God's Ways Are Not Our Ways Vs. The Knowledge Of Good And Evil

[mymistake]

 

2) Through faith only. How else. Seriously, how else. Subjective agreement? Cultural norms?

 

 

 

Why not try empathy?  You know, imagine what it would be like if you were the person on the other side of the transaction - on the receiving end of a behavior.  Of course there are a few people who lack the ability to empathize with others.

[Guest end3]

 

2) Through faith only. How else. Seriously, how else. Subjective agreement? Cultural norms?

 

 

Why not try empathy?  You know, imagine what it would be like if you were the person on the other side of the transaction - on the receiving end of a behavior.  Of course there are a few people who lack the ability to empathize with others.

 

I don't see much difference in empathy vs. the concept of grace.

[mymistake]

 

I don't see much difference in empathy vs. the concept of grace.

 

 

 

One is real and the other is a myth.  At least the way you use it "grace" is tied to a myth.  The word grace has a real meaning to the rest of the world. 

[sdelsolray]

...

I don't see much difference in empathy vs. the concept of grace.

 

 

Of course you don't.  We already know this.

[Guest end3]

 

I don't see much difference in empathy vs. the concept of grace.

 

 

One is real and the other is a myth.  At least the way you use it "grace" is tied to a myth.  The word grace has a real meaning to the rest of the world.

 

It doesn't matter...empathy has no real standard other than our experience....so what's your point, how is that different than me subscribing to faith.

 

In other words, there is no complete standard from which to subscribe. We may choose from a religious set, a personal set, a scientific set.

[mymistake]

 

It doesn't matter...empathy has no real standard other than our experience....so what's your point, how is that different than me subscribing to faith.

 

In other words, there is no complete standard from which to subscribe. We may choose from a religious set, a personal set, a scientific set.

 

 

The "standard" of empathy should work automatically.  It's the same for all those who have the ability.

 

Faith is allowing a scam artist to brainwash you.  The scam artist tells you that Jupiter is God, what Jupiter wants you to do, what Jupiter will do to you if you don't obey and then watches you enslave yourself.  The "religious set" is bankrupt.

[Guest end3]

A basis in an incomplete set of facts really holds no more water than any rest of the belief scenarios

[Guest end3]

 

It doesn't matter...empathy has no real standard other than our experience....so what's your point, how is that different than me subscribing to faith.

 

In other words, there is no complete standard from which to subscribe. We may choose from a religious set, a personal set, a scientific set.

 

The "standard" of empathy should work automatically.  It's the same for all those who have the ability.

 

Faith is allowing a scam artist to brainwash you.  The scam artist tells you that Jupiter is God, what Jupiter wants you to do, what Jupiter will do to you if you don't obey and then watches you enslave yourself.  The "religious set" is bankrupt.

 

No, no, no....there is no empathetic handbook, no standard, no automatic. It is absolutely not the same for everyone ....who has the ability???

 

A religious standard is just another manner of expression/communication device. We have to then decide whether we give any of them merit.

[mymistake]

A basis in an incomplete set of facts really holds no more water than any rest of the belief scenarios

 

Not so.  Science is far superior to all other methods at discovering facts and investigating reality.  All other methods pail in comparison.  They are not on equal footing.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter...empathy has no real standard other than our experience....so what's your point, how is that different than me subscribing to faith.

 

In other words, there is no complete standard from which to subscribe. We may choose from a religious set, a personal set, a scientific set.

 

The "standard" of empathy should work automatically.  It's the same for all those who have the ability.

 

Faith is allowing a scam artist to brainwash you.  The scam artist tells you that Jupiter is God, what Jupiter wants you to do, what Jupiter will do to you if you don't obey and then watches you enslave yourself.  The "religious set" is bankrupt.

 

No, no, no....there is no empathetic handbook, no standard, no automatic. It is absolutely not the same for everyone ....who has the ability???

 

A religious standard is just another manner of expression/communication device. We have to then decide whether we give any of them merit.

 

 

 

Yes, it is automatic.  Empathy is a function of the human mind.  It is built in by our evolutionary survival.

 

A religious standard isn't "just another manner".  It is the men who invented the religion telling the followers what to think.

 

 

 

Edit for clarity:

Have you seen the movie UP?  The first several minutes of that movie show a very compelling love story.  It just shows a series of images but it is very powerful because the audience empathizes with the characters.  If you see the image then you can imagine what it would feel like to be in that situation.  That is empathy.

[Jeff]

 

Everyone has their place...

