What is a Christian fundamentalist?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by temple 2000

Apparently everyone has me on their ignore list, but I just have to comment on the stupidity of the things you people argue about. These things are self-evident to the thinking man.

And by "you people" are you again referring to Christian fundamentalists?

 

[temple2006]

I am referring to the people who cannot comprehend the difference between object and concept.

 

[Apollo]

If, for example, you could show that Jesus did in fact die and stay dead, that the resurrection is false, then you will have, in one stroke, completely dismantled the entire Christian faith.

It’s not necessary to prove that a particular man called Jesus rose or didn’t rise from the dead.

What can be proven is that numerous resurrected savior-god myths existed in first century Palestine in the days of Jesus, in some cases predating Christianity by a thousand years.

It can also be proven that the mythical god of the Roman mystery cult of Mithra became a man, died, and rose again on the third day. It can also be proven that, according to myth, Mithra ascended into heaven having promised to return to defeat the enemies of his followers.

It can also be proven that Mithra was worshipped every Sunday in a eucharist of bread and wine. It can also be proven that his followers were commanded to symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood.

It can also be proven that Mithra’s birthday was celebrated on December 25th. And it can also be proven that the Vatican is built on the remains of a Mithrite temple.

It can therefore be proven that there is nothing “unique” about Christianity’s truth claims, including its ludicrous claim to be speaking for God. If a mental patient claimed to be speaking for God, no one would believe him. A fundamentalist Christian says the same thing, and we’re supposed to take him seriously. Go figure.

Then there’s the always sticky problem of Christian history. For an organization whose sole mission on earth is to spread the gospel of peace and reconciliation, 200 centuries of religious intolerance, war, and human rights violations IS evidence. Of Christianity’s failure.

By their fruit we do know them.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by BChristianK The question is, is there any evidence that would convince Clete to accept Preston’s ability to read his mind? If he answers no, then his belief isn’t falsifiable, if he answers yes, then it is.
You continue:
No, he is simply stating that his belief is falsifiable, that it is not absolute, no matter what. If anyone can provide sufficient evidence that the claims of Christianity are false, then, per Cletes admission, he will stop believing it. Let’s review PureX since you seem to be wandering a bit.

Saying it isn't doing it. Clete can claim that his beliefs are falsifiable, yet it doesn't appear that they are. Just the fact that he accepts claims of feats of magic for his chosen ideology, unproven, but routinely denies them for all others, also without proof, tells me that he is willfully biased. So even though he says that he will accept falsification, there is no practical examples to suggest that this is true. While there is practical evidence to suggest that it's not.

Originally posted by BChristianK Your claim is that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can’t admit that they could be wrong under any circumstances.

No, that's not what I claimed. You're constantly trying to throw absolutism into everything I say so that you can run back to that very tired old hobbyhorse of the self-contradictory absolute.

I claimed that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can't conceive of themselves as being wrong. They have no mechanism for doubting their own ideas and actions because they believe in "absolute truth", and that they possess that truth.

Originally posted by BChristianK Clete has refuted your argument by describing circumstances in which he would admit that he was wrong.

Claiming that there are such circumstances does not make the claim true. And I don't believe his claim because I'm not seeing any evidence that would suggest that it's true.

Originally posted by BChristianK Your whining about how you perceive those circumstances to be unfair are peripheral to the fact that, unfair or not, they are still circumstances in which the fundamentalist would admit that they are incorrect. So even if the circumstances aren’t a fair evaluation, and I am about to argue that they are, you are still off base in your diagnostics of fundamentalism, for even an unfair exception is still an exception.

These fantasies about how open-minded fundamentalists are are just that - fantasies. They prove nothing. And the evidence of their behavior bears that out.

Originally posted by BChristianK The bible provides 4 independent accounts from authors who were willing to put their lives on the line to publish documents that could get them crucified and they all substantiating the reality of the resurrection.....

Other religions have similar stories, yet you refuse to believe them before you've even heard them. Our magician Preston could get people to write about how his magic is real, too, so will you have to believe these claims then?

No, you're already so thoroughly convinced that your concept of God and Jesus is true, and that ANY other concept of God and Jesus is false that no amount of evidence or argument will ever change your mind, and you know it. You're just lying when you claim that you're really open-minded, and that you would accept anything as viable falsification of your own beliefs. The proof is in your own posts.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by temple 2000

I am referring to the people who cannot comprehend the difference between object and concept.

Maybe you are on thier ignore list because you make insulting insinuations about who's thinking and who isn't without backing them up...

Just a though..

Grace and Peace

 

[Turbo]

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?

If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament.

...At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

• "Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians." 1

What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity.

• "While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D." 2

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament was written by Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

 

[BChristianK]

PureX said:

*sigh* First of all, "two" is a concept, not an object. Things are things and conceptions about things are conceptions about things. The things never become our concept of them; they remain what they are.

*Sighing equally as long, waiting for a point*

Absolute equality is a concept that we can imagine in our minds but that doesn't really exist materially.

Oooops, your own philosophy of the limitations of human knowledge precludes you from making this statement. You’ve not a clue if absolute equality exists materially or not.

We can apply this concept to things, but only by ignoring the aspects of those things that fall outside the perameters of the concept.

Isn’t that what I said? A pennies weight falls outside the parameters of its worth. I didn’t say that things were absolutely equal in every way, I claimed that there are absolute statements that can be verified about the worth of pennies.

You continue:

We imagine that two pennies are "equal" but we are ignoring the fact they they are not exactly the same, and so are not really equal in many ways. We say they are equal but their equality only holds true if we ignore the ways in which they are not equal. What this means that they are really only relatively equal. They are equal only relative to our excusing the ways in which they are not the same.

Who’s arguing against this, I’m not. I have claimed that 2 pennies plus 2 pennies equals an absolute value (4), not that there are no relative elements when comparing pennies.



You said:

It doesn't matter what the pennies weigh, or what their weights add up to. Even if their combined weights are the same, they will still be different in other ways from any other two pennies. And anyway, if we calibrate our scale progressively closer, at some point the pennies won't weight the exact same anymore. Even their "equal weight" is only equal relative to the degree of calibration involved.

And that affects the absolute value of the penny how? It doesn’t, your last paragraph just proves that it doesn’t.

Now, lets take a moment and analyse the impact of what you have just said. You have said that there are elements of pennies that are relative.
Do I, the dreaded fundy disagree with this statement?

No.
I acknowledge it. We also agree that despite the relative elements of comparing pennies, there are some things that remain constant about the statement, “One Penny plus one Penny equal 2 pennies.”
Do any of the relative elements of comparing pennies negate this statement?
No, they do not.
So apparently, we both agree that there are relative elements, and in spite of that fact, there is still absolutism in the statement, a penny plus a penny equals 2 pennies.
For all that you and I have bantered about on this topic you have yet to impact this statement with any degree of doubt.

I think my point is pretty well made at this point.

Now you continue in a last ditch effort

quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Nope. You must qualify your statement. You can claim that they are unequal in regard to weight. You can’t claim that they are unequal in regard to monetary value.

Exactly, so their equality only holds true relative to the scale of monetary values we are applying to them. And relative equality can't by definition be absolute equality. This is what I've been trying to get you to understand all along. Absolute equality only exists as an ideal in your mind. In the real material world, the application of the conception of equality will only function relatively - that is relative to a scale of values that ignores the ways in which all things vary.

Your tough to pin down on what you mean in using the term relative. If you mean that the statement,

“1p + 1p = 2 cents”

(p=penny)


And you mean that this is always and absolutely true but true only relative to the monetary value of the penny, then I say, I agree.

Does that negate the absoluteness of the equation?

Nope.
Even more, lets look at the unit value of a penny.

1 of p + 1 of P= 2Ps Where P=penny.

Does the monetary value of a penny change this equation? Nope.


Now you say

quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Nor can you claim that they are not equally identifiable and individual units of the category entitled penny.

Here, you are confusing the concept of the objects with the objects themselves. Pennies are not ideas, and ideas are not pennies.

No. If you want to think of a penny, and then think of another one, and think of them sitting in a little dish near your computer, and then look (with your minds eye of course) into the dish and count the imaginary pennies, how many do you have?

I tried this one on a 4th grader just to see if it wasn’t just me, she said two also.

Now, take two pennies, but don’t call them pennies, lets call them Lincoln heads. Put them on the desk and count them, how many do you have?
Same thing, same 4th grader, just to see if it was just me, 2 again.

So, your argument that the concept and the objects aren’t the same make no difference if P= the idea of a penny or if P=a copper thing renamed a Lincoln head.


Now finally you come to some sense:

Yes, this is a relative truism.

If what you mean that 2 pennies equal 2 cents, and that this is absolutely true relative to the monetary value of a penny, then congratulations, you have just found your first absolute principle. Here’s a second. No matter what the monetary value of a penny is, if you take one, and get another, and put them in the same pile and count them, you get two.

That is it remains true relative to the scale of truthfulness being applied. But if we refined the scale, this will no longer be true. Thus it is a relative truth.

Ahhh, you were so close to. If we refined the scale, and said that their monetary value was worth 5 cents instead of one, then we haven’t destroyed the absolute relationship we have only modified it. Now the absolute value of 2 pennies is 10 cents.

Again, notice, that didn’t destroy the principle of 1 penny plus one penny equals 2 pennies. There are still only two things called pennies. This statement is untouched.
Now you say:

Again, you're forgetting that pennies are objects, and that equality is an idea.

No, haven’t forgotten.

Just because you ignore this distinction does not make the distinction irrelevant, and it certainly doesn't negate it. The fact is that no two pennies are exactly alike, and therefore they can't be absolutely equal.

Again your refusal to qualify the statement is your mistake. Absolutely equal in what sense?

Just because we often ignore this fact doesn't make it not be a fact anymore. And if this fact wasn't important, why are you devoting so much energy to these long posts desperately trying to negate it?

One, its just good entertainment
Second, because you fail to see that because something maintains an absolute elements that doesn’t negate that it has relative attributes and vise versa.








You said:

Your idea of a penny is such that one penny "equals" any other. But the reality of the pennies is that they are not the same at all.

Look, I’m not sure if you are being intentionally confusing here or not. One penny can’t ever equal another penny, as far as I know, in that it is a perfect mimicry in every evaluative dimension that can be measured. For that matter, no two object can be exactly equal because they aren’t the exact same object, the fact that there are two of them means they hold separate ontological identities.
So does that mean they can’t retain any absolute relationships?

I don’t think so. Within the framework of mathematics, 2 pennies that are not exactly identical in every way can still work within a mathematical framework with 2 other pennies to produce the product of 4. And furthermore that equation, when working with pennies, just to be consistent, always and absolutely produces 4.

Now you said:

They actually differ in many ways and by many degrees. Now you're trying to claim that because the reality of their variation doesn't effect the functionality of your idea, that your idea is somehow "absolute". Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "absolute".

We’ve argued this before
Remember this discussion?

You sarcastically asked me if I knew what absolute meant,


I replied

Taken from post #141 of Relativism

I think this is the second time you have asked the question, the answer hasn’t changed.



Yes, I know what absolute means. Now lets clarify the sense in which we are using the term. You said in response to jjjg.

If you look up the word "absolute" in the dictionary, you will see that the word defines an idea that specifically stands alone. The essence of the meaning of the word "absolute" is 'not dependant upon any conditions outside of itself'. The word "absolute" specifically means not relative to or dependant upon any external condition. When you claim that "absolute certainty is relative to our reason" you are contradicting your own chosen terms.

First, lets get clear about what the word really means in the broader sense of the term, and the sense in which jjjg, koinonia, and myself are using the term. Webster’s New Dictionary of the American Language defines “Absolute” as:


1. Perfect; complete; whole.
2. not mixed, pure
3. not limited by a constitution
4. positive; definite (an absolute certainty)
5. not doubted; actual; real
6. 6. not dependant on or without reference to anything else; not relative.
7.


I think in the sense that us absolutist folks understand the word, we are appealing to the 4th, 5th and 6th definition. With some exception to the 6th definition. I don’t think that either jjjg or kononia or I would agree that absolute moral principles exist independent of God, or that they are without reference to humans or culture. We do believe that they are actual, real, not doubted, positive and not relative.

If you still take issue with the term we are using, then please give us another one that you would prefer. Then, can we please start discussing substantives not semantics?

I can see you didn’t care to honor my explanation nor my request to stop arguing semantics. Honestly PureX, it just looks like you’re being slippery here.

You can call my definition BVAbsolute for Brian’s version of absoluteness from now on if you like, or you can call it whatever you want..

I have already explained to you more than twice that I, nor do I think any other fundamentalist, uses the term “absolute” to retain the meaning of an isolative property unrelated to anyone, or anything. As it appears you have in post 115 of this thread...

Actually, "fundamentalism" is not the word I would have chosen to define the behavior that I have been describing. It seems that general usage has decided this for me. I personally would have referred to this behavior as "absolutism" rather than fundamentalism.

So if you accuse fundamentalists of believing in absolutes, and then posit your definition of absolute as the basis for your criticism, then buy a HUGE barn because you have just erected the biggest straw man argument in TOL history and you owe all fundamentalists everywhere a HUGE apology for misrepresenting their beliefs and then bashing them.




Furthermore, you either have a very short memory or you just like misrepresenting me. In either case, I think you can start stowing your accusations that I misrepresent your arguments.

Don’t worry there’s more comin’

 

[jjjg]

Purex, were you once a fundamenatalist?

 

[BChristianK]

Now I claimed that Clete’s example of the falsifiability of his faith was valid, you complained that….

Saying it isn't doing it.

NO KIDDIN’
:noway:

Of course he hasn’t falsified his claim. He showed that it was falsifiable, if he has to actually argue his argument is false in order to show that it is falsifiable then you are asking him to contradict himself in order to show that his argument is valid.

And, I’m sorry, but that’s just about the worst argument you’ve ever made!

Clete can claim that his beliefs are falsifiable, yet it doesn't appear that they are.

He gave you a way to falsify his argument, I even modified it for ya, you’ve not much room to complain here PureX

Just the fact that he accepts claims of feats of magic for his chosen ideology, unproven, but routinely denies them for all others, also without proof, tells me that he is willfully biased. So even though he says that he will accept falsification, there is no practical examples to suggest that this is true. While there is practical evidence to suggest that it's not.

What’s not practical about historical information denying the resurrection of Jesus? All Clete is asking for is a reliable, historical account that Jesus’ dead body was found decaying in some tomb somewhere….. Nobody’s asking you to produce a 2000 year old corpse, we’ve asked you to substantiate that historically, someone has found a 2000 year old corpse they have identified as Jesus, and do so in a document that meets or exceeds the standards of reliability we have placed on the 4 gospels.

Now responded to my saying

quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Your claim is that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can’t admit that they could be wrong under any circumstances.

No, that's not what I claimed. You're constantly trying to throw absolutism into everything I say so that you can run back to that very tired old hobbyhorse of the self-contradictory absolute.

Ok, let me be more specific, your claim is that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can’t admit that they could be wrong under any circumstances when it comes to the core doctrines of their religion.

Better?

Now, What I said to follow up this statement which was…

quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Clete has refuted your argument by describing circumstances in which he would admit that he was wrong.

and

quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Your whining about how you perceive those circumstances to be unfair are peripheral to the fact that, unfair or not, they are still circumstances in which the fundamentalist would admit that they are incorrect. So even if the circumstances aren’t a fair evaluation, and I am about to argue that they are, you are still off base in your diagnostics of fundamentalism, for even an unfair exception is still an exception.

This shows that, in regards to matters of the core doctrines of his faith (you can’t get much more core in doctrine than the resurrection), Clete, a fundamentalist by his own admission, has described to you circumstances in which he would admit that he was wrong, regarding the core doctrine of his religion no less.

