@Divegeester

Originally posted by josephw to Ghost of a Duke
By the way, is this an admission that you don't know for certain whether an absolute universal standard of morality exists or not, and that because you don't that that's better than believing one does?

He can't pretend he believes one exists and he can't choose to believe one exists if he finds the notion unbelievable. His stance is a wholly honest one. In all honesty, do you simply not comprehend/accept that this is so?

edit: 2 x "can't"

Originally posted by josephw
What?

...that you behave like Dasa when you represent your beliefs. I am not saying your beliefs are the same as his. He used to make assertions, dismiss disagreement, and use a capital T for truth. Have you forgotten how he behaved? Have you forgotten how ineffective his assertions and his dismissals of disagreement, and his use of a capital T for truth were?

Originally posted by FMF
He can't pretend he believes one exists and he can choose to believe one exists if he finds the notion unbelievable. His stance is a wholly honest one. In all honesty, do you simply not comprehend/accept that this is so?

...and he can choose to believe one exists if he finds the notion unbelievable."

Do you mean he can't choose to believe if he finds it unbelievable?

You keep missing the point. The original idea was whether it's better to admit one doesn't know an answer, than to believe a false answer. To which I said neither is better, both are a fail.

I understand why you take exception to that line of reasoning, but in doing so you minimize the nature of the question by comparing it to a simple math problem.

The question, which seems to keep eluding the discussion, is whether or not an absolute standard of morality exists. One can say they don't know, which is honest enough, but to state that it doesn't exist defies rational thought because the knowledge of such a standard isn't contingent on self determination.

One simply can't know one way or the other whether an absolute standard of morality exists in and of themselves. Such knowledge cannot be had by purely human reasoning.

Originally posted by FMF
...that you behave like Dasa when you represent your beliefs. I am not saying your beliefs are the same as his. He used to make assertions, dismiss disagreement, and use a capital T for truth. Have you forgotten how he behaved? Have you forgotten how ineffective his assertions and his dismissals of disagreement, and his use of a capital T for truth were?

I said "what" to "you either do understand it or do you do understand it."

The rest of your post above is supercilious.

Originally posted by josephw
You keep missing the point. The original idea was whether it's better to admit one doesn't know an answer, than to believe a false answer. To which I said neither is better, both are a fail.

It's a choice. Saying both "fail" is a dodge. You were given an example. It's obviously better to admit you do not know than to just insist you are right when you may be wrong. You can admit this without jeopardizing or downplaying your faith in Jesus. Ghost of a Duke is talking about his stance which is this: he doesn't believe the stuff you believe. You've made a bit of a fool of yourself. You dealt with it like Dasa would have.

Originally posted by josephw
I understand why you take exception to that line of reasoning, but in doing so you minimize the nature of the question by comparing it to a simple math problem.

Neither I nor Ghost of a Duke have done any such thing.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you mean he can't choose to believe if he finds it unbelievable?

That's right. [Fixed.] Nobody can with supernatural things. I think it's psychologically bogus to suggest they can. And I think Christians like yourself rely on this bogus psychology far to much. If you think you can choose to believe in something that you find it unbelievable, give me an example from your everyday life; or go and be a Muslim for a month and demonstrate that you can somehow choose to believe something you do not believe.

Originally posted by josephw
The question, which seems to keep eluding the discussion, is whether or not an absolute standard of morality exists. One can say they don't know, which is honest enough, but to state that it doesn't exist defies rational thought because the knowledge of such a standard isn't contingent on self determination.

This is word salad. It's gobbledegook for 'jospehw believes something to be true and he's very very very certain about it, so much so, if anyone disagrees with him then he starts talking about dissenters' lack of "rational thought"....' yawn yawn yawn.

Originally posted by josephw
One simply can't know one way or the other whether an absolute standard of morality exists in and of themselves.

And Ghost of a Duke has said it's better to admit to not knowing than to go around acting as if one is certain about something-anything-whatever-as-long-as-it's-something.

Originally posted by FMF
It's a choice. Saying both "fail" is a dodge. You were given an example. It's obviously better to admit you do not know than to just insist you are right when you may be wrong. You can admit this without jeopardizing or downplaying your faith in Jesus. Ghost of a Duke is talking about his stance which is this: he doesn't believe the stuff you believe. You've made a bit of a fool of yourself. You dealt with it like Dasa would have.

This isn't a test. If it were then both not knowing the answer and giving a false answer are both fails.

You keep failing to understand the question, much less the answer.

Originally posted by FMF
Neither I nor Ghost of a Duke have done any such thing.

Then get back on topic.

Originally posted by josephw
You keep failing to understand the question, much less the answer.

Nonsense. Nobody actually knows how life originated, for instance. You claim you do. And I admit I don't. If you did know, you would be able to explain it to everybody, including me, and then everybody would know. But all you have is your faith. And good for you. But the fact remains, mankind does not know how it originated, and while religions have offered various narratives and conjectures, we just don't know for sure.

Originally posted by FMF
That's right. [Fixed.] Nobody can with supernatural things. I think it's psychologically bogus to suggest they can. And I think Christians like yourself rely on this bogus psychology far to much. If you think you can choose to believe in something that you find it unbelievable, give me an example from your everyday life; or go and be a Muslim for a month and demonstrate that you can somehow choose to believe something you do not believe.

"Nobody can with supernatural things."

There you go again making a statement about "things" supernatural without belief or knowledge.

"...demonstrate that you can somehow choose to believe something you do not believe."

That statement is illogical. Who on earth believes one can choose to believe what they do not believe?

No one to my knowledge is suggesting any such thing except you, which demonstrates how irrational your argument really is. You just keep saying what you think without really understanding why you think it.

Your contentions are merely the bogus arrangement of words without reason.

Originally posted by josephw
Who on earth believes one can choose to believe what they do not believe?

Christians on this forum have been insisting for as long as I have been here that "salvation" is a choice: if you choose to believe in Jesus you shall be "saved" etc. It's nonsense. No one can choose to believe in Jesus if they find it all unbelievable. In other words, it's not "a choice".

Originally posted by josephw
Who on earth believes one can choose to believe what they do not believe? No one to my knowledge is suggesting any such thing except you...

sonship and Grampy Bobby have been asserting to non-believers that it's possible to choose to believe in Jesus for years and years. I never once heard you tackle them on it.