Can a christian be a Beatles fan...?

One day I'll round up all my lurkers
we'll have a newsgroup of our own
without all this flak from you morons
my lurkers will post round my throne.
Lurkers etc.

It's ironic how you complain about the "morons." Why are they morons to you?
Because you disagree with their beliefs. So you consider them morons. And they
annoy you. Yet you fail to acknowledge that you're in THEIR group.

For someone who deludes himself with the idea of being some kind of intellectual as
much as you do, it's amazing how dimwitted you truly are. You speak ("sing") of
having your own group one day, free of the "morons." Guess what. You could be
free of the "morons" RIGHT NOW by leaving this group. Wow, what a concept. I'm
sure all the "morons" would be happier with you gone as well.

You are quite possibly the most self-absorbed, ignorant individual I have ever seen
on USENET, and that is saying a lot. I mean a ton. I have read and posted on
USENET since approximately 1993 and I have to say that you take the cake.
Fortunately for me, I have athiest friends so I realize you're not all this
moronic. Obviously my athiest friends and I disagree on some very fundamental
issues but they're civilized, intelligent, open-minded individuals. I don't think
Jason is really an athiest. I think he does believe in a god and worships that god
wholeheartedly.

That god is himself.

Bob Weigel

2003-06-23 16:23:33 UTC

He always shows the glimpses of sanity every few posts where he proves
he capable of rational thought. Michelle...learn from the Donkey and move
on. You definitely set yourself up for this one. Read the original article
and if you don't understand it, get help rather than assuming dumb things
and posting stuff about how 'ironic' it is .... :-) Jason the atheist in
all his wisdom did what any of us who think would have done.
My question is, why don't any of the Christians in here post stuff
that might help Jason? Like pointing out the fundamental flaws in his
arguments against Christianity and inconsistencies in his own philosophies?
I could write a similar verse to the tune below....

"My Steiner he posts to our fine group
spanks "Chrisitans" who don't seem to think
He killfile's the few who reveal him
as the self righteous missing link..ohhh

Steiner, Steiner, will anyone else tell him the tru uuuth.
Steiner, Steiner, or just let him keep tightening his own Noosstttthhh.
err..uhh sorry. (towel's at no extra charge..)

-Bob

Post by Michelle DiCamillo

One day I'll round up all my lurkers
we'll have a newsgroup of our own
without all this flak from you morons
my lurkers will post round my throne.
Lurkers etc.

It's ironic how you complain about the "morons." Why are they morons to you?

Not clear on the concept of "satire", are you?

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Because you disagree with their beliefs. So you consider them morons.

Actually, I wasn't calling anyone a moron. But since you thought I
was, I'll make an exception in your case.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm

concerned,

they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking

things,

smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Michelle DiCamillo

2003-06-22 20:14:25 UTC

Jason,

I don't think that guy would have to edit your emails by so much as a comma before
fowarding them in order to make you come across like a schmuck. Believe me, you do
a solid job of that all by yourself.

As far as the itch you speak of, I'm sure those around here would consider it more
of a hemorrhoid than anything else. For me, however, I don't view you as much with
contempt, anger, or annoyance as I do with pity. You are obviously a pathetic
little man with no life in order to be an athiest trolling a Christian newsgroup.
I'm a vegan, yet I don't believe I'd spend my time in a beef newsgroup berating the
red meat eaters over their beliefs. Why? Because it's a waste of time. Because I
have a life. Most of all, because it's their newsgroup, and they're welcome to
believe and discuss what they want.

The "lurker army" that you speak of in your other message IS indeed there, you're
right. But they're fighting for the other side. Sorry.

The fact that you bother to forward a (no-doubt unbiased and unedited)
sample of my posts to your friend tells me that I'm doing my job.
What I write bugs you. Bugs you enough that even though you can't and
won't address it, you feel the need to soothe the itch.
But no matter how many people you can find to say that Jason is
a big old meanie, deep down inside you still know that real evidence
is better than hypothetical evidence.
Itch, itch, itch.
jason

Jason Steiner

2003-06-23 08:40:06 UTC

Ah well, at least Steiner doesn't pretend that *he* has supporters. ;)

Wow, that makes two Christians who don't understand satire.

But we already know that Christians can't think. No news there. What
I'm curious about now is, what it is about Christians that makes them
crave the approval of atheists so much?

jason

--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Ludwig77

2003-06-25 13:36:17 UTC

Ah well, at least Steiner doesn't pretend that *he* has supporters. ;)

Wow, that makes two Christians who don't understand satire.
But we already know that Christians can't think. No news there. What
I'm curious about now is, what it is about Christians that makes them
crave the approval of atheists so much?
jason

Christians can't think? Have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias ("Let My
People Think" online at www.rzim.com), C.S. Lewis, Chuck Colson, Ken
Ham, Dr. James Kennedy, John MacArthur, the list goes on and on.....

Jason Steiner

2003-06-25 19:24:47 UTC

Post by Jason Steiner
Wow, that makes two Christians who don't understand satire.
But we already know that Christians can't think. No news there.
What I'm curious about now is, what it is about Christians that
makes them crave the approval of atheists so much?

Christians can't think? Have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias ("Let
My People Think" online at www.rzim.com), C.S. Lewis, Chuck Colson,
Ken Ham, Dr. James Kennedy, John MacArthur, the list goes on and
on.....

Yes, it does. There are many frauds and charlatans in the Christian
community, and Christians are so dumb that they actually hold these
people up as examples of the best thinking Christians can do!

Scary thing is, they're nearly right.

jason

--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smDhàng books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Ludwig77

2003-06-26 14:07:59 UTC

Post by Ludwig77
Christians can't think? Have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias ("Let
My People Think" online at www.rzim.com), C.S. Lewis, Chuck Colson,
Ken Ham, Dr. James Kennedy, John MacArthur, the list goes on and
on.....

OK Jason, instead of making what appear to be baseless obtuse
statements, how about some specific examples? No name calling, no
broad sweeping generalizations, let's hear some specific examples of
what you are observing as non-thinking Christianity. Please exclude
TBN type of evangelists, for my examples given were not of that type.

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-27 04:37:42 UTC

Jason,

On what do you base your definition of agnosticism? Why is your definition
better than any other, such as Ravi Zacharias might choose?

If one chooses to believe that Ravi's definitions are correct, then your
criticism of him makes no sense. Then you appear to be the charlatan
attempting to take a simple set of possibilities and complicating them to
achieve your own ends. Hence the question is begged: why is your
definition better than any other?

You already provided them.
You seem rather enamored with this Ravi Zacharias fellow, so I'll
take one example from his page.
http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=3
...in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism,
not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for
God.s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed
because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is
justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God.s
existence.
The author of this statement does not even understand what agnosticism
is! It is not a middle position between atheism and theism.
Agnosticism is an epistemological belief, not a theological belief.
It is a statement not about what we believe, but about what can be
known. An agnostic is one who says, "It is impossible to know".
Agnosticism is orthagonal to (separate from) the issue of belief,
in much the same way that the shape of an object is orthagonal to
its color. Just as an object can be blue and round or blue and square,
a person can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.
In fact, most Christians are agnostic theists. (In theology this
is called fideism.) They do not believe it is possible to know
for sure that god exists, but they choose to believe anyway. Hence
the need for faith.
This article is a standard Christian attempt to take a moderately
complicated set of philosophical possibilities (agnostic atheist,
agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist) and boil it down
to a simpler set of options (atheist, agnostic, theist), in the
process misrepresenting *all* of the positions, in an attempt to
fool the listener. It is a version of the fallacy of false dichotomy,
except here we have a false trichotomy. (Three options, instead
of 4, and none of those three exactly the same as any one of the 4
real options.)
And it does fool many, many Christians. Because Christians are
easy to fool, and most of them don't know anything about philosophy
that they didn't learn from their church or Christian magazines
and web sites.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

mic stand

2003-06-27 10:09:14 UTC

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Jason,
Hence the question is begged: why is your
definition better than any other?

Because his ego is bigger than any other.

Brian Trosko

2003-06-27 17:56:24 UTC

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Jason,
On what do you base your definition of agnosticism?

It's the standard definition of the term. The word "agnostic" was coined
by Huxley as a play on the Gnostics, who claimed special knowledge of God:

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I
was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a
Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected,
the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that
I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the
last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the
one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they
had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved
the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a
pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume
and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast
by that opinion. [...]

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate
title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to
the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the
very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity
of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the
other foxes."

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Why is your definition
better than any other, such as Ravi Zacharias might choose?

Because Jason's definition is the correct one. Zacharias is using the
word to mean something other than it actually means, and communication
using words only works when people use words to mean what they actually do
mean.

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
If one chooses to believe that Ravi's definitions are correct,

Then one is a moron.

Troy Miller

2003-06-27 18:20:43 UTC

Post by Jeff Stephens
Why is your definition
better than any other, such as Ravi Zacharias might choose?

Not that this justifies anything, but there *is* the fact that, for a lot
of people, there are three categories:

-There is a God
-There is no God
-Don't know, can't know, don't bother

Admittedly, this are gross generalizations and misrepresentations... but
not a lot of people have the patience nor the desire to get any farther.

Troy

Brian Trosko

2003-06-28 07:00:18 UTC

Brian,
Do you believe in absolute truth?

Define your terms.

Brian Trosko

2003-06-28 15:45:20 UTC

Why should I define my terms?

Because unless you tell me what you mean by "absolute truth" I can't
answer your friggin' question.

Sheesh.

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-28 16:58:19 UTC

Brian,

You're quibbling to avoid answering the question, because you know you can't
logically defend your position.

You've already shown that you believe absolutely that Huxley's definition of
agnosticism is true. You reject any other definition. If I define absolute
truth, you will merely reject my definition and avoid answering the
question.

You are not a freethinker, and I'm tired of your naive posturing. So long.

Why should I define my terms?

Because unless you tell me what you mean by "absolute truth" I can't
answer your friggin' question.
Sheesh.

Brian Trosko

2003-06-28 19:11:18 UTC

Brian,
You're quibbling to avoid answering the question,

No, I'm not. If you want me to answer the question, define your terms.

You've already shown that you believe absolutely that Huxley's definition of
agnosticism is true.

Wow, you're confused. Or perhaps you're just a moron.

Definitions aren't "true" or "false." A given proposition "The definition
of x is y" can be true or false.

Definitions are essentially linguistic axioms. We can't use words unless
we agree on what the words mean. If you wish to use the word "agnostic"
to mean "a giant purple panda bear," you are certainly free to do so, but
you're not going to be able to engage in much meaningful discussion using
that word if you do so.

Ludwig77

2003-07-01 16:33:57 UTC

Post by Brian Trosko
Definitions aren't "true" or "false." A given proposition "The definition
of x is y" can be true or false.
Definitions are essentially linguistic axioms. We can't use words unless
we agree on what the words mean. If you wish to use the word "agnostic"
to mean "a giant purple panda bear," you are certainly free to do so, but
you're not going to be able to engage in much meaningful discussion using
that word if you do so.

The above definition is false simply because it can be.

How can you state definitions aren't "tru" or "false" and then proceed
to define "definitions"?

If you don't know what the words absolute and truth mean, then you've
got a bigger problem then simply answering the question.

Brian Trosko <***@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bdkp8m$f1b$***@reader1.panix.com>...

Brian Trosko

2003-07-01 20:18:39 UTC

Post by Brian Trosko
Definitions are essentially linguistic axioms. We can't use words unless
we agree on what the words mean. If you wish to use the word "agnostic"
to mean "a giant purple panda bear," you are certainly free to do so, but
you're not going to be able to engage in much meaningful discussion using
that word if you do so.

The above definition is false simply because it can be.
How can you state definitions aren't "tru" or "false"

*Sigh*.

Try reading it again.

Bob Weigel

2003-06-29 00:25:48 UTC

Brian,
You're quibbling to avoid answering the question, because you know you can't
logically defend your position.

Ha! Haha! Voila..no sooner did I say this than I open an article with
someone saying exactly the same thing. Congrats Jeff. You seem to be one
of the few here who can actually arrive at a logical conclusion on this kind
of matter.

You've already shown that you believe absolutely that Huxley's definition of
agnosticism is true. You reject any other definition.

However I tend to side with Brian on the definition from the thin bit I
read. Which is really unusual and bizarre I guess even. :-) But I tired of
his posturing long ago. You've definitely got that right. -Bob

If I define absolute

truth, you will merely reject my definition and avoid answering the
question.
You are not a freethinker, and I'm tired of your naive posturing. So long.

Why should I define my terms?

Because unless you tell me what you mean by "absolute truth" I can't
answer your friggin' question.
Sheesh.

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-29 05:54:59 UTC

Bob,

Thank you for the compliment. I guess as a newbie, I had to learn about
Brian on my own.

I've struggled with many of these concepts for a long time. It all started
when someone loaned me a copy of Rush's 2112 (years after it came out, I'll
admit). I delved into the philosophy behind the rock opera's concept, which
was based on Ayn Rand's philosophy. (This takes us back to some of the
origins of this thread!)

Anyway, I couldn't get around the fact that Rand's philosophy was based on
her *desire* to believe that there is no God. Her desire was so strong, she
held as fact that God does not exist. To me, her motivation seemed selfish,
not logical. Beyond that flaw, she could be very logical. Her economic
philosophy is very logical *if* you assume man is a machine without value
beyond what he can produce. Of course, you come up with a completely
different economic philosophy if you start with Biblical concepts.

I've noticed that highly successful people tend to buy into Rand's
philosophy. (Camel through the needle's eye, eh?) Again, their motive
seems to be selfish, not logical. Brian strikes me as the type who is very
successful financially (or he fell into a large sum of money), but he hasn't
found fulfillment in the money.

Post by Bob Weigel

Brian,
You're quibbling to avoid answering the question, because you know you

can't

logically defend your position.

You've already shown that you believe absolutely that Huxley's

definition

Post by Bob Weigel
of

agnosticism is true. You reject any other definition.

truth, you will merely reject my definition and avoid answering the
question.
You are not a freethinker, and I'm tired of your naive posturing. So

long.

Why should I define my terms?

Because unless you tell me what you mean by "absolute truth" I can't
answer your friggin' question.
Sheesh.

Bob Weigel

2003-06-29 21:00:09 UTC

Brian proved my suspicion when he suddenly became flexible, allowing me to
define the term "absolute truth." In one message, he asked me to define

the

term *and* had the nerve to say, "Definitions are essentially linguistic
axioms." If he truly believed that latter statement, he wouldn't ask me

define the term.

Yes I understand what you were saying in that regard and that certainly is
the most powerful point to be made to dear Brian. Basically, the guy is
hiding his self centered perspective behind a thin veil. By saying what he
says with regard to language...he's just utterly wasting people's times
whenever he engages in any kind of discussion like this. Because EVERY time
you define something, it just opens up a WHOLE NEW can of worms because he
choses to believe that words do NOT obviously have absolute
definitions...and are therefore all negotiable at the point of delivery to
him...so basically if he says "Define [something so straightforward as]
absolute truth" and then you break that down into other words...(all of
which are less definite than the ones used initially because you really
can't get any more blatantly definite than words like "absolute" and
"truth"... hehehhe)... and then of course he has a FIELD DAY with your new
definition and completely clouds the initial issue the more you talk to him.
Brian is a complete punk intellectually because of this phenomena, and yes
there's absolutely no point in trying to reason with him because of it.
He'll simply decide whatever you say means whatever he wants it to say via
this process IF you start challenging views that he holds dear. If -Bob

Thanks for your comments, Bob. Every bit is a learning experience.

No problem. Here's a quote where I comment on some of Brian's past ridicule
of Kurt btw. I don't see any of the really old stuff Brian and I had
dispute on where he actually interacted with me in google. The oldest stuff
in 1998 and I think we go back before that but maybe I'm mistaken. Anyway
here's one where I make an attempted analogy to help him see why it's wrong
to just presume heinous things about people and post them publically.
-------

: I'm a liar and a sexual predator?
Kurt, the only reason I think you're a liar and a sexual perdator and a
dangerous kooky stalker is because of *your* actions. Specifically,
incessant and creepy posts on rmc on this topic.
Those are *your* actions, Kurt. Yours. Yours, yours, yours. Until you
take steps to rectify those actions, I'm going to persist in my belief
that you're a dangerous kooky stalker.

Well, here YOU are Brian, maliciously gossiping about someone if THOSE
are
the actions. "Creepy post"? Hmm. Your post is creeepy Brian. THerefore
I judge you as a gay wacko cleptomaniac who steals dirty magazines
from gas stations while creating diversions with smoke bombs! There!
Doesn't that feel good? And it has JUST as much substance to back it
as what you have against kurt. YOU made a CREEPY POST. That was YOUR
action, and unTIL you take steps to rectify those actions, I'm going
to...go.... doesn't this guy have a life? It is SO SAD when people
in the body of Christ care so little about each other's reputation.
Obviuosly what I said was a joke and I wouldn't say anything like that about
you Brian. I don't know why you said that stuff about Kurt. It does not
look like a joke. It looks like a BUNCH of PEOPLE WITH MOB MENTALITY
trying to damage the reputation of someone who brought up some things
that troubled him about an organization. I believe it would be better if
we supported him in trying to reach a resolution with that organization,
rather than heaping insults on him...don't you ...Brian? -Bob

Bob Weigel

2003-06-29 00:22:42 UTC

I mean to post this stuff on another article and accidently hit "reply" and
it went to Brian's e-mail. Sorry Brian I really didn't mean to disturb your
coma. :-) But here's another funny one. Brian asks for a definition of a
term that has NO question regarding what it might mean. "Absolute truth".
Truth which is not negotiable. Do you believe absolute truth exists!? If
not of course, you are a 'relativist' which those of us who know there is
absolute truth see as 'evasionists' basically...because we all know there is
no rationale behind saying such a thing except the hope of making an EXCUSE
for doing whatever one pleases.
This is why I stopped reading Brian's posts...one of the first to gain
that general honor years ago. He's an absolute turd when it comes to
respecting the other person's speech. When he wants to disagree but can't
find ammunition..he just starts stupidly cluttering up the field with
irrelevant or totally stupid questions like this.

Well back to looking for the article I accidently replied not to group on...
it won't make any sense in this context..-Bob

Why should I define my terms?

Because unless you tell me what you mean by "absolute truth" I can't
answer your friggin' question.
Sheesh.

Peter T. Chattaway

2003-06-28 06:31:23 UTC

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Jeff Stephens wrote:
: Now, I haven't seen your phrases in Huxley's writings: agnostic
: athiest, agnostic theist, gnostic athiest, and gnostic theist. However,
: I can see the logical function of the categories. An agnostic athiest
: believes you can't know whether God exists and chooses to believe God
: doesn't exist. An agnostic theist believes you can't know whether God
: exists and chooses to believe God exists. A gnostic athiest knows God
: does not exist, and a gnostic thiest knows God exists.

