Enquiry: Harvard and Ali G
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
But who's asking for proof, oh, that would be you atheists.
Yes, you want me to believe something silly and give up a lot to do so. If I'm going to do that, I want proof. Hard proof.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
We recognize that there can be no proof but there can be faith; which is the gift of God, not earned but given freely so that no one can boast except in Christ and him crucified, raised to life and interceding for us at the right hand of the father.
And you learned all of this how? Someone told you. Real proof there.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Tim Craig wrote:
Someone told you.
Exactly, and if it had been anyone else but God I wouldn't have taken any notice.
Tim Craig wrote:
Yes, you want me to believe something silly and give up a lot to do so.
Exactly. He who loves his life will loose it. He who looses his life for me will gain eternal life. You can go on demanding proof from the God who made you until your time is up or you can accept the evidence of his character in the world he has made and the words he has given us. Give up your pride, repent of your sins and be saved. You choose, you live forever with the consequences either way.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
What book do you recommend for my sig?
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove and evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.
-
For the benefit of the majority of the Code Project members - that aren't from Sweden - I'll reply in English: Jörgen wrote: I recommend you to read George H. Smiths book "Atheism, A Case Against God" before you buy that statement completely. Yes, it's on my reading list (I may get to it in a year or so). However, I find it hard to beleive that a single book could topple what I understand to be (one way of formulating) the current majority standpoint of the scientific community as a whole. It would take some substantial corroboration for that, I beleive. Then again, I might actually be *wrong*... :-) /Peter
Abonet wrote:
For the benefit of the majority of the Code Project members - that aren't from Sweden - I'll reply in English: . Jörgen wrote: I recommend you to read George H. Smiths book "Atheism, A Case Against God" before you buy that statement completely.
The statement you'd made, and of which Mr Sigvardsson imagines reading a book will cure you, was this:
Abonet wrote:
The one most important realization [which lead you to deprogram yourself from 'atheism'] was the one Matthew reiterates - that all reasoning is based on assumptions that can never be proven.
All of which merely shows us that -- as is typical for the type -- Mr Sigvardsson hasn't the faintest understanding of what he presumes to talk about. The fact is that even were it possible to present a logically valid and sound case for 'atheism' and/or against Christianity, the truth that all reasoning is based on assumptions that can never be proven remains unchanged and unchallenged.
-
Yes Kyle, your combination of deep theology and encyclopeadic knowledge of Church history humbles us all. Do enlighten us. :rolleyes:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes Kyle, your combination of deep theology and encyclopeadic knowledge of Church history humbles us all. Do enlighten us.
You don't know who wrote the bible not even the new testament. The gospels were not written by their reputed authors. The whole thing is contradictory and inconsistent. The catholic church cherry picked what is included from other available documents. People now cherry pick what parts they want to believe and what are just poetry. Jesus didn't offer up anything new in terms of philosophy that he didn't glean from the old testament. He taught that god was a coming real soon now and expected his followers to be whisked into heaven in their lifetimes but gee, I don't think that happened....
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
If you had an argument I would merrily destroy it as I have many times in the past. As you don't I will refrain from destroying you as that would not be very Christian.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As you don't I will refrain from destroying you as that would not be very Christian.
That didn't stop you guys in the past. What changed? I thought christianity was eternal and unchanging?
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
I'm not asking you to read it. I'm merely pointing out that accusing MF of arguing that reasoning is faulty because he recommended a book to you called, "escape from reason" is utterly amazing.
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
I'm not asking you to read it. I'm merely pointing out that accusing MF of arguing that reasoning is faulty because he recommended a book to you called, "escape from reason" is utterly amazing.
Welcome to trying to reason with the typical 'atheist.'
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
But who's asking for proof, oh, that would be you atheists.
Yes, you want me to believe something silly and give up a lot to do so. If I'm going to do that, I want proof. Hard proof.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
We recognize that there can be no proof but there can be faith; which is the gift of God, not earned but given freely so that no one can boast except in Christ and him crucified, raised to life and interceding for us at the right hand of the father.
And you learned all of this how? Someone told you. Real proof there.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
I don't think Matthew Faithfull or Ilion can comprehend the difference between rational thought and blind faith.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You know my assumptions and claim they are false even though they work and cannot be disproved.
Please prove to me that there are no pink and invisible unicorns. If you cannot do that, then my claim that such creatures exist, must be equally valid as your claim that there is a god. For "God's" sake, read George H. Smith's Atheism - A Case Against God before you try to mix faith and reason. If you dare that is.
You are wrong because you just don't have the understanding to know that God is real! Please get saved and give money to a preacher or Jesus will have his revenge and then you will believe.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
So what kind of foreknowledge do you think God has?
For obvious reasons (I am finite, God is infinite), that would be impossible for me, or any other person, to answer.
Demon Possessed wrote:
And the Bible says he created evil.
Evil is not a thing (that can be created), it is something that occurs. Evil is simply the absence of good, much like cold, which also cannot be created, is merely the absence of heat. God did not create evil, but He does allow it to happen. God did not promise us a smooth ride, but He does promise a safe landing.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
DavidCrow wrote:
For obvious reasons (I am finite, God is infinite), that would be impossible for me, or any other person, to answer.
So you're saying god is unknowable by man yet you all claim to know so much about him.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
Wow, this is getting old, arguing with 3 Christians at one time.
Come now! You don't argue, you don't know how to. What you do know how to do is whine and bitch and throw tantrums.
Ilíon wrote:
What you do know how to do is whine and bitch and throw tantrums.
I seem to remember a lot of tantrums by you. You even got so mad you picked up your marbles and left for a while. Too bad it wasn't long enough. :rolleyes:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
And it is one that I have never heard a Christian directly answer.
Since our parents knew that we would eventually disobey them someday, should they therefore be accountable/responsible for our disobedience even though they knew it would someday happen? Why create us at all knowing that we would someday disappoint them?
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
Ilíon wrote:
What you do know how to do is whine and bitch and throw tantrums.
I seem to remember a lot of tantrums by you. You even got so mad you picked up your marbles and left for a while. Too bad it wasn't long enough. :rolleyes:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Abonet wrote:
For the benefit of the majority of the Code Project members - that aren't from Sweden - I'll reply in English: . Jörgen wrote: I recommend you to read George H. Smiths book "Atheism, A Case Against God" before you buy that statement completely.
The statement you'd made, and of which Mr Sigvardsson imagines reading a book will cure you, was this:
Abonet wrote:
The one most important realization [which lead you to deprogram yourself from 'atheism'] was the one Matthew reiterates - that all reasoning is based on assumptions that can never be proven.
All of which merely shows us that -- as is typical for the type -- Mr Sigvardsson hasn't the faintest understanding of what he presumes to talk about. The fact is that even were it possible to present a logically valid and sound case for 'atheism' and/or against Christianity, the truth that all reasoning is based on assumptions that can never be proven remains unchanged and unchallenged.
Ilíon wrote:
Mr Sigvardsson imagines reading a book will cure you
Aren't you christians always pointing to a book and saying it's the answer? You think you have a monopoly on the book business? :laugh: -- modified at 19:25 Tuesday 27th November, 2007
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
You are wrong because you just don't have the understanding to know that God is real! Please get saved and give money to a preacher or Jesus will have his revenge and then you will believe.
