TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Anti-gay marriage thread missing but continues....
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Anti-gay marriage thread missing but continues....

I don't know what happened to the Anti-gay marriage thread???
There isn't censorship around here is there??? Mods? hehe


First let me say Arbiter, I appreciate you replying to many of my points. It is interesting though how you conveniently leave others completely alone. But nonetheless I enjoy conversing with you even despite your little insults here and there. Seriously. Your the type I'd enjoy sitting around the table and philosophically discussing life, the universe and everything with. I have a German friend with whom I used to get into all kinds of philosophical discussions. Now on to the discussion....

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well if that's the point you were trying to make, then you haven't done a very good job of it. You've provided absolutely no evidence that the religious beliefs or the lack thereof of any of the framers of the Constitution had any effect on their creation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

First LOL, let me say your responses to the first half of the post on christianity and US gov. looks like it could have came right from here http://www.nobeliefs.com
I'm curious if you are a member there? Maybe you are the site admin there! hehe I have been there before. Continuing...

You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history.

The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp

I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.

quote:

No, the letter by Jefferson was written specifically to dispel the misconception that the Constitution and government of the United States had Christian origins.

Ok, after reading it a few more times I will agree with you on this from the context it was written. I do think, Jefferson was trying to make that case in his letter. But I can't entirely agree with it. He was trying to put to sleep an issue that was brewing, the same you and I are debating on here. I don't think he was telling the entire truth in that letter. Here is why. First, Jefferson like any other man held beliefs and a moral or ethical code that came in large part from Christ. So much so that he compiled his own bible of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure you are aware Arbiter. Surely, this proves that Jesus played a major role in Jefferson's personal moral code. Yes, i know he edited out all the other doctrinal stuff but that isn't the point here. He believed in a supreme God and he believed at least the Christ lived and his teachings were the finest ethical code in the world. Heck Arbiter, he sounds like a better christian than half of the christians today!!

." Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. " http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

When and under what circumstances Jefferson's deistic beliefs came about is unknown but there seems strong evidence that it probably came out of christian theology. He believed in a supreme God or Creator and he supported the teachings of Christ.

quote:

There's no evidence that the "Creator" referred to in the Declaration of Independence was a specific reference to the "Christian God," nor is there any evidence that it was anything more than a rhetorical trick to attempt to make their claims more authoritative. In any case it is utterly irrelevant because the Declaration of Independence isn't one of the formative documents of the United States Government.

Now tell me why he drafted this in to the DOI??
My point is why is "Creator" or a God it in there at all? Trickery doesn't cut it Arbiter. Jefferson believed in God. And where did he get this idea of a God? He got it from the influences in his life from christianity my friend. Yes he was a diest and had different views of the role of God in mans life, but everything has it's origin. One thing shapes another. His was christianity.

Not even Jefferson himself could divorce himself of his own deisistic views when drafting the DOI. The man who basically paved the road for religious freedom in USA couldn't do it. I think it possibly could have been wrote different but maybe it wouldn't have got supported by other christians which would also support my points about politics and religion. Jefferson was inspired with the DOI (possibly from the teachings of Christ who knows?) and the BOR was inspired from natural "unalienable" rights. Even some of the other founding fathers who proclaimed themselves as diests it's likely formulated their beliefs from christianity. True, this is speculation but its not without some merit since deism does support a belief in a supreme God also. Then there were the other strong christians like Washington who influenced many others.

quote:

The author of the document, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist. So I doubt that his ideas about a "Creator" came from the Christian Religion.

You can doubt it but my evidence above I think strongly supports this.

quote:

You really are ignorant, aren't you? You don't have any evidence to support your position, so your words are hollow. Thomas Jefferson clearly and concisely stated that the U.S. Government and laws were not based on Christianity in his letter to Thomas Cooper and the rest of the framers affirmed this belief in the Treaty of Tripoli. Unless you're accusing them of lying, you have no argument.

I don't think they could do otherwise. That isn't the issue. To say that natural rights are God given would have removed all sense of neutrality which would have assumed some kind of authoritative religion.

quote:

Don't be so certain of that. The Problem of Evil is irrefutable logical proof that the Christian God cannot and, hence, does not exist.

No it's not! It's not logical proof of anything! What are you talking about?? Leibniz argument was extremely weak.

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

It's a simple as this Arbiter. I don't agree with the fourth premise. God is morrally perfect but He doesn't desire to eliminate all evil. That is because without evil there could be no oposition. No choice because theres no oposition.
The fact there is evil also suggests that there also is good. Do you not see the evidence of opposition in everything? Extreme evil, extreme good. Satan/God. Opposites in all things. You sound like a kid who thinks 'because God allowed this bad thing to happen to me He must not be real." It's nonsense. In order to have free agency evil must be allowed by God. Jefferson even believed this in Deism. Deism supporting that God lets things happen according to nature and doesn't intervene.

quote:

Ah, but my young friend, you are living proof that without evidence there can be belief. You believe that the U.S. government was based on Christian principles, but you have no evidence to support that proposition. You believe that there is a Christian God, but you have no evidence to support that proposition. All you have are feelings and emotions, but those are not valid tools of cognition. Thus, they do not qualify as evidence. Self-deception and denial is all you need for belief.

You are wrong Arbiter! You don't know what evidence I have because it's personal. You don't know my experiences. Oh so 'feelings are not valid tools of cognition'?? Thats interesting. Hmm.. thats new to me!! So I can't percieve sadness or happiness? what are emotions? obviously they exists right. That is as silly as saying that eyes are not tools for percieving light. What about a feeling in your heart? Ok, an internal pain. Do you think that all perception is external only? Where is your proof? People feel internal pain all the time and sometimes it's even physical. But it's not touched with the hand or fingers. It's internal. what about thought? thought is in that intangible realm but you can percieve that you think can't you? oh thats right silly me! you can't because you don't believe in perception at all! that was that little corner you trapped yourself into last time. Your reasoning is getter worse and worse. You must be able to percieve thought to know you even exist. That was Socrates. But according to Arbiter you can't percieve something intangible therefore Arbiter doesn't exist. Nothing exists. Howz that for logic. Do you see things in a dream Arbiter? If you do then you percieve it but how? it's not with the physical eyes.

quote:

Where is the evidence that the supernatural exists. Moreover, where is the evidence that the supernatural need not follow material laws? You claim to base your beliefs on evidence, but you can provide no valid evidence to support them. What are we to believe but that you are confused and ignorant?

Let me suggest this. Air cannot be seen with the eyes yet it exists. If there is no wind, is there no air? I can listen to scientist who say 'yes there is air which is an invisible gas made of oxygen,,..ect.. But to know it truly exists I have to experiment to prove it to myself. There must be empirical evidence. So I go to a lab and do tests and experiments and I find that indeed there is an invisible gas that exists. Now I can say that I have a knowlege that air exists. If I say to you then air exists you may believe me if you have experiences that would hint of something there maybe a breeze you feel on your skin ie something you percieve. Yet you cannot have a knowlege of it until you experiment and prove it to yourself. Then that is empirical evidence and it is personal to you. Others read that it is true in science books and may believe or not.

quote:

A feeling is a neurological response to a phenomenon which specifies an affirmative or negative relationship between that phenomenon and one's pre-existing beliefs. "Feeling God's presence" is not empirical evidence because it is neither an objective experience nor observable phenomenon. When you believe that you feel God's presence, what objective criteria do you use in order to determine that it is, in fact, "God's presence?" The answer is that you do not use any objective criteria, and your "feeling" of "God's presence" is nothing more than affirmation bias. It's neither experimental, nor sensory, nor objective. Therefore, it is not empirical.

You cannot say that isn't an objective experience and it is most definately observable in that it is indeed percieved. Even stronger than the other 5 senses and it is awareness and knowlege all at once. Tell me how is it that you seem to think of yourself as some philosophical minded person yet you are so close minded? Philosophers are open to all possibilities. You may be well learned but you are more close minded than a child.
How I know something is "God's presence" is dependent on my experience alone due to my own experiment and you will just have to do your own or you won't know.

quote:

If you saw something that might or might not be God, then it would be empirical evidence that that thing exists. However, the interpretation that the object of your perception is in fact God is not empirical.

As I tried to make clear before there are more perceptions than just 5 feel(external), smell, taste, see, hear. Seeing isn't everything in fact your eyes can decieve you. I can't see air yet it exists. I mentioned that the metaphysical doesn't necessarily follow material laws (percievable with the 5 senses ). Matter can exist in more form than is visible by the eyes. As for interpreting...lets go back to the experiment. If the scientists told me prior to my own experiment that if I experience this color of flame it is a kind of gas burning, then I would know upon observing the same things in the conditions that by definition I am witnessing that type of gas burning.

quote:

it is a gross and specious oversimplification to think that if you sense something and think that the observation is of a particular thing, then your sensing it is evidence of that thing's existence.

already explained above. sensing or percieving something is proof of somethings existance. what that something is, known if it meets the criterion of how it was first defined.

quote:

Heh. Then give me the equal and opposite argument to this argument: 1. Everything is blue or something is not blue. You don't have two arguments to rub together.

Your premise is false, so it's not a 'valid' logical argument to begin with. Apples are red. Plus you have no conclusion. In order to counter an argument there first needs to be an valid argument which it isn't. The truth of the premises in logic is what can always be argued. And if the premises are not true and in agreement then the conclusion can't be and the argument is not valid.

quote:

"Feelings" or "intuition" are NOT valid tools of cognition! They will verify your previous belief 99%+ of the time ************ of the veracity of your belief. If that's the tool you're using to seperate good evidence from bad evidence, then it's no surpise to me that you're so ignorant.

I've already suggested that feelings or emotions are valid tools. On what evidence do you choose to support they aren't valid? Thats like saying thought isn't cognitive! I look at different pieces of evidence before making decisions but at some point when presented all the evidence you have to make a choice. That isn't always easy. As I said before, there can be opposing evidences lesser or greater in number but which will you choose as credible in the very end is probably not based on logic or reason imo.

quote:

Which of the five senses did you "feel" God with? None of them. You don't understand what a "feeling" is. It is not a "new" source of information. A feeling can only examine already existing information.

Metaphysics deals with different matter so correct. your 5 senses don't appy here.

quote:

It is for the discussion of opinions, that is, the examination of the strength of the evidence upon which they are based. When individuals such as yourself attempt to avoid providing such evidence, it negates the purpose of discussion.

I have discussions all the time that are meaningful and not based on anything but speculations. It has it's purposes. In fact it could be said that most everything is really speculation. But don't worry, I can present evidence in this forum as surely as anyone and already have.

quote:

Your ideas are most certainly in the realm of nonsense if they are based on "feelings" and a proactive decision to ignore actually valid evidence when presented with it. If you don't want to throw out links, so be it. But then why should anyone take you seriously? You provide neither cogent arguments nor valid evidence? What are your words worth to any of us when you provide nothing of substance?

You are assuming that emotions or intuition have no significance. What if I were to suggest to you that a 'gut feeling' can be your strongest tool in determining truth of evidences presented. You wouldn't believe that i bet. Relax! Jeez! Look, I honestly didn't come in here even wanting to talk about religion. It just happened. I wish I could provide you with tangible evidence unfortunately I can't, but I have suggested how one might obtain that evidence for themselves. that is your choice.

quote:

Rejecting the credibility of someone's references without any cause to do so is most certainly the same thing as ignoring what they say. I respect anyone who can provide sound reasoning backed up with facts. You don't meet that criterion, so I don't respect you. Why should I?

Thats true. That would clearly be ignorant.
But I never said anything about having "no" cause. You are speculating again about what i think. I was merely making a point that premises or references in the argument when rejected as false can't make valid arguments. I didn't mean that to sound ignorant. Each person has their own reasons why they may reject credibility just as you do.

quote:

Your method seems to be to instinctively dismiss things that don't inspire in you a "feeling" of confidence. My method is to corroborate the information accross a variety of sources, examine counter-arguments if any can be found, and analyze the credibility of a source using objective criteria such as how, where, and by whom it was published, the reputation of the author, et cetera.

I admire that. Seriously. Hopefully, then you are open minded to consider the possibilities and examples I have suggested in this conversation also.

quote:

One of these methodologies is conducive to learning new information. The other is conducive to desperately clinging to one's pre-existing belief in the face of contradictory evidence. It's clear which you prefer by your pigheaded refusal to accept the clear and irrefutable statement of the framers themselves that the government of the United States is not based on Christianity. Pigheaded eh? LOL. Well I stand on my statement because I believe it. I've shown strong(ofcourse thats how strong is refutable) evidence to suggest it was based on christianity but also that men's beliefs are not separable from the political systems they create. Using Jefferson as a prime example.

You made this statement:



It's no speculation to say that you're making assumptions about the way I analyze information, it's demonstrable fact.[/QUOTE]

I can't seem to find which part you were quoting me now as the original post is gone! anyway, if I was I appologize.

You remind me of a young child who, having lost at a game, tells everyone how stupid and pointless the game is. You cannot provide any sound arguments or facts, so you just tell everyone how pointless it is to argue since you'll never persuade anyone anyway. It's really quite unbecoming. [/QUOTE]

Hehe, well i never lost so I didn't have to do that. J/K. Well I've put everything in this post that is expedient and now I just ask you to consider it all. peace.

Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what?


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what? [[[smoke]]]

Very funny. Especially because I read it after scrolling past the last half of his post

Edit, thanks for the link to www.nobeliefs.com, looks like a sweet site.

hypocrites

http://www.tarpley.net/bush21.htm

quote:

On the morning of June 29, 1989, pandemonium erupted in the corridors of power in the nation's capital. ``Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' screamed the front-page headline of the Washington Times with the kicker ``Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.'' The Times reported, ``A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite.'' The expose� centered on the role of one Craig Spence, a Republican powerbroker known for his lavish ``power cocktail'' parties. Spence was well connected. He celebrated Independence Day 1988 by conducting a midnight tour of the White House in the company of two teenage male prostitutes among others in his party. Rumors circulated that a list existed of some 200 Washington prominents who had used the call boy service. The Number Two in charge of personnel affairs at the White House, who was responsible for filling all the top civil service posts in the federal bureaucracy, and Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole's chief of staff, were two individuals publicly identified as patrons of the call boy ring. -cont

Re: Anti-gay marriage thread missing but continues....

Allow me to skip right to the meat of your post:

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history. The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.

It should come as no surprise that the Constitution reflects many of the same values and beliefs as the Declaration of Independence. It was composed by men with similar philosophies and experiences. But in the process of "being inspired" by the legally irrelevant Declaration, the framers of the Constitution had the opportunity to pick and choose the concepts from that document which they wanted to use to shape the new system of government. Many of the ideas, they very consciously and very wisely chose to incorporate into the new government:

• Self-Government
  
• Natural Rights
  
• Equality Under Law
  

• The ability to make no choices and decide nothing.
  
• The ability to make some choices but not others.
  
• Or, the ability to make any choice.
  

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history. The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.

Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.

quote:

Ok, after reading it a few more times I will agree with you on this from the context it was written. I do think, Jefferson was trying to make that case in his letter. But I can't entirely agree with it. He was trying to put to sleep an issue that was brewing, the same you and I are debating on here. I don't think he was telling the entire truth in that letter. Here is why. First, Jefferson like any other man held beliefs and a moral or ethical code that came in large part from Christ. So much so that he compiled his own bible of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure you are aware Arbiter. Surely, this proves that Jesus played a major role in Jefferson's personal moral code. Yes, i know he edited out all the other doctrinal stuff but that isn't the point here. He believed in a supreme God and he believed at least the Christ lived and his teachings were the finest ethical code in the world. Heck Arbiter, he sounds like a better christian than half of the christians today!! ." Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. " http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Hehe well it�s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson�s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you�ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it�s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn�t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man � or in his words:

quote:

a man, of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, (and an) enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions of divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../jefferson.html

In case you haven�t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

quote:

When and under what circumstances Jefferson's deistic beliefs came about is unknown but there seems strong evidence that it probably came out of christian theology. He believed in a supreme God or Creator and he supported the teachings of Christ.

He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn�t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? Shit, I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.

quote:

Now tell me why he drafted this in to the DOI?? My point is why is "Creator" or a God it in there at all? Trickery doesn't cut it Arbiter. Jefferson believed in God. And where did he get this idea of a God? He got it from the influences in his life from christianity my friend. Yes he was a diest and had different views of the role of God in mans life, but everything has it's origin. One thing shapes another. His was christianity. Not even Jefferson himself could divorce himself of his own deisistic views when drafting the DOI. The man who basically paved the road for religious freedom in USA couldn't do it. I think it possibly could have been wrote different but maybe it wouldn't have got supported by other christians which would also support my points about politics and religion. Jefferson was inspired with the DOI (possibly from the teachings of Christ who knows?) and the BOR was inspired from natural "unalienable" rights. Even some of the other founding fathers who proclaimed themselves as diests it's likely formulated their beliefs from christianity. True, this is speculation but its not without some merit since deism does support a belief in a supreme God also. Then there were the other strong christians like Washington who influenced many others.

Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn�t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:

"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" (Jefferson Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).
The God of the Old Testament -- the God which Christians worship -- Jefferson pronounces "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust" (Works Vol. iv., p. 325).

Referring to Jesus Christ:
"Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: First, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of Nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and second, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile or death in furea."

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor" (Works, Vol. iv, p. 325)

Jefferson speaking of the holy trinity in a letter to James Smith:

"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs"
"The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." (Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).

Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia)
In a letter to Adams:

"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."

Jefferson goes on and on and on � I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.

wtf, are you guys doing somebody's homework again?

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what? [[[smoke]]]

ROFL post of the year

[QUOTE]Originally posted by occrider
Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.

tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.

Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.

Hehe well it�s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson�s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you�ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it�s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn�t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man � or in his words:

Just as I already mentioned to arbiter, I know he removed all refereces suggesting metaphysics.


In case you haven�t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

Hahaha.



He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn�t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? Shit, I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.

Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.


Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn�t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:

tecno-I already covered this.


Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia)
In a letter to Adams:

"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."

tecno- I understand this.


Jefferson goes on and on and on � I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.

tecno- if you wish you can. your choice. I've alreaded stated I know of Jefferson's deistic writings. I don't know how the thread got deleted.

hey technolover, learn how to frame your quotes, it's making a weak arguement appear weak and confusing.

quote:

What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

acknowledgement of the moral importance of the teachings of jesus does not make a man christian. what would be the western implications of christianity without the mythology of jesus rising from death and ascending into heaven? if we were to study the teachings alone, i could make the arguement that jesus was a buddhist and that modern day christians are slaves to his martyrdom. what's the deal with the cross?

quote:

In case you haven�t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

and how does this make jefferson a christian? he expressed his desire to escape the pattern of idiocy and hypocricy represented by practicioners of the christian faith. he was given the opportunity to establish a nation with laws capable of sustaining itself without the influence of religious leadership and he did. if he were a devout christian, why is there emphasis on the importance of the seperation of church and state? you might as well argue that franklin would approve of the patriot act.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.

tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.

Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.

quote:

Hehe well it�s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson�s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you�ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it�s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn�t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man � or in his words:

Just as I already mentioned to arbiter, I know he removed all refereces suggesting metaphysics.

quote:

In case you haven�t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

Hahaha.

quote:

He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn�t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? Shit, I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.

Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.

quote:

Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn�t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:

tecno-I already covered this.

quote:

Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods). "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia) In a letter to Adams: "It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."

tecno- I understand this.

quote:

Jefferson goes on and on and on � I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.

tecno- if you wish you can. your choice. I've alreaded stated I know of Jefferson's deistic writings. I don't know how the thread got deleted.




occrider - This is for my own benefit. My reply shall be forthcoming.

I hope tecnolover learns to quote soon.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium I hope tecnolover learns to quote soon.

Sorry about that I'm just lazy sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter [QUOTE]Originally posted by Arbiter The free will argument doesn't hold a drop of water, as I've posted before. A creator could have imbued his creations with any of the following levels of "free will": The ability to make no choices and decide nothing. The ability to make some choices but not others. Or, the ability to make any choice. Proponents of determinism aside, the middle one is obviously what he would have had to do, given that there are choices I cannot make: I cannot make the morally wrong choice to kidnap someone I don't like, kill them, resurrect them, kill them again, and repeat ad nauseum. This is because I don't possess the free will to perform the act of resurrecting them. I don't possess that degree of free will because any creator I might have arbitrarily decided that this wasn't a choice he wanted to give his creation. The problem lies here: He could have just as easily arbitrarily decided not to give me the choice to kill the person to begin with, either. He could have, but he didn't. Thus, he either doesn't care about the victims of murder enough to stop them from suffering when he easily could, isn't aware that murder exists, or isn't capable of preventing it. Any of these possibilities still results in the explicit logical contradiction. The only way to remove this contradiction is to assume God doesn't exist. Since logical contradictions cannot occur, God cannot exist.

Arbiter- I see you have put on your war helmet now. I didn't recognize you at first. This example is exactly what I've said. The premises can always be debunked. I've explained why Liebnizs' premise isn't necessarily true just as you have given a counter to mine. As i've said logical arguments alone can not prove truth.

Your reasoning for thinking that the fourth premise must be true doesn't hold water either. Like I said, Liebniz's entire argument is weak because of a weak premise. Nowhere does the existance of a deity (especially in the bible) suggest that He controls our lives and that we are puppets or slaves with no freedom will. Just the opposite. The fact that Gods commandments are that we shouldn't sin show that we obviously have that choice to sin. If it was not so there would be no need for commandments or laws.

quote:

It's difficult to address this block of text because it's really nothing more than a rambling sequence of non sequiturs and semi-intelligible rhetorical questions.

True it is a sequence of rhetorical questions. I'm trying to get you to think. To open up your mind. I'm not trying to form an logical argument.

quote:

You first problem is another logical fallacy: equivocation. The "feeling" of, say, pain from a headache and the "feeling" of, for example, the presence of a deity are two totally distinct and largely unrelated neurological phenomena. Sensory "feelings," that is, the neurological reception and interpretation of touch need not be external - if you stick your thumb up your ass and feel it, it's still touch. The human brain can perform a variety of functions. It can store or process information received from the senses, send instructions to the rest of the body, and create new "thoughts" or "emotions" by analyzing data received from the senses. When you or anyone else believes you "feel" God, you aren't feeling him like you feel that thumb stuck up you ass, you're feeling him an entirely different way - with an emotion. For reasons inexplicable to me, you seem to believe that this emotion is a new piece of sensory data. It isn't. It is simply your brain's expression of some emotion, prompted by a combination of data recieved via the five senses and stored data inside your brain. Then, when you "feel" that emotion, you use affirmation bias to convince yourself that it must be God. Well, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but no, that isn't valid cognition.

If I had to pin you to a philosophical ideology I would say you are a true 'materialist'. You only believe what your five senses tell you. Well let me input this concerning my experience if I may. First, i'm not trying to prove anything in these posts because I can't prove anything to you Arbiter or anyone else. You can not prove to me otherwise either. I know what my experiences and I know to be true and can't deny that. To do so would be to say that the sun doesn't exist while looking at it with my eyes.

I will grant this to you, the 'feeling' that I've spoken of was probably not new sensory information. It was felt internally in the heart. I suggest to you that you can feel physical sensations in your heart. It is a sensory perception. As you aknowleged internal pains are felt. Such as sticking a needle in your tongue. Your tongue feels it. Ok, we should agree here. The heart is much more than just an organ that pumps blood. I suggest to you that the heart really is where emotions dwell. The ancient egyptians understood how special the heart is and believed it was more important than the brain. The brain was actually discarded durring mumification and the heart was preserved. Arbiter, that is where I felt what is called 'confirmation'. This was indeed percieved as intense emotion of the greatest joy ever felt mulitplied many times. You can't manufacture this. It feels like a swelling inside the heart that fills your whole body and it is a physical feeling so intense that you tremble. It happened multiple times within a period of maybe an half hour. This made it clear to me beyond imagination that it was true. Maybe this was necessary to indeed confirm to me without any possible doubt. This is confirmation because it was the result of sincere prayer which required faith. This confirmation not only confirms God but the truth of what you were praying to him about. It is not only enlightenment but knowlege. When I said 'pressence of God' I was referring to his Holy spirit which testifies of God and His son. This spirit also can teach all things. I know you don't understand or believe this and I don't expect you to. Maybe someday you will.

This is the best I can do to explain this to you and to any others who might be reading this. It's an experience that really can't be put into words and described so well. This indeed is empirical evidence to the reciever and of the strongest kind. I could look at something with my own eyes and possibly still doubt what my eyes are seeing. Yet when feeling it in your heart so strong that you tremble and fall to your knees...that cannot be denied nor doubted. Yet it will never be experienced by anyone who is not willing to humble themselves, open their heart and pray with sincere faith. This is the reason logic cannot prove God. It requires faith on the part of the idividual to reveal itself. It is that thing we are all here to discover for ourselves and not something that can be known without personal experience.

I hope someday you will exercise at least a small amount of faith and prayer to learn the same truth.

quote:

The fallacy here is a false analogy. If someone wants to perform an experiment to show that air exists, then they would use various tools along with their five senses to obtain the resultant data. Someone else could easily perform the same experiment with the same tools and the same five senses and obtain similar or equivalent data. You've proposed no such experiment to demonstrate the existence of God, because when you come to the conclusion that God exists you don't use any measurements or observations

I've covered as much as I can above. That experiment is faith and prayer.

quote:

You know what: you're right. I'm very experienced in dealing with mystical-con-artists and I know most - if not all - of their tricks, and I cut straight through the bullshit to address the actual argument itself, which is invariably lacking. When presented with a long winded sequence of logical fallacies trying vainly to justify religious bigotry, I point out each fallacy and correct each error. I guess that makes me closed-minded.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. I have no doubt there are many con artists out there. I only hope that your skepticism doesn't close your mind so much that you will never be able to exercise the faith required to recieve 'confirmation' for yourself.

quote:

Yes, and that's exactly why it's not objective. You aren't using a set of criteria to determine that it is "God's presence," you're just deciding that it is based on an emotion which is not a valid tool of cognition. That's as subjective as it gets.

Well until above, u r right I didn't disclose the events leading to the experience. Now you know what is required. Faith is something that isn't easy to have. I was an agnostic once and I had very little faith. I don't believe God expects us to believe in Him blindly. Besides, you can't have a true testimony unless you have empirical evidence. If I say I believe in God and tell that to everyone it doesn't mean I have a true testimony necessarily. It is blind faith. I have a true testimony and those who do can't deny it and will die before they deny it. Yet if you exercise a small amount of faith and humbly ask to know truth you will recieve it for yourself. I guarantee that to you.

quote:

When you don't see air, your eyes aren't decieving you. They never claimed to tell you about things that don't reflect light. You're right that you "mentioned that the metaphysical doesn't necessarily follow material laws," but you've yet to give a verifiable piece of evidence to support this claim. So unless you have an example of something metaphysical which doesn't follow material laws and can be verified outside of your own personal emotions, I'm going to have to assume this claim is nothing more than baseless conjecture.

Well they are decieving you in the sense that they aren't showing you everything that exists in front of you. Maybe decieving isn't the best word. Lets say they just don't allow you to see all things that exist outside of the frequency spectrum that they recieve. X-rays and many other types of light are not visually seen by the eyes, yet they exist but are on a frequency outside of the visual range. There are sounds outside of the audible range of 20hz-20khz and they exist yet you can't hear them. When I say the metaphysical doesn't follow material law it means that the material is of a different frequency not visible to natural eyes and not subject to natural laws. A ghost or spirit may pass through a material wall. The ghost is still matter but of a different kind or frequency. Matter is energy and always exists (Einstein) I'm not going to try to prove ghosts or spirits however, in a thread comming soon I will attempt to with a fairly strong argument using science. watch for it.

quote:

Not really. The scientist could be mistaken, or lying. But that would be easy to determine by corroborating his claims with a variety of sources. But essentially you're right. However, this continues to be a false analogy when it comes to God's presence because what you're experiencing when you "feel" his presence is different from and unrelated to an act of physical observation. Additionally, color can be measured objectively as a particular wavelength of visible light, while a "feeling" of "God's presence" cannot be measured objectively.

Well it is a physical obsevation as I explained earlier. Very much so. Can it be measured well, by each person yes. I recognize this feeling now and it is a teacher. Sometimes it's very strong other times not as much. I don't think it can be put on a universal measurement system because it's unique to the individual.

quote:

My argument has no premises, it has only a conclusion: 1. Everything is blue or something is not blue. This argument requires no premises because the conclusion is a tautology. Therefore, it is logically self-evident. If apples are red, then "something is not blue" so the statement that "everything is blue" OR "something is not blue" is logically true.

And as I said, it's not a valid arguement. It's a logical fallacy. By definition can't even call it an argument. Tautologies are just meaningless statements. The exact opposite of this type of statement would be a 'contradiction'. Another evidence of what I said about everything having an opposite.

quote:

Your emotions are not valid because they do not represent a source of new information, they only represent a "feeling" about existing information. However, this "feeling" is largely based on the compatability of that information with one's pre-existing beliefs: it is not a measure about the validity of the data being examined, it is a measure of the ease with which that data might be assimilated into your pre-existing belief structure. Therefore, it is not a valid or useful tool in determining the accuracy of that information.

True and I gave this too you. It wasn't necessarily new information but more intense than anything before so much so that it seemed different or new.

quote:

I don't necessarily disagree that speculative discussions have their place, but this was never a speculative discussion to begin with. The topic was gay marriage, you made the claim that gay marriage was wrong and should be prohibited because of its incompatability with Christianity. This wasn't a speculative claim, it was an assertion of truth. If you had been speculating, you would have written something like this: "If Christian dogma is true and if our government's role is to enforce that dogma, then I think we should prohibit gay marriage." [QUOTE] You haven't been saying anything like that. Instead, you've made a series of assertions and attempted with little success to demonstrate the truth of those assertions. If you had made the speculative statement I proposed above, I doubt many people would have disagreed with you other than perhaps saying (rightfully so) that it is irrelevant since Christian dogma is false.

Yeh, well when you have a strong belief in your religion and moral code things become less speculative. Things become black and white and not gray.

quote:

I've explained to you ad nauseum why your emotions and intution aren't valid tools to determine the truth of evidence. If you still don't understand it then I'm afraid you're forever doomed to live the rest of your life without knowing how to think properly.

Hahaha, I thought this funny! Well there is a lot you still have to learn my friend but I can understand how you would think this.

quote:

Well, given that your feelings and intution are for all intents and purposes, "no" cause, you've given me plenty of reason to believe that you dismiss evidence without sound basis.

Concerning, different sources of information...
I'm currious what your method of deciding the credibility of a source is. If you have a premise and someone presents 5 observations by 5 different sources, you will read each and then look at the source. Many ppl will be biased by the source alone and reject it. Example, this news bite came from CNN so it's not to be trusted. Let's say you aren't so biased and you research each observation and you cross reference. There comes a point where you can't go any further. You can't gain any more knowlege of the actual event without having actually been there. At this point you are going to have to chose what is the truth. If you were truly unable to allow yourself to use intuition or gut (which comes from experience and is learned) you would never be able to make a choice. But we all do make choices on what we consider truth as I'm sure you do.

quote:

I have thoroughly considered the claims you have set forth and have rejected them on the following basis: a preponderance of fallacious reasoning throughout your arguments, a failure to understand basic concepts of logic with regards to the establishment of truth or falsity, and a consistent demonstration of unsound reasoning through the attempt to determine truth via emotions. As a token of my good faith, I've taken the time above to give a detailed explanation of precisely why many of your claims are invalid and your reasoning flawed. You're welcome to respond if you feel that I've been unfair in my analysis, but I would hope for a higher standard of argumentation if you should choose to do so.

Hehe, well I've had to reject your arguements as well. This thread wasn't going to prove anything to either of us. Although, maybe it will help you to understand that things cannot be proven or disproven by logical arguments. I know I've gone off on a tangent in this thread and I appologize for losing many of you. Arbiter, if I was to explain my philosophical ideology I would say-

All that we can really know is based on our empirical evidence.
This can be percieved by any means that we are capable of.

I percieve myself thinking therfore I exist. I percieve the spirit of God testifying to me of His existance and so He exists.

God cannot be proven to anyone. God proves himself to those who desire to know truth and are willing to exercise some faith. That is one main purpose of this life. If God could be proven that purpose wouldn't exist. It's like me showing you where the treasure is. peace.

Excuse me for my late reply. Unfortunately work doesn�t allow me to post with the same frequency as before � well at least replies backed with proper research.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

You have no basis of proof to logically conclude that Jefferson was influenced by the theology of Christianity. As a matter of fact, there�s no conclusive proof anywhere that Jefferson�s ethical or moral code was a product of anything but his own rationale and character. While it�s true that Jefferson thought of Jesus as doing good things as a common man, that�s hardly indicative of influence from Christianity the religion. An analogous misinterpretation would be if Jefferson were to think highly of the philosophical teachings of Aristotle, Plato, etc., and I were to illogically conclude that one of the great pillars influencing Jefferson�s moral and ethical code was Greco-Roman theology. No that�s absolutely incorrect, I have no basis for assuming that Jefferson�s moral or ethical code was derived from Greco-Roman theology simply because Jefferson thought highly of the men.

quote:

Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.

Yes you are getting sidetracked. Not only are you attempting to impart your own personal experiences upon others, but according to this rationale, if you were to die today, despite all your pro-Christian writings so far, I could still put forth the claim that you were an atheist because I shouldn�t �assume� that you supported Christianity/God/or a supreme creator.

quote:

Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.

Ok let me summarize your argument:

1. People are influenced by different things
2. Most of the colonists were Christians
3. One cannot develop deistic beliefs independently and there is evidence of this!!!
4. Christianity has no set rules about the worship of God
5. Some nonsense about freedom which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion

Hooboy � where to begin.

Point 1: while it is true that people are often influenced by different things, you have consistently failed to make a substantive case demonstrating how Jefferson has derived his moral or ethical code from Christianity. I could just as easily follow your example, of showing no evidence, to support my premise that Jefferson derived his moral and ethical code from Satanism under the ridiculous qualifier that people are influenced! I, on the other hand, quoted Jefferson�s own words where he has rejected Christianity, rejected the major tenants of Christianity, and castigated Christianity time and time again. Despite all of this, you still come to the conclusion that Jefferson was inspired and influenced by the very religion he despised???

Somebody please make me a pope or a bishop � no as a matter of fact, crown me as the reincarnation of Jesus himself, because inexplicably, most enigmatically, I emerge from my vehement protests of religion to become the ultimate paradigm of Christianity!!! While your at it, somebody please appoint Arbiter as a cardinal at least. Truly one of the most holy men I've met.

Point 2: That�s an unsubstantiated assumption. Simply because popular religious sects emigrated to escape religious persecution, such as the puritans, they remain by and large a small percentage of the total population. Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) has admitted that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian. "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81).

This is corroborated by historians: Richard Hofstadter says that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) who goes on to say "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89). Historian James MacGregor Burns agrees with these figures, noting that "(t)here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution" (The American Experiment Vineyard of Liberty, New York Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493). He adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."

To further bolster this argument historians have found censuses conducted in the 1770s to bolster these claims:

�In 1775, by a census Rossiter viewed as reliable, there were 668 Congregationalist churches or congregations, 588 Presbyterian, 495 Anglican, 494 Baptist, 310 Quaker, 159 German Reformed, 150 Lutheran, 65 Methodist, 56 Catholic, 31 Moravian - and a sprinkling of Congregational-Separatists, Mennonites, French Protestants, Dunkers, Sandemanians and five Jewish congregations. Many colonists belonged to no church at all and attitudes toward religion were quite casual among the upper class and the poorest of the colonists. �
http://www.ocregister.com/commentary/bock/bock81102.htm

If you have any credible accounts from historians or statistics from that time period than by all means post it.

Point 3: I find this to be the most amusing argument of all. One cannot become a deist without influence from a religion, particularly Christianity??? Deism, which requires the simplistic theological step of merely believing in a higher power cannot independently evolve without the influence from an extraordinarily complex belief structure involving the bible, the holy trinity, resurrection, ascension, virgin births, etc., etc., etc. And there�s EVIDENCE of this??? By all means elaborate on the mind-numbing complexities of deism such that it is out of the reach of independent development � oh and of course post your evidence. Oh yea and I would assume that since Deistic theology must evolve from some other form of religion that Christianity or any of the other modern religions pre-date any accounts of Deism.

Point 4: Christianity is about �being able to worship God how they want to�??? So one need not believe in all that hooey spouted in the New testament? You know, all this crap:

"He who believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he who believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)

�"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your household." (Acts 16:31)

�"To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

�"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

�"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name." (John 20:30, 31)

"Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by Me." (John 14:6)

�"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

�"Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25, 26)

�"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (l Timothy 2:5)


Wonderful, guess all those Christian churches are completely wrong about Christianity! It�s good that you cleared things up for me.


My Rebuttal to Your Point 5: The theme for the Hispanic Organization of Latino Americans (HOLA) network group's Hispanic Heritage Month activities this year was �L.E.A.D. � Leadership, Empowerment, Achievement and Determination.� Through their series of events, the group led the way in educating both young and old on diversity, leadership and achieving our mission. HOLA and the Freddie Mac Foundation collaborated with organizations such as the Department of Agriculture and the National Council of Hispanic Employment Program Managers to create the first Greater Washington, D.C. Hispanic Youth Symposium. The event encourages Hispanic high school juniors and seniors to seek brighter futures through higher education, community service, and personal responsibility.

quote:

Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.

Evidence??? What evidence? You haven�t shown an iota of evidence demonstrated Jefferson was in any way Christian or that he modeled the US government on Christian ideals. As a matter of fact, this statement by Jefferson shows us EXACTLY what he thought about modeling the gov�t from Christian influence.

In a letter to Major John Cartwright:

quote:

"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction at length of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary which you have adduced is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you to show when and by what means they stole the law in upon us. In a case of quare impedit in the Year Book 34 H. 6, folio 38, (anno 1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court. And Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words: 'A tiel leis qu'ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture covient a nous a donner credence,' etc. See S.C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro.; Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his first book, c. 3 is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and mistakes it thus: 'To such laws of the church as have warrant in Holy Scripture our law giveth credence;' and cites Prisot, mistranslating 'ancien scripture' into 'Holy Scripture.' Whereas Prisot palpably says 'To such laws as those of holy church have in ancient writing it is proper for us to give credence;' to wit, to their ancient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing, Max. 3. And Sheppard, title 'Religion,' in 1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Y.B. Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words: 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.' 1 Ventr. 293. 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and reechoings from one to another it had become so established in 1728 that, in case the King vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law. Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and say that all blasphemy and profaneness are offenses by the common law, and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, 4.59, repeats the words of Hale, that 'Christianity is part of laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange. And finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification in Evans's case, in 1767, says that 'the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.' Thus engulfing Bible, Testament, and all, into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same book, and that a mistranslation of the words 'ancien scripture' used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch, and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston's case cites Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures on his own authority. Here I might defy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to show how some of they Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the texts of Alfred's laws 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23d to the 29th verse. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this between church and state! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all!" (Works, Vol. iv., pp. 397, 398).

There in Jefferson�s own words you can see him criticizing those who claim that Christianity had any influence on the state. I mean what else do you want??? Shall we perform a s�ance to bring Jefferson�s spirit back from the grave so he can do a little song and dance for us about how retarded the church is?

quote:

occrider - This is for my own benefit. My reply shall be forthcoming.

Thanks occ, your efforts to make my reply easier was certainly appreciated.

Christ now when am I going to find time for that "explosives" thread?

quote:

Originally posted by D.Edge i think you are abusing the term "empirical evidence". * i don't see how it is possible to confuse "perception" with "observation".

As I suggested it is very much percieved and is an experience. It's like feeling the 'sunlight' permeate your entire body and knowing it is the sun because of the direct relationship. You asked the sun itself and then it manifested itself to you by permeating you with it's light. Make sense? probably not. Anything/everything you percieve or observe in your life is empirical evidence.

empirical {Ger. Erfahrung}

Based on use of the senses, observation, or experience generally. Hence, the empirical coincides with what is a posteriori. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#empl

quote:

in other words, God only exists to those who believe in Him. so does Santa Claus, funnily enough.

Those who believe in him don't necessarily know He (sun) exists though. Not until they recieve confirmation by the power of the holy spirit(sunlight) and that requires prayer and sincere asking of Him(sun) also. Hopefully that makes sense. It's the best I can do.

Well??? I'm waiting for my coronation as Jesus 2 ... none of you get any salvation until it's official.

I think the name of this thread should be chaged.

And occrider, what are you going to save us from exactly?



When you are coronated please take time to send me converted wine. I'm in need of that.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium And occrider, what are you going to save us from exactly?

Darwinian extinction due to the lack of common sense as a byproduct of religious idolatry.

quote:

When you are coronated please take time to send me converted wine. I'm in need of that.

Sorry, Jesus 2 drinks all the wine himself.

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Arbiter- I see you have put on your war helmet now. I didn't recognize you at first. This example is exactly what I've said. The premises can always be debunked. I've explained why Liebnizs' premise isn't necessarily true just as you have given a counter to mine. As i've said logical arguments alone can not prove truth.

Logical arguments can and have proven truth. They may not be enough to convince an illogical person, but that speaks to the ignorance of that person, not to the efficacy of the argument.

quote:

Your reasoning for thinking that the fourth premise must be true doesn't hold water either. Like I said, Liebniz's entire argument is weak because of a weak premise. Nowhere does the existance of a deity (especially in the bible) suggest that He controls our lives and that we are puppets or slaves with no freedom will. Just the opposite. The fact that Gods commandments are that we shouldn't sin show that we obviously have that choice to sin. If it was not so there would be no need for commandments or laws.

You haven't understood my ideas at all. God easily could have permitted sin without allowing people to gas each other to death by the millions. For example, people could still choose to carve graven images, or covet their neighbors' wives. However, he unnecessarily allowed people to kill each other - serving no purpose which could not be accomplished in a myriad of other, less offensive, ways. An omnibenevolent being, by definition, simply would not and could not make this choice.

quote:

True it is a sequence of rhetorical questions. I'm trying to get you to think. To open up your mind. I'm not trying to form an logical argument.

Well if you want me to think then why don't you give me something to think about? You know, like facts, or logic, or maybe even both? Conjecture and demagoguery doesn't really do it for me.

quote:

If I had to pin you to a philosophical ideology I would say you are a true 'materialist'. You only believe what your five senses tell you. Well let me input this concerning my experience if I may. First, i'm not trying to prove anything in these posts because I can't prove anything to you Arbiter or anyone else. You can not prove to me otherwise either. I know what my experiences and I know to be true and can't deny that. To do so would be to say that the sun doesn't exist while looking at it with my eyes. I will grant this to you, the 'feeling' that I've spoken of was probably not new sensory information. It was felt internally in the heart. I suggest to you that you can feel physical sensations in your heart. It is a sensory perception. As you aknowleged internal pains are felt. Such as sticking a needle in your tongue. Your tongue feels it. Ok, we should agree here. The heart is much more than just an organ that pumps blood. I suggest to you that the heart really is where emotions dwell. The ancient egyptians understood how special the heart is and believed it was more important than the brain. The brain was actually discarded durring mumification and the heart was preserved. Arbiter, that is where I felt what is called 'confirmation'. This was indeed percieved as intense emotion of the greatest joy ever felt mulitplied many times. You can't manufacture this. It feels like a swelling inside the heart that fills your whole body and it is a physical feeling so intense that you tremble. It happened multiple times within a period of maybe an half hour. This made it clear to me beyond imagination that it was true. Maybe this was necessary to indeed confirm to me without any possible doubt. This is confirmation because it was the result of sincere prayer which required faith. This confirmation not only confirms God but the truth of what you were praying to him about. It is not only enlightenment but knowlege. When I said 'pressence of God' I was referring to his Holy spirit which testifies of God and His son. This spirit also can teach all things. I know you don't understand or believe this and I don't expect you to. Maybe someday you will. This is the best I can do to explain this to you and to any others who might be reading this. It's an experience that really can't be put into words and described so well. This indeed is empirical evidence to the reciever and of the strongest kind. I could look at something with my own eyes and possibly still doubt what my eyes are seeing. Yet when feeling it in your heart so strong that you tremble and fall to your knees...that cannot be denied nor doubted. Yet it will never be experienced by anyone who is not willing to humble themselves, open their heart and pray with sincere faith. This is the reason logic cannot prove God. It requires faith on the part of the idividual to reveal itself. It is that thing we are all here to discover for ourselves and not something that can be known without personal experience. I hope someday you will exercise at least a small amount of faith and prayer to learn the same truth.

What you experienced wasn't just "confirmation," it was "confirmation bias":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Once again, this is a flawed/invalid form of cognition. It really isn't a matter of conjecture at this point what organ emotions are located in. It is universally accepted biological fact that emotions occur in the brain, primarily in the limbic system where emotions such as fear, anger, and pleasure have been confirmed to arise. Other emotions may be more complex and/or use different mechanisms in order to manifest themselves, but one thing we can be sure of is that they don't come from the heart.

quote:

I've covered as much as I can above. That experiment is faith and prayer.

Your experiment is fundamentally flawed because the hypothesis is not verifiable, nor is the induction that "God" is the source of one's feeling falsifiable. Ergo, it provides evidence for nothing.

quote:

Well until above, u r right I didn't disclose the events leading to the experience. Now you know what is required. Faith is something that isn't easy to have. I was an agnostic once and I had very little faith. I don't believe God expects us to believe in Him blindly. Besides, you can't have a true testimony unless you have empirical evidence. If I say I believe in God and tell that to everyone it doesn't mean I have a true testimony necessarily. It is blind faith. I have a true testimony and those who do can't deny it and will die before they deny it. Yet if you exercise a small amount of faith and humbly ask to know truth you will recieve it for yourself. I guarantee that to you.

Faith is the antithesis of valid rational cognition. Any postulate which requires faith to justify or demonstrate is false.

quote:

Well they are decieving you in the sense that they aren't showing you everything that exists in front of you. Maybe decieving isn't the best word. Lets say they just don't allow you to see all things that exist outside of the frequency spectrum that they recieve. X-rays and many other types of light are not visually seen by the eyes, yet they exist but are on a frequency outside of the visual range. There are sounds outside of the audible range of 20hz-20khz and they exist yet you can't hear them. When I say the metaphysical doesn't follow material law it means that the material is of a different frequency not visible to natural eyes and not subject to natural laws. A ghost or spirit may pass through a material wall. The ghost is still matter but of a different kind or frequency. Matter is energy and always exists (Einstein) I'm not going to try to prove ghosts or spirits however, in a thread comming soon I will attempt to with a fairly strong argument using science. watch for it.

Certainly, there may be things we cannot perceive, but so what? We can neither claim to know they exist, or claim to know they do not exist, so long as they possess internally consistent characteristics. To make either claim would be irrational and have no sound basis.

quote:

Well it is a physical obsevation as I explained earlier. Very much so. Can it be measured well, by each person yes. I recognize this feeling now and it is a teacher. Sometimes it's very strong other times not as much. I don't think it can be put on a universal measurement system because it's unique to the individual.

It is not a phsyical observation, it is a serious of non sequitur leaps of faith based on confirmation bias and a priori assumptions. Thus, it is not a valid analogy.

quote:

And as I said, it's not a valid arguement. It's a logical fallacy. By definition can't even call it an argument. Tautologies are just meaningless statements. The exact opposite of this type of statement would be a 'contradiction'. Another evidence of what I said about everything having an opposite.

Yes, the opposite of this statement would be a contradiction - that is exactly why the statement must logically be true. It is impossible for it to be false, just as it is impossible for a contradiction to be true.

It is a valid argument whether you have the education in logic to understand it or not. If it is a fallacy, then what fallacy is that? It is no fallacy: it is perfect and irrefutable mathematical reasoning; hence, your failure to refute it.

quote:

Yeh, well when you have a strong belief in your religion and moral code things become less speculative. Things become black and white and not gray.

That's called oversimplification and just plain ignorance.

quote:

Concerning, different sources of information... I'm currious what your method of deciding the credibility of a source is. If you have a premise and someone presents 5 observations by 5 different sources, you will read each and then look at the source. Many ppl will be biased by the source alone and reject it. Example, this news bite came from CNN so it's not to be trusted. Let's say you aren't so biased and you research each observation and you cross reference. There comes a point where you can't go any further. You can't gain any more knowlege of the actual event without having actually been there. At this point you are going to have to chose what is the truth. If you were truly unable to allow yourself to use intuition or gut (which comes from experience and is learned) you would never be able to make a choice. But we all do make choices on what we consider truth as I'm sure you do.

It's fairly simple, to be honest. I collect as many different points of view on a single piece of information as possible, and examine which side better refutes the arguments of the other side. If one side tends to rely on logical fallacies and the other side provides falsifiable evidence which has not been falsified, then I'll tend to believe the latter.

In some cases, neither side makes a compelling rational case and I have a choice between relying on my "intuition" or simply not professing a belief in either. In such a case, I will not believe either, but rather simply say "I do not know."

quote:

Hehe, well I've had to reject your arguements as well. This thread wasn't going to prove anything to either of us. Although, maybe it will help you to understand that things cannot be proven or disproven by logical arguments.

You've rejected my arguments, yes. But have you provided a sound basis for such rejection? Most certainly not. I have proven or disproven several "things" by logical arguments in this thread alone - a refusal to accept them is mere ignorance.

quote:

Arbiter, if I was to explain my philosophical ideology I would say- All that we can really know is based on our empirical evidence. This can be percieved by any means that we are capable of. I percieve myself thinking therfore I exist. I percieve the spirit of God testifying to me of His existance and so He exists. God cannot be proven to anyone. God proves himself to those who desire to know truth and are willing to exercise some faith. That is one main purpose of this life. If God could be proven that purpose wouldn't exist. It's like me showing you where the treasure is. peace.

Your philosophical ideology is one which will simply affirm whatever you wish to believe. Your methodology for the determination of truth is one which will never yield a result inconsistent with your preconceived ideas which were likely based on no evidence, or misinterpreted evidence. It is, ultimately, the philosophy of ignorance, as it seeks to avoid obtaining new information at any cost.

quote:

Originally posted by D.Edge empirical perhaps. however, evidence is a different matter. can this "experience" be observed/percieved by more than one person at the same time? will everyone's observed/perceived "experience" be consistent with each other's? can this "experience" be examined and/or verified by an impartial arbiter?

Evidence
Noun
1. Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling".

2. An indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear".

3. (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved.

http://www.websters-online-dictiona...v/evidence.html

Where does the definition of 'evidence' require that it be witnessed by many people 'at the same time'? Or even more than one person? If I percieve something it is evidence to me regardless who else might else percieve it. Even still the answer is Yes it has. It is quite obvious that this evidence has been recieved by many many people through out human history. And Yes at times it has been manifested to entire groups or populations of people. All of the prophets of the Bible were certainly people who recieved this same evidence. People every day do, just as you can as well. It is personal evidence. A direct communication from God to you. This is the 'best evidence' and most credible of all.

I am inclined to say usually that it can not be recieved by an impartial individual because it requires an effort on your part. That effort being some faith in Him and His son. People who are truly seeking to know if God exists are willing to humble themselves before Him in prayer and ask Him. They must be able to lay aside all pre-conceptions if only for a moment and come before Him as a child asking their father for the truth. If they do this, He has promised that He will answer. There have been some special accounts however, of individuals who opposed God and persecuted those believing in Him that were litteraly 'struck' as if by lightening or another force and shown the error of their ways and became true believers.

quote:

i appreciate your efforts, but i remain unconvinced by this analogy. the sun is visible. God is not visible, not even to those who believe. also, the sun provides sunlight whether you ask for it or not.

First let me just suggest that people actually have seen God. Moses and others did. Yet with their spiritual eyes, not physical eyes. Our physical eyes do not see everything that exists. Air, x-rays ect ect. They are all invisible yet they exist.

Yes, the sun does provide sunlight but you don't always get that sunlight do you? sometimes you are inside your house enclosed. Like the sun, God's spirit is everywhere like a light but is not felt unless the person opens his heart to recieve it. Unbelievers and skeptics have closed their hearts.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God.

Occy... could you expound on this statement? I am just curious.

I'm still trying to sift through this post... although I can see the main point of argument is Jefferson and the writers of the DOI believing in God and whatnot... I can't figure out the exact purposes of Arbiter's and technolover's exchanges.

quote:

Originally posted by Tecnolover First let me just suggest that people actually have seen God. Moses and others did. Yet with their spiritual eyes, not physical eyes. Our physical eyes do not see everything that exists. Air, x-rays ect ect. They are all invisible yet they exist. Yes, the sun does provide sunlight but you don't always get that sunlight do you? sometimes you are inside your house enclosed. Like the sun, God's spirit is everywhere like a light but is not felt unless the person opens his heart to recieve it. Unbelievers and skeptics have closed their hearts.

Wow ... just wow.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Occy... could you expound on this statement? I am just curious. I'm still trying to sift through this post... although I can see the main point of argument is Jefferson and the writers of the DOI believing in God and whatnot... I can't figure out the exact purposes of Arbiter's and technolover's exchanges.

Well it's quite simple ... after being forced to page through parts of the bible for much of my youth, I've unfortunately become quite ... intimate ... with what the bible preaches. I used to be a roman catholic so perhaps my understanding is particularly swayed in one direction, however, Christianity and Catholicism require more than simply believing in a God, aka Deism, to acheive salvation. One must follow the commandments, give confession, believe in the holy trinity, believe in Jesus, etc., etc., etc. Principally among those however, is the acheivement in salvation through Jesus alone. The New Testament explicitly states that there is no other way to acheive salvation. Considering how Jefferson thought of Jesus as a well-intentioned, but mortal, bastard child who was falsely depicted by his disciples to create some kind of demigogue, I think it's safe to say that he committed a big no-no in Christianity.

As for Arbiter and Tecnolover's entertaining exchange, my understanding is that Tecnolover is somehow attempting to prove to us that God exists from his own experiences and that faith is logical. Not to besmirch faith, but if the belief were logical and rational than it wouldn't require faith now would it? Which is entirely ok, most of us have "faith" in something or other whether it be God, a political candidate, etc.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.