Intellectual Dishonesty???

[Matthjar]

While looking for other venues to discuss and dialogue different Worldviews that people hold... and to investigate why they hold them... I posted on some Forums at an Atheist Web site. I can honestly say that i was shocked... I guess that i always had an idea that Atheists were highly logical and rational Human beings... and possibly a more intellectual cross section of humanity.

In my experience on this other site I was so shocked at the behavior i saw exhibited there... I am not stating this in a judgmental way at all, but i found that on this particular site i could never get involved in a logical or well thought out discussion or dialogue. Even through all my attempts to turn an argument to a discussion I found that the individuals on this site were simply not interested at all. The main function of this site was not to explore, investigate, or understand anything at all.... In fact all posts were pretty much just exercises in mockery and name calling and trying to stifle or kill any questions or answers.... At times i felt like I was back in kindergarten.....

I am sure you would all agree that we see MUCH of the same behavior on this site... but for the most part this community seems to at least apply some levels of Logic and Rational and Coherent thought..... I know i have engaged in ALOT of threads where i have learned ALOT of New Information that i did not previously know.... and feel like i am getting to understand where many of you are coming from....

So i just want to take a moment to tell you ALL how much I appreciate your ability to engage in civil discourse!!!

I would also like to get some feedback on this particular logic that deals with Atheism.

One way of looking at it as the opposite of Theism(belief that at least one deity exists) so Atheism would be (rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists).

It seems logical to me that this also denotes a Belief that No Gods exist. The Atheists on this other site said this was incorrect .... that is was merely an absence of belief...and not a belief at all.... which to me seems like intellectual Dishonesty.... How could i ever say that I do not believe in the existence of any gods... and also not Own the fact That i believe there are No Gods......???

It would be comparable to me asserting that I do not believe in the existence of any Aliens at all.... but I am not saying that I believe that no aliens exist..... Which leads me to believe that they were just being Argumentative for the sake of Argument ..... OR ... that they were truly confused about the whole concept of truth, logic, and rational thought....

I wonder if the definition of Rejection of Belief in the existence of any Deities is really a very coherent, concise, definition..... I looked for any other words that have a definition of rejection of belief in ______. I have not found any yet if you know of one then please do tell. So yes just as Theism is a Belief in the existence of a least one God..... I am wondering if the clearest definition for atheism should be a Belief that No gods exist. Just seems like some strange mental gymnastics to me, that are intellectually dishonest.

The whole idea that Atheism is "Not" a belief that NO gods exist, Is completely incoherent and a double negative that is actually saying the exact opposite when the two negatives cancel out......

If i am missing something here then PLEASE PLEASE tell me what distinctions I am missing..... but at this point i can only conclude that i was talking with some folks that didn't understand what they were saying.....

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar

[David M]

If mono-theism is the belief in ONE God, should not the disbelief in that ONE God be; A-mono-theism?

[Matthjar]

Also i would like your opinion on another phenomenon that i experienced there.... Many of them claimed to be both Agnostic and Atheist at the same time.... which to me seems to be a glaring admission of I choose to believe something that I believe i cannot know?????? To me this seems absurd ..... that i should logically think that I could be an Agnostic Theist....... "there is no way i can know for sure if God exists so i will just assume that he exists".... Why would anyone ever Believe in something they thought impossible to know???? I believe in God because of what i know about him!!!! If I had no knowledge of God then i would be Agnostic.... If i required Hard Proof of God in order to believe in his existence then i would be an Atheist.

I should caution you all that I had major dental work done today and am on strong pain killers.... so my current thoughts may be erratic...

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar

[David M]

Also i would like your opinion on another phenomenon that i experienced there.... Many of them claimed to be both Agnostic and Atheist at the same time.... which to me seems to be a glaring admission of I choose to believe something that I believe i cannot know?????? To me this seems absurd ..... that i should logically think that I could be an Agnostic Theist....... "there is no way i can know for sure if God exists so i will just assume that he exists".... Why would anyone ever Believe in something they thought impossible to know???? I believe in God because of what i know about him!!!! If I had no knowledge of God then i would be Agnostic.... If i required Hard Proof of God in order to believe in his existence then i would be an Atheist.

I should caution you all that I had major dental work done today and am on strong pain killers.... so my current thoughts may be erratic...

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar
For me there is only one way whereby God tells us how he can be proved. In all other instances, God operates in a way that is not obviously seen as God at work, unless one sees the signs and situations that could be under the control as God working in the kingdom of men (Dan 4:17)

When God's judgement eventually comes on all nations of the earth, God will be recognized. Here is one passage in which God tells us he will be known (Ez 39) 27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations; 28 Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there. 29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Regarding the one way that God can be proven is by the statement God makes to his people. (Isa 48:5) 5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I showed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

Only God has told us beforehand in his word of prophecy of things that would happen. There is no person that can tell the future and with absolute certainty. God's word goes forth and accomplishes that which he sent his word to do. God's word does not return to him void.

Prophecy and foretelling the future is the only way of proving God exists and his word is reliable. Personal experience, which is not shared, does not count as proof to me, but could be personal proof for those who see their lives touched by God.

[David M]

Here is something to download and refer to when constructing an argument. We should all draw attention to each other's use of these things and improve our logical arguments.

Here is the link:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster


1242

[Rose]

Only God has told us beforehand in his word of prophecy of things that would happen. There is no person that can tell the future and with absolute certainty. God's word goes forth and accomplishes that which he sent his word to do. God's word does not return to him void.

Prophecy and foretelling the future is the only way of proving God exists and his word is reliable. Personal experience, which is not shared, does not count as proof to me, but could be personal proof for those who see their lives touched by God.

Hello David

If prophecy and foretelling the future is the only proof of god's existence, then I guess the Bible is proof that god DOES NOT exist. The Bible is filled with many, many prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled and of the prophecies that people claim to have been fulfilled NONE have any solid evidence. There is not one so-called fulfilled prophecy that can be backed up with solid proof of the future being known instead of just guesswork.

Kind regards,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If mono-theism is the belief in ONE God, should not the disbelief in that ONE God be; A-mono-theism?
I agree, but I don't get your point. The prefix "a" in a-theism means "without" a "theos" (god). It applies to all forms of theism, both polytheism and monotheism.

An atheist is, by definition, a person who is not a theist. That's all there is to it. Of course, some atheists also make the positive assertion that there are no gods, but that claim cannot be justified because there is no way to prove it. That's why I describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I am, by definition, an atheist because I am not a theist, but I do not claim to know that there is no god since there is no way to prove that. And besides, there is no single definition of god so the question is not even well defined.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

While looking for other venues to discuss and dialogue different Worldviews that people hold... and to investigate why they hold them... I posted on some Forums at an Atheist Web site. I can honestly say that i was shocked... I guess that i always had an idea that Atheists were highly logical and rational Human beings... and possibly a more intellectual cross section of humanity.

In my experience on this other site I was so shocked at the behavior i saw exhibited there... I am not stating this in a judgmental way at all, but i found that on this particular site i could never get involved in a logical or well thought out discussion or dialogue. Even through all my attempts to turn an argument to a discussion I found that the individuals on this site were simply not interested at all. The main function of this site was not to explore, investigate, or understand anything at all.... In fact all posts were pretty much just exercises in mockery and name calling and trying to stifle or kill any questions or answers.... At times i felt like I was back in kindergarten.....

Hey there Matthjar,

I've had the same experience on pretty much all kinds of forums, Christian, Atheist, Gardening, whatever. The anonymity of the web allows people to write all sorts of crap without any fear of embarrassment or consequence. What forum did you visit? I would be interested to take a glance.

Christians have no monopoly on folly. Many atheists seem to enjoy attacking theists because they are such an easy target. They often don't seem any more interested in truth or logic than anyone else. They can be just as foolish as any group of humans.



I am sure you would all agree that we see MUCH of the same behavior on this site... but for the most part this community seems to at least apply some levels of Logic and Rational and Coherent thought..... I know i have engaged in ALOT of threads where i have learned ALOT of New Information that i did not previously know.... and feel like i am getting to understand where many of you are coming from....

So i just want to take a moment to tell you ALL how much I appreciate your ability to engage in civil discourse!!!

Awesome! Thanks for the good word. I appreciate your contributions.



I would also like to get some feedback on this particular logic that deals with Atheism.

One way of looking at it as the opposite of Theism(belief that at least one deity exists) so Atheism would be (rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists).

That's true, but the clearest way to think about it is that atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF in a god or gods. It's like a lack of belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.



It seems logical to me that this also denotes a Belief that No Gods exist. The Atheists on this other site said this was incorrect .... that is was merely an absence of belief...and not a belief at all.... which to me seems like intellectual Dishonesty.... How could i ever say that I do not believe in the existence of any gods... and also not Own the fact That i believe there are No Gods......???

Not true. If one is not a theist, then one is an atheist. What else could one be called? But I also know that it is logically impossible to prove that there are no gods of any kind, so I am an agnostic atheist. I am open to evidence for the existence of gods, but without that evidence it would be intellectually dishonest for me to assert that there are no gods as a matter of proven fact. Of course, I can assert that I believe certain gods do not exist, such as Allah, Yahweh, and Zeus because I have sufficient evidence to prove that the claims about those gods are false.

To sum up: I am an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST because I am not a theist and know that I can't prove if there are or are not any gods.



It would be comparable to me asserting that I do not believe in the existence of any Aliens at all.... but I am not saying that I believe that no aliens exist..... Which leads me to believe that they were just being Argumentative for the sake of Argument ..... OR ... that they were truly confused about the whole concept of truth, logic, and rational thought....

I don't "believe" in Aliens because I have no evidence that they exist, but I can't prove they don't.

But I do believe that there are good reasons to think that aliens may exist, given the size of the universe and the fact of evolution. But it is possible that they don't.

I see no confusion about truth, logic, or rational thought in my take on this issue. If you do, I look forward to discussing it with you.



I wonder if the definition of Rejection of Belief in the existence of any Deities is really a very coherent, concise, definition..... I looked for any other words that have a definition of rejection of belief in ______. I have not found any yet if you know of one then please do tell. So yes just as Theism is a Belief in the existence of a least one God..... I am wondering if the clearest definition for atheism should be a Belief that No gods exist. Just seems like some strange mental gymnastics to me, that are intellectually dishonest.

No. The clearest definition of atheism is "a" (without) theism (gods). It does not entail any positive claim that there are no gods, since that goes beyond what people can know.

If I followed your definition, I would be FORCED to make an IRRATIONAL and UNJUSTIFIED assertion that I KNOW there either are or are not any gods. Your suggestion therefore is itself irrational.

Here is the key: The number of atoms in the universe is either even or odd. There is no way for anyone to know which is true. Theists are like people who claim to know the answer. Atheists are like people who say that the answer cannot be known, and therefore they have no belief about whether the answer is even or odd.



The whole idea that Atheism is "Not" a belief that NO gods exist, Is completely incoherent and a double negative that is actually saying the exact opposite when the two negatives cancel out......

How can not believing in pink unicorns on Mars equate to the positive assertion that there are no pink unicorns on Mars? Honesty demands that I make no claims I cannot justify.



If i am missing something here then PLEASE PLEASE tell me what distinctions I am missing..... but at this point i can only conclude that i was talking with some folks that didn't understand what they were saying.....

I very much look forward to digging into this with you. I have no doubt we will be able to find perfect clarity.

Shine on!

:sunny:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

For me there is only one way whereby God tells us how he can be proved. In all other instances, God operates in a way that is not obviously seen as God at work, unless one sees the signs and situations that could be under the control as God working in the kingdom of men (Dan 4:17)

When God's judgement eventually comes on all nations of the earth, God will be recognized. Here is one passage in which God tells us he will be known (Ez 39) 27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations; 28 Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there. 29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

What makes you think that prophecy will be fulfilled? No one has ever been able to prove that any prophecies have been fulfilled, so why would anyone think that one will be fulfilled?



Regarding the one way that God can be proven is by the statement God makes to his people. (Isa 48:5) 5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I showed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

Only God has told us beforehand in his word of prophecy of things that would happen. There is no person that can tell the future and with absolute certainty. God's word goes forth and accomplishes that which he sent his word to do. God's word does not return to him void.

Prophecy and foretelling the future is the only way of proving God exists and his word is reliable. Personal experience, which is not shared, does not count as proof to me, but could be personal proof for those who see their lives touched by God.
And no one has ever been able to prove that any prophecy has ever been fulfilled. You gave it your best shot in this forum and failed. I challenged you to try again and you have not. Therefore, my claim stands. You have no reason to believe in fulfilled prophecies.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Also i would like your opinion on another phenomenon that i experienced there.... Many of them claimed to be both Agnostic and Atheist at the same time.... which to me seems to be a glaring admission of I choose to believe something that I believe i cannot know?????? To me this seems absurd ..... that i should logically think that I could be an Agnostic Theist....... "there is no way i can know for sure if God exists so i will just assume that he exists".... Why would anyone ever Believe in something they thought impossible to know???? I believe in God because of what i know about him!!!! If I had no knowledge of God then i would be Agnostic.... If i required Hard Proof of God in order to believe in his existence then i would be an Atheist.

I should caution you all that I had major dental work done today and am on strong pain killers.... so my current thoughts may be erratic...

