It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

False Prophets

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
spamandham




quote: Originally posted by undercoverchef
People can worship without even realising they are doing it.

Not according to any of the definitions you felt compelled to produce. I notice that you provided (4) definitions. Which one are you using to equate washing a car with praying to god?




What are you talking about? Please state the facts. I was explaining how some people worship material things. You then go and twist it into equating washing a car with praying to God. You state it in a way that makes it seem that i am referring to anyone who washes a car when YOU know that i was talking about people who are much more dedicated to their car then a once a week wash.

The 4 definitions are straight from a dictionary.



quote: Originally posted by undercoverchef
Anyway I could go on but I feel you are just being pedantic.

Perhaps you should provide us with the definition of "pedantic" as well.



Well seeing as you are obviously far superior to me, in your grasp of the English language, maybe you should.




I'm sure you'll just consider this another nit pick, but Judaism is not a major religion. The third largest group (after Christian and Muslim) is nonbelievers, representing about 16% of the worlds population. Hinduism, traditional Chinese religion, Buddhism, inigenous religions, African diasporic, Sikhism, Juche and spiritism each have more followers than Judaism. "Judao-Christian" is a term invented by Zionists to enhance their own stature.


OK fair point. But the only reason i placed Judaism in my "3 main faiths" is because without Judaism there would be no Christianity or Islam. And if you do insist on nit picking then i ask you... When has Non-believers been a religion????


I ask you again... please look at my original post as a whole and not pick out minor discrepancies, such as Judaism not being a main Faith in the world.

I can tell by your sarcastic undertone that you either have a gripe with Christianity and/or Religion. Or this thread has somehow angered/offended you.

If you have a gripe against Religion... well thats fine... just state it... Come on, out with it, fill your boots.

If you have been offended then i am sorry.


But please discuss the topic and not minor discrepancies. You seem intelligent enough to look past my human flaws and at the bigger message i have conveyed.




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by undercoverchef
I ask you again... please look at my original post as a whole and not pick out minor discrepancies, such as Judaism not being a main Faith in the world.


A more obvious conclusion is that I've picked out a statement you made that I noticed was rediculous such as "we are all designed to worship", which you then supported using an argument based on equivocation.


Originally posted by undercoverchef
But please discuss the topic and not minor discrepancies. You seem intelligent enough to look past my human flaws and at the bigger message i have conveyed.


Considering that your argument rests on the assumption that we are designed to worship, attacking that premise is hardly picking nits. If that premise is false, then your entire argument fails.

Regarding the thread as a whole, of course JT is a false prophet, but it isn't just because he's distracting people from worship (which he can't do anyway since we are "designed to worship" as you recall), it's because he is a false prophet.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
At last you have addressed the topic... thanks


I understand now what you are saying... you do not believe that we are designed to worship. Well thats fine. Thats your opinion and i respect that. My opinion/belief is that we are. Its even fine that you think it is ridiculous because again i respect your opinion, although it does not change mine.

I have given many reasons (many of which you have ridiculed) as to why i believe we are designed to worship. It would be nice to hear your reasons on why you think we are not (without just quoting various comments of mine followed by a sarcastic comments of yours)

And i never claimed that JT was a false prophet JUST because he is distracting people from worshipping God, although that was one of the reasons, i did give others (many of which are in other posts but i did say i was not going to go to deep into this, at the start of the thread, because i have already discussed it many times)

So... can i please have some of your reasons for thinking we are not designed to worship?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by undercoverchef
So... can i please have some of your reasons for thinking we are not designed to worship?


I asked you earlier to pick which definition of "worship" you are using. I'll address your request if you do that, but I have no interest in participating in a discussion based on equivocation.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I'm so sick of hearing these are the end times I can't wait until Jesus comes back! They have been saying it for what the last few hundred years?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Option 1 will do...

Worship - The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
I'm so sick of hearing these are the end times I can't wait until Jesus comes back! They have been saying it for what the last few hundred years?


Let's all turn to 2 Peter 3:3-5
Know this first of all, that in the last days scoffers will come (to) scoff, living according to their own desires and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? From the time when our ancestors fell asleep, everything has remained as it was from the beginning of creation."

Wow! Isn't it amazing that Peter knew you would say this almost 2000 years ago. Nothing like being prepared.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by undercoverchef
Option 1 will do...

Worship - The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.


Ok then.

The definition you chose involves veneration of a deity either directly or indirectly. Yet roughly 1/4 of the earth's population has no belief in a deity (~15% atheist/agnostic, ~10% non-deity related religions/philosophies), and so does not worship according to the definition you chose. If 25% (and growing) do not worship, how can you claim we are designed (which I'm interpreting to mean 'inclined' rather than 'designed') to do so?

If you had said we seem to have an instinct to associate everything with cause and effect, and are apt to assume an invisible causal agent when we don't understand things, then I would agree with that, but that's a far cry from "worship".

If you had said that we seem to be inclined to hold people and things as valuable to us, then I would agree with that too, but that's also a far cry from "worship".

Let's look at the example you gave of the individual who is obsessed with his car. Is it your contention that such a car is necessarily a deity, idol (symbol of a deity), or sacred object (an object set apart for worship of a deity)? If so, what is the basis of such a claim?



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
As i explained earlier...

Because 25% of the worlds population does not believe in a God does not mean we are not designed to worship! That is why we fill our lives with crap (material items)

I do mean designed... but then i believe in God

My example of a car is sound...

If somebody spends more time with the car then their wife/husband and more money on their car than they spend on their family. And if they have a true love for their car that enables them to do this without the feeling of guilt... would the car not be sacred to them??? And if so would that not make the car a sacred object in their eyes??? therefore they are worshiping their car!!!

You keep answering my questions with questions...

Again you are not providing me with what i asked... i asked why you feel we are not designed to worship and you reply by using my examples and saying that they are wrong... so ok my examples may not ring true with you but many other people seem like my examples... so i ask again... what makes you so sure we are not designed to worship???



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by undercoverchef
As i explained earlier...

Because 25% of the worlds population does not believe in a God does not mean we are not designed to worship!


It doesn't prove it, but it's sound contradictory evidence.


Originally posted by undercoverchef
If somebody spends more time with the car then their wife/husband and more money on their car than they spend on their family. And if they have a true love for their car that enables them to do this without the feeling of guilt... would the car not be sacred to them???


No, the car would still not be sacred, unless they believed the car was either a deity or were using the car to venerate a deity. The car would be cherished, not sacred.


Originally posted by undercoverchef
You keep answering my questions with questions...


Would you prefer that we just talk past eachother? (yah, i know another question
)


Originally posted by undercoverchef
... so i ask again... what makes you so sure we are not designed to worship???


I'm not sure that we're not, I just see no reason to believe that we are.

The burdon is on you to make the case for your own claim. I've already provided contradictory evidence, and you haven't explaned why it's invalid.

For a personal perspective, I feel no inclination to worship. If I've been designed to do it, you'd think I would at least want to. After all, I've been "designed" to eat, sleep, and have sex, (plus lots more), and there's no question whether or not I'm inclined to fulfill those desires. If there is a similar worship drive, it's trivially small compared to these others.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Since Christian bashing has become such a great sport, maybe it should be held in the next olympics. Although some of this stuff I see on these boards is nothing compared to what I've seen out in the real world. Thank goodness for the self restaint in ATS posters.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   


It doesn't prove it, but it's sound contradictory evidence.


No its not... Because humans choose to eat junk food does not mean we are not designed to eat natural foods.




No, the car would still not be sacred, unless they believed the car was either a deity or were using the car to venerate a deity. The car would be cherished, not sacred.



Er... No...

Sacred - Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person




I'm not sure that we're not, I just see no reason to believe that we are.

The burdon is on you to make the case for your own claim. I've already provided contradictory evidence, and you haven't explaned why it's invalid.


I have stated my case over and over again but i feel that you just enjoy playing word games.

