Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IS THERE A TRUE CHURCH IN THE WORLD TODAY?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 3 of 53 (82976)
02-04-2004 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-03-2004 7:09 PM


Re: my question
quote:
The most valid way to decide this controversy is to ask Jehovah Himself what happened. He was there, He knows. To do this, one must get prophetic. To get prophetic, one must be or making every effort to be, a part of the one true church. Atheists and agnostics who make no serious effort to hear God's voice don't really want to know the truth of the matter, because, in the end, that's the best way to be sure.
Your penchant for absurd statements knows no bounds. If one is an atheist or agnostic, there is no point in asking Jehovah anything because he does not exist. I could replace Jehovah with Vishnu, Krishna, or a sentient carrot and it would be equally ridiculous. The only ones who cling to an illusion of certitude are those like you who are so blinded by religion and ego that they fail are unable to see the inconsistencies of their beliefs even when it sits on their faces and wiggles. But your rant against non-believers I will take as evidence of your profound fear of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-03-2004 7:09 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-05-2004 2:14 AM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 53 (83284)
02-05-2004 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-05-2004 2:14 AM


Re: my question
quote:
If He is really a part of our ecosystem, the fact that someone is in doubt, or has decided that He is not out there, has no influence at all on that reality.
And if your myth does not exist, wishing that he does has no influence on that reality either. You have no way of testing or falsifying that he or Vishnu or a giant sentient toilet bowl cleaner are the omnipotent power in the universe. I see no reason to subscribe to such beliefs.
quote:
Your comment confirms the biblical/theological hypothesis that agnostics and atheists are harboring the wishful thinking delusion that they are god, and what they decide is real, is really real.
At least you are consistent. Your conclusions are in now way connected to the premise. Since I don't beleive in god..why would I believe I am one?
Interesting that whyt you decide is real is somehow real..at least it is really strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-05-2004 2:14 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-05-2004 11:50 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 6:32 AM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 8 of 53 (84657)
02-09-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 6:32 AM


Re: my question
quote:
Think about why you think this, despite my repeated claims to the contrary, and demonstrations of successful efforts to do so. I'd am curious about how you reach such conclusions.
Actually, you should think about why I reject it. You have made repeated claims that cannot be supported. When the authors of studies you claim support your assertions themselves say their results are not significant, you still claim to be correct. In essence, you claim to be right because you claim to be right. Hinduism is older than christianity..therefore it has a higher plausibility of being correct. It is still around so therefore it is even more plausible. Thus you are wrong and Hindu's are right...see, you logic leads nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 6:32 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 12:10 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 53 (84660)
02-09-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
02-05-2004 11:50 AM


Re: It's Belief
quote:
We are not wishing that he does, he has proved himself to us personally because we opened our minds to him. You prove Stephens point about the Bible with that response.
I am not missing Stephen's point. You make the above claim but Stephen does not. You believe because you believe. You cannot support your belief with methodological naturalism i.e. science. Stephen lies and claims he can.
quote:
His point is, you think that you decide what reality is, and therefore what you decide - goes. If you close yourself off to God then you don't get a response from him. Then, you lead life on YOUR terms being the boss or god of it.
Got news for ya...everybody decides for themselves what reality is whether they are religious or not. And everyone lives their life in terms of being the boss of it. However, unlike what you claim for a god, I am every minute of every day subject to events and circumstances which I cannot control..so again, why should I think this makes me god?
quote:
You say there is no point to asking God because he doesn't exist. Jesus said that you must first believe so your point is at best - a poor one.
If you cannot put your own righteoussness away (own opinion) and ask AND believe, then I can confidently tell you that you will never be heard by God if you don't do this. A desperate prayer or self - righteouss prayer would be:
If I first have to believe and I don't then your argument falls apart from the beginning.
quote:
Those prayers do not work, only a believing prayer works.
Ah, the old my magic stick allows me to see the things you can't see arguement? Sort of like Willowtree's "godsense". You know what, no prayer and nonbelief also works. Believing in all sorts of different dieties works. The only qualitative difference I see among fundamentalist believers and non-believers is the fundie's have no sense of science, literature, or history.
quote:
You seem to have no concept of what faith is.
P.S. Sorry if I appear robust, but getting this point about belief, across to people, is harder than dancing on a pinheaded platform in a blackhole.
I have no concept of faith in human constructed dieties. I have faith in people that I know. I think it is harder for you to understand those of us without faith than it is for me to understand irrational belief i.e. faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-05-2004 11:50 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 02-09-2004 9:46 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 19 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-11-2004 4:00 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 53 (84680)
02-09-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
02-09-2004 9:46 AM


