I was wrong

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, that song makes me sick.  Sorry to have snapped.  I have been feeling a little under attack and did not read your post properly.

 

 

No prob. My AoG pastor used to say things like, "if you know that you know that you know that Jesus is real, raise your hand." I always had trouble figuring out whether to raise my hand or not.

[Jay]

A logical proof that having murderers wander around open society is a bad idea?  What, you want statistics?  A mathmatical equation?

 

Or just an example of certain undesireable effects that lack of prisons could cause? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A syllogistic argument based on objective statements would suffice.

[Jay]

You're making an assumption there.

 

When you're saying "no scientists will ever be able to show", then I assume that you have some evidence to that fact?

 

I know they can't do it now, but "never" is a very strong standpoint that you have to uphold with something more... please provide more information...

You're right, that was a bit of an extreme statement on my part. I should have said something more like, "Science has no evidence that indicates that life could have somehow emerged from non-life".

[Jay]

I'm beginning to think that logic doesn't mean anything to you at all.  You keep defining it to a point where it is not applicable to anything.  I may be wrong, but I feel like you are playing word games.

Well, logic certainly des not apply to everything. Logic does not, for example, apply to the notion that I love Oreos. Surely you agree that the vast majority of our every day lives are not influenced by logic. If they were, we could all simply be replaced by sophisticated computers.

I've been in debates before where this happens.  The Christian will keep redefining God, logic, biblical passages, existance... continually redefining them so that he can not be pinned to one meaning, and therefore does not have to present his full beliefs for debate.  I could be wrong, but I feel that is what you are doing.

Well, I am sorry you feel that way. At this point, I have not presented any definition for God and I haven't introduced a single Bible passage. I have suggested that existence is unprovable, and DC agreed by simply calling it axiomatic. It doesn't need any proof. Because there is really none that can be presented. I have attempted to define logic, but the definition has not changed. It is still the same. What I see here is that some think logic applies to things that it does not, and that provides a difficult foundation for future debate.

So just come out and say it, with God, there is no logic.  Logic does not exist when it comes to God.  To say that God does not have to abide by the laws of nature, but has to abide by the laws of logic, is just word play, imho.

Well, again, I am sorry you think that. Gravity is a law of nature. It is not a law of logic. The two are independent and not in any way connected with each other. While we sometimes use laws of nature in our logical proofs, we do that with the assumption that, under no circumstances can the law of nature be suspended.

Maybe I have missed it, but have you given me the proof of God without committing a logical fallacy yet?

Not yet. That proof takes a bit of time to construct, and I haven't had that block of time since yesterday to do it. I will try to get to it by next weekend.

[MrSpooky]

Well, logic certainly des not apply to everything. Logic does not, for example, apply to the notion that I love Oreos.

 

Yeah, logic IS pretty out of place when applied to entirely subjective functions. Logic is the methodology of refining and defining the meaningful and the objective.

 

Which is why Christianity can work only as an entirely subjective function.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I apologize Jay for my deplorable behavior towards you in this thread. I am a total jerk. I will from this point on chill out.

 

Again I sincerely apologize for my behavior. You did not in any way deserve the abuse I dished out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bump.

[quicksand]

Lanakila was on Infidel Guy?  I better go find that and listen to it.

MM and Spam,

 

Yeah I think I have it at home (I can email it to you guys if I do have it there). Unfortunatly at work it got whiped out. You can get the podcasts and save them if you have iTunes 4.9. You should check it out. Since I dont watch the comabox anymore, its a way I can listen to newsprograms and such that I miss at work. And its awesome you can get Reggie's show too.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Jay

I have suggested that existence is unprovable, and DC agreed by simply calling it axiomatic.

If something is self evident it needs no proof. Axioms are how we get by in reality. We are rewarded or punnished according to our perception of reality. No Axioms = no survival in this reality in which we exist.

 

Axioms are essential. Gods what an understatement. The lack of evidence in your god is damning proof that your god is either playing games with us or IT does not exist. We depend on axioms to live. If your god does not respect that then IT is either playing games with us for sport, or.. IT is simply a made up invisible friend given us by our ancestors.

