|
|
#31
10-23-2007, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
[ QUOTE ]
So many problems... (1) Though I can't pull scripture out of thin air, I'm fairly certain that Jesus didn't negate the Old Testament. [/ QUOTE ] It's called the New Covenant. Look it up. 
|
|
#32
10-23-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
[ QUOTE ]
(1) Though I can't pull scripture out of thin air, I'm fairly certain that Jesus didn't negate the Old Testament. [/ QUOTE ] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Mt 5:17)
|
|
#33
10-23-2007, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So many problems... (1) Though I can't pull scripture out of thin air, I'm fairly certain that Jesus didn't negate the Old Testament. [/ QUOTE ] It's called the New Covenant. Look it up. [/ QUOTE ] I'm waiting for the New New Covenant. Seems as though God is pretty wishy-washy and is due to change his mind again soon.
|
|
#34
10-23-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So many problems... (1) Though I can't pull scripture out of thin air, I'm fairly certain that Jesus didn't negate the Old Testament. [/ QUOTE ] It's called the New Covenant. Look it up. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Mt 5:17) [/ QUOTE ] Thanks, Subfallen. That is what I was thinking of.
|
|
#35
10-23-2007, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So many problems... (1) Though I can't pull scripture out of thin air, I'm fairly certain that Jesus didn't negate the Old Testament. [/ QUOTE ] It's called the New Covenant. Look it up. [/ QUOTE ] Also- Brad... since you seem to think Splendour is on to something, are you suggesting that the New Covenant is saying everything in the Old Testament is wrong? For instance, if you read the Old Testament and by reading came to the logical conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, are you suggesting that the New Covenant says this is wrong? If so... the Old Testament was still considered divine... was God just kidding with the old testament and then came clean with the New Testament? And why are Christians always quoting the Old Testament if its been negated? Perhaps they haven't heard about the New Covenant? Finally- Is this new covenant believed and interpreted the same by all Christians and scholars? If not, that leads to a whole other problem (who is right) and, once again, highlights the problem that I listed as #2... where Splendour pretends he is speaking on behalf of all Christians when, in reality, there's quite a range of beliefs for Christians... many who would never suggest you shouldn't get 'hung up' on the Old Testament as they believe it is Divinely Inspired and meant to be believed as a record of fact.
|
|
#36
10-23-2007, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
Kurto, Subfallen:
Is this how this forum ususally goes when trying to discuss religion with the religious....i.e. They make a brief appearance, make some general and unsupported claim (which may or may not be on topic), then disappear never to be heard from again? Good grief.
|
|
#37
10-23-2007, 07:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
[ QUOTE ]
Ontologically simpler therefore massive favorite to be true is not an accurate application of Ockham's Razor. If it was then one wonder's why Ockham or anyone would believe that. Ockham's Razor just states we ought not multiply entities in our ontology unnecesarily. This is generally good advice, but doesn't really apply here as far as I can see. Ockham's razor can defeat attempts to use the existence of religions as evidence for God's existence though. This is assuming the existence of religions can be explained just as well without invoking God as the possible explanations involving God. This might lead one to suspending judgement, how do you see Ockham's razor being used to destroy the case for God? [/ QUOTE ] I wasnt suggesting ockham's razor implies it is a massive favorite that there is no god or no aliens. Ockham's razor doesnt have much bearing on what is actually true. It implies that we shouldnt assert their existence in the absence of evidence. Perhaps I was too quick to agree with "destroys the case" but I think it destroys the cases not claiming to be based on evidence.
|
|
#38
10-23-2007, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.
|
|
#39
10-23-2007, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt. [/ QUOTE ] i stopped responding to him weeks ago, and at the time i thought that i had waited way too long.
|
|
#40
10-23-2007, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
I must've missed a major exchange between you two.
You can't really get pissed at them, because I thought that's why we're here. Almost to a person, this is one area of their lives where theists think it's ok to suspend logic. They may be logical when it comes to most everything else, but when it comes to sky gods and religion, they put that in a seperate catagory. I fully expect responses like Splendour's and I continue to try and persuade him that logic is even more important when it comes to how you arrive at your world view.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