Re: It's Belief
quote:
So I wanted my brother to die because I decide reality?
We have different beliefs yet your brother is dead in both of them. Belief in a diety or lack of that belief has no effect on the reality. But my intention with that statment is there are plenty of "believers" who are just as convinced of a personal relationship with their diety who go out and kill people. there are those who do not. Each is convinced that their interpretation of reality is correct.
quote:
However, you do have the ability to make decisions that affect your actions. You can for example choose to rob a bank and blow the dough, or work for your fortune and give it to the poor.
Not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning but you have the same ability to make decisions.
quote:
Pardon?
I have seen the arguement from people of different backgrounds that they have some special insight into the truth of their god/gods/pink fairies because they believe and that there must be something wrong with those who do not....my favorite is when two believers who disagree but both claim this "magical power" fight with each other to its ultimately logic free conclusion.
quote:
What has this got to do with belief? (scratches head).
Without having a good educational background you will never be able to distinguish completely irrational belief based on lies about the histories of the belief system you adhere to and the complete misunderstanding and mischaracterization of science that pervades fundamentalist mentality from your actual faith.
quote:
If my prayers are answered when I believe how am I irrational?
Good things happen to me and I don't pray. Bad things happen and I don't pray. Good things happen to you when you pray. Bad things happen to you when you pray. But more importantly, I find it more irrational to base one's life on a literal interpretation of a book written by men to claim that one has picked the correct god among the pantheon of other's who also are followed by believers who claim their inerrant books, rituals, icons are also the right one. I find the religious to be even more arbitrary and variable in their beliefs than non-believers.
quote:
Actually I do understand hard of heart self-righteous unbelievers.
That you make this statement shows that you do not and that you are not particularly interested in divesting yourself of your prejudice.
quote:
Now we've got that out of our systems maybe we can talk.
ok

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 02-09-2004 9:46 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 02-09-2004 10:41 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 02-27-2004 9:09 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 53 (84703)
02-09-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
02-09-2004 10:41 AM


