Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Ok fine, Ev if you want to continue this I'm not going to respond in this thread or the other, just PM me.
Anyways back to the OP, becuase this got sidetracked on page 2.
I agree with sir banned alot on the points that
1-The Old testament God without Jesus' clarification on his character, seemed tyranical at best.
1.1- Upon rereading the Old testament after learning about Jesus' teachings it's quite clear of the benevolence of God.
2-A lot of the misconceptions are procreated by over eager preachers, not serving God but serving their wallets.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(July 28, 2010 at 1:07 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-purely by reasonable and logical faith based off of a cycle of occurences? lots of variables... especially for usefullness. However the biggest (I'm assuming your point) bias of subjecivity and personal incredulity can't be eliminated completely.
So what good is it if it's possible that you're willingly but unknowingly rationalizing it? How would you determine that this is not the case?
(July 28, 2010 at 1:07 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-It is subjectively demonstratable, which is appropriate for a subjective evidence and subjective proof leading to a personal viewof God. Aside from stepping outside our universe and seeing God (impossibility) this is objective as it can get. It does NOT however limit it's usefullness within this universe to not be able to completely objectify something because of the unattainability of absolute proofs.
Replace "God" with "Underpants Gnomes" and your argument is just as valid. Do you understand why such an argument is useless in a rational discussion?
(July 29, 2010 at 12:12 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-The Old testament God without Jesus' clarification on his character, seemed tyranical at best.
Regardless of Jesus the God in the OT is one evil son of a bitch.
Quote:1.1- Upon rereading the Old testament after learning about Jesus' teachings it's quite clear of the benevolence of God.
Talking is no good, we need examples.
Quote:2-A lot of the misconceptions are procreated by over eager preachers, not serving God but serving their wallets.
How do you know that you are not just serving your own emotional preferences and that these preachers in fact are correct?
1- Yup seems evil and maniacle to me by itself at times.
1.1- http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/co...racter-God
2- The scriptures are rife with talks about how to discern righteousness, but basically I verify by comparing fruits of the spirit and fruits of the flesh (Galatians 5: 19-22)
(August 2, 2010 at 3:06 am)tavarish Wrote:
(July 28, 2010 at 1:07 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-purely by reasonable and logical faith based off of a cycle of occurences? lots of variables... especially for usefullness. However the biggest (I'm assuming your point) bias of subjecivity and personal incredulity can't be eliminated completely.
So what good is it if it's possible that you're willingly but unknowingly rationalizing it? How would you determine that this is not the case?
(July 28, 2010 at 1:07 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-It is subjectively demonstratable, which is appropriate for a subjective evidence and subjective proof leading to a personal viewof God. Aside from stepping outside our universe and seeing God (impossibility) this is objective as it can get. It does NOT however limit it's usefullness within this universe to not be able to completely objectify something because of the unattainability of absolute proofs.
Replace "God" with "Underpants Gnomes" and your argument is just as valid. Do you understand why such an argument is useless in a rational discussion?
1- They same way you determine whether you're being objective, you don't. That's why it's called subjective. To determine whether I'm rationalizing I determine which was first the observance or the abstract. You wait for a reality check to see if you're being overly biased, but ike I stated you can't eliminate subjectivity. That has little to nothing to do with something's usefullness.
2-Firstly it's not an argument, just my view. Secondly, it's not at all useless. You're getting hung up on objectivity being the sole color of usefullness and then hinting that it's irrational. It's subjective proof. If someone believed they saw underpants gnomes, tracked them down and could demonstrate them, then I think we'd both believe in them. The demonstratability there lies purely in the physical. The issues a majority of atheists have with a theists belief stems from the intangible (and therefore undemonstratable ) substantiated belief getting proven to their strictly materialstic nature. How can you prove the intangible to someone who doesn't believe the intangible exists? How can you demonstrate something you can't control or capture like underpants gnomes?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
