Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 113

Thread: What's the moral difference?

  1. #76
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default Sorry for the delay.

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    I am of the opposite oppinion because I believe that the Bible alone is His revelation to us. Otherwise it would not be written over a period of 2000+ years.
    The Bible is only said to be Godís revelation to us. The same is said about the Quran and other so-called holy books. Neither the belief that itĎs GodĎs revelation, nor the length of time it took to write it all down (and not even its popularity) will make it so.

    We will also disagree on that point.
    Iím sure we do. Itís worth noting, though, that not a single thing weíve learned about ourselves, the earth, or the universe has ever revealed a shred of evidence indicating that a deity had/has anything to do with it.

    In pursuit of a second Master's I studied stats. Even if there was a chi square ****ysis (which measures the difference between what would be expected in a normal distribution, aka a bell curve) done, I doubt that you would be able to understand it. ...
    Perhaps not. Weíll just have to wait and see. However, I am interested in knowing where you found ďÖthe result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to oneĒ. Do you have a link?

    Feelings are a horrid "measure of truth" because by definition, feelings are subjective, and not verifiable.
    I agree that feelings are not a measure of truth and, yet, the reasons I generally get from Christians for why they believe will usually boil down to just that. Iíve even been told outright by some that if it were proved, without a doubt, that God is and always has been a figment of the imagination, theyíd reject the proof in favor of the belief.

    I simply meant that there will be some from this forum who will attempt to derail a civil discussion, and we both know that.
    I know what you meant. I guess youíd know better than me since I donít visit here very often.

    Let me preface this with an adaptation of Socrates. Just as the unexamined life is not worth the living, so also is the unaxamined religion not worth the believing. That is because by the very nature of the term "religion", every religion sets out to determine meaning about the cause, nature and purpose of the Universe. Religion gives the answer to the questions like "Why am I here?" and "Why am I as a human, the only creature able to converse with other like humans and speak on an abstract level?" and "Is there anything bigger than me?"
    I agree that religion gives answers. Answers are easy; virtually anybody can do it. Determining what the correct answer is; thatĎs not so easy. Thereís only one way to determine whether or not an answer youíve received is correct and thatís by way of a demonstration of its validity.

    ... In other words, if there can be no other explanation for something, such as prophecy being of chance or inevitability, it must be God's handiwork.
    Or itís something else. The gist of what youíve said is, ďI donít know what else could explain it, therefore God did it.Ē To simply insert God wherever thereís a gap in our knowledge is deceptive and misleading. It only serves to encourage believers to stop looking for real answers to their questions.

    Therefore before anyone does any mathematics about prophecy, a strong definition must be established; remember the purpose of the definition is to rule out any possibility of being able to foresee something or of inevitably. The Wright Brothers making a prediction that men will be able to go to the moon, is an expected outcome of manned flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina thus making a case for inevitability. See what I mean?

    Are you with me so far?
    Yes, I see what you mean. However, until a statistical ****ysis, of the sort I mentioned earlier, is done by qualified and impartial statisticians (one of which I am not), then I donít think you and I can have a fruitful discussion on that matter. Besides, being that Iím currently involved in a few other conversations taking place all at once, Iím feeling a bit fatigued now. Am I the only non-believer on this website these days?
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  2. #77
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default Sorry for the delay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    The part where you define morality.
    I donít recall giving a definition of morality. Morality refers to the judgment of the goodness or badness* of human action and character as they relate to accepted/acceptable standards or conduct.

    *Goodness and badness are more difficult to define because everyone seems to have their own ideas of what they mean. I tend to rely on reason to determine if something is good/right/beneficial or bad/wrong/harmful.

    May I ask this question... Do you believe that Gay sex is the moral equivalent of hetero sex.

    please answer with a simple yes or no to begin,
    and then start your explanation.
    Yes, and this is why:
    The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesnít matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they arenít involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.

    I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .
    What makes you think that? Are you under the impression that ****sexual believers donít exist? I know for a fact that they do. What about substance abusers, adulterers, thieves, liars, murderers, etc.? Are they all atheists, too?
    It doesnít appear youíve given any serious thought to this.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  3. #78
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    <SNIP>
    I agree that religion gives answers. Answers are easy; virtually anybody can do it. Determining what the correct answer is; thatĎs not so easy. Thereís only one way to determine whether or not an answer youíve received is correct and thatís by way of a demonstration of its validity.

