Parakeets do not exist.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I think I see an internal contradiction, though that depends on one additional thing I forgot to ask. The contradiction only occurs if your faith being the only true faith implies that anyone not following the One True Faith will be damned. I don't know whether you believe that.
I'm nondenominational actually, and I think God will judge everyone on an individual basis. If you want a list off the top of my head as to forms of Christianity which I consider to be most likely to have members which are saved based on their teaching (such as including the Gospel among all the other myriads of teaching), then here is a list of the ones I can remember at the moment: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, or my own favorite, "I don't give a darn about labels! Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, so enough of the branding!"
A god who fails to make an informed choice possible, but condemns all who make the wrong choice forces people into a gamble with the highest stakes possible, then punishes people for being unlucky in gambling. A god who does that is neither just nor merciful.
Therefore if a religion claims only its followers will be saved and all others punished, and if that religion claims its god is just and/or merciful, then that religion contains an internal contradiction. A religion that contains internal contradictions can't be the true religion. Even if there is One True Faith, all those faiths that contain internal contradictions can be ruled out.
Even with the finite lifespan we have, choices can be narrowed down. Such as, assuming God wanted us to know him, meaning us as in all mankind throughout history. So, such a religion, under this assumption, would be ancient. And it can be narrowed down further.
Do you agree that it is impossible for a human to witness all chemical reactions going on in the universe simultaneously? If it is impossible for a human to witness all chemical reactions in the universe simultaneously, then does that mean that it is impossible to understand chemistry? Is there no possible way to determine how a reaction will proceed just because we have not seen every single reaction?
I allowed for that. You can even use my argument to narrow down your choices if you are trying to find the one true path to salvation. Discard all those faiths that claim to be the only path to salvation and that their god is just and/or merciful.
My argument does not depend on all faiths being equally plausible. The possibility of narrowing down your choices does not affect the argument.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Squawk topic
The only thing I am aware of to some extent is that Iamnotaparakeet is not a parakeet, by his own admission, and that to my own knowledge parakeets cannot chat as humans do, in a text format.
When I've been on Skype with my girlfriend sometimes my birds would want attention, so they'd fly down to where my hands were and wander on the keyboard. It wasn't language or communication in text format, more of the "hey, I want you to look at me! I'm here!" type communication, but they did produce some text on the screen even though it didn't mean anything in itself, other than where they walked.
I'm nondenominational actually, and I think God will judge everyone on an individual basis. If you want a list off the top of my head as to forms of Christianity which I consider to be most likely to have members which are saved based on their teaching (such as including the Gospel among all the other myriads of teaching), then here is a list of the ones I can remember at the moment: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, or my own favorite, "I don't give a darn about labels! Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, so enough of the branding!"
I take that as a yes, that those who don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will not find salvation. Just to be sure, let's engage in a thought experiment. Let's say someone lives as saintly a life as any human ever lived, but doesn't believe in Jesus, perhaps never having heard of Jesus. According to your faith, would that person be damned?
Unless you can narrow down your choices to one, with absolute certainty, you are gambling, and my argument applies. Over the course of history there have been many thousands of serious and intelligent people who dedicated large parts of their lives to finding the one true path to salvation. They have not come to an agreement. If there were a provably true path to salvation, shouldn't they reached agreement by now?
Of course.
No, but how is that relevant? Chemistry is not concerned with finding one true reaction out of all those that happen in the universe. You analogy misses the point of my argument.
Yes, you can make a prediction how a reaction is likely to proceed, and again, how is that relevant? In your analogy, chemistry is equivalent to a comparative study of religion, a study of what people believe and why they believe what they do. There is nothing analogous to identifying the one true path to salvation.
You seem to believe there is a single path to salvation, something one must believe to be saved. You also said your lifetime is too short to examine all religions and that you can't be sure that all those you don't believe in are wrong. It follows that you can't be sure that the religion you have chosen is the true path to salvation. You are gambling. I argue that if there is one path to salvation, it can't be a faith with internal contradictions, and that a faith combining a claim to be the only path to salvation with a belief in a just or merciful god contains a contradiction.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I'm nondenominational actually, and I think God will judge everyone on an individual basis. If you want a list off the top of my head as to forms of Christianity which I consider to be most likely to have members which are saved based on their teaching (such as including the Gospel among all the other myriads of teaching), then here is a list of the ones I can remember at the moment: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, or my own favorite, "I don't give a darn about labels! Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, so enough of the branding!"
I take that as a yes, that those who don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will not find salvation. Just to be sure, let's engage in a thought experiment. Let's say someone lives as saintly a life as any human ever lived, but doesn't believe in Jesus, perhaps never having heard of Jesus. According to your faith, would that person be damned?
In particular, those who lived prior to Christ still have the chance of being judged on their merits alone. If nobody has told them of Christ and His act of sacrifice for them, and thus not allowing them to decide, then it is not their fault for not choosing. In the case of those born afterward, as per those born prior to Christ's sacrifice, they are not necessarily condemned automatically, but they will be judged on the basis of their actions and volition.
