Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

PJohnP

New Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PJohnP

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK
  1. There's no proof of no-god either. There's only evidence. That works both ways: there's evidence of God (beauty, goodness, many people's reported experience), and there's evidence of no-god (cruelty, evil, pointless suffering, many people's beliefs). I used to call myself an atheist, but now I'm an enthusiastic Christian. Nothing in the external world has changed, but my weighing of the evidence has crossed a tipping-point from unbelief to belief. I've no objection whatever to your being on the other side of that tipping-point ... but I strongly object to the idea that that's the only rational position to hold. (In response to your post: of course there is "some" evidence for God. It's just not compelling evidence, which is why we don't agree.)
  2. That's a very culture-bound assertion, geographically and historically imperialistic. The weight of human history is against you. I recognize that this proves nothing: all I'm trying to do is argue that unbelief can't be assumed to be correct. I regard myself as educated and intelligent, and I'm a Christian. There are plenty of intelligent educated non-Christians, such as (assuming all three adjectives) yourself.
  3. Of course there's no "empirical" proof of God, just as there's no empirical proof of no-God. The onus of proof is no more on my side than yours. Either of us could be right, and courtesy suggests that you shouldn't snipe at religious faith: I don't snipe at your irreligion. As for "only empirically-verifiable things" being said to exist, that's nonsense. The most important things in our lives aren't empirically verifiable. Love, goodness, beauty.
  4. Please answer sensibly. You may disagree, but it's certainly not "insane", it can "possibly be real", there is evidence (not compelling, but nevertheless evidence), there's massive logic, but (I agree) no proof. It has a valid place in rational discussion: all apparently rational assertions have a faith-basis. I haven't always been a Christian, and I'm not stupid: you may be right and I wrong, but we both have equally valid, rational and ultimately unprovable viewpoints.
  5. Am I the only person on this board who finds brainless sniping at religious faith tiresome? I became a Christian a few years ago, and it's the best thing that's ever happened in my life. It involves no coercion, no fanaticism, no "being wrong in the head". Quite the reverse in my experience.
  6. I miss CGNAO: he brought such an air of drama to this forum. But I was disappointed by the petulance of his final contribution -- berating the moderators for moving his post to another part of the forum. If he can be that petty about small things, can we really trust his wisdom about bigger things?
  7. Another lurker coming out of the undergrowth. (I do dislike the word 'lurker' though I know it's generic across other forums too.) I live in tied accommodation and have three children in early adulthood who can't afford to buy. I've found the forum very informative, and very encouraging when I worry about my children's future ... but I find some of the anti-immigrant, anti-Labour, anti-Europe, anti ignorant-poor ('chav') posts unpleasant. To sit on a heap of gold and mock those less fortunate than oneself, or to go in for "anyone who earns less than £30,000 is a failure" sneers is simply repellent. Some people are dealt a bad hand (lack of brains, lack of opportunity), and many others choose a humble lifestyle, perhaps so as to care for parents for example.
  8. Yes, but you can spot those sorts of traders a mile off: they're almost always based in the US, and they have feedback lower than 98%.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.