1818 replies to this topic

[YOLF]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

I was once in a position where I only thought I understood what Christianity and just about every other Faithgroup (I studied all of them for mass media appeal being a wouldbe media producer at the time) was about. It later pained me to realize that I wasn't taking a relevant stance on things and was wasting the lions share of my ongoing efforts in life on the wrong things. I would not have been able to understand any of it if I didn't discover a particular set of nootropics that made me reassess every assumption I had ever made and left in quite a bit of ignorant despair. I hadn't properly communicated many feelings (if any) in my entire life and had failed at everything I had done. I was with the wrong people, had developed the wrong relationships and was living very differently than I should have. Where I would have liked to have a been a powerful proponent for the causes of my choosing, I didn't even know the arguments and the list could go on and on.

The pathology of the problem looks like this to my eyes. Children who experience Christianity and understand it in an uninterrupted linear fashion become very strong and passionate Christians. Those who don't experience it this way have difficulty with Christianity and Christianity has to cover it up by misrepresenting things to prevent the next generation from loosing faith therefor resulting in a greater lack of efficacy for Faithgroups. Further, being outside of the Faithgroup leads to being ignorant of many social and scientific conventions and impairs the ability of the non-believer or person with a bad Christianity/Faithgroup experience and this leads to social isolation and alot of other behavioral patterns including rejection of the "spirit" as they say.

Being outside of the Faithgroup convention means never understanding the world or coming not to like it once you've understood it and feeling pretty much ostracized. So the existence of Faithgroups and the social conventions they create, in turn create people who are second class citizens, and I don't see Faithgroups doing anything to fix it because they accept that some people are just going to die. This is the same reason why Faithgroups often challenge anything to do with defeating aging and death. If we defeat aging and death, there will be a substantial number of people who are knowledgeable about Faithgroups who are believers in their existence, but who do not support them. This means that the Faithgroups may see a population who is able to challenge them, and the last time this happened there was a cold war and it left us with all of the problems we have today...

Clearly you have experienced all sorts of emotional turmoil which has interacted with your religious faith, but, it has no bearing on the issues here. SH has presented a debate on evidence for Christianity and that is what we have addressed. Unfortunately it has been one sided. We have raised logical points and he has ignored them and/or shouted abuse.

Well, I would argue just the opposite. SH has something he wants to tell you, but in order to tell it to you, he has to get you to listen to him. He needs to manage what you believe, and then can he shape it for you and decide what he should tell you. He's ignoring your logical points because he hasn't addressed the underlying issues which an atheist can't understand without having experience a Faithgroup in the same way that SH or another positive outcome of Faithgroups have. So in a way, it's just intellectual and spiritual masturbation to argue such a topic as it can't result in the transmittal of an idea and results in the opposite of his intended mission. Either that, or he's trying Faith f*ck the minds of the ignorant non-Faithers for not having faith and damning them to hell. I'll withhold judgement. I can't say I know what's going on, but I certainly don't agree with the right of Faithgroups to "Faith f*ck" people. I can't imagine it coming to an ethical end if that be the case, especially as they don't seem to be interested in repairing pathology in a meaningful way.

[johnross47]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

I was once in a position where I only thought I understood what Christianity and just about every other Faithgroup (I studied all of them for mass media appeal being a wouldbe media producer at the time) was about. It later pained me to realize that I wasn't taking a relevant stance on things and was wasting the lions share of my ongoing efforts in life on the wrong things. I would not have been able to understand any of it if I didn't discover a particular set of nootropics that made me reassess every assumption I had ever made and left in quite a bit of ignorant despair. I hadn't properly communicated many feelings (if any) in my entire life and had failed at everything I had done. I was with the wrong people, had developed the wrong relationships and was living very differently than I should have. Where I would have liked to have a been a powerful proponent for the causes of my choosing, I didn't even know the arguments and the list could go on and on.

The pathology of the problem looks like this to my eyes. Children who experience Christianity and understand it in an uninterrupted linear fashion become very strong and passionate Christians. Those who don't experience it this way have difficulty with Christianity and Christianity has to cover it up by misrepresenting things to prevent the next generation from loosing faith therefor resulting in a greater lack of efficacy for Faithgroups. Further, being outside of the Faithgroup leads to being ignorant of many social and scientific conventions and impairs the ability of the non-believer or person with a bad Christianity/Faithgroup experience and this leads to social isolation and alot of other behavioral patterns including rejection of the "spirit" as they say.

Being outside of the Faithgroup convention means never understanding the world or coming not to like it once you've understood it and feeling pretty much ostracized. So the existence of Faithgroups and the social conventions they create, in turn create people who are second class citizens, and I don't see Faithgroups doing anything to fix it because they accept that some people are just going to die. This is the same reason why Faithgroups often challenge anything to do with defeating aging and death. If we defeat aging and death, there will be a substantial number of people who are knowledgeable about Faithgroups who are believers in their existence, but who do not support them. This means that the Faithgroups may see a population who is able to challenge them, and the last time this happened there was a cold war and it left us with all of the problems we have today...

Clearly you have experienced all sorts of emotional turmoil which has interacted with your religious faith, but, it has no bearing on the issues here. SH has presented a debate on evidence for Christianity and that is what we have addressed. Unfortunately it has been one sided. We have raised logical points and he has ignored them and/or shouted abuse.

Well, I would argue just the opposite. SH has something he wants to tell you, but in order to tell it to you, he has to get you to listen to him. He needs to manage what you believe, and then can he shape it for you and decide what he should tell you. He's ignoring your logical points because he hasn't addressed the underlying issues which an atheist can't understand without having experience a Faithgroup in the same way that SH or another positive outcome of Faithgroups have. So in a way, it's just intellectual and spiritual masturbation to argue such a topic as it can't result in the transmittal of an idea and results in the opposite of his intended mission. Either that, or he's trying Faith f*ck the minds of the ignorant non-Faithers for not having faith and damning them to hell. I'll withhold judgement. I can't say I know what's going on, but I certainly don't agree with the right of Faithgroups to "Faith f*ck" people. I can't imagine it coming to an ethical end if that be the case, especially as they don't seem to be interested in repairing pathology in a meaningful way.

I think you should reread my comment on patronising remarks. I may need to revise my "understanding". Your view of the relationship between SH and the other posters is so bizzare that your only possible excuses are either religious delusions or that you are taking the piss. (if you know the expression? It's British) If your post is serious it is deeply offensive and shows massive ignorance of other people's lives and personal dignity and worth.

[shadowhawk]

SH, which god, exactly, do you choose to believe exists?

Soon we will get to it.

[shadowhawk]

SH, which god, exactly, do you choose to believe exists?

I've asked him that before but he just made one of his usual excuses. It would certainly advance things if we knew which god he is promoting.

show me where. No, you will keep trying to derail the discussion. 1. is there a God? 2. Which God. 3 Christian evidences. 4. Personal experience.

[YOLF]

I don't mean to insult anyone. I'm saying what I've experienced and how Faith in practice has impacted my life and no doubt the lives of others. In my opinion however, there are some very damaging things which Faithgroups do to a community and feel very justified in doing, and against those points I stand distinctly.

[shadowhawk]

CRYONICSCULTURLE: Well, I would argue just the opposite. SH has something he wants to tell you, but in order to tell it to you, he has to get you to listen to him. He needs to manage what you believe, and then can he shape it for you and decide what he should tell you. ShadowHawk SH How could you be so wrong? I have spelled out mu purpose already so no use repeating it.

He's ignoring your logical points because he hasn't addressed the underlying issues which an atheist can't understand without having experience a Faithgroup in the same way that SH or another positive outcome of Faithgroups have. SH: I grew up raised an atheist. No FB group.

So in a way, it's just intellectual and spiritual masturbation to argue such a topic as it can't result in the transmittal of an idea and results in the opposite of his intended mission. Either that, or he's trying Faith f*ck the minds of the ignorant non-Faithers for not having faith and damning them to hell. SH: Wow!!!

I'll withhold judgement. I can't say I know what's going on, but I certainly don't agree with the right of Faithgroups to "Faith f*ck" people. SH I am the only theist here and not part of any group. And you have withheld judgement? I can't imagine it coming to an ethical end if that be the case, especially as they don't seem to be interested in repairing pathology in a meaningful way. SH: This is pathology. Who is "they?"

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 January 2014 - 04:14 AM.

[YOLF]

Perhaps I've miscommunicated.

