Take Back Our Country

[seer]

You feel dirty for explaining to someone how you know that your beliefs are true?

That is very odd...

No Carp, you are not honestly asking these questions, you are merely preaching your cult of death again. As Christians we have a web of interlocking reasons for our belief. But because of your obvious sin induced irrationality you will dismiss them - it is a waste of my time. As Christ says - don't cast pearls before swine...

[carpedm9587]

So your statement: truth is the relationship between a statement/claim and its accuracy in reflecting reality


What is it relative to? And if it is relative, you can't claim any kind of absolute status for the claim. It could be right or wrong - depending.

No one can claim absolute status for any proposition. A proposition is words. Its truth is assessed by whether or not it conforms to that is real. If you think otherwise, then show me a proposition whose truth is not determined by recourse to the reality it represents.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you are not honestly asking these questions, you are merely preaching your cult of death again.

I didn't "preach" anything, Seer. I asked questions. Questions you appear to be unable and/or unwilling to answer, apparently.

As Christians we have a web of interlocking reasons for our belief. But because of your obvious sin induced irrationality you will dismiss them - it is a waste of my time. As Christ says - don't cast pearls before swine...

Nice. I've always loved that one. You guys certainly know how to hold an adult, civil, conversation. Sorry...but this one most definitely earns an

[seer]

No one can claim absolute status for any proposition. A proposition is words. Its truth is assessed by whether or not it conforms to that is real. If you think otherwise, then show me a proposition whose truth is not determined by recourse to the reality it represents.

So the statement truth is the relationship between a statement/claim and its accuracy in reflecting reality is relative, and could be right or wrong. Then you go on and say:Its truth is assessed by whether or not it conforms to that is real. You are just repeating the same proposition!

[seer]

I didn't "preach" anything, Seer. I asked questions. Questions you appear to be unable and/or unwilling to answer, apparently.

No, I just don't want to answer you. You are dishonest, the fact is you could pick up any good Apologetic and find the answers.

Nice. I've always loved that one. You guys certainly know how to hold an adult, civil, conversation. Sorry...but this one most definitely earns an

Are you suggesting that we don't really believe that sin has blinded you to the reality of God? Do you want Biblical references?

[carpedm9587]

No, I just don't want to answer you. You are dishonest, the fact is you could pick up any good Apologetic and find the answers.

You know, Seer, that's not what I think. You pull out the ad homs and attacks whenever I get close to the issues. Suddenly it is about my honesty and my nefariousness (of some kind or another). Then you clam up like a rock. My questions were fairly simple ones, and related to our discussion about what it means for something to be true. I think (and yes, I am reading minds here) that this is your dodge any time I'm making a point you realize you have no response to.

Are you suggesting that we don't really believe that sin has blinded you to the reality of God? Do you want Biblical references?

I'm sure biblical references will be aplenty, Seer. You have locked your life to an ancient book, and use it to justify anything/everything you do. It is very hard to have a rational discussion with someone who's position is not rationally rooted.

I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I am the "swine" you should not cast your pearls before, and you should consider "knocking the dust from your sandals" and walking away. Meanwhile, I find it fairly pointless to continue a discussion with a closed mind. So I guess we see each other in similar terms.

Be well...

[Sparko]

Seer is right Carp. You were not being an honest seeker. In fact, as a former Christian you should already know the answers. You were just playing the child's game of "..but why?" and trying to lead him down a rabbit trail.

Everyone has their own reason for believing the bible. There are entire books on why it is reliable and trustworthy. There are many threads about that here on theologyweb. Or you could go start one if you like, but expecting Seer to answer your question, just so you can ask another, and another till you are way down the rabbit trail is not fair.

[carpedm9587]

Seer is right Carp. You were not being an honest seeker. In fact, as a former Christian you should already know the answers. You were just playing the child's game of "..but why?" and trying to lead him down a rabbit trail.

I was leading him to the inevitable conclusion of his own statements. I cannot know this for a fact, but I think when he realized that, he bailed and I got called "dishonest."

