what faith you
Posted on: September 6, 2007 - 7:57pm
Offline
what faith you
You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.
I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.
I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.
Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.
Truly DeludedGod,
So this is irrelevant huh? You are honoring him, tying the stone in the sling, honoring the road he walked on - so you and him agree - yet you tell me that where the road goes is irrelevant.
That is as short sighted as all your other arguments.
You have jumped on stage in the middle of the play and instantly say you know exactly what is going on! You have instantly figured it out!
My OT is that what you atheists believe takes great faith - this is only one small example.
Mephibosheth (Jesus is the Way - and He is the Way I want to go!)
Meph, you've taken all the qualities that the human brain posesses and called it "spirit".
So the "spirit of God" is simply a manifestaion of the human brain. Thank you for admitting it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I reject Hume's philosphical stance. I said I respected him not that I agree with him. I took Kant's synthetic/analytical distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments. For a while, I rejected it in favour of WV Quine's Two Dogma's of Empericism but re-adopted it after Quine's dissolution of distinct propositions was rejected again. I never supported Humean skepticism, always preferring what Nozick wrote, and leaned towards more modern understanding of the situation. Although I always supported the problem of induction, and saw the hole in inductive reasoning, I took the Popperian stance towards empericism. Overall, while I agree with much of Hume, I reject his overall epistemology. Your assumption that I did not because I respected his book was false. Then you attacked him on grounds of a character flaw relating to his personal life I have never heard of.
Ad Hominid: Attacking the man and not the argument. Fallacious and will get you banned in debate.
Is this a joke? The road goes irrelevant where the rules of debate say it goes irrelevent, when you attack the man, not his argument. Hume could have raped puppies, but if his argument against Induction holds...then his argument holds!
Being that you haven't read anything I have written and certainly not refuted it I hardly think you can comment on thi. Truly, you have a malaise of the brain hitherto not found in debate opponents. Your dishonest is the apex of human psychological defense mechanisms.
This sentence has no meaning, nor does it have any relevance to the non-discussion at hand.
You haven't established what epistemological claim atheists have made that requires faith. Please do not say something that I already refuted or demonstrate you have no idea what "epistemic rights" are. Actually, this sentence does not follow from the rest of your post, which made no actual points anyway, but made a fallacious dissolution of the distinction between man and argument, asserted that there was no dichotomy (there is), made a fallacy in turn, made a non sequitur from that, stated an Aphasiac paragraph with no meaning from that in turn, and now concludes it with an assertion which has already been refuted and has no relevance to the post. You also demonstrated not the slightest idea how to argue and construct argument.
This has to end now, before I burn the next 10 years on this non-debate. I remember when you first came here. You seemed nice and honest and open to new ideas, and liked it here because of the frankness. We discussed bipolarity and the ideas of faith and why people held beliefs. I considered you something apart from the idiots that sometimes frequent the board. But now...what you have done is wrecked beyond any measure. You brought a toothpick to a fight with cruise missiles. You cannot keep doing this, it doesn't work. If you are going to start a thread with the deliberate aim of ignoring your interlocutors...then don't start the thread...I mean, why would you? Threads are for debating. You aren't debating, you aren't even listening to the debaters. It is difficult to describe precisely what you are doing, I am not entirely sure. But you surely cannot possibly say that you have made a valid point considering how little time it takes to shoot it down (the record is 25 seconds, held by me).
Please, I implore you, either take the time to respond to your interlocutors, or leave the room. Neither is a loss, and the latter act will be looked upon with relief not scorn. But what you are doing now is something you cannot continue. It has been twelve pages, too long by even the most obsessive standards. This is the longest and least productive volley I have ever done. Which is why, if I do not respond to your next post, you shall know why. It certainly will not be because you have a made a point I cannot refute. I think it is quite fair to say that after demonstrating this 105 times (I have counted) that it does not take me much effort to do this, rather because I am prepared to walk away, because if someone does not understand something the first, second, or sixth time, what should convince me that you will understand it the 106th?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Man is not made of dirt. Primarily, dirt is a composition of basic compounds, minerals and such. The structures and elements found underlying biological organsism (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen based) do not have any structures which are found in dirt. Primarly, the are biological polymers such as nucleic acids, polypeptides, polysaccharides, lipids and such. You will not find any biological structures associated with these in dirt.
This is the Homunclus idea associated with Descartes. It is idiotic.
Substance dualism is a Cartesian idea, associated with the idea that the mind is an “immaterial” substance of a different ontological category from the brain, hence, in the Cartesian view the mind is actually a “substance”, just not a material substance. Dualists often transpose this naivety onto materialists, and ask the materialist that if the consciousness is generated by the brain, where is its location? (The same could be asked about substance dualism!). However, this is empty, vacuous idiocy. The mind does not have a “location” in the brain, rather, we must understand the idea of property dualism which IS a materialist understanding, that being that the “mind” is a socio-empirical word to describe an experience. Property dualism states that the mind is generated by the material brain, but the mind is not a “thing” (this is a substance dualist idea, and is hopelessly naïve). So property dualism is a form of emergentist materialism, and is heavily corroborated by modern neuroscience. Whilst humans seem to be in love with this idea that there is an intangible “thing” perched behind the eyes that does the seeing (the homunculus), an immaterial essence of “me”, this is folly. The mind does not work like that, it is not an “essence”, rather it is a set of properties describing an experience that arises from the material brain, an abstract concept of self, without the very precise array of lobes and neurons and synapses, it does not exist. The mind, then is a lower ontological category than the physical brain which generates it, and is not separate from the brain anymore than the liver is “separate” from the rest of the body. It is impossible to reduce the mind or the conscious experience to a single, mysterious essence, an immaterial soul which floats away post-mortem. Rather, we must cast off this intuitive understanding and look at the mind in a new light, an abstraction, an idea where the associated processes are generated by the brain, and so, that it is generated by the material, and a property dualism (do not shirk at the word “dualism”, property dualism is very much a materialist school of thought, when I shoot insults at “dualism” hereafter, I refer to substance dualism, which is vacuous idiocy)
So, "you" are not generated by a spirit"
That sounds more like the pineal gland.
Impossible, by the situation I described above.
An entity such as God without material composition cannot have thoughts by definition.
Does God possess the necessary machinery to have coherent thoughts? No. ) If we can establish that these mental processes, the generation of the abstraction we call the mind, are the domain of the biological and neurological, and hence have necessary physical grounding whereby without such grounding, the idea of mental states would be a non sequitur, we have raised serious questions about the possibility of the entity called "God", since in essence it is described as a non-physical, disembodied mind. We can do this. There is a necessary relationship between the brain and what we call the “mind” and the process of consciousness (by which I mean an entity which has the capability to distinguish itself in awareness as an entity from that which surrounds it, better known as subject/object dichotomy) from which it can be concluded that the brain is the entity that generates the mind
Your definition has been destroyed by reductio ad absurdum, so this is meaningless
Your definition has been destroyed by reductio ad absurdum, so this is meaningless
Your definition has been destroyed by reductio ad absurdum, so this is meaningless. It was also refuted by me three posts ago.
You ignored my refutation.
Your definition has been destroyed by reductio ad absurdum, so this is meaningless.
It helped me laugh.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Most Deluded one,
You've reported a lot about your reasoning/debating ability. While you view it as a great strength it could be your greatest weakness.
(Bible example) Jacob's strength was his shrewdness. It was also what got him in trouble (with his brother Esau, with his father in law Laben, again and again). He was shrewd with others - others were shrewd with him.
Your loud debating and memory strength keeps you from hearing the still small voice of sound input. Think about it. We can all learn something from everybody, right?
Mephibosheth (hushhhhhhh)
Christ on a fucking pogo stick. He roundly refutes everything you've said so far, over and over again. And what do you have to say? That he's weak because he thinks. You then, at least from what i can tell, make a category error, if he is reading what you say, it is not coming in as sound, but as light.
Please stop the damn ad homs, make arguments, make god damn fucking sense!
This paragraph sums up the religious views defended in this thread nicely. "The Christian concept of a god--the god as the patron of the sick, thegod as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit--is one of the mostcorrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probablytouches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. Goddegenerated into the _contradiction of life_. Instead of being itstransfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, onnature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slanderupon the "here and now," and for every lie about the "beyond"! In himnothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy!..."-- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist
FAREWELL TO ALL
All,
I have appreciated your frankness in the "better hot or cold than lukewarm" sense. Better that than people who act one way to you and another away.
