Umm, maybe you should do a search on Oakspear's posts, sky4it. He is not an athiest--least not last I heard!
I thought he was, thanks for letting me know that, I appreciate it. Well when he shows up maybe he will clear that up. Maybe it was GeoAR i was thinking of. Now you confused me. I talked to Oakspear 3 years ago and thought he made that arguement , but I could be wrong. Its been about 2 and 1/2 to three years since i posted here Bramble, but I thought I had long talks with Oakspear. Oak Oak where are you?
By the way Bramble I saw your post on the Calvin thread. Of course, I think that we should resolve all things harmoniously. Also, I mean you no harm or injustice. I am just a more than a bit upset at Calvin stuffin in fact i am furious at it and I will try to indicate why there. Anyway have a good one.
you know that figures abt right. Agnostics are fence sitters and I never met an athiest who didnt stand around and Insult my God. Where's Oakspear to clear this up.
Actually, I bet your right, Oak has some faith, interestingly one of my best freinds growing up was agnostic, he didnt like to insult God either like Richard Dawkins , High Priest of the Athiests confession.
And Yeah I dont have the political correct thing down either, actually my best friend growing up is an Indian guy and some of my best friends are Hispanics. Man that ought to get em eh? Eh is what they say in Canada.
I never met an athiest who didnt stand around and Insult my God. Where's Oakspear to clear this up.
Don't worry about it sky. I'm sure God is capable of not letting it bother Him. After all -- God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son that whosoever . . . . I don't think He had Christians in mind when it's stated that He loves the world. :)
u said:What so you mean when you say that someone 'insults your God'? Could you specify please?
High Priest Richard Dawkins of the Athiest Credo let out a diatriabe in his Book "The God Delusion" that I will post if you want me too. (Basically he called the God of the Old Testament an unbelieveable assortment of names). If you want me to I will go fetch it for you, its about the biggest insult ever from a guy by the name of Richard Dawkins. ) BTW, I read this guys books hes is right up there with the Calvin with his nonsense and I can prove it.
I will fetch it for you if you want me too. It's one of the biggest bunch of crocks i have ever heard. Garth, I am am a technician, I am not good with political stuff and current and historical events. My studies relate to very technical stuff like math and logic. (That's the way my mind works) I am an (Inactive) Certified Public Accountant. I can make logic out of words. Garth: I can read guys like Kant and Decartes and tell you why they are reasonable and why guys like Frederick Nitshke are liars FROM COMMON SENSE LOGIC.) IT IS 2+2=4 FOR TO ME. (Philospophy and logic are the the same topic which is logical or mathematical sense out of words. This is a topic of my enjoyment. I also enjoy the same topic (Logic/philosphy/religion)with respect to Greek language and so forth, as I have 15 credits of Biblical Greek) Yet when it comes to political and historical and current events I am somewhat lacking When it comes to history and current events (political correctness) I am very much lacking. Like with the Calvin thread, I really didnt understand the stuff on Little Rascals and I am sincere about that. Ie( A friend of mine told me I was not Politcally correct) while you said that was not it.
Sky, may I recommend a book to you? I found it helpful. Maybe you've already seen it. It's William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience. I'm not saying James is "right;" I'm not a Pragmatist, but he got me thinking about the subject of God/ no God in a way that helped me to respond better to people of all persuasions.
Over in the "fresh air" thread, TBone shared some stuff about how atheists actually help Christians. He cited someone who called them "the loyal opposition" or something.
God can be just as displeased with theists as with atheists. I myself sometime prefer an atheists company to religous folks! Depends on the atheist, of course! Best of all is when brethren dwell together in harmony.
I don't find athiests particularly offensive and don't understand why some try to argue them out of it. If there is nothing there (in a belief) for them, how is arguing going to make it happen?
I do find those that push their beliefs as correct for all other humans offensive, though I know many don't mena to be, and have seen that much more in the Christian Church than anywhere else. I think the idea that 'my beliefs are correct and every human should follow them' is actually a destructive way to think, and leads to enmity when others choose not to think the 'right' way. I think it weakens personal relationships, families, communities...
IMO humans are physical beings with connections and glimpses into the spiritual, which we cannot fully understand...some people have different glimpses and inspiration than others. Some see nothing spiritual, some see one thing, some see another. To tell someone that what they perceive is false is foolish, to me--because no one can replicate their own perception in someone else.
i dont get in arguements with athiests either. If I read a book and find insconsistencies I do not mind pointing them tho.
