Freethought & Rationalism Archive

daemon · 02-07-2002, 08:56 AM

*blink blink* Rainbow Walking? Wha? Huh?

I have to say, my jaw dropped upon reading your statement, RW, but I welcome you nonetheless. I can relate to your troubles to a degree, being a relatively recent deconvert myself, and you have my support. I wish you luck with your family and friends, and happiness in your future.

Theli · 02-07-2002, 12:16 PM

Theo:

Quote:

Okay, I'm fast getting sick of this. Let's be clear: The Christians are the ones believing the doctrine, we get to define what we believe. It is not up to atheists to come along and tell us what is meant by omnipotence. There is a centuries old Christian tradition discussing exactly what is meant by the doctrine of omnipotence.
An atheist comes along and tells me that omnipotence means the ability to do anything at all, and ha ha ha it's contradictory.

So now the christians has a special language of their own? Isn't this just a desperate atempt to make their scripture valid? By changing the scripture without actually altering a single word in it?

Quote:

Should I laugh or cry? What arrogance to declare based on their own opinion what they think Christians should mean by a word!

Do you think they have always, by omnipotence, meant "almost allpowerful"? Why must they change the meaning of the words? Why not just admit that their godfigure is questionable?
Why are they so hooked on a single book?

Quote:

There is little more to discuss. If some atheist wants to think that the Christian idea of omnipotence includes the ability of God to perform contradictions and is therefore contradictory they are welcome to go an live in their own imaginary world until they get a brain.

"Imaginary world"? HAH!!!!
Atleast my world doesn't have any almost/not really/pretty near/kind of - allpowerful gods in it. No elves or demons either... honestly!

BTW, we don't believe that the christian god can perform contradictions, we don't believe he exists at all.

HelenM · 02-07-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
My decision is MY decision and not one that I would wish to be used to create doubt for other sincere believers. I hope they too can forgive.

rw

*HUGZ*

Don't worry about other people and their doubts; that's not your reponsibility.

love
Helen

GunnerJ · 02-07-2002, 01:15 PM

RainbowWalking-

That is one of the most impressive posts I've seen in a while. I am at a loss for words. There's a feeling of pride, and delighted surprise, that the English language fails to convey in writing.

I know where you've been, and I know the feeling. I remember crying in a gazebo outside mt old Catholic Church, asking Jesus to see me, to talk to me, so I could get it all straightened out, because the idea that he wasn't real, that it was all a lie, was so horrible, and yet made so much sense. I didn't like the feeling of knowing something and having to errect complicated apologetic machinery to reconcile it with my desires. Soon, the feeling passed, becasue once I truly accepted that theism is a myth, the world started to make more sense.

Stay in there, man. Congratulations.

-The Rimstalker

P.S.- I hope Theophilus can keep his big nose out of this and avoid any childish inclination to slander you as never having been a "true Christian" on this thread. It requires him to show a shread of human decency, which I know may be a hard thing for him, but I have some hope.

theophilus · 02-07-2002, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Here we go again:
And as for "honesty": You claim to be a "presuppositionalist". This system of evaluating worldviews uses the criterion of internal consistency. If a worldview contains internal inconsistencies, it is deemed "self-refuting" and cannot be true. If it is entirely self-consistent, it is deemed to be true.

But Christianity fails this test, and atheistic metaphysical naturalism passes this test.

Gee, wouldn't life be a lot easier if we could just declare something and make it so?
Unfortunately, arguments take evidence not just declarations of victory.
In the first place, naturalism, of any stripe, has to presuppose itself to prove itself. So, no cigar there.
Second, this is not about metaphysics; it is about the very possibility of knowledge. Knowledge, of any type, is impossible on a naturalistic basis because it has never been demonstrated that matter contains or can communicate knowledge.
Third, knowledge of anything requires knowledge of everything; a "fact" is what it is in relation to other "facts." You not only need to know each fact absolutely, but you need to know all facts absolutely in relation to each other before you can claim any knowledge.
So, since matter cannot impart knowledge, and absolute knowledge of all things is required to possess any knowledge at all, I'd say naturalism fails pretty badly.
Christianity, on the other hand, has the creator's revelation which not only gives us information about him and his creation, but establishes the possibility of rational and empirical knowlege.

Therefore no honest presupposiotionalist can remain a Christian. A Christian can "presuppose" that the Bible is true, but they cannot use the presuppositional apologetic method (PAM) to validate that belief. Hence the decidedly non-PAM doctrine that a "true Christian" is forbidden to question the validity of the Bible.

Don't pretend that you have an argument, Theo.

I'm sorry this is so hard for you. A Christian doesn't use anything to "validate" the Bible. We declare that God's word is ultimate in all matters. To attempt to validate it by something external to itself would make that "thing" ultimate. Surely you must be able to see that.
In the same way, you cannot use empiricism to validate empiricism or rationalism to validate rationalism.
I have never claimed to "validate" the Bible. My challenge has been, and still remains, for atheists to show how either empiricism or rationalism can account for human experience without presupposing what the bible declares. I don't say that they presuppose this consciously but that their system cannot provide a sufficient basis for what they claim to know.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

Theli · 02-07-2002, 01:39 PM

RainbowWalking:

Quote:

For me the pretense has come to a quiet but final end. I have searched my heart and mind and found it to be desolate of reasons to continue to defend the pretense. As I turn and walk away from the cross I can hear the echo of "It is finished."

Did this board have any impact on that choice?
Anyway... We atheists will miss your opposition.

daemon · 02-07-2002, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:
Gee, wouldn't life be a lot easier if we could just declare something and make it so?
Unfortunately, arguments take evidence not just declarations of victory.
In the first place, naturalism, of any stripe, has to presuppose itself to prove itself. So, no cigar there.

Interesting theory; would you be so kind as to first define naturalism, and then to explain why it must presuppose itself to be proven?

Quote:

Second, this is not about metaphysics; it is about the very possibility of knowledge. Knowledge, of any type, is impossible on a naturalistic basis because it has never been demonstrated that matter contains or can communicate knowledge.

What does this mean? How does one demonstrate matter contains/can communicate information? It seems quite obvious that matter can and does convey information--take writing, for example, the simple arrangement of ink and paper in order to contain information in the form of human symbols.

Quote:

Third, knowledge of anything requires knowledge of everything; a "fact" is what it is in relation to other "facts." You not only need to know each fact absolutely, but you need to know all facts absolutely in relation to each other before you can claim any knowledge.

This is an arbitrary claim, and I can see no reason to believe it. Please prove this, as well as why approximate knowledge is inadequate to be considered knowledge.

Quote:

Christianity, on the other hand, has the creator's revelation which not only gives us information about him and his creation, but establishes the possibility of rational and empirical knowlege.[/QB]

Prove this. It is not sufficient to merely repeat this, but prove, firstly, that revelation even makes your questionable definition of knowledge possible, and furthermore that your personal version of revelation is preferable to the 33,000+ forms of what I assume you call false forms of Christianity, and the other revelatory relgions as well.

Tercel · 02-07-2002, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Proud atheist:
I had a look and what is striking is the astonishingly low number of "certified miracles" (66) for something that has been running for 150 years collecting thousands of suckers every year. Less than one "miracle" every two years

The extremely strict criteria for declaring a miracle mean that only a tiny proportion of apparent alleged miracles are actually confirmed beyond doubt as such. ie the number of miracles listed is not the number of healings (=6500), but only the number of healings which meet the stringint requirements for being declared miracles.

Quote:

Furthermore the rate that these "miracles" seem to be happening is declining rapidly with the majority coming before 1920 and two in the last 20 years!

The criteria for being declared a miracle changed in 1947 with the introduction of a second level of international specialists, making it harder for healings to be declared miracles.

Quote:

One must also note that a Church body reviewing these "miracles" hardly constitutes an independent and fair tribunal, can you say conflict of interest?

Nope: "There, medical personnel from all the world are invited to investigate the evidence for reported healings. Included among the medical examiners are those who allow and those who exclude the possibility of miraculous healings."

