What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Pat Mustard]

I do find it funny that people keep having a go at science. Its like they are proud of ignorance. "Lets keep the world stupid, that way lies faith" they seem to say.

Science is how you discover the truth of things and as much as possible getting rid of bias in your observations.

Unfortunately for theists, bias is really all they have.

You are not clear on your definitions (and probably shouldn't mock people until you are):

SCIENTISM

Scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[2] The term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

So, your comments are not based on anything I said nor accurately reflect...well...anything.

Steve, protip: When you qoute mine, don't link to where you're quote mining from because it confirms you as the shitty little idiot liar and slanderer that you are.

Even from the wikipedia article it is onvious that the term scientism has a secondary meaning, used by the opponents of knowledge (e.g. Austruan schoolers like Hayek or cratards like you), viz "scientism is a belief, and scientists evil because it refuses to take our beliefs into account despite the fact that we have nithing to support our beliefs".

[RoadRunner79]

You are not clear on your definitions (and probably shouldn't mock people until you are):


So, your comments are not based on anything I said nor accurately reflect...well...anything.

Steve, protip: When you qoute mine, don't link to where you're quote mining from because it confirms you as the shitty little idiot liar and slanderer that you are.

Even from the wikipedia article it is onvious that the term scientism has a secondary meaning, used by the opponents of knowledge (e.g. Austruan schoolers like Hayek or cratards like you), viz "scientism is a belief, and scientists evil because it refuses to take our beliefs into account despite the fact that we have nithing to support our beliefs".

Where did you get that from, in the article?   The dictionary entry at the end, does include a secondary meaning, referencing the methods or techniques used by a scientist.  However the main part of the article is about what Steve was discussing.  It's also how I have normally seen the term used.    But in the end, it is really about how Steve meant the term to be applied; wouldn't you agree?

By the way, I've noticed an increase in just flat out insults (apart from the discussion lately).   I don't know about the others, but I find that encouraging.

[Brian37]

Steve, protip: When you qoute mine, don't link to where you're quote mining from because it confirms you as the shitty little idiot liar and slanderer that you are.

Even from the wikipedia article it is onvious that the term scientism has a secondary meaning, used by the opponents of knowledge (e.g. Austruan schoolers like Hayek or cratards like you), viz "scientism is a belief, and scientists evil because it refuses to take our beliefs into account despite the fact that we have nithing to support our beliefs".

Where did you get that from, in the article?   The dictionary entry at the end, does include a secondary meaning, referencing the methods or techniques used by a scientist.  However the main part of the article is about what Steve was discussing.  It's also how I have normally seen the term used.    But in the end, it is really about how Steve meant the term to be applied; wouldn't you agree?

By the way, I've noticed an increase in just flat out insults (apart from the discussion lately).   I don't know about the others, but I find that encouraging.

Yes because an "insult" is far worse than being murdered because someone else thought you insulted them. By your logic being insulted justified the Hebdo attackers.

I really do get tired of repeating this. 

Are there persecuted Christians? YES, but you are NOT  one of them. Kurdish Chrsitans and Koptic Christians in the middle east have lots to worry about. But so do Sunni Muslims who live under Shiite majorities. So do Shiites who live under Sunni majorities. But so do any atheists or LGBT who live in closed theocracies.

I really don't want your pity party here when nobody broke down your door and nobody is forcing you to post here.

Atheists get equated to dictators, we get called immoral all the time. Spare my your fake indignation. 

Now grow up. Nobody wants you dead. Nobody is going to have you arrested. Nobody is out to get you. We simply think your claims are crappy.

[RoadRunner79]

Where did you get that from, in the article?   The dictionary entry at the end, does include a secondary meaning, referencing the methods or techniques used by a scientist.  However the main part of the article is about what Steve was discussing.  It's also how I have normally seen the term used.    But in the end, it is really about how Steve meant the term to be applied; wouldn't you agree?

By the way, I've noticed an increase in just flat out insults (apart from the discussion lately).   I don't know about the others, but I find that encouraging.

Yes because an "insult" is far worse than being murdered because someone else thought you insulted them. By your logic being insulted justified the Hebdo attackers.

I really do get tired of repeating this. 

Are there persecuted Christians? YES, but you are NOT  one of them. Kurdish Chrsitans and Koptic Christians in the middle east have lots to worry about. But so do Sunni Muslims who live under Shiite majorities. So do Shiites who live under Sunni majorities. But so do any atheists or LGBT who live in closed theocracies.

I really don't want your pity party here when nobody broke down your door and nobody is forcing you to post here.

Atheists get equated to dictators, we get called immoral all the time. Spare my your fake indignation. 

