06 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAccording to the bible, what's the best chess opening?
For most Christians, the Bible is the final authority on all matters, remotely related or otherwise. Obviously no one can be an expert on all matters; however, for the one so equipped and inclined, the principle issue of all matters are readily refuted or confirmed when compared to the absolutes provided by the Bible.
06 Apr 06
Gosh, fellas, I don't know who to ignore first or most.
I believe Hal already addressed No1's absurdities, so we'll let that one go.
BDP wishes for a biblical opening; I'd dare say the one which appears the weakest would be the likely answer. However, the Bible doesn't venture into board games that much, so I'll venture further guess that--- as important as chess is to us here--- in the scheme of things, the distractions we allow ourselves don't really matter.
Did I miss anything worthy of a response?
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow did you decide I wasn't worthy of a response?
Gosh, fellas, I don't know who to ignore first or most.
I believe Hal already addressed No1's absurdities, so we'll let that one go.
BDP wishes for a biblical opening; I'd dare say the one which appears the weakest would be the likely answer. However, the Bible doesn't venture into board games that much, so I'll venture further guess that--- ...[text shortened]... ions we allow ourselves don't really matter.
Did I miss anything worthy of a response?
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry, dude. That's what I get for relying on my memory through two pages.
[b]The problem does not lie solely within the construct of the forum, but the 'party line' atmosphere the forum facilitates certainly doesn't contribute to clarity.
Are you suggesting that peoples' choices are controlled by the other people in the forum? How does that fit in with free will? It sounds suspiciously like you're gently suggesting ...[text shortened]... ts don't accept that premise. That's a premise for Christians, not thinking atheists.[/b]
What sort of forum environment would be conducive to people accepting Jesus?
One that more closely approximates an actual conversation that people would typically have in a real relationship. For instance, do you honestly think No1 would talk to anyone in person like he talks online? Even with the prohibition on duels, it is doubtful he (or others) would flame people as readily, were they in person.
It sounds suspiciously like you're gently suggesting brainwashing. Shhh. Please: just sit back and relax. We're all just friends here. You're safe with us.
Are you telling me it was written for thinking atheists?
As I don't acknowledge atheism as a possibility, when a so-called atheist throws the label about, I reduce it for them to the only plausible condition, agnosticism. That being said, most people in the Western world have had some exposure to Christianity (always notable exceptions), and because of that exposure, a good many of them have had early experiences relative to a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and/or an acceptance of the Bible as the word of God.
For those who have never accepted either of those propositions as true (informed or otherwise), I trust that truth itself is always vindicated. If a person is a seeker of truth, granting postulations is not an impossible proposition. "With the premise of the Bible as the word of God," is not an impossible postulation for any seeker of truth to accept, unless there exists something within them that causes their seeking to fall short.
Most of us thinking atheists don't accept that premise.
And yet here you sit.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI assure you that atheism is a possibility. If you think otherwise, it's only because you don't really know what atheism is.
Sorry, dude. That's what I get for relying on my memory through two pages.
[b]What sort of forum environment would be conducive to people accepting Jesus?
One that more closely approximates an actual conversation that people would typically have in a real relationship. For instance, do you honestly think No1 would talk to anyone in person like he ...[text shortened]...
Most of us thinking atheists don't accept that premise.
And yet here you sit.[/b]
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by rwingettCute, but ineffective. We have already established the indefensible position the pure form of atheism puts the holder in. At best, one can hold agnositicism. It is sheer insanity to posit a pure form of atheism, owing to its basic tenet.
I assure you that atheism is a possibility. If you think otherwise, it's only because you don't really know what atheism is.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI was not party to that discussion. What do you hold to be "pure atheism?" Someone who claims to 'know' that there is no god? Or someone who believes in the non-existance of god? Atheism is in no way confined to such indefensible positions.
Cute, but ineffective. We have already established the indefensible position the pure form of atheism puts the holder in. At best, one can hold agnositicism. It is sheer insanity to posit a pure form of atheism, owing to its basic tenet.
06 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettWrong. Any atheist who claims that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God necessarily believes that there is no God. There is no in between.
Or someone who believes in the non-existance of god? Atheism is in no way confined to such indefensible positions.
You reject belief in God because you hold that the evidence is such that it is more likely true than false that he does not exist. The logical consequence is that belief in the proposition "God does not exist" is justified, because it is more likely true than false, and failure to hold that belief means you are not really accepting the justification criterion that you appeal to - the weight of the evidence - when not believing "God exists."
To not believe "God exists" on the grounds of evidence while also not believing "God does not exist" on that same evidence is incoherent. The probability must favor one or the other. You can only escape this finding by claiming that the two propositions are equally likely to be true.
You have always been confused on this point. I hope that one day you will acknowledge it.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think the real problem is the word "believe." When most xian's use that word they mean "firm assurance that it is so," while the rest of us use "believe" to mean something like "consider the most (or more) likely case."
Wrong. Any atheist who claims that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God necessarily believes that there is no God. There is no in between.
You reject belief in God because you hold that the evidence is such that it is more likely true than false that he does not exist. The logical consequence is that belief in the proposition "God d ...[text shortened]... u have always been confused on this point. I hope that one day you will acknowledge it.
I believe that there is not even one god in the second sense, not the first.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNever. I will never concede the point. But I'm not going to waste my time by typing out my position for you once again. Since you've heard it so many times, you can probably make my argument as well as I can by now. So just imagine what I would have said and insert it in the spot below.
You have always been confused on this point. I hope that one day you will acknowledge it.
06 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGod obviously didn't give you knowledge of my conversations; quite frankly I argue with people in real life in the same manner as I do people on the internet. That is, of course, in a social, informal setting. Most people I know can take a joke and can give it as well as take it. And few are the type of complete, obnoxious idiots that unfortunately plague these forums.
Sorry, dude. That's what I get for relying on my memory through two pages.
[b]What sort of forum environment would be conducive to people accepting Jesus?
One that more closely approximates an actual conversation that people would typically have in a real relationship. For instance, do you honestly think No1 would talk to anyone in person like he
Most of us thinking atheists don't accept that premise.
And yet here you sit.[/b]
I see you choose to ignore my questions. How daring of you. Halitose didn't really answer the questions at all but I'll give him credit for trying. I'm sure it's one of those deep Biblical secrets that only a believer equipped with the proper Secret Decoder Ring can understand.
06 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by telerionBut RWillis is equivocating, trying to get the best of both meanings. He's rejecting "belief [second sense]" in God because there is not enough evidence, and then turning around and saying that he rejects "belief [first sense]" in God's non-existence because he can't be sure of it. I just want him to use the term consistently rather than mixing and matching.
I think the real problem is the word "believe." When most xian's use that word they mean "firm assurance that it is so," while the rest of us use "believe" to mean something like "consider the most (or more) likely case."
I believe that there is not even one god in the second sense, not the first.