Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

Paulhoff said:
Apparently you can’t read all that was already written before by us, but we understand your blindness....
Click to expand...

I read well, and though my eyes aren't what they used to be, I'm not blind.

and the so-called God of Abraham was made by humankind, and has been a burden onto humans ever since.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. I disagree.
 
Sceptic Realist said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Funny how that proof stuff works around this forum. In one case it's mere evidence, in another case proof isn't squat. In your case, it's "to me."
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he said. He was using the phraise "proves TO ME", because he was not implying any hard evidence or fact. "Proves to me" and "this proves that" are two different things entirely.
Click to expand...

Like I wrote, it's funny how that works.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, since "ignore" is the base for the word "ignorant", it's actually the opposite; ignoring God is "ignorant."
Click to expand...

Let's check out the definition of the word, shall we?

ig*no*rant
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

It's ironic that you use the word "ignorant" in your arguments when you're ignorant of what it means.
Click to expand...

That is the correct definition. Yet, do you deny that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore"?

I think you just enjoy fighting with the people on this forum.
Click to expand...

No doubt about it. I find arguing with such people very entertaining.
 
Huntster said:
Like I wrote, it's funny how that works.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood your statement at the time of my reply. Apologies.

Huntster said:
That is the correct definition. Yet, do you deny that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore"?
Click to expand...

Not at all, nor did I do the opposite. I meerly displayed the definition to the word in question, and stated that your use of it was incorrect in context. Someone can have knowledge of something, yet choose to "ignore" it, as you say; this is not the same thing as ignorance. Your statement that he is "ignorant" not to believe in god is false, because he has full knowledge of the concept of god, regardless of the word's root.

Huntster said:
No doubt about it. I find arguing with such people very entertaining.
Click to expand...

Everyone on these forums has a passion for argument, myself included. I was refering to the way you insulted the entire forum by attacking everyone's sense of "proof" except yours. I saw no reason for this other than to provoke a reaction.
 
Last edited:
Sceptic Realist said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Like I wrote, it's funny how that works.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that you were interpreting his phraise as a statement of fact in general rather than truth to himself. If this is incorrect, I apologize.
Click to expand...

No apology needed. I was actually referring to how the word "proof" is so widely used in so many ways on this forum.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That is the correct definition. Yet, do you deny that the root of the word "ignorance" is "ignore"?
Click to expand...

Not at all, nor did I do the opposite. I meerly displayed the definition to the word in question, and stated that your use of it was incorrect in context. Someone can have knowledge of something, yet choose to "ignore" it, as you say; this is not the same thing as ignorance. Your statement that he is "ignorant" not to believe in god is false, because he has full knowledge of the concept of god, regardless of the word's root.
Click to expand...

Do you think he has "full knowledge of the concept of God"?

If not, would he be "ignorant", especially since he writes with such vitriole regarding that which he may or may not have "full knowledge" of?

Would it be "lacking in knowledge or training, unlearned, lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact, uninformed, or unaware" to write in such a way if he doesn't have "full knowledge of the concept of God"?

Originally Posted by Huntster
No doubt about it. I find arguing with such people very entertaining.
Click to expand...

Everyone on these forums has a passion for argument, myself included. I was refering to the way you insulted the entire forum by attacking everyone's sense of "proof" except yours. I saw no reason for this other than to provoke a reaction.
Click to expand...

Yet, did I desire that "reaction" from you? I don't know you "from Adam." You chose to react. I wrote to Paulhoff about his statement and the use of the word "proof".

And nowhere did I establish my "sense of proof." I simply stated (and in this post reiterate) how the word proof "evolves" (and does so often) on this forum.
 
Huntster said:
I have "bought into" God, I have gained some knowledge, and I still accept God like a child, because I have faith. I have faith because I know I will never be presented with proof in this life, I think I understand why, and I accept the possiblity that this is part of spiritual growth that is required for the next life, which is not physical, and is purely spiritual.
Click to expand...
Reality. Hard it is. A cushion you will need. The mores with you be, may they.


Huntster said:
It is precisely (and by definition) a lack of understanding which requires either faith or doubt.
Click to expand...
There's a little-known and rarely used third option: a willingness impartially to find out.

'Luthon64
 
Huntster said:
Do you think he has "full knowledge of the concept of God"?

If not, would he be "ignorant", especially since he writes with such vitriole regarding that which he may or may not have "full knowledge" of?

Would it be "lacking in knowledge or training, unlearned, lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact, uninformed, or unaware" to write in such a way if he doesn't have "full knowledge of the concept of God"?
Click to expand...

Your right, I can't speak for him. Also, "full" knowledge is a moot idea (and a poor choice in words by me). If he is aware of the concept of god, the term "ignorant" is rendered false in this argument. If he had no idea what this concept is (had not heard of it), then it would be applicable.

Huntster said:
Yet, did I desire that "reaction" from you? I don't know you "from Adam." You chose to react. I wrote to Paulhoff about his statement and the use of the word "proof".
Click to expand...

Yup, I chose to react. And had your statement been restricted to Paulhoff's use of the word proof, it would not have been a point raised (by me at least).

Huntster said:
And nowhere did I establish my "sense of proof." I simply stated (and in this post reiterate) how the word proof "evolves" (and does so often) on this forum.
Click to expand...

Fine. It doesn't change the fact that you stated (twice) that you think people on this forum other than yourself modify their "usage", "concept", "definition", or whatever you want to call it, of "proof." Placing yourself in direct opposition with the rest of the forum is what could very well be considered an insult to these forums.
 
Last edited:
Hey, it's The Atheist break!

Huntster, I see that you've been ruling this thread since page 2, having seen off all the big, bad atheists. I'm not sure which I admire more - your incredible accuracy in doctrine and being able to answer all the atheisms thrown at you, or the stamina of the atheists who keep coming back for another whipping.

I particpated in a televised debate a couple weeks ago and I was up against a fundamental christian and a Catholic school-teacher. The fundie was easy, I kicked him into touch early, while the nun took a bit longer, but eventually had to stop and take a breather in the face of a furious atheistic onslaught. Even at the time, I thought to myself, thank Christ it's not Huntster in that chair - I'd be getting eaten!

Mate, if ever there was someone in a forum who might make me renounce my godless ways (and there isn't) it'd be you. Clearly the best pro-god debater I've had the pleasure to witness!

If you're ever coming down this way, let me know...

(I'll go to Alaska while you're here! :D ) This must be the most entertaining long-lived thread on JREF.
 
Huntster
Your links are lacking. You've linked a thread which opens with a post from someone else, and the next post of mine reads thus:
Click to expand...
I specified threads and the thread I linked to were open to the appropriate pages, not specific posts.

Maybe you'd like to try again, child?
Click to expand...
Not really, it’s rather pedantic. I was just bringing to the fore that you have lied in the past and providing enough of a start for others to investigate themselves.

Sorta like how Satan used the lie on Eve.
Click to expand...
There you go making stuff up again. The serpent actually told Eve the truth. It was god that lied. Go read it again.

Ossai
 
Ossai ,
You are telling us that you have not read the Bible, you cannot do a book report based on the reviews Ossai.

Where does Genesis 1 vary from what we have ourselves observed?

I have heard of the LAW of gravity, never the theory of gravity.

" With the Lord a day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day" (do the math)
Hunstser , Chapter and verse if you will?
Genesis 1:1 " ... and the evening and the morning were the first day."

Oassai please explain HOW you understand the Bible to suggest that a 'day' for the Lord is the same as a day for you?

All, I asked for the lifespan of homo sapiens 10, 15, 25,000 yrs ago. What seems to be the problem? No skeletal remains available for study? Why is that?

Genesius, beautiful qoute.

Sorry for being a bit of a troll ( I just learned what that is in discussion groups and I plead guilty).

I have been advised by Bruto that there are some uh... extreme political efforts being made in America with respect to school curriculum. I recall the same from a decade past when the issue was 'sex ed' and the teaching of homosexuality was being forced on children. do you think that that might have motivated the 'Christians' to draw a line in the sand? I do.

I am grateful to all in here for the discourse we share it nurtures me, gives food for thought.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent
 
With respect to the Bible being a 'source'. The Bible , King James version is THE foundation of the English language, it is HARD-WIRED in your brain, Drs. Doman and Delicato of the Institute for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philedelphia have published extensively on this topic. ( that of language being instrumental in shaping the human mind, literally, the synapse and their pathways)
If English is your first language then The Holy Bible is literally the foundation of your mind.
How does that grab you?!

Your friend ,
Canadian Malcontent
 
Canadian Malcontent said:
I have heard of the LAW of gravity, never the theory of gravity.
Click to expand...
The "Law" of gravity is actually an equation that quantifies the gravitational force between two objects as being proportional to their combined mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It is a most useful equation. But scientists do not accept it as unalterable truth. They are aware that there may be situations where that equation is insufficient to describe the behavior of gravity, for example, in the proximity of a black hole. It has also been postulated, but not proven, that there may be some sort of "carrier" for gravity called a graviton which you can think of as the equivalent of a photon. There is much we don't know, but each time we learn new things about gravity, they are tested to see how they fit in the overall theory.

Although the word "proof" is thrown about a lot in science, if you dig deeply you will see that there is no such thing as proof in science. There is only evidence. Overwhelming evidence in favor of something is sometimes called "proof", but it is not really.

There is overwhelming evidence for the major aspects of the theory of evolution. The details are still being worked out. The same is true of the theory of gravity.
 
Isn't fun to write about a mythical being that gives you a son and takes him right back? Gives you free will, so long as you play only by his rules, or he takes his bat and ball and goes home. A god that can make so many different galaxies, stars, planets, life forms, etc. but has only one way to his (big?) heart.

There is a good book, (I didn't finish reading it) called Creation. It is about a guy who lived about 3,000 years ago, who was a religious leader of a cult that had a fire and brimstone god (sound familiar). He travels all over the Old World and meets with people of other religions. Well finally when he is old he gets to India and meets with a Hindu Master. At this time India has been around for thousands of years already. He starts talking to the Hindu Master about his fire and brimstone, all powerful and all knowing god and then the Hindu Master starts to laugh. The Hindu Master says to him that they know all about this fire and brimstone god. That this god doesn't know that he is not the top god of the universe, but just one of the many lesser gods. That there are many gods in higher planes above him, and that these higher gods like to play games with the fire and brimstone god by missing up his plans without him knowing how it is being done. This of course gets this fire and brimstone god mad and the earth quakes and killing start all over again.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Canadian Malcontent
Where does Genesis 1 vary from what we have ourselves observed?
Click to expand...
Water prior to land (which does fit into ancient cosmology)
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Plants prior to the sun Genesis 1:11 thru 1:16

Oassai please explain HOW you understand the Bible to suggest that a 'day' for the Lord is the same as a day for you?
Click to expand...
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Etcetera throughout the first creation story.

Actually you’ve got an even bigger problem. There are two creation stories in Genesis ch1 and ch2 and they don’t agree with each other as to the order of creation.

All, I asked for the lifespan of homo sapiens 10, 15, 25,000 yrs ago. What seems to be the problem? No skeletal remains available for study? Why is that?
Click to expand...
OK, you’ve firmly established yourself as being ignorant of anthropology. Yes there are skeletons (fossils) that old. If you want the average life span, go look it up. Quiet easy to find actually try the Smithsonian’s site.

I have heard of the LAW of gravity, never the theory of gravity.
Click to expand...
OK, so you’re ignorant of physics as well.

I recall the same from a decade past when the issue was 'sex ed' and the teaching of homosexuality was being forced on children. do you think that that might have motivated the 'Christians' to draw a line in the sand? I do.
Click to expand...
To what exactly are you referring? The sex ed controversy I remember was about teaching children about sex and specifically about safe sex (the use of condoms, etc). I don’t recall homosexuality ever being mentioned in reference to what was taught.

Ossai
 
Canadian Malcontent said:
With respect to the Bible being a 'source'. The Bible , King James version is THE foundation of the English language, it is HARD-WIRED in your brain, Drs. Doman and Delicato of the Institute for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philedelphia have published extensively on this topic. ( that of language being instrumental in shaping the human mind, literally, the synapse and their pathways)
If English is your first language then The Holy Bible is literally the foundation of your mind.
How does that grab you?!

Your friend ,
Canadian Malcontent
Click to expand...

How does that grab me? As the ravings of someone who hasn't spent any time thinking. If the bible is the foundation of the mind, then it's no wonder so many people are idiots.
 
Last edited:
Canadian Malcontent said:
The Bible , King James version is THE foundation of the English language, it is HARD-WIRED in your brain, ...
Click to expand...
There's a few carts and several horses. Their succession order is an unholy mess. :D


Canadian Malcontent said:
... Drs. Doman and Delicato of the Institute for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philedelphia have published extensively on this topic. ( that of language being instrumental in shaping the human mind, literally, the synapse and their pathways)
Click to expand...
How does the influence of language on the forging of synaptic pathways suddenly imply that language becomes the foundation of mind?


Canadian Malcontent said:
If English is your first language then The Holy Bible is literally the foundation of your mind.
Click to expand...
The corollary to which is that if the Holy Bible is literally not the foundation of your mind, then English is not your first language. Consequently, there are no atheists, buddhists, wiccans, etc., whose first language is English.

'Luthon64
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom