I’m the 2nd incarnation of Jesus Christ.

And back to the argument from ignorance debate. How amusing. Thanks, man.

Do you mean arguing with people that I can swat like intellectual flies? Or do you mean that the Argument from Reason is like Argument from Non-belief which is enough like the argument from ignorance about why God doesn’t exist?

What I mean is this: Ultimately, this issue always come back to the burden of proof, which you know full well. It’s the Christian on one side saying, “I experience God, but you won’t believe me because I can’t give you a measurement for it.” And it’s the secularist on the other saying, “I won’t believe what I don’t have proof for.” The debate ultimately, comes to this. That amuses me.

One other quick question: Do you think that this comes down to definitions? It seems to me that it does. If you get to choose the usages for terms, it’s not difficult to choose terms that are convenient to describe your view. Christians attempt to use secular temrs to describe something unsecular. Where is the victory in forcing people to use your terms before you’ll hear them?

I think it comes to: A theist having a feeling, which he attributes to be some version of some faith. He then tries to tell me that he has these feelings and attributes them to the correct faith, and that every other person of a different faith has misinterpreted his or her own feelings. Then says, “So believe me and what I think my feelings say about reality.”

Fair enough. What would you do if someone wasn’t trying to proselytize to you, to try to get you to convert, but simply wanted to understand your viewpoint? Would you force them to adopt your terms before you’d take them seriously? Would you force them to grovel before your logic? What if this same person only wanted to be free to believe what they choose and express that belief?

“What would you do if someone wasn’t trying to proselytize, but wanted to understand your viewpoint?” I would explain it. I would say that I “believe” in claims roughly in proportion to the amount of evidence/probability that I have for the claim. For the most part, everyone pretty much agrees on everyday things. So I’d say that we have common enough ground to begin talking.

“Would you force them to grovel before your logic?” I don’t have ownership of logic…but no, they don’t have to follow logic at all. “What if this same person only wanted to be free to believe what they choose and express that belief?” A person has the right (in my view) to believe and express whatever belief they want – they don’t have the right to be taken seriously.

“they don’t have the right to be taken seriously.” They have to earn that.

Again, thanks for answering my questions. I think that’s the key. Everyone respecting everyone else’s right to choose what they will take seriously and what they will not. Ironically, I know Christians who would refuse to take you seriously on the basis of your beliefs. I don’t happen to be one of them, but I do know them. The whole banter back and forth amuses me, because it always the same.

Basically my taken seriously bit is this: So how do Christians evaluate claims? In proportion to evidence? If that evidence is based on personal experience of something not “everyday”; do they mind if others do the same? If they do, I have a problem. If they don’t, I don’t have a problem taking them seriously at least.

Always interesting 🙂 Loved the title, by the way. You confirmed what I always suspected 😉

I can’t speak for Christendom, but I can tell you how it is for me. I evaluate 99% of the claims made by the grid I’ve got on my diary. (there is a link to it on my ‘index’ entry) For that other 1%, the metaphysical part of it, I simply do not automatically discount what I don’t have evidence for. I leave room for the unexplained, and ascribe it to a God I challenged to reveal himself years ago.

A number of unexplainable things happened after my challenge, and I was left with a dilemma: how do I fit this in my grid–the empirical, rational explanation was insufficient. So I did the unthinkable, and tested faith. And I got more than I bargained for. The more I looked around, the more I realized there were so many things I couldn’t explain that were related. I went to various holy texts

and tried to sort what I’d encountered through the worldviews of the different religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Christianity made the most sense to me. It gave me the best explanation, and it didn’t require only blind faith in a pantheon of anthropomorphic Gods. It best fit my need to explain what I couldn’t explain. Since then, the God domain of my life has grown, but I keep the grid.

Quite frankly, I see no reason why I should force people to see things as I do. I believe in expressing my view in the marketplace of ideas, but I don’t believe in “indoctrination or burn” tactics. I believe I’m right. People are allowed to believe of my beliefs what they wish. My belief structure is such that I believe God gave people choice. If they don’t want Him, in that view, they aren’t

required to take on a doctrine simply because I do. Quite frankly discussions of the metaphysical intrigue me, and I’d be bored if this debate wasn’t constantly being manifested at various places in my own life, and even within myself. I doubt at times…it’s part of the process. I’d be some kind of hypocrite if I didn’t allow others to do the same, however long the term of the doubting.

Only the second incarnation of Christ, huh? I’m the third. Why should people settle for you, oh Obsolete One?

Can I be the Incarnation of Christ’s Dog if I promise not to piss on the Holy Carpet?

f**k signs, can I have a million bucks?

thats fucking funny about you being the second coming 🙂

that was me btw

i’m not using s’s cat in the quantum mechanics situation, as it was intended for. i am using it to prove my point ~

And what are the odds that God exists? How well do you know your enemy? ~my2brownii

RYN: is that agreed upon by experts? where? or just your opinion? ~

You can’t seem to sight your references. You really think you are perfect? Now you are arguing for the sake of argument -my2brownii

RYN: Thanks for the tip man, now that i know its there i’ll have to explore around the site some. appreciate it peace out

I believe in God. ‘Nuff said. Go me.

Goodness, I never knew you stayed in Jester!! When was this and why? I’m sorry; no one should ever have to stay here unless they are attending the illustrious University of Texas at Austin. Or something. Have a God-free day!!

two hands working does more than a thousand clasped in prayer. Two thousand hands working together is meaningless if two hands are not clasped together in prayer to God. Jesus said, “I am the vine and you are the branches. Apart from Me you can do nothing…”

im sorry, your reply to my note seems a little silly. if reason cannot say whether there is a God or not, but it can say whether we should believe in Him or not, then you are suggesting that there is a possibility that He exists, yet we should not believe in Him. but if He exists, we have every reason to believe in Him, if only because He does, in fact, exist.

“Innocent until proven guilty?” Like Saddam H and the WMD which most believed in? What is proved is that it is easier to be part of the mob than to take the time to question our own beliefs. Thank you for being you and bringing others to question and think. As long as we keep reading the seeds will be planted for seeking and learning. Rule #1 is when it riles you then it has found the hole in

When it riles you or upsets you then it has found the hole in your belief. The place where in any arguement you have hidden the question deep within and are unwilling to work on the temple of self. So of course we try to push others to believe so we may gain strength in our own beliefs.