The earth is round

[Enters Laughing]

@Aylen, that idea, though it certainly seems a tasty bit of tittle-tattle and tickles itchy ears, is ridiculous on all accounts. I will address it some time after Easter. @TheJackal and @Subteigh, in response to the even sillier idea that Jesus did not exist, the following excerpt I post for you:

Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed. In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

James D. G. Dunn states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis".

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who kept detailed first century records. Recorded in Book 18 (Antiquities of the Jews), Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, there is a reference to Jesus:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

I very clearly distinguished between the biblical Jesus and the historical Jesus. The biblical Jesus who performed miracles definitely did not exist. Whether there was a historical Jesus that the early founders of Christianity were acquainted with is a different matter. But it should be considered that many recent religions and cults were founded by small groups of people (e.g. Mormonism and Scientology) which had alleged supernatural entities and events: it is well known that a group can be based around an entirely fictitious person - the extent to which the members of the group genuinely believe or are complicit in the fraud will be a matter of some debate, but they are still based on nothing.

As I already mentioned briefly with Jeremy, the Christ mentioned by Josephus is definitely not the Christ that Christianity was founded on. The two passages allegedly written by him show clear evidence of at least partial (if not complete) forgery, and in each case, neither was refer to your Christ. Josephus was alive in Rome during the time when Nero reputedly blamed the Christians for the so-called "Great Fire of Rome" of 64 A.D. ...and not only did he not mention the fire, he did not mention that there any Christians whatsoever in Rome at the time. Surely if he knew the Christ of Christianity...and in such glowing terms...he would have actually mentioned the fire and the Christians in Rome? The whole of his works show him to be ignorant of Christianity.

(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus)

It should be understood that there were many people who claimed to be Christs in that time period:

[...] There seems to be this assumption that every mention of "Christ" must refer to Jesus. This forgets that Christ is a title, not a name. In fact, Origen states that a man named Dositheus used the title 'Christ' sometime around the 1st century CE and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies hints that Simon Magus many have used the title "Christ" as well. In fact, there were would-be 'Messiahs'. 'Sons of Man', 'the Righteous Ones', and 'the Elect [or Chosen] Ones' (i.e. "christs") showing up all over first century CE Palestine.:

• Dositheos the Samaritan (unknown, before Simon of Peraea or after him) According to Origen Dositheus pretended to be the Christ.
  Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE).

• Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE).

• Matthias, son of Margalothus (during the time of Herod the Great)[62] - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.
  Athronges (c 3 CE).

• Judas of Galilee (6 CE).

• The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.

• Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE).

• Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200. According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."

• An anonymous prophet (59 CE).

• Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE).

• Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE). Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover section of "Mark"

• Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE).

• John of Giscala (d c70 CE).

• Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)

• Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)

And these are just the ones Josephus felt were important enough to mention. There was even a "Christ" (Simon bar Kokhba) in the 130s.

(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidenc...f_Jesus_Christ)

Besides which, Josephus was born after Jesus died, and was generally a rather lousy historian even in regards the verifiable details of key historical figures and events.

[Persephone]

Sometimes I am just wondering if it's all real...

[Enters Laughing]

It feels very peculiar indeed to be arguing with someone who will take their own intrepretation of written accounts from two millenia ago as undeniable evidence of a person, but while apparently in all seriousness doubting that the Earth is spherical, despite what their own senses and the productivity of scientific knowledge should overwhelmingly confirm to them. It makes me doubt my own senses!

[DirectorAbbie]

Free will is the ability to do and make choices without any constraints or limitation of any kind or sort.. If you are subject to even just one constraint, this being no matter what it is, you don't actually have "free will"

From what I've heard between my dad and my brother, when people argue about free will they're really arguing over the definition. And by your definition, there is no free will.

Here is an emergency landing for a birthing mom - and the site of the emergency landing ONLY makes sense on the flat earth. 47 second video! L@@K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUCBcUJVnQs

They say "here's what it would look like on a globe," then they don't show a globe. It looks like a plate carrée projection.

The plane trajectory dispayed when the narrator says "this is how it would look on a globe" is incorrect in the sense that it is not the expected one; long distance flights usually approximate the shortest line along the surface of the globe, i.e. a great circle. So most direct flights from Taiwan to Los Angeles would look like this when projected onto a flat map:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...?p1=241&p2=137

Oh, ragnar already addressed that.

Reality aside, I like that picture.

now we just need to assemble a team to walk to the end of the disc (so as to test the theory).

Yeah! It's about time someone circumnavigated the South Pole.

Incorrect, Creationism is not science, and nor is there any science involved ..., and people like Ken Ham are cranks..

Now it's funny that a Creationist will agree to the above example and they claim the below example is magically impossible.. Creationist arguments are sadly laughable!:

[/FONT]You can read my full article on Lucy here if you want to see how intellectually dishonest and inept Creationists are, especially when they misrepresent science.. :
That would be wise because you would lose that argument anyways if you argued for "Creationism" over modern evolutionary synthesis..

Are you referring to this? https://youtu.be/matJ3MkikDc?t=1m8s

Jesus was not a vegetarian, so I would not wish to be a sheep in his flock, unless I was lost.

But that would make you a goat, which is still kosher.

Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-. It's "all" by the very core definition. God = all. This is the teaching of all Abrahamic religions.

You're thinking of the force.
God knows everything in that God has knowledge of everything. But God doesn't have an intimate understanding of sin because God does not sin.
God is all-powerful because God has the means to do anything. That does not mean God will do anything, any more than a sane person would go out of their way to run naked through a wall of cacti on a whim. It would be against their nature, as sinning is against God's nature.
God is omnipresent in that God cannot be confined. God's throne is in Heaven, and that's God's primary location. Bit as SubT pointed out, God is really really big. This doesn't mean God is in/part of everything/everyone, any more than a cloud is one with a kite.

I think Jesus ate whatever was put in front of him...

"If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for consciense' sake." -1 Corinthians 10:27

Iceland seems to cope very well.

Yeah, functioning in society is based on what the society happens to be. There have been some societies where having theological knowledge would make one function poorly in society.

Alas, the Crusades were a thing.

Um, sorry about that? We were kinda fed up with the Muslims, and I know that's a poor excuse.

If "god" has a tangible effect on reality, he is within the laws of the universe, not outside it.

God usually acts according to the rules, but there are exceptions, and some are funny. (But the lawmakers can't be expected to follow their own rules...right?)

Well, it is known that he ensured that fish got slaughtered, and he once killed a swine of pigs for no reason.

That was mercy. The demons asked for mercy, and Jesus accepted their request. (But Eliza's response is more thorough.)

...then the demon pigs ran off a cliff and drowned in the Sea of Galilee, the demons left the pigs and went into the fish, and Zebedee started catching demon fish!

The demons asked to be sent into the pigs. Considering his opposition to the demons, the last thing he should do is grant them their request.

Some of Jesus' tactical moves were exceedingly clever (like Mark 11:27-33 and Luke 20:20-26). Others would be considered inadvisable (like His behavior at His trial). You could fit being merciful to enemies who will never not be enemies into the latter category.

demons do not exist, and cannot be proven to exist. There is no reason to believe the story whatsoever.

I hope you go to Togo or Brazil or Indonesia or someplace where demons/possession is accepted as fact and see it for yourself. I've chatted with at least 4 people who have witnessed it. (Demons don't reveal themselves in places where the spiritual world is laughed at because that would be counter-productive on their part.)

[TheJackal]

@Aylen, that idea, though it certainly seems a tasty bit of tittle-tattle and tickles itchy ears, is ridiculous on all accounts. I will address it some time after Easter. @TheJackal and @Subteigh, in response to the even sillier idea that Jesus did not exist, the following excerpt I post for you:

Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed. In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Incorrect..

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

He would be wrong.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Sorry, the use of the no true scottsman fallacy does not make one's argument relevant.., or magically produce contemporary evidence..

Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Most of which were first party scholars.., and none of which were contemporary historians.. Furthermore, none of them refuted the non-existence of Jesus.. Your sources are crank, and I can tell that you are copy pasting this bullshit from another site..

James D. G. Dunn states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis".

Sorry, another fallacy argument.

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

So far all your arguments appeal to ignorance have not provided one piece of contemporary evidence..

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who kept detailed first century records. Recorded in Book 18 (Antiquities of the Jews), Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, there is a reference to Jesus:

This is laughable, his supposed writings about Christ are actually forgeries.. Josepheus never actually wrote about "Christ", and early scholars considered the Testimonium to be forgeries:

• Alice Whealey (2003) . Peter Lang.ISBN 978-0-8204-5241-8.
• Jump upMeier, 1990 (especially note 15)

Worse still Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ." .. The credibility of the Chruch's claim to Josepheus is laughable, and has been a known forgery for a very long time!., and "Christ" is a title, not a name of the contemporary period... Hell, Jesus wouldn't have existed either as the actual name reference would be "Yashuah".. Jesus, the name, is likely a derivative of Zeus.. You let us know when you have contemporary evidence that predates the Gospels..
Also, The Magdalen and Barcelona (not "Carcelona") Papyri are tiny fragments of what we know as the Book of Matthew. They may have been written as early as AD 66 or as late as AD 175. Either way these documents are not contemporaneous with the life of Christ either.. In fact, if you wanted something to work with, you would have to try and cite something like the dead sea scrolls, and they don't have any mention of "Jesus".. Oh and it's get better because there is a reason why you don't have contemporary records:

The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists :the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within :a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias

According to Remsburg,

"Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

[Jeremy8419]

You're thinking of the force.
God knows everything in that God has knowledge of everything. But God doesn't have an intimate understanding of sin because God does not sin.
God is all-powerful because God has the means to do anything. That does not mean God will do anything, any more than a sane person would go out of their way to run naked through a wall of cacti on a whim. It would be against their nature, as sinning is against God's nature.
God is omnipresent in that God cannot be confined. God's throne is in Heaven, and that's God's primary location. Bit as SubT pointed out, God is really really big. This doesn't mean God is in/part of everything/everyone, any more than a cloud is one with a kite.

