Atheists, What's the point?

[muichimotsu]

Nice dodge - except it isn't. I give clear definition for what they are. What I didn't point out previously is that some Bible versions use these terms the opposite way, and some switch them haphazardly. That doesn't help much. One advantage of KJV is its consistent in its use of a word.

Doesn't mean it doesn't mistranslate (virgin in Isaiah comes to mind) and a consistent use of words doesn't mean diddly when you aren't taking context into account, which is why the KJV bible is flawed in its own way, however "original" it may be. We're talking about ancient times by comparison to now, less literacy across the population, etc.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, I'm not familiar with "peak experience".

Abraham Maslow made a study of this.

Peak experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I know, atheists may have peak experiences just as easily as theists.

Also, you might want to read the article that the link I had posted before was in response to:

Spirituality Without Faith
http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua1.htm


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Nice dodge - except it isn't. I give clear definition for what they are. What I didn't point out previously is that some Bible versions use these terms the opposite way, and some switch them haphazardly. That doesn't help much. One advantage of KJV is its consistent in its use of a word.

You say my response was a dodge, and then agree with me that the terms are used in a variety of very fuzzy ways. Sure, if you restrict yourself to only the sources which agree with you then things get more specific, but that's no exactly proving that there's widespread agreement on what the words actually refer to.

 

[Davian]

Soul is the product of a body of our species coming in direct contact with an external spirit, either holy or not.

How would you demonstrate the existence of this 'soul'? Why do you think it exists?

Our own spirit is most easily defined as our state of being alive.

Wiki: The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath")...

In simple terns, your 'spirit' enters upon your first breath after being born; when you die, it 'leaves' you. It is based on human physiology prior to a more modern understanding of how the body works. It is no longer magic.

If I could find a pattern between my user name and whatever you're going on about I might refer to you that way. If you need shorthand SC works; its what the civil people here have managed to do. Not sure why you're unable to ...

Have you ever posted here under the username 'razeontherock'?

 

[seeking Christ]

You say my response was a dodge, and then agree with me that the terms are used in a variety of very fuzzy ways.

You said "I myself don't know what the terms mean." You're all over the map here because you can't argue the point so you're grasping at straws.

 

[seeking Christ]

How would you demonstrate the existence of this 'soul'?

I think, therefore I am.

Why do you think it exists?

Gee I guess you're right, all your insulting and abusive responses really do come from my own mind,and my existence is a mere dream. Take the blue pill?

Questioning reality is the way of insanity.

In simple terns, your 'spirit' enters upon your first breath after being born; when you die, it 'leaves' you.

No argument. Why don't you think it exists? This would be what we call empirical evidence: people are alive when they're born, and dead when they die.

It is based on human physiology prior to a more modern understanding of how the body works.[/COLOR] It is no longer magic.

It was never magic. To pretend otherwise is deliberately abusive.

Have you ever posted here under the username 'razeontherock'?

This has been addressed repeatedly and I'm not one for repeating myself is the statement if understandable. But for your benefit, since I don't think you participated in those discussions at that time - no. I think people are just deliberately trying to be annoying with that schtick, and doing so because they have nothing else.

 

[Davian]

I think, therefore I am.

Introspection can be deceptive. I prefer philosophers working in the 21st century. From Thomas Metzinger's lecture at Berkeley:

Being No One - YouTube

Gee I guess you're right, all your insulting and abusive responses really do come from my own mind,and my existence is a mere dream. Take the blue pill?

Questioning reality is the way of insanity.

To not question what you perceive as reality is to be deceived.

No argument. Why don't you think it exists? This would be what we call empirical evidence: people are alive when they're born, and dead when they die.

Life is a process, a collection of processes. There is no empirical evidence that anything actually enters of leaves the body. Or did you mean something else by "spirit"?

It was never magic. To pretend otherwise is deliberately abusive.

If you do not like your comfort blanket of beliefs having holes poked in them, why are you here?

This has been addressed repeatedly and I'm not one for repeating myself is the statement is understandable. But for your benefit, since I don't think you participated in those discussions at that time - no. I think people are just deliberately trying to be annoying with that schtick, and doing so because they have nothing else.

Perhaps it is your presuppositional apologetic 'schtick' that is causing the false positives.

 

[seeking Christ]

Perhaps it is your presuppositional apologetic 'schtick' that is causing the false positives.

You have to presuppose in order to make the claim. You were going for irony, right?

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you deny you're using presuppositional apologetics, though?

 

[seeking Christ]

Apologetics are prohibited on this website, generally. Can you break down what you mean a bit? Because no two people use such terms to mean the same thing.

 

[muichimotsu]

I mean what the basic term entails: defense of a position with information. There's an apologetics forum here, specifically Xian in nature. I suppose you could mean apologetics for other faiths, but that's not what's at issue here.

Here's a quick summation of presuppositional apologetics, though it has a more detailed Wikipedia article


Presuppositional apologetics claims that presuppositions are essential to any philosophical position, and that there are no "neutral" assumptions from which a Christian can reason with a non-Christian.[38] There are two main schools of presuppositional apologetics, that of Cornelius Van Til (and his students Greg Bahnsen and John Frame) and that of Gordon Haddon Clark.

Van Til drew upon, but did not always agree with, the work of Dutch Calvinist philosophers and theologians such as D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, Herman Dooyeweerd, Hendrik G. Stoker, Herman Bavinck, and Abraham Kuyper. Bahnsen describes Van Til's approach to Christian apologetics as pointing out the difference in ultimate principles between Christians and non-Christians, and then showing that the non-Christian principles reduce to absurdity.[39] In practice this school utilizes what has come to be known as the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

Clark held that the Scriptures constituted the axioms of Christian thought, which could not be questioned, though their consistency could be discussed.[38] A consequence of this position is that God's existence can never be demonstrated, either by empirical means or by philosophical argument. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not even attempt such proofs.

 

[KCfromNC]

You said "I myself don't know what the terms mean." You're all over the map here because you can't argue the point so you're grasping at straws.

None of this is bringing us any closer to understanding what it is you're talking about. I expect that is intentional.