Another dan: u said: God can be just as displeased with theists as with atheists. I myself sometime prefer an atheists company to religous folks! Depends on the atheist, of course! Best of all is when brethren dwell together in harmony.
Yeah I dont know many athiests. I do know a few agnostics. So I really can't tell you much about getting in knock down drags outs with them. I think because of the Calvin thread your maybe thinking I am always a fire starter too dan, really I am not that much. Shouldn't a place where doctines are discussed by many different people have some major disagreements tho? I think that is healthy and should be expected.
I was speaking, another dan, from mostly watching some of these conventions where the topic of God is talked about and you get athiests and Liberty U or Christians cross firing. The diatribes and exchanges do get very very heated.
Athiesm and Evoloution actually has political impetus today. It is part of a political agenda. I dont know if you guys are aware of that. It doesn't have platform impetus with the democrats but it has people in places that propel it everywhere. Judges, journalists, sceintists and others. Evolution in my view is NOT A SCIENCE. I think it is a religion.
Bramble u said:
I think the idea that 'my beliefs are correct and every human should follow them' is actually a destructive way to think, and leads to enmity when others choose not to think the 'right' way. I think it weakens personal relationships, families, communities...
I agree with that statement bramble i really do. BUT WHY DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ABOUT "EVERY HUMAN SHOULD FOLLOW THEM" You see, that statement you said, that where cultist wrong thinking takes people. The end is always with a person. When we talk shouldn't a logical arguement leave someone at the feet of Jesus? That's what I think. So I dont think arguing is necessarily bad. Jesus got in some scraps with the leaders there right? There is however, a problem with what you just said too though. The way some people think ie (evolution/Calvinism) is very very destructive. In fact, there is a book by Richard Wiekart that traces evolution roots to Nazi facism and eugenics. Not even evolutionists, will argue much that eugenics movement is the evolutionary child. Evolutionists just dont like to take credit for eugenics when it goes awry. I mean Earnst Haekel was a big time into eugenics and evolution. The quack doctor drew up fake drawings to prove evolution. Eugenics today just has different names like cloning and stuff like that. Don't get me wrong I am not saying cloning is the same as Eugenics, I am just saying that in the wrong hands it could be like eugenics. What I am trying to say Bramble is this: When things in a country go real real bad, there is almost always an ideology behind what went wrong. The greatest mass murders in the last century all where evolutionists: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Nazi Germany.
This is why I think topics of this nature are important.
BTW, I read this guys books hes is right up there with the Calvin with his nonsense and I can prove it.
Well, at least Dawkins doesn't go around wanting to kill heretics and burn people at the stake like Calvin did.
Oh by the way, this killing of heretics/unbelievers idea that Calvin had so much of a fetish on, ... didn't the God of the OT also have that characteristic? In spades? ... Maybe that was one of the reasons why Dawkins called the OT God 'an unbelieveable assortment of names'?
(Yes or No) (True or False) Choose only in the affirmative or negative.
Look, sky, your question is unanswerable. An atheist has a non-belief in the existence of God. Before they could address your question they would have to concede that God exists.
Now you could ask a theist the same question and receive some interesting answers. For instance: A need for what? Salvation -- absolutely! To live a moral life? -- Absolutely not.
I think you should spend some time on some atheist's boards. Listen to them and try to understand them. You might find you'll learn more about them and yourself then you might think possible.
Oakspear and Garth: (and Larrynmoore this will explain to your last post)
I had you pegged wrong Oak, my mistake, which means this thread should now go south. Since Garth was so good to cut my question in two like a intelligent person would, I will explain.
When the question is posed to an athiest "Does an athiest have a need for God?"
Most of them will suddenly answer NO or False.
The question has 2 parts for it:
1) Pesumes the existence of God
2) Proves that the person answering it doesn't want God.
Thus by answering it an athiest is telling you that they believe in God and have no need for him.
It's sort of the same logic derived by famous French philospher Renae DeCartes, who proved the existence of God by logic. An athiest only has one reference point from which to work. Ie(themselves) Thus, if you ask them a question outside there own reference point there arguement always fails. SO ANYWAY THATS WHERE I WAS GOING ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH
GARTH U SAID:
Sky4it,
Well, at least Dawkins doesn't go around wanting to kill heretics and burn people at the stake like Calvin did.
