Darth Dane

I was asked why I would bring in bible stuff, for an almost all heathen site.

Do you as a non-believer think that you cannot be swayed by any evidence that can come out in the future, and so lock your mind, that whenever something is to be discussed, it is the purpose to make it link with your belief?

Do you discount any internal logic that may appear in the Bible, Quran, Vedas and so on, implicitly? Just as in my "Divine Powers?" thread?

I saw another thread that said "God exists, but only atheist go to heaven", I read it, and it was logical.

Many of my threads and others, should be thought off, as a thought experiment.

"Is it logical, if we assume God Is, the bible contains truth, and Jesus was God, that...."

I am not trying to convince you of God's existance or non-existance, I am trying to hear your logical answer to the premises presented.

If you make a mockery and come in a say, "God doesn't exist, discussion ended", what do we learn from that?


To understand why believers believ as they do, we should try to see the logic or lacking logic, of their arguments. If there is an internal argument that holds water, then good.


I am seeking the Truth, and so anyone with a logical mind, believer or non-believer, is welcome to discuss the ideas I present. Is only Christians skilled in talking christian logics?

As in the "Divine Powers?" thread, not only christians can answer. But if your answer is "God Is not" why do you bother?
I am interested in teh logic you apply when presented with different premises. If one is that "God Is", then in the spirit of the thought-experiment, play along as if "God Is".

The entire discussion becomes moot, if we are to discuss God's existance at every thread that assumes God Is.


Do you as a believer, go into a non-god discussion claiming God Is, if the premises for discussion is that God IS not?

Should we going into discussions, check our own belief, and follow suit for the sake of argument?


If two discuss, one with the premises that God Is and one with the premises that God Is not, it would seem difficult to reach a logical answer in unison.

It's like one saying that God IS not(Yin) one that God Is(Yang).

If I ask "what is the Tao", one wil say Yin, one will say Yang. Neither is true about Tao, Tao is both.


So if a discussion is based on Yin, should we enter with Yin or Yang?

And likewise if a discussion is based on Yang, should we enter with Yin or Yang.









DD - Love Spliff

mongrel

So, why would you?

You seem to be mixed up with xians who twist the truth(or just make stuff up) to link with their beliefs.

I like to think I have an open mind, but so far, I haven't seen any credible evidence to sway me away from atheism. Do you have any?

Again, of course not. But so what if it has some common sense in it(like "thou shalt not kill")? Since when does getting some things right equal getting everything right?

Nowhere357

No. Actually, I enjoy seeing things from various points of view. It helps to get the big picture.

Hey, truth is where you find it.

Nothing important.

I would say no, although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "Christian logics". Bible analysis, a presumption (or willingness to hold such) that the Christian God exists, or what ?

Sometimes. It helps if the OP states the desire for such, right off the bat. Then the nay-sayers stand out as not playing the game fairly, I think.

sweep

depends on what both are construed as. If we all cut the cake differently then how can we compare the yins of the discussion, and the yangs?

If god is a tree to one person and a man to the other, then both have an 'idea of what god is. If a third person enters the fray and tells us that god is neither a tree or a man, and that therefore, god does not exist, then that person also has an idea of what god is supposed to be. Without any other supposition, the discussion goes nowhere. The debate of what 'is' and what 'is not', can only be matter of speculation.

As to what god might be, and whether we even have use for such a term, is a matter of method, or the tao, if you like.

In my opinion god is a master. God is anything that controls us, but I do not call it god. Why not call god master? What's in a name? Whatever our feeble minds construct, that's what!

Infinity Lover

Awfully well put as usual. :notworthy

to adress the o.p.: the other day I had started a discussion at CF about the hypothesis, that the gift of salvation/ Jesus dying for our sisns/etc is ment to be declined in stead of accepted (because it's nobeler to carry your own burden), further on adding a comparison between salvation and the lies of serpent in Genesis.
-you will not surely die ("that he who believes in him won't perish, but have eternal life)
-your eyes will be opened (see the light/ being saved/ know the good news/ the truth)
-you will be like gods (created in his image/ filled with the holy spirit)
-knowing GOoD anD EVIL (believing in God and the devil)

It made about as much or little sense as what the Bible says, but (allmost all) the Christian members obviously weren't happy to read or discuss my thoughts, and avoided my thread like the plague.

I can hypothesise that "God is" just fine, but if you contradict xian views in the process, those xians are only going to barf on your thoughts.

Apart from that, I think scrutenizing the hypothesis of God's existence in general only exposes contradictions that uproot that hypothesis, making it a rather self-destructive thoughtprocess that's pointless if pursuid too far.

sweep

that, or you're invisible, or don't even exist!! Wait a minute. God ALSO doesn't exist. Infinity, are you god? *ahem* actually I needed an excuse to crack a fantastic joke: have a read, then try ex-changing 'the scarlet pimpernel' for 'god'...


Prince: [standing] Roast my raisins! He's popped it! I say, Blackadder, do you think he really >was< the Scarlet Pimpernel?

Edmund: Well, judging from the ridiculous ostentatiousness of his death, I would say that he >was<.

Prince: Well, then, that's a damn shame, because I wanted to give him this enormous postal order... [holds it up]

Edmund: Please, Sir, let me finish. I would say that he was>n't<...[deeply concentrating now] You see, the Scarlet Pimpernel would never ever reveal his identity. That's his great secret. So, what you're actually looking for is someone who has, say, just been to France and rescued an aristocrat, but when asked "Are you the Scarlet Pimpernel?" he replies, "Absolutely not," Sir.

Prince: But, wait a minute! Blackadder, >you've< just been to France, and you've rescued a French aristocrat... Oh, Blackadder!

Are you the Scarlet Pimpernel?

Edmund: Absolutely not, Sir.

Baldrick: Hurray!

Darth Dane

Again, of course not. But so what if it has some common sense in it(like "thou shalt not kill")? Since when does getting some things right equal getting everything right?

I never said it would.

I would say no, although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "Christian logics". Bible analysis, a presumption (or willingness to hold such) that the Christian God exists, or what ?

Yeah something like that.


Sometimes. It helps if the OP states the desire for such, right off the bat. Then the nay-sayers stand out as not playing the game fairly, I think.

I will remember to put this in my future threads.

If god is a tree to one person and a man to the other, then both have an 'idea of what god is. If a third person enters the fray and tells us that god is neither a tree or a man, and that therefore, god does not exist, then that person also has an idea of what god is supposed to be. Without any other supposition, the discussion goes nowhere. The debate of what 'is' and what 'is not', can only be matter of speculation.

Yes, but if we discuss God in christian terms, then it is silly to argue that God is a tree. God is not a tree in normal christian thought.

I can hypothesise that "God is" just fine, but if you contradict xian views in the process, those xians are only going to barf on your thoughts.

Yes, whether or not there is perfect logic in your argument, some still hold on with blind faith that their view is correct.

As in "divine powers" thread, I take sayings and present "perfect" logic, but because of church doctrine, not what Jesus taught nesacarily(sp?), they cannot accpet it, and so they find another interpretation of it.
I like finding more interpretations, even if they appear to contradict other things.






DD - Love Spliff

sweep

Indulge me with your view of normal christian thought in a way that elucidates the "true" thinking behind each unique abstraction.

then answer my question, if you will: whats in a name-- especially a christian name, such as god?

Darth Dane

Indulge me with your view of normal christian thought in a way that elucidates the "true" thinking behind each unique abstraction.

The Gospel of Thomas says that a tree is where you find God.

(77) Jesus said: I am the light that is above them all. I am the all; the all came forth from me, and the all attained to me. Cleave a (piece of) wood; I am there. Raise up a stone, and you will find me there

Normal christian thought doesn't accept this and is deemed heretic by the pope.

then answer my question, if you will: whats in a name-- especially a christian name, such as god?

"Whats in a name"?

I don't understand this? Do you mean what lies in a name in meaning or what?





DD - Love & Laughter

sweep

that narrows it down a bit.

what's in a name? In this instance, what is god? define god?