Christianity

[iambiguous]

We don’t need to. We know what the word means.

How about here then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

You can go to the dictionary -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism -- and look up the definition of Theism:

"belief in the existence of a god or gods

specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Nothing there about Christianity though.

If you want to stipulate a new definition of your own for “Atheist,” you can. Go wild, and amuse yourself. I’m not going to. When I say “Atheist,” I mean literally somebody who insists there are no gods or God. So you understand me perfectly, there’s my definition, the same as the word means. Yours is your own problem.

Okay, call me an agnostic then. Or is that actually an Agnostic instead? Ever and always when you capitalize a word, it's your way of insisting that only your own definition and meaning count.

On the other hand, calling someone a theist -- or, perhaps, a Theist? -- can mean many different things to many different people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Why your description and not theirs? Well, maybe it's because you claim there is ample scientific and historical evidence to prove that only Christianity [as you understand it truly] is the one and the only path to salvation.

Not unlike all the other denominations reacting to Christianity. Only you're damned, not them.

[Immanuel Can]

“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

I have unbelief, apart from the subset of warranted, justified, true belief called knowledge. My atheism is a subset of that unbelief, and it is knowledge belief, there is nothing to know of God; I know there is none. I know that I know.

Then you appear to be an Atheist. Because you claim to “know there is none.”

My unbelief, non-belief (I do both) comes of rationality.

Terrific! Then you can explain the rational basis of your unbelief, so we all know why we should also disbelieve.

What is it?

[iambiguous]

C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis
John Loftus heartily agrees with a debunking of C.S. Lewis.

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in Christian bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Philosopher Dr John Beversluis wrote the first full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’ apologetics in 1985, titled C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion. For twenty-two years it was the only full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’ arguments. Beversluis took as his point of departure Lewis’ challenge, “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it.”

Or her best reasoning.

So, how does that make any sense? Did or did not Lewis believe that the path to immortality and salvation was through [and only through] accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior?

Beversluis thoroughly examined the evidence Lewis presented and found that it should not lead people to accept Christianity.

And this settles that, right? 

C.S. Lewis’ writings contain three major arguments for God’s existence: the ‘Argument from Desire’, the ‘Moral Argument’, and the ‘Argument From Reason’.

See how it works? They may be major arguments, but to what extent are the words connected to the world he lived in? Did Lewis present us with any substantive evidence linking his spiritual assessment/conclusion to the behaviors he chose himself.

Lewis furthermore argued that the ‘Liar, Lunatic, Lord Trilemma’ shows that Jesus is God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." C.S. Lewis

On the other hand, it is not at all obvious to many, many others. And where's the beef? Where's the accumulated evidence to back up these spiritual assumptions?

He also deals with the major skeptical objection known as the Problem of Evil. Beversluis examines these arguments and finds them all defective; some are even fundamentally flawed. Finally Beversluis examines Lewis’ crisis of faith when he lost his wife, the love of his life.

As arguments go, he claims the arguments of others are all defective, even fundamentally flawed. Like that isn't exactly what many of them will be claiming about his own flawed path.

[Immanuel Can]

So, you believe he is burning in Hell?

I believe what the Bible says about that: that those who know God have salvation, and that those who do not do not. Now, where Buddha ended up on that scale, you’ll have to ask him, if you ever see him.

"In Catholicism,...

I’m not a Catholic. Catholic theology does not regard the Bible as definitive revelation of God’s will. It puts the decisions of the prelates and councils ahead of the Bible, and claims that they can alter what it says. Check it out: it’s true. And that’s how you get a completely lunatic, gratuitous idea like “Limbo.” You won’t find it anywhere in the Bible.

We’re all responsible for what we know.  Those who know less, have to answer for less.  Those who know more, for more.

And of those who know nothing at all of Christianity?

Ask God. Why ask me? What a man actually believes are known only to him and to God.

But their situation is not yours; you know much more, and are thus responsible for much more.  Perhaps you should worry less about what their destiny is, and spend a little more thought on your own.  I suggest it might be prudent.

Sigh...

What on Earth do you think I am attempting to do in asking you to peruse those WLC/RF videos.

Oh, that’s easy…not accepting the evidence of what you asked for and I supplied — namely, scientific and rational evidence for God.

I can't even get WLC to discuss and debate it.

Then you’ll have to use your own little brain. Review the evidence, consider it, and decide what you believe. I’m sure you can do it.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, call me an agnostic then.

As you wish.

Or is that actually an Agnostic instead? Ever and always when you capitalize a word, it's your way of insisting that only your own definition and meaning count.

Um…are you aware of the convention of capitalizing the name of ideologies? Like, “Buddhism,” or “Christianity,” or “Communism,” or “Nazism”? It’s standard. However, “agnosticism” isn’t a particular ideology: it’s a confession of ignorance, of not-knowing. As such, it lacks the dogmatic element that justifies the capital letter. It really signifies a broad group of confused alternatives, not a single ideology.

See? Your evil suspicions were, once again, unwarranted. It’s just normal usage.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis
John Loftus heartily agrees with a debunking of C.S. Lewis.

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in Christian bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Philosopher Dr John Beversluis wrote the first full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’ apologetics in 1985, titled C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion. For twenty-two years it was the only full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’ arguments. Beversluis took as his point of departure Lewis’ challenge, “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it.”

Or her best reasoning.

So, how does that make any sense? Did or did not Lewis believe that the path to immortality and salvation was through [and only through] accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior?

Beversluis thoroughly examined the evidence Lewis presented and found that it should not lead people to accept Christianity.

And this settles that, right? 

C.S. Lewis’ writings contain three major arguments for God’s existence: the ‘Argument from Desire’, the ‘Moral Argument’, and the ‘Argument From Reason’.

See how it works? They may be major arguments, but to what extent are the words connected to the world he lived in? Did Lewis present us with any substantive evidence linking his spiritual assessment/conclusion to the behaviors he chose himself.

Lewis furthermore argued that the ‘Liar, Lunatic, Lord Trilemma’ shows that Jesus is God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." C.S. Lewis

On the other hand, it is not at all obvious to many, many others. And where's the beef? Where's the accumulated evidence to back up these spiritual assumptions?

He also deals with the major skeptical objection known as the Problem of Evil. Beversluis examines these arguments and finds them all defective; some are even fundamentally flawed. Finally Beversluis examines Lewis’ crisis of faith when he lost his wife, the love of his life.

As arguments go, he claims the arguments of others are all defective, even fundamentally flawed. Like that isn't exactly what many of them will be claiming about his own flawed path.

The trilemma is false. Without going for the complete demolition job delivered by Bart D. Ehrman's peerless scholarship, I grant the fullest possible good will to the son of Mary. He took her delusional claims and ran with them. But faith is the get out of meaninglessness and death free card that IC always has, that all believers have. We are biased in the neuron.

[Belinda]

C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis
John Loftus heartily agrees with a debunking of C.S. Lewis.

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in Christian bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Philosopher Dr John Beversluis wrote the first full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’ apologetics in 1985, titled C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion. For twenty-two years it was the only full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’ arguments. Beversluis took as his point of departure Lewis’ challenge, “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it.”

Or her best reasoning.

So, how does that make any sense? Did or did not Lewis believe that the path to immortality and salvation was through [and only through] accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior?

Beversluis thoroughly examined the evidence Lewis presented and found that it should not lead people to accept Christianity.

And this settles that, right? 

C.S. Lewis’ writings contain three major arguments for God’s existence: the ‘Argument from Desire’, the ‘Moral Argument’, and the ‘Argument From Reason’.

See how it works? They may be major arguments, but to what extent are the words connected to the world he lived in? Did Lewis present us with any substantive evidence linking his spiritual assessment/conclusion to the behaviors he chose himself.

Lewis furthermore argued that the ‘Liar, Lunatic, Lord Trilemma’ shows that Jesus is God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." C.S. Lewis

On the other hand, it is not at all obvious to many, many others. And where's the beef? Where's the accumulated evidence to back up these spiritual assumptions?

He also deals with the major skeptical objection known as the Problem of Evil. Beversluis examines these arguments and finds them all defective; some are even fundamentally flawed. Finally Beversluis examines Lewis’ crisis of faith when he lost his wife, the love of his life.

As arguments go, he claims the arguments of others are all defective, even fundamentally flawed. Like that isn't exactly what many of them will be claiming about his own flawed path.
[/quote]

Liar , Lunatic, Lord Trilemma is a wrongly conceived question. The way to face the question of who Jesus of Nazareth was is the historical method. There is not much in the way of primary source, Josephus is the best, however there is a lot of circumstantial evidence from the Romans who were meticulous record keepers. Circumstantial evidence too from comparative anthropology and from archeology.

If C S Lewis had been an existentialist he would not have suffered his crisis of faith upon his wife's death. Camus :"Life is about the journey not the destination."

For a fun introduction to C S Lewis why no try his Out of the Silent Planet trilogy .It's sci fi with a great theme.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

We don’t need to. We know what the word means.

How about here then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

You can go to the dictionary -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism -- and look up the definition of Theism:

"belief in the existence of a god or gods

specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Nothing there about Christianity though.

Nope, not there, either.

If you want to stipulate a new definition of your own for “Atheist,” you can. Go wild, and amuse yourself. I’m not going to. When I say “Atheist,” I mean literally somebody who insists there are no gods or God. So you understand me perfectly, there’s my definition, the same as the word means. Yours is your own problem.

Okay, call me an agnostic then. Or is that actually an Agnostic instead? Ever and always when you capitalize a word, it's your way of insisting that only your own definition and meaning count.

On the other hand, calling someone a theist -- or, perhaps, a Theist? -- can mean many different things to many different people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Why your description and not theirs? Well, maybe it's because you claim there is ample scientific and historical evidence to prove that only Christianity [as you understand it truly] is the one and the only path to salvation.

Not unlike all the other denominations reacting to Christianity. Only you're damned, not them.

Why do you feed the troll, mate?

[Belinda]

You’re missing my point. I’m quite happy to admit the word’s badly abused. I’ve even explained some of the ways in which it is.

I’m only telling you what I mean when I use the word “Atheist.” And I think you can see that it’s also the literal meaning of the word. But if you want to use it differently, go ahead. However, when I use it, it will still mean exactly what it says: that that person believes he knows there’s no God.

That would be fair enough if you were on each occasion to preamble the particular usage you prefer.

Not necessary.

I told you what it means. You know what it means. From now on, we’re perfectly clear.

I can see why you want to run away from that. But you can’t. I’ve been very, very precise and straightforward in defining the term as I intend to use it.

Would it not more advance your agenda if you simply said 'unbelievers'? Or 'not doctrinal'?

“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

As for “doctrinal,” that’s way too vague. Every belief system has a “doctrine,” and none exists without one. So we would have to stipulate exactly which “doctrine” was being implied.

As for “advancing my agenda,” the only right agenda would be truth. And it doesn’t need to be “advanced,” but rather, recognized.

You have been precise and straightforward in defining the word 'atheist'. But until you are as authoritative as the Pope or as Charismatic as Trump few will pay any attention to you.

Truth is not "agenda" it's a Platonic Form.

Isn't e.g. ' Christian doctrine' brief enough ?

[Belinda]

We don’t need to. We know what the word means.

How about here then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

You can go to the dictionary -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism -- and look up the definition of Theism:

"belief in the existence of a god or gods

specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Nothing there about Christianity though.

Nope, not there, either.

If you want to stipulate a new definition of your own for “Atheist,” you can. Go wild, and amuse yourself. I’m not going to. When I say “Atheist,” I mean literally somebody who insists there are no gods or God. So you understand me perfectly, there’s my definition, the same as the word means. Yours is your own problem.

Okay, call me an agnostic then. Or is that actually an Agnostic instead? Ever and always when you capitalize a word, it's your way of insisting that only your own definition and meaning count.

On the other hand, calling someone a theist -- or, perhaps, a Theist? -- can mean many different things to many different people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Why your description and not theirs? Well, maybe it's because you claim there is ample scientific and historical evidence to prove that only Christianity [as you understand it truly] is the one and the only path to salvation.

Not unlike all the other denominations reacting to Christianity. Only you're damned, not them.

Why do you feed the troll, mate?

IC is not a troll he is sincere. He is not neurotic about his ego either. Neither are you! However there is lot of taking umbrage going on among posters.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Okay, call me an agnostic then. Or is that actually an Agnostic instead? Ever and always when you capitalize a word, it's your way of insisting that only your own definition and meaning count.

On the other hand, calling someone a theist -- or, perhaps, a Theist? -- can mean many different things to many different people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Why your description and not theirs? Well, maybe it's because you claim there is ample scientific and historical evidence to prove that only Christianity [as you understand it truly] is the one and the only path to salvation.

Not unlike all the other denominations reacting to Christianity. Only you're damned, not them.

Why do you feed the troll, mate?

IC is not a troll he is sincere. He is not neurotic about his ego either. Neither are you! However there is lot of taking umbrage going on among posters.

He sincerely will not be reasoned with and will not give any evidence, just like WLC won't. Because they can't.

He's a sincere Covid denier.

He's sincerely misanthropic, including to the dispossessed.

But.

You're right.

He is not a troll.

Yet iambiguous feeds him as if he were, in endless loops of yeah buttery.

[Immanuel Can]

That would be fair enough if you were on each occasion to preamble the particular usage you prefer.

Not necessary.

I told you what it means. You know what it means. From now on, we’re perfectly clear.

I can see why you want to run away from that. But you can’t. I’ve been very, very precise and straightforward in defining the term as I intend to use it.

Would it not more advance your agenda if you simply said 'unbelievers'? Or 'not doctrinal'?

“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

As for “doctrinal,” that’s way too vague. Every belief system has a “doctrine,” and none exists without one. So we would have to stipulate exactly which “doctrine” was being implied.

As for “advancing my agenda,” the only right agenda would be truth. And it doesn’t need to be “advanced,” but rather, recognized.

You have been precise and straightforward in defining the word 'atheist'. But until you are as authoritative as the Pope or as Charismatic as Trump few will pay any attention to you.

That’s not the point. This isn’t about religious or secular prestige. It’s about honesty and clarity.

The point is, I said exactly what I mean by the word “Atheist,” it’s the same as what the word actually means, and I’m being transparent and honest about what I mean. If somebody’s not bright enough to understand that, be he “Pope” (which isn’t a real thing, anyway) or however appealing to the public, that’s of absolutely no concern to me. And you know what I mean, and it’s you I’m talking to.

Truth is not "agenda" it's a Platonic Form.

Is that the truth?

You see, you can’t even state that without simultaneously affirming the existence of objective truth. If you’re right, you’re wrong. So that’s called “self-contradiction,” and is the best indicator that your claim needs a rethink.

[MikeNovack]

The problem distinguishing between between the atheist and the agnostic has to do with religious background.

Many who self identify as atheist come from religious backgrounds that included a specific conception of god and that this was the only valid conception of god. They have come to reject the existence of this god, but they are still enmeshed in the belief system that this is the only possible (valid) conception of god. That causes them to say "I disbelieve in the existence of a god" (atheist) when they really mean "I disbelieve in the existence of THIS god -- but have never considered any of the myriad other conceptions of god/gods that humans have come up with (agnostic).

[Belinda]

Not necessary.

I told you what it means. You know what it means. From now on, we’re perfectly clear.

I can see why you want to run away from that. But you can’t. I’ve been very, very precise and straightforward in defining the term as I intend to use it.


“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

As for “doctrinal,” that’s way too vague. Every belief system has a “doctrine,” and none exists without one. So we would have to stipulate exactly which “doctrine” was being implied.

As for “advancing my agenda,” the only right agenda would be truth. And it doesn’t need to be “advanced,” but rather, recognized.

You have been precise and straightforward in defining the word 'atheist'. But until you are as authoritative as the Pope or as Charismatic as Trump few will pay any attention to you.

That’s not the point. This isn’t about religious or secular prestige. It’s about honesty and clarity.

The point is, I said exactly what I mean by the word “Atheist,” it’s the same as what the word actually means, and I’m being transparent and honest about what I mean. If somebody’s not bright enough to understand that, be he “Pope” (which isn’t a real thing, anyway) or however appealing to the public, that’s of absolutely no concern to me. And you know what I mean, and it’s you I’m talking to.

Truth is not "agenda" it's a Platonic Form.

Is that the truth?

You see, you can’t even state that without simultaneously affirming the existence of objective truth. If you’re right, you’re wrong. So that’s called “self-contradiction,” and is the best indicator that your claim needs a rethink.

Nothing gets to be stated without the filter of language. In IC's opinion IC says it best. In my opinion Plato says it better.

You should say which doctrine you imply if you do imply a recognisable doctrine. Concerning absolute truth I say the teaching of Plato is what I imply . You?

[Immanuel Can]

You have been precise and straightforward in defining the word 'atheist'. But until you are as authoritative as the Pope or as Charismatic as Trump few will pay any attention to you.

That’s not the point. This isn’t about religious or secular prestige. It’s about honesty and clarity.

The point is, I said exactly what I mean by the word “Atheist,” it’s the same as what the word actually means, and I’m being transparent and honest about what I mean. If somebody’s not bright enough to understand that, be he “Pope” (which isn’t a real thing, anyway) or however appealing to the public, that’s of absolutely no concern to me. And you know what I mean, and it’s you I’m talking to.

Truth is not "agenda" it's a Platonic Form.

Is that the truth?

You see, you can’t even state that without simultaneously affirming the existence of objective truth. If you’re right, you’re wrong. So that’s called “self-contradiction,” and is the best indicator that your claim needs a rethink.

Nothing gets to be stated without the filter of language.In IC's opinion IC says it best. In my opinion Plato says it better.

“The filter of language”? Why “filter”? Why not, “Nothing can be said without language”?

But you have to admit it’s not a brilliant axiom, B. “Nothing can be stated without being stated (i.e. put into language).” That’s essentially all you’ve said. It’s a tautology. It’s also a “So what?"

And what is it that you think Plato said? It certainly wasn’t a tautology, was it?