Pastor AIO:

What we know is Knowledge. Yes. It might derail this thread to go into it.

It would require looking into epistemology.

What we know is not necessarily what is! that is the matter.

Knowledge is not necessarily equal to truth.

could categorically say our knowledge is false?

Mr_Anony:
The point John Gray was trying to make was not that people cannot have a sense of right and wrong or that Christ is the only way for knowing right and wrong, what he was saying is that it doesn't logically follow to condemn religion yet hold onto all its values minus God. You may as well promote the religion since you support it's values anyway.

As for the highlighted,
If Christ is the only way to the true God, it follows that all other gods are false and only one exists.
If he nature of this true God is the basis for morality, then it follows that one cannot not be good without God.
If one cannot be good without God and Christ is the only way to Him, then it follows that Christ is the only way to morality.

unless, you say that the basis for morality is found outside the true God then you now have to tell us on what morality is based other than a perfect God.

John Gray recognizes this and that's and that's why he holds that morality is an illusion and he suggests that if secular humanism denies God, then it must not go on to talk about morality. In fact he calls Dawkins et al soft atheists. I find John Gray to be quite brutally honest.

What Michael Ramsden does is to show how morality is not an merely illusion but refers to something beyond us.

Probably Gray is nihilist and doesn't accept humanist understanding of morality as basic rules which a self conscious, right thinking man will instinctively think of. To credit morality as a sole property of religion is false.

davidylan:

That was Jepthah's vow... he wasnt forced into it. the bible is replete with direct commands not to engage in such - Deut 18:10, 2 Kings 21:6, Jer 7:31 e.t.c

If you bothered to read the story of Jephthah, it is very easy to note that what occured there was not a burnt offering as much as it was a sacrificing of his daughter to God as a temple nun for life.

Temple nun indeed.

Kay 17: could categorically say our knowledge is false?

Arguably all knowledge is False.

davidylan:

For someone who labels the christian faith as "stoopid" on this exact thread... shouldnt you hypocrite be taking your own advice first? I wont bother reading the rest of your piffle.

Like seriously Mr,
Do you get some kind of holy rock steel hard-on from being unneccessarily dramatic and talking tough?
Get over yourself Mr, you are not that bright to be acting like some 21st century Jesus Police that seeks to curse out anyone who dares to question the rationale of the christian faith.
Where did I expressly call the christian faith "stoopid" in my post?
That I said I find it incredibly stoopid for anyone to believe with certainty a book whose authors are at large does not neccessarily mean I am positing that the Christian faith is "stoopid" as you so literally put it.
My position is that any belief system that defiles logic and reason is "stoopid" regardless of the spiritual mysticism and conclusions reached through vague or ill-defined spiritual beliefs.
Just as I find any fanatical belief in portions of the bible that defiles common sense and logic as nonsense and "stoopid" if they are shielded from reason and logical scrutiny; Indoctrination is not truth.

davidylan:

So rather than put your faith on an unproven, unseen supernatural force... you choose to place it in an unproven theory that constantly gets revised at the whim of any scientist? Perfect.

Only a dishonest intellectual pretender will make such a crass statement like the pile of $hit you have up here.
You betray your own claims of being a scientist in whatever field.
What is your understanding of the word, "Theory?"
You seem to suggest that in the science world "theories" are sacrosanct, No?
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts-something that is so obviously lacking in creationist theories of God and a creator.
A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, It is a fact that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is also a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. Facts are sacrosanct, theories aint.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent depending on how much facts that supports them . They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility.
It is the lack of facts to support your god theory that people like me have problem with, you try so hard to pass your vague creationist theories with manufactured facts" or most times no facts at all as absolute truth and expect everyone to be in awe of such mediocrity?
I would rather a theory that is constantly reviewed as more facts emerges thus becoming more established and consistent than a fictional theory that defiles common sense and logic.

Pastor AIO:

What we know is Knowledge. Yes. It might derail this thread to go into it.

It would require looking into epistemology.

What we know is not necessarily what is! that is the matter.

Knowledge is not necessarily equal to truth.

You are right, knowledge is not neccessarily equal to truth, especially when one argues with a preconcieved mindset. It is best to argue with the assumption of ignorance so as to prevent distractions from beliefs and appearances which are illusions of reality.
And the best method to gain true knowledge is through sound experimental observations using the mental instruments of logic and reason.

