Originally posted by Proper Knob So you've now gone from claiming i'm 'forcing' you to read this book to now claiming I've employed 'subtle coercion'. Do you want to have a think about what it is you're claiming I'm doing? You seem in a muddle at the moment.
Oh but noobster is not coercion a form of force, i do think that you just might find out that it is, so have you or have you not employed coercion? there is no muddle, the matter is crystal clear.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Christ is a created entity, the bible states as such, Col 1:15, the term angel simply means a sent one Christ himself states that he was sent by God. There is a Biblical reference which states that Christ will come with an archangels voice, the only reference to an archangel in the entire bible, made with reference to Jesus. Now I know you cannot e ...[text shortened]... tion of you and your ignorance and your propaganda and your values and everything you stand for.
No, the Bible does not 'state as such'. You and I have already been over Colossians 1:15 and you were taken to school. Too bad you didn't learn anything from it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Oh but noobster is not coercion a form of force, i do think that you just might find out that it is, so have you or have you not employed coercion? there is no muddle, the matter is crystal clear.
Apologies, you are correct.
Coercion - the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
I'm afraid I don't recall any coercion my end, subtle or not. I fully accept I remind you of the 'book episode' and what you said every now and again. You know me Rob, I like to hold you account for what you have said in the past.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Ii appears to me that you are referring to an algorithm rather than a process whereby logic may be used to evaluate any given premise and subject that premise to falsification. There is no necessity that logic cannot be used to evaluate two false premises that are contradictory for both can be shown to be unsound. In an algorithm this is not strictly so because its self contained and dependent upon its own inherent values.
Your post is incoherent. One can only show that the two premises are contradictory, one cannot determine by logic alone which one is false, in fact all of them can be false but non-contradictory and produce a valid argument. Premises are neither sound nor unsound they are either true or false, it is an argument which is sound or unsound. An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows from the premises and sound if and only if it is both valid and the premises are true. Algorithms are just rules to follow, it is not clear what you mean by self contained. I think that you are on weak ground when you talk about logic.
Originally posted by Proper Knob Apologies, you are correct.
Coercion - the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
I'm afraid I don't recall any coercion my end, subtle or not. I fully accept I remind you of the 'book episode' and what yo ...[text shortened]... y now and again. You know me Rob, I like to hold you account for what you have said in the past.
yes you would put a whole herd of elephants to shame!
Originally posted by Suzianne No, the Bible does not 'state as such'. You and I have already been over Colossians 1:15 and you were taken to school. Too bad you didn't learn anything from it.
taken to school by someone who cannot read or understand the original text, Oh I don't think so! You are so wired to the moon that you exist as a prisoner of your own delusions!
Originally posted by DeepThought Your post is incoherent. One can only show that the two premises are contradictory, one cannot determine by logic alone which one is false, in fact all of them can be false but non-contradictory and produce a valid argument. Premises are neither sound nor unsound they are either true or false, it is an argument which is sound or unsound. An argument i ...[text shortened]... what you mean by self contained. I think that you are on weak ground when you talk about logic.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie taken to school by someone who cannot read or understand the original text, Oh I don't think so! You are so wired to the moon that you exist as a prisoner of your own delusions!
Originally posted by OdBod The religious way of thinking endorses and encourages belief in absolute truths and the abandonment of logic and reason in favor of faith. By legitimising this kind of thinking, religion must bare a large part of the blame for the existence of extremists who use this kind of thinking to further their cause.
You are talking about false religion if you have to throw away logic and reason.
True religion demands reason and logic.
But when transcendental subjects are discussed, mundane logic can be bent.
Originally posted by OdBod You cannot prove the existence of god through logic and reason , it comes down to faith.
I know God exists..............and I do not require faith, just like I know I am alive................so I dont need faith to know that.
Faith is for people who don't know if God is real.
For myself God is the most real and the most true.
God is proven...................because an honest man simply has to open his eyes and observe the wonder of the world and the wonder of life.......(this is the proof.)
But dishonest persons cannot acknowledge this proof.
And this proof is the MOST LOGICAL as well.
Observing the wonder of life and not acknowledging God behind everything is (ILLOGICAL).....................and dishonest.
Originally posted by Dasa You are talking about false religion if you have to throw away logic and reason.
True religion demands reason and logic.
But when transcendental subjects are discussed, mundane logic can be bent.
There are two ways of reading your last sentence. "mundane logic can be bent" can either mean "mundane logic is inadequate" or "mundane logic can be deformed (by the theologian)". If you mean the former then I think it is more a matter of the difficulty in working out sensible premises. If the latter then I'm suspicious.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie You are correct you have taught me nothing I didn't know already. You might be good at making fairy cakes but you are no theologian.
"na na na, I'm rubber and you're glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
Yes, please give us more of these wonderfully adult conversations.
18 Mar '15 21:441 edit
Religion's responsibility.
Back to Top