Originally posted by Agergthis is not strictly true dear Agers, i have given you a formula in the past,
I think being strict about definitions is important; If I was to make a statement X about cars and someone else made a statement Y about lorries, it would be somewhat confusing if another person made a statement Z about motorbikes invoking X and Y simply because cars, bikes, and lorries are all types of vehicles. The same is true with religious terminology - i ...[text shortened]... ore objectively *valid* evidence for the truth of your deity than a myriad of others.
wisdom is proved righteous by its works, this works for all religions, by looking at the
outworking of the application of said religious principles, one can readily discern
whether they contain wisdom or not, wisdom being the application of knowledge.
definition of terms is also important, but not to form the main basis of ones
arguments, for what one gets is simply an argument over definition of terms and
the original premise is forgotten or ignored.
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewisdom is proved righteous by its works, this works for all religions, by looking at the
this is not strictly true dear Agers, i have given you a formula in the past,
wisdom is proved righteous by its works, this works for all religions, by looking at the
outworking of the application of said religious principles, one can readily discern
whether they contain wisdom or not, wisdom being the application of knowledge.
definition o ...[text shortened]... simply an argument over definition of terms and
the original premise is forgotten or ignored.
outworking of the application of said religious principles, one can readily discern
whether they contain wisdom or not, wisdom being the application of knowledge.
This is as good an example of the requirement for precision as any other.
My assertion was that no religion has any more objective and valid evidence for it's veracity than any others (meaning the evidence has to be empirically or logically sound and be independent of bias or faith). Your response is that "wisdom is proved righteous by its works..." Now it may well be true that there is wisdom in following *some* of the teachings in your Bible but that is not admissible evidence for the god you believe in. Whether following your religion over any other benefits society greater has little bearing on whether your notion of god actually exists. Indeed if I were to argue 'bad God' exists then your argument here would work against you (since bad God doesn't approve of people doing nice things for others and so the wisdom of your 'holy book' would suggest you are following a false religion).
Furthermore what stops such wisdom from pointing merely to a wise human author of your Bible as opposed to some existent God? Do you equate wisdom with valid evidence?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll excellent, robust, and contrasting contributors to this community, which is better off for their demonstrated interest in spirituality and their diverse approaches. Like RJHinds, you seek to silence people like these?
twhitehead -
Agers -
sonhouse -
thinkofone -
Originally posted by FMFmuhaha, i dont want them silenced, i want them to become spiritual!
All excellent, robust, and contrasting contributors to this community, which is better off for their demonstrated interest in spirituality and their diverse approaches. Like RJHinds, you seek to silence people like these?
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergbut this is not the crux of your argument dear Agers, for you are fond of quoting, say
[b]wisdom is proved righteous by its works, this works for all religions, by looking at the
outworking of the application of said religious principles, one can readily discern
whether they contain wisdom or not, wisdom being the application of knowledge.
This is as good an example of the requirement for precision as any other.
My assertion was that of your Bible as opposed to some existent God? Do you equate wisdom with valid evidence?[/b]
the Koran, therefore if the Koran is equally as valid as the Bible you should also be
able to point out some principle, the application of which tends towards wisdom. Thus
proof rests not upon me, but you, for i have a theory, an equation and principles which i can apply, you have not.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat so called "wisdom" may be found in any holy book has no bearing on whether the God it represents exists or not - it's a red herring argument. Indeed to spare myself the time of searching the Qu-ran for (I expect) many such principles you seek, I could appeal to my Gospel of the Flying spaghetti monster (got a copy of it sitting on my table here) and argue that the application of *it's* principles leads towards wisdom.
but this is not the crux of your argument dear Agers, for you are fond of quoting, say
the Koran, therefore if the Koran is equally as valid as the Bible you should also be
able to point out some principle, the application of which tends towards wisdom. Thus
proof rests not upon me, but you, for i have a theory, an equation and principles which i can apply, you have not.
Would that be sufficient to convince you the FSM exists?
Originally posted by Agergyes it would, so please, do me the honour of applying the formula to your religion, if you please.
What so called "wisdom" may be found in any holy book has no bearing on whether the God it represents exists or not - it's a red herring argument. Indeed to spare myself the time of searching the Qu-ran for (I expect) many such principles you seek, I could appeal to my Gospel of the Flying spaghetti monster (got a copy of it sitting on my table here) and argue ...[text shortened]... principles leads towards wisdom.
Would that be sufficient to convince you the FSM exists?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTaken from the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (page 99, without capitalising every word since I'm too lazy)
yes it would, so please, do me the honour of applying the formula to your religion, if you please.
The eight "I'd really rather you didn'ts":
.
.
.
3) I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well just play nice okay? oh, and get this into your thick heads: Woman = person. Man = person. Samey-samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and i'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia
Clearly playing nice is for the betterment of ones own (and others) well being; ergo the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists!
Lifted from a post I made on this very topic in Thread 135780 (page 4)
Originally posted by Agergand why is that the course of wisdom?
Taken from the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (page 99, without capitalising every word since I'm too lazy)
The eight "I'd really rather you didn'ts":
.
.
.
3) I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well just play nice okay? oh, and get this into your thick heads: Woman = pe ...[text shortened]... sts!
Lifted from a post I made on this very topic in Thread 135780
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell let's suppose it isn't; i.e. not playing nice is a better `course of wisdom' than playing nice. Then we should all go round screwing people over for our own amusement, personal gain, to pass the time etc... The world would descend into chaos and social cohesion would break down. The net result being a disadvantage to ourselves (in a collective sense - some people are better at giving people the shaft than receiving it). Doing that which disadvantages us is not a wise course of action --- contradicts not playing nice is a better `course of wisdom' than playing nice.
and why is that the course of wisdom?
Ergo the FSM exists.
Originally posted by RJHindsPersonally, I value FMF's contributions. If you wish to discuss your perception of spirituality and exclude others, I would suggest that a public forum is not the right place.
I wish you would express your opinions on some
othe forum and leave the Sprituality Forum to those
that want to discuss spiritual things. Sop harassing us.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis forum is about spirituality, not christianity. I daresay all you christians could get a club going where you could discuss your various beliefs in private if you wanted.
that is not whart RJ Hind has stated, what he has stated is that those who are intent
on introducing non spirituality should desist from harrasing those that do.
twhitehead - non spirituality, harasses theist constantly with non spirituality and
weak semantic arguments about definitions of terms.
Agers - introduces the concepts of other ...[text shortened]... ation of scripture which
foments a self righteous attitude, condemns Christians at every point
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatour beliefs are meant to be discussed in public, we are not in the habit of hiding our
This forum is about spirituality, not christianity. I daresay all you christians could get a club going where you could discuss your various beliefs in private if you wanted.
light away, for as the Christ himself states, 'people light a lamp and set it, not under
the measuring basket, but upon the lampstand, and it shines upon all those in the
house.' I do not mind discussing other faiths, other points of view, but non spirituality
is just that and those who are intent in propagating it need to be weeded out!
Originally posted by Agergthats not really an answer Agers my son, we use judgement and discernment every
Well let's suppose it isn't; i.e. not playing nice is a better `course of wisdom' than playing nice. Then we should all go round screwing people over for our own amusement, personal gain, to pass the time etc... The world would descend into chaos and social cohesion would break down. The net result being a disadvantage to ourselves (in a collective sense - som ...[text shortened]... not playing nice is a better `course of wisdom' than playing nice.
Ergo the FSM exists.
day, yet the spaghetti monster says that its wrong, hardly the course of wisdom , is it?
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see no evidence in the Gospel that the FSM says using judgement and discernment is wrong. Please point out where this is stated or where you *think* it is implied. Moreover, the entire argument, as a parody of a similar argument, is flawed from the very start.
thats not really an answer Agers my son, we use judgement and discernment every
day, yet the spaghetti monster says that its wrong, hardly the course of wisdom , is it?
Don't blame me blame the guy who first gave it...what was his name?...hmmm....lemme try and recall who put forward the idea that wisdom contained in a holy book is evidence for the deity said book represents.....