Oh by the way, this killing of heretics/unbelievers idea that Calvin had so much of a fetish on, ... didn't the God of the OT also have that characteristic? In spades? ... Maybe that was one of the reasons why Dawkins called the OT God 'an unbelieveable assortment of names'?
... hell, I would too. <_<
of course your Calvin quote suits my purpose
Dawkins might have been a little more impressive if he had cited a point from the OT and then explained an oratory of one word. THEN I COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT ARGUEMENT APART. Dawkins is a garbage can. I can defend OT stuff Garth, but now we are talking miles and miles of stuff to say, which I think would be better left for another thread. Hey does this mean we disagree ?
Although I'm Not-The-Oaks, I thought I'd quote a Bramble line or 2 -
Some see nothing spiritual, some see one thing, some see another. To tell someone that what they perceive is false is foolish, to me--because no one can replicate their own perception in someone else.
I think that's so basic and so true, it's often overlooked, even when I try to maintain that attitude.Two people looking at the same thing don't have the same vision, literally. They're different. If they agree they're still two different renderings of the same thing, individually owned.
Two people look at an animal. One sees a bird that flies. Another sees a meal. It's still a bird but what it means is completely different to the two people and causes completely different interactions.
When we say "God" we can't even define that as clearly as a bird, so I have to think the range of responses would have to vary. The field of vision is too big. There may be an aspect of God I never even fully see let alone articulate, whereas someone else does.
To me, an "atheist" would be someone who looks and doesn't see what I see. If I say "bird", they might say "nothing, no bird". That's a very simplistic description, doesn't really cover it well, but that's kind of my take. It's a fascinating idea to me, as long as the Bird/No-Birds allow for free range living.
I had you pegged wrong Oak, my mistake, which means this thread should now go south. Since Garth was so good to cut my question in two like a intelligent person would, I will explain.
Understandable, I often take the atheists' side in these discussions.
When the question is posed to an athiest "Does an athiest have a need for God?"
Most of them will suddenly answer NO or False.
The question has 2 parts for it:
1) Pesumes the existence of God
2) Proves that the person answering it doesn't want God.
Thus by answering it an athiest is telling you that they believe in God and have no need for him.
Well, that's one way to look at it.
I think another way to look at it is that even an atheist has heard of God, or the concept of God, so that even if he or she doesn't believe that there is a God, the response to the question is in the context of the asker's question.
Yes, the question presumes the existance of God, but answering it doesn't necessarily assume the same thing.
Yeah I dont know many athiests. I do know a few agnostics. So I really can't tell you much about getting in knock down drags outs with them. I think because of the Calvin thread your maybe thinking I am always a fire starter too dan, really I am not that much. Shouldn't a place where doctines are discussed by many different people have some major disagreements tho? I think that is healthy and should be expected.
I agree that discussion is healthy. The way you started this thread did seem a little incendiary, like you were picking a fight. "Hey Oakspear! Come on outta that there saloon! I want a few words with you!" But again, I agree. Discussion is healthy. If a "fight" is based on logic, the best logician wins, no matter who's right or wrong. The question is, what is this discussion based on. And I don't know and don't want to assume, because the ground rules haven't been laid. You started with a question you wanted answered yes or no, and that hasn't even been answered yet by your chosen discussionee. I would assume you have a plan with which to proceed if Oak answers yes, and if Oak answers no. Makes your options easier for your next move. An open-ended question would multiply the kinds of responses you might get, and it would be more difficult to anticipate what your next move would be. Not that I have a problem with your question, or even starting fires. Like you said, discussion is good. That is, if it's a good discussion.
edit: OK, lots of posting going on here. I sometimes take a LONG time to compose a post! Worked out good. Sky... it's not gone south. It was good!
It's sort of the same logic derived by famous French philospher Renae DeCartes, who proved the existence of God by logic. ...
He proves nothing in that regard. He only proves that he believes in God, and that he mistakes that belief as proof by default. Try again.
An athiest only has one reference point from which to work. Ie(themselves) Thus, if you ask them a question outside there own reference point there arguement always fails.
