Deva Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Thread locked for moderator review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 27, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2014 Topic moved back to the Den where there aren't so many pesky rules to follow. We tried! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Ah, back to the Den. End3, I have a serious question: What defines and drives your relationship with us? You have this pattern of communication with us. You seem to get angry off the cycle at times. I've tried to understand what you are communicating and sometimes that is impossible. What is going on? You hang out with ex-Christians. You get support from the enemies of Christ when you need support. You are practically obsessed with how we don't get along with preachers and woo salesmen. You keep telling us that we need to get to know them. Well, are you going to let us get to know you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 "God Defines and Drives a Relationship" One must first prove god (not just any god in the general deistic sense, the very peculiar christian god because it is the christian dogma he's trying to inject in the conversation) before this statement can have any meaning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 27, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2014 You might ask yourself before you relegate it to dogma.... What is God.... Specifically. Don't be so readily quick to dismiss. I'd love to go into that, personally-- as a philosophical/comparative religion matter, but I don't think that conversation would be widely appreciated here in this forum, so I can't engage. Orbit, we would appreciate it if you would cut out the incessant passive-aggressive sniping. If you have a specific issue, please pm the mod of your choice and we'll look into the complaint. If you wish to discuss any aspects of spirituality or the existence of gods, the Den is a good place but expect challenges. The Colosseum will work, too. If you're not up to challenges, take it to the Spirituality Forum. If the Spirituality Forum is not conducted in a way to your liking either, I'm sure there are other websites where the membership and forums are geared to such things. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 "God Defines and Drives a Relationship" One must first prove god (not just any god in the general deistic sense, the very peculiar christian god because it is the christian dogma he's trying to inject in the conversation) before this statement can have any meaning. I couched it in different terms Roz so some might see the argument I am making. If we choose to believe in God, we must first ask ourselves what is God. I expect many folks haven't addressed that question. So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship. My relevant post was CENSORED much like book burning, so you will please have to reference post 168 for the content. Until then, walk the plank you scurvy Christian. Back to the Den with ya....RRRRRRRRh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You are talking about a very specific deity hypothesis. Not just a generalized deity, but a christian one. Case in point you offered up your scriptures as evidence of this specific deity's MO. Now you are jumping back to your generalized "I believe god is a manifestation of love and relationships." You're making this 'love and relationships = god' assertion and then using as proof your very specific holy book. This is nothing more than preaching. I know, I've used this tactic when I was an apologist. This is not conducive to any meaningful conversation unless you prove your specific deity first exists. Bible is as much proof of your christian god as the Koran is proof that Allah is the true god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You are talking about a very specific deity hypothesis. Not just a generalized deity, but a christian one. Case in point you offered up your scriptures as evidence of this specific deity's MO. Now you are jumping back to your generalized "I believe god is a manifestation of love and relationships." You're making this 'love and relationships = god' assertion and then using as proof your very specific holy book. This is nothing more than preaching. I know, I've used this tactic when I was an apologist. This is not conducive to any meaningful conversation unless you prove your specific deity first exists. Bible is as much proof of your christian god as the Koran is proof that Allah is the true god. Ok, how about this evidence. 1) I have a book with a mechanism. 2) I have real world relationships that follow this mechanism and prove its veracity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 27, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2014 "God Defines and Drives a Relationship" One must first prove god (not just any god in the general deistic sense, the very peculiar christian god because it is the christian dogma he's trying to inject in the conversation) before this statement can have any meaning. I couched it in different terms Roz so some might see the argument I am making. If we choose to believe in God, we must first ask ourselves what is God. I expect many folks haven't addressed that question. So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship. My relevant post was CENSORED much like book burning, so you will please have to reference post 168 for the content. Until then, walk the plank you scurvy Christian. Back to the Den with ya....RRRRRRRRh. Your post was not censored, but it was deleted because it was inappropriate for that forum. I have moved the topic back to the Den because the experiment failed due to the fact that some people just won't follow the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You are talking about a very specific deity hypothesis. Not just a generalized deity, but a christian one. Case in point you offered up your scriptures as evidence of this specific deity's MO. Now you are jumping back to your generalized "I believe god is a manifestation of love and relationships." You're making this 'love and relationships = god' assertion and then using as proof your very specific holy book. This is nothing more than preaching. I know, I've used this tactic when I was an apologist. This is not conducive to any meaningful conversation unless you prove your specific deity first exists. Bible is as much proof of your christian god as the Koran is proof that Allah is the true god. Ok, how about this evidence. 