|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Unfortunately Faith, you'd remember the explanations as convincing even if they were stupid lies. Neither your memory, nor your judgement are at all reliable.
And let us not forget that what I actually asked for were proper references to discussions HERE, to support your assertion. A message ID or even a thread name is all it would take. But no, you had to try to cut off discussion rather than answer that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
O give a person a break, do you have to be ALWAYS blasting me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Do you have to keep attacking people for daring to tell the truth ? Do you have to keep putting forward unfounded opinions as facts ? If you invite criticism - and you do - it is a but much for you to complain about getting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
If I listened to every proselytizing nut job that said they had the secret to a god I would have to follow hundreds of different beliefs. If I give to charity, I shall have to give to all charities. (Slippery slope fallacy). Appeal-to-consequences.
The audacity and hubris that people like you believe you have the secret is absolutely astounding. A person that knows the truth to the best of his ability (JTB) (epistemology), is a witness to that truth, for the sake of honesty, even if s/he was found to be wrong. So "audacity" is an inappropriate word. Nice try with the, "honourable, moral display" - (Argument-from-outrage fallacy.) All you are doing is venting your morality - but remember, there's no such thing as morality according to atheism, which breaks the Law of non-contradiction Your god, pitiful as it is, does none of this. Water is essential to life, a god is essential to nothing. How can something be "pitiful" if it is not there? Which indicates to me, you really feel our God is there, but are angry towards Him. If God created life andthe universe, which He clearly did from the evidence, then water is only essential, ipso facto, in fact - God would be essential, as He could have NOT created water. Thus God is ultimately the true water. "He who drinks the water I give him, it shall spring up inside him, overflowing to eternal life." (Paraphrase). Your angry little LOUD post reminds me of what that man says in the movie, Bad Day At Black Rock, "you're not only wrong, but you're wrong at the top of your voice." You are still IGNORANT of the "life of God", Theodoric. This is why I dismiss what you say, because that is where this outburst stems from, ignorance. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
This is the problem from each person's perspective, they hold the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: O give a person a break, do you have to be ALWAYS blasting me? If you're going to ignore the topic and the Forum Guidelines then you shouldn't be surprised when you're called on it. You shouldn't be introducing subtopics (in this case prophecy) you're not willing to discuss. It's like you think no rules apply to you. If you do not intend to reply to the responses to your prophecy post or at least to something about the topic then there's nothing more for you to say. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
mike the wiz writes: This is the problem from each person's perspective, they hold the truth. Yes, of course, this is what we've been saying. Faith's claim is that her truth is the one and only truth and that it should be everyone's truth or we'll be dealt with in the hereafter. She can't prove it but she knows it anyway, except that prophecy is the proof but she won't discuss it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Before you start accusing people of fallacies you need to understand the fallacy. This was neither a slippery slope or an appeal to consequences. Try wikipedia for a description of each. I was using a rhetorical device to show that there are hundred(actually thousands or more) different beliefs that claim there own special version of a god. Do you deny the existence of multitudes of different beliefs?
A person that knows the truth to the best of his ability (JTB) (epistemology), is a witness to that truth, for the sake of honesty, even if s/he was found to be wrong. So "audacity" is an inappropriate word.
Not at all, since truth is by definition a subjective thing. For people to push their personal truths audacity fits, so does hubris.
Nice try with the, "honourable, moral display" - (Argument-from-outrage fallacy.) All you are doing is venting your morality - but remember, there's no such thing as morality according to atheism, which breaks the Law of non-contradiction
What a mess this is. First you say I am venting my morality in then in the next breath tell me I have no morals. First of all fuck you. Secondly, you have been shown many times that claiming atheism does not allow for morals is a lie. What kind of fallacy is that? You seem very keen on accusing people of using fallacy but unable to actually address any points that are brought up. A regular Gish Gallop.
How can something be "pitiful" if it is not there? Which indicates to me, you really feel our God is there, but are angry towards Him.
Oh yes atheists actually believe in god they are just mad at him. OK maybe I need to go slow for you. That was another rhetorical device. I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you.
If God created life andthe universe, which He clearly did from the evidence, then water is only essential, ipso facto, in fact - God would be essential, as He could have NOT created water. Thus God is ultimately the true water. "He who drinks the water I give him, it shall spring up inside him, overflowing to eternal life." (Paraphrase). Your angry little LOUD post reminds me of what that man says in the movie, Bad Day At Black Rock, "you're not only wrong, but you're wrong at the top of your voice." You are still IGNORANT of the "life of God", Theodoric. This is why I dismiss what you say, because that is where this outburst stems from, ignorance. So you respond to with personal attacks because I criticized someones belief in some god somewhere. How christian of you.
If God created life andthe universe, which He clearly did from the evidence,
Still waiting for that evidence. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
This is the problem from each person's perspective, they hold the truth.
So why the need for such hubris when speaking of a personal truth? Why the need for others to experience your personal truth? There is no ultimate truth after all? Seems quite a change from your rant at me just prior to this.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
You say, "this is what we have been saying", as though I was saying the following:
Faith's claim is that her truth is the one and only truth and that it should be everyone's truth or we'll be dealt with in the hereafter. She can't prove it but she knows it anyway, except that prophecy is the proof but she won't discuss it. That's equivocation, I wasn't saying that. I was speaking about a specific problem. It's best to assume that mike knows exactly what the pragmatics of his own statements are. I referred to the aforementioned problem, for my own reasons though. For if something has to be true, then we have a problem if there are many counterfeits. Yet this does not mean that real cash doesn't exist. You might even say, of your fake cash; "But I can buy with it, I've used it, it looks like real cash, so it is!" But it wouldn't be, for it would only be accepted as genuine cash, because people accepted it as genuine cash. How can we know what is actually true? Man's reason and knowledge aren't enough. Human reason is flawed, and ignorant, many reasonable, knowledgeable people come to opposite conclusions. I propose that the ideology that explains all of the facts, will be the correct one. The teleological facts, the precondition-of-intelligibility, the anthropic principle, Abscission and Photosynthesis, the DNA code, the millions of varieties of viably designed species, the laws of physics and maths. The order in the universe, the unique human conscience, and so forth. The clearly evident Creation, is one way of knowing, or at least realizing the correct answer, to begin with because those who do not acknowledge it, are, we are told, "willfully ignorant" of it, because it is so overt/blatant. From the trees and the fleahs, the fruit and the bees, the peahs, seas, cheese and hairy-knees. The materialist philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't make rational sense, because it always has to explain the facts of reality to be illusory. There is no reason for cheese to exist under this ideology, and yet it does. There is no reason for matter to create molecules, that create peptides/proteins, cells cellular machinery, code. What would actually happen, is either NOTHING, or some sort of chaotic, random universe. This is reasonable to state. They can then only unparsimoniously INVOKE multiple universes, in order to again make the clear facts, illusory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry I did that, truly, I didn't want to get into the subject, it would take a lot of time to track down sources and I just don't want to do it. It was asked what evidence there is for inerrancy and I tossed off "prophecy" and said I thought it had been adequately defended here because I thought it had -- not by me but I've seen it discussed in the past. And genuine fulfilled prophecy is unique to the Bible. I was thinking mostly of the Messianic prophecies but it doesn't matter which ones. Of course I should know that people are going to bring up objections and that's why I'm sorry I mentioned it. I don't want to spend the time to track down answers to the objections. Again, sorry, and I'd like to get off the thread now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
First of all fuck you Bless you Sir, bless you mightily. "Bless, and do not curse."
Before you start accusing people of fallacies you need to understand the fallacy. This was neither a slippery slope or an appeal to consequences. Try wikipedia for a description of each Yet I don't see a description of each, by you, so we must "assume" your claim is true, from a bald assertion. We must assume you have the knowledge of what these fallacies are, and what they mean, as you didn't say anything about them. Perhaps you didn't notice that you said something by saying nothing? I shall give a brief explanation of my own understanding of the Appeal to Consequences by giving and example, "If I have to give one child a sweet, then I shall have to give all of the children sweets." Usually it's committed when a person appeals that something negative will happen if they commit an action, another effect will ensue, in order to get out of the initial action. "If the government audited Bill Jones, they would have to audit everyone!"
Not at all, since truth is by definition a subjective thing Incorrect. Gravity is still true whether I believe in it or not.
What a mess this is. First you say I am venting my morality in then in the next breath tell me I have no morals Fuck you I always believe morality is assessed not by what people SAY about it, but by their actual actions. "You shall know them by their fruit".
you have been shown many times that claiming atheism does not allow for morals is a lie Strawman. I never argue you can't be atheist and moral, you haven't understood the syllogistic prowess behind my irrefutable words. I was saying that the implications of atheism would lead to the conclusion that there is no ultimate morality so it seems a bit silly for relativists to then judge me by their own morals which would represent subjective preferences. For example, many atheists would have judged it immoral to say, "fuck you", certainly PaulK or Modulous would never feel the need to say something like that.
Still waiting for that evidence. A pretence. One can state that add nauseam until rapture, with it right under their nose.
Fuck you You're still angry. "People always find it more difficult to forgive people for being right than they do for them being wrong" - Albus Dumbledore. mike isn't your enemy, didn't you know he never spells his name with a capital letter? He is only a hobbit, to himself. Calm down - there is no need to get so irate. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia
wiki writes: Negative form[edit]If P, then Q will occur. Q is undesirable. Therefore, P is false. Theodoric writes: If I listened to every proselytizing nut job that said they had the secret to a god I would have to follow hundreds of different beliefs. Your basis for your argument, is predicated on the appeal to the consequence of the first action. At the very least I spotted the form to be correct. In some examples, if the form is shared, the fallacy is still committed. Reductio ad absurdum can still be a method to detect lies, for example, even if the consequent is NOT absurd, because of the tollens-negation. The consequences aren't right, IMHO, because many beliefs differ wildly. I discussed that earlier on, when I compared THOR to the Lord God. But you assumed the epithet any way, which was question-begging, by assuming "all" are, "nutjobs" Yet in the same post, you gave a CRAZY preaching, about "atheism", thus by your logic, I can't listen to you, or I would have to listen to follow every empty philosophy. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
mike writes: me writes: Not at all, since truth is by definition a subjective thing Incorrect. Gravity is still true whether I believe in it or not. I find it absolutely hilarious when someone runs on about fallacies and then commits one them self. As a matter of fact you just accused equivocation on another thread(but I don't believe it was equivocation) Now you commit an equivocation here. Gravity being true is a different meaning than ultimate truth. But then again you know that don't you.
I always believe morality is assessed not by what people SAY about it, but by their actual actions. "You shall know them by their fruit".
Yet you know nothing about me do you. If we were judging morality that way I would assume your were an amoral person. Lying for jesus is lying all the same.
Still waiting for that evidence. A pretence. One can state that add nauseam until rapture, with it right under their nose. The rest of your post is just self aggrandizing crap Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Selectively reading again?
from the wiki article you linked to.
quote: But I wasn't using it like that either. As I said I used it as a rhetorical device to show that there are thousands of different beliefs in thousands of different gods. I asked before but of course you ignored it so I will ask again.Do you deny the existence of multitudes of different beliefs in different gods? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024