quote:
Though what I said seemed harsh it comes from a biblical doctrine. I am not prejudice, and/or no more than you are towards me.
It is not necessarily harsh but it is still prejudiced and rather unfair..but actually not to me. There are plenty of believers in the world who do not share your beliefs. So you would ascribe to them, in your own way, a fault that they may not possess. You have no way beyond your personal belief (and the bible telling you the bible is correct because the bible says so) to make any claims about the validity of any belief or non-belief that you do not share. There is just no objective way to do so.
quote:
That's right, we both seem able to discern reality. But we don't decide it, as if I did he would still be alive.
Which brings us back to my not believing or claiming I am god. I just see no reason personally to believe that some extraneous supernatural force is required to explain the randomness of life. You apparently do. That is fine unless said belief conflicts clearly with reality like cud chewing rabbits of the bible or that anti-science wing of the fundamentalists. If you believe that the origin of the universe is from your god..great, I have no problem with that .
quote:
Who says I have no educational background?
Though you rightly say "belief system" I independently came to conclusions without any religious input. So - when I believed, God then kind of proved himself to me. I don't think this is irrational though, because I wasn't seeing what I wanted to see, sometimes with logic, one must deduce that what is happening seems to be the truth. YET I understand if this is NOT scientific proof, though I have not came to my conclusions irrationally.
You have been on the site long enough now to watch other creationists who pop onto the site. You see the same litany of scientific misconceptions, mischaracterizations, and falsehoods over and over again. In the more historically oriented threads, you see creationists who have absolutely no concept of the origins and history of their own religion much less anyone elses. It is not unjustified to make the generalization I have made. You have made a crucial step in segregating you faith from methodological naturalism i.e. science. They will never overlap. And a mature relgious belief should not result in a conflict between the two. That you are recognizing this is very good.
quote:
You are confusing things. I know good and bad things happen to us both. However, when you pray for a specific thing and recieve it - well, what would you conclude Mammuthus?
I do not base my life on Creationism, I base my life on God.
I can wish for any number of things and either get them or not. That does not supply evidence for the supernatural. When I was very young I was a believing catholic. I prayed and sometimes what I wished for happened and sometimes not. It is no different for me now. If I wish for something I have a chance that it will happen and a chance it won't. Like flipping a coin.
As to basing life on creationism, I don't think I am accusing you of that. But if you base your entire belief on the concepts that science can either support or refute your faith (as most creationists do) then you will do justice to neither.
quote:
I apologize if I seemed a bit harsh on the unbeliever, I love unbelievers probably more than believers in some cases. I am not religious and all of my relatives claim they are unbelievers - so, I live with them and understand them yet in all the gap between them and me is vast.
Feel free to be harsh...as I have been told, I am no peach myself
I don't find it harsh. I am just pointing out that I find there are some inconsistencies in what you are saying and that you are finding conflicts where none should exist. And I hope you do not end up in the futility of trying to support your faith and belief with science or by being anti-science as so many creationists have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 02-09-2004 10:41 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 02-09-2004 11:53 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 20 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-11-2004 4:11 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 15 of 53 (84721)
02-09-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
02-09-2004 11:53 AM


quote:
I see what you are saying but some things are a bit spookier. If you ask for a very specific sequence of events and they happen independent of your own input, what would you conclude Mammuthus?
I would say it is time for me to switch back to Augustiner Helles from Paulaner Weissbier But even the strangest things have turned out to have very common answers so if I cannot explain everything it does not lead me to believe in a higher power.
quote:
To be honest I now know that difference, infact if I wake up tomorrow and support evolution I wouldn't feel any different from the previous day concerning my belief in God. But in this topic I am eager to get you to pray because I think it is about belief and I think it can be proven to you personally but maybe not scientifically.
Well, I would not hold my breathe that will believe or start praying. But I am glad to see that you are seeing that science and belief need not be in conflict.
Now I have to go pick up my wife and then go and test the Paulaner to Augustiner beer switch...I like my studies to have empirical evidence..
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 02-09-2004 11:53 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by MrHambre, posted 02-09-2004 12:41 PM Mammuthus has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 18 of 53 (85322)
02-11-2004 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 12:10 PM


