the right religion

[Muffled]

That's your belief, and thankfully it does not dictate what's actually right and wrong. As for your other post about people calling Christianity wrong with no evidence; there is no evidence to prove that Christianity is the right religion. Contrary to popular belief, it has not been proven that Jesus existed, or that God does.

I believe only God dictates what is right or wrong. Since God is in me I dictate what is right or wrong whether I personnally believe it or not. The "I believe" phrase is included so that the rules of this site are followed.

I believe I have given evidence in an earlier post. I don't believe it is evidence that you will accept.

I don't believe there is any need to prove those things.

 

[RJ50]

I believe only God dictates what is right or wrong. Since God is in me I dictate what is right or wrong whether I personnally believe it or not. The "I believe" phrase is included so that the rules of this site are followed.

I believe I have given evidence in an earlier post. I don't believe it is evidence that you will accept.

I don't believe there is any need to prove those things.

A lot of what is done in the name of the Biblical deity is very WRONG indeed!

 

[Muffled]

:biglaugh: this is even funnier. You have failed to realize that I was born into Christianity and enjoyed going through the "evidences" of Christianity and once believed it myself. The issue is once I grew up and acquired real knowledge this changed.

There is no evidence for Christianity as a whole. The Nile has not dried and Egypt still persists. Failed prophecies and a god who sent himself as a supposed son to die for the sins he gave humanity in order to rectify his guilt.

This has nothing to do with egoism. It has to do with YOUR egoism thinking that such a religion is the right one. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but to have such firm faith in a religion that has been disproven so many times baffles me.
You accuse me of not "examining" the "evidence". How can I examine something not present?

I don't believe that you have acquired real knowledge.

I believe I am evidence of Christianity. It is not failed prophecy but prophecy yet to be fulfilled.

I beleive there is no egoism involved but simply a proper assessment of the facts.

I believe thos who think they have disproven Christianity are wrong in their assessment of the evidence. I believe being baffled is a product of ego since you are basicly saying that only your own concepts can be right. Who are you to say what is evidence and what is not? I know who I am, a person with Jesus in me.

You can't, but God is present and His word is present also.

 

[Muffled]

I think Mark was hearing lots of stories about the Christ, based on earlier godmen stories, and that he decided to write about an actual Jewish messiah, placing him in 0-30 CE Judea. I think he created Jesus-the-man from his imagination, that early Jesus deniers were shouted down and written out of the history books, and that a fiction became reality, so powerful was the need for a hero savior.

Just my current best guess. Every word of the gospels could yet be true for all I know.

I beleive God says that all scripture is from Him.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Stop disagreeing with me about the obvious meaning of the word. It's just making you look like you're trying to be uncooperative.

For one, you're contradicting what you say at the end of your post, i.e.

It's a bad sign when a debater believes that words can mean what they in fact mean.

If "murder' has an "obvious meaning", then it has a meaning "which it in fact means"... Which is it? Can words have actual, delineated ranges of usage(i.e. meanings), or does anything go, and a word can just mean whatever you wish it to mean on any particular occasion? Can't have it both ways, my highly confused friend.

In any case, you've merely stipulated that murder means "killing you should not do", a definition contrary to every usage of the word "murder' I have ever heard, and contrary to the definition of "murder" in all the dictionaries we've looked at. Now, just this fact alone demands you substantiate your novel usage, even if your re-definition of murder wasn't obviously measured for your conclusion (since you're saying "murder is immoral" is a tautalogy, you've smuggled moral language into the definition of "murder" so that this does become a tautology).

You don't even know what 1robin and I were talking about.

I wasn't following your discussion, no. I was responding to one post in which you made a patently false claim. Which, due to your lack of shame, you're going to go down fighting for rather than admit your (rather basic) error.

Why am I not surprised?

Heck, you don't even realize that words mean different things to different people at different times.You think that word meanings actually exist somehow, apart from human minds.

Don't put words in my mouth, don't tell me what I think. No strawmen allowed at this party.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I believe I am evidence of Christianity. It is not failed prophecy but prophecy yet to be fulfilled.

How are you "evidence of Christianity"? I mean, could you be more vague?

And are you claiming that the many failed prophecies of Christianity, including Christ's prophecy that he would return during the life of his disciples (Luke 9:27), are not failed but "yet to be fulfilled"? And how would that work in cases where the time something was supposed to happen has already passed? I mean, Christ's disciples are dead- even if the Second Coming were to happen in an hour, his prophecy still would have been wrong, technically speaking- he did NOT return while his disciples were still living.

I believe thos who think they have disproven Christianity are wrong in their assessment of the evidence. I believe being baffled is a product of ego since you are basicly saying that only your own concepts can be right. Who are you to say what is evidence and what is not?

An English speaker competent to know what "evidence" means, and a rational person capable of determining what does or does not satisfy this definition... Pretty simple, really.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For one, you're contradicting what you say at the end of your post, i.e.

If "murder' has an "obvious meaning", then it has a meaning "which it in fact means"... Which is it? Can words have actual, delineated ranges of usage(i.e. meanings), or does anything go, and a word can just mean whatever you wish it to mean on any particular occasion? Can't have it both ways, my highly confused friend.

Yikes. You're serious. My joke went entirely over your head. I can't tell if that's just your hostility or whether you really do have an issue with understanding other minds. I'll say that from my first encounters with you, what I have noticed is a literalist view of language. You believe that words mean what you believe them to mean... and nothing else. The speaker must use them as you would have them used. After all, they mean what you clearly know them to mean.

Just my observation, for whatever it may be worth to you. I've seen the same thing in many others, even very intelligent people. Usually they are hostile people, which is a curious linkage to your own behavior. I think it must be frustrating when you are absolutely certain that the other guy is incorrectly using his words?

In any case, you've merely stipulated that murder means "killing you should not do", a definition contrary to every usage of the word "murder' I have ever heard, and contrary to the definition of "murder" in all the dictionaries we've looked at.

You're lost. 1robin and I were not discussing legal matters. We were discussing morality. He listed "Thou Shalt Not Murder" as an objective moral truth. Then you bumbled into our dialogue insisting that we must use your own favorite definitions of 'murder' all of which have to do with the law.

You're just lost. It's because you think that words must always mean what you think they mean. But that's a mistaken outlook on language.

Now, just this fact alone demands you substantiate your novel usage, even if your re-definition of murder wasn't obviously measured for your conclusion (since you're saying "murder is immoral" is a tautalogy, you've smuggled moral language into the definition of "murder" so that this does become a tautology).

As I say, you are entirely lost. The things you are saying have nothing to do with what 1robin and I were discussing.

Tell you what: Let's go to one-on-one. How about it? I would love to do that.

I wasn't following your discussion, no. I was responding to one post in which you made a patently false claim. Which, due to your lack of shame, you're going to go down fighting for rather than admit your (rather basic) error.

So funny. Words must mean what you say they mean. A very curious mindset.

Let's go have us a one-on-one debate. I'm tired of you breaking into my debates and confusing everything by trying to make my words mean what you insist they mean.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I beleive God says that all scripture is from Him.

Of course you do.

But I'll bet you can't define 'scripture.'

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You believe that words mean what you believe them to mean... and nothing else.

I'm having deja vu... Don't tell me what I think or believe, especially when it is baseless speculation. Address something I actually said, or hold your peace.

You're lost. 1robin and I were not discussing legal matters. We were discussing morality. He listed "Thou Shalt Not Murder" as an objective moral truth.

I gathered as much, but thanks for the recap anyways.

Then you bumbled into our dialogue insisting that we must use your own favorite definitions of 'murder' all of which have to do with the law.

No, not my definition. Just any accepted definition of "murder", in English would work for me. The first three online dictionaries that come up when you search "define murder" disagree with your definition, and I'm betting that if we look at more, those will disagree with you as well. Thus, you're attempting to coin a new usage, and one that is entirely arbitrary since its measured for your desired conclusion.

And RE your strawman; obviously, words have more than one meaning- language is nothing if not highly flexible. However, there are loose rules, established by usage- so if you're using a word, such as "murder", in a way in which it is never used, you are, in a sense, mistaken about what the word "actually means" (i.e. its generally accepted range of usage, which dictionaries attempt to document).

Anyways, since the rest of your post is aimed at a strawman, it is irrelevant.

(and I wasn't aware that there was a "one-on-one" debate format here, but if there is, and provided it isn't too time consuming, I'm willing to oblige your request if you really feel the need to have a ******* match)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I believe only God dictates what is right or wrong. Since God is in me I dictate what is right or wrong whether I personnally believe it or not. The "I believe" phrase is included so that the rules of this site are followed.

I believe I have given evidence in an earlier post. I don't believe it is evidence that you will accept.

I don't believe there is any need to prove those things.

So you use your personal opinion to tell other people how they should live and say you have God's support because you believe in him? Do you realize how that sounds?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm having deja vu... Don't tell me what I think or believe, especially when it is baseless speculation. Address something I actually said, or hold your peace.

I'll post as I please unless the mods step in. I'm tired of your insults and general hostility... not to mention your confusion about how language works.

So expect more directness from me regarding your confused belief system.

No, not my definition. Just any accepted definition of "murder", in English would work for me. The first three online dictionaries that come up when you search "define murder" disagree with your definition, and I'm betting that if we look at more, those will disagree with you as well. Thus, you're attempting to coin a new usage, and one that is entirely arbitrary since its measured for your desired conclusion.

Really, man, you need a basic review of language. I'll be glad to help you with that, but let's do it one-on-one.

First point: Words don't mean things. Only people can mean things.

2) Dictionaries attempt to be descriptive. They are not prescriptive... at least not for those of us who have a decent ear for the language.

3) Words mean what the speaker and the listener agree they mean. In the case of me and 1robin, we were coming to an understanding of our shared meaning of 'murder' when you jumped in to disrupt our dialogue with your insistence that we use the same meaning as you yourself like to use.

4) I'll tell you more in the one-on-one -- whether that's the issue we debate or whether not. You really need to look closely at language and how it works -- especially if you intend to debate using, well... language.

And RE your strawman; obviously, words have more than one meaning- language is nothing if not highly flexible. However, there are loose rules, established by usage- so if you're using a word, such as "murder", in a way in which it is never used, you are, in a sense, mistaken about what the word "actually means" (i.e. its generally accepted range of usage, which dictionaries attempt to document).

Nonsense. If you and I agree that 'tootsie' means 'green glass', then we can have a perfectly fine dialogue about cathedral windows.

Really, this is basic language stuff. Rudimentary.

(and I wasn't aware that there was a "one-on-one" debate format here, but if there is, and provided it isn't too time consuming, I'm willing to oblige your request if you really feel the need to have a ******* match)

Yeah, sure you weren't aware of it.

Yes, I'm tired of your disruptive aggression. I'm tired of you trolling my dialogues and harrassing me by sidetracking the conversation.

Let's go to one-on-one and see what you're made of.

How about the historical Jesus? (I say no such guy.)

If not, name your issue. I'll ask the mods to set it up.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'll post as I please unless the mods step in. I'm tired of your insults and general hostility... not to mention your confusion about how language works.

So expect more directness from me regarding your confused belief system.

"Directedness" is fine. Setting up strawmen is not. If you are going to tell me I believe things I never said, there's no point in me responding.

I see the rest of your post is composed of grandstanding and blowing smoke, and doesn't mention the issue we've been discussing, so I guess that's it for now.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you and I agree that 'tootsie' means 'green glass', then we can have a perfectly fine dialogue about cathedral windows.

And your agreement would constitute... drum roll please... an accepted range of usage. Hurray!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

"Directedness" is fine. Setting up strawmen is not. If you are going to tell me I believe things I never said, there's no point in me responding.

That's funny. You break into my dialogue and accuse me of saying all sorts of things which I never said.

Then you get in a huff because I paraphrase your position (quite accurately).

Anyway, thanks for informing me that strawmen make you flee. Next time you come around, my Strawman Squad will be organized and ready to shout Boo! at you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's funny. You break into my dialogue and accuse me of saying all sorts of things which I never said.

All sorts? Name one. I quoted you directly.

Then you get in a huff because I paraphrase your position (quite accurately).

Lol, riiiiight... The things you claimed I "believed" cannot be found in a single post I've ever made on this entire forum. Clearly you have a very low standard for what constitutes accuracy.

Anyway, thanks for informing me that strawmen make you flee. Next time you come around, my Strawman Squad will be organized and ready to shout Boo! at you.

Hah! I don't doubt it... At least you're honest about your affinity for committing a fallacy of reasoning.

Anyways, the fact that you've failed to continue posting on the subject of moral truths apparently means you realized your error. (not to mention that, obviously, if you're arguing that the 10 commandments, for instance, do NOT constitute "absolute moral truths", you do NOT want to argue that they are tautologies, i.e. logically necessary and incontrovertible truths, since a tautology is essentially the most "absolute" form of truth one can imagine... claiming as much is equivalent to conceding the point at issue... lol!)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anyways, the fact that you've failed to continue posting on the subject of moral truths apparently means you realized your error. (not to mention that, obviously, if you're arguing that the 10 commandments, for instance, do NOT constitute "absolute moral truths", you do NOT want to argue that they are tautologies, i.e. logically necessary and incontrovertible truths, since a tautology is essentially the most "absolute" form of truth one can imagine... claiming as much is equivalent to conceding the point at issue... lol!)

One-on-one. Anytime you feel ready. Just name your issue and tell me which side you want me to take.

 

[1robin]

You could start by saying what it has to do with anything I have said.

Never mind.

Except, blind acceptance of metaphysical speculation is one thing they were likely against; so this wouldn't have done them (or anyone else) any good.

Your selecting one statement from a host is not representative of anything. That site made very good historical arguments for the record of the Bible versus it's critiques and simply added spiritual confirmation as the statement you selected as a footnote. That does not help the actual doomed efforts that site recorded.

If your point is merely that Christianity is extremely popular and long-enduring, I can easily grant that- although I'm not sure what that matters.

How did you get this from my claims? That was not the conclusion that follows what I posted. The fact Christianity flourishes and triumphs over the most powerful empires (Rome for example) who's might is directed towards it's destruction is not proof of your summary above, in fact it is the opposite. Christianity would not be remarkable if it only thrived where enforced (as Islam is IMO) but because it thrives where it should not and in spite of man's will being bent against it.

For one thing, lack of belief in God does not require that one reject belief that morality is objective. There are plenty of forms of moral realism (the position that right and wrong, good and evil, are objective and real) that are not of the divine-command variety; deontology and rationalism, consequentialism, even some forms of conventionalism. So this is a false premise to begin with.

NO, that is an absolute fact. No objective moral force exists if God does not, or at least no evidence of it does. Almost no professional atheist debater even claims objective morality exists. The only one I am aware of (Harris) had to admit he assumes it does in a debate where Craig forced him into a corner. I did not say you can't believe it does, I said you can't prove or demonstrate it does.

The ubermensch is the tether point. And why could an ideal (of the ubermensch) not fill the role vacated by a different ideal (of God)? (since, after all, Nietzsche does not believe that God exists, or ever existed- so God is merely a concept, an ideal, just like the ubermensch).

Humans (even super humans which is almost laughable) can never be a tether of actual objective moral truth. Human assumptions are the very definition of subjectivity.

In any case, this is simply not the place to go over the intricacies of how Nietzsche's twin conception of the overman and the eternal return are a solution to the "reevaluation of all values" that commenced with the Death of God- suffice to say that for Nietzsche, humanity as a whole needn't accept the overman, the way humanity en masse accepted God- Nietzsche's whole point is that humanity's redemption lies in the single ones, rather than the whole of humanity. So even if one person strives for the overman, in Nietzsche's estimation, this can be sufficient to redeem all humankind. In other words-

"The goal of mankind cannot lie in its end, but in its highest specimens." (Untimely Meditations)

The highest specimens being those who strive towards the overman, who is the embodiment of the purest realization of will to power (i.e. in art, as opposed to merely physical overcoming) and affirmation of life, and in doing so, overcome themselves, impose style upon their character, and create new values.

This sound like a bad acid trip and I hope not taken seriously by anyone. No one creates new objective morals.

The Nazi's misappropriation and misrepresentation of Nietzsche is well-documented. I'm just not sure what it has to do with anything, if you did NOT intend to insinuate something negative by it (i.e. that Nietzsche was friendly with nazism- which he explicitly and colorfully denounced).

I pointed out a curiosity that might indicate a negative aspect but was not intended to prove it. Its was just interesting. You are not some kind of Neitzcheite are you? Why so defensive?

His behavior towards Leibniz is one (well-known) example of what I was talking about. But as I said, his extreme egotism is a matter of public record. Google is your friend- try it out.

I have a degree in math and so have heard of him quite a bit but had never heard your claims of him before. However I have no reason to contend them or doubt them.

 

[1robin]

One-on-one. Anytime you feel ready. Just name your issue and tell me which side you want me to take.

The fact you will take whatever side is left explains a lot. The man without conviction is truly ambiguous.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The fact you will take whatever side is left explains a lot. The man without conviction is truly ambiguous.

I have plenty of convictions. I just don't worship language.

It's my tool; not my master.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How did you get this from my claims? That was not the conclusion that follows what I posted. The fact Christianity flourishes and triumphs over the most powerful empires (Rome for example) who's might is directed towards it's destruction is not proof of your summary above, in fact it is the opposite. Christianity would not be remarkable if it only thrived where enforced (as Islam is IMO) but because it thrives where it should not and in spite of man's will being bent against it.

If you are not pointing out that Christianity is popular and long-enduring, even improbably so, I really have no idea what you're trying to say. And if this is NOT what you're saying, then maybe you should just spit it out already- I don't have ESP after all.

NO, that is an absolute fact. No objective moral force exists if God does not, or at least no evidence of it does. Almost no professional atheist debater even claims objective morality exists.

Ah, so that proves that moral realism is impossible without belief in God. Riiiiiight.

Lol... Honestly, think about that one for a second... You should be able to see how ludicrous that is.

In any case, if you're still laboring under the delusion that it is "an absolute fact" that no one holds that morals are objective AND does not posit the existence of God, you should probably Google "ethical rationalism", a view that holds PRECISELY that- a view held by notable secular philosophers including (but not limited to) Plato, Kant, Derek Parfit, GE Moore, and the British utilitarians.

You should have done your homework, I guess.

This sound like a bad acid trip and I hope not taken seriously by anyone. No one creates new objective morals.

Since you're not really in any position to evaluate it, your judgment here isn't worth much. And it was and is taken seriously not only by professionals in ethics and the history of philosophy, but was and is tremendously influential on the arts and academic theology.

You are not some kind of Neitzcheite are you? Why so defensive?

I have a degree in philosophy, and so seeing people repeat oft-refuted canards they heard somewhere gets a little annoying after a while.