82 replies to this topic

[Suirsuss]

How does immortality mesh with christian theology? christians i know youre out there I am quite curious.

[shadowhawk]

Christians believe in immorality as an attribute of God. Nothing that comes into existence is immortal in the past and neither is it in the future. If you came into existence, you are not immortal. My best case is that 200 years from now we will all be dead. Everything is running down.

Life is a gift and to be highly desired. Christians fault no one for valuing life. No one knows what life is. It is a highly complicated interaction between body and spirit.. From a theistic vew eternal life comes from a relationship with God not a vitamins.

The source of immorality is where the conflict is, not its value..

[Lister]

Like everything Christianity will evolve itself to fit the local environment.

If tomorrow we can live forever then “God gave us the will and the ability to extend our lives, giving us more time to understand his will. It is through Gods will that we find this cure for aging and it is through Gods will that we shall act anew upon it.” Or something like that..

Essentially anything that happens; should we discover Aliens, or live forever, or turn into Gods ourselves – whatever happens it is Gods Will. If any of that should contradict with the holy texts it’s a simple case of our inability to correctly decipher the word of God.

God can do no evil and God is never wrong. So the story goes.

[shadowhawk]

Like everything Christianity will evolve itself to fit the local environment.

If tomorrow we can live forever then “God gave us the will and the ability to extend our lives, giving us more time to understand his will. It is through Gods will that we find this cure for aging and it is through Gods will that we shall act anew upon it.” Or something like that..

Essentially anything that happens; should we discover Aliens, or live forever, or turn into Gods ourselves – whatever happens it is Gods Will. If any of that should contradict with the holy texts it’s a simple case of our inability to correctly decipher the word of God.

God can do no evil and God is never wrong. So the story goes.

History does have an impact on Christianity and as time changes, so do issues. We have issues today that we didn’t have in the past. We already have not lived “forever,” a point I made earlier so we will not, unlike God, live forever.. Everything we observe came into being sometime in the finite past.

Aliens, Angels, demons, ECT are not beyond Christianity's consideration at any time in Christian history. We have not changed anything to consider them. Anyone familiar with Christianity knows there has long been discussion of life on other planets.

The topic is about never ending life. The issue is how we obtain it and from what source. I do not believe it will come from anything in the cosmos which cannot, by its very temporal nature, give us never ending life. The real contradiction is with those who believe nature can give us eternal life and nature itself. When will this mythology change?

On the other hand Christians do believe life extension is possible and a good thing. God grant you many years, is an old Christian blessing

[Suirsuss]

I didnt think about it too much before asking. Obviously a christian could see their duty to spread the word for as long and to as many people as possible. My original confusion was why any christian would want so badly to live in the hell on earth as long as possible knowing the golden streets of heaven await them...

Hmm .... God.. quite a fascinating idea.. I cant say I dont envy the ''faithfull''

[shadowhawk]

I didnt think about it too much before asking. Obviously a christian could see their duty to spread the word for as long and to as many people as possible. My original confusion was why any christian would want so badly to live in the hell on earth as long as possible knowing the golden streets of heaven await them...

Hmm .... God.. quite a fascinating idea.. I cant say I dont envy the ''faithfull''

While earth can be both horrible and wonderful, most people do not want to die and that includes most Christians. I want to be conscious when I die, so that I can experience death like my father did but I don’t want to die before my time. Christians want to live for the same reasons anyone else does.

Most people fear the unknown and death usually happens but once. In many death and dying studies, people often look forward to dying again. There appears, from the evidence, to be more to life’s end, than death.

[Suirsuss]

[

While earth can be both horrible and wonderful, most people do not want to die and that includes most Christians. I want to be conscious when I die, so that I can experience death like my father did but I don’t want to die before my time. Christians want to live for the same reasons anyone else does.

Most people fear the unknown and death usually happens but once. In many death and dying studies, people often look forward to dying again. There appears, from the evidence, to be more to life’s end, than death.

many of the people who have a ''near death experience''(NDE) end up losing their religiosity and move more to a oneness spirituality in which they see god as pure love. No mentions of anything like ..

if person.believesin('jesus'):
return person.goesTo('Heaven')
else:
return person.burnsinHell()

[shadowhawk]

[

While earth can be both horrible and wonderful, most people do not want to die and that includes most Christians. I want to be conscious when I die, so that I can experience death like my father did but I don’t want to die before my time. Christians want to live for the same reasons anyone else does.

