[quote]otar wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:I assure you it is not common on my side. I assume everybody’s intelligence and never tell anybody they’re stupid no matter how heated it gets.
[/quote]I wasn’t attempting a snipe, merely an observation that any time I’m present and people debate this particular subject both sides tend to do that.[/quote]Ok, I was just letting you know that not everybody, especially Christians assumes stupidity on the part of everybody that disagrees with them.
@Trad_Climb
I apologize to you again man. I just can’t do it now. It’s not that you aren’t asking good questions. You are. And believe me it’s not that I don’t think you’re important enough to take the time with. I do. There are people it is simply unacceptable for me not to answer first and I have no idea when that will let up. I’m sorry I started this and I DID start it. Maybe in the future.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Ya skipped the first part again. The judge’s judgement with regard to the things I address dogmatically is clearly revealed in his written Word for those who take it seriously. I’m just a messenger and where “judgement” is concerned? That has NOTHING to do with Calvinism as I have stated TEN THOUSAND times. The war to me is NOT Calvinism vs. Catholicism. It is Christianity, which includes a great many non Calvinists with which I disagree on quite a bit, against CatholicISM. Now did ya hear that? I can grab a few dozen posts where I’ve said that if need be.[/quote]I’m not interested - messengers don’t act as judges, they act as messengers.[/quote]Delivering the message of the Judge. His judgement in other words. Which is the command of God to all Christians. That’s what the church is for. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Do you really want me to repost some of the abuse you have hurled at Lifty and let folks decide whether that is smug condescending arrogance? I defy you, I triple dog dare you to find one post in all these PWI threads where I have done that to even one of my most vehement opponents. Lifty is naive and idealistic, but he is not stupid. You are a very generously gifted man Thunderbolt. You know he is not stupid. It’s you who can’t the see the real difference.[/quote]Wait, wait, wait - I call Lifty a moron, and you stalk Catholics to constantly inform them that they follow a “soulless” and “evil” faith, and you’re more torn up about my manners and than yours? Are you serious?[/quote]Yes, yes, yes - I am serious. You are attacking a man’s person in the form of elevating your intellect over his. I am attacking institutions that according the reading of the Word of God of myself and untold multitudes of others throughout history ARE evil though I don’t remember using the term “soulless”. I used much worse so if I did, fine. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:See above. I am commanded and so are you, if you’re a Christian like you say, to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I do. You don’t. Because you don’t take the bible seriously as is amply evinced by your willingness to act yourself as JUDGE of the Word of God and dismiss the most unbelievably crystal clear parts you don’t like.[/quote]Here is why I am not much interested in what you have to say - you have in fact judged me, and you haven’t the foggiest clue what my religion is. There’s no need for a conversation about it - you stick to your pre-fabricated script.[/quote]You said “I am a Christian?” did you not? You also answered in the negative when confronted by somebody asking you if you then believed that homosexuality was sin. No?[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:It’s pointless - which is why I don’t much care what you say about epistemology…you’re entirely too narrow and limited on the topic for it to be all that interesting to me. If you think you’ve already gotten me “figured out” without even knowing much about me, that’s a “dialogue” that’s a complete waste of my time.[/quote]I have demonstrated my willingness to be wrong about folks. Jist a little. Could ya waste jist a little time and bless us with your input? [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You are attacking me for sins of the past. I have made a concentrated effort not to hijack people’s threads. If I’m not doing as well as I think, please you or somebody else show me. I’m not aware of it.[/quote]I just did, chief. You tried to divert this thread into yet another tangent of Calvinism vs. Catholicism (as you flat out admit below). That is precisely what I’ve been saying.[/quote]Unbelievable. You are not helpin me with humility old friend. How can you be so perceptive otherwise and be utterly unable to hear ME clearly? It is NOT now nor has it ever been about Calvinism where the Catholics are concerned. It was a misunderstanding where I thought Sloth was telling somebody he didn’t care whether they were saved or damned. Please listen again “I misunderstood and said so once pointed out. I apologized. He doesn’t know that though because he has me on ignore like a big boy. Had his comment meant what I initially thought it did, my response would have been on topic. I readily apologized and was very sincerely glad to have been wrong there and said that too.”[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You selfishly deny several members the pleasure of your input because of lil ol me?[/quote]I’m sure they will survive without the ruminations of an anonymous internet opinionator.[/quote]Chintzy. To say the least.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:See above. It is not about Calvinists and CatholicS. I love the Catholic people. I would give Chris(or Sloth)my last dollar if he needed it without a second thought. It’s about the saving gospel and the horrific counterfeit that is CatholicISM. Can I make that still any plainer?[/quote]Yes, it’s quite plain, but note - you conceded the point. You admit that, yes, you have, in fact, attempted to ignite that debate yet again in this forum. By your own words - It’s about the saving gospel and the horrific counterfeit that is CatholicISM. Yep, this conversational thread became yet another redundant platform for you to pursue this crusade. That was exactly my point, thanks for making it for me.[/quote]See above. Again please.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ever notice when debating an atheist, is that the first thing they do is tell you how smart they are and how dumb you are?