I am convinced - you guys truly don't believe in God. It's not what I want, but that's the way it is. I can't do anything about it, though I wish I could.
I'm not interested in provoking more elaborate outbreak expressions of your unbelief - and I have decided my efforts to share the joy of knowing Christ isn't accomplishing anything but that at this point.
I want to say I could easily envy the ability of DG to memorize words. I would love to memorize the entire Bible and hold it inhale all at once.
But, I am occupied with about all the joy I can stand with what I have. You have a responsibility with that ability.
I think God has set the ultimate example of how to use ultimate ability, but, again, that's my faith. I love God - what He did, what He does, and everything about Him. That's my faith and I am totally nourished and inspired by it. I wish it for you all, but, that's as far as I can take it. That door opens on your side.
I pray here that God will visit this website with His Salvation in Christ. That is my pearl. You can trample it, but it lives on.
Mephibosheth (God bless you all, as I know He wants to)
.............and that is the end of this thread as far as I am concerned.........
And he closes with another refrain of "I got mine and you all are sorry bastards 'cause you don't have it like I do"
I'm happy that Meph loves his belief - really I am. Me, I like caring about those visible and tangible beings that can give feedback occasionally but whatever floats the boat.
Meph, if you are really leaving, goodbye and good luck.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You leave as you came, flailing in incoherent persistence.
You would have to be synaesthesiac to memorize the entire Bible, given the bit capacity of human short-term memory.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Sounds like it's over. I think I did add something to the discussion Magus, you are being defensive - I wish you were here to kiss my ass.
At the gym solid 4 days here. I see muscles as concealed weapons, so i'd never roll on the wife beaters, but it is a preference issue. Heavy into abs since 16, six pack at 26. Sometimes working out releaves so much tension, it's a beautiful thing, enjoy.
I may step back into the forums, but why?
Maybe I should share my stance, let others tear it apart?
Or maybe I can become even more versed and exercise my ability to be reason and attempt to be correct and prove anyone wrong who I think I may have a chance.
Then when I am 70 years old like this newest member of the post session I can be .........
Hey old man! Tell me about your life! Yea you, the white haired guy who only posts quotations.....What is so great about your life that I should follow the same path as you? What is so great about being an athiest? Tell me the rewards in life.....most of all tell me about your life! I want to know every detail you are willing to post. I will read every word in the post at least 3 times. I really want to know, and I am not being sarcastic at all. Let's hear it!!! Enough of all this refuting and using HUGE "intelligent" words.....I have a thesaurus and I have access to dictionary.com, even on my cell phone. So please tell me..........
Why bother? I know that you have reasons you feel valid to "not bother" with God, so tell me why bother with being an athiest? What is so great, I must know!
Upside
Why won't this thread die?
What does this have to do with anything, since when did "what is so great about X" be a reason for holding to X? Why is it you assume that I am an atheist because there is something "so great" about being an atheist? Consider the reasons you have for holding the following statements:
-Atoms are made of protons and electrons and neutrons
-DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid
-A=A
These are three different types of propositions. One is analytical, one is synthetic, the other is a tautology. We hold these positions to true by their merits.
Again, I was struck by your assumption that I came to this conclusion because there was something "so great about it". If I made any of the above statements, and you disagreed, would you ask me "what is so great about believing (p)? No. This has nothing to do with the subject.
Consider the foundation question of epistemology:
Why does S believe proposition p is true?
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that somone holds to (p) "God does not exist" because there is something "so great about" (P). Why do you make this assumption?
Consider the following line of argument:
A: Electrons do not exist
B:Yes they do
A: Prove it
B: Explains about phospherence electromagnetic field tests proving electrons exist.
A: What are your reasons to feel valid to "bother" with electrons. What is so great about believing in electrons? Why Bother? I must know?
See how stupid your argument looks in this light?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Really, care to point out where you added something to the discussion? Where exactly was I being defensive?
I have no idea what "I see muscles as concealed weapons, so i'd never roll on the wife beaters, but it is a preference issue." means. Seriously, what are you talking about with this?
Great has nothing to do with it. It's about reason, logic and accepting what the evidence points to. If it ends up being great, then all the better, but it really isn't about that.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
DG, I strongly believe there is not an argument that couldn't be made to look bad "in some light." You are relentless, and to that there is no defense.