Untrue: The reference point that atheists refer to is verifiable proof. The "Ie., themselves as the one reference point" accusation is just that: ONLY an accusation, and one born out of an angry rebuke to an open challenge of their belief. Nothing more.
I can defend OT stuff Garth, ...
Ironically enough, so did Calvin, particularly in reference to his wanting heretics killed. ... you might want to rethink your premise because of this. ;)
Oakspear and Garth: (and Larrynmoore this will explain to your last post)
When the question is posed to an athiest "Does an athiest have a need for God?"
Most of them will suddenly answer NO or False.
But I don't see how you would know that seeing as how you previously stated:
Yeah I dont know many athiests.
Perhaps you need to get out a bit more. It's a mistake (imo) to try to "box" an atheist into a neat, tidy little box of your own design until you actually spend some time with more than just a few. The Internet offers you that opportunity. Use it and learn.
Garth,Bramble, Oakspear Moore(see my post on the other page)
Anotherdan u said:incendiary, like you were picking a fight. "Hey Oakspear! Come on outta that there saloon! I want a few words with you!"
You are taking me all wrong anotherdan. I think Oakspear is a terrifc guy. We had some conversation years ago that was terrifically enjoyable for me. That certainly is not my point with Oakspear. I think again, because of the Calvin thread, you are presupposting that on me. Am I saying that about Calvinists? Yeah let me parse it for you: Hey Calvinists come on outta that saloon i wanna have a few words with you.
you know Dan, people of Pentacostal persuasion used to make that same arguement to me about people of TWI. Ie( dont argue with them) (Arguing with people is the "wrong spirit" Jesus wouldn't do that.) I think thats non-sense(but only sometimes) and I want to tell you why. You were in TWI right? If somebody had pistol whipped you maybe you would have had less of a 'bad experience" Even if not you certainly some people from this room would say so. Here's the point: you can't just lay down for whacks like Calvin. That's what Calvin would have wanted. That's how guys like Calvin win. Thus, sometimes and I say only sometimes, a good fight is necessary. I mean the Apostle Paul had great doctrinal arguements during his day. The fights back then were to the point of blood. So to say again, I am not of that kind of spirit when it comes to guys like Oakspear. In a short word, if the speeding limit for everyone else is 60 miles an hour, the speed limit for looking at Calvin is 90mph.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
26
11
16
Popular Days
Sep 8
52
Sep 9
21
Sep 10
18
Sep 14
10
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 47 posts
GarthP2000 26 posts
Bramble 11 posts
Larry N Moore 16 posts
Popular Days
Sep 8 2007
52 posts
Sep 9 2007
21 posts
Sep 10 2007
18 posts
Sep 14 2007
10 posts
Bramble
You do know that Oakspear isn't an athiest, don't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Why would someone have need for someone or something they don't believe exists?
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Yeah I know hes an athiest, I just want to engage him in some conversation. Its been a while.
Garth: SHHHHHhhhhhh, no giving tips to the Oakman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Umm, maybe you should do a search on Oakspear's posts, sky4it. He is not an athiest--least not last I heard!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble:
u said:
Umm, maybe you should do a search on Oakspear's posts, sky4it. He is not an athiest--least not last I heard!
I thought he was, thanks for letting me know that, I appreciate it. Well when he shows up maybe he will clear that up. Maybe it was GeoAR i was thinking of. Now you confused me. I talked to Oakspear 3 years ago and thought he made that arguement , but I could be wrong. Its been about 2 and 1/2 to three years since i posted here Bramble, but I thought I had long talks with Oakspear. Oak Oak where are you?
By the way Bramble I saw your post on the Calvin thread. Of course, I think that we should resolve all things harmoniously. Also, I mean you no harm or injustice. I am just a more than a bit upset at Calvin stuffin in fact i am furious at it and I will try to indicate why there. Anyway have a good one.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there Sky. :)
Oak is agnostic,
Geo is atheist, and;
I've never been politically correct!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
dmiller:
and hello too you too been a while:
u said:
Oak is agnostic,
Geo is atheist, and;
I've never been politically correct!
you know that figures abt right. Agnostics are fence sitters and I never met an athiest who didnt stand around and Insult my God. Where's Oakspear to clear this up.
