Eh, my last post was a little late...

Well you can send me the pic through email. By the way the blood and chopped offed limbs were of my uncle last year. He was murdered.

I'm sorry to hear that, Taizon.

If something like that ever happened to my relatives...

Well I'm afraid your uncle has me beat.
That is a shame my friend.

Well that was last year and I only saw the blood and arms. Didn't really affect me. Just like this funeral this saturday won't effect me at all.(not my uncles)

I Havn't seen anything really gross in real life ever so you definitly have to post a pic ^.^

ever think you might want to like... cut down on drinking a bit >___>?

Nope don't listen to her, keep drinking, smoking and getting high. If its fun why quit?

"Faith" MEANS "a beleif in something despite or without any knowledge of weather or not it is based in fact."

And furthermore, this was not a debate about wether or not Jesus existed, it is a debate about the existentiaility of GOD. Do not confuse the two.
And I will say once more that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

You know, I KNOW what you want me to ask so you can be all smug in your response to show how all us "heathens" are so wrong and just be cause you seem to have some idea in an IMAGINARY person that you MUST be right. Well I ain't asking it.

But lets get back to my original point which was that the bible is chock full of typos and exaggerations. Do I doubt that a large number of the characters existed as people? No. All I'm holding issue with is that a great many of the details are complete fabrications. But I DO NOT think that that detracts from the life lessons the book teaches.

*NWS sighting*


<i>"And furthermore, this was not a debate about wether or not Jesus existed, it is a debate about the existentiaility of GOD. Do not confuse the two."</i>


So you don't read posts? I'm sorry to hear that, because I did not confuse the two. You posted the Babel Fish Argument which is a statement on the existential actuality of God without realizing the argument's false premises and major flaws - it's like saying "100% of men are stupid - but that excludes me." If you're going to declare an absolute argument, make sure it doesn't fall to it's own standards -- and especially make sure it isn't based off of termological misappropriations.


<i>"You know, I KNOW what you want me to ask so you can be all smug in your response to show how all us "heathens" are so wrong and just be cause you seem to have some idea in an IMAGINARY person that you MUST be right. Well I ain't asking it."</i>


Actually, I'm not smug. If you notice, I'm not capitalizing all of my words just to make a point - I only give brief bolds or italics to certain words for topical influence. If you were to see me right now, I'm completely calm behind the keyboard. I got off work, my triglisterides are coming down (they're still at 5000 though... as opposed to the "safe" rating at... 150). So no, I'm not feeling too well, but I'm not mad either. In fact, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like you, but it appears you seem to have a big problem with me considering the mood and expression you've displayed in your last post. You sound a little hyped at this whole discussion, something I'm not.

Furthermore, if you notice, no one in an Atheist VS Christian or Agnostic VS Christian debate ever uses the kind of arguments and statements you do because they realize how fallacious those arguments are. Also, you keep declaring God as imaginary (oh, one second, IMAGINARY), but if an Agnostic simply can't know anything truth, then why is it you're into declaring a true statement? So you're giving a witness to a true statement by attempting the anti-thesis, thus refuting the entire Agnostic belief - for all you know, you could be imaginary by your own worldview because without an ultimate source of truth, everything is at a constant, contingent flux as we appropriate ourselves by view of ourselves using our epistemic metaphysical correlation (Heidegger). Why can't you be more consistent in your philosophical beliefs like Jean Paul Sartre (Atheist Nihilist) or Nietzsche (Atheist Nihilist)? Or at best Kant (Agnostic)?

You know, I KNOW what you want me to ask so you can be all smug in your response to show how all us "Christians" are so wrong. Sound familiar? I can hurl charges too, but I won't, because this type of statement is:

1) Beneath us both - we're both better than this.

2) Provides no foundation for the statement to begin with, and

3) Isn't an argument to begin with, it's an insult.


<i>"Faith" MEANS "a beleif in something despite or without any knowledge of weather or not it is based in fact." </i>


No. Please learn philosophical definitions before attempting a debate. Like I said, you misapplied the word faith in the Christian belief - your agnostic appropriation of faith in Christianity is not the Christian appropriation of faith in Christianity - know the definitions and belief before you try to attack it in response to we Christians.

