Songster

Member
  • Posts

    1,571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Songster

  1. On 1/18/2019 at 4:22 PM, Dan56 said:

     

    Still straining at gnats.... "there is no evidence, so we don't believe" verses "the absence of evidence causes them to reject"... No evidence is the same as absence of evidence, and not believing something is the same as rejecting it. E.g; If I believe something I accept it as being true, and if I don't believe something I reject it as being false... That's point blank, no straw man about it.

     

     

    That's your best intellectual response? As always, its what you resort to when losing an argument, and it says more about you than it does me.

     

    Do either of you even hear what your challenging? Your claiming that not believing something is completely different than rejecting it? If that's the case, I guess I can presume that your non-belief in God actually means that you accept God.... Doesn't get anymore illogical than that

    I've been working too much lately to take an active part in the forum's discussions, and was surprised that this "conversation" was continuing....

     

    Dan....

    There's a couple old adages about the futility of arguing with an ass: 

     

    1)  An ass will never change it's mind, and only a "dumb ass" wastes his time trying to change it.

    and 

    2)  Once an ass has made up it's mind, the only way to change it is with a bullet.

     

    Let it go...

     

    Peace.

  2. 7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    You know a lot less about my understanding than you think.  Your evaluation of your own understanding is lacking in substance.

     

    For the rest -- you think that you are in a position to lead someone to enlightenment?  You?  Of all the smug, condescending, arrogant.....  Words fail.  Try and impress someone, with your great wisdom, who gives a crap.

     

    :whist:

     

     

     

     

    I am well aware of my own personal and intellectual failings.

    You, apparently, have yet to find anything about yourself that disappoints.

    (TRY SMUG, ARROGANT, AND CONDESCENDING...)

    As for my leading another to enlightenment.... My own soul is my only concern. If I can assist another, I do what I can....

    Personally, I have absolutely no care (but absolute certainty) where your soul (assuming you have one) spends eternity....

     

     

     

  3. 2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

    Wait.  You're serious.

    When one's eternal soul is concerned......

    Yes. Deadly serious......

    From my understanding of "atheists", some believe humans have souls. Others don't.

    Which are you?

    If you're an atheist that does not believe that a human body possesses an infinite soul...

    You may very well amuse yourself with flippant and/or derisive comments to those possessing a knowledge beyond your understanding.

    If you're an atheist that does believe one has a soul...

    It might be prudent to heed the words of one that is certain of the fact that the soul IS immortal.

  4. 8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    As I previously mentioned, the new testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous (+5000), they can be cross-checked for accuracy, and they are very consistent. Its funny how nonbelievers dismiss the accuracy of the most widely documented writings of the new testament, while accepting the reliability of comparable ancient writings like Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and other authors.. I have a hunch that even if you had the original manuscripts, you wouldn't believe them anyhow, so your essentially demanding proof of something you've dismissed as false?

    Dan, cuchulain has no desire for an honest exchange of views. He's what my wife calls a "right-fighter" (one who demands that his opinion or position be recognized or proclaimed as "right", even if it's wrong.) 

    "Those that refuse assistance on the path to enlightenment are deservedly doomed to dwell in darkness."

  5. 11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    My point was that no evidence and no proof would make you believe what you've already decided is false. If Christ appeared right in front of you and performed a miracle, you wouldn't believe it.. You would instead search for an explanation of what you witnessed in order to rationalize to yourself how it could have happened.

     

     

    The color of my house was inerrant, not the scriptures. The salvation of billions rest on their faith, not proof that satisfies their curiosity. Consider that we are here to prove ourselves to God, not vice versa. A person who hears/reads the story of Christ and rejects it, is more likely looking for something else. If you don't believe Christ was/is the Truth, your left to concoct your own version of what's true..

    We are not here to prove ourselves to God. We are here to glorify Him and His creation. Those that don't recognize or acknowledge His existence do not get to decide for others whether He exists.

    Denials of the Truth, made by those ignorant of the Truth, does not alter the Truth.

  6. 10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    An interesting response.  How very Christian of you.  

     

    KARMIC CREATIONIST best describes my beliefs.

