Just dropping by... I see that you've not been active for 2 weeks now. I'm sorry to see a man of reason quit participating in the forums.

If you're Christian I invite you to join the MT-Christian Fellowship.

It seems that you have worn yourself out arguing with the likes of Plunkies and some other people. My advice is not to speak to them, as they detest all understanding but their own.

"Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." - Proverbs 9:8

"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words." - Proverbs 23:9

Yay Kellyo was back! *an hour ago* Hello! ^_^

merged: 06-03-2006 ~ 04:38am
Hi Kellyo! Hope you're doing well! ^_^

Hi, kellyo

I've been browsing the thread "A Challenge to the Atheist" and found your latest post at the last page. I say you have a pretty interesting and wide grasp of the Bible. Thank you. Reading the first ages of the forum drives me crazy. I could have said my word on the matter referencing the Word myself but you've done it better. Again, thank you.

Hi Kellyo, just wanted to know if you got my messege in your guestbook a week ago. You can take all the time you need, but could you post in my guestbook when you have a chance so I know when you've atleast noted that I replied to your messege. Thanks! ^_^

Now I'm going to bed. =D

Dude! What gives? Are you alive? Are you getting my PMs?

Liar, Lunatic, Lord

There ya go.

EDIT: Uh...You seem to have posted some long rant on my guestbook. As far as I can tell I think it's about this link (I guess?). I didn't actually write the article you know...I just gave you the link. Hell I didn't even comment on it one way or the other. In fact I barely skimmed it, I just thought it might be helpful to one of you. So, if you don't mind please keep your inane ramblings about your dead pal jesus and his invisible friend to yourself, unless I give you a legitimate reason to do otherwise. Thanks!

(Oh and personally, I'd go with self-deluded fanatic if I had to pick, which I guess would fall somewhere between liar and lunatic, but nowhere near lord.)

Quote: Glad to hear you are familiar with CS Lewis. However, he doesn't leave other possibilities open. Those three are the only three choices you have.

Then we can safely assume C.S. Lewis made a flawed argument. If you asked me if I thought 2+2= 5, 6, or 7 I would say none and that it was 4. If you said I had to pick one of those three because you don't give me any other possibilities I would be right to say that your question was illogical.

Quote: If Christ was simply eccentric and believed he was god then he'd fall into category number two. There are no other choices but Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.

That's wrong. I think a lunatic would be a bit extreme, even calling him eccentric might be a bit much. If a child was brought up its entire life to believe he or she was the Messiah then it is likely that child would believe they were (note that I'm not stating this was Jesus's case. It is hypothetical.). I don't want to take guesses at Jesus's character, but those three are not the only possibilities.

Quote: Now, for your question. Unlike what some may think about me, my faith in Christ and the Bible's authority has originated from logic and reason, from investigating the evidence, and from need and necessity for Him. The Bible tells us to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind." That covers everything - from a standpoint of emotion, faith, perseverence, and reason.

I don't think of you as illogical because I have yet to see exactly why you believe in the Christian Church's god. Atleast you depend on your own ability to reason instead of asking others to justify your beliefs for you. ^_^

Quote: Cosmological - reasons from the existence of the cosmos to a Creator: Argument from...unmoved movers, existence of good things, necessary existence, first cause, motion, efficient causality, possibility and necessity, gradation (perfection) of things, first cause of being, producibility, sufficient reason.j

Ontological - argues from the concept of a Necessary Being to that Being's existence: This one is very deep and contains so many discussions in the past. There are no specific categories like the cosmological but instead years of various responses. At the end of all discussion this argument does prove a necessary being but by itself does not designate which kind of God (or gods) is found at the conclusion. Therefore, in order to defend Theism one must go beyond this argument. But, this argument is good to argue with atheists who believe in no necessary being.

Teleological - moves from design to a Designer. This one is fun. I believe A.E. Taylor has presented one of the best arguments to confirm this; however, it is friggin long. I will post it later.

I'll look these up and post about them later. I'm really tierd.. =P

Quote: Kant
1. The greatest good of all persons is that they have happiness in harmony with duty.
2. All persons should strive for the greatest good.
3. What persons ought to do, they can do.
4. But persons are not able to realize the greatest good in this life or without God.
5. Therefore, we must postulate a God and a future life in which the greatest good can be achieved.

1. No, the "greatest good of all persons" is to gain knowledge, if anything.
2. All persons should aim for this "greatest good" if it is logically sound. Having "happiness in harmony" sounds like a waste of time.
3. Yes.
4. Wait, how did God get involved? People can "live in happiness" and "harmony" without a god.
5. Incorrect.

