RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
December 15, 2012 at 8:56 am
(This post was last modified: December 15, 2012 at 9:01 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(December 15, 2012 at 4:59 am)Ryft Wrote:(December 13, 2012 at 4:48 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: This explanation is barely intelligible. Give me an example where a worldview borrows intellectual capital "from without." I have no idea what that means.
Honestly? I am using vocabulary and concepts that are familiar to high school students—at least in Canada and the UK. Are they "barely intelligible," really? Then you are probably not prepared to interact with these issues yet. Personally I am hoping your comment was just transparent and gratuitous rhetoric you did not really mean, that you actually do understand such rudimentary vocabulary and concepts.
It seems almost self-evident what the term "from without" would mean, considering its opposite being "from within." So an example of a worldview borrowing intellectual capital from without (i.e., having to reach outside itself to accout for or explain something) would be a worldview that explains what is moral but does not account for what morality is. In light of the latter, what is the former based on? Not anything from within the worldview itself, and thus from without.
Where I come from, "without" refers simply to not having something whereas "within" means sometimes originates from inside and invokes spatial imagery. I've never heard the term "without" used in the context of something getting something from outside itself. It's always meant simply not having something. You're using the word to describe something having something that originated from another source. Is this some difference between normal American english and Canadian? I guess I'm "aboot" to find out.
I just looked it up in my American Oxford dictionary. It says the way you use "without" is an "archaic" usage. Shall we then also start using 'f' for small 's's and saying "ye", and "whither" and "'tis"? That sounds like a gay time.
Quote:(December 13, 2012 at 4:48 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: You said the Bible is consistent with the world. You read some Bible stories and then look out your window. Does the Bible look very consistent with the world? Do you see angels and demons flying about? Do you see God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit? Do you even see or detect your soul? Have you seen the afterlife? Have you seen hell? Have you seen heaven? When was the last time you saw a man get raised from the dead?
Yes, the Bible is consistent with the world in which we live, where there exists God, angels and demons, the soul and so forth. Have I observed any of those beings or events? Not exactly, [1] but then what does that have to do with reality? If I don't observe it, then it does not exist? Is that how it works, Tegh? Do you really want to go there? [2]
I didn't think so.
No that's not how it works. Maybe those things exists. I don't know. But then again, I don't know if there are invisible flying monkeys on Pluto either. I just can't understand why you would believe such things exists.
Is it simply because you want to believe in them?
Explain why you believe the Christian God exists and all his superfriends if you haven't quite ("not exactly") seen them.
Quote:(December 13, 2012 at 4:48 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I don't drink. And be more intelligible and less obsessive compulsive for once.
This, from the guy who said to me, "You have a very bad habit of missing the point to obvious rhetorical devices, figures of speech, and analogies."
Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).