What has god done for you

lightgigantic said:
Celpha Fiael said:
Lightgigantic, I think you've exposed your ignorance sufficiently enough for me to see that this conversation will never go anywhere, so I'm going to suggest we end it now. You're obviously an extreme fundamentalist in your faith, which is to say that you are incapable of changing your mind. It is exactly as one who private messaged me concerning you said, "[Lightgigantic] is extremely opaque in his explanations, indeed even very disconnected, with no base other than his own proprietary definitions and usually accompanied by copied quotes from Hindu religious texts."

Good luck to you in your delusion, sir.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that you received such a PM since the only heated discussions I have had with persons concerning the vedas are by persons who cannot reference it to support their opinions of it.
:D

It all seems like a bit of a straw man actually, since most of the flaws atheists make in their presentations are fallacies of logic and truth, and I have hardly referenced scripture to dismantle such shows

:D
Click to expand...

I must point out that one does not need to reference a theist tome or tomes to have an opinion. Plus, most of us do not consider referencing the very item in question as valid proof or evidence, outside of it's own existence.
 
SnakeLord said:
So tell me christenstein...

1) What did he sound like? Any specific accent? Southern American/European? What?

2) What has he said exactly word for word? (If you tell me you don't remember you must be aware I am going to argue that 'gods' words can't be all that important).

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Christians communicate with God through the Bible prayer, which is by definition communication with the Lord. - Christenstein

Celpha Fiael said:
Now to dramatize the scenario and reveal my point, let's say the you have to make a choice here. You can (a) believe what this scientist says and not breathe in the gas or (b) not believe what this scientist says and breathe in the gas for yourself.

Which option would you choose and why?
Click to expand...

What's the difference between the scenario you placed forth and the choice between repenting and accepting Christ as Savior? You can believe that (a) what the Bible says is true, repent, and accept Christ as Savior or (b) not believe what the Bible says and ride it out.
 
Last edited:
Christians communicate with God through the Bible prayer, which is by definition communication with the Lord
Click to expand...

So when you said: "I have communicated to Christ Jesus, spoken to Him and He has spoken back" you were actually lying? He hasn't "spoken back" - he hasn't said anything.
 
Enterprise-D said:
I must point out that one does not need to reference a theist tome or tomes to have an opinion.
Click to expand...
certainly
and you know what they say about opinions and why everyone has one
:D

Plus, most of us do not consider referencing the very item in question as valid proof or evidence, outside of it's own existence.
Click to expand...
most of us understand that evidence is inextricably connected to qualifications of knowledge (it certainly explains why forensic detectives investigate murder scenes as opposed to prescribe medication after investigating brain topology scans) - for some reason however, the vast majority of atheists on this site dismiss this general principle in regards to theistic knowledge .....
 
atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.
Dictionary Version 1.0.1 (1.0.1)Copyright © 2005 Apple Computer, Inc.,

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Ibid

Gonna be an interloper here,
Atheism is as much a Belief as Theism.

I am a theist, I have no hard proof. But my life works better as one. By 'better' I mean, life makes more sense.
 
Tht1Gy! said:
atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.
Dictionary Version 1.0.1 (1.0.1)Copyright © 2005 Apple Computer, Inc.,

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Ibid

Gonna be an interloper here,
Atheism is as much a Belief as Theism.

I am a theist, I have no hard proof. But my life works better as one. By 'better' I mean, life makes more sense.
Click to expand...

The dictionary is wrong, atheism is not a religion. I dont belief in God *period*
 
lightgigantic said:
then why is it that the forensic detective cannot prescribe the right medication, even with the respective technological aids, if it is as you say, evidence is self evident?
Click to expand...

I dont know many forensic detectives that prescribe medication. But a primary reason doctors sometimes get it wrong is because evidence means exactly that - evidence! of a particular disorder. You only get factual diognosis from confidence tricksters/theologians.
 
Enmos said:
The dictionary is wrong, atheism is not a religion. I dont belief in God *period*
Click to expand...

Doesn't say it's a religon. Says it's a belief.

That is, when someone says: "God does not exist" It is a statement of what that person believes; just as when someone says "God exists" that too is what that person believes.

So are you saying "God does not exist?"

Now if your position is "God:shrug: ; not important either way", that's agnosistic. (the only truly logical position) (I'm not truly logical)

And frankly, Atheists: you seem to have this notion that your opinion should count more due to...Well, I have no idea why many atheists think this.
 
lightgigantic said:
certainly
and you know what they say about opinions and why everyone has one
:D
Click to expand...

Yes, that my opinion is supreme. Don't they all say that? lol :D
Seriously, the reason I posted that is because you seem to be dismissing opinion outright. Without opinion, there'd be no discussion. You seem to say that without a reference, one cannot have an opinion. I put it to you then, by this logic you as a non-director/non-actor have no right to rate a movie the next time you look at one.

lightgigantic said:
most of us understand that evidence is inextricably connected to qualifications of knowledge (it certainly explains why forensic detectives investigate murder scenes as opposed to prescribe medication after investigating brain topology scans) - for some reason however, the vast majority of atheists on this site dismiss this general principle in regards to theistic knowledge .....
Click to expand...