If you have nothing to tell him/people, then I fail to understand why you would bring the subject up. The purpose of this line of reasoning is to assuage one's doubt at a young age as to the existence of God so they can have an uninterupted linear experience of Christianity rather than a deluded one. If you start thinking for yourself when you haven't been empowered by them to do so, you're being punished whether intended by those around you or not. If one is not young at the time of hearing this argument, then it is most certainly a punishment to those who don't recognize it for what it is and maybe you've been sent to us as a fool, or maybe you believe that it is right to retard people's social, intellectual, and spiritual growth by distracting them with this argument so they will suffer from thinking about it for years to come.

Wow! Note the use of the word "either." I just spelled out the possibilities that I see regarding the topic. I didn't say which one you were doing. I'm just allowing others to take care as you might be harming their understanding of God. In effect, I'm fostering a healthy distrust of the information b/c I don't think it's all that pertinent given the people you're arguing with. So what you should take away from this is that I'm guarding both sides. It could be that you are a novice. What is pertinent now is how long you were raised an atheist and how you feel towards atheism. If you are a strong Christian, you may be seeking to take out your pains on Atheists and predetermine their understanding of things to ensure that atheism isn't able to enable someone to achieve what Christians can achieve. You may also have been so unacceptable to theists having had your atheist upbringing that they preferred to leave you blind, in which case I offer you the banner of agnosticism. You may simply not know what you're arguing about and may truly believe that when your heart stops beating that you'll meet Jesus and St. Peter at the Pearly gates so to speak. If that is what you believe and base your faith on, Christianity considers you an acceptable loss, a casualty of the evergoing spirit war. But it doesn't have to end that way. It can be otherwise and you can still have a full understanding of virtually all Faithgroups and maybe even find one that won't leave you "lost at sea."

I hope you've read this thoroughly. It may save you from ignorance or maybe you need a lesson on how this stuff and the thinking that allows it is inherently wrong. And I'm not saying that God or having one is wrong, I'm just saying it hasn't to my knowledge been done right yet and that your desire to improve the world through Faith/Believe/God/Etc, isn't going to work and will never be righteous if this is how it is executed.

At this point, I don't feel as though your Faithgroup or study of God is making you a wiser person and I want to help b/c I've been right where you are now.

[johnross47]

Looks like the topic is thoroughly derailed. Now you know the difference.

[johnross47]

SH, which god, exactly, do you choose to believe exists?

I've asked him that before but he just made one of his usual excuses. It would certainly advance things if we knew which god he is promoting.

show me where. No, you will keep trying to derail the discussion. 1. is there a God? 2. Which God. 3 Christian evidences. 4. Personal experience.

Now that your fellow believer has really derailed the topic you might like to rethink the way you answer the rest of us. You may not recall it but I do remember previously saying that if we knew which of the Christian gods you adhere to, it would make it much easier to address the issues. Not in those words precisely, but I have life to live, stuff to do.

[johnross47]

Perhaps I've miscommunicated.

If you have nothing to tell him/people, then I fail to understand why you would bring the subject up. The purpose of this line of reasoning is to assuage one's doubt at a young age as to the existence of God so they can have an uninterupted linear experience of Christianity rather than a deluded one. If you start thinking for yourself when you haven't been empowered by them to do so, you're being punished whether intended by those around you or not. If one is not young at the time of hearing this argument, then it is most certainly a punishment to those who don't recognize it for what it is and maybe you've been sent to us as a fool, or maybe you believe that it is right to retard people's social, intellectual, and spiritual growth by distracting them with this argument so they will suffer from thinking about it for years to come.

Wow! Note the use of the word "either." I just spelled out the possibilities that I see regarding the topic. I didn't say which one you were doing. I'm just allowing others to take care as you might be harming their understanding of God. In effect, I'm fostering a healthy distrust of the information b/c I don't think it's all that pertinent given the people you're arguing with. So what you should take away from this is that I'm guarding both sides. It could be that you are a novice. What is pertinent now is how long you were raised an atheist and how you feel towards atheism. If you are a strong Christian, you may be seeking to take out your pains on Atheists and predetermine their understanding of things to ensure that atheism isn't able to enable someone to achieve what Christians can achieve. You may also have been so unacceptable to theists having had your atheist upbringing that they preferred to leave you blind, in which case I offer you the banner of agnosticism. You may simply not know what you're arguing about and may truly believe that when your heart stops beating that you'll meet Jesus and St. Peter at the Pearly gates so to speak. If that is what you believe and base your faith on, Christianity considers you an acceptable loss, a casualty of the evergoing spirit war. But it doesn't have to end that way. It can be otherwise and you can still have a full understanding of virtually all Faithgroups and maybe even find one that won't leave you "lost at sea."