Thanks for you solid answer old man. Yes I do believe that if a person makes a decision to live a certain way, it should have something to do with the fact that they can support their life choices by benefits they receive from choosing the particular path.
In this light, your argument DG looks stupid as well. I decided to live my life as a doctor, I don't really enjoy being a doctor, but whether or not something satisfies me - has nothing to do with my decision to be a doctor?
Be real dude. Look at the first step of AA, accepting the fact that a person cannot rely/depend on their ability to think themselves out of something they are addicted to. I think that may be my next post. Addiction to knowing everything and having an answer to everything may be your addiction. You need to be checked into the nearest mental institution and put on bed rest.
Upside
Very typical of a theist looser. You've been out argued and now the only response you are capable of with your shallow mind (like your shallow font) is to resort to Abusive Ad Hominem. Just leave fucking asshole
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
If I may interject:
Meph and Venk were relentless, too, but presented zero substance. To paraphrase Sam Harris, one is helpless in the face of a convincing argument supported by data.
This looks like a mind-bending category error. Here you compare career choice with the acceptance of what data suggests; which doesn't follow.
I guess we all have our areas of experience.
How dare he know stuff that you don't.
if you dont like your job, go get another one.
i was never in AA but if you cant rely on yourself for indepenent thought, then you are 'sheeple' and your words mean nothing, your ideas mean nothing and your thoughts mean nothing.
our ability to critically think for ourselves is part of what makes us human, you say things that encourage others to join the herd and eat their cud like good animals. i thought the religious put themselves above animals.
now play nice.
I like the font, not your use of the "f word" as an adjective, shallow, nice, thank you for your honest statements. I value honesty. I'd say I am 100% dawg. I graze, growl and grumble just like the rest of you humans.
I haven't been in the AA either, however there is some purpose in considering that fundamental step in the program. It doesn't limit you to using less of your brain, it may actually make one more efficiently use the brain power available. Do you know that it is possible to not use the entire brain, true, there are exercises and development available for such things. Also things that inhibit that ability.
Data? What is data? Facts, absolute truths, evidence? I say, you have grabbed a hold of what science has given you, but ignored many of the evidence found within history. You say, the stuff you have ignored is crap with no evidence, so shut up. Hey, i'm not here to convince anyone, in fact, seeing the aggression that I receive when suggesting a small perspective is enough for me really. Anytime I have suggested something outside of the "core truths of this forum," I receive a welcoming like small soldiers drawing their swords, jabbing, thrusting, and if you didn't care for the visual - that's a bummer.
Everyone ignored the question I posted, again everyone just got pissed, and didn't discuss. Far from rational discussion here, come on.
DG said you don't have to have a reason or benefits for living some way or accepting a certain "belief." I repeat, I think that is a pretty crazy statement. So you have made a decision to "think" or "believe" a certain way, but you don't receive any benefit?? You don't gain anything from it? I mean what is the point?
You may not agree with the claims and suggestions that churches make about what "God can offer you," obviously since you don't believe in God, but there has to be something you feel you are gaining from being an athiest? I would like to know. I WOULD really like to know. That is why I asked the old man to tell me. HE has the most experience on this Earth from the people who I have seen on this forum, and it seems that he would have the most complete "DATA."
Do me a favor, if you ARE NOT going to respond to my question, and instead you are considering sending another post that calls me dumb or something even more clever, don't bother. This is suppose to be a rational forum, and if I can't ask a rational question to question your theology, then I will do as the "gentleman" above asks and I will leave. It just seems to defeat any purpose of conversation if any of you treat discussion like a person throwing a cigarette to the ground and grinding it into the ground with their foot.
Again, if you plan to disregard my questions, don't reply. This blog conversation will end and my posts will cease. I do not care to exchange clever ways to insult each other....if you want to have a rational discussion as this site is setup to hold, then respond.
There is a God. I cannot prove it with equations or science. THere is proof, and there exists evidence. If you want the scientific evidence there are a vast selection of books out there, which may be better than me typing all of them out. For you smart guys, I recommend Ravi Zacharias. Science took what God made and explained it, and then some think that it can take credit for it all. Science is not bad, equations are not bad, data is not bad, but all exist and submit to the God that exists.
Upside
OK, great.
Could be time.