Most people fear the unknown and death usually happens but once. In many death and dying studies, people often look forward to dying again. There appears, from the evidence, to be more to life’s end, than death.

many of the people who have a ''near death experience''(NDE) end up losing their religiosity and move more to a oneness spirituality in which they see god as pure love. No mentions of anything like ..

if person.believesin('jesus'):
return person.goesTo('Heaven')
else:
return person.burnsinHell()

Not my experience and the accounts I have studied some had hell experiences. I have talked to some of those. There seem to be varied results just as in life.

[Suirsuss]

Not my experience and the accounts I have studied some had hell experiences. I have talked to some of those. There seem to be varied results just as in life.

Well said. Neglecting certain items usually proves to be an adequate probe of one's knowledge on any given topic. I have yet to ascertain wether you speak from the side of christianity or simply on its behalf. If the former holds to be true then I am quite suprised by your reservation, otherwise I would bow and thank you for the wisdom youve displayed reminding everyone who reads that anyone can grow their tolerance of all mankind.

[shadowhawk]

Not my experience and the accounts I have studied some had hell experiences. I have talked to some of those. There seem to be varied results just as in life.

Well said. Neglecting certain items usually proves to be an adequate probe of one's knowledge on any given topic. I have yet to ascertain wether you speak from the side of christianity or simply on its behalf. If the former holds to be true then I am quite suprised by your reservation, otherwise I would bow and thank you for the wisdom youve displayed reminding everyone who reads that anyone can grow their tolerance of all mankind.

I grew up in an strong atheist family who was asking negative questions about God since I could walk. I became a Christian about half way through the military. Later my entire family converted. Quite a heated time. After the military, I started school and have spent the rest of my life asking questions.

I am a Devout Christian who is here because of my interest in life extension. I got into discussing religion when I was attacked by a bunch of atheists when I answered “Christian,” to a question of faith.

Your words are kind but I have been called about every name in the book. It is all true.

[JediMasterLucia]

Good question.
I am a Christan myself and I want a good long life where i can explore life.
I believe in life after death, but the time here on this world is the time you learn and i want to see as much if possible (heaven can wait;) )

Most Christians I know think life on this world isnt relevant because life after death only matters and that is hard to understand because life in this world is relevant because it is now.

[N.T.M.]

As one member already mentioned, Christianity will simply adjust to whatever it encounters. It's that flexibility that's enabled it to survive for this long. The problem, however, is that it's not benign. If you believe that you're already guaranteed eternal life, then it diminishes the incentive to find it here. The irony, of course, is that theistic views are fueled by the desire to be immortal, in which case the cause of the obstacle is an obstacle to its own end (silly Christians)!. This is self-evident by the skewed deistic/anthropomorphic split.

Can you say "Conflict of interest"? Yeah, big time.

Edited by N.T.M., 15 September 2013 - 06:53 AM.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M. As one member already mentioned, Christianity will simply adjust to whatever it encounters. It's that flexibility that's enabled it to survive for this long.

Proof? It is not inconsistent for Christians to promote long life, health, and they have, and are since the beginning.

The problem, however, is that it's not benign. If you believe that you're already guaranteed eternal life, then it diminishes the incentive to find it here.

In fact it makes life a value. It is not an accident that pro-life is a Christian value. Christians are engaged in a massive way in medicine and charity in making life better for us all. We are pro life in every way.

The irony, of course, is that theistic views are fueled by the desire to be immortal, in which case the cause of the obstacle is an obstacle to its own end (silly Christians)!. This is self-evident by the skewed deistic/anthropomorphic split.

Can you say "Conflict of interest"? Yeah, big time.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Which is it? Christians are for or against life in all forms? Do we get to speak for ourselves?

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. As one member already mentioned, Christianity will simply adjust to whatever it encounters. It's that flexibility that's enabled it to survive for this long.

Proof? It is not inconsistent for Christians to promote long life, health, and they have, and are since the beginning.

My friend, I'm beginning to think that you haven't read the old testament. If you had, you would know that some of the injunctions ordered by god were nothing less than sadistic.

"The irony, of course, is that theistic views are fueled by the desire to be immortal, in which case the cause of the obstacle is an obstacle to its own end (silly Christians)!. This is self-evident by the skewed deistic/anthropomorphic split.

Can you say "Conflict of interest"? Yeah, big time."

