On what God is

[water]

TruthSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeker,


Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. Xev is hot, but the way you are after her is really, reeeeeeeeally pathetic.
Stop with these accusations against her, you are only discrediting yourself.

 

[§outh§tar]

Therefore the the non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively denied. Out goes atheism - it seems this one was a double edged sword. Well done. Another nail in the atheist's coffin.

What scummy stupidity is this?

Atheism affirms the non-existence of God? What magnanimous idiocy!

Better check your sources. Definition of atheism.

 

[MarcAC]

What scummy stupidity is this?

Atheism affirms the non-existence of God? What magnanimous idiocy!

Better check your sources. Definition of atheism.

Such animosity... while you approach nebula status. Don't attack my post Dea[r] Star (The Southern Nebula): attack the one from which the conclusion was derived.

Such

scummy stupidity

and

magnanimous idiocy

you display.

You should add to "to read" to that which follows your name.

Here are a few quotes from the site...

There is much confusion about the meaning of the term atheism.

Especially among atheists - particularly the novices...

Most atheists do not define atheism that way.

("that way" = disbelief in God) - for those who care. I would particularly love to see the statistics which made the use of the term "Most" valid.

But hey, we can always challenge the dictionaries which were compiled through arduous research and are used as standard reference for most to justify our positions! Even I do that... ... well I mostly avoid 'geocities reference sites'.

 

[§outh§tar]

well I mostly avoid 'geocities reference sites'.

Some of us prefer to avoid self contradicting 'Holy Books' as well.

Oops.

 

[TruthSeeker]

TruthSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeker,


Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. Xev is hot, but the way you are after her is really, reeeeeeeeally pathetic.
Stop with these accusations against her, you are only discrediting yourself.

Discrediting? Why would that be? She broke quite a few rules herself. Many people have complained. Still, nothing is done. She is biased- why would accusing her discredit myself?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Some of us prefer to avoid self contradicting 'Holy Books' as well.

Actually, most of the "contradictions" in the Bible are caused by a combination of two fallacies....

Basically, it is a fallacy where two unrelated analogies are correlated (Non sequitur). What causes the fallacy is the fact that the symbols in those analogies don't have the same meaning (Equivocation).



Humm... let's see.... I should call it "Fallacious Analogous Correlation"....

 

[water]

Some of us prefer to avoid self contradicting 'Holy Books' as well.

Now, why the hell did I start that thread called "Bible versions" hmh?!



* * *

Discrediting? Why would that be? She broke quite a few rules herself. Many people have complained. Still, nothing is done. She is biased- why would accusing her discredit myself?

The way you are accusing her, you are only victimizing yourself. No wonder you achieve nothing against her.


If one whines, one should not expect justice to be on one's side.



* * *

Actually, most of the "contradictions" in the Bible are caused by a combination of two fallacies....

Basically, it is a fallacy where two unrelated analogies are correlated (Non sequitur). What causes the fallacy is the fact that the symbols in those analogies don't have the same meaning (Equivocation).

This would apply if the Bible were to be read as a mechanically logically consistent text, and if you would have immediate access to objective relaity.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The way you are accusing her, you are only victimizing yourself. No wonder you achieve nothing against her.

If one whines, one should not expect justice to be on one's side.

I'm not whining. She received quite a bit of complaints. Many have tried to take her away from that position. I'm not victimizing myself, I'm complaining about her management, that's all.

This would apply if the Bible were to be read as a mechanically logically consistent text, and if you would have immediate access to objective relaity.

I was talking about analogies. Different analogies define terms in different ways. The whole point of the fallacy is the very fact that you cannot interpret the terms in a consistent way. It can very well be logically consistent, even if the terms are not constant. That's the whole point. You see it as logically inconsistent because you are unable to define the terms according of each specific situation. As for objective reality, it is important to keep in mind that the Bible consists, by in large, of analogies. The key to understant the Bible is to link the subjective interpretation of the Bible to the specific objective realities. That's the whole point of my post.

 

[MarcAC]

...

Tread warily on the agnostic theist's road [especially when people like Cris are pleased to "see you evolve"]. If we stick to our faith we will see the truth one day - if we aren't seeing it already.

 

[§outh§tar]

Now, why the hell did I start that thread called "Bible versions" hmh?!

To incite Christians to bash me every chance they get in order to preserve their own confidence?

Just a guess.

//chuckles

Tread warily on the agnostic theist's road [especially when people like Cris are pleased to "see you evolve"]. If we stick to our faith we will see the truth one day - if we aren't seeing it already.

//Giggles some more

MarcAC, I admire you for your faith. Not everyone has what you have.

 

[water]

I'm not whining. She received quite a bit of complaints. Many have tried to take her away from that position. I'm not victimizing myself, I'm complaining about her management, that's all.

You don't even see what it is that you are doing!

The first thing a competent whiner says is "I'm not whining."
Uh.

Plus, you are not aware of the forum rules which say that complaints about moderators are to be directed at Porfiry, personally, otherwise, they will be ignored.

I was talking about analogies. Different analogies define terms in different ways. The whole point of the fallacy is the very fact that you cannot interpret the terms in a consistent way. It can very well be logically consistent, even if the terms are not constant. That's the whole point. You see it as logically inconsistent because you are unable to define the terms according of each specific situation. As for objective reality, it is important to keep in mind that the Bible consists, by in large, of analogies. The key to understant the Bible is to link the subjective interpretation of the Bible to the specific objective realities. That's the whole point of my post.

