When do you plan to Convert to Christanity?

[Mystical]

[Violet] I think I love you. Or maybe that's my mental masturbation talking. Orrrrrr sleep medicine finally kicked in. Can never be 100% sure these days..

Oh and catfish? You're growin on me

[Question Mark]

Okay, I see where you got that interpretation from, and I admit that I hadn't explained myself too well. When I say that something either 100% exists, or 100% doesn't, I'm talking about the reality of a situation. Something either does exist, or it doesn't, something can't both exist and not exist at the same time. When we get into percentages, we express probability of something's existence based, hopefully, upon evidence. From here we get all sorts of faction rising up: theists, solipsists, materialists, spiritualists, postmodernists, &c., who all posit differing degree of how we should interpret perception.
For instance, a materialist would only care about what is demonstrable as a materialistic effect upon reality, like something falling to prove gravity, or feeling wind on one's face to prove that wind exists. On the other hand, a solipsist would question any and all evidence as simply possibly being a figment of their own imagination.

Since we two people have different perceptions on how to affirm what is real, our degrees of probability, the percentages we posit to whether or not something exists or not, would differ, and so therefore we can't apply them to one another as a convincing argument.

The bit about something either existing or not existing is what's applicable to reality, whether we can grasp that or not. It's the basic premise from which we build our perception of the nature of something. For instance, God either does, or does not exist, he doesn't partially exist, or partially not exist, but we don't know which one he is, and we have different views about how we determine the likelihood of his existence.
Does that clear up the problem?

[Violet]

All this talk about masturbation... I need some homemade porn now...
.

Porn videos can be really hard to get into. Especially the ones where there are nails in vagina >_< Fucking hell!

Here're my thoughts on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2pt2-F2j2g

The pitch seems to work on most people, but what kind of temptress would I be if I couldn't ensnare people?

---

[Violet] I think I love you. Or maybe that's my mental masturbation talking. Orrrrrr sleep medicine finally kicked in. Can never be 100% sure these days..

Oh and catfish? You're growin on me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_uSlEEPSk

I'm all about that human spirit... it's so electric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsG-eN96fVc

I'll be a succubus in another life.

[catfish]

Okay, I see where you got that interpretation from, and I admit that I hadn't explained myself too well. When I say that something either 100% exists, or 100% doesn't, I'm talking about the reality of a situation. Something either does exist, or it doesn't, something can't both exist and not exist at the same time. When we get into percentages, we express probability of something's existence based, hopefully, upon evidence. From here we get all sorts of faction rising up: theists, solipsists, materialists, spiritualists, postmodernists, &c., who all posit differing degree of how we should interpret perception.
For instance, a materialist would only care about what is demonstrable as a materialistic effect upon reality, like something falling to prove gravity, or feeling wind on one's face to prove that wind exists. On the other hand, a solipsist would question any and all evidence as simply possibly being a figment of their own imagination.

Since we two people have different perceptions on how to affirm what is real, our degrees of probability, the percentages we posit to whether or not something exists or not, would differ, and so therefore we can't apply them to one another as a convincing argument.

The bit about something either existing or not existing is what's applicable to reality, whether we can grasp that or not. It's the basic premise from which we build our perception of the nature of something. For instance, God either does, or does not exist, he doesn't partially exist, or partially not exist, but we don't know which one he is, and we have different views about how we determine the likelihood of his existence.
Does that clear up the problem?

A little, but I'm not trying to prove the existence of God here. What I am trying to explain is that the Bible can be "partialy" true and everyone has their own perceptions and subjective opinions. We all trust our own hallucinations and perceptions to at least some degree. I agree that something cannot exist and not exist in the same context at the same time. However, I don't believe in a finite true or untrue stance. I'm not actually trying to "prove" God exists, I'm trying to show that not one person can make a positive claim about God for anyone except themselves and aside from the origins of the universe, we probrably agree on a lot of things. I for one do not positively assert something cannot exist because I don't perceive it. I can however make a probability estimate just like everyone else. When I get "indignant" is when others misrepresent my words and/or make positive claims that the Bible is completely false because a portion of it is false (that's why I used the hallucination example).

When people build their strawmen against my "claim" of God when I haven't actually made one (which is usually accompanied by attempted ridicule), I try to show them how what they believe and trust about me is just as delusional as they claim my beliefs are (which I never made). Brian still doesn't understand this simple fact...

I think the whole time I've been on this forum, I've made 2 statements to the effect that "I believe in God" and NEVER "God exists" and I only answered because I was asked politely... I tend to focus more upon the writings in the Bible that I can positively prove true or false (I.E. what's actually written). I know what's written there and can prove that, not whether or not it's true (I pick claims I can prove without the need to die). And for a lot of other things, I can recognise possibilities. It's kinda funny, if you check out some of my "debates", you will see atheists behaving like fundies...
It should be public knowledge by now that I do NOT believe the Bible is infallible in any way. But I also do not discount all of it because of that. I'm a cherrypicker and it's my God-given right to use my brain and I intend to do just that.

So basicaly in a nutshell, if someone tells me the Bible is completely false based on a black and white stance, I'm going to bring up the hallucination example or perhaps the textbook example.

Hopefully that clarifies my position a bit...
.