And you in turn, will fall by the sword of Allah! <Achmed-the-dead-terrorist>Infideeeeel!</Achmed-the-dead-terrorist> ;)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Ilíon wrote:
Mr Sigvardsson imagines reading a book will cure you
Aren't you christians always pointing to a book and saying it's the answer? You think you have a monopoly on the book business? :laugh: -- modified at 19:25 Tuesday 27th November, 2007
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
ROFLMAO!!! Do you at all read what you reply to? Check out the posts preceding this, please... :-) Later, Peter
-
Ilíon wrote:
Mr Sigvardsson imagines reading a book will cure you
Aren't you christians always pointing to a book and saying it's the answer? You think you have a monopoly on the book business? :laugh: -- modified at 19:25 Tuesday 27th November, 2007
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Where did he claim that reasoning is faulty? Again, that is not what the book is about. MF's argument is this: reasoning is based on accepting axioms that cannot be proved and that reasoning itself cannot produce the axioms on which it is based. Now, would you like to engage this argument or continue with strawman fallacies by suggesting MF's argument is something other than it clearly is? As for your assertion,
Tim Craig wrote:
reason is the only path to knowledge
What is the starting point for reasoning? Is it not an axiom that itself cannot be proved? Furthermore, could you sit in your closet and "reason" what the weather is today?
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
What is the starting point for reasoning?
The starting point for knowledge is reason and sensual perception. We use reason to integrate what our senses tell us into a coherent framework of what we know.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
I'm not asking you to read it. I'm merely pointing out that accusing MF of arguing that reasoning is faulty because he recommended a book to you called, "escape from reason" is utterly amazing.
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
I'm merely pointing out that accusing MF of arguing that reasoning is faulty because he recommended a book to you called, "escape from reason" is utterly amazing.
But he doesn't use reason as a basis he expects blind faith. That's hardly a reasonable alternative. As such, anything he suggests is suspect.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
No, I have no belief that god does exist
So then you're not sure if he does or not? The lack of belief on the topic of the existence of God amounts to uncertainty. Of course there's nothing wrong with uncertainty--it's a perfectly reasonable position. I just want to know where you're coming from. So then, you don't know if God exists or not? If this is not your position, then you either believe he exists, or you believe he doesn't exist. Based on your posts, I'd say it's clear you don't hold a belief that God exists. So then it's down to two options: Either you believe God does not exist, or you're not sure if he exists. If it's the latter, then you yourself testify that it is not a wholly unreasonable idea (otherwise you would have discarded it completely). So either you are unsure, or you believe he does not exist. I'm guessing the latter. And if I'm right, were you unaware that you believed that? Or were you just being dishonest?
Tim Craig wrote:
Since you're the one with the belief, you need to prove it.
I don't need to prove it. It is a personal belief that I hold for myself. I have not asked you to accept it.
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
you believe he does not exist.
I have no belief that god exists. It's a subtle but important distinction. My lack of belief is rational in that there's no proof or anything that leads me to the conclusion that any god exists.
Mundo Cani wrote:
I don't need to prove it. It is a personal belief that I hold for myself. I have not asked you to accept it.
YOu certainly sound like you are. Or are you so unsure that when you hear someone express disbelief that you have to go through the motions to convince yourself again? :rolleyes:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Someone told you.
Exactly, and if it had been anyone else but God I wouldn't have taken any notice.
Tim Craig wrote:
Yes, you want me to believe something silly and give up a lot to do so.
Exactly. He who loves his life will loose it. He who looses his life for me will gain eternal life. You can go on demanding proof from the God who made you until your time is up or you can accept the evidence of his character in the world he has made and the words he has given us. Give up your pride, repent of your sins and be saved. You choose, you live forever with the consequences either way.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Tim Craig wrote: Someone told you. Exactly, and if it had been anyone else but God I wouldn't have taken any notice.
Ah, so god spoke to you directly? Can you tell me what he looked like so that I can indentify him from all those other characters telling me they're god when I stumble across them?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can go on demanding proof from the God who made you until your time is up or you can accept the evidence of his character in the world he has made and the words he has given us.
There is no evidence and the words were made up by men.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Give up your pride, repent of your sins and be saved.
Ah, yes. The crux of your objection to my signature. Pride, self confidence, reason, and happiness are an affront to your god because we have to be made sinful and guilty to accept his utter dominance of us. Crawl into your hole and be miserable until you receive your "salvation". :laugh:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.