    Or itís something else. The gist of what youíve said is, ďI donít know what else could explain it, therefore God did it.Ē To simply insert God wherever thereís a gap in our knowledge is deceptive and misleading. It only serves to encourage believers to stop looking for real answers to their questions.
    What I am doing is to establish a prior philosophical and logical basis for the discussion of prophecy. One of the strenghts of the apologetics os Walter Martin was his insistence on defining the terms of the argument. That way the cultist, (most notably the Mormons) could not change the definition of a unicorn into that of a Pegasus; the difference being that the former has the body of a horse, and a spiral horn protruding from its forehead, and the latter also has the body of a horse, but lacks the horn, and can fly with the wings attached to irs spinal column.

    Yes, I see what you mean. However, until a statistical ****ysis, of the sort I mentioned earlier, is done by qualified and impartial statisticians (one of which I am not), then I donít think you and I can have a fruitful discussion on that matter. Besides, being that Iím currently involved in a few other conversations taking place all at once, Iím feeling a bit fatigued now. Am I the only non-believer on this website these days?
    It is rather a simple process to determine probability, and I will get to that later. I want to go about this methodically so you can see that this is logical, mathematically accurate, and that I am not making any ewrrors of logic. (spelling is another matter! )

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Einstein

    "I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones." Steven Hawking

    In both of these statements in red above, there is an inherent statement that there MUST be an objective, and observable and therefore unbiased component in religion. The only alternative is to have feelings and other subjective things that are unmeasurable. Therefore if we are speaking about the existence of prophecy, we first have to define it, and then having done that, we must be able to have a way to measure it.

    Since this discussion centers on prophecy in general, and BIBLICAL prophecy in particular, I will therefore propose that prophecy in general is the foretelling of an event in advance of its completion, and that BIBLICAL prophecy is similar, but it is also characterized by having known Prophet foretell an event, and that event is a warning, exhortation or instruction, all of which are divinely inspired by the definition of the word, "Prophet" and having the penalty of execution for an utterance of a prophecy that does not come about, or is falsely claimed to be from God:
    .
    Deuteronomy 18: 20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
    21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
    22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to p***, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
    .
    How are we to then measure prophecy? That is also relatively simple, it must be written down. Just as an oral contract is not worth the paper upon which it is written, so also is all prophecy that is not written down not worth anything. It is just like the childhood game we all played called "whisper down the lane". Because oral tradition changes at each retelling, and is not backed up by anything objective whereby anyone can authenticate it, then all religions that rely on oral traditions are unreliable as instruments of prophecy.

    As a result, metaphysical and no "holy hook" religions of the East, and these religions: Buddhism (Dhamapada), Taoism (Taoist Tao-Te Ching), Hinduism (Bhagavad-Gita ), Sikhism (Guru Granth Sahib Ji) can be dismissed from the discussion because their "holy books" have nothing of a prophetic nature in them.

    There are then only four religions which have prophecies in written form: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Nostradamians. Each of these have records that are "frozen in time" and then it is possible to examine these further.

    However, I gotta go, so I will pick this up again at a later time

  4. #79
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    "Yes, and this is why:
    The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.

    I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .
    What makes you think that? Are you under the impression that ****sexual believers don’t exist? I know for a fact that they do. What about substance abusers, adulterers, thieves, liars, murderers, etc.? Are they all atheists, too?
    It doesn’t appear you’ve given any serious thought to this. "

    The idea that sexual acts between consenting adults is none of your business is an immoral position to take.

    **** sex is unnatural sex;it's a perversion of sexuality.

    Anything unnatural should be everyone's concern. "It's not good to fool mother nature"

    It seem to be a given that today's atheists are also pro gay sex or are ****s themselves. one doesn't necessarily follow the other but gays need an ideology and atheism is ready made just for them.

  5. #80
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    What I am doing is to establish a prior philosophical and logical basis for the discussion of prophecy. One of the strenghts of the apologetics os Walter Martin was his insistence on defining the terms of the argument. That way the cultist, (most notably the Mormons) could not change the definition of a unicorn into that of a Pegasus; the difference being that the former has the body of a horse, and a spiral horn protruding from its forehead, and the latter also has the body of a horse, but lacks the horn, and can fly with the wings attached to irs spinal column.

    It is rather a simple process to determine probability, and I will get to that later. I want to go about this methodically so you can see that this is logical, mathematically accurate, and that I am not making any ewrrors of logic. (spelling is another matter! )
    I have to stop you here. Are you asking me to help you build a scientific model so that we can test it, ****yze the data, and make predictions? If so, Iíve already made it clear that I donít have the qualifications for this type of thing. Iím not a statistician. This would not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. So, Iím going to respectfully bow out of any further discussion on the topic of prophecy.

    I do want to address the Einstein and Hawking quotes, though.

