Gunny's Thread on Religion

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh that's MUCH BETTER... with the idiot in ignore I don't have to subject myself to her non-responses.

Let the record reflect that the atheists have again thoroughly failed to strip the Believers of a means to believe, through their litany of spurious tripe...

The atheist comes to emphatically demand that the Creator does not exist, because the Creator existence can't be proven...

A position, which itself which cannot be proven and stands in and of itself, as fallacious absurdity... because there is no means by which one can test for such, as the composition of the creator is unknown... and well beyond our means TO KNOW.

Yet the Creator provides evidence of his existence for anyone who cares to see them, not the least of which is the perfection in reasoning that are his 10 commandments; the endowment of our human rights and the inherent responsibilities within them; and the unprecedented and unparalled freedom and prosperity which have accompanied those who have implemented them... and of which there is not a single example, of so much as a SINGLE FAILURE, OF ANY HUMAN BEING who was APPLYING THOSE PRINCIPLES; througout the full scope of human history.

And that the Atheists refuse to see that evidence does not discredit that evidence, nor dimenish it as such.

Again, this posts is to simply note that the Atheists and their tired arguments, have FAILED...

 

[JBeukema]

Pubic, it sure is a good all theists aren't as ignorant and stupid as you,. or you would have all been killed long ago on the the grounds of feeblemindedness

 

[Al Gunn]

"and well beyond our means TO KNOW"

I thought it was a self-evident fact?

"The perfection of the 10 commandments"?

 

[iagainsti]

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

I know many people say that this test was for Abraham's benefit, not God's, because God already knew what Abraham would do...but the words in bold indicate, to me at least, that unless God was lying to Abraham in verse 12, he did not know what Abraham would do until he raised the knife to do it.

You might know in your heart that a dear friend of a family memberor whoever would lay their life down for another- but only after it has been shown (by putting them in or allowing them to get into a situation where they must meet such challange) can they be used as an example to others

That is a very good point...although knowing something in your heart because you trust someone is different than knowing the future. But you're right, it's very possible that the test was meant for our benefit as readers.

But why God would not only hide from us the fact that he had foreknowledge of what would happen, but also state something to the contrary, is a mystery to me. I don't think it would have taken much away from the story for him say something like "I knew what was in your heart, of course, but now everyone will know that you fear God," or something to that effect...that way people wouldn't be on internet forums thousands of years later questioning his omniscience.

 

[iagainsti]

Oh that's MUCH BETTER... with the idiot in ignore I don't have to subject myself to her non-responses.

Let the record reflect that the atheists have again thoroughly failed to strip the Believers of a means to believe, through their litany of spurious tripe...

The atheist comes to emphatically demand that the Creator does not exist, because the Creator existence can't be proven...

A position, which itself which cannot be proven and stands in and of itself, as fallacious absurdity... because there is no means by which one can test for such, as the composition of the creator is unknown... and well beyond our means TO KNOW.

Yet the Creator provides evidence of his existence for anyone who cares to see them, not the least of which is the perfection in reasoning that are his 10 commandments; the endowment of our human rights and the inherent responsibilities within them; and the unprecedented and unparalled freedom and prosperity which have accompanied those who have implemented them... and of which there is not a single example, of so much as a SINGLE FAILURE, OF ANY HUMAN BEING who was APPLYING THOSE PRINCIPLES; througout the full scope of human history.

And that the Atheists refuse to see that evidence does not discredit that evidence, nor dimenish it as such.

Again, this posts is to simply note that the Atheists and their tired arguments, have FAILED...

So one atheist failed to convince you that God does not exist, and now all atheists have failed as a result? You've failed to convince me that God exists...so should I say that theists as a whole have FAILED?

No, I shouldn't, because that would be a hasty generalization and also just a little bit arrogant on my part, now wouldn't it? It would be pretty presumptuous of me to make it seem as though I've spoken to every Christian on the face of the planet and found all their arguments to be oh so spurious and tired...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The atheist comes to emphatically demand that the Creator does not exist, because the Creator existence can't be proven...

And the agnostic perspective is, that since there is no evidence of God, I CAN NOT and therefore will not live as though God does exist until I am convinced He either does or does not.

A position, which itself which cannot be proven and stands in and of itself, as fallacious absurdity... because there is no means by which one can test for such, as the composition of the creator is unknown... and well beyond our means TO KNOW.

Which make agnosticism the best logical position. One doesn't know, and perhaps one can't know, so why believe one way or the other?

Yet the Creator provides evidence of his existence for anyone who cares to see them, not the least of which is the perfection in reasoning that are his 10 commandments;

How are they perfect?

the endowment of our human rights and the inherent responsibilities within them;

Can we not endow ourselves with those rights and responsibilities? Don't those rights and responsibilities vary from nation to nation, and within a nation from time to time? I thought the Constitution endowed us with rights, not God.

and the unprecedented and unparalled freedom and prosperity which have accompanied those who have implemented them... and of which there is not a single example, of so much as a SINGLE FAILURE, OF ANY HUMAN BEING who was APPLYING THOSE PRINCIPLES; througout the full scope of human history.

