(July 31, 2012 at 2:42 pm)ElDinero Wrote: It's never happened. Nor has fr0d0 blocking me, he'd never willingly miss out on engaging with me.

(July 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yep well that's never happenned in the past Eld. People have always retreated to silence when I've come up with the goods. Some people have short memories. You guys are just deliberately stupid.

I'd like to reiterate that there is no way fr0d0 has blocked me and that he is blowing smoke and using the pretense of having me on block to avoid addressing me because he knows his arguments are fallacious and/or empty. He wouldn't block me because he wants to see what I'm saying. He may, however, be ignoring me, which wouldn't be surprising in the least.

Exhibit A: Above you'll see him respond to me, after claiming to have blocked me. Short memories indeed, fr0d0.

(August 3, 2012 at 2:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

---

Maybe the language is from my dogma. It's what Christians say. The fully correct wording gets shortened and becomes confusing if you don't understand the references. I try to correct myself, but some slip through.

Yes I/ we do directly and personally know God. It's not just the bible. We accept that the bible is the word of God (is inspired by him and is very accurate), and check our thoughts against that. I need to talk in the lingo to say this, so please bear with me... I talk directly to God and he talks directly to me. This is the function of the Spirit in Christianity. It makes God known to us. Yes this is made possible through Jesus, but Jesus's physical being has no necessity in that (ugh - dogma alert ). His act of sacrifice does.
We treat the historicity as crucial and the miraculous as based on fact. But all of the time God's condition remains that he has to remain empirically unproven.

So the bible to Xtians is like the user manual to a direct contact with God. The bible is a record of what we can know about him. We think he is ultimately unknowable but that we can know some things. This is how we can define him. Part of that definition has to be his mystery.
Our life of faith isn't to live by a rule book, but to be directly inspired by him. To feel and experience the fullness of life that he gives out. I don't communicate with him in the 3rd person. I communicate directly. It's not "God be praised" but "I praise you", "I love you" etc.. This is what I mean by direct and personal.

---

Thanks for the elaboration, fr0d0. I've gotten a better understanding of what you mean by "direct and personal."

At the same time, your post brought more questions into my mind, but I would just like to wrap up and bring our discussion to a close for now. I have other more important things to do. This thread has taken quite a lot of time out of my hands, and I'm sure that it did to yours as well, so thanks for your time and patience. Also, I apologize for making you feel insulted by my comments whether it was intended or not.

And good luck with responding to Raph and the rest of the gang.

The stage is yours.

---

(August 3, 2012 at 3:30 am)ElDinero Wrote:

---

(July 31, 2012 at 2:42 pm)ElDinero Wrote: It's never happened. Nor has fr0d0 blocking me, he'd never willingly miss out on engaging with me.

(July 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yep well that's never happenned in the past Eld. People have always retreated to silence when I've come up with the goods. Some people have short memories. You guys are just deliberately stupid.

I'd like to reiterate that there is no way fr0d0 has blocked me and that he is blowing smoke and using the pretense of having me on block to avoid addressing me because he knows his arguments are fallacious and/or empty. He wouldn't block me because he wants to see what I'm saying. He may, however, be ignoring me, which wouldn't be surprising in the least.

Exhibit A: Above you'll see him respond to me, after claiming to have blocked me. Short memories indeed, fr0d0.

---

Whatchu gonna say to that, hoary hobbit?

Quote:it's of no use to say that atheists can't disprove God

in the beginning man created god.

Religion is something that humans made up,this is just enough prof that god isnt real. Church and religious people have no prof that god exists,they follow that idiotic book by the name genesis.

And just think how church changed its silly stories by time.

Also when we are at this debate,think about DNK,this again overthrows religion once again,
noans ark WTF!

(August 3, 2012 at 2:11 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(August 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Materialist? What? Because I'm someone who uses his senses as opposed to his imagination when discerning what reality encompasses?

What, exactly, is the difference between your senses and your imagination? You never experience an orange; you experience the appearance of an orange, or the sensation of its touch. But that's not the same as the orange itself.

I think someones been watching The Matrix one too many times, I mean its a great film but still...
If you go by that logic theres no reason for me to think any of this is real. For all I know I'm drugged to the eyeballs in a padded cell.
However if I was to act as if that were true then I would be making a huge assumption.
Normal human beings act on what they can see, hear, taste and touch and their ability to make sense of what knowledge is gained through these faculties. Until I am given reason to doubt these faculties then these are what I shall depend on to discern reality. If I do not use these faculties then I am left without any tools to discern reality, that is not acceptable.
Someone who decides he doesn't need these faculties to discern what is real is a fool who has left themselves deaf, dumb and blind to the world around them.
(P.S. Giving kudos to someone brave enough to actually continue the debate doesn't count as continuing the debate yourself fr0d0. ;-) )

---

(August 3, 2012 at 5:20 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(August 3, 2012 at 2:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

---

Maybe the language is from my dogma. It's what Christians say. The fully correct wording gets shortened and becomes confusing if you don't understand the references. I try to correct myself, but some slip through.

