Christians=Liars?

[Inquisitor]

Starboy,
What you fail to understand, is that religions are contradicting. That is some religions are complete opposites to other religions.

To help you understand the concept. Would you believe in two scientific theories providing that one contradicts another? FYI many scientific theories cannot be proved experimentally, especially when it comes to social sciences.

According to you logic you should believe both or you are a liar.

[Starboy]

Oh come now Inquisitor. Wasn't it you that was telling me that the pope is the anti-christ? And yet you both use the same bible, both believe in the same sources of revalation and both have the same supernatural constructs and you are trying to tell me that there is some major difference? Get real!

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Been on vacation. Back now, but don't have a lot of time to post.

One quick point:

It is unfair to paint all religions with the same brush. True, they share *many* common themes, but it is intellectually disengenuous to ignore major differances in the interpritation of those themes, as well as the sincerity of application and motives.

[Inquisitor]

Oh come now Inquisitor. Wasn't it you that was telling me that the pope is the anti-christ?

Anti-Christian is more precise term.

And yet you both use the same bible, both believe in the same sources of revalation and both have the same supernatural constructs and you are trying to tell me that there is some major difference? Get real!

The difference is huge. Allow me to educate you on this subject. Apart from Holy Scripture, there is also Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is something catholics ignore ( I did mention about former Pope praying in sinagogue). Also after 1054 when Orthodox and catolic Churches separated, Holy Tradition of Orthodox Church developed independently. For example Orthodox Dogma maintains that no human is infallible, while we all know that catolics believe that pope is. There are also deeper theological differences I won't go into so not to sound too boring.

[Giglap]

I think we've reached the point of absurdity here. Starboy's initial assertion has been demonstrated fallacious. Starboy denies this and presents examples showing that believers in the "magical" are dishonest. However, his examples are unlikely scenarios built specifically to bolster his position. These are concievable scenarios, but his original assertion was about an entire group of people. And in that he has failed to make his case. The only possible exception is if Starboy is omnicient and knows the hearts, minds and motivations of all.
Starboy, ultimately your argument is an opinion about something you cannot possibly know, the mind of another. (the minds of countless others)

I don't expect you to agree Starboy and although you have no reason to be concerned about it, I still fee compelled to say that I have no anger or malice towards you just because we disagree.
We must do this again on another topic.

Thanks,
-Jim

[Starboy]

Quote by: Inquisitor Anti-Christian is more precise term.

Maybe it is. As far as I am concerened the pope is just as much a supernaturalist as you or any other supernaturalist. But perhaps you were in a religious delerium when you posted this:

Inquisitors pope anti-christ remark

Quote by: Inquisitor Indeed so. Pope has never been a supreme authority to All Christians. To me he is closer to an anti-christ.

The difference is huge. Allow me to educate you on this subject. Apart from Holy Scripture, there is also Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is something catholics ignore ( I did mention about former Pope praying in sinagogue). Also after 1054 when Orthodox and catolic Churches separated, Holy Tradition of Orthodox Church developed independently. For example Orthodox Dogma maintains that no human is infallible, while we all know that catolics believe that pope is. There are also deeper theological differences I won't go into so not to sound too boring.

I am aware of the history of Christianity. The differences are minor compared to their core claims.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Giglap I think we've reached the point of absurdity here. Starboy's initial assertion has been demonstrated fallacious. Starboy denies this and presents examples showing that believers in the "magical" are dishonest. However, his examples are unlikely scenarios built specifically to bolster his position. These are concievable scenarios, but his original assertion was about an entire group of people. And in that he has failed to make his case. The only possible exception is if Starboy is omnicient and knows the hearts, minds and motivations of all. Starboy, ultimately your argument is an opinion about something you cannot possibly know, the mind of another. (the minds of countless others)

Giglap all of that may be the case but you have yet to actually demonstrate that you even understand what I am talking about. Your last post is evidence of this. Now if you would like to engage in debate rather than exhibiting your omniscience by claiming to read my mind then you may do so when you are able otherwise go away or shut up.

I don't expect you to agree Starboy and although you have no reason to be concerned about it, I still fee compelled to say that I have no anger or malice towards you just because we disagree. We must do this again on another topic.

Not interested. You were never in this debate. All you did was ask questions and provide analogies that were off the mark. You never actually presented any arguments nor refuted any of my claims, other than just gainsaying them of course. I suppose in religious circles this is considered to be a powerful debating technique. Bye, bye.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus It is unfair to paint all religions with the same brush. True, they share *many* common themes, but it is intellectually disengenuous to ignore major differances in the interpritation of those themes, as well as the sincerity of application and motives.

I thought I was clear on this. I specifically stated all supernatural religions. Also previously in this thread I provided a definition of a supernatural religion. Now perhaps your religion has no supernatural in it and if that is the case then you may not necessarily hold your beliefs dishonestly.

Starboy

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy Giglap all of that may be the case but you have yet to actually demonstrate that you even understand what I am talking about. Your last post is evidence of this. Now if you would like to engage in debate rather than exhibiting your omniscience by claiming to read my mind then you may do so when you are able otherwise go away or shut up. Not interested. You were never in this debate. All you did was ask questions and provide analogies that were off the mark. You never actually presented any arguments nor refuted any of my claims, other than just gainsaying them of course. I suppose in religious circles this is considered to be a powerful debating technique. Bye, bye. Starboy

I've asked you questions Starman, as you told others they should. I didn't learn anything that I didn't already understand. Although I now have your own words stating that I did indeed understand your point. I demonstrated this with analogies. I've not strayed into ad hominem. I've not attempted to obfuscate.

I have tried to outline your ideas clearly so as to demonstrate their logic.
You are right, I don't understand, but, that doesn't mean your argument makes sense.,

Ultimately, it's your job to communicate clearly. Your assertion should model quite clearly whether true of false. If you can't model it, then, do you understand what you mean? Given the 17 pages of this thread, you should have been able to clearly communicate your idea by now.

It is possible that I don't understand, or maybe you aren't a good comunicator, though I don't think either option is likely.

If someone else can do a better job of explaining Starman's concept, I'd like to hear it. If the christians=liars model is so subjective it cannot be logically demonstrated, then what are we even talking about it for...

I know there are others out there who agree with Starman. Maybe you can explain it in a different way. However, If it can't be explained in clear concise sentences that can be evaluated logically then it's just an opinion. If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it and say thanks for the education.

Being intentionally offensive towards me will do nothing to bolster your postion. And to be honest with you, even though I don't know you and I've heard you do it to others, it actually still stings a bit. I'm not accustomed to people talking to others in the way you do. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.
If your behavior is in reaction to something I have done to offend you, (besides disagreeing) let me know and I will address it.


-Giglap

[Giglap]

It cracks me up that this gets my blood up. :)
Breath!

[Starboy]

Quote by: Giglap I've asked you questions Starman, as you told others they should. I didn't learn anything that I didn't already understand. Although I now have your own words stating that I did indeed understand your point. I demonstrated this with analogies. I've not strayed into ad hominem. I've not attempted to obfuscate.

Referring to me a Starman may not be an ad hominem but it is not appropriate. Should I now refer to you as Giglip?

I have tried to outline your ideas clearly so as to demonstrate their logic. You are right, I don't understand, but, that doesn't mean your argument makes sense.,

I understand that, and I thought there was hope for you. I saw the possibility that you might simply post as if you were engaged in a legitimate debate and then after several post simply explode with some defensive, inappropriate and unenlightening display. Oh well.

Ultimately, it's your job to communicate clearly. Your assertion should model quite clearly whether true of false. If you can't model it, then, do you understand what you mean? Given the 17 pages of this thread, you should have been able to clearly communicate your idea by now.

I may have failed but you cannot accuse me of not trying. Also in my defense there have been several posters that have said that they understand my claims very well. And have said so early on in this thread. It has not helped that there have also been many theists that are just so incensed at the possibility that they could be considered to be dishonest that they were not able to see through their emotional state to examine my claims rationally.

It is possible that I don't understand, or maybe you aren't a good comunicator, though I don't think either option is likely.

If you think that I am unable to communicate my ideas and that as a result you cannot engage in a rational debate or discussion then that is fine. That would have been a much more rational and reasonable response then your last two posts.

If someone else can do a better job of explaining Starman's concept, I'd like to hear it. If the christians=liars model is so subjective it cannot be logically demonstrated, then what are we even talking about it for...

I would like to point out that the OP and title [Christians=Liars?] was posted by a person that claimed to be a Christian. I did not create this thread. And that this person took an exchange in a Private Message and used it to create this thread without my permission. The person apparently was so outraged that I could accuse him of being dishonest that he then created this thread dishonestly. Go figure.

I know there are others out there who agree with Starman. Maybe you can explain it in a different way. However, If it can't be explained in clear concise sentences that can be evaluated logically then it's just an opinion. If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it and say thanks for the education.

I would like to believe you but it is rather hard to take you seriously when you can't even refer to me by my posting name.

Being intentionally offensive towards me will do nothing to bolster your postion. And to be honest with you, even though I don't know you and I've heard you do it to others, it actually still stings a bit. I'm not accustomed to people talking to others in the way you do. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. If your behavior is in reaction to something I have done to offend you, (besides disagreeing) let me know and I will address it.

You do not know me. I assure you that I am not being intentionally or unintentionally offensive toward you. I do find it interesting that you would post things like this:

Quote by: Giglap However, his examples are unlikely scenarios built specifically to bolster his position. These are concievable scenarios, but his original assertion was about an entire group of people. And in that he has failed to make his case. The only possible exception is if Starboy is omnicient and knows the hearts, minds and motivations of all.

The scenarios you speak of were not my scenarios. They were scenarios posted by you and others. But your complaints about my omniscience when you cannot see that such a claim could only come from a person who is convinced of their own omniscience is just too rich.

Starboy

[Giglap]

Starboy,
The misuse of your alias as Starman was entirely unintentional. My apologies for that. It was not an ad hominem attack.

I realize now that while I try to reduce your arguments to logical statements that can be evaluated, you add layers of complexity ensuring that they can't.
For example:Christians=Liars?

Ultimately your entire argument is an ad hominem attack. The one thing we can agree on is that this is not a debate. I'm disappointed and hope that this experience is not indicative of the entire site.



-Gigilip

[Inquisitor]

Maybe it is. As far as I am concerened the pope is just as much a supernaturalist as you or any other supernaturalist. But perhaps you were in a religious delerium when you posted this: Inquisitors pope anti-christ remark Quote: Quote by: Inquisitor Indeed so. Pope has never been a supreme authority to All Christians. To me he is closer to an anti-christ.

Yes, I did say this. What you fail to understand is that anti-christ is different to The Anti-Christ. While every atheist or heretic is anti-christ, The Anti-Christ on the other hand will be the ruller of the earth who would position himself as the messiah and he will indeed be messiah jews are waiting for. So anti-christ is a term, while The Anti-Christ is the person.

I am aware of the history of Christianity. The differences are minor compared to their core claims.

The difference is substancial enough to call catholicism "latin heresy".

[Starboy]

Quote by: Giglap Ultimately your entire argument is an ad hominem attack.

The problem with the fallacy arguments is that they are not actually arguments. They are catagories of potential arguments.

In the case of Ad Homenim

Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

I am not saying that my claims are correct because I am attacking you. I have no idea if my claims have anything to do with you. As far as I can tell you have never made any statement as to your being any kind of a supernaturalist.

The one thing we can agree on is that this is not a debate. I'm disappointed and hope that this experience is not indicative of the entire site.

And the funny thing about it is that I am not stopping you from making it a debate. You may withdraw or you may debate when you are able.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Inquisitor Yes, I did say this. What you fail to understand is that anti-christ is different to The Anti-Christ. While every atheist or heretic is anti-christ, The Anti-Christ on the other hand will be the ruller of the earth who would position himself as the messiah and he will indeed be messiah jews are waiting for. So anti-christ is a term, while The Anti-Christ is the person.

Thanks for that clarification but so what? I find your explanation too trite and convenient to be taken seriously. Just take your lumps and do not whip anti-christ around unless you mean it.

The difference is substancial enough to call catholicism "latin heresy".

To you it is obvious that the differences are monumental. To me in comparison to a Hindu or a Buddhist you are all about the same. Your differences are mosty adminstrative.

Starboy

[castille]

Christians don't "lie" per se; they just alter facts to suit their beliefs.

[Starboy]

Quote by: castille Christians don't "lie" per se; they just alter facts to suit their beliefs.

I would say that such a practice is at least dishonest. And they are at least lying to themselves.

Starboy

[tinybear]

If that's what they do, it sure sounds like lying to me.

[90ogle]

"because I made them that way" God Himself, For himself? Perhaps. Knees Pray. Lord Forgive me!