That was a statistical reference only. You can speak for yourself, but if you claim to be objective you must at least concede that you're the exception.

[shadowhawk]

That was a statistical reference only. You can speak for yourself, but if you claim to be objective you must at least concede that you're the exception.

The Christian views on the value of life hardly need my repeating here. I have no conflict with most other Christians regarding life's value. As for the Old Testament, it is off topic here but much has been written lately and I am open to discussing it.

[N.T.M.]

That was a statistical reference only. You can speak for yourself, but if you claim to be objective you must at least concede that you're the exception.

The Christian views on the value of life hardly need my repeating here. I have no conflict with most other Christians regarding life's value. As for the Old Testament, it is off topic here but much has been written lately and I am open to discussing it.

My reference to the old testament was not off topic. You said that (paraphrasing) Christianity has always been positive, and the historical notes in the old testament clearly contradict this.

As for what I said about statistics, people usually cite pseudo-philosophical reasoning in support of their belief in god, but the logical consequence of this is deism, not monotheisms centered around a benevolent deity. The disproportionate split between these two groups can only be attributed to a conflict of interest. Now you could very well argue that that's irrelevant, but then you'd have to concede that the reasoning used to arrive at a benevolent god is incorrect (even if the conclusion's correct).

This all puts you in an awkward position, one that I consider to be untenable.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M., My reference to the old testament was not off topic. You said that (paraphrasing) Christianity has always been positive, and the historical notes in the old testament clearly contradict this.

As for what I said about statistics, people usually cite pseudo-philosophical reasoning in support of their belief in god, but the logical consequence of this is deism, not monotheisms centered around a benevolent deity. The disproportionate split between these two groups can only be attributed to a conflict of interest. Now you could very well argue that that's irrelevant, but then you'd have to concede that the reasoning used to arrive at a benevolent god is incorrect (even if the conclusion's correct).

This all puts you in an awkward position, one that I consider to be untenable.

Between four and six thousand years ago something happened between the Jews and their evil neighbors which you find relevant to condemning Christians today for. There wasn’t even a Christianity then, but you want to condemn us today for that as if it is now. You claim to have condemning evidence of your charges and you are incensed, Start a new topic and I will be happy to engage you there. I consider this off topic here and a complete stretch.
Christians do value, and are pro life. Only a blind man can’t see it.

The logical consequences of philosophy does not produce deism. Explain? Oops, forgot you never answer a question when you find yourself in the ringer. Want to at least try? You have given no evidence for any of your philosophical conjecture

I don’t in an awkward or untenable position. Explain why you say that.

[N.T.M.]

You claim to have condemning evidence of your charges and you are incensed, Start a new topic and I will be happy to engage you there. I consider this off topic here and a complete stretch.
Christians do value, and are pro life. Only a blind man can’t see it.

You misunderstood my point entirely, I'm afraid. Christians do value life, but I'd like to emphasize the present tense. My reference to the old testament, again, only related to your use of the word always. To say Christianity has always been a positive influence is categorically false. As for the influence it has today, although it's generally positive, I think it's largely misguided. This is because there's no incentive to maintain a world beyond the time that you can expect to occupy it, meaning, of course, that our time here is ephemeral.

The logical consequences of philosophy does not produce deism. Explain? Oops, forgot you never answer a question when you find yourself in the ringer. Want to at least try? You have given no evidence for any of your philosophical conjecture

I've often given you my reasoning, but you just dismiss it, and on premises that I don't agree with. But here, I'll answer your challenge. I actually recently posted something about this topic, and it lends itself here quite nicely.

"...although people often use logical arguments to defend their belief in god, those arguments point to a creator who’s indifferent (a deistic god), not the benevolent god of contemporary Christianity. And that is the conflict of interest: Using a set of logical principles to postulate a creator, and then selectively withholding those same principles when they happen to threaten the preferred nature of god (one who is loving and takes a personal interest in human affairs).

So, what is this logical proof I’ve been alluding to? Well, like any proof, it only works when certain conditions are met, so I should probably start be defining those conditions. I think it might make things easier to just list them numerically.

1.) The Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.

3.) It is self-evident that an omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, wouldn’t punish people for not performing an act when there is no reason offered to perform it (Notice how this relates to premise two.). This premise can even be extended to include having to perform something when there is even the tinniest reason to doubt it.

4.) If an argument is deductively valid, you can only argue against the conclusion by arguing that at least one of the premises is false. If, for example, somebody were to argue that the Christian god actually isn’t truly omnipotent, then I’d have to immediately concede that my argument is invalid. Again, like any argument, it only works if certain conditions are met.

So, what can you deduce from the premises above? *drum roll...* If a god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent he cannot stipulate faith in order to get into heaven, at least not without mitigating at least one of those three qualities. Sound familiar? If you’ve studied philosophy you’ve probably heard of the argument from the existence of evil. Well, this is similarly structured, but it’s a different flavor, and one that I think is much more compelling.

Let’s walk through it a little. If somebody is sent to hell it’s because that person didn’t meet a requirement (faith) instituted by god, and if that god is all-powerful, he had the choice of creating and abolishing that requirement. Now, as I mentioned earlier, faith is defined as belief without evidence. Therefore, if god stipulates faith in order to avoid hell, he’s demanding that a person do something which, by definition, has no basis. And therein lies the contradiction! An all-loving god would not demand taking blind leaps for salvation unless he didn’t have any choice, in which case he’s not omnipotent, and, conversely, if he did have a choice he would be punishing people for not doing something when no reason was offered, in which case he wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.

Now that’s all well and good you might say, but what happens when somebody comes along and tries to modify the definition of faith to include evidential support? Well, in that case you invoke the third premise, which implies that even the slightest reason for doubt (something consistent with this new definition of faith) results in contradiction. I should point out now that this altered definition of faith clearly contradicts its biblical counterpart, but let’s dismiss that point for now. All we have to do is produce reason for doubt, which shouldn’t be too hard. Where would you like to start? I’d suggest the hundreds of biblical contradictions, but anybody changing the definition of faith clearly doesn’t place any value on biblical inerrancy, so we’ll have to look somewhere else. Perhaps now would be a good time to introduce the argument from the existence of evil, or maybe one of the many arguments that god is superfluous. It doesn’t matter what you use; the argument is deductively valid. Even if you could explain everything, the very fact that such doubt-inducing instances exist is enough to lead to contradiction."

You can think of this argument like you would a mathematical function. To disprove it you must either argue against its premises (the function's structure), or you must prove that for a given input (scenario) you would produce an output that's outside of the function's range, which is, in itself, a contradiction.

I'm sure your response to this will be something along the lines of, "The biblical definition is consistent with evidential support," but, again, not only is that twistedly inaccurate, but my argument would stand regardless. In summary, although you may be able to defend postulating a deistic god, you can't maintain that logic and conclude, without obvious contradiction, that god is also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

I don’t in an awkward or untenable position. Explain why you say that.

Your position demands that you selectively apply logical principles (above).

Edited by N.T.M., 24 September 2013 - 02:40 AM.

[shadowhawk]

OK, You admit Christians do value life. Settled. You are talking about Jews but Christians have a high view of the Old Testament as properly understood so the Old Testament, like the New Testament is held in high regard.

You have only your opinion to back up your claim that Christians do not value the present world as much as anyone. Nonsense.

Arguments for the existence of God are many and the start off arguing for God and end with dealing with the issue of what is God like.. Yes there are powerful arguments for God and there is strong evidence that God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. These arguments flow one to another. So I reject your contrition that this leads to a deistic god. Now to your construct.

N.T.M., 1.) The Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

OK

2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.

Nonsense. Faith is belief in the presence of evidence. Faith seeks understanding. Everyone operates by faith. The premise is blatantly false.

3.) It is self-evident that an omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, wouldn’t punish people for not performing an act when there is no reason offered to perform it (Notice how this relates to premise two.). This premise can even be extended to include having to perform something when there is even the tinniest reason to doubt it.

2. Is false. Theists base their actions on the world God has created around them and what they believe is Gods will. Faith has content and is not mindless. This makes 3 false.

4.) If an argument is deductively valid, you can only argue against the conclusion by arguing that at least one of the premises is false. If, for example, somebody were to argue that the Christian god actually isn’t truly omnipotent, then I’d have to immediately concede that my argument is invalid. Again, like any argument, it only works if certain conditions are met.

Since 2 is false, the argument fails. Christians do not operate on this logic any more than atheists do. We can deduce nothing from the false argument as you have tried to do.

Lets discuss evil since you brought it up, and lets talk about Jews since you also brought them up.. Lets talk about the real world, the Jews and Hitler. Do you think it was evil what the allies did to Hitler and Germany?