Yes I/ we do directly and personally know God. It's not just the bible. We accept that the bible is the word of God (is inspired by him and is very accurate), and check our thoughts against that. I need to talk in the lingo to say this, so please bear with me... I talk directly to God and he talks directly to me. This is the function of the Spirit in Christianity. It makes God known to us. Yes this is made possible through Jesus, but Jesus's physical being has no necessity in that (ugh - dogma alert ). His act of sacrifice does.
We treat the historicity as crucial and the miraculous as based on fact. But all of the time God's condition remains that he has to remain empirically unproven.

So the bible to Xtians is like the user manual to a direct contact with God. The bible is a record of what we can know about him. We think he is ultimately unknowable but that we can know some things. This is how we can define him. Part of that definition has to be his mystery.
Our life of faith isn't to live by a rule book, but to be directly inspired by him. To feel and experience the fullness of life that he gives out. I don't communicate with him in the 3rd person. I communicate directly. It's not "God be praised" but "I praise you", "I love you" etc.. This is what I mean by direct and personal.

---

Thanks for the elaboration, fr0d0. I've gotten a better understanding of what you mean by "direct and personal."

At the same time, your post brought more questions into my mind, but I would just like to wrap up and bring our discussion to a close for now. I have other more important things to do. This thread has taken quite a lot of time out of my hands, and I'm sure that it did to yours as well, so thanks for your time and patience. Also, I apologize for making you feel insulted by my comments whether it was intended or not.

And good luck with responding to Raph and the rest of the gang.

The stage is yours.

---

(August 3, 2012 at 3:30 am)ElDinero Wrote:

---

I'd like to reiterate that there is no way fr0d0 has blocked me and that he is blowing smoke and using the pretense of having me on block to avoid addressing me because he knows his arguments are fallacious and/or empty. He wouldn't block me because he wants to see what I'm saying. He may, however, be ignoring me, which wouldn't be surprising in the least.

Exhibit A: Above you'll see him respond to me, after claiming to have blocked me. Short memories indeed, fr0d0.

---

Whatchu gonna say to that, hoary hobbit?

He already retreated with a monosyllabic answer in my debate with him so, another victory to me I guess? Honestly?
Sometimes it gets alittle samey beating him again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again but you know...
I've lost my train of thought. :-)

---

(August 3, 2012 at 3:30 am)ElDinero Wrote:

(July 31, 2012 at 2:42 pm)ElDinero Wrote: It's never happened. Nor has fr0d0 blocking me, he'd never willingly miss out on engaging with me.

(July 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yep well that's never happenned in the past Eld. People have always retreated to silence when I've come up with the goods. Some people have short memories. You guys are just deliberately stupid.

I'd like to reiterate that there is no way fr0d0 has blocked me and that he is blowing smoke and using the pretense of having me on block to avoid addressing me because he knows his arguments are fallacious and/or empty. He wouldn't block me because he wants to see what I'm saying. He may, however, be ignoring me, which wouldn't be surprising in the least.

Exhibit A: Above you'll see him respond to me, after claiming to have blocked me. Short memories indeed, fr0d0.

Well just to make absolutely sure I'm replying to your post. That means everything that you wrote in your post is now part of this post... which means he can't possibly pretend not to of seen it if he responds to any of the above. :-)

Quote:If you go by that logic theres no reason for me to think any of this is real. For all I know I'm drugged to the eyeballs in a padded cell.
However if I was to act as if that were true then I would be making a huge assumption.
Normal human beings act on what they can see, hear, taste and touch and their ability to make sense of what knowledge is gained through these faculties. Until I am given reason to doubt these faculties then these are what I shall depend on to discern reality. If I do not use these faculties then I am left without any tools to discern reality, that is not acceptable.
Someone who decides he doesn't need these faculties to discern what is real is a fool who has left themselves deaf, dumb and blind to the world around them.
(P.S. Giving kudos to someone brave enough to actually continue the debate doesn't count as continuing the debate yourself fr0d0. ;-) )

No, you're missing my point.

I'm not arguing about whether you should think that there are external objects that accurately correspond to your sensory perceptions. I'm saying that you never directly experience another object; all you ever have are subjective experiences (sensory phenomena, etc.).

Suppose there's an apple on the table. You don't get to access the apple. All you get is some kind of visual experience that you interpret as being an apple. But that isn't the apple; it's merely an image of it. All we ever get are images of things.

If I were making an argument motivated by the Matrix, I'd say that you should then choose to doubt the existence of the apple. But I'm not arguing that--at least, not yet. I'm asking how you distinguish "imagination" from "senses"; they're both constructs of your mind, so far as I can tell.

What's the difference between seeing the image of an apple, and dreaming a dream so realistic that you think you're seeing the image of an apple?

(My guess: you're going to say something like, "Seeing is what happens when certain physiological phenomena occur; a photon strikes the back of your eye," etc.)

That apples will still be around when you are no longer there to experience them. Just one simple and glaring difference between having a sensory experience of an apple as the object of focus (the experience, not the apple) and having a sensory experience of an apple as the object of focus (the apple, not the experience).

Fun with words.

(August 3, 2012 at 5:20 am)Rayaan Wrote: I would just like to wrap up and bring our discussion to a close for now.