Don't.be.a.brick.wall.

The Bible wasn't written in a manner that, say, Wittgenstein's Tractatus logico-philosophicus was written. Yet you keep treating the Bible as if it were written in the manner of Tractatus logico-philosophicus.

See the difference?


* * *

Now, why the hell did I start that thread called "Bible versions" hmh?!

To incite Christians to bash me every chance they get in order to preserve their own confidence?

Just a guess.

//chuckles

GRRRRR!

I go and am practical and try to cover the issue meaningfully, and then you degarde into triflings!

Tread warily on the agnostic theist's road [especially when people like Cris are pleased to "see you evolve"]. If we stick to our faith we will see the truth one day - if we aren't seeing it already.

//Giggles some more

MarcAC, I admire you for your faith. Not everyone has what you have.

Exactly. This is why you can't bash him. You don't know what he has.
And if you had it, you wouldn't behave ... the way you do ... sometimes.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Tread warily on the agnostic theist's road [especially when people like Cris are pleased to "see you evolve"]. If we stick to our faith we will see the truth one day - if we aren't seeing it already.

I don't have a lack of faith, I'm simply more focused on agnoticism within my mind. My heart is still Christian and it will always be. As long as Christians don't become the anti-Christs.......

 

[TruthSeeker]

Plus, you are not aware of the forum rules which say that complaints about moderators are to be directed at Porfiry, personally, otherwise, they will be ignored.

Well, ok. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[MarcAC]

I don't have a lack of faith, I'm simply more focused on agnoticism within my mind. My heart is still Christian and it will always be. As long as Christians don't become the anti-Christs.......

Nowhere did I imply that Seeker; somehow I think I understand your position quite well. As I stated to you in some post way back when; All the best on your quest.

 

[§outh§tar]

GRRRRR!

I go and am practical and try to cover the issue meaningfully, and then you degarde into triflings!

One man's triflings, are another man's life.

Meaningful?

Exactly. This is why you can't bash him. You don't know what he has.
And if you had it, you wouldn't behave ... the way you do ... sometimes.

Sanity?

Didn't I tell you to stop being so cryptic with everything?

 

[water]

One man's triflings, are another man's life.

I know. But you were being facetious, and extremist.

Meaningful?

I think so. It makes sense to me.

Exactly. This is why you can't bash him. You don't know what he has.
And if you had it, you wouldn't behave ... the way you do ... sometimes.

Sanity?

Oh, stop it.


You know damn well that you are sane.

Didn't I tell you to stop being so cryptic with everything?

No, you haven't.
And I'm not being cryptic.

 

[§outh§tar]

One man's triflings, are another man's life.

I know. But you were being facetious, and extremist.

What I was trying to say is: you might think I was being facetious and extremist but to me I wasn't.

I think so. It makes sense to me.

As follows from the above, nothing can be "meaningful" since we arbitrarily choose what is and what isn't meaningful.

Oh, stop it.


You know damn well that you are sane.

Well what did you mean by "And if you had it, you wouldn't behave ... the way you do ... sometimes."

That seems to be cryptic to me. Not to you but to me.

 

[MarcAC]

As follows from the above, nothing can be "meaningful" since we arbitrarily choose what is and what isn't meaningful.

Insofar as God exists then there are objectively meaningful realities - purpose - everything meaningful is defined according to His will - everything objectively meaningful. I believe God exists. I believe that I have direction according to God's will - at least I try my best - hopefully that's good enough; thus I conclude there must be meaning to life on an objective front. Atheists on the other hand should surely have a hard time putting through any 'objective' philosophies or moralities they have on life.

 

[§outh§tar]

Insofar as God exists then there are objectively meaningful realities - purpose - everything meaningful is defined according to His will - everything objectively meaningful. I believe God exists. I believe that I have direction according to God's will - at least I try my best - hopefully that's good enough; thus I conclude there must be meaning to life on an objective front. Atheists on the other hand should surely have a hard time putting through any 'objective' philosophies or moralities they have on life.

The last time I checked the Atheist Bible , belief in God is rather subjective. Also, belief in God is rather arbitrary.

So why do you 'objectively' believe in God MarcAC?

Oh, and it doesn't follow that if God exists, there is a meaning to life 'on an objective front. Unless you can demonstrate how this is true..

 

[MarcAC]

The last time I checked the Atheist Bible , belief in God is rather subjective.

Is there anything that isn't subjective relative to the human perspective?

Also, belief in God is rather arbitrary.

How so?

So why do you 'objectively' believe in God MarcAC?

I don't. Where did I state that? God's existence isn't dependent on my (or your) subjective belief. Thus the statement "insofar" - neither is objectivity - go figure [edit - well objectivity as defined depends on each individual subjective perspective - but a true objective reality doesn't].

Oh, and it doesn't follow that if God exists, there is a meaning to life 'on an objective front. Unless you can demonstrate how this is true..

Well, it's simple really; If God, The Personal, Intelligent, Creator exists, then He created for a reason - meaning creation is defined by Him - He put it there for a purpose. In other words God defines objectivity... not me or you. That doesn't follow? How?