• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Challenge the statement that;

NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
mikkel_the_dane said:
Okay, the word "exist" is from philosophy in the past. It has moved over to be an everyday word that nobody challenges. But if you accept that it is possible that in fact the word "exist" could be as problematic as the word "god", we can go on.
Click to expand...

It is prudent to clearly define words to ensure clear communication. However, in this case, we wish to "challenge" a word in order to give an impression of credence to a given argument. If we are going to do that, then we may as well challenge any verb, including the verb "challenge". The verb "exist" is clearly defined as it is used in everyday language. It doesn't need to be "challenged". It needs to be used according to the accepted use of the word. If you don't like the word, choose a different word.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
NewGuyOnTheBlock said:
It is prudent to clearly define words to ensure clear communication. However, in this case, we wish to "challenge" a word in order to give an impression of credence to a given argument. If we are going to do that, then we may as well challenge any verb, including the verb "challenge". The verb "exist" is clearly defined as it is used in everyday language. It doesn't need to be "challenged". It needs to be used according to the accepted use of the word. If you don't like the word, choose a different word.
Click to expand...

The word God doesn't need to be "challenged", unless you feel for it. I feel for challenging any word, because I am a skeptic.
You have made a standard believer answer.

There are words I don't accept being doubting and I decide for all humans, which words that is. ;)
 
NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
mikkel_the_dane said:
The word God doesn't need to be "challenged",
Click to expand...

For the sake of this thread, the word "god" doesn't need to be challenged; we all have a basic idea what that word means and what it entails. Whether or not we accept or reject the notion of the existence of this "god" is not a challenge on that word. Likewise, "exist" does not need challenged. It needs accepted as is.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
NewGuyOnTheBlock said:
For the sake of this thread, the word "god" doesn't need to be challenged; we all have a basic idea what that word means and what it entails. Whether or not we accept or reject the notion of the existence of this "god" is not a challenge on that word. Likewise, "exist" does not need challenged. It needs accepted as is.
Click to expand...

Who made you the master of humanity? With what authority do you decide that? I don't have that. I can only point out that the ontological status of the word "exist" seems challenged if you look closer.
Or indeed what the real world and real life are.
 
AlexanderG

AlexanderG

Active Member
Clara Tea said:
Is your antisemitism (spread from Louis Farrakhan, blaming Jews for slavery) the goal of your religion? Should religions blame and divide, and suggest murdering each other? Should religions start wars based on hard feelings?

Paraphrased your statements for brevity:

1. "God knows future".....Consider a maze with lots of choices. We could turn left or right at numerous points. God will know the outcome of each decision, but, having given us free choice, we might decide to go a particular way (no matter how we choose, God knows the outcome). Maybe life is like this?

2. See 1.

3. "Jewish God (same as Christian God) permitted slave ownership/beatings."

Slavery and the Jews

The Atlantic article, above, discusses Jewish slave ownership. I was always told that Jews usually didn't own slaves because it was against Jewish law (laid down in the Old Testament). The Atlantic is the most respected magazine in the world, and writers feel that they have finally succeeded if they are honored to get an article published in it.

Women were often assigned husbands (matchmakers).

JEWS AND NEGRO SLAVERY IN THE OLD SOUTH, 1789-1865: Address of the President on JSTOR

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...slavery/6b2b2453-01da-4429-bd50-beff03741418/

"Both the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith have published rebuttals comparing "The Secret Relationship" to the most infamous works of antisemitic propaganda in the 20th century." " In late 1991, Farrakhan's Nation of Islam published "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," quoting from the extensive research of Jewish historians to indict, in effect, today's Jews for everything from the ownership of South American sugar plantations three centuries ago to Jewish participation in the Confederate war effort. Some observers acknowledge that certain communities of Jews participated directly in black slavery -- but in far smaller numbers than non-Jews among the Portuguese, Dutch, English and French, than Arabs, or than Africans themselves.(Quotes from the Washington Post).

"in Brazil, Jews owned a small percentage of the sugar plantations but were the predominant retailers of slaves in the colony, according to Arnold Wiznitzer's "Jews in Colonial Brazil." (Washington Post website). Could it be that Wiznitzer is a German who wants to destroy Jews and blame Jews for slavery though Whites were really in charge?


When I see negative info about Jews, I wonder if some antisemite is behind it.

I once read an article about C & H Sugar in contemporary times using children to harvest sugar cane. They had been taken from their parents, held incommunicado (no phones), and given only sugar cane to eat, and their teeth were falling out. I suppose that is slavery in modern times (or at least child abuse). I wonder how a US company could get away with that?
Click to expand...

Are you ok? I quoted a bit of the Old Testament as a broader criticism and internal critique of modern Christian doctrine as it relates to free will, and you went on an entire diatribe about anti-Semitism and implied I am probably a bigot. You're really barking up the wrong tree here, and your response is way out of left field. You're not going to get far on this site if you consider everyone who mentions something in the OT to be an anti-Semite.

If you've been hurt and you're still suffering, then you should talk to someone about it, but inflicting collateral damage on random people around you isn't going to help you to heal in the long run. I really hope you find someone to talk to.
 
NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
mikkel_the_dane

I have been known to ask posters, "Define that word. When you say ___________, what are you trying to say?"

Words are tricky. There are so many words we use in our conversations that are so sloppy, so vague, so commonly misused, that communication can be very difficult when the words are used. Some words I can list that fall here are: Religion, Faith, Knowledge, Pedophile. These are just a few. Some words, like "God", can be generally accepted until finer points come into play. When we say "God", we have a general idea what the speaker is intending to say; and for general discussion, that word is sufficient. However, if we get down to finer points of discussion, it may be necessary to ensure clear communication that we agree on the characteristics and nature of that given object (herein "God") in order for communication to continue. When discussions become that fine, clearly defining our idea of "God" may become necessary.

So I both respect and accept your premise.

However, if we pour over the definition of each and every word in this post, the conversation goes nowhere. The premise of the discussion is lost in the futile exercise of bickering or discussing semantics rather than the subject of the discussion itself.

I am posting this comment in 2 different threads, not to break rules and spam, but because the question over the use of words has come up in 2 different threads in a short period of time and I believe this comment is equally valid in both threads.

================================================================

As a skeptic, I am certain that you are versed in the laws of logic, one of them being the "Law of Identity".

Master? No. Once I understand, for example, that a poster is defining "religion" in a way different than I define the word, I have been known to capitulate to that definition for the purpose of the discussion.

I am the one who used the word "exist"; and in this case, when I use the word "exist", I mean to say that the object in question is a part of our objective reality (observable or not).
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, you are subjective again and turn that into being for all humans and not just you.

Here is how that kind of subjective works and it also applies to some non-religious people.

I am the source of all understanding and it works this way. Any human is in a specific time, space and sense. I then just declare my specific time, space and sense universal and yours wrong.

So you are wrong, because you are not me and I am wrong, because I am not you. You accept the one and not the other. I accept none of them.
Click to expand...

Just because some people have a methodological subjectivity or a philosophical subjective ontology that does not mean there is nothing objective. Thats not a good argument.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
firedragon said:
Just because some people have a methodological subjectivity or a philosophical subjective ontology that does not mean there is nothing objective. Thats not a good argument.
Click to expand...

No, but sometimes some people can't understand when they are subjective. And that is not limited to religious people and even I do it from time to time. I just try to learn from it, if it is pointed out to me.
 
HonestJoe

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
chinu said:
Sun rises in the east. is any support required ? :)
Click to expand...
Essentially yes. People had to observe the Sun rising from a (relatively) consistent point on the horizon often enough to identify a reliable pattern (the fact that direction is labelled East originates from it being where the Sun rises). There were also subsequent study done to understand the relative motions of the Earth and Sun to understand why the Sun (technically, appears to) rise in the East and why it will continue to do so for a long time.
 
chinu

chinu

chinu
HonestJoe said:
Essentially yes. People had to observe the Sun rising from a (relatively) consistent point on the horizon often enough to identify a reliable pattern (the fact that direction is labelled East originates from it being where the Sun rises). There were also subsequent study done to understand the relative motions of the Earth and Sun to understand why the Sun (technically, appears to) rise in the East and why it will continue to do so for a long time.
Click to expand...
Okay, suppose any day sun rise from the west, then what ? is the support required then ?
Or which direction do you think doesn't require support ? or the sun may NOT rise at all ? :)
 
Last edited:
NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
HonestJoe said:
Essentially yes. People had to observe the Sun rising from a (relatively) consistent point on the horizon often enough to identify a reliable pattern (the fact that direction is labelled East originates from it being where the Sun rises). There were also subsequent study done to understand the relative motions of the Earth and Sun to understand why the Sun (technically, appears to) rise in the East and why it will continue to do so for a long time.
Click to expand...

I like it. West is certainly a relative concept. The the purposes of understanding the nature of our world, yes, we need to put finer points on things like this.

But if you stop me along the street and ask me for directions and I indicate "West", is that really the time or place to discuss the relative motions of the planets and stars or the relativity of this thing I've labelled "West"? How does this interesting but, for the purposes of finding your desired location, unnecessary discussion help you solve the problem of getting where you are trying to go?

So I think that for the purposes of everyday conversation, the idea that the "sun rises in the East" doesn't need further validation as the sun appears to rise from a given reference point that we call "East" and has been doing so since the evolution of modern man.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Clara Tea said:
If the future is not predetermined, then predictions are useless and false. Yet, there are many parts of the bible that speak of predictions, including Revelation. Is the bible wrong about predicting the future?
Click to expand...

I believe God exists outside of and inside of time and so knows what will happen even though knowing what will happen is not predetermination.

Clara Tea said:
I believe that there are some things that can be changed, and some things that cannot. For example, an earthquake would be very difficult to stop. Maybe it could have tension eased by fracking? But some things can be changed (how a president decides, for example). However, some presidents are so hard headed that they could not change their mind (example, declaring war on Iraq though it had no link to terrorism).
Click to expand...

I believe that what we consider hard things to change are easy for God to change. That does not mean He should change those things.
Fracking imo in this day and age of climate change is an evil practice done for greed that can pollute ground water that people have used for thousands of years.
I doubt it would effect earthquakes, but I don't know, it may even cause earthquakes by releasing gas pressure.
 
HonestJoe

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
chinu said:
Okay, suppose any day sun rise from the west, then what ? is the support required then ?
Or which direction do you think doesn't require support ? or the sun may NOT rise at all ? :)
Click to expand...
If you made a statement that "The Sun rose in the West this morning" or "The Sun won't rise tomorrow" then yes, you'd need to provide some level of evidence and clarification if you expected anyone to take you seriously. It certainly won't be right to take those statements as truth just because nobody could (or could be bothered to) challenge them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top