Evidence

[RevBogovac]

On 12/27/2019 at 10:55 AM, RevBogovac said:

It takes (a lot) of courage for a man to admit he does not have all the answers and probably will never have them... and still continue to live his live as best as he can (only accepting evidence for the best answer possible at that moment in time).

 

Who was it that said: "the more I know the more I realise how little I know"...?

 

So I want to add another downside to living a lie: you do not only lose a lot of your valuable time, but you actually lose time that you could have spend on things that are scientifically proven to give live purpose, meaning and over-all well-being: spending time on a passion that you want to develop further (preferably in a team effort) and spending time enriching other peoples lives (giving mutual benefits)....

 

On 12/27/2019 at 5:15 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Its presumptuous to conclude that someone is living a lie without any evidence to support it. Just because God cannot be scientifically proven does not equate to a lie, it just demonstrates the limitations of science. The upside to God being real, is that time becomes an unimportant thing to live for, because time ends with the return of Christ. Life has no purpose beyond the grave without faith. For me, what little science can prove gives life little meaning. [...]

 

 

No, it isn't (presumptuous); this is a topic on evidence. To me that means empiric evidence. So yes, "your" evidence falls short of empiricism and is therefore qualified as "living a lie".

 

What you call "limitations of science" is still a lot more empirical evidence than what you offer as evidence. No, not "all knowing", not "without flaws"... but getting better and better.

 

And yes; science does have provable knowledge "beyond the grave" (read up on: conservation of energy).

 

But, long story short: you are afraid of dying and therefore are willing to accept some man-made-up-story... without any real evidence.

[Pete]

Also Dan talks about Jesus personified love and therefore I should listen. Even on a basic , I have to say whom am I listening too. I don't know if god  or Jesus existed and the story line was not just made up by his followers.  I see no book written directly by any god in the bible. Nearly all is written by people who were not there or never met Jesus or god. 

You yourself are prepared to assert things as fact that you have not seen or experienced in other than emotional substance. How am I not to believe that there was not people back then who did not do the same, but this did not stop them writing stuff in your book.

It was this blind assertions that convinced me Christianity does not know what it is talking about and if any of this is true. That is why I am an agnostic and your not.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Pete:

 

There are many fictional characters -- from literature and legend -- who personify various characteristics.  Jesus is on that list.  Along with Captain Ahab, Robbin Hood, King Arthur, Dracula, Batman, Superman, Mosses, Spiderman, Long John Silver, Moby Dick, etc.  Do we need to repudiate any of them?

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

True, but I am not asking people to accept any of them as a god and circumventulate their reason based on someone else's unsupported belief structure. Even if they were written approximately two thousand years ago.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

True, but I am not asking people to accept any of them as a god and circumventulate their reason based on someone else's unsupported belief structure. Even if they were written approximately two thousand years ago.

 

 

Just so.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

What kind of evidence is God sending us?

 

 

 

 

[Key]

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

 

 

1.  All my life, Christians have been preaching at me.  I have heard.  Why do you suppose I never joined up?     

 

2.  Yes.    

 

3.  Pete is not offended by the Bible.  Pete is offended by your use of the Bible.    

 

4.  Pete and I are both aware of the many contradictions in Scripture.  There is no need to assemble them for us.     

 

5.  Yes.  More of God not knowing.  

 

6.  Back to the perfect plan.  I read the Book.  They all fail.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, he did forewarn he was going to provide them, and gave you an invitation to stop reading the message at that point. Also, I do believe he was providing the passages for my benefit.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

28 minutes ago, Key said:

To be fair, he did forewarn he was going to provide them, and gave you an invitation to stop reading the message at that point. Also, I do believe he was providing the passages for my benefit.

 

 

I went back looking for exactly what Dan said and what he was responding too.  This is what I found on page 7.

 

." So stop reading here if your bored with biblical references that substantiate my position, its the dogma Jonathan warned you about"  

 

 

 

"3.  since Pete is so offended by the bible,"

 

 

Dan twists things around.     

