Sorry Goodguy for messing up your thread. I wish there were more people like you instead of ignorant fundamentalists.

This still amuses me. Atheism is nothing less than an active denial of the existence of God. QED.

Anything else as supposing that it is merely the absence of a belief in deity is revisionist theorising. We've been through this discussion before, and one would have hoped that more mature discussions would follow.

Anyhow, enjoy.

4get_me,

We've gone through this before and what you claim to be revisionist is the pov of most atheists. You are free to use your definition as, in practice, the result is the same, but there is definitely a fundamental epistemological difference. Active denial implies a conscious rejection when many atheists (especially young people that have not been exposed to god-belief) are just oblivious to the concept of God.

Nferyn,

Rationality brings far more harm to the world than irrationality. It just depends on how you define these things.

Your subjective feeling that a person must make God rational (LOL-- I'd like to see that one), is just your personal choice.

The next guy might want to make God -- Sexy, for instance because unsexyness has brought a lot of harm in the world in his opinion.

Rationality or Irrationality, is just your personal bias of what you would like to see in a God.

Doesn't say anything about me or my beliefs. No more than a Sexy or UnSexy God would.

Do you see your obvious and glaring subjective interpretation of what God should be?

olabowale:

@nferyn: Could you then tell me how the universe and all that it contains are such in perfect order, consistently, for this long. I mean from the time of the Big Bang (Command; BE).

I'm curious: what does "Command; BE" mean?

Let use the earth as a very good example. How is it that it has remain to traverse its orbital ring, without going out of that charted path.

I'm guessing gravity and motion have something to do with that; look up Kepler's laws. Did you have a differing explanation?

How is it that it has not bursted and pulverized into dust, knowing fully well that there is a continous and active forces in its core, eg volcanic activities, platonic activities, below the earth surface,etc, etc.

Because the things you mention (especially platonic activities) wouldn't cause it burst and pulverize into dust.

Is there any mutation in the nature, that when it is examined, it will be separate and different from that one things its mutated from?

I'm not quite sure I completely understand what you're trying to ask, but it seems you're asking if speciation has been observed in nature. The answer is yes, and not just by looking at the nested heirarchies and similarities explainable (parsimoniously) only by shared ancestry, but also tested and examined cases.

Why is it that human physiology has remain distinct and has not mutated.So that you know, I am not a christian and therefore, I do not subscribe to the Bible. But i do believe in God the Almighty.

It hasn't really.

Atheists are people who deny the existence of the our exalted creators. Shame on them!

Seun,

I liked your comic.

Did you know in real life that Christians were put to death as ATHIESTS because the idea that you just believed in ONE GOD, was considered virtual ATHIESM at one time?

I agree.

That which is being taught as True knowledge of Christianity is no more than toilet paper that satan wipes his ass with.

True Knowledge of God would begin with a starving child to help feed, not a prosperity gospel preacher teaching you to get your money on.

Stop looking for True Knowledge of Jesus Christ on TV.

For all the TV christians, who would never just believe me, that True Knowledge of Jesus Christ begins with a starving child to help feed.

Because they been praying to the God of mammon for too long.

Jer 22:16  He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD.

Glory only to you Lord. Blind them to me. Let them only see You.

You Alone are worthy Lord.

Glory to You Lord, for I hear hearts cracking now!

Thank You Lord Jesus. Praise You Lord Jesus.

Drusilla:

Nferyn,

Rationality brings far more harm to the world than irrationality.

No it doesn't. Irratonality is at the root of most evil.

Drusilla:

It just depends on how you define these things.

How many mutually exclusive definitions of rationality are there?

Drusilla:

Your subjective feeling that a person must make God rational (LOL-- I'd like to see that one), is just your personal choice.

No, that's not what I'm saying, only that belief in something needs to be based on rationality if it wants to have any relevance outside the self.

Drusilla:

The next guy might want to make God -- Sexy, for instance because unsexyness has brought a lot of harm in the world in his opinion.

Rationality or Irrationality, is just your personal bias of what you would like to see in a God.

It has nothing to do with that. The [i]reasons [/i]for a belief should be rational.

Drusilla:

Doesn't say anything about me or my beliefs. No more than a Sexy or UnSexy God would.

Do you see your obvious and glaring subjective interpretation of what God should be?

I'm not even talking about the nature of God, but rather about the nature of a belief.

Nferyn,

Irratonality is at the root of most evil.

Again with you pushing your personal bias for rationality or rather against irrationality, on to others.

How many mutually exclusive definitions of rationality are there?

I'd estimate that there are probably 6 billion or so (depending on how many humans can answer what is their definition of rationality) possibly mutually exclusive definitions of rationality.

No, that's not what I'm saying, only that belief in something needs to be based on rationality if it wants to have any relevance outside the self.

Again with your subjective feelings that you can decide what beliefs must be based on.

And two now your changing it and adding your personal bias towards a beliefs relevance to those outside the self if based on something other than your personal standards, you set up earlier.

It's a helluva subjective bias you are trying to impose on others now, not only what their beliefs must be based on but your kinda being God like now in knowing the outcomes if it is not based on your earlier personal standards, you assume that everybody else should also just accept.

This is kinda of the Nferyn religion you are trying to convert me to.

1. I must believe your definition of rationality.
2. I must believe that irrationality is the root for most evil.
3. I must believe that others without your belief in rationality are irrelevant.

Whew. I feel as if I am in God's presence. Well, a god of your own making. Nferyn the god of rationality.

See, this is why I want to know what a Athiest is.

When you begin to crack the nut and look at what Nferyn's Athiesm is.

I find I must first subscribe to all his beliefs and ways of seeing things, before he can convert me to seeing it his way.

That's just like Christianity, that says: taste and see that the Lord is good.

In other words, I must first believe in Nferyn's rationality before he can convert me.

Would it be "rational" for someone to become a Christian before they are converted to Christianity?

That is what I am being asked to do, with Nferyn's rationality beliefs.

LOL

@nferyn: You seem to be accusing anyone who claims that God does exist as foundamentatist "ignorant". Would you no think that these people who have the opinion that God does exist may think that the like of you is exactly what you accuse them of?  But this is not what I am making my entry about.

You seem to be asking everyone who believes in God that to give you a proof. Your hypothesis then centers on the fact that no one can proof it, because no one has seen God. I for one is a muslim. In the Qur'an, God through this revelation to Muhammad (AS), says you can not see Him, but can feel the effect of His existence through all things and even indeed, yourself! Please reflect on yourself; the the perfect working of the machine that is you. The process of food intake to the removal of the waste of this food; inbetween, you have mastication of that food by chewing in the mouth, lubricated with mixture of mouth saliva. (In just this first process, you have the tongue, teeth mouth walls and you are tempted to ask yourself, how does the saliva comes to existence?0.

Of course, upon thorough chewing, you swallow the food through the ausophagus. In this process, the food is soft enough to take the tube like shape of the pathway.  It also absorp some heat and comes even softer as it moves towards the stomach.  When it gets to the stomach, it would have becomes soft enough and encounters such processes that complete digestion will be possible in the stomach. Of course, when applicable the right acitidy from the bile solution of the bileduct is involved in this process of digestion.  Please consider the many muscular movements, specifically in the stomach during this digestive process. Even as the body contains acid, it does not do any damage to the soft interior wall of the internal organs.  

The digested food is now being absorbed, the nutrient into the body, leaving the rest, the not nutrient part. The nutrient part is transported through the the blood to the body organs which absorb it. The not nutrient part of the digested food, the waste part is somewhat harder, but not dry and harsh as iy moves down to the bowel to be excreted. This waste product is deficated as excremen and urine. The organs coagulate, forcing the excremen out of the body through the lubricated surface of the internal organs forming the transporting systems; the large and small intestines and the colons and rectum. The lubrication and the complex movements of the transporting organs makes the removal of the waste product easy on the body as adequate. This also mentain the health of the body. The removal of this waste product prevents it from poisoning the body nd the lubrication prevents the tearing of the wall of the internal organs. Inshort, the the body machine works.

As to the nutrients,it is transported by the oxygenated blood and absorbed as such. It benefits the body as it relates to growth, fighting deseases in form of a means of producing the necessary amount of antibody, etc. We can see how complex, this very small function of the total living process of man. Within this process, you have milk producing process, in a woman when she needs to nurse. Of course, it is this intake of food process, all through to the final process of nutrient absorption and defication of the waste process that you have growth , for example in youth to adulthood, whereby one is even able to be matured to be involved in production itself.

Now, nferyn, this is just a small part of the proof of the existence of God. God said in the Qur'an that there is iron (fe), in the body. Another proof this is, clearly, since it was not known by the scientist community 14 centuaries ago. How was it possible for this Arab illiterate, Muhammad (AS) was able to know this in makka? A guess work? No. Hardly, since there are so many of that very high scientific exegesis. You need to read the Qur'an before you response, intelligently, not foundamentalist ignorant, full of pride.
Finally, I will like you to consider this fact; Do you believe there is Blackhole in our galaxy, indeed in the milky way? Has anyone seen blackhole? But it is not true that the effect of blackhole is felt on the gases/matters as the come close to it? If this is the case, that no one has seen the blackhole, but the effect are known on matters that comes close to it, then I ask a question, which I should be provided believeable answers, not just hypothesis. The Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that there is God, even though no one can see Him (I use the male gender here denoting power, not because I as a muslim believe that God is a male).Tthe same God says that He creats all things. Then it is not rational to believe Him, even in a greater sense as you believe the existence of Blackhole? It is God by His firm command of BE (A sound process that is called the Big Bang theory (Theorem), by those who believe in accidental ocurenceof being, by so doing consciously denying the Creator, Who  metered everything with the appropriate order). I believe that when God speaks, the sound should be louder than any other sound of any and all things created. So the Be of His command that starts creation should be the Biggest bang. But in this case, it is not a theory, but a reality that started the event of creation. For it it is believed that before creation process begins, God was alone in His majesty. He was not lonely or in need of company. He creates according to His will. He does not oppress His creations. He gives order to all things. He creates Paradise and Hell to reward the believers by His mercy, punish the disbelievers by His justice.

Drusilla:

Nferyn,

Irratonality is at the root of most evil.

Again with you pushing your personal bias for rationality or rather against irrationality, on to others.

I'm not pushing anything. Any communicative discourse necessarily must be based on rationality, i.e. the application of logic to integrate dissociated facts into a coherent framework. When somebody makes a truth-statement, the only way to verify it's validity is by applying rationality. Irrationality simply dissociates claims from being investigated as either true or false.

Drusilla:

How many mutually exclusive definitions of rationality are there?

I'd estimate that there are probably 6 billion or so (depending on how many humans can answer what is their definition of rationality) possibly mutually exclusive definitions of rationality.

This statement is completely void of content. You're saying nothing.

Drusilla:

No, that's not what I'm saying, only that belief in something needs to be based on rationality if it wants to have any relevance outside the self.

Again with your subjective feelings that you can decide what beliefs must be based on.

Epistemology can only be based on rationality. You cannot determine whether something is true or false without relying on a rational investigation of the claim.

Drusilla:

And two now your changing it and adding your personal bias towards a beliefs relevance to those outside the self if based on something other than your personal standards, you set up earlier.

Bull. Epistemological standards are rational. Only rational investigation can lead to a determination of truth. Faith is a circular and question-begging appeal to authority, skepticism gone wild.

Drusilla:

It's a helluva subjective bias you are trying to impose on others now, not only what their beliefs must be based on but your kind of being God like now in knowing the outcomes if it is not based on your earlier personal standards, you assume that everybody else should also just accept.

Dissociated (from the truth) associative thinking on your part.
1. I wasn't even talking about [i]my kind [/i]of God
2. Truth-questions can ultimately only be rationally investigated
3. what's subjective?
4. Which bias?
5. what personal standards?
6. accept what?

Drusilla:

This is kind of of the Nferyn religion you are trying to convert me to.

Religion? You're delirious

Drusilla:

1. I must believe your definition of rationality.

It is not my definition. Rationality is an objective mode of thinking/acting. If you don't understand that I can give you a full epistemological breakdown of rationality, staring from the three laws of logic.

Drusilla:

2. I must believe that irrationality is the root for most evil.

That's indeed a strong claim, but I'm confident that I can prove it for most evil acts

Drusilla:

3. I must believe that others without your belief in rationality are irrelevant.

No, you must only believe that rationality is the only way to determine whether or not something is true or false. Irrationality excludes effective communication and discourse.

Drusilla:

Whew. I feel as if I am in God's presence. Well, a god of your own making. Nferyn the god of rationality.

Your delusions are really getting to you.

Drusilla:

See, this is why I want to know what a Athiest is.

When you begin to crack the nut and look at what Nferyn's Athiesm is.

I find I must first subscribe to all his beliefs and ways of seeing things, before he can convert me to seeing it his way.

That's just like Christianity, that says: taste and see that the Lord is good.

In other words, I must first believe in Nferyn's rationality before he can convert me.

Would it be "rational" for someone to become a Christian before they are converted to Christianity?

That is what I am being asked to do, with Nferyn's rationality beliefs.

LOL

Incoherent sofist ramblings that don't even have the slightests connection to my claims. Go and read another conspiracy theory novel before the rapture ellates your.

olabowale:

@nferyn: You seem to be accusing anyone who claims that God does exist as foundamentatist "ignorant". Would you no think that these people who have the opinion that God does exist may think that the like of you is exactly what you accuse them of? But this is not what I am making my entry about.

No I'm not making that claim. I only rely to specific cased of irrational ignorance. What other people think of me in this case really doesn't concern me. Anyone with sufficient intellectual rigor and honesty can investigate my claims for their validity, unfortunately some don't even look into these, but rather attack the messenger.

olabowale:

You seem to be asking everyone who believes in God that to give you a proof. Your hypothesis then centers on the fact that no one can proof it, because no one has seen God. I for one is a muslim. In the Qur'an, God through this revelation to Muhammad (AS), says you can not see Him, but can feel the effect of His existence through all things and even indeed, yourself! Please reflect on yourself; the the perfect working of the machine that is you. The process of food intake to the removal of the waste of this food; inbetween, you have mastication of that food by chewing in the mouth, lubricated with mixture of mouth saliva. (In just this first process, you have the tongue, teeth mouth walls and you are tempted to ask yourself, how does the saliva comes to existence?0.

Perfectly exlicable by applying evolutionary mechanisms

olabowale:

Of course, upon thorough chewing, you swallow the food through the ausophagus. In this process, the food is soft enough to take the tube like shape of the pathway. It also absorp some heat and comes even softer as it moves towards the stomach. When it gets to the stomach, it would have becomes soft enough and encounters such processes that complete digestion will be possible in the stomach. Of course, when applicable the right acitidy from the bile solution of the bileduct is involved in this process of digestion. Please consider the many muscular movements, specifically in the stomach during this digestive process. Even as the body contains acid, it does not do any damage to the soft interior wall of the internal organs.

The digested food is now being absorbed, the nutrient into the body, leaving the rest, the not nutrient part. The nutrient part is transported through the the blood to the body organs which absorb it. The not nutrient part of the digested food, the waste part is somewhat harder, but not dry and harsh as iy moves down to the bowel to be excreted. This waste product is deficated as excremen and urine. The organs coagulate, forcing the excremen out of the body through the lubricated surface of the internal organs forming the transporting systems; the large and small intestines and the colons and rectum. The lubrication and the complex movements of the transporting organs makes the removal of the waste product easy on the body as adequate. This also mentain the health of the body. The removal of this waste product prevents it from poisoning the body nd the lubrication prevents the tearing of the wall of the internal organs. Inshort, the the body machine works.

As to the nutrients,it is transported by the oxygenated blood and absorbed as such. It benefits the body as it relates to growth, fighting deseases in form of a means of producing the necessary amount of antibody, etc. We can see how complex, this very small function of the total living process of man. Within this process, you have milk producing process, in a woman when she needs to nurse. Of course, it is this intake of food process, all through to the final process of nutrient absorption and defication of the waste process that you have growth , for example in youth to adulthood, whereby one is even able to be matured to be involved in production itself.

As I pointed out before, all these mechanisms are perfectly explicable by applying the Darwinian principle of natural selection and reviewing the fundamental unity of life.

olabowale:

Now, nferyn, this is just a small part of the proof of the existence of God.

No it isn't. This is only the use of personal incredulity to posit a god-of-the-gaps. There is no need whatsoever to introduce God here as a causative agent. Natural processes do the trick just fine. By the way, even assuming that there were no naturalistic explanation, why on earth would the lack of explanation automatically imply agency by God? More specifically your version of God? It could just as well have been the flying spaghetti monster.

olabowale:

God said in the Qur'an that there is iron (fe), in the body. Another proof this is, clearly, since it was not known by the scientist community 14 centuaries ago. How was it possible for this Arab illiterate, Muhammad (AS) was able to know this in makka? A guess work? No. Hardly, since there are so many of that very high scientific exegesis. You need to read the Qur'an before you response, intelligently, not foundamentalist ignorant, full of pride.

And that proves what exactly?

olabowale:

Finally, I will like you to consider this fact; Do you believe there is Blackhole in our galaxy, indeed in the milky way? Has anyone seen blackhole? But it is not true that the effect of blackhole is felt on the gases/matters as the come close to it? If this is the case, that no one has seen the blackhole, but the effect are known on matters that comes close to it, then I ask a question, which I should be provided believeable answers, not just hypothesis. The Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that there is God, even though no one can see Him (I use the male gender here denoting power, not because I as a muslim believe that God is a male).

This doesn't make sense. Black holes are the explanations a physicist gives to some observed phenomena. The God hypothesis doesn't explain anything, it's just an unparsimonious label for ignorance (i.e. the unknowable)

olabowale:

Tthe same God says that He creats all things.

Evidence?

olabowale:

Then it is not rational to believe Him, even in a greater sense as you believe the existence of Blackhole?

No. God doesn't explain anything. God is theoretical baggage and unparsimonious in any explanation of the universe.

olabowale:

It is God by His firm command of BE (A sound process that is called the Big Bang theory (Theorem), by those who believe in accidental ocurenceof being, by so doing consciously denying the Creator, Who metered everything with the appropriate order).

Human agency detection gone wild. There is no need for purpose in the universe, it just is. The introduction of God as ultimate causal agent just leads to an infinite regress, because then God needs explaining.

olabowale:

I believe that when God speaks, the sound should be louder than any other sound of any and all things created. So the Be of His command that starts creation should be the Biggest bang. But in this case, it is not a theory, but a reality that started the event of creation. For it it is believed that before creation process begins, God was alone in His majesty. He was not lonely or in need of company. He creates according to His will. He does not oppress His creations. He gives order to all things. He creates Paradise and Hell to reward the believers by His mercy, punish the disbelievers by His justice.

Antropocentric nonsense. Even a cursory look at Qu'ranic cosmology shows that it is so far off the mark that it doesn't even merit a serious investigation, but granted, it isn't nearly as assasine as Jewish or Christian cosmology.

Hehe. Don't take these debates too seriously, people. It's not as if any minds will be changed here.

Seun:

Hehe. Don't take these debates too seriously, people. It's not as if any minds will be changed here.

Just having fun, Seun

Nferyn,

1. I must believe your definition of rationality.

It is not my definition. Rationality is an objective mode of thinking/acting. If you don't understand that I can give you a full epistemological breakdown of rationality, staring from the three laws of logic.

So only YOUR personal definition of rationality is relevant? Everybody else who does not have your personal definition of rationality is irrelevant.

2. I must believe that irrationality is the root for most evil.

That's indeed a strong claim, but I'm confident that I can prove it for most evil acts.

Really? Now you also have some personal standard of what evil is, besides your personal standard of what rationality is, that I suppose I must "just believe" before you can convince me of this claim.

3. I must believe that others without your belief in rationality are irrelevant.

No, you must only believe that rationality is the only way to determine whether or not something is true or false. Irrationality excludes effective communication and discourse.

Thank you for admitting that I must believe your way first before I can even have this discussion with you, where you are sure that you will prove your beliefs correct.

Hell, I must believe you about a whole bunch of things before you can use those things to show me you are correct.

Isn't that a wee bit circular?

Drusilla:

Hell, I must believe you about a whole bunch of things before you can use those things to show me you are correct.

Isn't that a wee bit circular?

Your assumption is that I am using a personal definition of rationality, which isn't true. Besides your intersubjectivity as if there are 6 billion definitions of rationality and that these are relevants is very far off the mark. You have a tendency to muddle commonly held terminology by giving your very personal interpretion of these terms and now you're telling me I have a subjective bias? Ironic, isn't it?

Nferyn,

Your assumption is that I am using a personal definition of rationality, which isn't true. Besides your intersubjectivity as if there are 6 billion definitions of rationality and that these are relevants is very far off the mark. You have a tendency to muddle commonly held terminology by giving your very personal interpretion of these terms and now you're telling me I have a subjective bias? Ironic, isn't it?

You dismiss the fact that no matter how insane, it may look to me and you, the tribe in melaysia that builds large ladders and falls off of them, believes that they have completely rational reasons for doing so.

I might consider their behavior irrational but they would consider it rational.

Thus everyone mostly tends to have their own definitions of what is rational and what is irrational. Considering that they are 6 + billion humans. I would think that there are going to be, darn near that many definitions of what is rational and irrational.

I would say that it is impossible for a person to proclaim there one sure definition of rational beliefs of behavior, unless one was very arrogant in proclaiming thier ideas of rationality a superior truth to all others.

Dru,

U make so much sense here, I must say. Like I pointed out before, there's a tendency for some people to pander revisionist ideas to make it easier for their discussion to hold course. This revisionist idea stretches so far as to accuse others of having the tendency to muddle "commonly held terminology" - and yet claim that atheism is not a denial of existence of deity, but rather a lack of belief in any deity. I posit that nferyn is tying himself with his own hose by "giving (his own) very personal interpretion of these terms," no less atheism, for the commonly held terminology of atheism is simply a denial of existence, not the revised and polarised adjustments to suit our dear discussants.

Again, enjoy. . . or just 4get_me for now.

Drusilla:

Nferyn,

You dismiss the fact that no matter how insane, it may look to me and you, the tribe in melaysia that builds large ladders and falls off of them, believes that they have completely rational reasons for doing so.

I might consider their behavior irrational but they would consider it rational.

Thanks for getting back to the point. I agree that many people do things for reasons that seem perfectly rational to them. Usually they are rational to the point that they logically follow from their premisses. However, it is these premisses that either are or are not rational.
Now, when the truth of what is to be established is based on the prior acceptance of what is true, then the whole reasoning is irrational and that's what I tried to explain.

When theists assume the existence of God to establish the truth-value of the claim God exists, they are being thoroughly irrational.

Drusilla:

Thus everyone mostly tends to have their own definitions of what is rational and what is irrational. Considering that they are 6 + billion humans. I would think that there are going to be, darn near that many definitions of what is rational and irrational.

Maybe, but the fact that people are holding beliefs doesn't automatically validate them. Reason is the application of logic (either formally or informally) on facts, ideas and concepts in order to integrate them in a broader epistemological context, i;e. to determine the truth-value of a claim

Drusilla:

I would say that it is impossible for a person to proclaim there one sure definition of rational beliefs of behavior, unless one was very arrogant in proclaiming their ideas of rationality a superior truth to all others.

I wouldn't say there's only one definition, but the valid definitions are all very similar. maybe wikipedia can help you on the way

4get_me,

Stop sprouting your nonsense about my so-called revisionism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is a commonly used tactic by theists to define atheism in such a way as to only incorporate strong atheism. This tactic is applied to pass the buck and treat atheist and theist beliefs on the same epistemological level, which is dishonest at best.

Atheists themselves (and with this I mean the vast majority of them) do not subscribe to your definition.
On an ethymological level, your definition is incorrect.
From George H. Smith, Atheist - The Case Against God (p. 7):

The prefix "a" means "without", so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism", or without the belief in god or gods. Atheism therefore is the absence of theistic belief.

Maybe you should read some more atheists on what atheism really is instead of relying on selective readings of dictionary definitions or definitions of theists.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/atheists_modern.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

Huxley, the person who invented the term agnosticism was also perfectly clear when he ensured that agnosticism has related to knowledge (gnosis) of the existence of God(s) and not to belief.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

Nferyn,

Now, when the truth of what is to be established is based on the prior acceptance of what is true, then the whole reasoning is irrational and that's what I tried to explain.

Then we are trying to explain the same thing.

I must first believe what you have already accepted as true about rationality, before you can establish your truths about rationality.

That in your words is: irrational.

Drusilla, that's an extreme skeptics approach to eptistemology and it's self-defeating.
Truth can only be established within a shared eptistemological framework. That framework implies that it follows the laws of logic and infers statements from these laws.
the basic laws of logic are:
1. the law of identity: A is A, or, anything is itself; if a propostition is true, then it is true
2. the law of excluded middle: anything is either A or not-A; a proposition is either true or false
3. the law of contradiction: nothing can be both A and not-A; a proposition cannot be both true and false
Rationality is the application of logical inference to propositions to determine their truth-value. If you say that rationality is something else, we can never have shared meaning and communication is pintless.
Now, rationality is [b]not [/b]a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally rationality presupposes itself, as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of logic.

Hi Dru,

I've watched your exchange with nfern and I must confess that you have done a great job.  Personally, I try to avoid getting into argument with Atheist or whatever term they call their system of beliefs.  How do you explain the spiritual to someone who is not ready to enter into the realm of faith?  Nature clearly shows that some results are only obtained when certain conditions are fulfilled.  For instance, through science, we know that you need a combination of 2 parts of hydogen to one part of oxygen to produce water.  Someone may claim that is not true because they have combined hydrogen and oxygen and never got water.  But the knowledge that person lacks is the right combination and environment.

The things of God can only be understood by faith, which is more tangible than the physical touch-me- I-touch-you world that these people only understand.  Until you enter into faith, you will never see or know God.  According to Hebrew 11:6, you must first believe God IS before you can begin to see a proof of Him.  Until the Atheists acknowledge this, they will continue to grope in darkness.  

Also, I couldn't but comment on what you term TV christians and your ascertion through scripture that it takes feeding the children to begin to know Christ.  Though unintentional (I believe), you have suceeded in painting a picture of salvation through works.  I'm sure you know that not one person will enter heaven based on their good works.  If that happens, then Christ died in vain.  

Scriptures is not difficult to understand when you realise God's personality and the way He talks.  His emphasis on a subject sometimes gives the impression that other subjects are not important.  But in all, you will realise that every word of His is a command, and none is to be taken lightly.  According to Jesus, ", this you should do, without leaving the others undone".  Feeding the hungry children is just as important as taking care of the widow and the fatherless (which is refered to as the true religion).  But in no way is God implying that doing any of these will bring salvation.  Good works are encouraged by the scriptures and God is pleased with them, but such works are rewarded only if the one doing them is already saved.

The Lord gave me a good example with respect to this discusion a long time ago.  I was in a bus in Lagos on my way home from work.  I saw a woman in a government uniform sweeping the side of the road.  The Lord made me see that the only reason why that woman will get paid for the job done is because she is on the pay-roll of the Government.  Anyone may come out and do that job even better than that woman, but such a person will never get paid if they were not on the pay roll of the Government.  Same is true with faith, if you are not a believer, saved by grace, all those good works, while note-worthy will be lost.  That is why the Spirit of God sent believers to Cornelius to show him the way of salvation despite the fact that the man was full of good works.  His good works will not save him, and I doubt if good works will be rewarded in hell.

TayoD,

Can you define faith? Why is it more tangible than the physical?

Nferyn,

Now, rationality is not a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally rationality presupposes itself, as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of logic.

Ah. Ha!

Now you are starting to get to the core problem that an Athiest and a Christian have when trying to discuss God.

Let me put it this way:

Now, Christianity is not a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally Christianity presupposes itself as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of the Christian bible.

Drusilla:

Nferyn,

Now, rationality is not a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally rationality presupposes itself, as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of logic.

Ah. Ha!

Now you are starting to get to the core problem that an Athiest and a Christian have when trying to discuss God.

Let me put it this way:

Now, Christianity is not a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally Christianity presupposes itself as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of the Christian bible.

Ok makes sense. Can you stipulate these basic laws? Do these laws supercede logic? Does logic apply to the Christian Bible? If so, then Christianity violates the law of contradiction (problem of evil in relation to the omni-God) and thus is irrational. If logic does not apply to Christianity, then it is irrational by definition.

Also, I couldn't but comment on what you term TV christians and your ascertion through scripture that it takes feeding the children to begin to know Christ.  Though unintentional (I believe), you have suceeded in painting a picture of salvation through works.  I'm sure you know that not one person will enter heaven based on their good works.  If that happens, then Christ died in vain.  

TayoD,

Your whole post was good. I think I sorta repeated it to Nferyn just now. In my way.  

I always think of salvation as something God has done for us, when we were still sinners.

It is finished.

But too many Christians get stuck there, refusing to move along and mature in the gospel.

Let us just go over a few of the verses that the bible talks about "good works".

Eph 2:10  for of Him we are workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God did before prepare, that in them we may walk.

Again, your salvation is complete but this is why your salvation was given to you. So you could do good works.

Tit 2:14  who did give himself for us, that he might ransom us from all lawlessness, and might purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works;

Again notice that this is not how to obtain salvation but in fact the reason why you were given salvation so that in giving himself to us, Jesus might get a peculiar people who are zealous of good works. The reason why you were given salvation.


Heb 10:24  and may we consider one another to provoke to love and to good works,

It's our job as christians to provoke one another to love and good works.

Notice Love is something different from good works. So don't confuse loving your brothers as your "good work" in Christ.

And again all of this for people who already have salvation.

Thus knowledge of helping others is a way to know God and what God wants from you.

This is not a how to get saved but more a why you were saved.

Ok makes sense. Can you stipulate these basic laws? Do these laws supercede logic? Does logic apply to the Christian Bible? If so, then Christianity violates the law of contradiction (problem of evil in relation to the omni-God) and thus is irrational. If logic does not apply to Christianity, then it is irrational by definition.

Nferyn,

The Laws of the Christian bible are far too numerous for me to stipulate them all here but I will narrow down a few that I think are pertinent to this discussion.

1. The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life.

This is an important one because it personally drives a lot of athiest nuts that the bible is not rational.

Trying to read and understand the bible as a way to get faith (understanding), would in fact lead to less faith for a person without the Spirit of God.

The letter (bible) would kill your soul (killeth) if you worked at understanding it from a skeptical point of view.

So understanding this one law should lead you to understand why it would be beyond moronic for me to try to take the bible and convince you of anything.

And that brings up another related law:

2. One can plant, and one can water but only God gives the growth.

In otherwords, talking to christians can be helpful, we can plant seeds and we can water you with the words of the bible but again, we must wait for the Spirit to enter into you before you can actually grow and understand what is being said.

Another related much stronger law of the bible but very related:

3. The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

So no list of definitions or rationality's or men's wisdom can overrule for a Christian, the laws of God contained in the bible.


So to answer your questions:

1. Yes, these laws supercede what you may define as logic.

2. Yes, logic can be if you want applied to the bible but the bible promises that you it will fail to penetrate the bible. In fact leave you in worse shape, if you had not tried to apply them.

3. The problem of evil, is not a problem but too many Christians are scared of your reaction to teach what the bible actually says about evil. (I the Lord create the good and the evil.) instead their busy promoting a what I have come to call a "hug god".

The truth is, God creates evil. The same as a parent who spanks a child will be considered evil by the child. God not only creates evil, he created someone to carry out the evil. The same as Bush created the war in Iraq but does not have to shoot an Iraqi for the war to take place. You can guess whose job it is to spread evil in the world, he works for God.

So the bible is not irrational at all, once you actually accept what it truly says: God creates the good and the evil.