Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
bnabernard

a quesion of faith

Quote:
This is why faith is a poison which causes people who would otherwise be sane, sensible and rational individuals to believe in things which in some part of their brain they must surely know are complete and utter twaddle.

Faith is an enemy of sanity - perhaps its greatest -, and that's why I'm an enemy of it.


Well I shunted this shaker post and throw it open and have in mind things like relics and sacred places within and without of religious entities, like placeboes.

I'm off for a kip.


bernard (hug)
Leonard James

Quote:
This is why faith is a poison which causes people who would otherwise be sane, sensible and rational individuals to believe in things which in some part of their brain they must surely know are complete and utter twaddle.


That is certainly how it appears to me too, but with the proviso that indoctrination can possibly shut down any doubt whatever.

Quote:
Faith is an enemy of sanity - perhaps its greatest -, and that's why I'm an enemy of it.


Well, Shakes often gets carried away a bit (for good reasons) but I don't think we can consider faith as a lack of sanity.  
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
Well, Shakes often gets carried away a bit (for good reasons) but I don't think we can consider faith as a lack of sanity.  

If "faith" leads an individual to believe:

- that the world is 6000 years old;

- that the human species sprang from two fully-formed adult human beings magicked into existence (as was the planet) by an immaterial, invisible entity

and all the rest of it, which it does (people don't come to these conclusions on their own, unaided), then a lack of sanity is precisely and exactly what I would and do call it.

In the past I've called myself a meta-atheist: not only do I not believe these and a squillion other religious absurdities but I don't really believe that other people really believe them either. I know that some people claim to do so, but I don't believe them. Perhaps it's my kindly nature and not wanting to believe that anybody is really that daft, who knows?
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Well, Shakes often gets carried away a bit (for good reasons) but I don't think we can consider faith as a lack of sanity.  

If "faith" leads an individual to believe:

- that the world is 6000 years old;

- that the human species sprang from two fully-formed adult human beings magicked into existence (as was the planet) by an immaterial, invisible entity

and all the rest of it, which it does (people don't come to these conclusions on their own, unaided), then a lack of sanity is precisely and exactly what I would and do call it.

In the past I've called myself a meta-atheist: not only do I not believe these and a squillion other religious absurdities but I don't really believe that other people really believe them either. I know that some people claim to do so, but I don't believe them. Perhaps it's my kindly nature and not wanting to believe that anybody is really that daft, who knows?


         

I love you man! You have just made me roar out loud, much to the annoyance of 'im indoors!

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I don't have your turn of phrase to express myself in that way!
Shaker

(and apologies to Hugh   ).
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
(and apologies to Hugh   ).


Sod 'im! Laughter is the elixir of life!  
Ketty

Shaker wrote:

If "faith" leads an individual to believe:

- that the world is 6000 years old;

- that the human species sprang from two fully-formed adult human beings magicked into existence (as was the planet) by an immaterial, invisible entity

and all the rest of it, which it does (people don't come to these conclusions on their own, unaided), then a lack of sanity is precisely and exactly what I would and do call it.

In the past I've called myself a meta-atheist: not only do I not believe these and a squillion other religious absurdities but I don't really believe that other people really believe them either. I know that some people claim to do so, but I don't believe them. Perhaps it's my kindly nature and not wanting to believe that anybody is really that daft, who knows?


I am that daft.  

But the 6000 year thing, and the whole thing about time is interesting.  We measure time by our own construct of it: seconds, minutes, hours, etc.  God is outside our understanding of all that but we insist on putting our own limits on time.  That is why, by Faith, I can believe the Bible's description of Creation and all that goes with it.   All those questions and 'yes but' thoughts were shelved the very second I 'got it' and came to Faith.  It defies explanation, and it defies man's logic and intelligence, but that's how it was/is for me.

It is because I spent so long thinking as you do Shaker, that I have no issue with your thoughts about it all.  I understand your puzzlement.  

One cannot explain Faith better than how the Bible puts it: Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it.
LeClerc

Hi Ketty

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:

If "faith" leads an individual to believe:

- that the world is 6000 years old;

- that the human species sprang from two fully-formed adult human beings magicked into existence (as was the planet) by an immaterial, invisible entity

and all the rest of it, which it does (people don't come to these conclusions on their own, unaided), then a lack of sanity is precisely and exactly what I would and do call it.

In the past I've called myself a meta-atheist: not only do I not believe these and a squillion other religious absurdities but I don't really believe that other people really believe them either. I know that some people claim to do so, but I don't believe them. Perhaps it's my kindly nature and not wanting to believe that anybody is really that daft, who knows?


I am that daft.  

But the 6000 year thing, and the whole thing about time is interesting.  We measure time by our own construct of it: seconds, minutes, hours, etc.  God is outside our understanding of all that but we insist on putting our own limits on time.  That is why, by Faith, I can believe the Bible's description of Creation and all that goes with it.   All those questions and 'yes but' thoughts were shelved the very second I 'got it' and came to Faith.  It defies explanation, and it defies man's logic and intelligence, but that's how it was/is for me.

It is because I spent so long thinking as you do Shaker, that I have no issue with your thoughts about it all.  I understand your puzzlement.  

One cannot explain Faith better than how the Bible puts it: Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it.




Interesting comment about time Ketty.

Time is the measurement of movement.

Whenever we measure time, we measure movement.  We cannot measure time without measuring movement.   The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement.  Without movement, there is no time.   Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.

For those who do not believe in The ''I am that I am'' sometimes translated ''I will be what I will be'' the One true God, YHWH, can there be such a thing as absolute time ?

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

For many of the YEC persuasion, they seem to read John3:3, as
"Unless a man be a YEC, he will not enter the Kingdom of God."

While I am a complete believer in a Loving Creator God who COULD have created the universe in October 4004 BC - because there is nothing which is impossible for God, I do not accept that He DID do so..
Accepting a 14 billion year old universe, a 4 billion year old Earth, the evolution of life - even the evolution of man from a primative primate 66
8 million years ago, through hominids, to our present, is not incompatable with a paradigm.
That God chose a couple, put them in a setting where the blessings they received were incomparable with the existance they would have known outside that settings - but they defied God, and the rest is history.
I don't even dispute a flood!
There's ample evidence that many Mesopotamian cultures had apocalyptic memories of such a cataclysm.
The word used in Hebrew need not necesarily be read as "World wide" or "Global" - indeed, such an event is beyond reason, given the already diverse populations of humans in several continents. But that some sort of unforgettable flood occured, I don't doubt.

None of this matters in the long run, though.
My faith is not in Noah, or in Adam, but in the God who made both, and sent Jesus as a sign and seal that all the mess that we got into using our free will can and will be put right when we accept the Jesus, God Incarnate, as our Lord, Saviour, Guide, Creator and Sustainer.
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
For those who do not believe in The ''I am that I am'' sometimes translated ''I will be what I will be'' the One true God, YHWH, can there be such a thing as absolute time ?

We've known for a century that there's no such thing as absolute or Newtonia time, and it took a scientist, not a load of batty slogans, to demonstrate it.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
That is why, by Faith, I can believe the Bible's description of Creation and all that goes with it.   All those questions and 'yes but' thoughts were shelved the very second I 'got it' and came to Faith.  It defies explanation, and it defies man's logic and intelligence, but that's how it was/is for me.

It is because I spent so long thinking as you do Shaker, that I have no issue with your thoughts about it all.  I understand your puzzlement.  

One cannot explain Faith better than how the Bible puts it: Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it.


I assume that you didn't believe any of these things before you came to faith, as you put it: which to me means that you adopted these beliefs wholesale, off the peg, almost as though they were part of the Christian package of beliefs to be taken on when you signed up to the deal, like the free Parker pen you get when you go in for over-50s life insurance. Yet millions upon millions of Christians the world over don't share them - which is to say, they don't believe the Biblical account is literal (because it was never intended as such) but a symbolic and allegorical mythology of an ancient pre-scientific people. Nowadays we know more and we know better, so the Biblical account takes its place alongside the Epic of Gilgamesh and the like as ancient near-Eastern mythology - interesting in its own right but never meant to be factually correct reportage. How can this be explained?

The thing I've seen time and time again amongst literalists is a quite desperate fear that the Bible is like a game of Jenga or Kerplunk - that if you start pulling away little pieces one by one, sooner rather than later the entire edifice comes crashing down. Take out the Garden of Eden and it starts to teeter. Do away with a literal Adam and Eve and it's tottering. Erase a Fall and it's wobbling like a raspberry jelly in a high wind: therefore the whole thing has to be swallowed as is, in its entirety, or not at all.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
I assume that you didn't believe any of these things before you came to faith, as you put it:


True.

Shaker wrote:
which to me means that you adopted these beliefs wholesale


True.  Well, sort of.  The questions and attempts to apply my own logic just simply, disappeared.

Shaker wrote:
, off the peg, almost as though they were part of the Christian package of beliefs to be taken on when you signed up to the deal, like the free Parker pen you get when you go in for over-50s life insurance.


That's one way of putting it.

Shaker wrote:
Yet millions upon millions of Christians the world over don't share them - which is to say, they don't believe the Biblical account is literal (because it was never intended as such) but a symbolic and allegorical mythology of an ancient pre-scientific people.


True, and that is up to them.  I can't speak for others, I can only speak for myself.  

Shaker wrote:
Nowadays we know more and we know better, so the Biblical account takes its place alongside the Epic of Gilgamesh and the like as ancient near-Eastern mythology - interesting in its own right but never meant to be factually correct reportage. How can this be explained?


I cannot explain it.  See previous post.

Shaker wrote:
The thing I've seen time and time again amongst literalists is a quite desperate fear


Fear?  That's your perception, maybe.  My Faith experience is "perfect love casts out fear".

Shaker wrote:
that the Bible is like a game of Jenga or Kerplunk - that if you start pulling away little pieces one by one, sooner rather than later the entire edifice comes crashing down. Take out the Garden of Eden and it starts to teeter. Do away with a literal Adam and Eve and it's tottering. Erase a Fall and it's wobbling like a raspberry jelly in a high wind: therefore the whole thing has to be swallowed as is, in its entirety, or not at all.


I don't do 'pick and mix'.  It's either true or it isn't.  It suits some to take this little bit and that little bit and we'll just ignore this other little bit, and maybe we'll add a bit more, but for me (and I know I'm not alone, but that's neither here nor there) it's a whole - all I need as my manual for life and sufficient for my faith in God.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
It's either true or it isn't.

But that only applies to individual things, one bit at a time, not the whole. For example, it's very common to see a film (Milk; Goodfellas; Enemy at the Gates) which is based on fact (real people and real events in history) but which has been altered to make it more like a watchable movie - what you often see is a screen caption (at the beginning or the end) which reads something like Certain characters and events have been combined for dramatic purposes or something similar. In other words, the whole thing is broadly true but some specifics are not. Wouldn't that be the more reasonable way of viewing the Bible rather than the, to me, utterly extreme way of taking the whole kit and caboodle as either fully, completely and absolutely true or else it's essentially worthless?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:

But that only applies to individual things, one bit at a time, not the whole. For example, it's very common to see a film (Milk; Goodfellas; Enemy at the Gates) which is based on fact (real people and real events in history) but which has been altered to make it more like a watchable movie - what you often see is a screen caption (at the beginning or the end) which reads something like Certain characters and events have been combined for dramatic purposes or something similar. In other words, the whole thing is broadly true but some specifics are not. Wouldn't that be the more reasonable way of viewing the Bible rather than the, to me, utterly extreme way of taking the whole kit and caboodle as either fully, completely and absolutely true or else it's essentially worthless?


Mate, I don't disagree with you.  It would be utterly more reasonable.  But that's the thing about Faith - sorry to keep banging the same drum, because I know that the explanation isn't 'good enough', but for me it joins up the dots to see the whole as being trustworthy and acceptable.
Shaker

Hm. So if you don't disagree with me, that would seem to imply that there's a part of you still with one foot - or maybe even just a toe, but some part nonetheless - on the side of the light of reason  
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Hm. So if you don't disagree with me, that would seem to imply that there's a part of you still with one foot - or maybe even just a toe, but some part nonetheless - on the side of the light of reason  


   

No. I'm entirely un-reasonable.    
LeClerc

Hello Shaker

Shaker wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
For those who do not believe in The ''I am that I am'' sometimes translated ''I will be what I will be'' the One true God, YHWH, can there be such a thing as absolute time ?

We've known for a century that there's no such thing as absolute or Newtonia time, and it took a scientist, not a load of batty slogans, to demonstrate it.


Do you agree with the following statement ?

One second is the period it takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres ?

Regards

LeClerc
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:

Mate, I don't disagree with you.  It would be utterly more reasonable.  But that's the thing about Faith - sorry to keep banging the same drum, because I know that the explanation isn't 'good enough', but for me it joins up the dots to see the whole as being trustworthy and acceptable.


Faith is the ability to override reason and believe a story you want to be true even when science gives the lie to much of it.
JMC

Leonard James wrote:
Ketty wrote:

Mate, I don't disagree with you.  It would be utterly more reasonable.  But that's the thing about Faith - sorry to keep banging the same drum, because I know that the explanation isn't 'good enough', but for me it joins up the dots to see the whole as being trustworthy and acceptable.


Faith is the ability to override reason and believe a story you want to be true even when science gives the lie to much of it.


Why just science? What about evidence in general? Evidence such as a post or name of a poster to corroborate your claim that in all your years of posting you've managed to warn one "gullible" person away from believing in God? Is believing you've done that without knowing of any such evidence also faith?
Leonard James

JMC wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Ketty wrote:

Mate, I don't disagree with you.  It would be utterly more reasonable.  But that's the thing about Faith - sorry to keep banging the same drum, because I know that the explanation isn't 'good enough', but for me it joins up the dots to see the whole as being trustworthy and acceptable.


Faith is the ability to override reason and believe a story you want to be true even when science gives the lie to much of it.


Why just science? What about evidence in general? Evidence such as a post or name of a poster to corroborate your claim that in all your years of posting you've managed to warn one "gullible" person away from believing in God? Is believing you've done that without knowing of any such evidence also faith?


I don't think that is what I said. Shouldn't there be an "if" in that?
JMC

Leonard James wrote:

I don't think that is what I said. Shouldn't there be an "if" in that?


Let's look:

Leonard James wrote:

Pointing out [posts] are arrant nonsense helps the gullible not to fall for them.


JMC wrote:
Do you have examples of where you pointing out something to be nonsense (in your opinion) has helped someone who is gullible (again, in your opinion) not to fall for it?


Leonard James wrote:
I'm sure that in all the years I've been posting on these Christian forums I will have helped some undecided fence-sitters to opt for the right direction ... non-belief.


No repudiation of calling people who might believe differently to you as gullible. You then go on to say that you believe you have swayed some of those people towards unbelief. Evidence? None.
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
Do you agree with the following statement ?

One second is the period it takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres ?

In some circumstances only. That's only in a vacuum for starters: light is slowed in air and water. In the presence of near-luminal speeds and/or colossal mass the differences are even more apparent.

We know for example that light can be slowed in a super-cooled Bose-Einstein condensate. It was first done in 2009, IIRC.

The point is that Einstein destroyed the idea of an absolute, unvarying, Newtonian time, as though there's some sort of great cosmic clocking somewhere ticking away one second per second unchangingly for ever. Einstein demonstrated mathematically, and it has subsequently been proven experimentally, that time is elastic - it's stretchy and changes depending on circumstances (circumstances principally being mass and velocity).

I'm one of that group who thinks that physics goes even further than this and demonstrates that essentially there's really no such thing as time at all, but that's another discussion altogether.
LeClerc

Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Do you agree with the following statement ?

One second is the period it takes light to travel 299,792,458 metres ?

In some circumstances only. That's only in a vacuum for starters: light is slowed in air and water. In the presence of near-luminal speeds and/or colossal mass the differences are even more apparent.

We know for example that light can be slowed in a super-cooled Bose-Einstein condensate. It was first done in 2009, IIRC.

The point is that Einstein destroyed the idea of an absolute, unvarying, Newtonian time, as though there's some sort of great cosmic clocking somewhere ticking away one second per second unchangingly for ever. Einstein demonstrated mathematically, and it has subsequently been proven experimentally, that time is elastic - it's stretchy and changes depending on circumstances (circumstances principally being mass and velocity).

I'm one of that group who thinks that physics goes even further than this and demonstrates that essentially there's really no such thing as time at all, but that's another discussion altogether.


Is this what you are referring too ?

Physicists Slow Speed of Light

Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

Amongst other things.
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Well, Shakes often gets carried away a bit (for good reasons) but I don't think we can consider faith as a lack of sanity.  

If "faith" leads an individual to believe:

- that the world is 6000 years old;

- that the human species sprang from two fully-formed adult human beings magicked into existence (as was the planet) by an immaterial, invisible entity

and all the rest of it, which it does (people don't come to these conclusions on their own, unaided), then a lack of sanity is precisely and exactly what I would and do call it.

In the past I've called myself a meta-atheist: not only do I not believe these and a squillion other religious absurdities but I don't really believe that other people really believe them either. I know that some people claim to do so, but I don't believe them. Perhaps it's my kindly nature and not wanting to believe that anybody is really that daft, who knows?


But the word "faith" is wider than that.

For example, my faith means I believe that God set in train the events which led to the creation of the planet and evolution.
Leonard James

JMC wrote:


No repudiation of calling people who might believe differently to you as gullible. You then go on to say that you believe you have swayed some of those people towards unbelief. Evidence? None.


The evidence lies in my knowledge of human nature.

I find it ironical that a God believer insists on asking me for evidence.
JMC

Leonard James wrote:
JMC wrote:


No repudiation of calling people who might believe differently to you as gullible. You then go on to say that you believe you have swayed some of those people towards unbelief. Evidence? None.


The evidence lies in my knowledge of human nature.


That's just another bald assertion, I'm afraid.

Leonard James wrote:
I find it ironical that a God believer insists on asking me for evidence.


The accusation and derision flung by atheists at Christians for believing things without physical, material, evidence is well known. The reason for such criticisms is because of the unassailable authority atheists put on empirical evidence. Therefore the fact you openly believe something without the same evidence is much, much more ironic. I'm not sure whether you are pretending not to see this or if you genuinely cannot see the absurdity of the situation your proud and unrepudiated claim has put you in.

As I have already said -- if I had made a declaration that my presence on forums had actively caused another poster to change their way of thinking from undecided to trust in God, then I would not be perturbed by someone asking for evidence. It's very obvious what would constitute such evidence: the name of a poster, maybe a date of when it happened, perhaps even a link to a post where such a conversion took place. You know that asking for such evidence from me would be reasonable and yet try to deflect when you are asked for the self-same evidence.
Leonard James

JMC wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
JMC wrote:


No repudiation of calling people who might believe differently to you as gullible. You then go on to say that you believe you have swayed some of those people towards unbelief. Evidence? None.


The evidence lies in my knowledge of human nature.


That's just another bald assertion, I'm afraid.

Leonard James wrote:
I find it ironical that a God believer insists on asking me for evidence.


The accusation and derision flung by atheists at Christians for believing things without physical, material, evidence is well known. The reason for such criticisms is because of the unassailable authority atheists put on empirical evidence. Therefore the fact you openly believe something without the same evidence is much, much more ironic. I'm not sure whether you are pretending not to see this or if you genuinely cannot see the absurdity of the situation your proud and unrepudiated claim has put you in.

As I have already said -- if I had made a declaration that my presence on forums had actively caused another poster to change their way of thinking from undecided to trust in God, then I would not be perturbed by someone asking for evidence. It's very obvious what would constitute such evidence: the name of a poster, maybe a date of when it happened, perhaps even a link to a post where such a conversion took place. You know that asking for such evidence from me would be reasonable and yet try to deflect when you are asked for the self-same evidence.


Closing your eyes to facts won't make them go away.
JMC

Leonard James wrote:

Closing your eyes to facts won't make them go away.


That's just more ammunition for me when I reiterate the fact that you have made an unsubstantiated claim, and refuse to either put-up the evidence, or repudiate the claim. Closing your eyes to this will not make it go away indeed  
Leonard James

JMC wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

Closing your eyes to facts won't make them go away.


That's just more ammunition for me when I reiterate the fact that you have made an unsubstantiated claim, and refuse to either put-up the evidence, or repudiate the claim. Closing your eyes to this will not make it go away indeed  


Yes, dear. Anything you say.  
JMC

Shaker

JMC wrote:
The accusation and derision flung by atheists at Christians for believing things without physical, material, evidence is well known.

There's an extremely good reason for that.

Quote:
The reason for such criticisms is because of the unassailable authority atheists put on empirical evidence.


There's also a superlatively good reason you (quite rightly) used the word unassailable, too  
JMC

Shaker wrote:

Quote:
The reason for such criticisms is because of the unassailable authority atheists put on empirical evidence.


There's also a superlatively good reason you (quite rightly) used the word unassailable, too  


You know what you believe, and I'm sure Leonard believes the same. Hence why I will call him out for not offering the evidence for his own claims that he demands of others.
Shaker

JMC wrote:
You know what you believe

Of course I do. I'd be a blithering bloody fool if I didn't, wouldn't I?

Quote:
and I'm sure Leonard believes the same.

No idea. Ask him. As far as I'm aware Leonard is an atheist but not, as far as I know and as I style myself, an anti-theist: that's to say, while he disavows theistic belief (as do I), I go further in that my position is that theistic belief is individually and collectively obnoxious, pernicious, toxic and to be challenged, criticised, harried and worried everywhere that it raises its stupid, silly, ugly, fatuous, vacuous and empty head, for the good of us all as a species. Or in the words of one of my few but ineffably potent heroes:

Christopher Hitchens wrote:
I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.


*

Quote:
Hence why I will call him out for not offering the evidence for his own claims that he demands of others.

That's between you and him. Perhaps when you've finished doing whatever it is you're pleased to think you're doing with Leonard you will turn your attention to me and my claims and see how that pans out?

Whenever you're ready - all the time in the world, etc.
JMC

Shaker wrote:


Quote:
Hence why I will call him out for not offering the evidence for his own claims that he demands of others.

Perhaps when you've finished doing whatever it is you think you're doing with Leonard you will turn your attention to me and my claims and see how that pans out?


Leonard has been quite obstinate in not repudiating a claim he cannot provide evidence for, so you might be waiting a while.

However, the only thing I know for sure about your beliefs and reasons for posting on forums is that you enjoy mocking people that you believe are not as intelligent as you. Why would I challenge the veracity of that particular declaration? I believe it, unfortunately.
Shaker

JMC wrote:
Leonard has been quite obstinate in not repudiating a claim he cannot provide evidence for, so you might be waiting a while.

However, the only thing I know for sure about your beliefs and reasons for posting on forums is that you enjoy mocking people that you believe are not as intelligent as you. Why would I challenge the veracity of that particular declaration? I believe it, unfortunately.

The 'why' could be that you enjoy disputation, the dialectic, the Socratic dialogue, the Hegelian thesis and antithesis, for its own sake as much as I do.

Being in the right helps rather a lot, obviously. But still: sometimes seeing a person defend a crackpot idea is entertainment beyond price. Not because they're right but precisely because you are and they're wrong, and seeing them writhe on the hook is beyond rubies.

You will find me not merely an easier nut to crack than Leonard but, in point of fact, an unassailably (nice word, and correct) hard one.

As I said: any time you feel like it, etc.
JMC

Shaker wrote:
JMC wrote:
Leonard has been quite obstinate in not repudiating a claim he cannot provide evidence for, so you might be waiting a while.

However, the only thing I know for sure about your beliefs and reasons for posting on forums is that you enjoy mocking people that you believe are not as intelligent as you. Why would I challenge the veracity of that particular declaration? I believe it, unfortunately.

The 'why' could be that you enjoy disputation, the dialectic, the Socratic dialogue, the Hegelian thesis and antithesis, for its own sake as much as I do.


Ah, so you think enjoying "disputation" is reason enough for someone to challenge the veracity of a statement they think is actually true. In that case I certainly do not enjoy disputes as much as you.

Maybe Leonard appreciates your attempts to draw attention away from his unsubstantiated claims on to you, but equally maybe he doesn't care, or indeed finds them patronizing. Whatever, it won't work: throwing down gauntlets and intellectual willy-waving are not my cup of tea.  
Shaker

JMC wrote:
Ah, so you think enjoying "disputation" is reason enough for someone to challenge the veracity of a statement they think is actually true

Yes.
Quote:
In that case I certainly do not enjoy disputes as much as you.

That much is becoming apparent.

Quote:
Maybe Leonard appreciates your attempts to draw attention away from his unsubstantiated claims on to you

No idea. I'm not doing it for Leonard but for me.

Quote:
but equally maybe he doesn't care, or indeed finds them patronizing.

Quite possibly. Since I'm not doing anything here for Leonard (old enough to look after himself if anybody is) it doesn't matter.

Quote:
Whatever, it won't work: throwing down gauntlets and intellectual willy-waving are not my cup of tea.  


Very obviously not. Reams of absolutely execrably written cut-and-paste yawnathon dross is much more your line.
JMC

It's mildly interesting that you appear so intent on drawing me into disputation with you. Not interesting enough to bite, unfortunately (for you, that is).
Shaker

Very interesting to me for what it reveals, however.

There's no "drawing into disputation." There's only (a) either you're capable of defending your position, with reason, logic and evidence, or (b) there isn't.
JMC

Maybe it's interesting for you, maybe it's not; I couldn't possibly know because you have admitted to preferring disputation to the truth, and that you would argue for something you think is untrue just for the enjoyment of arguing (and ridiculing others whilst doing it, as that's another one of your admitted predilections).

I will not enter into debates with someone who prefers the debate to the truth of what is being debated. Let that reveal whatever it may reveal about me  

Quote:
There's no "drawing into disputation." There's only (a) either you're capable of defending your position, with reason, logic and evidence, or (b) there isn't.


Demonstrably untrue: you challenged me to address your claims, not defend my own. I don't care about your claims about reality for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that you are willing to argue in favour of something you don't believe to be true just for the sake of arguing.
Shaker

JMC wrote:
Maybe it's interesting for you

It is.

Quote:
maybe it's not

No, it still is.

Quote:
I couldn't possibly know because you have admitted to preferring disputation to the truth

Obviously you've missed out on it while you've been occupied with other things but it's been a central hallmark of Western philosophy since Socrates that disputation - the dialectic - has been a peerless means of arriving at the truth. It's not "disputation instead of the truth", as you - for goodness only know what witless reasons - seem to think, but disputation as a means of reaching the truth. Please, please, please, don't take my word for it: enquire into the word of practically every Western philosopher from Socrates on (though I would urge you to concentrate specifically on Socrates, Hume and Hegel along the way whilst you're doing so. If you do so).

Quote:
and that you would argue for a lie

Where have I said that?

Quote:
just for the enjoyment of arguing (and ridiculing others whilst doing it, as that's another one of your past-times).

But not in the service of a lie. Please, by all means, feel free to quote and/or link to the posts where I've claimed as much.

Quote:
I will not enter into debates with someone who prefers the debate to the truth of what is being debated. Let that reveal whatever it may reveal about me

It reveals that you're ignorant and misinformed in more than merely one sense.
JMC

 Anyway....

Leonard James wrote:

Yes, dear. Anything you say.  


Glad you don't mind me bringing up your unsubstantiated claims about yourself. You will have to get used to it given your declared reasons for posting here. 
Rose

Re: a quesion of faith

Rose

Re: a quesion of faith

bnabernard wrote:
Quote:
This is why faith is a poison which causes people who would otherwise be sane, sensible and rational individuals to believe in things which in some part of their brain they must surely know are complete and utter twaddle.

Faith is an enemy of sanity - perhaps its greatest -, and that's why I'm an enemy of it.


Well I shunted this shaker post and throw it open and have in mind things like relics and sacred places within and without of religious entities, like placeboes.

I'm off for a kip.


bernard (hug)


I think people who launch themselves into complete faith in what the bible says literally, against all the findings of science, are extremely vulnerable!

People often wonder, how an intelligent university student can wind up wearing a tin hat and drinking someone's bath water!

It is because they have total faith and not enough reality to pull them back to a more balanced view.

I am extremely wary of any religion that asks you to have total faith and encourages you to leave your brain out of the equation!

I think it is very dangerous!

Unfortunately not all Christians balance their belief and faith with reality!

I know reality is in part subjective, but some people disconnect with it all together!

That's when faith is the enemy of sanity, IMO.

You can go to far, even with faith!

Too much of anything is bad for you, and that includes faith.

People need their doubts, doubts are not always a bad thing.
Julie
Jim

"Doubts are not always a bad thing."
Where's the karma applause button when you need it?
Julie, I've come to the stage when I can thank God for doubt (well, Scripture DOIES tell us to give thanks on every occasion!)
Through dealing with my doubts, my relationship with God has been immensely strengthened, rather than weakend.
The doubts have led me to explore more about myself, more about the world around me; in exploring, I came to trust God that even if I don't know the answer, but keep trying to sus it out, HE knowa the answer, He's seen the flip side of the coin, and HE'S in control.
bnabernard

Reality. em there's a thing, I got the Egyptian army behind me and a sea in front of me.

bernard (hug)
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:
Reality. em there's a thing, I got the Egyptian army behind me and a sea in front of me.

bernard (hug)


There's a film about that:


Link


The film's based on the book - it's always good to read the book because sometimes films miss stuff out, or add bits to it.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
Through dealing with my doubts, my relationship with God has been immensely strengthened, rather than weakend.
The doubts have led me to explore more about myself, more about the world around me; in exploring, I came to trust God that even if I don't know the answer, but keep trying to sus it out, HE knowa the answer, He's seen the flip side of the coin, and HE'S in control.



Yes, and Amen!


"Lord I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
Leonard James

It was doubting that finally set me free from the stories I had been brainwashed with since infancy.

The biggest doubt I had was how could a god of love and compassion have created a system in which half of the living creatures prey on the other half to stay alive, with all the terror and pain that it involves. And close on its heels came another ... how could that god have created a system in which dreadful natural disasters lay waste to all kinds of life, once again inflicting suffering and pain. It just doesn't add up.

End of faith.
JMC

Leonard James wrote:

End of faith.


Apart from faith that your words have helped to convert gullible people to thinking the same way as you, despite no evidence to back it up  
LeClerc

Morning Shaker

Shaker wrote:


The point is that Einstein destroyed the idea of an absolute, unvarying, Newtonian time, as though there's some sort of great cosmic clocking somewhere ticking away one second per second unchangingly for ever. Einstein demonstrated mathematically, and it has subsequently been proven experimentally, that time is elastic - it's stretchy and changes depending on circumstances (circumstances principally being mass and velocity).

I'm one of that group who thinks that physics goes even further than this and demonstrates that essentially there's really no such thing as time at all, but that's another discussion altogether.


Moses also possessed this understanding.

Psalm 90
4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night

Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
Moses also possessed this understanding.

Psalm 90
4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night

Regards

LeClerc

No he didn't. There may never even have been such a person in the first place (Wikipedia says: "While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated") and even if there was such an individual, he didn't possess any such understanding at all. He couldn't have done. Einstein did because he worked it out mathematically.

Now please don't be so silly.
LeClerc

Hello Shaker

Shaker wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Moses also possessed this understanding.

Psalm 90
4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night

Regards

LeClerc

No he didn't. There may never even have been such a person in the first place (Wikipedia says: "While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated") and even if there was such an individual, he didn't possess any such understanding at all. He couldn't have done. Einstein did because he worked it out mathematically.

Now please don't be so silly.


How do you explain the The Dead Sea Scrolls

Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

People scratching with ink on parchment.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum