To beat a dead horse

[Logician]

Logician,

And just what do you mean by applying weakness of faith to me? Being an atheist, I don't have weak faith. I have no faith. I believe in what is verified by science and logic, and that alone.

LOL

[Logician]

How can you

Edited May 14, 2005 by Logician

[eric]

Well it's your time you are wasting, mate, we can scroll down quicker than you can type.

e

[nebula]

First off, the reason why so much emphasas was placed on my parents there was simply because I was taught christianity as truth before I had properly developed the reason to question it.  As a result, my parents could have taught me anything and I would have believed it just as fervently.

Odd. I recall making my own decisions of what to and not to believe as a child, even as young as 5.

Also, after I had no more reason to believe it on my own , I found myself believing it (or at least professing it) because I felt questioning it to be unfair to my parents.

What do you mean by, "after I had no more reason to believe it on my own"?

I thought you said your questioning came first?

I did have what you would call "my own walk with Jesus."  I don't suppose there's anything I could say to prove it to you, but I'm completely convinced, myself.

I'll put it to you this way. Remember the account in the Gospels about the Samaritan woman Jesus met at the Well of Jacob? From speaking with Jesus, she believed that He is the Messiah. So, she ran to the city to tell this to everyone. Her words persuaded them, and so they came to Him and learned from Him themselves. Later they reported back to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Messiah, the Savior of the world."

You see after just two days with Jesus, they were persuaded in their own minds of who who He is with their own reasoning.

Were you ever persuaded in your own mind the way these Samaritan men were?

That and other such contradictions created by the definition of "God."

Do you have a definition of omniscience and/or omnipotence that do not lead to such contradictions?

From what I've heard from you so far, it doesn't sound like you care if the existence of God would lead to contradictions.

You make it sound like the existance of God is a choice!

I challenge that the premice of your logic is based on the idea of what you understand is omniscient and omnipotent, not what they are meant to mean.

Perhaps you spend your free time positing the existence of invisible pink unicorns?  I know I do.

Sigh. What is this obsession you atheists have with pink unicorns?

Let me ask you something - is mathematics an invention or a discovery?

Let me also ask you this - is time real, or is an illusion man has invented to express a phenomenon he cannot see nor feel?

[nebula]

So, if God is complete without us, he has no reason to create us.

Is this what life is broken down to in your life?

I'm assuming this was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway.

This sort of homocentricity has inhibited science for millenia.

Perhaps you feel sorry for my lack of "meaning," but such a loss is more than made up for by reasonable certainty that I have things right.

We obviously aren't agreeing on what "completeness" means.

I'll have to think of a better way to express this.

[nebula]

My applogies for not getting back to the rest of your responses.

I have A&P case studies I need to get graded.

But, BTW - I never said I didn't believe the Genesis account, nor did I say I "believe in evolution."

What I said, or meant to say, or express, was that Gen. 1 wasn't written from the perspective of Western tought, and as such should not be interpreted with Western thinking.

I know evolution occurs - but I don't "believe in it" the way secularists mean it. There is a huge difference.

And honostly, as a scientist, you should learn to have a critical eye of every theory, at least to some degree, knowing that new evidence can quicky invalidate an old line of thinking.

Yes, evolution occurs - but to be the "driving force" of life on Earth. . . hmmm?

[nebula]

Forgot to mention -

A friend recommended a book called Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant.

This is his comment on the book: "Kant clearly deomonstrated the insufficiency of ANY secularist system to relate the particulars to the general, or to put it another way: 'to explain our lives, existence, and the fact that thoughts exist.'"

[Fiosh]

Logician,

You mentioned that you lost your faith after going thru a period in your life that involved great pain, and that you would rather not recall it.

I'm not trying to pry, or play amateur psychologist, but logically speaking, wouldn't that possibly account for your hesistancy to believe?

If God allowed you to go thru that painful episode of your life (if He exists) wouldn't you, logically, be angry with Him? After all, He could have helped you. He could have stopped the pain, but He didn't, did He? That could be confusing to someone who believes in a loving God.

And, wouldn't you, logically, want to avoid anything that reminded you of that painful time, like your Christian walk?

Something to consider.

Maybe you're not a weak atheist. Maybe you're a wounded Christian??????

In His Love,

Fiosh

[Logician]

Logician,

And, yet you seem to have conveniently ignored my request to point out where I've demonstrated such ignorance more specifically.

All you have to do is re-read your long and grueling posts. I have neither the time nor the desire to do so. Those who are following the discussion can be the judges. Ignorance makes itself known.

Alright then. In that case, I have no reason to continue answering your posts. If you can't offer the simple couresy of providing supporting evidence for your claims, this conversation can go nowhere. In this case, it's no longer an argument, it's a war of empty assertions.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion so far, if you can really call it discussion.

Edited May 15, 2005 by Logician

[Fiosh]

Prove to me that love exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who are you asking to prove the existence of love?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was just making the point that you can show me evidence of the existence of love, but you can't show me love. Nor can you prove that it exists.