Reminds me of how I've been calling myself a "Christian agnostic" for a
few years, partly in homage to Sam Phillips's description of herself as a
"Christian atheist" (whatever that means). I thought I had coined the
term, until I discovered that one of the many, many books in my
girlfriend's library is a book from a few decades back called _The
Christian Agnostic_. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

: The only logical alternative is to pray that God would reveal himself to
: you. How about it?

Read Jason's bio on his web site, and I think you'll see that he has, back
in the day when he considered himself a Christian.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- ***@chattaway.com ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-28 14:17:17 UTC

Peter,

I haven't read Jason's bio, but I'm sorry to hear your report. As Huxley
and Copan/Zacharias agree, the absence of evidential proof cannot tell us
whether God exists or not. Without evidence, the only other option is
supernatural revelation. A strong-athiest denies that such supernatural
revelation exists, because God doesn't exist. Yet, without proper evidence,
we can't prove God doesn't exist, so a strong-athiest has no valid stance to
say supernatural revelation doesn't exist.

It's a predicament that has been lived out through the ages, and Huxley
didn't discover it first. I am truly sorry for Jason's predicament.

Post by Peter T. Chattaway
: Now, I haven't seen your phrases in Huxley's writings: agnostic
: athiest, agnostic theist, gnostic athiest, and gnostic theist. However,
: I can see the logical function of the categories. An agnostic athiest
: believes you can't know whether God exists and chooses to believe God
: doesn't exist. An agnostic theist believes you can't know whether God
: exists and chooses to believe God exists. A gnostic athiest knows God
: does not exist, and a gnostic thiest knows God exists.
Reminds me of how I've been calling myself a "Christian agnostic" for a
few years, partly in homage to Sam Phillips's description of herself as a
"Christian atheist" (whatever that means). I thought I had coined the
term, until I discovered that one of the many, many books in my
girlfriend's library is a book from a few decades back called _The
Christian Agnostic_. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
: The only logical alternative is to pray that God would reveal himself to
: you. How about it?
Read Jason's bio on his web site, and I think you'll see that he has, back
in the day when he considered himself a Christian.
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

Brian Trosko

2003-06-28 07:01:33 UTC

I was educated in public schools in California, where I was taught that an
agnostic is a person who claims not to know whether God exists, and an
athiest is a person who claims to know that God does not exist.

You didn't get your money's worth.

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-28 14:33:45 UTC

Brian,

You're right, I didn't get my (or my parents') money's worth. I was in
school when Proposition 13 passed, and the politicians punished us by
cutting the school budgets instead of their pet projects.

But you're dragging this off topic. You appear to be saying that, even if
the masses are educated to believe something different (in this case,
different from your accepted definition of agnosticism), an absolute
definition holds true. The masses aren't correct just because they agree.

My point, however, was that I learned those definitions through a humanist
education system, not religious indoctrination.

You didn't get your money's worth.

snail

2003-06-28 15:46:12 UTC

Post by Jeff Stephens
You're right, I didn't get my (or my parents') money's worth. I was in
school when Proposition 13 passed, and the politicians punished us by
cutting the school budgets instead of their pet projects.

Pardon me if I take this even further off topic but what on earth
are you talking about here ?

--
snail @ careless net | http://www.zip.com.au/~vvsnail
I was upgraded to human being status...sort of - Tank Girl

Brian Trosko

2003-06-28 07:13:19 UTC

I don't agree that Huxley invented the word "agnostic".

Given that the word wasn't in use before he used it, I'm not sure what the
basis for your disagreement is.

taught that these were two separate theological beliefs. According to
Brian, the California public school system creates morons, but that's
another discussion. My point is, I didn't learn these definitions from any
sort of Christian teaching.

And the more important point is that you didn't learn the proper
definitions.

As has been stated, a/theism is a metaphysical statement, a statement
about the nature of reality. A/gnosticism is an epistemological
statement, a statement about the nature of knowledge.

agnostic theist, gnostic athiest, and gnostic theist. However, I can see
the logical function of the categories. An agnostic athiest believes you
can't know whether God exists and chooses to believe God doesn't exist. An
agnostic theist believes you can't know whether God exists and chooses to
believe God exists. A gnostic athiest knows God does not exist, and a
gnostic thiest knows God exists.

No. A gnostic atheist, in this sense, believes that it is possible to
know whether or not God exists, and also believes that God does not exist.
A gnostic theist, in the same sense, believes that it is possible to know
whether or not God exists, and also believes that God exists.
A/gnosticism and a/theism are *orthogonal statements*.

Huxley also wrote, "it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the
objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which
logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in
my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
If we assume Huxley is correct, and we have not yet seen evidence which
logically demonstrates the existence or non-existence of God, then no one
can be a gnostic.

Plenty of people can be gnostics. You're confused again. Again, the
agnostic preposition is "It is not possible to know whether or not God
exists." Agnosticism isn't a metaphysical preposition; it is entirely
separate from the existence or non-existence of God.

Therefore, everyone is agnostic, and the gnostic athiest
and gnostic theist cannot logically exist.

Strike two. Even if gnosticism isn't a justifiable belief, which it isn't
according to Huxley, that doesn't prevent people from holding it, so the
gnostic atheist and the gnostic theist *can* logically exist; there's
nothing logically impossible about people holding unjustifiable beliefs,
is there?

Now, what if Huxley is wrong?

Wouldn't change the fact that agnosticism is a statement of epistemology,
not metaphysics.

Of course,
there couldn't be a supernatural way to know God doesn't exist, because
there would be no supernatural without God.

Petitio principii. 5 yard penalty. No first down.

So we still have to rule out
the logical existence of a gnostic theist.

No, we don't. Peoples' beliefs aren't bound by rules of formal logic.
Even if gnosticism is an unjustifiable belief, people can still believe
it.

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-29 02:53:12 UTC

Oops. My post included a typo. In the middle of the first paragraph, I
meant to type, "one cannot defensibly claim to be a gnostic *a*thiest."
Anyone who knows of Ayn Rand will immediately recognize the mistake as a
typo. However, someone may choose to ignore the obvious and attack what I
actually typed.

One can defensibly claim to be a gnostic theist, because one can claim to
have had a revelation from God. Without evidential proof that God does not
exist, the basis of the claim cannot be disproven. Unfortunately, as Jason
pointed out, this logic has been used by many charlatans and frauds to claim
they've had such a revelation. However, the existence of these charlatans
and frauds does not prove that everyone claiming such a revelation is a
charlatan or fraud.

Brian,
I challenge you to analyze your own argument below. Even if, as you say,

gnostic atheist "believes that it is possible to know whether or not God
exists, and also believes that God does not exist," you still must

logically

admit that it is an illogical position to take. Absent of evidential

proof

that God does not exist, one cannot defensibly claim to be a gnostic

theist.