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar
I'm really glad you brought this up. It is a very common point of confusion. You say it is absurd to not believe there are microscopic pink unicorns on Mars merely because I cannot PROVE that there are no microscopic pink unicorns on Mars?

As for "agnostic theists" - that's the only kind possible if they are honest. It's fine if you are an agnostic theist who says you "believe" in God even though you know that you cannot prove your belief is true. It's quite another to LIE and/or DECEIVE yourself by saying that you KNOW there is a God when in fact you do not.

A theist who is not agnostic is either deceived or deluded because they simply have no way of knowing if their belief is true.

Great topic!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I believe in God because of what i know about him!!!!
What makes you think you actually "know" anything about any god?

Please explain what you think you know and why you think you know it. That should prove very interesting.

[L67]

For me there is only one way whereby God tells us how he can be proved. In all other instances, God operates in a way that is not obviously seen as God at work, unless one sees the signs and situations that could be under the control as God working in the kingdom of men (Dan 4:17)

When God's judgement eventually comes on all nations of the earth, God will be recognized. Here is one passage in which God tells us he will be known (Ez 39) 27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations; 28 Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there. 29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.


Those verses don't prove God exists and it certainly is NOT some future prophecy.

That verse is speaking of the return from Babylonian captivity. Notice the use of "caused"? That is past tense. Plus, Ezekiel was contemporary with Jeremiah and both prophecied the restoration of Israel from Babylonian captivity. And if you go back a few verses it's pretty obvious what Ezekiel was referring to.

Ezekiel 39:23 23 And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.

This makes perfect sense considering Ezekiel was exiled into Babylon. And I could post many more verses to corroborate my words. This is why futurism makes no sense. It is built on out of context verses.



Regarding the one way that God can be proven is by the statement God makes to his people. (Isa 48:5) 5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I showed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

How does this prove God? This is another out of context verse speaking about the past. There is no future context in that verse. It is about the return from Babylonian captivity.

Let's put Isaiah into context.

Isaiah 48


48 Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

2 For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The Lord of hosts is his name.

3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.

7 They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.

8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

9 For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off.

10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.

15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:

19 Thy seed also had been as the sand, and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me.

20 Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob.

21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.

22 There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked.





Only God has told us beforehand in his word of prophecy of things that would happen. There is no person that can tell the future and with absolute certainty. God's word goes forth and accomplishes that which he sent his word to do. God's word does not return to him void.

Prophecy and foretelling the future is the only way of proving God exists and his word is reliable. Personal experience, which is not shared, does not count as proof to me, but could be personal proof for those who see their lives touched by God.

I'm sorry, but this proves nothing of the existence of God. It's NOT even a future prophecy. And you have no idea whether is was actually fulfilled or not. I can't believe you reject established science in favor of out of context verses that prove nothing.

[Matthjar]

Thanks so much Richard!!!! Out of all the people on this whole site I can always rely on you to be able to communicate in ideas that are based on the most concrete laws of logic and rationality!!! I am so appreciative of that level of Discussion and can be refreshing sometimes to Discuss things in the strictest sense of Proofs and Facts.... I do believe that their is a time for both discussions.... one rooted in Hard Logic and another rooted in Possibilities.... but I also understand how an individual could maintain the position that only the former has any real value.


Hey there Matthjar,

I've had the same experience on pretty much all kinds of forums, Christian, Atheist, Gardening, whatever. The anonymity of the web allows people to write all sorts of crap without any fear of embarrassment or consequence. What forum did you visit? I would be interested to take a glance.


I completely agree Richard!!!!




That's true, but the clearest way to think about it is that atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF in a god or gods. It's like a lack of belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.


Okay.... yes i think i see your point .... this is the MOST Inclusive definition of Atheism .... the most broad definition possible.... because it is logically impossible that anyone could be an Atheist without fulfilling this most basic qualification.




Not true. If one is not a theist, then one is an atheist. What else could one be called? But I also know that it is logically impossible to prove that there are no gods of any kind, so I am an agnostic atheist. I am open to evidence for the existence of gods, but without that evidence it would be intellectually dishonest for me to assert that there are no gods as a matter of proven fact. Of course, I can assert that I believe certain gods do not exist, such as Allah, Yahweh, and Zeus because I have sufficient evidence to prove that the claims about those gods are false.

To sum up: I am an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST because I am not a theist and know that I can't prove if there are or are not any gods.


Thanks so much for this Richard!!! I think i now understand more fully the same distinction i was trying to communicate on the other discussion board.... that once you make the Hard Assertion "That no God or Gods exist" you have moved from the broader more Inclusive definition of "Lack of Belief of" that truly is NOT a belief but absence thereof to a more narrow or strict sense in which the individual is now entering a realm that requires Belief....or a transition from a Weak Atheist Position to a Strong Atheist Position.... And if i understand you correctly this would also preclude a position of Agnostic....(A weak position allows for Agnosticism while the Strong Position does not.)

Also if i am seeing this correctly their would be no corollary in the other direction of Theism .... There are no distinctions of a Weak of Strong Position in Theism ... either you believe or you do not it is all Strong Position or No position.... which makes me wonder if this sliding scale is true....

An individuals Position of the existence of God..

Theism (Affirmative Position)
Weak Atheism (No Position or Neutral)
Strong Atheism (Denial Position)

So in effect some people on this other site wanted a little of both worlds......they want to claim that their position was merely absence of belief and not a belief.... but wanted at the same time to Assert that "No Gods exist". I think this is what can be confusing about the term Atheist.... would it be more descriptive language to have something like (theist, neutral theist, atheist) . Or it makes me wonder why we need a middle term at all to communicate a NO Position stance..... better to just clearly state that you have No position on Theism/Atheism at all???? DO we have any other words in the English Language that Denote the Absence of Belief in "something" that does not correspond to a Belief that it Does Not exist??

Consider Justice/Injustice...Logical/Illogical... Rational/Irrational.....correct/incorrect....... honest/dishonest.....belief/disbelief.... acceptance/rejection...knowable/unknowable.. etc...etc...etc..... In any given situation we can judge something to be its thesis or antithesis......

Does this just show us How developed or controversial the idea of God is, that it requires 3 positions to adequately relate to it?? Or is it something else??

I am sure you understand that i am not making any moralistic or value judgements at this time... merely analyzing the language and trying to understand it...

If you can see something here that i am missing then i would LOVE for you point it out to me.....





I don't "believe" in Aliens because I have no evidence that they exist, but I can't prove they don't.

But I do believe that there are good reasons to think that aliens may exist, given the size of the universe and the fact of evolution. But it is possible that they don't.

I see no confusion about truth, logic, or rational thought in my take on this issue. If you do, I look forward to discussing it with you.


Okay!!! Sure this is then a neutral position .... you do not believe that they exist nor do you believe that they do not exist... due to lack of evidence you have suspended judgement... I can respect that..... this to me seems like intellectual honesty and coherence..... you can neither confirm or deny....

If however you denied the existence of Aliens then claimed it was merely an absence of belief in them, that would be incoherent....





If I followed your definition, I would be FORCED to make an IRRATIONAL and UNJUSTIFIED assertion that I KNOW there either are or are not any gods. Your suggestion therefore is itself irrational.


I completely understand what you are saying..... this confusion results from the 2 very different definitions of Atheism... which is why i think it would allow for much more efficient communication to divorce the two since the implication of the two meanings are so Different.... in the context of one meaning my idea is rational and in context of the second meaning completely irrational.... I suppose we could just use the terms Weak Atheism (No Position) and Strong Atheism (denial position).

SO this is what i see happening in the discussion or dialogues about Atheism.... One party says "Atheism" and means (denial of the existence of God) and the other party says "Atheism" and means (Absence of belief in the existence OR non existence of God). These two meanings are as much alike as the position of Theism is to the second meaning or position of Atheism.




Here is the key: The number of atoms in the universe is either even or odd. There is no way for anyone to know which is true. Theists are like people who claim to know the answer. Atheists are like people who say that the answer cannot be known, and therefore they have no belief about whether the answer is even or odd.


EXACTLY!!!! A great illustration that allows to dig in deeper to the inherent meanings....... And i totally agree with you..Theism may state the its belief is say "even or True" ..then the Weak Atheist have No belief or position..... and to follow the logical meanings then the "other Atheism" are like people that say the number is "odd or false". I say this because the validity of the existence of God has two answers "True of False" like the number of atoms "Even or Odd"
Truly in many ways the Hard Atheist and the Theist are much more closely alike (they take a position because they think they can know) then the Weak Atheist and Agnostic that takes no position.
This is why i wonder if Weak Atheism should not just be wholly described as Agnosticism (No position based on not being able to know) and that Atheism should denote a denial position based on being able to know... just as Theism is an affirming position based on being able to know.
It would make Discussion much more efficient and precise....instead of currently having one term for both (absence of Belief and Denial Belief).




How can not believing in pink unicorns on Mars equate to the positive assertion that there are no pink unicorns on Mars? Honesty demands that I make no claims I cannot justify.


Exactly!!!!! If one takes the position of No belief For or Against.... then they cannot later amend their decision to affirmative or negative without abandoning their previous position.

Up until now i have only addressed the "belief and non-belief portion of our dialogue"... and have not examined the Role of Knowing or Not Knowing.... I am sure that you see this discussion is much more tricky in many ways...... because belief is very Dualistic.... either you believe or you don't....i don't see an opportunity for partial belief or disbelief.... while knowledge is going to be much more complicated..... with varying levels of knowledge and ways "to Know"... and ability to know in part.... But i am willing to explore this are if you are???

1. I was interested that while in many ways the terms of "theism and Atheism" are diametrically opposed, the terms "Agnostic and Gnostic" are not????
2. I suppose if we are going to discussion Knowledge we need to first lay a framework for all the mechanisms by which we perform the action of "-to know"
3. In the strictest sense the case could be made that "We actually cannot know anything at all" In the broadest sense the case could be made that "We can Know everything that there is to Know." I do know that the World of Proofs in Geometry Class were an amazing AMOUNT of work to Prove something that could seem fairly self evident at first glance. LOL.




I very much look forward to digging into this with you. I have no doubt we will be able to find perfect clarity.



I can't even tell you enough how much I appreciate this conversation with you Richard...... It truly is a Rarity that I can ever find someone that can (or possibly is interested in ) communicating with this level of logic and rational thought. This may partly be due to living in a small southern town and most people i encounter here just do not have the stomach for such conversation.

So for now i am going to go watch my Son do a Half time performance with the Band at the High School football game .... but will check back later for your response... I guess if we can agree on some common ground for Believing and Not Believing then we can move on to the World of Knowing and Not Knowing.... the Latter to me is much more difficult but perhaps will yield greater rewards???

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar

P.S. That other sites name is Atheist Republic... If you take the time to look at some stuff there i would put alot of stock into your estimation of the predominant communication there.... which reminds me at some point we need to discuss Richard Dawkins calling for Atheists to "Mock" Theists at that DC Rally.....

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks so much Richard!!!! Out of all the people on this whole site I can always rely on you to be able to communicate in ideas that are based on the most concrete laws of logic and rationality!!! I am so appreciative of that level of Discussion and can be refreshing sometimes to Discuss things in the strictest sense of Proofs and Facts.... I do believe that their is a time for both discussions.... one rooted in Hard Logic and another rooted in Possibilities.... but I also understand how an individual could maintain the position that only the former has any real value.

We seem to be a lot alike Matthjar. I absolutely delight in rational discourse.

But I also enjoy discussing speculative things based on "probabilities." Indeed, most discussions other than those that involve strict mathematical proofs are based on probabilities. Even hard science rarely speaks with absolute certainty. That's the beauty of science. It's just the "most probable" explanation that we have. And we often even has precise estimates of how likely our answer is true!

Creationists and fundamentalists tend to think in black and white absolutes and so reject science as "fallible" in contrast to the Bible which they think is "infallible." The absurdity of that position is that they don't know anything about the Bible except what they interpret, and all interpretations are fallible, so having an infallible Bible is meaningless since it must be interpreted.



Okay.... yes i think i see your point .... this is the MOST Inclusive definition of Atheism .... the most broad definition possible.... because it is logically impossible that anyone could be an Atheist without fulfilling this most basic qualification.

Yep. All atheists are non-theists, but not all atheist would assert that they KNOW (in the sense of justified true belief) that there are no gods of any kind. But I do believe that I can justify my assertion that no sufficient evidence has ever been presented that would justify a belief in the theistic style gods put forth by Judaism, the various Christianities, Islam, Mormonism, or any other religion invented by humans.



Theism (Affirmative Position)
Weak Atheism (No Position or Neutral)
Strong Atheism (Denial Position)

Excellent! I was going to mention the "strong" vs. "weak" definitions of atheism. I think they work well.

One thing to remember. Theists will often insist that a person is not "really" an atheist if he is not a strong atheist. I think this is a strategy to force atheists to defend a belief that cannot be proven, and so drags them down to the level of the theists who cannot justify their belief.



So in effect some people on this other site wanted a little of both worlds......they want to claim that their position was merely absence of belief and not a belief.... but wanted at the same time to Assert that "No Gods exist". I think this is what can be confusing about the term Atheist.... would it be more descriptive language to have something like (theist, neutral theist, atheist) .

Good point. But there is a big difference between rejecting specific gods like Allah or Yahweh as opposed to the assertion that "no god of any kind exists." Obviously, it is impossible to prove the latter whereas the former is easy to prove because we have explicit statements in the holy books that are demonstrably false.