Kay 17: Probably Gray is nihilist and doesn't accept humanist understanding of morality as basic rules which a self conscious, right thinking man will instinctively think of. To credit morality as a sole property of religion is false.

Perhaps you should watch the video; hopefully you'll get what John Gray is about.

MacDaddy01:

So the bible is only reporting?

When you see an article about genocide/murder in a newspaper, you see words like "criminal", "inhuman", "ghastly", "killer", "evil" to describe what happened. You dont see that in the bible. God gleefully tells us the horrific news in great details- "smash babies against rocks" , "I shall smite them!" , send forth your enemies' foreskins"





Mr. Artful Dodger, the issue is Abraham's willful st.upidity in agreeing to sacrifice his son.

I dont even think Jesus existed in the first place and guess what? I know my nephew and but Jesus did know me.

you weary me

Mr_Anony:
you weary me

You mean to say "you debunk me"

MacDaddy01:


You mean to say "you debunk me"

Lol, You are such a child.....I can keep answering you comment for comment but it really wouldn't help you. I don't see the use in going through all the motions again and having you abuse the work "debunk" at each turn..

Mr_Anony:
Lol, You are such a child.....I can keep answering you comment for comment but it really wouldn't help you. I don't see the use in going through all the motions again and having you abuse the work "debunk" at each turn..

Artful dodger, why are you running away from the issue?


Explain how Abraham is not a foolish person (if he even existed). What kind of parent would agree to sacrifice his child? Any good parent would put his life in danger to save his child rather than sacrificing the child

MacDaddy01:

Artful dodger, why are you running away from the issue?

Explain how Abraham is not a foolish person (if he even existed). What kind of parent would agree to sacrifice his child? Any good parent would put his life in danger to save his child rather than sacrificing the child

I am not running from anything.

The problem with you is that you ask silly questions and think that they are logically smart . For instance in this case, your question already proclaims that Abraham was foolish then goes on to ask how he is not foolish without explaining exactly on what grounds (other than your bias) Abraham's actions are considered foolish.

I'll ask you a similar question:

"Does your mother know that you are a fool?"

you see the problem with this question much like many of yours is that all the answers are wrong:
If you say yes, then you are a fool and your mother knows it
If you say no, you are still a fool and your mother is foolish enough not to recognize it
If you say you don't know, then you are too foolish to even understand the question
If you protest that the question is silly, then you are an "artful dodger"
If you refuse to answer, then I have "debunked" you.

I hope you see my point now and why I say I am weary of you. You don't ask logical questions hence it makes it difficult having meaningful conversations with you. One is forced to start calling you names and quite rightfully so...... but that's not my style. Davidlyan is more suited for that kind of thing.

You weary me.

MacDaddy01:

Artful dodger, why are you running away from the issue?


Explain how Abraham is not a foolish person (if he even existed). What kind of parent would agree to sacrifice his child? Any good parent would put his life in danger to save his child rather than sacrificing the child

in fact, the Jephtha case is not helped by the fact that earlier on God had asked Abraham to sacrifice his first born another first. It was prolly from this tradition that Paulinist writers of the new testament came up with Jesus being a sacrificial lamb from God as atonement for our sins.

rhymz: in fact, the Jephtha case is not helped by the fact that earlier on God had asked Abraham to sacrifice his first born another first. It was prolly from this tradition that Paulinist writers of the new testament came up with Jesus being a sacrificial lamb from God as atonement for our sins.

I thought we were not going to derail this thread with your Jesus vs Paul conspiracy theory. Please go back to that our thread and set the records straight properly.

Mr_Anony:
I am not running from anything.

The problem with you is that you ask silly questions and think that they are logically smart . For instance in this case, your question already proclaims that Abraham was foolish then goes on to ask how he is not foolish without explaining exactly on what grounds (other than your bias) Abraham's actions are considered foolish.

I'll ask you a similar question:

"Does your mother know that you are a fool?"

you see the problem with this question much like many of yours is that all the answers are wrong:
If you say yes, then you are a fool and your mother knows it
If you say no, you are still a fool and your mother is foolish enough not to recognize it
If you say you don't know, then you are too foolish to even understand the question
If you protest that the question is silly, then you are an "artful dodger"
If you refuse to answer, then I have "debunked" you.

