Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

I - personally - would say any form of genocide is bad. 

 

 

Of course, genocide is bad.  A mind that has been corrupted by Scripture -- and faith --  might try to argue that genocide is permissible.  We know better.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I have been going over this thread.  It began with a snide attack on Agnostics.  What ever became of the original poster?  Just another drive by, from another pious intellectual, crap for brains.

 

I'm in a bad mood.  Not at all charitable.  When these attacks on Agnostics and Atheists cease, I will try sweetness and light.  Until then, I'm giving back what I'm getting.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I have been going over this thread.  It began with a snide attack on Agnostics.  What ever became of the original poster?  Just another drive by, from another pious intellectual, crap for brains.

 

I'm in a bad mood.  Not at all charitable.  When these attacks on Agnostics and Atheists cease, I will try sweetness and light.  Until then, I'm giving back what I'm getting.

 

Sounds like your defining a simple opinion as an attack again? But someone not agreeing with what you think doesn't constitute an attack. However, a comment like 'crap for brains' probably would.. The greater part of the first post in this thread was simply discussing how someone would need to be omniscient in order to conclude that the existence of God is not knowable (agnosticism). Right or wrong, its just an opinion and not an attack. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Sounds like your defining a simple opinion as an attack again? But someone not agreeing with what you think doesn't constitute an attack. However, a comment like 'crap for brains' probably would.. The greater part of the first post in this thread was simply discussing how someone would need to be omniscient in order to conclude that the existence of God is not knowable (agnosticism). Right or wrong, its just an opinion and not an attack. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). 

 

 

Just an opinion?  Posting here, that no finite mind can really be an Agnostic?  That's not an opinion.  That's an attack.  I returned his gift.  My regret is that the sender didn't receive it.  If pious bullies want to post here, they can take the consequences.

 

As for your pithy -- "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). 

 

You insist on hiding your insults behind Scripture.   I'm done with being walked on.  I have no reason to cede moral ground.    "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

 

 

[Dan56]

On 12/10/2018 at 5:31 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

As for your pithy -- "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). 

 

You insist on hiding your insults behind Scripture.   I'm done with being walked on.  I have no reason to cede moral ground.    "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

 

Taking a quote from a book as a personal insult is paranoia on overload.. The verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of God as being folly. God is spirit and is therefore spiritually discerned. I'd argue that the Agnostic mind is finite, because its limited to accepting only what it can physically sense, therefore anything existing in the spiritual realm is beyond comprehension. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Taking a quote from a book as a personal insult is paranoia on overload.. The verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of God as being folly. God is spirit and is therefore spiritually discerned. I'd argue that the Agnostic mind is finite, because its limited to accepting only what it can physically sense, therefore anything existing in the spiritual realm is beyond comprehension. 

 

I go by intent and your intent is clear.  You find Scripture that express your thoughts -- then you hide behind it.  It's the game you play.  It's what you do.

 

I'm aware of your arguments.  All based on the fact, that you project your own ideas onto Agnostics and Atheists.  Your understanding in these matters is limited.  You are mistaken.  I have been hearing the music of your mind for years.  I know the tune.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

The argument is:  "I believe everything the bible says literally"...then someone says, "but the bible says your a fool if you don't...", then you say..."But I didn't say you were a fool".

 

There is a direct link.  You fully believe the bible, which calls us fools, you repeatedly express that you believe the bible and its full message, then deny calling anyone a fool.  

 

It seems like a loophole in forum policy, from our perspective.  You are allowed to express your beliefs and views freely so long as you don't directly attack a fellow forum member.  But the attack is built in to your religious views.  I could claim to be a Satanist, claim that those religious views demand that I attack and deride Christians, and then hide behind that as well...and it would all be true from my perspective.  It would all fit neatly in the forum policy. 

 

But that's all an aside, just my interpretation of Johnathan's point to you, Dan.  I see it as well, though it did take me a while to see it.  I simply don't care that you continually do such.  But all an aside...your point about spiritual matters not being discernible by the physical.  Your continual shifting of the burden of proof.  "The verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of god as being folly."  That is a straw man argument and shifting the burden rolled up in one.  YOU are the one claiming we need to disprove your deity, not us(the definition of straw man argument is making an argument that someone else has made differently and then defeating it in the new form instead of its original, which you do here).  And by making it sound like we are trying to find physical evidence to disprove something, you are shifting the burden of proof.  You know perfectly well that you cannot disprove the existence of that magical unicorn that's completely undetectable but likes to hide behind your back...but you still don't believe that ridiculous nonsense is real, either.  It's the same with us and your god...and the analogy isn't as far off, either.  The unicorn would leave evidence of its existence, tracks, feces, eaten things, various other details that I don't care to think about.  So too would your god leave tracks...but he doesn't, any more than the unicorn.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

The argument is:  "I believe everything the bible says literally"...then someone says, "but the bible says your a fool if you don't...", then you say..."But I didn't say you were a fool".

 

There is a direct link.  You fully believe the bible, which calls us fools, you repeatedly express that you believe the bible and its full message, then deny calling anyone a fool.  

 

It seems like a loophole in forum policy, from our perspective.  You are allowed to express your beliefs and views freely so long as you don't directly attack a fellow forum member.  But the attack is built in to your religious views.  I could claim to be a Satanist, claim that those religious views demand that I attack and deride Christians, and then hide behind that as well...and it would all be true from my perspective.  It would all fit neatly in the forum policy. 

 

But that's all an aside, just my interpretation of Johnathan's point to you, Dan.  I see it as well, though it did take me a while to see it.  I simply don't care that you continually do such.  But all an aside...your point about spiritual matters not being discernible by the physical.  Your continual shifting of the burden of proof.  "The verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of god as being folly."  That is a straw man argument and shifting the burden rolled up in one.  YOU are the one claiming we need to disprove your deity, not us(the definition of straw man argument is making an argument that someone else has made differently and then defeating it in the new form instead of its original, which you do here).  And by making it sound like we are trying to find physical evidence to disprove something, you are shifting the burden of proof.  You know perfectly well that you cannot disprove the existence of that magical unicorn that's completely undetectable but likes to hide behind your back...but you still don't believe that ridiculous nonsense is real, either.  It's the same with us and your god...and the analogy isn't as far off, either.  The unicorn would leave evidence of its existence, tracks, feces, eaten things, various other details that I don't care to think about.  So too would your god leave tracks...but he doesn't, any more than the unicorn.

 

 

Your analysis is correct.  I think that you are making things more complicated than you need to.

 

The insult here, is that Dan is claiming that he has spiritual discernment -- and we don't.  How then should we regard this insult?

 

Do you remember the story of the "Emperor's New Clothes"?  A clever tailor tells the foolish Emperor, about a wonderful new fabric.  Only the truly discerning can see the cloth.  The Emperor wants a whole outfit made of this miracle fabric.  Of course, the Emperor can't admit he doesn't see the clothes.  That would mean he lacks discernment .  So he wears the non-existent outfit and he's very happy.  That is, until a foolish child calls out -- "Hey!  The Emperor is naked!"

 

What lesson do we learn from this?  Never let a weaver of tales (tailor) sell you a set of invisible garments -- or sell you an invisible friend.  If nobody can see it, maybe it's not real.

 

Or we can remember, all the times -- that Dan has insisted that faith is a choice -- and Dan has faith.  In the manner of Linus, telling Charlie Brown about the Great Pumpkin.  The Great Pumpkin only visits the children who believe in him.  Blind, obedient faith with no doubt at all.  Charlie Brown's downfall is he listens to Linus -- and spends a night in the Pumpkin Patch.  You know.  Just in case.  (Pascal's Wager)  At least those silly stories only wasted a night of Charlie Brown life.  Not his whole life.

 

Remember.  We are not insulting Dan.  We are only making reference to famous stories.  A man would have to be paranoid, to feel insulted by popular stories.  Wouldn't he?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

23 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I go by intent and your intent is clear.  You find Scripture that express your thoughts -- then you hide behind it.  It's the game you play.  It's what you do.

 

True, I believe the scriptures are true, so of course my thoughts are formulated and based on what they teach.. Its something I proclaim, and not something I hide behind or a game I play.

 

On 12/11/2018 at 11:37 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

you project your own ideas onto Agnostics and Atheists. Your understanding in these matters is limited.  You are mistaken.

 

Please elaborate, where is my definition of Atheism or Agnosticism lacking? One doesn't believe in any God/gods and the other thinks God's existence is unknowable. Nothing complicated or perplexing about either.

 

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The argument is:  "I believe everything the bible says literally"...then someone says, "but the bible says your a fool if you don't...", then you say..."But I didn't say you were a fool".

 

There is a direct link.  You fully believe the bible, which calls us fools, you repeatedly express that you believe the bible and its full message, then deny calling anyone a fool.  

 

If you read that verse carefully, its not calling you a fool, but states that the reason a man can't accept the things of the Spirit of God is because they are foolish to him..  "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). What's not true about that?

 

And I don't think its a straw man's argument to suggest to those who demand that God existence can't be proven, to point out to them that God's existence can't be disproven either.. It not a diversion, just a point and counterpoint discussion. Point of fact, the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.

 

18 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You are allowed to express your beliefs and views freely so long as you don't directly attack a fellow forum member.  But the attack is built in to your religious views.  I could claim to be a Satanist, claim that those religious views demand that I attack and deride Christians, and then hide behind that as well.

 

I don't see any attacks in my Christian views, aside from the belief that there's no eternal life for nonbelievers. But Atheist don't believe in an afterlife anyhow, so I don't see how that can be construed as any attack or threat?

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

True, I believe the scriptures are true, so of course my thoughts are formulated and based on what they teach.. Its something I proclaim, and not something I hide behind or a game I play.

 

 

Please elaborate, where is my definition of Atheism or Agnosticism lacking? One doesn't believe in any God/gods and the other thinks God's existence is unknowable. Nothing complicated or perplexing about either.

 

 

If you read that verse carefully, its not calling you a fool, but states that the reason a man can't accept the things of the Spirit of God is because they are foolish to him..  "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). What's not true about that?

 

And I don't think its a straw man's argument to suggest to those who demand that God existence can't be proven, to point out to them that God's existence can't be disproven either.. It not a diversion, just a point and counterpoint discussion. Point of fact, the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.

 

 

I don't see any attacks in my Christian views, aside from the belief that there's no eternal life for nonbelievers. But Atheist don't believe in an afterlife anyhow, so I don't see how that can be construed as any attack or threat?

 

 

 

Do your ears hear what your mouth is saying?  Yes.  It's your game and it's what you do.  You throw an insulting Scripture.  You then announce that it wasn't insult.  It was Scripture.  Then you act innocent while you hide behind that Scripture.  I marvel that you can't be honest about something so basic.

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

the original argument from the atheist perspective is that we don't believe in god until you can prove his existence.  It's a very simple premise.  You changed the argument to "the verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of god as being folly."  the verse asks for proof that god doesn't exist, from our asking for proof that god does exist.  You switched our argument to yours, which is not defeated because you cannot prove a negative, and then declare victory with the switched argument.  That is the very definition of straw man...but if you decry that it isn't, that's fine.  I'll pull one from a different member and simply ask repeatedly for evidence to the existence of god.  

 

As to your scripture...if man is natural, and the spirit cannot be perceived by natural man...then you have defeated your own argument with your own verse, because you cannot perceive the spiritual either, and the spiritual is the way you have your proof of god's existence(I.E. the holy spirit).  Ah well...it's really irrelevant because you will insert some other interpretation here to prove you are correct, and it will be very circular all around until we come back to the same points again, and you will still have failed to address the basic and simple question of proof of god's existence, and demand that we actually do have a burden to disprove your deities existence if we don't believe in him.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

the original argument from the atheist perspective is that we don't believe in god until you can prove his existence.  It's a very simple premise.  You changed the argument to "the verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of god as being folly."  the verse asks for proof that god doesn't exist, from our asking for proof that god does exist.  You switched our argument to yours, which is not defeated because you cannot prove a negative, and then declare victory with the switched argument.  That is the very definition of straw man...but if you decry that it isn't, that's fine.  I'll pull one from a different member and simply ask repeatedly for evidence to the existence of god.  

 

As to your scripture...if man is natural, and the spirit cannot be perceived by natural man...then you have defeated your own argument with your own verse, because you cannot perceive the spiritual either, and the spiritual is the way you have your proof of god's existence(I.E. the holy spirit).  Ah well...it's really irrelevant because you will insert some other interpretation here to prove you are correct, and it will be very circular all around until we come back to the same points again, and you will still have failed to address the basic and simple question of proof of god's existence, and demand that we actually do have a burden to disprove your deities existence if we don't believe in him.

 

 

Well, I'm bored.  I hate arguing with dishonest Fundies.  

[mark 45]

On 12/11/2018 at 11:37 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Taking a quote from a book as a personal insult is paranoia on overload.. The verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of God as being folly. God is spirit and is therefore spiritually discerned. I'd argue that the Agnostic mind is finite, because its limited to accepting only what it can physically sense, therefore anything existing in the spiritual realm is beyond comprehension. 

i disagree dan.any book can be used for personal insult,depending on whom is quoting from it.this could be the bible(or any book titled"bible"),or grims fairy tales.it's all about the person using it.

 

rest assured i am not paranoid at all.just an observation.

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Well, I'm bored.  I hate arguing with dishonest Fundies.  

yeah I think it might be time to stop this debate...about three pages ago.  

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You throw an insulting Scripture.  You then announce that it wasn't insult.  It was Scripture.

 

2 hours ago, mark 45 said:

i disagree dan.any book can be used for personal insult,depending on whom is quoting from it.this could be the bible(or any book titled"bible"),or grims fairy tales.it's all about the person using it.

 

Well, I guess I just don't understand how a person can be insulted by a book that they don't even believe is true? Seems ridiculous... What your saying is that you don't believe a word of it, but your highly offended by it.. How can you be insulted by something you deem fictional? I suspect that you just don't like the message, whether its true or not?

 

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 You changed the argument to "the verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of god as being folly."  the verse asks for proof that god doesn't exist, from our asking for proof that god does exist.  You switched our argument to yours, which is not defeated because you cannot prove a negative, and then declare victory with the switched argument. 

 

As to your scripture...if man is natural, and the spirit cannot be perceived by natural man...then you have defeated your own argument with your own verse, because you cannot perceive the spiritual either, and the spiritual is the way you have your proof of god's existence(I.E. the holy spirit). 

 

My point was simply that the verse explains that spiritual things are discerned spiritually, whereby those who require natural evidence to prove the existence of God will only be disillusioned by the notion and find it to be a foolish endeavor.  You can't discern spiritual truths via natural investigation, so God cannot be proved or disproved by looking around and trying rationalize how He could exist. 

 

Man is both natural (flesh & blood) and spiritual beings, so no, I don't believe the verse defeats any argument that God cannot be spiritually perceived. Being called by faith demands sight beyond what's visible to the natural man. It only seems like a circular argument because you've blocked yourself from considering anything beyond what you can materialistically comprehend. 'He that hath eyes to see, let him see', is not necessarily referencing a mountain view.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

56 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

1.  Well, I guess I just don't understand how a person can be insulted by a book that they don't even believe is true? Seems ridiculous...

 

2.  What your saying is that you don't believe a word of it, but your highly offended by it..

 

3.  How can you be insulted by something you deem fictional? I suspect that you just don't like the message, whether its true or not?

 

 

My point was simply that the verse explains that spiritual things are discerned spiritually, whereby those who require natural evidence to prove the existence of God will only be disillusioned by the notion and find it to be a foolish endeavor.  You can't discern spiritual truths via natural investigation, so God cannot be proved or disproved by looking around and trying rationalize how He could exist. 

 

Man is both natural (flesh & blood) and spiritual beings, so no, I don't believe the verse defeats any argument that God cannot be spiritually perceived. Being called by faith demands sight beyond what's visible to the natural man. It only seems like a circular argument because you've blocked yourself from considering anything beyond what you can materialistically comprehend. 'He that hath eyes to see, let him see', is not necessarily referencing a mountain view.

 

 

1.  Alright Dan.  You say you don't understand.  Perhaps this is true.  It seems unlikely -- to me -- that you're that stupid.  It seems more likely -- to me -- that you are simply dishonest.

 

2.  "What I'm saying"?  Don't put your words into my mouth.  Moving on.  It is not the Bible that I find highly offensive.  It's you, that I find highly offensive.

 

3.  My non-belief is not an issue.  You have weaponized Scripture.  You use Scripture as a weapon.  That is what I find offensive.

 

I think that I'm done here.  Unless you want to keep this going.

 

To any moderators who might be on the job:  I have been deeply offended by this exchange.  If you think that I have gone over the edge -- I am ready to take the consequences.  I'm not taking anything back.

 

Jonathan Lobl

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Well, I guess I just don't understand how a person can be insulted by a book that they don't even believe is true? Seems ridiculous... What your saying is that you don't believe a word of it, but your highly offended by it.. How can you be insulted by something you deem fictional? I suspect that you just don't like the message, whether its true or not?

 

 

My point was simply that the verse explains that spiritual things are discerned spiritually, whereby those who require natural evidence to prove the existence of God will only be disillusioned by the notion and find it to be a foolish endeavor.  You can't discern spiritual truths via natural investigation, so God cannot be proved or disproved by looking around and trying rationalize how He could exist. 

 

Man is both natural (flesh & blood) and spiritual beings, so no, I don't believe the verse defeats any argument that God cannot be spiritually perceived. Being called by faith demands sight beyond what's visible to the natural man. It only seems like a circular argument because you've blocked yourself from considering anything beyond what you can materialistically comprehend. 'He that hath eyes to see, let him see', is not necessarily referencing a mountain view.

 

 

To be clear, you mean the God that fits your cultural parameters.  You do not mean the God of Pantheism, as understood by Spinoza of Amsterdam.  You do not mean anything revealed by science, such as the God demonstrated by quantum mechanics.  You do not mean the God of Deism, as understood by Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.  You do not mean the God of Islam, as understood by over a billion Millions. Nor do you mean the God of Judaism, which has nothing to do with Jesus.   You do not mean Brahma the Creator, as understood by millions of Hindus.  Neither do you reference the gods, as understood by countless Polytheists.  No.  You mean your God.

 

So much for spiritual discernment.  Your narrow minded bigotry floweth over.

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

yeah I think it might be time to stop this debate...about three pages ago.  

 

What  can I say?  He gets to me.      

 

I must do a better job of letting go.     

 

 

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

1.  Alright Dan.  You say you don't understand.  Perhaps this is true.  It seems unlikely -- to me -- that you're that stupid.  It seems more likely -- to me -- that you are simply dishonest.

 

2.  "What I'm saying"?  Don't put your words into my mouth.  Moving on.  It is not the Bible that I find highly offensive.  It's you, that I find highly offensive.

 

3.  My non-belief is not an issue.  You have weaponized Scripture.  You use Scripture as a weapon.  That is what I find offensive.

 

I think that I'm done here.  Unless you want to keep this going.

 

So you don't find the bible offensive, its just me quoting the bible that offends you.. Sounds like your talking out of both sides of your mouth.. Not much of a rebuttal.. Scripture says what it says, its not a weapon to me. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it scares you so much?

 

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

No.  You mean your God.

 

So much for spiritual discernment.  Your narrow minded bigotry floweth over.

 

 

Yes, I do mean my God, I wasn't discussing any of the other beliefs you listed.

 

You sound angry again, I suspect your inability to discern anything of a spiritual nature is what's really upsetting you?  I'm convince that anyone can receive a spiritual revelation from scripture if they try reading with belief and pray for understanding .. Narrow mindedness is really relying on your own wits to denigrate what others have discerned is true,  just because you have no answers yourself.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

33 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

So you don't find the bible offensive, its just me quoting the bible that offends you.. Sounds like your talking out of both sides of your mouth.. Not much of a rebuttal.. Scripture says what it says, its not a weapon to me. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it scares you so much?

 

 

Yes, I do mean my God, I wasn't discussing any of the other beliefs you listed.

 

You sound angry again, I suspect your inability to discern anything of a spiritual nature is what's really upsetting you?  I'm convince that anyone can receive a spiritual revelation from scripture if they try reading with belief and pray for understanding .. Narrow mindedness is really relying on your own wits to denigrate what others have discerned is true,  just because you have no answers yourself.

 

 

 

I didn't think that my opinion of you could get any worse.  I was mistaken.  My opinion of you just got much worse.

 

I'm done here.

 

 

Proverbs 26:11 [Full Chapter]

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

 

 

 

Do not be confused.  That was me, insulting you, with Scripture.

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl