Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[bulldog D]

'.... stoning with stones, that he die'

 

Do you think non belivers should be stoned until they are dead?

 

The direction of your questioning towards Teeny over recent posts looks like there's a certain amount of baiting going on!

I can't see him advocating the literal interpretation of a passage from Deuteronomy which must be at least 3500 years old if it's a day. Although I don't know Teeny I get the idea that he's expressing a Christian outlook, which as you know, is new testament based. Therefore trying to get him to provide an eloquent and rational answer on something he's probably never studied.Which is in the old testament, allegedly written by Moses seem a bit unfair to say the least. I don't understand your motive and can't see where your going with this debate.

We can all select "snippets" from the books in the bible and history to justify our actions and questions today if we want to. This is not a new concept and it's been done for centuries! The same questions have been asked and the same answers given. My suggestion to everybody on this forum is to look for the humanity in others and appreciate their differences.

[flamingjimmy]

You are beyond hope I'm afraid, annoyed?

Yes, quite clearly.

 

Most of the time I've been laughing whilst replying to this nonsense.

 

I explained fully toward the end of the last thread on the subject that I posted for amusement purposes only.

Hmmm, I doubt that.

 

Any normal person when told that someone is a Theist or Atheist or Agnostic would simply take them at their word and move on.

 

Contrast that with the reaction from you and your mates.

On the contrary, I would certainly move on, as I explicitly stated yesterday.

 

If you go back to where I first joined this thread it was nothing to do with you calling yourself an agnostic.

 

Quite the opposite in fact, it was when you started telling someone else what they believed, and were defining atheist for them, posts 173 and 174.

 

I didn't come on this thread objecting to you calling yourself an agnostic, I came on to this thread objecting to your characterisation of atheists like me, which as I have demonstrated (and you have not challenged) was deeply flawed.

 

Anyway, seeing as you're totally not at all worked up and this is just a bit of fun how about continuing instead of this 'nah nah nah I'm not listening' childish posturing? Why not make a response to my points instead of this personal nonsense?

[mjw47]

Yes, quite clearly.

 

Hmmm, I doubt that.

 

On the contrary, I would certainly move on, as I explicitly stated yesterday.

 

If you go back to where I first joined this thread it was nothing to do with you calling yourself an agnostic.

 

Quite the opposite in fact, it was when you started telling someone else what they believed, and were defining atheist for them, posts 173 and 174.

 

I didn't come on this thread objecting to you calling yourself an agnostic, I came on to this thread objecting to your characterisation of atheists like me, which as I have demonstrated (and you have not challenged) was deeply flawed.

 

Anyway, seeing as you're totally not at all worked up and this is just a bit of fun how about continuing instead of this 'nah nah nah I'm not listening' childish posturing? Why not make a response to my points instead of this personal nonsense?

 

In what way are you managing to completely fail to comprehend my posts?

 

It has been explained on more than one occasion that I view discussion on this particular subject to be complete nonsense.

 

There can be no resolution or agreement because there are no facts available to allow it.

 

No one knows the truth because there is no truth available to either side in the debate.

 

Theists can believe without proof, that is their prerogative.

 

Atheists can disbelieve without proof, that is their prerogative.

 

And Agnostics can refuse to take a view without proof being provided one way or the other, that is their prerogative.

 

So why do you keep on requesting me to give you replies to a subject that I regard as nonsense?

[flamingjimmy]

So why do you keep on requesting me to give you replies to a subject that I regard as nonsense?

 

Because you were perfectly willing to argue about it before, for several pages in fact before I even turned up, and to people like us who enjoy argument it's just a bit of fun, and mostly, because I suspect you don't have any good answers to any of the points I raised.

[Ryedo40]

You are beyond hope I'm afraid, annoyed?

 

Most of the time I've been laughing whilst replying to this nonsense.

 

I explained fully toward the end of the last thread on the subject that I posted for amusement purposes only.

 

At no time have I been 'worked up' by anything other than mirth.

 

In the same way that you are unable to resist the urge to 'feel the need to explain' I can't resist a row.

 

I love an argument, but I'm fully aware of that particular weakness of mine, whilst you appear totally oblivious to your overwhelming need to proselytize the views of you and your like minded word addicts.

 

There may well be a self help group for your particular problem and you should give consideration to seeking it out.

 

Any normal person when told that someone is a Theist or Atheist or Agnostic would simply take them at their word and move on.

 

Contrast that with the reaction from you and your mates.

 

Complete obsession and a seeming overwhelming need to convince someone that their view of their own position is incorrect.

 

How is that so much different from the smartly dressed couple that turn up at your door and ask as to whether you've "Heard the good news?".

 

Mate, you seem to be projecting a great deal. Take a good look at your posts: everything you are accusing others of, you are doing yourself. You have an obsession with the agnostic definition, an obsession with atheists, and you insult and antagonise those who are being civil and willing to respond to your comments - even getting angry when they disagree with you.

 

I enjoy debates and discussion with theists and others. But I'd never set-out to disrupt a thread or behave in a way where I'd purposely be antagonistic towards them(to try to make them angry). That's something you seem to enjoy and get a kick out of - and it says a lot about your character.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47]

Because you were perfectly willing to argue about it before, for several pages in fact before I even turned up, and to people like us who enjoy argument it's just a bit of fun, and mostly, because I suspect you don't have any good answers to any of the points I raised.