At the end of the day you obviously dont agree with what i am saying. Fine. But it has not changed my belief. I feel that my original statement makes sense to me although this is something i could never prove with "scientific evidence"

The same as i cannot "scientifically" prove the existence of God. However, i still believe in God even though i have had many a word bashing from Atheists.

darkelf...




Since Christian bashing has become such a great sport, maybe it should be held in the next olympics. Although some of this stuff I see on these boards is nothing compared to what I've seen out in the real world. Thank goodness for the self restaint in ATS posters.


LOL - well said


It’s funny how people will always mock Christians and put so much faith in science when they have no scientific knowledge of their own. Instead they just believe the words of scientist they see on the TV and then mock Christians for their faith... but isnt believing scientists, when you have no idea what they are talking about, a form of faith?

I suppose i will now have to give a definition for the word faith, then explain why i have used it in this context and then be scolded for being grammatically incorrect... "You mean trust, not faith nah nah nah-nah nah"






posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by undercoverchef



It doesn't prove it, but it's sound contradictory evidence.


No its not... Because humans choose to eat junk food does not mean we are not designed to eat natural foods.


When you put forth a hypothesis, and contrary evidence is submitted, it's up to you to either modify your hypothesis, reject it, or to show why that contradictory evidence is invalid. Making an analogy to junk food doesn't fulfill your obligation. You must directly address how it is possible for at least ~25% of the population fail to worship if they are designed to do so.

You must also put forth compelling evidence that your hypothesis is true.

By the way, the 25% number is very conservative. It's really a measure of religious affiliation, not worship directly. It's a lower bound on the number of nonworshipers. Of those who say they are Christian or Muslim (the two dominant religions), less than half actually worship on a regular basis, such as by praying or attending services and the like. The number of nonworshipers is likely closer to 75%.


Originally posted by undercoverchef


No, the car would still not be sacred, unless they believed the car was either a deity or were using the car to venerate a deity. The car would be cherished, not sacred.



Er... No...

Sacred - Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person


"Sacred" does not mean devoted exclusively to a single use in the sense you are using it within the definition of "worship". You are attempting to equivocate again by using one sense of the word "sacred" to support an argument based on a different sense. We both know you are using the word "worship" to mean "devotion to god" in one sense, and "obsession" in another sense. You are trying to conclude that ewe are all designed to worship god by giving examples of obsession. That's equivocation.

It's unfortunate that English so readily permits this form of logical fallacy.


Originally posted by undercoverchef

I have stated my case over and over again but i feel that you just enjoy playing word games.


You haven't made a case at all. All you've done is declare your case and attempt to support it with equivocation. You are the one playing fast and loose with words, not I. I've been trying to get you to be specific in what you mean by "worship", and you keep trying to expand the context to support your attempts to equivocate.


Originally posted by undercoverchef
It’s funny how people will always mock Christians and put so much faith in science when they have no scientific knowledge of their own.


You see the world through faith colored glasses, so naturally you assume everyone has faith in something, in the same way that since you want to worship, you assume everyone is designed to worship

There are plenty of people who neither worship, nor have faith in anything. Most of the people you're referring to who "have faith in science" are theists! Those who actually know anything about science also know that science does not deal in truths. Science is an attempt to understand how nature works, not so much why.

Have you ever actually heard people say things like "I know the big bang is true and nothing you say can change my mind"?

Or perhaps, "I believe in gravity because I hope I won't float away"?

I have no inclination to worship, and have no faith (belief in that which is hoped for - Paul).


Originally posted by undercoverchef
I suppose i will now have to give a definition for the word faith, then explain why i have used it in this context and then be scolded for being grammatically incorrect... "You mean trust, not faith nah nah nah-nah nah"


You were scolded for equivocating, not for improper grammar. Equivocation is a logical fallacy when it's unintentional, but it's an act of deception when it is intentional.

You want to be able to say things like "everyone has faith, so my faith in god requires no further explanation", or "everyone worships, so my worship of god is self explanatory". Admit it to yourself even if not to the rest of us.

[edit on 3-6-2005 by spamandham]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join