Confer, http://www.tbm.org/were_people_saved_before_christ.htm
Today’s Question: So what happens to the people that are not Christians—I mean the people before Jesus? Did they go to hell?
Melinda Fletcher
Bible Answer: This question has bothered many compassionate Christians through the centuries. They rightly do not want to believe that God would cast everyone that was born before Christ into hell. That doesn’t seem fair!
They are right! Gen 18:25 says, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” God never judges righteous people in the same way that He judges the wicked. It is clear throughout the ages, that many people, prior to Christ birth, lived good lives. The question is: How did they live such good lives without Christ saving them? The answer: they could not without salvation. So how could Christ save people before His coming to die on the Cross?
Here is the answer: First of all, Christ birth was not the time that Christ existed. He has always existed, because He is God the Son; He just did not have a flesh and blood body prior to His birth. However, He is the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world (Rev 13:8). So before His birth, God credited Christ death as an “I owe you.” Just like you write down I owe you to someone, you promise that one day you will pay it. The same is true of God. Before Christ came to the earth, God promised all people that one day He will pay for their debt, and so he counted their debts paid even before Christ died.
So how did He save them without the Holy Spirit regenerating them? Remember, Christ is the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24), and His wisdom has been available from the beginning of creation. By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations (Prov 3:19). Jesus is the one who laid the earth’s foundations. Through him all things were made (John 1:3). Jesus, prior to His birth, existed in the form of the wisdom of God. When someone “found Jesus” they found “wisdom.” This wisdom enabled people to live righteous lives, just as the Holy Spirit gives us this ability. People’s noble lives proved that they had touched Christ in some way, or should I say, Christ touched them in some way.
The book of Proverbs is the book of Wisdom. I want you to notice that Solomon wrote nearly all the Proverbs, however, the last two chapters were written by two other men: Agur and King Lemuel. Search Israel’s biblical genealogy and you will notice that these two men are not mentioned in the Bible. A closer look at their names reveals that they were Gentiles and not Jews. How did Gentiles have a part in writing the Old Testament? Simple: wisdom is all inclusive. It belongs to all people who desire it.
Agur wrote: “I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.” (Prov 30:3) This was his humble way of saying that he did not know God in the same way as the Jews. Then he adds: “Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son?” (Prov 30:4)
He did not know the name of God’s son, yet he had wisdom—enough that God would place his words in the Word of God. This shows you that non-Jews were saved outside of the Jewish system of sacrifices.
When I look in the past before Christ was born, I discover many religious leaders and philosophers that had the wisdom of God, and so I conclude that they were saved by Christ.
Consider Buddha: he lived 500 hundred years before Christ, yet he was enlightened by wisdom. Look at his eight-fold path and you will recognize much of the Sermon on the Mount. How did he get such truth before Christ was born? He received this truth simply because Christ came to him in the form of wisdom. Don’t misunderstand me: Buddha cannot save; only Christ can. I do not believe today's Buddhists are saved; only that if Buddha were alive today, he would be a Christian. The point is that I believe Christ saved Buddha and the evidence of his salvation was his wisdom. (Of course, only the Lord knows each heart, and He is the final Judge.)
We could say this about some philosophers like Aristotle and Plato. They often showed the spark of wisdom that could only come from Christ. In fact the early church fathers used their writings to confirm the truth of the gospel, and that was one way the western world accepted the gospel.
For those who want a clearer scripture to prove that non Jews were saved prior to Christ, then consider the words of our Lord: "The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here." (Matt 12:42) Jesus plainly considered the Queen of Sheba to be saved, or else how could she judge the generation of Christ? What was the evidence that she was saved? She came to hear the wisdom of God spoken through Solomon. There is no evidence in Scripture or in history to suggest that the queen ever became a Jew. Her hunger for wisdom confirmed her acceptance of Christ.
In conclusion, people prior to the birth of Christ were saved through Him by His wisdom. They were not saved in the sense of being born again and filled with the Spirit, but they were saved with the meaning of being forgiven by God. They did not enter heaven upon their death, because the way for heaven was not made available until Christ ascension, however they were in paradise (see Luke 16:19-31). During Christ ascension they were then carried into heaven with Him. That is where they are today—in heaven with Christ.
I'm not certain of his exact criterion of seeking God's wisdom, but this is a variation of a doctrine which I have read about before. As per the wisdom criterion, it would be cool to meet Marcus Tullius Cicero later. But, anyway, you can claim whatever you like. Congrats on the necro.
No Parakeet, you are wrong.
I make the extraordinary claim that parakeets do indeed exist. I can produce photographic, audio and video evidence. I can produce an exact set of definitions for the properties that make a parakeet a parakeet as agreed upon by all biologists. I can direct you to a pet store in your area where you can see a parakeet and compare it to the defining characteristics of a parakeet. I can then meet with the employees of the pet store and confirm with them that your experience of a parakeet was an objective reality rather then your subjective impression.