Women. Right?

Or some other group?

Well?

[bornagainathiest]

End3... "Christianity is the best fit in my mind."

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is the best fit, End?

 

If you used evidence, then by your own standard, that's an invalid conclusion. 

Because you don't trust what you perceive - you therefore cannot trust one set of evidence over another.  By your standard, ALL evidence MUST be invalid.  Therefore, you cannot use ANY evidence to conclude that Christianity is the best fit.  Your rejection of evidence means you have to reject the Bible as evidence too.  And the testimonies of other Christians.  And your own experiences.  Because you don't trust what you perceive to be true and real, you can't trust your experiences to be real and true, either.

 

If you used faith to conclude that Christianity is the best fit, that's an invalid conclusion too.

Using faith to conclude that the Christian faith is the only true faith is just another circular argument and all circular arguments are, by definition, invalid.

.

.

.

So, now that evidence and faith are ruled out, it's time to ask you the awkward question again.

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is the best fit, End?

[bornagainathiest]

Re post # 72, I'll repeat the question, End.

 

How and what do you use to test your conclusion that Christianity is the best fit?

 

Please note that for you, evidence and faith were invalid ways of arriving at this conclusion. 

For the same reasons, for you, evidence and faith are also invalid ways of testing this conclusion. 

You don't trust anything you perceive, ruling out all evidence as a valid means of testing this conclusion. 

And faith cannot be used to test the validity of the Christian faith, because that's a circular argument. 

So, with faith and evidence ruled out, I'll repeat the next awkward question for you.

.

.

.

How and what do you use to test your conclusion that Christianity is the best fit, End?

[bornagainathiest]

Duderonomy:

 

"Allowing that the Bible is true for the sake of argument, there are very specific things that are good and evil.  One doesn't have to read very far in to see that.  How are people supposed to eschew evil and cling to that which is good if they can't tell the difference?"

 

End3:

 

"Through faith only. How else. Seriously, how else.  Subjective agreement?  Cultural norms?"

.

.

.

End3's response to Duderonomy contradicts his own stated position.

He's on record as stating that nobody can really trust what they perceive as being true.

Meaning that ALL evidence (including the Bible) is unreliable, untrustworthy and invalid.

 

Therefore, nobody can use the Bible to know the difference between good and evil.

Therefore, nobody can use faith in God's word to eschew evil in favor of good.

Therefore, his reply to Duderonomy is a direct contradiction of his own words.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

End3:

 

"A basis in an incomplete set of facts really holds no more water than any [of the] rest of the belief scenarios."

.

.

.

End asserts that because all beliefs are incomplete - they are all equally invalid.

That Hinduism holds no more water (i.e., is no better at describing reality) than Mormonism or Voodoo.  That all belief systems are equal to each other in their invalidity - because they are incomplete.  That the incompleteness of Islam, Wicca, Agnosticism, Buddhism and Rastafarianism make them all equally invalid descriptions of reality.  But how does he know this?

.

.

.

Evidence?

Well, if he does arrive at this conclusion by using evidence, then, once again, he's contradicting himself.  He's on record as stating that nobody can really trust what they perceive to be true.  Therefore, ALL evidence is untrustworthy.  Therefore,  he cannot use any evidence to conclude that all beliefs are equally invalid. 

.

.

.

Faith?

Once again, he can't use faith to claim that Christianity is the only complete belief scenario and therefore... the right answer.  That his Christian faith tells him that Christianity is true and all other beliefs are false.  Using faith to conclude that the Christian faith is the only true faith, is a circular argument and is therefore, invalid.

.

.

.

Now it's time for four (4) awkward questions!

 

Hey End!   How and why do you conclude that incompleteness equals invalidity?

 

How and why do you conclude that all belief scenarios are equally invalid?

 

Is Christianity just as invalid as every other belief scenario?

 

If it is, why are you a Christian?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

End3:

 

"A religious standard is just another manner of expression/communication device.  We have then to decide whether we give any of them merit."

.

.

.

So on what basis do you decide which religious standard/s have merit and which don't, End?

.

.

.

Evidence? 

(Hint:     You've ruled this one out.)

 

Faith? 

(Hint:    You can't use this one either.)

[Guest end3]

Duderonomy:

 

"Allowing that the Bible is true for the sake of argument, there are very specific things that are good and evil.  One doesn't have to read very far in to see that.  How are people supposed to eschew evil and cling to that which is good if they can't tell the difference?"