Re: my question
quote:
I claimed that prayer studies exist that obtained statistically significant results, and were done rigorously enough to be publishd in a refereed journal. This claim was supported.
You have chosen to ignore the prayer studies that drew no conclusions because the data was not statistically significant or in some cases showed detrimental effects of prayer i.e. higher frequency of re-admission to the hospital. Or a comprehensive review of the data showing no significant effect.You have only supported that you like to cherry pick evidence which in science is called fraud.
quote:
I have claimed that the Scriptures describe the true church as not having a name or building, and cited the verses that say so, supporting my claim.
The bible says that the bible says..blah blah blah. The Vedas say you are wrong thus your claim is not supported..see it is easy when your standard of evidence is based on opinion
quote:
. I claim that there exists a scientific method, rather widely accepted (many web-sites) that protects humans from the dogmatically opinionated, all-or-nothing view of data or evidence, but allows, through bayesian calculations, the incorporation of "weak" or messy data into the process of improving the plausibility of various subjectively confused ideas, such as demons. The support for both these claims has been vigorously discussed. It has not been accepted as support only by those who cannot give up the idea that "proving" something is the only way evidence can be used.
First, it is telling that you must seek your definition of science from web sites. It is also telling that the method you describe in no way matches the method described by Popper or on the top hits for H-D even with an online search. So either you do not understand the content of the sites or you are distorting the definition to fit your religious agenda. The two are not mutually exclusive.
You are also a hypocrite for claiming that any of the science oriented people on this site demand you "prove" your hypotheses. It seems your only way to make a point is to lie about what Percy, holmes, Mr. Hambre, and myself have been arguing with you about in many other threads. Again, you only support the weakness of your position.
quote:
The perserverance of Hinduism does reflect, in my appraisal of plausibility, the existence of some immortal spiritual beings or being, who cause people to believe that religion.
It also supports the plausibility of non-existence of some immortal spiritual being. It also supports the plausibility that the breast of Janet Jackson that we did not see is actually god.
quote:
the hypothesis that this being is not the "one true God" remains to be tested further.
tested further? It is untestable to begin with much less worthy of further testing.
quote:
It is my understanding that when persons coming on the scene with orthodox theology, their prayers drive out of the minds of Hindus the idea that this religion is the most useful. I've heard anecdotes to that effect, anyway.
I have heard anecdotes as well. I have heard that those who travel to India dump christianity like a hot potato and take up Buddhism. I have also heard that anecdotes that Kid Rock can sing (though I am skeptical since the reports came from Mr. Hambre ). Anecdotes get you nowhere.
quote:
In fact, the "happiest" state in all of India, I understand, is 100% followers of Yeshua.
With such a level of "understanding" I am surprised you are able to remember how to log onto this site every day.
quote:
But let the tests go on! H-D science will bring us to the truth!
Great, when will you start practicing H-D?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 12:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-12-2004 4:38 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 21 of 53 (85672)
02-12-2004 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-11-2004 4:00 PM


Re: Now Stephen needs mike the wiz
quote:
No, Mike's claim is exactly what I have been saying. He, Jehovah, confirmed the biblical claim that we can "prove" Him because, if we do certain things (tithe, prayer studies, simple praying for ourselves, seeking Him with all our might, etc.) He proves Himself to us, (opens the windows to heaven and drives away the devourer, answers miraculously our prayers, either for an experiment, or personally, revealing Himself to us, etc.) I agree with Mike. You're just not getting this point, at least not as well as you seem to be understanding how H-D science works. Probably because you have a demon in your brain. But, you can test that hypothesis with a simple experiment, a H-D experiment. If it is true, and you pray an agnostic prayer to Jehovah, in the name and by the blood of Yeshua, (in the case that they are all real), you will understand what we are trying to say. So, if you are a real scientist, do it.
You start with the circular arguement that if you believe in god, god is therefore proven..bzzzt..non science, not a logical conclusion. You then go on to say that if I disagree with this conclusion I must have a demon in my brain or some other malady..bzzt, non science, not a logical conclusion. You then make yet again the claim that what you claim is real science...circular arguments, personal belief, and claims that everyone who disagrees is possessed by a demon strongly suggests that your concept of science would be more fitting for the plot of the next Godzilla movie.
quote:
And, I choose to become a love-slave to Yeshua, taking charge of my own life only in those areas that He assigns to me.
I chose to be nobody's slave...especially mythological dieties...ok, maybe I would be willing to be the love slave of of Heidi Klum but that is beside the point
quote:
While before, trying to be my own boss, the devil kept taking me captive with an long list of have tos, and got tos, compulsions, addictions, and other forms of bond slavery.
Your personal faults are hardly positive evidence for your current position.
quote:
Hope this makes it even easier for you to understand us.
I understand Mike just fine...you on the other hand are completely inconsistent and incoherent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-11-2004 4:00 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 22 of 53 (85675)
02-12-2004 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-11-2004 4:11 PM


As a non-believer praying is the same as wishing...and since prayer studies have shown either no effect or even detrimental effects (I assume you read the references I posted?) it is a waste of time. In any case, even if prayer had an effect on a desired outcome..it is still not evidence for demons or a higher being...someday maybe you will learn to connect the hypothesis being tested with the data being collected..until then, fart away

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-11-2004 4:11 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by MrHambre, posted 02-12-2004 6:28 AM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 24 of 53 (85706)
02-12-2004 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by MrHambre
02-12-2004 6:28 AM


quote:
Let's say in the first part of the experiment I wish in one hand and shit in the other. Depending on which hand fills up first, the result would demonstrate the quantitative relationship between the two methods. Then I could pray in one hand and shit in the other, to measure the correlation between those two. By assuming that shitting is the constant, we may be able to determine accurate coefficients that apply in the instance of either praying or wishing.
I think this is an inaccurate description of the paper that was actually in Science titled "Looks like shit, smells like shit, is shit" by Costas Fecalis and Jonas Horsehockey. What they did was a priori assume that praying makes you shit. Costas held out his hand and prayed and Jonas shit in it thus raising the plausibility of their hypothesis from 0.6 to 0.61. The study came to a horrific end when Jonas ate an expired can of Beefaroni and tried to reproduce the results.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 02-12-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by MrHambre, posted 02-12-2004 6:28 AM MrHambre has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 26 of 53 (85990)
02-13-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-12-2004 4:38 PM


Re: my question
quote:
This isn't true, but even it were, it is irrelevant to the point, that I have found and presented evidence to support my claim.
It is not irrelevant Stephen. One research group presented "evidence" that cold fusion works. The studies could not be confirmed by anyone else. Cold fusion is therefore not reproducible science and the evidence is currently against it working. Merely putting out non-reproducible "evidence" and claiming this is sufficient confirmation is not acceptable scientific rigor in case you did not know.
quote:
But, of course, you are arguing with ghosts of creationists, who defend their positions on non-biblical matters by quoting scriptures.
However, you are guilty of the same mistake. You are arguing the validity of biblical matters by claiming the bible says so. There is no difference ultimately..only the subject the bible supposedly "supports" is different.
quote:
What is telling is your grasping at straws, like even considering for a minute that my citing of number of websites as evidence of wide-spread interes in a subject, is the basis for my "definition of science."
You brought it up so live with it.
quote:
I have noticed, by the way, that we are off thread in this discussion. Which is, "What is the true church of Yeshua, and does it matter to the evolution/creation discussion?"
I agree with you here and I hope that it has not chased off mike the wiz from his participation. May I suggest, as Percy wishes, that we confine our discussion of H-D etc to "The best scientific method" thread in the "Is it Science" forum?
quote:
Funny, I read those sites, delighted to find my every statement confirmed.
This statement supports the idea that there is a true church in the world, and that only in that church can someone find protection from bizarre mental functioning that your comment displays. There's help out there if you want it.
That you find the sites confirm what you are saying suggests you are having reading comprehension problems. And what mental functioning problems? I have just as much evidence that Janet Jackson's unseen boob is god as you do for demons or Jehovah...you are just not praying right
quote:
But, one would have to know what it is to know about that.
This circular reasoning is actually true...now please go out and "know" about it rather than making it up as you go along...see you in the "Is it Science" forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-12-2004 4:38 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 4:04 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 28 of 53 (86591)
02-16-2004 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-14-2004 4:04 PM


