Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[TRANSPONDER]

You misunderstand agnosticism. A common mistake, but still a mistake. As mich as your confusion (if not misrepreseantation) that religions that do not have gods, are still theist (Scientology and supposedly Buddhism).

I know some agnostics and they describe their feelings about this differently. Some would no doubt respond aggressively to being told what and who they are.
And I know Hindu atheists who would trample that other point of yours.

You are still confusing or misrepresenting what the definitions and logic says with what I say as some kind of personal opinion.

So your logic is more canny than mine or many definitions, right?
I wonder what the term is for such a mindset?

Subser ctions are irrelevant. Deism as a subset of Theism is still theism.

You've tried pushing that on me for days now.
You can't tell all the world how it is, T.

Sorry if my choice of Sorry, makes you sorry, but I'm not really sorry if you are sorry, and I'm not even sorry if you are now telling me what I should do in your opinion.

That doesn't seem very sorry at all.
Yet another word used incorrectly by you?

No, in either case. A trick by you to use one misrepresentation (that I was apologising for something) to validate another (that I was wrong in what I said).

I should like to hear these purported agnostics and Hindu atheists you appeal to as Authority. I gave the definitions (I wait your def -shopping results) and will defend the logic as what it is - given the definitions. You fail in pretending it is just an opinion of mine. Or that I'm telling the world how it is. The 'mindset' is theisthink and denialism at least, and you should do better than that.

[oldbadger]

No, in either case. A trick by you to use one misrepresentation (that I was apologising for something) to validate another (that I was wrong in what I said).

Try not tell people that you are sorry when you just aren't, yes? It's rather weak, you know.

I should like to hear these purported agnostics and Hindu atheists you appeal to as Authority. I gave the definitions (I wait your def -shopping results) and will defend the logic as what it is - given the definitions. You fail in pretending it is just an opinion of mine. Or that I'm telling the world how it is. The 'mindset' is theisthink and denialism at least, and you should do better than that.

I don't appeal to folks when I'm simply telling you of their existence.
Oh yes! You're telling the world how it all is, for sure. Nobody is right but you.

[TRANSPONDER]

No, in either case. A trick by you to use one misrepresentation (that I was apologising for something) to validate another (that I was wrong in what I said).

Try not tell people that you are sorry when you just aren't, yes? It's rather weak, you know.

I should like to hear these purported agnostics and Hindu atheists you appeal to as Authority. I gave the definitions (I wait your def -shopping results) and will defend the logic as what it is - given the definitions. You fail in pretending it is just an opinion of mine. Or that I'm telling the world how it is. The 'mindset' is theisthink and denialism at least, and you should do better than that.

I don't appeal to folks when I'm simply telling you of their existence.
Oh yes! You're telling the world how it all is, for sure. Nobody is right but you.

I see. It's a claim you can't support. But I can. I know of 'cultural' h Hindus atheists. There was a book published by a Hindu atheist debunking the gods. Culturally Hindu but not a Hindu theist. In other words, you are right but in a way that is irrelevant. I'm culturally protestant christian. And an atheist. It is an irrelevance to the discussion.

It's a great shame that you are reverting to personals and finger - pointing, which a deist ought to be better than. But while I have no real need to defend myself against predictable attacks, I believe i already said, it isn't about me, nor about you, but about the f database of knowledge, which may be science or in this case, accepted definitions.

There is also the setting out of a logical case.

Agnosticism - not knowing (in this case whether there is a god or not) [god being a cosmic mind, probably creative]. Logic says that you do not credit a god claim until you do know it to be valid.

So 'agnostic' may be a subterfuge label but it is a misnomer, and I suggested why 'To avoid the label 'Atheist'. I did it myself before i had it explained to me.

On theism - belief in the god - claim or at least giving it more credence than not accepting the claim.

Deism does not believe that such a god intervenes.

A theist who does not use 'Deism' does believe in a god who is interested in us, How much is debatable.

Religious theism is a subset of theism just as irreligious theism and Deism is.

This is the way it works, in logic, definition and practise, and is not, despite your post, me claiming to be the only one who is Right. That only applies to the gospels, Exodus, Paul and Acts, Daniel, Genesis....
And most of the rest of the Book.

Just one final thing, none of this matters. Theism id not a problem for we goddless, though organised religion is. It is for purposes of clarification that I'm even doing this.