 

'People like us who enjoy argument'

 

Don't you mean people like like us who are overly obsessed with one particular subject?

 

Had you actually bothered to read the thread from the beginning you would have seen that initially I actually addressed and answered the OP.

 

Then in a post at 28 I included the word agnostic.

 

At post 45 Roosterbooster asked where I got the definition of faith which I'd used, I hadn't 'got' it anywhere other than from my personal experience of knowing people who possess it.

 

And I knew the definition gang had arrived.

 

In the penultimate paragraph of post 66 page 4 I made it absolutely clear what my attitude is to this type of discussion.

 

It is for my own amusement.

 

So no excuses for getting upset when I don't respond as you would wish me to.

 

You joined in the debate at 159 (?) with the preposterous claim that everyone is either a Theist or an Atheist.

 

When I asked you to prove that ridiculous statement you failed completely to do so.

 

When I asked you to explain why, if that statement was true every dictionary in the English language contains the three words Theist Atheist and Agnostic all with differing definitions you also failed to do so.

 

And yet you have the brass neck to keep asking me questions.

 

I've noticed this trend amongst your cult, good at asking questions not so hot at answering any, wonder why?

 

Some of us don't look up the definitions of every word we use.

 

---------- Post added 18-01-2015 at 16:44 ----------

 

Mate, you seem to be projecting a great deal. Take a good look at your posts: everything you are accusing others of, you are doing yourself. You have an obsession with the agnostic definition, an obsession with atheists, and you insult and antagonise those who are being civil and willing to respond to your comments - even getting angry when we disagree with you.

 

I enjoy debates and discussion with theists and others. But I'd never set-out to disrupt a thread or behave in a way where I'd purposely be antagonistic towards them(to try to make them angry). That's something you seem to enjoy and get a kick out of - and it says a lot about your character.

 

You should take your own advice and take a look at your own posts sometime.

 

Trying to claim that you always act perfectly whilst editing definitions for your own benefit is hardly an example of that is it?

 

You gave the definition of agnostic as ' someone who believes nothing can be known of the existence of God' whilst leaving out the relevant ' Neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God(s).

 

This then allowed you to ask if I assumed that a God existed or do I have an absence of belief making me an Atheist.

 

Quoting the full definition answers the question so you left it out didn't you?

 

Bit duplicitous for such a paragon of virtue don't you think?

[Ryedo40]

Trying to claim that you always act perfectly whilst editing definitions for your own benefit is hardly an example of that is it?

 

You gave the definition of agnostic as ' someone who believes nothing can be known of the existence of God' whilst leaving out the relevant ' Neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God(s).

 

The definition I used was very much the same as the one in the Oxford dictionary: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

Your definition wasn't given there, or it wasn't visible, so I didn't it use it. Had your definition been there, or visible, I'd have used your definition.

 

This is where I got the definition from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic?searchDictCode=all

 

Having said that, I never said the definition you use was wrong. From my perspective though, I do not see your definition as being incompatible with an absence of belief in the existence of God.

[mjw47]

Fair enough, however, I still find it difficult to accept that people are unable to understand that if you, or anyone else for that matter, don't know something it is quite acceptable to take a noncommittal view.

 

Do the people who adopt the attitude that you must hold a view on everything always have a view on everything?

 

In the event of them finding themselves in a strange city, if someone asks them what's around the next corner do they start taking wild guesses or do they accept that they don't know and say " sorry but I have no idea "?

 

If you genuinely don't know to make an assumption without evidence is a bit foolish in my view.

 

Which is why I regard the Agnostic 'without knowledge' to be the most logical choice of the three.

 

Why people can't accept that and keep arguing is highly entertaining but a bit nonsensical in my view.

[Ryedo40]

Fair enough, however, I still find it difficult to accept that people are unable to understand that if you, or anyone else for that matter, don't know something it is quite acceptable to take a noncommittal view.

 

I agree you can have a non-committed view. Although if you don't hold a positive belief in the existence of something, then the positive belief in the existence something must be absent.

 

In the event of them finding themselves in a strange city, if someone asks them what's around the next corner do they start taking wild guesses or do they accept that they don't know and say " sorry but I have no idea "?

 

I'd say I don't know what is around the corner. What actually exists around the corner would not exist to me(I'd have no knowledge or awareness of it). I'd have an absence of belief in its existence until what actually exists around the corner becomes evident.

 

The above is why atheism and agnosticism are not incompatible: you can be, and probably are, both.

 

Edit:

 

To add to the above, theists guess and speculate that deity X actually exists around the corner. They take it on faith that it actually exists. Agnostic atheists do not do that: they remain unconvinced by the theist's faith-based claims until it is evident that deity X actually exists around the corner.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Ryedo40

[bulldog D]

I agree you can have a non-committed view. Although if you don't hold a positive belief in the existence of something, then the positive belief in the existence something must be absent.

 

 

 

I'd say I don't know what is around the corner. What actually exists around the corner would not exist to me(I'd have no knowledge or awareness of it). I'd have an absence of belief in its existence until what exists around the corner becomes evident.

 

The above is why atheism and agnosticism are not incompatible: you can be both.

 

What's the difference between belief and positive belief, I would have thought that positive belief would tend to be held by someone who has a tendency to believe in the first place.