Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[sandorski]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

What if I'm not...

Seems very doubtful.

So your issue is that he and I think you are wrong, thus we are Trolls?

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by sandorski

Seems very doubtful.

So your issue is that he and I think you are wrong, thus we are Trolls?

No, what made you a troll was by actually fronting like you cared to know my answers to the questions, yet all along assuming/deciding I was wrong the whole time.

Your obvious insincerity made you a troll.

[Moonbeam]

If something were totally omniscient it would come into being because only being what is could be conscious of everything.

[OCNewbie]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

"Starting with a conclusion and working backwards" means "start with a conclusion, make the evidence fit".

Actually, I think it means you start with a conclusion, and only acknowledge things that seem to support that conclusion, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. You don't necessarily modify the evidence (though I'm sure that happens to), you just use an extremely selective filter, only giving credibility to evidence that affirms your conclusion.

Originally Posted by Rob M.

You're confusing total omniscience with inherent omniscience. That can be a point of philisophical debate with or without using the Bible.

But that's the crux of our debate here.

Sounds like a definition made up to allow God to be "all-knowing" and simultaneously allow free will. Does it talk about that in the Bible?

If it's not listed in the Bible, it's (IMO), like I mentioned above, an instance of manufacturing evidence, or conditions, where your conclusion is still viable.

[sandorski]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

No, what made you a troll was by actually fronting like you cared to know my answers to the questions, yet all along assuming/deciding I was wrong the whole time.

Your obvious insincerity made you a troll.

Don't you think the same as us? I admit, I pretty much know what your answers are going to be, I used to believe very similarly to what you believe. If that makes me a troll in your eyes, so be it. I would disagree with that as well.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by OCNewbie

Sounds like a definition made up to allow God to be "all-knowing" and simultaneously allow free will. Does it talk about that in the Bible?

Like I mentioned above, if it's not listed in the Bible, it's (IMO) an instance of manufacturing evidence, or stipulations, where your conclusion is still viable.

Like I said, it can be debated and is probably still down to this day.

You used to be Christian, what have you found listed in the Bible to frame your concern/question?

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

*removes from ignore list, reads post*

lol @ obvious bitterness

*puts back on ignore*

You read my post when sandorski quoted it.

Dishonesty -- another fundamental pillar of religion.

This whole thread, page after page, proves correct the premise in post #1. Rob M. is an individual with whom I personally have tried to have reasonable conversations on many occasions, and it never leads anywhere because he categorically refuses to accept any responsibility for backing up his assertions. He'll ignore points, he'll try to reverse them on you, he'll attempt to claim that the burden of proof is on someone to show something doesn't exist -- anything but accept the inherent arbitrariness of his belief system.

It's been said that religion is a disease of the mind. And for good reason.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

You read my post when sandorski quoted it.

Dishonesty -- another fundamental pillar of religion.

This whole thread, page after page, proves correct the premise in post #1.

Wasn't I on your ignore list?

Dishonesty, another fundamental pillar of the non-religious.

[Moonbeam]

Arguments for the compatiblilty of foreknowledge and free will are as follows:

The Aristotelian solution
The Boethian solution
The Ockhamist solution
The Molinist solution
The Augustinian/Frankfurtian solution

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Wasn't I on your ignore list?

Dishonesty, another fundamental pillar of the non-religious.

I cleared my ignore list of all but three of the most egregious posters here, when the Debate Club was announced.

I said nothing to imply dishonesty here. You did.

Just as you've been dishonest throughout this entire thread.

Page after page of diversions, obfuscations, name-calling and hand-waving. And still not one single bit of objective evidence that your bible is true, or that the people who wrote the NT actually knew anything more about Jesus than his name.

[OCNewbie]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

You used to be Christian, what have you found listed in the Bible to frame your concern/question?

I was asking you if the two variations of being omniscient was talked about in the Bible, or is that something that was concluded years later, perhaps to combat the free will vs. all knowing conundrum.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by sandorski

Don't you think the same as us? I admit, I pretty much know what your answers are going to be, I used to believe very similarly to what you believe. If that makes me a troll in your eyes, so be it. I would disagree with that as well.