Now grow up. Nobody wants you dead. Nobody is going to have you arrested. Nobody is out to get you. We simply think your claims are crappy.

I think that the site needs a Don Quixote emoji.... unfortunately what you imagined (from what I believe is from a single word in my post) is off the mark.  There wasn't anymore behind what I said, then what was stated.  If you need it explained, though I'm happy to clarify.

[Brian37]

Yes because an "insult" is far worse than being murdered because someone else thought you insulted them. By your logic being insulted justified the Hebdo attackers.

I really do get tired of repeating this. 

Are there persecuted Christians? YES, but you are NOT  one of them. Kurdish Chrsitans and Koptic Christians in the middle east have lots to worry about. But so do Sunni Muslims who live under Shiite majorities. So do Shiites who live under Sunni majorities. But so do any atheists or LGBT who live in closed theocracies.

I really don't want your pity party here when nobody broke down your door and nobody is forcing you to post here.

Atheists get equated to dictators, we get called immoral all the time. Spare my your fake indignation. 

Now grow up. Nobody wants you dead. Nobody is going to have you arrested. Nobody is out to get you. We simply think your claims are crappy.

I think that the site needs a Don Quixote emoji.... unfortunately what you imagined (from what I believe is from a single word in my post) is off the mark.  There wasn't anymore behind what I said, then what was stated.  If you need it explained, though I'm happy to clarify.

You are the one playing false martyr not me.

I have no problem listening to theists bullshit claims that we are evil. I can defend myself. You use the word "insult" like a child thinking that is the worst thing that happens in life. 

Now having been in real life, bullied as a kid, I can tell you there is a huge difference between mere words, and physical assault. 

What is "insulting" to me isn't that people say stupid shit about atheists, or that even they equate us to monsters. Yes of course I hate that people do that. The real insult is the bad logic, not that idiots say stupid shit.

You cant back up your logic, and when we blaspheme it you hide behind "insult" to shut down the criticism.

I promise you crybaby, if we were walking down the street together side by side and a Muslim or even another atheist said, "That Christian deserves to be beaten up" or "That Christian deserves to be arrested" even if you have done nothing wrong, I would say to them, "fuck you", and if they physically threatened you, i would call the police.

Now quit your fucking crying because you got your claims picked on. If all 7 billion of us got to silence each other there is not one human on the face of the planet that could not think of things they would rather not hear.

Your dick will not fall off, I promise. We are not out to get you, we wont have you arrested, but your claims as ideas don't deserve blind value.

Stop being a drama queen.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that the site needs a Don Quixote emoji.... unfortunately what you imagined (from what I believe is from a single word in my post) is off the mark.  There wasn't anymore behind what I said, then what was stated.  If you need it explained, though I'm happy to clarify.

You are the one playing false martyr not me.

I have no problem listening to theists bullshit claims that we are evil. I can defend myself. You use the word "insult" like a child thinking that is the worst thing that happens in life. 

Now having been in real life, bullied as a kid, I can tell you there is a huge difference between mere words, and physical assault. 

What is "insulting" to me isn't that people say stupid shit about atheists, or that even they equate us to monsters. Yes of course I hate that people do that. The real insult is the bad logic, not that idiots say stupid shit.

You cant back up your logic, and when we blaspheme it you hide behind "insult" to shut down the criticism.

I promise you crybaby, if we were walking down the street together side by side and a Muslim or even another atheist said, "That Christian deserves to be beaten up" or "That Christian deserves to be arrested" even if you have done nothing wrong, I would say to them, "fuck you", and if they physically threatened you, i would call the police.

Now quit your fucking crying because you got your claims picked on. If all 7 billion of us got to silence each other there is not one human on the face of the planet that could not think of things they would rather not hear.

Your dick will not fall off, I promise. We are not out to get you, we wont have you arrested, but your claims as ideas don't deserve blind value.

Stop being a drama queen.

Keep tilting at windmills Brian. I didn't say any of that!

[Brian37]

You are the one playing false martyr not me.

I have no problem listening to theists bullshit claims that we are evil. I can defend myself. You use the word "insult" like a child thinking that is the worst thing that happens in life. 

Now having been in real life, bullied as a kid, I can tell you there is a huge difference between mere words, and physical assault. 

What is "insulting" to me isn't that people say stupid shit about atheists, or that even they equate us to monsters. Yes of course I hate that people do that. The real insult is the bad logic, not that idiots say stupid shit.

You cant back up your logic, and when we blaspheme it you hide behind "insult" to shut down the criticism.

I promise you crybaby, if we were walking down the street together side by side and a Muslim or even another atheist said, "That Christian deserves to be beaten up" or "That Christian deserves to be arrested" even if you have done nothing wrong, I would say to them, "fuck you", and if they physically threatened you, i would call the police.

Now quit your fucking crying because you got your claims picked on. If all 7 billion of us got to silence each other there is not one human on the face of the planet that could not think of things they would rather not hear.

Your dick will not fall off, I promise. We are not out to get you, we wont have you arrested, but your claims as ideas don't deserve blind value.

Stop being a drama queen.

Keep tilting at windmills Brian.  I didn't say any of that!

Gibberish Translator, "I have no case"


You used the word "insult" not me. 

You got all pissy when I said "so what, that really is not the worst thing in the world".

Now you are back peddling with this post. 

Keep it up drama queen.

---

Where did you get that from, in the article?   The dictionary entry at the end, does include a secondary meaning, referencing the methods or techniques used by a scientist.  However the main part of the article is about what Steve was discussing.  It's also how I have normally seen the term used.    But in the end, it is really about how Steve meant the term to be applied; wouldn't you agree?

By the way, I've noticed an increase in just flat out insults (apart from the discussion lately).   I don't know about the others, but I find that encouraging.

Yes because an "insult" is far worse than being murdered because someone else thought you insulted them. By your logic being insulted justified the Hebdo attackers.

I really do get tired of repeating this. 

Are there persecuted Christians? YES, but you are NOT  one of them. Kurdish Chrsitans and Koptic Christians in the middle east have lots to worry about. But so do Sunni Muslims who live under Shiite majorities. So do Shiites who live under Sunni majorities. But so do any atheists or LGBT who live in closed theocracies.

I really don't want your pity party here when nobody broke down your door and nobody is forcing you to post here.

Atheists get equated to dictators, we get called immoral all the time. Spare my your fake indignation. 

Now grow up. Nobody wants you dead. Nobody is going to have you arrested. Nobody is out to get you. We simply think your claims are crappy.

You, "By the way, I've noticed the increase of flat out insults"........ SEE YOUR POST QUOTED ABOVE.

[LadyForCamus]

Steve, protip: When you qoute mine, don't link to where you're quote mining from because it confirms you as the shitty little idiot liar and slanderer that you are.

*chokes on coffee*

Thank you, Tazz. I needed a good chuckle this morning! [emoji23]

[SteveII]

1. Are you really asking me if it is probable that tens of billions people making hundreds of millions of interacting choices each would always choose good? I am highly confident that it is impossible.

How many different ways should I make it clear that I am asking you to demonstrate that it is actually impossible that all human beings would choose good all the time? I don't care for mere expressions of incredulity about the possibility, I want you to demonstrate that it is impossible. If you can't do that, then it's a legit objection that you have not been able to rule out.

To put this in a Biblical way: If Adam and Eve had never eaten from the forbidden tree, would their descendants have inevitably disobeyed God by eating from the tree?

To be free to do good means to be free to do good all the time.

2. I do not have to show that it is impossible in order to undercut your premise. I have shown that your premise is highly improbable--probably approaching impossible--and that is sufficient to cast doubt on the conclusion.

Steve, if it is at all possible, then this does undercut the argument that God could not have created a better would.

3. This might be a definition problem of Free Will. This is the one I go by:

Definition: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

Of course there are internal factors that shape our choices (circumstance/knowledge/memories/beliefs/feelings/etc.). The fact that we decide what to do without any external constraints is free will.

Then that makes you a compatibilist, essentially a determinist. You don't adhere to libertarian free will. But then, how is this a useful type of free will to argue for in the context of this discussion? At the end of the day, compatibilism/determinism implies that you couldn't have been some other way and that therefore every choice you make was predetermined (even if you made the choice in accordance with your preferences, personal experience, understanding of life, etc.). And if everything you do (including your intentions) are predetermined, then why is God punishing anyone for failures that they couldn't have avoided doing? He could've simply created all human beings to be predetermined to not fail and thereby avoid punishment and other repercussions ...

1/2. And how many times do I have to say that it is an atheist argument and all I have to do is undercut the premise that it is actually possible (versus broadly logically possible) that God could create a world were everyone would always choose good. I have undercut with it does not seem possible that such a world could exist. This is an intuitive and reasonable conclusion after observing human history. You do not have a defeater for that objection and that is just one reason the PoE argument fails and no one outside of atheist forums think it is a successful logical argument. 

3. No, I believe in dualism. The immaterial mind causes material things to happen. No determinism there. No determinism, no compatiblism.

[Mister Agenda]

In other words, your version of God isn't omnipotent enough to accomplish goodness on Earth, but you buy that he'll be able to pull it off in heaven, despite previous rebellions.