Can you prove that, PI? That never has a nation which followed the principles of the Bible ever failed in the History of the World? Because I can think of a few: The Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, The Spanish Empire, Cuba (before Castro), and I'm sure there are others that I can't think of at the moment or don't know of.

And that the Atheists refuse to see that evidence does not discredit that evidence, nor dimenish it as such.

I don't refuse to see the evidence, I just DON'T. Your above examples don't PROVE anything about your God.

Again, this post is to simply note that the Atheists and their tired arguments, have FAILED...

In convincing you, yes, but there is no hope or chance of that happening because you cling to dogma, whereas, I, as an agnostic, can revise my perceptions, opinions, and beliefs upon new discoveries, epiphanies, and realizations. Another reason why agnosticism is the best logical philosophical stance.

 

[JBeukema]

"and well beyond our means TO KNOW"

I thought it was a self-evident fact?

 

[JBeukema]

But why God would not only hide from us the fact that he had foreknowledge of what would happen, but also state something to the contrary, is a mystery to me.

The ability to see the entirety of the spime and the desire to look are two different things. Just because I can see through your window doesn't mean that I choose to. Even if a deity could see all things, it might not always desire to.

 

[JBeukema]

What CMM describes is agnostic atheism, the same as JB. For some reason, he seems to deny his position in order to be PC

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What CMM describes is agnostic atheism, the same as JB. For some reason, he seems to deny his position in order to be PC

Agnostic atheism:
From: Agnostic Atheist

There are several specific beliefs that are within the defined limits of agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist may be described as a person who does not believe in God or gods and who holds one or more of the following to be true:

The existence or nonexistence of deities is not known or is unknowable.
The knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of deities is unimportant.
The claim to knowledge of existence or nonexistence of deities is best avoided.
The agnostic atheist, therefore, combines elements of not knowing the existence of God with the unbelief in God.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:agnostic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary :

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Same difference.

 

[JBeukema]

gnosticism and theism address two different questions

hence agnostic atheism

 

[Yukon]

Christianity = Roman Catholicism = Eternal Life

 

[Montrovant]

PI, with regards to your multiple choice question, wouldn't an infinitely small percentage be, by definition, as small as is possible? That would make your last option invalid, wouldn't it? Perhaps I'm misinformed as to what infinitely small means.

 

[JBeukema]

PI, with regards to your multiple choice question, wouldn't an infinitely small percentage be, by definition, as small as is possible? That would make your last option invalid, wouldn't it? Perhaps I'm misinformed as to what infinitely small means.

He's an idiot, what do you expect?

 

[DamnYankee]

Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?

Then you believe in the wrong god. The god of the bible is evil, wicked, jealous, cruel, and misogynistic. It demands genocides, condones slavery, including sexual slavery of women, and orders that non-believers and disobedient children be slain, ad well as forcing young girls who are raped to marry their rapists (thus being bound to 'her duty' to her husband until he tires of her and tells her he's divorcing her) and commands that a married woman who is raped be slain if she is unable to defend herself or yell loudly enough.


The only trustworthy character in the whole book is the serpent who , unlike God, told man the truth about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and allowed man true free will: the ability to decide for ourselves what actions we wished to take after being told what effect the fruit would have.

You've deflected from the issue of trust, in the first paragraphs or your post, actually. Nothing there invalidates or violates the trust. Where you have addressed the issue, trust does not require or demand explicit details nor does it question. It is implied. Only when the trust is broken are there questions and demands for details.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -

- Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist. -

- Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. -

- But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. - Edmund Burke

 

[Barb]

I don't know why you would assume anything, particularly given the evidence all around you that indicates the worst of intentions by what appears to by the vast majority.

But what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for. The news doesn't feature the good in people, and television plots, for the most part, are based on conflict; the "good guys" are the regulars, and the "vast majority" are struggled against or "managed." Watch enough prime time television and you'd naturally think the world was an awfully scary place.

Don't need prime time TV, nor do I bother. All I need is to pick up the newspaper, turn on the cable news, log on my computer.... If there was an overwhelming "good in people", there'd be no escaping it because there would be nothing else to report.

Good luck with that, and peace be with you. Keep plenty of antacid on hand.

 

[DamnYankee]

Christianity = Roman Catholicism = Eternal Life

You're not seriously gonna try to stick with that, are you?

 

[DamnYankee]

But what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for. The news doesn't feature the good in people, and television plots, for the most part, are based on conflict; the "good guys" are the regulars, and the "vast majority" are struggled against or "managed." Watch enough prime time television and you'd naturally think the world was an awfully scary place.

Don't need prime time TV, nor do I bother. All I need is to pick up the newspaper, turn on the cable news, log on my computer.... If there was an overwhelming "good in people", there'd be no escaping it because there would be nothing else to report.

Good luck with that, and peace be with you. Keep plenty of antacid on hand.

what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for

You're right. I do need luck and a life-time supply of Pepcid. See.... the thing is, I have a personality flaw.... always lookin' for the good in people, desperately trying to find something that justifies their existence. You, on the other hand, apparently are one of those "followers" being led by the nose. Don't fret over it too much, though. You're absolutely not alone. It's how Presidents are elected....

 

[Yukon]

Yes. The truth hurts my child.

Christianity = Roman Catholicism = Eternal Life

You're not seriously gonna try to stick with that, are you?