Actually, I bet your right, Oak has some faith, interestingly one of my best freinds growing up was agnostic, he didnt like to insult God either like Richard Dawkins , High Priest of the Athiests confession.
And Yeah I dont have the political correct thing down either, actually my best friend growing up is an Indian guy and some of my best friends are Hispanics. Man that ought to get em eh? Eh is what they say in Canada.
Anyway greetings Dmiller nice to talk to you.
the skyman
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
What so you mean when you say that someone 'insults your God'? Could you specify please?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Don't worry about it sky. I'm sure God is capable of not letting it bother Him. After all -- God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son that whosoever . . . . I don't think He had Christians in mind when it's stated that He loves the world. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
u said:What so you mean when you say that someone 'insults your God'? Could you specify please?
High Priest Richard Dawkins of the Athiest Credo let out a diatriabe in his Book "The God Delusion" that I will post if you want me too. (Basically he called the God of the Old Testament an unbelieveable assortment of names). If you want me to I will go fetch it for you, its about the biggest insult ever from a guy by the name of Richard Dawkins. ) BTW, I read this guys books hes is right up there with the Calvin with his nonsense and I can prove it.
I will fetch it for you if you want me too. It's one of the biggest bunch of crocks i have ever heard. Garth, I am am a technician, I am not good with political stuff and current and historical events. My studies relate to very technical stuff like math and logic. (That's the way my mind works) I am an (Inactive) Certified Public Accountant. I can make logic out of words. Garth: I can read guys like Kant and Decartes and tell you why they are reasonable and why guys like Frederick Nitshke are liars FROM COMMON SENSE LOGIC.) IT IS 2+2=4 FOR TO ME. (Philospophy and logic are the the same topic which is logical or mathematical sense out of words. This is a topic of my enjoyment. I also enjoy the same topic (Logic/philosphy/religion)with respect to Greek language and so forth, as I have 15 credits of Biblical Greek) Yet when it comes to political and historical and current events I am somewhat lacking When it comes to history and current events (political correctness) I am very much lacking. Like with the Calvin thread, I really didnt understand the stuff on Little Rascals and I am sincere about that. Ie( A friend of mine told me I was not Politcally correct) while you said that was not it.
skyman
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth ( see above post)
Larryandmoore:
Thanks for the post.
Richard Dawkins bugs me but he doesn't bug me nearly as bad as creepy crawler John Calvin.
cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze
Thanks Larry
later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Sky, may I recommend a book to you? I found it helpful. Maybe you've already seen it. It's William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience. I'm not saying James is "right;" I'm not a Pragmatist, but he got me thinking about the subject of God/ no God in a way that helped me to respond better to people of all persuasions.
Over in the "fresh air" thread, TBone shared some stuff about how atheists actually help Christians. He cited someone who called them "the loyal opposition" or something.
God can be just as displeased with theists as with atheists. I myself sometime prefer an atheists company to religous folks! Depends on the atheist, of course! Best of all is when brethren dwell together in harmony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I don't find athiests particularly offensive and don't understand why some try to argue them out of it. If there is nothing there (in a belief) for them, how is arguing going to make it happen?
I do find those that push their beliefs as correct for all other humans offensive, though I know many don't mena to be, and have seen that much more in the Christian Church than anywhere else. I think the idea that 'my beliefs are correct and every human should follow them' is actually a destructive way to think, and leads to enmity when others choose not to think the 'right' way. I think it weakens personal relationships, families, communities...
IMO humans are physical beings with connections and glimpses into the spiritual, which we cannot fully understand...some people have different glimpses and inspiration than others. Some see nothing spiritual, some see one thing, some see another. To tell someone that what they perceive is false is foolish, to me--because no one can replicate their own perception in someone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble and Another Dan:
i dont get in arguements with athiests either. If I read a book and find insconsistencies I do not mind pointing them tho.
Another dan: u said: God can be just as displeased with theists as with atheists. I myself sometime prefer an atheists company to religous folks! Depends on the atheist, of course! Best of all is when brethren dwell together in harmony.
Yeah I dont know many athiests. I do know a few agnostics. So I really can't tell you much about getting in knock down drags outs with them. I think because of the Calvin thread your maybe thinking I am always a fire starter too dan, really I am not that much. Shouldn't a place where doctines are discussed by many different people have some major disagreements tho? I think that is healthy and should be expected.