[Question Mark]

Okay, I see where you got that interpretation from, and I admit that I hadn't explained myself too well. When I say that something either 100% exists, or 100% doesn't, I'm talking about the reality of a situation. Something either does exist, or it doesn't, something can't both exist and not exist at the same time. When we get into percentages, we express probability of something's existence based, hopefully, upon evidence. From here we get all sorts of faction rising up: theists, solipsists, materialists, spiritualists, postmodernists, &c., who all posit differing degree of how we should interpret perception.
For instance, a materialist would only care about what is demonstrable as a materialistic effect upon reality, like something falling to prove gravity, or feeling wind on one's face to prove that wind exists. On the other hand, a solipsist would question any and all evidence as simply possibly being a figment of their own imagination.

Since we two people have different perceptions on how to affirm what is real, our degrees of probability, the percentages we posit to whether or not something exists or not, would differ, and so therefore we can't apply them to one another as a convincing argument.

The bit about something either existing or not existing is what's applicable to reality, whether we can grasp that or not. It's the basic premise from which we build our perception of the nature of something. For instance, God either does, or does not exist, he doesn't partially exist, or partially not exist, but we don't know which one he is, and we have different views about how we determine the likelihood of his existence.
Does that clear up the problem?

A little, but I'm not trying to prove the existence of God here. What I am trying to explain is that the Bible can be "partialy" true and everyone has their own perceptions and subjective opinions. We all trust our own hallucinations and perceptions to at least some degree. I agree that something cannot exist and not exist in the same context at the same time. However, I don't believe in a finite true or untrue stance. I'm not actually trying to "prove" God exists, I'm trying to show that not one person can make a positive claim about God for anyone except themselves and aside from the origins of the universe, we probrably agree on a lot of things. I for one do not positively assert something cannot exist because I don't perceive it. I can however make a probability estimate just like everyone else. When I get "indignant" is when others misrepresent my words and/or make positive claims that the Bible is completely false because a portion of it is false (that's why I used the hallucination example).

When people build their strawmen against my "claim" of God when I haven't actually made one (which is usually accompanied by attempted ridicule), I try to show them how what they believe and trust about me is just as delusional as they claim my beliefs are (which I never made). Brian still doesn't understand this simple fact...

I think the whole time I've been on this forum, I've made 2 statements to the effect that "I believe in God" and NEVER "God exists" and I only answered because I was asked politely... I tend to focus more upon the writings in the Bible that I can positively prove true or false (I.E. what's actually written). I know what's written there and can prove that, not whether or not it's true (I pick claims I can prove without the need to die). And for a lot of other things, I can recognise possibilities. It's kinda funny, if you check out some of my "debates", you will see atheists behaving like fundies...
It should be public knowledge by now that I do NOT believe the Bible is infallible in any way. But I also do not discount all of it because of that. I'm a cherrypicker and it's my God-given right to use my brain and I intend to do just that.

So basicaly in a nutshell, if someone tells me the Bible is completely false based on a black and white stance, I'm going to bring up the hallucination example or perhaps the textbook example.

Hopefully that clarifies my position a bit...
.

Oh, well I'd never say that the bible was entirely false. For instance it does have some true things in it, like there being a Mt. Sinai, and historical figures like Herod, and civilisations like the Egyptians and Romans.
There's certainly true or factual things in the bible.

Then there's also false things in the bible, like a lot of the morality espoused, and then there's things that might not be outright false but can't be proven, like the enslavement of the Jews to the Egyptians or the existence of Moses.

I'd never say that the bible is entirely true or entirely false. That's a step away from absolute knowledge, and I reject the notion of absolute knowledge.

[Baalzebutt]

Catfish,

You seem mighty proud of your "unique" views on god and Christianity. You mention this several times in your posts as well as prominently display your beliefs in your header.

I have to say, I am really quite curious. Could you enlighten us with some specifics of your beliefs?

Don't worry, we won't steal your beliefs. You'll still be a "unique snowflake".

[Violet]

Don't worry, we won't steal your beliefs. You'll still be a "unique snowflake".

Don't be silly, I'm the only unique snowflake at this forum. Everyone else is just the same old thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwsTXpDJSVE

[catfish]

Catfish,

You seem mighty proud of your "unique" views on god and Christianity. You mention this several times in your posts as well as prominently display your beliefs in your header.

I have to say, I am really quite curious. Could you enlighten us with some specifics of your beliefs?

Don't worry, we won't steal your beliefs. You'll still be a "unique snowflake".

1. I believe I'm smarter than you.
2. I believe #1 is going to piss you off.
3. I believe potato pancakes are pretty friggen awesome!

.

[Baalzebutt]

Don't worry, we won't steal your beliefs. You'll still be a "unique snowflake".

Don't be silly, I'm the only unique snowflake at this forum. Everyone else is just the same old thing

you are indeed unique, lily. I gotta say, I think you are one of my favorite people on the forum. You are a fucking ROCK STAR!

[Violet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xxQs34UMx4

Sure, I have every phase of the rock star.

---

Awkward teenage phase.



Embracing the identity.



The path to fame.



The pinacle of achievement.



The drug phase and decline.

---

I could believe that I'm a rockstar