(November 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I saw a lot of people quoting people who were quoting other people who were quoting themselves who were quoting another person. It's very "meta" but I lost track of what was going on. At this point we should probably just see how many quotes within quotes we can get before the system crashes.

I actually hate that too....but the system seems designed to allow it to go on ad infinitum.

That could be interesting.

(November 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm)Cando Wrote:

(November 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I saw a lot of people quoting people who were quoting other people who were quoting themselves who were quoting another person. It's very "meta" but I lost track of what was going on. At this point we should probably just see how many quotes within quotes we can get before the system crashes.

I actually hate that too....but the system seems designed to allow it to go on ad infinitum.

That could be interesting.

I agree

(November 14, 2010 at 6:32 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm)Cando Wrote:

(November 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I saw a lot of people quoting people who were quoting other people who were quoting themselves who were quoting another person. It's very "meta" but I lost track of what was going on. At this point we should probably just see how many quotes within quotes we can get before the system crashes.

I actually hate that too....but the system seems designed to allow it to go on ad infinitum.

That could be interesting.

I agree

That makes me happy.

Quote vortexes are discouraged, as outlined in the posting etiquette thread.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3469.html

Quote:Excessive quote vortexing, or quoting large texts/images can result in moderator warnings.

(November 9, 2010 at 11:03 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: Interesting stance, generally science is closely tied to philosophy throughout human history, and they both operate off of logic structures, I would like to know more about how you see this. In any case, The Void certainly seems to like philosophy enough for the both of you!

Lots of good input and even a debate about philosophy, good stuff. Thanks everybody!

Only recently (like in the last 9 months), before that I had a much more lukewarm attitude to Philosophy, now that i've been studying some of it pretty extensively I'm gob-smacked at how much my overall approach has changed, especially the way I think about issues, and the foundation of my world-view has shifted from naturalism to an epistemology, which I think is a much more comprehensive and clear foundation than tentative naturalism, and now in a theist/atheist (or naturalism/supernaturalism)debate I can easily and quickly refute any theistic epistemology and present a true epistemology by which the theist arguments clearly don't qualify as justified, and if a belief is unjustified that is all that needs to be said, the argument is over.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm)Strongbad Wrote: Ok, I understand that you are a Christian Disciple. I assume that this also means that you believe that the Gospels are the "word of god". Why do you believe this?

OK, just remembered to post my response, sorry for the delay!

First of all I begin with the viewpoint that all I'm interested in is the truth. If it's not true, why would I waste my time believing it? As I outlined I believe in what I can see as being the most true at every level.
Secondly, I see no reason to assume there is no God beforehand. The physical universe we live in exists, but that doesn't tell us anything either way right off the bat. Why? Do fish know they're wet? Do we have a word for being soaked in breathable atmosphere? We can probably think of one, like "dry," but most people think of dry as simply not being wet. The point is, we take the environment we live in for granted, because that's just how it is. How do we know this isn't the kind of universe a Creator would create? What other universe are we comparing it to?

So my basic approach to everything is: always seek the truth in its most complete form and hold all views equal until proven otherwise (as in belief in God vs. Naturalism). Because I see Christianity to be the most true thing in explaining the story of man and the universe, giving purpose in life, and making logical sense out of existence, as well as having a subjective experience of God and His positive effects on my life, I am inclined to believe that Christianity must in some way be true.

As for the Gospels, do I believe that God just read the finished text of the Gospels off to the writers of the Gospels so they could jot it down word for word? No. Do I believe that Jesus really lived and taught and did pretty much what we see in the Gospels? Absolutely, it makes historical sense too. Do I believe the Gospels could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit? Sure thing, it doesn’t mean they were possessed when they were writing, just that the Spirit guided them to write the right things. Of course they were still human, and their own experience and style will show through the text, but the end result is a book that shows me how to live and understand the universe.

That’s a big part of the proof of the Gospels for me, the effect on my life. I am excited about my life, and the world seems to make more sense, and I genuinely enjoy helping people and getting involved with causes*. I believe the Gospel commands me to be open minded and loving towards everyone, to respect the rights of everyone**, and respect the environment that we all share. I also believe that the Gospel teaches us to be passionate about social justice, so that we can end evils like war*** and poverty. Also I feel that my relationship with God has helped me finally understand who I am, move past some personal issues, and regain my sense of self worth.

That’s just an outline for my stance, but there is a lot more material to cover. For some more nit-picky details of my stance on the Gospel check out the thread Bart D. Ehrman - The Bane of Fundies! (http://atheistforums.org/thread-5172.html).

*(Everyone check out Charity: Water, it’s a group that digs wells for people in Africa without clean drinking water, it’s not religiously affiliated either. Charitywater.org)
**(Everyone should look into boycotting Coca-Cola, their human rights track record is horrendous. I heard a pastor/human rights advocate talk about how Coke is devastating the country of Columbia. Killercoke.org)
***(I’m a big believer in Just Peacemaking, it’s already helped prevent war and it has the potential to be supported by all three Abrahamic religions. justpeacemaking.org)

Due to the existence of a plethora of unnecessary suffering.

Due to the monstrous nature of the Christian god.

Due to the naturalistic explanations for - and refutations of - every divine phenomena in the record.

1) Observation
2) Modeling
3) Testing
4) Analysis
5) Repetitions of 1 to 4 until the model is not falsified.
6) Publishing of the model.
7) Verification.

(November 15, 2010 at 3:51 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: As for the Gospels, do I believe that God just read the finished text of the Gospels off to the writers of the Gospels so they could jot it down word for word? No. Do I believe that Jesus really lived and taught and did pretty much what we see in the Gospels? Absolutely, it makes historical sense too. Do I believe the Gospels could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit? Sure thing, it doesn’t mean they were possessed when they were writing, just that the Spirit guided them to write the right things. Of course they were still human, and their own experience and style will show through the text, but the end result is a book that shows me how to live and understand the universe.

I don't want to be rude and all, but please read Ezekiel 23:19 and tell me what part of that is scientificly possible...

(November 15, 2010 at 3:51 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: [quote='Strongbad' pid='105200' dateline='1289612318']

So my basic approach to everything is: always seek the truth in its most complete form and hold all views equal until proven otherwise

So you hold all these views as being equal:

Islam, mormonism, scientology, hinduism, budhism, fairies, angels, gnomes, judaism,christianity and that england will win the next world cup.

As for christianity every time a central tennet is proven incorrect the goal posts are moved.

This has happened time and again.

From the trial of galileo to Darwin to Suppression of facts about ancient egypt.

Min or Chatpilot could come up with many more.

My point, all views are NOT equal, facts should be the basis of belief, not just having a feeling that there should be something more.