Lies

[Eon]

Regardless of religion, all parents want their children to have a better life than they had (I think). Wouldn't being honest with your child ultimately provide the best results?

Not according to one gentleman here, whose comments seem to indicate that early indoctrination is better than the truth. I agree with YOU though.

 

[Genesis1315]

Early indoctrination into Christianity though is exposure to Truth

 

[Dark Virtue]

Early indoctrination into Christianity though is exposure to Truth

::cough::

 

[ChickenSoup]

I believe the action text is:

*cough*

 

[Dark Virtue]

Sorry man, I have no simpler way to put it. The pictures are proof of massive people changeing thier lifes, which is my point of Jesus changeing the world. I don't have a picture of every christian I"m sorry. I don't see the difference between the two things I previously stated. If your going somewhere with this, please make your point. Do you deny the changeing of hundereds of millions of lives? Do you deny thatJesus has not affected some part of the world? Please give me something to work with

The way you worded your original statement was that all this change affected the entirety of the world in 35 years. That's what I was arguing against.

As far as Christianity affected hundreds of millions of lives, I would point out that it has negatively, as well as positively affected lives. I would also point out that many other religions have affected hundreds of millions of lives.

Just as an ex drug user knows the importance of telling his kids the danger, I will tell my kids(if I am given kids someday) about an everlasting God who forgave my sins.

And when he asks for proof? Or are you expecting him to just take your word for it?

heh, I know its not a label. You didn't make up the theory of evolution any more than I made up Christianity. So how are you different from me? What have you done to be a "free thinker"?

The very question indicates you are unfamiliar with the definition of "freethinker".

 

[Master~Plan]

You are assuming that Man is inherantly evil, something born in his psyche, or in your case, his Soul. I think that's a subjective, Christian viewpoint, especially since you included a "sinful" nature. You are trying to pose an objective hypothesis but you are failing because you are binding it with subjective morality.

Jesus Christ is truth. There is nothing subjective about it, believe it or not...

I don't understand why you feel you are NOT living an independant life. Didn't you have free will to choose God?

I don't see the corrilation between independance and free will

This line of thinking isn't going to go very far until someone defined "independant thought".

thats all on Eon

 

[Dark Virtue]

Jesus Christ is truth. There is nothing subjective about it, believe it or not...

Believe is defined as "to accept as true, genuine, or real".

In order for me to accept something as true, I need a little thing called evidence.

Saying Jesus Christ is truth sounds great...but what does it actually mean?

I don't see the corrilation between independance and free will

And without seeing the correlation, you have no hope of understanding. Let's start by having you define both terms and we'll go from there.

thats all on Eon

Actually, it's on heiscominsoon. See post #29

 

[ChickenSoup]

And when he asks for proof? Or are you expecting him to just take your word for it?

...And I'll give it to him. And before you say "prove that God is real", prove to me that he isn't real.

 

[Master~Plan]

Believe is defined as "to accept as true, genuine, or real".

In order for me to accept something as true, I need a little thing called evidence.

Saying Jesus Christ is truth sounds great...but what does it actually mean?

Sure I agree, but I was just pointing out that my thought was not subjective like you suggested.

In John 18:38 Pilate asks "what is truth?" as he determines whether or not to have Jesus crucified. Its ironic that Pilate wasn't really in control at all as you can see he didn't want to crucify Jesus. The truth is that Jesus came to the world to bear the wieght of sin and defeat death. Its no story, its universal Truth.

Your turn, why don't you define "evidence".

And without seeing the correlation, you have no hope of understanding.

heh, well I guess some day I might be as wise as you

Let's start by having you define both terms and we'll go from there.

I don't see enough value in a discussion pivited on definition of words. So, I'll tell you what I meant, take it however you want.
If you totally isolate a person from human contact they will not get very far. Total isolation would signify independance from other beings. You have free will to slowly die however you chose.
On the other extreeme say your a mooch on society, and your parents buy you a mansion in a city and give you a million dollars in the bank which you live off pure interest. You still have free will to spend given resources however you chose. Both cases you have free will. But independance varies. corrilation?

Actually, it's on heiscominsoon. See post #29

Last paragraph of post #17, Eon brings up "independant thought" which HCS was referring to.

 

[Dark Virtue]

...And I'll give it to him. And before you say "prove that God is real", prove to me that he isn't real.

Sorry, but you are the one claiming the positive, it's not possible to prove a negative. That's like me asking you to prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

You said that you would give your child proof. How, exactly, would you do that? Or are you going to ask him prove that God doesn't exist and then when he can't, say "SEE? I was right all along!"

 

[Genesis1315]

Sorry, but you are the one claiming the positive, it's not possible to prove a negative. That's like me asking you to prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

So, Since a negative cannot be proven, you cannot prove that God does not exist therefore, by your own statement, He must exist.

We look forward to hearing about your church experience next week

Gen and HCS

 

[Dark Virtue]

So, Since a negative cannot be proven, you cannot prove that God does not exist therefore, by your own statement, He must exist.

We look forward to hearing about your church experience next week

Gen and HCS

How many times do I have to pull your words out of my mouth?

I have never, ever claimed that I could prove God doesn't exist.

Following your "logic", and I use that term as loosely as possible, then I should also start attending mosques and temples, not to mention wearing tin foil around my head to avoid alien attempts to invade my mind.

As you can see, believing in something without proof, evidence and/or reason puts one at the top of a very dangerous, slippery slope.

 

[ChickenSoup]

not to mention wearing tin foil around my head to avoid alien attempts to invade my mind.

Hello! Only styrofoam is alienproof (strangely)

OK, someone who visited my church once brought x-rays of themselves to church. This guy had no voice box, and yet he talked and could sing very well. Not only that, he had a sort of booming voice that said "Hey guys, who needs a microphone anyway?"

Explain to me in scientific terms how in the WORLD this has happened?

 

[Colossal]

Wait you guys mean santas not real?

 

[Dark Virtue]

LOL, I think you need to study formal logic a BIT more before you try to use it against me

What is a Negative Proof?

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."
Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist.

Another common example is that, "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the converse is also true, according to the Argument from Ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist". Also, similar to the aliens in the above example, since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist.

Your "logic" has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Didn't you read the second part of my post or were you so rabid to try and prove me wrong that you skipped over it?

Take a deep breath and consider this: if we follow your "logic" then we must believe that Allah exists because we can't prove he doesn't. We must believe that leprechans exist because we can't prove they don't. We must believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because we can't prove she doesn't. Don't you see the problem here? You have pinned your hopes on a logical fallacy.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Grass is purple. Grass is purple. Grass is purple.

No matter how many times I make that statement, it is still incorrect.

The same goes for yours.

You are claiming a logical fallacy, and no matter how many times you do it, it won't be correct.

Why do you continue to ignore the second part of my posts? Let me cut and paste yet again:

Take a deep breath and consider this: if we follow your "logic" then we must believe that Allah exists because we can't prove he doesn't. We must believe that leprechans exist because we can't prove they don't. We must believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because we can't prove she doesn't. Don't you see the problem here? You have pinned your hopes on a logical fallacy.

You are correct, this IS simple logic, but you aren't willing to acknowledge the rules of formal logic.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I suggest looking up information on Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. Good science would then demand a plausible testable theory to explain how it vanished.

 

[Eon]

Whilst it is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist, it is possible to logically prove that assertions used to support the theory of it existing are false.

That doesn't mean that it DOESN'T exist, merely that it is not proven to exist. If you're happier with the phrase "It has not been proven that God exists" over "God doesn't exist" then there's little argument.

Of course, someone can easily say "I do not think that God exists" because he is stating his opinion, which he can then provide reasons for - but an opinion doesn't have to be unassailable. Whilst it is impossible for opposing theories to exist without rationalisation, it is quite possible of opposing opinions to exist with one being no more and no less correct than the other.

 

[Master~Plan]

well, diverting back to post 50 I still have quite a few unanswered questions if you don't mind
first I was wondering what you guys have done differently than me to deserve the title of "freethinker"

second I would appreciate it if you gave the parameters of your "evidence" on which you base all convictions of fact.

And third what is the correlation between freewill and independance?

hah, reading over it I guess it looks like some list of demands, but whatever

 

[Dark Virtue]

well, diverting back to post 50 I still have quite a few unanswered questions if you don't mind
first I was wondering what you guys have done differently than me to deserve the title of "freethinker"

That's a simple answer if you understand what the definition of freethinker is. Given that I have defined the term many times here, would you mind telling me what YOU think a freethinker is?