Oh, I left the thread lol.

That's surface/preaching level of the religions. What I was speaking of is the religious leader level. If you speak to the clergy, the underlying beliefs are as I wrote; however, since it gets into the philosophical, your version is what is typically spoken of.

You'll have to PM me though, to continue the discussion, if you'd like. Not really interested in debating with people that are butthurt due to individual or group practitioners of a belief system (not you lol).

[TheJackal]

From what I've heard between my dad and my brother, when people argue about free will they're really arguing over the definition. And by your definition, there is no free will.

By any other definition, it would be oxymoronic.. You are either free from any constraints , coercion, subjugation, and imitations, or you are not... Saying a caged bird has freedom of movement is incoherent when the reality is that it's movement is limited by the very cage you placed it in.

They say "here's what it would look like on a globe," then they don't show a globe. It looks like a plate carrée projection.

They used satellite projection image pasted onto a disk.., oh how photoshop is fun..

Reality aside, I like that picture.

In a fun sort of way yes

Are you referring to this? https://youtu.be/matJ3MkikDc?t=1m8s

That would be an example of Creationism as crank as it can be..., yes. And their argument about lucy "Lucy had an evolutionist "makeover". The fossil hip bone found was that of an ape. " This is of course incorrect , and thus the reason for my posted article on that claim :

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news/2014/11/07/26552877-lucy-the-creationist-claim-of-fraud

Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-. It's "all" by the very core definition. God = all. This is the teaching of all Abrahamic religions.

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_...elf-refutation

Abstract 1:

• If an omniscient entity could always "know" how to create new information it doesn't already know, its never "omniscient", and never will be or could be.. This becomes a problem of infinite egress that invalidates the premise of being "omniscient". It even invalidates "omnipotence" because it could never make itself "omniscient" if it could infinitely create new information it doesn't already know. Thus the premises by their nature self collapse, and are regarded in such a paradox as impossible concepts.

This would be to the point where Omniscience, by definition and relation to the other attributes, would make it impossible to create new information in which this hypothesized entity doesn't already know, or make it impossible for this entity to have the ability to create anything at all. And even to the point where its supposed omnipotence would make it impossible to be omniscient, to which in turn, makes it impossible to be omnipotent due to due to the problem of infinite egress. Thus saying it could create that which it doesn't already know makes absolutely no sense as there is nothing that such an argued for being would not already know. This paradox defies the given attributes to where the attributes given are self-refutations[4] by consequence. A consequence to which also introduces another paradox showing how creation would thus be an impossible action to where an omniscient entity could only infinitely know everything with the inability to create or alter anything in or of existence. In this sense, the infinite past, present, and future are infinitely already existent and known. Thus the past, present, future, and anything in and of, would simply exists without possible creation of, or deviation from. This would also destroy free will entirely, make the act of creation impossible, defy its omnipotence, and make existence itself entirely and infinitely determined to where even this theorized entity's own past, present, and future would entirely be determined.

Abstract 2:

In overview of the abstracts above, we can abstract the following attributes and properties given to this supposed theorized entity. And they are listed as fallows:

• Boundless
• Uncontained
• Unlimited
• Omnipresent
• The containing and sustaining of all things
• Omniscient
• Immaterial
• Timeless

These eight attributes have been defended by many theologians and philosophers such as Richard Swinburn, William Craig and Donald Wacome [18][19][20] . Though as defended by those above, these attributes are often questioned by others[21]

1. A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to be separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me?
2. If he is uncontained, then what separates him from me? This to which begs the question: Is this God even in existence?
3. If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?..
4. If he is omnipresent, where do I exist?
5. If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?
6. If he is Omniscient and knows infinitely everything to which is knowable, would he not know me in every infinitely knowable way to where he himself would literally be I, me, or who I am in every infinitely knowable way?
7. If he is immaterial, would he not be made of nothing? Thus how does nothing exist as a person, place, or thing? How does nothing as a substance be the property value of something? How does nothing contain and sustain informational value?
8. If this God is timeless, does this God exist now?

Such self-refuting concepts are no more possible than; "if nothing existed that not even nothing would exist".. They are fundamentally flawed.., and the Fount of Knowledge is really nothing more than an attempt to assimilate Pantheism.. Hence the closest you can possibly get to that sort of concept of God would have to literally be Existence itself.. So unless Jeremy wants to call me god, and worship me as such, he's going to have to rethink that ..., and you would find that he will in utter futility try to find away around that.. Thus in doing so he's going to have to establish boundaries, limitations, constraints, and other contradictory things to his claim.

[TheJackal]

Not really interested in debating with people that are butthurt due to individual or group practitioners of a belief system (not you lol).

Well, your self-refuting positions etc can't really survive scrutiny..., this translates more of a project of your own butthurt . o.O

[Jeremy8419]

Well, your self-refuting positions etc can't really survive scrutiny..., this translates more of a project of your own butthurt . o.O

Sorry, but not following thread anymore. Your arguments never once left your personal bias of beliefs, nor ever had anything to do with logic or accuracy. Just a hollow shell of someone desperately trying to blame belief systems, contrary to their own, for pain caused by individuals who happened to be a part of the belief system which was progenitor to your own contrary one. Good luck with the whole blaming "illogical" for all your issues, though I've never met someone who has ever attained anything of value by placing all their efforts into blaming others for their own problems.

[TheJackal]

Sorry, but not following thread anymore. Your arguments never once left your personal bias of beliefs, nor ever had anything to do with logic or accuracy. Just a hollow shell of someone desperately trying to blame belief systems, contrary to their own, for pain caused by individuals who happened to be a part of the belief system which was progenitor to your own contrary one. Good luck with the whole blaming "illogical" for all your issues, though I've never met someone who has ever attained anything of value by placing all their efforts into blaming others for their own problems.

Says the man posting.. Regardless, I don't simply address your arguments for you..., I address them for the general forum and the common observer.. You are still yet pleading to fallacies arguments as your main mode of debate... Furthermore, I didn't simply reject the belief system based on my own personal experience..., it includes a formal education on the subject to which includes knowing that the belief system is actually a calumniation of assimilated pagan mythology, oral traditions, and philosophy.. All your belief system is, is pagan monotheism that derived and evolved from Pagan polytheism to which had evolved from more primitive animism and anthropomorphism. I base my rejection there of on several issues that include immoral hypocrisy within the doctrines, or when I read parts where it demands that one must hate their families to be worthy... You can't reasonably or rationally defend that bullshit without being at least, in part, as messed up as they are mentally or psychologically... You really have no idea what you're even talking about Jeremy... You have presented yourself as a crank here on this subject matter.. Feel free to continue to beg the question, and use whatever excuses you need to woefully ignore the elephant in the room.

Thus as I see it, your arguments seem to be more focused on convincing yourself that the reality before you doesn't exist and that its all lies to test your faith.. That cliff's edge....

[Jeremy8419]

Says the man posting.. Regardless, I don't simply address your arguments for you..., I address them for the general forum and the common observer.. You are still yet pleading to fallacies arguments as your main mode of debate... Furthermore, I didn't simply reject the belief system based on my own personal experience..., it includes a formal education on the subject to which includes knowing that the belief system is actually a calumniation of assimilated pagan mythology, oral traditions, and philosophy.. All your belief system is, is pagan monotheism that derived and evolved from Pagan polytheism to which had evolved from more primitive animism and anthropomorphism. I base my rejection there of on several issues that include immoral hypocrisy within the doctrines, or when I read parts where it demands that one must hate their families to be worthy... You can't reasonably or rationally defend that bullshit without being at least, in part, as messed up as they are mentally or psychologically... You really have no idea what you're even talking about Jeremy... You have presented yourself as a crank here on this subject matter.. Feel free to continue to beg the question, and use whatever excuses you need to woefully ignore the elephant in the room.

Thus as I see it, your arguments seem to be more focused on convincing yourself that the reality before you doesn't exist and that its all lies to test your faith.. That cliff's edge....

It's funny that you assume that I am religious lol.

If you weren't so lost in being a zealot son of religious butthurtdom, you'd realize I was mirroring you. There's no white elephant in the room, because the would-be one was pointed out in the very first post by Eliza: you're just arguing your beliefs via beliefs, not the high intelligence you attest you have and are the reality of your arguments. Grow up. No one give a F that your pastor or dad or evangelical neighbor buttraped you while you stated at a science book, or whatever your weird obsession with proving your own religious beliefs compared to others stems from.

Your entire life is based upon you being butthurt about beliefs. It's creepy.

[TheJackal]

It's funny that you assume that I am religious lol.

I indeed did.

Your entire life is based upon you being butthurt about beliefs. It's creepy.

Though this would be untrue, there would be nothing creepy about combating ignorance, especially dangerous beliefs that effect the lives of others around those who hold them.. Such anti-intellectualism has done more damage to this country and other countries around the world than most anything else.. Creepy is when you have dominion theologies holding sway in the governance of society.. , these which breed ignorance to which directly damages and impedes human civilization. Your need to try and make this about me on personal level is telling, telling that you don't and never did have a valid argument.. This has little to do with anything regarding myself on any personal level . You're crank..

Poes law..., and you weren't exactly "mirroring", you were for the most part trolling, and I had already stated you were... This realization had long since passed, fuck dude, you seriously need to keep up.. And the person that needs to grow up is the idiot who thinks he's a clever internet troll who doesn't even have any relevant arguments..

: you're just arguing your beliefs via beliefs

Incorrect... Faith based beliefs are not on the same playing field as are Empirically supported positions.. They never will be.., and if you think they are, you're an idiot. Empirical evidence doesn't have a bias, and doesn't give a shit what you or I want to believe.. I have no personal bias, I let the body of evidence dictate until further evidence either supports or invalidates the current position.. If you knew anything at all about science, you would have already known how this works.. Hence, I don't rest my beliefs on confirmation bias for which faith based beliefs do.. You're attempting to compare apples to oranges to give credibility to positions that don't have any to begin with. Yeah, I will take empirically supported positions far more seriously than someone who in essence claims the forest is direct proof and evidence of big foot.. You're not even a joke in this discussion Jeremy, you're more in the line of espousing pathetic and unconvincing arguments through what is dishonest discourse ..

religious beliefs compared to others stems from.

You're under the assumption that I have religious beliefs.. \ (Mirror Argument)

There's no white elephant in the room

Actually there is.., you were still begging the question, and your ability to troll and use fallacy arguments didn't refute anything... At this point you are pleading to save face on a discussion to which your entire position has been an incoherent mess of idiotry..

you'd realize I was mirroring you

The Conscious Theory: Accusing someone else of one's own transgressions has benefits in an argument, especially if personal integrity is not a priority. These benefits include:

• Strategy – pre-emptive reversal: If your opponent now legitimately and truthfully makes the same accusation of you, it sounds much weaker – more like a "you too, stupid!" than a legitimate accusation. You come across sounding legitimate either way, and possibly your opponent will seem foolish as well.

At no point in this discussion have you expressed any sense of integrity or intellectual integrity.. It's not I who needs to grow up Jeremy.. You're as dishonest as they come, and I already knew this.. I was well aware of this. I didn't say you were begging the question for no reason.. Did you seriously assume and believe that I wasn't aware of this? I virtually ignored it while calling you out on your use of numerous fallacy arguments. O.o You didn't refute anything in this attempt, I correctly called you out on being a trolling crank.. That is literally all you amount to in this discussion, and the fact you don't seem to realize that is really the pathetic part of this exchange.

[Jeremy8419]

Poes law..., and you weren't "mirroring", you were trolling, and I had already stated you were... This realization had long since passed, fuck dude, you seriously need to keep up. And the person that needs to grow up is the idiot who thinks he's a clever internet troll..

Incorrect... Faith based beliefs are not on the same playing field as are Empirically supported positions.. They never will be..

That's a belief, genius. And yes, it's mirroring. You simply don't see it, because you're so deep into your own beliefs. If you think the entirety of your positions on here aren't hinged upon your contrary beliefs in response to what happened, you're a fool.

[Jeremy8419]

Well, you've been re-editing the same post every several minutes for an hour, so I have what I need. Anyways, thanks for the info. I'll be sure to put it to good use in the future, and sorry for hurting you feelings.

[TheJackal]

Well, you've been re-editing the same post every several minutes for an hour, so I have what I need. Anyways, thanks for the info. I'll be sure to put it to good use in the future, and sorry for hurting you feelings.

Yep, I edited to be more concise.. You're still not making any relevant point.. You seem to have a fetish for ad hominems and trolling a fora..

[Jeremy8419]

Yep, I edited to be more concise.. You're still not making any relevant point.. You seem to have a fetish for ad hominems and trolling a fora..

Nah. Just figuring out what makes ya tick. May be of use when someone IRL, who I am in a better position to assist, displays similar traits.

If you need anything, give me a hollar, even if it's anti-trolling a troll you dislike lol.

[TheJackal]

That's a belief, genius. And yes, it's mirroring. You simply don't see it, because you're so deep into your own beliefs. If you think the entirety of your positions on here aren't hinged upon your contrary beliefs in response to what happened, you're a fool.

I never said it wasn't a "Belief"... Definition of belief:

be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
  
  
  

My beliefs are based on logical or empirical evidence.. I don't base my acceptance on blind faith..., I demand empirical evidence. My refutation to your claim is that you phrase "belief vs belief" as if they are equally endowed with credibility when they are not.. You can feel free to meet me at the cliff's edge.. , and that is literally all I require to refute your bullshit argument. I do say, I already said that I accept empirically supported positions over those that are not. If you can't figure out the difference here, I am not the one with the problem here. Hence, your attempt to mirror didn't make any coherent sense. At no point did I ever say my position wasn't based on a contrary belief, but you are correct that it is a "belief", but they aren't hinged on "blind faith" that ignores contrary evidence.. I don't have confirmation bias as fundamental element of my beliefs as are religious beliefs. Like I said, you can meet me at the cliff's edge as there is a fundamental difference. You cannot possibly in good faith give credibility to faith based assertions that profess themselves as truth while ignoring the mass body of contrary evidence, or noted conflicting problems in their statements, claims, or beliefs..

[TheJackal]

Nah. Just figuring out what makes ya tick. May be of use when someone IRL, who I am in a better position to assist, displays similar traits.

If you need anything, give me a hollar, even if it's anti-trolling a troll you dislike lol.

I will confess, you have successfully trolled me and baited me into a game of troll.. Though at what point do you think this makes your arguments relevant in the subject matter discussed? You're still begging the question even if done through this method of debate.

[Jeremy8419]

I will confess, you have successfully trolled me and baited me into a game of troll.. Though at what point do you think this makes your arguments relevant in the subject matter discussed? You're still begging the question even if done through this method of debate.

What makes you think I care? I didn't even read half of your posts and only read small parts of the ones I did. I just posted whatever sort of thing I was planning on posting next, until I got to the point where I figured out the just of why you even know or care enough to debate in the first place.

Kinda odd to be arguing about Christianity without substantial knowledge of Catholicism, though. Catholicism says all empirical sciences are right and God basically magically created everything including the rules of the universe. It's actually basically to the point of your argument that it's irrelevant, outside of the ten commandments, believing in Jesus, and doing the rituals (which are really more implored than any sort of enforcement relating to the afterlife). Your stances actually seem stemmed from non-denominational sects of Christianity, as they were your default starting points for new points you brought into the discussion. Then again, I'm not that well-versed in some of the denominations, but even those denominations are usually lead by people who went to eight years of school ranging from philosophy, theology, hard sciences, and even some of the more oddball studies. One priest I knew had a minor in geology and always talked about rocks and stuff to the scouts, and went to school to get his bachelors out of his pocket in later years. Guy I went to school with got a bachelors in marketing prior to eventually going back to school to go to seminary. You don't strike me as someone who has ever had a mature discussion with a religious leader, or you just spoke to someone who just picked up a bible and decided to start calling himself a preacher (non-denominational churches often have this issue, which is unfortunate, as the priests I know are some of the most profoundly educated people I have met).

[TheJackal]

What makes you think I care? I didn't even read half of your posts and only read small parts of the ones I did. I just posted whatever sort of thing I was planning on posting next, until I got to the point where I figured out the just of why you even know or care enough to debate in the first place.

I never really thought you would, I was confessing my error and making a point.. I will leave it at that.

Kinda odd to be arguing about Christianity without substantial knowledge of Catholicism, though. Catholicism says all empirical sciences are right and God basically magically created everything including the rules of the universe. It's actually basically to the point of your argument that it's irrelevant, outside of the ten commandments, believing in Jesus, and doing the rituals (which are really more implored than any sort of enforcement relating to the afterlife). Your stances actually seem stemmed from non-denominational sects of Christianity, as they were your default starting points for new points you brought into the discussion.

But I do have substantial Knowledge of Catholicism to which includes that they don't adhere strictly to that of the Bible.. I know more than you think I do on the subject. And no, Catholicism addresses the creation of the Observable Universe... There are two definitions of "Universe", and this is where set theory comes into play.. Yes, there is a major difference between "Observable Universe", and "Universe" .. There is a reason why I used the term "Existence", and this is so the two would not be confused. You have no real argument here to say it is irrelevant, it is pretty difficult to create what yourself requires to exist, and that includes having a place to exist in.. The question I asked you is entirely a relevant question, and it matters not what sect or denomination of Christianity to which is being referenced.. It's not a matter of addressing Jesus, the ten commandments, or anything but the concept of "god" in general regardless of religion or definition there of.. This is the point you did not address.., and my discussion on Jesus's existence etc is a separate issue and argument from that.. Furthermore, this isn't to say priests can't be well educated in geology, but what I find most often is that many priests are not well versed in the contemporary history.. If one were to really take the academics seriously on the issue, it will show the evidence to be pretty overwhelming that religions like Judaism and Christianity were born from Pagan mythology, philosophy, rituals, and oral traditions, and largely through the contemporary and ever evolving geopolitical environment.. Go back in history long enough, and you will see religion in general wind back to basic animism ..