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 September 2013 - 12:58 AM.

[N.T.M.]

3.) It is self-evident that an omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, wouldn’t punish people for not performing an act when there is no reason offered to perform it (Notice how this relates to premise two.). This premise can even be extended to include having to perform something when there is even the tinniest reason to doubt it.

2. Is false. Theists base their actions on the world God has created around them and what they believe is Gods will. Faith has content and is not mindless. This makes 3 false.

Premise three isn't contingent upon premise two; therefore, the conclusion that it must be false is a non sequitur.

Also, I like how you ignored this. Notice the provision at the end of premise three and how it lends itself to the argument even if you omit premise two.

Now that’s all well and good you might say, but what happens when somebody comes along and tries to modify the definition of faith to include evidential support? Well, in that case you invoke the third premise, which implies that even the slightest reason for doubt (something consistent with this new definition of faith) results in contradiction. I should point out now that this altered definition of faith clearly contradicts its biblical counterpart, but let’s dismiss that point for now. All we have to do is produce reason for doubt, which shouldn’t be too hard. Where would you like to start? I’d suggest the hundreds of biblical contradictions, but anybody changing the definition of faith clearly doesn’t place any value on biblical inerrancy, so we’ll have to look somewhere else. Perhaps now would be a good time to introduce the argument from the existence of evil, or maybe one of the many arguments that god is superfluous. It doesn’t matter what you use; the argument is deductively valid. Even if you could explain everything, the very fact that such doubt-inducing instances exist is enough to lead to contradiction."

Let's briefly go over your analysis (please correct me if I make any mistakes ):

First, you disagree with premise two. That's fine. Second, you claim that because two is incorrect, three, being an independent premise, must be incorrect, too. Clearly this doesn't follow, but moving on... You skip the implication that any reason for doubt--no matter how small--results in contradiction, and then you rebut the argument by claiming what it explicitly states is irrelevant.

Fascinating.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M. First, you disagree with premise two. That's fine. Second, you claim that because two is incorrect, three, being an independent premise, must be incorrect, too. Clearly this doesn't follow, but moving on... You skip the implication that any reason for doubt--no matter how small--results in contradiction, and then you rebut the argument by claiming what it explicitly states is irrelevant.

2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.

Actually it does not follow from this incorrect premise that:
3. It is self-evident that you have established what God or believers will do or have done. Mindless faith is not a definition of faith. Your definition of faith is false as is your claim God gives us no reasonable reasons to act. So
4. Is false as well sense 2 and 3 are based on nothing you have established as true..

This imaginary construct is sadly lacking.

I have noticed again and again you completely ignore my questions as you continue to do. Might as well talk to a wall. Let me repeat:

“Lets discuss evil since you brought it up, and lets talk about Jews since you also brought them up.. Lets talk about the real world, the Jews and Hitler. Do you think it was evil what the allies did to Hitler and Germany? “

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. First, you disagree with premise two. That's fine. Second, you claim that because two is incorrect, three, being an independent premise, must be incorrect, too. Clearly this doesn't follow, but moving on... You skip the implication that any reason for doubt--no matter how small--results in contradiction, and then you rebut the argument by claiming what it explicitly states is irrelevant.

2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.

Actually it does not follow from this incorrect premise that:
3. It is self-evident that you have established what God or believers will do or have done. Mindless faith is not a definition of faith. Your definition of faith is false as is your claim God gives us no reasonable reasons to act. So
4. Is false as well sense 2 and 3 are based on nothing you have established as true..

This imaginary construct is sadly lacking.

I have noticed again and again you completely ignore my questions as you continue to do. Might as well talk to a wall. Let me repeat:

You're not answering mine at all. And this response, yet again, is filled with non sequiturs. Premises 3 and 4 are entirely independent. Moreover, as I've said several times now, you can omit premise two and ride on the provision in three to still prove that contradiction exists. Again, you ignored this.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you use reasoning such as, "Because my favorite color is red, premise two is false." Hyperbole? Clearly, but the statements are equally disconnected. It's as if you didn't even read the post.

I'd be happy to discuss anything you like as soon as you address this contradiction.

*edit* I came up with an idea! I'll drop the subject if you can prove that premise 3 or 4 is contingent upon premise 2. Almost all your posts are riddled with non sequiturs, and I'm tired of ignoring them. This is a little digressive, but it's a nice test for the robustness of your logic. When I pressed Solarfingers on the same point, the only concession I got from him was a dismissive reference to minutiae and his typical whining. I'm hoping that you're mature enough to either, one, prove me wrong, in which case I'd be tremendously appreciative, or, two, concede that you made a logical error. Either way, I trust that you won't discount the importance of logical coherency, in any context, that is.

Edited by N.T.M., 26 September 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: you're not answering mine at all. And this response, yet again, is filled with non sequiturs. Premises 3 and 4 are entirely independent. Moreover, as I've said several times now, you can omit premise two and ride on the provision in three to still prove that contradiction exists. Again, you ignored this.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you use reasoning such as, "Because my favorite color is red, premise two is false." Hyperbole? Clearly, but the statements are equally disconnected. It's as if you didn't even read the post.ou're not answering mine at all. And this response, yet again, is filled with non sequiturs. Premises 3 and 4 are entirely independent. Moreover, as I've said several times now, you can omit premise two and ride on the provision in three to still prove that contradiction exists. Again, you ignored this.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you use reasoning such as, "Because my favorite color is red, premise two is false." Hyperbole? Clearly, but the statements are equally disconnected. It's as if you didn't even read the post.

How is this for connected. You have created a false straw man, illogical and off topic. You expect me to relate to it. Now you are talking about colors as if that is some profound argument or as if we had talked about them. Your 4 primuses are among other things disconnected as you acknowledge. None of them follows from the previous nor do they stand alone. None of it is coherent.

Now, you won’t answer any of my questions unless I continue to relate to this nonsense. I get your game. Ho humm..

Anyone care to discuss the topic?

Perhaps:
“Lets discuss evil since you brought it up, and lets talk about Jews since you also brought them up.. Lets talk about the real world, the Jews and Hitler. Do you think it was evil what the allies did to Hitler and Germany? “

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.: you're not answering mine at all. And this response, yet again, is filled with non sequiturs. Premises 3 and 4 are entirely independent. Moreover, as I've said several times now, you can omit premise two and ride on the provision in three to still prove that contradiction exists. Again, you ignored this.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you use reasoning such as, "Because my favorite color is red, premise two is false." Hyperbole? Clearly, but the statements are equally disconnected. It's as if you didn't even read the post.ou're not answering mine at all. And this response, yet again, is filled with non sequiturs. Premises 3 and 4 are entirely independent. Moreover, as I've said several times now, you can omit premise two and ride on the provision in three to still prove that contradiction exists. Again, you ignored this.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you use reasoning such as, "Because my favorite color is red, premise two is false." Hyperbole? Clearly, but the statements are equally disconnected. It's as if you didn't even read the post.

How is this for connected. You have created a false straw man, illogical and off topic. You expect me to relate to it. Now you are talking about colors as if that is some profound argument or as if we had talked about them. Your 4 primuses are among other things disconnected as you acknowledge. None of them follows from the previous nor do they stand alone. None of it is coherent.

Now, you won’t answer any of my questions unless I continue to relate to this nonsense. I get your game. Ho humm..

Anyone care to discuss the topic?

Perhaps:
“Lets discuss evil since you brought it up, and lets talk about Jews since you also brought them up.. Lets talk about the real world, the Jews and Hitler. Do you think it was evil what the allies did to Hitler and Germany? “

My friend, I'd be happy to discuss anything you like so long as you answer this:

*edit* I came up with an idea! I'll drop the subject if you can prove that premise 3 or 4 is contingent upon premise 2. Almost all your posts are riddled with non sequiturs, and I'm tired of ignoring them. This is a little digressive, but it's a nice test for the robustness of your logic. When I pressed Solarfingers on the same point, the only concession I got from him was a dismissive reference to minutiae and his typical whining. I'm hoping that you're mature enough to either, one, prove me wrong, in which case I'd be tremendously appreciative, or, two, concede that you made a logical error. Either way, I trust that you won't discount the importance of logical coherency, in any context, that is.

Your logic is flawed, and, yet again, you have ignored the provision for doubt at any level in premise three. You even go so far as to say that premise four is wrong because two is wrong. Not only is this a non sequitur, but it (connection aside) contradicts a rudimentary principle in logic (any logician would recognize premise four as being both inarguable--context aside--and independent).