Or it makes me wonder why we need a middle term at all to communicate a NO Position stance..... better to just clearly state that you have No position on Theism/Atheism at all???? DO we have any other words in the English Language that Denote the Absence of Belief in "something" that does not correspond to a Belief that it Does Not exist??

No, I wouldn't take that stance. The real problem is the confusion between specific gods like Yahweh and Allah which can be disproven and gods defined in such a way that cannot be disproven. E.g. God is a pink microscopic unicorn that lives on Mars. How are you going to disprove that? So it is impossible to rationally justify the assertion that there are no gods of any kind, but I certainly can give good reasons for my LACK OF BELIEF in any god.



Consider Justice/Injustice...Logical/Illogical... Rational/Irrational.....correct/incorrect....... honest/dishonest.....belief/disbelief.... acceptance/rejection...knowable/unknowable.. etc...etc...etc..... In any given situation we can judge something to be its thesis or antithesis......

Does this just show us How developed or controversial the idea of God is, that it requires 3 positions to adequately relate to it?? Or is it something else??

I think it's because the theists want to drag the atheists down to their level of asserting something that cannot be proven. They want to move the burden of proof to the atheist. As long as an atheist says "I lack a belief in your god because you have not shown me evidence" then the burden of proof is on the theist and the simple fact is that there is no proof.

I just posted a video called "Why we believe in gods." It explains things based on well-establish psychological and evolutionary facts. I would be interested in your thoughts.



I am sure you understand that i am not making any moralistic or value judgements at this time... merely analyzing the language and trying to understand it...

Don't worry about that. I never got the impression that you were making any moralistic judgments.



If you can see something here that i am missing then i would LOVE for you point it out to me.....

Ditto! :thumb:



Okay!!! Sure this is then a neutral position .... you do not believe that they exist nor do you believe that they do not exist... due to lack of evidence you have suspended judgement... I can respect that..... this to me seems like intellectual honesty and coherence..... you can neither confirm or deny....

If however you denied the existence of Aliens then claimed it was merely an absence of belief in them, that would be incoherent....

Yes, this helps clarify the confusion. The important thing is that I do reject the existence of the Abrahamic god. I'm not agnostic about that because I believe there is more than enough evidence to support that judgment. But there is no way anyone can prove that there is not some sort of god or gods, since the possibilities are endless and cannot be disproven.



I completely understand what you are saying..... this confusion results from the 2 very different definitions of Atheism... which is why i think it would allow for much more efficient communication to divorce the two since the implication of the two meanings are so Different.... in the context of one meaning my idea is rational and in context of the second meaning completely irrational.... I suppose we could just use the terms Weak Atheism (No Position) and Strong Atheism (denial position).

I think the confusion would quickly evaporate if folks simply agreed to discuss things rationally.

One problem is probably a mix up between rejection of specific gods like Allah and Yahweh (which is justified) and the rejection of all possible gods (which cannot be justified).



SO this is what i see happening in the discussion or dialogues about Atheism.... One party says "Atheism" and means (denial of the existence of God) and the other party says "Atheism" and means (Absence of belief in the existence OR non existence of God). These two meanings are as much alike as the position of Theism is to the second meaning or position of Atheism.

No, I think you've mixed up agnostic with atheist. Atheism never means "Absence of belief in the existence OR non existence of God." That's the definition of agnosticism. An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in a god. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.



EXACTLY!!!! A great illustration that allows to dig in deeper to the inherent meanings....... And i totally agree with you..Theism may state the its belief is say "even or True" ..then the Weak Atheist have No belief or position..... and to follow the logical meanings then the "other Atheism" are like people that say the number is "odd or false". I say this because the validity of the existence of God has two answers "True of False" like the number of atoms "Even or Odd"
Truly in many ways the Hard Atheist and the Theist are much more closely alike (they take a position because they think they can know) then the Weak Atheist and Agnostic that takes no position.
This is why i wonder if Weak Atheism should not just be wholly described as Agnosticism (No position based on not being able to know) and that Atheism should denote a denial position based on being able to know... just as Theism is an affirming position based on being able to know.
It would make Discussion much more efficient and precise....instead of currently having one term for both (absence of Belief and Denial Belief).

I agree that "strong atheists" are a lot like a theists in as much as they claim to know something that cannot be known. But again, we must remember that not all god-claims are unknowable. As far as I can tell, all the god-claims of all the theistic style religions are demonstrably false.



Up until now i have only addressed the "belief and non-belief portion of our dialogue"... and have not examined the Role of Knowing or Not Knowing.... I am sure that you see this discussion is much more tricky in many ways...... because belief is very Dualistic.... either you believe or you don't....i don't see an opportunity for partial belief or disbelief.... while knowledge is going to be much more complicated..... with varying levels of knowledge and ways "to Know"... and ability to know in part.... But i am willing to explore this are if you are???

Willing? Most definitely! :thumb:



1. I was interested that while in many ways the terms of "theism and Atheism" are diametrically opposed, the terms "Agnostic and Gnostic" are not????
2. I suppose if we are going to discussion Knowledge we need to first lay a framework for all the mechanisms by which we perform the action of "-to know"
3. In the strictest sense the case could be made that "We actually cannot know anything at all" In the broadest sense the case could be made that "We can Know everything that there is to Know." I do know that the World of Proofs in Geometry Class were an amazing AMOUNT of work to Prove something that could seem fairly self evident at first glance. LOL.

1) The words agnostic and gnostic are not proper antonyms because "gnostic" has acquired a meaning beyond its etymological root "to know." It's the name of a kind of mysticism.

2) The study of knowledge and how we know we know is called epistemology. I would be delighted to discuss it with you in depth.

3) Yes, it can be very difficult to prove the most elementary facts using systems like logic and geometry and mathematics. Your comment brings to mind the massive Principia Mathematica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica) by Whitehead and Russell which "was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven." Of course, Godel's theorem proved their effort vain, much as Galois proved the impossibility of trisecting an angle.

Great chatting, my thoughtful friend!

:sunny:

Richard

[David M]

I'm sorry, but this proves nothing of the existence of God. It's NOT even a future prophecy. And you have no idea whether is was actually fulfilled or not. I can't believe you reject established science in favor of out of context verses that prove nothing.

I do not disagree with everything you have written. However, God has made a statement of principle. That principle is not time specific or relates to a particular incident.
If you want to go looking for those things God has spoken would happen, they can be found, and if you do not, then you are not going to find. Of course you can disagree with another person's findings, but I am not going to get into that area again with you as we have already done that.

Here is the statement again from the chapter under discussion;

3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

God gives a reason for doing as he does, because he knows the human mind.

4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

That human mind leads to thoughts which are not true and are imaginations or fantasy. People stick to their false beliefs instead of listening to the true God and that is described as being "stiff-necked".

5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

God has made reference to the imaginations of men resulting in graven images of false gods. God declares (as in Isaiah 45) that there is no God besides him. God is ONE and there is no God beside him. God alone is sole Creator. These are statements made by God and if we are to believe in God, then we have to accept his statements.

[Matthjar]

Good Deal Richard.... thanks for your quick response!!!


We seem to be a lot alike Matthjar. I absolutely delight in rational discourse.

But I also enjoy discussing speculative things based on "probabilities." Indeed, most discussions other than those that involve strict mathematical proofs are based on probabilities. Even hard science rarely speaks with absolute certainty. That's the beauty of science. It's just the "most probable" explanation that we have. And we often even has precise estimates of how likely our answer is true!


Agreed.... the things that we can absolutely Know with certainty are actually fairly small... compared with the fact that most things are only known in part or are works in progress..... requiring us to make our best judgement for the information that we do have... I am definitely a bit weak on probabilities but that is one thing i hope to learn more about in this discussion..... I also do agree that there is a certain Beauty in the mystery of the unknowable... maybe that is part of the allure..... It is also a Beautiful thing in science when we can keep doors open for further discovery and not have them closed by the absolute statement.... I guess this is because it is in accordance with the Truth of reality ....



Creationists and fundamentalists tend to think in black and white absolutes and so reject science as "fallible" in contrast to the Bible which they think is "infallible." The absurdity of that position is that they don't know anything about the Bible except what they interpret, and all interpretations are fallible, so having an infallible Bible is meaningless since it must be interpreted.


Yes even though i am a Creationist(source) and an Evolutionist(process) i have never been able to understand why certain absolutists try to repress the probabilities of science.... In my mind if they truly are SURE that they are right AND have a desire for truth and reality then there is NO reason at all not to take all evidence at face value..... even if it tends to suggest that your previous views were wrong..... I see this all the time though with organizations and ideas and beliefs if they are not able to incorporate and evolve with new information they become stagnant, unyielding, and wither away..... I have also seen the absurdity of new information being rejected on the perception that it was a "Myth" propagated by the "Other side"..... One example i can cite is the Big Bang theory.... were i grew up in Idaho 30 years ago most fundies rejected it as a evolutionist myth.... since then i have come across some information that evolutionists also rejected it as a creationist myth..... purely fascinating.... in that case though definitely much more Rejection on the Religious side of the fence. I never could fully understand that circus that we called the "Scopes Monkey Trial."

I am sure that you would agree that we need to stop weighing the validity of ideas based on the implications of them... and more so on the evidence for them. As long as Evolution is viewed as something that reduces or eliminates the need for a creator then there will be strife. Evolutions main goal should never be that but rather just finding the truth based on evidence..... in the same respect Creationist need to stop making the main goal of Creation to be refuting Evolution. This is my opinion of course but i feel that the 2 truly could overlap and not have to be diametrically opposed.... I sincerely believe that Evolution will never be able fully explain all origins of life completely in materialistic means and terms... BUT even if it does the SO be it!!!! Either way I am not scared of the Truth regardless if i find it in Evolution or Creation..... I think it is Fear that is holding us back.

I SO SO agree that everything we know is subject to interpretation..which is fallible (interestingly enough this is something i learned from my interpretation of the bible) .... whether it be the bible, science, reason, or any other judgement we make..... That is partially why i like to keep things OPEN and not closed or Settled.... LOL.. It drives my Wife Nuts though because she definitely prefers Closure and settled. I have done some research on this basic personality divide.... seems that the one that prefers Closed values Stability more... while the one that prefers Open values Truth more.



Yep. All atheists are non-theists, but not all atheist would assert that they KNOW (in the sense of justified true belief) that there are no gods of any kind. But I do believe that I can justify my assertion that no sufficient evidence has ever been presented that would justify a belief in the theistic style gods put forth by Judaism, the various Christianities, Islam, Mormonism, or any other religion invented by humans.


I totally understand where you are coming from there..... And i totally agree with you that Religions are Man-made(therefore containing some truth and some lies)..the same as all things invented by Man.. I am sure we will investigate this further when we get into our Knowledge discussion..... I personally Identify with Jesus Christ so strongly but do no submit to others interpretations or authority of interpretation(even though i analyze them for truths)... so in away i am the only member of a Man made Religion called the Church of Jesus as interpreted by Matthjar. I prefer not to call it a Religion but a Relationship. This definitely warrants further discussion!!!!



One thing to remember. Theists will often insist that a person is not "really" an atheist if he is not a strong atheist. I think this is a strategy to force atheists to defend a belief that cannot be proven, and so drags them down to the level of the theists who cannot justify their belief.


To be completely honest with you (I know you would expect no less from me) I can understand the Theist perspective here, but not out of trying to weaken the position but rather just out of logic. I also must state that if you feel that it is Vitally important for some reason then i have no problem accepting the definition as you have laid it out, and come more forward from that admission. It just seems funny to me that there is some need to assert "That i don't believe in things that i consider imaginary due to a lack of knowledge or Proof." I just figured that was a given. Regardless it is not important or Vital... if you feel like i am still missing something here then I am all ears.

Maybe more importantly is the Agnostic element.... In the strictest sense i can understand how this could be THE only Valid position to have for anything that we cannot measure, perceive, or directly experience.... In a broader sense of probabilities and in light of a total preponderance of the evidence then we are able to affirm or deny any theory (Knowledge?) (Note to Self: examine Knowledge as Evidence and Knowledge as End result).






Good point. But there is a big difference between rejecting specific gods like Allah or Yahweh as opposed to the assertion that "no god of any kind exists." Obviously, it is impossible to prove the latter whereas the former is easy to prove because we have explicit statements in the holy books that are demonstrably false.


Amen to that!!!! ;-). I totally agree that the more specific and intricate and more fully developed any Idea is the easier it is Refute. A God with no definitions is much easier to defend than these more developed ones..... Of course their is really no point in refuting a God that is not defined by anything at all.... This is part of the reason my most basic premise for my idea for the "Real" God is this.... God = Truth..... Lets say i ended my synthesis there... PERIOD..... That would mean that the whole point of Science is to Discover my God. Also Truth is the most Basic Foundation for anything and everything.... and most people do not have a problem with this aspect of God being Truth.... I do run into problems(with people) if i try to assign a Will or Personality to Truth for understandable reasons..Many people are more comfortable Truth being a Passive force and not so much being an active force .. this also bears more discussion. Because you are not a Strong Atheist i realize you do not deny that God may exist but as an Agnostic you just need some proof of such before you choose to believe.