[oldbadger]

I see. It's a claim you can't support. But I can. I know of 'cultural' h Hindus atheists. There was a book published by a Hindu atheist debunking the gods. Culturally Hindu but not a Hindu theist. In other words, you are right but in a way that is irrelevant. I'm culturally protestant christian. And an atheist. It is an irrelevance to the discussion.

But you aren't the judge, are you?
And you've already told me that if I show examples to you from the internet that this act will be 'data mining'. .....

It's a great shame that you are reverting to personals and finger - pointing, which a deist ought to be better than. But while I have no real need to defend myself against predictable attacks, I believe i already said, it isn't about me, nor about you, but about the f database of knowledge, which may be science or in this case, accepted definitions.

You've already told .e that the database of knowledge will be data,-mining!!

There is also the setting out of a logical case.

I don't think that your cases are all wise, nor all logical.

This is the way it works, in logic, definition and practise, and is not, despite your post, me claiming to be the only one who is Right. ....

.........the law....according to Transponder.

Just one final thing, none of this matters. Theism id not a problem for we goddless, though organised religion is. It is for purposes of clarification that I'm even doing this.

The more complex your lessons,so the less of a teacher you are, T.

The idea that Deism (unaware god or deity), belongs within Theism (aware God or deity) is just illogical.

But Deism can stand near to agnosticism, atheism, and others, as individual as the individual.

You can't conscript not press us into your ranks, I'm afraid.

[TRANSPONDER]

I see. It's a claim you can't support. But I can. I know of 'cultural' h Hindus atheists. There was a book published by a Hindu atheist debunking the gods. Culturally Hindu but not a Hindu theist. In other words, you are right but in a way that is irrelevant. I'm culturally protestant christian. And an atheist. It is an irrelevance to the discussion.

But you aren't the judge, are you?
And you've already told me that if I show examples to you from the internet that this act will be 'data mining'. .....

It's a great shame that you are reverting to personals and finger - pointing, which a deist ought to be better than. But while I have no real need to defend myself against predictable attacks, I believe i already said, it isn't about me, nor about you, but about the f database of knowledge, which may be science or in this case, accepted definitions.

You've already told .e that the database of knowledge will be data,-mining!!

There is also the setting out of a logical case.

I don't think that your cases are all wise, nor all logical.

This is the way it works, in logic, definition and practise, and is not, despite your post, me claiming to be the only one who is Right. ....

.........the law....according to Transponder.

Just one final thing, none of this matters. Theism id not a problem for we goddless, though organised religion is. It is for purposes of clarification that I'm even doing this.

The more complex your lessons,so the less of a teacher you are, T.

The idea that Deism (unaware god or deity), belongs within Theism (aware God or deity) is just illogical.

But Deism can stand near to agnosticism, atheism, and others, as individual as the individual.

You can't conscript not press us into your ranks, I'm afraid.

This theist apologetic type snipe and misdirection is terribly sad from one who is in the rationalist camp or ought to be.

You are already excusing yourself from finding examples of Religious atheists or, more to the point, definitions of Theist, atheist or agnostic that conflict with the ones I produced. Consensus definitions, not my opinions.

Your distressing attempt at evasion by misrepresenting the quotemine matter I anticipated shows that you are doing theist ducking and diving and I really hoped for better. Your doubling down on 'my complexity somehow invalidates my argument' ploy, which I already debunked, doesn't make you look great, either.

To be clear, Any example you might come up with should be able to stand being looked at in context to see it really meant what was represented as saying, not that I would dismiss it as 'quotemining'.

Atheists do not do this waving away as 'quotemining' (out of context), strawman (a theist favorite ),'bias', or 'opinion' when they are faced by science. That is what Theists do, not rationalists and you should be better than the dirty tricks of Theist apologists, since atheists don't mind belief in a deistgod anyway and can't understand (or I can't ) why it is such a big, fat deal for you to make non - belief in a god Deism, not atheism.

I may say that back in the 80's - 90's when polls were showing a jump of nontheism to 20% or more, the believers Coped by crowing 'there may be more Agnostics, but still only 5 -8% atheists!". We suspected then that it was nonbelievers just not being able to face saying they were the atheists they actually were.
I still think this is the case, and have seen it in many cases, in which the logic and reason is fiddled in order to evade what non - belief was called: "Atheism". And i suspect it's your problem, right there.

[oldbadger]

This theist apologetic type snipe and misdirection is terribly sad from one who is in the rationalist camp or ought to be.