That doesn't mean people don't claim to be, they just can't defend their
position in an honest argument. Ayn Rand was one, but I only heard her
declare her postion, not defend it.
My point is that, in Jason's/Huxley's categorizations, there are only two
positions that are supported by evidential reasoning given the lack of
evidential proof. But if you assume that the supernatural possibility
exists--and that possibility has not been disproven--then there are three
logical categories.
Yet you've shown that you are not interested in logical discourse. You're
bent on picking at definitions to avoid hard thought. You are not worth

time, but I might pick up a discussion with Jason later.

Jason Steiner

2003-06-29 14:07:28 UTC

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Jason,
Thank you for responding. We'll let Brian spin on the question
posted above. It's obvious that you are closer to a freethinker
than he.
First, I need to apologize for attributing the definition you
quoted to Ravi Zacharias. I looked at the article, and the author
is Paul Copan.
Back to the discussion...
I don't agree that Huxley invented the word "agnostic".

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-29 18:37:57 UTC

Jason,

Hmm. It's interesting where you edited my comments. You are avoiding the
real issue.

I have not disputed that your/Huxley's definition of agnosticism is valid.
I've disputed your claim that Copan's definition of agnosticism is invalid.
You've already agreed that some hold to Copan's definition. Yet, you won't
view his article in that context.

More accurately, Huxley invented the *definition* of agnostic. He did so to
further his own assumptions, which is clear in his writing. Huxley was
relying solely on evidential proof. Based on evidential proof, only two of
the positions you've submitted can be logically held: agnostic atheist and
agnostic theist. However, if supernatural forces exist, a gnostic theist
can logically exist by claiming divine revelation.

On the point that a gnostic theist cannot logically exist, Copan's and
Huxley's arguments agree. Both cite the lack of evidential proof, but they
use terms differently, and their categories do not align exactly.

Do we agree that Huxley was an agnostic atheist? Then to be at odds with
Huxley, Copan is a theist, either agnostic or gnostic. If he is an agnostic
theist, you can't argue against him, because in the absence of evidential
proof, he chose a valid option. If he claims to be a gnostic theist, you
can't logically argue against him, because in the absence of evidential
proof, you cannot disprove that he received supernatural revelation.

Yet, you will call him a charlatan or a fraud. It's obvious from your
comments that you don't believe a gnostic theist can exist. Do you think
Huxley allowed for the possible existence of gnostic theists, or do you
think he rejected the possibility--even without evidential proof?

You may not like it, but it's a matter of historical fact,
and your disagreement serves no purpose but to attempt to
ignore the definition.
Now that the deception of your idols has been exposed, you're
just trying to make excuses for them.
Christians are not only *easy* to fool, they *want* to be
fooled, and will even attempt to cover for those who defraud
them.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Breezy

2003-06-29 20:31:39 UTC

Post by Jeff Stephens
Hmm. It's interesting where you edited my comments. You are avoiding the
real issue.

Get used to it, ignore him, move on.

-Breezy

Jeff Stephens

2003-06-29 23:49:04 UTC

I guess I've been initiated by the self-appointed welcome committee!

Post by Breezy

Post by Jeff Stephens
Hmm. It's interesting where you edited my comments. You are avoiding the
real issue.

Get used to it, ignore him, move on.
-Breezy

Breezy

2003-06-30 00:22:29 UTC

Post by Jeff Stephens
I guess I've been initiated by the self-appointed welcome committee!

You're not the first, you won't be the last. :)

-Breezy

Jason Steiner

2003-06-30 22:27:25 UTC

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Jason,
Hmm. It's interesting where you edited my comments. You are
avoiding the real issue.
I have not disputed that your/Huxley's definition of agnosticism is
valid. I've disputed your claim that Copan's definition of
agnosticism is invalid. You've already agreed that some hold to
Copan's definition. Yet, you won't view his article in that
context.

Would you accept the context of the question, "Have you stopped
beating your wife yet?" Doubtful. Because when the context itself is
false, it makes the answers arrived at within that context suspect.

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
More accurately, Huxley invented the *definition* of agnostic. He
did so to further his own assumptions, which is clear in his
writing. Huxley was relying solely on evidential proof. Based on
evidential proof, only two of the positions you've submitted can be
logically held: agnostic atheist and agnostic theist.

There are logical and evidential methods for supporting claims
of non-existence. Look up 'proof by contradiction' and 'proof by
contrapositive' for just a few examples to start with.

See, you've been kept so deliberately ignorant that I'd have to give
you a whole education on very basic topics in order for you to even
be able to discuss the topic intelligently! And since your deeply held
beliefs are all based on ignorant assumptions, you have every
incentive *not* to learn!

* First I have to teach you what agnosticism really is.
* Then I have to teach you about fallacies of loaded language.
* Now I've got to teach you basic logic.

Your leaders are betting I'll run out of patience before you run out
of ignorance. And you know what? They're probably correct. The amount
of ignorance Christians can promote is nearly endless, and I've got
better things to do.

jason

Jeff Stephens

2003-07-01 00:26:09 UTC

Jason,

Can you share a proof of the non-existence of God? Then we can analyze your
assumptions.

There are logical and evidential methods for supporting claims
of non-existence. Look up 'proof by contradiction' and 'proof by
contrapositive' for just a few examples to start with.
See, you've been kept so deliberately ignorant that I'd have to give
you a whole education on very basic topics in order for you to even
be able to discuss the topic intelligently! And since your deeply held
beliefs are all based on ignorant assumptions, you have every
incentive *not* to learn!
* First I have to teach you what agnosticism really is.
* Then I have to teach you about fallacies of loaded language.
* Now I've got to teach you basic logic.
Your leaders are betting I'll run out of patience before you run out
of ignorance. And you know what? They're probably correct. The amount
of ignorance Christians can promote is nearly endless, and I've got
better things to do.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Jeff Stephens

2003-07-02 01:18:48 UTC

Interesting questions, Jason. Did you make up the "square circle" problem
yourself, or did you get (regurgitate) it from somewhere else?

First, we have to decide which definitions to use. That's right, if I look
up the terms in the dictionary, I might find multiple definitions. You
accept that a word can have multiple definitions, right?

In the context, square is obviouse an adjective, so I choose the definition,
"Rigidly conventional; dull."

For circle, I choose the definition, "A plane curve everywhere equidistant
from a given fixed point, the center." We won't get into the underlying
axioms that allow us the definition.