No, I wouldn't take that stance. The real problem is the confusion between specific gods like Yahweh and Allah which can be disproven and gods defined in such a way that cannot be disproven. E.g. God is a pink microscopic unicorn that lives on Mars. How are you going to disprove that? So it is impossible to rationally justify the assertion that there are no gods of any kind, but I certainly can give good reasons for my LACK OF BELIEF in any god.


Hmmm okay ...this is some fertile ground for some discussion.... I would like to submit to you that it is Impossible to Ultimately Prove or Disprove the existence of even highly developed and intricate and specific Gods like Yahweh and Allah.... but i would submit that the more developed they are the higher probability you can achieve that suggest that they probably don't exist, and also the harder it is to increase the Probability that they do exist the more traits and specifics they have. Personally I would give Allah and Yahweh a Higher Probability then the Pink Unicorn... because they contain traits (at least on the surface) like Righteousness, Justice, etc... that I think are noble traits that God should possess... while i have no intuition or knowledge that God should be Pink, microscopic, unicornish, or live on Mars... so i put that probability much lower..... As a whole I put Allah at much higher probability.... and Yahweh higher than that still.....
The Truth is we all Have our own Personal Man-made God.... that i might call World-View...... and thats okay.... The more important part to me is "How closely does my Subjective Man Made Cherry picked God fully represent The Objective Real God that is Truth?" This is how i can believe in a Real God that I don't fully understand or have complete knowledge of. I submit to you that any person that believes in an Objective Truth has a God. If a person Denies that Objective Truth exists and that Truth is only a matter of Subjective Experiences and genetics... for they are truly lost... and for them "GOD is Dead" because at that point objective reality ceases to exist for them, along with any other objective idea like Justice, or Right, or Wrong. The term of God has become so Polluted humans bear many stigmas and revolt against the very idea.... along with the same assault we currently see on Objective Truth. If we give up on this Objective Truth then the only truth we have to Rule us will be the Truth of Law as dictated by the State.... This will be the measure by which we live our lives... if it is Legal it is Good... if it is Illegal it is bad..... I see this a VERY VERY Dangerous....... In fact in this way "2+2 CAN equal 5" because there is no objective Truth anymore and if the State passes the law that 2+2=5 then it must be true.... I know this sounds absurd and impossible but at the same time i see it as the inevitable outcome of assault on Objective Truth.... But I digress... I feel like i am getting WAY ahead of myself here....

But this Idea of God=Worldview also completely highlights why it is also VERY dangerous to blindly accept absolutes just because they are in the good book.... we should Use all the applicable evidence when we assemble our God IF we want him to be an accurate reflection of the Real God.
I hope you understand what i am saying.... we all have our own subjective totality of experience, knowledge, genetics, past choices, beliefs that determine our own version of Truth.... this may or may not reflect the Objective Real Truth. It is NOT wrong to cherry pick ideas we want to incorporate in fact it is desirable!!! Because if we don't cherry pick then our options for Objective Reality become very small indeed... 1. None 2.Yaweh 3.Allah etc... etc...... I don't see why it has to be a Package deal or Nothing......It also allows us to keep the best and throw out the worst.... and we all do it... How many versions or sects of every major religion..... TONS???? So instead of pretending like it doesn't happen we should accept it THEN we can come to a better outcome.....
We should USE all available sources for Truth(a.k.a God) Scripture, Religions, Science, Intuition, Authority, Reason, Logic......etc etc.... In fact it is precisely when we elevate one source to a higher standard that we get in trouble... BUT... we must also be willing to learn from each other... we get so ingrained in our OWN special mode of Truth(a.k.a God) that we lose opportunities of gaining more Truth.... This is why I HATE!!! to see people mocking one another for their beliefs or ideas..... beliefs or Ideas will stand or fall on their own merit eventually we dont have to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner of them.... Discussion, logical, rational discourse and dialogue is fine but mockery is just an attempt to Stifle Free speech and ideas or beliefs that we are fearful of....
I know you all may think me Delusional but i truly do think that this Current Assault on God (of all types) is truly just an assault on Objective Reality, Free Speech, Freedom of Belief, Reason, and critical thinking in an effort to destroy any barriers to complete submission and dominance to the State.... would any of you intelligent readers of this Disagree with me that there has been a general dumbing down of the masses in recent years? Do you think that is a coincidence? NO I think the State is trying to remove any justifiable causes for any civil disobedience against its sovereignty.

Okay I apologize again for rambling... this is the problem with Free Flow Writing.. I tend to get carried away sometimes....I will try to stay more to the topic at hand. I truly hope that i am wrong about this perceived threat to our freedoms and liberty.




I just posted a video called "Why we believe in gods." It explains things based on well-establish psychological and evolutionary facts. I would be interested in your thoughts.


Sweet!!! I like videos i am going to go check it out now and give you my impressions of it in my next post.....




Yes, this helps clarify the confusion. The important thing is that I do reject the existence of the Abrahamic god. I'm not agnostic about that because I believe there is more than enough evidence to support that judgment. But there is no way anyone can prove that there is not some sort of god or gods, since the possibilities are endless and cannot be disproven.


You reject the Abrahamic God wholly in that you feel that you have Proven him Not to Exist or just that the Probability is very very low? I guess at some point the distinction is so small to hardly be negligible? Low enough to validate such a judgement on your part? I do find it interesting that most Israeli's also reject his existence being Atheist...seems like the Islamic Nations still cling pretty tightly to him... and many in America.... of course it is hard to say How fully Israel has rejected his ideals?.... or How much America and Islamic Nations are just providing lip service? I know i personally don't think that Most Christians are following Jesus... they just claim it....luckily i DON'T have to judge for them.. .only for myself....



I think the confusion would quickly evaporate if folks simply agreed to discuss things rationally.

One problem is probably a mix up between rejection of specific gods like Allah and Yahweh (which is justified) and the rejection of all possible gods (which cannot be justified).


It definitely couldn't hurt!!! I can definitely see how perceptions and/or misconceptions and interpretations of Ancient Gods definitely damage the basic idea of God in general. Have you ever wondered why there (seems to be?) Less variations of Allah and Yahweh then there are of Christian denominations?

Maybe because the older 2 were much more ruthless at rooting out "heresies" and eliminating them??? Also i guess the strict absolute nature of Allah and Yaweh are also resistant to any change or evolution?? Of course i must also remember that Christianity itself started out as as "Jewish" Heresy.





1) The words agnostic and gnostic are not proper antonyms because "gnostic" has acquired a meaning beyond its etymological root "to know." It's the name of a kind of mysticism.


Thanks Richard i read that somewhere but i didn't know the reason behind it.



2) The study of knowledge and how we know we know is called epistemology. I would be delighted to discuss it with you in depth.


COOL!!! I will get some basic information on it and post it as a foundation for our discussion.... along with any Questions i may find....

Okay i am going to go check out that video now... and as always thanks for the Great Discussion.....

With Utter Devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar

[David M]

I agree, but I don't get your point. The prefix "a" in a-theism means "without" a "theos" (god). It applies to all forms of theism, both polytheism and monotheism.

An atheist is, by definition, a person who is not a theist. That's all there is to it. Of course, some atheists also make the positive assertion that there are no gods, but that claim cannot be justified because there is no way to prove it. That's why I describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I am, by definition, an atheist because I am not a theist, but I do not claim to know that there is no god since there is no way to prove that. And besides, there is no single definition of god so the question is not even well defined.

the prefix a- can also mean "not".

Therefore a- can mean "Not" or "without" To be "without" something, is "not" to have something.


In passing, the word "anomie" comes from Greek ανομία, namely the prefix a- "without", and nomos "law"

In the judgement to come, Jesus will say to some (Matt 7:23) depart from me, ye that work iniquity. The word "iniquity" is the Greek word "anomia" meaning "illegality". That was meant in the sense of people "not" observing the law (as if "without" the law). God gave the law (the Torah) as a guide, because for the most part, as Jeremiah states (Jer 10:23); O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

If the law is "not in" (as written in the heart) then an external or law must apply. This external law is "without" which in English that word is used to mean "outside" or "not in(side)".

[David M]

Hello Mattjar

I am appreciating the discussion you are having with Richard and do not want to distract from that, so do not get involved replying to my comments at the moment.

Jesus is the only person to have said; "I am the truth" and that is a bold statement to make. Jesus as truth leads the way to the Father (God =TRUTH). Like you, I do not want to be associated with "Christianity" or religion as it is regarded by those against it, I am more comfortable to be associated with Christ as one of his brethren.

I think there has to come a point where, if as you say; the probability of God is higher than the probability of Allah, then once the highest probability has been found, that probability has to turn into fact and certainty.

God requires us to have faith in him and that means we have to accept his word in faith. That faith cannot be wavering. That faith has to be steadfast and committed. A person cannot have true faith, if they think God "probably" exists.

Once the certainty of God's existence is believed, then it follows that if God has revealed himself to us through his inspired word, that we should heed the words of God.
God makes very specific claims about himself. I have to accept those claims regardless of what others think God is saying, or deny what God is saying. You will note the conversation I am having with L67 in this thread. God simply declares things that will happen before they do. Where you can find examples of that truth, then that is my proof for God's existence. I cannot see man making statements about the future that will take place with certainty. Man can make predictions and forecasts and for the most part they fail. Man is unable to say with certainty what will happen in 12 months time.

I took your request; "Also i would like your opinion...." as an open invitation to anyone. I gave you my thoughts on the matter. You will note that L67 and Rose have seized on my reply to assert there opinion and are engaging me in discussion again. I have engaged them in these things before, and I see this as repetition of them pushing their own agenda, which is why, having given them both my replies in the past, I do not feel it necessary to continue replying and giving the same answers already given.

I have given you my reason (one reason) for the proof I have of God. That same proof was given before to others on this thread and so I see no need to continue to continue with a discussion of that proof in this thread.

Honesty has to be at the foundation of our discussions, or else, where there is dishonesty there is deception. We have many warnings in the Bible "do not be decieved", "do not believe in lying words". That is why it is essential to get to the truth of God's words that makes us aware of the "ravenous wolves" that will literally tear to pieces the believers in God and the truth of his word.

I shall enjoy your continued discussion with Richard on this subject of 'Intellectual Dishonesty'.


All the best
David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

the prefix a- can also mean "not".

Therefore a- can mean "Not" or "without" To be "without" something, is "not" to have something.

In passing, the word "anomie" comes from Greek ανομία, namely the prefix a- "without", and nomos "law"

In the judgement to come, Jesus will say to some (Matt 7:23) depart from me, ye that work iniquity. The word "iniquity" is the Greek word "anomia" meaning "illegality". That was meant in the sense of people "not" observing the law (as if "without" the law). God gave the law (the Torah) as a guide, because for the most part, as Jeremiah states (Jer 10:23); O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

If the law is "not in" (as written in the heart) then an external or law must apply. This external law is "without" which in English that word is used to mean "outside" or "not in(side)".

That's correct David. The "a" prefix is the Greek negative prefix. It corresponds to the Latin negative prefix "non" which means "not" or "no". Thus, an "atheist" is a "nontheist." I certain didn't mean to suggest that the "a" prefix meant nothing but "without."

Thanks for the additional details.

If your interested, here's some info about various negative prefixes: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Mattjar

I am appreciating the discussion you are having with Richard and do not want to distract from that, so do not get involved replying to my comments at the moment.

Hey there David,

Your comments are always welcome. Don't be shy. If the lead to far astray from the topic of the thread, we can always move them to their own thread where the conversation can continue.



Jesus is the only person to have said; "I am the truth" and that is a bold statement to make. Jesus as truth leads the way to the Father (God =TRUTH).

Actually, Jesus is not the only person who said that. The first counter-example that comes to mind is Sufi mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj) who, like Jesus, was executed for the blasphemy of claiming to be God after saying "I am the truth."



I think there has to come a point where, if as you say; the probability of God is higher than the probability of Allah, then once the highest probability has been found, that probability has to turn into fact and certainty.

God requires us to have faith in him and that means we have to accept his word in faith. That faith cannot be wavering. That faith has to be steadfast and committed. A person cannot have true faith, if they think God "probably" exists.

Excellent. Thank you! You have defined exactly what "faith" is really all about. It is the belief that something is "fact" even though you know there is not enough evidence to prove it is a fact. In other words, faith is make-believe. Faith is literally delusional. Faith is claiming to know something when in fact you do not know it. I'm really glad you laid it out plain and clear like this because many believers try to hide the delusional nature of religious faith. Here's an excellent video by Dr. Peter Boghossian that is designed to help you free your mind from your religious delusions:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp4WUFXvCFQ



Once the certainty of God's existence is believed, then it follows that if God has revealed himself to us through his inspired word, that we should heed the words of God.

That's not true. It is a non sequitur. The fact that YOU have chosen to believe something is true without sufficient evidence does not mean that God actually "revealed himself to us through his inspired word." Where did you get the idea that the Bible is God's Word? From HUMAN TRADITION!

When the Muslim chooses to believe in Allah without sufficient evidence, does it "follow" that Allah "has revealed himself to them through his inspired word" the Quran?

Your logic is not logical.



God makes very specific claims about himself.

No he doesn't. God makes no claims of any kind. There is no evidence he even exists. He is absolutely silent.

It is the BIBLE, written by humans hands, that makes claims about God, just like the Quran.



I have to accept those claims regardless of what others think God is saying, or deny what God is saying.

