What If Tarot Is Real?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

Science is starting to understand .......

Science has determined no such thing.

How did you get from "starting to understand" to "determined"?

I understand enough biology to smell BS and enough psychology to recognize deflection, sport.

 

OC has misrepresented someone's post, as he's done with this one of yours, many, many times.

 

The standard operating procedure for atheist message boards is to constantly and incessantly claim they are victims of misrepresented and misinterpreted posts. They constantly claim the victim. I have never intentionally done this. It is just part of the victimhood shtick.

 

 

I don't see such claims in any profusion on here or on Secular Web.  I have pointed out several times your tendency to misrepresent posts, OC.  I think this habit is an effect of the speed with which you read and consider what other people write and of the superficiality with which you answer.  You've been on here a long time but don't show interest in serious dialogue.  Sad.

 

I am in the minority, which is fine by me, but this and the fact that my time is limited forces me to pick and choose what I respond to. Also, I think saying more in fewer words is better then saying less in long prose. So I prefer brief and to the point posts. There are times on this site where I have invested in longer more detailed explanations but I don't repeat this on the same subject to frequently. Most of the time a pithy answer is more effective. While doing this I may in the process ignore what someone thinks is their golden argument. If I don't respond most likely I simply think it is unconvincing or already addressed.

 

I flatly disagree that I misrepresent other posts.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

I confine myself to the lions den and respond to the endless bullshit spewed by anti-Christians.

Do you classify Protestants that endlessly demonize Catholics as anti-Christian?

 

A Christian is defined by the Bible not by popular culture. Some who call themselves Catholics are not indeed Christian. Some have grossly syncretic beliefs that are not any form of Christianity. Some Catholics are Christians with some wrong doctrine.

 

Mormons are not Christian. Anyone who took a moment to study the roots and even their current beliefs would know this.

[Ouroboros]

Mormons are not Christian. Anyone who took a moment to study the roots and even their current beliefs would know this.

And if you had taken a moment to really study (instead of consistently assume and overlook) the roots of the current beliefs of the people on this website, you wouldn't have generalized people here either.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is starting to understand .......

Science has determined no such thing.

How did you get from "starting to understand" to "determined"?

I understand enough biology to smell BS and enough psychology to recognize deflection, sport.

 

OC has misrepresented someone's post, as he's done with this one of yours, many, many times.

 

The standard operating procedure for atheist message boards is to constantly and incessantly claim they are victims of misrepresented and misinterpreted posts. They constantly claim the victim. I have never intentionally done this. It is just part of the victimhood shtick.

 

 

 

Intentionally or not, you have misrepresented posts before in the past but we certainly don't see ourselves as victims, or at least, I don't.

 

Perhaps some people here wanted to believe I misrepresented posts. Perhaps some people here can't communicate clearly and imagined they said one thing when they said another. Perhaps I ignore parts of posts because they were rambling rants. Perhaps I ignore strawmen and red herrings. Perhaps I ignore long boring posts where people don't say anything to the point.

 

 

If you are not convinced that you have misrepresented posts, intentional or not, I know where I could find at least one example. I'll site the web page and the post number in the thread for you to see, if you would like me to.

 

Sure, I'll take a look at it.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

A Christian is defined by the Bible not by popular culture. Some who call themselves Catholics are not indeed Christian. Some have grossly syncretic beliefs that are not any form of Christianity. Some Catholics are Christians with some wrong doctrine.

Mormons are not Christian. Anyone who took a moment to study the roots and even their current beliefs would know this.

 

 

Why do you have the authority to define who is or is not a Christian? What gives you the authority to claim that anyone has the 'wrong doctrine' and that yours is more correct than anyone else's?

 

What right do you have to state that Mormons are not Christian?

 

Do you even know what the term 'Christian' means? That wasn't actually a question, because it's obvious that you do not.

 

All that you've posted above is a plain and simple outright 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

 

You've got no right or authority to define such things on your own whims. It's nothing more than offensive posturing on your part to even suggest that you do.

