John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  That means you have crafted a god according to your wishes.

  No.

  I'm bound by the first axiom of St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Well, here's the thing: I can think of a being that isn't bound by anything.

  A being like this could turn to evil by random whim.

  This would be a very unstable being.

  Stability is greater than instability.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  In my view, a god that doesn't clearly, universally and unequivocally reveals himself to the creatures he requests worship from, isn't worth wasting time with.
  If a god is something "that than which nothing greater can be thought", then god should be the epitome of clarity, transparency and uncontroversial truth. None of the above applies to the purported god of christianity.

  But it's exactly like this, clearly as crystal.

  "Fax mentis incendium gloriae" and "Memo bis punitor delicatum". Like Willy Wonka said. LoL

  But while one stands in revolt and denial only a black cloud is visible.

  Don't let the Watchtower fill your vision with revolt. If so you will continue being a slave.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Like it or not, the Christian worldview is consistent.

  Very consistent.

  Actually is the most consistent philosophical worldview that I know.

  And I know a lot of philosophical worldviews.

  Atheism and Scientism are the most flawed. Even more than JWism.

  
  
  
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Looks like the trinity concept belongs to the workings of the human mind.

  The human mind only perceives and understand reality through itself.

  So yes, the concept of Trinity is a map to understand the territory.

  But the map it's not the territory.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  My OP does not require a formal argument in reply. It just invites an informal conversation. I offer 9 examples of observable things that don't easily reconcile the with the claims of Christians.
  You have hidden from inconvenient truths behind tons of incoherent and untestable assertions.
  The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.

  Just your opinion, cofty.

  A truly honest and sincere position must offer something very clear in turn.

  You offer Atheism that ironically is also a metaphysical position (you advocates against metaphysics).

  And you also offer Scientism that's another metaphysical position. This one you even deny to advocate. Are you using the BK tactic? (just kidding, I know it's not your intention and I really think you aren't even aware of being a follower of Scientism).

  Both things you offer are pure non sense IMHO. And your very position is very contradictory because you use metaphysics to deny/refute metaphysics.

  Agnosticism is a much more consistent position, for example.

  I know you think Catholicism is pure non sense but it's just your metaphysical opinion too.

  In the end we're still agreeing in disagree. But I think you're a very intelligent man and I have a lot of respect for you and as I said before you're the best of your kind in this forum.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  No I'm asking for reasonable responses to a few common sense observations.

  By common sense you mean statistical consensus?

  Everything I said is completely unreasonable?

  Do you understand that's a subjective opinion of you, right?

  I'm trying to put my reasoning in a formal logical structure so you can point to an exact axiom and say "I don't accept this".

  Just saying that my entire argument is unreasonable it's not a meaningful thing to affirm. You must point it out where exactly the structure falls.

  My starting point is the St. Anselm's ontological argument. Please point out the flaws in it.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  18 pages of evidence-free dogma.

  Are you demanding scientific evidence for a metaphysical discussion?

  Are you sure you are not a follower of Scientism? Because that's exactly what followers of Scientism do.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

  Why do you accept the one-axiom dogma of Atheism?
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Early christians were a Jewish sect.

  Yes.

  They adored Jesus.

  Yes.

  Monotheism in theory had to be reconciled with their practice.

  Yes.

  The solution was a ridiculous formulation of self-contradictory words.

  
  

  It is flatly contradicted.
  

  Just your opinion.

  Not the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Christian throughout the history.

  Philosophically speaking the concept of Trinity is very sophisticated. Even in my atheistic phase I recognized its philosophical value because it can explain the mechanism of our minds too.

  That's why we can have an internal dialogue inside our minds. A dialogue implies two persons and if you pay some attention you'll notice that we have two people in our minds. And if you pay closer attention you'll notice a third one who observes the internal dialogue.

  The very nature of the intellect and will produces this three-persons phenomenon.
  
  
• 
  77

  Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

  the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

  but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Wouldn't it have been useful if Jesus had said something similar?

  He did.

  Through the Apostolic Sucession. I admit in the Bible the Trinity it's not directly present but it's strongly implied.

  Not one Bishop ever said about Trinity: "this is something new".

  Reincarnation would be something they would protest, for instance.
  

  If Trinity was not part of Christianity why bring Trinity rather than reincarnation?

  If they were trying to bring something to be more popular why bring a totally new and extremely complex concept instead of one extremely popular (even today) like reincarnation?