Not true. You are not accepting the "claims" but rather your fallible interpretation of those claims. And since your interpretation clashes with the interpretations of other believers, you must find a way to have "certainty" that your interpretations are correct. But there is no way to do that, so you are lost, adrift in a sea of uncertainty, threatened with eternal death if your fallible interpretations are false.



You will note the conversation I am having with L67 in this thread. God simply declares things that will happen before they do. Where you can find examples of that truth, then that is my proof for God's existence. I cannot see man making statements about the future that will take place with certainty. Man can make predictions and forecasts and for the most part they fail. Man is unable to say with certainty what will happen in 12 months time.

You have never presented any evidence that God can predict the future. It appears that you are taking this on "faith" just like you take God on "faith" without evidence. Indeed, if you really did have evidence, than you wouldn't need to have faith at all, so you are contradicting your previous comments about the need for faith. Your logic is not logical.



I took your request; "Also i would like your opinion...." as an open invitation to anyone.

This is an open forum David. Your comments are always welcome. You don't need to wait for an invitation.



I gave you my thoughts on the matter. You will note that L67 and Rose have seized on my reply to assert there opinion and are engaging me in discussion again. I have engaged them in these things before, and I see this as repetition of them pushing their own agenda, which is why, having given them both my replies in the past, I do not feel it necessary to continue replying and giving the same answers already given.

Agenda? What are you talking about? The only agenda is truth and reality, which is directly contrary to faith which you have shown to be nothing but believing things even though you do not know if they are true.

You have been claiming that there are fulfilled prophecies but you have never been able to present evidence that stands under scrutiny. You need to find you BEST example of fulfilled prophecy and prove it, or admit the truth - you believe in the Bible - a book made by fallible men - by blind faith without any evidence at all.



I have given you my reason (one reason) for the proof I have of God. That same proof was given before to others on this thread and so I see no need to continue to continue with a discussion of that proof in this thread.

You have not presented any evidence supporting your "proof."



Honesty has to be at the foundation of our discussions, or else, where there is dishonesty there is deception. We have many warnings in the Bible "do not be decieved", "do not believe in lying words". That is why it is essential to get to the truth of God's words that makes us aware of the "ravenous wolves" that will literally tear to pieces the believers in God and the truth of his word.

You've got it exactly backwards. By definition, your religion demands that people believe things they cannot prove to be true. That is fundamentally dishonest. Dogmatic religions like yours are based fundamentally on falsehood. They demand you believe falsehood which is why they tend to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. There could be no greater irony than for a believer to speak of "truth" and against "lying words" because dogmatic religion actually breeds a contempt for the truth.



I shall enjoy your continued discussion with Richard on this subject of 'Intellectual Dishonesty'.

I'm looking forward to it to! Let's keep the logic on the rails, shall we?

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

[L67]

I took your request; "Also i would like your opinion...." as an open invitation to anyone. I gave you my thoughts on the matter. You will note that L67 and Rose have seized on my reply to assert there opinion and are engaging me in discussion again. I have engaged them in these things before, and I see this as repetition of them pushing their own agenda, which is why, having given them both my replies in the past, I do not feel it necessary to continue replying and giving the same answers already given.

David,


This is ridiculous. I didn't post my opinion and I certainly didn't push any agenda. Please come back to reality. What I did do is refute your claims by putting the verses into proper context. I fully backed up my words with EVIDENCE. I know the reason you won't respond because there is nothing to respond to. I proved your use of those verses are out of context. You just refuse to believe it because it contradicts what you want to believe. You can believe whatever you want, but don't tell lies and say I pushed my own agenda.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good Deal Richard.... thanks for your quick response!!!

Hey there Matthjar, :tea:

I've been on vacation for a week so I've been able to spend more time than usual responding to comments on my forum. I'm going back to work on Monday so I won't be able to answer quite as quickly, but I'll be checking in at least once a day. That's the beauty of this form of communication. Conversations can be continued despite interruptions by busy schedules.



Yes even though i am a Creationist(source) and an Evolutionist(process) i have never been able to understand why certain absolutists try to repress the probabilities of science.... In my mind if they truly are SURE that they are right AND have a desire for truth and reality then there is NO reason at all not to take all evidence at face value..... even if it tends to suggest that your previous views were wrong..... I see this all the time though with organizations and ideas and beliefs if they are not able to incorporate and evolve with new information they become stagnant, unyielding, and wither away..... I have also seen the absurdity of new information being rejected on the perception that it was a "Myth" propagated by the "Other side"..... One example i can cite is the Big Bang theory.... were i grew up in Idaho 30 years ago most fundies rejected it as a evolutionist myth.... since then i have come across some information that evolutionists also rejected it as a creationist myth..... purely fascinating.... in that case though definitely much more Rejection on the Religious side of the fence. I never could fully understand that circus that we called the "Scopes Monkey Trial."

Your position as a "Creationist(source) and an Evolutionist(process)" is actually the position of mainstream religion. For example, the wiki says "In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation. Opposition to evolution is no different than opposition to the idea that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Both are based on a rejection of demonstrable scientific facts.

There is great irony in the fundamentalist rejection of the Big Bang theory, since many fundamentalists now assert that it vindicates Genesis 1:1 which they interpret as a description of the Big Bang. But that's absurd, of course, for many reasons. The most obvious is that the "earth" was not created "in the beginning." It was formed about 9 billion years after the big bang! An authentic reading of Genesis 1 proves that it is based on the three tiered mythological cosmology common at the time it was written. Here is an article from the conservative Christian think-tank called www.Biologos.org (http://www.biologos.org/) that explains the ancient mythological cosmology of the Bible: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible (http://biologos.org/blog/mesopotamian-cosmic-geography-in-the-bible-part-3)

Here's the three-tiered universe the article talks about:

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/godawa_3_1.jpg

See those "foundations of the earth" in the pic? We are supposed to believe that the Bible is really talking about the globe of planet earth, let alone a modern theory of cosmology like General Relativity with its Big Bang? What a joke! :lol:

I discuss this in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2957-Does-Fulfilled-Prophecy-Prove-the-Bible&p=42969#post42969) in the thread called Does Fulfilled Prophecy Prove the Bible? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2957-Does-Fulfilled-Prophecy-Prove-the-Bible) (Spoiler alert! The answer is no.)



I am sure that you would agree that we need to stop weighing the validity of ideas based on the implications of them... and more so on the evidence for them.

No, I would not agree with that. The implications of an idea can often indicate whether the idea is true or false. For example, that's the whole point of the classic "reductio ad absurdum."



As long as Evolution is viewed as something that reduces or eliminates the need for a creator then there will be strife.

As noted above, there is no intrinsic contradiction between theism and evolution. But there are profound and irreconcilable contradictions between fundamentalist Christianity and most science, not just evolution.



Evolutions main goal should never be that but rather just finding the truth based on evidence..... in the same respect Creationist need to stop making the main goal of Creation to be refuting Evolution. This is my opinion of course but i feel that the 2 truly could overlap and not have to be diametrically opposed.... I sincerely believe that Evolution will never be able fully explain all origins of life completely in materialistic means and terms... BUT even if it does the SO be it!!!! Either way I am not scared of the Truth regardless if i find it in Evolution or Creation..... I think it is Fear that is holding us back.

Evolution is not actually concerned with the "origin of life." It concerns only how life evolved after it got started. It could be true that God created the first cell, that would not change a single fact about how life evolved.

The question of the origin of life from non-living matter is called abiogenesis.

"Not scared of truth" - totally agree with that! Well stated.



I totally understand where you are coming from there..... And i totally agree with you that Religions are Man-made(therefore containing some truth and some lies)..the same as all things invented by Man.. I am sure we will investigate this further when we get into our Knowledge discussion..... I personally Identify with Jesus Christ so strongly but do no submit to others interpretations or authority of interpretation(even though i analyze them for truths)... so in away i am the only member of a Man made Religion called the Church of Jesus as interpreted by Matthjar. I prefer not to call it a Religion but a Relationship. This definitely warrants further discussion!!!!

I agree. The Bible is a rich treasure of knowledge. It records the thoughts humans have had about god and many other things. It reveals human hopes and fears and concepts about reality. It has much truth in it. But it also has much that is false and misleading. It contains nothing that I fear to look at.





One thing to remember. Theists will often insist that a person is not "really" an atheist if he is not a strong atheist. I think this is a strategy to force atheists to defend a belief that cannot be proven, and so drags them down to the level of the theists who cannot justify their belief.

To be completely honest with you (I know you would expect no less from me) I can understand the Theist perspective here, but not out of trying to weaken the position but rather just out of logic. I also must state that if you feel that it is Vitally important for some reason then i have no problem accepting the definition as you have laid it out, and come more forward from that admission. It just seems funny to me that there is some need to assert "That i don't believe in things that i consider imaginary due to a lack of knowledge or Proof." I just figured that was a given. Regardless it is not important or Vital... if you feel like i am still missing something here then I am all ears.

Maybe more importantly is the Agnostic element.... In the strictest sense i can understand how this could be THE only Valid position to have for anything that we cannot measure, perceive, or directly experience.... In a broader sense of probabilities and in light of a total preponderance of the evidence then we are able to affirm or deny any theory (Knowledge?) (Note to Self: examine Knowledge as Evidence and Knowledge as End result).

Yes, all rational people are "agnostic" about things they know they cannot prove. Folks who assert the Bible is God's Word (as a matter of definite fact) are deluded. There is no evidence supporting such a claim.

The reason I say that theists are trying to drag atheists down to their level of unjustified assertion is because they are the ones who are all hung up about the definition of atheism. What is a person who is not a theist? An atheist. It doesn't have anything to do with whether he claims to be able to prove that there is no god. It has to do with the fact that he does not have a belief in any god. What else could he be called?





Good point. But there is a big difference between rejecting specific gods like Allah or Yahweh as opposed to the assertion that "no god of any kind exists." Obviously, it is impossible to prove the latter whereas the former is easy to prove because we have explicit statements in the holy books that are demonstrably false.

Amen to that!!!! ;-). I totally agree that the more specific and intricate and more fully developed any Idea is the easier it is Refute. A God with no definitions is much easier to defend than these more developed ones..... Of course their is really no point in refuting a God that is not defined by anything at all....

BINGO! :thumb:

And the Bible gives contradictory descriptions of its god so we know that god cannot be true. It would be literally IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe in the god described in the Bible because it is impossible to believe in anything with self-contradictory properties. What exactly am I supposed to believe in? If a coherent description cannot be given it is logically impossible for me to believe.

And of course there is an even more significant question: Why would an intelligent god use credulous "belief" as THE criterion of who goes up and who goes down? It makes no sense at all.



This is part of the reason my most basic premise for my idea for the "Real" God is this.... God = Truth..... Lets say i ended my synthesis there... PERIOD..... That would mean that the whole point of Science is to Discover my God. Also Truth is the most Basic Foundation for anything and everything.... and most people do not have a problem with this aspect of God being Truth.... I do run into problems(with people) if i try to assign a Will or Personality to Truth for understandable reasons..Many people are more comfortable Truth being a Passive force and not so much being an active force .. this also bears more discussion. Because you are not a Strong Atheist i realize you do not deny that God may exist but as an Agnostic you just need some proof of such before you choose to believe.

That seems like empty semantics to me. "Truth" is a property of propositions, not a supernatural agent. It makes perfect sense to me that people have a problem if you "try to assign a Will or Personality to Truth."



Hmmm okay ...this is some fertile ground for some discussion.... I would like to submit to you that it is Impossible to Ultimately Prove or Disprove the existence of even highly developed and intricate and specific Gods like Yahweh and Allah.... but i would submit that the more developed they are the higher probability you can achieve that suggest that they probably don't exist, and also the harder it is to increase the Probability that they do exist the more traits and specifics they have.

It seems like the problem is with the word "proof." I am not using that in the mathematical sense, but rather in the sense that there is sufficient evidence to justify a rejection of Allah or Yahweh as the "true god." This is because we have descriptions of their properties and so can conclude that the gods cannot exist with those properties because the properties are logically incoherent.



Personally I would give Allah and Yahweh a Higher Probability then the Pink Unicorn... because they contain traits (at least on the surface) like Righteousness, Justice, etc... that I think are noble traits that God should possess... while i have no intuition or knowledge that God should be Pink, microscopic, unicornish, or live on Mars... so i put that probability much lower..... As a whole I put Allah at much higher probability.... and Yahweh higher than that still.....

The microscopic pink unicorn on Mars is perfect in goodness and justice. Sorry if I forgot to mention that. It is written in the invisible book of the Pink Unicorn.

The problem is that traditional gods like Allah and Yahweh get special treatment because the CULTS are bigger than Jonestown and Heavens Gate. But their cult nature is no different. I see no reason to think that Allah or Yahweh has any "higher probability" than any other god invented by humans, even the pink unicorn. None of them have a probability greater than an infinitesimal.



The Truth is we all Have our own Personal Man-made God.... that i might call World-View...... and thats okay.... The more important part to me is "How closely does my Subjective Man Made Cherry picked God fully represent The Objective Real God that is Truth?"

I still don't think that your idea that "God is truth" makes any sense. Truth is a property of propositions.



This is how i can believe in a Real God that I don't fully understand or have complete knowledge of. I submit to you that any person that believes in an Objective Truth has a God.

No way! A person who believes in objective truth has Reality. Not God.