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Einstein

    "I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones." Steven Hawking

    In both of these statements in red above, there is an inherent statement that there MUST be an objective, and observable and therefore unbiased component in religion. ...
    The Einstein quote doesnít mean what you think it means. You can read Einsteinís entire article at:
    http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm
    It isnít very long.


    Re the Stephen Hawking quote: Please provide the context. I suspect this, too, doesnít mean what you think it means.

    I know that quote is from ĎSteven Hawkingís Universeí by John Boslough, 1985, but I donĎt own a copy or I would look it up myself.

    Perhaps you should have a look at something a little more recent, such as:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ml?_s=PM:WORLD

    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  6. #81
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    The idea that sexual acts between consenting adults is none of your business is an immoral position to take.
    Really? Now you've got me wondering who the real pervert is. Do you think what your neighbors do in their bedrooms is your business?

    **** sex is unnatural sex;it's a perversion of sexuality.
    One personís notion of sexual perversion can be anotherís expression of love. Itís not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself.

    Anything unnatural should be everyone's concern. "It's not good to fool mother nature"
    Then you should probably run on down to the Veteranís Hospital and collect all those artificial limbs. Mother Nature must be furious about those.

    It seem to be a given that today's atheists are also pro gay sex or are ****s themselves. one doesn't necessarily follow the other but gays need an ideology and atheism is ready made just for them.
    Atheism is nothing more than non-belief in the existence of any deities. Whatever position an atheist takes on any other subject is entirely something else.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  7. #82
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    Really? Now you've got me wondering who the real pervert is. Do you think what your neighbors do in their bedrooms is your business?

    .
    why?...whats are they doing?

  8. #83
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post

    One personís notion of sexual perversion can be anotherís expression of love. Itís not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself.

    .
    most of the so-called "rape" in this part of the country over the last few years actually is the case of an adult male having sex with a underage small child, or is the case of an adult male having sex with a elderly person, or someone suffering from a mental issue that renders them unable to understand what is happening to them.

    Should we allow such things if the male that gets caught claims that "It was an expression of love"???

    What is the justification we have to claim that some "acts of love" are prohibited?



    I asked a non-believer this set of questions one time and they came back at me with an answer based around their idea that sex should always be allowed as long as their was "consent"

    But I cam back at them with "Who says consent is important?"
    "What unquestionable voice has stated that the idea of "consent" is all important?"

    "Did this idea that you have to have "consent" before you can have sex with a person fall from the sky?.....was it something that was written on stone by a mysterious hand?"



    My point?
    My point is that if a person thinks it's their *** to determine moral codes for everyone else, they are mistaken.
    If I think that it is my *** to determin your moral code by useing my own ability to reason, I am mistaken.
    If I think that a room full of people somehow gives the people the instant wisdom to determin moral differences between right and wrong?.....Im a fool.

    Why would I expect a room filled with people to somehow be granted the ability to know for sure the difference between right and wrong, when if I asked each of the people in that room to discribe why something is right ?...or why something is wrong?..they would have all sorts of reasons that dont agree with anyone else s??????



    So I cant on my own determine right and wrong.
    Washington on it's own cant determine right and wrong.

    But what people can do is support their idea of morality with the code of Scripture.
    For I take Scripture very serious.....regardless of a person's religion, or if they are in a Church or in a CULT.
    Want to empress me with your views on a topic dealing with right or wrong?...quote me Scripture.

    I finally told my friend-
    "But save our time and dont bother appealing to rooms filled with people as being your source of morality , (or stuff like that) cuz it's just a bunch of silly ducks quacking to me."

  9. #84
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    Then you should probably run on down to the Veteran’s Hospital and collect all those artificial limbs. Mother Nature must be furious about those.

    .
    creation does what comes natural to it's name...it is "creative"
    Therefore in nature it is the nature of life to be creative....to use what is within possibilities to use.
    Therefore artificial limbs are just as much a part of "Mother Nature's" path as anything else.

    It is the design of nature for things to change.
    All things change, from the rocks that crack in the earth, to the wounded soul that is learning to walk with a limp, all things in nature change and adapt to new situations new challenges.

    So when I tell you that your actions are "Against nature" Im not actually talking about birds, ants and trees...
    The phrase "against nature" is talking about a concept that stands against the author of nature.

  10. #85
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    I have to stop you here. Are you asking me to help you build a scientific model so that we can test it, ****yze the data, and make predictions? If so, Iíve already made it clear that I donít have the qualifications for this type of thing. Iím not a statistician. This would not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. So, Iím going to respectfully bow out of any further discussion on the topic of prophecy.

    I do want to address the Einstein and Hawking quotes, though. The Einstein quote doesnít mean what you think it means. You can read Einsteinís entire article at:
    http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm
    It isnít very long.
    Re the Stephen Hawking quote: Please provide the context. I suspect this, too, doesnít mean what you think it means.

