Perhaps we will have to start a thread and if Daryl (or anyone else for that matter) wants to post on it he can.

So you are denying reason and reality yet again? Are you really so very unwilling to allow objectivity, and meaning that you will simply stipulate as you have done, that soundness and validity are mere opinions and not objectively determined?

Come one, join us on the only possible common ground we can have: REALITY.

I provided several links so that you might save face but allowing that there is indeed something beyond you as a person, something which is not purely subjective and meaningless, and your response here is to simply deny that soundness is validity plus all true premises and that validity is the necessitation of a true conclusion by the premises.. Notice how nothing in those statements relies upon mere opinion or faith, but rather upon the nature of soundness and validity themselves.

[quote] Perception? If I mistake the tone and meaning of your statements who is right?[/quote]

You cannot ever know my 8intentions so necessarily you cannot be correct in your profoundly arrogance declarations that my intentions are other than what they in fact are. As to who knows my intentions, well that is quite easy, I DO. Just as you know your intentions, I know my own. And here we are back again at the basic respect issue. Since you refuse to allow that others are inherently valuable themselves, and that you are not infinitely more valuable than they, you stipulate that your opinion of the mental states of others is correct when in direct contradiction with reality.

As for the meaning of the statements, one need only read the words. I have not been ambiguous.

You are grossly in error in your assertion that “our perception colors everything” as the previous examples conclusively and OBJECTIVELY prove. This is not mere opinion or mere pereception it is demonstrable (and in fact demonstrated) fact.

[quote post="208"]Yes, I can make sense of it, thanks for asking ;> Denying reality, no. Doubting my perceptions, yes – always if I can help it. The issue of perception with soundness, validity, etc.. is exactly where one finds soundness, validity, etc. Unless, of course, one happens to be right.[/quote]

Doubting perceptions can be just as dangerous as taking every perception as fact.
Something our brains does constantly is check our perceptions with reality and fill in the gaps. This is how we “See” color in our perefrial visions, and how we can check the difference between what we percieve and what is true. Almost every human on Earth has the ability to find truth.
You are probably sure that you are not only infront of a computer, but also that there are other people interacting with you…. even though all you see is text. Using reason you can decide what is real.

Now you are asserting that the conflict in Iraq is being fought of religious purposes? Please explain.

Perception? If I mistake the tone and meaning of your statements who is right? What if you mistake mine? What if you and 1,000 others mistake mine? Who is right? Did I say what I meant or what you heard?

Our perception colors everything – period.

I will contend that seeing no real value in the satanic bible COULD prevent knowledge. Just as I said about the bible. I will not contend that anything tells us the truth and is thus inherently valuable though. That is simply not what I said.

I’m not sure what contradictions you’re talking about.

“The point is that we must always remain aware of our perceptive abilities and limitations – especially as they apply to logic, scientific experiments, and understanding the spoken/written words of another.

Can you or anyone makes sense of this? You seem to be denying all of reality by dismissing it as mere perception. Where is the issue of perception with soundness? What of validity? What of the law of non-contradiction? Sorry but this is simply a non-starter for your claims/position.”

Yes, I can make sense of it, thanks for asking ;> Denying reality, no. Doubting my perceptions, yes – always if I can help it. The issue of perception with soundness, validity, etc.. is exactly where one finds soundness, validity, etc. Unless, of course, one happens to be right.

By this reasoning we can put literally anything at all in the place holder of “bible” and it must be true (by decree of course). Will you contend that necessarily the satanic bible tells us the truth and is thus inherently valuable? What of the texts I have cited and suggested?

If you allow either of these, then you have a contradiction between the messages (one a contrary illusion, the other contrary because it describes reality). How then do you address these contradictions?

Or do you allow all and deny the law of non-contradiction? If so, again how do you handle the contradiction between the denial of the law of non-contradiction and reality?

[quote] If we are to demand supported arguments from others we must be willing to support ours in a clear and understandable manner.[/quote]

So why then given you have been given this respect, you completely refuse to provide any support for any of your claims, much less reasoned support?

It is worth noting that if you are confused by any of the issues raised, or by the citations offered, the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for that confusion lay upon your own shoulders (just as it would lay upon mine were I confused by something clear and well stated by another), not upon those with whom you engage. The fallacies cited, the most basic elements of reason such as validity and soundness, which you have denied, are not confusing nor complicated notions, as is evidenced by the thousands of freshman college students (and many younger than this) who pass intro to logic courses every single semester.

[quote] Statements to the effect that Christ’s teaching “take away any sense of responsibility, reason, or self-worth” are offered with no supporting evidence/argument and, to me appear to be unsupportable. [/quote]

Only when you combine this with the axiomatic assumptions and the denials of reason which you have stipulated must be true. Set those aside, and simply face the issues as they have actually be raised, within the context of reason and reality, and there is no reason to claim that they have not already been supported, much less are unsupportable in principle.

For more information on the clear and undeniable (rational undeniablity of course) fact that all responsibility lay in the hands of this “god” in the scheme, simply look to the notions of omniscience, omnipotence, and creation. We need not even address the fourth crucial element of the judeo-xn god, that of omnibenevolence. The all knowing, all powerful creator of all necessarily chose to create this world, where it knew all that would ever happen. That act of creation causes all responsibility to lay squarely upon the shoulders of that deity. And no, so called “free will” under this god scheme does not even begin to salvage the failed notion, for this supposedly all powerful deity could create a world in which there was the illusion of free will but could not actully not know what the actions would be in every single instance. Since it is supposedly the creator of all, it must necessarily be responsible for every single decision since at every decision there is another possible world that this god could have created, but deliberately chose not to create. Therein necessarily lay sole responsibility.

[quote] The point is that we must always remain aware of our perceptive abilities and limitations – especially as they apply to logic, scientific experiments, and understanding the spoken/written words of another.[/quote]

Can you or anyone makes sense of this? You seem to be denying all of reality by dismissing it as mere perception. Where is the issue of perception with soundness? What of validity? What of the law of non-contradiction? Sorry but this is simply a non-starter for your claims/position.

ntsm,

[quote] I am sad that yuo do not believe what i believe in. I hope some day you come to know the Jesus i know and you allow him to be Lord of your life.
[/quote]

You do realize that this is identical to my wishing that you were to come to appreciate the “enlightenment” of torture, rape, child molestation, etc. were I to be one who would engage in that sort of thing, right? Xnty denies the self, which is of course the first step to allowing literally anything, and it embraces slavery, rape, murder, and worse as core elements of it. So no thank you, rather than share your religion, I prefer to be a good, caring, decent, and reasonable person instead. I do wish some experience with those traits upon you however, as offensive as they might be to you in the same manner as wishing that I were to come to embrace torture, rape, etc. is to me.

[quote] It is sad that we spend so much time in here arguing or discussing something that neither side wants to budge on, while hundreds of thousands of children, men and women are being slaughtered in other countries where the word of God is taught very little.[/quote]

Such as Iraq? Where the christians and those trying to spread xn values have slaughtered countless hundreds of thousands in the name of their god, under the flag of the US? Christians have perhaps the worst record on earth for the use of such methods upon those who do not choose to embrace such evil notions. Yes that is sad, but let us not pretend that the “word of *god” would fix it when in fact it is the word of “god” that is right there in the middle of it.

[quote]
There are people in this world dieing to hear the word of God because it offers something that this insane amount of information can’t offer which is HOPE. This life without the belief of something bigger than ourselves leads to a hopeless cold ending.[/quote]

So you falsely believe, but were you to stop hating all that is, and live life you might just discover how wonderful life actually is, and how much hope, especially realized hope (something no religion, especially xnty can ever actually provide) there is in life. Existing for some future life merely denies you the current one in exchange for nothing at all, in other words for no hope at all. Illusions are not real, and illusory hope is infinitely worse than real hope, and worse yet than the realized hope that actually taking responsibility for your own life grants to you.

It is impossible for your notion of “god” to bless anyone, much less continue to bless anyone for it is am impossible notion which quite simply does not exist. Take responsibility for your own life, and allow that others are actually responsible for their own, including the good in their lives. While xns like to blame individuals for what the xns deem evil in the lives of others, they never allow that those same individals are responsible for the good. Clearly this is absurd.

The value being truth I assume. Then we agree. There is no need for an allknowing diety to come to know truth.

If that’s wrong, please let me know.

Please understand, I’m not talking about the teacher or God. I’m talking about the value of the teachings, regardless of source! But, I’m not talking about the obvious moral teachings (kindness, forgiveness, etc…) those are small and come from a more profound teaching. One that is found in Buddhism and many other places.

[quote post="208"]CORRECT.
Ask the same thing about God and you usually get the same answers.[/quote]

Yes, most believers are intellectually lazy. I don’t deny that at all. Will we only hold ourselves to that same standard?

CORRECT.
Ask the same thing about God and you usually get the same answers.

