No, Mr Pot. I've just never heard rational discourse coming from you.
Absurd things Christians say...
- Thread starter takethewarhome
- Start date
No, Mr Pot. I've just never heard rational discourse coming from you.
true..
again true..
provided you qualify for the above two true's, it is still for all willing to accept.
(maybe guarenteed is too strong a word..but still)
you can boast all you want...you would still be saved..salvation is not a commodity that can be given and taken..once its accepted it is assured..
no..
it is not just populated by 'the most vulnerable and da most lowly'
there are all sorts of ppl from different stations in life..
and how does purchased wisdom apply?
Suppository.
I doubt it but if you think it improves your stance then good ploy. Perhaps two theists might engage in such great arguments as those quoted.
I'm not going to be critical about you pushing for arguments to follow the rules. Your Robert's Rules of Order attitude is necessary at times. However it is with great pleasure that I welcome those interruptions because not only are they thread stoppers but they force the opponent to rethink and choose any future words more carefully.
However I enjoy it simply because I regard it as a desperate last stand approach. It's like Custer at the Little Big Horn, eventually you're overwhelmed but you can't surrender.
There is no way you can demonstrate God's existence by using the rules of argumentation. Fortunately for you these rules exist for without them atheists points may well be worth considering. We can always throw the need for evidence pitch at you or ask you to prove God exists without you having any evidence. Hell, we can even ask for evidence. Even you know this is tough to defend against.
In any case, anything atheists put forward is an argument by rule. Focus on the argument and deflect anything that's remotely in danger of making the theist think. Heavens!! Can't have the theist mind swayed by doomed-to-hell atheists.
I'm glad this is the only defence you have. It shows how weak the theist position actually is.
no doubt you come to such a conclusion on the basis that there are certain grounds required for a valid argument
Strange
Most people would regard such pointers at the beginning before embarking in argument.
That's correct
You can use tools of argumentation against persons lodging arguments for god's non-existence however.
Interesting.
Atheistic arguments become more worthy of consideration when you disregard the standard means to determine validity.
to which there is the standard reply about meeting certain standards of qualification (if you feel that any evidenced claim can be met without touching on issues of qualification, please be our guest)
If you're not qualified to deal with the data that constitutes evidence, you are in no better position than a truck driver giving his professional opinion on hemodynamics
:shrug:
fantastic
Now I guess the next question involves looking at the structure of that argument
Once again, strange that you should label a critique along the lines of general structure a deflection.
I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument.
There's just one more thing....God can only exist because there is no 100% proof He doesn't.
How are the words 'God exists' any different then saying '4 leaf clovers are lucky'? Both of these are post-observational statements meant to satisfy an otherwise unexplainable condition.
Last edited:
Nope not for a Christian.
Salvation can be accepted and then later rejected. It is not a case of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) thats calvanisim not Christianity.
Salvation cannot be lost, but it can be discarded.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
perhaps that's the ramparts for one who's basis is simply one of logic and argument ..... Others may attest to god's existence by dint of their endeavors of application.
Application begins where logic and argument finishes.
IOW once one has made up one's mind about whatever the hell its is, a suit of actions follow.
(I assume you don't want to advocate that there is no means to qualify post observational statements .....}
LG: Do you mean theism is justified because of our innate proclivity towards understanding something by asking ourselves....how else can you explain it?
I mean the justification of theism lies in the application of theism ... much like the justification of car mechanics lies in the application of car mechanics (and of course by qualifying post observational statements we can come to understand that not all car mechanics are equal)
A small plane crashes & 1 person survives whereas 1 dies. Did.....
1. God save that person
2. Improvements in safety save that person.(despite the fact others have died to make it safer)
3. Sheer luck have anything to do with saving that person
4. God take away the deceased because it was their time(or some other personal reason)
5. God crash the plane to further enhance safety measure improvements
6. A malevolent being catch God napping
7. God just impose His will and kill somebody for no reason
8. God not want us to fly & is He warning us
9. God want us to thank Him for not being on that plane(or some other reason)
10.God just go on as planned
Which of these is the correct theistic application?
1. God save that person
2. Improvements in safety save that person.(despite the fact others have died to make it safer)
3. Sheer luck have anything to do with saving that person
4. God take away the deceased because it was their time(or some other personal reason)
5. God crash the plane to further enhance safety measure improvements
6. A malevolent being catch God napping
7. God just impose His will and kill somebody for no reason
8. God not want us to fly & is He warning us
9. God want us to thank Him for not being on that plane(or some other reason)
10.God just go on as planned
Which of these is the correct theistic application?
or, at least generally speaking
11. All persons involved (from the survivor to the deceased to the safety engineer) reaped the results of their previous activities honed by their previous desires. Since every living entity has to die (unless liberation is on the cards) and take birth again, its not so simple as to suggest that the person who died was more sinful, the safety designer/survivor more pious , etc etc.
IOW death for the eternal living entity simply spells relocation (for better or worse) .... and relocation simply spells effectively relieving us from our karma (which in conditioned life, we habitually keep acquiring).
Theistic activity aims at minimizing the build up of this karma so that one isn't obligated to continue material existence. In fact theistic activity can be so powerful as to make the issue of material existence obsolete ( if one has no pending issues of attachment or aversion, what's the big deal?)
What is the big deal?
According to what I hear from you and other theists, at some point in the past all men(or the living entity) were equal in their pathetic desires. No one desired more or less than the other. The living entities were created by God. Does it not strike you odd that God would commit to doing such a thing and why? The entities were either created with pathetic desires or were tempted into acquiring them. What is the point other than divine enjoyment for sky beings who know what was going to happen anyway. Right back where we started
On the contrary, the very nature of being an eternal individual means that one's desire is unique. Whether one winds up liberated or conditioned because of proper or improper use of it is something completely separate.
Or more to the case, created with the same quality as god, namely with free will, yet possessing but minuscule quantity. Not recognizing that minuscule quantity (ie giving vent to the desire to lord it over matter) is what makes the whole show pathetic (since we are born and die with nothing).
I guess there's the important question of us actually developing a sense of self that's more in stock with the reality of the situation (namely that no matter how much enthusiasm gets usurped by channels other than god, it won't really change anything - even if you get everyone on the faceof the planet working in R&D for air craft safety, people will still die in planes)What is the point other than divine enjoyment for sky beings who know what was going to happen anyway. Right back where we started
:shrug:
No big deal. This has been my mantra from the beginning and I`m glad to see it here. Yes, there is no reason for theistic religion because no one knows. All the more reason belief in a deity should be private. It`s none of anyone`s business so keep it to yourself and out of circulation. Religion realistically should be banned everywhere. Only then we might be able to sleep at night.
My mother in law recently told a story that included some absurd god crap.
She was talking about her friend who was married and they had 8 kids together, it turns out that the husband was molesting the kids, the older girl filed a complaint against him, he is now in his 50's and was going to the court house and at the court steps died of a heart attack.
My mother in law then said, "the lord took care of it", " the lord came down and put a stop to him "
And I thought, where the f*ck was the lord while these kids were being molested ?
"no big deal" can also be spouted from the position of ignorance too (since you appear to have impending issues of attachment and aversion)
Ironically, the only way that your statement could be true is if you are omniscient
well I guess you will have to take this issue to the big guy
It would certainly foster a higher level of artificiality (in the form of ascribing eternal values to temporary objects) if that's what you're after .....
wow
atheist and an insomniac - what a double whammy.
:bawl: