davidylan:

What do you mean by superhuman forces?

I mean do you believe there are other unseen forces that are beyond human comprehension or do you believe humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system?

Another false dichotomy. So it's either unseen forces exist beyond human comprehension or humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system. It seems that your otherwise sharp mind immediately loses it's edge when it comes to your religion. Must you really put your brain on hold when considering religious questions?

k0be:

Nobody in their right frame of mind would lay a foundation of trust on their shaky theories.

Get off the internet and throw away your mobile phone, you silly Luddite

Each and any religion or creed should be freely and openly criticised, especially those world views that consider criticism to be blasphemy, the ultimate victimless 'crime'. Anyway, my latest tag line says it all:

Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. (Mark twain)

ricadelide:

Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.

(apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned)

First, his statement is not self-referential; you'd notice that the first reference is S[/b]pirit (with a capital S) and the second reference begins with a small s ([b]s[/b]piritually). Spirit and spirit aren't referring to the same concepts. Spirit refers to a [b]being, spirit refers to a realm. He made two references, but because you're not aware of either, you assume its self-referential. (Of course, i'm not blaming you for that mistake)

Ok, but you're explanation doesn't add very much clarity yet. What realm and what being? How do you identify said realm and being?

ricadelide:

So, you see, from the very inception its tough to get along an argument or discussion about the spirit or the Spirit; there needs be common grounds to begin with - and the shared grounds for such discussions (between an atheist and a christian) are at best minimal. I have many books that address the subject, but i doubt they'd be helpful to you at this point - except of course some grounds from which to discuss and reason are created; then we can make incursions into such debates (but then i wonder who would make the concessions, lol)

I'm open to [b]your [/b]arguments. I'm not planning on reading any books unless I know it's worth it

ricadelide:

Furthermore, there's a huge experiential side to the whole debate and the best way to usually 'teach' one about something like that is to lead them into a personal experience themself. Like you would agree with me, there are many things that are easier 'taught' by being experienced. Once experienced, its like the difference between night and day.
Let me know what your thoughts are on what i said. Cheers.

You mean that it is extremely subjective, or at best intersubjective?

lafile:

Thanks Ricadelide. You have competently handled the point i was trying to make. but i doubt if nferyn and KAG would understand. Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.

You're absolutely right, I don't understand. I am yet to see the first cogent explanation of what spirit or spirituality is (apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned) and/or circular arguments).

ricadelide:

you're using essentialist philosophical constructs to separate true from false christianity based on so called innate differences that separate the two. That's the kind of intellectual folly that regularly leads to authoritarianism and a dictatorial mindset. There is a very large grey zone in almost everything.

Didnt expect this stuff (ie the digression) to go this far but let me indulge. Let me disregard your statement stemming from a misunderstanding of or disagreement with my viewpoints as implying intellectual folly on my part. i've said before now that i didnt put my first response in the right order; ie by placing my third statement in between the second and the fourth. But let's revisit this whole thing.

I've been a little harsh in my characterisation and it wasn't entirely warranted, my apologies. Anyway, essentialism really is what created us versus them divisions and I hate it with a passion. Most of human misconduct (including the 'secular' massacres of the 20th century) stems from an essentialist mindset that reduces people to whatever characteristic they want to use to classify them (e.g. race, religion) and dehumanises those that fall outside of the preferred category.
So, once again, my apologies if I mistakenly labelled you as such.

ricadelide:

the initial poster said this

Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

i wouldnt have phrased it that way but this way;
'does the dog bark because it is a dog or is it a dog because it barks?'
in which case your response about seals also barking would be inconsequential; the greater point still being - does the seal's barking make it a seal or does it bark as a result of being a seal. And if you want to be fair to it, within the realm of normalcy, the type of sound produced by a seal is different from that produced by the dog; their vocal cords have different properties so by 'nature' they can't make the same type of sound. But again, that's beside the point i'm trying to make.

I bet you can find dogs that can make sounds that fall within the range of seals and vice versa. Characteristics do not translate into essences and essences are only a translation of our mental predispositions, you can only look at these questions inductively and from sufficiently large datasets. Anyway, the argument from analogy using barking isn't sound.

ricadelide:

the real point i'm trying to address is 'what defines an object?'
I said

the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object.

; when i said 'imitation does not bring about a change of nature' what i was trying to address is that; the characteristic does not define the object. Is that essentialism?

It's actually the opposite (although using essentialistic labels), I misread your opinion

ricadelide:

i sit on the fence as regards essentialism. First i don't agree with the definition of 'essence'. when i said 'nature' of the object, i meant it in terms of a capacity to produce a certain outcome, which, in the case of animals will be their anatomical/physiologic nature. I don't necessarily mean that all objects of a particular nature will or must act in a certain way, and by my very point i don't agree that the characteristic is the means of definition. So i don't think it is essentialist.

No it isn't. I was jumping the gun.

ricadelide:

My point is, the characteristic does not define the object, the object is defined in itself, irrespective of whatever characteristic stems from it. By the way the object is constructed, it has the capacity to act in certain ways, and is precluded from producing certain other traits.

Yes, but all of those capacities are not sharply delimited. As I mentioned before, there's an overlap between the distribution of possible seal and dog barks. Just as a sidenote, in Dutch, we call seals 'zeehonden' (sea dogs) because of their similar barking sounds.

ricadelide:

So coming back to original post before the digression; the fact that KAG does all those things she did does (or did) not make her a christian. Although you think it is wrong; there is an intrinsic difference between a true christian and a 'false' christian. the term 'christian' is a broad appelation that doesn't take into cognizance the need for a change in nature that is essential to being a true christian, but rather relies on certain characteristics; going to church, saying your prayers etc as the means of definition. maybe i should use a different term; those traits didnt make her a disciple. However, I'd address KAG's issues in my next post.

OK, I get your point of view, but is there a sharp distinction that allows you to classify all nominally Christian people as either tru or false Christians?

MP007:

u can't be ann atheist and stil claim to be a christian, nothing annoys me more than pure human stupidity,

You definitely see a lot of that around here

ricadelide:

Yuck, I hate [b]essentialism [/b]with a vengeance Tongue The bane of European philosophy Angry

I'm not an existentialist, neither do i subscribe to its teachings. i was only trying to re-state or paraphrase what someone earlier said.

I wasn't talking about existentialism, but rather about essentialism. As a biologist (and especially as one of the very rare creationist variety), you should know what I'm talking about.

ricadelide:

It's a false dichotomy, the problem of the excluded middle. You can also call it the 'no true Scotsman' phalacy or framing bias, whatever floats your boat. Anyway, the analogy is flawed.

My statement about a seal's bark was only in response to what you said about seals also barking. it is not in relation with the next statement i made about dog's barking ie i wasn't saying a seal is trying to imitate a dog.

Are seals imitating dogs? Are seals of the same 'kind' as dogs (pun intended)? You're juxtaposing things that's shouldn't be It's not an either/or story.

ricadelide:

Coming to my statement, even though people make this kind of flaw in certain cases, i really don't think it applies here. there are many 'either/or' statements that can be validly made. i made two broad generalizations; i didnt go into specifics so i don't think the flaw you mentioned applies. If it does, then perhaps you could give other possible alternatives - i believe they'll fall under either bracket. Remember i said a dog's bark.

When you say

ricadelide:

True christianity is about a change in nature.
A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

you're using essentialist philosophical constructs to separate true from false christianity based on so called innate differences that separate the two. That's the kind of intellectual folly that regularly leads to authoritarianism and a dictatorial mindset. There is a very large grey zone in almost everything.

ricadelide:

methinks his point was; the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object. Imitation does not bring about a change in nature.
True christianity is about a change in nature.

Yuck, I hate essentialism with a vengeance The bane of European philosophy

ricadelide:

A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

It's a false dichotomy, the problem of the excluded middle. You can also call it the 'no true Scotsman' phalacy or framing bias, whatever floats your boat. Anyway, the analogy is flawed.

lafile:

@KAG
Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

You know that seals bark as well

Aproko:

remember he who sits on the fence stands the risk of being quashed from both sides.

The atheists don't quash

Aicha: Look at all the attention I get

Ready to go to school

Tom: why do you have to take my picture, it's not my birthday

Aicha: It's my birthday today, but I'm not really awake just yet

Some more pictures

Aicha concentrates on the story I'm reading for her

WesleyanA:

those are really nice lyrics @nferyn.
everything just seems to sound so much more romantic in French. i don't know why. lol

I think i'm getting better because i could read the lyrics without using Google translator much (just about 6-7 difficult words).
i think it's very worth it to learn French. procrastination kills though.

French is a very rich poetic language. Try to read some Baudelaire.

You should hear Brel sing, a tormented soul in love. It always brings tears to my eyes, I just can't help it.
Anyway, if you want the mp3, I can send it to you. Just send me an email and I'll get to it when I'm back home.

freelance, instead of posting these gratuitous fake testimonies, you should better enter a real debate with a well grounded atheist, but I guess that would be a little over your head