1. We don’t know everything… therefore GOD. (Shameless… the world used to be flat?)

2. Lots of people believe in God. (shameless… see 1.)

My desire to see those posts supported is still strong. It does our understanding of reality no good for anybody to put claims forward as true without a willingness to support them in some way.

But, I follow the teachings of Christ, not of the church. I simply think they don’t understand what is being talked about when the word God is thrown around. But, I do believe Jesus understood it very well.

[quote post="208"]Statements to the effect that Christ’s teaching “take away any sense of responsibility, reason, or self-worth” are offered with no supporting evidence/argument and, to me appear to be unsupportable.[/quote]

I’m of the opinnion that someone could probably find a teaching of Jesus’ that isn’t morally founded. However, we wouldn’t even know if he actually taught that. Contrary to what many people believe, Christianity isn’t the worship or the style of living under what some man who may have existed, may have taught. Christianity has proven to be inherently evil (sounds harsh I know) in principle because the Judeo Christian God who is all powerful and all knowing, either makes horrible people, makes people do horrible things, murders, tortures ect.

This does not make a Christian person a bad person. However the religion itself, for every person who believes and does as someone says “God said is right”, grows more powerful. IMO you’re aren’t Christian. As TX has already explained, you live contrary TO Christianity, and most likely live your life as a moral person.

There is no need for religion to do that.

Thank you for you time on this post. I am sorry not much was accomplished if anything other than arguing pointlessly. You and Daryl are having a decent conversation and i will stay out. I am sad that yuo do not believe what i believe in. I hope some day you come to know the Jesus i know and you allow him to be Lord of your life.

This is off topic but important.

It is sad that we spend so much time in here arguing or discussing something that neither side wants to budge on, while hundreds of thousands of children, men and women are being slaughtered in other countries where the word of God is taught very little. We have too much information in this country and so often it makes us feel superior to others.

There are people in this world dieing to hear the word of God because it offers something that this insane amount of information can’t offer which is HOPE. This life without the belief of something bigger than ourselves leads to a hopeless cold ending.

May God continue to bless everyone in this discussion.

I wish to extend my apology for any and all personal attacks and insults I have made. I have come to believe that you mean nothing personal at all by your posting style. That said, I am not sure that the style you choose will prove effective but, it is not my decision to make.

Relying on the Bible will prevent knowledge just as seeing no real value in it could. I must stand by my initial assessment that the claims I have called to question seem unsupported in much the same way that a claim for the existence of a diety is.

If we are to demand supported arguments from others we must be willing to support ours in a clear and understandable manner.

Statements to the effect that Christ’s teaching “take away any sense of responsibility, reason, or self-worth” are offered with no supporting evidence/argument and, to me appear to be unsupportable. That said, if we could talk about many of the main-line denominations and how they choose to translate the teaching we could possibly come to some agreement on that same point.

Please understand that the whole of my posts have never been intended to say we should place perception ahead of anything. The point is that we must always remain aware of our perceptive abilities and limitations – especially as they apply to logic, scientific experiments, and understanding the spoken/written words of another.

My beliefs? Nope, no deity. At least not exactly. But, a deity may be about the easiest way to explain or try to understand it. Definately not the most intellectually honest but, the easiest none the less.

As for pointing to the existence of something, if you are asserting that they prove, or even lend actual evidence to some deity, then of course those claims are patently false and not merely unsupported but unsupportable. Imagine if I wrote a nifty story about a blue monkey that bestows magical powers on people using pixie dust. Even if I could convince millions of people to believe it (and take away any sense of responsibility, reason, or self-worth in the process, as well as seize enormous wealth and power doing so) it would still be wholly a work of fiction which could never actually count as evidence for the existence of any such magical blue monkey.

This counter-example serves to show why it is that in fact the xn bible is also no source of evidence for the existence of the mythical/magical beings discussed within it.

You are correct that we got off on the wrong foot, as your initial response to me was nothing short of venomous personal attacks and insults, however that fact changes nothing of the refutations offered and counter-examples cited.

In looking at the blog you seem to be about the most level headed, well studied person on there. There is no coincidence that the teachings attributed to Jesus are very Buddhist like.

TXStorm,

I agree, the God as most of Xianity talks about It doesn’t exist. But, I disagree with the notion that the books of the Bible don’t point toward something that does exist. I disagree with the notion that the teachings attributed to Jesus don’t point toward something very real.

In short, my problem with the statements I have pointed out is that they remove any possible value from those books and teachings. That I believe to be a mistake.

No offense taken. In fact, I appreciate your voice in this matter. To be honest TX and I got off on a bad foot and I’m trying calm things down.

