Philosophy Now Forum

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:07 pm 35 pages of debating a fantasy, dear Lord im not reading this shit.

How could God fail to convey his message?
Because he obviously doesn't exist, people who do not exist cannot send messages.

Oh look, the dumbest atheist of the entire forum is here to tell us how dumb we are as she comprehends sub-atomic reality better than a theist, which obviously could never have an intelligence behind it (contrary to what most physicists are now declaring).

Actually you simpleton - I have had 20 years of knowing 'God' exists, and since some years ago a sage introduced itself to me from the aether, I really don't think atheism permits wisdom.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:40 am Oh look, the dumbest atheist of the entire forum is here to tell us how dumb we are as she comprehends sub-atomic reality better than a theist, which obviously could never have an intelligence behind it (contrary to what most physicists are now declaring).

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, it was my impression that most physicists are trying to understand the Universe without any reference to God, (the Intelligent Designer).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:40 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:07 pm 35 pages of debating a fantasy, dear Lord im not reading this shit.

How could God fail to convey his message?
Because he obviously doesn't exist, people who do not exist cannot send messages.

Oh look, the dumbest atheist of the entire forum is here to tell us how dumb we are as she comprehends sub-atomic reality better than a theist, which obviously could never have an intelligence behind it (contrary to what most physicists are now declaring).

Actually you simpleton - I have had 20 years of knowing 'God' exists, and since some years ago a sage introduced itself to me from the aether, I really don't think atheism permits wisdom.

Wow a pathetic religious person has to result to a barrage of insults and ad homs because I told him his fake god doesn't exist.
So much ego defenses lashing out. So much hate.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:40 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:07 pm 35 pages of debating a fantasy, dear Lord im not reading this shit.

How could God fail to convey his message?
Because he obviously doesn't exist, people who do not exist cannot send messages.

Oh look, the dumbest atheist of the entire forum is here to tell us how dumb we are as she comprehends sub-atomic reality better than a theist, which obviously could never have an intelligence behind it (contrary to what most physicists are now declaring).

Actually you simpleton - I have had 20 years of knowing 'God' exists, and since some years ago a sage introduced itself to me from the aether, I really don't think atheism permits wisdom.

So you know God exists. Okay but how do you "know"? You feel it in your bones?

Most physicists are theists now? Really? News to me. Most physicists say subatomic particles have intelligence? News to me. Really.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:40 am I have had 20 years of knowing 'God' exists, and since some years ago a sage introduced itself to me from the aether

Can you imagine that there are countless "sages" and all sorts of energies introducing themselves all the time to countless people... whether from the aether or walking right here among us... and it is your human brain that gives it the importance and uniqueness and definition that you do? Some people do not see a separation between themselves and the energies that flow through all. Is it your brain that separates yourself and turns things into "important others" which you can then feel significance and empowerment by, through your association with them? Why not cut out the middle-man?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:04 pm Can you imagine that there are countless "sages" and all sorts of energies introducing themselves all the time to countless people... whether from the aether or walking right here among us... and it is your human brain that gives it the importance and uniqueness and definition that you do? Some people do not see a separation between themselves and the energies that flow through all. Is it your brain that separates yourself and turns things into "important others" which you can then feel significance and empowerment by, through your association with them? Why not cut out the middle-man?

I knew someone who claimed that there was a lot of power in a Crystal and would tell us about standing outside in the rain in a thunder storm holding a Crystal on a stick, up in the air, and feeling the power coming down the stick. I was expecting to hear a report of him being struck by lightning. The energy he was feeling was the static electricity in the air during the storm, the same electricity that forms a lightning bolt.

-1- wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:15 am there is a core Christian belief that all Christians subscribe to.

You've said what you think this "core" is, and I've given you credit for having some of it right, but not for all of it.

But even taking your own "core" definition, Catholics are excluded. Mormons definitely are excluded. So are most of what are called "mainline" churches today, since many of them do not adhere to particulars of those tenets you listed.

So by your definition (not by any of mine) all these are not "Christians."

Consider this:

You are a human (this is a given, although I have no proof of it; let's suppose it's true.)

I am a human.

We are both humans.

We are different, but you can't deny we are both human.

Yes: but that's because "human" is a genetic quality. It is an all-or-nothing fact, and thus does not have to be settled as a matter or opinion or belief, but only of genetics.

