(May 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Does an irrational belief nevertheless use rationality?

Ahhhh, example?

Quote:No disagreement there, although I fail to see the relevance.

You said it was a process...

"And belief is a rational process nothing to do with fantasy"

Quote:Not quite VOID. The description of functionality forms the framework within which God operates.... metaphysically & not physically. It's very clear.

You mean supernaturally? It doesn't seem like you're using the word 'metaphysically' correctly.

And can you explain further what you mean by "The description of functionality forms the framework within which God operates"?

Quote:How would that change his claim?

Saying "There is no evidence" is a positive claim about reality, that there exists no evidence at all of the existence of god.

Saying "I don't know of any evidence" is a statement of fact about the mental states of the person in question.

The former is Gnostic Atheism, the latter is Agnostic Atheism.

Quote:Stop backing up the diversion tactics VOID!
Let us address how Ace presumes to establish the non existence of supernature using nature. He makes the claim... let's see it defended or abandoned.

It's not a diversion tactic, it's straight to the point. I do not think Ace takes the positive position that "supernature does not exist", he takes the position that he knows of no good reason to believe it does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, you are the person claiming supernature on top of nature, so you have the burden of proof.

fr0d0 Wrote:Yeah I do. I don't know everything but from what I do know that has proven to be true, so I feel confident in asserting it.

*Gobsmacked*

You think Jonah lived in the belly of a whale? Do you think Lot's wife was turned to stone? Do you believe that Pharisees lived in Nazareth? Do you believe eating shellfish is immoral? Do you believe God sent bears to tear children limb from limb? Do you believe that there was actually a talking snake or a burning bush? Are you unaware of the contradictory orders of events presented in Genesis? The contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the NT? Do you believe the Exodus actually happened? Do you believe David united Israel and Judah?

There are tons of things that are either plain false, inconsistent or nonsense in the bible.

Quote:My Christian faith.

Logical in what sense?

Quote:So why does your sig qualify 'naturalism' with 'metaphysical'?

To make the distinction between the positions of metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism for one...

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(May 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Does an irrational belief nevertheless use rationality?

Ahhhh, example?

A=B except I didn't know about C which proved E

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: "And belief is a rational process nothing to do with fantasy"

Ah. Belief is a result of a rational process.

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: You mean supernaturally? It doesn't seem like you're using the word 'metaphysically' correctly.

Genesis 1 explains how the world is ordered with God at the centre. It's an account of functional beginnings of a metaphysical reality (the ancient world didn't separate physical and spiritual).

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: And can you explain further what you mean by "The description of functionality forms the framework within which God operates"?

The days of creation is the setting out of function aiming towards the conclusion with God at the centre.

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:How would that change his claim?

Saying "There is no evidence" is a positive claim about reality, that there exists no evidence at all of the existence of god.

Saying "I don't know of any evidence" is a statement of fact about the mental states of the person in question.

The former is Gnostic Atheism, the latter is Agnostic Atheism.

So it doesn't change his claim?

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: I do not think Ace takes the positive position that "supernature does not exist", he takes the position that he knows of no good reason to believe it does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet he continually asserts that there should be physical proof of the metaphysical. that just won't fly.

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: There are tons of things that are either plain false, inconsistent or nonsense in the bible.

None that I'm aware of. Those childish misinterpretations don't qualify ...forgive me for not researching and finding out the information for you there, most of it has been covered successfully with you in the past, I see no point in wasting further time on it now.

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: Logical in what sense?

Logical in that it works rationally in understanding purpose. My motivations are guided by it based on a sound understanding of it, everything fitting in to the base conclusions perfectly.

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:So why does your sig qualify 'naturalism' with 'metaphysical'?

To make the distinction between the positions of metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism for one...

So naturalism isn't just metaphysical?

(May 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: There are tons of things that are either plain false, inconsistent or nonsense in the bible.

None that I'm aware of. Those childish misinterpretations don't qualify ...forgive me for not researching and finding out the information for you there, most of it has been covered successfully with you in the past, I see no point in wasting further time on it now.

those are not childish mineterpretations ... and if you're going to make that assertion, than you are required to qualify that statement according to the standard rules of argument and debate.

This is exactly why I stopped playing with you Frod ... too many times your rebuttal was simply a verbose version of: "uh-uh, is not"

it gets really old!

You have yet to stop 'playing' with fr0d0 that I have seen, Cinjin. Hence your posting of that picture you were so proud of creating last night in at least three different topics.

Really CC? I don't remember ever saying that to you. Could you provide me with a link?

I've justified my response there to VOID. If he wants to ask again then that's up to him, and not you. Sure you could cut and paste a few websites full of challenges, to which I should also copy and paste a few websites of successful rebuttals. Keep it on a human level and you're more likely to get a personal response.

I've issued the challenge before, never to be defeated (and I'm no bible scholar, but it's THAT easy I don't need to be)... please post one example of the bible being inconsistent or contradictory that cannot be explained to be nothing of the sort.

I must point out to you that the bible is a well tried and tested source that has been argued over for centuries, with no one ever successfully debunking it. News of such would be massive yet the skies are spookily silent.

After this exercise, you will come back with the meaningless cover all that apologists explain away anything with their double speak... or similar statement. Your argument remains lost and we're back here again with the HONEST position that you can't really assert what you're asserting and maintain any respect. If I were you I'd rather maintain some semblance of credulity.

(May 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Really CC? I don't remember ever saying that to you. Could you provide me with a link?

I've justified my response there to VOID. If he wants to ask again then that's up to him, and not you. Sure you could cut and paste a few websites full of challenges, to which I should also copy and paste a few websites of successful rebuttals. Keep it on a human level and you're more likely to get a personal response.

I've issued the challenge before, never to be defeated (and I'm no bible scholar, but it's THAT easy I don't need to be)... please post one example of the bible being inconsistent or contradictory that cannot be explained to be nothing of the sort.

I must point out to you that the bible is a well tried and tested source that has been argued over for centuries, with no one ever successfully debunking it. News of such would be massive yet the skies are spookily silent.

After this exercise, you will come back with the meaningless cover all that apologists explain away anything with their double speak... or similar statement. Your argument remains lost and we're back here again with the HONEST position that you can't really assert what you're asserting and maintain any respect. If I were you I'd rather maintain some semblance of credulity.

Finally, a half-way decent rebuttal! (+1 on the negative 100 points you currently have.)

Anyway let me respond to this in a new thread and we'll do it up - proper.

The Challenge issued by Frodo:
I've issued the challenge before, never to be defeated (and I'm no bible scholar, but it's THAT easy I don't need to be)... please post one example of the bible being inconsistent or contradictory that cannot be explained to be nothing of the sort.

your challenge is accepted - I'll get a Thread started as soon as I know I got at least a little bit of time do devote to it. This should be fun.

---

(May 8, 2011 at 3:27 pm)Watson Wrote: You have yet to stop 'playing' with fr0d0 that I have seen, Cinjin. Hence your posting of that picture you were so proud of creating last night in at least three different topics.

Frodo told me he liked it ... and also I only posted it in the two threads that had the topic of hell. I actually deleted one ... cause even I thought it was a bit much.

I don't hate Frodo at all ... I hate his hateful god and his oppressive religion. Technically that pic I posted of him did not attack his intellect or person ... only his behavior and beliefs.

(May 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: ... I hate his hateful god ...

You hate something you don't believe exists? Ain't that a conundrum.

(May 8, 2011 at 7:13 pm)Watson Wrote:

(May 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: ... I hate his hateful god ...

You hate something you don't believe exists? Ain't that a conundrum.

I'm a deist dude ... I believe in God ... that allows me priveleges the atheists don't have. Bite me.

I started really thinking about it and I decided to add to this reply. (while still standing by what I said above)

You said that I hate something that I don't believe exists. That's actually both true and false.
About a month ago my friends and I were discussing the movie Hostel. When my sister in law interjected with, "... is he that guy who tricks the boys and ends up killing that one kid?" ... "I hate that guy". In one sense she knows that there is no "guy" and that she can't possibly hate an actor, but what she's really trying to proclaim is that she hates all the evil qualities that that fictional character has come to possess.

So, no, your god does not exist to me ... and yet he does - in that he embodies all the horrible characteristics that your religion has assigned him. He's fake, in the sence that I know he does not physically exist, but he is real in the fact that the sorrow and suffering caused in his name is very tangible. In fact, one could argue that ANYTHING that causes mankind to murder one another is worthy of hatred. Physically real or metaphorically real - it's still suffering caused indirectly by that entity.

Plus, doesn't matter if he's real to me - he's real to you - and I've seen what your people are capable of in his name.

Quote:that allows me priveleges the atheists don't have.

Right. We're stuck despising his fucking followers!

(May 9, 2011 at 12:56 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:that allows me priveleges the atheists don't have.

Right. We're stuck despising his fucking followers!

hey I'm right there with ya. Frodo and Tack think I'm el diablo