Jump to content

A Question For Agnostics & Atheists


Recommended Posts

Many are delusionally arrogant, and many are just afraid of things that they can't control or explain. But I especially respect those that don't fit those stereotypes, they interest me.
Care to expand on that one? If anything, this statement smacks of delusional arrogance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You need to read his seemingly inquistive and open minded posts more critically. It was obvious in the first evolution thread I read here that he attempts to give that appearance in an attempt to trap a casual responder and come back with a "gotcha".
I suspected it might be the case, but was willing to take his 'curiosity' on face value.At the end of the day I am a caring and forgiving sort of guy, despite the instructions in the athiest's handbook
But back to the point, the Bible actually encourages people to think for themselves throughout. It encourages you to seek God in every decision you make, and promises answers for all of life’s problems lie in the Bible. Now since God doesn't literally speak to us we have to read for ourselves and interpret
I'm sorry but the irony here has made me lose control of my bladder
Link to post
Share on other sites
AS in the other thread, this verse states that those that believe will be saved. That does not make the converse true, that those that don't believe will be saved. This is basic, freshman logic class right here. This quote has nothing to do with a) non-believers or cool.gif people who have not yet had the opportunity to believe.
your reasoning on this is very bad...If I say to you, "All who sign up are on my team...what does that imply? That those who dont sign up are not on my team. Thats the same thing that goes on here. All who believe are saved. All who dont believe, well if we are saved from death we can logically conclude.....
AS in the other thread, this verse states that those that believe will be saved, and that those who don't OBEY will not see life but the wrath of God. This has zilch to do with people who have not been given the opportunity to obey.
So if they have not heard can they obey? You claim to know logic yet cant come to the logical conclusion on this. Please put your pride aside1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." So if anybody does any of these things they will not inherit the kingdom of God. You wont be able to show me one person in the world who is not guilty of at least one of these.
I give a more extensive analysis of John 14 in the other thread, go check it out there.
I did and it was wrong i corrected it for u
This is your best one. Unfortunately, everyone is a sinner, so everyone is either getting perished or judged. So it doesn't do us much good in terms of debating what happens to people who don't believe or who haven't been given the opportunity to believe.
See this is what I dont understand You admit that we are all sinners. But say that a sinner can get into heaven when we know this is just not true. So if you sin you cannot be righteous correct. Well how do we attain righteousness.Romans 10:9-10 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."THat is how you attain righteousness...In order for others who dont believe to be saved there must be another way. Does the bible show another way? No b/c of John 14:6 "No one comes to the Father except through the Son."You see how simple this is.
1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."This verse applies to you as much as it applies to me.
Your very correct. IT does apply to me also. That is why when I make a statement about the bible I back it up with verses. Go check through my posts. If I say the bible says something I back it up. Can you say the same? I am still waiting for that verse that says nonbelievers can reach heaven.
I am not claiming that my interpretation is the only interpretation, therefore the burden of proof I bear is much less than that which you bear. Despite this, you have failed to meet your burden of proof, and I have responded with Biblical verses of my own. But this is not a verse-throwing contest.
Ill gladly say your interpretation is not correct. Is mine? Maybe but I can provide verses. I just dont try to add the the bible. Can you say the same. You have not responded with any bible verses that I know of. You have yet to show a verse that says the unrighteous can get to heaven, You have yet to show how somebody who does not believe can get to heaven. So no you have not provided any verses for any of your beliefs
Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is exactly why i'm agnostic. We have multiple perspectives, each believing they're correct and this is with the SAME religion. People become blinded by their own faith and interpret these ambiguous verses to mean what they have been taught. And when confronted with another interpretation or conflict, such inconsistency is easily dismissed by use of some argument of context, etc. But when someone uses a similar argument to contradict your own view/interpretation, you argue its strict, literal interpretation. In the end, each has merely a VIEW that no one knows is correct.I just don't believe that a strong argument exists that says any particular religious perspective is the "correct" view. To some extent that all comes down your own personal belief. I just cannot believe that ONE religion has the right answer and that all other people are going to hell.I figure i'll live my life in the way i think it should be. No one can say i'm a bad person and i help others whenever i can. And if whatever God i meet upon my death doesn't like that? Well, so be it. I cannot spend my time on earth worrying about what God thinks, especially when no one knows WHICH religion is correct, let alone the interpretation of that particular religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
your reasoning on this is very bad...If I say to you, "All who sign up are on my team...what does that imply? That those who dont sign up are not on my team.
We can not continue to have this discussion if you refuse to acknowledge the most basic rules of logical reasoning. The statement "All who sign up are on my team" means that if someone signs up, then they are on your team. It makes NO further conclusions regarding a) whether people who sign up are on your team or not, and B) who else might be on your team, regardless of sign-up procedures. This is why you are misinterpreting the Bible. Your implying logical requirements into verses, when they don't exist.
No b/c of John 14:6 "No one comes to the Father except through the Son."
You keep quoting a tiny portion of a conversation between Thomas and Jesus regarding the disciples. This is misleading, obtuse and possibly dishonest. I've reprinted the entire verse in the other thread. Why do you insist on focusing on only that part of the verse that is most supportive of your arguments? Why do you leave out the context that shows there are many possible interpretations of the passage?
That is why when I make a statement about the bible I back it up with verses. Go check through my posts. If I say the bible says something I back it up. Can you say the same?
No you don't. You are lying. You do not back it up. You pretend to back it up through selective quoting of PARTIAL portions of full verses taken out of context and you use faulty logical construction to back up your out-of-context verses. I, on the other hand, have been using the actual rules of logic and discussing, in depth, interpretations of various verses. So I can say that I back up what I say, you, however, can not say the same thing.
I am still waiting for that verse that says nonbelievers can reach heaven. Ill gladly say your interpretation is not correct. Is mine? Maybe but I can provide verses. I just dont try to add the the bible. Can you say the same.
I have provided ample evidence that says that:The Bible has very little to say about non-believers or people who have not been exposed to the Bible. These two groups are NOT the focus of 99.99% of what is said in the Bible. The focus is on people who choose believe. The Bible's message is a POSITIVE message, not a NEGATIVE message.It's worth going over this one more time too...This is a conditional:IF +Believe --> +Saved CONTRA -Saved --> -BelieveThis states that if "believe" is a characteristic of a thing, then "saved" will also be a characteristic of the same thing.Here's the hard part:The contrapositive of this statement says that if "saved" is not a characteristic of the thing, then "believe is not a characteristic of the same thing.This DOES NOT mean that if "believe" is not a characteristic of the thing, then "saved" is not a characteristic of the thing.The conditional says that if you aren't "saved" you can't have been a "believer," but the statement makes no comment on whether things without a characteristic of believer are things that can possess the characteristic of "saved."The statement tells us something about people who are "believers" and people who are "not saved." The statement does -not- tell us anything about people who are "not believers" or "not obeyers" or "not knowers."Monty
Link to post
Share on other sites

The editing of matt's last post makes it -EV to try and retrace who is saying what, however this statement smacks of matt:"your reasoning on this is very bad...If I say to you, "All who sign up are on my team...what does that imply? That those who dont sign up are not on my team."Whoever made this statement gets an F in logic. "All who sign up are on my team" implies NOTHING about those who dont sign up.Edit: Didnt see Monty's reply before posting, I'll leave it anway, since redunancy might be the path to enlightenment for some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The editing of matt's last post makes it -EV to try and retrace who is saying what, however this statement smacks of matt:"your reasoning on this is very bad...If I say to you, "All who sign up are on my team...what does that imply? That those who dont sign up are not on my team."Whoever made this statement gets an F in logic. "All who sign up are on my team" implies NOTHING about those who dont sign up.Edit: Didnt see Monty's reply before posting, I'll leave it anway, since redunancy might be the path to enlightenment for some.
Hehe what a bad bad bad conclusion you drawIf they do not sign up for my team what do we conclude? They are not on my team!!!!!!!!!!!!! its not difficult. I know you think you are wise but you are foolishWe dont need a reason for why they are not on my time. But the logical conclusion you draw is if they dont sign up, they are not on my team...can i get a duh from you and monty please. You both really need to come off yalls pedestal and back into reality
Link to post
Share on other sites

to the OP,............... because we are searching harder than most as to the true answer. We are not locked into a descision. We want to know the TRUTH!!!!!MY NAME IS DIABOLICAL AND I AM BACK!!!!!for the vets on this forum who still troll around. They would know that I have said time and time again that I do not believe in a god.I want to say that I have been going to church for the last 8 weeks. I haven't taken the bread though.I'm searching................................. I don't know where or what I will find. But I'm Giving it a shot.DIABOLICAL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe what a bad bad bad conclusion you drawIf they do not sign up for my team what do we conclude? They are not on my team!!!!!!!!!!!!! its not difficult. I know you think you are wise but you are foolishWe dont need a reason for why they are not on my time. But the logical conclusion you draw is if they dont sign up, they are not on my team...can i get a duh from you and monty please. You both really need to come off yalls pedestal and back into reality
While that may be a reasonable conclusion for you matt, it is not a logically sound conclusion. You truly need to read a book on logic. Your mistake is the logical fallacy "denial of the antecedent".Your conclusion would be correct if the antecedent were "If and only if you sign up, you are a member of my team".
Link to post
Share on other sites
While that may be a reasonable conclusion for you matt, it is not a logically sound conclusion. You truly need to read a book on logic.
I love how you mentioned logic!!!! About time someone on this F'n Forum mentioned logic!!!!!!!!!!! I think i'm goin to like this forum again.Lets talk about logical things. I hate the flame wars!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe what a bad bad bad conclusion you drawIf they do not sign up for my team what do we conclude? They are not on my team!!!!!!!!!!!!! its not difficult. I know you think you are wise but you are foolishWe dont need a reason for why they are not on my time. But the logical conclusion you draw is if they dont sign up, they are not on my team...can i get a duh from you and monty please. You both really need to come off yalls pedestal and back into reality
Let's take the US Army as an exampleIf you sign up for the army, you are part of the teamIf you don't sign up for the army, you can still be made part of the team (e.g. drafted by the army)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe what a bad bad bad conclusion you drawIf they do not sign up for my team what do we conclude? They are not on my team!!!!!!!!!!!!! its not difficult. I know you think you are wise but you are foolishWe dont need a reason for why they are not on my time. But the logical conclusion you draw is if they dont sign up, they are not on my team...can i get a duh from you and monty please. You both really need to come off yalls pedestal and back into reality
Ok please stop saying what you are doing is making logical conclusions. You are falling into a common trap that many people ignorant of formal mathematics fall into; let me once again try and explain where your mistake is, though given other's attempts, I'm not exactly optimistic."If A then B" is NOT the same thing as "If not A, then not B." Sometimes in language we say "if" when we really mean "if and only if," but that doesn't change what "if" actually means.A simple example: "If a number is divisible by four, then it is even." This is a true statement. But the statement "if a number is not divisible by 4, then it is not even" is not. For look at the number 6. It is not divisible by 4 but it is even. So thus your reasoning is flawed. Thus, any statement of the form "If you believe in Christ, then you go to heaven" says NOTHING about if you don't believe in Christ what happens to you. This may be an artifact of the language, the original passage may have meant "if and only if" but as written you cannot conclude what you are trying to conclude from statements of this form.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe what a bad bad bad conclusion you drawIf they do not sign up for my team what do we conclude? They are not on my team!!!!!!!!!!!!! its not difficult. I know you think you are wise but you are foolishWe dont need a reason for why they are not on my time. But the logical conclusion you draw is if they dont sign up, they are not on my team...can i get a duh from you and monty please. You both really need to come off yalls pedestal and back into reality
Okay... let's put this in terms that make the issue brutally obvious.CONDITIONAL #1:IF [You sign up for my team] ------> THEN [You are on my team]CONDITIONAL #2:IF [This thing is cat] -------> THEN [This thing is an animal]Alright, see how these are parrellel, Matt?The CONTRA (opposite) of these is:CONDITIONAL#1 CONTRAPOSITIVEIF [You are NOT on my team] -------> THEN [You did NOT sign up for my team]CONDITIONAL #2 CONTRAPOSITIVEIF[This thing is NOT an animal] ------> THEN[This thing is NOT a cat]Again, they are parrellel.Note, the following is NOT TRUE:CONDITIONAL #2 FALSE CONTRAPOSITIVEIF[This thing is NOT a cat] ------> THEN[This thing is NOT an animal]Something NOT Cat IS NOT necessarilly NOT Animal. This is so obvious as to be indisuputable. Many things are animals that are not cats. If something is a cat, then it is an animal. If something is not a cat, it may be, or may not be an animal. We JUST DON'T KNOW. We don't have enough information to coclude what the NOT cat is.By applying this same logic to the parrallel conditional regarding signing up for a team, it should be obvious, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that:Not signing up for a team does NOT equal Not being on the team.Obviously NOT being on the team means you did NOT sign up. But the statement regarding Sig-up=OnTeam makes ABSOLUTELY NO STATEMENT regarding other ways to be "On the team."Until you study this, your ability to read and interpret the Bible will be greatly reduced.Monty
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe what a bad bad bad conclusion you drawIf they do not sign up for my team what do we conclude? They are not on my team!!!!!!!!!!!!! its not difficult. I know you think you are wise but you are foolishWe dont need a reason for why they are not on my time. But the logical conclusion you draw is if they dont sign up, they are not on my team...can i get a duh from you and monty please. You both really need to come off yalls pedestal and back into reality
You are using a LOGICAL FALLACY called the Fallacy of Propositional Logic (denial of the antecedent). Look it up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are using a LOGICAL FALLACY called the Fallacy of Propositional Logic (denial of the antecedent). Look it up.
I am glad to see the plethora of responces about this logical fallacy. It resotres my faith in humanity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
While that may be a reasonable conclusion for you matt, it is not a logically sound conclusion. You truly need to read a book on logic. Your mistake is the logical fallacy "denial of the antecedent".Your conclusion would be correct if the antecedent were "If and only if you sign up, you are a member of my team".
Ah lol, didn't see you had added that in there too, too many replies got posted too quickly. Bravo to both of you. We'll get Matt up to speed on logic yet.Monty
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah lol, didn't see you had added that in there too, too many replies got posted too quickly. Bravo to both of you. We'll get Matt up to speed on logic yet.Monty
Now THAT statement is a leap of faith.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of people who struggle with logic, it's not always simple. If someone hasn't had any training or instruction at all with logic, then they are likely going to fall into most of the logical traps that exist, especially when first confronted with such issues. That's why they are traps.Monty

Link to post
Share on other sites
In defense of people who struggle with logic, it's not always simple. If someone hasn't had any training or instruction at all with logic, then they are likely going to fall into most of the logical traps that exist, especially when first confronted with such issues. That's why they are traps.Monty
Agreed...it is only a problem when those traps are demonstrated but still denied, which is the last resort of those desperate to vaidate their erroneous statement.This thread led me to another thought, not deserving of its own thread. My new defintion of heaven is finding a "matt" with an infinite amount of money sitting across from me at the poker table and he is committed to playing until I decide to quit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to expand on that one? If anything, this statement smacks of delusional arrogance.
I don't think it needs much expanding. It is true, many agnostics and atheists I have met think that because they don't believe something with out knowing exactly why it is how it is makes them smarter than those who do believe. Admittedly, many followers of a religious movement are to lazy to think for themselves, so they blindly follow.Its stereotypes we all face.
I'm sorry but the irony here has made me lose control of my bladder
Ahh, yeah...Jesus says "come to me, for your answers" and I claim I'm thinking for myself. But see that's where it gets tough. Have you ever tried to get an answer from someone that can't actually answer you? You would be a follower if you called your pastor and asked him for all the answers, but self interpretation of the Bible is not easy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...