Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For Christians,non-Christians & Atheists

That's not what you said "2 something, especially a clue, that is or intended to be misleading or distracting:"

Merriam Webster for fraud says:
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

Misleading, fraud, deceiving, misrepresenting are synonyms.

Or did you mean the nature of man is irreverent to a discussion of the nature of man?


Is that so? Check out this short piece on terminal lucidity in Psychology Today. Mental processes continue in spite of a physically incapable brain. How's that work?

Not really, nothing has been proven. Nobody doubts the phenomena of NDE's and out of body experiences happen, but the evidence supports that these are a brain induced experience, a form of lucid dreams or visions. Both NDE's and OBE's have been induced in the lab using both hallucinogenics and electrical brain stimulation.

For example;
''What happens when you die? As she lay blindfolded in a seat in a dimly lit room, Anna* came close to finding out.

But Anna wasn't dying, or even close to death, when she entered what she described as an alternate realm. Instead, she was among 13 volunteers who had agreed to take the powerful hallucinogenic dimethyltryptamine (DMT) for a study conducted by the psychedelic research group at Imperial College London, U.K.

The researchers, who watched Anna surf her consciousness in the low light of the research room at one of the world's most prestigious research institutions, pumped the volunteers with the psychedelic to learn how close DMT could bring a person to the sensation of skirting death.

DMT's trip is said to mimic the feeling of almost dying so accurately that those who take it describe hallucinations that mirror near-death experiences—psychological events reported by people who have come close to or believe they have come close to dying.''



There is a problem with reason alone. The Greeks were great at logic and reason, but did not have the tools with which to test their own premises. Pure reason without verifiable evidence and testing has led to all sorts of false conclusions.

Within the scientific community, "reason alone" is dead. It died with Descartes. The only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation and experiment. It's not enough to have a "great idea." One has to provide testable and explanatory hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable to have any claim to objective knowledge.


False Premises;
''A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:


If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc.''

DBT,

how many times has hypocrite TF49 read and responded since?

yet more of his double talk ways...


yet he desperately wants to know what other people think.!





James 1:8 (KJV)
"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

to think that such types see themselves as 'truth' bearers hear to 'help' people..

The irrational minds of many Christians is starkly evident when they put faith/belief in their futile prayers for a personally desired outcome

they pray to change the path of tornadoes or stop the eruption of volcanoes, or for their crops not to fail,

they pray for their stockmarket share price to go up, or to win lotteries , court cases , or elections, etc

Many millions prayed to no avail that there family members would come home safe and well from WW1 and WW2
simply because they didn't trust the fate that their God already had instore for them.
[ie]...a bullet, grenade, landmine of shell shrapnel fragment ,with their family members name on it.

Not surprisingly , these are the same types that believe in ancient stories of virgin births, talking snakes and donkeys,
and 3 day dead corpses coming back to life.




One is deemed a heretic by some if they don't believe the earth is 6000 yrs old and that dinosaurs were loaded
onto a mythical Noahs Ark or that a ghost impregnated a woman.

False premise? Yes....

What can happen when a skeptic reads or refers to a bible verse..... that he interprets incorrectly, whether taken out of context or simply misunderstood?

The skeptics reads.... does not comprehend ...... but he does come to a conclusion or belief about what he has read. He has indeed interpreted and concluded.

But what if he is wrong..... his conclusion is therefore based on a misunderstanding..... the skeptic can reach a conclusion that is not true..... wrong.

So, what he believes to be a true, is,not. He has in effect believed an untruth....

But...... “off he goes” ..... not comprehending that he has believed an untruth.....

Pity.....

That's what I thought too. But then there have been clinical peer reviewed studies since. There are documented events which cannot be explained. Leaves open the possibility of a transcendent part of our being as long as no physical explanation is available.

Proves nothing, leaves open the possibility of alternate explanations.

Here's one I particularly like, dunno why.

Shoe on the Ledge

Melvin Morse and Kim Clark reported a woman who had knowledge of a shoe on a window ledge outside the hospital. The shoe was nowhere near the place she had been resuscitated, but was next to a third-floor office. Though the shoe could have been seen from a window after the woman’s resuscitation, she had described it with such detail that it must have been viewed up close. She noted that the shoe had a worn little toe, and the shoelace was tucked beneath the heel.

The psychologist who interviewed the woman (Kim Clark) had to crawl along the ledge outside to verify the claim. The shoe was indeed there precisely as the patient had described it.

Clark concluded that:

“The only way she [the patient] could have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it back to Maria; it was very concrete evidence for me.”