 

I was explaining to Dan, that Pete was not offended by the Bible.  It was Dan's use of the Bible that offended Pete.  Look how Dan twisted that.       Only in Dan's mind, would I be warning Pete about Dan's winning dogma.     It's all there on page 7.  If you can sift through Dan's manure.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mark 45]

On 12/29/2019 at 1:04 PM, Dan56 said:

 

 

Whatever we believe is not nothing, whether its spiritual or physical. One is simply everlasting while the other is temporary. Jesus encompassed all of the things you value (love, friendship, kindness, honor, ethics, wisdom, doing what's right). So I read these things as saying that each of you endorse all the values Jesus espoused and demonstrated, but you disavow & repudiate Christ himself. It sounds illogical to embrace your values while refusing to endorse One who personified them to perfection. Be that as it is, remove the spiritual element and your essentially Empiricist, who embrace Nihilism. jmo

why can't we believe in the values you try to dress up in religion,and give credit to someone who wouldn't have been around when humans started expressing these values(i'm not going to get into the discussion about whether said deity existed or not).humans can express these values and not express a belief in a deity(or whatever)or even have a belief in same.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 minutes ago, mark 45 said:

why can't we believe in the values you try to dress up in religion,and give credit to someone who wouldn't have been around when humans started expressing these values(i'm not going to get into the discussion about whether said deity existed or not).humans can express these values and not express a belief in a deity(or whatever)or even have a belief in same.

 

 

Does it matter?     

 

 

[mark 45]

no,it doesn't.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mark 45 said:

no,it doesn't.

 

 

Just so.     

[Dan56]

23 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

 

No, it isn't (presumptuous); this is a topic on evidence. To me that means empiric evidence. So yes, "your" evidence falls short of empiricism and is therefore qualified as "living a lie".

 

What you call "limitations of science" is still a lot more empirical evidence than what you offer as evidence. No, not "all knowing", not "without flaws"... but getting better and better.

 

And yes; science does have provable knowledge "beyond the grave" (read up on: conservation of energy).

 

But, long story short: you are afraid of dying and therefore are willing to accept some man-made-up-story... without any real evidence.

 

So you believe that everything which falls short of empirical evidence automatically qualifies as a lie?

I have no fear of dying because I believe in life everlasting. I'd believe the bible even without the promise of eternal life. And I believe its inspired by God, not made up by man.

 

23 hours ago, Pete said:

Also Dan talks about Jesus personified love and therefore I should listen. Even on a basic , I have to say whom am I listening too. I don't know if god  or Jesus existed and the story line was not just made up by his followers.  I see no book written directly by any god in the bible. Nearly all is written by people who were not there or never met Jesus or god. 

You yourself are prepared to assert things as fact that you have not seen or experienced in other than emotional substance. How am I not to believe that there was not people back then who did not do the same, but this did not stop them writing stuff in your book.

It was this blind assertions that convinced me Christianity does not know what it is talking about and if any of this is true. That is why I am an agnostic and your not.

 

I don't assert things as fact, except fulfilled prophecy. The bible is received by faith, but I list evidence that I believe lend credibility to the stories. Its fine that you can't accept any of it, I just state reasons why I do.

[Dan56]

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

I was explaining to Dan, that Pete was not offended by the Bible.  It was Dan's use of the Bible that offended Pete.  Look how Dan twisted that.     

 

 

 

I must of misunderstood? It sure sounded like Pete was sick & tired of me quoting bible verses. 

 

" Stop peddling it because it will never make sense to me. If a person does not believe the bible then quoting it or presenting it as presumed evidence means nothing to the reciever " Pete

" If someone is told that they do not believe the bible as evidence then quoting more of it and using it to justify your argument is futile" Pete

" The other mistake is they quote from these books and creeds as if people have not heard them before. Most agnostics.and atheists have heard them before and found them shallow and unfounded. " Pete

" It does not take intelligence to quote scripture. " Pete........ " You play around with the bible as you want but I am not interested. " Pete

 

 

9 hours ago, mark 45 said:

why can't we believe in the values you try to dress up in religion,and give credit to someone who wouldn't have been around when humans started expressing these values(i'm not going to get into the discussion about whether said deity existed or not).humans can express these values and not express a belief in a deity(or whatever)or even have a belief in same.

 

You certainly can share some of the same moral values. My only point was that it seemed illogical to disparage and denigrate a person who personified many of the same moral attributes that they claim to embrace? I can only surmise that despite holding some similar moral values, the hatred for who Christ professed to be rules the day.. Kind of a "love the message but kill the messenger mentality".

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

So you believe that everything which falls short of empirical evidence automatically qualifies as a lie?

I have no fear of dying because I believe in life everlasting. I'd believe the bible even without the promise of eternal life. And I believe its inspired by God, not made up by man.

No I assert that your peddling religion in a no religion section. Can you talk about something that is not your view of your religion and your faith .

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

I don't assert things as fact, except fulfilled prophecy. The bible is received by faith, but I list evidence that I believe lend credibility to the stories. Its fine that you can't accept any of it, I just state reasons why I do.