    I know that quote is from ĎSteven Hawkingís Universeí by John Boslough, 1985, but I donĎt own a copy or I would look it up myself.

    Perhaps you should have a look at something a little more recent, such as:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ml?_s=PM:WORLD
    Since the quotes of Hawking and Einstein were statements whereby we could begin a discussion and that both state that that science and religion are not an***hetical; they were used to add to the depth of what was to follow. As a result they are ancillary to the meat of the argument I proposed, and to dwell on them is to derail the thoughts I stated. As such, I deem the further discussion of ancillary trivia a derail of the topic.

    But since I am aware of the dangers of quote mining, and since you questioned both the relevance and the context of the quote as being accurate, I submit this as my evidence of appropriateness:
    .
    Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
    ,
    Do you recall making this challenge to Christodoulous?

    Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]

    Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?

    What I am doing is to provide a way to make a simple way to examine EXACTLY what you pontificated about. Instead, it seems that you are attempting to move the goal posts and changing the discussion to things that are not related to the issues, which I bring up in a rational manner.

    Such movings of the goalposts included the discussion of statistics and when your irrational insistence on using a statistician when simple mathematical principles are used to determine probibility.

    Another moving is noted above in your reply to my post.

    Another is your ignoring the relevance of the Scriptures I posted as an answer to your questions

    Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]
    All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
    Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.
    Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]


    For me to conjure up something from my own imagination wonít get me any closer to a demonstrably valid reason to believe that the Bible is true and God is real. As a believer (and Iím ***uming youĎre also an adult), I want to know how you justify your beliefs, and I would hope that youĎd be able to articulate it. Who knows? Maybe youíll be the one to bring me back into ďthe fold.Ē Itís not beyond the realm of possibility.
    These quotes are also from you; and at this point, I am wondering if they are are disingenuous or genuine. Therefore I am asking you directly if you REALLY want to discuss the logical, reasonable and critical basis for faith or do you simply wish to avoid reality and continue in your illogical prejudice? I submit that what I have posted is indeed logical, but that what I am receiving in return has no basis in reality, nor is it logical. It is just specious reasoning designed to disguise a hardened heart.

    I am open to logical discussion and have demonstrated that; but sad to say, you have yet to demonstrate that you are open to logical discussion.

  11. #86
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    why?...whats are they doing?
    Why ask me? I’m not the one pretending to be the sex police.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  12. #87
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    most of the so-called "rape" in this part of the country over the last few years actually is the case of an adult male having sex with a underage small child, or is the case of an adult male having sex with a elderly person, or someone suffering from a mental issue that renders them unable to understand what is happening to them.
    That's terrible!

    Should we allow such things if the male that gets caught claims that "It was an expression of love"???
    Of course not!
    Read this:
    Quote Originally Posted by God-free
    The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.
    Nothing I said in this, or any of my posts, even remotely implies that sexual predators should be able to use “It was an expression of love” as a defense.

    What is the justification we have to claim that some "acts of love" are prohibited?
    You’re arguing against something that I don’t advocate and never implied that I did.

    I’m going to ignore the rest of this post and the remaining post from you. I think you owe me an acknowledgement that I have not indicated nor suggested, in any way, that rape in the form of men having sex with children, non-consenting old people, and the mentally ill, is morally acceptable. If you are not willing to acknowledge this, then you and I have nothing further to discuss.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  13. #88
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    "Yes, and this is why:
    The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesnít matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they arenít involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.
    I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .
    <snip>
    EXACTLY!

    The reason for that is because atheism is 100% relativistic. Logically speaking, atheism MUST be wishy-washy because to admit to any absolute truth, there MUST then be something greater than one's self who would be the One who establishes the absolutes. This is therefore the Achilles Heel of atheism, and it is the skeleton in the closet of every atheist. They really cannot escape that conundrum.

  14. #89
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    Since the quotes of Hawking and Einstein were statements whereby we could begin a discussion and that both state that that science and religion are not an***hetical; they were used to add to the depth of what was to follow. As a result they are ancillary to the meat of the argument I proposed, and to dwell on them is to derail the thoughts I stated. As such, I deem the further discussion of ancillary trivia a derail of the topic.

    But since I am aware of the dangers of quote mining, and since you questioned both the relevance and the context of the quote as being accurate, I submit this as my evidence of appropriateness:
    .
    Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
    You don't have to concern yourself about any further discussion of quote mining or anything else between us in this thread. Here's why:

    Do you recall making this challenge to Christodoulous?
    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?
    What I am doing is to provide a way to make a simple way to examine EXACTLY what you pontificated about. Instead, it seems that you are attempting to move the goal posts and changing the discussion to things that are not related to the issues, which I bring up in a rational manner.
    Actually, I was talking to alanmolstad when I said that, and it wasn’t a challenge, nor was I pontificating. It was merely a response to his ***ertion that “all we know about God is through revelation it is not a matter of thinking things through and coming up with a determination.” The point I was trying to get across to him is that it’s only revelation to the individual who receives it (if, in fact, they really do). To everyone else, it’s hearsay. To believe/trust someone else’s alleged revelation without question or thought is blind acceptance. I only wanted to know why he would do that.

    Your accusation (we’re back to that again?) that I’m attempting to move the goal posts and change the discussion is unfounded.

    Such movings of the goalposts included the discussion of statistics and when your irrational insistence on using a statistician when simple mathematical principles are used to determine probibility.
    This whole prophecy “discussion” started when you asked me if I thought a “discussion on the real nature of prophecy, the rules of Einstein about prophecy and the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one would help you understand?”. I responded by telling you I’d discuss it if those odds had been calculated by a group of impartial professional statisticians (because, frankly, I’m not going to take just anybody’s word for it). I also added the proviso that I’d discuss it only if I’m able to comprehend it. Now you’re saying that this was an “irrational insistence” on my part? Pu-leeze!

    Another moving is noted above in your reply to my post.
    I’m not even going to bother asking you which post you’re talking about. Earlier you said, “Even if there was a chi square ****ysis (which measures the difference between what would be expected in a normal distribution, aka a bell curve) done, I doubt that you would be able to understand it.” Since then, I've tried a couple of times to bow out gracefully from this prophecy "discussion":

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    Perhaps not. We’ll just have to wait and see. <this refers to waiting for qualified people to calculate the odds before we can begin to think about discussing it. However, I am interested in knowing where you found “…the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one”. Do you have a link?
    and
    Yes, I see what you mean. However, until a statistical ****ysis, of the sort I mentioned earlier, is done by qualified and impartial statisticians (one of which I am not), then I don’t think you and I can have a fruitful discussion on that matter. Besides, being that I’m currently involved in a few other conversations taking place all at once, I’m feeling a bit fatigued now. Am I the only non-believer on this website these days?
    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    ... I’ve already made it clear that I don’t have the qualifications for this type of thing. I’m not a statistician. This would not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. So, I’m going to respectfully bow out of any further discussion on the topic of prophecy.
    Despite my having told you under what conditions I would be willing to have that conversation, and despite your own doubt that I‘d understand it, and despite my attempts to bow out, you have continued to persist under the false impression that I've actually been talking about prophecy with you.

    Another is your ignoring the relevance of the Scriptures I posted as an answer to your questions
    You post scripture as if I’m supposed to accept it as true. I do not! How many ways must I say this?

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
    Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    For me to conjure up something from my own imagination won’t get me any closer to a demonstrably valid reason to believe that the Bible is true and God is real. As a believer (and I’m ***uming you‘re also an adult), I want to know how you justify your beliefs, and I would hope that you‘d be able to articulate it. Who knows? Maybe you’ll be the one to bring me back into “the fold.” It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.
    These quotes are also from you; and at this point, I am wondering if they are are disingenuous or genuine. Therefore I am asking you directly if you REALLY want to discuss the logical, reasonable and critical basis for faith or do you simply wish to avoid reality and continue in your illogical prejudice? I submit that what I have posted is indeed logical, but that what I am receiving in return has no basis in reality, nor is it logical. It is just specious reasoning designed to disguise a hardened heart.

    I am open to logical discussion and have demonstrated that; but sad to say, you have yet to demonstrate that you are open to logical discussion.
    Re the "All things" quote:
    I was talking to Christopoulos -- not to you.

    Re the "For me to" quote:
    That was in response to your unreasonable request for me to give you an example of "a "demonstrably 'valid' reason" to believe that something I put forth". You made that unreasonable request before you brought up anything concerning prophecies and the odds of them coming true.

    Your attempt here to berate me for not conducting myself "logically" in a discussion about prophecy that never really happened (except in your head) is laughable. I repeatedly told you I wasn't going to have that discussion.

    I was planning to list, in this post, all of the questions I've asked of you that you completely ignored. But, I changed my mind since I've already allowed you to take up far too much of my time. We're done.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  15. #90
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    all we know about god comes to us via a revelation.

    The things we know about god are not learned by sitting down with pen and paper and reasoning it out for yourself.

  16. #91
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    Your attempt here to berate me for not conducting myself "logically" in a discussion about prophecy that never really happened (except in your head) is laughable. I repeatedly told you I wasn't going to have that discussion..
    Let me get this straight.