I hope you see my point now and why I say I am weary of you. You don't ask logical questions hence it makes it difficult having meaningful conversations with you. One is forced to start calling you names and quite rightfully so...... but that's not my style. Davidlyan is more suited for that kind of thing.

You weary me.

Lol....lmao


Abraham is foolish for agreeing to sacrifice his son. Pemise leads to conclusion

Macdaddy is foolish because......Anony says so? Circular argument.

MacDaddy01:


Lol....lmao


Abraham is foolish for agreeing to sacrifice his son. Pemise leads to conclusion

Macdaddy is foolish because......Anony says so? Circular argument.

No Abraham trying to sacrifice his son is foolish because logicboy says so. circular argument

Logicboy is foolish because he can't answer Anony's simple question. premise leads to conclusion

....We can all come up with silly conclusions if we want. You need to learn to think.

Mr_Anony:
No Abraham trying to sacrifice his son is foolish because logicboy says so. circular argument

Logicboy is foolish because he can't answer Anony's simple question. premise leads to conclusion

....We can all come up with silly conclusions if we want. You need to learn to think.

fool·ish/ˈfo͞oliSH/
Adjective:
(of a person or action) Lacking good sense or judgment; unwise.


1) Abraham was told by an invisible being to sacrifice his son. By modern day standards, that is foolish because you would be put in a mental institution if you told somebody that "God" said you should sacrifice your son.

2) Abraham did not question God about the child sacrifice. Foolish again; a wise man always asks questions rather than takes orders that are detrimental to him

3) Abraham did not put himself before his son. A wise an loving father would put his life to protect his son




Abraham is not foolish because I said so, he is foolish because of his set of unwise actions.


Keep trying to dodge the truth

MacDaddy01:



fool·ish/ˈfo͞oliSH/
Adjective:
(of a person or action) Lacking good sense or judgment; unwise.


1) Abraham was told by an invisible being to sacrifice his son. By modern day standards, that is foolish because you would be put in a mental institution if you told somebody that "God" said you should sacrifice your son.

2) Abraham did not question God about the child sacrifice. Foolish again; a wise man always asks questions rather than takes orders that are detrimental to him

3) Abraham did not put himself before his son. A wise an loving father would put his life to protect his son




Abraham is not foolish because I said so, he is foolish because of his set of unwise actions.


Keep trying to dodge the truth

Abraham was given a son by an invisible being. The invisible being asked Abraham to return the son, Abraham agreed. I don't see the foolishness in it.

Anyway, there are some interesting things you raise up:

What is wise about giving up your life for someone else?

davidylan:

and i suppose you prefer pseudo-science for totally empirically sound reasons right? Yeah color me naive.
[size=16pt]Religious belief/faith is a subjective matter. It is not and has never been dependent on logic or reason.[/size] The burden of proof is on you to show how science totally invalidates the faith-based belief system.

@Mr_Anony: Take note (from a fellow Christian).

Purist:

@Mr_Anony: Take note (from a fellow Christian).

lol, since we are taking notes now, you may want to watch the video in the Op and take notes from a fellow atheist.

^^ I haven't seen the video yet although I think I have an idea what it's about, since I've been following the discussion here. I'll try to watch it later. Enjoy!

Purist: ^^ I haven't seen the video yet although I think I have an idea what it's about, since I've been following the discussion here. I'll try to watch it later. Enjoy!

Please do, I look forward to having a proper conversation based on the video. Distracting comments such as the ones with macdaddy can be wearisome

@purist
I should have given up then and there. It was folly to continue, but my naivete got the best of me. I'm now convinced that only a davidylan can defeat a davidylan.

At least I will always have that post you highlighted to demonstrate just how black white is in his brain.

By the way @ mr anony did you figure out why I say evolution is purposeless. I could explain my view on athe other thread and we could slug it out, I get your view, etc? I would have yesterday when you asked but I was having a nasty case of davidylan.

Mr_Anony:
Abraham was given a son by an invisible being. The invisible being asked Abraham to return the son, Abraham agreed. I don't see the foolishness in it.

Is that your christian theory of reproduction?

Abraham had $£x with his wife and had a child. Unless his son was another immaculate conception, you are talking nonsense.

Furthermore, your argument is as follows;

"a couple have been praying for a child for 7 years. They get a son after a super tithing deliverance from their pastor. God tells the father to sacrifice his son and the father agrees without question. The father should not be arrested and put into a mental hospital because the invisible being that is God, gave the father a son and the invisible being wants the son back. The father is right"

Mr_Anony:
Anyway, there are some interesting things you raise up:

What is wise about giving up your life for someone else?

