Atheists & Spiritualists = Equal Fools

#278
#278
Tenacious D said:
Even Satan quotes Scripture.

Don't count me on your Sunday School tally board just yet.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

He is "the prince of this world".

I don't keep numbers, just doing what Im called to do.:hi:

Believing that God exists is only part of the equation to the end answer.
 
#279
#279
BeecherVol said:
He is "the prince of this world".

I don't keep numbers, just doing what Im called to do.:hi:

Believing that God exists is only part of the equation to the end answer.
Click to expand...

But as we've seen - belief is no certain substitute for proof.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#284
#284
Tenacious D said:
So, you also admit that no proof is available to support your (spiritualist) side?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I have answered that question, re read the thread. The cards on the table TD, you fit into one group or the other.

You seem like you understand the weight of the situation pretty well.
 
#286
#286
T-TownVol said:
fyp
Satan even has to ask permission of God to act.
Click to expand...

Hence, god permits evil, creating a paradox with man's fingerprints all over it. One of many reasons to view god as a product of our minds
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#287
#287
IPorange said:
Hence, god permits evil, creating a paradox with man's fingerprints all over it. One of many reasons to view god as a product of our minds
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There can be no God, IP - why humor the notion?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#288
#288
BeecherVol said:
I have answered that question, re read the thread. The cards on the table TD, you fit into one group or the other.

You seem like you understand the weight of the situation pretty well.
Click to expand...

The situation, as I understand it from this thread, is that neither side can dis/prove God's existence.

At least there's no harm waiting for it with the atheists, I suppose. Worst that can occur from that side is I just die and nothing happens. Plus, I don't have to get up early on Sundays, be nice to people I hate, or burn in hell with their side.

Hence, I find it most preferable, on those terms.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#289
#289
Tenacious D said:
The situation, as I understand it from this thread, is that neither side can dis/prove God's existence.

At least there's no harm waiting for it with the atheists, I suppose. Worst that can occur from that side is I just die and nothing happens. Plus, I don't have to get up early on Sundays, be nice to people I hate, or burn in hell with their side.

Hence, I find it most preferable, on those terms.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If you did, what do you think would happen to you?
 
#291
#291
IPorange said:
Don't put words in my mouth. I've never said there "can be no God." Keep setting up straw mans, your good at it.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that you said that? Can you link to the post - or simply admit that you Rexed it?

Your clear and self-admitted atheism warranted the question I posed.

To used RDJ's earlier example of a unicorn - an atheists arguing a theological precept makes about as much sense as someone who doesn't believe in unicorns arguing about the length of its horn with those who do.

What's the point - if not to seek some attention by flexing what you mistakenly believe to be even an above-average intellect? Perhaps you are trying to convert them? Educate them? Perhaps you are searching, too?

What satisfcation do you derive from speaking to these spiritualists, IPO? What is it that you hope to enlighten us with, or learn for yourself?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#292
#292
The post I quoted shows what I was responding to, specifically. I was merely saying I have never stated or believed a god was "impossible."

You called me out by name to participate in this thread earlier, as I was "notoriously absent." Now you tell me it makes no sense for me to discuss a theological precept. Please make up your mind. Or send me another pm, outlining the rules of my participation and the scope of topics I am allowed to post on.

And frankly, if someone believed in unicorns, I would ask them questions about it. Because it's interesting to discuss other view points. You know. Like what we do here. Every day. I'm not trying to convert. I would guess it's fair that I do try to "educate" now and again, but that doesn't mean I am telling them they can't have faith in a god. I'm just not wired that way. Now, I may have an argument on some finer point or on the logic of their dogma. So what? Am I not allowed to disagree? Am I not up to your lofty intellectual standards to have my own opinion?

I notice you have counted yourself as a "spiritualist," by saying "us." At least you are actually being honest in that post, rather than pretending like you are walking a line between the "two," elevated above the logical fallacies you perceive in each.


You've always seemed quick to get pissy with me, and imagine slights in every post. So be it. That's not my problem.
 
#293
#293
IPorange said:
The post I quoted shows what I was responding to, specifically. I was merely saying I have never stated or believed a god was "impossible."

You called me out by name to participate in this thread earlier, as I was "notoriously absent." Now you tell me it makes no sense for me to discuss a theological precept. Please make up your mind. Or send me another pm, outlining the rules of my participation and the scope of topics I am allowed to post on.

And frankly, if someone believed in unicorns, I would ask them questions about it. Because it's interesting to discuss other view points. You know. Like what we do here. Every day. I'm not trying to convert. I would guess it's fair that I do try to "educate" now and again, but that doesn't mean I am telling them they can't have faith in a god. I'm just not wired that way. Now, I may have an argument on some finer point or on the logic of their dogma. So what? Am I not allowed to disagree? Am I not up to your lofty intellectual standards to have my own opinion?

I notice you have counted yourself as a "spiritualist," by saying "us." At least you are actually being honest in that post, rather than pretending like you are walking a line between the "two," elevated above the logical fallacies you perceive in each.

You've always seemed quick to get pissy with me, and imagine slights in every post. So be it. That's not my problem.
Click to expand...

You're not only welcome to disagree, I actually prefer that.

You may also attempt to shove me in either camp if you need to - I can understand that its a black and white issue for you. But, as I've said throughout this thread - I don't know what to believe. Sometimes one, other times it's opposite. Sometimes even both - and neither. How much more clearly can it be stated? Please confirm that you understand this, now, at long last.