I have had many mature discussions with religious leaders on these subjects, and most of the time I would get apologetics as obtuse answers to things we know today such as the fact that there is no actual distinction between the Canaanite and the Israelite culture.. They will profess a narrative we know historically is untrue. One of the most interesting was the claim that the Israelites were Hyksos, this ignoring the fact that the Hyksos didn't actually worship Yahweh or EL. This ignoring the fact that Hyksos themselves were of Syrian and Canaanite origin who worshiped their Asiatic deity Ba'al (z)saphon (Hadad) in association with the Egyptian Storm god Seth and Mt Zaphon (Zion).. You can find this association in the Bible:

za'-fon (tsaphon; Codex Vaticanus Saphan; Codex Alexandrinus Saphon): A city on the East of the Jordan in the territory of Gad (Joshua 13:27). It is named again inJudges 12:1 as the place where the elders of Gilead gathered to meet with Jephthah (tsaphonah should be translated "to Zaphon," not "northward"). It must have lain well to the North of Gad. According to the Talmud Amathus represented Zaphon (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 249). Here sat one of the Synedria created by Gabinius (Ant., XIV, v, 4). It was a position of great strength (B J, I, iv, 2). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 21 Roman miles S. of Pella. This is the modern Tell 'Amateh, on the south bank of Wady er-Rujeib, 15 miles South of Pella, and nearly 5 miles North of the Jabbok. Buhl (GAP, 259) objects to the identification that Tell 'Amateh corresponds to the Asophon of Josephus (Ant., XIII, xii, 5). But this objection does not seem well founded.
http://biblehub.com/topical/z/zaphon.htm

See also:
https://books.google.com/books?id=1yM3AuBh4AsC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=mt+sapho n+yahweh&source=bl&ots=BGM1jqZsre&sig=ifwCg3v1HLC2 _xRHNBlPM4W6WT8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-27mN_fvKAhUpv4MKHaCxD5kQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=mt%20 saphon%20yahweh&f=false

You may also search this reference in reference to Mount Hermon to which is according to some, the possible place of Jesus's Transfiguration (See: R.T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (IVP Academic, 2008). So you have to excuse me when I scoff at supposed theological scholars of Christianity... When considering the evidence, and this being just a single example, I find it very hard to take a Priest seriously as they spoon feed me a narrative that doesn't match any of the actual evidence.. This is the sort of evidence that effects Christianity as a whole, not just any particular denomination... Hence I find it unconvincing that their version of pagan mythology is somehow more true than which they had derived from.. I am however always open for a mature discussion on the subject, but I wouldn't ever take apologetics as an academic argument I should ever take seriously. But if someone were to, for example, produce contemporary evidence of an actual historical Jesus, I would consider the evidence.... However, there isn't any thus far, and it doesn't help knowing that Christianity and Judaism emerged from Pagan Polytheistic religions, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and oral traditions..

There are numerous references in the OT to Zaphon as Yahweh's holy mountain, resulting through an identification between Yahweh and Baal. Since Yahweh also merges with El in Israelite religion, the biblical texts conflate Zaphon with El's abode as well as the "mountain of assembly" (where the "divine council" meets). Helal, son of Shahar (the twin brother of Shalam, the god of sunset), declares in Isaiah 14:13-14: "I will sit on the Mount of Assembly in the recesses of Zaphon. I will climb to the top of thunderclouds, I will rival the Most High." Here Zaphon is paired with "the top of thunderclouds", meterological language suitable for Baal, but it is also assigns Zaphon to El (by referring to the "Most High", an epithet of El) and equates it with the mount where the divine council meets. The phrase yarkete zaphon "recesses of Zaphon" also occurs in Psalm 48:3 where it is equated with Zion, Yahweh's holy mountain in Judah:

"Yahweh is great and supremely to be praised, in the city of our God, the holy mountain (hr-qdsw), beautiful where it rises, joy of the whole world; Mount Zion, in the recesses of Zaphon (yrkty zpn), the city of the great king; here among her palaces, God proved to be her fortress." (Psalm 48:1-3)

There is also thought to be an allusion to Zaphon in Psalm 27 through word-play: "One thing I ask of Yahweh, one thing I seek; to live all the days of my life in the house of Yahweh (byt-yhwh), to enjoy the pleasant place of Yahweh(bn'm-yhwh) and to consult him in his temple (bhyklw). For he shelters me (yzpnny) under his awning in times of trouble; he hides me deep in his tent, sets me high on a rock....If my father and mother desert me, Yahweh will shelter me (y'zpny) still" (27:4-5, 10). In this text, zpn "hide, shelter" describes something that happens at "the house of Yahweh" and "his temple"; moreover bn'm "pleasant place" stands in parallel with "his temple" which occurs in reference to Baal's palace in KTU 1.3 III 31. Another reference to Zaphon occurs in Job 26:7:

"He [Yahweh] stretches Zaphon upon chaos (zpn'l-thw), and suspends the earth on nothingness." (Job 26:7)

Yahweh takes on Ba'al's Identity .. You can also reference:

Fred E. Woods on how Yahweh usurps Ba’al and becomes the god most high (El Elyon). So to start here I will reference the Lexicon and then present how that relates to a brief overview of Fred E Woods paper, this which includes referencing the lexicon:

Hebrew / Biblical Lexicon:
* Ba’al: Baal Original Word: גַּ֫עַל
Part of Speech: Proper Name
Transliteration: Ba’al Phonetic Spelling: (bah’-al)
Short Definition: Baal
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/1168.htm
.
* BEALIAH / Baalyah be-a-li’-a (be`alyah, “Yahweh is Lord,” compare HPN, 144, 287): Bealiah, formerly a friend of Saul, joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:5). Bealiah (גְּעַלְיָה beh-al-yaw) or Baalyah, a Benjamite, was one of David‘s thirty heroes who went to Ziklag, mentioned in Ch1 12:5. The name derives from Baal and Yah. Ba•’al (Baal)—the chief male god of the Phoenicians and Canaanites. The word means “lord,” “master,” and by extension, “husband.” Ro 11:4. Ba•’al-B’rit (Baal-berith)
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/1183.htm
http://www.jewishheritagerevival.com...y/glossary.pdf
.
* SH1184 1184 Ba`aley Yhuwdah bah-al-ay’ yeh-hoo-daw’ from the plural of 1167 and 3063; masters of Judah; Baale-Jehudah, a place in Palestine:–Baale of Judah. see SH1167 see SH3063 SH1183 1183 B`alyah beh-al-yaw’ from 1167 and 3050; Jah (is) master; Bealjah, an Israelite:–Bealiah. see SH1167 see SH3050
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/content...es/SHebrew.pdf
.
* http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/1180.htm Word Origin from baal with pronoun suff. Definition “my Baal,” a symbolic name for Yah NASB Translation Baali (1).
The Lexicon is quite clear on Yahweh’s relation to Ba’al. Thus in example we can reference Jeremiah 31:31-32:
http://interlinearbible.org/jeremiah/31-32.htm

To which can also be translated as the following:

“Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake, although I was bā·‘al·tîL unto them, saith Yahweh.”

It’s very confusing when knowing this while reading the bible to which is filled with rhetoric that attacks the worship of Ba’al. However that makes sense in terms of the process of usurping since that is how it was sometimes done to take over the epithets and status of a particular deity competing for dominance and influence in the region. Much of which is probably associated to the geopolitical environment of the time. This usurping also includes absorbing a target deity’s persona into the deity you want to become the head of the Pantheon, or the only deity left standing for a shot at expanding influence of your own cult movement. So to put some of that into perspective, I believe some of you might find this article a matter of interest:

• “Who Controls the Water? Yahweh vs. Baal”
  Fred E. Woods Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute
  http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/v...context=facpub
  http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1064/
  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2695&index=2

Abstract 1 & 2:

1.) As the Israelites settled in the land of Canaan, clashes over religious beliefs and practices developed with other inhabitants of the land. Baalism, the belief in the Canaanite god of water and storm, became a threat to the true belief in Yahweh (Jehovah). This paper is an investigation of the implicit polemical usage of water and storm language in the Deuteronomic History (hereafter referred to as DH).1 The DH consists of the book of Deuteronomy as well as what is referred to in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings).2 Many passages in the Deuteronomic corpus instructed Israel that Yahweh, not Baal, held the power over water, storm, and prosperity in the land and were thereby launching a literary attack against Baalism. This paper will proceed by first examining Baalism; then I will give a brief overview of the role of the book of Deuteronomy in the DH. Finally, I will analyze and summarize various passages in the remaining Deuteronomic corpus of Joshua—2 Kings.
.
2.) The most active deity both at Ugarit and in the Canaanite pantheon of the Hebrew Bible is Baal, the god of water and storm. Although his proper name is Hadad, he is most often referred to by the title baal, a common Semitic noun meaning “owner, master, husband or lord.”7
The highlighted context can also be sited in dealing directly with Yahweh in regards to Jeremiah 31: 31-32 and bā·‘al·tî. And that conflict between worshiping Ba’al and Yahweh was very much an issue in dealing with the Israelites. And the rivalry between Yam and Baal is very much like how we see Yahweh’s jealously and hate for Ba’al as his biggest rival. Thus just like how Ba’al usurps Yam and becomes the GOD Most High, and the GOD of storms and sea, we see Yahweh usurping Ba’al in a very similar way.

As you can see, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than your typical priest is going to tell you, or anyone for that matter.. It is rather difficult to get in these discussions with them, they become very deflective.. :/ I welcome any attempt to such a discussion..., so I will leave this as food for thought.

[Jeremy8419]

I never really thought you would, I was confessing my error and making a point.. I will leave it at that.

But I do have substantial Knowledge of Catholicism to which includes that they don't adhere strictly to that of the Bible.. I know more than you think I do on the subject. And no, Catholicism addresses the creation of the Observable Universe... There are two definitions of "Universe", and this is where set theory comes into play.. Yes, there is a major difference between "Observable Universe", and "Universe" .. There is a reason why I used the term "Existence", and this is so the two would not be confused. You have no real argument here to say it is irrelevant, it is pretty difficult to create what yourself requires to exist, and that includes having a place to exist in.. The question I asked you is entirely a relevant question, and it matters not what sect or denomination of Christianity to which is being referenced.. It's not a matter of addressing Jesus, the ten commandments, or anything but the concept of "god" in general regardless of religion or definition there of.. This is the point you did not address.., and my discussion on Jesus's existence etc is a separate issue and argument from that.. Furthermore, this isn't to say priests can't be well educated in geology, but what I find most often is that many priests are not well versed in the contemporary history.. If one were to really take the academics seriously on the issue, it will show the evidence to be pretty overwhelming that religions like Judaism and Christianity were born from Pagan mythology, philosophy, rituals, and oral traditions, and largely through the contemporary and ever evolving geopolitical environment.. Go back in history long enough, and you will see religion in general wind back to basic animism ..

I have had many mature discussions with religious leaders on these subjects, and most of the time I would get apologetics as obtuse answers to things we know today such as the fact that there is no actual distinction between the Canaanite and the Israelite culture.. They will profess a narrative we know historically is untrue. One of the most interesting was the claim that the Israelites were Hyksos, this ignoring the fact that the Hyksos didn't actually worship Yahweh or EL. This ignoring the fact that Hyksos themselves were of Syrian and Canaanite origin who worshiped their Asiatic deity Ba'al (z)saphon (Hadad) in association with the Egyptian Storm god Seth and Mt Zaphon (Zion).. You can find this association in the Bible:



You may also search this reference in reference to Mount Hermon to which is according to some, the possible place of Jesus's Transfiguration (See: R.T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (IVP Academic, 2008). So you have to excuse me when I scoff at supposed theological scholars of Christianity... When considering the evidence, and this being just a single example, I find it very hard to take a Priest seriously as they spoon feed me a narrative that doesn't match any of the actual evidence.. This is the sort of evidence that effects Christianity as a whole, not just any particular denomination... Hence I find it unconvincing that their version of pagan mythology is somehow more true than which they had derived from.. I am however always open for a mature discussion on the subject, but I wouldn't ever take apologetics as an academic argument I should ever take seriously. But if someone were to, for example, produce contemporary evidence of an actual historical Jesus, I would consider the evidence.... However, there isn't any thus far, and it doesn't help knowing that Christianity and Judaism emerged from Pagan Polytheistic religions, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and oral traditions..



Yahweh takes on Ba'al's Identity .. You can also reference:

Fred E. Woods on how Yahweh usurps Ba’al and becomes the god most high (El Elyon). So to start here I will reference the Lexicon and then present how that relates to a brief overview of Fred E Woods paper, this which includes referencing the lexicon:



To which can also be translated as the following:


It’s very confusing when knowing this while reading the bible to which is filled with rhetoric that attacks the worship of Ba’al. However that makes sense in terms of the process of usurping since that is how it was sometimes done to take over the epithets and status of a particular deity competing for dominance and influence in the region. Much of which is probably associated to the geopolitical environment of the time. This usurping also includes absorbing a target deity’s persona into the deity you want to become the head of the Pantheon, or the only deity left standing for a shot at expanding influence of your own cult movement. So to put some of that into perspective, I believe some of you might find this article a matter of interest:

• “Who Controls the Water? Yahweh vs. Baal”
  Fred E. Woods Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute
  http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/v...context=facpub
  http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1064/
  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2695&index=2

Abstract 1 & 2:



As you can see, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than your typical priest is going to tell you, or anyone for that matter.. It is rather difficult to get in these discussions with them, they become very deflective.. :/ I welcome any attempt to such a discussion..., so I will leave this as food for thought.

I'm not going to blow smoke up your rear and say that you won't ever encounter a person who literally sits online all day in a Christian forum, but almost everyone you encounter will most likely have encountered a logical atheist before irl. If someone enters into a logical argument with you on religion, you generally can assume that they are either trolling you, like white logic and are just getting a Ti-fix despite never believing a word you say, or are simply looking for someone to agree with their own statements similar to your own. In any case, you're servicing them.

Everyone knows there's no logical sense to religion even without you going into arguments about the validity of some of it's claims. People aren't that stupid, usually. Everyone knows it's basically built upon belief in what is essentially magic. They don't care past that point.

Go find a priest in his young 40's that's an EIE and seems intelligent and like he could be doing something that makes a lot of money with his life. He probably doesn't have much better to do in his free time, and will enjoy the logical discussion.

[TheJackal]

I'm not going to blow smoke up your rear and say that you won't ever encounter a person who literally sits online all day in a Christian forum, but almost everyone you encounter will most likely have encountered a logical atheist before irl.

I am sure they have..

If someone enters into a logical argument with you on religion, you generally can assume that they are either trolling you, like white logic and are just getting a Ti-fix despite never believing a word you say, or are simply looking for someone to agree with their own statements similar to your own. In any case, you're servicing them.

Hmm, I disagree.., I have had pretty deep discussions without any trolling... Though it will happen often.. I generally don't address them for the simple purpose of trying to convince them of anything.. Most mistaken that they are the target audience.. Though I do at times walk into a troll fight unintentionally.

Everyone knows there's no logical sense to religion even without you going into arguments about the validity of some of it's claims. People aren't that stupid, usually. Everyone knows it's basically built upon belief in what is essentially magic. They don't care past that point.

This isn't always true however.. I used to be that way..., though I will say that in general it cannot be forced... What I offer up isn't to just address them, and I am aware there are those that are sitting on the fence . For all I know, the common observer could be a student just learning about these subjects... I leave it up to them to consider it while understanding that many probably already had.

Go find a priest in his young 40's that's an EIE and seems intelligent and like he could be doing something that makes a lot of money with his life. He probably doesn't have much better to do in his free time, and will enjoy the logical discussion.

I have had more than a few of those... Although the religious discussion here really wasn't my intention to bring up, this was more of an example of the butterfly effect from the comment / fallacy argument about Evolution and God.. :/ If I could go back, I would probably just have ignored the comment and stuck to the subject of the OP.. :/

[Jeremy8419]

I am sure they have..

Hmm, I disagree.., I have had pretty deep discussions without any trolling... Though it will happen often.. I generally don't address them for the simple purpose of trying to convince them of anything.. Most mistaken that they are the target audience.. Though I do at times walk into a troll fight unintentionally.

That's option 2 or 3, though. They either don't agree and just want to Ti, or they are fundamentally agreeing with you (which means they have someone agreeing with them). Whichever the case is, it's more beneficial to make sure you get more than you give; e.g., your thousands of words compared to my couple of sentences a few times. Otherwise, you're basically being nicely trolled into spending all your time on someone giving basically nothing in return.

This isn't always true however.. I used to be that way..., though I will say that in general it cannot be forced... What I offer up isn't to just address them, and I am aware there are those that are sitting on the fence . For all I know, the common observer could be a student just learning about these subjects... I leave it up to them to consider it while understanding that many probably already had.



I have had more than a few of those... Although the religious discussion here really wasn't my intention to bring up, this was more of an example of the butterfly effect from the comment / fallacy argument about Evolution and God.. :/ If I could go back, I would probably just have ignored the comment and stuck to the subject of the OP.. :/

Well, the OP just goes back to being able to prove vs not being able to prove. Circumnavigation, as whoever said it, is experiential proof of the Earth being round. However, it could just be a flat, infinitely repeating plane, which simply going into space and viewing from the macro level personally would verify. However, then you get into the original post itself, in that Eliza is simply playing with the novelty of possibilities of Ne, which would just come up with more things like I just wrote, because that's the point/intent: Ne.

[TheJackal]

That's option 2 or 3, though. They either don't agree and just want to Ti, or they are fundamentally agreeing with you (which means they have someone agreeing with them). Whichever the case is, it's more beneficial to make sure you get more than you give; e.g., your thousands of words compared to my couple of sentences a few times. Otherwise, you're basically being nicely trolled into spending all your time on someone giving basically nothing in return.

It would be preferable to get more out of the discussion than I would give into it, but I don't mind sometimes giving ... Yes it could be considered a waste of time for some, but I don't always see it that way.

However, then you get into the original post itself, in that Eliza is simply playing with the novelty of possibilities of Ne, which would just come up with more things like I just wrote, because that's the point/intent: Ne.

Originally I would agree, but I feel he had rather strayed from playing with the novelty possibilities regarding the subject... Hence the sprouting of this discussion into a religious one. I will always be open to credible evidence for any argued possibility ...

[Jeremy8419]

Originally I would agree, but I feel he had rather strayed from playing with the novelty possibilities regarding the subject... Hence the sprouting of this discussion into a religious one. I will always be open to credible evidence for any argued possibility ...

It's more like "got bored, no one is Ne'ing, need more toys, bait for toys."

[TheJackal]

It's more like "got bored, no one is Ne'ing, need more toys, bait for toys."

Fundamentally this is applicable to any discussion on a forum... That is inherently the nature of any forum you are subscribed to. Yet some people enjoy the debate / discussion. Thus as with any post on this or any forum, it comes to a close on this very premise as it ceases to move forward.. That brings the question, why are you or anyone here?

[Enters Laughing]

Yeah, functioning in society is based on what the society happens to be. There have been some societies where having theological knowledge would make one function poorly in society.

As a general rule, the direction of history shows that the most religious and/or superstitious countries tend to be the most backward in terms of social and scientific progress.

God usually acts according to the rules, but there are exceptions, and some are funny. (But the lawmakers can't be expected to follow their own rules...right?)

I think lawmakers should especially be expected to follow their own rules...why should it be any other way? This should be especially the case with a divine being with infinite power and knowledge.

That was mercy. The demons asked for mercy, and Jesus accepted their request. (But Eliza's response is more thorough.)

...then the demon pigs ran off a cliff and drowned in the Sea of Galilee, the demons left the pigs and went into the fish, and Zebedee started catching demon fish!

I don't believe it was intended as mercy. I think also you are just guessing, or at least making an interpretation which is not there. Simply causing the demons to no longer exist would have been more merciful. What Jesus did was also not merciful towards the pigs who were drowned.

Some of Jesus' tactical moves were exceedingly clever (like Mark 11:27-33 and Luke 20:20-26). Others would be considered inadvisable (like His behavior at His trial). You could fit being merciful to enemies who will never not be enemies into the latter category.

Jesus in the bible is depicted as someone who ultimately wants to die, for the purposes of his own martyrdom, which was pointless in terms of the intended goal of saving others from "sin". From this perspective, it wasn't inadvisable.

I hope you go to Togo or Brazil or Indonesia or someplace where demons/possession is accepted as fact and see it for yourself. I've chatted with at least 4 people who have witnessed it. (Demons don't reveal themselves in places where the spiritual world is laughed at because that would be counter-productive on their part.)

If demons existed, why would you hope I witness them? I certainly would not wish to. If demons are only possible to be observed by the actions of those who doctors would deem as mentally ill, Occam's razor would tell you there is no evidence that demons exist. Even if something you referred to as a demon existed as something physically observed in the same sense as a person, that would not be proof of demons, as demons are defined as supernatural entities: observing something automatically means they are not supernatural.

[Enters Laughing]

What makes you think I care? I didn't even read half of your posts and only read small parts of the ones I did. I just posted whatever sort of thing I was planning on posting next, until I got to the point where I figured out the just of why you even know or care enough to debate in the first place.

Kinda odd to be arguing about Christianity without substantial knowledge of Catholicism, though. Catholicism says all empirical sciences are right and God basically magically created everything including the rules of the universe. It's actually basically to the point of your argument that it's irrelevant, outside of the ten commandments, believing in Jesus, and doing the rituals (which are really more implored than any sort of enforcement relating to the afterlife). Your stances actually seem stemmed from non-denominational sects of Christianity, as they were your default starting points for new points you brought into the discussion. Then again, I'm not that well-versed in some of the denominations, but even those denominations are usually lead by people who went to eight years of school ranging from philosophy, theology, hard sciences, and even some of the more oddball studies. One priest I knew had a minor in geology and always talked about rocks and stuff to the scouts, and went to school to get his bachelors out of his pocket in later years. Guy I went to school with got a bachelors in marketing prior to eventually going back to school to go to seminary. You don't strike me as someone who has ever had a mature discussion with a religious leader, or you just spoke to someone who just picked up a bible and decided to start calling himself a preacher (non-denominational churches often have this issue, which is unfortunate, as the priests I know are some of the most profoundly educated people I have met).

"mature discussion with a religious leader"...? Why continue this pretense that the Abrahamic religions are worthy of a "mature discussion"?

It is appalling that there are millions of people in this world who believe that individuals such as Anne Frank will burn in Hell for eternity for the alleged "sin" of not following their particular god, and yet somehow think their religion must be respected. Stop insisting that Jesus was/is an "ethical" role model.

[TheJackal]

"mature discussion with a religious leader"...? Why continue this pretense that the Abrahamic religions are worthy of a "mature discussion"?

It is appalling that there are millions of people in this world who believe that individuals such as Anne Frank will burn in Hell for eternity for the alleged "sin" of not following their particular god, and yet somehow think their religion must be respected. Stop insisting that Jesus was/is an "ethical" role model.

It is pretty hard to have a mature discussion when that side of the fence begins in an inherently dishonest position... As I have told him in response, such discussions with those he sees as in a position of authority almost always degrade into fallacy arguments and apologetics.. It is nearly impossible to get an honest discussion out of them..., ever, and I've tried many of times.. And when I produce contrary evidence to the held belief's assertions, it gets attacked through any means necessary to ignore that given evidence.. Means such as say it's just "belief vs belief" to devalue or place the empirically supported belief as being on equal ground as those that are not, or by means of devaluing contrary evidence as a futile waste of time to present... This so long as they don't have to face being challenged. This process often leads to a discussion becoming a troll fight as we can see has had happened here.. There is little to no attempt to address the issues honestly by a side that can't support itself academically or with intellectual integrity.. If one is unwilling to, I must ask why the need to engage? I understand that Jeremy felt the need to defend his Catholicism , but yet we all know it is entirely taken from Pagan mythology, rituals, beliefs, and oral traditions.

The Dark Ages aren't over yet when people still believe in demon possession and evolved versions of Pagan mythology...

[Jeremy8419]

Honest or dishonest? It's honest by the premise. You know he believes and he knows that you do not. Past that point, he's entertaining your Ti. It's dishonest to say the discussions are dishonest.

[Jeremy8419]

"mature discussion with a religious leader"...? Why continue this pretense that the Abrahamic religions are worthy of a "mature discussion"?

It is appalling that there are millions of people in this world who believe that individuals such as Anne Frank will burn in Hell for eternity for the alleged "sin" of not following their particular god, and yet somehow think their religion must be respected. Stop insisting that Jesus was/is an "ethical" role model.

Do what? That's judgement. That's not Christian. Christians judge actions, not people.

[TheJackal]

Do what? That's judgement. That's not Christian. Christians judge actions, not people.

Real world evidence by both Christian Doctrine and Christian's themselves would be contrary to your claim... This isn't to say that there aren't Christians out there who only judge actions.. , but even then that is still placing judgement on people. Jesus labeling anyone who doesn't hate their families or themselves, and or anyone who loves them more than he as being unworthy of him, is not only Narcissism, but literally placing judgement on people. Telling people that those who do not believe will be cast int the lake of fire is placing judgement on people... I fail to see the relevancy of your argument because we aren't addressing Christianity in accordance to individual Christians, or Christians themselves specifically..., there is a reason why we address the religion in accordance to its written doctrine as well... This includes the historicity of it. And when Christians engage discussions on their religion dishonestly, how should we perceive such an action? This how argument sort of folds in on itself does it not? I think the question is whether or not the judgement being placed is a valid and reasonably justifiable one.., and whether if it is ethical.

I don't know about you, but I am not really into worshiping Narcissistic delusions of self-grandeur, especially when I know that it is most likely according to the evidence as abstracted assimilated pagan mythology. Hence, what credence and respect to that are we supposed to give ?

[Jeremy8419]

Real world evidence by both Christian Doctrine and Christian's themselves would be contrary to your claim... This isn't to say that there aren't Christians out there who only judge actions.. , but even then that is still placing judgement on people. Jesus labeling anyone who doesn't hate their families or themselves, and or anyone who loves them more than he as being unworthy of him, is not only Narcissism, but literally placing judgement on people. Telling people that those who do not believe will be cast int the lake of fire is placing judgement on people... I fail to see the relevancy of your argument because we aren't addressing Christianity in accordance to individual Christians, or Christians themselves specifically..., there is a reason why we address the religion in accordance to its written doctrine as well... This includes the historicity of it. And when Christians engage discussions on their religion dishonestly, how should we perceive such an action? This how argument sort of folds in on itself does it not? I think the question is whether or not the judgement being placed is a valid and reasonably justifiable one.., and whether if it is ethical.

That's not doctrine. Doctrine is that only God retains judgement.

Jesus judged actions. He never once passed divine judgement on any individual. Christianity is all-inclusive.

[TheJackal]

Honest or dishonest? It's honest by the premise. You know he believes and he knows that you do not. Past that point, he's entertaining your Ti. It's dishonest to say the discussions are dishonest.

I disagree, the evidence dictates whether he agrees or not... We base our agreements on the merits of the argument and how well they can be supported.. You're attempt to devalue the points being made by suggesting that an agreement on a subject, comment, statement, or issue is just them agreeing on eachother's "Ti".. And even if that were true, how would that invalidate the point and or the disagreement with your position on the matter? This is more ignoring the points being made than anything else of substance.

[TheJackal]

That's not doctrine. Doctrine is that only God retains judgement.

Jesus judged actions. He never once passed divine judgement on any individual. Christianity is all-inclusive.

You cannot possibly judge whole swaths of people without including individuals there of.. And John 5 claims he is the judge of all men... In fact, John 5 states that God doesn't judge anyone and leaves that entirely up to his son.. Your argument is inherently flawed here.. :

The Father and the Son
…21"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.…

Furthermore, we understand that the religious law is that anyone who does not honor their parents were to be put to death.. I mean I can pull that out for you as well if I need to.. :/

[Jeremy8419]

I disagree, the evidence dictates whether he agrees or not... We base our agreements on the merits of the argument and how well they can be supported.. You're attempt to devalue the points being made by suggesting that an agreement on a subject, comment, statement, or issue is just them agreeing on eachother's "Ti".. And even if that were true, how would that invalidate the point and or the disagreement with your position on the matter? This is more ignoring the points being made than anything else of substance.

They have a religious faith/belief and are open with you that they have such. They've already admitted that it leaves the boundaries of evidence and reason. If they choose to engage in logical discussions with you about such, they're already accepting you having your own beliefs and are being amicable to such. What you're essentially doing is stating each other's beliefs, having them accept that you believe differently, and ending with you attacking them.

You're saying "aethiesm is valid," they're saying "Christianity is valid," yet you're the one who is attacking their beliefs. You're not asking for equality nor understanding nor anything admirable at all; you're just wanting to force your own beliefs into being the only beliefs. That's a terrible way to treat people.

In reply to your following post, that's not Catholicism nor Christianity. Could it or may it have been such, similar to the Crusades, at one point in time? Doesn't matter, because those aren't part of either currently. I can understand arguments for empirical evidence, but you've mixed Christians and Christianity several times, as well as you likely would for Catholics and Catholicism. I may be borderline religious/spiritual at best, but I still retain my Catholic label, and I must request that you stop placing things on the Catholic faith that are not only untrue, but readily approach outright offensive. You literally just a few posts ago blanketed me into that I think Jews are going to hell by referring to my religious affiliation of Christianity instead of individual Christians who may believe such. I'm fairly easy-going 99.99% of the time, but that almost managed to offend me, and I can count the times I've been offended in the past year on a single hand.

[TheJackal]

They have a religious faith/belief and are open with you that they have such. They've already admitted that it leaves the boundaries of evidence and reason.

That would make them irrational and unreasonable.. However, I am well aware that some of them admit this, and this isn't really the issue here as the problem stems from when they assert it as "truth" or "fact"... If someone tells me that they admit that they don't know and that their claims of belief are based purely on faith regardless of contrary evidence, I can at least respect that they are being honest with me even though I would argue that the belief itself is irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.

If they choose to engage in logical discussions with you about such, they're already accepting you having your own beliefs and are being amicable to such

I would imagine so, but I would disagree that there isn't disagreement .. Empirically supported beliefs are not necessarily amicable.., they rest on being falsifiable..

. What you're essentially doing is stating each other's beliefs, having them accept that you believe differently, and ending with you attacking them.

No not really..., I am purely basing my position on the evidence to which I let dictate my beliefs.. I only attack them when I know or strongly suspect that they are being dishonest with me.

You're saying "aethiesm is valid," they're saying "Christianity is valid,"

I never said Atheism is valid...., but I know enough to discount Christianity as so. But considering the spectrum, it is at the far extremes on both ends of atheism and theism "all or nothing"... Again, even if we argued the object of worship were to exist, it is still a concept and title of pure opinion and nothing more.. So in such an opinionated concept, there could be no gods at all to literally everything and everyone being god... That is the furthest the goal post can be moved in either direction...., everything else essentially falls in between .. I do not take concepts that are entirely incapable of substantiation seriously..., especially when the delve into self-refuting concepts and arguments... Hence, I am not about to take a man's claim that gravity is just a figment of my imagination seriously the next time I go base jumping... He can feel free to win the Darwin Award if he so chooses..

yet you're the one who is attacking their beliefs.

Actually, this butterfly effect on religion stemmed from the latter, and from a common fallacy argument regarding evolution and God.. You can feel free to back track, and calling them out on it isn't "attacking them", it is depositing a rebuttal to a known fallacious argument. Furthermore, and when someone argues that the presentation of evidence is an attack, it comes off as playing the victim for credibility they don't have on the subject.. Though I will admit, I had gotten overly aggressive, but as I explained earlier, my patience for dishonest arguments is rather admittedly thin.

You're not asking for equality nor understanding nor anything admirable at all; you're just wanting to force your own beliefs into being the only beliefs. That's a terrible way to treat people.

Sorry, empiricism equally holds all parties equally accountable for which demands evidence... A belief that has empirical support is, regardless of your opinion, more credible than those that aren't.. This is demonstrable in real life... Treating people like adults capable of handling criticism of their beliefs is treating them with respect.. Expecting them to be honest with intellectual integrity isn't a terrible way to treat people..., and I shouldn't respect anyone that woefully doesn't care about any of those things..

In reply to your following post, that's not Catholicism nor Christianity. Could it or may it have been such, similar to the Crusades, at one point in time? Doesn't matter, because those aren't part of either currently. I can understand arguments for empirical evidence, but you've mixed Christians and Christianity several times, as well as you likely would for Catholics and Catholicism.

Actually I consistently did the latter...

I may be borderline religious/spiritual at best, but I still retain my Catholic label,

You stated your Catholicism in an earlier post, and if you follow it, you are religious by definition.

and I must request that you stop placing things on the Catholic faith that are not only untrue, but readily approach outright offensive.

Catholicism is a demonination of Christianity whether you like to admit it or not, and is subject to being under the umbrella of the Abrahamic religions..., your argument comes off as trying to claim the orange peel has nothing to do with the orange it came from.. You're trying to have your cake and eat it to..

You literally just a few posts ago blanketed me into that I think Jews are going to hell by referring to my religious affiliation of Christianity instead of individual Christians who may believe such.

I never made any such argument, I put for a rebuttal to your claim with contrary evidence to your stated argument.. I never even brought up the subject of the jews as that wasn't even the focus of the point being made.. Though we could go into that, but I don't see the point in doing so.

I'm fairly easy-going 99.99% of the time, but that almost managed to offend me, and I can count the times I've been offended in the past year on a single hand.

I am sorry if it offends you, but that ins't at this juncture the intention when refuting your arguments..

[Jeremy8419]

That would make them irrational and unreasonable.. However, I am well aware that some of them admit this, and this isn't really the issue here as the problem stems from when they assert it as "truth" or "fact"... If someone tells me that they admit that they don't know and that their claims of belief are based purely on faith regardless of contrary evidence, I can at least respect that they are being honest with me even though I would argue that the belief itself is irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.

Of course it's based purely on faith. Someone rises from the dead in someone's belief, and you think they aren't aware it rests on faith. You seem to be missing the obvious precursors.

I would imagine so, but I would disagree that there isn't disagreement .. Empirically supported beliefs are not necessarily amicable.., they rest on being falsifiable..

Them entering into the discussion is them being willing to go through your beliefs with you.

No not really..., I am purely basing my position on the evidence to which I let dictate my beliefs.. I only attack them when I know or strongly suspect that they are being dishonest with me.

I never said Atheism is valid...., but I know enough to discount Christianity as so. But considering the spectrum, it is at the far extremes on both ends of atheism and theism "all or nothing"... Again, even if we argued the object of worship were to exist, it is still a concept and title of pure opinion and nothing more.. So in such an opinionated concept, there could be no gods at all to literally everything and everyone being god... That is the furthest the goal post can be moved in either direction...., everything else essentially falls in between .. I do not take concepts that are entirely incapable of substantiation seriously..., especially when the delve into self-refuting concepts and arguments... Hence, I am not about to take a man's claim that gravity is just a figment of my imagination seriously the next time I go base jumping... He can feel free to win the Darwin Award if he so chooses..

No, what you're doing is having someone be willing to discuss your beliefs, and rather than showing due respect, you end by saying that they are wrong to believe as they do.

Actually, this butterfly effect on religion stemmed from the latter, and from a common fallacy argument regarding evolution and God.. You can feel free to back track, and calling them out on it isn't "attacking them", it is depositing a rebuttal to a known fallacious argument. Furthermore, and when someone argues that the presentation of evidence is an attack, it comes off as playing the victim for credibility they don't have on the subject.. Though I will admit, I had gotten overly aggressive, but as I explained earlier, my patience for dishonest arguments is rather admittedly thin.

You're extremely prejudice and selfish, tbh. You leave the respectful discussion of their beliefs compared to yours at the point that you claim superiority in your beliefs over there's, which they don't necessarily do to you.

Sorry, empiricism equally holds all parties equally accountable for which demands evidence... A belief that has empirical support is, regardless of your opinion, more credible than those that aren't.. This is demonstrable in real life... Treating people like adults capable of handling criticism of their beliefs is treating them with respect.. Expecting them to be honest with intellectual integrity isn't a terrible way to treat people..., and I shouldn't respect anyone that woefully doesn't care about any of those things..