No, I don't think you're wrong. Frankly, I don't care what position you hold -- all I care about is discussion.

It does seem, however, that at least one person in this thread demonstrates bitter hostility against the bible and religion by calling us disease-minded, irrational, uneducated, etc. He really hates. He does, and it shows. He has an ax to grind, apparently, becasue he was fooled, duped, held-back educationally, indoctrinated with fear and dispair, and he's out on a crusade (irony, much) to rid the world of these people and their beliefs, one forum at a time.

Sad, sad human being...

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by OCNewbie

Sounds like a definition made up to allow God to be "all-knowing" and simultaneously allow free will. Does it talk about that in the Bible?

If it's not listed in the Bible, it's (IMO), like I mentioned above, an instance of manufacturing evidence, or conditions, where your conclusion is still viable.

The Bible does indicate the Trinity of God... and in this case the operative entity would be the Holy Spirit.... Through the Holy Spirit God knows even the thoughts of the heart.... Why he'd want knowing stuff after giving us Free Will is puzzling... That he is omni-stuff means that he'd know tomorrow's thoughts and actions.... Why he'd want knowing tomorrow's stuff baffles me even more. Perhaps to have time to think about it... BUT... Being eternal and all, time has no meaning... All is in the present... But, according to Rob it is (apparently) so he can decide to take action or not which he'd already know about anyhow given his various 'omninesses'.
No one should argue about his Omnipotentness. It is evidenced by Quantum Physics, Dark energy and matter.... No entity but God could figure that stuff out...

So... God apparently has the three 'O's' and still made hell... I wonder if he made all men in his image... including the Marquis De Sade... OR... He made this mess we live in and said to himself... "Wonderful... another fine mess you've gotten me into"

I think God probably peeks into our world now and then and his last look see rendered him speechless... He probably figures the Chimp might make a better fit than humans and only a change in the menu is needed in the heavenly dining room...

[Charles Kozierok]

I said: "Page after page of diversions, obfuscations, name-calling and hand-waving. And still not one single bit of objective evidence that your bible is true, or that the people who wrote the NT actually knew anything more about Jesus than his name."

And less than ten minutes later, confirmation:

Originally Posted by Rob M.

It does seem, however, that at least one person in this thread demonstrates bitter hostility against the bible and religion by calling us disease-minded, irrational, uneducated, etc. He really hates. He does, and it shows. He has an ax to grind, apparently, becasue he was fooled, duped, held-back educationally, indoctrinated with fear and dispair, and he's out on a crusade (irony, much) to rid the world of these people and their beliefs, one forum at a time.

Sad, sad human being...

Your personal views about me are meaningless. Even if everything you said were 100% true -- and of course, it is not -- it would have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of anything being discussed here.

But you don't really want to discuss your bible or your religion, because whenever the veneer is pulled back, everyone can see that, simply put, there's no "there" there.

[sandorski]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

No, I don't think you're wrong. Frankly, I don't care what position you hold -- all I care about is discussion.

It does seem, however, that at least one person in this thread demonstrates bitter hostility against the bible and religion by calling us disease-minded, irrational, uneducated, etc. He really hates. He does, and it shows. He has an ax to grind, apparently, becasue he was fooled, duped, held-back educationally, indoctrinated with fear and dispair, and he's out on a crusade (irony, much) to rid the world of these people and their beliefs, one forum at a time.

Sad, sad human being...

The problem with he Bible is that it has no unique value, yet contains within it many teachings that actually harm.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by LunarRay

The Bible does indicate the Trinity of God...

Actually, it mostly doesn't. The doctrine of the trinity was concocted by cherry-picking specific phrases from the NT that supported the idea, and ignoring all of the phrases that contradicted it.

As usual, the early Christians spent a few hundred years arguing about it. And, as usual, even today there are Christians arguing about it.

[OCNewbie]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

He has an ax to grind, apparently, becasue he was fooled, duped, held-back educationally, indoctrinated with fear and dispair, and he's out on a crusade (irony, much) to rid the world of these people and their beliefs, one forum at a time.