And yes, philosophy must be done carefully. Poorly stated a priori assumptions cause almost as many problems as failure to have the same definition of terms. But let's not dismiss metaphysics out of hand because it's lacking of physical proof.

Reality or fraudulent?


Psalm 8
1 O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth, Who have set Your glory above the heavens!
2 Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.
3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen-- Even the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas.
9 O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth!




Psalm 104
1 Bless the Lord, O my soul! O Lord my God, You are very great: You are clothed with honor and majesty,
2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.
3 He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters, Who makes the clouds His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind,
4 Who makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire.
5 You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains; They went down into the valleys, To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, That they may not return to cover the earth.
10 He sends the springs into the valleys, They flow among the hills.
11 They give drink to every beast of the field; The wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 By them the birds of the heavens have their home; They sing among the branches.
13 He waters the hills from His upper chambers; The earth is satisfied with the fruit of Your works.
14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth,
15 And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man's heart.
16 The trees of the Lord are full of sap, The cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17 Where the birds make their nests; The stork has her home in the fir trees.
18 The high hills are for the wild goats; The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers.
19 He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.
20 You make darkness, and it is night, In which all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they gather together And lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work And to his labor until the evening.
24 O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions--
25 This great and wide sea, In which are innumerable teeming things, Living things both small and great.
26 There the ships sail about; There is that Leviathan Which You have made to play there.
27 These all wait for You, That You may give them their food in due season.
28 What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good.
29 You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth.
31 May the glory of the Lord endure forever; May the Lord rejoice in His works.
32 He looks on the earth, and it trembles; He touches the hills, and they smoke.
33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. 34 May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord. 35 May sinners be consumed from the earth, And the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!

That story was not part of a peer reviewed study. If it was, please direct us to the journal article.

No, but it's an anecdote which came to me through a trusted source and I took a fancy to it. Googling I was surprised at the interest among the medical community in near death experiences. Anyway it's not a proof of anything, just something that remains unexplained and makes you go, "Hmm."

Best I can tell that anecdote is attributable to:

Maria’s Shoe

Kimberly Clark Sharp (1995) was a social worker in Harborview Hospital in Seattle when Maria was brought in unconscious from cardiac arrest. Sharp visited her the following day in a hospital room, at which point Maria described leaving her body and floating above the hospital. Desperate to prove that she had in fact left her body and was not crazy, she described seeing a worn dark blue tennis shoe on the ledge outside a window on the far side of the hospital. Not believing her but wanting to help, Sharp checked the ledge by pressing her face against the sealed windows and found a shoe that perfectly matched the details Maria had related.22

22 Sharp, K.C. (1995). After the Light: What I Discovered on the Other Side of Life That Can Change Your World. Morrow, NY.

"So, what he believes to be a truth, is, not. He has in effect believed an untruth...."

Apply your own logic to yourself. I like Yogi Berra's logic better: "It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Anybody that claims to know what is going to happen to you after you die is a false prophet. The Bible is full of them.

I referenced Marxism because their philosophical starting point is essentially atheistic materialism. The starting point of atheistic materialism is essential to Marxism for it allows for the development of any type of political, economic, sociological, and moral system that they would choose to promote. They cannot build Marxism from a Christian world view, but they can from an atheistic materialistic world view. From atheism they can create their own morality. My point was Marxism cannot philosophically develop from my point of view, but they can from yours. Furthermore, neither you nor a Marxist can build their philosophy from the principles embedded in the Declaration which include creation theism and Christian moral absolutes. Though this does not make you a Marxist it does point out that your philosophical starting point is closer to Marxism than it is to the Theism of our founders.
I don’t see anything dishonest or disingenuous in pointing this out. The Christian world view stop Marxism cold, while materialistic atheism allows it to develop.



I agree.



So, while I did not quote it in the context of Karl Marx per se, I did quote it in context from an official webpage of Marxist Liberation theology. I posted the link in my first posting. It was not out of context from that Marxist Liberation theology webpage. In the context that I selected, I did not cherry pick it out of context.

However, I will note that in “every case” where an alleged contradiction was noted between scriptures it was a definite and deliberate cherry picking with little regard for context, logic, or common sense. In fact, this approach was defended as all we need to do is make dictionary comparisons between words and note their discrepancies. It wasn’t even recognized that words can have radically different meanings in different contexts. Thank you for reinforcing the point that context is essential to any credible comparative analysis.