Everyone has their own reason for believing the bible. There are entire books on why it is reliable and trustworthy. There are many threads about that here on theologyweb. Or you could go start one if you like, but expecting Seer to answer your question, just so you can ask another, and another till you are way down the rabbit trail is not fair.

Who on earth told you life is fair?

If your belief cannot withstand examination, I suggest you reconsider your beliefs.

It is not I being dishonest here.

[Sparko]

I was leading him to the inevitable conclusion of his own statements. I cannot know this for a fact, but I think when he realized that, he bailed and I got called "dishonest."



Who on earth told you life is fair?

If your belief cannot withstand examination, I suggest you reconsider your beliefs.

It is not I being dishonest here.

This entire site is dedicated to defending the faith. To expect someone to defend the entire faith in a few posts is ridiculous, and as you just admitted above, you were not asking honestly, you were trying to lead him by the nose.

[seer]

You know, Seer, that's not what I think. You pull out the ad homs and attacks whenever I get close to the issues. Suddenly it is about my honesty and my nefariousness (of some kind or another). Then you clam up like a rock. My questions were fairly simple ones, and related to our discussion about what it means for something to be true. I think (and yes, I am reading minds here) that this is your dodge any time I'm making a point you realize you have no response to.

See you are trying to bait me again. You are not ignorant of our reasons, you yourself claimed to have had them in the past. You have since rejected them, regurgitating the same arguments that you have already rejected is futile - and you pushing this, is dishonest on your part.

I'm sure biblical references will be aplenty, Seer. You have locked your life to an ancient book, and use it to justify anything/everything you do. It is very hard to have a rational discussion with someone who's position is not rationally rooted.

Except, you are the one who is not rational. And what does the age of a book have to do with its veracity? The claims therein are either true or not.

I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I am the "swine" you should not cast your pearls before, and you should consider "knocking the dust from your sandals" and walking away. Meanwhile, I find it fairly pointless to continue a discussion with a closed mind. So I guess we see each other in similar terms.

This coming from a closed minded atheist, I mean atheism is not even a logically rational position.

[carpedm9587]

This entire site is dedicated to defending the faith. To expect someone to defend the entire faith in a few posts is ridiculous, and as you just admitted above, you were not asking honestly, you were trying to lead him by the nose.

When someone makes a claim, it is more than fair to ask a series of questions, even if they are designed to show them that their position is not sustainable. It's actually known as the Socratic method - well known in teaching and philosophy circles. It's not "leading by the nose." It's actually escorting the person to the logical conclusion of their claim.

Seer's position on "relative" and "absolutes" is not sustainable. I suspect he knows that. When it became clear my questions were going to show him that his beliefs and propositions are as relative as the rest of ours, he jumped ship and I got labeled "dishonest" as he bailed.

I repeat, it's not me being dishonest. I have made no bones about my beliefs, and am happy to defend them to any questioning. Apparently, that is not the same situation with Seer. I haven't been able to determine whether or not it is with you yet.

[seer]

I have made no bones about my beliefs, and am happy to defend them to any questioning.

Really why are you an atheist?

[carpedm9587]

Really why are you an atheist?

I don't think so, Seer.

Sorry - I don't have a problem when the conversation is mutual. When you feel free to jump ship and denigrate me in the process, I don't think you have the right to expect that I'm going to then happily engage in your questioning. Conversation is mutual - or it isn't.

Ours isn't.

[seer]

I don't think so, Seer.

Sorry - I don't have a problem when the conversation is mutual. When you feel free to jump ship and denigrate me in the process, I don't think you have the right to expect that I'm going to then happily engage in your questioning. Conversation is mutual - or it isn't.

Ours isn't.

OK, so you have no answer - noted...

[carpedm9587]

OK, so you have no answer - noted...

Yeah - that's pretty much what I noted from your response...


You know, I really had no idea just how disingenuous you actually are. This discussion has opened my eyes.