 

Also, stop posting every single quote. Cut it down to the quote or quotes you're responding too. Seriously, we shouldn't have to scroll through all of that unnecessary text of an entire conversation being repeated multiple times because you can't figure out how to use the highlight and backspace functions. That's basic net etiquette and it's 2013, you should know better by now and there's no excuse for it.

[OrdinaryClay]

Wow, OC, hat's off to your excellent trolling.  Good thing you're somewhat entertaining.  

 

Oh, and I just love the assumption that everyone here's an atheist.  Really, I just got a better offer.

 

You claim to have good news, but I have better: you're not in any danger to begin with.  Now seriously, go, live your life, and be not a douche.

I didn't assume everyone here was an atheist. There are many atheists here as can be seen by their words. There are also many non-atheists here as can be seen by their words. I have no idea what the numbers break out is.

 

Are you an atheist?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

The standard operating procedure for atheist message boards is to constantly and incessantly claim they are victims of misrepresented and misinterpreted posts. They constantly claim the victim. I have never intentionally done this. It is just part of the victimhood shtick.

 

OC, for one thing, atheists do not reject your god, as you have said. Atheists have found no reason to believe a god even exists, therefore they can't possibly reject a nonexistent deity; it would be like rejecting pink unicorns. This is one of many primary points you "misinterpret." If I said, "I don't believe that gods or anything supernatural exists. I can't find any evidence" you would respond with, "So, you decided to reject God." You have completely misinterpreted what I said and I am not imagining it just so I can be a "victim." YOU got it wrong.

 

The fact that you hear what you want to hear doesn't make me or anyone else play the victim. We make note of how you ignore and twist things, and that reflects on you, not us.

 

You do this so consistently I must wonder if you are sincere or just a bored troll. Honestly, dialog with you is quite useless as you don't hear what we say most of the time. I don't expect any minds will be changed, but we could try to understand each other. You make that impossible.

 

I didn't misrepresent anything. Atheists reject the evidence. This is rejecting God.

 

Just because atheists misuse the English language does not mean I misrepresent posts. I know the empty atheist spiel about atheism being a lack of belief - you know like my dog is an atheist, or the chair I'm sitting on is an atheist. I don't play that silly word game no matter how many times atheists try and pull it. Atheism is absolutely and unequivocally a rejection of the Christian God.

[mymistake]

Why does anybody give this troll the time of day?  I guess they are having fun.  You just can't take him seriously.  He is a good example of what fundamentalism does the the human mind.  Fortunately the damage is reversible.  Once people start thinking for themselves and expose themselves to reality they can be free of this scam that enslaves Christians.

[Dhampir]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deficient  See definition number 2. Perhaps deficiency isn't the best term.  Perhaps "insufficiency" is a better term, but since the two are synonymous I saw no reason to nitpick to that degree.

 

God wanting emotional fulfillment in the form of expressing love for a creation that hadn't yet been created, shows that god was dissatisfied with the prior state of affairs.  You CANNOT desire something if there is no emotional need-- a lack of some fulfillment-- a deficiency according to definition number 2.  Either God was perfectly fine with the way things were, or he wanted something different.  You cannot have it both ways.

[florduh]

Atheism is absolutely and unequivocally a rejection of the Christian God.

 

 

 

There is no meaningful response for this idiotic claim. You really are a troll. I gave you too much credit.

[ContraBardus]

I didn't assume everyone here was an atheist. There are many atheists here as can be seen by their words. There are also many non-atheists here as can be seen by their words. I have no idea what the numbers break out is.

 

Are you an atheist?

 

 

Does it matter? It doesn't improve our opinion of your arguments even if we aren't. To us, they are all equally stupid.

 

I'm what you'd call a Strong Agnostic myself. I don't actually know if there is any such thing as a God, but I see no reason to act as though there is without evidence to support the existence of one. I also don't worry about what said 'God' thinks about me, my actions, or whether I believe in it or not. I'm not stupid enough to think that such a being would actually care one way or the other.

 

I don't believe in God, but I also wouldn't say 'there is no God'. I just have no reason to think that there is such a thing, and I'm perfectly willing to change that position should new evidence surface to change that position. Though, I'm just as confident in saying that 'there is no Christian/Jewish' God as I am saying 'there is no Thor' or 'there is no Zeus' for the exact same reasons. They are all obviously human creations and mere mythology. A vague idea of a deistic God is something I'd admit is within the realm of possibility even though I think that it's pretty unlikely. I still require more evidence before I'd humor the existence of such a thing, and I really don't think it's relevant if I actually believe in said being or not either way. I have no reason to think such a thing would care.

 

The idea of a 'personal God' or the specific God of Christianity is laughably implausible to the point it's not worth humoring even the most distant possibility that such a thing actually exists. I find the very idea of the Bible being remotely based on actual fact to be offensively stupid. It's just silly to think such things are true. It's no more a history book than Robin Hood or the Iliad and the Odyssey, both of which contain characters who actually existed along with fictional characters and take place during actual historical events in real places. That doesn't make them any less myth and legend though.

 

Still, I'm not really an Atheist, just a Strong Agnostic who leans more toward Atheism than Theism. I don't mind being identified as an Atheist as my leanings are close to one, but I'm not actually a true Atheist as I say 'I don't know, but I doubt it unless you've got strong evidence that suggest otherwise' to the question of the existence of some vague undefined God figure, and I refuse to make such a strong statement as 'there is no God'. I doubt it, but I don't actually know.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

A Christian is defined by the Bible not by popular culture. Some who call themselves Catholics are not indeed Christian. Some have grossly syncretic beliefs that are not any form of Christianity. Some Catholics are Christians with some wrong doctrine.

Mormons are not Christian. Anyone who took a moment to study the roots and even their current beliefs would know this.

 

 

Why do you have the authority to define who is or is not a Christian? What gives you the authority to claim that anyone has the 'wrong doctrine' and that yours is more correct than anyone else's?

 

What right do you have to state that Mormons are not Christian?

 

Do you even know what the term 'Christian' means? That wasn't actually a question, because it's obvious that you do not.

 

All that you've posted above is a plain and simple outright 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

 

You've got no right or authority to define such things on your own whims. It's nothing more than offensive posturing on your part to even suggest that you do.

 

You don't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy. Please when you are some board and some pontificating atheists blurts out "No True Scotsman" take the time to understand what it means.

 

It is possible to define a True Scotsman. So when someone claims to be able to define something it is not automatically a True Scotsman fallacy. The definition of what a Christian is is clearly defined in the Bible. So it is possible to define a Christian. Even if you don't think so.

 

btw - I don't know if you have noticed or not but the editor on this site is seriously broken. Normally I try and target my quotes but on this site the editor is so screwed up I just gave up.

[mymistake]

 

Atheism is absolutely and unequivocally a rejection of the Christian God.

 

 

 

There is no meaningful response for this idiotic claim. You really are a troll. I gave you too much credit.

 

 

 

What Christian God? 

[Dhampir]

An atheist does not say there is no god.  One would be a gnostic atheist in that case-- believing that there are no gods, as well as believing that the facts definitively state that there is no such thing.  It is therefore possible to be an Agnostic Atheist, which I consider myself, albeit barely, as I very highly doubt there are any gods to speak of. I just can't say for certain that there are none.

[mymistake]

An atheist does not say there is no god.  One would be a gnostic atheist in that case-- believing that there are no gods, as well as believing that the facts definitively state that there is no such thing.  It is therefore possible to be an Agnostic Atheist, which I consider myself, albeit barely, as I very highly doubt there are any gods to speak of. I just can't say for certain that there are none.

 

 

I might be as far to the hard atheism side as one can be.  My position is that as time goes to infinity their might evolve some creature with a quality that resembles qualities humans assign to gods but that is a coincidence.  There is no way a god created our universe.  I assert that is not possible due to contradiction.  Creating gods is part of human nature so all the gods humans worship were made by humans.  

 

That is a rather extreme position.  Most atheists fall in the middle where they don't know if gods could exist but think it's unlikely.  Atheists are a diverse group that are defined only by lack of belief in gods.

[centauri]

 

 

 

I confine myself to the lions den and respond to the endless bullshit spewed by anti-Christians.

Do you classify Protestants that endlessly demonize Catholics as anti-Christian?

 

A Christian is defined by the Bible not by popular culture. Some who call themselves Catholics are not indeed Christian. Some have grossly syncretic beliefs that are not any form of Christianity. Some Catholics are Christians with some wrong doctrine.

 

Mormons are not Christian. Anyone who took a moment to study the roots and even their current beliefs would know this.

 

If Christianity were clearly defined by the Bible, there wouldn't be hundreds of sects, all claiming to represent what true Christanity is.

Your version of Christianity is like your version of God, which is subjective personal opinion.

[mymistake]

 

A Christian is defined by the Bible not by popular culture. Some who call themselves Catholics are not indeed Christian. Some have grossly syncretic beliefs that are not any form of Christianity. Some Catholics are Christians with some wrong doctrine.

 

Mormons are not Christian. Anyone who took a moment to study the roots and even their current beliefs would know this.

 

If Christianity were clearly defined by the Bible, there wouldn't be hundreds of sects, all claiming to represent what true Christanity is.

Your version of Christianity is like your version of God, which is subjective personal opinion.

 

 

Excellent point.

 

In fact the Bible was defined by Christians which is why there are multiple version of the Bible floating around with different numbers of books because they use different cannon.  Originally the Bible was created by what would become the Roman Catholic Church.  That is why Catholics do not value the Bible over their church traditions.  They made the Bible so the Bible can't be higher that the thing that created it.  But even today Christians are constantly demanding new translations of the Bible to make it fit better into a modern world.

[ContraBardus]

You don't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy. Please when you are some board and some pontificating atheists blurts out "No True Scotsman" take the time to understand what it means.

 

It is possible to define a True Scotsman. So when someone claims to be able to define something it is not automatically a True Scotsman fallacy. The definition of what a Christian is is clearly defined in the Bible. So it is possible to define a Christian. Even if you don't think so.

 

 

Yes I do, and you're clearly failing here because of one.

 

If the Bible was so explicitly 'clear' then there wouldn't be so many different types of Christianity. You simply assume that your interpretation is correct and that everyone else is wrong, despite having no evidence to believe that. You simply think that your preferred translation of the Bible spells it out for you, when it's simply one interpretation of many of a very old text based on fragmented segments that were collected together, the oldest of which are written in Greek, all of which have been translated hundreds of different ways.

 

It's a very literal and clear cut case of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Your argument fits the fallacy perfectly, and you've got nothing but an assumption that you are somehow more correct than every other Christian faith in both picking out the best translation, and interpreting what is written there despite no evidence that suggests that you are actually right and the myriad of other interpretations of the exact same passages you claim to have a better understanding of than any other faith does.

 

There is no reason for us or anyone else to take your arrogant assumption that you are correct where everyone else of every other sect of Christianity is wrong seriously.

 

You also have no right or authority to define what is or is not a Christian any more than I do. There is no backing or foundation for your claim that you do. There is no passage in the Bible no matter what translation you are using that so clearly defines what you suggest and supports your authority or right to define what is or is not a Christian. That's bullshit, but I doubt you're smart enough to see it or humble enough realize your own arrogance in suggesting it.

 

Note that below is not -my- definition of what a Christian is, but the actual literal definition based on pretty much every dictionary and the Etymology of the word itself. Meaning the definition below is not something that is based on my personal beliefs or my own singular interpretation of what it means. This is the well established and long accepted definition of the word and it's meaning according to pretty much anyone who isn't an arrogant asshole trying much too hard to single their own particular sect of Christianity out as more correct and well established than all the others by using hair splitting definition weaseling to cull those who don't conform closely to their own faith out of the way by dishonestly trying to alter the term to fit their particular set of chosen beliefs exclusively. You know, like you're trying to do right now.

 

A Christian is someone who worships or follows the teachings of Jesus and accepts him as their Savior/Master. It's literally what the word means, derived from Christianos, which is probably best translated as 'follower of Christ'. Christ as in Jesus [it actually means 'anointed one', but in this context it's specifically referring to Jesus], and the latter portion meaning 'belonging to' denoting ownership. It doesn't matter if they think Jesus is the all powerful lord of the little people, or if they think he lives in Castle Greyskull with a woman dressed like a parakeet. It simply means someone who bases their faith on his teachings, regardless of how they interpret them. The details of their beliefs surrounding that are irrelevant. You don't actually have to believe that he was the actual Son of God or even a minor deity to be a Christian. Most do believe that, but it isn't required to fit under the definition of the term. Simply accepting his teachings and basing one's faith upon them is enough.

 

Christian is a well defined and established term and you've got no right or authority to change that to suit your personal whims because you think your particular faith agrees with you. No one sect of Christianity has any say in the matter, and you can provide no evidence that your favored sect is any more right about it than any other.

[Astreja]

I didn't misrepresent anything. Atheists reject the evidence. This is rejecting God.

 

Your "evidence," OC, is simply not up to My standards.  The Bible is not up to My standards.  Your personal testimony has no meaning at all for Me.  Only a personal visit from a god will suffice, and if your god exists and has the powers you think it has, it already knows that.

 

So when you say "Atheists reject the evidence," I think you're just upset that we're daring to question things that you have yet to fully examine and critique.

[centauri]

Non-Catholic aspiring preachers and apologists that come here should take note:

The Catholic Church, which claims to be the true church of Christ, has this to say about those that refuse to accept the authority of the Catholic Church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia(www.newadvent.org), regarding the topic of Church:

 

There is, it is plain, but one Church, in which is found the unity we have described -- in the Catholic Church, united under the government of the supreme pontiff, and acknowledging all that he teaches in his capacity as the infallible guide of the Church.

 

…The Church alone dispenses the sacraments.

It alone makes known the light of revealed truth.

Outside the Church these gifts cannot be obtained.

From all this there is but one conclusion:

Union with the Church is not merely one out of various means by which salvation may be obtained: it is the only means.

 

This is bad news for Protestants and many others that call themselves Christians.

They have no salvation.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this. There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue. He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen.

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them. The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

If you think about that verse its absurd. How can a invisible cause lead you to know its self by its visible effect. You would never know a cause of an effect if the cause was not detectable.

For goodness sake, a cause can be inferred through properties of the cause. If one can deduce properties of a causal agent then one can infer a plausible cause. We as humans use this type of inferential reasoning all the time.

Of course you can infer a cause from an effect, but if the cause remained hidden and elusive you wouldnt automatically deduce the cause is something you understand. You seem to say that you know the cause through its effect while claiming the cause is completely hidden.

[BlueGiant]

OC I am not an atheist. I, however would point out that your god doesn't exist outside of a hypemachine.

 

It may pay to actually read the sidebar, not that you have shown any interest in learning.

[BlueGiant]

OC I am not an atheist. I, however would point out that your god doesn't exist outside of a hypemachine.

 

It may pay to actually read the sidebar, not that you have shown any interest in learning.

[OrdinaryClay]

OC I am not an atheist. I, however would point out that your god doesn't exist outside of a hypemachine.

 

It may pay to actually read the sidebar, not that you have shown any interest in learning.

I fail to understand how your sidebar tells me your spiritual beliefs.

[mymistake]

 

I fail to understand . . .

 

 

 

"Fail to understand" is the story of your life.