Christianity - A respectful dialogue

[Feck]

Another classic Ratz thread Love you all , deeply you know

[Elessarina]

Another classic Ratz thread Love you all , deeply you know

[Valden]

Maybe the thread really should just be locked? thedistillers is really just having a discussion with himself and no one else. Some "dialogue" this has been.

[Chinaski]

Maybe the thread really should just be locked? thedistillers is really just having a discussion with himself and no one else. Some "dialogue" this has been.

Bingo.

Locking this thread.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This thread should not have been locked. That is not our normal way of dealing with things.

Can I remind ALL members to refrain from personal attacks, however cleverly worded. It is against our rules. Play nice.

thedistillers, your attitude is likely to lead to a suspension if you don't rein it in. Consider this a warning not to act like a troll in case you are deemed to be one.

[Elessarina]

This thread should not have been locked. That is not our normal way of dealing with things.

Can I remind ALL members to refrain from personal attacks, however cleverly worded. It is against our rules. Play nice.

thedistillers, your attitude is likely to lead to a suspension if you don't rein it in. Consider this a warning not to act like a troll in case you are deemed to be one.

I thought that as he might actually come back and answer.. despite the derails..

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This thread should not have been locked. That is not our normal way of dealing with things.

Can I remind ALL members to refrain from personal attacks, however cleverly worded. It is against our rules. Play nice.

thedistillers, your attitude is likely to lead to a suspension if you don't rein it in. Consider this a warning not to act like a troll in case you are deemed to be one.

I thought that as he might actually come back and answer.. despite the derails..

Threads are like hydra heads - lock one and three more spring up to complain about the locking.

[Valden]

This thread should not have been locked. That is not our normal way of dealing with things.

Can I remind ALL members to refrain from personal attacks, however cleverly worded. It is against our rules. Play nice.

thedistillers, your attitude is likely to lead to a suspension if you don't rein it in. Consider this a warning not to act like a troll in case you are deemed to be one.

I thought that as he might actually come back and answer.. despite the derails..

Threads are like hydra heads - lock one and three more spring up to complain about the locking.

[MattHunX]

This thread should not have been locked. That is not our normal way of dealing with things.

Can I remind ALL members to refrain from personal attacks, however cleverly worded. It is against our rules. Play nice.

thedistillers, your attitude is likely to lead to a suspension if you don't rein it in. Consider this a warning not to act like a troll in case you are deemed to be one.

I thought that as he might actually come back and answer.. despite the derails..

Threads are like hydra heads - lock one and three more spring up to complain about the locking.

COOOOOL!!!

[Oldskeptic]

Sensus divinitatis was originally an idea of John Calvin, and it is pretty circular reasoning in that he concluded that it must be something that everyone has because just about everyone believed in God. He also had a way around the problem that not everyone believed in God: Wickedness and sinful living could destroy sensus divinitatis. And all of this was very convenient for explaining why people that never heard of God should be held morally accountable and deserve divine punishment for not believing in God even if no one had ever told them about God.

Calvin does not say that sensus divinitatis can tell anyone anything about God other than that there is one, he created the universe, and he should be worshipped. To get the details takes revelations by god that become what he called internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Sensus divinitatis was and is nothing more than a logical fallacy stemming from an argument from popularity, but something of a double edged sword that allowed him to say that people who claim not to believe actually do believe and just deny it because they hate God, or that they used to believe but do not any longer because their wicked ways have destroyed their ability to believe. I still hear and read these arguments today.

Calvin seems to have though that all are naturally born with Sensus divinitatis. Maybe he would have called it the God gene if genetics would have been understood at the time, but Alvin Plantinga goes a bit further calling Sensus divinitatis, a disposition to for certain religious beliefs triggered by seeing wondrous or complicated things that are hard to imagine being possible without there being a God responsible for it. Basically the design argument relying on credulity.