You claim to appeal to logic, but when your logical shortcomings are pointed out you dismiss them, essentially saying something like, "Well don't worry about any logical inconsistencies I show in trivial areas like that, but take my word for, when it matters my logic is flawless." This is unacceptable and I'm not going to let you get away with it any more.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: Your logic is flawed, and, yet again, you have ignored the provision for doubt at any level in premise three. You even go so far as to say that premise four is wrong because two is wrong. Not only is this a non sequitur, but it (connection aside) contradicts a rudimentary principle in logic (any logician would recognize premise four as being both inarguable--context aside--and independent).

You claim to appeal to logic, but when your logical shortcomings are pointed out you dismiss them, essentially saying something like, "Well don't worry about any logical inconsistencies I show in trivial areas like that, but take my word for, when it matters my logic is flawless." This is unacceptable and I'm not going to let you get away with it any more.

I haven’t ignored your four disjointed statements which you have mistakenly put in the form of an argument and called “premises.” No logic here. I have responded to each of them contrary to what you now say. All of this, is off topic.

On topic, you have admitted Christians care about life and you won’t respond to any of my questions so.... Your logic is... You have had a fight, and though the result is obvious, declare through broken teeth you are the victor. You even quote a non existent me!!! “Flawless,” no less. Do you hear voices? OK.

And you are not going to let me get away with it any more. Now you are talking like an atheist.

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 September 2013 - 06:51 PM.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: 3.) It is self-evident that an omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, wouldn’t punish people for not performing an act when there is no reason offered to perform it (Notice how this relates to premise two.). This premise can even be extended to include having to perform something when there is even the tinniest reason to doubt it.

4.) If an argument is deductively valid, you can only argue against the conclusion by arguing that at least one of the premises is false. If, for example, somebody were to argue that the Christian god actually isn’t truly omnipotent, then I’d have to immediately concede that my argument is invalid. Again, like any argument, it only works if certain conditions are met.

In response:
3) relates to two N.T.M. claims. 2) SAYS “2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.”, which is a false definition of faith. How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false. God does not punish people for no reason. Faith has reasons. God whom is the object of faith has reasons as N.T.M. states. Both premises 2 and 3 are wrong and without proof..

Strangely, N.T.M. states, "you have ignored the provision for doubt at any level in premise three." Read it and tell me what you are talking about? What provision for doubt at any level?

4) This is not an argument that flows from statement 2, or 3. It is a confused statement about deductive logic and reasoning. That it makes no sense is beside the point. If statement 2 and 3 are supposed to make 4 obviously true they don’t. There is no argument here despite the statements claim to the contrary.. N.T.M. has made no argument about anything. The amazing thing is he thinks he has and he plans to do something about it Enough of this nonsense.

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 September 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.
Would President Obama Bomb the Canaanites?

[Layberinthius]

I think that a need to believe in mainstream chrisitanity/religions there needs to be a disorder/possible borderline Schitzophrenia underlying the minds processes.

Reason why I say this is, my mum thinks that anything bad that occurs is attributable to a demon doing it behind the scenes.

I've been atheist for quite a while tho, have only just recently became buddhist because I need it for the knowledge that I am not alone in the universe (loneliness).

Edited by Layberinthius, 28 September 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Layberinthius]

"Evil" is a response to hate or damage occuring by another party.

The jews werent blameless, not that they deserved being wiped out. But the germans in power at the time thought it was necessary inorder to make them stop taking all of the wealth out of the country/pissing off their christian religious population. This goes way back to what happened in World War One....
Ontop of that it wasnt just the Jewish people who suffered the most during WW2.

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=412

Drawing on numerous archives, Reuth paints the social backdrop during Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. “Almost half of all German private banks were Jewish owned,” writes Reuth, “the stock exchange was dominated by Jewish stockbrokers, and almost half of the nation’s newspapers were Jewish run as were 80 per cent of chain stores.”

http://ww2history.co...red_of_the_Jews

This was a struggle for survival between the human race and this Jewish species that the core group of the Nazis invested with almost a kind of supernatural demonic power, which was absolutely unprecedented.

DAVID CESARANI: Another thing that separates the Nazis apart from other people who dislike Jews is that the Nazis believed that the Jews had acquired vast power, and that they had used this power in a malign way. It was the power of the Jews that had led to the Bolshevik revolution, it was the power of the Jews that had led to revolution in Germany, had stabbed the German Army in the back and had brought down Imperial Germany. In the Nazis’ world vision not only were the Jews a force for evil, a Manichean, demonic force for evil, but they had vast power, they had their hands on the levers of power. They had to be eliminated, they had to be deprived of that power, they had to be broken and then destroyed. To the Nazis the entire course of world history vindicated that interpretation of Jewish power.