Re: my question
quote:
Are you accusing the cold fusion scientists of making statements without support, or of making some experimental mistake that led to irreproducible evidence for cold fusion?
Yes, nobody else can achieve the results they did under the identical experimental conditions they used...hence it is a non-reproducible result, artifact, not caused by what they claim, anecdote. A more recent example of such an outcome uncovered a major fraud in the physical sciences committed by Hendrik Schoen.
quote:
It turns out that some claims have evidence to support them, others don't. A closer examination of the bible shows that this is part of what it says will be true, and it gives directions for how it is to be interpreted, so that one knows which claims to expect to be validated.
Bwahaaahaaahaaa...."A closer examination of the bible shows that this is part of what it says will be true..." Oh no, you don't use the bible to claim the bible is true...my mistake
quote:
Several have claimed that what they say H-D science is is different from what I describe, but the only specific example comes from a clear case of projection, leading to misunderstanding.
So stop projecting already.
quote:
According to Yeshua, this is exactly the behavior expected from minds not protected by membership in the "true" church.
According to Janet Jackson's "true" divine breast you are wrong and your mind is not protected by the bra of celestial reason...you should be ashamed
quote:
You probably do. Seeing boobs has always been a form of idolatry, worshipping lesser gods. Look as Asgara's avatar. A form of idolatry that blinds one to understanding the search for truth, including H-D methodology.
How do you know..the boob of Asgara's avatar could also be the one true god and is testing your loyalty. There is just as much compelling reason to believe that as anything you have said thus far.
quote:
Pray for deliverance, and to find someone to teach you philosophy of science. Worked wonders for me.
Oh yes, I am so envious of you..to be a career-less demented old man wishing for greatness and overvaluing my influence and genius...sounds about as wonder-ful as shaving my bellybutton with a chain saw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 4:04 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-25-2004 5:42 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 31 of 53 (88737)
02-26-2004 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-25-2004 5:42 PM


Re: my question
quote:
But, if Jehovah in the Bible lays out an experiment that can be done to "prove" or "test" Him and His Scriptures, then doing that experiment validates the claim that the Bible is true.
Still purely circular reasoning. You assume that there is a Jehovah because the bible says there is a Jehovah and thus conclude there is a Jehovah.
quote:
You prepare a sampling of the recipes. If they taste good, the cookbook is good. If not, it is a fraud.
When I was very young I was and indoctrinated believer...I prayed and believed the mythology though became skeptical very early on (though until I was 4 I believed that Godzilla's son Tadzilla was alive in Japan. The cook book did nothing for me and prayer had no effect, positive or negative, on me or anyone around me anecdotally or even in the studies you quote which show there was no effect (detrimental effects in one study that I cited and you ignored). Thus, the cookbook is a fraud..glad we got that out of the way.
quote:
I don't believe in compelling reasons, and even if I thought there were any, would not use them
But that is just not true. You believe only in your "personally" compelling religious anecdotes. In the face of contradictory evidence you feel that argument from supposed authority, the bible confirming the bible, and personal anecdote are all the compelling reason you need to claim that your personal beliefs are the truth. There is nothing objective about your mythology and your beliefs carry no more weight than those of a devout Hindu or Muslim or any other religious persons.
quote:
But, it's better than you make it sound. I'd rather think that I am right than be president.
I rather "know" that I am as right as far as the tentativeness of science can provide than be president or merely think that I am right.
quote:
And, when you die, if you're wrong, oh my, what a comedown that will be.
Why is that? If Vishnu is the true god and mightiest god of the Hindu pantheon and I die and meet him, it will be up to him to explain why if he created me, he could not convince me of his existence. If the galactic pink unicorn is real, I will offer him some sugar.
quote:
Meanwhile, the fact that I am having a wonderful time rather balances the opinions you and some others have expressed.
Considering your angry and hateful outburst against agnostic in the Free for All, it sounds like you are a fairly miserable or at least very angry person ...but regardless, ignorance is bliss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-25-2004 5:42 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 02-26-2004 5:50 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 40 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-26-2004 4:10 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 33 of 53 (88745)
02-26-2004 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Phat
02-26-2004 5:50 AM


Re: True Church...lets meet the Boss!
Why not? If god/gods/pink unicorns created me ex nihilo then I am their responsibility. It is their fault I was created..so unless they are completely apathetic bozos they should be interested.... And while these mythical beings are at it, they can explain the unbelievable crappy design of the human genome, the unbelieveble waste and inefficiency of biological metabolism, my tail bone and nipples and on and on and on....myths are great...you can do anything with them and never be wrong. I think I see the appeal of creationism now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 02-26-2004 5:50 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 02-26-2004 6:27 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 02-26-2004 9:34 AM Mammuthus has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024