The Whole Jesus Thing

quote:

---

If you honestly can't see where it fortells of it, then that is fine with me. I see it, and so do millions of others.

---

And yet, millions of others know you are both wrong for reading the bible and not the Koran, andother millions think you should maybe look at the really existing world rather than some dusty tome.In other words, that is not an answer. If you calim that you can see it in the text, it is not enough to merely assert that: if you cannot explkain how you come to your conclusion nobody has any reason to take your assertion seriously.

quote:

---

I never said that there wasn't? While, unlike others, I do not condone these other views, I do not condemn them either.

---

Then you cannot really be true to your faith - becuase if you were, you would know that those worshippers of false goods are either badly mistaken or seduced by Satan, and furthermore that they are inducting their children into these "false" religions. Any claim to absolute truth necessarily precludes acceptance of any other claim to absolute truth.

quote:

---

Yes, I agree that isn't an answer, again, I never said that it was. I had already answered the question, and stated scripture, now if the person reading it doesn't understand it, and I have explained it the best that I could, isn't it ok that I see things differently,

---

No, it is not. Because all belief systems produce actions based on those on those belief systems. And seeing as all options carry opoprtunity costs, and echo across the social fabric, it is imperative that we understand what we are doing and why we are doing it so we can make rational decisions. It is not adequate to hold a position and be unable to justify why this position is correct.

quote:

---

One thing, that you must know about me, is that it is ok for me not to agree with you, and it is ok for you not to agree with me.

---

It's "ok" in a very airy-fairy, unrealistic, abstractly idealistic sense. I do acknowledge your different point of view, but I do not have to take your point of view seriously if you yourself cannot justify the position you yourself hold.

quote:

---

O, I see, In other words, you are never wrong, which would make you perfect. I should judge people to be true in my faith.

---

None of that arises from my question. I have made no claims to infallibility, not least because I have no pretensions to divinity.

quote:

---

You mean like God? He can't be explained, where did He come from, what are His thoughts? You see, again you are wrong, because I believe with all of my heart and soul that He is, even though there are no words to describe how He is.

---

Who? Is that the dude who comes along and replaces kids teeth under their pillows with quarters, or the dude in the red and yellow leathers who smote vampires?The fact that you believe something is fundamentally unimportant. It dosn't matter. The universe is utterly oblivious to your petty human conceits. YOUR BELIEF is not in question, the BASIS of your belief is in question - and you openly admit that you cannot justify it. Therefore, it's rubbish.

quote:

---

Ok, yet again a hypocritical statement, so what you are saying is this, if you happen to believe in God that is, Atheist are right, since you can't make your position valid to them, that makes you wrong, and them right since you can't justify your position. Now is that true?

---

It is certainly true as far as social policy is concerned, and it is certainly true where analysis of the real physical world is concerned. The specific position on god is besides the point, because 99% of modern theists recognise the validity of fact-checking and methodical analysis. Most theists check both ways before crossing roads rather than relying on gods guardianship, for example. And it is only in the special exception of the nature of god that theists abandon this rationalist mindset and go about asserting nonsense which they cannot even explain satisfactorily to themselves.And therefore I ask: if self-confessed theists cannot advance a cogent argument for their theism, why should they or their argument be taken seriously? I can and will preference arguments that are rational, contain evidence, and discuss really existing features of the world over argumnts that deliberately avoid such.

quote:

---

Aaaaa, but I did address and justify it, if it isn't understood, then it no longer becomes my problem.

---

Identification of moral fault. Having established blame, the respondant feels justified in evading the point. This demonstrates yet again that religion uses morality for socially manipulative purposes, as a stalking horse to conceal its ignorance and lies.

quote:

---

Really, so it is double standard? Can you prove that God doesn't exist? If not then by your standards alone, the belief (or non-belief) of an atheist would also be 'rubbish'.

---

I do not need to disprove god, becuase I am not the one claiming god exists. I cannot prove a negative. What I can say, however, is that there is no reason anywhere to believe in god any more than there is to believe in the tooth fairy. After all, the information we have about the tooth fairy is identical to that for god - rumour.Seeing as you will not or can not advance the slightest argument in support of your claims, I can legitimately dismiss them. Seeing as I can and will advance arguments in support of my claims, you cannot legitimately dismiss them. My claims are methodologically superior to yours, quite regardless of what either of us believe.

quote:

---

You are intitled to your oppinions, whatever they may be. Have a good day, but avoidance of questions, with intelectual words, makes your points no more valid than anyone elses.

---

Some advice you should take to heart, I suspect.

quote:

---

2. One can not make a cold fusion machine.

---

I think it was Clarke, but it might have been Asimov, who said that when a white-haired old scientist tells you that something is possible, you should probably believe them, but when they say something is impossible, you probably shoult not.It's impossible to know that something will never, ever, be achieved in the future. By contrast, kniowing that something CAN be done can be certainly known.

quote:

---

You're free to disagree. This whole argument will be based on our assumptions so any arguing is really pointless. In the end it all boils down to faith.

---

No, it does not, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly and at great length. Science is not driven by faith, it is driven by knowledge. I'd thank you to take this theistic arrogance and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

You tell me, Dawg - it was your claim.