Quantum physics is not considered moral and good. God is considered moral and good when the opposite is true. If more people read the Bible more people would realize it's a book of horrors. The Old Testament God bears little resemblance to the New Testament God.How does that make "more sense"??
Lol! I’m convinced... Gawd’s telling me to find the ignore button again.All of them.
That's right, all posted scripture must meet with your personal approval, recall how I was dragged over the coals by you for posting this recently (I was even publicly accused by you of being a misogynist simply because I posted something that you didn't like)
View attachment 67327236
These words have authority, these inspired epistles are the Word of God.
It doesnt bother me at all. I find it (the Timothy scripture) prehistoric and pathetic and it's illuminating that you rely on it as truth...and need to...to prop up your self esteem. Nothing in that scripture has affected my life...I've grown up in a time of enlightenment and equality for women.View attachment 67327258
That's the real reason my quoting Timothy upset you so much "it Judges the thoughts and attitudes" - your thoughts and attitudes; if you read something in scripture that upsets you then you must look inward, at yourself, not outward, not at me, not at others.
faithI wish people would actually think more about exactly what they write.
I have no idea what you mean by "objectively real" or "requires faith".
The term "faith" as I use it refers to trust, confidence and one must indeed have trust and confidence in something before one can depend on it for anything.
So to even claim something is objectively real absolutely requires one to trust some process or procedure to decide on whether something is real, one must trust oneself, one must trust one's own reasoning abilities.
faith
[ feyth ]SHOW IPA
noun
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
If something is real faith is unnecessary.
Faith is only required when trying to get people to believe in things that aren't true.
Glib, that's all I get from that post, glibness.
But you are ignoring the definition of atheism.I suppose that is one way to see this, but as an Agnostic/Atheist I simply accept that I do not "Know" something does not exist out there but absolutely know the Gods of men are not it.
But you are ignoring the definition of atheism.
Fact. You do not hold theistic beliefs. I.e. you are by definition an atheist.
Fact: you do not 'lack knowledge about theism.' You know lots about theism. You just dont buy it.
You are an atheist who wants to go the easy way, avoid argument, and say you are agnostic, when in actuality that is not true, you know plenty about theism, you don't believe it, and thus you lack theistic beliefs, which means you are an atheist not an agnostic.
Actual definitions are "glib", according to you.Glib, that's all I get from that post, glibness.
But he isn't wrong. If something is true, that means it can be proven true. If something can be proven true, proof of its trueness exist. If proof of its trueness exists, then it is possible for us to find this proof and evaluate it, at which point the thing will have been proven true to us.Glib, that's all I get from that post, glibness.
BsThe agnostic label does not apply to one's knowledge of theism but to whether one is confident that God exists.
Often a million dollars exist in my imagination but not on paper. Since that doesn't matter I'm going shopping! Have my butler call my chauffeur. WOO HOO!What does it matter whether something exists within one's imagination or on paper? they equally exist.
But he isn't wrong. If something is true, that means it can be proven true.
If something can be proven true, proof of its trueness exist. If proof of its trueness exists, then it is possible for us to find this proof and evaluate it, at which point the thing will have been proven true to us.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to believe in something without proof of its validity if it is true, because proof exists. That makes it very dubious if someone insists you believe something on faith alone. If it is true, as they are claiming, they should be able to prove it to you. So, why aren't they doing so?
Often it is because they do not possess proof of their claims, and thus do not know if what they are claiming is true. In other words, they're tricking you.
Often a million dollars exist in my imagination but not on paper. Since that doesn't matter I'm going shopping! Have my butler call my chauffeur. WOO HOO!
View attachment 67327312
The English word true is generally accepted to be synonymous with verifiable.
Then how does one know the statement is true?
Why go there? Um, once again, because I AM an atheist.
You-plural start from the a priori that anyone who rigorously defends theological truths ‘looks bad’, because such things are just not done in polite company. No one who does so starts from a point of ‘looking good’ therefore.LMAO! Oh thank you! That's great! You are telling me to shut up (again) because I'm a woman and have made you look bad. Not only have I proven you wrong and pointed out your gross sin, I am a woman! You have been corrected and your sin brought to light by a woman! Sad but apparently this means you believe you are 'less than a woman,' since I've out-thought and out-taught you.
I believe that I spoke to something that might come close to defining something important about *you* (not just you as a person but a wide group, a current of thought really, or a current of non-thought or even anti-thought) with what I’d written this AM:You are telling me to shut up (again) because I'm a woman and have made you look bad.
If I said “People who should not be granted power to decide, are deciding” I would be accused of being anti-democratic (or seen as such). And if I then defined ‘higher realms of knowledge’ I would be accused of ‘arrogance’ and ‘hautiness’ — and here the power-dynamic issue would become (more) plain. (Because I do in fact believe this, and very strongly: the best of the best in our Civilization has always been defined by ‘masters’ — those who can and do devote themselves to a given category of knowledge).
So the crescendo I refer to is the ascent of those people, those persons, those groups, those factions, who rush forward boldly but unthinkingly to tear down and tear apart what they (genuinely) believe ‘must go!’ Must be removed! Must be toppled and trampled underfoot. It is like a cresting wave. The present destructive trends will go on until, at what point I am uncertain, an opposing force arrests them.
So you define yourself by what you don't believe in? Very odd.
I define myself by evidence--namely, LACK OF evidence for an entity called "God", so I then make the logical conclusion.
TL;drYou-plural start from the a priori that anyone who rigorously defends theological truths ‘looks bad’, because such things are just not done in polite company. No one who does so starts from a point of ‘looking good’ therefore.
Note that I see nothing approaching ‘gross sin’ in anything SH says. And I admit to being confused by your constant references to Christian categories, even the use of the phrase Word of God, sin, and other terms that indicate some level of belief. Yet here you are working hand in hand with people who advocate an atheistic position. It really does not make sense.
Quite some time back I thought this was made clear: you obviously have no right and no authority to teach anyone anything about Christian ideas, Christian theology, and possibly Christian values. This is revealed by what you say. Non one condemned you, you self-condemned.
I would not ever tell you, or anyone, to *shut up*, and no one told you the same, but within Christian categories, which are agreed upon categories of value, you obviously are confused and mis-directed. If you ever did write out a complete idea — you never do — I am pretty sure the thinking-errors would manifest themselves, as they did just recenly with David.
I think this is a safe and a fair comment.
It is in no sense a sin to attempt to a) define solid theological values & truths, b) to define and then defend what is true against what is false, partially true or a lie — in fact very much the opposite. So it is very hard to know exactly how to act today When disbelief and open opposition/rebellion to some of the Christian mandates are so prevalent.
You are damned if you do & damned if you don’t! to put it colloquially.
But it is true that some people, for reasons that can be discovered, simply do not want to hear it and often will not hear it.
My final comment in regard to this is that Christianity represents a special category within all the religions we might name. It is unique, it is singular. And it merits, therefore, a special defense. But obviously I speak as a believer and one inclined to *traditional categories of understanding*.
I have read many of your posts and I see you as offering no substantial service to any Christian category, concept or notion that I can recognize.
I hit mumbo jumbo in the first sentence of your other quote and....forget it. More pretentious crap.I believe that I spoke to something that might come close to defining something important about *you* (not just you as a person but a wide group, a current of thought really, or a current of non-thought or even anti-thought) with what I’d written this AM:
Of course. I was going to include your likely response!TL;dr
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?