The analysis of evidence depends on the investigator's knowledge, not the evidence in and of itself. Following from the physical evidence and the interpretation of this evidence, we get (informed) opinion on which we can build a case.

Since your premise is the theist 'knowledge', but that which is based on flimsy and sometimes nonsensical, even non-existent "evidence", your conclusion can be nothing but inaccurate at best.
 
Enterprise D
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly
and you know what they say about opinions and why everyone has one

”
Yes, that my opinion is supreme. Don't they all say that? lol
Click to expand...
lol - yes everyone
Seriously, the reason I posted that is because you seem to be dismissing opinion outright. Without opinion, there'd be no discussion. You seem to say that without a reference, one cannot have an opinion.
Click to expand...
without reference to authority (not to confused with the appeal to authority) an opinion remains just an opinion - for instance if its my opinion that the tele tubbies are secretly controlling the world, it would require that I ground such an opinion in politics (and also children's television) in order to have something more than merely an opinion

I put it to you then, by this logic you as a non-director/non-actor have no right to rate a movie the next time you look at one.
Click to expand...
therefore my opinion as a movie critic bears no weight - I could make my opinion bear more weight if I could reference the relevant authorities (like say the opinion of established movie critics, or maybe even the cinematographic/social tropes and try and cut it as a movie critic in my own right)
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
most of us understand that evidence is inextricably connected to qualifications of knowledge (it certainly explains why forensic detectives investigate murder scenes as opposed to prescribe medication after investigating brain topology scans) - for some reason however, the vast majority of atheists on this site dismiss this general principle in regards to theistic knowledge .....
”

The analysis of evidence depends on the investigator's knowledge, not the evidence in and of itself.
Click to expand...
agreed
Following from the physical evidence and the interpretation of this evidence, we get (informed) opinion on which we can build a case.

Since your premise is the theist 'knowledge', but that which is based on flimsy and sometimes nonsensical, even non-existent "evidence", your conclusion can be nothing but inaccurate at best.
Click to expand...
are the words "physical" and "existent" identical?
;)
 
GhostofMaxwell. said:
I dont know many forensic detectives that prescribe medication. But a primary reason doctors sometimes get it wrong is because evidence means exactly that - evidence! of a particular disorder. You only get factual diognosis from confidence tricksters/theologians.
Click to expand...
thats because the basis of all types of empiric knowledge is ascending - in other words there is no perfection in empiricism since it relies on the contribution of ignorance to always make advancement
theistic knowledge has a different foundation (namely the revelation of a type of consciousness that is infallible - ie God's)

the doctor has the aid of a topographical scan

the saintly person has the aid of a relationship with the person who's knowledge doesn't undergo any dimunition and who is responsible for the creation, maintenance and destruction of the entire cosmic manifestation
 
lightgigantic said:
thats because the basis of all types of empiric knowledge is ascending - in other words there is no perfection in empiricism since it relies on the contribution of ignorance to always make advancement
theistic knowledge has a different foundation (namely the revelation of a type of consciousness that is infallible - ie God's)

the doctor has the aid of a topographical scan

the saintly person has the aid of a relationship with the person who's knowledge doesn't undergo any dimunition and who is responsible for the creation, maintenance and destruction of the entire cosmic manifestation
Click to expand...

Aha.......... Why then do your persons gifted with saintlyness get factual diagnosis and cure as numerically equally wrong as a boiled hedgehog, yet a Doctor with just evidential knowledge cures immensely more frequently than can be attributed to chance??
 
Tht1Gy! said:
Doesn't say it's a religon. Says it's a belief.

That is, when someone says: "God does not exist" It is a statement of what that person believes; just as when someone says "God exists" that too is what that person believes.

So are you saying "God does not exist?"

Now if your position is "God:shrug: ; not important either way", that's agnosistic. (the only truly logical position) (I'm not truly logical)

And frankly, Atheists: you seem to have this notion that your opinion should count more due to...Well, I have no idea why many atheists think this.
Click to expand...

'We' cant say the word belief, the theists will interpret it as religion.. and cause the discussion to start all over again.. sigh

What? i dont care a rats ass about how much you value my opinion.
Look, the base state of a human is without religion.. right? This is the 'standard' state and so doesnt require any sort of believe. Theists chose to belief in something, not atheists.
 
Enmos said:
'We' cant say the word belief, the theists will interpret it as religion.. and cause the discussion to start all over again.. sigh

What? i dont care a rats ass about how much you value my opinion.
Look, the base state of a human is without religion.. right? This is the 'standard' state and so doesnt require any sort of believe. Theists chose to belief in something, not atheists.
Click to expand...
First, If you don't care about what others say then Why bother being involved in a discussion board.

And What I'm pointing out is, Atheism is not a lack of belief in 'god', rather, atheism is a belief in 'no god'.

If one mearly lacks a belief in god that closer to agnosticism.

Look, I not trying to tell you what you believe in or against.
My main point is get terms defined.
Atheism is a position of belief. To say "There is no god"
is a belief.

Oh, please define: 'We'? Thx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top