|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 22, 2024 23:30:14 GMT
Suspend your belief/disbelief for a minute. Just assume God exists... You can ask Him/Her just one question... What would it be? Why don’t you make any logical sense?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 23, 2024 0:15:44 GMT
I meant I can see through film flaneur pigheadenness. There is actually a shortage of ortoptists. My eyesight is particular and does not get treatment. My left eye cant work save for what’s 10 cm away from my nose and it’s almost sure that the retina is damaged. So be it. I take the bus. I can’t imagine how terrible it is not to hear. An ad hominem is still not an argument. Do you see that? Oh. Video lupum.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 23, 2024 1:02:44 GMT
🎥 flaneur Actually admin summed it using the right verb. And that is probably what you should aim as an atheist. Without any doubt you would know God, not belive /have faith. But religion is not science.Free will. When Christians had not been morally better to the roman rulers, who were not that alien to modern colonists/[insert current tyranny’s name here], things would have been different. Kindness won. There was many contenders, many cults. And if you want to know god you might take the path of gnosis. Beware. Sophia is supposedly the mother of the demiourgal architecht of a darkness universe (which I suspect is Ptah or another one, with à possible link to the jealous murdering greek.) Again, this just seems so much of a word salad. Except we agree that science is not religion. Well, duh.. This while my initial question was all about reducing doubt through an informed choice. But surely if one knows God for sure then one necessarily believes? Do you know that your last sentence exactly/perfectly denies your 2nd one ? I know because I studied this at lenght. Faith is not everything in religion. There is the dogma(words), the practices/rituals, the faith and sometimes, more. But in english faith is the general word, the more common. It means ”belief” for almost every common english locutor. Religious is perhaps more used in english than religion. But the sense is the same. Your second sentence affirms we agree that science and religion are two thing alien to each other. Than in your last sentence, you contradict both admin and yourself. Sorry, but knowing for sure and believing don’t amount to the same. Don’t be sad, we like you anyway. Word salad is word salad. I would suggest cesar sauce. On second thought, I don’t.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 23, 2024 1:03:53 GMT
An ad hominem is still not an argument. Do you see that? Oh. Video lupum. et video non sequitur
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 23, 2024 1:16:30 GMT
So you think. Not in a ho.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 23, 2024 1:43:57 GMT
Again, this just seems so much of a word salad. Except we agree that science is not religion. Well, duh.. This while my initial question was all about reducing doubt through an informed choice. But surely if one knows God for sure then one necessarily believes? Do you know that your last sentence exactly/perfection denies your 2nd one ? our second sentence affirms we agree that science and religion are two thing alien to each other. Than in your last sentence, you contradict both admin and yourself. No, and that's because it does not. Science is not a religion, while one believes the things one knows for sure. (However, as I had to explain Admin a few times recently, one can still not believe something which one might reasonably be expected to, for one's own stubborn reasons. Rather ironically, as it works out, she or he was also very stubborn in denying the existence of such obduracy) Religion is a matter of faith, which can be defined as belief based on conviction rather than scientific evidence. It is true that faith is frequently portrayed through the use of rituals and totems. I would say that faith ventures beyond what is ordinarily known or justifiably held true, in the sense that faith involves accepting what cannot be established as true through the proper exercise of our naturally endowed human cognitive faculties. That is, where there is evidence few talk, or need to talk, about faith. And, as I have argued lately, the best exercise of our cognitive faculties requires informed decisions ideally based on such sure and certain evidence.. If only I had said that. I actually said knowing something for sure normally entails belief, not that they are identical.. It is quite possible to not know something for sure and yet believe in it. (Which, for Christians faced with an inscrutable god, is when faith comes in) As Kant famously reports, in the Preface to the Second Edition of his Critique of Pure Reason: ‘I have … found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith’. Or one ought to know for sure and yet still not believe in it. Or believe on not much basis at all, come to that. But I certainly believe that you are bit late to the party.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 23, 2024 1:44:37 GMT
So you think. Not in a ho. What ho, bro?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2024 2:11:10 GMT
my initial question was all about reducing doubt through an informed choice. That is incorrect: Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation? You're backpedaling. Seems you are aware of your blunder. I'm sure your first retort is to point out that elimination is reduction, but either way, God would be the one eliminating (or reducing) doubt in this case - not you, let alone through your choice, informed or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2024 2:15:23 GMT
Do you know that your last sentence exactly/perfection denies your 2nd one ? our second sentence affirms we agree that science and religion are two thing alien to each other. Than in your last sentence, you contradict both admin and yourself. No, and that's because it does not. Science is not a religion, while one believes the things one knows for sure. (However, as I had to explain Admin a few times recently, one can still not believe something which one might reasonably be expected to, for one's own stubborn reasons. Rather ironically as it works out she or he was very stubborn in denying the existence of such obduracy) Religion is a matter of faith, which can be defined as belief based on conviction rather than scientific evidence. It is true that faith is frequently portrayed through the use of rituals and totems. I would say that faith ventures beyond what is ordinarily known or justifiably held true, in the sense that faith involves accepting what cannot be established as true through the proper exercise of our naturally endowed human cognitive faculties. That is, where there is evidence few talk, or need to talk, about faith. And, as I have argued lately, the best exercise of our cognitive faculties requires informed decisions ideally based on such sure and certain evidence.. If only I had said that. I actually said knowing something for sure normally entails belief, not that they are identical.. It is quite possible to not know something for sure and yet believe in it. (Which, for Christians faced with an inscrutable god, is when faith comes in) As Kant famously reports, in the Preface to the Second Edition of his Critique of Pure Reason: ‘I have … found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith’. Or one ought to know for sure and yet still not believe in it. Or believe on not much basis at all, come to that. But I certainly believe that you are bit late to the party. Quote chopping again? Even after you were asked not to? Tsk tsk. But hey, while I'm here... "one can still not believe something which one might reasonably be expected to, for one's own stubborn reasons" What is your stubborn reason for still not believing there's a [photo of a] jelly bean on page 6?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 23, 2024 2:48:23 GMT
No, and that's because it does not. Science is not a religion, while one believes the things one knows for sure. (However, as I had to explain Admin a few times recently, one can still not believe something which one might reasonably be expected to, for one's own stubborn reasons. Rather ironically as it works out she or he was very stubborn in denying the existence of such obduracy) Religion is a matter of faith, which can be defined as belief based on conviction rather than scientific evidence. It is true that faith is frequently portrayed through the use of rituals and totems. I would say that faith ventures beyond what is ordinarily known or justifiably held true, in the sense that faith involves accepting what cannot be established as true through the proper exercise of our naturally endowed human cognitive faculties. That is, where there is evidence few talk, or need to talk, about faith. And, as I have argued lately, the best exercise of our cognitive faculties requires informed decisions ideally based on such sure and certain evidence.. If only I had said that. I actually said knowing something for sure normally entails belief, not that they are identical.. It is quite possible to not know something for sure and yet believe in it. (Which, for Christians faced with an inscrutable god, is when faith comes in) As Kant famously reports, in the Preface to the Second Edition of his Critique of Pure Reason: ‘I have … found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith’. Or one ought to know for sure and yet still not believe in it. Or believe on not much basis at all, come to that. But I certainly believe that you are bit late to the party. Quote chopping again? Even after you were asked not to? Tsk tsk. But hey, while I'm here... "one can still not believe something which one might reasonably be expected to, for one's own stubborn reasons" What is your stubborn reason for still not believing there's a [photo of a] jelly bean on page 6? I work in mysterious ways.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2024 3:00:33 GMT
Quote chopping again? Even after you were asked not to? Tsk tsk. But hey, while I'm here... "one can still not believe something which one might reasonably be expected to, for one's own stubborn reasons" What is your stubborn reason for still not believing there's a [photo of a] jelly bean on page 6? I work in mysterious ways. You don't know?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 23, 2024 6:10:15 GMT
Film flaneur Religious belief is à kind of intellectual exercise as science is, but it doesn’t work the same. See above. There isn’t only one faith. And inside one faith dogmas have been submitted to debates. But faith based on scriptures tends to be almost unmovable. Now, you’re trying to impose yourself, I hug you, pet you, Kiss you, and take you gently towards the couch. There’s where you sleep tonight film flaneur : on the couch.
Kiss, T
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 23, 2024 8:51:51 GMT
🎥 flaneur Actually admin summed it using the right verb. And that is probably what you should aim as an atheist. Without any doubt you would know God, not belive /have faith. But religion is not science.Free will. When Christians had not been morally better to the roman rulers, who were not that alien to modern colonists/[insert current tyranny’s name here], things would have been different. Kindness won. There was many contenders, many cults. And if you want to know god you might take the path of gnosis. Beware. Sophia is supposedly the mother of the demiourgal architecht of a darkness universe (which I suspect is Ptah or another one, with à possible link to the jealous murdering greek.) If it isn't faith without doubt, and faith is what saves, it would make sense that God wouldn't prevent anyone from doubting. ... If ”god” would not prevent anyone from doubting, chances are, as it comes to christians, at last, that the credo would report some miracle happened and the sckeptical would have ”seen the light” and stopped doubting... I don’t know about other beliefs on that point. ... ? ”Behold the holy sandal” ’night !
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 23, 2024 11:43:51 GMT
"Taking things all in all, Big Guy...why'd you bother?"
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 23, 2024 20:15:54 GMT
Film flaneur Religious belief is à kind of intellectual exercise as science is, but it doesn’t work the same. See above. There isn’t only one faith. And inside one faith dogmas have been submitted to debates. But faith based on scriptures tends to be almost unmovable. Now, you’re trying to impose yourself, I hug you, pet you, Kiss you, and take you gently towards the couch. There’s where you sleep tonight film flaneur : on the couch. Kiss, T Now you just sound creepy.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 23, 2024 20:20:32 GMT
If it isn't faith without doubt, and faith is what saves, it would make sense that God wouldn't prevent anyone from doubting. ... If ”god” would not prevent anyone from doubting, chances are, as it comes to christians, at last, that the credo would report some miracle happened and the sckeptical would have ”seen the light” and stopped doubting... It sounds as you think this purported deity values doubt over belief which is unbiblical. Which brings us back to my original question. If God knows what is most likely to persuade many more to believe in Him, then why doesn't He just do it? Does the supposed Almighty really want to keep us in the dark and doubting?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 23, 2024 23:25:19 GMT
🎥 Flaneur You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?
That was your original question. Hi, hughs, kisses etc Rememember. Tonight, you sleep on the couch. Hugs, kisses. Love T
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2024 10:58:26 GMT
🎥 Flaneur You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation? That was your original question. Hi, hughs, kisses etc Rememember. Tonight, you sleep on the couch. Hugs, kisses. Love TThe reality is that the obdurate are always with us. If you reading this thread properly you would have seen that's why I already suggested that I would have been better off writing the more realistic "You know what it ought to take to convince everyone of your existence". I also did not write "bring all souls to salvation" which might have suggested what I intended. I hope that helps. Thanks for the repeated offer of your couch, but your mother won't shift.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2024 10:59:45 GMT
I work in mysterious ways. You don't know? Its not a mystery to me. Not being able to make an informed decision can lead to a natural scepticism your end, can't it though? But send me a picture of Santa, see if that convinces me that he exists.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 24, 2024 20:48:28 GMT
🎥 Flaneur You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation? That was your original question. Hi, hughs, kisses etc Rememember. Tonight, you sleep on the couch. Hugs, kisses. Love TThe reality is that the obdurate are always with us. If you reading this thread properly you would have seen that's why I already suggested that I would have been better off writing the more realistic "You know what it ought to take to convince everyone of your existence". I also did not write "bring all souls to salvation" which might have suggested what I intended. I hope that helps. Thanks for the repeated offer of your couch, but your mother won't shift. My mom is at the other end of the country. Love. Hug. Kisses. Couch. Love
|
|