What? Is that supposed to be a claim of some kind?
Do tell.
You'd know better than I.
Do you have an actual claim, or just vague allusions to undisclosed things?
LOL.
Your posts vary from the irrelevant to the incomprehensible, so I don't know what end you think you're working toward.
Smallest... violin... playing... just... for... you.
I don't remember a question. Was it in the post about weight lifting, or the one about the mural?
If DG is incapable of deluding himself just to feel warm and fuzzy, that's not a preference, it's a brute fact whether he likes it or not (which he seems to).
I've lost track of how many times I've had to repeat this: atheism is not a world view. It is a response to one claim imposed by cultural norms. You're simply not asking a valid question.
You're in no position to make demands.
What a loss.
There's one way to regard burnt-out butts.
Your question is akin to, “How has thinking there aren't leprechauns helped you?”
When ALL else fails, assert.
Ravi is a lunatic, but if you want to defend his specific claims, feel free.
This is not a response to my argument. This is a vacuous and moronic cop-out
This is ad consequentiam. Life choices? We are talking cold, hard fact here. You have made a fallacy of equivocation between value judgements and knowledge claims.
Two fallacies in a row is not grounds for making my argument look stupid. Now, Cowboy the fuck up, and start making sense.
Another fallacy of equivocation between value judgements and knowledge claims. Consider the following statements again:
I want to do X
X is true
X exists
If X=Y, Y=X
The first is a value judgement, the other three are knowledge claims. You fallaciously equivocate the two in order to make a ridiculous non-argument that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, ask an irrelevant question which has nothing to do with hard fact.
You want the answer: I am not an atheist because it makes me happier, or warm and fuzzy inside, or because it makes me feel good, I am an atheist because it was the conclusion I came to after cold, hard, reasoning. I couldn't care less if belief in God made me feel good, because I cannot sweep away cognitive dissonance by deluding myself to that degree, although you seem very capable of it. If you believe in God because "there is something so great about it", you have made a fallacious equivocation of knowledge claims with value judgements. You have committed an ad consequentiam fallacy and it is not a valid justification for holding that X is true. So, you are obviously assuming that everyone else thinks like you, and needs to believe X is true because it makes them feel good. Which is pretty pathetic. Why don't you just take drugs instead? If you wish to see several of the thought processes conjuncted with my atheism (since you seem interested), then read this:
All a posteriori Arguments For the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt
On the Problem of Interaction and the Concluding Piece of the Series: The Absurdity of an Immaterial Mind
On Negative Theology and its Linguistic Implications For the Coherency of Certain Theological Concepts
Oh, and by the way, do you have bipolar disorder or DA disorder? I am asking since you contradicted yourself three times in a row in the next post you made. First of all, you obviously know nothing about the scientific method, so read this:
The Notion of Scientific or Indeed any Empirical Proof of God Commits an Internal Contradiction
Second, stop asserting. You made a knowledge claim: X Exists, where X=God. Back it up. Not by more assertions (Read Y), but by cold, hard reasoning.
Otherwise, get out.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
{plan your funeral here} {this thread was lost}
My thread was one of those lost in the cyber breakdown.
It was entitled "plan your funeral here" and I linked it to Google under "classic Atheist eulogies".
Knowing this forum's frankness and the undeniable reality of the ultimate finish line - not something for the thinker to shy away from or repress,
I ask for examples of what - especially high level moderators - leaders in the Atheistic march - what a thinking Atheist would want said to show the proper respect at their funeral.
There had already been some poetic responses: having the carcus charged by a lion, cremation and flushing to show disrespect of life, and other more elaborate eulogies, lost forever.
This was beginning to be fascinating to me. How can you have so much respect for your own thoughts while alive - and want that disrespect shown when dead? Could you explain how you can in essence be your own god in life and want such disregard at death?
Of course I don't get the whole Atheist thing, but I don't get that either.
Maybe those could be restored here? Or was it no accident that they were lost? Is this a sore point with Atheist high level moderators? Is this a third rail?
Mephibosheth (inquiring minds want to know how bold Atheists want to go)
You're begging the question a lot here, but I'm not going to spend much time on you. The point I think to the desecration, and I may be wrong, is contradicting Christianity's transposition of natural values by showing our corpses to represent the loss of identity, not the achievement of immortality.
So the important thing then is just carry your contradiction to the end. It's a worthy purpose isn't it, hate, disrespect. It fuels you?
I can appreciate the lack of time you have to spend on me. I'm at just over 23,000 days myself, for sure no more than 16,000 to go. That's not a lot of time. I'm glad I have a living hope that is real. I have no doubts I have eternal life in Christ.
What a waste you guys have fueling up on hate.
Plus it's already been established your atheism has no application to life - and....you're comfortable with that and defend it. Your core belief has no application - except for total disrespect for life's greatest gifts.
Happy New Year - that's 366 days and counting tick, tick,
I believe my thread "plan your funeral here" was deleted on purpose. I don't think you guys want to face certain realities, just prate and throw firebombs.
Mephibosheth (repressed and deleted by RRSQ)(the rational ones)
If looking toward the "middle" of the universe can tell us something about the past, I suppose the same can be true for countries like America. You're a shambling caricature of a Dark Age Christian, Mephibosheth. Your dim light is now reaching us, but what you are is long dead.
What contradiction has been established? Or are you merely asserting this proposition?
Propositional validity does not follow from application to life necessarily. Contradistinctively, since your metaphysical propositions are gibberish, they certainly cannot have any application whatsoever. Ideas must be distinct and coherent before being acted upon, and pertaining to theological matters, no man has ever had a distinct idea of these concepts.
This is a non sequitur. The core belief in question simply entails the denial (for some, the falsification) of theistic propositions. THose theistic propositions in turn are meaningless anyway. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Your argument is vapid, and does not have any impact on the lack of truth value of theistic metaphysical propositions.
This is an unbacked assertion.
This vapid assertion shows arrogance of the highest order. Perhaps if you read more than one thread you would soon realize that we just lost 15 hours of content due to a server crash, and hitherto to that, 2 weeks worth of material. Perhaps if you were more observant, you would realize that once forums are created, the OP can be edited, but not deleted, by the moderators. Only subsequent posts can be deleted.
This is an unbacked assertion.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
So you're 63 then? Wow, how'd you figure out how to use this new fangled contraption called a computer to access the internets? j/k
Hate? mephibosheth, the vast majority of hate I have seen in this life comes from people strongly believing in a religion. Hate the "non". Non-christians, non-muslims, non-heterosexuals, non-believers. Hate them all.
I don't hate believers. I hate people feeling like their beliefs and way of life MUST be forced on other people.
Why can't homosexuals get legally married practically anywhere in America?
I'm not gay and this still pisses me off. What is the reason, mephibosheth?
Why did muslim religious zealots highjack two planes and ram them into the WTC towers?
....
Oh, did I make a big leap there in the difference between the two?
No...actually I didn't.
I grew up believing in christ.
My grandfather was a deacon, my mother plays piano for church every sunday and teaches sunday school.
I didn't leave chrsitianity to "rebel". I was never angry at god. How futile such a thing would be. How ridiculous. You can't beat god.
The thing is though, mephibosheth.
God doesn't exist. But even if it did, there would be no hell, and this salvation obtained so easily by accepting jesus christ as your personal saviour, is rather idiotic in concept and ridiculous.
You are wasting your life.
And I feel horrible about that. I feel so wretched that you waste so much thought thinking this is the greatest good and you are being such a good child of god. What a sick little imaginary game you were indoctrinated in and addicted to.
How sad you never took the time to look at it critically. How horrible that you are still clinging to a non-substantiated, presumption filled belief system, that is completely illogical, contradictory, and utterly ridiculous. And it is so clearly seen if you will just take the courage to look at it critically for such a short time.
How ironic that a decade ago I would have agreed with you, and now I understand reality.
I keep thinking about the hymn line, "I once was blind, but now I see."
A more ironic verse has never been sung in a church.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
If Jesus could be perfectly seen as He is -He is perfect in every way. He doesn't force Himself on anyone.
He didn't try to "moralize the world" such as the law you mentioned.
He didn't tell people to either submit or be beheaded like we see represented in some religions.
He did and said everything perfect - thus He became the perfect Sacrifice, which was accepted by God.
The fact that He is misrepresented on this earth in many ways (including myself) is a problem I admit. Yet if you wanted to you could see through it.
He shares your disdain of hypocrites - His worst condemnations were for hypocrites and professing religious leaders.
