Instant win in debate against christianity

[JustWondering]

It is wise to use all awareness to know and be connected to reality.

I agree. I demonstrate my wisdom by basing my lifes decisions according to my experiences in reality not what is written in ancient fairy tales like what is found in the bible.

 

[waitasec]

From the article above in case you didn't read it.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Wisdom's characteristics can contain, balance, insights, intuition, experience, spirituality, logic, reason, knowledge, skills, science, religion, prudence, judgments, ethics, morals, virtues, feelings, sensibility, however it is not governed, restricted or limited by any of them individually. It thrives on truth in intelligent minds and many times is thwarted and isolated in oblivion by intellectually programmed clever minds. [/FONT]

Maybe you have an intellectually programmed clever mind?

are you then insinuating non believers are not intelligent and are not truthful?
EDIT:
i don't believe i have an intellectually clever mind
meaning i think i'm pretty honest with myself...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the article above in case you didn't read it.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wisdom's characteristics can contain, balance, insights, intuition, experience, spirituality, logic, reason, knowledge, skills, science, religion, prudence, judgments, ethics, morals, virtues, feelings, sensibility, however it is not governed, restricted or limited by any of them individually. It thrives on truth in intelligent minds and many times is thwarted and isolated in oblivion by intellectually programmed clever minds. [/FONT]

Maybe you have an intellectually programmed clever mind?

I think that's a poor (unwise? ) definition of wisdom.

However, I do notice that it implies that intuition is not necessary for wisdom, which seems to speak against your argument.

 

[Walkntune]

Your arguement basically boils down to this:

Christianity = truth
Wisdom = mystical human trait used to recognize truth
Logic/intellect = human trait/practice that causes confusion

Therefore people should not rely on logic/intellect but wisdom because wisdom will lead them to the truth (christianity).

More like

Awareness = truth

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]balance, insights, intuition, experience, spirituality, logic, reason, knowledge, skills, science, religion, prudence, judgments, ethics, morals, virtues, feelings, sensibility,

Are all limited aspects of full awareness.
To rely on any of them solely without full awareness = confusion.
[/FONT]

 

[Walkntune]

are you then insinuating non believers are not intelligent and are not truthful?
EDIT:
i don't believe i have an intellectually clever mind
meaning i think i'm pretty honest with myself...

Nope, don't step down to them tactics.
Never said unintelligent and not insinuating untruthful either.
Possibly just not aware due to too much reliance on intellect and not enough on other sources of awareness.

 

[Riverwolf]

Trying to use logic instead of wisdom to interpret scriptures is your folly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

Logic IS part of developing wisdom. Without logic, there can't be wisdom.

 

[Beaudreaux]

It least you understand it's YOUR world view.

Is that supposed to have some kind of meaning? Whose worldview is not their own? Is yours your own? What are you trying to say?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Nope, don't step down to them tactics.
Never said unintelligent and not insinuating untruthful either.
Possibly just not aware due to too much reliance on intellect and not enough on other sources of awareness.

What are these other sources of awareness?

 

[Walkntune]

Is that supposed to have some kind of meaning? Whose worldview is not their own? Is yours your own? What are you trying to say?

It means you have some control over conscious awareness and allow yourself to see what you chose to see.

 

[waitasec]

i just wanted to reiterate

However, I do notice that it implies that intuition is not necessary for wisdom, which seems to speak against your argument.

it was a good point...

 

[waitasec]

Nope, don't step down to them tactics.
Never said unintelligent and not insinuating untruthful either.
Possibly just not aware due to too much reliance on intellect and not enough on other sources of awareness.

i wasn't going there and i am sure neither were you
just wanted to point out how your words come across.
wisdom involves many things... intuition and insight but there must be a balance. insight is gained by experience (is it the same with you?). through my experience i have concluded god does not exist
what is god to me? a supreme being that created this universe and all that is in it that requires to be worshiped...
my experience; life. my life is no more special than anyone else's
we are all the same and what separates us is the way we choose to worship this supposed divine entity

p.s.
i recommend the movie "babies" a documentary about 4 different babies in 4 different parts of the world...no dialogue but it says a lot.

 

[Walkntune]

I think that's a poor (unwise? ) definition of wisdom.

However, I do notice that it implies that intuition is not necessary for wisdom, which seems to speak against your argument.

My argument was for wisdom which is to be open to all awareness of reality.Explain how whether intuition is used or not goes against the argument.

 

[Walkntune]

i wasn't going there and i am sure neither were you
just wanted to point out how your words come across.
wisdom involves many things... intuition and insight but there must be a balance. insight is gained by experience (is it the same with you?). through my experience i have concluded god does not exist
what is god to me? a supreme being that created this universe and all that is in it that requires to be worshiped...
my experience; life. my life is no more special than anyone else's
we are all the same and what separates us is the way we choose to worship this supposed divine entity

p.s.
i recommend the movie "babies" a documentary about 4 different babies in 4 different parts of the world...no dialogue but it says a lot.

We have a different view of God as I see Him as creation and as we are created in His image we are also creators.I think more of a cosmic order that is deterministic and we have the ability to align ourselves or become trapped in our own resistance.We go against our intuition and instincts that we use to stay in line and rely to much on our own conscious control and pay the price with our health.
It is just like the deer that is so consciously focussed on the green grass that it loses awareness of the dangers around and gets shot.

 

[waitasec]

We have a different view of God as I see Him as creation and as we are created in His image we are also creators.I think more of a cosmic order that is deterministic and we have the ability to align ourselves or become trapped in our own resistance.We go against our intuition and instincts that we use to stay in line and rely to much on our own conscious control and pay the price with our health.
It is just like the deer that is so consciously focussed on the green grass that it loses awareness of the dangers around and gets shot.

how you experience your experience is totally independent on your interpretation, surely not all deers get shot
if we perceive things differently then there is no right or wrong just differences of opinion
it is when biased perceptions are applied to people with different points of view is when i have a problem with the idea of a god that supposedly sets these biased rules...

 

[Storm]

You've probably thought of this before, known of this before but haven't really much payed attention to it but i believe this is the best statement to bring up when you are arguing against christianity


If it is backed by evidence, it is logical.

If it is not backed up by evidence, it is illogical.

The bible is not backed up by evidence so therefore it illogical.

Christians believe in the bible, thus they believe that if it is not backed up by evidence, it is logical.

Christians are illogical.

When i mean evidence, i mean a group of evidence that consists of actual archeological proof and other considerably firm evidence. NOT just evidence which is few and extremely subtle when supporting something in the bible.

I believe this is the best.
You can constantly argue on small details in the bible and support it with verses on topics that prove the christian lord hates homosexuals or he is evil and invented sin, but yet it all comes back to this.

Now all you have to do is transform humans into purely logical creatures......

 

[Walkntune]

=waitasec;2203979]how you experience your experience is totally independent on your interpretation, surely not all deers get shot

Why do some deer not get shot?

if we perceive things differently then there is no right or wrong just differences of opinion

And the debate about God's existence continues.....

 

[waitasec]

Why do some deer not get shot?

sure some will stay alive but are still hungry because they are too fearful of what may lurk around the bend. tell you what though, they will never knowingly walk into a sticky situation, that's wisdom for you :sarcastic

And the debate about God's existence continues.....

gotta admit, it's fun though

 

[Walkntune]

=waitasec;2204032]sure some will stay alive but are still hungry because they are too fearful of what may lurk around the bend. tell you what though, they will never knowingly walk into a sticky situation, that's wisdom for you :sarcastic

When will humans evolve to this level? LOL



g

otta admit, it's fun though

I learn a lot in the process.

 

[Lacus]

Crap! This is irrefutable! I can't even say anything becase I am illogical!

Yea, what you just said supports that fact

...that doesn't make any sense. Just because something isn't backed up by evidence doesn't mean it's illogical; it means it's unlikely.

Sweeping generalization. That's a logical fallacy.

The Bible is far more than mythology.
It's illogical to believe it's better to be good to people than to be bad to them?

Again, sweeping generalizations: i.e., logical fallacies.

What you just said is giving me a really bad headache, you're constantly saying what i am saying is a logical fallacy when you don't even support WHY.

Allow me to clarify the obvious.

when i meant
"if there is evidence, it is logical"
It means
"If there is proof that it is real/has happened, then it is real/has happened"

"If there is no evidence, it is illogical"
it means
"if there is NO proof that it is real/has happened, then is hasn't happened"

If you are going to argue with me saying
"oh,maybe i said blah blah to my friend. we have no proof it ever has happened, so with your illogical statements, you would conclude that it never happened when it actually did"

My arguement:
Witnesses and yourself and your friend count as proof. The only way you could support that it happened is if you said it and i believed it and then you would go on saying the bible is like that

BUT NO.

the bible is different. the bible is incredibly firm this giving it room for a lot of people to point out its flaws or anything questionable.

Why is there no hard physical evidence of the 40 years moses and his people have been on the desert?
What about proof of jesus?
historical evidence that certain stories in the bible actually happened?

 

[Lacus]

Not necessarily.

Again, not necessarily. Logic doesn't necessarily bear a direct relation to evidence, though it can help one determine what certain types of evidence might mean. Evidence itself can make a solution seem more likely, but it cannot make it "logical" or "illogical". Indeed, evidence does not speak to logic at all. A clever murderer who has left no evidence behind has still committed murder. The evidence proving geocentrism prior to Copernicus was immense, yet that theory was quite wrong. And it would have been entirely logically valid to believe either position on both those theoretical issues. Logical, but not necessarily correct, or likely.

So the rest of your proof is based on a flawed premise from the outset. You're using logical and illogical inappropriately as categories, and crediting the wrong factors for what makes a thing logically valid or invalid. Note that although you provided no evidence for any of your assumptions, the flawed premise is the reason your argument does not follow logically- the lack of evidence makes it less convincing, but not less logically valid or invalid.

And no, logic and rationality are by no means synonyms.

*In what i am about to say, when i use the term 'evidence', it means it is the absolute correct kind.

You did not understand what i said. Maybe i should edit my first post and make it more specific.

As you said, when a murderer commits a crime and leaves no evidence(as far as the people solving the case know of) and there are people trying to solve this murder and have no trace of evidence, with my logic of 'if there is no evidence, it has never happened', the murderer would be ruled out as innocent thus making my logic extremely wrong.

This is a situation where my logic has been applied wrong.

You applied my statement if you were a third person and you were given a piece of information
-is there evidence in our hands that that man is the murderer?
turns out there is none
and so the (you)third person would say the man is innocent even though in truth, he really did kill someone

The way you argued with my statement is wrong, for there is evidence that the man killed someone.
The item he used to kill the person.

My logic is applied when you know the truth and there is no hidden information.
wrong evidence, wrong information = not the truth
again, when i meant 'evidence' i meant the correct and absolute evidence.
so as i said
"if there is no evidence, it is illogical"
this means that if there absolutely is no evidence, it is (illogical)never happened

Because the bible is so long and there have been many events and many characters, there is a question i bring up. Why is there no evidence that they have existed?
We can easily say that with many centuries and no trace of evidence at all, that there is no evidence and that is the absolute truth.

There is no evidence meaning it never happened.