Perhaps you realize many believe that the bolded applies to those who were brought up, or otherwise indoctrinated, to believe in religion of one form or another.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

Your personal views about me are meaningless.

So are yours about me.

So, you've started an argument by picking at myself and my posts, which started this chidish back and forth, and now you seem to be trolling.

Just leave man, please, because you've derailed the last page of this thread...

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Arguments for the compatiblilty of foreknowledge and free will are as follows:

The Aristotelian solution
The Boethian solution
The Ockhamist solution
The Molinist solution
The Augustinian/Frankfurtian solution

You've forgotten the LunarRay Solution which states: That which has the power to create the future and all that that entails enables no Earthly solution to its understanding.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

So are yours about me.

True.

But my opinions about your refusal to engage in serious discussion here are not meaningless.

You are either unable or unwilling to rationally debate your faith. And nobody else is able and willing to step in and do it either.

Which, once again, brings us entirely on-topically back to the first post: the correlation between religion and irrationality.

Originally Posted by OCNewbie

Perhaps you realize many believe that the bolded applies to those who were brought up, or otherwise indoctrinated, to believe in religion of one form or another.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he meant.

Apparently he thinks that my recognizing my brainwashing and outgrowing it is somehow a negative in an (alleged) rational discussion of religion.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by OCNewbie

Perhaps you realize many believe that the bolded applies to those who were brought up, or otherwise indoctrinated, to believe in religion of one form or another.

Sure. Yet, he acknowledged his brainwashing, etc, much earlier than now. People do believe that, however, that alone doesn't make it true. I've been called a lot of things people "believed". I shrug it off my shoulder and keep it moving - it aint true. Why should it bother me? People are entitled to believe what they want.

For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with being brought up in whatever ones parents feel is best, whether it's Christianity/Islam/Buddism/whatever.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

Apparently he thinks that my recognizing my brainwashing and outgrowing it is somehow a negative in an (alleged) rational discussion of religion.

Nope. My issue is that since you were brain washed, you think every religious person is and every religion does it.

Your sweeping assertions make you irrational.

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

Actually, it mostly doesn't. The doctrine of the trinity was concocted by cherry-picking specific phrases from the NT that supported the idea, and ignoring all of the phrases that contradicted it.

As usual, the early Christians spent a few hundred years arguing about it. And, as usual, even today there are Christians arguing about it.

Sure, there are all sorts of this and that but at the end of the day you do have Jesus apparently... And the Father who is lounging in heaven and finally the Holy Spirit was to fill the hearts of the Apostles when Jesus abandoned them... er... arose to heaven. So... To me it is clear that there are suppose to be three distinct entities mushed together as one... IF not that is fine by me... I'm certain that God exists and that we here on Earth do pretty well without his oversight if that is the case. In any event, given all the conflicting logic of it all it is a wonder that I do believe in God... It is an intuitive knowledge and the evidentiary bits to scientifically prove God is beyond my ability to see.... It is truth non-the-less (for me).

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Nope. My issue is that since you were brain washed, you think every religious person is and every religion does it.

Sorry, but that's not true.

My views on religion are not based on my upbringing. They're based on observing the behavior of people like yourself.

800 posts into this thread, and still not one single rational argument for why I should consider Jesus any more credible than Zeus.

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

Which, once again, brings us entirely on-topically back to the first post: the correlation between religion and irrationality.

There can be no doubt that Religious belief is irrational as seen from generally accepted logical premises...

One can't reasonably point to nothing and defend something... To make the Bible axiomatic is just plain irrational...

It is all about Faith... That irrational state of mind held by many irrational people who construe a variety of meanings from the same event assumed to be factual.

How can Faith be debated? It can't or at least not rationally...

I know God exists because I said so, therefore, God exists... You say Prove it... I ask to whom... you or to me... You say to you and I say I can't... there it ends...

But in this thread it does not and does not for the reasons you state and that I state... But it sure is interesting...