A moment of chastisement — Page 4

imperialscum said:

As I already explained numerous times by now, when it comes to Warler's thread I simply argued that he cannot demand from people to not use the primary function of the thread. 

 You use the word "demand" again.  Warbler demanded nothing.  He clearly stated his intentions for the thread and asked that people NOT do what you did.  You CHOSE to misinterpret his wishes so you could do what you did ..... that is how I see it based on your use of the word "demand" for a second time when referring to Warb & his thread.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Biblical Paul, Liverpudlian Paul, or both?

 WRONG PAULS!!!

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Surely Jesus is dead though right?

 he rose from the dead, and though his body was elevated to a higher form than our regular bodies, it was still his body.

But his mortal body was dead. It still had the fatal injuries. He/it walked the earth for a time but he wasn't alive in the usual sense.

the tomb was empty his body wasn't there.   He isn't dead anymore.

By that logic, Al Capone's treasure is also the Son of God. ;p

*sigh*

to the both of you.

*le sigh*

What is racism?  It is the presumption that because you know something as superficial as the color of one's skin, you know all you need to judge a person.

Why do I bring this up?  Because people like Darth Id are utilizing the exact same prejudice in their judgment of religion and believers.  When they know a few superficial aspects, they think they know all that is necessary to condemn the whole thing, when in reality they are ignorant to almost the entire substance.

Ergo, Darth Id is a bigot, and I'd say the same for imperialscum.  Though I admit that the latter's phrasing was generally a bit more tactful, he still demonstrates the same ignorance and prejudice.

I might be wrong, but these past four days seems like more than a moment.

dclarkg said:

darth_ender said:

Well, bear in mind that there are respectful ways to express one's opinion as well as disrespectful.  If I say, "I think you're ideas are a bunch of crap, but it's simply a fact, so don't get offended," it's a little different than if I said, "Well, I feel that because there is no evidence for what you believe, it cannot possibly be true."  You tend to speak in terms of the former, when the latter would certainly come off a little less condescending. 

 I understand what you are saying and I know that is hard to express such an honest opinion like ''what a bunch of crap'' in a way that feels respectful to a believer, I usually add ''with all due respect'' but I guess that won't help much since it sounds more condescending. I guess that you are right about the words I can use to express my opinions.

You're right, it is difficult.  I am an RN at a hospital and work night shift.  About 21 hours ago, one of my patients passed away.  His family was sad because he didn't receive his last rites in time.  I hope you would choose better words of comfort than, "Well, it's okay because it's all a bunch of crap anyway," were you in my shoes.  You know, religion is meaningful to people.  Just like music, a sunset, love.  It is deep and has deeper implications to a person than you seem to realize.  There are psychological benefits, health benefits, things that are proven to be actual benefits.  Regardless of whether you believe it or not, whether it is true or not, if you dismiss it so readily, you miss far more than you could possibly realize.

darth_ender said:

You do realize that there are brilliant people who understand the Bible and its contradictions and that there are challenges to one's faith in a secular and scientific world, brilliant people who are indeed quite scientific themselves, who still believe in God, right?

I'm aware of that fact but let me point out that all those great minds who have contributed to our scientific knowledge have done so by knowing, understanding and applying the scientific rules and laws of the disciplines they studied, they didn't just wake up and pray for all that scientific  knowledge that, by the way, none of it is on the bible. What they believed about god and the connection/relationship of him with their scientific field was not related in any way on how actually the scientific world works. They discovered such amazing things by using the reason and logic behind the scientific method. Also there is a lot of great secular/atheist scientific minds but I don't see what difference does it make in my argument, I just feel I had to point that out.

That is not my point.  My point is that they understand that there is scientific reasoning, but they also realize there is room for faith.  And it did not detract at all from their brilliance.  Try as you may to demonstrate that intelligent thinking comes from rejecting such things, many intelligent people actually embrace them.

Warbler said:

Can you prove he is dead?  Do you really know for a fact that he is dead?

 Well, so far he seems to pop up a lot on grilled cheese sandwiches and stones but nobody has show me any recent picture of him, like a 2015 footage of him hanging around on his last vacation trip or so... I can't prove that he is dead but at least is obvious that he is being physically absent from this planet since... well, since he died. Being physically absent from this world since the day you die could be used as a definition of ''dead''. We know that the body was never found but that does not automatically mean that he resurrected.

I shouldn't be the one providing evidence of the obvious absence, you made the claim that he is alive so you should present the evidence of that statement. So... Can you prove he is alive?  Do you really know for a fact that he is alive?

The absence of proof is not proof.  It is justification for doubt, but even if I didn't believe in God, I would only be an agnostic, because I'd recognize the possibility.

But there is no need to prove something like this.  You don't believe.  We got it, thanks.  But we take things on faith.  Perhaps it's a means of receiving evidence different from that which you employ.  Have you ever, you know, scientifically ruled out such a mechanism for seeking knowledge?  Have you ever actually sought something in faith before deciding it's untrue?  That is the scientific method, after all.

Warbler said:

If for you he didn't exist how can you state so mannor of factly that he is dead?  If someone is in fact dead, they had to have existed.

I was referring to the biblical reference of him being crucified and killed, a historical ''Jesus'' character may have existed at that time and I think some ancient references can be found in historic texts outside the bible but not the kind of ''I'm the son of god, make miracles and will save all the human race'' references.

To make it clear, for me the biblical Jesus character is just that, a fictional character like Harry Potter, the three little pigs, Zeus, Cinderella, Dionysus, Humpty Dumpty, Mitra, etc.

I love to see that you like to point out contradictions, I know a book full of them in case you want to read some ;)

 Oh boy, a book written by inspired but still mortal humans actually has faults and contradictions!  We never knew! ;)

Whenever I feel my pasty whiteness being threatened by those of a darker persuasion, but don't actually feel like oppressing anybody directly, I enjoy the refreshing taste of the great new drink called Diet Racism.  Check it out!

Diet Racism

That is fantastic.

hairy_hen said:

Whenever I feel my pasty whiteness being threatened by those of a darker persuasion, but don't actually feel like oppressing anybody directly, I enjoy the refreshing taste of the great new drink called Diet Racism.  Check it out!

Diet Racism

 what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

Can you prove he is dead?  Do you really know for a fact that he is dead?

 Well, so far he seems to pop up a lot on grilled cheese sandwiches and stones but nobody has show me any recent picture of him, like a 2015 footage of him hanging around on his last vacation trip or so... I can't prove that he is dead but at least is obvious that he is being physically absent from this planet since... well, since he died. Being physically absent from this world since the day you die could be used as a definition of ''dead''. We know that the body was never found but that does not automatically mean that he resurrected.

actually, Christians believe he was seen and was physically present on this planet after he died until he ascended into heaven.   We believe he was by the two Marys, his disciples and Paul.  True, they could all have been lying, but it can not be proven that they did not see him alive again.

I shouldn't be the one providing evidence of the obvious absence, you made the claim that he is alive so you should present the evidence of that statement. So... Can you prove he is alive?  Do you really know for a fact that he is alive?

I didn't claim Jesus isn't dead.  Look at what I originally wrote:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

darth_ender said:

I was also defending Jesus Christ.  You see, to me he is not just some guy.  He is not even some remote supernatural being.  I see him as a very dear friend, someone for whom I have a great deal of love.  You may criticize me, my beliefs, my church, its founder, its leaders, its doctrine, its scripture.  You may criticize similar things for broader Christianity.  But when you actually belittle the Man I love most in this universe, I really cannot take it.  It's not just being thin-skinned.  Most of you wouldn't take me insulting a family member.  This is much like that.  You don't have to believe in him, but please do not disrespect him.

Are you aware that the guy is dead right?

You are aware of what we Christians believe happened about 2000 years ago this Sunday, right?  We don't believe he is dead.

 You were the one that made a claim.  You claimed he was dead.  I told you what we Christians believe.   Since you made the claim that he is dead, it is up to you to prove it.   All I would have to prove my claim is to prove that Christians believe Jesus isn't dead.

I can't prove that Jesus isn't dead.  I never said I could.  My point is that you can not prove he is dead.  Therefore it is still possible he isn't dead.  You can believe all you want that he is dead.  You may even be able to say in all probability that he is dead.  But, you can't say for certain he is dead.  You do not know it for a fact.

Warbler said:

If for you he didn't exist how can you state so mannor of factly that he is dead?  If someone is in fact dead, they had to have existed.

I was referring to the biblical reference of him being crucified and killed, a historical ''Jesus'' character may have existed at that time and I think some ancient references can be found in historic texts outside the bible but not the kind of ''I'm the son of god, make miracles and will save all the human race'' references.

You say "I think", and "may have existed".  If you can't say for certain he existed,  how can you say for certain he is dead?

To make it clear, for me the biblical Jesus character is just that, a fictional character like Harry Potter, the three little pigs, Zeus, Cinderella,

and you are free to believe what you want.  But can not state as fact what you do not know for certain to be fact.

I love to see that you like to point out contradictions, I know a book full of them in case you want to read some ;)

 Yeah, I know the Bible has contradictions.  That doesn't mean I can't point out contradictions and it doesn't make your contradiction into something consistent.

TV's Frink said:

I might be wrong, but these past four days seems like more than a moment.

 I really had no idea that my decision to post pictures of the events of Holy Week on Holy Week would cause all this. 

dclarkg said:

    Warbler said:

    You were the one that made a claim.  You claimed he was dead.  I told you what we Christians believe.   Since you made the claim that he is dead, it is up to you to prove it.

    Warbler said:

    actually, Christians believe he was seen and was physically present on this planet after he died until he ascended into heaven.   We believe he was by the two Marys, his disciples and Paul.  True, they could all have been lying, but it can not be proven that they did not see him alive again.

I agree but you think that they are not lying because you have ''faith'' in the truthfulness of the claims and the funny thing here is that if the two Marys, his disciples and Paul indeed literally saw him then why they would need ''faith'' at all?

Yes, I agree they would not need as much faith as I would need.  That is why in the Bible Jesus said: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.    

dclarkg said:

Also my intention is not disprove the claim but to demonstrate that you can easily doubt about it and therefore is not true and can't be takes as one, as long as there is doubts there is no truth, just faith.

huh? just because you can easily doubt something, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.

    Warbler said:

    I didn't claim Jesus isn't dead.  Look at what I originally wrote:

But the bible claims that he isn't because he resurrected, that was the whole point of the Easter Day right? That is the claim that can't be disproved o proved and therefore is not a truth. Also If I recall correctly your agree with the biblical claim, at least your signature says so.

it is what I believe, yes.  and yes I agree I can not prove that he is risen.  My point is that you can not prove he isn't risen.  And a claim that can't be disproved or proved also isn't a falsehood.

    Warbler said:

All I would have to prove my claim is to prove that Christians believe Jesus isn't dead.

We are not discussing what Christians believe since we all know what they believe, the debate is if what they believe is true.

if you look at what I originally wrote, you will I see I was discussing what Christians belief.  As for a debate on whether not what they belief is true, I don't see the point in such a debate.  There is no way to prove that what they belief is true and they is no way to prove that what they belief is false. 

    Warbler said:

    I can't prove that Jesus isn't dead.  I never said I could.  My point is that you can not prove he is dead.  Therefore it is still possible he isn't dead.  You can believe all you want that he is dead.  You may even be able to say in all probability that he is dead.  But, you can't say for certain he is dead.  You do not know it for a fact.

Again and quoting myself: ''Also my intention is not disprove the claim but to demonstrate that you can easily doubt about it and therefore is not true and can't be taken as one, as long as there is doubts there is no truth, just faith.''

there you go again illogically saying that just because you can easily doubt something means its not true.  Long ago, it was easy to doubt that the world was round, but that didn't make it false.   I can drop a bowling ball and  feather at the same time from the same height and then easily doubt that objects fall at the rate, but they do.  

    Warbler said:

    You say "I think", and "may have existed".  If you can't say for certain he existed,  how can you say for certain he is dead?

But also you can't say for certain he existed nor he is alive.

correct, I can not.

If all Christian claims were indeed true we wouldn't be discussing ANYTHING at all because there would be enough evidence to convince EVERYBODY, evidence that shouldn't be a problem for the ''Alfa and Omega'' to supply but no, here we are stuck in philosophical rhetoric.

that fact that he has no supplied evidence doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

    Warbler said:

    and you are free to believe what you want.  But can not state as fact what you do not know for certain to be fact.

Correct, but the fact here is that there is enough reasons to doubt about the Jesus claim, I can't say it's false as much you can't say it's true which you say it is but based on faith.

yes I base it on faith.

    Warbler said:

     Yeah, I know the Bible has contradictions.  That doesn't mean I can't point out contradictions and it doesn't make your contradiction into something consistent.

Of course I have contradictions which by definition can't be consistent with each other, but pointing out my contradictions do not make the ones of the bible to go away so.

 I never said they did.

Since when is the world round?  Have you looked outside lately?

dclarkg said:

    Warbler said:

    Yes, I agree they would not need as much faith as I would need.  That is why in the Bible Jesus said: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.   

Jesus said many things and none of them changes the faith issue ,all what he said is on the bible and that is precisely the book we are discussing if it is true or not. Bottom line you also have ''faith'' on Jesus himself actually saying that, but I could argue that you can't prove it for sure he said it and then we'll be stuck on the ''you can't disprove/prove it therefore is not false/true'' argument.

we agree here.

    Warbler said:

    huh? just because you can easily doubt something, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    it is what I believe, yes.  and yes I agree I can not prove that he is risen.  My point is that you can not prove he isn't risen.  And a claim that can't be disproved or proved also isn't a falsehood.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    if you look at what I originally wrote, you will I see I was discussing what Christians belief.  As for a debate on whether not what they belief is true, I don't see the point in such a debate.  There is no way to prove that what they belief is true and they is no way to prove that what they belief is false.

I know that if a claim can't be prove nor disprove then it doesn't make it neither true or false which is fine with me, but a claim can't sustain a ongoing duality of being true and false at the same time and that is why when a claim is doubtful we call it ''hypothesis''. Now, the way we decide if a hypothesis is true or false is by supplying evidence to sustain what you believe is the correct answer but so far you have presented NONE.

If you present me a piece of paper that says something (it could be anything) and then you claim that what the paper says is true then I will request evidence other than a paper saying so in order to confirm that it is true, you can't say that because you don't have evidence to support the claim and I don't have means to disprove it then it becomes true because is not false. That rationalization may fit in a philosophical scheme but in terms of proving that the bible is true it doesn't hold by itself, the bible may not be false but for sure is not true or at least not without evidence. The bible is, at best, an unproven hypothesis that you chose to believe as true based on ''faith'' and flaw logic. Pure logic can often fall on catch-22, a good example is my signature.

flaw logic?

Yes, I guess you could call it an unproven hypothesis.  Just don't call it a false one, since you can't prove it to be false.

    Warbler said:

Long ago, it was easy to doubt that the world was round, but that didn't make it false.   I can drop a bowling ball and  feather at the same time from the same height and then easily doubt that objects fall at the rate, but they do. 

The difference is that all of that is already proven and you (and the entire human race) have EVIDENCE of that, that is why you are saying that is TRUE. You can't just pick things that were easily doubt in the past but we know that now are true, specially when you know that those things are true because you have evidence and not because you have faith in it. The point you tried to make would be valid if we already had indisputable EVIDENCE that the Christian religion is TRUE but that isn't the case.

 The point I was trying to make was that just because it is easy to doubt something, doesn't necessarily mean it is false.  The example I gave show that.   They were things were easy to doubt BEFORE we the evidence.   Many did doubt that the world was round.   A lot of kids before you explain it to them would think you were nuts if you told them everything falls at the same rate.   Without the evidence, these things are easy to doubt.  Yet they are true.  Even though it is easy to doubt that the Biblical Christ is real, it doesn't necessarily mean he isn't.  

This started with you saying "you know he's dead right"?   My point is, you don't know that he is dead.   Without evidence, it is just what you believe, it is not fact.   Yes, the same is true for me, I don't know that he rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven, it is just what I believe it.  I have no evidence and therefore it is not a fact.