Jesus = Fact

There is no "Hinduism", it is a label made up by the British to describe the myriad of beliefs found in India.

Post 226 is exactly what I'm referencing, the general opinion is...............allusions to.................he says that poly was trained by john.

Claims golfer not evidence.

Disgusted is a nihilist, so he isn't going to accept any evidence as valid. If he himself ever uses evidence, it is because it is convenient for him to do so, not because he believes it.

I do not see him as someone to be reasoned with. 

I do not see him as someone to be reasoned with. 

Or convinced to believe is superstition with deceptive rhetoric, like this masterful argument by - C.S. Lewis.

The question is whether it is your worldview or mine that is superstitious. Are you involved in the fairy tale or are we. (Once upon a time, billions and billions of years again the universe exploded into existence...)

I love it when an aristocratic British voice is used to appeal the minds of the unsuspecting with a worldview that makes no sense - stupidity, IMO.

Such a worldview springs/originates from a mindless, unreasoning universe. Why would you think we would be able to find reason and knowledge in such a universe? There would be no rhyme nor reason for its existence, no intent or logic behind it. Somehow you have to manufacture how we humans arrive at such knowledge and reason from inanimate, uncaring, mindless matter as if we could. And when the evidence does not line up with the preclusion it is put aside as, "science does not have the answer yet, but we are getting close." The gods of materialism are science and the human mind as the ultimate. There are many theories as to how we arrived at the present, but which idea is the true belief? Humanism, secularism, materialism, scientism can't disprove God, just deny Him with all kinds of sophistry. It makes up morality that is constantly evolving so that we can never know which view is absolutely right and best. Best can never be arrived at. It is driven by those who control the majority or by a select aristocracy or oligarchy or dictatorship that decides what the rules will be, as pointed out in your video @ 4:21-5:06. Does the materialist view fit the "real universe"? The video smuggles in qualitative values without a set or final reference point. Thus values become nothing more than relative shift views that are used to influence the masses to the desired purpose that does not matter in the greater scheme of things because there is no greater scheme. So, it marginalizes and devalues the Christian view with purposeful demonizing and belittling language, such as @ 8:45--> where it suggests it is the Christian who is in the state of dishonest error, and that this dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions, with certain shiftiness and a vague worry in the backgrounding resulting in a blunting of his whole mental edge with a loss of intellectual virginity. What a load of malarky and propaganda with the claim that intellectual honesty has sunk to an all-time low (based on what?) for those who believe in God while the atheist takes the moral high ground - moral and high according to their manufactured ideas of good which is changing and shifting. 

The question is whether it is your worldview or mine that is superstitious. Are you involved in the fairy tale or are we. (Once upon a time, billions and billions of years again the universe exploded into existence...)

One is a working hypothesis based on independently verifiable data and constantly seeking refinement in order to maximize efficacy.

And the other is a dogmatic story, immune to criticism, written down by people who couldn't figure out electricity.

I love it when an aristocratic British voice is used to appeal the minds of the unsuspecting with a worldview that makes no sense - stupidity, IMO. 

I agree 100%.

Such a worldview springs/originates from a mindless, unreasoning universe. Why would you think we would be able to find reason and knowledge in such a universe? There would be no rhyme nor reason for its existence, no intent or logic behind it. Somehow you have to manufacture how we humans arrive at such knowledge and reason from inanimate, uncaring, mindless matter as if we could. And when the evidence does not line up with the preclusion it is put aside as, "science does not have the answer yet, but we are getting close." The gods of materialism are science and the human mind as the ultimate. There are many theories as to how we arrived at the present, but which idea is the true belief? Humanism, secularism, materialism, scientism can't disprove God, just deny Him with all kinds of sophistry. It makes up morality that is constantly evolving so that we can never know which view is absolutely right and best. Best can never be arrived at. It is driven by those who control the majority or by a select aristocracy or oligarchy or dictatorship that decides what the rules will be, as pointed out in your video @ 4:21-5:06. Does the materialist view fit the "real universe"? The video smuggles in qualitative values without a set or final reference point. Thus values become nothing more than relative shift views that are used to influence the masses to the desired purpose that does not matter in the greater scheme of things because there is no greater scheme. So, it marginalizes and devalues the Christian view with purposeful demonizing and belittling language, such as @ 8:45--> where it suggests it is the Christian who is in the state of dishonest error, and that this dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions, with certain shiftiness and a vague worry in the backgrounding resulting in a blunting of his whole mental edge with a loss of intellectual virginity. What a load of malarky and propaganda with the claim that intellectual honesty has sunk to an all-time low (based on what?) for those who believe in God while the atheist takes the moral high ground - moral and high according to their manufactured ideas of good which is changing and shifting. 

Good luck shadowboxing with your imaginary "atheist materialist" straw-man.

C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN.  He never argues in favor of atheism @ 8:45--> or at any other point in the video.

I am not an "atheist materialist".  I AM A DEIST.  Please try again.  - Not A Materialist

One is a working hypothesis based on independently verifiable data and constantly seeking refinement in order to maximize efficacy.

It is based on an interpretation of the past from the present, using what is available to us in the present supposing that the present is the key to the past. 

And the other is a dogmatic story, immune to criticism, written down by people who couldn't figure out electricity.

Yours is just as dogmatic.

It uses the man and his limited mental capacity as the measure.

The Bible has been exposed to more criticism than perhaps any other writings in history.

Prophecy is logical and reasonable to believe. 

An atheist starts from a position without God and builds a worldview around that position. When something does not fit it is left on the backburner. 

A non-commital deist is simply not sure of what he believes. 

Good luck shadowboxing with your imaginary "atheist materialist" straw-man.

C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN.  He never argues in favor of atheism @ 8:45--> or at any other point in the video.

C.S. Lewis was not always a Christian. He describes reluctantly coming to the realization of its truths. 

I am not an "atheist materialist".  I AM A DEIST.  Please try again.  - Not A Materialist

Then you need to examine what kind of deist you are. What kind of deist, BTW? Are you a Buddhist, an Eastern Oriental deist, a New Age deist, a monotheistic deist,  or don't you know?

I had to check out the vid to see how PGA could think CS Lewis was a materialistic atheist!   Having watched it, I am even more at a loss to see how PGA could think CS Lewis was a materialistic atheist.    I think he must have watched the wrong video.

One is a working hypothesis based on independently verifiable data and constantly seeking refinement in order to maximize efficacy.

It is based on an interpretation of the past from the present, using what is available to us in the present supposing that the present is the key to the past. 

One makes modern mathematics and engineering possible.  That's what I call "efficacy".

And the other is a dogmatic story, immune to criticism, written down by people who couldn't figure out electricity.

Yours is just as dogmatic. 

Einstein refined Newton's Principia.  

Neils Bohr refined Einstein. 

This is the very antithesis of dogmatic.

It uses the man and his limited mental capacity as the measure. 

With amazing, real world, tangible results.

The Bible has been exposed to more criticism than perhaps any other writings in history. 

But it is immune to criticism if "true believers" "know in their hearts" how true it is. 

Prophecy is logical and reasonable to believe. 

Science makes more practical "prophecies" than religion.

Does the ancient holy scripture accurately predict anything verifiable, specifically within my lifetime?

An atheist starts from a position without God and builds a worldview around that position. When something does not fit it is left on the backburner. 

Save your "atheist" argument for your "atheist" friends.

A non-commital deist is simply not sure of what he believes. 

I know exactly what I believe.  It seems strange to me that someone would imagine they have any authority at all to speak about my beliefs.

Good luck shadowboxing with your imaginary "atheist materialist" straw-man.

C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN.  He never argues in favor of atheism @ 8:45--> or at any other point in the video.

C.S. Lewis was not always a Christian. He describes reluctantly coming to the realization of its truths. 

C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN 100% of the time he is arguing IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY in the specific video I linked to.

I am not an "atheist materialist".  I AM A DEIST.  Please try again.  - Not A Materialist

Then you need to examine what kind of deist you are. What kind of deist, BTW? Are you a Buddhist, an Eastern Oriental deist, a New Age deist, a monotheistic deist,  or don't you know?

Are you familiar with the Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata?

One makes modern mathematics and engineering possible.  That's what I call "efficacy".

I would argue precisely because we are made in the image and likeness of God, thus we get it right when we think His thoughts after Him. 

Without being there at the origin of the universe there could be many pieces of the puzzle we are not understanding. We have to assume the present is the key to the past, or to put it another way, that what we see in the present helps us understand how things were in the past. And we build on a particular paradigm.

And Newton corrected those before him. Newton was a theist, a Christian. Funny, Bohr believes that some things just pop into existence. But as you point out, we don't know if what is thought in the present will be true in the future when something else changes the paradigm.

It uses the man and his limited mental capacity as the measure. 

With amazing, real world, tangible results.

Until you realize that nothing is nailed down regarding origins. Our thoughts today are only as good as the paradigm.

The Bible has been exposed to more criticism than perhaps any other writings in history. 

But it is immune to criticism if "true believers" "know in their hearts" how true it is. 

It has been examined perhaps more than any other ancient writings.

Prove to me that it is untrue, that God has not spoken,

...that Jesus did not exist and that His claims of who He is are not true.

You are on as shaky a ground as origins are without a Creator.

Science makes more practical "prophecies" than religion.

The Bible is not a scientific book.

It concerns God's relationship with humanity and with a specific group of people.

It is Him revealing Himself, the problems of humanity, and the solution. 

Does the ancient holy scripture accurately predict anything verifiable, specifically within my lifetime?

It does not predict things concerning our generation.

It concerns itself with a time in history where God sent His Son to a specific people for judgment and salvation. The message of salvation still applies to us today, however. So, to answer your question, it answers prophecy concerning those people and that timeframe. 

A non-commital deist is simply not sure of what he believes. 

I know exactly what I believe.  It seems strange to me that someone would imagine they have any authority at all to speak about my beliefs.

I questioned whether or not you were such a deist. 

As for whether or not I have the authority to comment on your beliefs, I believe the Bible gives me insight on how to evaluate what you believe, once I find out the specifics since all beliefs but one tend build inconsistencies into their system of thought that undermine the belief.  

C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN 100% of the time he is arguing IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY in the specific video I linked to.

He was not always a Christian. He stated in his books as much. I think it was Mere Christianity where he described this shift.

My apologies. I went back and listened without distractions to the whole video. You are right in your assessment. Although he was speaking of materialism/atheism etc., it was not his belief at that point in time.  

Then you need to examine what kind of deist you are. What kind of deist, BTW? Are you a Buddhist, an Eastern Oriental deist, a New Age deist, a monotheistic deist,  or don't you know?

Are you familiar with the Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata?

Nope. When you speak of Ethica, are you speaking of the philosophy of George Edward Moore? If so I will acquaint myself more with it. When you speak of Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata, are you speaking of Baruch Spinoza and his system of philosophy?

Is it like 50 Shades of Gray?