Again, you show prejudice and selfish behavior. It is childish to think that being an adult means criticizing other people's beliefs and life choices when they do not do so to you. Your last part is literally saying you have no respect for anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

Actually I consistently did the latter...

You stated your Catholicism in an earlier post, and if you follow it, you are religious by definition.

Catholicism is a demonination of Christianity whether you like to admit it or not, and is subject to being under the umbrella of the Abrahamic religions..., your argument comes off as trying to claim the orange peel has nothing to do with the orange it came from.. You're trying to have your cake and eat it to..

You're simply wrong on this. You don't understand the concept of actions compared to people.

Christian: Jesus is the way to heaven. You have to believe in him to go to heaven.
You: I don't believe in Jesus.
Christian: Okay.
You: So you think I'm going to Hell?
Christian: I don't know. I don't judge people. Only God can pass judgement.
You: But you just said I have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven.
Christian: So?
You: So that means you think I'm going to hell if I don't believe in Jesus.
Christian: No, that means I believe that I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus and follow his teachings.
You: So I go to heaven?
Christian: Dude. I'm not God. I don't know.
You: Your beliefs are fucked up.
Christian: Okay?
You: You're wrong.
Christian: Okay?
You: I'm right.
Christian: Why are you persecuting my beliefs? I didn't judge you.
You: Yes, you did.
Christian: No, I specifically stated that I didn't.
You: (continues to persecute)

I never made any such argument, I put for a rebuttal to your claim with contrary evidence to your stated argument.. I never even brought up the subject of the jews as that wasn't even the focus of the point being made.. Though we could go into that, but I don't see the point in doing so.

Whatever your beliefs are, you need to wake up to the reality that you've succumb to prejudice and a life of persecuting others for their beliefs, which is something you've hypocritically used as proof for the error of other's beliefs; however, you're using discrimination to discriminate those who had no part in the originating discrimination.

I am sorry if it offends you, but that ins't at this juncture the intention when refuting your arguments..

It's offensive, because you're slandering (it's false) beliefs.

[TheJackal]

Of course it's based purely on faith. Someone rises from the dead in someone's belief, and you think they aren't aware it rests on faith. You seem to be missing the obvious precursors.

The problem once again is not the faith, it is the assertion and claim that it's "Truth"... The very Bible itself is structured as such, and it's a dishonest position to start with..

Them entering into the discussion is them being willing to go through your beliefs with you.

Two way street.

No, what you're doing is having someone be willing to discuss your beliefs, and rather than showing due respect, you end by saying that they are wrong to believe as they do.

Except that I have evidence... Hence, I have a valid reason to say that they are most likely wrong.. That isn't disrespectful..., and you seem to be arguing that I should respect their beliefs without criticism or challenge..., and almost as if I should accept them.. There is a fundamental reason I don't just simply do that, and just looking at the political environment in the US today , I dare say not challenging them is a dangerous proposition .. Just look at Idaho, they are trying to pass a bill that would use the bible to teach history and science..., yeah that ought to go well.../s I understand that they will find criticism offensive, and evidence against their beliefs as equally offensive, but at what point do you think I should care? I am sorry, but professional victimhood isn't something I am going to give much sympathy for. If their beliefs cannot hold up to scrutiny or contrary evidence, I am not really going to have much respect for them when they employ apologetic arguments etc.. The academic arena can be very unforgiving...

You're extremely prejudice and selfish, tbh. You leave the respectful discussion of their beliefs compared to yours at the point that you claim superiority in your beliefs over there's, which they don't necessarily do to you.

Has nothing to do with prejudice..., if the evidence established me wrong, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.. Like I said, I will take empirically supported positions that are well established over faith based assertions.., especially when it comes to the credulity and historicity there of.. Furthermore, and when someone claims that X,Y,Z isn't doctrine of their religion even after examples there of are given, I further will not take them seriously or as honest participants in such a discussion as this.. When woeful ignorance becomes the default argument and position of my opponent in a debate, I beg to ask how much respect am I supposed to have? All I see here is an excuse to look away rather than seriously address valid criticism .. You really ought to stop treating valid criticism as an offensive attack...

It is childish to think that being an adult means criticizing other people's beliefs and life choices when they do not do so to you. Your last part is literally saying you have no respect for anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

Actually it does, especially when intellectual integrity means something .. I wouldn't want an engineer who thinks gravity isn't real building a bridge..., and I would hardly call it selfish to challenge him since such ignorance could in turn cost people their lives.. Ignorance can be extremely destructive to a society and civilization as a whole... If I have to criticize someone's beliefs to help advance civilization beyond the bronze age dark ages, or to save lives, I believe it to be worth it... However, I can still respect the person even if I don't respect their beliefs... I can still respect a person even if I disagree with them. But once I feel they are being dishonest with me, that respect quickly diminishes.. Hence, are you saying I ought to respect someone who dishonestly engages in the discussion?

You're simply wrong on this. You don't understand the concept of actions compared to people.

I disagree, the context I provided you is not in the context of only judging actions... They aren't damning actions of those who do not subscribe, they are damning those who do not subscribe.. I can give examples all day long.. Telling me that I don't know the difference between actions compared to people is incoherent to the very examples I provided.

Christian: Jesus is the way to heaven. You have to believe in him to go to heaven.
You: I don't believe in Jesus.
Christian: Okay.
You: So you think I'm going to Hell?
Christian: I don't know. I don't judge people. Only God can pass judgement.
You: But you just said I have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven.
Christian: So?
You: So that means you think I'm going to hell if I don't believe in Jesus.
Christian: No, that means I believe that I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus and follow his teachings.
You: So I go to heaven?
Christian: Dude. I'm not God. I don't know.
You: Your beliefs are fucked up.
Christian: Okay?
You: You're wrong.
Christian: Okay?
You: I'm right.
Christian: Why are you persecuting my beliefs? I didn't judge you.
You: Yes, you did.
Christian: No, I specifically stated that I didn't.
You: (continues to persecute)

I have never made this argument.. I am sorry, but you don't get to spoon feed my mouth to support your self-invented narrative.

[Jeremy8419]

The problem once again is not the faith, it is the assertion and claim that it's "Truth"... The very Bible itself is structured as such, and it's a dishonest position to start with..

Two way street.






Except that I have evidence... Hence, I have a valid reason to say that they are most likely wrong.. That isn't disrespectful..., and you seem to be arguing that I should respect their beliefs without criticism or challenge..., and almost as if I should accept them.. There is a fundamental reason I don't just simply do that, and just looking at the political environment in the US today , I dare say not challenging them is a dangerous proposition .. Just look at Idaho, they are trying to pass a bill that would use the bible to teach history and science..., yeah that ought to go well.../s I understand that they will find criticism offensive, and evidence against their beliefs as equally offensive, but at what point do you think I should care? I am sorry, but professional victimhood isn't something I am going to give much sympathy for. If their beliefs cannot hold up to scrutiny or contrary evidence, I am not really going to have much respect for them when they employ apologetic arguments etc.. The academic arena can be very unforgiving...




Has nothing to do with prejudice..., if the evidence established me wrong, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.. Like I said, I will take empirically supported positions that are well established over faith based assertions.., especially when it comes to the credulity and historicity there of.. Furthermore, and when someone claims that X,Y,Z isn't doctrine of their religion even after examples there of are given, I further will not take them seriously or as honest participants in such a discussion as this.. When woeful ignorance becomes the default argument and position of my opponent in a debate, I beg to ask how much respect am I supposed to have? All I see here is an excuse to look away rather than seriously address valid criticism .. You really ought to stop treating valid criticism as an offensive attack...



Actually it does, especially when intellectual integrity means something .. I wouldn't want an engineer who thinks gravity isn't real building a bridge..., and I would hardly call it selfish to challenge him since such ignorance could in turn cost people their lives.. Ignorance can be extremely destructive to a society and civilization as a whole... If I have to criticize someone's beliefs to help advance civilization beyond the bronze age dark ages, or to save lives, I believe it to be worth it... However, I can still respect the person even if I don't respect their beliefs... I can still respect a person even if I disagree with them. But once I feel they are being dishonest with me, that respect quickly diminishes.. Hence, are you saying I ought to respect someone who dishonestly engages in the discussion?




I disagree, the context I provided you is not in the context of only judging actions... They aren't damning actions of those who do not subscribe, they are damning those who do not subscribe.. I can give examples all day long.. Telling me that I don't know the difference between actions compared to people is incoherent to the very examples I provided.



I have never made this argument.. I am sorry, but you don't get to spoon feed my mouth to support your self-invented narrative.

Your entire worldview is your Ti- vs Ni+, which there isn't inherently anything bad about, but you're also extremely discriminatory in all of your arguments. At the core, it isn't even really about Ti-. You're really just emotionally venting through a Ti- microphone over issues caused by individuals while discriminately persecuting people based upon their beliefs. It's a dangerous game you're playing in your head and heart, one which all too frequently in this world that has led to the blood and tears of the innocent. I recommend you making an effort to work through the past, or you may one day realize you see your own hands recreating it with no recollection of how such could possibly come to be.

When the wolves dress as sheep, the sheep dress as wolves. It's a two way street, fueled by the same basic pain, and never solved by hatred. You'd be wise to remember that.