 

End3:

 

"Through faith only. How else. Seriously, how else.  Subjective agreement?  Cultural norms?"

.

.

.

End3's response to Duderonomy contradicts his own stated position.

He's on record as stating that nobody can really trust what they perceive as being true.

Meaning that ALL evidence (including the Bible) is unreliable, untrustworthy and invalid.

 

Therefore, nobody can use the Bible to know the difference between good and evil.

Therefore, nobody can use faith in God's word to eschew evil in favor of good.

Therefore, his reply to Duderonomy is a direct contradiction of his own words.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

You do understand the word faith don't you BAA...

[Guest end3]

Define good and evil with facts BAA. Then I shall take note....otherwise it's more of the same circular jerk.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Everyone has their place...

Women. Right?

Or some other group?

 

Well?

 

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

[Astreja]

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

 

 

Good luck finding a fulfilling relationship with that vile attitude, End.    That is unspeakably ghastly and slanderous.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Duderonomy:

 

"Allowing that the Bible is true for the sake of argument, there are very specific things that are good and evil.  One doesn't have to read very far in to see that.  How are people supposed to eschew evil and cling to that which is good if they can't tell the difference?"

 

End3:

 

"Through faith only. How else. Seriously, how else.  Subjective agreement?  Cultural norms?"

.

.

.

End3's response to Duderonomy contradicts his own stated position.

He's on record as stating that nobody can really trust what they perceive as being true.

Meaning that ALL evidence (including the Bible) is unreliable, untrustworthy and invalid.

 

Therefore, nobody can use the Bible to know the difference between good and evil.

Therefore, nobody can use faith in God's word to eschew evil in favor of good.

Therefore, his reply to Duderonomy is a direct contradiction of his own words.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

You do understand the word faith don't you BAA...

 

 

And you do understand that you can't use faith to validate faith, End?

 

That's a circular argument.  

 

Or putting it in your terms, a circular jerk.

[bornagainathiest]

Define good and evil with facts BAA. Then I shall take note....otherwise it's more of the same circular jerk.

 

I don't have to, End.

 

I'm not the one making the claim.  You are.

 

The burden lies squarely on you to demonstrate what method you're using to achieve your best fit for Christianity.

 

You've claimed that in your mind it's the best fit.

 

So justify that claim, without using evidence and without using faith to validate faith.

[mymistake]

 

 

My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

 

Wow, you reveal so much about yourself.  

[Jeff]

 

 

 

Everyone has their place...

Women. Right?

Or some other group?

Well?

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

I trust fewer than 10 women in this world. That does not cause me to disrespect, fear, loathe, malign, or in any way act in a misogynistic manner toward women.

Women are wonderful when allowed to be free of the restraint that has historically been heaped on them.

Women are wonderful. If you have a problem with them maybe you can address it.

I'm not coming at you personally. I hope that you can get free of the confusing mess of religious stuff you cling to. I think it is damaging to you. I honestly can't even follow what it is you believe most of the time.

I don't dislike you. But it makes me sick how I've seen you act to the women here.

Jeff

 

Edit:

Please read this twice and see I really am not taking a shot at you on this reply. I do mean this one as a friendly comment to you.

[Guest end3]

 

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

 

Good luck finding a fulfilling relationship with that vile attitude, End.    That is unspeakably ghastly and slanderous.

 

Not sure why the responsibility of the relationship is strictly in my court as being vile. It's not vile to manipulate and misrepresent a relationship for selfish reasons?

 

I know many wonderful people that are women. I'm just skeptical that many women are manipulative.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

Everyone has their place...

Women. Right?

Or some other group?

 

Well?

 

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

 

I trust fewer than 10 women in this world. That does not cause me to disrespect, fear, loathe, malign, or in any way act in a misogynistic manner toward women.

Women are wonderful when allowed to be free of the restraint that has historically been heaped on them.

Women are wonderful. If you have a problem with them maybe you can address it.

I'm not coming at you personally. I hope that you can get free of the confusing mess of religious stuff you cling to. I think it is damaging to you. I honestly can't even follow what it is you believe most of the time.

I don't dislike you. But it makes me sick how I've seen you act to the women here.

Jeff

 

Edit:

Please read this twice and see I really am not taking a shot at you on this reply. I do mean this one as a friendly comment to you.

 

By definition Jeff, sorry to say, but you are misogynistic. I pretty much treat those I don't trust the same....man or woman. Those people I trust, I'm an angel. It's not a man woman issue, it's a trust issue. And thanks, I'm working on it. It's slow slow going.