Yes, I believe given the definitions I've chosen that a draftsman can draw a
square circle.

Now, I've humored you. Humor me. What's your proof for the non-existence
of God?

BTW, here's a clip from a fellow atheist's website. She doesn't seem to
agree with your singular definition of atheist. Also, please note her use
of a form of "square."

Extracted from http://www.thehappyheretic.com/qanda.htm

The word "agnostic" means literally "without knowledge" or, more simply, "I
don't know." But it is really just a cop-out word for atheist. It is a word
that society has not yet blackened with foul adjectives. It's safer to utter
in mixed company. However, it's impossible not to "know" whether or not you
acknowledge a deity. If you do, you know it. If you don't, you know that
too. And if you don't, you are an atheist-a person without theistic beliefs.

To say, "I am an agnostic" is to say, "I don't know whether I believe in God
or not." Which is nonsense. Even my hero, the late Carl Sagan, spoke of
atheism as a position that couldn't be justified because no one can provide
any "compelling evidence," as he put it, that a God does not exist. Neither
I nor any atheists I know make the claim of having "compelling evidence
against the existence of God." Nor are we required to have such evidence!
The burden of proof lies squarely with those who claim knowledge of the
existence of God. If you so claim, you must prove. I do not believe in a
God. That position requires no demonstration or "proof." If you claim there
is a God, you are making a claim that absolutely requires demonstration.

But the problem lies in the hair-splitting that goes on about whether or not
someone simply does not acknowledge a god, or goes further and actually
claims there is no god. Atheists do not make this claim. When we atheists
emphatically state that we do not believe in a god we will sometimes say,
"Oh, bull! There is no god!" But what we're talking about are the human
creations such as Jupiter, Thor, Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, Allah and so
on-the gods we've been spoon-fed since childhood but still find thoroughly
unconvincing. So we lump them all together and pronounce them all
nonexistent, and here is where the confusion comes in. When we claim
nonexistence for a god we mean of those so far offered as candidates.

No one can claim a god absolutely does not exist unless he can claim
infinite knowledge of the universe. I have never heard any atheist make this
claim either. In fact, if any atheist reading this can make the certain
claim that no god does or could exist, and can back it up, I would like to
hear about it. It would be fun to meet someone who possesses infinite
knowledge of the universe.

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Jason,
Can you share a proof of the non-existence of God? Then we can
analyze your assumptions.

No, you can't. As you've proved so far, you're not able to do anything
more than unquestioningly regurgitate the lies you've been told.
You'll have to start with something a little easier. Here's a homework
assignment for you. Has any draftsman in the history of the world ever
drawn a square circle? How do you know? Obviously, you haven't seen
every drawing ever made. Does that mean you are agnostic on the issue?
Does that mean you cannot know? Or is there a way for you to deduce
the existence or non-existence of square circles?
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Jason Steiner

2003-07-02 11:08:54 UTC

Post by Jeff Stephens
Interesting questions, Jason. Did you make up the "square circle" problem
yourself, or did you get (regurgitate) it from somewhere else?
First, we have to decide which definitions to use. That's right, if I look
up the terms in the dictionary, I might find multiple definitions. You
accept that a word can have multiple definitions, right?
In the context, square is obviouse an adjective, so I choose the definition,
"Rigidly conventional; dull."

Bob Weigel

2003-07-03 05:15:29 UTC

Yes he has no proof, he's a gay deceiver, etc. etc. etc. It all falls
tightly into line behind that fact. -Bob

I'm sorry. I was just trying to speed things along so you could get to
your point. You alluded to a proof that God does not exist. I know that
such a proof does not exist, unless we make certain assumptions, just like

made to show that a square circle can exist. Do you have such a proof, or
is it just an allusion? (pun intended)
If I can prove that a square circle exists, (even though we know it

doesn't,

given the proper assumptions,) then you might be able to prove that God
doesn't exist. I'm curious to see your assumptions.

Post by Jeff Stephens
Interesting questions, Jason. Did you make up the "square circle"

problem

Post by Jeff Stephens
yourself, or did you get (regurgitate) it from somewhere else?
First, we have to decide which definitions to use. That's right, if I

look

Post by Jeff Stephens
up the terms in the dictionary, I might find multiple definitions.

You

Post by Jeff Stephens
accept that a word can have multiple definitions, right?
In the context, square is obviouse an adjective, so I choose the

definition,

Post by Jeff Stephens
"Rigidly conventional; dull."

Of course you do. And of course, you choose the definitions which have
no meaning when applied to draftsman's figures, in order to very
deliberately miss the point. You've learned your lessons in Orwellian
doublethink well.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm

concerned,

Post by Jason Steiner
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking

things,

Post by Jason Steiner
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Jeff Stephens

2003-07-07 04:24:48 UTC

Thanks to Tree63 for the Subject line. For those who have followed the
"discussion" thus far, here's to the close.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm learning, and this has been an enlightening
discussion. However, I think I'll concentrate on discussions with
believers. We know that, "As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the
countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)

My discussions with Jason and Brian were more like iron trying to sharpen
lead. They both showed that they don't really believe what they say.
Depending on the convenience of the argument, they'll hold to absolutes,
then forsake absolutes when it fits their whim.

From their perspective, we're pitiful beings wandering around in faith,
wondering if we picked the right religion to escape some form of eternal
damnation. Yet, as Paul wrote, "for I know whom I have believed and am
peruaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that
Day." (2 Timothy 1:12b.)

We know that God exists, and we believe that His Word is true. We can know
these things by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. No argument can cause
someone to give up their salvation, and no argument can cause a person to
accept salvation. It's a Spirit thing. (Apologies to the Newsboys.) We
can be assured that anyone whom Jason convinced to "give up their faith" was
not saved.

Romans 8:14-38:

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you
did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the
Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." The Spirit Himself
bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children,
then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer
with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest
expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of
God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because
of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with
birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the
firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly
waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in
this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope
for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait
for it with perseverance.

Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we
should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for
us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts
knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the
saints according to the will of God.

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to
those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He
also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be
the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He
also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified,
these He also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against
us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how
shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a
charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who
condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even
at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall
separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or
persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written:
"For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter."

Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved
us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor
principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height
nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Bob Weigel

2003-07-07 05:38:05 UTC

Yup. like I say if boy Jason wonder is really doing a good work like
that, I say put him on salary. :-) The church could use a lot fewer flakes
who are there to sell insurance, pick up babes, or whatever. Thin 'em out
allll you want there Jason. But just remember...you're working for me pal
:-)
The FUNNY thing to me is that...Chattaway guy...saying "If that's the
way you want to take this thread" heheh. as though IT SOMEHOW THREATENS OR
SHAKES MY FAITH to hear that others who are there for the wrong reasons
anyway "fall away" due to Jason's power logic or whatever :-). Has he not
been LISTENING to me? For the past decade + I've made it my business here
to accentuate the fact that most people calling themselves after Christ are
NOT Christians because of the great apostacy in the so called 'church' which
has taught that you get to heaven by saying the majic Jezus prayer. So...a
few bail because of Jason....? And this is supposed to
impress/worry/surprise...what IS it supposed to do that you worded it that
way Peter...? *blink*
Anyway Peter...where ever you are (philosophically speaking) just let
it be known that you are a source of amazement to me. I'd like to hear a
rational explanation of why you would not think I would DRIVE the
conversation "that way". hehehhe. Your post made absolutely no sense in
that way and again far exceeds the expectations Jason has for would be
Christians acting like they don't know what is going on in all areas of
existance. And no it doesn't bother me that Jason only sees that part. If
that's all he sees it's probably because a deceiving spirit has blinded him
to the rest because of the pride in his heart. But...do you want to be
fodder for that process Peter? -bob

Post by Jeff Stephens
Thanks to Tree63 for the Subject line. For those who have followed the
"discussion" thus far, here's to the close.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm learning, and this has been an enlightening
discussion. However, I think I'll concentrate on discussions with
believers. We know that, "As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the
countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)
My discussions with Jason and Brian were more like iron trying to sharpen
lead. They both showed that they don't really believe what they say.
Depending on the convenience of the argument, they'll hold to absolutes,
then forsake absolutes when it fits their whim.
From their perspective, we're pitiful beings wandering around in faith,
wondering if we picked the right religion to escape some form of eternal
damnation. Yet, as Paul wrote, "for I know whom I have believed and am
peruaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that
Day." (2 Timothy 1:12b.)
We know that God exists, and we believe that His Word is true. We can know
these things by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. No argument can cause
someone to give up their salvation, and no argument can cause a person to
accept salvation. It's a Spirit thing. (Apologies to the Newsboys.) We
can be assured that anyone whom Jason convinced to "give up their faith" was
not saved.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you
did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the
Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." The Spirit Himself
bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children,
then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer
with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest
expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of
God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because
of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with
birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the
firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly
waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in
this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope
for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait
for it with perseverance.
Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we
should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for
us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts
knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the
saints according to the will of God.
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to
those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He
also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be
the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He
also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified,
these He also glorified.
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against
us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how
shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a
charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who
condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even
at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall
separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or
"For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter."
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved
us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor
principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height
nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Bob Weigel

2003-07-01 05:23:31 UTC

"Better things to do"....yess... yesss of course. Jason, you have been here
HOW many years? And you've convinced...HOW many people that there is no
God? When People already have a personal relationship with God, it's
impossible to convince them....because you can't unknow someone :-). Ok
back to your silly gay deception. -Bob

There are logical and evidential methods for supporting claims
of non-existence. Look up 'proof by contradiction' and 'proof by
contrapositive' for just a few examples to start with.
See, you've been kept so deliberately ignorant that I'd have to give
you a whole education on very basic topics in order for you to even
be able to discuss the topic intelligently! And since your deeply held
beliefs are all based on ignorant assumptions, you have every
incentive *not* to learn!
* First I have to teach you what agnosticism really is.
* Then I have to teach you about fallacies of loaded language.
* Now I've got to teach you basic logic.
Your leaders are betting I'll run out of patience before you run out
of ignorance. And you know what? They're probably correct. The amount
of ignorance Christians can promote is nearly endless, and I've got
better things to do.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Peter T. Chattaway

2003-07-02 05:56:34 UTC

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Bob Weigel wrote:
: "Better things to do"....yess... yesss of course.

Ooooh, the pot is answering the kettle now ...

: Jason, you have been here HOW many years? And you've convinced...HOW
: many people that there is no God? When People already have a personal
: relationship with God, it's impossible to convince them....because you
: can't unknow someone :-). Ok back to your silly gay deception. -Bob

Actually, I can recall one or two people saying in this forum that Jason
had played a part in getting them to drop their faith. If that's the
direction you want to take this thread, Bob, then I'd be curious to know
who has ever claimed that you helped bring them *to* the faith.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- ***@chattaway.com ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

Deconstructing Rembrandt

2003-07-02 07:25:34 UTC

Post by Peter T. Chattaway
Actually, I can recall one or two people saying in this forum that Jason
had played a part in getting them to drop their faith.

What a wonderful thing to accomplish with the time God gives you on this
planet.

To steal a somewhat corny, though nonetheless accurate, cliche... hope Jason
likes it hot.

One day we'll all get to see for sure who's right and who's wrong. I'd like
to say that believers will get the "last laugh," but I find no humor in
anyone, even one so much like a cancerous tumor as Jason, suffering eternal
damnation. But it isn't real, RIGHT JASON?

Two words: we'll see.

DECREM

Bob Weigel

2003-07-02 07:32:20 UTC

Post by Peter T. Chattaway
: "Better things to do"....yess... yesss of course.
Ooooh, the pot is answering the kettle now ...

Peter, I've never tried pot and am certainly not one. Perhaps you have a
narrowed view of what it takes to qualify as such or..something. Are you
the kettle? Am I answering the kettle now? Probably in someone's point of
view eh? I regularly make sport of Jason's non-sensical posts (and
congratulate the goods ones ) IN HOPES

1) those claiming to be in Christ will take note and perhaps use some of the
hot pointers on how to deal with him in a way that won't make this SAME
state of affairs DRIVEL ON for another 30 years or however long it takes
Jason to bite it.
(Logic? My concise reasoning is what drove Jason to killfile me. GO THOU
and...do likewise and I assure you..you'll be killfiled too. Once Jason
killfiles ALL of the people he's trying to annoy...poof. no more Jason
or...he finally realizes Christians can have discernment and it's the first
step towards fearing God for him. Well one of the first. Maybe he's already
taken the first by persisting here. I dunno. I doubt it though.)
2) In hopes that would be Christians will be made jealous when they get put
to shame by a nit wit atheist in reasoning...which does happen...and maybe
repent and ask God for wisdom.