I hope you've read this thoroughly. It may save you from ignorance or maybe you need a lesson on how this stuff and the thinking that allows it is inherently wrong. And I'm not saying that God or having one is wrong, I'm just saying it hasn't to my knowledge been done right yet and that your desire to improve the world through Faith/Believe/God/Etc, isn't going to work and will never be righteous if this is how it is executed.

At this point, I don't feel as though your Faithgroup or study of God is making you a wiser person and I want to help b/c I've been right where you are now.

For me this is like some random overheard snippet from a highly controlled, paranoid, alien culture. I'm not sure I could communicate meaningfully with the writer; the cuture specific references are so dense and so opaque that the intended meaning escapes.

[YOLF]

Well that would be why you need a Faithgroup experience. Maybe mine was far and away from most. But I didn't understand it, I couldn't understand it until I erased all assumptions and looked at my entire life over again.I only have my experiemce to speak from as you do' I understand the rest by putting alot of thought into things, people and experience.

[johnross47]

It's not on my to do list.

[shadowhawk]

Well that would be why you need a Faithgroup experience. Maybe mine was far and away from most. But I didn't understand it, I couldn't understand it until I erased all assumptions and looked at my entire life over again.I only have my experiemce to speak from as you do' I understand the rest by putting alot of thought into things, people and experience.

Perhaps you could lay the same number on yourself as you laid on me and you did communicated it clearly despite your denials. So you called me some names. I have always said anything someone calls me is true, thanks, but you do have my motives wrong. I would invite you to show me “SIMPLY” how it is done, only start another topic to do in in so you stop derailing this one. Evangelize, these evangelists of nothing to start taking their supplements in your Church. I am your student.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEZmMeH96Q

Keep it simple cryonicsculture. ...show me. http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/68039-the-church-of-perpetual-life-a-church-whose-goal-is-to-hasten-the-defeat-of-aging/#entry635950

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 January 2014 - 11:43 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Perhaps I've miscommunicated.

If you have nothing to tell him/people, then I fail to understand why you would bring the subject up. The purpose of this line of reasoning is to assuage one's doubt at a young age as to the existence of God so they can have an uninterupted linear experience of Christianity rather than a deluded one. If you start thinking for yourself when you haven't been empowered by them to do so, you're being punished whether intended by those around you or not. If one is not young at the time of hearing this argument, then it is most certainly a punishment to those who don't recognize it for what it is and maybe you've been sent to us as a fool, or maybe you believe that it is right to retard people's social, intellectual, and spiritual growth by distracting them with this argument so they will suffer from thinking about it for years to come.

Wow! Note the use of the word "either." I just spelled out the possibilities that I see regarding the topic. I didn't say which one you were doing. I'm just allowing others to take care as you might be harming their understanding of God. In effect, I'm fostering a healthy distrust of the information b/c I don't think it's all that pertinent given the people you're arguing with. So what you should take away from this is that I'm guarding both sides. It could be that you are a novice. What is pertinent now is how long you were raised an atheist and how you feel towards atheism. If you are a strong Christian, you may be seeking to take out your pains on Atheists and predetermine their understanding of things to ensure that atheism isn't able to enable someone to achieve what Christians can achieve. You may also have been so unacceptable to theists having had your atheist upbringing that they preferred to leave you blind, in which case I offer you the banner of agnosticism. You may simply not know what you're arguing about and may truly believe that when your heart stops beating that you'll meet Jesus and St. Peter at the Pearly gates so to speak. If that is what you believe and base your faith on, Christianity considers you an acceptable loss, a casualty of the evergoing spirit war. But it doesn't have to end that way. It can be otherwise and you can still have a full understanding of virtually all Faithgroups and maybe even find one that won't leave you "lost at sea."

I hope you've read this thoroughly. It may save you from ignorance or maybe you need a lesson on how this stuff and the thinking that allows it is inherently wrong. And I'm not saying that God or having one is wrong, I'm just saying it hasn't to my knowledge been done right yet and that your desire to improve the world through Faith/Believe/God/Etc, isn't going to work and will never be righteous if this is how it is executed.