I know you make some 'Extraordinary Claims' too, and your empirically demonstrable 'Extraordinary Evidence' would be? ...
_________________
Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.
- Carl Sagan
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I don't know, I just found the picture somewhere, it seems to be a model but I can't be sure.
I like this response.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind
Although the subject looks like a trollish attack on atheism, the post raises interesting epistemological and ontological questions, so I'm going to take a stab at it.
First, I would augment the topical question, "Parakeets do not exist," with a few more:
- Unicorns do not exist.
- Dodo birds do not exist.
- God does not exist.
An atheist may well categorize both the unicorn question and the God question as fantasy, but this is still a superficial impression. Assuming the common definition of unicorn, dodo bird, and parakeet, these are all animals, one fantastical, the other extinct, and the third extant. We could try to find evidence for the material existence of unicorns in the same way we would for the other two. Empirically, we may come to a preponderance of evidence—fossil, genetic, a specimen—that the animal in question either never likely existed or quite probably existed or still exists. For the unicorn, we may be able to calculate some genetic probability of a horn mutation on a horse.
Of course then we strike into the nature of the evidence and of empiricism itself. Science may be able to devise ever finer methods and instruments for discerning evidence to support a theory, but the skeptic could still launch ever more esoteric arguments against the essence of empirical fact. Theoretically, my senses may be constantly deceived such that I see sensory evidence (and, yes, even the evidence we derive from sophisticated machines ultimately comes to us through our senses) that does not in fact equate to reality; that is, my understanding of the world as derived from my senses has only a chance (at best) correspondence with reality.
The rationalist would argue that the existence of anything can only be proven through the rigorous application of the rules of logic, and then they assume the existence of an agent from the mere ability to do this (Descartes), at this point, we are not yet epistemologically beyond solipsism.
Despite all these epistemological questions, I would say the God question is fundamentally different from the others. The God question does not ask about the existence of some material thing that could at least hypothetically be located somewhere in spacetime. Instead, the Judeo-Christian god is conceptualized at a much more abstract level: the "cause unto all causes," the most perfect being, the all-knowing, the all-powerful, etc. This almost certainly puts the God question out of reach of empirical science because the being proposed is metaphysical rather than natural. Still, this doesn't mean that philosophy can't take a stab at it. From here, the debate would evolve into the typical atheism vs. theism (polarity of the belief itself), agnosticism vs. belief (degree of certainty or doubt), theism vs. deism (role of a creator god in the universe), monotheism vs. polytheism, vs. pantheism (nature of god).
In particular, those who lived prior to Christ still have the chance of being judged on their merits alone. If nobody has told them of Christ and His act of sacrifice for them, and thus not allowing them to decide, then it is not their fault for not choosing. In the case of those born afterward, as per those born prior to Christ's sacrifice, they are not necessarily condemned automatically, but they will be judged on the basis of their actions and volition.
Your position implies that Christianity is not the only path to salvation. Melinda Fletcher, whom you quoted, apparently says it is.
What would it mean if we took that to be a universal principle for those alive today? Even for those who have never heard of Christianity? Or those who see the wisdom that, according to Melinda Fletcher, Buddha ultimately got through Christ, but whose exposure to Christianity hasn't shown them much wisdom? Think of someone in Nepal, whose only exposure to Christianity might be a youtube video from the Westboro Baptist Church, or one about Jesus Camp. Do you think God's wisdom is easy to see in that? What would motivate someone to find out whether there is more to this religion?
Consider this: You don't know a lot about evolution. Probably you consider it a waste of time to learn about something you are already convinced is wrong. I don't know a lot about creationism, because all I have read so far I have judged to be special pleading to make data fit an already accepted conclusion (and you probably know that I am willing to back up that conclusion by examples and argument, so let's not digress). I know even less about astrology because I expect nothing worthwhile from it. You said yourself that life is too short to examine all arguments even just within religion. If you seek truth, you have to follow what seems to be the most promising path.
According to Fletcher's argument, Buddha received some wisdom from Christ, but those who now follow that wisdom, that truth, are still damned. If only the one true path to salvation contained any wisdom, it would be easier to identify, and if all had an infallible ability to see wisdom, there would be no gamble in choosing a religion. But Fletcher says even those who follow a truth that ultimately came from Christ are still damned if they weren't lucky enough to find out that some other religion contains more of that truth. Would you say this is the act of a just or merciful God?
I think Melinda Fletcher's essay supports my argument that there is a logical contradiction in believing that there is only one path to salvation AND believing in a just or merciful god. You can have one or the other, but not both. It appears you have removed the logical contradiction from your faith by abandoning the doctrine that only Christians are saved now. Have I got that right?
I haven't got the faintest idea what you mean by that.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