I understand your point and believe it’s a good interpretation of Marx. What I quoted was how typical Marxists chose to understand and apply the Marxist concept to their Liberation Theology. You issue would be with those Marxists and their understanding of Karl Marx. That webpage is quite consistent with how Marxist governments have under stood and applied it. They simply reduce it to say with the opiate of religion removed, people can achieve their highest state of paradise on earth.



Burden of proof by what standard? Anyone can reject most anything by saying there is not enough proof to meet my standard of evidence. Some skeptics said we should have manuscripts from the Biblical era to be credible. This statement overlooks that manuscripts of that era could not even last to the present age without being in modern museum conditioning or in a dry desert location with minimal human handling. Others say the evidence is too old and we cannot cross examine the eye witnesses, so we cannot verify anything. Others say God should have introduced the gospel right after the fall—which would move the evidence even further from the original. So, the skeptics on this thread cannot agree on what standard of evidence is required. When I see this fragmented and contradictory approach I realize it’s not about having enough evidence, it’s about finding a way to dismiss the evidence as it relates tot he Bible. Perhaps in other areas skeptics are more objective in their reasoning.



I have not called you a Marxist. I have only pointed out that the philosophical starting point of Marxism is atheistic materialism—which allows them to proceed to Marxism. There is a clear tie from this starting point to the atrocities of Mao and Stalin. My starting point with theism and moral absolutes does not allow for any type of Marxist development.

Neither Hitler nor the White Supremacists can make any logical comparison between their philosophy and that of Jesus whether they call themselves Christians or not. Most Christians would agree with me.

It’s interesting that you want no link to the atrocities of atheistic societies but you have often tried to tie my beliefs to the “Christian perpetrated atrocities.” But there is no tie between those atrocities and the teachings of Christ—even though the perpetrators claimed the Christian faith.

They are only a false prophet if they lie or maybe are wrong, depending on your definition.

What happens after we die is one thing no one can confirm, except for the near death experience folks, some of whom actually did die but were revived. Their reports tend to confirm life after death.

What you say is easy to say if you don't believe what the Bible says. I believe the Bible, so it's a non-issue for me.

Even good people do foolish things. Like you, not believing the Bible.

No, we know how humans behave when they have unfettered power. Claiming Christianity means nothing. Walking that walk means everything. Obviously then, inquisitor's were not Christian, regardless of what they claimed.

had a lady who once worked in my shop.

she was fond of sayin we don't know if christianity works or not.

it's never really been tried. so, we're at a loss at what a christian world would look like.

Quote the scripture that unequivocally states wicked humans are actually considered 'worth saving' by God.

The trivial worth God places on man does not necessarily amount to something worth saving.
ie; don't confuse your God rated WORTH with WORTH SAVING by God.

Everyone knows a nickel is worth more than a dime , but to some neither are worth one bending down
to retrieve from the sidewalk.

Collins/Webster/Oxford dictionaries:

MERIT = worth, value, warrant,deserve, entitled,credited, earned,
{Origin} - Middle English (originally in the sense ‘deserved reward or punishment’): via Old French from Latin meritum ‘due reward’,
from mereri ‘earn, deserve’.

WORTH = merit, value, deserve [to be valued or rated], deserving or worthy of; meriting:
{origin} - Old English weorþ "value, worthiness, merit,"

Hmmmm,,..So How can one be merited or credited with 'worth saving' when , saving by God
is only through his [un-merited] grace?

If you were valued or merited enough to be considered worth saving , then Gods grace would not be required.

Thunderstick,

Here's what you fail to understand.

Marx's position on religion is totally irrelevant to the question of the existence of god(s)

How any group forms their political philosophy based upon their belief a specific god or set of gods exists is not informative to the under lying question, does a(ny) god(s) exist?.

If you wish to be respectful of Atheist, it's important you at least attempt to understand what it actually means to be an "atheist" and not saddle us with baggage outside of that narrow definition.

Atheism is a single position on a single proposition. Atheism isn't a declaration of absolutes, it's "I don't accept your god claims". or alternatively "your god claims have not met their burden of proof". It is not inclusive of a world view or a dogma, or any other beliefs.

In contrast, the behavior of a gods followers and representatives on earth can be informative about a specified god's potential existence.

What kind of a week pathetic all knowing, all loving, all powerful creator of the universe most influential organization on Earth is filled with homosexual pedophiles? Perhaps this is most consistent with a god who does not exist.

Who are you to say they were not Christian?

Did they believe they were serving God?

Were their actions sanctioned by the religious leaders, including the Popes of their time?

There is nothing foolish about forming my beliefs based upon the best available evidence.

Claiming Faith to believe a happy story with no good evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary, could be considered both gullible and foolish.