    Is it your belief that prophecy never happened in in the Quatrains of Nostradamus?
    Is that your belief that prophecies never happened
    in the Qurían & Hadiths of Islam?
    Is it your belief that prophecies never happened in the Bible?

    OR

    Is it your belief that the concept of any prophecy is impossible because the nature of prophecies indicate a knowledge of something that happens beyond the space and time of the person making the prophecy?

    The difference in the two positions is as important as it is immense. The first set of questions has to do with the words that are written and published in the many, many exact copies of the original works; and the second has to do with a a prior religious ***umption that there is nothing that is beyond this present space and time. Both positions indicate different sorts of bias.

    The first bias is a denial of reality bias. It is possible to go to the fore mentioned sources and read what they have to say. Each source I mentioned has some sort of prophecy mentioned in it. The second bias is also a denial of reality but its basis is based on religion/philosophy of nihilism, meaning extreme skepticism of nothing beyond the present that can exist. I know not what your position is really. And in one respect it is irrelevant. That means no matter which way I go to convince you that there is indeed such a thing as written prophecy, your refusal to accept any of the different examples in different places indeed moves the discussion from the logical to the illogical. In other words, no matter how much salt I place in your oats, you will refuse to drink the water I set before you.


    In another area:

    This whole prophecy ďdiscussionĒ started when you asked me if I thought a ďdiscussion on the real nature of prophecy, the rules of Einstein about prophecy and the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one would help you understand?Ē. I responded by telling you Iíd discuss it if those odds had been calculated by a group of impartial professional statisticians (because, frankly, Iím not going to take just anybodyís word for it). I also added the proviso that Iíd discuss it only if Iím able to comprehend it. Now youíre saying that this was an ďirrational insistenceĒ on my part? Pu-leeze!
    Probability is the measure of how likely an event is to occur out of the number of possible outcomes. Calculating probabilities allows you to use logic and reason even with some degree of uncertainty. The way to calculate probability is to create a simple division problem,and express the quotient in a percentage. The formula is simple: P= number of events (e) / number of different outcomes (o) or simply P=e/o That is exactly why a statistician is irrelevant, and the calculation formula for that is taught in math cl*** from the middle school and forward.

    So if you want to continue to converse, we must remain on the logical plane and not get into the negation of the obvious.

  17. #92
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    Really? Now you've got me wondering who the real pervert is. Do you think what your neighbors do in their bedrooms is your business?

    One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love. It’s not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself.

    Then you should probably run on down to the Veteran’s Hospital and collect all those artificial limbs. Mother Nature must be furious about those.

    Atheism is nothing more than non-belief in the existence of any deities. Whatever position an atheist takes on any other subject is entirely something else.
    "One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love. It’s not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself."

    Your argument is specious . Let me remind you that an exit is not an entrance.

    That's what makes **** sex unnatural and therefore a perversion. You wonder who the pervert is?

    Given your position on **** sex ,it seems you've removed all doubt.

    Whereas other forms of perversion exist ,a **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and feces.

    If producing blood and excrement and pain , is your idea of an expression of love then I would strongly recommend you seek mental health counseling.

    In the case of any **** male on the receiving end I strongly suggest HIV/AIDS testing before your perversions become all of society's concerns. Whether in the bedroom or the bath house we have the right to defend ourselves against all those who would put our health at risk.
    And yes. Atheism is the perfect cover for this decidedly filthy practice.
    Everything else coming out of your sick brain is specious .

  18. #93
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Barbara,

    I gotta ask you if there may be some underlying belief/fear of dialoging with a male using logic? I ask because I saw another person address you as "Barbara" on the "origins of unbelief" thread. I ***umed that you were male until you expressed your disgust at some of the horrid things that happened in the OT, and in particular in the book of Judges. But FYI bad behavior is not limited to the book of Judges. In the books of Samuel there is a record of David's son, Absalom kicking David out of his palace, then pitching a tent on the top of the roof where he openly had sex with a concubine of his father.

    For sure, those things are not taught in Sunday School!

    But those nasty things in the Bible are recorded for people to emulate, nor were they things that God approved. Indeed He permitted them, and the perpetrators got their just deserts.

    The last verse in Judges reads, "And everyone did that which right in his own eye." Therefore it is a faithful record of how the people of God apostatized, and how God sent 7 different judges (Samson was one Judge) to bring the nation into a right relationship with God. Believe it or not,those nasty things are one thing that sets it apart from every other "Holy Book" in the world; it shows both the good things and the bad things that people did. ALL the other "Holy Books" only show the good sides of the protagonists.

    Now about logic.

    There are times that some people have used logic as a sledge hammer to "win" a battle. That person MAY have "won" using logic, but that person did not wind up convincing the other. I ***ure you that I am not that sort of a person. For sure, I want to help correct some things, but I prefer to do it gently. That is why I brought up the issue of prophecy in other books, not just in the Bible. My objective was to eventually set up a several layered matrix to distinguish the different sorts of prophecy in different Holy Books.


    About statistical calculations:

    If you have Excel, you can do them easily. Here is a reference for that: TAP HERE

    I REALLY do not want to get on the snark wagon. But at the same time, there HAS to be a commonality about the things written in the books that have predictions in them whereby we can discuss things.

    The reason for my saying that is because there are indeed things that are predicted in Islam, Mormonism, and Nostradamus' Quatrains. Admitting that does not establish that you necessarily agree that they do come from God because that is a leap of judgment for which nothing prior has been established. That is ALL I wanted to discuss in that post I made.

  19. #94
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    "One personís notion of sexual perversion can be anotherís expression of love. Itís not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself."

    Your argument is specious . Let me remind you that an exit is not an entrance.
    It may surprise you to know that studies have revealed that heterosexual couples engage in **** sex too. Look for ďHeterosexual **** SexĒ on wikipedia. (I could provide a link but that would probably break the forum rules.)

    What is the purpose of the human mouth? The ďnaturalĒ purpose of the mouth is to take in nourishment. So, if youíve ever performed, or received oral sex, then according to your way of thinking, youíve engaged in sexual perversion. Do you think you should be shamed for that? Or, do you think itís nobodyís business but yours?

    That's what makes **** sex unnatural and therefore a perversion. You wonder who the pervert is?

    Given your position on **** sex ,it seems you've removed all doubt.
    Since I have no interest in interfering in the consensual sex lives of other people, and you clearly do, then if one of us is a pervert, it certainly isnít me.

    Whereas other forms of perversion exist ,a **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and feces.
    I wouldn't know. Are you an expert on such things?

    If producing blood and excrement and pain , is your idea of an expression of love then I would strongly recommend you seek mental health counseling.
    Excuse me, but I never said **** sex was MY idea of an expression of love, but there are people who do consider it a way to express their love in a sexual way. Thatís their business, not mine, and not yours.

    In the case of any **** male on the receiving end I strongly suggest HIV/AIDS testing before your perversions become all of society's concerns. Whether in the bedroom or the bath house we have the right to defend ourselves against all those who would put our health at risk.
    Is someone forcing you to engage in unwanted ****sexual sex? If not, then from what do you need defending?

    And yes. Atheism is the perfect cover for this decidedly filthy practice.
    Everything else coming out of your sick brain is specious .
    You only embarr*** yourself when you spout such nonsense.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  20. #95
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    It may surprise you to know that studies have revealed that heterosexual couples engage in **** sex too. Look for “Heterosexual **** Sex” on wikipedia. (I could provide a link but that would probably break the forum rules.)

    What is the purpose of the human mouth? The “natural” purpose of the mouth is to take in nourishment. So, if you’ve ever performed, or received oral sex, then according to your way of thinking, you’ve engaged in sexual perversion. Do you think you should be shamed for that? Or, do you think it’s nobody’s business but yours?

    Since I have no interest in interfering in the consensual sex lives of other people, and you clearly do, then if one of us is a pervert, it certainly isn’t me.

    I wouldn't know. Are you an expert on such things?

    Excuse me, but I never said **** sex was MY idea of an expression of love, but there are people who do consider it a way to express their love in a sexual way. That’s their business, not mine, and not yours.

    Is someone forcing you to engage in unwanted ****sexual sex? If not, then from what do you need defending?

    You only embarr*** yourself when you spout such nonsense.
    In view of what you revealed about your own mindset in these matters ,it would take a lot to embarr*** me in contrast.

    Your views and picture perfect descriptions of deviant and mentally disturbed sexual behavior speaks volumes about anyone who would sanction this ,for themselves or for any other human being.

    I'm no prude ,I suggest you stop pretending you are one.

    HIV/AIDS is spread primarily by ****s exchanging body fluids. There's no known cure for this disease.

    Is there anything you would not sanction in others or for yourself? Have you no shame?

  21. #96
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    lets not get personal kids....

    You can have plenty of fun and not need to talk about each other personally

  22. #97
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    lets not get personal kids....

    You can have plenty of fun and not need to talk about each other personally
    He started ,yes he DID!!

  23. #98
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    In view of what you revealed about your own mindset in these matters ,it would take a lot to embarr*** me in contrast.
    Letís have a look at what Iíve revealed about myself that you find so repulsive, shall we?


