10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer [ANS]
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Christianity is the largest religion in the whole world....so that means majority of the people in the world do believe that there is a God ....
More so the fact that I think there are even more people who believe that there is a supernatural realm and that matter is not all there is, contrary to what the atheists are believing. -
Everybody is entitled to their own freedom of choice....of coz many will choose to believe whatever that is logical and beneficial to them....freewill....can be a good thing...Hahaha!
-
Muse over this and : Can the sun be expereinced cos of one having a belief? There is no need, one simply knows. In that knowing what is there to believe. does a non-believer miss the sun? Does believing or not believing negate the existence of the sun? Ignorance belies beleifs! Holding onto beliefs blindly and never questioning them is akin to sheep bleating away. It is the lack of understanding and the fear of being found (that one's beliefs may not hold up to the fire of reality) out that one knows not. simply parroting scriptures and repeating what could have an existential expereince for another is pretension and being blind to one's ignorance. A beleif that is held onto not out of one's love, not out of one's knowing, not out of one's knowing or experience - means this - that belief is out of one's fear. How to believe in something that one has never expereinced for oneself? To say that i dont know and I am willing to find out and explore before I believe is intelligence. Being receptive, being open to .... is intelligence. Stupidity, is to deny that and simply quote others and .... this is bondage! Whether one is an atheist or non-atheist - both are still beliefs - it is closed book, finished and what is there to find out. One has already concluded what should be the end. One will never meet God and if one were to utter that i meet god"" - one is also real and so is god. In other words, there are two realities, not one. Is there such a thing as two realities? How can a omnipresence, a being have two realities? Reality is ''self''-effulgence. One cannot come across god, one can come across godliness (aka a fragrance of one's being .....?) - a process that never ends. Can the latter be objectified? Hence I say this – when one is being present to one’s being …, one is being present to another’s being … – a communion (two emptinesses, can it be counted as two?) However, when one is present to one’s self one can only be present to another’s self (this are two persons cannot become ’’emptinesses’). When one is ''knowing'', when one is ''being'' ... when one is ''loving'' - this is being real.
-
lols... fugazzi, they cant be convinced easily 1 larh...
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
lols... fugazzi, they cant be convinced easily 1 larh...
It is ok lah, what is true cannot be suppressed for much too long! -
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
It is ok lah, what is true cannot be suppressed for much too long!
it cannot be surpressed but they can choose not to accept it! -
cannot accepts means maintaining a fiction lah
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Muse over this and :
Can the sun be expereinced cos of one having a belief? There is no need, one simply knows. In that knowing what is there to believe. does a non-believer miss the sun? Does believing or not believing negate the existence of the sun?
Ignorance belies beleifs! Holding onto beliefs blindly and never questioning them is akin to sheep bleating away.
It is the lack of understanding and the fear of being found (that one’s beliefs may not hold up to the fire of reality) out that one knows not. simply parroting scriptures and repeating what could have an existential expereince for another is pretension and being blind to one’s ignorance.
A beleif that is held onto not out of one’s love, not out of one’s knowing, not out of one’s knowing or experience – means this – that belief is out of one’s fear.How to believe in something that one has never expereinced for oneself? To say that i dont know and I am willing to find out and explore before I believe is intelligence. Being receptive, being open to …. is intelligence. Stupidity, is to deny that and simply quote others and …. this is bondage! Whether one is an atheist or non-atheist – both are still beliefs – it is closed book, finished and what is there to find out. One has already concluded what should be the end. One will never meet God and if one were to utter that i meet god”” – one is also real and so is god. In other words, there are two realities, not one. Is there such a thing as two realities? How can a omnipresence, a being have two realities? Reality is ’’self’‘-effulgence. One cannot come across god, one can come across godliness (aka a fragrance of one’s being …..?) – a process that never ends. Can the latter be objectified?
Hence I say this – when one is being present to one’s being …, one is being present to another’s being … – a communion (two emptinesses, can it be counted as two?) However, when one is present to one’s self one can only be present to another’s self (this are two persons cannot become ’’emptinesses’).
When one is ’’knowing’’, when one is ’’being’’ ... when one is ’’loving’’ – this is being real.As usual, Fuzzi is confused between objective reality and subjective experience, and elevating the latter over the former. To Fuzzi only that which is experienced is real, but what is real and not experienced is not real. In fact, it is just not experienced, not that it is not real. But Fuzzi somehow fudges this up and fails to distinguish them.
Ignorance does not necessarily belies beliefs. I agree that one should not hold on to beliefs blindly. Even in the Christian faith there is no teaching about a blind leap of faith, but faith that is founded on facts. And how do you tell the difference between a blind parroting of Scripture and one that is not? You seemed content to simply label them all as blind parroting.
Why do you believe that must belief be based on experience solely and not on sufficient reason and evidence? How do you know you are not experiencing a delusion and engaging in wishful thinking? You show neither willingness or sincerity to explore Christianity at all. Is that intelligence, or wilful ignorance?
Last but not least, you seem to be equivocating on the word "real", changing the definition of that word as and when it suits you.
-
faith that is founded by facts? er can give some examples then explain abit more so i understand? i am always under the impression that most christians beliefs are on blind faith. Well i mayb wrong so u can tell me more on that.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
cannot accepts means maintaining a fiction lah
What's your fiction that you are maintaining? You said truth cannot be suppressed. I agree. I pointed out the truth about your worldview, that it is necessarily false because it contains self-refuting elements. Yet you are still maintaining it.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
faith that is founded by facts? er can give some examples then explain abit more so i understand? i am always under the impression that most christians beliefs are on blind faith. Well i mayb wrong so u can tell me more on that.
Can I interest you to check up a couple of websites?http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians
-
When one cannot even understand this nor seems to understand - ''Muse over this and'' - what more is there to say.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
When one cannot even understand this nor seems to understand – ’’Muse over this and’’ –
what more is there to say.It is precisely because I can understand what you say that I can point out the logical fallacies and flaws of yoru worldview. But since you pride yourself in being illogical what more is there to say? You have thrown reason and logic out of the window. For you, even if what you experience is a delusion you would also think it is real and true simply because you have experienced it.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But neither have you answered the question about what your challenge is supposed to prove, and whether that has indeed be proven.BIC, I've already told you -- not for the first time -- that I have no interest in debating with you. Despite this, you deem it fit to get a word in my conversations with others. At best, you are baiting me; at worst, you are repeatedly getting cheap shots in at an opponent whom you know will not hit back.
Either way, this is precisely why I see no point in debating with you. It is of course your prerogative to post what you want. As a debater, however, you are showing no class.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Christianity is the largest religion in the whole world....so that means majority of the people in the world do believe that there is a God ....
You need to understand that the words "largest" and "majority" are not synonymous.
In any case, what is your statement supposed to show? 5,000 years ago, majority of people probably thought that the world was flat. And they were wrong. -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
BIC, I've already told you -- not for the first time -- that I have no interest in debating with you. Despite this, you deem it fit to get a word in my conversations with others. At best, you are baiting me; at worst, you are repeatedly getting cheap shots in at an opponent whom you know will not hit back.
Either way, this is precisely why I see no point in debating with you. It is of course your prerogative to post what you want. As a debater, however, you are showing no class.
To my mind a low class debater is one who poisons the well by condescendingly declaring that his opponent is incapable of following the evidence where it leads. If that is not a cheap shot then I don't know what is. Anyway I do not see this as baiting you. But since you choose to see it that way I also can't help it. If you think the bait will hurt then don't bite. -
Well, I was merely stating my opinion, which is based upon reading hundreds of posts from you in your exchanges with numerous opponents. You accused me of mounting an ad hominem, but I think you misunderstand what an ad hominem is. By that point, I'd already decided not to debate you, so I wasn't even interested in challenging your claims. I was merely explaining my position, and I didn't think I had to lie about it.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Well, I was merely stating my opinion, which is based upon reading hundreds of posts from you in your exchanges with numerous opponents. You accused me of mounting an ad hominem, but I think you misunderstand what an ad hominem is. By that point, I'd already decided not to debate you, so I wasn't even interested in challenging your claims. I was merely explaining my position, and I didn't think I had to lie about it.
Discrediting your opponent when you refused to answer his challenge is ad hominem. In any case have you proven that I am unable to follow the evidence? Or is it because I don't agree with you? No one is accusing you of lying, so why be so defensive? -
Again, you really don't understand what an ad hominem is.
In any case, I don't get why you're getting so upset about this. In your very next post, you reflexively hit back at me, and -- far from acting defensive -- I was willing to let it pass. It was only after you repeatedly took unfair advantage of the situation that I decided to call you out.
-
haha... i shall be back after i take a quick looks at those christian sources then =)
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Again, you really don't understand what an ad hominem is.
In any case, I don't get why you're getting so upset about this. In your very next post, you reflexively hit back at me, and -- far from acting defensive -- I was willing to let it pass. It was only after you repeatedly took unfair advantage of the situation that I decided to call you out.
An ad hominem is exactly what you did, instead of answering the question you attacked the person. You couldn't let it pass without giving a personal shot. As for being upset, I certainly am not. In a forum anyone can interject a discussion with a comment. You are just upset that a Christian can stand up to your arguments and take them on. By the way, it was not a hit back but rather reminding you to reflect on what being low class is by your own actions. -
Haha BIC, you have a way of projecting your own thoughts and emotions on others. I also don't know when you developed such a thin skin and lost your sense of humor.
And just by me saying that, you're going to accuse me of another ad hominem, right?
Ok, I'm going to shut up now. You can have the last word, as you usually do.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Haha BIC, you have a way of projecting your own thoughts and emotions on others. I also don't know when you developed such a thin skin and lost your sense of humor.
And just by me saying that, you're going to accuse me of another ad hominem, right?
Ok, I'm going to shut up now. You can have the last word, as you usually do.
So that's your debate with class style? Go for an ad hominem and then get away by saying it was meant as a joke and then call your opponent petty? You just want to have the last attack as usual, right? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
To my mind a low class debater is one who poisons the well by condescendingly declaring that his opponent is incapable of following the evidence where it leads. If that is not a cheap shot then I don't know what is. Anyway I do not see this as baiting you. But since you choose to see it that way I also can't help it. If you think the bait will hurt then don't bite.
oh man, I cant believe what I have read here, low class debater, coming from the mouth of an irrationalist, incoherent and illogical, you call that standard in debating? gee. your skin is really as thick as an elephant, probably 10 times that of an elephant
-
Muse over this Debate is healthy only when one is willing to frist and foremost understand what one is looking for ... or seeing ..... When one is looking for ....(?) one has already and idea or concept of what should be or should not be. As for seeing - one's idea of .... one's concept of will most proably be useless. One can look for ..... can one see for ...? When one's intelligence entangles with one's social identification (with or of ... ???) one has taken on, one's ''brain'' is no longer in tandem with living and within oneself; probability is that it is against one's way of living. Hence the misery and anguish. Till the above is reconciled or acknowledged - one can debate till the cows come home - nothing doing excepting mind games lah (aka selective amnesia or selective deception)