That is not true from a logical standpoint and the links I posted in the previous page....Ravi makes this very clear. It is either or.

We don't know if we really exist?
And who shall I say is asking that question?

 

That is Ravi's Believe just like I said. How can you absolutely prove that the only choices are either or? There could possibly be a maybe, or a sometimes. That is all debateable. From a logical standpoint "truth" is a belief. What is true to you or someone else, may not be true to me. It's all about beliefs and all centered on beliefs. You just believe what Ravi says, doesn't mean I do and it doesn't make my opinion any less true either.

 

Your argument is not rational.... it's circular.... you must look past the circular to the reality around us... and what rational answers are possible... Nature shows us that there are concretes, that there is truth and untruth, possible and not-possible... thus the attempt is to surpass "Belief" and encounter a logical and rational arguement for Deity, over the perspective of "Lack of Deity". I see way more rational arguements that point in the direction of diety, that those presented as showing that a deity of some sort doesn't exist...

the other question---

Vox Day is a Christian Libertarian and Blogger online.... He's an insanely smart man, with an immense knowledge of Theology and Philosophy... you can google and find him online...

And to the random one...

The behaviours of indiviuduals don't represent those of a whole perspective... the world is full of twisted and messed up individuals of all worldviews.... that would not discount the ability of any worldview, beyond those individuals, to have merit on its own.

 

Meet the "Athiest" host. Ravi's Very Own Gospel Website. That's the LINK, ScionDad. Your link, as provided. I wonder about you, ScionDad. Anxious to pound me down, you owe an apology or at least an explanation.

This guy is a gospel monger more than an atheist... I think...can't tell. The devil takes many guises.

 

Truth is truth...I can tell you the sky is blue, yet you BELIEVE it is green. It can't be both so it must be either or.

Ravi isn't going by faith or belief...he is going by decades of study across almost every aspect of man's different philosophies and religions. This includes scientific as well. To go into Harvard, Univ of Florida, Georgia Tech, or other countries and their religious systems takes serious and deep understanding of not only his knowledge, but their knowledge as well.

WeDriveScions has hit it dead on the nails head. To begin a serious discussion like this, basic standards have to be established as ground rules or circular logic becomes the position of those with no answer.

Either God exists or he doesn't. Either Islam is right or Christ is right or Budda is right or.......They ALL can't be right.

 

I was being facetious you dolt

I assure you Ravi is no atheiest. As for him being a gospel monger....he will certainly provide scripture when asked or referenced, but usually it is his ability to disarm the circular logic of most non-believers with facts.

 

futhermore, Jesus's philosphy, at basis, is Golden Rule and is not his but belongs to the ancients.
I do agree with much Christly philosphy, but to infer as you do that he invented it, is to be disabused.

Men who would steal and harm do so regardless of their religious affiliations. Perhaps some of the steal and harm a great deal less for it, but.... well...

I say, between teaching right from wrong and -why-,
and by having social rules of order quite separate from Church rulings,
our society can and does flourish.

I don't supose empathy can be manufactured for men to drink up. But, by
training and by example, what empathy most men have, can be reinforce and
rewarded, even outside of Church settings.

The old axiom, "being good is its own reward" is transparently obviously true to myself. I don't think all peeps can get it.

When I am shown to be utterly wrong, if I really mispeak, you will see me bow down and offer personal apology in public.

thanks,
reid

 

How is it circular? How is it any less rational than yours? Granted I'm just throwing it together on the fly during a slow day at work, but here is how I see our two view points...

- things have value because there is a god and there is an afterlife. If there is no god and no afterlife, nothing would have value.

- there may or may not be a god and an afterlife, things have value because mankind assigns them value.

the concept of value/right/wrong/ethics/compassion/etc drives what we do.

You have faith and I don't.....basically, right?

Your not going to convince me and I'm not going to to convince you, but the end I guess that's the understanding we can come to.

If your ever in the neighborhood, I'll buy you a beer.

 

uh, sure you were, sure,
and I am a dolt for certain for conversing with you.

out,
reid

 

The point is that he's going by decades of study which these are done by who? I'm assuming people.....even you said it is based off of man's different philosophies and religions. All beleifs....period. Further more how can you prove the sky is blue? Just because it looks that way? Well what about the times I look at the sky and it is dark (for lack of better words, black), or gray? The only reason why blue is what it is, is because everyone believes it is. Whose to say blue really isn't green? These are all labels man made by society. None of it is truth. If it is give me some understanding of how it is. I do not and cannot believe everything someone says. Just because they put up a good argument and use a bunch of big words, doesn't make their findings credible. I'm skeptical about many things. If Truth is Truth then explain what truth is, without using someones belief to do so.

 

The Golden Rule? You're not very well educated in society BEFORE Jesus Christ arrived and his word for society after. I understand this flaw as it is due to you not actually reading what it is you are trying to put down.

 

and I would drink it with you

 

You implied I deceived you and then get angry when you missed the sarcasim.

Let me get this right...I recommend a man that has forgotten more about man, religion, science, philosophy and society than I know. A man that I stated after his decades of study in all of these areas asking honest questions and seeking honest answers comes to the conclusion that Christ is the answer.

You think he would be an Atheist?

Scifly...if you can't see that....then I agree. Don't discuss things you are not prepared to discuss with an open mind.

 

Circular reasoning in the idea that you want to do something good for the sake of good, without defining why it is good is the first place.... why value something unless there is something to value... and why value that in the first place? Thus, Circular...

That's what I find frustrating.... conversing over insanely complex philosophical points and people expecting or producing quick and non-researched answers... even a pure atheist would have to accept that there are NO SIMPLE answers or solutions, as this world is so complex, even we now cannot even understand the full complexities of the natural... so why would we expect a simple explanation of anything that would surpass it?

Sciondad and I, based on our posts, have done a good job of showing logical dillemmas with the idea of atheism...

The debate regarding Christianity is a separate issue altogether and one that takes even more understanding of true Christian Apologetics and doctrine... But, that is the atheist's dillemma... and one seen in this post repeatedly....

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. - Heywood Broun

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi



The two which also state my perspective against pure atheism are these -

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

Without God man has no reference point to define himself. 20th century philosophy manifests the chaos of man seeking to understand himself as a creature with dignity while having no reference point for that dignity. --R. C. Sproal

 

Very elegantly put.

 

Folks, for The Truth, see this:

http://www.flyingspaghettimonster.com/

And remember, their heaven is way better!

 

Exactly what I mean....anything can be true to whoever believes in it. It is all a belief.

 

But that certainly does not make it TRUE...it merely makes it their belief. Many societies believe eating the heart of their dead gives them the dead persons strength...obviously not true, but it is their belief.

You simply make my point. There is a difference between truth and belief.

 

I didn't say it was "True" whatever that may mean. I said it was true to whoever believes in it. You claim you make a point, but I have yet to see anyone explain to me what is "truth" without using ones belief to explain it. I would really like to know. What is truth?

You might want to re-read what I wrote as I did not agree with your point.

 

ScionDad, you are simply put, a braying ___.
Insulting and ignorant and imperious
and that's your way.
You do not represent the best or even the norm of Christ's teachings. You insult me--- OK... I'm pretty easy going about it. You prevaricate. You make flat statements "That's an -athiest site- without a hint of humor in the original statement and what followed it. You were simply putting me down on a personal level.

Next you call me a dolt. You go on blathering and spamming.

WeDriveScions was right: These kinds of threads are hard to make work.

Well, the only quackery going on at present is your voicings, raspings and honks.

Not being able to discuss with you, I will not reply to you from here on.
So quit biting on me.

next step will be to request a thread lock, spoiler.