I’m not even discussing Xianity right now – not exactly anyway. I’m discussing statements like the following.

I did however ask to be shown where these specific questions have been answered. Could you please provide me with the location of the answers. Here are the questions again.

1. I asked him to provide support for the following statements:

[quote post="208"]You are denying this life, denying your very self in favor of faith (mindlessness) such that you cannot live this life. So yes you have chosen to lose everything for nothing. [/quote]

2. I asked that he prove that understanding and accepting one’s own responsibility is prevented through faith as he stated in the quote below.
[quote post="208"]I can enjoy this life, appreciate this life, understand and accept my own responsibility (also prevented if one chooses faith) for my actions and choices.[/quote]

3. I asked him to provide an argument for this.
[quote post="208"] I can only suggest that you read of your religion and recall that “worldly pleasures” (and in fact all pleasure) is condemned by the religion (assuming you actually believe and accept all of it, which if you do not then it is not really your religion is it? Taking physical pleasure in the world that is, is sinful (anti-god/anti-faith/anti-xnty).[/quote]

It is easy to make statements but more difficult to support them. All I’m asking for is a little support. I cannot find where He has supported these statements. Who knows, maybe you and TX can convert me but not without support.

Of course your questions have been answered.
Be careful not to take offense, it is not you who are under attack here, but Xianity, and it’s under attack by Truth.
You should really go to the forum as suggested a few times.

I agree that truth is not a popularity contest. However, since we are both looking at the same post, reality and evidence and disagreeing on what we see I thought a few more eyes, ears and brains might help. After all, every fact should come from results and observations that can be repeatedly gotten by any number of people.

I have never claimed to know truth but have only interpreted what has been put before me. As I interpret these posts I still don’t find answers to those questions. However, I am willing to admit that, in truth, the answers may be there and I could have missed them. I’m just asking someone to show me where.

Asking for the evidence is not to much to ask is it? Besides, I would have to guess that, if it were a popularity contest, you would probably win here.

In fairness and civility I make this offer.

TXStorm asserts that the questions I have raised in my post on Feb 8th at 8:55 concerning his use of language and offered as proof for my so-called “baseless accusations” about the basis of his beliefs and arguments have been answered. He and I are in obvious disagreement over this. Could someone else please say if you believe these questions to have been answered and, if you do, could you please show me where.

Now, since I believe you have avoided these questions and you assert that you have answered them let us see if others feel these questions have been addressed.

Please direct me to where on the forum this discussion should be continued.

You did not hurt my feelings, I stated the objective fact that your post was naught but a personal attack with a complete avoidance of the issues. This does not make me a victim, nor playing a victim, so this particular dismissal tactic also fails. Why not address the actual issues instead?

As for the people screwing up and one confused xn misleading others, this is rather presumptuous of you to assume that I (or anyone else who is able and willing to employ reason) is simply mislead by one “confused xn.” Why not rationally consider the issues? Why not address the citations and refutations offered? Why must anyone who has dared to familiarize themselves with reason as well as with xnty, be “mislead by one xn” rather than actually reasonable and able to understand the actual nature of xnty?

As for arguing what the word “truth” means, I asked since your argument/claims rely upon the use of the fallacy of equivocation, where “truth” does not mean truth (that is the correspondence to reality) but rather it means seemingly nothing more than “I really believe this” which is certainly insufficient to support the claims made and conclusions reached. The question was simply one of clarification so that confusion could be alleviated and honest discussion could move forward.

As for what I believe, in, this too is a red herring with no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Even if I were an xn who happened to agree with your conclusions, the arguments would still be fatally flawed, and the claims patently and objectively false.

What I do believe in is honesty, respect for others, and of course reality. All of these are of course at odds with xnty, which is why we have responses such as your accusations that anyone who dares to appreciate these things must be “full of anger” “hateful” and “anti-god.”

Would you consider answering the questions asked, such as how making false accusations, false claims, and personal attacks are in line with what you are calling “honesty and truth?”

one last thing. i stated i was not here to argue truth with you. I meant i am not here to argue what the word “truth” means.

thank you.

thank you for you honesty in the way you feel. I had no idea that i offended you and that was not my intent at all! The truth i brought is the truth i have come to believe through personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It may not be what you consider truth but it’s not my concern to argue truth with you.

I have a question. This is a real question and i am not trying to be rude. What do you believe in?

You said –
“Since your entire post was nothing but an attack on me as a person, completely avoiding the issues raised, is it safe to assume that you have nothing of substance to offer, or at least nothing to offer which is honest, civil, and reasoned?”

I was not trying to attack you as a person. I have nothing against you. I apologize if i hurt your feelings.

In closing i have to say, you really know how to play the victim. The only reason i come on this site is to possibly clear up what other supposed christians have done. I only try and tell people who do not believe that there are always going to be people who screw up and mislead others. But I would never want what 1 confused christian ruin someones whole view of Jesus.

Thank you for this discussion.

Quite the opposite is true. Recall that where I address errors in the arguments presented, citing specific claims and specific fallacies, you pretend that I am makeing personal attacks against you, that because I am willing to acknowledge errors of reason I am full of hatred, that I am angry, etc. You have not taken the words at what they mean, but rather simply reacted emotionally to the very notion that someone might now bow down to your attempts at bullying, nothing more.

[quote] Please address those questions if you will. As I hold them out as evidence for my “baseless claims”.
[/quote]

All of your questions have been addressed fully, there is no reason to try to continue this deception. As for evidence, we both know full well that nothing whatsoever has been offered thus far to support any of your claims. If you have evidence you would surely have offered it, but the record clearly indicated a wholesale absence of evidence (recall that evidence points to the conclusion, and not to another and it is VERIFIABLE). You get no traction at all with the repetition of these false claims.

The necessitation of the assumption of omniscience in your arguments is evidenced by your repeated stipulation that you know my life, my experiences, my knowledge, my intentions, and my mental states infinitely better than I could possibly know them. Further evidence is your stipulation of private unprovable “knowledge” of how the world *really* is. Furthermore it is supported by every instance where your claims and reality are in conflict and you respond by simply denying reality.

Your questions have been wholly addressed, though you are not willing to offer that most basic level of respect to others (further evidence of your presumed omniscience and superiority, as well as the profound lack of respect for others).

All one needs to defeat your claims that you have offered evidence is point to this blog and allow the record to stand for itself. You have not offered any evidence whatsoever, only the repeated claims that you have offered evidence without even a single citation of any instance of offering any evidence. If you had any, surely you would have provided it by now.

I have suggested it several times before, and I suggest it here again: I believe that this would be better placed on the forum which Pedro created for exactly this sort of exchange (well actually for fruitful ones where the other is also willing to engage honestly, civilly, and intellectually), rather than waste space and continue your distraction tactics here on the blog.

ntsm,

Can you offer some new definition of the word “truth” that makes your claim true? Truth actually refers to correspondence to reality, whereas your claims fail to correspond to the religion you cite, much less to reality.

Why continue with the ad hominems btw? What purpose do they serve? Do they make you feel better by trying to attribute emotional stances to simple statements of fact? Regardless they are of no positive value in any discussion, expecially given the false nature of the claims.

You quote me twice, neither of which are actual quotes or related to what was actually said. Is there a reason for such dishonesty? Why not simply take what has actually been said? How do you reconcile these personal attacks and dishonest accusations with your claim to have brought only “truth and love?”

Regardless, as you very well know I never so much as hinted that “Pedro is the key to life” rather I simply pointed you to a resource to save time in addressing issues already repeatedly addressed.

I cannot be against that which cannot exist, so that accusation too is false, as well as absurd. Your assumption that I have not read the xn bible is also false, and of course has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion but instead is simply yet another ad hominem. While I contend that this is another fine example of what xns consider “truth and honesty” given that it is false and insulting, as well as unreasonable, it can never serve you well in honest civil discussions.

Since your entire post was nothing but an attack on me as a person, completely avoiding the issues raised, is it safe to assume that you have nothing of substance to offer, or at least nothing to offer which is honest, civil, and reasoned?

it is interesting to me that you dislike christians / christianity so much and for some reason you have studied so hard to unravel it? I have only brought truth and love to this discussion yet you still try to rip it apart.

Maybe you have studied the bible more than i have because i have never seen where JESUS says “hate homosexuals” and “pedro is the key to life.” The way i see it is most atheists or those against God, only read 1/100th of a book and assume the ending. If you are not going to read the whole thing and or at least some new testament books then please don’t quote that you know anything about true crhistianity.

Actually, tis not the case. My case does not rest on said assumptions – which I never made. They rested on an observation of your writings, which I have to take to mean what they say. There were four statements that you made which I used as evidence for my thoughts/beliefs. Please address those questions if you will. As I hold them out as evidence for my “baseless claims”.

Omniscience is not required to have an understanding of another. The only way to defeat my position is to answer those questions.

I still do not see how you will defend them but, we could imply that “no evidence of a defense is evidence of no defense” but that would be pointless.