At this point, I don't feel as though your Faithgroup or study of God is making you a wiser person and I want to help b/c I've been right where you are now.

Excuse me, you are tempting me to use "name calling," and I don' want to commit a Logical error. I could sin but bless you. You have not been where I am at now. Keep it simple. http://www.longecity...ng/#entry635950

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 January 2014 - 11:42 PM.

[YOLF]

No name calling and no temptation, I'm not trying to start a fight and the fact that you pose it that way makes suggestions of malintent. At least by the standards I see Faithgroups using.

I offered to help. You chose what you wanted to see or have alterior motives which you are establishing with this thread. To my eyes I have spoken creatively and used vernacular reflecting my own experience. I also seem to recall saying that I had a nonlinear and very interupted faith experience and have a very different vector of understanding. Despite that, I've tried my best to respect Faithgroups and their mysteries and not completely demystify the Faithgroup mysteries.

Maybe you know more than me and I just don't have enough faith experience to understand it. But why should it be so difficult to convince someone of the existence of your God? I worry that your goal with this thread is to distance people from God and understanding Him. What I can tell you is that God sends alot of messages and those messages are prayers(sp?) upon those in bad circumstances and can often make things worse.

Evangelize? What interesting imagery, as and artist, I picture a priest giving a nutritional supplement in Catholic style to a line of people Maybe I'll make a cartoon of it someday. Anyways. I'm not a member of any Church or Faithgroup, though I do keep an eye out for one which I could get behind and the prospects of some of them might even have me excited. I call myself an agnostic, whether that is the right name for me I'm not really sure. I do want people to understand God and it is my opinion and experience that they don't always make their definitions of things clear, or represent them in such a way as to make one (esp one who lives in an apathy induced by the existence and persistence of Faithgroups) passively accept that the performance of faith ceremonies implies a particular reality which one clings to and eventually finds very disappointing. The end product of the disappointment being a retarded (in the sense that their life development is slowed) individual who has lost the opportunity to experience positive life in the vigor of their youth.

My key points are:
I was trying to help.
I don't think conventional Faithgroups do a good enough job and accept to much in the way of losses.
When Faithgroups fail it is disastrous.
I don't have a Faithgroup, but I advocate for positive Faithgroup experiences.*


*Faithgroups don't have as much access as they need to an individuals thoughts or feelings to make the claims and judgements that they do and should be limited. Your assessment of my posts, as good as they might be (should they not be part of an alterior motive), given very standard conventions or rather expectations of a person would seem very limited to me as you've made claims and assumptions of my intent which are not in my eyes present.

My posts should only be a problem for you in a very specific set of conditions (that you're attempting to herd at-risk individuals of intentionally impaired intellect into ignorance rather than spending that effort helping them, which isn't much different than leading them off a cliff).

If I'm way off base or misunderstanding something, by all means, level with me and explain yourself in the privacy of a PM if your intentions are more noble than I realize.

[shadowhawk]

CRYONICSCULTURLE: No name calling and no temptation, I'm not trying to start a fight and the fact that you pose it that way makes suggestions of malintent. At least by the standards I see Faithgroups using.

Again, I am not a faithgroup. This is a red herring logical fallacy. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. What do you call this? http://www.longecity...390#entry638901
And I made it up this way?

I offered to help. You chose what you wanted to see or have alterior motives which you are establishing with this thread. To my eyes I have spoken creatively and used vernacular reflecting my own experience. I also seem to recall saying that I had a nonlinear and very interupted faith experience and have a very different vector of understanding. Despite that, I've tried my best to respect Faithgroups and their mysteries and not completely demystify the Faithgroup mysteries.

This is now help? http://www.longecity...390#entry638901
Off topic. This is not about your alleged experience with faithgroups. You sure respected them. Here it is again, a questing of my motives. HOW SIMPLE. I must have alternative motives.

But why should it be so difficult to convince someone of the existence of your God? I worry that your goal with this thread is to distance people from God and understanding Him. What I can tell you is that God sends a lot of messages and those messages are prayers(sp?) upon those in bad circumstances and can often make things worse.

Show me your simple way. So far nothing but derailment of the topic under discussion. And you worry about my topic that I will keep people from understanding God. And you are an Agnostic!

I call myself an agnostic, whether that is the right name for me I'm not really sure. I do want people to understand God and it is my opinion and experience that they don't always make their definitions of things clear, or represent them in such a way as to make one (esp one who lives in an apathy induced by the existence and persistence of Faithgroups) passively accept that the performance of faith ceremonies implies a particular reality which one clings to and eventually finds very disappointing

Well, you are an agnostic and I am not. I am discussing the evidence for Christianity and you are hung up on ceremonies.

My key points are:
I was trying to help. SH: Thanks, I guess. http://www.longecity...390#entry638901
I don't think conventional Faithgroups do a good enough job and accept to much in the way of losses. SH off topic.
When Faithgroups fail it is disastrous. SH Off topic
I don't have a Faithgroup, but I advocate for positive Faithgroup experiences.* SH off topic.

My posts should only be a problem for you in a very specific set of conditions (that you're attempting to herd at-risk individuals of intentionally impaired intellect into ignorance rather than spending that effort helping them, which isn't much different than leading them off a cliff).

Like I said show me the simple way. And this off topic diatribe is help?

If I'm way off base or misunderstanding something, by all means, level with me and explain yourself in the privacy of a PM if your intentions are more noble than I realize.

Just like you have done? Do I really have to do that in order to prove to you my intentions are noble? level with you and explain myself? OK

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 January 2014 - 08:47 PM.

[shadowhawk]

USER AGREED, FORUM USE GUIDELINES AND RULES.
We all agreed to these when we joined. Do a search on “guidelines.”

Article 1
“The following shall be the letter of the agreement that all visitors, Members and their guests will be asked to abide by when interacting with the LongeCity("ImmInst") website: Please read this Agreement carefully before accessing the Site.” http://www.longecity.../feature/bylawA

Article 1
Section03 Content
“You understand that by using the Site, you may be exposed to Content that you may deem offensive, indecent or objectionable.” (Including religious, philosophical or political views)

Section06 Basic Prohibitions
“ Personal threats to anybody, whether or not that person is using the Site.”

“g) Interacting with the Site in such a way as to seriously impair the functioning or usability of the Site including but not limited to excessive contribution of irrelevant Content;”

Section09 Posting Guidelines
“(a) Users must agree to consider the posting guidelines as specified in Article
2. Adherence to these guidelines is monitored by ImmInst Moderators, Directors and other designated Officers”

Article 2 Posting Guidelines:
http://www.longecity.../feature/bylawA

“Section01 A-- General tone of conversations
Also under no circumstances should you employ personal judgments or remarks about people themselves rather than their arguments. Aside from the fact that such judgments are more often than not ill founded, they drag down the overall quality of the discussion as well as costing time and space.”

“Section04 D-- Replying to topics
(a) D.1-- Please ask yourself "Does my reply offer a significant contribution?"
(b) D.2-- It is critical that you try to keep follow-up posts on topic. Avoid going off on a different tangent. If it occurs to you that this might be another thread, open a new thread and put a link to it in the old one
© D.3-- As an extension of the previous point, do not derail a topic with fundamental critique....
(e) D.5-- There is usually no benefit for people in reading that you agree unless you give an explanation to go with it.
f) D.6-- ...If someone posts a link or uploads an article- read it before you go on. Also read the posts of your predecessors and be aware of related discussions elsewhere”
---------------------------------

[shadowhawk]

30 more arguments for existence of God by Peter Kreeft
http://www.longecity...360#entry638545

five more

[YOLF]

You've taken me out of context and ignored the important parts of what I said. I haven't derailed your thread, just offered advice and sought clarification to make sure you know what you're doing. If that offends you, I'm deeply sorry. But I'm trying to help you and the membership here, and you've treated me as an enemy (and not the way you're supposed to treat your enemy) and you haven't tried to help me in return as the golden rule would suggest that you do. You've promised to explain things to me for weeks, but that was the last PM I saw from you. If you see a man suffering, even from ignorance, help him. That should be all that either of us are doing and it should bring us together and improve both our lives and our understanding of this thread. Again, I offered you my perspective and the possibilities I see from that perspective. It's up to you to show me where I'm wrong. I'll refrain from posting unnecessarily to your thread, but I'd like to discuss the thread's intended and actual impact via PM.

