Page 8 of 8
DESTROYER5000
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
835 IQ
#281
Quote by Arby911
And you know this how, exactly?

Michael is the archangel, Jesus is the son of god and was given the privelage of being the archangel
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
Join date: Jul 2010
830 IQ
#283
Quote by DESTROYER5000
Michael is the archangel, Jesus is the son of god and was given the privelage of being the archangel


Perhaps you missed the question?

Allow me to state it again.

And you know this how, exactly?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#284
Quote by SlackerBabbath
I disagree, we are talking about completely unsupported beliefs on the question of God's existence, which is something quite different to the types of examples you give. Every one of those is based upon some sort of evidence. You can infer that your partner loves you by the way she acts towards you. (and also by her telling you that she loves you) The evidence of having a headache and a mouth that feels like something with stomach issues took a crap in it, along with the (often vague) memory of consuming alcohol, tells you that you have a hangover. You can 'observe' your own emotions so you obviously 'know' if you feel happy or not, and example after example can be found in history of despots being untrustable.
These are not unsupported 'beliefs', these are all 'conclusions' based upon evidence.

Theism and atheism have no such evidence to draw upon, so they are both essentialy conclusions based upon 'pure' belief.


But given that there is no evidence of the positive (God existing) we can use Ockham's razor and deduce that withholding belief is the rational action. Indeed neither party can be certain, but the two premises are not equal in likelihood.

That definition is true, in the broadest terms of the definition, but we are talking about 'unsupported' belief here, not just 'belief' in general terms.

My point exactly. Athism is a form of 'faith', a confident 'belief' in something without proof or material evidence.


Again, depends on the form of atheism. If someone is an atheism in the sense of withholding belief due to lack of evidence then it clearly isn't a faith; if they positive affirm that God does not exist then I agree, it's an unreasonable faith.

Richard Dawkins has a rather tedious scale (tedious only because of how he uses it) of belief from 1 to 7, 1 being I think god definitely exists, 7 being I think god definitely doesn't exist (you probably know this but I'm explaining for those who don't ) I think the most rational position on this scale is between 5 and 6. Any more if to be too confident, as is any less. Of course this depends on the god being discussed, and mean this only for a deistic god (the existence of which, for clarity, I'd place myself at about a 6 on); a theistic god is a far less likely thing.

That's illogical.
Also, as a side note, it's something I've never understood about religious people who use this argument, how can you effectively denigrate something by saying it's the same as the thing you support?


I think the point is to try to make atheists appear hypocritical.

What you are describing there is more akin to agnosticism, which is based upon the precept of having 'no knowledge', the way you describe it, a new born baby would be classified as an 'atheist' simply because it has no knowledge of theism, but the term 'atheism' is generaly denoted to mean that at least some thought has gone into the conclusion.


I was under the impression that agnosticism was when one thought that knowledge of the existence of god was ultimately unknowable, not that it was not currently known. If it is the latter then I would call myself that, but I'm think that given our huge strides in science and philosophy in just the last 500 years it's a little previous to say that we can never know about something. Of course there will always be gaps in our knowledge, but to say where they will ultimately be is premature and defeatist.

But that's kinda my point, atheism as a 'simple lack of belief in god' is practicaly the same thing as agnosticism, and if that's the case, what's the point in having different terms for them?


But agnosticism is a position on the validity of the question, not the question itself (the question being 'Do deities exist?').

Quote by Arby911
And you know this how, exactly?


Well he doesn't, because it's wrong. Jesus's name was most likely Jeshua (from which we get Joshua). The disparity is caused by the fact that Hebrew is particularly difficult to translate to English, due to Grimm's Law meaning there are a lot of differences in pronunciation.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
DESTROYER5000
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
835 IQ
#285
Quote by Arby911
Perhaps you missed the question?

Allow me to state it again.

And you know this how, exactly?

The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel. At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the prince of you people.” Next, at Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.”
A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7, which describes “Michael and his angels” as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven.
Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God’s people, even confronting God's greatest enemy, Satan.
Jude verse 9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible. The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.
In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?&rdquo and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation&rdquo—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”
It is important to note that the human birth of Jesus was not the beginning of his life. Before Jesus was born, Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would conceive a child by means of holy spirit and that she should name the child Jesus. (Luke 1:31) During his ministry, Jesus often spoke of his prehuman existence.—John 3:13; 8:23, 58.
So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.

That is how I know this exactly


P.s I do not own this
Last edited by DESTROYER5000 at Mar 25, 2013,
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
Join date: Jul 2010
830 IQ
#286
Quote by DESTROYER5000
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250

That is how I know this exactly


Fixed your plagiarism for ya...

I assumed that's where you would go. Problem is that all of that is supposition, a premise in search of support.

Problem with that is that is leaves a few things out that patently do NOT support the premise.

As you noted in Daniel (10:13), Michael is referred to as "one of the chief princes", so unless you believe Jesus has peers who are his equal, that pretty much kills that theory.


Further, Revelation refers to Jesus (or Christ) as such 19 times, so why would the author change the name once to Michael?

Yeah.....No.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Mar 25, 2013,
DESTROYER5000
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
835 IQ
#288
Quote by Morphogenesis26
Wow, and I thought he had actually just knew the bible well. Never mind.

I assume you are coming the "god does not exist!" Standpoint?
DESTROYER5000
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
835 IQ
#289
Quote by Arby911
Fixed your plagiarism for ya...

I assumed that's where you would go. Problem is that all of that is supposition, a premise in search of support.

Problem with that is that is leaves a few things out that patently do NOT support the premise.

As you noted in Daniel (10:13), Michael is referred to as "one of the chief princes", so unless you believe Jesus has peers who are his equal, that pretty much kills that theory.


Further, Revelation refers to Jesus (or Christ) as such 19 times, so why would the author change the name once to Michael?

Yeah.....No.
the other chief prince likely being satan until he was cast out of heaven.

And for it to be considered plagiarism I would have to say that I own it, and I neither confirmed nor denied it
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
Join date: Jul 2010
830 IQ
#290
Quote by DESTROYER5000
the other chief prince likely being satan until he was cast out of heaven.

And for it to be considered plagiarism I would have to say that I own it, and I neither confirmed nor denied it


So you believe Satan to have been the equal of Jesus despite all the verses to the contrary?

Hmmm...

Failure to provide credit when using the work of others is plagiarism, as you are implying that it's your own.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
DESTROYER5000
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
835 IQ
#291
Quote by Arby911
So you believe Satan to have been the equal of Jesus despite all the verses to the contrary?

Hmmm...

Failure to provide credit when using the work of others is plagiarism, as you are implying that it's your own.

At one point satan may have been equal, yes


I'm done posting here, this place sucks
Morphogenesis26
UG Nerd
Join date: Apr 2011
468 IQ
#292
Quote by DESTROYER5000
I assume you are coming the "god does not exist!" Standpoint?


It doesn't matter either way. I could be a strict anti-theist who goes around hitting people with horse dildos and say, "GOD IS DEAD!" or a bible thumping redneck who prays whenever a bug gets squished. You still copied and pasted that part of an article into your own post. You could have just posted the article or, like many here do, put the part you are getting your info from in a quote box.
DESTROYER5000
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
835 IQ
#293
Quote by Morphogenesis26
It doesn't matter either way. I could be a strict anti-theist who goes around hitting people with horse dildos and say, "GOD IS DEAD!" or a bible thumping redneck who prays whenever a bug gets squished. You still copied and pasted that part of an article into your own post. You could have just posted the article or, like many here do, put the part you are getting your info from in a quote box.

Okay
DESTROYER5000
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
835 IQ
#294
Quote by Morphogenesis26
It doesn't matter either way. I could be a strict anti-theist who goes around hitting people with horse dildos and say, "GOD IS DEAD!" or a bible thumping redneck who prays whenever a bug gets squished. You still copied and pasted that part of an article into your own post. You could have just posted the article or, like many here do, put the part you are getting your info from in a quote box.

I hope you know that I am not a bible thumping redneck, I do view the bible as reliable source of information along with the information provided by the watchtower bible and tract society
GNR_Duff_rules
Agnostic Apatheist
Join date: Nov 2005
485 IQ
#295
Quote by Hydra150
Well, you're just asking them to come round again next week


No, next month. They come back monthly, not weekly. That's how frequently their newsletter comes out. I wanna make those crazy mugs have to work to convert my ass.
Quote by ironman1478
im romanian and am offended. most of the people in romania make americans look like autistic kids on ritalin
Quote by ProfessorJim
I'm autistic and on ritalin and am offended. Most autistic kids on ritalin make americans look like romanians.
Last edited by GNR_Duff_rules at Mar 25, 2013,
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#296
Quote by DESTROYER5000
Hmm, you make very good point, but if you do remember Jesus basically told every one to not listen to the devil.

So now you're saying that Todd is actualy Satan? The light barer? The servant of God from the Book of Job? A member of the 'Council of El' and one of the 'Sons of God'? A figure of worship to thousands of theistic Satanists who consider him as a deity in his own right?
Wouldn't that naturaly make him a much bigger authority on Biblical matters than you or I? Just from the fact that he was there for much of it?

If he isn't actualy the devil, isn't that just another example of you bairing false witness against him?
Quote by DESTROYER5000
Not entirely true, that last bit... You see satan and the archangel micheal both had free will
Michael was Jesus name in heaven(Jesus being a name he was given while on earth) satan on the other was likely a very high ranked angel who had free will aswell giving him the ability to be jealious of god which he had no right to be, so in conclusion satan was given free will he got jealious, therefore making it none of gods plan

But that's something that only Jehovah's Witnesses believe, pretty much the whole of the rest of Christianity rejects that belief and considers God to be a trinity, essentialy that God and Jesus are one in the same.
Also, if God is all knowing, wouldn't he know in advance what would happen if he gave Satan free will? Wouldn't Satan's future naturaly be 'predetermined' if God knows what is going to happen? Doesn't one's future being predetermined naturaly negate free will?

Interestingly, Islam gets around the 'Satan with free will' problem by stating that Satan wasn't an angel at all but rather a 'jinn' (where we get the word 'genie' from) According to the Qur'an, the jinn are made of fire, and together with humans and angels make up the 'three sentient creations' of God.
Quote by DESTROYER5000

The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel. At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the prince of you people.” Next, at Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.”
A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7, which describes “Michael and his angels” as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven.
Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God’s people, even confronting God's greatest enemy, Satan.
Jude verse 9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible.

Funnily enough, neither is the word 'day', well, not in the original Hebrew text of the OT anyway. Y'see, the Hebrew word for day, 'Yom' is one of those words where the plural is the same as the singular, like 'rhino' for example (you can have a single 'rhino' or a whole herd of 'rhino')
Couldn't it be possible that the Hebrew for 'archangel' works in the same way?
Quote by DESTROYER5000

The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.
In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel.

Waitaminute... that quote (bolded) says that Jesus will have the voice of 'an' archangel, not the voice of 'the' archangel, so doesn't that suggest that there is more than one archangel, as the rest of Christianity believes?
How can you consider that just one instance in the Bible where Michael is referred to as “the archangel” means that there was only one archangel?
I mean, I could call you 'Destroyer the human", because it describes what you are, but just because I used 'the' in that description, that obviously doesn't mean that you are the only human in existence. For example, Gabriel is described as "the angel Gabriel" in Luke 1:26, does that mean that he was the only angel?

Also, sorry to harp on about this again but any thoughts yet on the Story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden possibly being a metaphorical story about the development of agriculture and civilisation rather than the creation of the first human beings?
I'm particularly interested to hear your views on this.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Mar 26, 2013,
Hydra150
cutebutt mcsexyface
Join date: Nov 2006
1,793 IQ
#297
You messes up the formatting a bit there, Slacker.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
Hydra150
cutebutt mcsexyface
Join date: Nov 2006
1,793 IQ
#299
^
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#300
Quote by Todd Hart
But given that there is no evidence of the positive (God existing) we can use Ockham's razor and deduce that withholding belief is the rational action. Indeed neither party can be certain, but the two premises are not equal in likelihood.

But we're not talking about likelyhoods here, we're talking about beliefs. Personaly, I 'believe' you are correct in that statement, that it's more likely that God doesn't exist than he does exist, which is why I'm an atheist, but I cannot possibly claim to 'know' for definate that God doesn't exist, so my conclusion can really only be a 'belief'.

Quote by Todd Hart


Again, depends on the form of atheism. If someone is an atheism in the sense of withholding belief due to lack of evidence then it clearly isn't a faith;

But strictly speaking, witholding belief due to lack of evidence is actualy agnosticism rather than atheism

Quote by Todd Hart

if they positive affirm that God does not exist then I agree, it's an unreasonable faith.

Well then to clear this up, I suggest that whenever you see me talking about atheism, you should automaticaly infer that that's the definition I'm using.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Mar 26, 2013,
Caaarrl94
Registered User
Join date: Sep 2012
3,004 IQ
#301
to mormons.
"**** off you deluded idiot your religion is bogus created by a thieving charlatan, do not ever come to my door again."
"I think the most important thing about music is the sense of escape." - Thom Yorke
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#302
Quote by Caaarrl94
to mormons.
"**** off you deluded idiot your religion is bogus created by a thieving charlatan, do not ever come to my door again."


People like you are the reason everyone hates vocal atheists.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
yoman297
hi
Join date: Oct 2010
1,476 IQ
#303
Quote by Caaarrl94
to mormons.
"**** off you deluded idiot your religion is bogus created by a thieving charlatan, do not ever come to my door again."

someone's mad
Lord_Doku
ancient bass
Join date: Apr 2007
1,984 IQ
#305
Simple answer for simple people.

"Your religion stands out from the ordinary, a violation of Soviet laws. Which do you prefer, castration or the gulag ?"