So if your claim is that fundamentalism is bad because it doesn’t allow for any falsifiability then once again you have either lied or are mistaken…

You choose.


Grace and Peace

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by jjjg

Purex, were you once a fundamenatalist?

No, but I have direct experience with addiction and the way addiction effects us psychologically. Fundamentalism is basically an addiction to the illusion that one can possess the absolute truth. This is why the fundamentalist HAS to maintain their belief in and access to the idea that they are absolutely right by whatever means necessary. Just look at BCKs posts and you can see his bizarre and convoluted mind-set. It will not matter how many times or ways I explain to him that as a fallable and limited human being, his idea of God could be completely wrong and that God may not even exist for all he actually knows. He simply cannot accept the idea of truth being relative and limited. To do so would turn his intellectual heroin into soda pop, and he's not going to give up that heroin, no matter how illogical and irrational trying to hold on to it causes him to become. After all, what's rationality compared to the "high" of knowing that you're absolutely right about God, and truth, and right and wrong, and what's going to happen when we die?

For fundamentalists to accept relativism, they would have to let go of this illusion of being absolutely right, and they will then have to face all of their doubts and fears about themselves, about God, about truth, and about right and wrong, and about death, every day of their lives, just like the rest of us. To a fundamentalist this is unthinkable! It's beyond their comprehension that people could live like this! They would have to live by faith, instead of religious dogmatism, and they don't honestly even know what real faith is. So to them it looks like some sort of oblivion. The whole point of the illusion of absolute righteousness is to avoid falling into such a state. The whole point of their LIVES is to avoid falling into such a state!

Clete's shock and incredulousness at my suggesting that he could be wrong about his concept of God, is real. He really does think that his life would become meaningless if he had to actually live by faith instead of his unquestioned adherance to a religious dogma (which he wrongly thinks IS faith).

All addiction has at it's core a profound lack of faith. And the addiction to religious dogma (and the illusion of it's absolute righteousness) is no different. Fundamentalists substitute the illusion of possessing absolute truth for faith because they have no faith and it's very frightening for a human being to live without faith, because we know so little about the nature of our own existence. To suggest to a fundamentalist that their illusion of absolute truth IS an illusion brings an understandably desperate denial. And this is why we are seeing all this bluster, illogical arguments, red herrings, straw men, accusing the accuser, deflection and substitution, and every other intellectual trick they can think of being brought out every time I suggest that human beings can't honestly be absolutely certain about anything, especially about ideas like God, and righteousness, and divine truth, and an afterlife. Such a suggestion strikes at the heart of the fundamentalist's illusion. It turns their heroin into soda pop, and they can't let that pass. They HAVE to defend their dope.

And it's the same the world over. Islamic fundamentalists have to defend their ideological dope just as stridently as Christian fundamentalists, or political fundamentalists, or any other kind of fundamentalists do. The ideologies change from group to group, but the fact that their ideologies have become their intellectual dope, so that they can avoid having to deal with their profound lack of faith, doesn't change. And it's this addiction to intellectual absolutism that defines the fundamentalist, everywhere. It's not about the ideologies, it's about using the ideologies like a drug. And it's about what the addict is willing to do to himself and others to maintain his "high".

 

[jjjg]

Purex, we know truth but in a limited way. Saying that the truth we know could be completely wrong is bogus because through human reason we know it is true and there is nothing else but reason to judge truth by.

You have this deluded concept that there could be something else besides human reason to judge truth by. What? If you can't provide an alternative then it is a bogus comment.

Relativism simply means that our knowledge is built upon relationships. It does not create a basis for doubt.

Christian fundamentalists, although I'm not one, base there beliefs solely upon faith. The Christian believes God revealed himself to us and not that we have learned revelation through natural reason.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by jjjg Purex, we know truth but in a limited way. Saying that the truth we know could be completely wrong is bogus because through human reason we know it is true and there is nothing else but reason to judge truth by.

But actual, or real truth is not the product of reason, it's simply "what is". It's reality. I think you're trying, here, to place human reason above reality. I agree with you in that "truth" is a concept, created in the human mind by the way that the human brain works. But when we die, the human brain will remain, while the mind and it's reason (and it's concept of truth) will no longer exist. Reality trumps our idea of reality because our idea of reality is itself a abstracted manifestation of actual reality. "Truth" is only of our idea of what is, and this is why it can be wrong.

Originally posted by jjjg You have this deluded concept that there could be something else besides human reason to judge truth by. What? If you can't provide an alternative then it is a bogus comment.

There is, it's called reality. It is "what is". When we deem something to be true, we are in effect judging an idea we have of realty against actual realty to determine it's "relative truthfulness". Reason is not the way we arrive at truth, reason generates an idea of truth, but then we have to test that reason, through experience, against reality itself. Otherwise, our "truth" is just so much intellectual arithmetic. This is why 2 + 2 = 4 absolutely, in BCK's mind, but is only relatively true when BCK applies it to actual reality.

Originally posted by jjjg Relativism simply means that our knowledge is built upon relationships. It does not create a basis for doubt.

If our knowledge is based on relationships, so is our "truth". In fact so especially is our concept of truth. We have to relate our ideas of truth to reality, via experience, to establish their truthfulness. And that's obviously a relative process. And guess what - that makes our truth, relative, and therfor not absolute.

Originally posted by jjjg Christian fundamentalists, although I'm not one, base there beliefs solely upon faith. The Christian believes God revealed himself to us and not that we have learned revelation through natural reason.

Fundamentalism is the irrational assumption of one's own truthfulness. It's irrational because it is not being tested against reality in any logical or (I would say) honest way.

We humans develop ideas about what is real and true in our minds, but we have to keep testing those ideas against actual reality, through experience, to establish their relative truthfulness. This is the step that fundamentalists ignore. They accept their ideas of what is true regardless of their experience of reality. When living by their pre-conceived ideas of truth produce experiential evidence that does not support their ideas of truth, they do whatever is necessary to eliminate it. When living by their ideas of truth produce experiences that appear to verify their pre-conceived ideas of truth, they accept them categorically, and without any further testing or qualification. They allow their bias to have free reign, and they stifle their doubts as thoroughly as possible.

I don't believe this is "faith" at all. I believe this is fundamentally dishonest, and is based entirely on self-centered fear and egotism.

Faith is accepting that our ideas of truth could always be wrong, and so being willing to trust in the process of vetting our ideas of truth against reality, by experience, and being willing to let go of those ideas that the evidence of experience does not support, and then to correct and test again those ideas of truth that experience does appear to support.

If not this, what do you call "faith"?

 

[temple2006]

BK...I was not insinuating anything. I was making a statement of fact and it is backed up by the very thing you people love ...LOGIC.
Grace and peace.

 

[Apollo]

Turbo, not the time or place to argue the specifics of Mithraism vs. Christianity, although the scholarship and assumptions of your quote are not quite accurate. Simply wanted to make the point that skeptics don't have to "produce a body" in order to debunk the Resurrection, as the resurrected savior-god theme is not unique to Christianity. Happy to argue the point someplace else. Thanks for the link.

 

[BChristianK]

PureX said

No, but I have direct experience with addiction and the way addiction effects us psychologically. Fundamentalism is basically an addiction to the illusion that one can possess the absolute truth. This is why the fundamentalist HAS to maintain their belief in and access to the idea that they are absolutely right by whatever means necessary. Just look at BCKs posts and you can see his bizarre and convoluted mind-set.

Yeah, look at em. He actually believes you can add two pennies together count them and come up with two.

:chuckle:

What a kook that BCK is…..

It will not matter how many times or ways I explain to him that as a fallable and limited human being, his idea of God could be completely wrong and that God may not even exist for all he actually knows.

And no matter how many times I explain to you that despite our fallibility we can still know objective truths.

He simply cannot accept the idea of truth being relative and limited.

Wrong, and I have told you this numerous times, I readily acknowledge the limits of my own ability to know. Are you lying here or have you just misunderstood the umpteen times I have corrected your misrepresentation?

To do so would turn his intellectual heroin into soda pop, and he's not going to give up that heroin, no matter how illogical and irrational trying to hold on to it causes him to become. After all, what's rationality compared to the "high" of knowing that you're absolutely right about God, and truth, and right and wrong, and what's going to happen when we die?

Intellectual heroin? You have quite the imagination my friend. I’m not addicted to being right, I just strive to discover the truth. It is unfortunate you can’t discern the difference. There isn’t anything irrational about examining the facts and then making a decision, placing faith, in the conclusion that follows from a careful examination of those facts.

Your definition of rationality is nihilistic. It refuses to place confidence in any conclusion accept for the hypocritical conclusions you hold to like:
“All fundamentalists are the victims of an addiction to absolutism.”

If its an absolute statement, then your definition about fundamentalists is correct, but you also hold absolute tenants and your accusations are hypocritical.

If this isn’t an absolute statement, and you will say that it isn't, then not all fundamentalists are victims of an addiction to absolutism. Your definition of fundamentalism is fatally flawed and your argument is a lie.

Are you intentionally lying to folks here or is this just an oversight, an unoticed inconsistency…?
I’ve been pointing this out to you for some time and my confidence in allowing you the benefit of the doubt is waning.

Grace and Peace

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by smaller

Clete, I would take Purex's statement over your nonsense any day. You have yet to make any type of reasonable response to any of our exchanges anyway.

So I am on your IGNORE list and you have always been on my IGNORant list.

Smaller, not ignoring Clete, answered....

:chuckle:

 

[smaller]

WE have had our little dance on the subject of the logic of your own positions BcK and they are far from sound eh?

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by temple 2000

BK...I was not insinuating anything. I was making a statement of fact and it is backed up by the very thing you people love ...LOGIC.
Grace and peace.

Which statement of fact is that? You've got 4 posts on this thread.
Most of them are hit and run posts. You assert and then run.

You people (the fundamentalists) cannot understand that for human beings everything is faith , not absolute knowledge. The only thing that we know is that we do not know, therefore we must believe.

Actually we people (the fundamentalists) understand that some things are a matter of faith and some are not and that faith and fact are not diametric opposites. And if the only thing we know is that we don't know, they we don't really know if we don't know..

So though that statement is pithy, its not really all that helpful.

Apparently everyone has me on their ignore list, but I just have to comment on the stupidity of the things you people argue about. These things are self-evident to the thinking man.

Well the thinking man also tends to back up their arguments. Thanks for your comments though, maybe you should try to figure out how it is that, "all we know is that we don't know,” Before you start assigning the status of stupidity to other’s arguments.


You can make yourself dizzy on the self contradiction of your own principle.

I am referring to the people who cannot comprehend the difference between object and concept.

Well, I for one, get the difference and I think most here do to.

But thanks for your contributions.. Got anything else?

:e4e:


Grace and Peace

 

[jjjg]

Purex,

Read my post in the relativism thread. We never completely separate the subjective from the objective. We test the subjective with experience and arrive at what is. We do derive at truth period not just a subjective truth in our mind. In fact the subjective is abstracted from experience.

In order to make a relationship, we have to know something about the essntial nature what we are relating.

The only way we know the difference between subjective ideas and reality as is is through reason.

Whether the reality still exists when we die is beside the point.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by BChristianK And no matter how many times I explain to you that despite our fallibility we can still know objective truths.

But all this time you were calling them "absolute" truths, not objective truths. And it's the absolutism that I was referring to.

Anyway, I don't like the way this is going. Somehow I have fallen into addressing the problem of fundamentalism to you and Clete specifically, and I am not comfortable with this, even if you do call yourselves fundamentalists.

I can't read your minds or your hearts and I apologize for implying that I can. I stand by my defnition of fundamentalism, but I have no right or even ability to decide who is or is not a fundamentalist. You will have to do that for yourself. All I can say is that I see evidence of it in many of your posts.

If we are going to keep this discussion open, please lets stick to the ideas and avoid personal suppositions (I am saying this mostly to myself).