Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[I less than three logic]

Well, that's an authoritative source. Harry Potter books would be better, because they don't contradict themselves over and over.

Please refer to post #1225 for some clarification on this subject.

 

[Ossai]

Canadian Malcontent

With respect to the Bible being a 'source'. The Bible , King James version is THE foundation of the English language,

No it isn’t. The English language can easily be shown to have existed prior to the compilation and editing used to produce the king James version of the bible.

it is HARD-WIRED in your brain,

Do you even know what hard-wired means and what it actually implies when used for a system?

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)

Appeal to authority noted.
Also noted is your fallacious reasoning as your premises don’t actually lead to the conclusion you present. In fact, the premises you use aren’t even connected to on another in the manner you present.

If English is your first language then The Holy Bible is literally the foundation of your mind.
How does that grab you?!

Like most irrational things, it doesn’t grab me.

Ossai

 

[sphenisc]

Well, that's an authoritative source. Harry Potter books would be better, because they don't contradict themselves over and over.

Hah! So much for your infallible texts...

http://www.bookmistakes.com/bookletterlisth.php

 

[Freethinker]

Hah! So much for your infallible texts...

http://www.bookmistakes.com/bookletterlisth.php

So....everything I believe is based on a flawed text... I guess this means I'll never get that flying car.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It is precisely (and by definition) a lack of understanding which requires either faith or doubt.

There's a little-known and rarely used third option: a willingness impartially to find out.

Considering the facts that I'm an aging man, and this phenomenon called "spirituality" and "God" is recorded among the oldest written documents of mankind, and that today's science is actually often diametrically opposed to the phenomenon, it is likely that a scientific explanation of the phenomenon isn't to be realized in my physical lifetime.

Therefore, I'm relegated to faith or doubt, and thus I ponder the words of Christ and others regarding faith and doubt.

Reality. Hard it is.....

Indeed, but the hardness can be softened with faith.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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"?

Your right, I can't speak for him. Also, "full" knowledge is a moot idea (and a poor choice in words by me).

Correct. Full knowledge of God escapes us all, even those who spend a lifetime in study and prayer, and with the reflections of four millenium of humans before us.

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.

If he has a woefully inadequate concept and understanding of God, and yet propounds with ferver that God cannot exist, he is in a position of ignorance, or very close to that end of the scale.

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

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."

Correct. And for a third time, I state that is so.

Placing yourself in direct opposition with the rest of the forum is what could very well be considered an insult to these forums.

It is not an insult. It is a statement of fact.

I am different than many here. With regard to the word "proof", I consider it the ultimate in evidence, and it establishes something "beyond the shadow of doubt." I have challenged several on this forum who have exchanged the words "evidence" and "proof", sometimes in the same post.

 

[I less than three logic]

With regard to the word "proof", I consider it the ultimate in evidence, and it establishes something "beyond the shadow of doubt." I have challenged several on this forum who have exchanged the words "evidence" and "proof", sometimes in the same post.

Proof is the ultimate in evidence? That doesn’t really make any sense, not how it is stated I mean. You seem to be making proof and evidence interchangeable here yourself, like proof is “super-evidence” while evidence is just your average variety. I think I understand what you’re trying to say though. Did you mean that proof is the establishment beyond doubt based on the evidence? I would agree with this. However, I tend to find your criteria for what constitutes evidence as far too lenient for establishing anything beyond doubt.

 

[Huntster]

Hey, it's The Atheist break!

Huntster, I see that you've been ruling this thread since page 2....

I rule nothing. I'm just reponding to other posters.

....having seen off all the big, bad atheists...

I think they just tire of fooling with me.

...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.....

Nobody is being whupped here. We're just having fun!

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!

No way! I can't hold a candle to any nun I've ever met!

And I hate TV. I don't watch it, and when it watches me, it usually finds me with teeth bared..............

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!

Wow! What an endorsement! Undeserved, but appreciated.

And (I've already pointed out), you're a real kick in the pants! I thoroughly enjoy debating with you.

Got a sense of humor, you do.

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

I doubt it. I hate travelling anymore, too.

(I'll go to Alaska while you're here! )

Welcome to Alaska, tourist! The bears are hungry............

(Anybody interested in the story that goes with the photo can let me know, and I'll PM it to ya'. If something like this happening to you doesn't get a prayer out of ya, little else would).

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
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:

I specified threads and the thread I linked to were open to the appropriate pages, not specific posts.

Quote:
Maybe you'd like to try again, child?

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.

Well, lad, get the job done. If you assert that I'm a liar, show the lie. Don't aim in the general direction and cry wolf. Do you think that if people don't ferret out your false claims, that they will become true?

 

[Huntster]

...." 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?....

With great pleasure (and thanks for the opportunity):

2 Peter 3:8

More of those precious words:

Know this first of all, that in the last days scoffers will come (to) scoff, living according to their own desires and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? From the time when our ancestors fell asleep, everything has remained as it was from the beginning of creation." They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God; through these the world that then existed was destroyed, deluged with water. The present heavens and earth have been reserved by the same word for fire, kept for the day of judgment and of destruction of the godless. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard "delay," but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out.

 

[Huntster]

....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.....

So it cannot be proven that a biological creature has died or is alive?

 

[The Atheist]

Welcome to Alaska, tourist! The bears are hungry............

(Anybody interested in the story that goes with the photo can let me know, and I'll PM it to ya'. If something like this happening to you doesn't get a prayer out of ya, little else would).

Cheers! That a relative of yours?

Actually, I never watch tv myself, either, boring load of crap, but put me in front of a camera anytime.

 

[Huntster]

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.

It isn't so much fun as it is an honor and blessing.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Genesis.

Well, that's an authoritative source. Harry Potter books would be better, because they don't contradict themselves over and over.

Maybe that's because Harry Potter books were written by a single author, and her goal was to sell them to people like you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
With regard to the word "proof", I consider it the ultimate in evidence, and it establishes something "beyond the shadow of doubt." I have challenged several on this forum who have exchanged the words "evidence" and "proof", sometimes in the same post.

Proof is the ultimate in evidence? That doesn’t really make any sense, not how it is stated I mean. You seem to be making proof and evidence interchangeable here yourself, like proof is “super-evidence” while evidence is just your average variety. I think I understand what you’re trying to say though. Did you mean that proof is the establishment beyond doubt based on the evidence? I would agree with this. However, I tend to find your criteria for what constitutes evidence as far too lenient for establishing anything beyond doubt.

Proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

 

[Freethinker]

Maybe that's because Harry Potter books were written by a single author, and her goal was to sell them to people like you.

So even though you acknowledge the flaws in the bible, you still consider it a valid reference? I certainly wouldn't argue for the existence of flying cars by citing Rowling, how can you argue for the existence of a sky-fairy by citing the cobbled-together, contradictory works of some unknown group of writers?

 

[I less than three logic]

Proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Welcome to Alaska, tourist! The bears are hungry............

(Anybody interested in the story that goes with the photo can let me know, and I'll PM it to ya'. If something like this happening to you doesn't get a prayer out of ya, little else would).

Cheers! That a relative of yours?

Nope. Don't know the guys personally. This is an email circulating among Alaskan hunters recently involving a bear attack at a moose hunting kill site. These guys had brought their rifles back to the boat when they went for their meat dressing gear, and had returned to the kill site with a single action 44 mag. handgun in a holster that didn't want to let go of the weapon during it's time of need. It was an exciting story, and it's amazing these guys got out of it without shedding any blood.

Happens often up here, but usually the humans come out of it well whupped (if they come out of it at all).

Actually, I never watch tv myself, either, boring load of crap, but put me in front of a camera anytime.

I'm too ugly for cameras, and usually when TV cameras point in my direction, they're trying to use my ugliness to sway a news story.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe that's because Harry Potter books were written by a single author, and her goal was to sell them to people like you.

So even though you acknowledge the flaws in the bible, you still consider it a valid reference?

Of course. Just because people 3,000 years ago didn't have our command of science doesn't make them stupid.

In fact, they appear more wise than many today.

I certainly wouldn't argue for the existence of flying cars by citing Rowling, how can you argue for the existence of a sky-fairy by citing the cobbled-together, contradictory works of some unknown group of writers?

I don't argue for the existence of a sky-fairy. I point out my belief in God.

 

[Tricky]

So it cannot be proven that a biological creature has died or is alive?

Nope. Lots of things have been thought to be dead that weren't. Though not currently doable, it might be hypothetically possible to rebuild a biological creature, even one presumably dead for many years, back to the point where it is considered alive. It is tremendously improbable though.

This is why I don't claim to know that the God of Christ doesn't exist. He's just tremendously improbable.