Post by Peter T. Chattaway
: Jason, you have been here HOW many years? And you've convinced...HOW
: many people that there is no God? When People already have a personal
: relationship with God, it's impossible to convince them....because you
: can't unknow someone :-). Ok back to your silly gay deception. -Bob
Actually, I can recall one or two people saying in this forum that Jason
had played a part in getting them to drop their faith. If that's the
direction you want to take this thread, Bob, then I'd be curious to know
who has ever claimed that you helped bring them *to* the faith.

Really? Well, by all means then, I SUPPORT HIM! The more Christian FAKES
that will finally get a grip and stop playing religious games the BETTER!
Where do I send donations? ...wait!! I hear a comment about Lurkers
coming...hehehe.. "Lurkers denounce their faith because of me!!" Hehehe.
Peter, if YOU dropped your faith...I'd ask "what faith"? I don't
recall you ever taking a stand for anything that Jesus Christ asked us to
take a stand for. When people spread malicious gossip...where were you?
(Holding their cloakes perhaps?? Or did you toss a rock or two..I can't
recall...) Where were you when people claimed to be in Christ but created a
division with others who claimed to be in Christ? Were you a mediator...or
did you just act like nothing had happened? When someone sinned against
the body of Christ, where were you? Confronting them hoping they would hear
the truth, or ""? Etc. Perhaps you can summarize what you've stood for that
has to do with faith in Y'shua. I can't recall. Help me out here.
So, the fact is, when somebody comes up with a statement saying "Jason
helped me realize there's no God" by his godless example....I have to ask
"SO"? Is this any different than a LURKER? What kind of credibility did
these people's faith have in the first place? I at least thing I remember
you saying you were a Christian once. Whatever that means.
And now to complete the slice and dice job on your cheeze post Peter, I
have on line personally led at least a dozen to Christ over the years. In
'real life' a lot more. I don't know. I don't sit around tabulating or put
halos on my car's cowling. :-) Why would you ask such a
question???...unless....YOU THINK (Oh tell me it's not true! I've always
thought you had such a...GRIP on the Gospel Peter!!!) that there aren't a
lot of people who would consider it GOOD NEWS to hear that God came in the
flesh to earth to die at the hands of the most cowardly religious bigots one
could generate to completely remove all DOUBT that God loves us completely
and wants to restore relationship with him...so that if ONLY we are IMMERSED
IN HIS CHARACTER (so that we can be ..hint hint "hidden in him... like it
says in Collosians and stuff ya know??? ) we can receive complete salvation;
becoming heirs of God's kingdom instead of people destined for a godless
eternity in a place created for the devil. I'm sure probably you can
figure out a way to warp that and make it evil. Or try to slant things I've
said to say that is NOT what I say over and over and over. How long will
you keep insulting a messenger of the Good news Peter? Do you do it because
you don't like the good news? Do you do it because you don't like the
reality that the good news brings (that we are no longer part of this world;
a world which loves its own and hates those who aren't its own?? And that
we are called to be set apart...different...stranger/pilgrims....? which
part do you object to?) What is it that makes you write such things?
See, being able to present the gospel successfully doesn't have to do
with you or I being PERFECT in function Peter. I'm the last to admit (but
only because I'm in a group full of people so ANXIOUS to admit I'm imperfect
that they do it even when I'm not doing anything wrong :-) ) but still very
quick to admit that I'm imperfect. BUT I point people to Jesus who IS
perfect and let THOSE imperfect people know of my hope. How many perfect
Non-Christians do you know Peter? How are they going to relate to a perfect
Christian? They aren't. If I make a mistake let it be GLARING for ALL TO
SEE so that I CAN GLORIFY GOD WHO IS PERFECT and who LOVES ME SO THAT HE
WILL KEEP WORKING WITH ME UNTIL I AM LIKE HIM IN CHARACTER! Praise God for
such patience. Praise his holy name. Ever hear that Peter? That's the
gospel/good news. And that's why many people have listened to me and have
turned their hearts towards God. I don't spend a lot of time here. The
ground is hard. But I still feel led to write now and then. I thank God
that there is a REASON for it that is evidenced. If ONE person comes from
fear of man to life in God in exchange for 5,000 who turn from non-existant
faith to Jasonology.. I would tend to shrug my shoulders at Jason's work and
glorify God for the one. How bout you Peter? Who's side are you on in that
picture? What...kind of faith do you have anyway Peter? Why don't you tell
us all about it. -Bob

Bob Weigel

2003-06-29 21:02:29 UTC

Post by Michelle DiCamillo
Jason,
I don't agree that Huxley invented the word "agnostic".

Uhh...someone TELL Jason please that I'm a living testimony once again that
he is full of doo. :-) I'm a Christian. I just got done agreeing with
Brian stinking Trosko on the Huxley recitation. Yet Jason using BLANKET
STEREOTYPE LANGUAGE>..as usual....gaydeceiver he be... -Bob

Post by Jason Steiner
them.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Joe Finch

2003-06-25 07:55:14 UTC

Quite. Goths just ain't what they used to be. Manson? Pfah. Shock rock

bilge

without an ounce of talent or imagination. Sisters of Mercy are where

it's

at...

UH...last I checked...Manson wasn't goth.

Ludwig77

2003-06-25 13:23:54 UTC

Personally, I'm looking forward to Ozzfest and seeing Marilyn Manson live
again. Doesn't make me any less of a Christian, although I may get
responses to this by self-appointed judges of humanity who will differ.
Jeff Edwards

Sure, I can see how a Christian would love to go see the antichrist
superstar perform.......(sarcasm on)

There is a worldview behind every artistic expression. The worldview
behind Marilyn Manson's music is one of nihilism and hatred towards
God.

A Christian should be just as repelled by such a message just as much
as I would repelled by music that sung about hatred towards my wife no
matter how much I may like the style.

Ludwig

Jeff Edwards

2003-06-25 13:55:56 UTC

Sure, I can see how a Christian would love to go see the antichrist
superstar perform.......(sarcasm on)
There is a worldview behind every artistic expression. The worldview
behind Marilyn Manson's music is one of nihilism and hatred towards
God.
A Christian should be just as repelled by such a message just as much
as I would repelled by music that sung about hatred towards my wife no
matter how much I may like the style.

So don't go. Personally, I think you're oversimplifying the message that
Manson is giving in any one particular song. Besides that, I find it
interesting, which doesn't mean I agree with it. My brain allows me to
parse without soaking like a sponge 24/7.

Jeff Edwards
***@sbcglobal.net

Johnny Brooks

2003-06-25 14:51:24 UTC