Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And five other people who supposedly wrote parts of the Bible. David is the only one for which there is one iota of evidence for his existence and zero evidence that he ever wrote anything.


Exactly what was your meaning when you stated that "Most of the books were not written anonymously" followed by a list of "X wasn't a person?"


When are you going to get around to proving atheism is self defeating?

I did that a long time ago. Try to stay awake.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

He now suggest that his moral authority is akin to that of Jesus of Nazareth. "non compos mentis" Sad, because he will never perceive it.

Poor interpretation. The far better one is that I'm on the same page as Jesus.

And besides, even if you were right, what difference would that make to you since you have about as much regard for Jesus as you do for the Wizard of Oz?
If you really thought that Jesus had any moral authority, you would be a Christian instead of a Kantonite.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I did that a long time ago. Try to stay awake.

What post number?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Thask,

You really didn't expect an on point answer to your specific question, did you?

Come on, SMTW...I thought you knew me better than that. Would I ever expect a straight answer from Boxcar? The way that he twists and turns, and tip-toes around the issues...I bet he was a heck of a dancer back in his day.

Boxcar is the perfect example of the "false prophets" that Jesus was warning his people about. "By their FRUITS ye shall know them"...Jesus said.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Poor interpretation. The far better one is that I'm on the same page as Jesus.

And besides, even if you were right, what difference would that make to you since you have about as much regard for Jesus as you do for the Wizard of Oz?
If you really thought that Jesus had any moral authority, you would be a Christian instead of a Kantonite.

I'm on the same page as Jesus.
"

non compos mentis"

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I did that a long time ago.

No, you did not. I've done some quite extensive searching of this thread and I find that although you have made the statement "Atheism is self-defeating" quite often you have never put forth any argument in support of that statement. You make the claim, the burden of proof is yours. Put up or shut up.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, you did not. I've done some quite extensive searching of this thread and I find that although you have made the statement "Atheism is self-defeating" quite often you have never put forth any argument in support of that statement. You make the claim, the burden of proof is yours. Put up or shut up.

Don't feel so bad...he never explained how buddhism is "self-defeating" either.

I think "self-defeating" is just a catchphrase that he likes to use.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, you did not. I've done some quite extensive searching of this thread and I find that although you have made the statement "Atheism is self-defeating" quite often you have never put forth any argument in support of that statement. You make the claim, the burden of proof is yours. Put up or shut up.

Would you care to place a bet that I didn't? (In fact, sir, I made multiple posts on atheism.)

Have a nice morning.

Oh yeah... Put up or shut up.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Don't feel so bad...he never explained how buddhism is "self-defeating" either.

I think "self-defeating" is just a catchphrase that he likes to use.

How about "self-refuting"? Another catch-phrase?

In your entire life, have you ever used the phrase or heard anyone use the phrase to the effect, "It defeats the purpose"? Do you understand what this phrase means?

Now once more I'll ask. Do you see anything wrong with this statement that is written in English: I don't write a word of English.

I bet even ShowMe could tell us what is wrong with the above statement, if he thought long and hard enough on it, providing he didn't burst a blood vessel in the process. (Maybe even 'cap, too.)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

I'm on the same page as Jesus.
"

non compos mentis"

So, you think Kant was Jesus Christ, eh?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Don't feel so bad...he never explained how buddhism is "self-defeating" either.

I think "self-defeating" is just a catchphrase that he likes to use.

I'm not so sure that boxcar doesn't have a point here, albeit a questionable one.

If you think about it, any religion that does not believe in an afterlife, holds a tenet that the self, which must contain at least part of the soul, dies at death.
In effect, the soul self is defeated.
For certain the faith of atheism would be self-defeating in that sense.
Buddhism though is another story.
Proponents of it believe that while the body dies the "life" within it goes on, transforms so to speak, but into nothing resembling our current selfs.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

For certain the faith of atheism would be self-defeating in that sense.

Atheism is not a faith. It is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you think Kant was Jesus Christ, eh?

Huh, No Boxie I don't. A wise man once said that there are three tiers of human intellect.1. A tiny group of geniuses 2. A larger but still small group capable of comprehending what members of the first group are talking about.3 The largest group by far,EVERYONE else. Your posts represent Mountains of evidence supporting the conclusion that you are a life long member of group 3.As a consequence you make asinine statements like "all the world's philosophies are self-defeating because they are grounded in falsehoods. Every single one of them violate the Law of Non-Contradiction."
And brilliant Christians like Augustine and Aquinas appreciate and utilize the work of great philosophers. No one had to do their Knowing or thinking for them.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How about "self-refuting"? Another catch-phrase?

In your entire life, have you ever used the phrase or heard anyone use the phrase to the effect, "It defeats the purpose"? Do you understand what this phrase means?

Now once more I'll ask. Do you see anything wrong with this statement that is written in English: I don't write a word of English.

I bet even ShowMe could tell us what is wrong with the above statement, if he thought long and hard enough on it, providing he didn't burst a blood vessel in the process. (Maybe even 'cap, too.)

All this nonsense...and still no explanation of why Buddhism is "self-defeating"...or even "self-refuting".

You said that all religions, except for Christianity, are self-defeating. Now I am eager to see how long it will be before you supply a real explanation.

I am on to you, Boxcar. I know why you like to give vague answers like these. You do it in order to buy yourself some time...so you can search for the REAL answers on Wikipedia. Good luck.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I'm not so sure that boxcar doesn't have a point here, albeit a questionable one.

If you think about it, any religion that does not believe in an afterlife, holds a tenet that the self, which must contain at least part of the soul, dies at death.
In effect, the soul self is defeated.
For certain the faith of atheism would be self-defeating in that sense.
Buddhism though is another story.
Proponents of it believe that while the body dies the "life" within it goes on, transforms so to speak, but into nothing resembling our current selfs.

And Boxcar's version of Christianity dictates that all those whom God has not predetermined to "save" in this life, will spend all eternity in a fiery hell. This doesn't sound "self-defeating" to you?