Ironic when you are advocating a belief in nothing.[/quote]
That’s pretty common on both sides, I assure you. Also I don’t really think it’s fair to reduce atheism to a belief in nothing, it’s simply the belief that there are no God(s).[/quote]
And how is that not nothing?[/quote]
I have all kinds of beliefs that relate to things besides my own spirituality, I really don’t see how it is difficult to understand that in the least. For an extremely pragmatic example I believe if I drop something it will fall, if we want to get more abstract I believe freedom of speech is a basic human right.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
…[/quote]
Atheism: A realization that people come to not just because they ARE smart, but because they refuse to blindly believe in the mythology of the day, have a healthy skepticism, and are willing to throw the bullshit flag.
[/quote]
Yeah, because it relies on the belief that nothing can do something. Fucking brilliant…
Until you can prove that nothing can do something, your logic is a failure.[/quote]
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
.[/quote]Sparky is in desperate need of joining us in the epistemology thread. You can’t tell me why 2+2=4 without a FAITH in the conventions of logic that is utterly presupposed and blind. Without which, the “scientific method” is reduced to a steaming pile of bovine fecal matter.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Pat, could you fix that post above so I can read it better?[/quote]
Sorry if I seemed terse. I didn’t realize it was you… I like you. I have my guard up.[/quote]
It’s okay. Why don’t we just disregard some of the harsher wording in your response? And I wasn’t comparing religion and science, I was pointing out the differences between them. I don’t feel any need to try and “disprove” any religion, which is next to impossible anyway. It seemed to me that you were saying that they were the same thing, but now it seems like you were saying that some people uneducated in science tend to view it the same way as people who subscribe to religions, which I agree with. As to your question about absolute truth, I don’t even know what an absolute truth is so I can’t offer an opinion on whether scientific knowledge can “trump” it or not, or whether such a thing even exists.
[/quote]
I usually do the opposite. Because I see the misuse of science in this respect all the time. Some people don’t understand how they are not the same thing.
There is nothing magical or mystical about absolute truth. It’s simply a correct deductive argument where the premises are correct and so is the conclusion that follows. Being a scientist and all, you deal with a form of it everyday, math. Math is a form of deductive argument and it’s truths are absolute. 1+2=3 is always truth, will always be true and there is nothing that can make it untrue. So when it comes to absolutes, they do exist, but they are metaphysical entities. Nothing physical can every be abosultely, just more or less probable.
BUT science does function on these absolutes. Like causation. Without causation, science is utterly meaningless. [/quote]
Let me ask you something pat, how can you be certain absolute truth exists?
[/quote]
Easy, think about what truth is? Truth is, “what is the case”. There are many things ‘that are the case’ I usually refer to math in these circumstances because it’s something everybody is familiar with. The solution to a math problem is an ‘absolute truth’. 1+3 will always be 4, nothing you can do to the problem will make that not true. Absolute truths aren’t some mystical hocus pocus, they are very simple things really.
I don’t know about the whole “handing them down” like tossing lightning bolts from the sky. If he’s doing that, I am not aware. But being fallible we are still blessed reason. It’s the tool you use for discovering truth. It seems to me that you have this notion that religion and God and faith are like a big silly magic show. I see it as a totally practical reality. Like I said you are capable of knowing absolute truths just like math. BUT, there aren’t that many different kinds of absolute truths.
What I mean is that absolute truths are infinite like you can have an infinite amount of solved math problems. But math is a kind of truth, causation another, etc.
I would say are understanding of most things is flawed in some way, history, science, language, etc. But absolute truths transcend, there just very few of them. But that the core of every discipline, is a basal absolute truth it is based on.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
…[/quote]
Atheism: A realization that people come to not just because they ARE smart, but because they refuse to blindly believe in the mythology of the day, have a healthy skepticism, and are willing to throw the bullshit flag.
[/quote]
Yeah, because it relies on the belief that nothing can do something. Fucking brilliant…
Until you can prove that nothing can do something, your logic is a failure.[/quote]
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Don’t project your ignorance of the argument on me. The solution is simple and what must be the case. You can’t prove it wrong. You can try to dodge this reality, but it doesn’t change the fact that you can’t refute it. Throwing out logical mistakes in a mocking tone is still fallacious. You obviously don’t understand the argument at all.
