Originally posted by twhiteheadThe theater is rich.
I notice Grampy has gone deaf as usual and is ignoring all responses to his posts. When will we ever see an honest theist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?
The theists herein--- for the most part--- are constantly bombarded with the complaint of the atheists: your faith doesn't do this, doesn't do that, won't answer this, won't answer that. Atheists are perfectly content in not knowing all of the answers, and have no problem with the contradictions created by the knowledge science does offer.
And, quite frankly, most of the atheists are just plain lousy representatives of science, usually with less understanding of it than theists have of their stripes of faith yet they bandy it around like a bully club nonetheless.
What really grinds the gears, however, is the absolute refusal of the atheist to respond to the logic plainly evident in situations where something can be measured, objectified or in any other fashion decided. They read half of every sentence while ignoring the salient half, and then resort to ad hominem attacks or flat out name calling.
The atheist truly couldn't give a rat's ass about spirituality: they come looking for a fight and refuse to leave until they get one.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes as I pointed out a few posts ago the author of Matthew was at best a "disciple" of Matthew's and we are therefore relying on his memory of
The writer of the gospel of Matthew was not an eyewitness.
what Matthew could remember about what Jesus had said.
Of course there are others who say that Matthew is just a rehash of Mark
but we could debate that forever.
.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTheists are not wrong, that's why.
I notice Grampy has gone deaf as usual and is ignoring all responses to his posts. When will we ever see an honest theist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?
What if I had just said, "When will we ever see an honest atheist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?"
But you know, I wouldn't since that doesn't even make sense to me. Not that they are not wrong, it's just that not one will admit it. Because, in their mind, they are not wrong.
And there's your answer. It's not even really a question of honesty/dishonesty, so you can stop your trolling now.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think even you know that is a matter of opinion and conjecture.
I hope you don't think Matthew wrote the gospel?
Written at least 50 years after the crucifixion by a follower of Matthew I
think it probably is closer to hearsay (or heresy) than eye-witness testimony.
We have to rely on Matthew's memory, Matthew's truthfulness, the
author's memory (of Matthew's stories) and the author's truthfulness.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneThat's not, (as far as I can tell) what he's saying.
Theists are not wrong, that's why.
What if I had just said, "When will we ever see an honest atheist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?"
But you know, I wouldn't since that doesn't even make sense to me. Not that they are not wrong, it's just that not one will admit it. Because, in their mind, they are not wrong.
And there's ...[text shortened]... swer. It's not even really a question of honesty/dishonesty, so you can stop your trolling now.
He's not asking when a theist will admit that they were wrong about the existence of god/s.
He's asking when one will admit that they have made a bad/fallacious argument.
As I said in another thread. Pascals Wager is a bad argument, it's logically flawed and
can be shown not to be valid.
However I don't remember any theist using it, having that pointed out, and then admit
that Pascals Wager is indeed a flawed argument.
Admitting that you made a mistake, or a bad argument doesn't necessarily necessitate conceding
the conclusion, just that that particular argument doesn't get you to it.
I have seen people admit they've made a bad argument or got facts wrong.
They were atheists more than theists.
02 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAllow me to introduce myself then, my name is Suzianne, pleased to meet you.
However I don't remember any theist using it, having that pointed out, and then admit that Pascals Wager is indeed a flawed argument.
I do admit that Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument, despite having the misfortune of trying to use it in argument, but as I said elsewhere, I say this for vastly different reasons than you do.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneOk then. That's one.
Allow me to introduce myself then, my name is Suzianne, pleased to meet you.
I do admit that Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument, despite having the misfortune of trying to use it in argument, but as I said elsewhere, I say this for vastly different reasons than you do.
I think that's what he meant.
Now it would be nice if you could admit that your religious beliefs are wrong, but that's
highly unlikely.
But that fact that you can and do admit when you make mistakes, is one of the reasons
you're nicer to debate with than many others.
You don't do it often enough, your argument about free will for example, but nobodys perfect.
😛
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Matthew > Mark, for many reasons.
Yes as I pointed out a few posts ago the author of Matthew was at best a "disciple" of Matthew's and we are therefore relying on his memory of
what Matthew could remember about what Jesus had said.
Of course there are others who say that Matthew is just a rehash of Mark
but we could debate that forever.
.
And is it any wonder that portions of the four Gospels are so similar? Go read about an event in four different newspapers and see how similar they are.
There's a reason for that.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgelol...
Ok then. That's one.
I think that's what he meant.
Now it would be nice if you could admit that your religious beliefs are wrong, but that's
highly unlikely.
But that fact that you can and do admit when you make mistakes, is one of the reasons
you're nicer to debate with than many others.
You don't do it often enough, your argument about free will for example, but nobodys perfect.
😛
I believe that I could have a drink with you and not leave as enemies.
Perhaps a few more years have mellowed me, but I could not have said that back when I was first posting in this forum.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneWell I would hope so.
lol...
I believe that I could have a drink with you and not leave as enemies.
Perhaps a few more years have mellowed me, but I could not have said that back when I was first posting in this forum.
And if you can view me as not an enemy where you might have before then
that's worth celebrating with a drink.
I have some clients who keep trying to convince me that UFO's exist, or that
JFK was killed by the FBI or that 9:11 was an inside job by the government...
And I get on with them fine, and they have come back multiple times and recommended
me to their friends. Even though I disagree with them and they know it.
So I can't be that hard to get along with.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI like the way you say "even you" .. like "even an idiot like you" ...
I think even you know that is a matter of opinion and conjecture.
anyway, I'm no biblical scholar obviously so tell me what is
opinion and conjecture;
here is the post:
Written at least 50 years after the crucifixion by a follower of Matthew I
think it probably is closer to hearsay (or heresy) than eye-witness testimony.
We have to rely on Matthew's memory, Matthew's truthfulness, the
author's memory (of Matthew's stories) and the author's truthfulness.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd the reason they are not exactly the same?
Matthew > Mark, for many reasons.
And is it any wonder that portions of the four Gospels are so similar? Go read about an event in four different newspapers and see how similar they are.
There's a reason for that.
Human fallibility perhaps? Forgetfulness? Elaboration?
On the one hand you are saying Matthew is a factual account and now
conceding that the gospels differ!!!
And out of curiosity why do you think Mark is copied from Matthew and not vice versa?