If a person Denies that Objective Truth exists and that Truth is only a matter of Subjective Experiences and genetics... for they are truly lost... and for them "GOD is Dead" because at that point objective reality ceases to exist for them, along with any other objective idea like Justice, or Right, or Wrong.

There is too much confusion about the meaning of the word "objective" to make a statement like that.



I know you all may think me Delusional but i truly do think that this Current Assault on God (of all types) is truly just an assault on Objective Reality, Free Speech, Freedom of Belief, Reason, and critical thinking in an effort to destroy any barriers to complete submission and dominance to the State.... would any of you intelligent readers of this Disagree with me that there has been a general dumbing down of the masses in recent years? Do you think that is a coincidence? NO I think the State is trying to remove any justifiable causes for any civil disobedience against its sovereignty.

There is a strong association between concepts of "objective truth" and "God" but there are extremely confused and when sorted out, I really don't think there is any connection at all.

As for you opinions about "complete submission and dominance to the State" - I don't see anything like that. It sounds kinda delusional like a conspiracy theory. Sorry for stating it so baldly, but I trust you appreciate straight talk. I certainly hope you will respond in kind. Straight talk is the fast tract to truth and understanding.



Okay I apologize again for rambling... this is the problem with Free Flow Writing.. I tend to get carried away sometimes....I will try to stay more to the topic at hand. I truly hope that i am wrong about this perceived threat to our freedoms and liberty.

Ha! No worries. You sure have rambled. But I love it.



You reject the Abrahamic God wholly in that you feel that you have Proven him Not to Exist or just that the Probability is very very low? I guess at some point the distinction is so small to hardly be negligible? Low enough to validate such a judgement on your part?

Yes. Any judgment about topics like "god" are based on probabilities. I have judged the probability sufficiently low to justify a complete rejection of the concept. But I'm open to being proven wrong!



I do find it interesting that most Israeli's also reject his existence being Atheist...seems like the Islamic Nations still cling pretty tightly to him... and many in America....

Islamic nations look pretty much like giant cults. Anyone who even tries to leave the cult is risking being MURDERED by his own relatives, if not the State.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I took your request; "Also i would like your opinion...." as an open invitation to anyone. I gave you my thoughts on the matter. You will note that L67 and Rose have seized on my reply to assert there opinion and are engaging me in discussion again. I have engaged them in these things before, and I see this as repetition of them pushing their own agenda, which is why, having given them both my replies in the past, I do not feel it necessary to continue replying and giving the same answers already given.

David,

This is ridiculous. I didn't post my opinion and I certainly didn't push any agenda. Please come back to reality. What I did do is refute your claims by putting the verses into proper context. I fully backed up my words with EVIDENCE. I know the reason you won't respond because there is nothing to respond to. I proved your use of those verses are out of context. You just refuse to believe it because it contradicts what you want to believe. You can believe whatever you want, but don't tell lies and say I pushed my own agenda.
L67 presented evidence and the only response he received was rhetoric. How typical!

[Matthjar]

I just have a few thoughts and observations on the latest discussion fallout between David and L67..... since the name of this thread is "intellectual Dishonesty." I feel that i am not overstepping my bounds by getting involved. Truly the whole purpose for this comment is not to attack or brow beat anyone, but merely an effort to promote better discussion in the future. Also to avoid alienating anyone from the discussion and because I just genuinely care about all involved.

In this Spirit i would like to submit some best practices for Discussion that are completely open to debate or ignoring....LOL.

Because we are debating and discussing deeply held ideas and beliefs i feel like these best practices are wise.

1. Don't take attacks on your ideas of beliefs Personally....
2. Don't attack another Person but rather their ideas or Beliefs...
3. Try to keep all assertions you make either about you or the world at large... don't make assertions about another's motives or mindset... if you must because it is pertinent to the discussion then Own your own assertions....... A simple "I feel like... I wonder if....or It seems like...." before questioning another motives or mindset can do wonders.
4. Having the "Last Word" in a discussion is pointless if that last word does not convey any new information.

I also would like to point out my perspective on the whole "pushing agenda" idea. It seems to me that everything i write and say is a matter of pushing my Agenda... I don't see that as bad thing at all as long as I am doing so with good communication skills.... Using evidence, logic, reason, stories, scripture, science, etc etc are all fair game in "Pushing a Agenda"... using personal attacks and rhetoric not so much. Through years of internet communication it would seem that Trolling, Flaming, and trying to push someones buttons or spin them up don't advance a conversation but degrade it. I realize some people get immense pleasure from this behavior but i don't feel that it really helps us here... there are other sites that specialize in this form of entertainment.(Most all of them).

I also get the sense that there may be a long history of "Bad Blood" between certain members of this community... some of it may have to do with Past discussions, or some may feel betrayed by Richards de - conversion..... I am sure i don't understand even the slightest part of it..... it may be like trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... or the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Ireland...... IMHO forgiveness is the best advice i can give... and that is not for the transgressor but the transgressed.

With Utter devotion to Truth and Love,
Matthjar

[David M]

L67 presented evidence and the only response he received was rhetoric. How typical!

Hello Richard
I am amused by your jumping in to support L67. This shows me how wrong you both are and you are sucking up to each other. As much as I despair in having to respond to L67 for having picked up on one paragraph that was not even addressed to him and he ignored my reply to him. You have committed the same error as L67 by siding with him. Did you read my reply to L67? If not, you had better read post #15 of this thread.

Let's review what I said; At least now I can answer you both at the same time.

My opening line to L67 was; "I do not disagree with everything you have written". I was not disagreeing with what he was saying regards Isaiah 48 and the context etc. I do disagree with his conclusion at the end. The emphasis I was making from that chapter was as I said;
However, God has made a statement of principle. That principle is not time specific or relates to a particular incident.
If you want to go looking for those things God has spoken would happen, they can be found, and if you do not, then you are not going to find. Of course you can disagree with another person's findings, but I am not going to get into that area again with you as we have already done that.

Here is the statement again from the chapter under discussion;

3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.
Everything L67 wrote was irrelevant to that statement made by God. I was not citing any particular prophecy and although this statement is made in the prophecy of Isaiah, the statement applies generally to all prophecy. In principle, God is saying (to paraphrase); "I am telling you beforehand what is going to happen so that when it does happen, you cannot attribute the matter to your gods and idols of stone". All you have to do now is go and find where this applies.

Do you now understand the point I was making? I made a comment to a third party about the agendas of both Rose and L67 and you seemingly have your own agenda in supporting L67 without understanding the facts. You can protest all you like about my comment, and your protest would make it more obvious. Your eagerness to support L67 in his attack on me for the comment I made, is endorsement of the campaign of attack, attack, attack. It is about time the brain was engaged before ranting off. Unless you and L67 adopt a different style, then what you have exhibited in the past and continue to do, I shall interpret as you having your own agendas. One of those agendas is; show David is wrong and he stupid and knows nothing about science, logic, or this or that. In the past, I have responded to your attempt to use logic to a statement which you had to defend by the use of the subjunctive clause, which I explained was not correctly applied to the sentence under question.

These conversations get so convoluted that is it no wonder our readers do not want to get involved. A convolution has now developed, because you are agreeing with L67 about his reply to a comment made to a third party, and L67 had completely missed the main point of what I was saying in the post. Having explained to you now the main point I was making, I expect you to possibly recant your position in support of L67 on this one matter.

The topic of this thread is; 'Intellectual Dishonesty' and what is shown at times is Intellectual Buffoonery.

If you want to discuss the times when God has told Israel what is going to happen before it did, then that can be the subject of another thread. In fact, you have said in another reply to me, which I have yet to answer and this can be part of the answer, you say I have not given you proof of prophecy. The proof I have given in the past has not been accepted by you or L67. For example, the fact that you deny the prophecies concerning the cities if Babylon and Tyre I can do nothing about. Those things are proof to me and is the proof for others. There are different reasons why people come to believe the Bible and what happened to the city of Babylon was reason enough for one person I know, to accept the Bible as true. Now we talk about the city of Babylon as a matter of fact, forgetting that at one time, the Bible was thought to be incorrect, because Babylon could not be found. It was not until Babylon was discovered buried under sand, that the Bible was shown to be correct. Time after time, archeology is proving the Bible correct. Prophecy for me is proving the Bible correct. That is two strings of evidence to support the truth of the Bible. You can deny it and claim the proof is insufficient, but that is your problem, because the filters you have set up in your mind are blinding you to the evidence.

I should not have to say all this again, or explain again all that I have written to you and others in many posts. Somehow, I do not think this is ever going to sink in with you.

All the best
David

[David M]

What makes you think that prophecy will be fulfilled? No one has ever been able to prove that any prophecies have been fulfilled, so why would anyone think that one will be fulfilled?


And no one has ever been able to prove that any prophecy has ever been fulfilled. You gave it your best shot in this forum and failed. I challenged you to try again and you have not. Therefore, my claim stands. You have no reason to believe in fulfilled prophecies.

My reply to this can be read at the bottom of of post #25 in this thread. You simply refute the evidence. The prophecies concerning the cities of Tyre and Babylon, to give you two examples again, were fulfilled. It is your opinion they were not. I have no need to "try again"; that would be like admitting I was wrong in the first place. Your claim remains invalid. I won't be trying to persuade you by more examples, though there are many. Before you ask me to prove that statement, I shall repeat what you have said to me in another post in another thread to which I have to find again and reply. You said concerning science and star formation; "Why should we (I) give you answers to questions you can easily find on the internet? In that case, you can find the answers in the Bible, if you are willing to look and not be blinkered by your own bias and filters.

[David M]

I also get the sense that there may be a long history of "Bad Blood" between certain members of this community... some of it may have to do with Past discussions, or some may feel betrayed by Richards de - conversion..... I am sure i don't understand even the slightest part of it..... it may be like trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... or the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Ireland...... IMHO forgiveness is the best advice i can give... and that is not for the transgressor but the transgressed.


Hello Matthjar

I agree with you that we all have our own agendas. It is more evident when people miss the main point in a post and use some other point to push something that is not relevant to the main point. This is why so many threads go off topic. I know it is easy to get into a flow of writing to make additional points, which then get seized on. It is sometimes unwise to write too much. On the other hand, I write things to preempt replies and that fails to work, since it does not stop what I was hoping to prevent.

I find some antagonists on this forum can only write soundbites; they cannot sustain a continued debate. Also, people do not hear which is why they keep repeating the same questions to me. If you tell me something, I should take that on board and that should go towards how a conversation should continue. It is like the people on the other end of the conversation have not taken in a word I have said. I make these points, because they are relevant to the subject of Intellectual Dishonesty. There is so much dishonesty used unintentionally, it has to be spotted and eliminated.

In this thread, post #5 is about; 'Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies'. That is a variation on the '38 ways to win an argument' or put another way; '38 dishonest tricks to win an argument'. The 'straw man' fallacy in other people's posts is often identified by Richard, who fails to see when he is using some of the other "dishonest" ways as part of his argument. As I have explained, we are all guilty of ignorantly incorporating these ways into our arguments. Once we have identified them, we should try not to use them in future. That is what I am doing. If I inadvertently use one and it is pointed out, then that can be corrected and that should lead to improved arguments that are based on facts and honesty.

One thing I have noticed is when I have posted something that is not addressed to anyone and is stating my opinion and facts, that instead of others doing the same, they make it personal and attack the person in their reply. All that needs to be done is as you suggest, say something like; "This is my opinion, or the way I see things...", then put up and leave it at that. So many times I have received replies which are not focused on the subject, but make personal comment by which to discredit the other person. That is one of the 38 ways

We all have an equal right to speak on this forum within the bounds of moderation, so our credentials to speak should not be brought into question. Richard can have degrees in Physics and Mathematics, but that does not automatically make him any wiser than someone without formal qualifications. God who is more knowledgeable and wiser than anyone has caused things to be written that confound people like Richard,regardless of all his study and compilation of the Bible Wheel. Richard is now in the world where everything is a probability, because nothing for him can be known for certain. As an agnostic atheist, Richard is in his own realm.

I look forward to more of your insightful posts.

All the best
David

[L67]

Hello Richard
I am amused by your jumping in to support L67. This shows me how wrong you both are and you are sucking up to each other. As much as I despair in having to respond to L67 for having picked up on one paragraph that was not even addressed to him and he ignored my reply to him. You have committed the same error as L67 by siding with him. Did you read my reply to L67? If not, you had better read post #15 of this thread.

You call that a reply? You ignored all the evidence I posted and asserted your own opinion. I posted FACTS with my reply. And then you went on to lie about me and Rose by saying we are pushing an agenda. So of course I'm going to reply because you are flat out LYING by saying I'm pushing an agenda. You need to get a grip. Richard was correct that all you posted in return was rhetoric.



Let's review what I said; At least now I can answer you both at the same time.

My opening line to L67 was; "I do not disagree with everything you have written". I was not disagreeing with what he was saying regards Isaiah 48 and the context etc. I do disagree with his conclusion at the end. The emphasis I was making from that chapter was as I said;
Everything L67 wrote was irrelevant to that statement made by God. I was not citing any particular prophecy and although this statement is made in the prophecy of Isaiah, the statement applies generally to all prophecy. In principle, God is saying (to paraphrase); "I am telling you beforehand what is going to happen so that when it does happen, you cannot attribute the matter to your gods and idols of stone". All you have to do now is go and find where this applies.

You most certainly did try and cite a future prophecy. And you ignored my words that refuted your erroneous claim about Ezekiel.


Let's see what you said. Post 4.


For me there is only one way whereby God tells us how he can be proved. In all other instances, God operates in a way that is not obviously seen as God at work, unless one sees the signs and situations that could be under the control as God working in the kingdom of men (Dan 4:17)

When God's judgement eventually comes on all nations of the earth, God will be recognized. Here is one passage in which God tells us he will be known (Ez 39) 27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations; 28 Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there. 29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Right there you erroneously applied a future prophecy to a verse that says no such thing. I caught you red handed and then you completely IGNORED everything I posted.

Here was my reply.


Those verses don't prove God exists and it certainly is NOT some future prophecy.

That verse is speaking of the return from Babylonian captivity. Notice the use of "caused"? That is past tense. Plus, Ezekiel was contemporary with Jeremiah and both prophecied the restoration of Israel from Babylonian captivity. And if you go back a few verses it's pretty obvious what Ezekiel was referring to.

Ezekiel 39:23 23 And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.

This makes perfect sense considering Ezekiel was exiled into Babylon. And I could post many more verses to corroborate my words. This is why futurism makes no sense. It is built on out of context verses.

And then here is your reply:


I do not disagree with everything you have written. However, God has made a statement of principle. That principle is not time specific or relates to a particular incident.
If you want to go looking for those things God has spoken would happen, they can be found, and if you do not, then you are not going to find. Of course you can disagree with another person's findings, but I am not going to get into that area again with you as we have already done that.

Here is the statement again from the chapter under discussion;

3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

God gives a reason for doing as he does, because he knows the human mind.

4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

That human mind leads to thoughts which are not true and are imaginations or fantasy. People stick to their false beliefs instead of listening to the true God and that is described as being "stiff-necked".

5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

God has made reference to the imaginations of men resulting in graven images of false gods. God declares (as in Isaiah 45) that there is no God besides him. God is ONE and there is no God beside him. God alone is sole Creator. These are statements made by God and if we are to believe in God, then we have to accept his statements.

Not one word from you actually acknowledges the evidence I cited and you just go on to assert your opinion.

And then you go on to tell the explicit LIE that I am pushing an agenda. Nothing could be more obvious what you did.





Do you now understand the point I was making? I made a comment to a third party about the agendas of both Rose and L67 and you seemingly have your own agenda in supporting L67 without understanding the facts. You can protest all you like about my comment, and your protest would make it more obvious. Your eagerness to support L67 in his attack on me for the comment I made, is endorsement of the campaign of attack, attack, attack. It is about time the brain was engaged before ranting off. Unless you and L67 adopt a different style, then what you have exhibited in the past and continue to do, I shall interpret as you having your own agendas. One of those agendas is; show David is wrong and he stupid and knows nothing about science, logic, or this or that. In the past, I have responded to your attempt to use logic to a statement which you had to defend by the use of the subjunctive clause, which I explained was not correctly applied to the sentence under question.

You're telling the same lie again David. Using logic and facts is not pushing an agenda.

In other words, your content telling lies about people when you can't refute them.


These conversations get so convoluted that is it no wonder our readers do not want to get involved. A convolution has now developed, because you are agreeing with L67 about his reply to a comment made to a third party, and L67 had completely missed the main point of what I was saying in the post. Having explained to you now the main point I was making, I expect you to possibly recant your position in support of L67 on this one matter.

And you started the convolution by telling lies about me and Rose. All you had to do was respond to my post in an intelligent manner and deal with the evidence I presented. But you didn't do that. You ignored it all and post your lousy opinion.

I didn't miss your point. I understood it very well.

Let's also look at the lie you told.


I took your request; "Also i would like your opinion...." as an open invitation to anyone. I gave you my thoughts on the matter. You will note that L67 and Rose have seized on my reply to assert there opinion and are engaging me in discussion again. I have engaged them in these things before, and I see this as repetition of them pushing their own agenda, which is why, having given them both my replies in the past, I do not feel it necessary to continue replying and giving the same answers already given.


So pointing out your error is pushing an agenda? Get real! You're just upset I caught you taking scripture out of context again.



The topic of this thread is; 'Intellectual Dishonesty' and what is shown at times is Intellectual Buffoonery.

That would apply to you more than anyone else. I have prove that.


If you want to discuss the times when God has told Israel what is going to happen before it did, then that can be the subject of another thread. In fact, you have said in another reply to me, which I have yet to answer and this can be part of the answer, you say I have not given you proof of prophecy. The proof I have given in the past has not been accepted by you or L67. For example, the fact that you deny the prophecies concerning the cities if Babylon and Tyre I can do nothing about. Those things are proof to me and is the proof for others. There are different reasons why people come to believe the Bible and what happened to the city of Babylon was reason enough for one person I know, to accept the Bible as true. Now we talk about the city of Babylon as a matter of fact, forgetting that at one time, the Bible was thought to be incorrect, because Babylon could not be found. It was not until Babylon was discovered buried under sand, that the Bible was shown to be correct. Time after time, archeology is proving the Bible correct. Prophecy for me is proving the Bible correct. That is two strings of evidence to support the truth of the Bible. You can deny it and claim the proof is insufficient, but that is your problem, because the filters you have set up in your mind are blinding you to the evidence.

You also reveal your gross double standard. You totally reject the dating methods when it contradicts what you want to believe, but you believe it when it confirms your beliefs.


The prophecy of Tyre NEVER happened like Ezekiel predicted. You erroneously apply Ezekiel's failed prediction and apply it to Alexander the Great. I can prove it.

In post 13 in this thread http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?4918-Damascus/page2&highlight=tyre


And what is your dogma? Please do not say you do not have any dogma. Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Tyre was only part successful in that the old city was taken; not the island city the people had set up. The prophecy concerning the old city of Tyre or Tyrus was finally completed to the letter by Alexander when the old city was swept clean and all the stone got thrown into the sea to build the causeway. How else do you see these words of the prophecy being fulfilled; (Eze 26:4)4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. 5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD:

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would totally destroy the city of Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt. It never happened the way Ezekiel predicted. History tells us otherwise.

Ezekiel 26:7-14 7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

History tells us Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Tyre for 13 years but never took the city. He certainly never did any of what Ezekiel predicted. He failed. Tyre wasn't destroyed until Alexander the Great destroyed it. But then Ezekiel says it will never be rebuilt. Well we know that's not true because the Bible makes mention of it in the New Testament and Tyre is still here today.


Acts 12:20 20 He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. After securing the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king’s country for their food supply.

Ezekiel later on admits Nebuchadnezzars failure.

Ezekiel 29:17-20 7 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Ezekiel's prophecy FAILED. And then he later changed it after the fact to fit the historical situation as it had actually unfolded.

After Nebuchadnezzars failure to take the city of Tyre, the Lord says he will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar. Guess what? As far as history is concerned that NEVER happened either. If he had conquered Egypt, it would have been his greatest conquest in the minds of everyone at the time. It would be recorded as history. Because every other campaign of his is documented.


I should not have to say all this again, or explain again all that I have written to you and others in many posts. Somehow, I do not think this is ever going to sink in with you.



The problem lies with you David. You ignore any post that PROVE your errors and I just demonstrated in this thread.

[SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777]

Hey Richard! :yo:

David M cannot give you any sciency-proof or "falsfiable-evidence" how God's power operates. No-one can tell you that. He admits he "Totally-Ignorant." He said, "I accept God is the Creator even though [I am completely ignorant of what that involves!]"

He has also claimed it is the "elusive answer science is trying to work out" so that man can be as God! And that it is no different to science explaining how the force of gravity comes about. LOL. :lol:

Well for any Theory of these criteria, Creationism and/or Intelligent-Design as a Science "lacks all of these" below.

-It is not Parsimonious-Useful in describing and explaining observed phenomena and cannot be used in a predictive manner.
-It is not Testable and Falsifiable based on multiple observations.
-It is not Correctable and Modifiable in the light of observations that do not support it.
-It is not Refining previous theories.
-It is not Provisional or Open to experimental checking.

First of all, the burden of proof "lies for someone proposing a supernatural extraordinary-claim like the idea of God- or those who are proposing something falsifiable." You cannot shift the burden of proof to, who must subsequently prove a Negative!

Assuming that God exists is known has always been "the key tenet of Christian Apologetics."

Skeptics have no need to prove anything, and just need to render arguments for the existence of God as non-compelling. This sort of presuppositional thinking is illogical, so asking one to disprove God is an unreasonable request.

"Occam's Razor" can also be invoked as a guide to making the fewest assumptions, and "Assuming God exists a priori is one hell of a major assumption."

The burden of proof and truth-claim lay on them and indicates that without supporting falsifiable evidence, the default position on God must be either weak-ish atheism or agnosticism rather than theism. There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the old Homeric God.

I cannot prove that either the imaginary Christian Demiurge-God or Unicorns or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth any serious consideration.

The burden of proof has not been met by those proposing that a Iron Age Cloud-god exists, let alone the specific god(s).

23-Skidoo!

L.L.L.
L.V.X.

[SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777]

"Every Sperm is Sacred"

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.

FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.

MOURNER #1:
Mine!

MOURNER #2:
And mine!

CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.

HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

AMEN!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard! :yo:

Yo! James! How ya doing? It's been a while. Glad you stopped by.



David M cannot give you any sciency-proof or "falsfiable-evidence" how God's power operates. No-one can tell you that. He admits he "Totally-Ignorant." He said, "I accept God is the Creator even though [I am completely ignorant of what that involves!]"

He has also claimed it is the "elusive answer science is trying to work out" so that man can be as God! And that it is no different to science explaining how the force of gravity comes about. LOL. :lol:

Well for any Theory of these criteria, Creationism and/or Intelligent-Design as a Science "lacks all of these" below.

-It is not Parsimonious-Useful in describing and explaining observed phenomena and cannot be used in a predictive manner.
-It is not Testable and Falsifiable based on multiple observations.
-It is not Correctable and Modifiable in the light of observations that do not support it.
-It is not Refining previous theories.
-It is not Provisional or Open to experimental checking.

Excellent points. The most absurd thing about "Creation Science" is that it is the direct opposite of science! It begins with predefined "answers" and then goes looking for evidence to support them. Here's the classic illustration:

1244



First of all, the burden of proof "lies for someone proposing a supernatural extraordinary-claim like the idea of God- or those who are proposing something falsifiable." You cannot shift the burden of proof to, who must subsequently prove a Negative!

Assuming that God exists is known has always been "the key tenet of Christian Apologetics."

Absolutely correct. Their claim is really "over the top." It would be absurd to simply assume it is true or assert that skeptics bear any kind of burden to prove their claim false.



Skeptics have no need to prove anything, and just need to render arguments for the existence of God as non-compelling. This sort of presuppositional thinking is illogical, so asking one to disprove God is an unreasonable request.

I agree. I spent some time listening to Sye Ten Bruggencate and his utterly ludicrous "presuppositional" apologetics. He has no brain! His only response to any challenge was a mindless repetition of "How do you know that?" "How do you know that?" "How do you know that?" "How do you know that?" "How do you know that?" If you've cleaned all the toilets in your house, and you still have a hankering to stick your nose in some stink, Google that freak.



"Occam's Razor" can also be invoked as a guide to making the fewest assumptions, and "Assuming God exists a priori is one hell of a major assumption."

No shit! It's the Mount Rushmore of Assumptions. And the worst thing is it doesn't actually explain anything. It's like saying "A Magical Pink Unicorn did it."



The burden of proof and truth-claim lay on them and indicates that without supporting falsifiable evidence, the default position on God must be either weak-ish atheism or agnosticism rather than theism. There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the old Homeric God.

Yep. I have no problem with weakish theism. Folks can say that they have a hope, desire, even "intuition" that there is a god. Great! No problem. Maybe they are right. But that's as far as it goes. Folks who want to assert that their god is true and directly threatens the eternal well-being of anyone who disagrees ... well, then we have a problem. To call the Gospel "good news" is the ultimate misnomer. It is a death threat to anyone who doesn't believe.



The burden of proof has not been met by those proposing that a Iron Age Cloud-god exists, let alone the specific god(s).

Yep.




23-Skidoo!

Ah ... the 23 enigma. There was a day I was fascinated by it. Now it just looks like a lucid example of selection bias.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I just have a few thoughts and observations on the latest discussion fallout between David and L67..... since the name of this thread is "intellectual Dishonesty." I feel that i am not overstepping my bounds by getting involved. Truly the whole purpose for this comment is not to attack or brow beat anyone, but merely an effort to promote better discussion in the future. Also to avoid alienating anyone from the discussion and because I just genuinely care about all involved.

In this Spirit i would like to submit some best practices for Discussion that are completely open to debate or ignoring....LOL.

Because we are debating and discussing deeply held ideas and beliefs i feel like these best practices are wise.

1. Don't take attacks on your ideas of beliefs Personally....
2. Don't attack another Person but rather their ideas or Beliefs...
3. Try to keep all assertions you make either about you or the world at large... don't make assertions about another's motives or mindset... if you must because it is pertinent to the discussion then Own your own assertions....... A simple "I feel like... I wonder if....or It seems like...." before questioning another motives or mindset can do wonders.
4. Having the "Last Word" in a discussion is pointless if that last word does not convey any new information.


Thanks for reminding us of some of the fundamental principles that make for good and fruitful conversation Matthjar!



Through years of internet communication it would seem that Trolling, Flaming, and trying to push someones buttons or spin them up don't advance a conversation but degrade it.

You got that right.



I also get the sense that there may be a long history of "Bad Blood" between certain members of this community... some of it may have to do with Past discussions, or some may feel betrayed by Richards de - conversion..... I am sure i don't understand even the slightest part of it..... it may be like trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... or the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Ireland...... IMHO forgiveness is the best advice i can give... and that is not for the transgressor but the transgressed.

All true.

[L67]

I just have a few thoughts and observations on the latest discussion fallout between David and L67..... since the name of this thread is "intellectual Dishonesty." I feel that i am not overstepping my bounds by getting involved. Truly the whole purpose for this comment is not to attack or brow beat anyone, but merely an effort to promote better discussion in the future. Also to avoid alienating anyone from the discussion and because I just genuinely care about all involved.


Hey Matthjar,

I'm glad you jumped into the conversation. Nothing you could say would offend me in any way. If I am in error, I WANT people to correct me and show me where I have gone off the rails. BUT! I get very annoyed by people who spew FALSE accusations towards me all the time. And I have absolutely no tolerance for misinformation. I don't mind it when someone makes a mistake here or there. But, when that error is repeated over and over again no matter how many times you correct it, it gets very frustrating. And you have to correct the errors because you don't want anyone reading the post to be misled.

Let me point something else out. If someone who is ignorant of the science they reject, then what is wrong with pointing that ignorance out? Or any topic for that matter. You're only speaking the truth.

I have tried numerous times to reason with David. It appears you simply cannot reason with him. He never admits his errors when they have been pointed out to him. He simply ignores what you have to say. And then he spews false accusations on a regular basis. If he doesn't want the responses he gets then stop falsely accusing people of nonsense and deal with the argument.





In this Spirit i would like to submit some best practices for Discussion that are completely open to debate or ignoring....LOL.

Because we are debating and discussing deeply held ideas and beliefs i feel like these best practices are wise.

1. Don't take attacks on your ideas of beliefs Personally....
2. Don't attack another Person but rather their ideas or Beliefs...
3. Try to keep all assertions you make either about you or the world at large... don't make assertions about another's motives or mindset... if you must because it is pertinent to the discussion then Own your own assertions....... A simple "I feel like... I wonder if....or It seems like...." before questioning another motives or mindset can do wonders.
4. Having the "Last Word" in a discussion is pointless if that last word does not convey any new information.

Agreed on all accounts. I have told David so many times not to take my comments personally. I guess it never sinks in.


I also would like to point out my perspective on the whole "pushing agenda" idea. It seems to me that everything i write and say is a matter of pushing my Agenda... I don't see that as bad thing at all as long as I am doing so with good communication skills.... Using evidence, logic, reason, stories, scripture, science, etc etc are all fair game in "Pushing a Agenda"... using personal attacks and rhetoric not so much. Through years of internet communication it would seem that Trolling, Flaming, and trying to push someones buttons or spin them up don't advance a conversation but degrade it. I realize some people get immense pleasure from this behavior but i don't feel that it really helps us here... there are other sites that specialize in this form of entertainment.(Most all of them).

I don't see you posting your opinions as pushing any agenda. Those are your beliefs and you are entitled to post them. Posting logic and facts is not pushing any agenda like David falsely accused me of. It's ironic because he tells everyone that the Bible should be put into proper context. So, I put the verses he posted into proper context and now I'm pushing some made up agenda. He just doesn't like what I say because it contradicts what he believes. The FACTS speak for themselves.


I also get the sense that there may be a long history of "Bad Blood" between certain members of this community... some of it may have to do with Past discussions, or some may feel betrayed by Richards de - conversion..... I am sure i don't understand even the slightest part of it..... it may be like trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... or the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Ireland...... IMHO forgiveness is the best advice i can give... and that is not for the transgressor but the transgressed.

I have no bad blood towards David or anyone else. Has there been heated discussions? Yes! I just get sick and tired of correcting the same errors over and over again. It makes fruitful conversation impossible with someone who will NEVER correct their errors. And I'm not the only one who has witnessed this either.

I agree with a lot of your posts Matthjar. You seem very appreciative about learning new things. I commend you for that. With your attitude, conversation with you could actually have a mutual resolution.

Take care.

[David M]

Hello Matthjar

I see L67 has a lot to say against me. You would have go and read some of the discussions that took place and so decide who is right and wrong.

One of the first subjects to be argued about was the destruction of Damascus. L67 gave me a link to an article to support his argument, yet the article did not say what he was telling me. I did learn something from the fact that the region known as Damascus was severely destroyed, but the capital city of Damascus remained in tact, except for the city walls that were breached. The fact that the city changed hands has nothing to do with the buildings of the city.

You can read the thread and see what you think. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3499-Damascus-shall-be-a-ruinous-heap-%28isaiah-17-1%29 and here is the link to the article; http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/OT/Dubovsky.pdf

You must also understand the position L67 is coming from and so here is a link to a post so you know.

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2511-Redact-of-the-Bible&p=60203#post60203 starting at post #30 and the reply in #35

BTW. L67 keeps banging on about not responding to his last post to me, yet I replied to say I agreed with most of what he said and that he was missing the point of what I was saying. He fails to recognize that the texts he presented I was not arguing against. I can justify my my position as much as he claims to justify his. Only you can decide by reading the posts.

All the best
David

[duxrow]

Good morning, and Where are you, David? Bermuda or Iceland? Because I'm on East Coast and you're usually on ahead of me.. (2) How do you escape being listed on the members roster?
:sFun_dangling: The Damascus subject may be a current event soon, so I wouldn't be too concerned with L67 POV.. Now that Syria has become a focus of the ISIS force, it's not difficult to imagine her Capital becoming a ruinous heap. You think? :huhsign:

[L67]

Hello Matthjar

I see L67 has a lot to say against me. You would have go and read some of the discussions that took place and so decide who is right and wrong.

Did I say one thing towards you that isn't true? Nope. You make false accusations all the time and you NEVER apologize for making them either.


One of the first subjects to be argued about was the destruction of Damascus. L67 gave me a link to an article to support his argument, yet the article did not say what he was telling me. I did learn something from the fact that the region known as Damascus was severely destroyed, but the capital city of Damascus remained in tact, except for the city walls that were breached. The fact that the city changed hands has nothing to do with the buildings of the city.




That is simply NOT true. Folks, David didn't reject my claim for evidentiary reasons. He rejected my claims because it contradicts what he wants to believe. Plain and simple. He also changed his argument AFTER he knew my evidence proved him wrong.

Here was his original argument from this thread. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53987#post53987


I can only say this is an extremely short-sighted understanding of scripture which does not take into account all of scripture including the Old Testament prophets which said many things that have not happened. Have you answered the question; When did Damascus become a "ruinous heap"? Please tell me when that happened.

After I thoroughly PROVED Damascus was left a ruinous heap, David changed his argument to when was just the main city destroyed. The only slight bit of wiggle room he had he took it. He goes on to say this in the Damascus thread.


Hello L67

You gave me a link to a website article that did not say the main city of Damascus was destroyed. It could not have been if Tiglath Pileser set up his headquarters there. That is what it says, so what do you make of those words? You have to give me more evidence that the main city of Damascus was completely destroyed and not just the surrounding districts.


Let's look at Isaih 17 Isaiah 17 17 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

Damascus was taken away from being a city. History confirms it.

In 732 BC, the kingdom of Damascus lost its independence and existence, its holdings carved up into Assyrian provinces. Israel, on the other hand, was allowed to survive, albeit reduced to a fraction of its former size and cut off from the sea. Tiglatpileser put it under the rule of a new king, Hoshea, chosen to serve as a loyal executor of Assyrian interests.

Israel's northern territories came under direct Assyrian rule. The newly established province of Megiddo centred around the city of the same name and included also the coastal regions with the harbour of Dor.

And Damascus was left a ruinous heap. The annals of the Assyrians confirms this as does history. http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/OT/Dubovsky.pdf

According to the Assyrian Annals, we read that the destruction of Damascus was so great that it left hundreds of sites looking "like hills over which the flood had swept". It is well known fact among historians that the reduction of the much of city to rubble was widespread and extended into Syria and the Transjordan.

This is how bad Damascus was destroyed. Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 591 cities of 16 districts of Damascus



Here was my last post in that thread that decimated his argument. Notice how I'm the only one in that thread supporting my views with actual Bible verses. I told David let's go over the Bible verses carefully.

That is NOT the conclusion. Your interpretation of Isaiah ins WRONG. It was NOT just about one city in Damascus. There is a much bigger picture than just Isaiah 17. Let's go over this carefully.

Isaiah is prophesying during the time when Syria and Israel (northern 10 tribes) have made a confederacy against Judah (southern kingdom).

You can read about how Judah was fearful because of this confederacy. These two countries were going to gang up on Judah.

Isaiah 7:1-9 7 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to make war against it, but could not prevail against it. 2 And it was told to the house of David, saying, “Syria’s forces are deployed in Ephraim.” So his heart and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind.

3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-Jashub[a] your son, at the end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, 4 and say to him: ‘Take heed, and be quiet; do not fear or be fainthearted for these two stubs of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah have plotted evil against you, saying, 6 “Let us go up against Judah and trouble it, and let us make a gap in its wall for ourselves, and set a king over them, the son of Tabel”— 7 thus says the Lord God:

“It shall not stand,
Nor shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus,
And the head of Damascus is Rezin.
Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken,
So that it will not be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
And the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son.
If you will not believe,
Surely you shall not be established.”’”


Isaiah 8:5-13 The Lord spake also unto me again, saying,

6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son;

7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.

11 For the Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,

12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.

13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.


King = Rezin
Country = Syria
Capitol = Damascus

confederate with

King = Pekah (Remaliah's son)
Country = Israel
Capitol = Samaria

Isaiah 8:7-8 tells us of the mighty flowing river who will decimate them all, which is the Assyrian Empire to the east of Syria. Isaiah prophesies in Isaiah 17 about the destruction of Damascus, the idea of Rezin's defeat and the defeat of the entire nation of Syria is in view.

7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

We can see this fulfilled in 2 Kings 16 2 Kings 16


16 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.

2 Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father.

3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.

4 And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.

5 Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.

6 At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

7 So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.

8 And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.

9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

10 And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.

Isaiah 7-8 shows Isaiah prophesying during the reign of Ahaz. Here in II Kings 16 we see Ahaz on the throne in Judah, and the destruction of Damascus in just the sense that Isaiah prophesies in Isaiah 17.

The city ceased to be a city when the people were taken captive and the king was slain.

The 18 page document all ties in with the Bible perfectly. It is absolutely WRONG to think that this could possibly be a future fulfillment, when we have concrete evidence it already occurred.

Here is two quotes from the 18 page document that sums up the Biblical prophecy.

Aram lost its independence and was annexed to Assyria. and

The Assyrians left behind them not only ruined cities but also the monuments recalling their sovereignty.


Here was David's reply.


Hello L67
It would be good to hear another opinion on this matter from someone who has read both our evidence and can make an unbiased opinion.

He knew I was right. History confirms my argument as does the Bible. It's funny, I don't believe the Bible, yet I'm the one defending it. Damascus being destroyed is powerful evidence and David rejects it for dogmatic reasons.




BTW. L67 keeps banging on about not responding to his last post to me, yet I replied to say I agreed with most of what he said and that he was missing the point of what I was saying. He fails to recognize that the texts he presented I was not arguing against. I can justify my my position as much as he claims to justify his. Only you can decide by reading the posts.

Once again, you failed to fully understand my words to you.

I didn't say you NEVER responded to me. I specifically said you NEVER responded to the evidence I presented that you took those verses out of context. And you never did. You ignored everything I posted and asserted your own opinion. My words were true and justified.

[L67]

Good morning, and Where are you, David? Bermuda or Iceland? Because I'm on East Coast and you're usually on ahead of me.. (2) How do you escape being listed on the members roster?
:sFun_dangling: The Damascus subject may be a current event soon, so I wouldn't be too concerned with L67 POV.. Now that Syria has become a focus of the ISIS force, it's not difficult to imagine her Capital becoming a ruinous heap. You think? :huhsign:

Duxrow,


It's NOT my point of view. My words are backed up by the Bible and historical evidence. Isaiahs prophecy has absolutely NOTHING to do with modern day Damascus. That is is just ripping Isaiah out of context.


See my argument above and tell me how Isaiah is a future prophecy.

[duxrow]

Well L67, when you say Isa17 had NOTHING to do.. that's your pov!

The Apostle Paul was "on the Road to Damascus" and IMO we are ALL on that road -- a destination yet future, but looming closer all the time especially since ISIS became involved. That's MY pov!

[L67]

Well L67, when you say Isa17 had NOTHING to do.. that's your pov!

The Apostle Paul was "on the Road to Damascus" and IMO we are ALL on that road -- a destination yet future, but looming closer all the time especially since ISIS became involved. That's MY pov!


No, it's not. Pov is based on my opinion. These are NOT my opinions. These are facts. My argument is based on EVIDENCE from the Bible and history.

What you call pov is based on what you want to believe. YOUR opinion. I posted nothing like that. If you want to say these are merely my opinions then by all means prove me wrong.