ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children
or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"
Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
What proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
The answer is no.
You're dismissed, OK. :chuckle:
Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children
or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"
So which apply/applies to you?
I know about fighting because I was a fighter. One of the dudes on this site knows it because he held the pads a time or two.
Clete... Do you think Jesus was religious? Are atheists religious? Is evolutionism a religion? (Yeah... Depends how you define the word). You might have seen this video before... Jesus hated religion. https://youtu.be/1IAhDGYlpqY
It is interesting that the Bible defines true religion as helping out those in need. (Ie. Widows and orphans)
Claiming that someone is guilty because of the sins of another person for starters.
You know what's weird Clete? You go on about logical axioms and philosophy and you don't even know Aristotle. What kind of philosopher doesn't know the Greeks? Aristotle said it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I understand fully what it means. It is you who does not. Even your fence sitting on the issue uses the very laws of reason that you're on the fence about. Every word you speak, every keystroke your type is an affirmation of the laws of reason.I said I neither affirm or reject your logic axioms at this time. Do you know what that means Clete? It doesn't mean I reject your claims. It also means I don't accept them - AT THIS TIME!!!!!
As if I care about what impresses a man who rejects the world's religions on the basis of a rational thought process but who is completely unfamiliar with the most important feat of epistemological thinking in the history of philosophy.When I have time, interest or inclination to give your logical axioms a complete workover, I will do so thoroughly and respond to it. You may be right, and I may be a fan. At this point I'm not and I'm not too impressed to be honest.
I did not read rejection per se, but rather a failure to accept them. My point is that you can't do either accept or reject them without making use of them. It is you who misunderstand me, not the other way around.And furthermore, do you remember how you said - in so many words - you were judging my worthiness of your time? Well, you're in that same boat in my book. The fact that you would actually read into my comments that I rejected your logical axioms demonstrates an automatic reaction (to something that didn't even occur) called cognitive bias. You actually EXPECTED me to reject your claims whether you knew it or not, and your mind automatically reset to that default.
:rotfl:Of course. There are many. A little search could reveal many more. First, you have the Greeks themselves, they had many religions to choose from and the definitely promoted the laws of reason. Then you have the Ottoman Empire as another example.
Catholics do NOT promote the laws of reason except perhaps on some superficial level. They openly and proudly promote the concept of antinomy in their religious beliefs. That is, they are fully comfortable with accepting a doctrine that is irrational BECAUSE it is irrational. It is the willingness to accept doctrines that do not make rational sense that they call "faith". It is piety, in their minds, to accept the contradictory as true.Lastly, there are the Catholics. Now, I consider Catholics to be Christians, but yet, I know of many Christians who don't consider Catholics to be Christian and you may be one of them - I don't know. And I don't really care because the point itself is not very impressive to begin with.
Anyone who is in pursuit of a rational worldview, that's who.Who cares if your religion promotes the laws of reason or not?
There are not multiple brands of logic and reason, at least not sound logic and reason. And the pursuit of truth is the entire point of this entire discussion. As I said when you first stated that you had rejected the world's religions by means of a rational thought process, reason is a significant step in the direction of biblical Christianity. What has come after has been me simply trying to establish whether your claim of having used a rational thought process was actually true.Personally, I'm a fan of logic and reason, but my brand may not be the same as yours. The purpose for logic and reason according to my religion is the pursuit of truth.
I have yet to meet one. I've met plenty of people who call themselves that but I have yet to discover anyone who actually is a real agnostic. They have all been functional atheists.Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.
We disagree... again. We CAN know the truth. Agnosticism is essentially a unrealistic and dogmatic religious worldview claiming you can't know, no matter how much evidence exists. Romans 1:20 "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
Yes. We do disagree on that point and many others. At least it seems that we are doing so somewhat politely, which is the right way to do it, IMO.
We'll need to see a state issued photo ID along with a recent copy of a utility bill and a recent credit card bill. All with valid current addresses.So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
You know what's weird Clete? ... you don't even know Aristotle.
That's another difference between the way you think and the way I think: See, in my book, all knowing IS thinking. You don't think? Then you don't know. If I can say, "I know that T is true", I can just as easily say, "I, therefore, think that T is true", because my knowledge that T is true is nothing other than my thinking that T is true while T is true.
That's why I, for one, never do the silly, anti-intellectual "I don't think! I know!"-shtick. But, perhaps such silliness is quite acceptable for "Unreflective John Doe-ism"....er, um, I mean, "Rejective Knowism".
Is that a truth or a belief?
You stated it as a fact, so I assume you believe it to be a truth.
So how do you go about determining the truth of your belief?
This surely is referring to the hideous doctrine of original sin, which is not biblical and it is not true, not in the way that most Christian's understand it anyway.
God absolutely does not, would not, will not ever hold anyone responsible for someone else's sin - period.
Ezekiel 18 is an entire chapter of the bible on this exact issue where God commands Israel to stop saying such things...
Read it - please! Of all the possible objections to Christianity, this one at least you can put down as something someone lied to you about. It just simply is not true.
Clete
So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
TRUTH is found only in Holy Scripture.
So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
Please don't talk to me, about me, or participate in this thread. I thank you for leaving and not talking.
Wrong. Truth is all around you. You smash your face into a brick wall, it will hurt. That is truth ....