what being apart from the law means.

[Drich]

What did you say

[Esquilax]

did you read the definations of those two words? Do they fit anyone who insists on calling themselves Atheists?

If I wanted to just name call, don't you think I would have included some of your screen names, and started to call some of you out? What I have done is shine a little light on the work that is done under the title of atheism. Not all of it fits, I have freely shared information that allows the indivisual to make up his own mind as to who's works are atheistic in nature or maybe Miso/dystheistic..

One would think that a 'true thinker ™' would not bock at hard facts and evidence that promotes Actual Independant thought.

Ah, I forgot, you need this explained to you every step of the way: you aren't actually the judge of who is or isn't things. The individual in question is. I've noticed you do this a lot, labelling people based on your interpretation of their actions and then expecting that label to stick, but... no, just no.

Like I've said earlier, don't go flinging names around without consent, if you're trying to describe someone's belief system, because you're bound to get it wrong. Someone's actions might not match up with their beliefs, but beliefs are independent from action; people doing evil generally don't believe themselves bad guys, after all. All you have to go on is appearances, you can't see inside someone else's head to ascertain what they think and feel. Just chill out and let us tell you what we think about, because to do anything else is just rude.

[Question Mark]

The goal posts have not moved. Again by your own admission you never set out to reach them. When this was brought to your attention your story changed so you can claim mine did. Read Luke 11 again nothing I have said has changed from what was written 2000 yeas ago. The command is ask seek knock. Not ask. Ask seek. Or seek knock or ask knock.. We have been given only three things to do to meet God. Either you do them or you find a reason not to. That is between you and God.

Drich, I can take a disagreement, I can smile in the face of opposition and invite it around for tea. What I will not stand for however, is being called a liar. None of my story changed. I tried this method years ago, and I tried it again when we got into this thread, to your specifications when you told me the particulars of how your type of christianity does it. I have not changed one iota of those facts, and I will not stand for being told I'm being disingenuous.

[FallentoReason]

He will keep using versions of the No True Scotsman fallacy until he realises he could be wrong. For now though, clearly none of us knew how to A/S/K properly because it's not like we dedicated our time, skills & money to Bible God during our sincere time as Christians. Clearly we were closet atheists all along.

[Drich]

Ah, I forgot, you need this explained to you every step of the way: you aren't actually the judge of who is or isn't things. The individual in question is. I've noticed you do this a lot, labelling people based on your interpretation of their actions and then expecting that label to stick, but... no, just no.

Who have I judged? What are their names? Show me a place where I said person "X" did "Y".

Again I havn't Judged anyone. I just provided definations, If you are feeling judged then know you are the making the judgement yourself. I have simply paired an action with it's proper name. I did not assign these 'proper named actions' to specific people.

Like I've said earlier, don't go flinging names around without consent, if you're trying to describe someone's belief system, because you're bound to get it wrong.

SHOW ME Where I identifed anyone specifically.

---

The goal posts have not moved. Again by your own admission you never set out to reach them. When this was brought to your attention your story changed so you can claim mine did. Read Luke 11 again nothing I have said has changed from what was written 2000 yeas ago. The command is ask seek knock. Not ask. Ask seek. Or seek knock or ask knock.. We have been given only three things to do to meet God. Either you do them or you find a reason not to. That is between you and God.

Drich, I can take a disagreement, I can smile in the face of opposition and invite it around for tea. What I will not stand for however, is being called a liar. None of my story changed. I tried this method years ago, and I tried it again when we got into this thread, to your specifications when you told me the particulars of how your type of christianity does it. I have not changed one iota of those facts, and I will not stand for being told I'm being disingenuous.

Are you now denying the fact that you said you did not continually knock? That "you could not find the door?"

If you did not know where to knock, then one would ask how could you have knocked? Not to mention you did not even understand what it was to knock till we just now (two or three posts ago) Cleared up the primise of knocking was just repeating the whole process. So I ask again if you did not know what the third step in the process was, then how could you possiable say that you completed every step?

I have no doubt you have very sincerly approached God doing everything a given church told you to do. No question. What I am showing you here is not a given denomination's approach to God. I am showing what Christ Himself said. This is What God the Son said do, IF you want to know God no filter no multiple quote theology. I took what was on page in context and explained it when you asked what was meant. Meaning if you want to know God then you will have to submit yourself and do what He Himself said do.

[Question Mark]

Are you now denying the fact that you said you did not continually knock? That "you could not find the door?"

If you did not know where to knock, then one would ask how could you have knocked? Not to mention you did not even understand what it was to knock till we just now (two or three posts ago) Cleared up the primise of knocking was just repeating the whole process. So I ask again if you did not know what the third step in the process was, then how could you possiable say that you completed every step?

I have no doubt you have very sincerly approached God doing everything a given church told you to do. No question. What I am showing you here is not a given denomination's approach to God. I am showing what Christ Himself said. This is What God the Son said do, IF you want to know God no filter no multiple quote theology. I took what was on page in context and explained it when you asked what was meant. Meaning if you want to know God then you will have to submit yourself and do what He Himself said do.

You said knocking on the door is just looking and searching until you find him? I looked, I searched, and I told you outright I'm not doing it all my life just to get years of silence from a seemingly uncaring god. How am I to know that this is just silence, or if I'm making futile efforts? That's what I said, I haven't changed it.

Unless I misunderstood what you meant by "knocking on the door", I don't see how you can say I didn't do what you said.

Let me put it to you also that I read the bible, I read what Jesus said about it all, the sermon on the mount I think being where he put down this sort of thing. It hasn't worked, and I understand why you as a christian can't accept that, but it's the truth.

[Neo-Scholastic]

None of my story changed. I tried this method years ago, and I tried it again when we got into this thread, to your specifications when you told me the particulars of how your type of christianity does it.

There seems to be a missing element in all this: contrition. I'm not saying you did this, but a person cannot just demand a King obey one' summons. All the knocking and asking must follow after true repentance and the request must be made from a humble heart. And I'm not saying this applies to you either, but an arrogant request will be met with silence. Only you know if that applies to you or not.

[Anomalocaris]

You guys are trying to hold conversations with a brain damaged chimp and a retarded vegetable.

[Drich]

He will keep using versions of the No True Scotsman fallacy until he realises he could be wrong. For now though, clearly none of us knew how to A/S/K properly because it's not like we dedicated our time, skills & money to Bible God during our sincere time as Christians. Clearly we were closet atheists all along.

That is to say, technically a "No True Scotsman" is an attempt to retain a previously unreasoned assertion. If such an assertion is missing, then the fallacy cannot be committed in its most strict interpretation. This isn't to say that other fallacies aren't being committed, as for instance the statement "No true vegetarian would eat broccoli" is quite obviously invalid. Perhaps a simpler way of explaining this would be to note that the "No True Scotsman" is a type of equivocation fallacy; a fallacy where more than one definition of a word is used in order to switch definition mid-argument. Thus, when a person has started off by stating "No true X...", a "No True Scotsman" fallacy hasn't been committed, because only one definition is being used.

There are of course numerous statements which use the "No true..." prefix and are perfectly valid:

"No true vegetarian would eat meat."
"No true atheist believes in God."
"No true Christian believes that Jesus isn't the son of God."

...etc.

None of these are examples of the fallacy, nor do they become examples of the fallacy if you add in the two neccessary preceding steps. For example, the following argument is not an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

A: No vegetarian would eat meat.
B: My friend is a vegetarian and eats meat regularly.
A: Well, no true vegetarian would eat meat.

In this instance, A is perfectly justified in their claim that no true vegetarians would eat meat. Why? Because the very definition of a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat. This is an important factor to consider before charging someone with committing a "No True Scotsman"; that if the definition of the word contains some restriction on people who use it to describe themselves, anyone who has some attribute which is contrary to that restriction cannot logically justify themselves with that definition.

In other words, pertaining to my example, the true fallacy lies with the friend of B, who is claiming to be a vegetarian and yet eats meat. This is logically impossible, and so we can deduce (as A does) that B's friend is not a true vegetarian, despite claiming to be such.

-Tiberius
http://atheistforums.org/thread-8414.html

---

Are you now denying the fact that you said you did not continually knock? That "you could not find the door?"