[shadowhawk]

You've taken me out of context and ignored the important parts of what I said. I haven't derailed your thread, just offered advice and sought clarification to make sure you know what you're doing. If that offends you, I'm deeply sorry. But I'm trying to help you and the membership here, and you've treated me as an enemy (and not the way you're supposed to treat your enemy) and you haven't tried to help me in return as the golden rule would suggest that you do. You've promised to explain things to me for weeks, but that was the last PM I saw from you. If you see a man suffering, even from ignorance, help him. That should be all that either of us are doing and it should bring us together and improve both our lives and our understanding of this thread. Again, I offered you my perspective and the possibilities I see from that perspective. It's up to you to show me where I'm wrong. I'll refrain from posting unnecessarily to your thread, but I'd like to discuss the thread's intended and actual impact via PM.

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY

I think we have been derailed enough. I have not taken you out of context. Off topic.

[sthira]

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY

Of course there's evidence for Christianity: HIV. According to yall ztians, God gives AIDS to people he doesn't like. But like Sarah Silverman reminds -- when god gives you AIDS, it's an opportunity to make lemon-AIDS.

[shadowhawk]

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY

Of course there's evidence for Christianity: HIV. According to yall ztians, God gives AIDS to people he doesn't like. But like Sarah Silverman reminds -- when god gives you AIDS, it's an opportunity to make lemon-AIDS.

Evidence God doesn't likke people with HIV. My church helps people with HIV. Do you? Do you think aids is evil?

[sthira]

.
Do you think aids is evil?

Off topic. The topic: IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.

Jerry Fallwell says: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

Thus, God's existence is proven.

[sthira]

Haha oh shiiit this is so messed up. But I quote:

"God proved His love on the Cross. When Christ hung, and bled, and died, it was God saying to the world, 'I love you.'

Billy Graham

[sthira]

Do you believe in Satan, Shadowhawk? Ooh! You should open a Satan thread! Or would that make you satanic? Hmmm... Anyway, this is what made me wonder if you're up in the devil:

"There are two great forces, God's force of good and the devil's force of evil, and I believe Satan is alive and he is working, and he is working harder than ever, and we have many mysteries that we don't understand."
Billy Graham

[sthira]

Deuteronomy 23:1:  "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Durn, god, I don't know about you, god.  But that shit just doesn't sound like a decent way for you to be behaving, dear god.  God?  Well, god or however we're supposed to address You.  Your Youness.  Your Highly High & All Alliness.  Uppidy Upness, I mean, gosh god we don't even know how You would like us to address Your Youness since You won't say.  Do You like our names?  Do you, You?

I believe in things larger than myself.  And I do believe those forces communicate directly with us.  What you call God, I call nature. And rather than god, I also just say the universe.  The universe is everything, man, I mean the universe never stops connecting to you inside and out.  You receive one continuous flow of natural energy and life provided to you by your parents and follow their ancestory back to the origins of the sweet universe: a gift from nature.  Plopped onto us is this gift, life, we're told: live, love, be happy, give, find peace and joy and unity...  

But really it's a fucking insult to intelligence that the god-chase expressed so awfully in this thread continues ad nauseum.  Let's kick god the hell out forever.  Bye-bye god, fare thee well, god, and do come back if you ever feel like helping to relieve any of the suffering of your creatures.  Meanwhile, we sinful and hated little humans will stick to science and technology to solve our problems and heal our wounds.

[johnross47]

Deuteronomy 23:1: "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Durn, god, I don't know about you, god. But that shit just doesn't sound like a decent way for you to be behaving, dear god. God? Well, god or however we're supposed to address You. Your Youness. Your Highly High & All Alliness. Uppidy Upness, I mean, gosh god we don't even know how You would like us to address Your Youness since You won't say. Do You like our names? Do you, You?

I believe in things larger than myself. And I do believe those forces communicate directly with us. What you call God, I call nature. And rather than god, I also just say the universe. The universe is everything, man, I mean the universe never stops connecting to you inside and out. You receive one continuous flow of natural energy and life provided to you by your parents and follow their ancestory back to the origins of the sweet universe: a gift from nature. Plopped onto us is this gift, life, we're told: live, love, be happy, give, find peace and joy and unity...

But really it's a fucking insult to intelligence that the god-chase expressed so awfully in this thread continues ad nauseum. Let's kick god the hell out forever. Bye-bye god, fare thee well, god, and do come back if you ever feel like helping to relieve any of the suffering of your creatures. Meanwhile, we sinful and hated little humans will stick to science and technology to solve our problems and heal our wounds.

