Oh really. Has a Christian or other Theist approached you with a gun or other weapon and told you that you must accept what they say to be the truth? No! What is being talked about is the existence of God. It is the Atheists who have stipulated that all the Christians have is a 'belief' that God exists. Now who is forcing what on who? You see, I KNOW that God exists, because of my personal experiences with God through His Son Jesus. Remember, 'experience' is ONE of those standards used by scientists as formidable evidence. Can I repeat that experience? Everyday. Can you test that experience? You can try but you will fail. Does your failure make my KNOWing false? Not hardly... your failure merely means that you do not have the capability to perform such testing.
There was a case of an FBI profiler whom, based solely upon the implied attitudes and conceptions derived from a crime scene, accurately assessed the character of the suspect. He was able to target the culprits ages, sex, style of dress, demeanor and other categorical traits. This eventually led to the arrest of the suspect. Most interesting though, this agent said the suspect would be driving a red truck, which turned out to be true. ....How much more could a god understand?
Name, Address, exact age, exact location, how many times the 'culprit' had sexual relations and with whom, hair color, color of eyes, personal habits, private thoughts, etc.... need I go on?
"It is not their love of humanity but the impotence of their love of humanity that prevents todays Christiansfrom burning us." - Friedrich Nietzsche
And that is the authority figure that you use as a justification of at least a portion of your behavior and attitude? We don't have a need to burn you or anyone else. You are doing a splendid job all by your selves.... as time will tell.
No, it's not. Where would you get such a wacky idea? Who was talking about authority figures? Nietzsche's point was that whether you needed to or not, you can't... anymore. We all know that this was not always true. Your omniscience is noted.
Apparently you were. You made a quotation from someone, seemingly expecting that quotation to have some sort of authoritative effect upon the readers. That is also called an appeal to authority. You offered no explanation for the quotation and allowed that quotation to speak for itself as if it had authority. "We all know..." Now you are attempting to speak for the entire world population and suggest that you KNOW what everyone KNOWS? I possess no omniscient ability. But thanks for what would have been a compliment had the " " not been present.
Wrong again. Your record in the area of mind reading remains an unblemished fail. Wow. Do quotations actually have some sort of authoritative effect on you? That's just really weird. But it really does not appear that you know what an appeal to authority is. Hint: It is not simply quoting somebody. It did speak for itself. And it said exactly what I would have said myself except it was much more eloquent. But unlike some folks, I would never steal somebody else's words without attribution. No... I was specifically referring to you and I... so perhaps should have said "both" instead of "all." But yeah, I'm pretty confident that enough of the world's population knows that to justify an approximation of "entire." Then it is a very good thing I included the "." Else you would have taken the comment wrong.
Thank you for that compliment. I say compliment because it gives recognition from the secular side that I am not involved in the practices some old beliefs that are outside of Christian teachings. If the quotation is a matter of and from Law, then it conceivably can have an effect upon me. Are you suggesting that you are above the Law and that someone quoting the Law to you would not have an effect upon you if the Law quoted had a direct bearing upon you, your actions, or your property? It would be really weird to see you tell a police officer who is giving you a speeding ticket that "those laws don't affect me". Did I say that was all there was to an appeal to authority? No? What else was contained in that statement of mine regarding an appeal to authority? How about that contradiction within the same statement? That is amazing. Then you admit that your use of an absolute (all) was an error? Cool. Then that is also proof that your grasp on the English language is deficient... as mine is also at times. Point being, you erred and subsequently your statement was 'false'. There is no grey area between 'true' and 'false'. Coming from non-theists, I almost always scrutinize each word that they write and consider the context of what was written ... so it is unlikely that I would have accepted your comment as a true compliment even without the " ". Sometimes I will make that acceptance, just out of spite.
I would never stand in the way of you claiming that as some sort of a victory. If your ego needs such self stimulation, I say go for it. Nothing in that comment made any sense in the context of the discussion. Oh... it is not a case of that not being "all there was." It is a case of that not being an appeal to authority at all. To what does one attribute your prodigious ability to miss the point? How about the trivial pedantry that you pretend substitutes for an actual argument? A maxim guaranteed to cripple your ability to deal with reality. That is, I have noted, your single most commonly used substitute for actual argument. Scrutinize each word, quibble about language, and run away from the substantive discussion. I can live with that. I leave you to your spite.
Well thank you again. I will be sure to keep that in mind. Well of course it makes sense in context to the discussion. Look at what you had previously inquired about: That officer of the law is required to cite (quote) on the citation form, the specific law in which you are accused of violating. If there is a quality of missing the point, it would be derived from the same set of rights and privileges that allow non-theists to "miss the point" in regard to spiritual matters. Again, the same pedantry that you pretend substitutes for an actual argument regarding the Bible. And again, What constitutes reality in its entirety? And yet you cannot refute my scrutinizing your choice of words, or my quibbling about language; instead you run away down that path of ridicule and infantile attempts at character assassination. I live with it quite well thank you. Too bad that my spite is so intolerable to you, that you have to resort to the tactics you choose as a weapon of preference, which gets you no where.
Omniscience is not the nail in the coffin of 'free will'. It's this character being all-knowing and all-powerful and loving and creating a divine plan, while answering some prayers which deviate from it, and ignoring everyone and everything else to allow us to suffer eternal torment according to script. It's not just the one phony facet of the character; it's several layers deep, like the worst nachos ever.
If you don't like that particular flavor in your nachos, then don't partake of those nachos. That is a real simple solution.
I didn't make the analogy with nachos because the likeness is about partaking or not. It was a humorous nod at the the complexity of the problem instead of just a surface issue. I'll play along though. Whether or not I personally partake doesn't solve the problem there of this thing that is commonly called 'free will', but for the record, no, I don't partake.
Actually I had in mind every post in this thread (assuming nothing has changed since I stopped following the thread closely) which hasn't been authored by yours truly. You're welcome.
But now, you have added to the thread, and in an 'off topic' manner. So I guess you might be correct and you are definitely holding to the tradition which you describe the thread as having. Congratulations.