What happened in 1918 was simply one more example of the power of the Jews, and the level and power of the Jews. One reason that Hitler was keen to see the Jews segregated in Nazi Germany and subjected to increasingly harsh measures once the Second World War began, and why he wanted Jews segregated and eventually destroyed throughout the Nazi sphere of influence while the Nazis were fighting the war, was that he believed that if Jews were allowed to exist freely, to hold what he believed was economic and political power while Germany was at war, if they were within the German sphere of influence, they would do what they did in November 1918; they would stab Germany in the back.

http://jewishcurrent...lion-jews-16509

European Jews were not the first people to experience (successfully, from the perpetrator’s point of view) mass genocide or severe oppression, including enslavement. Let me list just a few that come quickly to mind:

• The Turkish slaughter of 1 million Armenians
• The enslavement of tens of thousands of African Negroes by the Americans and others
• The destruction of the native Indian population and their culture here in the U.S.
• The murder of a half million or more Tutsis not too long ago in Africa
• The death of about 3-4 million Russian POWs in German captivity in WWII
• The death of about 1-2 million German POWs in Russian captivity in WWII
• The starvation and neglect of thousands of Union soldiers captured by the Confederacy and imprisoned in an inhuman way in Andersonville during the Civil War
• The “rape of Nanking” by Japan in pre-WWII China (about 1 million victims)
• The murder of 20,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in the Katyn Forest by the Soviets
• The working to death of about 10 million people in the Soviet Gulag
• The imprisonment, torture and execution of who knows how many Soviet citizens by the Stalinist regime
• The killing that was going on most recently in Darfur, Sudan, of peaceful villages and their inhabitants by Muslim soldiers or self-appointed militia sanctioned or even sponsored by the regime
• The “killing fields” in Cambodia where there were more than a million victims
• The murder of hundreds of thousands of Gypsies by the Germans in WWII

My point here is that everybody is "evil", irregardless of race religion or sex. EVERYONE has blood on their hands.

http://www.telegraph...-World-War.html

"Hitler saw the state 'poisoned' from within. Hitler lived in Munich, where Jews played a leading role in the revolution against the monarchy on Nov. 9th 1918. So suddenly the delusion came to his mind, that the Jews where the reason for the 'inner poisoning' of Germany and that they had stolen the victory from Germany," Mr Riecker said.
"And since this delusion revived the traumatic experience of the death of his mother, he developed the fanatic will to annihilate the "Jewish poison" – and thought that killing the Jews was the way to lead Germany to world domination.

Sounds like an ordinary human response to me.

We are NOT "humane". We are ONLY humane in a very narrow range of habitability, once an economic hiccup occurs ALL of us become animals.

If something being tortured by my father for 15 years has taught me, its that anyone regardless of how kind and innocent they look from the outside, the side that everyone else sees. Can become the spawn of Lucifer in the bat of an eyelid.

And all it took in my fathers mind was insane jealousy that I could walk, he was jealous of me being able to walk and him not being able to, thats all it fucking took to ruin my life and the lives of my family.

btw, I'm not racist.

Edited by Layberinthius, 28 September 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[N.T.M.]

How does it relate to 3? It doesn’t and that makes 3) false.

That in itself is a contradiction. For example, if a given condition of A dictates B, then B is contingent upon A. If you're looking for a mathematical parallel you might consider the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Anyway, you can't say that A doesn't relate to B--meaning it's independent (Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?)--and then assert a conclusion based on a contingency. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to produce another example of somebody contradicting himself in so few words.

It's baffling how you claim to be an authority on the subject of philosophy and yet you don't understand rudimentary logical principles.

Also, your reference to my mention of how premise three could be applied to two is not the same as a contingency. This, again, is a non sequitur. And, lastly, you still haven't answered the crux of the argument (w/the omission of premise two), nor have you provided any connection between premise two and three or four.

I'm not angry. I'm just in disbelief at how somebody could argue as vehemently as you do while using arguments that appeal to the intellect of a child.

This is the part where you accuse me of name-calling, but if you reread my post you'll see that everything I said has some logical countenance, which contradicts this accusation. If you disagree with my explanations here I'd be happy to explain things differently. I could even use formal logic if you like.