, arrogant assumptions of an exclusive, idiosyncratic "way of knowing", now doesn't it? Again, anything concrete ever come out of "iano's epistemology"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
schrafinator writes: If you need empirical evidence to believe something, then is isn't faith anymore, but knowledge. St Paul writes: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Ian, If there's one thing that you'll find Schraf, myself and the Apostle Paul agreeing on is that faith only exists in the absence of empirical evidence. The question is, do you agree with us? "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Schraf conflating belief with knowledge writes: Foxes...etc Talk about point being white..lilac..whateverwashed. Can you differentiate between the words "believe" and "know"? Let us find out Q: Do you know (not believe) that I saw a fox cross my path last night or no? A: (suggested) No I do not. Q: Does your not knowing this in anyway affect the fox, my sighting of him and our happening upon each other when we did? A: (suggested) No it does not Q: Do I have to demonstrate (empirically) that I saw the fox in order to know I saw the fox? A: (suggested) No you do not. Should you answer as suggested, my question is: why do you argue about what is involved in belief instead of arguing about what is involved with knowledge? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
come on Iano
Reminds me of Dexys Midnight Runners circa 1980
The opportunity to reject happened all along the way there - before man knew there was a fire all around him.
I'm sure you would be of the opinion that right now I am rejecting God's call. where's the fire? in fact I know of no one who has died having seen raging fire, yet they likely spent their lives rejecting what you would consider to be 'God's call'. Are you being deliberately obtuse? A person who is on the point of salvation will see the fire (or whatever it is he choses to bring them to see at that point). That is what is guaranteed to cause them to turn. Now a person who is not at that place will not see it. The person who has has avoided his attempts to let them see it (or whatever it is he choses to bring them to see at that point) will, patently, not see it.
Your outright dishonesty reminds me why I took a break from posting here. This was the argument that evoked such a response. What have you got to say regarding the position I suggest is yours? Try honesty - ad homs don't suit you.
A man is faced with (for example) a God-given realistion of the wrath of God. This wrath is more terrifying than any raging fire (but we'll use that as an analogy for that is what the Bible does too) The man turns to God and cries for mercy. You say: "The man chose to save himself. He had a choice - he could have chosen otherwise". Only if one is prepared to reject reason to an extreme degree could one go along with such a conclusion. But if you insist on having it that way then be my guest. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Good to see foxes are flushed out occasionally. Enjoying a rare excursion into a Religious Thread are we MT?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Sorry Ian, the argument isn't really one of "empiricism" vs. "iano's way of knowing". Although it might be an interesting exercise for you to show that "iano's way of knowing" has actually provided some concrete observation of the world. After all, "empricism" has been shown to work, given that you are typing on a computer whose principles and processes are based on an emprical approach. Now if you can show the spiritual (or whatever you wish to call it) can have some practical application - say making a faster computer that didn't require one to type everything out - then maybe you'd have a point that there is more than one way of "knowing" that is valid. I think 'relative worth' would sum up my response here. You set a standard against which we should measure. An asserted one. Would you like to attempt to justify it as one worth giving the time of day to (empirically preferably)
Thank you for bringing this back to the topic. Exhibit A: True Christian (tm) arrogance in action. "Believe me and be saved! Only I know the Truth! Only by following my way can you be saved." You mistake the signpost for the destination. Ever heard the phrase "Don't shoot the messanger"? Apparently not. My pointing does not make it my way.
ks, but no thanks. If that's what needs to happen, I guess I'll die a heathen and take my chances. Fortunately, your intellect is not an impediment to your salvation.
Really? And what questions would those be, pray tell? Salvation? 'Fraid you have to buy into the whole faith thingy as a starting premise before that is anything other than meaningless - in other words, it's only an "important" question to you. "Life, the universe, and everything"? Empericism seems to be providing a lot more answers on those subjects than your unprovable, ambiguous, arrogant assumptions of an exclusive, idiosyncratic "way of knowing", now doesn't it? Again, anything concrete ever come out of "iano's epistemology"? I didn't even read this rant. One can tell at a glance. Fuck off Q (No offence: I could do with the break)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Correct.
quote: Correct.
quote: Correct.
quote: I am. You're the one saying that they are the same, but I am not. Faith, by definition, is belief without emperical evidence. Knowledge is that which is obtained through emperical investigation. I've said this many, many times. So, do you see the difference between someone taking your word for it when you say that foxes exist and that you saw one, and someone taking your word for it when you say that your specific version of God exists and that you have been in contact with Him? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Just the fact that you believe you are "the messenger" is arrogant, since your message, and the individual, endlessly-varying messages of a billion other people on the planet have exactly the same backing... faith. There's no way to decide who is right when there's no way to demonstrate that you are right. All any of you billions of faithful have is your say-so and assurances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I think 'relative worth' would sum up my response here. You set a standard against which we should measure. An asserted one. Would you like to attempt to justify it as one worth giving the time of day to (empirically preferably) Relative worth, eh? I agree. So go to it - meet the challenge to provide a concrete example of the "worth" of your particular "way of knowing". I already provided a simple example of the worth of empiricism: you're typing on it. Your turn.
You mistake the signpost for the destination. Ever heard the phrase "Don't shoot the messanger"? Apparently not. My pointing does not make it my way. Or, on the other hand, you are abrogating to yourself the only "right" way, n'est-ce pas? As I said, pride...
Fortunately, your intellect is not an impediment to your salvation. Of course, you haven't yet demonstrated in any way shape or form that "salvation" is a thing to be desired, nor even that it exists outside your mind. That would be a good start, I think. As it stands, my "intellect" (for what that's worth) is precisely what is "standing in the way". Ya see, I can't turn off my brain long enough to swallow your "way of knowing". Maybe if you provided something more concrete than your say so...
I didn't even read this rant. One can tell at a glance. Fuck off Q Gentleman to the end, eh iano. Very, erm, Christian of you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024