(December 31, 2012 at 10:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(December 31, 2012 at 9:24 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: please don't hide behind semantics.

We can remove "claim to" from this statement because it is a blatent attempt to hide behind a trap.

You're being disingenuous for the above statement because we both know you believe your god exists, not that you 'claim to believe'. You either do or you don't.

OK lets remove claim to..... I believe in God so it is now a statement of fact which again does give me a burden of proof to anyone apart from myself and the evidence I can accept only has to be acceptable to me.

Unless you're trying to convince someone else...

Your title says 'Jesus is Lord'. This is a statement of fact designed to bring question to it (why would we accept that Jesus is Lord. Who is Jesus, and what is it Lord of?)

Your title says 'Jesus is Lord'. This is a statement of fact designed to bring question to it (why would we accept that Jesus is Lord. Who is Jesus, and what is it Lord of?)



[/quote]

We both know that by the criterion demanded for a fact to be established as a fact objectively the statement "Jesus is Lord" cannot be accepted as a universal fact. But it can be stated as a summary of my beliefs. I can and do reserve the right to hold facts by objective or subjective evidence but understand that this does not make it an objective fact and I understand the difference. And yes that statement will always raise a response and I hope will continue to raise questions. In another forum I may have been less blatent but I believed from what I seen of posts here before I joined that the posters here expect people to be thick skinned or clear off so I decided to go with that. I nailed my colours to the post from the start.

(January 1, 2013 at 8:36 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

me Wrote:Your title says 'Jesus is Lord'. This is a statement of fact designed to bring question to it (why would we accept that Jesus is Lord. Who is Jesus, and what is it Lord of?)

We both know that by the criterion demanded for a fact to be established as a fact objectively the statement "Jesus is Lord" cannot be accepted as a universal fact. But it can be stated as a summary of my beliefs. I can and do reserve the right to hold facts by objective or subjective evidence but understand that this does not make it an objective fact and I understand the difference. And yes that statement will always raise a response and I hope will continue to raise questions. In another forum I may have been less blatent but I believed from what I seen of posts here before I joined that the posters here expect people to be thick skinned or clear off so I decided to go with that. I nailed my colours to the post from the start.

Please Mark, don't delete the quote tag lines when you reply. I didn't know you had replied to me initially due to the fact my name didn't appear in the line.

Anyway, I have no issues at all with you stating your beliefs. That's fine, and I would defend your right to hold your beliefs if they're harmless and bring you happiness.

But I don't want us to pretend somehow that you're not making a claim to us when it's pretty obvious you are, that's all

(January 1, 2013 at 8:36 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: We both know that by the criterion demanded for a fact to be established as a fact objectively the statement "Jesus is Lord" cannot be accepted as a universal fact. But it can be stated as a summary of my beliefs. I can and do reserve the right to hold facts by objective or subjective evidence but understand that this does not make it an objective fact and I understand the difference. And yes that statement will always raise a response and I hope will continue to raise questions. In another forum I may have been less blatent but I believed from what I seen of posts here before I joined that the posters here expect people to be thick skinned or clear off so I decided to go with that. I nailed my colours to the post from the start.

Well I admire you for stating it as such without overreaching and preaching about how much better off you are than we heathens. You're okay with me. Carry on mate. With any luck, you'll find a way to have fun here without feeling compelled at some point to do your Christian duty and convert the hell out of us.

I don't even think Mark has any burden of proof anymore because the claim he's making is so vague and meaningless, it can simply be dismissed as incoherent in an epistemological dispute.

Saying you believe in 'god', is as senseless as saying you believe in 'X'. No one's going to know what the hell you are babbling on about until you define 'X'

(January 1, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: I don't even think Mark has any burden of proof anymore because the claim he's making is so vague and meaningless, it can simply be dismissed as incoherent in an epistemological dispute.

Saying you believe in 'god', is as senseless as saying you believe in 'X'. No one's going to know what the hell you are babbling on about until you define 'X'

That's true of course. I have never known what was meant by gods. Whatever they may be I suppose those that worship them are entitled to have it their way. Just don't sign us all up for any group plan. If I ever go in for something delusional it'll probably be some man/beast like a centaur or sexy mermaid babe.

Well if many Christians are correct in their interpretation of their scriptures and those scriptures (against all the odds as atheist claim) turn out to be inspired we will all get our chance to experience the greatest delusion ever the man-God. How this manifests in reality would have to be very subtle to start but in the end the trap would be sprung. It reassuring to know that I will be able to monitor this forum as the experts in seeing through delusions. Maybe that's my plan, like the old miner and his chirping budgie to let him know when the unseen danger arrives lol Just Kidding ( or am I DUM DUM DUUUM ) tune in for the next episode when?

Hey, do I smell some Pascal's Wager on the previous post? Just saying, because Religions like christianity tend to be vague.

For a second I thought I was in a resurrected thread. Then, I thought it must be a time machine. Then, I realized that we have another newb who wants to pretend atheism relies on faith so as to insult atheists, which is funny for so many reasons. Carry on.

(January 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Hey, do I smell some Pascal's Wager on the previous post? Just saying, because Religions like christianity tend to be vague.

Nope while I understand the concept of pascals wager and how someone might play with it in a debating arena. I believe it would be the most stupid reasons I could think of for believing in God. Even if you could switch belief on and of like an electric toaster.