Christianity is not a belief held to by "faith". When we Christians talk about the Christian Faith, we're talking about the salvation found in Christ; the Christian faith is not "does God exist?", it's about "salvation through Christ, a gifted not meritted of ourselves". To use the term "it's all faith" is to misappropriate the term "faith", to misapply it, and to misdefine it. Think of how, in your agnostic worldview, right now, you believe that your chair you're sitting in will hold you up, but in an agnostic worldview, you can't be sure in anything to be true, so you're holding in faith that the chair will hold you up - but that's the difference between Faith and Fideism.

But anyways, I've taken up too much of my free time here. I planned to sneak back and post a video on a different forum, but I noticed that you were posting here after I had left. I didn't think you were offended by my previous post, it appears it offended you enough to warrant a rebuttal in my absence.

I do not wish to continue this conversation with you because you cannot remain civilized in your responces to my statements, and for some reason, for an Agnostic, you assume to know everything about Christianity - next time before taking a shot at Christianity, try to know something about how the terms "Faith" and "Fideism" are differentiated, and how the term "faith" is applied to begin with - after all, if according to your worldview you cannot know anything, how is it you claim to know so much about Christianity in order to discount it all? You're surprisingly inconsistent and you cannot apply your metaphysical presuppositions to your argument. Consult Heidegger before attempting an attack on any Christian in the future. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to enjoy my day off and hope you do not attempt to reply when I'm gone. Of course, my AOL Instant Messager is available once in a great while.

That post can't be going along with the doctor's orders. I know it goes against mine. (I have trouble with super-long posts.)

ok, maybe on second thought NLY, it might be a better idea to just give the bible away and forget about the whole thing >_____>

I've listened to a great many philosophers, and most questioned the purpose God had for us. Others, like Socrates and Arisotle tried to find the pure truth of the world. I'm of the latter catigory.

I veiw God, (Yahweh, Iahova, Allah, they are all names for the same thing) as A god. In much the same way Zeus or, Thor or, Ganeish is a "god," Why the Babble Fish argument works (and I contend that it does) is that for any deity to "exist" (in the metaphysical sense at least) that diety needs to have actual people who belive in him. When you prove that a god exists, he no longer is one, he is eaither a charltain, a pretender, or some one with superior technology with the power of "shock and awe" as it were. Like wise, when a culture stops beliveing in a god, that god ceases to be. You wouldn't argue today that say, Amun Ra, -the anceint Egyptian sun god- no longer exists, but if you were to go back in time to visit anceient Egypt, and made the same claim, I'm sure that you would meet with some VERY strong resistance to your veiwpoint. In much the same way I'm getting flack from you. The Gou'auld from the show Stargate are perfect example of this. Ask your self "Why are they NOT gods?" The simple answer is that they are paracites that live in a human host. Now ask your self "what MAKES them appear to be "gods"?" Simpler still, "they have devoted followers, and superior technology. This technology is like "magic" to their followers, and the awe struck by this magic is the scorce of thier followers devotion."
The lesson that Stargate teaches is that a TRUE god does not need to prove that he or she exists to be real to their followers. Adams simply takes the next logical step from that concept and decrees that for God to be "A god" He can never be known, He must always be an enigma, and more over he must NEVER need or want to prove his own existence to his followers, and they must never be able to prove through direct or indirect means that God is in fact real. To do so, would automaticaly revoke his status as "a god."
Therefore, any one who clames to "know" God exists, is first a fool, and second, quite pretendious.
That is why God, in the novel, states: (I'll paraphrase so you can get the message) "Proof negates faith (here, the absence of fact), and without faith (here, the beleif in him dispite the absence of fact) I am nothing. (I.e. not a god).
The joke is, that Man comes allong and presents God with a challenge. A creature that seemingly has a singular purpose; namely translating language, any language, and it does so in such a bizare manner that there is no way it could have evolved by chance. This was the "proof" that dethrones God as "a god," at least in the novel. Where I personaly pick up on this is that to claim that any creature is a product of God, is to assume that he infact is extant. And I'm sorry, but once you corporialize God, he ceases to be one. That's why I now look at God sort of like a subatomic particle; always there- untill you try to observe him.

