|
Post by conner on Feb 13, 2010 23:53:01 GMT -5
I LIKE HOW PEOPLE SAY CHRISTIANS SHOVE THEIR BELIEFS DOWN EVERYONE'S THROATS WHEN BRENT AND N/A etc.. DO THE EXACT SAME THING
*runs out of thread*
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Feb 14, 2010 0:01:38 GMT -5
facts are not beliefs, Conner.
The sooner you understand this the better.
It is a fact that you cannot prove or disprove supernatural beings.
|
|
|
Post by conner on Feb 14, 2010 0:07:04 GMT -5
You don't have facts.
You just have everyone else's (alleged) lack of facts.
|
|
|
Post by scribe on Feb 14, 2010 0:11:35 GMT -5
brent the reason you conflict with organized religion so much is because you base your beliefs off concrete facts, while religion is based off of faith (which requires no proof). There's no real use arguing, people cannot change other people, only themselves.
|
|
|
Post by conner on Feb 14, 2010 0:13:22 GMT -5
EUREKA
|
|
|
Post by scribe on Feb 14, 2010 0:13:58 GMT -5
I KNOW IM ORIGINAL BRO
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Feb 14, 2010 0:28:01 GMT -5
You don't have facts. You just have everyone else's (alleged) lack of facts. So in other words, you have the burden of proof of saying God is real, while I just live my life unaffected. brent the reason you conflict with organized religion so much is because you base your beliefs off concrete facts, while religion is based off of faith (which requires no proof). There's no real use arguing, people cannot change other people, only themselves. Yes, human logic is here at my disposal, I might as well use it. If God exists he knows very well that people who appreciate and dwell on facts cannot worship a being who is ultimately unknowable. If I was God I would show my ass and tell people to cower before me. I would do things only God can do in front of EVERYONE, showing no indisputably.
|
|
|
Post by scribe on Feb 14, 2010 0:35:35 GMT -5
Wouldn't that contradict the basic premise of free will? The point is people have to make their own choice to believe in Him, as faith in its essence asks no proof. There has been evidence provided towards God's existence (incorruptables are the most obvious i can think of right now) but as with all evidence, there is always an opposing side. These debates are pointless as no one here is going to change anyone else's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Feb 14, 2010 0:44:33 GMT -5
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Feb 14, 2010 0:47:30 GMT -5
Check, mate. I think brent is on to something, Listen to him.
|
|
|
Post by scribe on Feb 14, 2010 10:08:17 GMT -5
Maybe I'm missing something, I don't see the relevance. Original sin exists because of free will; it didn't result in a loss of free will, it resulted in a loss of grace (losing our guaranteed passage to heaven) meaning we have to work to get there... Which actually encourages free will. Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Feb 14, 2010 13:18:09 GMT -5
You do not work for your place in heaven in Christianity. And even if we did, that does not encourage free will, it does the opposite. It forces one to abandon their true self to follow the whims of a god for fear that they be cast into eternal damnation. That's not free will. That's like saying "you can murder somebody if you want to, but you'll go to jail if you do". Sure, in theory you have free will, but when its already made clear to you what the consequences will be as a result of making the "wrong" choice, then that isn't really free will.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 14, 2010 23:22:59 GMT -5
when its already made clear to you what the consequences will be as a result of making the "wrong" choice, then that isn't really free will. Yes it is. In fact, I'd say that's a good example of having the free will to choose something even though its wrong.
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Feb 15, 2010 0:04:48 GMT -5
That's not really free will when there's an inescapable consequence on the backend of one choice. Only an idiot would choose that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 15, 2010 0:12:11 GMT -5
so it's only free will when there are no consequences?
|
|