 

If your god was really interested in a relationship with us it would respect the fact that we need axioms to draw on and so then it would do what it takes to give US ALL confidence in it so that we can make a choice. We must be aware of god first.

 

( I am keeping this avatar for this week as a reminder that I'm a horses ass. Sorry for being such a jerk Jay. )

[Jay]

If something is self evident it needs no proof. Axioms are how we get by in reality. We are rewarded or punnished according to our perception of reality. No Axioms = no survival in this reality in which we exist.

I have not denied the existence of axioms. My only point is that there are some things, whether we choose to dress them up and call them axioms or not, that we simply believe with no evidence. I am not suggesting that God is axiomatic, but it was someone else who made the statement that the only things that could be believed are those things that are provable. By accepting the existence of axioms, we deny that statement, and happily admit that we will believe some things that are unprovable. That was my only point. I was not headed anywhere with it or intending to use it as a weapon.

( I am keeping this avatar for this week as a reminder that I'm a horses ass. Sorry for being such a jerk Jay. )

You know, we are all horses asses sometimes, and I have spent my share of time being one. I just hope that we can move forward and be respectful even if the conversation gets heated.

 

[phoenix]

My inlaws are Catholic.  I have come to the conclusion that whenever things like Jesus brothers are brought up or the passages shown, the Catholic's brain blanks out, not unlike a seizure, and they don't see or hear anything.

 

My MIL is so frustrating to speak to on this subject, that I have sworn off ever speaking to her again about it.  We had a conversation once about Joseph and Mary's supposed chastity.  After I was informed that the word "brother" really meant "believer"; i was informed that Mary was never defiled by having sex with her husband.  So I replied, "So, as a married person, you have committed a sexual sin every time you had sex with your husband?"  Dead silence.  Conversation change.  LOL!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i was taught at catholic school that "brother" was a generic term for siblings and cousins.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Jay

By accepting the existence of axioms, we deny that statement, and happily admit that we will believe some things that are unprovable.

Yet the bible demands blind obediance to belief in bible god. Since you claim bible god as your diety you can see why I had suspicions of your intentions. You are an unusual xer.

 

I do believe in things unprovable...yet I don't really. I also admit that I can be completey wrong in what I believe if I don't have hard evidence FOR it.

 

However, the bible makes claims ,threats and promises as well as demanding blind obedience if we are to survive thier claims of punnishment from the alleged bible god.

 

Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence. Since the bible writers are hot shit and all and are all ganster on our asses they better deliver some extraordinary evidence that gives us extraordinary confidence in it. Bible god should do that if it wants us to have a choice to make.

 

Any unsupported belief that I might entertain is still superior in every way to belief in bible god. Thats money you can take to the bank.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Jay

You know, we are all horses asses sometimes, and I have spent my share of time being one. I just hope that we can move forward and be respectful even if the conversation gets heated.

When it comes to xers I am suspicious, ASSuming, and impulsive. I need to be smarter than that, but I am growing from each embarrassing fubar I make.

 

Your a good natured feller. Thanks for the understanding that I never gave you. I wonder how much emotional intelligence costs per ounce, I got the gift certificate you gave me yet still I am too broke. Maybe the next couple paychecks that I earn will buy me an once of emotional intelligence. I got my fingers crossed. Hehe.

[spamandham]

You're right, that was a bit of an extreme statement on my part.  I should have said something more like, "Science has no evidence that indicates that life could have somehow emerged from non-life".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Although better, it's still too broad. You can argue that the evidence isn't good enough to persuade you, but such evidence does exist. Self replicating organic compounds have been produced in the lab from chemicals that occur naturally in non-life environments.

 

Does this prove that's what happened? No, of course not, but it does remove god as a necessary agent in abiogenesis, since there is a consistent alternative theory with the greatest stumbling block proven possible.

 

Since we're willing to look at evidence on this matter, do you have any direct evidence of creation (no Bible passages please, real evidence)?

 

Somehow I doubt that your faith rests on this issue, but it must be important to you or you wouldn't have brought it up.

