Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
Turbot,

You should have read the entire post to see why I asked the questions... :doh:

I did, and I do.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
That's interesting, my clients never complained about my fees being excessive...

Sure, Zakath, sure, Too bad you can't "help" people without charging them for your "psychological services."

 

[sawrie]

sawrie

sawrie

..

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
I did, and I do.

You see, grasshopper; but you do not understand.

 

[Carl Smuda]

Re: sawrie

Re: sawrie

Originally posted by sawrie
Can one prove to me that the physical universe exists?

only if you can prove to me that YOU exist. How do I know you're talking to me? are you a figment of my imagination? Or am I of yours?

 

[spackle]

Originally posted by Eireann
"God" doesn't mean the same thing to all people, and the dictionary only provides a general, popular definition. You ask a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim to define "God" and you'll get four different answers. You ask 10 Christians to define "God" and you'll get 10 different answers. Some believe in a God that is inclusive of Jesus, and some don't. This is even true among Christians -- you have Trinitarians who believe Christ is a part of or a manifestation of the Godhead, and you have non-trinitarians who believe that while Christ is "of God," that Christ is not God himself. So no, a dictionary definition of "God" is hardly going to suffice, unless both parties agree to use such a limited definition.

What's wrong with using a limited definition if it's sufficient to the argument. Zakath doesn't believe in the most basic definition of "god", Bob does. Why make the debate needlessly complex over the details of specific religions when the issue is very basic? And why did Zakath put the ball in Bob's court when he could have just as easily stated HIS definition of "god" and gotten the ball rolling. He could just say, "this is the most fundamental definition of what I think 'god' is, and I don't believe in it."

My point is, if Bob defines "God" as "a higher power", it might not be enough. Zakath could believe in aliens or something that are, technically, a higher power than humans. They both need to find the lowest common denominator, so to speak, and debate that. Zakath could have started that process, but he decided to let Bob define it.

It might have actually been a smart move, because it puts Bob on the defensive.

 

[Brenda]

waiting

waiting

I am not a regular on here, but I keep checking the site every 5 minutes waiting for Bob Enyart's first post!

 

[Zakath]

Re: sawrie

Re: sawrie

Originally posted by sawrie
Can one prove to me that the physical universe exists?... (snipped the remaining existential questioning)

Is it utterly impossible for religionists like you to stick to the discussion at hand?

You might have missed it, but the question for the debate is "Does God Exist?" It is not your question about universal existence. That is another debate entirely.

Since there are many, many conflicting claims about what "God" means, we need to define that term early on to avoid misunderstandings...

Its amazing to me that one can say there is no God.

Be amazed. :shocked:

There is no God. :think:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by spackle
It might have actually been a smart move, because it puts Bob on the defensive.

Yep.

 

[Carl Smuda]

Don't forget our good friends the Mormons: As man is God was, as God is man will be....:juggle:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
...Too bad you can't "help" people without charging them for your "psychological services."

Knight gave you your very own forum to play in, Jay. It's too bad you can't stick to the topic at hand when you're out in the rest of the world...

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Knight gave you your very own forum

 

[Lion]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Becky
Hi Zak,
So, does this mean your wife believes in some form of a god?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Za-kath's response

Nope. Merely an oracle, a mouthpiece for a deity.

Well, she is my little goddess... but that's different...

And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that...

Ha Ha ha ha ha ha…. He he he he he he… ho ho ho ho ho… ha ha ha ha ha ha….

Good one.

 

[Lion]

ZA-kath said:

As do many folks here. Where we differ is the object of our faith...

"Everyone's gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink!":cheers:

Luke 12:19-20 ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” "But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you...

 

[Lion]

The "BIG" if...

The "BIG" if...

1Cor 15:32 "...If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”:devil:

 

[Lion]

Forever away from the God you once loved.

Forever away from the God you once loved.

Is. 22:12-14 And in that day the Lord GOD of hosts Called for weeping and for mourning, For baldness and for girding with sackcloth. But instead, joy and gladness, Slaying oxen and killing sheep, Eating meat and drinking wine: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” Then it was revealed in my hearing by the LORD of hosts, “Surely for this iniquity there will be no atonement for you, Even to your death,” says the Lord GOD of hosts.:snake:

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by spackle
What's wrong with using a limited definition if it's sufficient to the argument.

Nothing, as long as both parties agree. It is absolutely essential, though, that there be agreement on the definition before the debate proper begins, otherwise there's no point in debating if you're debating unrelated ideas.

It might have actually been a smart move, because it puts Bob on the defensive.

Precisely. Zakath has put the onus of establishing a working defition onto Bob, which has the end result of giving Zakath the first real target to shoot at.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Lion
ZA-kath said:Luke 12:19-20 ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” "But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you...

So when I get up tomorrow morning and log onto TOL, can I call you a false prophet?

 

[wholearmor]

Re: Re: I need more ...

Re: Re: I need more ...

Originally posted by Zakath
I do.

Atheism runs, more or less, on a spectrum from weak atheism, what most would term "agnostic" to strong atheism, what most would call an "athiest". I tend toward the strong end of the spectrum, meaning I actually disbelieve in the existence of any deities.

I am open to changing my mind if someone (human or otherwise) provided sufficient evidence.

Keep in mind you may see that term "sufficiency of evidence" again in the near future...

I suppose you've read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, right?

 

[Zakath]

I struggled through it and found it very shallow and unconvincing.

One characteristic of human nature is our ability to form correspondences, or patterns and links between discrete events and data where we want to regardless of whether such links and patterns are really justifiable, based on evidence.

Extreme cases of this can result in paranoia, where the individual sees patterns of persecution and danger to themselves in the innocently intended actions of others and the random actions of the world around them.

In like manner, when we believe something, we search for patterns (even unconsciously) and make connections that may not be apparent or even visible to others looking in from the outside. What was so blazingly apparent to Strobel, because he was actuallly searching for it, is relatively unconvincing to me.