People who say God gives us free will are liars.

One, this isn't the military, and two, I didn't give away any information that wasn't already obvious.

Way to avoid the question, as usual.

Though it doesn't really matter, I know why you picked such a number, I just wanted to see what your response was going to be. I should have known not to expect so much as an actual answer to begin with.

 

Of course this is military operations. One team vs another team. Atheists vs Theists. Virtual warfare. Spiritual warfare.

No! You didn't have to give away any information. The information I needed to know about you was learned a while back when you made it known that you were Atheist. That little piece was enough for me to start analyzing what you have stated on this forum. However, FW did request information from me, which could be used as a launchpad for further attacks against Christians and other Theists. Thus my denial of his request and subsequently my request for 'reasons'... 10, 12, 50, 100.

A counter offer is not an act of avoidance. However, your rejection of that counter offer is an avoidance.

You mean you are still not pleased with my choice of numbers? Why not? Don't you like to play with numerology? Of course you do, you presumably are one of those who lean on the religion of science (the art of numerology).

 

I agree, it's a loose-loose situation for you.

 

Then you admit that you harbored an ulterior motive behind your request.

Pay attention to this all you Theists out there. You can see from that admission of his, that there seemingly innocent questions are nothing more than traps that some of them use to snare you ... therefore, pay heed to Proverbs 6:2 "Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. " Just substitute the word 'keyboard" in place of the word "mouth".

 

Are you asking me if I knew you were heading for a loss? Of course I did. You cornered yourself the moment you said that everyone faces something that only you can see.

However, that doesn't change the common course of debate, during which anyone risks being asked to substantiate the claims made.

I see you already wrote the sermon for Sunday. Good for you.

 

You are delusional. Do you see a question mark in the sentence to which you made the above response? Here let me print it again:
"Then you admit that you harbored an ulterior motive behind your request."
I don't see a question mark.

So, in direct answer to your question, my direct answer is: No, because there was no question asked. Maybe you should get on some mellaril or thorazine also.

You are also falling back into your old pathology of misrepresenting the comments made by others. The emphasized text above is NOT what I stated. Get your glasses checked.

How many times do I have to remind you, that I am not bound by the logic system that is used in your choice of philosophy? Do you also have a memory problem? It is only in your choice of philosophy that 'substantiation' is required.

Would you like to attend?

 

It doesn't look good for you when you consistently
focus in on spurious side issues (like superstition) to avoid the bigger questions you flail at.

Well to be specific, for one, I made it in the post you now are addressing. Why on earth would you ask for proof of a statement you have just quoted from me?

Let me clarify things for you in case you are in doubt: I am not an atheist! I merely stated how atheists only believe in what they can see (I was critical of this narrow minded view, if you want to go back and see my original post on the matter).
So why argue with me? I don't hold the atheist view.

I repeat again I am not in error and you'd better
learn what it is I claim before you can point out my errors.

 

Flail? You mean like you are doing above?

Oh goodie. Another who likes to play the 'word' and 'semantic' game. I will have to remember that when dealing with you. In the meantime. Because when I asked the question, you inferred that the statement had been made previously. So, I can see now that you are wanting to be deceptive as well as play the 'word' and 'semantic' game. Cool.

Are you a Christian or other Theist? I would love to go back and see where that portion of your former statements were. Care to provide a link?

Making demands is not a very sociable way to communicate with people. Besides, You are not my master and therefore have no authority over me or over my conduct and behavior. Now when you fail to provide that link to the aforementioned former postings of yours, then it will be quite obvious why I asked you the question that was asked.

 

I understand that. The honest person considers the possibilities and can only conclude with an even bigger question mark than before.

This is not some generic spiritual journey where we simply admit there are things we don't know. You are saying that I must believe that this specific man survived his execution 2000 years ago in order to avoid facing the consequences from my sins. The very notion is absurd because I can not choose to believe anything. I believe or I don't, through no choice. Anyone who chooses to believe doesn't hold the level of belief that Jesus says is required. You must simply believe it. And a person can not choose that for themselves.

 

Honestly, Yosh, that's such a simple-minded thing to say.

No atheist limits the world to anything. It is what it is.

What's limited, simply, is what we profess to KNOW.

Religions pretend to know things they couldn't possibly know.

Atheists simply admit that we don't know those things so we're not going to believe that you somehow magically know them. That's all.

The underlying truth of the universe is limitless in its possibilities.

Only theists try to limit it down to their own narrow views.

 

Seriously speaking... Why do you suspect that a person cannot choose to believe? Is there some physiological rule which you are applying? Or is that just a feeling?

 

Sorry to nit-pick, but people who simply admit that they don't know whether God exists or not, are not called "atheists" but "agnostics". Atheists firmly believe that God doesn't exist.

 

A linguistic rule, I suppose. Believe is a passive verb.

To see for yourself, attempt to describe a hypothetical chain of events cognitively that leads to a person's choosing to believe in Christianity.

 

Actually, the word atheism means "without theism."

It is a term that refers to someone who does not adhere to a type of theism.

Agnostics fall under that category, but because the word "atheist" carries such negative connotations, many refuse to identify themselves as such.

 

Another way to express what you are suggesting is 'rationalization' or the making of excuses, or seeking a justification, for the given passive action of believing. Now ask yourself, is believing needs to be rationalized. To say that you cannot choose to believe is the same thing as saying that you have no free will. If you have no free will, then someone or something must be in control of your ability to think. Now let me ask you this. Who or what does your thinking for you?

Actually 'believe' can be either an intransitive verb or a transitive verb.

 

I choose what to think. I can think in my head "I believe Jesus Christ is the son of God who sacrificed Himself for my sins." Indeed, I tell myself things like this everyday to stay in character. At the end of the day, if you want to know the truth, a man can't come back from the dead and no one has shown me anything close to sufficient evidence to disregard that fact.

I can't unlearn a fact that I know to be true. So believing anything that contradicts a known fact is not an option for me, unless of course, I see some remarkable evidence.

Please describe the cognitive chain of events that leads to a person's choosing to believe.

I can say "I DO believe it." in my mind and then I still don't really believe it. So how can I possibly make this choice?

 

Well all verbs can take either form. I mean to say it is a state of being. Not something that can performed.

 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...ous_recovery_from_brain_death_after_accident/

For what it is worth.

It would be described just like any other cognitive chain of events wherein choice is the goal. No difference whatsoever. If you are suggesting that there is some debilitating factor involved in that cognitive chain of events, then please point out what you believe the defect to be and explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

You might also be interested in the subject of CCR (Cognitive Chain Reaction).
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/CognitiveChainReaction

 

I only got one thing to say to U RST

.

 

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-verb-forms_main.htm

Join the club.

"I mean to..." is also a state of being; yet you are doing it.

 

First you blended my dillema in with "thinking" and suggested that something or someone else was doing my thinking. Thinking is not my dillema.

Now you blend my dillema with "choice" and suggest I should go about it like any other choice. Making a generic choice is not my dillema.

I know you are trying to do what you feel is right, but doesn't the fact that you have to use such dishonest tactics to try to make your point tell you something?

I am talking about choosing to believe in something that is fantastic and has no evidence. How does a person make that choice?

I am not talking about thinking. Not talking about just any old choice. You know that yet you still try to switch it out for something else. Why do that? Doesn't it tell you something about your own beliefs that you must slickly change the topic to come up with a comfortable response?

Please confront this head on and ignore the temptations to change topic.

The boy in the link you posted was never dead. And again we see your deceit attempting to liken a person in a coma who has only been declared brain dead to a man who died on a cross sitting and rotting for three days and then coming back from the dead.

This is false witness, my friend. You know better, but you feel an online debate is more important than the truth. I don't blame you. I have asked you a question that can not be answered honestly while maintaining your beliefs.

 

Yes! I did. Why? Because 'believing' is the end result of a cognitive process just like you inferred when you asked about that 'cognitive chain of events'. To my inquiry regarding something or someone else thinking for you, you responded by saying that you 'choose to think what you think'. Did you look at the article on CCR? You should.

This whole discussion is about your comment where you stated that man cannot choose to believe. Those were your words which caught my interest. In those 4 words of yours, are the subject matters of "choice" (choose) and "believe" (your dilemma). So, NO! I did not mix the two, you did.

What dishonest tactics am I being accused of using? Be specific.

You analyze the available data, weigh the consequences versus the benefits (if either exist as analytical properties), then you make a conscious decision to either believe or not believe. Similar to the advice that Hillary gave on the subject of drugs... "Just say no to drugs". Use the same process with regard to your dilemma, but make your own decision as to the response Yes or No.

What precisely did I attempt to switch it to or with? Believing is believing. Doubt me, look it up in the dictionary. You can direct your belief or your ability to believe toward any intended object, but that again requires choice.

My beliefs and or my ability to believe are not the subjects of this discussion; though now you are attempting to do that very thing that you just accused me of doing. Why do that?

I am approaching it head on by gathering as much information as possible so that I can analyze the situation and hopefully give you an informed response. On the other side of that same coin, I keep running into meteor fields that are causing a delay in obtaining that needed information.

The doctors had already notified state authorities of his death (brain dead condition). Study the article and do just a quick little research on the subject of 'brain dead' or 'brain death' and you will find that condition is one in which doctors consider as being unrecoverable. I have presented no deceit in providing that article to you (unless of course the doctors were being deceitful in saying that brain death is unrecoverable.)

Please provide PROOF of any false witness on my part. Show where I have deliberately posted false information for your observation. Show where I have made a deliberate attempt to misrepresent any information that I have presented to you.

Yet now you make a presumptive statement in saying that the question cannot be answered honestly while maintaining my beliefs. Did you ever stop to consider the purpose of my asking you so many questions and seeking out information from you, might be for the purpose of providing that honest answer that you might have been seeking? On the other side of this coin, is the possibility that the question was designed in such a way that caused you to believe that no-one would be able to answer it honestly while maintaining their beliefs; which subsequently would change the questions nature from being an honest inquiry to a status of 'flame bait'. Which is it?

 

Originally Posted by Incorporeal: "I keep running into meteor fields that are causing a delay in obtaining that needed information."
_________________________________________________________________________
Excuse me,I find this thread an interesting read and Incorporeal I find your phrase above
in line with the spiritial side of things in your own way to convey your message to others.
I commend you for wording it that way.

 

Free will means choice, that's all. It does not mean success or that you get whatever you want...
Hell if I could get whatever I wanted it would not be flying like an eagle...LOL