Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:05 pm
Many atheist types seem to operate more as ranters to be quite factual!
But mostly the ranting type. :|
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:26 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:01 am The only thing you can actually have is a false belief.
Then that statement is a false belief. You've said so yourself: it's "the only thing you can have." :lol:
Wow, clever parrot, repeat that again if you like, it won't change anything.
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:05 pm In direct response to this part:
For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.
Seems pretty connected (pertinent) to me. Why do you think not?

And why the term ‘rant’?

From a Slate article:
Some of the first rants of the modern era—at least some of the first to be referred to as such—were associated with a short-lived, 17th-century English sect known (to their enemies) as the “Ranters.” Its members’ penchant for tobacco, alcohol, women, and swearing sprung from a belief in the divinity of all things and a rejection of the idea of sin altogether. They were frequently accused of blasphemy and of profaning religious rituals. A Ranter preacher, Abiezer Coppe, recounted for an entire hour while standing at the pulpit. Richard Baxter, a Puritan divine, recounted with horror the power that such “hideous words of Blasphemy” could have: “[A] Matron of great Note for Godliness and Sobriety, being perverted by them, turned so shameless a Whore, that she was Carted in the streets of London.”
Many atheist types seem to operate more as ranters to be quite factual!
It's a given that you think it's connected. When asked how it is pertinent, the rational and reasonable thing to do is demonstrate how it's connected. Think you can do that?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:16 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:06 pm Anyone here seen the video?
:lol: Apparently not you. Even the thought of a few cartoons terrifies you, it seems.

You don't seem to have any real confidence in yourself or your beliefs, I would say. You don't think they can survive even basic arguments.
Note to others:

Please pick one:

1] a "condition"
2] a really serious "condition"
3] Age


Now, however, let's get back to reality:

Note to others:

Come on, you will either call his bluff or you'll stay up in the spiritual/intellectual clouds with him and treat the salvation of your very soul as though it really was just a philosophical question.

This guy claims that beyond a leap of faith, the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. And that means Judgment Day. And that means if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior you get Left Behind. And that means eternal damnation for your very soul.

He claims that beyond merely quoting from the Bible that the Christian God resides in Heaven because the Bible says that He does, there is demonstrable evidence to substantiate it. On par with evidence substantiating that the Catholic Pope resides in the Vatican.

But, apparently, even in regard to those he likes here, he won't even link them to the most powerful video of them all!!!

Or has he? Anyone here seen the video? If so and you are interested in saving souls, please link it to this thread.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:26 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:01 am The only thing you can actually have is a false belief.
Then that statement is a false belief. You've said so yourself: it's "the only thing you can have." :lol:
Wow, clever parrot, repeat that again if you like, it won't change anything.
Yep. You'll still be contradicting yourself.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:54 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:26 pm
Then that statement is a false belief. You've said so yourself: it's "the only thing you can have." :lol:
Wow, clever parrot, repeat that again if you like, it won't change anything.
Yep. You'll still be contradicting yourself.
What other self is there to contradict?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

ThinkOfOne wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:46 pm It's a given that you think it's connected. When asked how it is pertinent, the rational and reasonable thing to do is demonstrate how it's connected. Think you can do that?
It would be a waste of time. What I wrote directly corresponds to your comments. There is, to my mind at least, a direct and obvious correlation. If you do not see such I will not be able to help you, now or at any point.
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 7:27 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:46 pm It's a given that you think it's connected. When asked how it is pertinent, the rational and reasonable thing to do is demonstrate how it's connected. Think you can do that?
It would be a waste of time. What I wrote directly corresponds to your comments. There is, to my mind at least, a direct and obvious correlation. If you do not see such I will not be able to help you, now or at any point.

If it did in fact directly correspond to my comments, it would be very simple for you to lay out exactly how it does. That you refuse speaks volumes.

You've provided a pertinent example of how some can go completely off the rails when it comes to defending Christian beliefs. Your first post was littered with strawmen and false accusations: " lack of historical knowledge", " functional disregard for the *actual truth*", "your skewed understanding of how profoundly Christianity has affected our culture", "your statement is one of ignorance, but a grasping sort. If you can make that (ignorant) statement there is really no end to the ignorant and therefore wrong statements that you could make", and on and on.

As I wrote earlier:
There is no "rational presentation and defense of the gospel". Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs. For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.
It's unfortunate that you are evidently unable to speak to this issue in a rational and reasonable way. Even after being called out on it.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

ThinkOfOne wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:10 pm If it did in fact directly correspond to my comments, it would be very simple for you to lay out exactly how it does. That you refuse speaks volumes.
It would be just as simple for you to indicate why you perceive that it doesn't.
It's unfortunate that you are evidently unable to speak to this issue in a rational and reasonable way. Even after being called out on it.
I don't think I have stepped out of being reasonable, and all the points I made were rational.

Apparently we are at an impasse.

Curiously, I would point out to you that here you provide a good example of what a *rant* actually is. I fully understand that you see yourself as the one holding the more reasonable and the rational position, and will likely not be able or care to examine yourself, and since I am completely sure that my comments were directly responsive to the part I quoted, and that there is no need to prove this, it is up to you to indicate why you feel as you do.

Show it, demonstrate it.
That you refuse speaks volumes.
That must be a fallacious argument type but I'm not sure which one. You are saying that since I won't do what you (unreasonably) demand that I do, that not doing so proves your (non-) argument not just a bit but voluminously. It's a cheap argument and childish.
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:21 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:10 pm If it did in fact directly correspond to my comments, it would be very simple for you to lay out exactly how it does. That you refuse speaks volumes.
It would be just as simple for you to indicate why you perceive that it doesn't.
It's unfortunate that you are evidently unable to speak to this issue in a rational and reasonable way. Even after being called out on it.
I don't think I have stepped out of being reasonable, and all the points I made were rational.

Apparently we are at an impasse.

Curiously, I would point out to you that here you provide a good example of what a *rant* actually is. I fully understand that you see yourself as the one holding the more reasonable and the rational position, and will likely not be able or care to examine yourself, and since I am completely sure that my comments were directly responsive to the part I quoted, and that there is no need to prove this, it is up to you to indicate why you feel as you do.

Show it, demonstrate it.
That you refuse speaks volumes.
That must be a fallacious argument type but I'm not sure which one. You are saying that since I won't do what you (unreasonably) demand that I do, that not doing so proves your (non-) argument not just a bit but voluminously. It's a cheap argument and childish.
and of course your response underhandedly omits the thrust of my post which is a common evasive tactic.

Once again AJ proves what the omitted paragraph says. It as if AJ is unable to keep from repeatedly proving the point:
You've provided a pertinent example of how some can go completely off the rails when it comes to defending Christian beliefs. Your first post was littered with strawmen and false accusations: " lack of historical knowledge", " functional disregard for the *actual truth*", "your skewed understanding of how profoundly Christianity has affected our culture", "your statement is one of ignorance, but a grasping sort. If you can make that (ignorant) statement there is really no end to the ignorant and therefore wrong statements that you could make", and on and on.
As well as the previous point:
This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs.
Of course you think yourself as rational and reasonable : ) You made a number of false accustions and refuse to back them up.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

ThinkOfOne wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:37 pm and of course your response underhandedly omits the thrust of my post which is a common evasive tactic.
No, you are acting paranoically, but I do understand what you are referring to.

I responded substantially to this (because these topics interest me):
For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.
But this is the more basic core of your issue (and I did not respond to this part):
There is no "rational presentation and defense of the gospel". Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs.
With this as well I would offer strong points of disagreement, but I do understand what you are trying to get at. You are saying, of course, that there is no rational presentation and defense of the Christian metaphysic (in essence). And this is likely because you have an atheistic position and *reject all religious stories* (or something to that effect).

All the rest, all the elements of the story, are secondary or tertiary. Once that is established then the basis of your counter-argument or opposition to what Christianity is or what it means becomes clear. All this I understand.
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 9:21 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:37 pm and of course your response underhandedly omits the thrust of my post which is a common evasive tactic.
No, you are acting paranoically, but I do understand what you are referring to.

I responded substantially to this (because these topics interest me):
For lack of a better term, Christians worship the God of Gimme. Though most Christians will deny it, ultimately it's about what God gives THEM. This makes them highly motivated to "believe". This motivation impairs their objectivity and subsequently their ability to bring intellectual honesty to the table. No matter how rational and reasonable they may think they may be, the fact is that are not - at least not when it comes to their Christian beliefs. Curiously there is a tendency for this to bleed over to other beliefs as well. It's no coincidence that many are prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Ultimately they think things are true because they believe them.
But this is the more basic core of your issue (and I did not respond to this part):
There is no "rational presentation and defense of the gospel". Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs.
With this as well I would offer strong points of disagreement, but I do understand what you are trying to get at. You are saying, of course, that there is no rational presentation and defense of the Christian metaphysic (in essence). And this is likely because you have an atheistic position and *reject all religious stories* (or something to that effect).

All the rest, all the elements of the story, are secondary or tertiary. Once that is established then the basis of your counter-argument or opposition to what Christianity is or what it means becomes clear. All this I understand.
Listen. When a person of character makes accusations, they EITHER back them up OR they retract them when called on it. As opposed to this, you've made a number of unfounded accusations - some quite disparaging. You've repeatedly refused to back them up. Not only that, you've continued to make more unfounded accusations. Goes to show the content of your character.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

I rescind absolutely nothing of what I have said. Not one thing. So there you have it. What you make of it is up to you.
ThinkOfOne
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by ThinkOfOne »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 9:56 pm I rescind absolutely nothing of what I have said. Not one thing. So there you have it. What you make of it is up to you.
The point, which you missed again, is that if you were a person of a character you would back them up OR retract them. You refuse to retract, so it's on you to back them up. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

No, I did not miss anything. I may or may not be a *person of character* but that doesn't matter: every statement I made was coherent, and no statement that I made do I rescind or retract. Again make of that what you want.
Post Reply