    • I recognize that it isn't my place, or anyone else's, to dictate to consenting adults how they may or may not express themselves sexually with each other.


    *gasp* OH, THE HORROR!

    Your views and picture perfect descriptions of deviant and mentally disturbed sexual behavior
    Are you talking about when I said, ďa **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and fecesĒ? Oh, waitÖthat wasnít me; that was YOU (post #92).

    ...speaks volumes about anyone who would sanction this ,for themselves or for any other human being. ...
    Is there anything you would not sanction in others or for yourself? Have you no shame?
    Sanction? I neither approve nor disapprove of the consensual sexual practices of other people. As for my own sex life, I havenít said anything about it, nor will I. My sex life is no business of yours, just as yours is no business of mine. What do you imagine I have to be ashamed about?

    I'm no prude ,I suggest you stop pretending you are one.
    Who said youíre a prude? What have I said that would give you the impression that I want you think that Iím a prude?

    HIV/AIDS is spread primarily by ****s exchanging body fluids.
    Iím aware of that. However, that's not an argument against ****sexuality. Itís just an argument against infected people having sex with uninfected people. On that, I'm sure we'd agree that shouldn't happen, although I don't know what 'we' could do to prevent it.

    There's no known cure for this disease.
    Not yet.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

  24. #99
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
    Let’s have a look at what I’ve revealed about myself that you find so repulsive, shall we?


    • I recognize that it isn't my place, or anyone else's, to dictate to consenting adults how they may or may not express themselves sexually with each other.


    *gasp* OH, THE HORROR!


    Are you talking about when I said, “a **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and feces”? Oh, wait…that wasn’t me; that was YOU (post #92).

    Sanction? I neither approve nor disapprove of the consensual sexual practices of other people. As for my own sex life, I haven’t said anything about it, nor will I. My sex life is no business of yours, just as yours is no business of mine. What do you imagine I have to be ashamed about?

    Who said you’re a prude? What have I said that would give you the impression that I want you think that I’m a prude?

    I’m aware of that. However, that's not an argument against ****sexuality. It’s just an argument against infected people having sex with uninfected people. On that, I'm sure we'd agree that shouldn't happen, although I don't know what 'we' could do to prevent it.

    Not yet.
    If you are not against it[ **** sex] then it's clear you are FOR it.

    Pain ,blood ,excrement is the "expression of love "you believe **** sex results in.

    If you can't see the inherent perversion in your statement then you are being devious.



    Far better to see it as it is then to see it as YOUR"" EXPRESSION OF LOVE BETWEEN two guys![gays]


    The HIV/AIDS infection , caused by body fluids of ****s penetrating each other's rectums may be nature's law of retribution. A death sentence for those who mock her iron clad laws . When hubrus accumulates at the door step of
    the perverted ,it usually is followed by nemesis: the eternal goddess of merciless retribution.

    And it always works that way. But you are free to do whatever you wish. I'm not for it ,but I respect your right to kill yourself.

  25. #100
    Senior Member God-free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    If you are not against it[ **** sex] then it's clear you are FOR it.
    I've said this every which way I know how. I am not for or against ****sexual sex. It's not my business.

    Pain ,blood ,excrement is the "expression of love "you believe **** sex results in.
    That's NOT what I said. What I did say is, "One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love.

    If you can't see the inherent perversion in your statement then you are being devious.
    If you'd learn to read for comprehension, I wouldn't have to continually repeat myself.

    Far better to see it as it is then to see it as YOUR"" EXPRESSION OF LOVE BETWEEN two guys![gays]
    I see it as none of my business. That's all. I'm not the sex police.

    The HIV/AIDS infection , caused by body fluids of ****s penetrating each other's rectums
    HIV/AIDS is spread via bodily fluids but it is not caused by ****sexual sex. Uninfected people (straight and gay) who engage in sex do not create HIV/AIDS.

    ... may be nature's law of retribution. A death sentence for those who mock her iron clad laws . When hubrus accumulates at the door step of the perverted ,it usually is followed by nemesis: the eternal goddess of merciless retribution.
    And it always works that way.
    Nonsense! Nature doesn't care who sleeps with who; it doesn't take retribution.


    But you are free to do whatever you wish. I'm not for it ,but I respect your right to kill yourself.
    Gee, I couldn't have slept soundly tonight if I didn't have your permission to control my own sex life.
    And, contrary to your warped opinion, I have no intention of killing myself.
    Last edited by God-free; 08-18-2014 at 08:24 PM.
    Q. What is an atheist?
    A. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that any god or gods exist.

    Q. How do you know God doesn't exist?
    A. I didn't say God doesn't exist. I said I don't believe it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •