Is there any wonder......

.... why there is so much contention on this forum and all the other forums? Well, let me suggest that the contentions are due to the large number of differing and sometimes opposing philosophies that are being incorporated and subsequently the forum or even a single thread within a forum will engage in a volley of arguments hoping to win favor and prestige above all the others on that forum or thread.

To show an example of what I am talking about.... see here for a list of a large number of recognized philosophies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

Interesting, without even using that scroll bar, you will see Atheism and Christianity listed. Clicking on either will show that they stand in opposition to one another. Further down on the list is the Philosophy of Science. So, like I said previously... we are using differing philosophies and subsequently differing forms of logic.

 

Of course we're on different sides of the issue, but atheists are 100 times more passionate about their non-belief than any religious evangelist. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion in this section because it always evolves into spaghetti-monster-in-the-sky nonsense.

Atheists are nothing if not predictable.

 

Interesting.

 

Baseless assertion.

Or... It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion in this section because it always evolves into biblical quotations presented as scientific evidence nonsense.

Theists are nothing if not predictable.

Hey look! Works both ways!

 

See what I mean, OP?

 

Opposing views are what make forums worth posting on.

Only when people act ignorant and refuse to consider other views is when there is a problem.

That's my opinion atleast.

 

Actually SMW... the point was to draw attention to the fact that we all think differently and in accordance with a particular philosophy of our own choosing. One thinking one way and another posing a view from his/her perspective is not necessarily being abusive, but could in a sense be the result of culture in which the person has become most accustomed to dealing in and through.

Is there a problem with thinking differently (philosophically) but still using reason? No! Reason as defined is basically nothing more than 'normal' thinking. So the question then arises, "what is normal?" That is the point where the varying philosophies are invited into the conversation. Does the opinion of one suddenly become more right than the opinion of another? Not if a line has been drawn and that line mandates the use of a particular form of philosophy and its' subsequent system of logic.

Did BTTR say anything that was inappropriate? Not with respect to that form of philosophy which he has elected to use. Does that form of philosophy that he uses automatically become 'factual'? Not necessarily... again, depending on the line that has been drawn.

Philosophies are, generally speaking, the world view of a particular system of philosophy. Does that 'world view' make any given philosophy 'right' or 'more proper' than another world view? Not necessarily,,,, rightness or wrongness of any 'world view' would again be dependent upon the line that has been drawn for any particular discussion.

See here for an introductory comment by Dartmouth College.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phil/whatis/wsa.html

 

Right back at ya babe... pendulum swings both ways.

 

Speak for yourself. I'm not using any philosophy at all - unless common sense counts as a philosophy.

 

Good for you. You might find it difficult to keep up with some of the views being expressed because of not using any form of philosophy. Of course, there are probably some on this forum that would and might contest your claim. But that would be between you and them.

 

My point is, you can't reason with an atheist. Their opinions are based on the opinions of other people. Believers opinions are based on the written word, handed down for thousands of years, thru countless civilizations.

A person might not believe the Bible, but no one can argue that it doesn't exist or isn't important to billions of people. All they can do is deny it's God's word and ridicule people who believe in it. In fact, that's all they've got. Which doesn't lend itself to a productive back & forth.

 

Then don't attempt to reason with them on their level. Why? The definition of 'reason' is basically and most simply the ability to use 'normal' thinking. The standard definition of normality is "1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations." Because atheists represent such a small percentage of the worlds population in that they do not believe in the existence of God or gods, they cannot be a part of the 'norm'. Because they cannot be a part of the norm, subsequently they cannot be expected to display behavior that is in accordance with the 'norm'. In other words, they cannot be expected to use 'normal thinking' or 'reason'. Of course when using the term 'norm', that term can neither be used to say that the atheists are either super normal or sub normal. So, because of those factors, adjust your behavior in such a manner that you will be able to communicate with them with 'reason' 'reason that is comparable to their level of reasoning.

Of course they can argue that point, but their arguments do not necessarily depict either a truth or the truth. It is simply their way of perceiving things and subsequently their way of thinking.

I have noticed that/those same traits being displayed by a few of the atheists frequenting this forum but not necessarily all of them. Aside from that, there are other things that they can do (claim) where they are not capable of providing empirical evidence in the same way that Christians are not capable of providing empirical evidence of the existence of God. As an example: Both the atheists and the theists have been presented with a challenge to prove that science is anything more than a revision of some of the ancient religions which use Numerology. None have attempted to meet that challenge. Why? Because the facts were presented and those FACTS outweigh their theories, conjectures, speculations, predictions, etc.

Take the lead role in a discussion and direct that discussion in the path that you want it to travel. Don't lose control of the discussion as a result of off-topic material. If need be, take control of any discussion and lead it in the direction that you want it to travel. Greater is He that is within you, than he that is in the world. Use that strength and wisdom that comes from the Lord.

 

Thank you for making this thread, Incorporeal. I really appreciate the thought that you're offering here.

It's frustrating to me that atheists and theists seem to only argue and both seem to use little rational thought to promote their thought. It struck me later that the reason for this is that these topics are what we honestly believe in, and when one believes in something it becomes very close to our hearts and emotions get tangled into it. This immediately makes it harder to think rationally. I really appreciate when someone tries hard to be rational and thoughtful about it.

 

Every once in a while, the Holy Spirit will lead me in a direction that I immediately don't feel comfortable with, but I go with the nudging anyway, whether it is comfortable or not.

I do appreciate your kind comments, but give the glory to the Lord. He is the one that guides my fingers as I sit here blindly allowing those fingers to do what they are told to do. I usually don't even put much thought into the things that I write, and sometimes have to re-read the postings and say to myself "did I write that?" Then I am told in an ever so soft voice... "No, Iam did". Thanks for the encouraging words moisoha.

 

Of course your right. God does get much of my gratitude. But I continue to be grateful that you listened to the spirit whereas many might have ignored it or passed it over. In that, you deserve a little credit.

 

Or, by virtue of my position as a dispassionate outsider, I might be able to see more clearly than people who can't think outside the confines of the intellectual contrivances of "great thinkers".

There are some reasonable atheists, jus not many; and on the other hand, I'm not sure the majority of Christians are all that reasonable either.

Were not certain books included in the Bible, and others excluded, on the basis of the opinions of other people?

 

And why do you leave the impression that you might think you are among a very few 'outsiders'?

Oh, the books were compiled exclusively on the opinion of other people. Any and all books except the divinely inspired Word of God.

 

I never implied anything like that.

WRT those who view life through a prism of manmade philosophy, that's what I am.

So you're implying there was no opinion that factored into which books made it into the Bible and which did not. The obvious question, then, is how do you know this?

 

On the contrary. That is the impression that I was left with after reading your comments.

"WRT"? What is "WRT"?

No read my statement again. I specifically indicated that the compilation of the books was the result of opinion of other people. The writing of the books however was the divine inspiration of God. The writing of various scripts and the putting together, in book form, all or a portion of those various scripts are two totally separate processes. You should probably spend more time on analyzing what is written before you jump to hasty conclusions.

Even though your question is based on a premise that is faulty, I know those things because the Holy Spirit has given me that information necessary to make an informed declaration on that subject matter.

 

Whatever tricks your mind is playing on you are not my problem, pilgrim.

With Respect To

So has it told you why the book of Enoch was excluded, or what is so inspired about Genesis 36 that it needs to be treated as "holy scripture", or why God, to all appearances in Judges 11:29-40, inspired Jepthah to slay his own daughter?

 

Your logic makes no sense. There is no difference between athiests and believers according to what you have written.

Opinions of other people "includes" opinions based on written word handed down for thousands of years.

1) Athiest opinions are based on more than the opinions of others which includes books handed down for thousands of years as well as history and philosophy and logic.

2) Believers opinions are based on more than the opinons of others which includes books handed down for thousands of years, as well as history, philosophy and logic.

Whether one believes in the Bible is not relevent. Of course it exists .. its a book .. of course lots of folks believe .. Christianity was forced on people for over 1000 years. When children are raised with certain religious beliefs they tend to keep them whether it be Christian, Islam, Jew, Hindoo and so on.

Christian armies won many battles and the winner gets to write the history and impose their culture on others. The Christians forced their conquored subjects to adopt Christianity ..

This is why so many believe.

None of this is evidence for the existence or lack therof of God, it is just history.

What is Gods word ?

One could claim the Bible is Gods word but we really do not know if this is true.

Even if one granted that the Bible is Gods word then there is still confusion because the Bible contradicts itself in so many places.

For example:

In the OT all of the Patriarchs have multiple wives and if you want to divorce one you just write her a letter and send her off.

The NT says something completely different.

Which is Gods word ?

 

Correct smartmouthwoman and this is because they deal with arguments with emotional and ridiculing responses instead of logic. It's apparent that they also want the whole world to believe that they are logical, rational and so called free thinkers. There were some intelligent atheist philosophers in the early 20th century like ayers and Russell and in the last half of that century . In fact one of the top ones was Antony flew and when he one day announced that he believed in a non personal god his fellow atheists circled around him and attacked and ridiculed him much the same way they act here on this forum .

I can't understand how someone could call themselves a rational freethinker and believe in a worldview that offers hopelessness, meaninglessness and no objective moral values and try to push it on others so forcefully.

I said it many times and I'll say it again, the only honest atheist is a nihilist.

 

Correction:

Atheism is in opposition of theism. The oppressed Christians are not the only members of the opposition.

 

Well, our world is full of hope and understanding. We can embrace those values on our own. We do not need a fictional character from an ancient book to give us such meaning.

Therefore, the nihilist is the person who relies on such frivolous things to give their own life meaning.

 

First of all your making childish assertiOns as I expected from a new atheist . This comes from a weak worldview that allows intellectual laziness. The nihilist understands that if this material existence is all there is than life has no meaning, life has no hope and it's time to party like idiots till our time comes to blink away out of existence. Therefore it is the atheist that's living in fantasy land. The theist has strong grounds to believe n the existence of God from philosophical to evidential to experiential experiences. Doctor Antony flew came to believe in god from the strong evidences of the complexity of the cell and he was One of the top atheists ( if not the top) of his time. This lead him to come out with the book there is a God, and instead of engaging hi through reason abou his book the atheists responded like you just did with intellectually weak responses.

I say it again, with a transcendent agent there is no objective wrong or right, everything becomes subjective ( ie. The killing of a whole race of people is no different than a marriage in Denmark).

I'm expecting you to come back with a statement like "can god create acrock so heavy that he can't lift it" looooool