RE: Theist zone
March 8, 2011 at 5:59 am
(This post was last modified: March 8, 2011 at 6:24 am by Violet.)
(March 8, 2011 at 3:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:(March 8, 2011 at 1:00 am)tackattack Wrote: If you would like to have a discussion on the matter Ace, since you clearly gave that shining example of atheism (as supported by my above points)
/end sarcasm a kudo, I'd be more than willing to have a conversation. At least in our previous dialogues you've been intellectually honest and reasonable.
Sorry tacky...
ntelectually Honest and Christianity (by whatever flavour you care to name it) in the same sentence is just an oxymoron. It just does not compute.
When it comes to christianity... there is a lack of 'evidence' for it being true. However, it is not proven to be false (even though that is what I and many others here believe). I would hardly call Tacky ignorant, and i think his belief in christianity is genuine, and I would be extremely surprised if he should knowingly omit something relevant and important.
All in all... he isn't an intellectually dishonest person. And he is also a christian. I'm inclined to believe it isn't an oxymoron
The Good Reverend Jeremiah Wrote:How dare I insist on actual, quantifiable evidence for a soul. Its so childish of me to question Christian concepts like the soul and ask for stupid things like "proof".
You want tangible evidence for an intangible device?
Do you often ask people for the impossible, and then wonder why they can't give it to you?
Quote:I should have took all of that babling as proof that the Christians are 100% true and souls exist and Jesus is lard.
Not if it doesn't sit right with you, you shouldn't have. Souls are the subject of metaphysics, by nature they are taken on strong faith if taken at all.
Quote:How dare I ask for a list for my reasonable criteria for proving a soul: height, width, length, components, etc. Yeah, I should have never posted that, but I deserve the blame and to be called childish for not posting criteria of what constitutes proof. breathing must be a magical, mystical concept and it can in NO WAY ever be defined or logically proven. ..thus spake the Christians...breathing prove jeebus is lard.
My apologies. I will never question a christian again. If only I could be as meek as you.
Breathing is an interesting concept for those who do not. Monogamy is interesting to me because I am not, and I have no idea how that experience feels. I need more than a "what it is" to fully claim an understanding of it... i need to 'feel it' to actually be able to relate to those who live with monogamy. And people that are not polyamorous need to know more than "what it is" to relate to me about it.
Why does a soul need to be proven by empirical means? It would seem that you've already closed the case on the soul, and are running through the formalities. As defined, a soul is not tangible. This means that tangible measurements (height, width, weight) do not apply to it... and it cannot be proven to exist by finding these things... as doing so would not be finding a soul as it has been defined.
Breathing is fucking weird. Weirder to those who don't. How very strange it would be to be Data... and no doubt he thinks it is strange to be us.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
