CertainVerdict : So, who is asking whether or not the Bible is false?

megafluff1 : i belive certain aspects of the bible are false.

megafluff1 : what was your decision?

CertainVerdict : Well, the Bible says a lot of things... For instance, the Bible agrees that Jerusalem is in Israel. Therefore, the Bible is true?

megafluff1 : the bible contains several historical accounts that have been proven to be accurate, such as battles. i just dont belive that there was any higher being involved

CertainVerdict : mega, that's true.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : is there a higher being involved in any religious experience?

CertainVerdict : What is a "higher being"?

CertainVerdict : well, I'm over 6' tall... I suppose I'm a higher being then, for some people.

CertainVerdict : Theologians say that God is a substance. Does that make god-belief a form of substance abuse?

CertainVerdict : "Why be born again when you can simply grow up?"

CertainVerdict : "Why hate life when you can love it, and embrace it?

DearBuffaleen : HI ROOM

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : The Bible was hanged in many ways I have heard

DearBuffaleen : Exec.... hanged? how?

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : dear... come again please

DearBuffaleen : Exec... The Bible was hanged in many ways I have heard

DearBuffaleen : Exec... how so?

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : oh I missed the c

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : Changed I meant

DearBuffaleen : Exec... you missed the changed? the changed what?

DearBuffaleen : Exec... your comments aren't making sense to me

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : The Bible was changed in many ways I have heard

DearBuffaleen : Exec... oh LOL ... well, actually the Bible hasn't changed; it's the interpretation of it that has

DearBuffaleen : Artificial... um... the New Testament?

DearBuffaleen : Artificial... ever hear of co-authorship?

DearBuffaleen : Artificial... God superintended & authorized what men wrote

CertainVerdict : The Christian worships a contradiction.

Artificial_Infection : wow i agree with certain on this one

DearBuffaleen : Artificial... so while it's true that individuals (not just men) wrote the books in the Bible, it is God that inspired them to be written & superintended what was said.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : i disagree certain

Artificial_Infection : if i say god told me to write a book

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : look.. I agree that many things in the Bible were changed, in fact... many things are missing, however, the essence of the message is still there, the Bible is also loaded with contradictions.. but its still a great book.. the problem is not the Bible..

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : The problem is the people that interpret the Bible

CertainVerdict : Christians say that Jesus is both man and god. Man is mortal; god is immortal; man is finite, god is infinite; man is visible, god is invisible, and so on.

CertainVerdict : In each case, the attributes of god are a negation of those belonging to man.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : and how do you know this about God, certain?

«»Çlarissefive1«» : what His attributes are?

CertainVerdict : The sharpest theologians have not been able to untangle and "resolve" the contradictions encountered in the doctrine of the incarnation.

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : Five.. if you study Paul, Peter, John and James... you will see the contradictions

«»Çlarissefive1«» : we try to attach human reasoning to what God is

CertainVerdict : Clariss: ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith?

Artificial_Infection : hey certain switched sides!

«»Çlarissefive1«» : hmm i have studied them exec but im also aware of the process and methodology of Textual Criticims which explains most of those problems

DearBuffaleen : Executive... the idea that errors crept into the Bible over time is a popular idea & one that seemed reasonable... until the DSS proved otherwise. The very mode of manuscript transmission has checks & balances that eliminate 99.99% of human error.

CertainVerdict : Art - no, I've not switched sides. You're finally discovering what I do not endorse.

Artificial_Infection : cool!

Artificial_Infection : well i agree with you totally

«»Çlarissefive1«» : there will be contradictions due to linguistics but there are no doctrinal contradictions

Artificial_Infection : oh?

Artificial_Infection : how about this one....adam and eve

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : Its very simple.. Paul preached some thing different to what Peter, John and James preached.. in fact, Paul confronted Peter in his hypocricy

Artificial_Infection : its toatally bullshit to what actually happened

CertainVerdict : The notion of "jesus" as entailed in the NT and in all the creeds is a self-contradictory mess.

DearBuffaleen : Executive... there are no contradictions, but merely different emphasis

DearBuffaleen : Executive... they were not merely meant to convey biographical information but to espouse specific points to each of their intended (different) audiences.

\\ΞЖΞĈЏŦIVΞ// : one preached to the Gentiles.. (Paul) and three preached to the lost sheep of Israel (Peter, John and James

CertainVerdict : Since Christianity is about worshipping contradiction as such, it is an invalid worldview.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : why dont you be more specific certain

CertainVerdict : Christians say that Jesus is both man and god. Man is mortal; god is immortal; man is finite, god is infinite; man is visible, god is invisible, and so on.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : you said that

CertainVerdict : Clariss: These are pretty specific.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : not really

CertainVerdict : Clariss: yes, really.

DearBuffaleen : Executive....correct. That means they left out certain information that was irrelevant to that point & the interests of that group, & emphasized or specifically mentioned information that would support the point they were making.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : how can you define God being human

«»Çlarissefive1«» : and limit him with human wisdom

CertainVerdict : Clariss: I do not define god. I merely look at what his alleged "spokespersons" say about god.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : "if" God created the universe and the laws that order the universe then He is above such

CertainVerdict : Clariss: If you want to posit something that is by nature beyond my comprehension, then I cannot consider it knowledge. (Obviously!)

DearBuffaleen : Certain... Christianity certainly does turn the atheist worldview upside-down!

CertainVerdict : DearBuff: I do not hold that atheism is a worldview; rather, atheism is simply the absence of god-belief.

CertainVerdict : Clariss: the notion that a God created the universe is self-contradictory.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... only if you consider God=universe

CertainVerdict : Dear: No. I hold that 'universe' is defined as "the sum total of all existence"

DetergentMan : Dear: to posit the existence of anything, regardless of what you call it, necessarily implies the totality.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... atheism is more than the mere absence of a belief in god. It also posits doctrinal assumptions based on that absence.

CertainVerdict : Dear: What you are considering, if a view posits positive views, is more than atheism. Learn your word roots.

CertainVerdict : Dear: The assertion of a positive view of reality is the beginning of philosophy as such; atheism as such is merely the absence of god-belief.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Atheism only says what a man does not believe, not what he does believe.

CertainVerdict : Theism = god-belief. A = without, non-, negation; "atheism" = absence of god-belief.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... the totality of what?

CertainVerdict : The totality of that which exists.

CertainVerdict : The notion that a form of consciousness "created" existence is invalid; it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... only if you assume that "a form of consciousness" = "god"

CertainVerdict : Dear: Theism holds that the universe was created by an act of will; a will is a form of consciousness.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... atheism is more than merely its word roots. As I said, those holding to that theory also posit certain "truths".

CertainVerdict : Sure, atheists of course can assert positive views, but those views may vary from atheist to atheist; there is no necessary consequence from the absence of god-belief to a set of positive views.

CertainVerdict : Those views may be independent of, or in fact hierarchically prior to one's atheism, if one's atheism is a conclusion or a consequence from prior factors.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : how do you know that is invalid certain? we know the universe had a beginning what was the cause?

CertainVerdict : Clariss: I do not know that the universe "had a beginning" - this is an absurd and baseless premise.

«»Çlarissefive1«» : but we know there is cause and effect for everything there had to be a cause what is your theory?

CertainVerdict : Clariss: According to my view, it is invalid to assert the concept 'causality' and its conceptual adjuncts apart from the context of existence as such.

CertainVerdict : Clariss: My starting point is the fact that existence exists. Existence as such requires no explanation beyond itself.

CertainVerdict : Clariss: Any explanation one might posit would have to point to something which exists in order for it to qualify as an explanation, but then we're right back to my starting point again.

CertainVerdict : Dear: It all reduces to the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which is false.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... perhaps mere theism does; however we Christians define by WHOSE act of will. It was not will that created, but God that created.

CertainVerdict : Dear: It matters not "whose" will is said to "create" existence; the fallacy is still implied.

CertainVerdict : Dear: A fallacy is committed by virtue of a breach of objective principle. That objective principle is the metaphysical primacy of existence.

CertainVerdict : Dear: The breach is the metaphysical primacy of consciousness on which theism stands.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... that is an assumption you make. Setting up a straw man merely to defeat him is also "an absurd & baseless premise."

CertainVerdict : The Christian wants to start with a form of consciousness to explain the fact of existence. The proper starting point is with the fact of existence as such.

CertainVerdict : Existence exists.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Check your premises.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... why be redundant & start with a fallacious statement? We start with GOD, not merely a form of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : Dear: If you violate the primacy of existence at any point, your conclusions will be invalid. It doesn't matter what you call it.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I begin with the incontestable and inescapable fact that existence exists. There is no fallacy committed by this statement.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Indeed, there can be no fallacy, if by 'fallacy' we mean cognitive error or error in inference.

CertainVerdict : Dear: The axiom 'existence exists' is not the product of inference. It is the beginning of all inference.

CertainVerdict : Dear: So there can be no fallacy at this point.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... existence simply IS, as you stated, & has no sort of primacy other than that.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You call "god" that which consists of negating that which is.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You fail to grasp the issue of metaphysical primacy.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Your error, not mine.

DearBuffaleen : Certain.... God doesn't negate that which is; just the opposite. God created that which is.

CertainVerdict : Dear: God doesn't do anything, because the notion of a God is incoherent, and cannot be accepted as legitimate knowledge.

CertainVerdict : Dear: That which does not exists can do nothing.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... then you have failed to define your terms in a clear manner & make assumptions all around.

CertainVerdict : Dear: No failure on my part at all. You are free to inquire on what you do not understand.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Your ultimate premise, whether or not you recognize it, is the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which is invalid.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... again, you have made baseless assumptions from the start with no support for them.

CertainVerdict : Dear: The primacy of consciousness is invalid for two reasons: One, it contradicts the primacy of existence metaphysics, which is true, and Two: it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You want support?

CertainVerdict : Here you go:

CertainVerdict : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html

DearBuffaleen : Certain... I understand your individual words without understanding how you've strung them together to support a view that equally has no basis in reality but is an assumption on your part.

CertainVerdict : Dear: If you are lacking full understanding of my view, as you admit, then how can you conclude that my view has no basis in reality?

CertainVerdict : Dear: If by "reality" we mean "the realm of existence", then my view is based squarely on the premise that reality is real. As I said: Existence exists.

CertainVerdict : Dear: The Christian view, which seems to think that reality requires an explanation beyond itself (which must also be accepted as "real" as well), is invalid.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... how can you posit that "the primacy of existence metaphysics" is true & deny the existence of God? YOUR god is this theory & lacks the very evidence you criticize.

CertainVerdict : Dear: How? Because existence exists. That's how.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I have no god-belief.

CertainVerdict : Dear: It is important to recognize how and why all god-belief reduces to the primacy of consciousness fallacy.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... LOL so your lack of belief is belief; stated positively you believe only in the existence of what you personally have experienced & not in the experiences of others.

CertainVerdict : Dear: My atheism is not a primary; it is a consequence of my allegiance to reason.

JóìntheCúlt : buff, if you believed in eveeything others experienced, you'd be so confused you'd have to believe in every religion/denomination/cult

CertainVerdict : Dear: I cannot accept the conclusions which others draw from their experiences but which contradict the very foundations of reason itself.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I cannot accept as true any conclusion which is self-negating, or which is based on a view which cannot support reason and objectivity.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I do not doubt that you have had experiences; I accept this (even though you seem to think I do not); What I reject is your identification of the nature of those experiences.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... reason is not an end to itself, but a means to understand the world, etc. around us

CertainVerdict : Dear: Agreed: reason is a tool for living. The end is value, and the standard of value is living - life itself.

DearBuffaleen : Join.... I did not say that I believed in everything; but certainly the experiences of other are worth considering & assuming if one is to make any progress of one's own.

CertainVerdict : Dear: There is no contradiction between my view and merely considering the claims others make about their experiences. Indeed, I am happy to examine them.

CertainVerdict : Dear: However, I have no obligation to consider every conclusion another person draws from his or her personal experiences as necessarily true or valid.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I do not hold that a claim is automatically validated by virtue of another person's experience.

DearBuffaleen : Join... ie. "We accomplish great things because we stand on the shoulders of giants."

CertainVerdict : Dear: Indeed, I do not contest the fact that we all benefit from the efforts of those who have preceded us. And there is no contradiction in doing so, according to my view.

CertainVerdict : Dear: But you seem to be missing the point. We must evaluate the claims others make if we are to be rational.

CertainVerdict : Dear: To ignore this is to evade the general facts of reality.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Your own evasions will eventually come round to constrict you.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... what have I evaded?

CertainVerdict : Dear: You evade the primacy of existence.

CertainVerdict : Just as the Christian who attempts to turn his plowshare into a sword, he impales himself in the very effort thereof.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... existence is a presumption, not bearing primacy at all until it is applied to an object. Existence has no meaning without an object.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Existence is the object. Any object which exists implies the axiomatic concept 'existence' when we gain awareness of it.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Again, you seem to be unclear on the issue of metaphysical primacy. How can you say I am wrong if you do not understand this matter?

CertainVerdict : Dear: Are you contesting that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness?

DearBuffaleen : Certain... LOL no, the Christian who "turns his plowshare into a sword" but finds other people continue to bear swords, mayhap may be impaled upon THEIR swords for his efforts.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... existence is a state of being.... define your being & you will have that state.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I need no sword, only a razor - Rand's razor. And you've been cut hard.

CertainVerdict : Dear: the concept 'existence' cannot be defined in terms of prior concepts - that's the point.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... so you claim, but my cuts are merely a delusion of your overactive imagination

CertainVerdict : Dear: Any other concept you assert will necessarily assume the concept 'existence' implicitly.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Can you deal with it? If you reject the primacy of existence, then your ability to reason is compromised.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I've challenged the very basis of your thought. You have provided no defense. I don't think you can.

CertainVerdict : Check it out: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html

DearBuffaleen : Certain... existence has no meaning without an object. Not primarily, not consequently, but contemporaneously. Define your object & you HAVE existence as its assumption.

CertainVerdict : Dear: the concept 'existence' refers to any object which exists. Again, existence exists.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... you've not challenged me at all, merely confirmed that you have an assumption as baseless as you claim mine is.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You apparently do not understand what the principle of the primacy of existence says. Do you?

CertainVerdict : Dear: If you do not understand what this principle says, please do not act as if it is not an issue. It is an issue, for every thinking person.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... if that is so, then the statement "God exists" is not invalid.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... LOL it's not an issue; it's a presumption. Funny that no one but you has ever mentioned it (in chat).

CertainVerdict : Dear: the claim "god exists" is invalid because it rests on the premise that the primacy of consciousness is true; this premise is false.

CertainVerdict : Dear: If you say that the issue of metaphysical primacy is not an issue, then you contradict yourself.

CertainVerdict : Dear: By saying that it is not an issue, you are making a claim to truth, and therefore you make a statement about reality.

CertainVerdict : Dear: But to make a statement about reality, you must be assuming a certain relationship between existence and consciousness.

CertainVerdict : Dear: When you say that something is true of reality, are you assuming that whatever is the case is dependent upon your own consciousness?

CertainVerdict : Dear: I very much doubt it. If it were only true insofar as it depended on your awareness, then it is only true in your mind, not true of reality.

CertainVerdict : Dear: But when you say it is true of reality, then you are saying it is the case independent of your consciousness, and thus affirm, albeit implicitly, the metaphysical primacy of existence.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... God is not merely "consciousness" therefore you have set up a straw man.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Not at all. God does not have to be "merely consciousness" for my argument to be valid; what is invalid is the notion that the universe was created by an act of consciousness.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You're trying to find a way out, but you will not.

CertainVerdict : Dear: there is no evading the metaphysical primacy of existence, even if you do not understand it.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... you need to be sure that your use of terms are consistent with the normal use of terms & are not applying a special meaning beyond the normative. If you cannot be consistent in your terms, you can make absurd statements & make absurd

DearBuffaleen : conclusions without accountability. That is your right, but is not conducive to a rational conversation.

CertainVerdict : Dear: My use of the terms I use is consistent with the philosophy which I espouse, which is Objectivism.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... so I gathered from your reference to Rand.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... I too espouse objective reality, objective truth... which is God.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I am not worried that my arguments and conclusions may be deemed "absurd" according to your premises, since your premises themselves are what is in question.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You commit the fallacy of the stolen concept, therefore your assertions, insomuch as they are based on this fallacy, are invalid.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... my premises are that you must define & be consistent with your terms. Apparently you cannot do it.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I provided you with a source that answers all your questions. You should take some time to examine it before you make such accusations.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Besides, you have not shown where I am inconsistent in the use of my terms. Seems you'd like this to be the case, but cannot show it.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... again you use terms that have a normative concept but have for you a special definition. OF course I am unaware of YOUR special definitions. I will concede I have no idea what you're talking about.

CertainVerdict : Dear: And you've not been able to validate the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which you obviously assume is valid.

DearBuffaleen : Certain.... you obviously have a limited vocabulary since you repeat yourself without making yourself clear.

CertainVerdict : Dear: If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then on what basis can you reject what I have to say, if simply you just don't like the conclusion?

CertainVerdict : Dear: I have to repeat myself, because you don't seem to get the message.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I've been patient with you. You want your god-belief, and you think it is true, simply because you want it to be true. You have done nothing to validate it.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You have not even declared your starting point in terms of essentials.

CertainVerdict : Dear: It's all a package-deal of floating abstractions built on a fundamental stolen concept - that is the essence of your god-belief.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You've said nothing which persuades me to think otherwise.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... I made an assumption that your terms are the common ones associated with those words. A fallacy on my part, since you apply special definitions without revealing them, but merely mindless repetition without clarity.

CertainVerdict : Dear: For some definitions of crucial terms, go here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Definitions.htm

DearBuffaleen : Certain... you obviously aren't clear on your own beliefs, since you are unable to clarify your meanings. And obviously, "existence" is as much an abstraction as the concept of "God", so you are in the same "floating" boat that I am.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I agree that the concept 'existence' is an abstraction; indeed, it is an axiomatic concept. But it has reference - that which exists.

CertainVerdict : Dear: the notion 'god' has no reference in reality - hence it is "floating"

CertainVerdict : Dear: the concept 'existence' is not floating since it has reference to reality.

CertainVerdict : Dear: What other objections do you have?

DearBuffaleen : Certain... if you value only that which your own mind creates or your experiences gives you, then you will forego all the benefits of several millennia of human development. If you need a reference to reality, remember that you use the toilet, drive a

DearBuffaleen : car, receive immunizations, etc. all which come to you not through your own efforts but receiving the benefit of the efforts of those before you.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I do not value only that which my mind "creates".

DearBuffaleen : Certain... your argumentation would argue otherwise.

CertainVerdict : Dear: You're evading again. It is premature to speak of the validity of particular values at this time. You haven't even dealt with the issue of metaphysical primacy yet.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... your assumptions are plain in every syllable thus far.

CertainVerdict : Dear: My argumentation would argue otherwise? Please present my argument as you grasp it.

CertainVerdict : Dear: I do not seek to benefit at the expense of others, as the Christian does, if that's what you're talking about.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... how is it premature? Presumptions, by their nature, come BEFORE any argument, & having established my object, His values are most important to my reason.

CertainVerdict : Dear: The concept 'value' cannot even be arrived at until we've cleared up our starting point, which has been the focus of our conversation so far.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... the fact that you enjoy the fruits of others' labor, ie. technology, science, etc. is a fact of your (our society's) existence.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Our debate has so far been on the issue of metaphysics - the issue of metaphysical primacy to be specific. To jump from metaphysics to ethics is quite a jump... and premature, in my assessment.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... unless you mean you live as the Amish do, without electricity, plumbing. automotive transportation or septic system?

CertainVerdict : Dear: There's no question that I enjoy the fruits of the efforts of others. I do not contest this. But what does this have to do with our debate?

CertainVerdict : Dear: You're dragging the convo way off topic... I don't blame you, you had no chance as it was on the old topic to begin with...

DearBuffaleen : Certain... how is the fact you do live off the achievements of others an ethical question?

CertainVerdict : Dear: It is a fact that I enjoy the benefits of the achievements of others, and this is made possible by the trader principle - i.e., at my own expense, not theirs. Again, read Rand.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... you *assume* the stolen concept; this is very much to that point.

CertainVerdict : Dear: Not at all. You are dropping context, and quite obnoxiously I would say.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... so you are just mindlessly quoting Rand, without being able to explain it?

CertainVerdict : Dear: You are unfamiliar with Objectivism, this much is obvious.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... ditto

DearBuffaleen : Certain... you reject my foundations because of your ignorance, & I am showing you the same courtesy

CertainVerdict : Dear: "mindlessly quoting Rand"? Dear, you've evaded the issue of metaphysical primacy and have deliberately dragged the convo off topic. That's all I need to know.

DearBuffaleen : Certain... again you throw out terms without defining them. That's all I need to know. Bye (ignoring)

CertainVerdict : Dear: You have not validated your foundations; furthermore, even in the attempt to dispute mine, you validate them in the process. You checkmate yourself.

DearBuffaleen : So who in this room can have an INTELLIGENT conversation?

CertainVerdict : Dear: My terms have been identified: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Definitions.htm

CertainVerdict : Dear: Why do you run?

DearBuffaleen : Wunjo... *sigh* trying to recover from a convo plagued by circular reasoning & UFOs (unidentified fallacious objections)

CertainVerdict : Dear, you've not shown one fallacy which I committed. Why do you lie?