1) I have a book with a mechanism. 2) I have real world relationships that follow this mechanism and prove its veracity. This is not an accurate analogy. You have a book that specifically states that there is a christian deity. This deity passes on this 'logos' to mankind. This christian deity passing on 'logos' to mankind is NOT an example of human interaction and non-human life interaction. You're trying to view the world through your narrow christian lens and expecting us to do the same. You must first prove your god is real before his 'passing logos' has any validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 "God Defines and Drives a Relationship" One must first prove god (not just any god in the general deistic sense, the very peculiar christian god because it is the christian dogma he's trying to inject in the conversation) before this statement can have any meaning. I couched it in different terms Roz so some might see the argument I am making. If we choose to believe in God, we must first ask ourselves what is God. I expect many folks haven't addressed that question. So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship. My relevant post was CENSORED much like book burning, so you will please have to reference post 168 for the content. Until then, walk the plank you scurvy Christian. Back to the Den with ya....RRRRRRRRh. Your post was not censored, but it was deleted because it was inappropriate for that forum. I have moved the topic back to the Den because the experiment failed due to the fact that some people just won't follow the rules. Where in the rule does it discuss not posting of Scripture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You are talking about a very specific deity hypothesis. Not just a generalized deity, but a christian one. Case in point you offered up your scriptures as evidence of this specific deity's MO. Now you are jumping back to your generalized "I believe god is a manifestation of love and relationships." You're making this 'love and relationships = god' assertion and then using as proof your very specific holy book. This is nothing more than preaching. I know, I've used this tactic when I was an apologist. This is not conducive to any meaningful conversation unless you prove your specific deity first exists. Bible is as much proof of your christian god as the Koran is proof that Allah is the true god. Ok, how about this evidence. 1) I have a book with a mechanism. 2) I have real world relationships that follow this mechanism and prove its veracity. No, End. You believe by religious faith that you have a book with a mechanism. You believe by religious faith that real world relationships follow this proposed mechanism. You believe by religious faith that this proposed mechanism proves the veracity of the book. These are subjective statements of personal religious belief on your part. They are not objective facts. You were asked to present an objective argument for these things in the Coliseum and you declined/failed to do so. So we are back in the Den again. And once again you are now presenting your subjective religious beliefs as objective facts - which they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 No, End. You believe by religious faith that you have a book with a mechanism. You believe by religious faith that real world relationships follow this proposed mechanism. You believe by religious faith that this proposed mechanism proves the veracity of the book. These are subjective statements of personal religious belief on your part. They are not objective facts. You were asked to present an objective argument for these things in the Coliseum and you declined/failed to do so. So we are back in the Den again. And once again you are now presenting your subjective religious beliefs as objective facts - which they aren't. These are such simple concepts. If someone is not able to understand them, I doubt they are functioning mentally on a normal level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You are talking about a very specific deity hypothesis. Not just a generalized deity, but a christian one. Case in point you offered up your scriptures as evidence of this specific deity's MO. Now you are jumping back to your generalized "I believe god is a manifestation of love and relationships." You're making this 'love and relationships = god' assertion and then using as proof your very specific holy book. This is nothing more than preaching. I know, I've used this tactic when I was an apologist. This is not conducive to any meaningful conversation unless you prove your specific deity first exists. Bible is as much proof of your christian god as the Koran is proof that Allah is the true god. Ok, how about this evidence. 1) I have a book with a mechanism. 2) I have real world relationships that follow this mechanism and prove its veracity. No, End. You believe by religious faith that you have a book with a mechanism. You believe by religious faith that real world relationships follow this proposed mechanism. You believe by religious faith that this proposed mechanism proves the veracity of the book. These are subjective statements of personal religious belief on your part. They are not objective facts. You were asked to present an objective argument for these things in the Coliseum and you declined/failed to do so. So we are back in the Den again. And once again you are now presenting your subjective religious beliefs as objective facts - which they aren't. BAA, science can not yet say they are not objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 BAA, science can not yet say they are not objective. End, it's very simple. Beliefs, opinions, and assumptions are subjective. Measurable facts are objective. If you cannot understand that your religious beliefs are subjective, then you don't even have a starting point for objective case. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The christian conveniently forgets all the proven absurdities of his very own holy book: 1. Noah's flood -the worldwide flood that engulfed all earth never happened 2. Moses' Exodus -where about 2.5 million (really now...) Israelites wandered around the desert and seemingly left NO evidence thereof 3. Jesus' birth -where the entire roman tax system was somehow bent on asking everyone to go to the land of their long dead ancestors for tax collection 4. Genesis -talking snake, garden of eden, need I say more These are proven to be inaccurate, and yet the christian wants us to discard these and focus on how humans enjoying each other's company is somehow proof of this one passage in his very particular holy book. This is dishonest christian preaching tactics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 27, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2014 BAA, science can not yet say they are not objective. That is because it is not in the purview of science to deal with subjective matters. Therefore, science has nothing to say about your subjective religious views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Mikey101 and TheProf are right, End. Science doesn't deal in subjective beliefs. It only deals in what can objectively demonstrated to be true for everyone. You were asked to make an objective argument in the Coliseum. You didn't. Can you do so here, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Using the christian's logic, I'm going to attempt to prove that Islam is true. 1. Pregnancy is now categorized into 3 separate stages called trimesters. http://womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/stages-of-pregnancy.html 2. Look, the Koran states that there's a 3 stage process in the mom's womb! "... He creates you stage by stage in your mothers' wombs in a threefold darkness. That is God, your Lord. Sovereignty is His. There is no god but Him. So what has made you deviate?"(The Qur'an, 39:6) 3. This seems to prove that Islam is real. /christian logic off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The reason religions are called 'faiths' is because they're subjective. It's a very basic concept. Expecting religious faith to be scientifically proven is like expecting an opinion on an art piece to be scientifically proven. Personal spiritual beliefs are part of the human experience, just as art is part of the human experience, but not everything in our experience is in the realm of hard, objective facts.. nor does it need to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You might ask yourself before you relegate it to dogma.... What is God.... Specifically. Don't be so readily quick to dismiss.I'd love to go into that, personally-- as a philosophical/comparative religion matter, but I don't think that conversation would be widely appreciated here in this forum, so I can't engage. Orbit, we would appreciate it if you would cut out the incessant passive-aggressive sniping. If you have a specific issue, please pm the mod of your choice and we'll look into the complaint. If you wish to discuss any aspects of spirituality or the existence of gods, the Den is a good place but expect challenges. The Colosseum will work, too. If you're not up to challenges, take it to the Spirituality Forum. If the Spirituality Forum is not conducted in a way to your liking either, I'm sure there are other websites where the membership and forums are geared to such things. [color=#\Um, get off my back with your paranoia. This was a honest statement of fact meant to communicate that I would love to talk about this, but it is not appropriate for this forum. Stop seeing passive aggressive where it doesn't exist. This is really starting to feel like a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Why do you people not understand that I understand the difference. Betting all of your income that science at some date in the future will say that treating each other with love is "healthy" for THESE reasons, these life prolonging facts......if it hasn't ALREADY. For the 142nd, time folks, I am able to understand the difference. Let's please move on with the discussion....the actual discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 "God Defines and Drives a Relationship" One must first prove god (not just any god in the general deistic sense, the very peculiar christian god because it is the christian dogma he's trying to inject in the conversation) before this statement can have any meaning. I couched it in different terms Roz so some might see the argument I am making. If we choose to believe in God, we must first ask ourselves what is God. I expect many folks haven't addressed that question. So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship. My relevant post was CENSORED much like book burning, so you will please have to reference post 168 for the content. Until then, walk the plank you scurvy Christian. Back to the Den with ya....RRRRRRRRh. You have this all backwards. The vast majority of members here are ex-Christians. So of course we have addressed the question "what is God?". Great, you believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship. History has shown that you can't rationally articulate what that means and nobody else can figure out what you mean by it. Thus your belief is nonsensical. I believe God is something humans create. This is very easy to define and articulate. It also conforms to what we see in human behavior. My hypothesis is very strong but I welcome others to try to disprove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 How about I say "proposed mechanism". Long story short, science will never get to the point I am describing because even if we could measure the bio-changes and assign plus or minus or neutral, this assumes we know the necessity of each individual in the grand scheme of existence.....omniscience. I'm really frustrated that for a smart group of people that you limit your definition of life to a group of facts....and dynamic facts as they seem to change occasionally. Leads me to evolution type thoughts.....when is evolution random and when is it the choice of the evolving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Why do you people not understand that I understand the difference. Betting all of your income that science at some date in the future will say that treating each other with love is "healthy" for THESE reasons, these life prolonging facts......if it hasn't ALREADY. For the 142nd, time folks, I am able to understand the difference. Let's please move on with the discussion....the actual discussion. If you do understand the difference End, then please look at this. BAA is a man. All men will die. Therefore, BAA will die. Now please explain to us why this an objective argument that is true for all and not just a subjective belief of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts