Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion and evidence

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:24:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This pretty much means all religions are whim-based, for there is no single religion which holds a monopoly on any type of evidence or proof.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:27:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:24:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This pretty much means all religions are whim-based, for there is no single religion which holds a monopoly on any type of evidence or proof.

What about Christianity and the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:27:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

Any Thomistic argument will demonstrate the existence of an entity which exists as Pure Being -- in other words, without privations in its perfection.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:24:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This pretty much means all religions are whim-based, for there is no single religion which holds a monopoly on any type of evidence or proof.
There's no evidence for a human author of the Quran. There we go.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:48:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:27:58 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

Any Thomistic argument will demonstrate the existence of an entity which exists as Pure Being -- in other words, without privations in its perfection.

Wow Nur, that's just so wrong I don't even know where to begin!

Jk, I agree, of course.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:49:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:48:36 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:27:58 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

Any Thomistic argument will demonstrate the existence of an entity which exists as Pure Being -- in other words, without privations in its perfection.

Wow Nur, that's just so wrong I don't even know where to begin!

Jk, I agree, of course.

Good. I don't want to lose my Catholic allies.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:24:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

I meant evidence that is used to affirm unique tenets held by religions. The Kalam is used to affirm a nonspecific God over atheist claims, not affirm any specific religion over others.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:33:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are you trying to kill all religions with one shot, it's not that easy boy.

If they differ it doesn't mean they all are wrong and they souldn't use same evidence, your logic is corrupted!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:24:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

I meant evidence that is used to affirm unique tenets held by religions. The Kalam is used to affirm a nonspecific God over atheist claims, not affirm any specific religion over others.

Actually, if the Kalam or, say, a Thomistic Argument is successful, then all poly-theistic religions can be ruled out.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:40:19 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 4:24:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

I meant evidence that is used to affirm unique tenets held by religions. The Kalam is used to affirm a nonspecific God over atheist claims, not affirm any specific religion over others.

Actually, if the Kalam or, say, a Thomistic Argument is successful, then all poly-theistic religions can be ruled out.

Well, that's not entirely true. Poly-theistic religions often have a more...flexible definition of God. Some are "sub-gods". The arguments you mention really only defend a supreme being (if accepted at face value, which I don't at all), they don't preclude "sub-beings" that a poly-theist might also call "god" (Obviously, a monotheist wouldn't).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:09:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 5:02:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2013 4:40:19 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 4:24:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

I meant evidence that is used to affirm unique tenets held by religions. The Kalam is used to affirm a nonspecific God over atheist claims, not affirm any specific religion over others.

Actually, if the Kalam or, say, a Thomistic Argument is successful, then all poly-theistic religions can be ruled out.

Well, that's not entirely true. Poly-theistic religions often have a more...flexible definition of God. Some are "sub-gods". The arguments you mention really only defend a supreme being (if accepted at face value, which I don't at all), they don't preclude "sub-beings" that a poly-theist might also call "god" (Obviously, a monotheist wouldn't).

Technically, that's henotheism, which as far as I'm concerned is just a difference in how the adherents characterize the lesser beings -- as "divine" or not. As a Thomist, I'm inclined to apply "Divinity" to only that which is perfect in being, so angels and such aren't gods in any sense. Thus if henotheism or polytheism affirm a supreme being in this sense, then to me there's no meaningful difference between it and monotheism under my understanding of "divinity."
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 6:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 5:09:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/21/2013 5:02:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/21/2013 4:40:19 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 4:24:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:37 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

I'm not so sure. Take, for instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument or maybe even a Thomstic cosmological argument. If sound, they succeed in showing that a being who is at least omnipotent, immaterial (if not omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) exists. This conclusion seems to fit comfortably with, say, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and many other monotheistic religions. Is that to say that these arguments should be "thrown out"?

I meant evidence that is used to affirm unique tenets held by religions. The Kalam is used to affirm a nonspecific God over atheist claims, not affirm any specific religion over others.

Actually, if the Kalam or, say, a Thomistic Argument is successful, then all poly-theistic religions can be ruled out.

Well, that's not entirely true. Poly-theistic religions often have a more...flexible definition of God. Some are "sub-gods". The arguments you mention really only defend a supreme being (if accepted at face value, which I don't at all), they don't preclude "sub-beings" that a poly-theist might also call "god" (Obviously, a monotheist wouldn't).

Technically, that's henotheism, which as far as I'm concerned is just a difference in how the adherents characterize the lesser beings -- as "divine" or not. As a Thomist, I'm inclined to apply "Divinity" to only that which is perfect in being, so angels and such aren't gods in any sense. Thus if henotheism or polytheism affirm a supreme being in this sense, then to me there's no meaningful difference between it and monotheism under my understanding of "divinity."

Took the words right out of my mouth.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 7:08:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As time goes on, this constant demand for "evidence" seems more and more preposterous and dualistic.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:25:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 7:08:55 PM, Radar wrote:
As time goes on, this constant demand for "evidence" seems more and more preposterous and dualistic.

It's just a puerile way of saying he doesn't understand faith.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:25:46 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 7:08:55 PM, Radar wrote:
As time goes on, this constant demand for "evidence" seems more and more preposterous and dualistic.

It's just a puerile way of saying he doesn't understand faith.

Other religion use faith, too. What gives your religion any more credence than Islam? Judaism? Hinduism?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:32:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:25:46 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 7:08:55 PM, Radar wrote:
As time goes on, this constant demand for "evidence" seems more and more preposterous and dualistic.

It's just a puerile way of saying he doesn't understand faith.

Other religion use faith, too. What gives your religion any more credence than Islam? Judaism? Hinduism?

religions *
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:40:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Beneath the boastful contrasts and trifling quarrels there is the fellowship of the internal life, it is a single life that cuts across ecclesiastical boundaries and makes us one with God.

Under the external surface of all of our divisive religious doctrines there is a Spirit that cannot be grasped in any fixed form, it isn't about what men do or believe, it is about what men are, and it establishes in us an intrinsic connection to all of life and to all of the forces of spirituality.

That Spirit is common to every man, it takes as many forms as there are men perhaps, but we are connected to all men by it. I like that I am connected, and when I"m very quiet and able to listen to that still small voice within, that Spirit tells me that I am not alone, it tells me that I am part of something greater that I can"t yet understand completely, because it is something that isn"t yet complete, but it is something that in the end, will be Spiritually perfect.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:43:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:40:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Beneath the boastful contrasts and trifling quarrels there is the fellowship of the internal life, it is a single life that cuts across ecclesiastical boundaries and makes us one with God.

Under the external surface of all of our divisive religious doctrines there is a Spirit that cannot be grasped in any fixed form, it isn't about what men do or believe, it is about what men are, and it establishes in us an intrinsic connection to all of life and to all of the forces of spirituality.

That Spirit is common to every man, it takes as many forms as there are men perhaps, but we are connected to all men by it. I like that I am connected, and when I"m very quiet and able to listen to that still small voice within, that Spirit tells me that I am not alone, it tells me that I am part of something greater that I can"t yet understand completely, because it is something that isn"t yet complete, but it is something that in the end, will be Spiritually perfect.

Any evidence to back up your religious platitudes?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:27:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:43:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:40:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Beneath the boastful contrasts and trifling quarrels there is the fellowship of the internal life, it is a single life that cuts across ecclesiastical boundaries and makes us one with God.

Under the external surface of all of our divisive religious doctrines there is a Spirit that cannot be grasped in any fixed form, it isn't about what men do or believe, it is about what men are, and it establishes in us an intrinsic connection to all of life and to all of the forces of spirituality.

That Spirit is common to every man, it takes as many forms as there are men perhaps, but we are connected to all men by it. I like that I am connected, and when I"m very quiet and able to listen to that still small voice within, that Spirit tells me that I am not alone, it tells me that I am part of something greater that I can"t yet understand completely, because it is something that isn"t yet complete, but it is something that in the end, will be Spiritually perfect.

Any evidence to back up your religious platitudes?

Your puerile contrarianism is incredibly uninteresting.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:31:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 5:09:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:


Technically, that's henotheism, which as far as I'm concerned is just a difference in how the adherents characterize the lesser beings -- as "divine" or not. As a Thomist, I'm inclined to apply "Divinity" to only that which is perfect in being, so angels and such aren't gods in any sense. Thus if henotheism or polytheism affirm a supreme being in this sense, then to me there's no meaningful difference between it and monotheism under my understanding of "divinity."

Fair enough. I was more just making the comment that it didn't "rule out" the actual polytheistic religions that exist, except in their forms that explicitly require equal divinity. So I was thinking in terms of actual existing mythology, as opposed to conceptually, because you're right, taken at face value, only henotheism works with those arguments, true polytheism is right out.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:44:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:27:48 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:43:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:40:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Beneath the boastful contrasts and trifling quarrels there is the fellowship of the internal life, it is a single life that cuts across ecclesiastical boundaries and makes us one with God.

Under the external surface of all of our divisive religious doctrines there is a Spirit that cannot be grasped in any fixed form, it isn't about what men do or believe, it is about what men are, and it establishes in us an intrinsic connection to all of life and to all of the forces of spirituality.

That Spirit is common to every man, it takes as many forms as there are men perhaps, but we are connected to all men by it. I like that I am connected, and when I"m very quiet and able to listen to that still small voice within, that Spirit tells me that I am not alone, it tells me that I am part of something greater that I can"t yet understand completely, because it is something that isn"t yet complete, but it is something that in the end, will be Spiritually perfect.

Any evidence to back up your religious platitudes?

Your puerile contrarianism is incredibly uninteresting.

I'm curious as to why you think me puerile.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 10:45:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:25:46 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 7:08:55 PM, Radar wrote:
As time goes on, this constant demand for "evidence" seems more and more preposterous and dualistic.

It's just a puerile way of saying he doesn't understand faith.

Other religion use faith, too. What gives your religion any more credence than Islam? Judaism? Hinduism?

The historical claims of Jesus of Nazareth
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 10:54:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 10:45:21 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:25:46 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 7:08:55 PM, Radar wrote:
As time goes on, this constant demand for "evidence" seems more and more preposterous and dualistic.

It's just a puerile way of saying he doesn't understand faith.

Other religion use faith, too. What gives your religion any more credence than Islam? Judaism? Hinduism?

The historical claims of Jesus of Nazareth

Anecdotal reports? I'm pretty sure they have that as well.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 11:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

Is this a joke? A Jew using the KCA or whateber to prove Yahweh and a Muslim using it to prove Allah have both validly (assuming the KCA is accurate) established some form of theism as true, now the issue boils down to which specific brand of theism is true.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 11:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 10:54:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 10:45:21 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:32:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:25:46 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 7:08:55 PM, Radar wrote:
As time goes on, this constant demand for "evidence" seems more and more preposterous and dualistic.

It's just a puerile way of saying he doesn't understand faith.

Other religion use faith, too. What gives your religion any more credence than Islam? Judaism? Hinduism?

The historical claims of Jesus of Nazareth

Anecdotal reports? I'm pretty sure they have that as well.

Your first issue is that anecdotal reports are not always false. Secondly we do have good reasons to trust the gospels, but that would be far too much to post in a forum haha.
boss1592
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 11:02:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:27:48 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:43:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:40:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Beneath the boastful contrasts and trifling quarrels there is the fellowship of the internal life, it is a single life that cuts across ecclesiastical boundaries and makes us one with God.

Under the external surface of all of our divisive religious doctrines there is a Spirit that cannot be grasped in any fixed form, it isn't about what men do or believe, it is about what men are, and it establishes in us an intrinsic connection to all of life and to all of the forces of spirituality.

That Spirit is common to every man, it takes as many forms as there are men perhaps, but we are connected to all men by it. I like that I am connected, and when I"m very quiet and able to listen to that still small voice within, that Spirit tells me that I am not alone, it tells me that I am part of something greater that I can"t yet understand completely, because it is something that isn"t yet complete, but it is something that in the end, will be Spiritually perfect.

Any evidence to back up your religious platitudes?

Your puerile contrarianism is incredibly uninteresting.

Wow, as if the three paragraphs of total white noise wasn't enough, a guy has the audacity to ask you to back them up and your only response is to call him boring?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 11:03:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 11:00:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

Is this a joke? A Jew using the KCA or whateber to prove Yahweh and a Muslim using it to prove Allah have both validly (assuming the KCA is accurate) established some form of theism as true, now the issue boils down to which specific brand of theism is true.

The KCA isn't used as evidence for the existence of a specific God. But I agree, I should have been more clear on what I meant.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 11:04:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 11:03:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 11:00:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:21:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any type of evidence used to predicate two or more conflicting religions must be thrown out, for contradictions cannot exist, necessarily meaning this evidence affirms at least one false conclusion, and is therefore not sound in any religion that utilizes it to affirm itself.

Is this a joke? A Jew using the KCA or whateber to prove Yahweh and a Muslim using it to prove Allah have both validly (assuming the KCA is accurate) established some form of theism as true, now the issue boils down to which specific brand of theism is true.

The KCA isn't used as evidence for the existence of a specific God. But I agree, I should have been more clear on what I meant.

Well now I'm confused, what did you mean?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right