Causation is a necessary part of existing, regressing it leads to a singular point, and an infinite regress is a logical fallacy because it begs the question.
What it does not claim:
-That God was caused
-That God came from nothing
-That God made something from nothing.
-It doesn’t even say it’s God. Just an 'Uncaused-cause", “Necessary Being”, “Prime Mover”, etc.
Causation is a necessary reality, not a magic trick. That’s the point. You must be easily entertained.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
.[/quote]Sparky is in desperate need of joining us in the epistemology thread. You can’t tell me why 2+2=4 without a FAITH in the conventions of logic that is utterly presupposed and blind. Without which, the “scientific method” is reduced to a steaming pile of bullshit.
[/quote]
fixed.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Great show of intellectual ability.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Great show of intellectual ability.[/quote]
Actually yes.
This is leagues above “nothing comes from nothing but my god did”.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As for hell, I bet if someone shoved the 11th million pitchfork up your ass you would be bored too.
[/quote]
So if you were gang raped in a prison everyday you’d get board? I think I would still have a problem with it 11 million times later.[/quote]
Na.
You would be as wide open as a barn door and psychologically adjusted to it.
It would be like a nice cup of tea really.[/quote]
Evolution!
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As for hell, I bet if someone shoved the 11th million pitchfork up your ass you would be bored too.
[/quote]
So if you were gang raped in a prison everyday you’d get board? I think I would still have a problem with it 11 million times later.[/quote]
Na.
You would be as wide open as a barn door and psychologically adjusted to it.
It would be like a nice cup of tea really.[/quote]
Evolution!
[/quote]
Evolution does not deal with that topic at all.
Personally, I find the highly arbitrary distinction between highly organized and less organized matter to be somewhat superfluous.
It is what it is.
Edited: oh my, that went way off the mark.
The voices in my head made me do it, I swear…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Great show of intellectual ability.[/quote]
Actually yes.
This is leagues above “nothing comes from nothing but my god did”.
[/quote]
That’s not saying much since I’ve never seen anyone argue “nothing comes from nothing, but my god did.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LOL…But your god (who magically always existed; convenient), was capable of creating something out of nothing, simply due to his magical god magic? Fucking brilliant…
Until you can make your argument without having to resort to the intellectual laziness of “my god and his magic powers did it”, your logic will continue to be a failure.
[/quote]
Great show of intellectual ability.[/quote]
Actually yes.
This is leagues above “nothing comes from nothing but my god did”.
[/quote]
That’s not saying much since I’ve never seen anyone argue “nothing comes from nothing, but my god did.”[/quote]
No?
Pat will be very disappointed that you never looked into his “cosmological argument” posts.
It seems to be important to him and yet you never looked at it AT ALL!
I am disappoint.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That’s not saying much since I’ve never seen anyone argue “nothing comes from nothing, but my god did.”[/quote]
No?
Pat will be very disappointed that you never looked into his “cosmological argument” posts.
It seems to be important to him and yet you never looked at it AT ALL!
I am disappoint.
[/quote]
I am going to guess that Pat never argued that “My God came from nothing.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That’s not saying much since I’ve never seen anyone argue “nothing comes from nothing, but my god did.”[/quote]
No?
Pat will be very disappointed that you never looked into his “cosmological argument” posts.
It seems to be important to him and yet you never looked at it AT ALL!
I am disappoint.
[/quote]
I am going to guess that Pat never argued that “My God came from nothing.”[/quote]
You would guess wrong, anything else would destroy his whole argument.
Which just goes to show that you never looked into his cosmological argument!!!
Very disappoint.
Also, on a more general note, this whole line of reasoning is worth looking into, if only because you would want to know how to dismantle it.
[quote]orion wrote:<<< I am disappoint. >>>[/quote]There you go with this same error again. Here ed . Keep those two letters on your clipboard and press ctrl+v whenever you type the verb “disappoint” while you’re groping around for the adjectival form “disappointed”.
Today’s grammatical tip has been brought to you by the letter J.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:<<< I am disappoint. >>>[/quote]There you go with this same error again. Here ed . Keep those two letters on your clipboard and press ctrl+v whenever you type the verb “disappoint” while you’re groping around for the adjectival form “disappointed”.
Today’s grammatical tip has been brought to you by the letter J.
[/quote]
F U, I am beyond grammar, I am memetastic.
That you would seriously believe that I would not know how to properly voice my discontent also leads to me being disappoint.
Pro tip, my Germanisms sneak in in the form of false prepositions.