(September 11, 2015 at 11:17 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 11:12 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How do you figure he's not being honest though?

Is torturing one's native language to maintain a façade of personal knowledge honest, in your opinion?

What exactly are you referring to??

(September 11, 2015 at 12:44 pm)Shuffle Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 11:00 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Why are you guys being mean to GC? A question was asked of him, and he answered honestly.

Mean? He answered honestly, and now we are responding honestly. That is how a discussion forum works.

Not you, Shuffle.

(September 11, 2015 at 12:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 11:17 am)Crossless1 Wrote: Is torturing one's native language to maintain a façade of personal knowledge honest, in your opinion?

What exactly are you referring to??

He has "evidence" but not the kind that can be shared, examined, or questioned, thus indicating that he either really doesn't understand what evidence ordinarily means or he is redefining it to suit his own interests. He has met and knows God personally but when asked what non-trivial fact he can present about this acquaintance that can't be found in the Bible, he refers me to the Bible as the sufficient source of this "knowledge".  He takes as factual givens what are nothing more than fanciful, uncorroborated allegations he read in a collection of old books, calls it faith (yes) but goes further and calls it "knowledge".

I know you're a fellow traveler of his, but seriously, CL, what part of any of that do you associate with honesty? In what way is he not torturing the language?

(September 11, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 12:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What exactly are you referring to??

He has "evidence" but not the kind that can be shared, examined, or questioned, thus indicating that he either really doesn't understand what evidence ordinarily means or he is redefining it to suit his own interests. He has met and knows God personally but when asked what non-trivial fact he can present about this acquaintance that can't be found in the Bible, he refers me to the Bible as the sufficient source of this "knowledge".  He takes as factual givens what are nothing more than fanciful, uncorroborated allegations he read in a collection of old books, calls it faith (yes) but goes further and calls it "knowledge".

I know you're a fellow traveler of his, but seriously, CL, what part of any of that do you associate with honesty? In what way is he not torturing the language?

Well maybe he has evidence for himself. Like, maybe he experienced something that has given him grounds to believe what he does. It isn't something he can necessarily "show" to someone else.

(September 11, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: He has "evidence" but not the kind that can be shared, examined, or questioned, thus indicating that he either really doesn't understand what evidence ordinarily means or he is redefining it to suit his own interests. He has met and knows God personally but when asked what non-trivial fact he can present about this acquaintance that can't be found in the Bible, he refers me to the Bible as the sufficient source of this "knowledge".  He takes as factual givens what are nothing more than fanciful, uncorroborated allegations he read in a collection of old books, calls it faith (yes) but goes further and calls it "knowledge".

I know you're a fellow traveler of his, but seriously, CL, what part of any of that do you associate with honesty? In what way is he not torturing the language?

Well maybe he has evidence for himself. Like, maybe he experienced something that has given him grounds to believe what he does. It isn't something he can necessarily "show" to someone else.

I'm well aware that this is where he is coming from. However, it's not unreasonable to wonder about these experiences. How often does it happen that a believer has "experiences" they interpret as encounters with the god of their religion after the belief is already in place? Would these alleged experiences have been interpreted as equally persuasive that another religion is true if experienced by, say, a Muslim. Would the believer having the experience also find it compelling evidence of another religion's god if he/she actually practiced another religion. Etc.

(September 11, 2015 at 11:30 am)Godschild Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 9:57 am)Shuffle Wrote: Ok, that is fine to say. But to say that no amount of evidence would change you mind is scary. If you presented me with even the littlest tiniest amount of evidence, I would believe in your god, but if I presented you with a mountain of evidence you would not be an atheist. To know that terrifies me about our future as a species.

 I have evidence God is real, undeniable evidence, thus you can produce nothing to the contrary, if you could it would have already been presented, yet not one iota of evidence has ever been given against God's existence. People have had thousands of years to find the evidence God does not exist and nothing, not one little tiny bit. I have my evidence, where's your evidence. The end is getting closer every day and soon enough Christ will come and those who have excepted Him as their savior will be perfect beings, so the future looks quite bright.

I am really trying not to be rude, but that was hilarious. You want me to prove a negative!?

And what is this evidence you speak of? Seems weird that I am an atheist while there is undeniable evidence for a god. It is also strange that BILLIONS of people deny your undeniable evidence. Funny.

Oh, oh, oh, I have some evidence against god. How about, no one has ever seen a single god in all of human history. Or, or, or, the bible is logically inconsistent and contradictory, meaning that it definitely cannot be true. 

(September 11, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 12:44 pm)Shuffle Wrote: Mean? He answered honestly, and now we are responding honestly. That is how a discussion forum works.

Not you, Shuffle.

I know, by "we" I meant everyone that responded.

(September 11, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: He has "evidence" but not the kind that can be shared, examined, or questioned, thus indicating that he either really doesn't understand what evidence ordinarily means or he is redefining it to suit his own interests. He has met and knows God personally but when asked what non-trivial fact he can present about this acquaintance that can't be found in the Bible, he refers me to the Bible as the sufficient source of this "knowledge".  He takes as factual givens what are nothing more than fanciful, uncorroborated allegations he read in a collection of old books, calls it faith (yes) but goes further and calls it "knowledge".

I know you're a fellow traveler of his, but seriously, CL, what part of any of that do you associate with honesty? In what way is he not torturing the language?

Well maybe he has evidence for himself. Like, maybe he experienced something that has given him grounds to believe what he does. It isn't something he can necessarily "show" to someone else.

He called it undeniable... meaning others can't deny it. Others.

(September 11, 2015 at 1:29 am)Godschild Wrote: As for the rest of you childish responses are being ignored, I have better things to do than play games with grown children.

GC

Do you think your God buddy will give you some revelations so that you can start a new religion?  If he does then you're going to need some henchmen to help you convert the world.  
                                                                                                                                                                      Be sure to let us know so that we can join your crusade and rake in the goodies.

(September 11, 2015 at 11:30 am)Godschild Wrote:  I have evidence God is real, undeniable evidence, thus you can produce nothing to the contrary, if you could it would have already been presented, yet not one iota of evidence has ever been given against God's existence. People have had thousands of years to find the evidence God does not exist and nothing, not one little tiny bit. I have my evidence, where's your evidence. The end is getting closer every day and soon enough Christ will come and those who have excepted Him as their savior will be perfect beings, so the future looks quite bright.

Shuffle Wrote:I am really trying not to be rude, but that was hilarious. You want me to prove a negative!?

No, I'm asking you to defend your statement, or shut up.

Suffle Wrote:And what is this evidence you speak of? Seems weird that I am an atheist while there is undeniable evidence for a god. It is also strange that BILLIONS of people deny your undeniable evidence. Funny.

Exactly what's your problem with understanding, personal relationship, you want to know God try a personal relationship, it is the only way.

Shuffle Wrote:Oh, oh, oh, I have some evidence against god. How about, no one has ever seen a single god in all of human history. Or, or, or, the bible is logically inconsistent and contradictory, meaning that it definitely cannot be true.

Thousands did when Christ walked the earth and I see the actions of God on a daily bases. I've never seen air but I breath it all the time, I see it's actions when it moves. Your evidence is no evidence at all, just your weak opinion.

GC