Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm unlikely to read that book.

Well, that will tell us lots.

Uh, no. It tells you only that I'm not much of a reader.

And to reiterate: I'm open to the possibility of Christ's resurrection anyway, so nothing probative is at stake for me in this book even if I were to read it. The really probative question which I don't see an answer to remains what the implications of non-belief in Christ's resurrection are. Is there really an eternity of fiery agony because one fails to believe? How could we know this, and how could it be justified?

[Harry Baird]

you do NOT YET KNOW what 'logical possibility' refers to EXACTLY

I encouraged you to research what logical possibility, as a formal term, means, but all you do is project your own lack of understanding on to me, and make a fool of yourself.

But, now, what's all this nonsense about "you" humans? Do you claim not to be human? If so, then what do you identify as, and how/why so?

[Age]

Age, some further thoughts:

Oh. So, you don't understand logical possibility. It's a formal concept - do some research on it if you need to.

Your INABILITY to just SAY and EXPLAIN, HOW, it is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'logically, possible for human beings to live without air or oxygen here, SHOWS and REVEALS MORE where you are, EXACTLY. That is; you are ACTUALLY NOT even ABLE TO explain HOW.

I can verify personally, for myself, that, at present, I am unable to live without air or oxygen.

For what, about 10 or 20 mins?

Nobody else can personally verify that I am unable to live without air or oxygen though - for all they know, I am some sage who has learnt how to avoid it - and nobody can personally verify that any other person is equally unable to live without air or oxygen.

LOL the way you 'TRIED TO' TWIST and DISTORT this AROUND is funny to watch.

It is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to VERIFY that ANOTHER is UNABLE to live without air nor oxygen.

And if ANY human being wants to CLAIM that they CAN, and they WILL NOT PROVE it, then this SPEAKS for itself.

WHY would ANY one want to make a CLAIM if they have absolutely NO PROOF FOR that they do NOT want to SHARE?

Therefore, it is irrelevant whether or not everybody agrees, because they don't truly know. Thus, you have failed to prove your point with this example.

LOL I have NOT failed to PROVE what I HAVE ACTUALLY CLAIMED.

I ALSO do NOT even want to prove what you are IMAGINING I am CLAIMING here.

However, it is VERY SIMPLE and EASY to PROVE, IRREFUTABLY, what I have ACTUALLY CLAIMED here.

I think what you're missing is that I'm interested in incontrovertible proof. "Everybody agrees" is not incontrovertible proof.

ONCE AGAIN, you have MISSED the ACTUAL POINT I have been MAKING here.

I have ALSO NEVER even CLAIMED that "Everybody agrees", NOR that 'EVERY one agrees, is PROOF, incontrovertible, or not.

[Harry Baird]

I think what you're missing is that I'm interested in incontrovertible proof. "Everybody agrees" is not incontrovertible proof.

[...]

I have ALSO NEVER even CLAIMED that "Everybody agrees", NOR that 'EVERY one agrees, is PROOF, incontrovertible, or not.

Oh, I guess I missed that. In that case, what you're offering is of no use to me. Thanks anyway.

[Age]

What in the heck are you guys talking about in this neverending thread?

Do you guys talk like this with people during your day in real time, or is this strange behavior reserved for philosophy forums?

I can only speak for 'me', but this is NOT how I generally nor usually talk like outside of this forum.

So, it could be said that the behavior I SHOW and REVEAL here, in this forum, is reserved for this forum, only.

[Age]

you do NOT YET KNOW what 'logical possibility' refers to EXACTLY

I encouraged you to research what logical possibility, as a formal term, means, but all you do is project your own lack of understanding on to me, and make a fool of yourself.

DO I?

We WILL have to WAIT and SEE.

Also, a somewhat 'good' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DETRACTION. But it is NOT working here.

But, now, what's all this nonsense about "you" humans? Do you claim not to be human?
If so, then what do you identify as, and how/why so?

'you' have a LOT MORE to LEARN, before you could UNDERSTAND the answers to these questions.

[Immanuel Can]

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm unlikely to read that book.

Well, that will tell us lots.

Uh, no. It tells you only that I'm not much of a reader.

If you're ANY of a reader, then this will be something you'll read.

How much is your soul worth?

[Harry Baird]

We WILL have to WAIT and SEE.

Nah. It's obvious right now that you have no idea what the formal term "logical possibility" means, and equally so it's obvious that you're too proud to look up its meaning and educate yourself, despite the vast resources of the internet.

Also, a somewhat 'good' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DETRACTION.

Nah. The fundamental point is that even if everybody believes something to be true, that doesn't mean it is true. "Everybody believes it" might be a reasonably pragmatic standard for truth or at least useful sociopolitical consensus, but it's not the most rigorous standard, which is that of logical necessity. I'd be willing to accept a lower standard than logical necessity if that standard could be explained and justified, but I have no hope that you're capable of such a thing.

But, now, what's all this nonsense about "you" humans? Do you claim not to be human?
If so, then what do you identify as, and how/why so?

'you' have a LOT MORE to LEARN, before you could UNDERSTAND the answers to these questions.

Well, that's a somewhat 'good' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DETRACTION.

[Harry Baird]

If you're ANY of a reader, then this will be something you'll read.

How much is your soul worth?

Ah, right, the good old "Read this book and be convinced by it or you'll burn in hell for eternity" tactic.

Thanks for the implicit threat. You're quite the piece of work, aren't you?

[Harry Baird]

If you're ANY of a reader, then this will be something you'll read.

How much is your soul worth?

Ah, right, the good old "Read this book and be convinced by it or you'll burn in hell for eternity" tactic.

Thanks for the implicit threat. You're quite the piece of work, aren't you?

Here's my threat in return: watch the video I shared in this post or remain a delusional fundy.

[Harry Baird]

The Church of No One Truth (NOT): A Cautionary Tale

A Play of Three Acts of Three Scenes Each

<< Act one, scene three | Act two, scene two >>

Act two, scene one

Characters:

Bjorn aGus

Can Man

Setting:

Outside the Church of No One Truth (NOT)

Bjorn aGus: I dunno, Can Man, I smell a fish.

Can Man: I know, I know - I'm doing my jolly best to be plant-based, but every now and then I slip up.

Bjorn aGus: No no, not you. I mean, there's something up with Pastor Wiola.

Can Man: What do you mean?

Bjorn aGus: It's just, I can't help feeling that there's something behind her.

Can Man: Well, they say that behind every great man, there has to be a great woman, so, what does there have to be behind a great woman?

Bjorn aGus: Exactly. That's the very question. I just can't put my finger on the answer.

Can Man: You do realise that I care only so much as you are willing to see MY One Truth, right?

Bjorn aGus: Yes, yes, that goes without saying. But humour me, will you?

Can Man: Sure, sure. I'll play along.

Bjorn aGus: OK. So, hmm. She runs a Church with no members. She pretends there's no One Truth whilst hiding what the One Truth actually is. Can Man, I think we need to discover and reveal this One Truth.

Can Man: Uh. Dude?

Bjorn aGus: Yeah?

Can Man: (Sighs)

Bjorn aGus: Oh. Right. But you know I can only ever be a Clayton's Christian?

Can Man: Irreconcilable differences?

Bjorn aGus: Sadly, it seems so.

Can Man: I will leave you to your investigations then. Get back to me when you've found the One Truth.

Bjorn aGus: May thine billboard be ever light.

Can Man: Cheers, man. Until then...

(Bjorn aGus shuffles off stage right. The stage clears. He shuffles back on again.)

Bjorn aGus (soliloquy): I just know that something's not right. I feel it in my bones. Or maybe that's calcium deficiency. I, too, am trying to be plant-based, and I don't always take my supplements. But I'll figure it out eventually. Who's Pastor Wiola behind, and who's behind her? She dismissed me all too readily, but the truth will come out eventually. Mark my words.

<< Act one, scene three | Act two, scene two >>

[Dontaskme]

Is there really an eternity of fiery agony because one fails to believe? How could we know this, and how could it be justified?

I've already asked him that question, many times in fact, but no response ever comes.

Then I figured..it's probably because he does not know, it's that simple, he simply does not know. I mean how could he know a claim like that, unless he'd actually experienced it himself, which will never happen since he is a devoted follower of the love that is Jesus, so he's hardly qualified to answer, or even make such an authorative claim with any absolute certainty. Rather, IC is just another repeater, a walking,talking megaphone of hot air. It's normal, it's a human trait, nothing wrong with it, since it's difficult to separate the insanity from the sane, since they are the same thing.

As in ..''man is the measure of all things'' All he can do is ask us to wait and see the actual realtime evidence of a believed God and his wrathful justice will one day come to pass before our very eyes, which is just more hot air, and a claim like that ever being witnessed to have happened at all, would be parallel to actually having known what it is like to be dead.



.

[Harry Baird]

Is there really an eternity of fiery agony because one fails to believe? How could we know this, and how could it be justified?

I've already asked him that question, many times in fact, but no response ever comes.

Then I figured..it's probably because he does not know, it's that simple, he simply does not know. I mean how could he know a claim like that

Yes, unless there's something he's not sharing with us, he doesn't and couldn't know. The notion itself though is perhaps one of the most irrational and repugnant ones that exist: that a wholly loving, omnipotent God would condemn many of the beings He created to eternal, undying, agonising torment for eternity simply because they failed to believe a proposition which was genuinely not at all obvious to them.

Wow.

It really needs to be mulled over and contemplated for a while for its full horror and odiousness to sink in.

It's some kind of insanity.

Speaking of which:

it's difficult to separate the insanity from the sane, since they are the same thing.

I'm not quite as paradoxical a thinker as you in this respect, but I certainly grant at least that there's a fine line between sanity and insanity.

[Dubious]

How much is your soul worth?

...equal to a lottery ticket which inevitably turned out to be an expense...as usual!

[Harry Baird]

You know, I've had other discussions with other skeptics who criticize Him not for being at the beginning of history itself. They ask, "What about all the people before Christ came? Is it fair that He came in the early years AD, and not a few thousand years ealier? What about poor Socrates, or the other ancients? Didn't God care about them?"

Perfectly reasonable questions. What is your answer to them?

You ignored this question. I'm still interested in your answer, especially because this is part of my own critique of mainstream Christian belief. What have you got?