Running away huh? ™Raphael

I'm fine to wrap things up rayaan. Twas fun. I'll respond to you last post on the major topic just to conclude for me.

(August 3, 2012 at 5:20 am)Rayaan Wrote: And good luck with responding to Raph and the rest of the gang.

I would enjoy responding to anything interesting anyone says. So that's a no

---

(August 3, 2012 at 5:20 am)Rayaan Wrote: Whatchu gonna say to that, hoary hobbit?

You made me read the filth!

I have people on ignore. Browsinig on a full browser, as I am now, I can click to reveal posts by those people. On the mobile site you don't get that option. You can usually tell by the context if someone is saying something interesting or trolling. Luckily for me I am free to decide. I will take a peek if I suspect this. Usually I get confirmation that continuing to ignore is probably best.

(August 3, 2012 at 11:38 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

Quote:If you go by that logic theres no reason for me to think any of this is real. For all I know I'm drugged to the eyeballs in a padded cell.
However if I was to act as if that were true then I would be making a huge assumption.
Normal human beings act on what they can see, hear, taste and touch and their ability to make sense of what knowledge is gained through these faculties. Until I am given reason to doubt these faculties then these are what I shall depend on to discern reality. If I do not use these faculties then I am left without any tools to discern reality, that is not acceptable.
Someone who decides he doesn't need these faculties to discern what is real is a fool who has left themselves deaf, dumb and blind to the world around them.
(P.S. Giving kudos to someone brave enough to actually continue the debate doesn't count as continuing the debate yourself fr0d0. ;-) )

No, you're missing my point.

I'm not arguing about whether you should think that there are external objects that accurately correspond to your sensory perceptions. I'm saying that you never directly experience another object; all you ever have are subjective experiences (sensory phenomena, etc.).

Suppose there's an apple on the table. You don't get to access the apple. All you get is some kind of visual experience that you interpret as being an apple. But that isn't the apple; it's merely an image of it. All we ever get are images of things.

If I were making an argument motivated by the Matrix, I'd say that you should then choose to doubt the existence of the apple. But I'm not arguing that--at least, not yet. I'm asking how you distinguish "imagination" from "senses"; they're both constructs of your mind, so far as I can tell.

What's the difference between seeing the image of an apple, and dreaming a dream so realistic that you think you're seeing the image of an apple?

(My guess: you're going to say something like, "Seeing is what happens when certain physiological phenomena occur; a photon strikes the back of your eye," etc.)

Sorry, did I just slip into the twighlight zone? What would you define as directly experiencing another object then? Would we have to perform some sort of surgery so the object actually makes contact with the brain? I mean seriously Clive, come on. Before you start announcing what isn't directly experiencing another object at least give us some idea of what is. I'd come up with the description of physically seeing an object and the data being relayed to our brains but we both know what you're going to do. You're going to say "Ah-ha, but how do you know thats not your brain imagining seeing that object?". Then I'll answer "Well you have other peoples testimony and your own senses" then you'll go "AH-HA but how do you know they're not imagined too?" which of course the only answer is "We can never be 100% sure that the reality we are seeing through our senses is reality as it truly is but it is the only one we experience and therefore we must accept the sensory data as it is presented to us. The only other alternatives are to either decide what we want to be real regardless of the evidence or to live in complete denial of everything. I only see one of those three choices as being sane."
I apologize if I am incorrect in my prediction of where this is heading but I've had this discussion quite a few times and get rather sick of seeing the same thing over and over again.

And I'm very sorry but:

(August 3, 2012 at 11:38 am)CliveStaples Wrote: What's the difference between seeing the image of an apple, and dreaming a dream so realistic that you think you're seeing the image of an apple?

Is dangerously close to:
"Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"

Both of these quotes are essentially asking how can you trust your senses completely. The only difference is Morpheus is making the point we can never be completely sure whether this is all a dream or not and from what I can tell you're heading toward saying the only thing we can establish is real is our thoughts and feelings so we should trust those before trusting whatever evidence our senses obtain thereby validating your decision to trust in your feelings that your religion is true despite there being zero evidence to present that case.
How am I doing so far? Am I in the ballpark?

Yeah, he hasn't got me on block. A little conniving cunt, as ever. World's biggest yawn.

(July 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I've noticed that there's been quite a flux of new theist members in the past few days. I personally think that's awesome for this forum. I've also noticed that the thread about trying to prove God doesn't exist has become quite the battle field. So I thought I would make this thread and ask my question:

What are your arguments in favour of God? I mean, it's of no use to say that atheists can't disprove God. However true it might be, it doesn't then follow that God necessarily exists. So I would very much like to see you guys collectively give arguments to back up the claim.

The stage is yours!

For me, it quite simple...

Science has shown us that all matter decays. If all matter decays, then the universe and all that exists or existed cannot be eternal.

It's easier for me to believe in a creator who has always existed (not created, that's imposible IMO) than to believe matter "popped" into existence.

However improbable it may seem, that's my reason...

And for the record, here's my "definition" of God...

Simply put, it's that "nothingness" that started everything.
That "nothingness" that exists between electrons.
That "nothingness" that comprises the greater part of your physical existense.