You can offer any "education" that you'd like. Just be willing to have it examined, and scrutinized. Like. Everyone. Else. Every. Day. Sometimes, cleverly. Oftentimes, crudely.

I don't read very far into your posts, actually. Take it as you will, Mr. Schaeffer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#297
#297
IPorange said:
Hence, god permits evil, creating a paradox with man's fingerprints all over it. One of many reasons to view god as a product of our minds
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No real paradox here.

Satan was given free will or agency as was man otherwise both are nothing but programmed robots.

If I somehow gained the "throne" in America, I could force you to behave and say things. I could have you subjected to brain washing to make you agree with me. But that would be a hollow victory compared to having you follow me because you chose to.

If the Bible makes anything clear at all it is that God wants to commune with man.
 
#298
#298
Tenacious D said:
So evidences - be they calculated scientific fasts or the conversion testimony of believers - are insufficient in answering the question, at least to an effective and empirical degree, right?
Click to expand...
I would say that is an absolute, objective truth. However, I would give well documented and manuscript reported history a nod over most other empirical proofs.

I haven't read through the whole thread so I don't know if the "Bible is a book of myths made up by men" argument has been presented. However, the manuscript evidence demonstrates very plainly that we have the text of the Bible to a very, very high degree of accuracy. Due to redundancy, we can confidently say that no fundamental doctrine is at risk by any uncertain text. So the letters we have are the letters the apostles had and penned.

The reason that is important is that 1000's of Christians were martyred in the 1st century rather than recant the resurrection or supernatural acts of Christ. Eleven of the 12 Disciples plus Paul were martyred while refusing to recant their testimonies of Christ's miracles.

Why would a person die for a lie? Brainwashed? Explain Paul who never met Christ in life. Furthermore, it would seem that at least some of the disciples (not just the twelve but the 500+ who witnessed the resurrected Christ) would have very famously recanted their belief as their brethren were martyred over a span of decades.

Then how did either side choose which side they wished to believe (and note, that's all that either position is, ultimately, a set of beliefs), considering all unsatisfactory evidences?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There is a spiritual aspect according to the Bible. God moves on people and convicts them. Some are responsive. Some harden.

However I also believe supernaturalism and in particular NT Christianity to be the most "reasonable" in answering the fundamental questions of life.
 
#299
#299
sjt18 said:
No real paradox here.

Satan was given free will or agency as was man otherwise both are nothing but programmed robots.

If I somehow gained the "throne" in America, I could force you to behave and say things. I could have you subjected to brain washing to make you agree with me. But that would be a hollow victory compared to having you follow me because you chose to.

If the Bible makes anything clear at all it is that God wants to commune with man.
Click to expand...

Adam & Eve were nothing more than "programmed robots" until the introduction of Satan in the garden?

Curious.
 
#300
#300
sjt18 said:
I would say that is an absolute, objective truth. However, I would give well documented and manuscript reported history a nod over most other empirical proofs.

I haven't read through the whole thread so I don't know if the "Bible is a book of myths made up by men" argument has been presented. However, the manuscript evidence demonstrates very plainly that we have the text of the Bible to a very, very high degree of accuracy. Due to redundancy, we can confidently say that no fundamental doctrine is at risk by any uncertain text. So the letters we have are the letters the apostles had and penned.

The reason that is important is that 1000's of Christians were martyred in the 1st century rather than recant the resurrection or supernatural acts of Christ. Eleven of the 12 Disciples plus Paul were martyred while refusing to recant their testimonies of Christ's miracles.

Why would a person die for a lie? Brainwashed? Explain Paul who never met Christ in life. Furthermore, it would seem that at least some of the disciples (not just the twelve but the 500+ who witnessed the resurrected Christ) would have very famously recanted their belief as their brethren were martyred over a span of decades.



There is a spiritual aspect according to the Bible. God moves on people and convicts them. Some are responsive. Some harden.

However I also believe supernaturalism and in particular NT Christianity to be the most "reasonable" in answering the fundamental questions of life.
Click to expand...

You would give a well-documented account over empirical proof? I'm not sure how best to respond to that, but perhaps someone might.

The accuract of the biblical text hasn't been broached, at least as I recall, as it's only secondary to the question at hand, namely: Can you (ostensibly, a spiritualist) effectively and empirically prove the existence of God?

I'd think that wondering if her/his words, deeds and covenants have been accurately portrayed in the course of the biblical text would be a far secondary concern to being certain of her/his existence in the first place, right? Simply, if this is some entirely fictitious character, who cares how accurately s/he has been reflected in some manuscript?

I understand the Christian ideation of the Holy Spirit.....and you attribute the choosing of the respective sides by thow who either accept or becomed hardened by it? How then do you hope to explain the following:

1. "Christians" who (seemingly) are accepting of it, but then go on to be such poor representations of Christ, and his message? Do you consider that to be an "acceptance" of the Spirit's urgings?

2. Atheists who have never experienced nor encountered any such Spirit, whatsoever, but instead, have simply observed natural law and decided that this is the most plausible reason for the actions of the world around them? In other words, they have not becomed "hardened", but instead, simply accept the more tangible and convincing (natural) evidences around them? Is that still a rejection of the Spirit (if such exists)?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top