In a general sense I can go along with much of this. This topic is going nowhere. SH keeps posting more and more clips of preachers claiming to prove the existence of a god; they are all wrong; all these arguments have been shown to be wrong over and over; no serious non-theist thinkers give them any time or credence. Even Plantinga accepts that if you deny his first premise then his version of the ontological argument fails; I would say it fails for more reasons than that (as ignored by SH above) but it all goes nowhere. We have occasional looks at the origins of the universe; again SH ducks the questions; we all agree it appears to have a beginning but don't share his enthusiasm for the unsupported jump of faith needed to say, "therefore it was a god". You might argue for ever about the definition of god; (religious people usually conduct those arguments with guns and swords; they obviously don't have much faith in reasoning) but there's not much to go on except holy books written by people who couldn't and didn't have any evidence or understanding of the nature of the problem. I suppose that if you aim towards the currently floated hypothesis that the universe began with a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum, you might propose that the, potentially, infinite vacuum could have an intelligence of sorts, arising from structure within it that we can't see. This is, of course, pure hypothesis and more or less incapable of evidential examination, and there is absolutely no reason to imagine that such an intelligence resembles any of the gods devised so far, or that it would care a toss about what people do in bed or on Sunday. Our universe might be a simple accident to something that big, or a brief and temporary amusement; a throwing of celestial mechanical dice to see what happens. Whatever, it's a long way from christianity.

[shadowhawk]

sthira: Of course there's evidence for Christianity: HIV. According to yall ztians, God gives AIDS to people he doesn't like. But like Sarah Silverman reminds -- when god gives you AIDS, it's an opportunity to make lemon-AIDS.

Evidence God doesn't like people with HIV. My church helps people with HIV. Do you? Do you think aids is evil?

Evil is not off topic and we already have discussed it as evidence for the existence of
God. Apparently you want a one way discussion because you simply are talking to yourself and so there is little to talk about. No evidence God does not love homosexuals. Why wont you answer my response?

sthira: Jerry Fallwell says: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

Thus, God's existence is proven.

Well so Jerry Fallwell allegedly said this. It is not evidence for God and simply your typical ridicule. Want to talk about it or play games. YOU MADE SIX NON RESPONSE POSTS IN A ROW.

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 January 2014 - 07:27 PM.

[shadowhawk]

johnross 47: In a general sense I can go along with much of this. This topic is going nowhere. SH keeps posting more and more clips of preachers claiming to prove the existence of a god; they are all wrong; all these arguments have been shown to be wrong over and over; no serious non-theist thinkers give them any time or credence. Even Plantinga accepts that if you deny his first premise then his version of the ontological argument fails;
ShadowHawk SH:
SH: First, you have not demonstrated them to be wrong. This is also a logical fallacy. I will show you soon what you actually contributed to proving them wrong http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

Second, Plantinga is right, if premise 1 of the ontological argument fails, the argument fails. You have not shown it to fail. “1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.”

I would say it fails for more reasons than that (as ignored by SH above) but it all goes nowhere.
SH: Nonsense read the argument. http://www.longecity...330#entry636990

We have occasional looks at the origins of the universe; again SH ducks the questions; SH: nonsense http://www.longecity...360#entry638337 we all agree it appears to have a beginning but don't share his enthusiasm for the unsupported jump of faith needed to say, "therefore it was a god". You might argue for ever about the definition of god; (religious people usually conduct those arguments with guns and swords; they obviously don't have much faith in reasoning) but there's not much to go on except holy books written by people who couldn't and didn't have any evidence or understanding of the nature of the problem.
SH: nonsense, we have argued these points throughout. http://www.longecity...360#entry638337
I suppose that if you aim towards the currently floated hypothesis that the universe began with a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum, you might propose that the, potentially, infinite vacuum could have an intelligence of sorts, arising from structure within it that we can't see. This is, of course, pure hypothesis and more or less incapable of evidential examination, and there is absolutely no reason to imagine that such an intelligence resembles any of the gods devised so far, or that it would care a toss about what people do in bed or on Sunday. Our universe might be a simple accident to something that big, or a brief and temporary amusement; a throwing of celestial mechanical dice to see what happens. Whatever, it's a long way from christianity.

SH: we have not argued for anything but the existence of God. Not which God. We will do that soon. http://www.longecity...360#entry638337