A post for Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter

As an afootballist I am appalled at the suggestion that I support a football team. What are they called? Noteam?

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

As an afootballist I am appalled at the suggestion that I support a football team. What are they called?

Is that the French national side?

I recall them playing asoccer against Ireland last year sometime.

mehfesto

No, yer mixing it up - they'd be A-Theirry-ists.

Azza

Off is such a good TV channel.

Soul Winner

Oh the witticisms...:rolleyes:

Anyway, getting back to what atheism really means. We know that we define religions as belief systems about the existence of God or gods. They are not lack of belief systems. Likewise atheism is not simply a lack of a belief in a deity either, its is also the belief that there is no deity(s). If you don't think that an atheist can hold to this view then check here and here for examples of some phrases expressed by an atheist who might disagree with you.

If atheism doesn't mean the belief that there is no God, then is there another word in the English language for the belief that there is no God? Surely there are people who believe that there is no God. What are they called if not atheists? So in the absence of a better word to describe such people I think we are on safe ground when we define atheism as the belief that there is no God and as such it is a belief system and as such it is just like a religion.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

In fact Ush1's example is even stronger than saying that atheism is a belief system. He goes even further by suggesting an absolutely matter of fact and he/she is even willing to provide evidence into the bargain. But let us just say that it is simply the belief that their is no God. That's fine if it simply was just like the belief that their are no fairies but we don't get many people who think it worth while writing books about that or engaging in debates about it either or doing tours around the world giving talks on afairiesm and defending it. It's a non issue because most people don't believe in fairies anyway so there is no debate as such.

"No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world as this good news of Atheism." Annie Wood Besant

So atheism is a belief system which has proponents some of whom are actively engaged in efforts that would try to, if not rid the world of any and all belief systems which hold to the view that a creator God of the universe exists, then curtail as much as possible. That my dear friends in effect is the spreading of a belief system and as such is just like what religions do, like it or lump it. If Ush1 wants to provide evidence that there is no God then I want to see it and be converted to the belief that there is no God i.e. Atheism.

Glossary of terms:


Term - Definition

A). Theism - The Belief that there is a God
. Agnosticism - The lack of belief that there is a God
C). Atheism - The belief that there is no God

If you think C above is wrong then please fill in the blank below:

C). ???????? - The belief that there is no God

thirtythirty

Well, that's a nice bit of logical substantiation of an argument. So why can't you apply it to support the existance of a god?

Why do we have to prove there is no god, in order for you to believe it, when you don't have to prove there is, in order to believe that there definately is a god?

Why? Because you can't. So if you take proving and dis-proving out of the equation, what are you left with? Basic supporting evidence.

And the supporting evidence by logical substantiation leans towards the existance of a god being an impossibility.




ps - as a side note, atheism isn't necessarily a belief, it's rationalised and logical shared understanding by individuals. The platform of your argument crumbles a bit if you remove the fact of atheism as being a "belief" in the wishy-washy respect.

ColmDawson

Soul Winner, I honestly can't believe that you still think that.



Oh and what I just said isn't a belief either.

Ush1

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh the witticisms...:rolleyes:

Anyway, getting back to what atheism really means. We know that we define religions as belief systems about the existence of God or gods. They are not lack of belief systems. Likewise atheism is not simply a lack of a belief in a deity either, its is also the belief that there is no deity(s). If you don't think that an atheist can hold to this view then check here and here for examples of some phrases expressed by an atheist who might disagree with you.

In fact Ush1's example is even stronger than saying that atheism is a belief system. He goes even further by suggesting an absolutely matter of fact and he/she is even willing to provide evidence into the bargain. But let us just say that it is simply the belief that their is no God. That's fine if it simply was just like the belief that their are no fairies but we don't get many people who think it worth while writing books about that or engaging in debates about it either or doing tours around the world giving talks on afairiesm and defending it. It's a non issue because most people don't believe in fairies anyway so there is no debate as such.

How is what I said anyway inferring atheism is a "belief system"? Do you define not believing in fairies as a belief system? Clearly no.

Just because you believe in a particular type of make believe makes it no more valid, doesn't matter how many people want to debate it, it's just as preposterous!

Soul Winner

spottyelephant wrote: »

Well, that's a nice bit of logical substantiation of an argument. So why can't you apply it to support the existance of a god?