I was speaking, another dan, from mostly watching some of these conventions where the topic of God is talked about and you get athiests and Liberty U or Christians cross firing. The diatribes and exchanges do get very very heated.
Athiesm and Evoloution actually has political impetus today. It is part of a political agenda. I dont know if you guys are aware of that. It doesn't have platform impetus with the democrats but it has people in places that propel it everywhere. Judges, journalists, sceintists and others. Evolution in my view is NOT A SCIENCE. I think it is a religion.
Bramble u said:
I think the idea that 'my beliefs are correct and every human should follow them' is actually a destructive way to think, and leads to enmity when others choose not to think the 'right' way. I think it weakens personal relationships, families, communities...
I agree with that statement bramble i really do. BUT WHY DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ABOUT "EVERY HUMAN SHOULD FOLLOW THEM" You see, that statement you said, that where cultist wrong thinking takes people. The end is always with a person. When we talk shouldn't a logical arguement leave someone at the feet of Jesus? That's what I think. So I dont think arguing is necessarily bad. Jesus got in some scraps with the leaders there right? There is however, a problem with what you just said too though. The way some people think ie (evolution/Calvinism) is very very destructive. In fact, there is a book by Richard Wiekart that traces evolution roots to Nazi facism and eugenics. Not even evolutionists, will argue much that eugenics movement is the evolutionary child. Evolutionists just dont like to take credit for eugenics when it goes awry. I mean Earnst Haekel was a big time into eugenics and evolution. The quack doctor drew up fake drawings to prove evolution. Eugenics today just has different names like cloning and stuff like that. Don't get me wrong I am not saying cloning is the same as Eugenics, I am just saying that in the wrong hands it could be like eugenics. What I am trying to say Bramble is this: When things in a country go real real bad, there is almost always an ideology behind what went wrong. The greatest mass murders in the last century all where evolutionists: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Nazi Germany.
This is why I think topics of this nature are important.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Amazingly enough, I have a life outside of Grease Spot Cafe!
I don't consider myself an atheist, but understand the atheist point of view.
I consider myself an agnostic: I don't see the existance of God or gods as established, but I don't rule it out either.
I don't think that an atheists "needs" God
I've got laundry to do and a family at home today, so maybe I'll check in later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
Well, at least Dawkins doesn't go around wanting to kill heretics and burn people at the stake like Calvin did.
Oh by the way, this killing of heretics/unbelievers idea that Calvin had so much of a fetish on, ... didn't the God of the OT also have that characteristic? In spades? ... Maybe that was one of the reasons why Dawkins called the OT God 'an unbelieveable assortment of names'?
... hell, I would too. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Look, sky, your question is unanswerable. An atheist has a non-belief in the existence of God. Before they could address your question they would have to concede that God exists.
Now you could ask a theist the same question and receive some interesting answers. For instance: A need for what? Salvation -- absolutely! To live a moral life? -- Absolutely not.
I think you should spend some time on some atheist's boards. Listen to them and try to understand them. You might find you'll learn more about them and yourself then you might think possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble and another dan see above post
Oakspear and Garth: (and Larrynmoore this will explain to your last post)
I had you pegged wrong Oak, my mistake, which means this thread should now go south. Since Garth was so good to cut my question in two like a intelligent person would, I will explain.
When the question is posed to an athiest "Does an athiest have a need for God?"
Most of them will suddenly answer NO or False.
The question has 2 parts for it:
1) Pesumes the existence of God
2) Proves that the person answering it doesn't want God.
Thus by answering it an athiest is telling you that they believe in God and have no need for him.
It's sort of the same logic derived by famous French philospher Renae DeCartes, who proved the existence of God by logic. An athiest only has one reference point from which to work. Ie(themselves) Thus, if you ask them a question outside there own reference point there arguement always fails. SO ANYWAY THATS WHERE I WAS GOING ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH
GARTH U SAID:
of course your Calvin quote suits my purpose
Dawkins might have been a little more impressive if he had cited a point from the OT and then explained an oratory of one word. THEN I COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT ARGUEMENT APART. Dawkins is a garbage can. I can defend OT stuff Garth, but now we are talking miles and miles of stuff to say, which I think would be better left for another thread. Hey does this mean we disagree ?
