Religious

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

Want to PM me an address along with who the checque should be made out to?

Just send cash.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What I can afford and what I'd bet are not the same thing. Is your $2 window open?

Well it should be. You certainly would not want to bet $3. if it meant you'd miss a mortgage payment.

And what is a $2. window? Never knew there was such a thing.

But anyhow...you're obviously not interested in increasing my wealth -- so my post was written 6/11/14. The post number is probably 12140 (140 being the last three numbers I actually have in my copy.) I say this because I wrote a follow up on 6/19 and that post number was 12864.

So enjoy the read.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But anyhow...you're obviously not interested in increasing my wealth -- so my post was written 6/11/14. The post number is probably 12140 (140 being the last three numbers I actually have in my copy.) I say this because I wrote a follow up on 6/19 and that post number was 12864.

So enjoy the read.

You made no post on 6-11-2014. Neither did anyone else. Post #12820 was made the day before and #12821 was made the day after. Pure fact. Anyone reading this can look for themselves.

Post #12140 has nothing to do with "self-defeating".

#12140

Originally Posted by boxcar

Give your unauthorized, non-credentialed interpretation of Acts 17:28-29.

Also, hasn't the RCC taught you anything about the devil's children?

Boxcar

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're still chafing over the Law of Noncontradiction. I bet you hate that law, since there is no wiggle room to wiggle out of it.

And, yes, all worldly philosophies can easily be disproved the laws of logic. Look how easily Geisler dismantled Ayer's Logical Positivism which finds its ground in Hume!

And your "10+10" tale is another one of your lame analogies. If someone falsely postulates anything, then the laws of logic would unearth the falsehood. The laws of logic are designed to keep us on track to the truth -- not falsehood!

Well I be darned. SMTW was right. There is no way you could really be as stupid as this post suggest You are,you sly ole devil.Its impossible!I don't know your age but I know you're no spring chicken, Darwinian laws decree that a specimen so mentally deficient would be eliminated by now. Ya got me

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well it should be. You certainly would not want to bet $3. if it meant you'd miss a mortgage payment.

My house if paid for thank you very much. Anyway as far as I am concerned I'm paying for information but you insist on the bet. If I'm paying for something why pay more than the minimum?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And what is a $2. window? Never knew there was such a thing.

Well they told me the minimum bet at the $50 window was $50, so if the minimum bet at the other windows is $2 I just assumed ...

Originally Posted by boxcar

But anyhow...you're obviously not interested in increasing my wealth ...

Not in the least.

[boxcar]

Here is what my records indicate. Keep in mind that in copying over to my own personal files, the first two numbers were lobbed off.

Here is the entire post along with your remarks to which I responded, of course. There must be a post in there somewhere prior to 6/19 because the post number I have recorded for that post is 12864. Anyway, this is what I wrote:

140 - Re: Religious thread. Is Man inherently Evil? - 06/11/14

(emphasis mine)

I have explained many times what self-defeating means. In fact, it should be self-evident to all with an IQ number above the length of a shoe lace. For example, what does "defeat the purpose" mean? Or whenever we do something that is really dumb and is at "cross purposes" with one another?

The most poignant example AGAIN would be a statement like this:

There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Assuming the one making the statement is serious and is absolutely sure that there is such no thing as absolute truth, then the statement obviously collapses upon itself because his proposition is self-contradictory. Just like athesim!

You claim: There is no God. But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him. Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -- in which case your philosophy is self-defeating in nature because it is inherently contradictory! And this, sir, makes it a lie because you, implicitly being God, cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense!.

Atheism, above all other philosophies, is the most absurd of all human philosophies. Since you are unable to conclusively prove the negative statement, your only other avenue of hope would be to prove [positively] that you have infinite knowledge of all things in the universe. Then, and only then, would anyone with a half a brain begin to take your philosophy seriously.

It is no wonder that the psalmist called atheists fools! And it's also written:

Prov 1:22
22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love simplicity?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing,
And fools hate knowledge?
NASB

Now, Mr. Scientist, tell me how biblical Christianity is a self-defeating belief system in concise and coherent terms in a paragraph or two, as I have done now with Atheism and have done in the past with its kissing cousin Unlimited Agnosticism.. Remember: You must show how the belief system is inherently contradictory, which would make it self-defeating.

Talk about a Mission Impossible.... But I just know you will try to embark on a fool's errand.

Boxcar

Now, my post 12864 was in response to your response to the above. How we can know know this is that you disputed what I said your claim was in the above post of mine. In the above, I said your claim was, "There is no God". But you disputed this and this dispute is contained in my 12864. So here is that post in its entirety.

12864 - Religious - 06/19/14

You are rapidly an insufferable bore. Another one like Hcap who writes so much and says so little and then wants to wrangle with words. You have claimed that you are an atheist! Have you not? Then let's look at the definition of what atheism is:

Main Entry:athe£ism
Pronunciation:**-th*-*i-z*m
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle French ath*isme, from ath*e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:1546

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So, whether you want to say that there is no evidence for God or no God, you are saying the same thing. You are an atheist who does not believe in the existence of God because you think there is no evidence for his existence. Again, my premise is solid to your self-defeating philosophy because I could just as easily ask: Have you searched the entire universe for the evidence? Have you searched every crook and nanny in the universe? Or are you certain that you haven't seen the evidence that is hidden in plain sight? Do you know with absolute certainty that no such evidence for God exists? If you don't, then your atheism is absurd by that admission because you would be admitting to ignorance of all that is in the universe. But if you say you do have knowledge of all that is in the universe, then you make yourself to be the very deity who you deny exists, since you would have to possess infinite knowledge of all that exists in the universe, including any evidence for God's existence. This kind of knowledge would make you something much more than a mere finite, fallible human being. This would make your atheism self-contradictory, i.e. a self-defeating philosophy.

Atheism is a philosophy for the naive who love simple-minded, expedient and inherently and necessarily contradictory answers to tough questions . This is why I quoted Prov 1:22. But then later you turned around and asked me what I had against simplicity, completely overlooking the context of the passage. (What else is new?)

First, Solomon, directed the question to the "NAIVE". So, tell me: How long have you been a fan of naivete? You should do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "naive".

Secondly, he went on to equate naive people with fools and how fools hate knowledge. (Recall the psalmist who called atheist fools!?)

Naive people are characterized by unaffected simplicity. Here's one example. A naive person could think that he's the world's smartest and most gifted shopper or consumer because he knows how to get the cheapest price on everything he buys. His thinking is purely one-dimensional, and he's oblivious to the fact that the cheapest price on goods or services often does not represent the best bang for the buck, i.e. the best value. Naive people often don't take the time or make the effort to gain meaningful knowledge on products that would give them insights or wisdom on how to shop for real value, instead of just the more simplistic "best price". Naive people are quite self-deceived.

So...there is nothing wrong with simplicity in and of itself; for simplicity can be very profound and can often offer the best solutions to problems -- but never at the expense of genuine knowledge.

So, again the bottom line, Mr. Naive, is that you cannot prove a negative. But on the other hand, you could try to prove to us that you have infinite knowledge of all that exists in the universe, in which case that would go a long way to giving some credence to your atheistic world view. But since you can't prove a negative nor will you be able to prove that you're an omniscient god, then Atheism reduces to a patently absurd, meaningless philosophy.

Ciao,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

Well I be darned. SMTW was right. There is no way you could really be as stupid as this post suggest You are,you sly ole devil.Its impossible!I don't know your age but I know you're no spring chicken, Darwinian laws decree that a specimen so mentally deficient would be eliminated by now. Ya got me

Well, Darwin was hardly a brainiac. Not surprised you would fall in love with him. Birds of a feather...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

My house if paid for thank you very much. Anyway as far as I am concerned I'm paying for information but you insist on the bet. If I'm paying for something why pay more than the minimum?

Well they told me the minimum bet at the $50 window was $50, so if the minimum bet at the other windows is $2 I just assumed ...

Not in the least.

Dang! You ain't no fun.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't believe everything. Just the truth. But because I'm a critical thinker, I know you're a moral relativist and so I know how such people think. Moral Relativism is older than dirt. There were lots of moral relativists in the bible and most people here are, also.

If you believe the story about Jonah and the Whale...then what WON'T you believe?

Your saying that you are a "critical thinker" is the most erroneous comment since General Custer, who supposedly told his men at Little Bighorn..."Over that hill, I think there are FRIENDLY Indians".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Here is what my records indicate. Keep in mind that in copying over to my own personal files, the first two numbers were lobbed off.

I don't think so. I could be wrong but I seem to recall a separate short lived thread called "Is Man Inherently Evil". I think 140 refers to post #140 in that thread.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Here is the entire post along with your remarks to which I responded, of course. There must be a post in there somewhere prior to 6/19 because the post number I have recorded for that post is 12864. Anyway, this is what I wrote:



Now, my post 12864 was in response to your response to the above. How we can know know this is that you disputed what I said your claim was in the above post of mine. In the above, I said your claim was, "There is no God". But you disputed this and this dispute is contained in my 12864. So here is that post in its entirety.

You lose the bet. The terms of the wager were clearly stated in #18319.

Originally Posted by Actor in #18319

Just to be clear the wager is "boxcar has never posted an argument on Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General > Religious thread which proves his contention that 'Atheism is Self-Defeating'. To win the wager boxcar must state the post# where the argument was made."

(Emphasis mine.)

And if my above speculation is correct then you lose on two counts since the wager specifically states the post must be in this thread, not another thread.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't think so. I could be wrong but I seem to recall a separate short lived thread called "Is Man Inherently Evil". I think 140 refers to post #140 in that thread.



You lose the bet. The terms of the wager were clearly stated in #18319.

(Emphasis mine.)

And if my above speculation is correct then you lose on two counts since the wager specifically states the post must be in this thread, not another thread.

Oh, golly. Do you want me to send you the $2.? But I did make a post. And you didn't even remember. At least I remembered writing such a post.

But I think you are right about it being another thread. That would explain the 140 post number. What threw me off were the subsequent posts, because it seems that 12864 was in response to your response to my 140.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you believe the story about Jonah and the Whale...then what WON'T you believe?

Your saying that you are a "critical thinker" is the most erroneous comment since General Custer, who supposedly told his men at Little Bighorn..."Over that hill, I think there are FRIENDLY Indians".

Why? God can't make a fish big enough to swallow a man whole? Jesus certainly thought so.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't think so. I could be wrong but I seem to recall a separate short lived thread called "Is Man Inherently Evil". I think 140 refers to post #140 in that thread.



You lose the bet. The terms of the wager were clearly stated in #18319.

(Emphasis mine.)

And if my above speculation is correct then you lose on two counts since the wager specifically states the post must be in this thread, not another thread.

By the way by the terms of your wager I was only half wrong. I did have the right post # but wrong thread. Kinda like being in the wrong pew in the right church.

[Greyfox]

General Custer's last words to his men were:

"Take no prisoners."

[Hank]

Originally Posted by Hank

Well I be darned. SMTW was right. There is no way you could really be as stupid as this post suggest You are,you sly ole devil.Its impossible!I don't know your age but I know you're no spring chicken, Darwinian laws decree that a specimen so mentally deficient would be eliminated by now. Ya got me

[B] sly ole devil BINGO! Thats it! Thats it!

It all makes sense now. Boxie is a satanic double agent his real mission is to drive folks away from "God" by embodying the most repulsive representation of Christianity imaginable.This is the only possible explanation for his uncanny power to repel.