I just love it when people tell me I am making a fatal error in logic. It reminds me of how inane human intelligence really is. What I said to you was the doctrine you carry in your head, please note the words, in your head.
My head is empty. It must be the doctrine you imagine I have in YOUR head.
Yes the Christians make the claim that the resurrection is real from their doctrine. You make the counter claim the resurrection is not real from your doctrine. Please tell me something I do not already know.
Which doctrine do I have that you are referring to? Did I advocate some doctrine? I know Christianity definitely does, one of them being the doctrine of the Resurrection. I do admit I am pointing to that doctrine, but cannot see how mere pointing itself is a doctrine.
I make the claim that the Resurrection is not real from the both the lack of evidence and the appearance of the doctrine itself. If I had a doctrine to advance, I might say something like: "Your Jesus is false and never resurrected, while my deity is the true one." I have never made such a claim. All I have done is to point to the fallacious nature of the Christian doctrine itself. That's all. Sorry your udders are all bunched up about that. Can I help in extricating them from their current state?
An inquiry doesn't have a preconcluded answer and counter claim as you do. You do not inquire, you preach and you preach your belief because of the faith you have in your belief.
Seeing things as they are is not a belief.
I will not repeat the whole lot again. Just say, it puts you in the same category as those you condemn.
No, it does not. YOU want me there, but I won't allow you to do that to me. :sorry1:
And you present your circumstantial and perceptional evidence too. I said concrete evidence.
The fact that no concrete evidence exists from Christianity is concrete evidence that their claim is fallacious. That the Resurrection is factual based upon their faith is just as fallacious. I have already given Christians many chances to demonstrate the significance of the Resurrection, but none have come forth. Not a drip, except for some agnostic who makes the ridiculous claim that the function of the Resurrection has something to do with friction and debate. Completely laughable!:biglaugh:And, oh yes, there was also the idea advanced by one Dunemeister that the Resurrection was a symbol of cosmic renewal, also ridiculous. As it turns out, 'cosmic renewal' involves reinstating the same old moral, heirarchichal system that got us into trouble in the first place, except that now it eliminates free will entirely. De-evolution at its best.
Their sillyness your sillyness, you can't condemn those who oppose you without condemning yourself.
I never condemned them, so you cannot tie me into their silliness.
You are basing your entire premise on a lack of evidence, with the help of perceptional and circumstantial evidence as your support. Then leaning on your own faith to prop it all up.
I am basing my decision on the fact that those who claim a Resurrection have little basis for doing so. For all practical purposes, the Resurrection does not exist. We cannot assume it does exist until the missing evidence is forthcoming, since there is no evidence which points to the existence of such evidence. This has nothing to do with any doctrine anyone else has nor whether they have or not have faith. It is a simple matter of seeing that the claim of a Resurrection is preposterous to
begin with, which is exactly the reason why no evidence exists to support it.
However, if you wish to pursue such a substantial, delusive idea, lending it the credibility it does not deserve, by all means, be my guest. You may as well join them in their delusion. That way, you can both shout in the darkness to lend comfort to one another, in the lonely valleys where the lost ones cry. I prefer to listen from a safe distance. Yodle-ay-dee-hoo!
As far as I am concerned, those who claim a Resurrection are equal to the prisoners staring at the shadows on the cave wall in Plato's
Allegory of the Cave, firmly believing them to be reality. Those who have escaped and have seen the Sun have returned to tell them that they are deluded, but the prisoners refuse to believe it, instead clinging to their delusion, and pointing the accusing finger at those who have seen the Sun.
I wouldn't have thought so, albeit you believe you can see things that other people can't. You have the absolute truth, you are right and those who oppose you are wrong.
I never made such claims. They exist only in your own head. All I said is that I see things as they are. Is that so profound? It has nothing to do with any special knowledge I may or may not have. Seeing is not knowledge. It is just seeing. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Stop adding things into the discussion that are'nt there.
That is some kind of insight, when science doesn't even have this knowledge.
Science cannot have the right kind of insight because the method of science is to dissect and analyze. It looks at the way things behave, but does not understand their true natures. No special knowledge is required to see into the nature of reality. Anyone can do it. Just look.
Of course I am wrong, and you are right. It fits your whole pattern. Only you have the truth, why won't the world listen to you.
Well, if I were a religious fanatic seeking an audience, I would be perfectly satisfied with the fact that you follow me around page after page on these forums. But it took how many pages to get to this one where you, sadly, are still attached to worrying about who is "right and wrong"? It must get pretty boring dragging all that baggage around.
The truth is not something that I
have; it is something that I
see. Is it conceivable to you that there are some in this world who actually do see things as they are? If it is, then just know that it is nothing special, so stop making such a big fuss about it. You want to attack me personally, instead of paying attention to the material being discussed. If what I say is not credible, then present an argument to that effect. That way, you will kill two birds with one stone; proving my information invalid, as well as showing that I pretend to have some special knowledge.
I have noted this in you already.
Oh, so now it is YOU who is seeing and noting things, eh? Are you doing that with the doctrine in your head, while also condemning me? In so doing, just remember that footprints is also condemning himself!
I would say that is your confusion you are feeling, I am not confused at all. What we see in others is only in ourselves.
You clearly stated that spirituality is personal. I have pointed out to you that it is just the opposite, and that it is belief that is personal. Apparently you are confusing the two. Just because you are confusing them does not mean that I am.
See you haven't been to china? Some menus are just made to be eaten.
Be my guest, but the description is not the described. Empty calories, you know.
