Nah I specialize in mayo. Seriously it's incredible. It has been much craved for by The Sexually Delicious Ones ™

I want to thank Ignorant for the interesting, respectful dialogue we've had here.

The number of theists I've been able to hold a sensible conversation with here has been very low, so I value members such as this highly. I hope you continue to find a home here.

Although I struggle to understand much of what you say, I do believe you're trying to debate honestly. That in itself is like the holy grail round here when it comes to theists.

I don't for a moment take the weird lot we get here as representative, by the way. I know we tend to attract extremists and loons. People with something to prove, often to themselves, I think. The more balanced theists who are actually content with their beliefs probably feel no need to come and kick a hornets' nest of atheists. I'm not suggesting you've done this ignorant, you're one of the few who came here wanting to actually talk to us as people. And to listen.

(November 17, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, that's what he said.  An atheist -has- no relationship with christ.  That;s what it means to be an atheist, you realize? [1] It's the relationship or knowledge that's unneccesary, keep up. [2]  It's really not that revolutionary.  The church has long thought that "savage races" who had never heard of christ were covered by the promise of the crucifixion all the same. [3]

-and you don't need a relationship with jesus to get it, if atheists can get it.  Again, not necessary, in that case, so why should I give  a shit? [4] I mean, feel free to present a more traditional faith, tell me I'm going to go to hell if I don't have that knowledge or relationship.....but...I'll just remind you that possession would not compel compliance, in me, so? [5]

1) Ohhhhhhhhh. =). Do you think the Pope possibly believes that an atheist doesn't believe he has a relationship with Christ (of course), even though a relationship with Christ actually exists? Perhaps your missing some nuance there.

2) That's what you don't get. Christians believe (including the Pope) that the relationship with Christ is there whether you know its there or not. Anyone who is "saved", anyone who goes to heaven, goes there for one fundamental reason - Christ brought them there. Christians acknowledge the reality of the relationship, and try to work through it, which is actually Christ working through their work to bring them to heaven. Atheists don't acknowledge that reality, but often unknowingly work through it nonetheless, which is often Christ working through their work to bring them to heaven. <= This would make sense if you were able to meaningfully speak about a NATURAL relation between god's working and any work at all. But, you thought that unnecessary to discuss.

3) Yup. Romans 2:13-16.

4) You DO need a relationship with Jesus to get eternal life. He himself said it multiple times. He REVEALED that the relationship is already there. It is part of our reality. Are there cases in which Jesus gives eternal life DESPITE the lack of explicit knowledge and recognition of that relationship with Jesus (e.g. the cases of some good atheists)? YES. I hope you and everyone here are in this category should you remain atheist.

5) It's not that you would go to hell if you didn't have that relationship, you wouldn't exist at all if you didn't have that relationship. It's simply reality. So you get to choose to live as if it were a reality, or not. You seem to have made your choice. Fair enough.

I think I was right, this Tomlinson God was probably devised for exactly the purpose of protecting the concept of "God" by making it tautological.

The problem of course is that it doesn't show that it does anything, even if it "exists". It's just labels. And the bigger problem is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, which has to be presumably read through some sort of secret filter before it "tells" you that God is actually nothing to do with anything written in the book.

(November 17, 2016 at 7:39 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Yes. No.

What's the difference? [1]

Is there more to your definition of "God" besides "the goodness in which things participate"? Like, God doesn't have to have a mind or be a creator or anything else that a deity would normally have? [2]

1) God = goodness itself. A thing's goodness is a limited participation in goodness-itself (the limits determining what-sort-of-thing it is). A thing's limited participation in goodness-itself subsists as a thing distinct from the goodness in which it participates.

2) If by creator you mean the primary source or cause of everything else's being, then sure, that goes along with god as subsistent-being (and therefore the primary source of all participated (i.e. created) being).

(November 18, 2016 at 7:41 am)Ignorant Wrote: 1) Ohhhhhhhhh. =). Do you think the Pope possibly believes that an atheist doesn't believe he has a relationship with Christ (of course), even though a relationship with Christ actually exists? Perhaps your missing some nuance there.

I'm not missing any nuance, you're seeking a way to be right despite the consequence.  If I have a relationship with christ, as an atheist...why, again,  should I care about your beliefs or your creator?  As before...in seeking the gotcha you have made your beliefs, and even the truth of your beliefs, an irrelevance. So what;s the score now? I have a meaningless "relationship" no matter what with your evil god? How well is this going, in your estimation?

Quote:2) That's what you don't get. Christians believe (including the Pope) that the relationship with Christ is there whether you know its there or not. Anyone who is "saved", anyone who goes to heaven, goes there for one fundamental reason - Christ brought them there. Christians acknowledge the reality of the relationship, and try to work through it, which is actually Christ working through their work to bring them to heaven. Atheists don't acknowledge that reality, but often unknowingly work through it nonetheless, which is often Christ working through their work to bring them to heaven. <= This would make sense if you were able to meaningfully speak about a NATURAL relation between god's working and any work at all. But, you thought that unnecessary to discuss.

They may believe that, but at least some understand that the belief is not required, and that the belief may offer no advantage. In fact, it may be a disadvantage.  I may get of relatively easy come judgement day.  That;s a reason -not- to give a shit, not a reason to care.

Quote:4) You DO need a relationship with Jesus to get eternal life. He himself said it multiple times. He REVEALED that the relationship is already there. It is part of our reality. Are there cases in which Jesus gives eternal life DESPITE the lack of explicit knowledge and recognition of that relationship with Jesus (e.g. the cases of some good atheists)? YES. I hope you and everyone here are in this category should you remain atheist.

I think that you're shitting all over the word relationship -and- your beliefs.  This relationship is no more meaningful than my "relationship" with oxygen. My acceptance of the tenants is no more useful or effective than my rejection of the same.

Quote:5) It's not that you would go to hell if you didn't have that relationship, you wouldn't exist at all if you didn't have that relationship. It's simply reality. So you get to choose to live as if it were a reality, or not. You seem to have made your choice. Fair enough.

-if it is a reality it's an irrelevant and ineffectual reality to me, and if it's not a reality, I still live.  See, doesn't matter either way.

(November 18, 2016 at 10:13 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not missing any nuance, you're seeking a way to be right despite the consequence.  If I have a relationship with christ, as an atheist...why, again,  should I care about your beliefs or your creator? [1] As before...in seeking the gotcha [2] you have made your beliefs, and even the truth of your beliefs, an irrelevance.  So what;s the score now?  I have a meaningless "relationship" no matter what with your evil god?  How well is this going, in your estimation? [3]

They may believe that, but at least some understand that the belief is not required, and that the belief may offer no advantage. In fact, it may be a disadvantage. I may get of relatively easy come judgement day.  That;s a reason -not- to give a shit, not a reason to care. [4]

I think that you're shitting all over the word relationship -and- your beliefs.  This relationship is no more meaningful than my "relationship" with oxygen. [5]  My acceptance of the tenants is no more useful or effective than my rejection of the same. [6]

-if it is a reality it's an irrelevant reality to me, and if it's not a reality, I still live.  See, doesn't matter either way. [7]

1) Remember the first thing I brought up? Caring about what is true? Then remember what I brought up later: Either the truth you acknowledge is meaningful to you, or it isn't. I find it meaningful. You don't. All I can do is try to explain it in a more meaningful way. Clearly you find my (or any) description lacking. Why "should" you care? I don't know, you aren't a child, you do as you will.

2) Maybe I was never seeking a "gotcha"? No one else here seems to think I was.

3) If you can't tell, with you, I know it's going very poorly. You asked me to try. Even though you and I both knew I would do very poorly, I tried anyway because who knows, maybe something in my poor description would stand out to you. Well, clearly it hasn't. What do you want from me?

4) If you say so.

5) Ya, that is clear.

6) Thanks for sharing your judgment.

7) So, like I said, it will matter to some people, and others it won't. Congratulations.

(November 18, 2016 at 10:07 am)Ignorant Wrote: 1) God = goodness itself. A thing's goodness is a limited participation in goodness-itself (the limits determining what-sort-of-thing it is). A thing's limited participation in goodness-itself subsists as a thing distinct from the goodness in which it participates.

So,

A thing has limited participation in God. That limited participation subsists as something distinct from God in which it participates?

So are you saying that good things have limited participation within God, and they are themselves distinct from God, despite participating within him?

Quote:2) If by creator you mean the primary source or cause of everything else's being, then sure, that goes along with god as subsistent-being (and therefore the primary source of all participated (i.e. created) being).

What is God's subsistent-being?

How could I come to know God in order to care about God? (As far as I am concerned, I'd care about God if I knew of God because I'd care about knowing the truth of God... but "knowing the truth of God" is just a longer way of saying "knowing God", really. Caring about the truth of something and caring about something is the same thing, as far as I am concerned. To care that something is true is just to care that something is. "It is true that I am happy" is just a long way to say "I am happy". "True" and "false" have no meanings by themselves).

To me "relevant reality" is a tautology. I consider something relevant if it's real. Maybe not relevant to the topic at hand, but relevant to my life. I seek the truth for its own sake and without reality truth is meaningless.

REALITY >< Logic > Passion > Meaning > TRUTH > Values > KNOWLEDGE > Purpose > Wisdom

(November 18, 2016 at 10:30 am)Ignorant Wrote: 1) Remember the first thing I brought up? Caring about what is true? Then remember what I brought up later: Either the truth you acknowledge is meaningful to you, or it isn't. I find it meaningful. You don't. All I can do is try to explain it in a more meaningful way. Clearly you find my (or any) description lacking. Why "should" you care? I don't know, you aren't a child, you do as you will.

I care whether or not "oxygen exists" is true as well, but that seems like an awfully diminutive form of caring.  As it turns out, whether or not it is true is about as relevant to whether or not this god business is true.  You can't actually provide a reason to care, in some other less-than-diminutive form, and so you present the funhouse mirror version of 

"Either you care about the truth or you don't"

It's an attempt to leverage some -other- obviously unrelated concepts attachments and transfer the credibility and positive judgement to the thing that you are incapable of articulating.  It's also a subtle form of character assassination.   This is why it fails.

Quote:If you can't tell, with you, I know it's going very poorly. You asked me to try. Even though you and I both knew I would do very poorly, I tried anyway because who knows, maybe something in my poor description would stand out to you. Well, clearly it hasn't. What do you want from me?

Only to help you do your best.  To get passed the stumbling blocks common to amateur internet apologists.  If a diminutive form of caring about a meaningless form of relationship to an evil god is where we find ourselves....and it is....then I propose you haven't adequately or accurately communicated the message you have in mind, about the god you have in mind.

I'm trying to help you get past the "well, some people don;t care about truth" -bullshit, that's just bog standard apologist trolling. That's beneath both yourself, and your god, correct?