More that may interest you:

"It is impossible to estimate the number of cures which have occurred at Lourdes. There are healings of a spiritual nature, such as faith, conversion, acceptance, joy. There are also the psychological cures-- freedom from anxiety, release from addiction and compulsion. There are cures of a physical nature, the only type investigated at Lourdes (and also the only type accepted in the beatification or canonization process), because evidence of both the past and present condition can be presented." from <a href="http://www.udayton.edu/mary/respub/summer99.html" target="_blank">The Marian Library Newsletter, 1999</a>

As Metacrock points out on his <a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles4.htm" target="_blank">website</a>:
�There have been only 66 official proclamations of miracles at Lourdes since the miracles began. This may sound like so few that it is hardly worth claiming them, however, this is not the case. It is really a testimony to the rigor of the process and to the Church's refusal to use the miracles as any sort of propaganda. If the claims were merely used to bolster propaganda of some sort one would think they would choose many more than this. But the requirements are so strict that only a few are accepted. There is actually a much larger pool of claims to choose from, and many more "remarkable" cases that did not make it because the documentation is just too difficult to get.�

Quote:

In conclusion I'm rather confidant you will find that truly unexplained recoveries from illness of Lourdes visitors, atheists, football fans, communists or any other randomly chosen group occur at exactly the same (very unlikely) rate. Try coming back with some real evidence next time.

If you wish to simply ignore evidence when it is given to you - why even make the pretence of being rational: You simply demonstrate that you are every bit as much a presuppostionalist as Theophilus is!

Tercel

Tercel · 02-07-2002, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Olorin:
I see. So when there is a group of people believing in something, they automatically have the "right" to assign meaning to the words they use to describe their belief?

Language changes with useage over time. The Christians have been the only ones using the word Omnipotence for the past God knows how long. It thus aquires whatever definition it is being used for. In this case: The ability of God to perform any possible task with respect to the physical creation.

You can declare that Omnipotence means the ability to perform logical impossibilities and therefore is logically impossible if you like. I wouldn't expect anybody of intelligence to care about your great achievement though.

Quote:

Is the doctrine of omnipotence different to the meaning of omnipotence?

It's close enough that it's completely reasonable to use the word to represent the doctrine.

Quote:

Is the existence of this tradition the result of the need to describe a "special type" of omnipotence, i.e. that which is not equal to the philological meaning of "omnipotence"?

Traditions exist in all areas of Christian doctrine. They are a result of man attempting to understanding God and His ways.

Quote:

Are you stating that the philological and theological meanings are dissimilar?

No: You are.

Tercel

theophilus · 02-07-2002, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:

You simply demonstrate that you are every bit as much a presuppostionalist as Theophilus is!

Tercel

I assume you meant this negatively, but this is exactly my point. There is no neutral basis for argumentation. Either one accepts God and his word as authoritative or he makes his own reason the final arbiter of all possibility.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2002, 08:56 AM	#61
daemon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 737	blink blink Rainbow Walking? Wha? Huh? I have to say, my jaw dropped upon reading your statement, RW, but I welcome you nonetheless. I can relate to your troubles to a degree, being a relatively recent deconvert myself, and you have my support. I wish you luck with your family and friends, and happiness in your future.

02-07-2002, 01:15 PM	#64
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	RainbowWalking- That is one of the most impressive posts I've seen in a while. I am at a loss for words. There's a feeling of pride, and delighted surprise, that the English language fails to convey in writing. I know where you've been, and I know the feeling. I remember crying in a gazebo outside mt old Catholic Church, asking Jesus to see me, to talk to me, so I could get it all straightened out, because the idea that he wasn't real, that it was all a lie, was so horrible, and yet made so much sense. I didn't like the feeling of knowing something and having to errect complicated apologetic machinery to reconcile it with my desires. Soon, the feeling passed, becasue once I truly accepted that theism is a myth, the world started to make more sense. Stay in there, man. Congratulations. -The Rimstalker P.S.- I hope Theophilus can keep his big nose out of this and avoid any childish inclination to slander you as never having been a "true Christian" on this thread. It requires him to show a shread of human decency, which I know may be a hard thing for him, but I have some hope.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.