@ Thedistillers:
This Sensus divinitatis has been explained many times by many people: It is a by product of evolved traits such as pattern seeking, curiosity, and a tendency to want easily understood answers. Sensus divinitatis in the sense that you are using it is not an explanation or argument of any kind for the existence of God.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sensus divinitatis was originally an idea of John Calvin, and it is pretty circular reasoning in that he concluded that it must be something that everyone has because just about everyone believed in God. He also had a way around the problem that not everyone believed in God: Wickedness and sinful living could destroy sensus divinitatis. And all of this was very convenient for explaining why people that never heard of God should be held morally accountable and deserve divine punishment for not believing in God even if no one had ever told them about God.

Calvin does not say that sensus divinitatis can tell anyone anything about God other than that there is one, he created the universe, and he should be worshipped. To get the details takes revelations by god that become what he called internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Sensus divinitatis was and is nothing more than a logical fallacy stemming from an argument from popularity, but something of a double edged sword that allowed him to say that people who claim not to believe actually do believe and just deny it because they hate God, or that they used to believe but do not any longer because their wicked ways have destroyed their ability to believe. I still hear and read these arguments today.

Calvin seems to have though that all are naturally born with Sensus divinitatis. Maybe he would have called it the God gene if genetics would have been understood at the time, but Alvin Plantinga goes a bit further calling Sensus divinitatis, a disposition to for certain religious beliefs triggered by seeing wondrous or complicated things that are hard to imagine being possible without there being a God responsible for it. Basically the design argument relying on credulity.

@ Thedistillers:
This Sensus divinitatis has been explained many times by many people: It is a by product of evolved traits such as pattern seeking, curiosity, and a tendency to want easily understood answers. Sensus divinitatis in the sense that you are using it is not an explanation or argument of any kind for the existence of God.

What a perfect example of how these things should be done. No personal attacks or rhetoric, just a rational, factual demolition of a flawed premise. my compliments to you, Oldskeptic.

[Valden]

What a perfect example of how these things should be done. No personal attacks or rhetoric, just a rational, factual demolition of a flawed premise. my compliments to you, Oldskeptic.

I thought my Hydra pic was pretty rational.

Sensus divinitatis was originally an idea of John Calvin, and it is pretty circular reasoning in that he concluded that it must be something that everyone has because just about everyone believed in God. He also had a way around the problem that not everyone believed in God: Wickedness and sinful living could destroy sensus divinitatis. And all of this was very convenient for explaining why people that never heard of God should be held morally accountable and deserve divine punishment for not believing in God even if no one had ever told them about God.

Calvin does not say that sensus divinitatis can tell anyone anything about God other than that there is one, he created the universe, and he should be worshipped. To get the details takes revelations by god that become what he called internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Sensus divinitatis was and is nothing more than a logical fallacy stemming from an argument from popularity, but something of a double edged sword that allowed him to say that people who claim not to believe actually do believe and just deny it because they hate God, or that they used to believe but do not any longer because their wicked ways have destroyed their ability to believe. I still hear and read these arguments today.

Calvin seems to have though that all are naturally born with Sensus divinitatis. Maybe he would have called it the God gene if genetics would have been understood at the time, but Alvin Plantinga goes a bit further calling Sensus divinitatis, a disposition to for certain religious beliefs triggered by seeing wondrous or complicated things that are hard to imagine being possible without there being a God responsible for it. Basically the design argument relying on credulity.

@ Thedistillers:
This Sensus divinitatis has been explained many times by many people: It is a by product of evolved traits such as pattern seeking, curiosity, and a tendency to want easily understood answers. Sensus divinitatis in the sense that you are using it is not an explanation or argument of any kind for the existence of God.

Thank for sharing! I'm glad someone finally got around to explaining what it is.

[Loki_999]

I thought my Hydra pic was pretty rational.

That's not a hydra. Its Tiamat from Dungeons and Dragons. FFS can people get their mythology right!?

It took 8 pages before the censorship threats (typical of atheism of the last century) begin.

Unlike Christian forums where it would get locked you would get perma-banned for even suggesting their god didn't exist? Besides, the fact it took 8 pages just means the mods around here are just lazy or inefficient.

[z8000783]

Has he left the building, I had a couple of questions?

John

[normal]

Has he left the building, I had a couple of questions?

John

It doesn't seem like they were going to be answered anyway.