    I have never claimed to be a candidate for sainthood. I lack the patience, and have neither the time nor inclination to accommodate the arrogant ignorance of the Godless (especially when they display their disdain for those possessing a KNOWLEDGE that is evidently beyond their comprehension.)

    Jesus may forgive them.... 

    I say, "To Hell with 'em. They deserve what they get."

  7. 6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    You believe that making the statement, "God spoke through the bush" is a plausible explanation of the event, or in any way proof that the event occurred?  I disagree.

     

    You  believe I am ill mannered and ignorant?  Well...good for you.  I am glad to see you aren't in any way rude, or demeaning with your posts.

     

    5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    There is a large problem in a forum where one member can repeatedly call the other mentally ill, ignorant, arrogant, and ill mannered...yet the moderator takes a stance against the offended member by stating "you didn't define true."

     

    True...as defined by the dictionary, for those who know me and my posts often see that I quote that book...True:  in accordance with fact and reality.

    For the record....

    “Ignorance” is defined as “lacking knowledge or awareness about something in particular. ”...

    You stated in a previous post, “...I don’t know.” (That is an admission of ignorance, is it not?)

    “Ill-mannered” is synonymous with "bad mannered, rude, impolite, etc..."

    Your inference that I was being disingenuous and/or purposefully misleading in my responses in this topic is arrogant behavior and, in effect, calling me a “liar”. (Calling someone a “liar” is generally considered rude and “ill-mannered”, is it not?)

    Finally, as for your assertion that I ever expressed any doubts about the status of your mental health...

    I had not previously considered the possibility, but given your irrational response to my posts, that might be something you should look into.....

  8. On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 2:28 PM, cuchulain said:

    Yyou offered a plausible explanation for talking plants?  I think you have an issue with dishonesty...

    I thought I had posted a reply to this post a couple weeks ago... evidently my lengthy response was not entered (or perhaps deleted?).

    First of all, your inference that I have been purposely misleading or dishonest is insulting and indicative of the inferior caliber of your character...

    I offered a plausible explanation for the "burning bush". You're free to discount whatever you desire, but your denial in no way negates the facts that a plant may indeed ignite and burn without being consumed.

    I did not claim that the plant itself was capable of vocalizing anything. God spoke to Moses from WITHIN the bush... Your inability to consider the possibility that YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING does not in any way negate the account as written, nor does it affect my views (or that of millions of others).

    Your ignorance may be excusable...

    Your arrogance and ill-mannered attitude is not.

     

  9. 3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    Show evidence of a speaking burning bush.

    My mission in this life is to get MYSELF through it without causing others harm in any way....

    When the opportunity to help another comes along, I’ve been ever-ready to assist, but I'll not drag anybody where they don't want to go....

    I offered a plausible explanation for the phenomena... It appears your mind is not amendable.

    You have decided what you want to believe, and I have neither the time nor patience to coax you into enlightenment.

    Again, my mission in life is to get MYSELF through it.... you, sir, are on your own.....

  10. On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 9:15 AM, cuchulain said:

    so the bible wasnt referencing a miracle with the burning bush story? (YES, IT IS CONSIDERED A MIRACLE)

    really? (YES, REALLY!)

    or are you beinng dishonest with that piece? (REALLY? DISHONEST? HOW SO...??? IS PROVIDING INFORMATION TO ILLUMINATE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION DISHONEST?)

    i dont believe that plant talks... (THE PLANT ITSELF DOES NOT SPEAK. GOD SPEAKS FROM WITHIN THE BUSH)

    and isnt it consumed? (NO. READ THE INFO ON IT, AND YOU'LL DISCOVER WHY IT ISN'T CONSUMED)

    clearly you try to obfuscate the truth, (THE TRUTH, EVEN WHEN CRYSTAL CLEAR, WILL NOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PERCIEVE THE TRUTH.)

    that there is no evidence of a burning bush SPEAKING.... (NOW WHO'S BEING OBTUSE?? THE EVIDENCE IS THERE, THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE OR NEGATE THE SOURCE OF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT MITIGATE IT'S VERASITY.

    didnt think i'd have to specify the important part of that story, but some simply cant grasp context i suppose.