Quote: CS Lewis
1.There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a)Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b)All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., "The Nazis were wrong."). (c)It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d)We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b)Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are).
3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a)Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ulitmately right. (b)the source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.

1. This one I still feel odd about, I'm having trouble believing that people assert that there is "moral law." (a) There are moral disagreements. They don't make sense because one of two moral ideas is probably "more moral" than the other. If there was a "moral law" then it would be one person saying, "It's immoral to kill because... that's the moral law!" and another person saying, "It's not immoral to kill because... that's the moral law!" We can resolve this argument by putting circumstances on it (e.g. self-defense) and using logic. A moral law would have to be pre-defined by someone or something (in your case God). If that were the case then morality could be illogical, but all moral arguments can be solved logically, e.g. "It isn't immoral to kill for fun!" It is because a conscious being dies. Many can be solved by "treating others as you would like to be treated," but this would mean that someone who wants to suffer would be moral if they made others suffer. This is wrong because it goes against a logical view of morality as opposed to a Christian one (not that I'm saying treat others as you would like to be treated isn't okay, but it's flawed). (b) Yes, logical is pretty good IMHO. (c) Since when was it nescessary to keep promises or treaties? People break the former all the time, but they face the consequence of disappointing the other person. As for the latter, if a country at war will probably break a treaty if they think that they can when by doing so and if there were no negative side-effects to doing so (excluding religious side-effects, such as damnation). (d) If morality is based on logic we try to use logical arguments to say why something we did was moral. If morality is based on a definite law then there is no excuse for killing someone, unless the law states there are certain circumstances (and lists the circumstances) in which said law can be broken.
2. Logic only requires conscious beings, since it is a concept. I attribute morality to conscious, somewhat logical beings existing. (a) Then, once again, morality can be flawed as laws can be and they can be unjust and be created with an agenda. This does not appear to be the case with morality since it isn't flawed nor self-contradictory in any way. It could be because God wouldn't be stupid enough to create flawed moral laws, but that requires God to exist. If there are two equally valid alternatives take the simpler. (b) If it exists then I suppose it might be interested in our behavior, or if it invented morality and forced it on us it wants to control us is more likely.
3. (a) Doesn't take into account the idea of morals based on logic. (b) I guess logic is absolutely good and/or God is. Maybe God decided to make moral laws compliant with logic, but that presupposes God.

Quote: One thought, since we can show that the New Testament is in fact accurate and dates back to the first century, and that these disciples of Christ lived and died for what they claims, then these guys were either completely crazy, stupid, or they saw the Truth and were willing to die for it. Noone dies for what they know to be false. Sure, people have died for something that is false but noone willingly dies for what they know to be false. These men never gave up, never weakened, and never quit claiming what they claimed. I believe it is because they saw, witnessed, heard, felt, touched, and performed everything they claimed.

People do die for what they know to be false. I can just as easily say that because people then were so immoral and cruel (at least from what I've learned about "Biblical times") that these people saw that it was nescessary to create a religious dogma supporting a higher "level" of morality.

Now I'm going to sleep. School was really long today... ^^;

Edit: I also noticed that you asserted that God could be omnipresent and use his omnipotent ability to remove his omnipresence from hell in a thread. Wouldn't that be contradicting his nature (which you said he couldn't do)?

Quote: But yet you do the same. Evolution is a theory and certainly has not PROVEN to be true.

Here

If only you put half of the effort you put in religion on science, discussing anything with you might not be so tedious.

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument"

Quote by kellyo

Quote by Archer79None of the four proposed replies. I believe in Him because I have seen Him moving in my life, and in others. ...I worship Him because he is generous, loving, and charitible, when I am just... ...pathetic. ...I pray to Him because He listens. ...And replies in ways of incredible intimacy. ...Mericles may not be apparent to all, but when He moves in grace, His provisions touch you very deep. The four answers you proposed only scratch the surface of what's really involved.

Wanted to let you know that I thought this was a great post. RubyDrgOn is so fun to debate with and I enjoyed your answer.

LOL Just thought I'd put it down. ...Very little compares to experiencing God. ...So... Hopefull all of those with dessenting views will someday find themselves surprised!

Quote by kellyoFirst, I'm honored to be an educated fundie. Here's why: since you mock that label it would only make sence that you'd praise it's opposite - and un-educated non-fundamentalist. In other words, an un-educated man who stands for nothing.

I would praise its opposite? So you're saying if I made the statement "I don't like fat chicks" then clearly I like thin men instead? I suppose I would be praising an educated non-fundie, however your reasoning is flawed. (as usual)

Quote: If we soften it a little we can change it to an educated non-fundamentalist. Personally, I think this is even worse - an educated man who stands for nothing. A man who follows the crowd and the whim of the culture and all that which is popular. Who's foundation is weak.

Yay more playing with definitions, you're so predictable. A fundamentalist isn't just someone who stands for something. Fundamentalist is a word usually reserved for and meant to imply religious fundamentalists. Suicide bombers are considered fundamentalists. Pat Robertson is a fundamentalist. These are not people you want to model yourself after. You're a Christian in Colorado. Sorry but you're not going against "the crowd". You ARE the crowd. You're the people hindering education and science in the name of superstition.

Quote: So, honored to be labeled as "educated" - damn straight. Honored to be labeled as a "fundie" who stands firm, who doesn't tolerate the wandering winds of secularism, who makes a claim and sticks to it, who says "as for me and my house we will serve the Lord" - damn straight.

That's also known as being close-minded. I have no problem with people having christian beliefs, if I did I'd have to hate everybody. But most normal Christians can apply at least a bit of reasoning to their faith. They know Noah's ark is non-sense. They know Jesus isn't coming back. They know evolution is scientific while creationism is a joke. These things you say, like "making a claim and sticking to it" are fine until your claim is proven wrong. After that you're just being stupid and stuborn. You constantly talk about using reason and logic yet you don't show it AT ALL. Everything you say smacks of the opposite. You are the opitome of blind faith. You will only see evidence that reaffirms your world view and never even consider anything else. You might pretend that "contemplating the last supper" means you have rational beliefs, but you don't. I could pick anything out of the bible, pile mounds and mounds of evidence to the contrary right infront of you, and you would still ignore all the evidence, plug your ears, and repeat "THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD" over and over.

And not everything is just about education. Experience, intuition, common sense, these are the things that will get you through life, that will get you women, that will get you power, that will get you respect. Education is useful but with nothing to back it up you're just a little kid getting shoved in a locker. I'm not assuming you're only educated, or that you're educated at all, but being well-learned in religious teachings will only get you so far. (This is not an invitation to tell me your life story, I don't care, just making a point here.)

Quote: "A man who stands for nothing is worth nothing." ~ Teddy Roosevelt.

Heh...I somehow doubt he was saying non-fundies are worth nothing, we'd have a lot of worthless people running around.

Quote: After reading your posts it is very apparent that you too are educated. It is also very apparent that you too stand for something and stand strong. Therefore, I believe it's fair to say that you too are and educated fundie - you just argue from a different side of the fence.

Nobody stands strong for atheism. It's just one more thing added to the infinite list of things you don't believe in. I won't fight a war for atheism anymore than I would fight a war for big foot's lack of existence. If someone showed me evidence that there was definately a god then I wouldn't stand rigid to atheism, I'd shift my beliefs. Same as anything else. When science comes up with new discoveries that disprove your old theories you don't stand firm on the old disproven theories, you change yourself to fit reality and progress. Nobody thinks the crazy guy down the street who constantly yells the world is flat is a "man who stands for something". He's just some lunatic who can't be taken seriously.

I suppose I stand strong for clear and rational thinking. Perhaps you can coin the term "Scientific Fundamentalist" just for the sake of your argument?

Quote by kellyoalexjohn,

I haven't had to time to put my post together that you requested but I did have a quick question - which then leads to a couple more.

Do you believe you have been presented with enough historical evidence to prove to you that Jesus lived? - ie. That he was a real person.

If so, do you believe him to be the most incredible liar and deceiver? Think about how great of a liar he'd have to be to create what he created. So, was he a liar?

Or, do you believe he was so absolutely psychotic with serious mental issues that he thought he was divine and was able to convince thousands during his time?

Or, do you believe He is who He says He is?

Okay, that's fine with me. I know about C.S. Lewis's argument (Liar, Lunatic, or Lord), but I really don't get it.

To answer your first question, no, I do not think I have been presented with enough evidence to prove Jesus lived, although I've heard that such evidence exists and I accept that evidence, which I haven't had time to bother with, as probably true.

Couldn't Jesus just have been eccentric and wrong about his being the Son of God? C.S. Lewis leaves too many possibilities that we don't know about (another example, Jesus could have had a reason for his statements). I can hardly call that reason to believe in God.

----

Old (leaving it here just so you remember it when you're ready):

Next I wanted to know why you believe God exists, this way I can try to argue against something that I know is true in your case and your most powerful reason(s) for your belief.