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Although I'm Not-The-Oaks, I thought I'd quote a Bramble line or 2 -
I think that's so basic and so true, it's often overlooked, even when I try to maintain that attitude.Two people looking at the same thing don't have the same vision, literally. They're different. If they agree they're still two different renderings of the same thing, individually owned.
Two people look at an animal. One sees a bird that flies. Another sees a meal. It's still a bird but what it means is completely different to the two people and causes completely different interactions.
When we say "God" we can't even define that as clearly as a bird, so I have to think the range of responses would have to vary. The field of vision is too big. There may be an aspect of God I never even fully see let alone articulate, whereas someone else does.
To me, an "atheist" would be someone who looks and doesn't see what I see. If I say "bird", they might say "nothing, no bird". That's a very simplistic description, doesn't really cover it well, but that's kind of my take. It's a fascinating idea to me, as long as the Bird/No-Birds allow for free range living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think another way to look at it is that even an atheist has heard of God, or the concept of God, so that even if he or she doesn't believe that there is a God, the response to the question is in the context of the asker's question.
Yes, the question presumes the existance of God, but answering it doesn't necessarily assume the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I agree that discussion is healthy. The way you started this thread did seem a little incendiary, like you were picking a fight. "Hey Oakspear! Come on outta that there saloon! I want a few words with you!" But again, I agree. Discussion is healthy. If a "fight" is based on logic, the best logician wins, no matter who's right or wrong. The question is, what is this discussion based on. And I don't know and don't want to assume, because the ground rules haven't been laid. You started with a question you wanted answered yes or no, and that hasn't even been answered yet by your chosen discussionee. I would assume you have a plan with which to proceed if Oak answers yes, and if Oak answers no. Makes your options easier for your next move. An open-ended question would multiply the kinds of responses you might get, and it would be more difficult to anticipate what your next move would be. Not that I have a problem with your question, or even starting fires. Like you said, discussion is good. That is, if it's a good discussion.
edit: OK, lots of posting going on here. I sometimes take a LONG time to compose a post! Worked out good. Sky... it's not gone south. It was good!
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
He proves nothing in that regard. He only proves that he believes in God, and that he mistakes that belief as proof by default. Try again.Untrue: The reference point that atheists refer to is verifiable proof. The "Ie., themselves as the one reference point" accusation is just that: ONLY an accusation, and one born out of an angry rebuke to an open challenge of their belief. Nothing more.
Ironically enough, so did Calvin, particularly in reference to his wanting heretics killed. ... you might want to rethink your premise because of this. ;)
And how does my 'Calvin quote' suit your purpose?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
But I don't see how you would know that seeing as how you previously stated:
Yeah I dont know many athiests.
Perhaps you need to get out a bit more. It's a mistake (imo) to try to "box" an atheist into a neat, tidy little box of your own design until you actually spend some time with more than just a few. The Internet offers you that opportunity. Use it and learn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth,Bramble, Oakspear Moore(see my post on the other page)
Anotherdan u said:incendiary, like you were picking a fight. "Hey Oakspear! Come on outta that there saloon! I want a few words with you!"
You are taking me all wrong anotherdan. I think Oakspear is a terrifc guy. We had some conversation years ago that was terrifically enjoyable for me. That certainly is not my point with Oakspear. I think again, because of the Calvin thread, you are presupposting that on me. Am I saying that about Calvinists? Yeah let me parse it for you: Hey Calvinists come on outta that saloon i wanna have a few words with you.
you know Dan, people of Pentacostal persuasion used to make that same arguement to me about people of TWI. Ie( dont argue with them) (Arguing with people is the "wrong spirit" Jesus wouldn't do that.) I think thats non-sense(but only sometimes) and I want to tell you why. You were in TWI right? If somebody had pistol whipped you maybe you would have had less of a 'bad experience" Even if not you certainly some people from this room would say so. Here's the point: you can't just lay down for whacks like Calvin. That's what Calvin would have wanted. That's how guys like Calvin win. Thus, sometimes and I say only sometimes, a good fight is necessary. I mean the Apostle Paul had great doctrinal arguements during his day. The fights back then were to the point of blood. So to say again, I am not of that kind of spirit when it comes to guys like Oakspear. In a short word, if the speeding limit for everyone else is 60 miles an hour, the speed limit for looking at Calvin is 90mph.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.