I would protect my son with my own life if there is no choice. Simple. Without choice, the situation is quite logical.

wiegraf: @purist
I should have given up then and there. It was folly to continue, but my naivete got the best of me. I'm now convinced that only a davidylan can defeat a davidylan.

At least I will always have that post you highlighted to demonstrate just how black white is in his brain.

By the way @ mr anony did you figure out why I say evolution is purposeless. I could explain my view on athe other thread and we could slug it out, I get your view, etc? I would have yesterday when you asked but I was having a nasty case of davidylan.

i would really like that very much.

MacDaddy01:

Is that your christian theory of reproduction?

Abraham had $£x with his wife and had a child. Unless his son was another immaculate conception, you are talking nonsense.

Furthermore, your argument is as follows;

"a couple have been praying for a child for 7 years. They get a son after a super tithing deliverance from their pastor. God tells the father to sacrifice his son and the father agrees without question. The father should not be arrested and put into a mental hospital because the invisible being that is God, gave the father a son and the invisible being wants the son back. The father is right"

Perhaps you may want to explain how a 100 year old man can have a baby with a 90 year old woman who is decades past menopause. That is a miracle that immediately tells Abraham that the child is not his and he should return the child if the true owner demands it. Apparently, Isaac is also well aware of this fact as he does not struggle.

I would protect my son with my own life if there is no choice. Simple. Without choice, the situation is quite logical.

That was not the question I asked, I didn't ask what you would do, I asked "what is the wisdom in self-sacrifice?"

Mr_Anony:
Perhaps you may want to explain how a 100 year old man can have a baby with a 90 year old woman who is decades past menopause. That is a miracle that immediately tells Abraham that the child is not his and he should return the child if the true owner demands it. Apparently, Isaac is also well aware of this fact as he does not struggle.

Thanks for reminding me about the age! Now we are exploring 3 possibilities
a)The story about Abraham having a son with his 90 year old wife is a lie/myth. It is impossible.
b)Isaac (the son)was stolen from a younger woman
c) Abraham was criminally insane. He stole a young boy and then, decided to sacrifice the son but was stopped by finding a sacrificial animal.


One of these has to be true.

Mr_Anony:
That was not the question I asked, I didn't ask what you would do, I asked "what is the wisdom in self-sacrifice?"

Self sacrifice is foolish on its own. However, if it is done so that weaker people can live, then yes, it is wise

MacDaddy01:


Thanks for reminding me about the age! Now we are exploring 3 possibilities
a)The story about Abraham having a son with his 90 year old wife is a lie/myth. It is impossible.
b)Isaac (the son)was stolen from a younger woman
c) Abraham was criminally insane. He stole a young boy and then, decided to sacrifice the son but was stopped by finding a sacrificial animal.


One of these has to be true.

I see we have now delved into the realm of silliness.

Self sacrifice is foolish on its own. However, if it is done so that weaker people can live, then yes, it is wise

In that same way, Jesus Christ dying so that weaker people like us can have eternal life is the wisest thing anyone could possibly do.

Mr_Anony:



In that same way, Jesus Christ dying so that weaker people like us can have eternal life is the wisest thing anyone could possibly do.

Thunder fire you mouth! Douchebag.


Jesus did not die for me, he did not know me and he died for the lost sheep of isreal.


Jesus is a xenophobe that would probably burn in his own hell.


-whipped people and destroyed private property in the temple that he did not own/build
-Jesus was racist to the Canaanite woman
-Jesus ignored the slavery that was around him
-Jesus committed suicide when he didnt run and accpeted a betrayal/death that he knew was coming

Lmao... What a funny thread!!

MacDaddy01:


Thunder fire you mouth! Douchebag.


Jesus did not die for me, he did not know me and he died for the lost sheep of isreal.


Jesus is a xenophobe that would probably burn in his own hell.


-whipped people and destroyed private property in the temple that he did not own/build
-Jesus was racist to the Canaanite woman
-Jesus ignored the slavery that was around him
-Jesus committed suicide when he didnt run and accpeted a betrayal/death that he knew was coming

interesting how you immediately flare up when you are confronted with the love of Christ..........Don't worry my friend, Jesus loves you still ......and he can see right through your anger.