4
   

A Mystical Experience with the Son of God [Jesus Christ]

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 02:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I think you're just guessing about that too, Frank.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 02:32 pm
@neologist,

Yeah, Neo...you are right...it is a guess on my part. Perhaps I stated it with too much certainly.

But that has to do with my thinking Edgar to be a bright person...and no bright person would ever mistake my posts for those of a deist.


Quote:
I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;
I do not know if there are no gods;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


There is no deism in that.

I simply do not know...and I refuse to guess because the evidence is too ambiguous.

That does not stop Edgar from using the evidence to assert there are no gods...or you from using the evidence to assert there is a GOD.

You both would do much better to acknowledge you do not know...and the evidence truly does not lead in one direction or the other.


0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 02:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Source?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 02:58 pm
@mesquite,
mesquite wrote:

Source?


Lots of dispute...but it seems to narrow down to tributaries in Tanzania, Uganda, or Rwanda. Not enough info for me to make a guess.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 03:04 pm
@mesquite,
I think he is referring to the sniveling that goes on here:
http://able2know.org/topic/141106-1

It breaks my heart to think I have contributed to their pain. . .. .
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 03:11 pm
Oh...he was not talking about de Nile. (I didn't think so...I was just being cute, because his one word response was so cute.)

Anyway...yeah...a whole bunch of comments in that particular thread suggested that nobody but atheists should be participating...

...BECAUSE ATHEISTS DO NOT GO INTO RELIGIOUS THREADS AND START BOTHERING THEM.

Now, granted, not all atheists feel this way...and even the atheist who do did not say that EVERY atheist stays away.

But they do caterwaul and bemoan the comments of non-atheists in what they refer to as “atheist threads.”

Read the comments in the thread Neo linked, Mesquite. You’ll see.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 03:15 pm
@FBM,
What?
Extra large bold is not good enough?
You had to look for something louder?

I had you pegged for smarter . ... .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 04:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sometimes we are a one two punch, Frank.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 06:04 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

I hate to say this, but you and Patches have one galling trait in common:
The reliance on offsite links and questionable research of others.

Surely, you must have learned something from these research jaunts. Put it in your own words and cite their relevant statistics. I've found that, when you do that, you find the flaws you may not have noticed in a cut and past reading.


It would be more productive, I think, to address the specific ideas that I convey, rather than my chosen manner of conveying them. Not everyone shares your phobia of offsite links.
Patches
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 07:14 pm
This one is for my kitty cat Patches who recently past on.

0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 07:28 pm
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 10:03 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
It would be more productive, I think, to address the specific ideas that I convey, rather than my chosen manner of conveying them. Not everyone shares your phobia of offsite links.
Generally, you go after Patches with straw men. If I torch the straw men, Patches will think I defend him. And I must say his spurious doctrine is hugely more destructive to the truth than are your sophomoric straw men.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 07:18 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
It would be more productive, I think, to address the specific ideas that I convey, rather than my chosen manner of conveying them. Not everyone shares your phobia of offsite links.
Generally, you go after Patches with straw men. If I torch the straw men, Patches will think I defend him. And I must say his spurious doctrine is hugely more destructive to the truth than are your sophomoric straw men.


Well, I may slip up every now and again, but it may be less often than you think. I was hoping you'd be more specific and point out one or more particular instances.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Quote:
Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


Can you point out a specific intance in which I've taken a caricature of Patches' and then attacked it as if it were Patches' original position? For example, I point out the institutionalized pedophilia enabling that goes on in his chosen denomination. BUT, I also point out that I don't think Patches himself endorses either pedophilia or the enabling that goes on. Saying that he passively supports it by paying tithes, etc, is an accurate description of the situation as far as I can see.

Now, when I post an image that points out an embarrassing aspect of his faith, that's not a straw man unless it's a caricature that I present as if it were Patches' position. I may slip up from time to time, but I tend to parse terms pretty closely when I'm on my game. If you read very carefully and literally, you might see that I'm much less guilty of straw man fallacies than you may be thinking.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 07:57 am
@neologist,
For example, when I post something like this:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/11218779_925744230780844_1245965838247165285_n.jpg

I'm in no way implying that Patches is a rapist or condones rape. That's not a straw man. That's just a general observation on the illogic of the faith in general.

Incidentally, I don't choose the size of either the image or the font that it uses.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 08:13 am
@FBM,
Well, that particular image is a straw man in that, among other things, it specifies omniscience, which has the connotation that God must know all things by necessity. That would be incorrect.

I could go on, but Patches probably would have no idea what we were talking about.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 08:19 am
@neologist,
But Patches' version of god is omniscient.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 10:01 am
@FBM,
That's where the doctrines of predestination and reprobation come from.
To Patches, it would be like us talking advanced algebra.
0 Replies
 
Patches
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 10:19 am
SHE SAW JESUS!

0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 10:34 am
@FBM,
See what I mean?
Patches
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2015 10:50 am
@neologist,
Did you notice that in my testimony I bear witness to all three of the Holy Trinity as separate persons? I am an actual witness to the Trinity and not just someone trying to interpret it through scripture such as yourself.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 02:12:54