[Amanda]

  But, according to my example it is no more likely a Hindu to abandon their faith and pick up yours, then it is for you to abandon yours and pick up theirs.  Why?  Because you both have been immersed in an ideology which has been told to you as truth, and has thus made it difficult if not impossible for either of you to abandon your beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Madame M, so if these two people came together and examined their beliefs, these underlying principles... and focused on their similarities instead of their differences... do you think there would be more similarities than differences, or vice versa? Further, would you consider that perhaps one's cultural presentation may make these ideas seem more different than they actually are? (of course you know that I believe we are ALL ending up in the same place of peace and joy)

 

BTW, FWIW, Kevin... I do think that how something makes you feel is important! If you honestly feel free of chains that bound you by the notion of guilt that seemed invalid to you... then it seems that you ARE on a path that is allowing you the discovery of what makes you a better person for yourself, your family, and your community. I would caution you to take care and responsibility before you just abandon ALL your beliefs, just to examine what does give you peace, freedom, happiness while still maintaining a respectful position. I really sense, perhaps, you were bound by some lies... and letting them go feels wonderful. My best regards to you on your wonderful new journey!

[Amanda]

Amanda, I would love peace and joy in an afterlife, but if it means spending an eternity with the god you believe in.... I hope that you're wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, you don't understand my interpretation of 'the' Bible God in which I believe. And if we all end up with the bible god in which you believe, I'm with you.... I don't want to end up there either!!!

[Checkmate]

Thankful, you don't understand my interpretation of 'the' Bible God in which I believe. And if we all end up with the bible god in which you believe, I'm with you.... I don't want to end up there either!!! 

 

Appreciate the sentiment, but I must corect ONE thing you said here.

 

We DO NOT "believe in" the bible god. It has merely been THAT "god" that has been foisted off upon us TO believe. (Which we don't!)

[Jay]

Yet the bible demands blind obediance

I am not so sure about that.

Any unsupported belief that I might entertain is still superior in every way to belief in bible god. Thats money you can take to the bank.

We shall see, when I am able to lay out my case.

[Jay]

Although better, it's still too broad.  You can argue that the evidence isn't good enough to persuade you, but such evidence does exist.  Self replicating organic compounds have been produced in the lab from chemicals that occur naturally in non-life environments.

That's interesting...can you point me to a resource that discusses this more?

[spamandham]

That's interesting...can you point me to a resource that discusses this more?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This isn't the most recent, but it sums it up nicely. There's enough info to clue you into more recent research if you are inclined to check it out.

 

Talkorigins on abiogenesis

[BLACKGRAVITY]

Wow, I can only say wow!

 

Actually I still have all my christian literature and the bibles too, but I know several members on this site threw them away. I still have them, not to read in, but... I don't know... too lazy to even touch them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i keep my old xtain books for reference... shit paper... and a good laugh if i'm feeling down.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am not so sure about that.

Any unsupported belief that I might entertain is still superior in every way to belief in bible god. Thats money you can take to the bank.

We shall see, when I am able to lay out my case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK. Now you got my curiousity peeked, dang you.

[Amanda]

This isn't the most recent, but it sums it up nicely.  There's enough info to clue you into more recent research if you are inclined to check it out.

 

Talkorigins on abiogenesis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for that resorce... yet 'it' even doubts the possibility of abiogenesis. As I've said before, this is just an off shoot of spontaneous generation. It is all theory, and makes no claims to have even come close to duplicating in the lab any of the scenarios for abiogenesis.

 

My guess, fwiw,... to their best efforts of support... is mRNA acting on itself... and that would be astounding! There is mRNA in all living things and it hasn't acted on itself yet... and their only foundation for this is that amino acids is the building blocks to protein... which may make life entities, yet is not the force of life.

 

When someone can duplicate that animating force... BINGO! That will scream out from every form of communications possible... and it hasn't happened yet... and I'm not holding my breath...

[Guest SkizzikS]

Kevin,

I'm new here so you and I have never debated, but I am a recent deconvert also and I want to say welcome to sanity. Isn't it great!

[Ouroboros]

Welcome Skizziks, always good to see new de-converted!

[Cerise]

Thankful, you don't understand my interpretation of 'the' Bible God in which I believe. And if we all end up with the bible god in which you believe, I'm with you.... I don't want to end up there either!!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not everyone can get into the spirit of Amandianity so completely, 'tis true.

 

But if we're busy making up our own religions, why not chuck the "jesus" thing all together?