    (IF THE QUESTION OR PREMISE IS POORLY PRESENTED, IT'S THE FAULT OF THE INQUISITOR, NOT THE RESPONDENT.)

     

  11. 5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    I don't believe in things until I have a decent reason to do so.  

     

    I don't have to have perfect evidence, I don't have to have evidence that is iron clad.  

     

    I don't believe in Unicorns because I haven't seen good evidence that they exist.  I don't believe in Zeus, contrary to the fact that I have seen lightning and that it has been in the past ascribed to the actions of said being.  I don't believe in Apollo, I see the sun though.  

     

    No...I don't believe in the biblical version of God, either.  I have similar reasoning for not believing in the biblical God as I do in Zeus, or Apollo.  

     

    I believe science.  I can point to Greek and Roman mythology and say...most everything in those books has turned out not to be true.  I can point to Christian mythology and say, while there are some historical accuracies in terms of cities that existed, and perhaps some of the people were around, I have never seen a burning bush nor had a divine voice descend from the heavens and tell me anything.  I have never seen prayer heal a severed arm or leg.  I have never seen a demon or anything remotely resembling this evil that Christians insist is so prevalent.  

     

    I can point to science and say there are many flaws and errors created in scientific investigation, but at the least the scientists are open to the possibility that they are wrong.  I can point to the process in many things that I encounter on a daily basis, things that I use that are based on scientific principles, that without science couldn't exist.  This computer is a prime example, as is the internet.  As is the fact that I can see, because I wear contacts.  As is the fact that my daughter is alive today.  Science is inherently bound within so much of everything we do, and we see it work on a daily, even hourly basis.  

     

    Some insist on calling this faith.  Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.  That is the very definition of faith.  Is there proof that Zeus produces lightning because he is angry?  No.  There are written testimonies from superstitious ancient people.  Is there proof that there was ever a burning bush?  No.  There are written testimonies from superstitious ancient people.  Is there proof that levetiracetam helps prevent seizures?  Yes.  It has been studied extensively, tested, gone through the scientific process...and it actually produces results that are reproducible.  So no...I don't have faith in science.  

     

    " Is there proof that there was ever a burning bush? " -  Dictamnus albus

    ".... scientists are open to the possibility that they are wrong. "  Thanks for the laugh!

     

  12. Hi, Doc!  Thank you for the post!

     

    I'm a poor apologist.  I've found that most folks that inquire about my beliefs are not really looking for insight or enlightenment, but for an opening to opine that my faith is unfounded and/or false doctrine.

     

    I know what I know...

     

    If I cannot prove that that which I know to be true is true...

    If I fail to answer all queries adequately...

    If I fail to assuage an inquisitor’s doubts...

    If my most persuasive rhetoric fails to entice even sympathetic listeners to comprehend and "see" the simplistic beauty of my faith,

    Then an antagonist might infer by my failings that denunciation and annulment of the principle tenets of my faith is justified.

    But my inability to convincingly communicate an ideal in no way negates the Truth...

     

    The fault is in me, not the doctrine.

  13. On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 7:19 AM, Geordon said:

     

    In some Pagan circles, this is currently known as "Unverified Personal Gnosis" or UPG.  There is some debate around the Pagan world about how legitimate UPG might be, but in my experience, it is no different than when "God speaks to me!" in Christian circles.  In neither case can the knowledge gained be "proven" in the larger context, but it is no less legitimate FOR THE INDIVIDUAL than accepted doctrine.

     

    At least, that's my tuppence! :D

    To me, it doesn't matter which faith (or non-faith) one may follow,

    Personal gnosis is but the first step on the path to our reunion with The Infinite... 

    My reading and religious education did not prepare me at all for the intensity of the blinding flash of immense and all encompassing love and understanding that accompanied my own "personal gnosis"....

    Before my epiphany, I had my doubts...

    But now......  I KNOW GOD.

    Should another cast doubt upon the validity of my experience...

    Desiring physical "proof" of the experience...

    I have none....

    I need none....

    • Like 1