Christians can be different, but you are denying that anyone else who does not believe what you do is a Christian. I say there can be and there ARE Christians who don't believe what you believe.

And the day that "Christian" is a genetic description, you might have a case.

But you don't. Because when I asked you what you thought was the core of "Christianity," you listed beliefs, not genetic markers.

Another difference: nobody is pretending to be a human. But people can pretend to be all kinds of things to which they are not entitled. You can say you're of a nation to which you have no citizenship; you can say you do a job for which you have no training or experience; you can say you have academic achievements for which you have no degrees or attestation of completion. Human beings lie all the time...not about being human, but about what kind of person they are, what they have believed, thought, done or achieved, how much money they make, who they love and who loves them, their past and their future prospects...

So again, you're forced to use some criterion to discern who's lying, or who's self-deceived, and who's not.

But what will your criterion be? It seems that at present, you regard anybody who says the words, "I am a Christian" as a Christian. But the "self-identification" criterion is not accepted by any serious scholars of religion, because it's hopelessly problematic and uninformative. People lie, or fail to understand what's entailed in the belief system they think they adhere to. "Nominalism" is a well-recognized phenomenon. And scholars of religion know that.

But that is a fault of the person, not of the communication of the ideas in question. The whole failure is on the receiving end, not the sending end.

So I still suggest you need a better way of telling, and the idea that it means the communication is flawed is simply a non-sequitur there, logically speaking.

Immanuel Can, I think our conversation has run its course, and if I picked up on your last missive, we'd be just repeating things already said.

What's missing is YOUR definition of Christians, but it's not necessary to be given to see my argument, only to see your side, and since you refuse to give your definition of a Christian, there is no point in further discussion. We both made our stances clear; we can't hone that more clear for each other or for our audience, unless, of course, you come through and provide a definition of what you think makes a Christian, which excludes many other people who call themselves Christian but are not.

So unless you supply your own definition (workable definition, not something "A Christian is someone who follows the tenets of Christianity"; you have to be more specific than that, and you have to show how there is only ONE stream of Christianity which is true, by your definition), I think this debate has run its course.

Nice talking to you.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:52 pm So you know God exists. Okay but how do you "know"? You feel it in your bones?

Apparently Attofishpi had a trauma sometime in the past, and that trauma, or the ensuing life experiences, gave him the "knowledge" that god exists.

Attofishpi is actually a smart person, but he or she is really mixed up because of this illusion of his delusion of "knowing god". S/He is a nice guy/gal, as long as you don't challenge him/her on his/her special "knowledge."

S/He is not nice to you, GreatAndWiseTrixie, but that's only due to his / her being defensive and militantly so about his or her faith.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:44 am S/He is not nice to you, GreatAndWiseTrixie, but that's only due to his / her being defensive and militantly so about his or her faith.

Trixie is arrogant and obnoxious to everyone, so why should she treat Attofishpi any differently?

thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:14 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:44 am S/He is not nice to you, GreatAndWiseTrixie, but that's only due to his / her being defensive and militantly so about his or her faith.

Trixie is arrogant and obnoxious to everyone, so why should she treat Attofishpi any differently?

I am new here... so far all I've learned from the members about other members is that they arrogant and obnoxious... I learned some of us is nice, but we don't get to get that reputation spread.

So if all of the people are arrogant some of the time... and some of the people are arrogant all of the time... then there has to be a God. (This is my ontological argument.)

Or maybe my ontological argument is faulty, and it (the above) means there is no God.

I'm new at this.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:46 pm I am new here... so far all I've learned from the members about other members is that they arrogant and obnoxious... I learned some of us is nice, but we don't get to get that reputation spread.

So if all of the people are arrogant some of the time... and some of the people are arrogant all of the time... then there has to be a God. (This is my ontological argument.)

If you don't get the reputation of being nice, people don't expect you to be nice, and it's much easier.

Your argument sounds good to me, I think I prefer God with a sense of humor.

Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.

Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.

If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:46 pmI am new here... so far all I've learned from the members about other members is that they arrogant and obnoxious... I learned some of us is nice, but we don't get to get that reputation spread.

Calling theists deluded at the outset is not going to help your cause.

Also, is English a 2nd language for you?

ps. I am not a theist.