Which Religion is the One True Religion?

timberlandko wrote:

None so blind as thjose who will not see. Bringing a confirmed religionist, particularly an Abrahamic, to reason is less likely than bringing a long-term junkie to a life of responsibility and abstinence from intoxicants.

Your analogy is flawed... God exhorts us to not follow our addictions but to follow truth.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

0 Replies

"...to follow truth." ROTFLMAO They must continually play brain gymnastics to really believe what they say, and they still can't see how logic and facts has no place in their belief system. Quite an amazing feat to even mention "truth."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"...to follow truth." ROTFLMAO They must continually play brain gymnastics to really believe what they say, and they still can't see how logic and facts has no place in their belief system. Quite an amazing feat to even mention "truth."

Please define: ROTFLMAO ??

is this a lottery number? Smile

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
"...to follow truth." ROTFLMAO They must continually play brain gymnastics to really believe what they say, and they still can't see how logic and facts has no place in their belief system. Quite an amazing feat to even mention "truth."

Please define: ROTFLMAO ??

is this a lottery number?

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/rofl.gif

0 Replies

In simple English, that's Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A(nything you want to think "A" stands for) Off. It means, "Why, thank you ever so much for the wonderful entertainment - how very thoughtful of you".

0 Replies

Ok, thanks for the old english translation... Smile

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

No I do not....because in order to do that, I would have to pretend to know stuff I simply do not know. You religious folks apparently have no trouble doing all that pretending.

Frank,

Why do you assume that just because you lack knowledge of something that others lack it too ?

Isn't it possible for someone to know or understand something that you do not?

Or have you got the market cornered on knowledge and understanding ?

0 Replies

You might have a point there, real life

Were it not for the crushing inconvenience of the total lack of empirical, academically valid evidence supportive of your central proposition. Frank's point, while certainly burdened by some imprecision, suffers far less inconvenience from the available, documented, valid, corroborated evidence.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

You might have a point there, real life

Were it not for the crushing inconvenience of the total lack of empirical, academically valid evidence supportive of your central proposition. Frank's point, while certainly burdened by some imprecision, suffers far less inconvenience from the available, documented, valid, corroborated evidence.

Hi Timber,

Long time.

You crack me up, I have to say.

You want to tell me that Frank, while arguing for the non existence of something (knowledge or understanding on the part of the theist), is "burdened by some imprecision".

Good one. His argument from silence is DOA.

Go ahead and help him fine tune his argument, Timber. Use your own omniscience to prove the absence of God, the lack of any possible knowledge of God and the complete impossibility of anyone knowing something you don't know.

Try to resuscitate the Sacred Cow of the Agnostics from it's imprecise state. No, don't bother. Unknowability is dead.

---------------------------------

Your own circular arguments along the lines of "Only empirical knowledge exists. God cannot be known empirically therefore God does not exist. " are really tired.

Your assumption that only first hand empirical knowledge exists is too ridiculous to let stand. How do we know history? Not from being there (empirically), but primarily from the testimony of those who were there.

This type of knowledge is also valid in a court of law, but apparently not with you.

If someone has stated that they experienced something, saw something, heard something, then you must prove that they were not in the place they said they were, etc to disprove them. Otherwise their testimony can be admitted as valid in a court of law.

It is not empirical in the sense that you may verify it scientifically, or with your senses. But it is valid nonetheless.

Supporting empirical evidence may or may not be present to help bolster the testimony of an eyewitness. But his testimony is not considered invalid without it.

Looks like you've got some imprecision of your own to worry about, my friend.

0 Replies

I believe you should look to your own imprecision, real life - you ascribe to others that which they have not claimed. Counter the arguments as they are presented, not as you prefer to characterize them.

For instance, neither Frank nor I say "There is no God", we say there is no forensically valid, scientifically derived, independently corroborated, logically developed evidence that there is, and we say the same goes for the argument there isn't. Faith, Belief, are not knowledge, and passion is not evidence. Show me the evidence, either way. I'm willing to learn, to be taught. Just give me something that makes sense. Anecdotes, aphorisms, myths, and fairytales don't cut it. What else have you got?

Oh and BTW - you have a very imprecise vision of what is admissable evidence under law and of what constitutes challenge to testimony. If ever pressed in a legal matter, you would be well advisded to seek expert counsel as opposed to undertaking to represent yourself before the bench.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

No I do not....because in order to do that, I would have to pretend to know stuff I simply do not know. You religious folks apparently have no trouble doing all that pretending.

Frank,

Why do you assume that just because you lack knowledge of something that others lack it too ?

Isn't it possible for someone to know or understand something that you do not?

Or have you got the market cornered on knowledge and understanding ?

Oh Life...once you start down this path of creating straw men...it is a hard thing to stop.

You know goddam well I am not suggesting any of that at all. In fact, the very next thing I said in that posting was:

"I do not know if there is a God...I do not know if there are no gods....I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

I suspect neither do you....but I also suspect you are in such terror of the barbaric cartoon god of the Bible that you cannot acknowledge that. "

That stuff is a guess. I identify it as a guess. Earlier, Beth asked me that very point....and I answered her question without equivocation.

Try for the truth, Life. Try thinking. You won't hurt yourself.

0 Replies

Oh...and by the way, Life...if you are suggesting that myk guess is wrong...that you KNOW there is a God...

....perhaps you will entertain the rest of us by telling us howl you know!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oh...and by the way, Life...if you are suggesting that myk guess is wrong...that you KNOW there is a God...

....perhaps you will entertain the rest of us by telling us howl you know!

Interesting play on words, Frank.

But, I think you most likely don't give a hoot. Laughing

Or a holler.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Oh...and by the way, Life...if you are suggesting that myk guess is wrong...that you KNOW there is a God...

....perhaps you will entertain the rest of us by telling us howl you know!
Interesting play on words, Frank.

But, I think you most likely don't give a hoot.

Or a holler.

Whatever!

0 Replies

And guess who's playing with words? It isn't Frank.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And guess who's playing with words? It isn't Frank.

Yeah, but I can't help myself! Laughing

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I believe you should look to your own imprecision, real life - you ascribe to others that which they have not claimed. Counter the arguments as they are presented, not as you prefer to characterize them.

For instance, neither Frank nor I say "There is no God", we say there is no forensically valid, scientifically derived, independently corroborated, logically developed evidence that there is, and we say the same goes for the argument there isn't. Faith, Belief, are not knowledge, and passion is not evidence. Show me the evidence, either way. I'm willing to learn, to be taught. Just give me something that makes sense. Anecdotes, aphorisms, myths, and fairytales don't cut it. What else have you got?

Oh and BTW - you have a very imprecise vision of what is admissable evidence under law and of what constitutes challenge to testimony. If ever pressed in a legal matter, you would be well advisded to seek expert counsel as opposed to undertaking to represent yourself before the bench.

Creation equals existence... isn't that logical?

Or would you say we don't exist? So are you saying that existence requires no action to bring it about? That is not very "logical".

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
I believe you should look to your own imprecision, real life - you ascribe to others that which they have not claimed. Counter the arguments as they are presented, not as you prefer to characterize them.

For instance, neither Frank nor I say "There is no God", we say there is no forensically valid, scientifically derived, independently corroborated, logically developed evidence that there is, and we say the same goes for the argument there isn't. Faith, Belief, are not knowledge, and passion is not evidence. Show me the evidence, either way. I'm willing to learn, to be taught. Just give me something that makes sense. Anecdotes, aphorisms, myths, and fairytales don't cut it. What else have you got?

Oh and BTW - you have a very imprecise vision of what is admissable evidence under law and of what constitutes challenge to testimony. If ever pressed in a legal matter, you would be well advisded to seek expert counsel as opposed to undertaking to represent yourself before the bench.

Creation equals existence... isn't that logical?

No....not even a little.

If you want arbitrarily to call existence a "creation" so that you can posit a "creator"...do so. But don't pretend that it is logical by any stretch of the imagination.

It is an absolutely self-serving way of looking at things.

Your god, by the way, supposedly exists....but had no creator.

So you already acknowledge that a creator is not necessary for existence.

Quote:

Or would you say we don't exist? So are you saying that existence requires no action to bring it about?

There is absolutely nothing to require existence to have been "brought about." You see that....since you have a god that exists....but was not "brought about."

What is your problem?

Quote:

That is not very "logical".

What you are saying is not very logical.

0 Replies

"Yeah, but I can't help myself!"

I've noticed. Wink

0 Replies

Rex, you present as rebuttal, a Non Causa Pro Causa logical fallacy, spefically that of Petitio Principii, using invalid argument by way of attempt to bolster your presentation and defense of your central proposition, a presentation and defense which falls to the same fallacy. If what you have brought to this discussion so far were graded classwork in forensics or logic, your academicstanding would be critically endangered; you've earned yourself a straight "F" for every meeting of the class. Fortunately for you that isn't the case. There is value in the entertainment you so dependably provide in this discussion.

On the other hand, that pretty mucj is the point; you so far have done neither yourself nor your central proposition any service whatsoever, but rather have exposed both to ridicule. While your sincerity is unquestionable, your presentation is fatally flawed; forensically, logically, it fails from the outset.

Now, mind you, I don't say this of you, or of your proposition, but merely criticize your presentation and defense of that proposition.

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know