For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

People here who are referring to God as being actual truth and fact is probably the basis of the claim of being dishonest, for God has not been shown to be true.

This doesn't have to be stated outright, but just as in saying God could have done this and that, etc.

So, it's not the belief itself that is dishonest, but the claims of its truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

phlog is embarrassing himself by being dishonest, he should stop.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your ideas about god being purely a limb of speculation aside, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty you have just given the boot to about 60% of science

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So give me a reason that does apply.

'must' be? That sounds rather certain, when you don't have any proof of anything. Ah, and now you say God may save some people. We know people die, however, so the question still stands, and you have wasted yet another opportunity to acquit yourself.

Now you are being absurd and diversionary. One, this thread is where I ask you questions, and you attempt to answer honestly, it's not a debate where you counter with questions. Two, we've gone over and over that I have no concept of your God, so how am I supposed to assign motives to such?

You said 'evil', and I wanted to keep the scope broader, but you've excused yourself through a rat hole, trying to evade natural disasters, because you cannot counter the argument.

 

That's fine, for science is ongoing. It doesn't just prove things in a day.

The other side has nothing. 100% speculation, with nothing ongoing.

 

You've got a week to qualify that statement, while I'm off surfing, and if you don't, you're getting reported.

 

it's the same statement you've made regarding a big portion of this site's posters, and it's been much more than a week and you haven't qualified it.
in failing to qualify your statement, you have rightfully earned mine.

if you beleived thiests to be dishonest, you had plenty of time and space to show it. you haven't.

instead, you kept changing your requirements of your opponents, sending them to your ignore list, and intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding their arguments.
i never knew james had this much patience.

you feel like reporting, report to your heart content, wanna put me on ignore, go ahead. but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

 

What reason is there to accept otherwise?

There is plenty of theoretical solutions to the problem of theodicy.

But to accept them, one would need to overhaul one's whole knowledge and meta-knowledge base.
Which is a big task. There would need to be some considerable incentive for a person to do so.


As far as things stand, what reason is there to not measure God's nature by this world and life as it is usually lived?

This world and life as it is usually lived are all most of us know.

 

ooo..threats..i bet he is scared...NOT!

 

im glad im not the only one who see's that..

someone give him a raise..

 

as I said, aside from your notions about theism being purely a discipline of speculation, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty, you have just given the boot to about 60% of science.

:shrug:

 

especially since phlog has been running with the ball now for about a month trying unsuccessfully to qualify his statement about theists being essentially dishonest

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You poor theist victims, right?!

You theists are the ones coming forward as supposedly having the superior view on things, and that everyone should bend to your will. Yes, bend to your will, because on our own, it's not like we can know what scriptures want or mean. We, the run-of-the-mill people, simply need to rely on theists like yourself. And we have to take for granted that you know your business and that you are right.

And then, when the going gets tough, you just take the "caveat emptor" attitude, renouncing any and all responsibility.

If this is what theism is supposed to be about then to hell with it.

 

and how is this different from, say, the run of the mill people relying on a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic or any other professional?

 

1. God requires faith,
[faith is gained by spiritual apprehension rather than proof]

2. Faith is an admitted suspension of logic,
[as in both faith and logic occupy different incompatible systems]

3. Blatant illogicality is a dishonest act.
[meaning that by using invalid reasoning, one is acting in an untrustworthy way]

Maybe this is phlogistician's point?

 

so if you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's a suspension of logic?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Because a professional requires skills, and a theist doesn't. Or am I wrong?

 

Only if you think saintliness/enlightenment doesn't require skills