|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2012 : 09:35:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
I disagree though. I agree that using reason to reject the bible is valid but we all have a base set of assumptions we start with. |
Not all assumptions are equal. Assuming that the Bible is true involves a whole slew of unspoken and untestable assumptions. Assuming only that you exist and reasoning your way out of that solipsistic pit does not.
Saying "my assumptions are different from yours" should be a starting point for a discussion about why our assumptions are different, and not used as an excuse to refuse to defend your position.
|
I don't refuse to defend my position it's just that if I believe the bible then it won't have the intended outcome. Apologetics can be good but the core truth is the unbeliever will supress the truth that God exists, Romans 1:18-19. Do you really think that if we debate enough that I could convince you of my position? I bet you don't. The bible says to preach the gospel to all people and leave it up to god from there. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2012 : 11:34:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I don't refuse to defend my position it's just that if I believe the bible then it won't have the intended outcome. Apologetics can be good but the core truth is the unbeliever will supress the truth that God exists, Romans 1:18-19. Do you really think that if we debate enough that I could convince you of my position? I bet you don't. The bible says to preach the gospel to all people and leave it up to god from there. |
Would it be fair of me to characterize you as refusing to acknowledge certain scientific facts because you don't like them? Of course not. Your attempt to ascribe Biblical motivations to my non-belief is similarly insulting (worse than that, since you assert it is a "core truth"), and assures me that even if we were to engage in further "debate," you would not be able to do so in good faith (so to speak). For one thing, it seems as though you are treating my conclusions (e.g., that the Bible is unreliable) as assumptions that are as equally unevidenced as your own.
Besides which, I think you've just demonstrated a fundamental dishonestly with presuppositionalism: assumptions are fine and dandy when you make them, but mine are apparently unreasonably dogmatic, or at least the result of "wickedness." It's a prejudicial hypocrisy on your part, which can only be avoided by you refusing to ever pass judgment on anyone else's assumptions, including those that directly contradict your own. You would have to repudiate Romans 1:18-19, and not embrace it as a "core truth," to achieve consistency. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2012 : 06:27:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Would it be fair of me to characterize you as refusing to acknowledge certain scientific facts because you don't like them? Of course not. Your attempt to ascribe Biblical motivations to my non-belief is similarly insulting (worse than that, since you assert it is a "core truth"), and assures me that even if we were to engage in further "debate," you would not be able to do so in good faith (so to speak). For one thing, it seems as though you are treating my conclusions (e.g., that the Bible is unreliable) as assumptions that are as equally unevidenced as your own. |
Well I don’t think I have hid my assumptions or misrepresented them. I am assigning biblical truths as I believe them to be to your unbelief.
| Besides which, I think you've just demonstrated a fundamental dishonestly with presuppositionalism: assumptions are fine and dandy when you make them, but mine are apparently unreasonably dogmatic, or at least the result of "wickedness." It's a prejudicial hypocrisy on your part, which can only be avoided by you refusing to ever pass judgment on anyone else's assumptions, including those that directly contradict your own. You would have to repudiate Romans 1:18-19, and not embrace it as a "core truth," to achieve consistency. |
I don’t think I agree. I simply think my assumptions are most likely right and yours are most likely wrong. Don’t you think the same about your assumptions?
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2012 : 07:17:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Well I don’t think I have hid my assumptions or misrepresented them. I am assigning biblical truths as I believe them to be to your unbelief. |
Yes, you are assigning motivations to me that I do not have.| I don’t think I agree. I simply think my assumptions are most likely right and yours are most likely wrong. Don’t you think the same about your assumptions? |
Romans 1:18-19 does more than just say that unbelievers are wrong, it passes judgment on their character. In reality, wrongness and wickedness are orthogonal: you can be one without the other. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 06:49:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, you are assigning motivations to me that I do not have. |
Yes I am.
Romans 1:18-19 does more than just say that unbelievers are wrong, it passes judgment on their character. In reality, wrongness and wickedness are orthogonal: you can be one without the other.
|
I think the bible is clear about our character. We are all sinners. Whether you are a believer or not does not change that fact. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 07:43:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Yes I am. |
Why?| I think the bible is clear about our character. We are all sinners. Whether you are a believer or not does not change that fact. |
So if wicked people suppress the truth by their wickedness, and all people are wicked, then you're necessarily suppressing the truth as much as I am. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 08:22:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Yes I am. |
Why? |
Because I believe the bible to be true.
So if wicked people suppress the truth by their wickedness, and all people are wicked, then you're necessarily suppressing the truth as much as I am.
|
If that were true then nobody can be saved. That is not taught in the bible. If verse 19 and 20 are true then people would have to suppress the truth by choice and that is wickedness. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 09:15:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Because I believe the bible to be true. |
So if I believe something to be true, that would be justification enough for me to judge your character, despite any objections you might raise?!| If that were true then nobody can be saved. That is not taught in the bible. If verse 19 and 20 are true then people would have to suppress the truth by choice and that is wickedness. |
So you're calling me a willfully close-minded bigot. Thanks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 13:50:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Because I believe the bible to be true. |
So if I believe something to be true, that would be justification enough for me to judge your character, despite any objections you might raise?! |
I think the difference is that I base my belief on the bible and you base your belief on your own thinking I assume. Don't you really have a beef with the bible?
So you're calling me a willfully close-minded bigot. Thanks.
|
Well when you put it like that it sounds bad doesn't it. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 14:06:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I think the difference is that I base my belief on the bible and you base your belief on your own thinking I assume. |
What does it matter? You're asking me to accept that presupposing the Bible to be true should be a sufficient basis for your personal belief. So what if I presuppose you to be an axe murderer, and then pass judgment on you based on that? Is that at all fair to you?
Is there a method by which we can objectively determine if a presupposition is true or false? I don't think so, because then they wouldn't be presuppositions, but instead conclusions. There isn't even a method to tell if one presupposition is "better" than another. So if you're going to insist that your presupposition is justified, you will have to grant that my presupposition is justified, too, you homicidal maniac.| Don't you really have a beef with the bible? |
No, I have a beef with people who think that the Bible is a good guide to morality or history. I don't have a beef with the Bible itself any more than I have a beef with any other book.| Well when you put it like that it sounds bad doesn't it. |
And that's the way I read it first. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 14:24:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Don't you really have a beef with the bible?
|
Personally, my beef is not specific to the bible, but rather the marketing of the bible as being something for which no evidence has ever been produced. The word of a deity when the deity exists by faith only. A simplier, more rational explanation is that the bible contains the words of men to promote a religion. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 14:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
A simplier, more rational explanation is that the bible contains the words of men to promote a religion.
|
For what purpose? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 16:05:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by moakley
A simplier, more rational explanation is that the bible contains the words of men to promote a religion.
|
For what purpose?
|
That's a difficult question since it asks me to ascribe motivations to mostly anonymous humans. Religion is a complex human enterprise so I doubt that there is any one answer. But a plethora of answers that may be as unique as the individuals involved and contradictory. "God did it" on the surface seems to be the most simplistic of explanations until you ask the most basic of questions. Then by necessity you have to define God outside of reality making any god hypothesis meaningless.
btw. I was relunctant to comment here because I thought that it would only serve as a distraction and interrupt/side track the discussion that Dave and you were having. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2012 : 20:52:39 [Permalink]
|
| And it seems that Stan is back. And his post is a doozy. Typical of him: atheism has no basis in logic, empirical evidence, is morally hollow, etc. Fun fun. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Stan, the self-righteous fundy psycho