I'll not bother to answer the rest, T. Just the fact that you still place me, a Deist, in to the theistic folder.

To show you how illogical this is I will choose another set of titles completely, and then other readers might get the point even if you don't.

Let's say that a little boy has a collection of toy bricks painted in several colours. Let's say that for educational purposes his parents have divided one drawer of his toy cupboard to separate the bricks by colour. So there are partitions in this drawer for red, green and blue bricks etc etc.

These partitions are marked clearly so that the little boy will learn where to place each different colour.

Now...this is the part where I need you to watch closely. The drawer for bricks has got to be marked clearly as well as the partitions.

The parents could mark the drawer front 'BRICKS'..... And on opening this drawer it's partitions would be marked for each colour. I would expect the drawer to be marked BRICKS ........... What would you do?......mark it RED....or BLUE?

You see, I would place all theological based titles under the heading of something like Opinions-about-theology, or maybe a member could think of a better title to cover all. The sections within could include Theism with many subsections, and A-Theism with it's subsections, and Agnosticism with it's subsections...and on and on, and there would be one for Deism with it's many subsections. Now where would Adeism go, I wonder?

You may not see the logic in the little boy's brick drawer not my suggestion for a Theological Opinions file.

There....a simple lesson for the purposes of placing theological opinions somewhere......logically.

Of course, you could always mark the little boy's drawer RED or whatever, but would be ever get to learn anything?

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, that was disappointing. I logged on half hoping you'd produce something to make me consider. All you could come up with was a really simple analogy that was almost insulting in the way it apparently supposed that I didn't know that red and green bricks were still bricks (or red and green are both colors) just as...wait for it.....Deism, irreligious theism and religious theism are all theisms. Because they all credit the god - claim.

Anyone who thinks I am missing something, please do point it out to me.

If you do not credit the god - claim, you are under the non - theist label no matter what color nontheist you are. If you credit the god - claim you are a theist which includes deism - according to all the definitions I came up with. If you do not credit the god- claim, you are a non -theist, which includes non-theists and atheists or you can even call yourself 'Agnostic, if you like, as agnosticism logically mandates no -theism until one is Gnowing there is a god.

[oldbadger]

All you could come up with was a really simple analogy

Exactly. A simple analogy can show logic much better than a complex one.

......that was almost insulting in the way it apparently supposed that I didn't know that red and green bricks were still bricks (or red and green are both colors) just as...wait for it.....Deism, irreligious theism and religious theism are all theisms. Because they all credit the god - claim.

That's quite telling. You feel almost insulted by a simple clear analogy yet still cannot see that just like the little boy's coloured bricks, each division and sub-division of religious/theological opinion belongs in its own place.

Anyone who thinks I am missing something, please do point it out to me.

You're missing out on the most simple of lesson deliveries.

If you do not credit the god - claim, you are under the non - theist label no matter what color nontheist you are.

Now you are mixing up your titles further.
Deists are indeed non-theists because theism is all about AWARE/INVOLVED God's.
And so non-theism can be agnostic, deist, atheist and other opinion types.

[

If you credit the god - claim you are a theist which includes deism - according to all the definitions I came up with. If you do not credit the god- claim, you are a non -theist, which includes non-theists and atheists or you can even call yourself 'Agnostic, if you like, as agnosticism logically mandates no -theism until one is Gnowing there is a god.

Ah! You're learning after all...... You've created divisions for non-theists, atheists, agnostics and there are many others....including deists and theists.....all separate.

And if you can perceive that then you might be able to discern the hundreds of sub-divisions within each division.

As you've already admitted (at last) Atheism does not stand alone against all the others.

[TRANSPONDER]

The only point you make above that is worthy of attention is this'n

"Deists are indeed non-theists because theism is all about AWARE/INVOLVED God's."

You mean god, plural, not God's (belonging to God) which is a specific God, too. A small point but telling of sloppy thinking.

The difference/wrong thing or I should say misdirection, is 'involved'. An uninvolved (deist) god, is still an intelligent creator and a god. Crediting such makes one a theist. Deists are a subset (different colour brick) of Theism.

[Tcg]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #381]

Indeed. A theist is one who believes in a god/gods. The type of god/gods matters not. It's real easy. Ask someone if they believe in a god/gods. If the answer is "yes" then they are a theist. Any other response and they are an atheist. Thus, theism involves god/gods of any kind. I don't know why some desire to confuse this.


Tcg