(BTW, there is also an episode of Startrek TNG that I could have cited for analisis of my point but I figured that one scifi show was enough.)

References from tv shows don't really add anything notable to the argument in my opinion. Its basically a trick question like "Can god make a rock that he cannot move?" If he can't move the rock then he's not all powerful, but if he couldn't do it anyway then he's not all powerful. In a trick question like that it would appear god doesn't exist at all. Would that prove that god exist or not? No sadly for everyone else it wouldn't. Imagine if god didn't truly exist today, I mean really just imagine it. We all know before the bible was created there were people who didn't care about one's life or anothers life. They were evil cruel men, I don't remember the right name at this time but I'm sure you get the point. Those men did go around killing, raping, stealing and many other things. If god didn't truly exist well alot of people today wouldn't be afraid to take someone's life for nothing. There wouldn't be a consequence afterwards. Oh sure you would be locked up or shot for it but really who would care. Senseless killing and no meaning to life except to live and die would be something worthless as a penny is in america. Not everyone will see eye to eye, you can't disprove someone's belief in God period. To prove it however would be a challenge for anyone who tried. But really what is proof when you say that, its really simple. Its just words and how your mind takes it in. It can either process it as a fact or fiction. If god truly did come to earth at this distinct moment people good and evil would worship him. Why would they do that, because he's god and knows everything. People change when something like that happens.

True, you may discount my ideas because they are from/based in TV shows, but the rationale is sound reguardless. I think where people are not getting me is that they think I'm saying point blank "God doesn't exist." I'm not. I'm saying that to find proof of eather state would defrock God as a deity.
Why do you think he had to have his son do his preaching for him?

And furthermore, what makes dusty old philosphers so great that they are the be all and end all of devinic or secular thought? What makes their ideas and veiwpoints on this issue any more superior to my own. It seems to me that there were lots of philosphers and most disagreeed with one another on some niggling little point or another, so while you could quote a hand full of philosiphers, I could probably quote just as many that offer an opposing point. So I ask you, are not my thoughts whorthy as thes so called great thinkers? Am I not entitled to one friggin original idea here?? Just because it doesn't jive what you seem to have parroted back to your philosiphy teacher, does it not mean that my feelings on the matter could be right?

OMG NLY QUICK GIVE THE THING AWAY BEFORE IT CAUSES MORE TYPING!

Well staffy you're half right, everyone's thoughts are really noteworth but in this world today its decided by the people who can't accept someone else's word without a famous or notable person.

right... to deal with NLY's original post in a fresh light (note; 'fresh light' means exactly this; 'i have not bothered to read any of the previous posts except the first one, and furthermore, i made an instant and instinctual decision that will probably be totally unaffected by future argument'.

so, in short, this is just my point of view.


I voted for 'read the damn thing'. I did so cause that suggestion was closest to what i would've suggested. What would i have advised?

don't read it.

I went, at the request of a friend, to a meeting of the Christian Union at my university. And... I swear, those people had it all wrong. I was used to hearing what were the correct arguments for God's existence, my mother being an RE teacher and all. But... those who read the bible, those who intepret it as literal truth, those people are plain wrong, and more to the point; they corrupt.

So my advice is; don't read the damn thing. Live by your own concepts of right and wrong, and use them to teach others after you. Because there is one huge flaw in opening that book....


if it doesn't convince you, you can never hold out hope for a God. What people most need, it seems, is mystery. Sorry if that makes not so much sense. I'm kinda confused right now.

-John

*hugs regal*

This is the car accident thread right?
Well, another accident.
This time I'm alright, but my car is totaled.

So as to update on the bible part, I actually did read it for a bit, we were wondering what the ten commandments were and I had to read until I found it (which was a long god-damned (in the literal and humorously ironical sense) time to focus on the book I'd say).

I have no car, and about 70 pages I'm trying to erase from my life, but the thread now has some reasonable closure beyond moments of awkward male bonding.

I should come and visit you since your state isn't 30 mins from me. You'll never erase those pages from your life ever