Fulfilled nothing. The story of Jesus is choriographed to fit the verses. Verses whose original meaning had nothing to do with Jesus. Yet, I know you believe this stuff but your still talking religion in a no religion section.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 12/29/2019 at 1:04 PM, Dan56 said:

 

 

Whatever we believe is not nothing, whether its spiritual or physical. One is simply everlasting while the other is temporary. Jesus encompassed all of the things you value (love, friendship, kindness, honor, ethics, wisdom, doing what's right). So I read these things as saying that each of you endorse all the values Jesus espoused and demonstrated, but you disavow & repudiate Christ himself. It sounds illogical to embrace your values while refusing to endorse One who personified them to perfection. Be that as it is, remove the spiritual element and your essentially Empiricist, who embrace Nihilism. jmo

 

 

This entry has become the current point of contention.  Jesus as the personification of various virtues and qualities.  Jesus as the personification of love, peace, charity, etc.

 

To my understanding, All of the gods are personifications.  I think a good example would be the Mighty Thor.  As a Thunder god, Thor personifies the chaos of the storm.  Thor is also a war god.  Thor personifies the chaos of battle.  Is there an actual Thor?  Running around the Earth with his mighty hammer?  No.

 

Which brings us back to Jesus.  I have no objection to saying that Jesus personifies love -- in the same way that Thor personifies chaos.  Neither one of them actually walked the Earth, in physical reality.  That is what personification means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I must of misunderstood? It sure sounded like Pete was sick & tired of me quoting bible verses. 

 

" Stop peddling it because it will never make sense to me. If a person does not believe the bible then quoting it or presenting it as presumed evidence means nothing to the reciever " Pete

" If someone is told that they do not believe the bible as evidence then quoting more of it and using it to justify your argument is futile" Pete

" The other mistake is they quote from these books and creeds as if people have not heard them before. Most agnostics.and atheists have heard them before and found them shallow and unfounded. " Pete

" It does not take intelligence to quote scripture. " Pete........ " You play around with the bible as you want but I am not interested. " Pete

 

 

 

You certainly can share some of the same moral values. My only point was that it seemed illogical to disparage and denigrate a person who personified many of the same moral attributes that they claim to embrace? I can only surmise that despite holding some similar moral values, the hatred for who Christ professed to be rules the day.. Kind of a "love the message but kill the messenger mentality".

 

 

Allow me to clarify.  It is not the Bible verses that Pete is sick and tired of.  It is you -- quoting the Bible -- at him -- that Pete is sick and tired of.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

49 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

This entry has become the current point of contention.  Jesus as the personification of various virtues and qualities.  Jesus as the personification of love, peace, charity, etc.

 

To my understanding, All of the gods are personifications.  I think a good example would be the Mighty Thor.  As a Thunder god, Thor personifies the chaos of the storm.  Thor is also a war god.  Thor personifies the chaos of battle.  Is there an actual Thor?  Running around the Earth with his mighty hammer?  No.

 

Which brings us back to Jesus.  I have no objection to saying that Jesus personifies love -- in the same way that Thor personifies chaos.  Neither one of them actually walked the Earth, in physical reality.  That is what personification means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An addendum:  Dan, this is what you said to Mark.

 

 

"You certainly can share some of the same moral values. My only point was that it seemed illogical to disparage and denigrate a person who personified many of the same moral attributes that they claim to embrace?"

 

If you want Jesus to be a personification -- you are agreeing that he is mythology.  Just like Thor.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I must of misunderstood? It sure sounded like Pete was sick & tired of me quoting bible verses. 

 

" Stop peddling it because it will never make sense to me. If a person does not believe the bible then quoting it or presenting it as presumed evidence means nothing to the reciever " Pete

" If someone is told that they do not believe the bible as evidence then quoting more of it and using it to justify your argument is futile" Pete

" The other mistake is they quote from these books and creeds as if people have not heard them before. Most agnostics.and atheists have heard them before and found them shallow and unfounded. " Pete

" It does not take intelligence to quote scripture. " Pete........ " You play around with the bible as you want but I am not interested. " Pete

 

 

 

You certainly can share some of the same moral values. My only point was that it seemed illogical to disparage and denigrate a person who personified many of the same moral attributes that they claim to embrace? I can only surmise that despite holding some similar moral values, the hatred for who Christ professed to be rules the day.. Kind of a "love the message but kill the messenger mentality".

 

 

You could surmise that.  You would be wrong.  Still, feel free to make your baseless assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

No I assert that your peddling religion in a no religion section. Can you talk about something that is not your view of your religion and your faith .

Fulfilled nothing. The story of Jesus is choriographed to fit the verses. Verses whose original meaning had nothing to do with Jesus. Yet, I know you believe this stuff but your still talking religion in a no religion section.

 

Yes.