If you did not know where to knock, then one would ask how could you have knocked? Not to mention you did not even understand what it was to knock till we just now (two or three posts ago) Cleared up the primise of knocking was just repeating the whole process. So I ask again if you did not know what the third step in the process was, then how could you possiable say that you completed every step?

I have no doubt you have very sincerly approached God doing everything a given church told you to do. No question. What I am showing you here is not a given denomination's approach to God. I am showing what Christ Himself said. This is What God the Son said do, IF you want to know God no filter no multiple quote theology. I took what was on page in context and explained it when you asked what was meant. Meaning if you want to know God then you will have to submit yourself and do what He Himself said do.

You said knocking on the door is just looking and searching until you find him? I looked, I searched, and I told you outright I'm not doing it all my life just to get years of silence from a seemingly uncaring god. How am I to know that this is just silence, or if I'm making futile efforts? That's what I said, I haven't changed it.

Unless I misunderstood what you meant by "knocking on the door", I don't see how you can say I didn't do what you said.

Let me put it to you also that I read the bible, I read what Jesus said about it all, the sermon on the mount I think being where he put down this sort of thing. It hasn't worked, and I understand why you as a christian can't accept that, but it's the truth.

To ask: This is directly asking God for the Holy Spirit. In other words to pray.

To Seek: To read your bible, to ask another christian to help you answer your questions, To study these are all examples of seeking.

To knock. To repeat this process till you find what it is you have been asking and seeking after. (A measure of the Holy Spirit.)

---

None of my story changed. I tried this method years ago, and I tried it again when we got into this thread, to your specifications when you told me the particulars of how your type of christianity does it.

There seems to be a missing element in all this: contrition. I'm not saying you did this, but a person cannot just demand a King obey one' summons. All the knocking and asking must follow after true repentance and the request must be made from a humble heart. And I'm not saying this applies to you either, but an arrogant request will be met with silence. Only you know if that applies to you or not.

I use to think so too.

But, after working with people who do not know God I realized that true repentance is not possiable,(Too many years of justification, which causes the heart to become callous to sin) unless one first is convicted of sin, true repentance is hopless. This level of conviction is not possiable unless the Holy Spirit convicts. Which Brings us back to what Chirst told us to A/S/K for in Luke 11 starting at verse 5.

When one A/S/K like the model Christ lays out in Luke 11 'Conviction' or an acute awareness of one's sin of choice becomes an issue that has to be dealt with. Either one repents or ignores the urgings of the Spirit. If one learns to repent then that person will be blessed with a larger portion of the Spirit. If he does not, then what he was given will be taken away and given to someone else.

---

You guys are trying to hold conversations with a brain damaged chimp and a retarded vegetable.

Esquilax does not like to be called names.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I've noticed you do this a lot, labelling people based on your interpretation of their actions and then expecting that label to stick, but... no, just no.

Actually, you're describing me, not Drich. I have no problem reading a person's post, pairing their ideas to a known philosophy, and referring to them as general advocates of that philosophy.

For example some atheists here express ideas that roughly conform to Objectivism, others with Eliminative Materialism, Functionalists, Nihilists, etc.
I see nothing wrong with that. Labeling actually saves quite a bit of time trying to figure out where people are coming from. My profile says Swedenbogian, but many here know that I strongly ascribe to neo-Platonism and Panentheism and less strongly with Process Theology and Property Dualism.

---

But, after working with people who do not know God I realized that true repentance is not possiable...level of conviction is not possiable unless the Holy Spirit convicts.

I think this falls within the "Total Depravity" doctrine. I think that doctrine is incorrect. Throughout the Word people are called upon to repent. Take the example of John the Baptist. He called on people first to repent and then afterwards they received the Holy Spirit. The dove landed on Jesus after he was baptized, not before. Repentance is a step everyone has to make on their own of their own freewill and accord. If the Holy Spirit makes us convert that undermines our freewill.

Now if all you are saying is that people have to recognize their sins and be prepared to receive the Holy Spirit, that's fine. But we both know that the Spirit works through the Word, so reading the Bible and learning about what sin is should be enough for people to feel convicted if they take what it says seriously.