I believe in God, I never said I could prove He exists. I am happy and willing to call my position a belief system. You cannot prove your position either i.e. that their is no God (I assume), hence you can only proceed on the assumption that the position you hold is true. Hey that's what I do.

spottyelephant wrote: »

Why do we have to prove there is no god, in order for you to believe it, when you don't have to prove there is, in order to believe that there definately is a god?

Well you wouldn't have to prove there is no God, you would just have to give some good reasons to think that such a Being doesn't exist. If you can do that, then you might persuade me to your side so that I too will believe that there is no God.

spottyelephant wrote: »

Why? Because you can't. So if you take proving and dis-proving out of the equation, what are you left with? Basic supporting evidence.

Yes. So what evidence do you have that a creator God of the universe doesn't exist or at least cannot possibly exist?

spottyelephant wrote: »

And the supporting evidence by logical substantiation leans towards the existance of a god being an impossibility.

How so?

spottyelephant wrote: »

ps - as a side note, atheism isn't necessarily a belief, it's rationalised and logical shared understanding by individuals. The platform of your argument crumbles a bit if you remove the fact of atheism as being a "belief" in the wishy-washy respect.

Verbal gymnastics. Just answer the question at the end of my last post and we'll have the correct definition for the belief that there is no God.

Soul Winner

ColmDawson wrote: »

Soul Winner, I honestly can't believe that you still think that.

Why not?

ColmDawson wrote: »

Oh and what I just said isn't a belief either.

But after a few more posts it will be. :pac:

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Verbal gymnastics. Just answer the question at the end of my last post and we'll have the correct definition for the belief that there is no God.

I think a good word would be itheism. There is morality, immorality which is the opposite of morality and amorality which is a lack of morality, e.g. killing someone is immoral because it's a conscious decision to hurt someone but things like earthquakes are amoral because there is decision to hurt. In the same way we can have theism, itheism (the opposite of theism) and atheism (the lack of theism)

Soul Winner

Ush1 wrote: »

How is what I said anyway inferring atheism is a "belief system"? Do you define not believing in fairies as a belief system? Clearly no.

Ok here's what you said:

"We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that." Ush1

What is the problem with me inferring that you believe there is no God based on that statement?

I believe that fairies don't exist. That is a belief system I hold. I might be wrong but that depends on whether I can be presented with evidence for their existence or given some good reasons to think that they exists.

We define fairies as small people-like creatures with wings who give money to kids who loose their teeth. I'll have no problem believing in such creatures once I can be presented with the evidence for them or believing in them theoretically at least if I'm given good reasons to think that they exist.

Now we define God in one sense as a Being who created the universe. And a Being who also created life on Earth. Now given the staggering odds of a life permitting universe like ours just popping into existence from virtually nothing at all and the odds of life just happening to come about on this planet in the first place, then I think we can remain rational in mind when we deduce from that that it must have taken a supernatural force to do it, i.e. a force which operates outside of nature as a necessity, given that nature itself was brought about as a result i.e it couldn't have been anything inside nature that brought it about i.e. outside i.e. supernatural. If you can give me another example of such a supernatural force other than God then I'm all ears. So unlike fairies we do have good reason to think that a creator God of the universe exists even though we cannot scientifically prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt just like we can't prove anything in Science beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Ush1 wrote: »

Just because you believe in a particular type of make believe makes it no more valid, doesn't matter how many people want to debate it, it's just as preposterous!

We're not talking about the validity or not of any particular belief system, we're talking about whether what we hold to be true are belief systems or not. I infer from you own statement that you believe to be true the statement there is no God. So I'm either wrong and you do believe that there is such a Being or you don't, i.e. you beleive there is no God. There's no middle ground in fairness, or is there? If there is, then how does that gel with your statement: "We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that."?

sensibleken

Soul Winner wrote: »

Some stuff..

also... not going for a jog is exercise

Ush1

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok here's what you said:

"We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that." Ush1

What is the problem with me inferring that you believe there is no God based on that statement?

I believe that fairies don't exist. That is a belief system I hold. I might be wrong but that depends on whether I can be presented with evidence for their existence or given some good reasons to think that they exists.

So you're saying everything is a belief system. Very original. So when I answer my phone it's a belief system that someone will talk? When I start my car in the morning, that's my belief in the internal combustion engine kicking in.

Soul Winner wrote: »

We define fairies as small people-like creatures with wings who give money to kids who loose their teeth. I'll have no problem believing in such creatures once I can be presented with the evidence for them or believing in them theoretically at least if I'm given good reasons to think that they exist.

Now we define God in one sense as a Being who created the universe. And a Being who also created life on Earth. Now given the staggering odds of a life permitting universe like ours just popping into existence from virtually nothing at all and the odds of life just happening to come about on this planet in the first place, then I think we can remain rational in mind when we deduce from that that it must have taken a supernatural force to do it, i.e. a force which operates outside of nature as a necessity, given that nature itself was brought about as a result i.e it couldn't have been anything inside nature that brought it about i.e. outside i.e. supernatural. If you can give me another example of such a supernatural force other than God then I'm all ears. So unlike fairies we do have good reason to think that a creator God of the universe exists even though we cannot scientifically prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt just like we can't prove anything in Science beyond a shadow of a doubt.

All irrelevant. Fairies, unicorns, spaghetti monsters, all equal to God for me.

Soul Winner wrote: »

We're not talking about the validity or not of any particular belief system, we're talking about whether what we hold to be true are belief systems or not. I infer from you own statement that you believe to be true the statement there is no God. So I'm either wrong and you do believe that there is such a Being or you don't, i.e. you beleive there is no God. There's no middle ground in fairness, or is there? If there is, then how does that gel with your statement: "We say there is almost certainly no god. There is evidence for that."?

Erm, nice to see you having an arguement with yourself.

Again, all irrelevant. You're defining pretty much any thought as a "belief system". So if you call not believing in fairies a belief system, then yes YOU would call a lack of belief in God a belief system. Nobody else would though.;)

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think a good word would be itheism. There is morality, immorality which is the opposite of morality and amorality which is a lack of morality, e.g. killing someone is immoral because it's a conscious decision to hurt someone but things like earthquakes are amoral because there is decision to hurt. In the same way we can have theism, itheism (the opposite of theism) and atheism (the lack of theism)

Dades: Feel free to move this thread to the Itheism and Ignosticism forum.

ZorbaTehZ

Soul Winner wrote: »

[Atheism] maintains that there is no God

Soul Winner wrote: »

C). Atheism - The belief that there is no God

You realise there's a contradiction there?

Soul Winner

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

You realise there's a contradiction there?

Not really. One is just a stricter version of the other, but they certainly don't contradict each other. Just like the phrases: 'the lack of belief in God' and 'the belief that there is no God' don't contradict each other either, one is simply more prohibitive than the other in the overlap. I would submit that the new atheism at least, is not just the belief that there is no God but that it actively maintains that there is no such being as God and is willing to back it up with evidence which would appear (to new atheists at least) to support that position.

ColmDawson

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not really. One is just a stricter version of the other, but they certainly don't contradict each other. Just like the phrases: 'the lack of belief in God' and 'the belief that there is no God' don't contradict each other either, one is simply more prohibitive than the other in the overlap. I would submit that the new atheism at least, is not just the belief that there is no God but that it actively maintains that there is no such being as God and is willing to back it up with evidence which would appear (to new atheists at least) to support that position.

What on earth is a 'new atheist'? I'd love to know the difference between a new one and an old one.

Soul Winner

ColmDawson wrote: »

What on earth is a 'new atheist'? I'd love to know the difference between a new one and an old one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

http://newatheism.org

http://newatheists.org

http://thenewatheist.blogspot.com


Google is your friend

ColmDawson

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would submit that the new atheism at least, is not just the belief that there is no God but that it actively maintains that there is no such being as God and is willing to back it up with evidence which would appear (to new atheists at least) to support that position.

Dawkins, one of your so-called new atheists, does not deny the possibility of a deity existing. I would very surprised if Harris, Hitchens or Dennett did either.

They certainly maintain that there is no good evidence for god, but that's a different thing.

ZorbaTehZ

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not really. One is just a stricter version of the other, but they certainly don't contradict each other. Just like the phrases: 'the lack of belief in God' and 'the belief that there is no God' don't contradict each other either, one is simply more prohibitive than the other in the overlap.

What if I said that I don't believe there is a grizzly bear under my bed, but I don't know until I go look?

The difference may seem subtle but it is very important. Believing something simply does not imply knowing something.

Soul Winner

ColmDawson wrote: »

Dawkins, one of your so-called new atheists, does not deny the possibility of a deity existing. I would very surprised if Harris, Hitchens or Dennett did either.

They certainly maintain that there is no good evidence for god, but that's a different thing.

But there is good evidence that this world and this universe were created by a supernatural (outside nature) force, and that this force (we call it God) as a supernatural being expressed Himself on the stage of history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. There are many millions of people around the world who accept these things as good evidence for the existence of a supernatural being who created all things. What other way is a supernatural being supposed to show us that He indeed exists if He doesn't demonstrate it in a supernatural way as in the case of Jesus? I'm not sure what evidence Harris et al will accept if they won't accept what has already been revealed to us. If God has decisively revealed Himself through Jesus then you can't blame Him for doing little else to convince people if they won't accept what He has already done. People who will not accept any kind of God who demonstrates His power in the way that the God of the Bible did in the life and ministry of Jesus, will never accept any evidence which supports the existence of such being by virtue of the fact that the evidence itself would have to be be supernatural in essence, thus untestable by the scientific method and as such rejected out of hand.

We find that our universe is fine tuned for life and that this fine tuning was in place as far back as we can go into the initial conditions of the big bang. The conditions that complex life's formation rests on are a knife edge compared to the many many other possible conditions that this universe could have taken. Out of the number of possible universes that could have emerged from these initial conditions the chances that a simple-life permitting universe would emerge are vanishingly small and smaller still are the chances of a universe that would permit complex life forms from developing and even smaller still one that would permit technologically advanced life forms like us from developing.

And that's just having a life permitting universe in the first place. We then move onto the chances of life itself emerging from random chemical interactions in an unguided process on an ancient earth with no positive or negative feedback system in place in order to bring about the most advantageous benefits to any possible self replicating living system. The shear number of things which have to be in place in order for this to come about is staggering and the chances that this would happen in a strictly unguided process which had no desired outcome to bring about (i.e. it was blind and uncaring) and given all the other possible life inhibiting outcomes that could just as easily have come about to prevent life as we know it from emerging I think it is safe to say that other forces must have been at work for these first self replicating systems to possibly have come about in the first place. That force could be one of two things, Aliens or God but definitely intelligent agents because blind processes acting on basic chemicals with no desired outcome to bring about do not produce self replicating molecules to eventually form the basic building blocks for advanced creatures like us to evolve and to evolve in such a way as to debate these things millions of years later. It simply cannot happen by any stretch of the imagination and anyone who holds to the position that it could is acting in faith because their is no evidence whatsoever that such a unguided process can produce these effects.

The reason why Dawkins and the others don't accept God is because He cannot be explained in purely naturalist terms, terms which they will accept. But if God exists then we must accept Him on His terms or not at all. If God exists then He knows that He exists and doesn't need to prove that to Himself nor does He need His creatures telling Him that they will not believe in Him on His terms unless He demonstrates Himself to them on their terms. They will be left waiting. God doesn't need to demonstrate His existence to them. But He did do it, and in a supernatural way. If He had just done it a natural way then we would have no basis to believe that He is also capable of performing supernatural things, and as such it would not give us a basis for a faith in His ability to save us from the curse of death, which requires supernatural abilities, and without the faith to believe that God can deliver us from death we would have no hope at all, hence the reason that He did it the way He did, to give us a basis for faith in His supernatural power to save us from our fallen state.

Soul Winner

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

What if I said that I don't believe there is a grizzly bear under my bed, but I don't know until I go look?

The difference may seem subtle but it is very important. Believing something simply does not imply knowing something.

I never said it did. Not believing that there is a bear under your bed is the same as believing that there is no bear under your bed.

I don't believe that there is such a person as Santa so it logically follows that I believe that Santa doesn't exist.

ColmDawson

Soul Winner wrote: »

But there is good evidence that this world and this universe were created by a supernatural (outside nature) force [...]

This isn't the place for a creationism debate, but I have to point out: just because the chances of all of this coming about were tiny, doesn't mean there was a supernatural cause. Very, very, very unlikely does not mean impossible.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said it did. Not believing that there is a bear under your bed is the same as believing that there is no bear under you bed.

I don't believe that there is such a being as Santa so it logically follows that I believe that Santa doesn't exist.

This 'atheism is a belief' thing comes up so bloody often. It's really not complicated and I can only assume that people wilfully misunderstand in order to try and back up weak arguments.

This post from Sam Vimes ought to be sufficient for you to understand the distinction.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

[...]
My position is the same as it would be if someone told me that he knew what next week's lotto numbers are going to be. If I told him he was wrong I would be telling him that I know that those numbers are not going to come up next week, I would also be claiming to know something I cannot possibly know.

What I would say is that I don't believe that he knows what the numbers are going to be and, while the numbers he predicts may well come up, he has given me no reason to suggest that those numbers are actually going to come up. I don't believe his claim but that is different to believing that his claim is false.
[...]

Read it carefully. There is a distinct difference. These are relatively simple concepts and I dare say you would understand them if they didn't impinge on your convictions.

Soul Winner

ColmDawson wrote: »

This isn't the place for a creationism debate, but I have to point out: just because the chances of all of this coming about were tiny, doesn't mean there was a supernatural cause. Very, very, very unlikely does not mean impossible.

The thing is that its not very very very unlikely, it is nigh on impossible. So if the unguided process is impossible, then a guided processes is what must have happened. So the debate shifts from there to what was the guiding influence? I believe it was God but that is neither here nor there, I could just as easily believe it was aliens, neither of which I can prove, but what can be certain is that it was guided and guided by an intelligence that knew what it was doing.

ColmDawson wrote: »

This 'atheism is a belief' thing comes up so bloody often. It's really not complicated and I can only assume that people wilfully misunderstand in order to try and back up weak arguments.

This post from Sam Vimes ought to be sufficient for you to understand the distinction.

Sam Vimes wrote:

[...]
My position is the same as it would be if someone told me that he knew what next week's lotto numbers are going to be. If I told him he was wrong I would be telling him that I know that those numbers are not going to come up next week, I would also be claiming to know something I cannot possibly know.

What I would say is that I don't believe that he knows what the numbers are going to be and, while the numbers he predicts may well come up, he has given me no reason to suggest that those numbers are actually going to come up. I don't believe his claim but that is different to believing that his claim is false.
[...]

Where Sam's analogy to belief in God breaks down is in the fact that he is talking about a chance happening in the future and comparing differing beliefs about that to what we can discern about the possible causes for what we know actually happened in the past. Read it carefully. There is a distinct difference. These are relatively simple concepts and I dare say you would understand them if they didn't impinge on your convictions. :pac:

ColmDawson

Soul Winner wrote: »

The thing is that its not very very very unlikely, it is nigh on impossible. So if the unguided process is impossible, then a guided processes is what must have happened. So the debate shifts from there to what was the guiding influence? I believe it was God but that is neither here nor there, I could just as easily believe it was aliens, neither of which I can prove, but what can be certain is that it was guided and guided by an intelligence that knew what it was doing.

Nigh on impossible is not the same as impossible. Nigh on impossible is possible.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where Sam's analogy to belief in God breaks down is in the fact that he is talking about a chance happening in the future and comparing differing beliefs about that to what we can discern about the possible causes for what we know actually happened in the past. Read it carefully. There is a distinct difference. These are relatively simple concepts and I dare say you would understand them if they didn't impinge on your convictions. :pac:

The analogy is still appropriate, regardless of whether you use lottery numbers or the existence of a deity. The point is that when you cannot (yet) prove/disprove the existence of god, you reserve belief. Lacking this belief is atheism.

There are people who will tell you that they believe there is no god. That's an unreasonable position to take, because they aren't able to know.

There are people (most posters here) who will tell you that they simply lack belief in god and therefore live their lives as such. Just like we all carry on with our lives without believing in any number of ridiculous beings you could care to invent.

Can you not see that these are different positions?

thirtythirty

Apologies for the delay in a reply! Never got a notification saying i'd been quoted. Anywhoo...

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes. So what evidence do you have that a creator God of the universe doesn't exist or at least cannot possibly exist?

Because everything in the known universe is based on physics, biology, and chemistry. Those 3 things lead to the concept of a god being an impossibility. That is the evidence we have gathered so far.

Decisions, theories, and ideas are based on the supporting evidence gathered thus far. So everything we know about the universe thus far leads to the above sentence. You can't base, or justify the basing, of an understanding on a lack of evidence. If I was to ask "why do you believe", can you give me evidence on which you build your assumption. Personal belief doesn't come into this - it has to be based on supporting evidence.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How so?

Same as above

Soul Winner wrote: »

Verbal gymnastics. Just answer the question at the end of my last post and we'll have the correct definition for the belief that there is no God.

Precisely - I was demonstrating how you did the same by turning aethism into a belief system, and then basing your argument on that.



edit: I've only caught up on the other posts, but i still pose the same questions. I would also like to add, why "but what can be certain is that it was guided and guided by an intelligence that knew what it was doing." is that a certainty? You have zero evidence to support that certainty.

Genghiz Cohen

And if it were an intelligence, how do you know it's the one that allows you to eat pork?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But there is good evidence that this world and this universe were created by a supernatural (outside nature) force, and that this force (we call it God) as a supernatural being expressed Himself on the stage of history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Your standard of "good evidence" and ours are vastly different.

If you use the same standard of good evidence most supernatural claims are well supported. Which of course is nonsense. You only have this standard for your own religious preference, you don't apply it to other religions or supernatural beliefs which you consider untrue.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What other way is a supernatural being supposed to show us that He indeed exists if He doesn't demonstrate it in a supernatural way as in the case of Jesus?

A repeatable scientific experience would help. Not the ramblings of ancient superstitious primitive farmers and fishermen.

Like I said, if that was the standard of what is good evidence then every religion in the world is supported by good evidence.

You believe it because you want it to be true, not because it is well supported. You don't apply the same standard to any other religion since if you did you would have to think they were well supported as well.

You want your religion to have special treatment because it is your religion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

We find that our universe is fine tuned for life and that this fine tuning was in place as far back as we can go into the initial conditions of the big bang.

We fine ourselves in a universe that is "fine tuned" for dark matter since it vastly out numbers anything else in the universe. Life seems to be a very rare evident indeed. So far we have found no other life. While I imagine there must be other examples of life since the unvierse is so big, the idea that the universe is fine tuned for it is ridiculous.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The conditions that complex life's formation rests on are a knife edge compared to the many many other possible conditions that this universe could have taken.

Which is why the vast majority of the universe contains no life and conditions where life as we know it could not survive. There is 4.2 light years of cold vaccum between us and the next star where no life can survive, and that start system has no planets that could support life.

The vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of the universe cannot support life.

We are a fluke. The idea that the universe has been set up to support us, a tiny speck in the vast universe, is frankly retarded.

Soul Winner wrote: »

We then move onto the chances of life itself emerging from random chemical interactions in an unguided process on an ancient earth with no positive or negative feedback system in place in order to bring about the most advantageous benefits to any possible self replicating living system.

There was a feedback system, it was the environment.

Why do you insist on arguing against something you clearly no very little about?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where Sam's analogy to belief in God breaks down is in the fact that he is talking about a chance happening in the future and comparing differing beliefs about that to what we can discern about the possible causes for what we know actually happened in the past. Read it carefully. There is a distinct difference. These are relatively simple concepts and I dare say you would understand them if they didn't impinge on your convictions. :pac:

It really doesn't fall down there tbh. The point of using a future event is to make it clear that the person cannot possibly know what they claim to know. A claim doesn't have to be about a future event for it to be clear that the person cannot know what they claim to know. Anyone who tells me about what they believe exists outside our universe is really in a much worse position in terms of credibility than someone telling me next week's lotto numbers. It could be rigged after all

Zillah

Behold, the wretched desolation of the mind that is faith.

Dougla2

MagicMarker wrote: »

I have had the same post deleted three times now from the christianity forum by PDN.

When I first found my post to be deleted, I reposted it, as I didn't see any reason for it to have been deleted. This 2nd post was then edited to inform me of the breach of charter, specifically...



It turns out my use of the word ''fúcked'' resulted in my whole post being deleted. Note, my post wasn't edited, it was deleted, and I didn't receive a warning or a banning, no notification at all.

So, I posted it a third time EXCLUDING all profanity and once again it was completely deleted along with the 2nd post which PDN had edited himself, still no warning or banning.

Of course, the post couldn't have been all bad seeing as it's still there quoted in Wicknight's post.

So, I'll post it here instead, in response to Soul Winner, if he/she happens to be a visitor here.



It's just unfortunate PDN feels he has to resort to such petty actions.

i have had two on topic non forum rule breaking posts deleted , they were on topic but did not put Christianity in a good light, its like china on the Christian boards

Dades

Dougla2, please read the Charter concerning what goes on in the other forum.

Dougla2

Dades wrote: »

Dougla2, please read the Charter concerning what goes on in the other forum.

oh sorry but the first post says something along those lines (in this thread0 doesn't it if not im sorry

Dades

Dougla2 wrote: »

oh sorry but the first post says something along those lines (in this thread0 doesn't it if not im sorry

That is true - and confusing! - though the eighth post is my co-mod warning against such commentary.

Anyhoo, now we know.