traders who are deeply religious

[stu]

Quote from rcj:

................................................................................

Damn!!!! Ahh ha ha .... choke...choke ... Gufawhh ...!!!

Too good!! ... Stu, hope you dont mind if I send a copy
of this to other ppl.

... rj

no problemo rj but be warned, the dudes at ma local baptist church already got hold and are bashin it out large already. They saw the words pray and hell so turned it Gospel.

They think rcj be the "talkin in tongues" for a second cummin ( christ, jesus and resurrected, all mixed up or summink).

rj ... you be famous soon man.

 

[trainr]

Regarding the "debate" with stu:

1. There are no rules for the debate
2. Stu can say anything means anything, and in the context of the rule-less environment, it is allowed
3. Stu makes a lot of meaningless statements that are allowed, because there are no rules.
4. I supplied a proof that consisted of a series of logical statements with a conclusion derived therefrom.
5. Stu tried to rebut the statements. He failed, from logic, but succeeded from what the rules allow, as there are none.
6. I say that means the original logic stands; he says it means I haven’t offered proof until he accepts it.
7. Based on #6, there is no way I can prove anything, because he can always say the proof wasn’t sufficient. It’s a meaningless statement that has been allowed to stand, since meaning – as he’s demonstrated – is irrelevant.
8. In this environment, my proof is equally meaningful to his rebuttal, or equally meaningless.
9. I suggest some rules be established.
10. Namely, if a proof is offered, it must be either a series of logical statements that are internally consistent leading to a reasonable conclusion; or it must be evidential, also leading to, or supporting, a reasonable conclusion.
11. Whatever proof offered is considered good unless it can be shown to be unreasonable by reason of logic (such as a conclusion not supported by the assumptions) or invalidated by any other known rule of evidence. This is what the preponderance of the evidence means; each party has a position to create and defend.
12. So far, Stu has attempted to require me to have a position to create and defend; and to do so beyond a shadow of a doubt. I never agreed to that rigorous a requirement, but instead have been adhering to the preponderance of the evidence rules as stated here.
13. With the preponderance of the evidence, stu has had no position or argument. He has, however, taken potshots at the evidence I’ve presented, without hitting anything.
14. Upon being shown he has no rebuttal, his response has been that he is not required to rebut; that I am required, however, to prove to his satisfaction (which for some strange reason has never been met, if you can imagine that).

If stu agrees to the rules presented in numbers 10 and 11, I’d like to proceed. If not, any argument is meaningless, including stu’s.

I think this is a reasonable request and look forward to stu disallowing it.

 

[trainr]

Quote from stu:

But before you can begin adopting an honest approach to debate, you will have to stop being deceitful.

"You can't think" ... are your words.

... and "Your religion won't let you think" are your words.

Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude from your statement that the "you" therein:
1. can't think; and,
2. has a bad religion (whatever that means)
?
By pointing this out, I'm not changing the words, nor being dishonest; I'm pointing out what everyone else sees and you deny, the obvious meaning of the words themselves.

And, since you have no supportive argument of that nature, doesn't that mean you're just making personal attacks? Doesn't an attack on my church -- of which you're again ignorant -- constitute an attack on its members, including me?

And, since you are clearly making personal attacks, doesn't that mean you don't have a clue in the current argument? You're forced into scrambling for the popular vote versus making sense.

Included in your statement are a number of clearly implied dishonest assumptions and at least one ad hominem attack, as you of course are aware. And somehow that makes me deceitful? Hmm... equivalent to the rest of your "logic."

And, why are we having this discussion? Why aren't YOU being honest and admitting ad hominem, instead of trying to turn it around on me?

I think everyone reading knows the answer to that one.

Also, whatever happened to your explanation of how God is required to not-exist in order to create the universe? Oh, that's right; you said I'd have to stop being deceitful before you would *dare* to trot it out. I can see why you would not want to introduce an argument into a controversial environment such as a public forum ... oops, I meant with a deceitful person.

So, as long as you *claim* I'm deceitful, you have no requirement to prove your statement.

Gee, I wonder how long you'll make that claim.

How convenient for you!

 

[stu]

I'd just like to say, the sun is shining the sky is so blue, it's a beautiful day and life is wonderful. I hope it can be the same for everyone Happiness and good trading to all .
_________________________

Quote fron trainr

1. There are no rules for the debate
Agreed, there are no rules for debate in ET chit chat except perhaps for Terms of Use.

2. Stu can say anything means anything, and in the context of the rule-less environment, it is allowed
Not in my personal environment it isn't.. Integrity in debate is important to me.

3. Stu makes a lot of meaningless statements that are allowed, because there are no rules.
They may be meaningless to you. Much of what you say is deceitful and meaningless to me. Honest debate could overcome both those detriments.

4. I supplied a proof that consisted of a series of logical statements with a conclusion derived therefrom.
"A proof" to you maybe, but under the most basic scrutiny, your "proof" collapsed and was found to be nowhere near anything likened to proof.

5. Stu tried to rebut the statements. He failed, from logic, but succeeded from what the rules allow, as there are none.
The evidence is in this thread for anyone who cares to check. Your statements are so faulty, they often rebut themselves.

6. I say that means the original logic stands; he says it means I haven’t offered proof until he accepts it.
I say that you had no logic to start with. The record shows the only one requiring proof for anything is you.

7. Based on #6, there is no way I can prove anything, because he can always say the proof wasn’t sufficient. It’s a meaningless statement that has been allowed to stand, since meaning – as he’s demonstrated – is irrelevant.
I have not required proof. Anywhere. I once used your own requirement of proof to show you how your own requirement of proof was illogical.

8. In this environment, my proof is equally meaningful to his rebuttal, or equally meaningless.
No, your proof is simply missing. It is your statements which are meaningless as they often contradict themselves

9. I suggest some rules be established.
Ok, but not the rules which you don't adhere to then insist everyone else must do.

10. Namely, if a proof is offered, it must be either a series of logical statements that are internally consistent leading to a reasonable conclusion; or it must be evidential, also leading to, or supporting, a reasonable conclusion.
The problem is so far, non of the "proofs" you have offered fit that rule . You simply declare your statements are logical proofs .When I explain why they are obviously not, you simply decide to ignore the fact and demand it is I who is not being logical..

11. Whatever proof offered is considered good unless it can be shown to be unreasonable by reason of logic (such as a conclusion not supported by the assumptions) or invalidated by any other known rule of evidence. This is what the preponderance of the evidence means; each party has a position to create and defend.
I think you are going to have a hard job going down that route. From what I have seen in this thread, you consider your proof only need be what your pre-conclusion states it is.

12. So far, Stu has attempted to require me to have a position to create and defend; and to do so beyond a shadow of a doubt. I never agreed to that rigorous a requirement, but instead have been adhering to the preponderance of the evidence rules as stated here.
Once again trainr, the record shows it was YOU who set down that requirement. The position was, you required "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that God does not exist. Now look what you say in your own rule above.." I never agreed to that rigorous a requirement". But you did agree with yourself obviously, that everyone else has to agree to it. Making rules to break yourself whilst insisting no one else can break them, is not worth the cyber space the rule is written in.

13. With the preponderance of the evidence, stu has had no position or argument. He has, however, taken potshots at the evidence I’ve presented, without hitting anything.
Your personal and I would guess, emotional response. The thread is evidence enough. People who bother to actually read it will make their own minds up on that.

14. Upon being shown he has no rebuttal, his response has been that he is not required to rebut; that I am required, however, to prove to his satisfaction (which for some strange reason has never been met, if you can imagine that).
That is the usual and expected head stand I often see a religious apologetc trying to accomplish , but as I say, the great thing about the record is, the record shows.

 

[stu]

Quote from trainr:

Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude from your statement that the "you" therein:
1. can't think; and,
2. has a bad religion (whatever that means)

No. and you have now gone and tripped up over your own words.


Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude from your statement that the "your" therein:
1. isn't reasonable; and,
2. concludes badly (whatever that means)

See? No? .. oh go on... give it a real try.

Now if your point above in your quote stands, by it, you have actually comitted the offence I did not, but which you are trying to accuse me of. But guess what. That is not what you meant is it? Didn't you mean....

Wouldn't any person acting reasonably conclude from your statement that the "you" therein:...

"Your religion won't let you think" is a comment about your religion and not ad hominem. Otherwise your own... "Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude " is ad hominem. Which it is not.


Problem is trainr as I see things, it is mostly your own "logical" statements which logically destroy themselves. But rather than deal directly with things and face them, you will deliberately ignore the fact that what you have said does not stand up.
You are so hooked up by your overarching religious self-important standpoint, you try to defend it at all and any cost, even to the extremes you show with all this semantic.
You just can't deal with being incorrect.
There was no ad hominem, no personal attack. You just want there to be one so that you can play the old persecuted religious warrior card. It is deceitful. But let me explain... It doesn't work.

Quote from trainr:

... and "Your religion won't let you think" are your words.

Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude from your statement that the "you" therein:
1. can't think; and,
2. has a bad religion (whatever that means)
?
By pointing this out, I'm not changing the words, nor being dishonest; I'm pointing out what everyone else sees and you deny, the obvious meaning of the words themselves.
And, since you have no supportive argument of that nature, doesn't that mean you're just making personal attacks? Doesn't an attack on my church -- of which you're again ignorant -- constitute an attack on its members, including me?
And, since you are clearly making personal attacks, doesn't that mean you don't have a clue in the current argument? You're forced into scrambling for the popular vote versus making sense.
Included in your statement are a number of clearly implied dishonest assumptions and at least one ad hominem attack, as you of course are aware. And somehow that makes me deceitful? Hmm... equivalent to the rest of your "logic."
And, why are we having this discussion? Why aren't YOU being honest and admitting ad hominem, instead of trying to turn it around on me?
I think everyone reading knows the answer to that one.
Also, whatever happened to your explanation of how God is required to not-exist in order to create the universe? Oh, that's right; you said I'd have to stop being deceitful before you would *dare* to trot it out. I can see why you would not want to introduce an argument into a controversial environment such as a public forum ... oops, I meant with a deceitful person.
So, as long as you *claim* I'm deceitful, you have no requirement to prove your statement.
Gee, I wonder how long you'll make that claim.
How convenient for you! [

 

[JohnnyK]

The following was recently posted by an old friend of mine. He is deeply religious. That's like an understatement. I have invited him here to, er, teach us more about the truth. But he won't. He won't engage a dialogue in the open market. Instead, he banned me from being able to post comments in his blog. So I'm bringing his comments here for what they are, pure entertainment.

If anyone finds this entertaining, there's more where it came from.

Quote from Green Flash:

Life from the inside (Part 2)
The Catholic Church is not a human institution. It is a divine institution with human members.

This is because it was founded by a divine Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ. And the life (animating principle) of the Church is also a divine Person. The New Testament refers to the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23, 4:12; Col 1:24). Christ died for us all on the hill of Calvary at one moment in history (approximately 1,975 years ago), but rose again from the dead less than 48 hours later, never to die again. Therefore, the Body of Christ today is a living Body. The life principle (soul) of the living Body of Christ, the Church, is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, originally manifested in the infant Church on Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2), ten days after Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1:8-9).

For this reason, membership in the Catholic Church cannot be compared to membership in any merely human institution, such as a club or other fraternal, social or religious organization. Each of these was founded by a human being, even the various Protestant churches. (This also explains why the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed—despite the best efforts of both its enemies and its members. It is maintained in existence through time, not by human effort or ingenuity, but purely by the power of God to be Christ’s presence in the world until He returns at the end of time.)

It is more like membership in a family than in some other human institution. While it is possible for a non-member to study the principles and tenets of an organization in order to understand why it exists and what it’s all about, the same cannot be said of a family. The only way to thoroughly understand and appreciate a family is to join it.

I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve heard stories by former Protestants who, following the path of truth, heeded the unmistakable call of God to find His “One True Church,” the original Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Typically, they’d start in one of the Protestant denominations (the church of their youth) and over time come to realize that there were certain elements among the traditions or teachings of their church that didn’t quite square with the Biblical principles they’d been taught, or certain passages in the New Testament that made absolutely no sense given their church’s standard interpretation. So they left it and “went shopping” for another church that made more sense.

Well, after years (or even decades) of searching around the denominations, finding elements of Christian life and truth in each one, yet also finding each one somehow seriously flawed, eventually they would find they had run out of options. They realize that the fullness of the Christian life and Christian truth was not to be found among the Protestant denominations.

At this point, they often report breaking out in a cold sweat: “No, no, NO!!! (they would typically pray), NOT the ‘Whore of Babylon’—not the Catholic church!! Please, God, Noooo! Anything but THAT!!”

So they might try one of the Eastern Orthodox churches instead, recognizing their valid priesthood and the validity of their sacraments (beyond Baptism and Matrimony which were already valid in Protestantism, not requiring priestly ordination). This will do, they think. “I can have all the biblical sacraments, and not have to join the Catholic church. Whew! Far out!”

But after a while the nagging thoughts come back and they sense that this too is only a detour, not their final destination. This realization always centers in some way on the question of authority, especially of the Petrine office, the principle of visible unity in the Church Jesus established on earth (Matt 16:17-19; Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15-17).

So, in time, they find themselves on the threshold of the Catholic Church.

There is a time (sometimes a long time) of confusion and indecision, not unlike the period of time when a man is making up his mind to ask the woman he loves if she will consent to become his wife. In both situations, such a one realizes that he is on the verge of a life-changing moment—a defining moment in his existence as a person. Joining the Catholic Church (he realizes) is most definitely not like joining the Lutherans or the Baptists. It really is more like getting married. Jesus is the biblical Bridegroom (Matt 9:15, etc.) and the Church is his Bride.

Once they are finally received into full communion with the Church however—they already enjoyed an imperfect, partial communion within their Protestant denominations by virtue of their baptism—they are invariably flooded almost immediately with the deep, mystical and joyful sense that they are finally home. They realize now that they could never be happy anywhere else, and wonder why they took so long to find the ONE place they were meant to be all along!

So just as it is impossible for an “outsider” to perfectly understand a human family, the same holds for the family of God, the Catholic Church.

 

[rcj]

Maybe...this is the blog ???


http://www.blogger.com/profile/2899623

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from JohnnyK:

The following was recently posted by an old friend of mine. He is deeply religious. That's like an understatement. I have invited him here to, er, teach us more about the truth. But he won't. He won't engage a dialogue in the open market. Instead, he banned me from being able to post comments in his blog. So I'm bringing his comments here for what they are, pure entertainment.

If anyone finds this entertaining, there's more where it came from.

well, here is what the baptists\fundies think about the catholics. this was published in a local paper by a church leader:


"One out of every four people in America belongs to the largest cult in the world – and that cult is the Roman Catholic Church. Not knowing the righteous that comes from God, Roman Catholics have sought to establish their own, rejecting the finished work on the cross. Oh, for just one Pastor in the region to sound the alarm. Read the papers. Roman Catholics are dying every day and will spend an eternity in the lake of fire because they have followed a way that seems right to them -- but in the end it leads to death. Are you the Pastor who will sound the alarm?"

 

[mschey]

Quote from vhehn:

well, here is what the baptists\fundies think about the catholics. this was published in a local paper by a church leader:


"One out of every four people in America belongs to the largest cult in the world – and that cult is the Roman Catholic Church. Not knowing the righteous that comes from God, Roman Catholics have sought to establish their own, rejecting the finished work on the cross. Oh, for just one Pastor in the region to sound the alarm. Read the papers. Roman Catholics are dying every day and will spend an eternity in the lake of fire because they have followed a way that seems right to them -- but in the end it leads to death. Are you the Pastor who will sound the alarm?"

vhehn.....I noticed you are the master of quoting other people....I'm wondering....do you have any original thoughts of your own to share?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from mschey:

vhehn.....I noticed you are the master of quoting other people....I'm wondering....do you have any original thoughts of your own to share?

sure. what would you like to ask about? make the question specific. by the way thanks for the compliment. it took years to become a master.