Mephibosheth (a dim light at best)
DG, I see it as a contradiction that here now as always you and other atheists I have conversed with view their own thoughts as that of a god yet would spit on their own death. What became of their god at death?
In contrast my God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Father of Jesus Christ is the God of the living not the dead.
They are all still alive in the Living God. Plus I can take joy in the living hope I have looking even to my own death. Being delivered from the chains of fearing death enables me to live.
Precious to God is the death of His.
Now that makes a lot of sense! Talk about projection! You have admitted that your doctrine (or lack of) has no application to life, yet life is what's happening now.
Life is what you have to work with for, say 15,000 - 30,000 more days, you know you are going to die, yet the answer to the question of why you are here and what to do about it is a "non starter" huh?
Then you tell me the answers I have in Christ, which are very simple and straight forward, easy to understand (as opposed to your gibberish), which apply to past, present and future eternity are to be labled with some dead Latin term so you can strut around trying to convince people you are smart.
I know severely handicapped people that know who the Lord is. The ass even knows his master - but not you!
You are playing virtual video games with your deluded library of imagined wisdom with which you have first deluded yourself and now try to delude others.
Well, maybe I could test that theory and start the same thread again and see if it gets deleted. This time maybe I'll keep copies for backup.
Haha... oh, seriously?
Seriously?
You think someone bothered to censor you? Do you not bother to look at some of the other conversations on this site, and see how much more content and controversy there is to some of them compared to yours? It's almost admirable -- a heroic delusion, if you consider your senile banter threatening.
Well if Jesus did and said everything perfect, then great! You can save all of us atheists from eternal damnation, mephibosheth.
Please do not delay! Save us now.
Let us read from the good book.
John Chapter 14 Verses 13-14: And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
So fix us, mephibosheth. Quickly.
All you have to do is ask in Jesus' name for us to see the error in our ways and all will be done.
RRS will turn into an evangelical christian site overnight!
Go on, now. Do it. Jesus said it was so and he did and said everything perfectly.
Surely Jesus did not lie in this manner.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
John Chapter 15 Verse 7 "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you."
Cure cancer, eradicate HIV, end poverty and war.
Go on now, Jesus said you had the power to do so through Him. Fix it.
Jesus did and said everything perfectly.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Mephibosheth (I was great material)
Watcher,
Yes Jesus could do all that .... if He wanted to. I have no doubt He could - but you have involved me. I don't have the faith to ask that without doubting plus I have trouble believing God wants to do that - both necessary obstacles when it comes to moving mountains.
Like Job I don't know what's going on behind the scenes - and neither do you, my friends. But I have no doubt God knows what He's doing and is on top of His game. You guys have your perspective but I don't buy it. Job wasn't tripped up by his friend's false view of God or his wife's ideas either.
The Apostle Paul had a physical problem God didn't heal - it wasn't best for him.
I do notice in the Scriptures that Jesus was making the blind see (instantly) and lepers clean yet the response of people who didn't believe in Him (ok, big religious leaders),
their response was not "look, He healed leprosy, He is God" but (they didn't deny the healing) their response was "what are we going to do with this Guy? He's got quite a following here" (paraphrased).
I'm not sure the things you mentioned are man's greatest problem. From the Bible examples I think you could set up a "drive through window" for healing but it wouldn't produce faith.
Mephibosheth (noticing seriously what God let happen to His Son)
You are rationalizing why jesus will not do what he specifically said he would do.
He said that if you ask in his name it will be done.
Either admit this was a bald-faced and obvious lie or accept the fact that you have to make excuses for god.
What a pathetic belief.
I was raised in christ. I was baptised when I was 7. I led several childhood friends to be saved.
However, it is all bunk. All it takes is a little critical thinking to see the absurdity of it.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Now you can reword that sentence into a logical statement that makes sense beyond the syntax.
I'm unsuprised you obviously missed the point of my post. Firstly, your statement of "application to life" was unclear and vague, and hence it was not propositionally coherent what you meant by "X is applicable to life" or "X is not". The belief "I am holding a screwdriver in my hand" may be applicable to my life, it might not. That would not change the truth or falsity of said statement (I might not be holding a screwdriver in my hand, anyway). My point was obviously that you were making an ad consequentiam fallacy, deriving truth propositions from application, as opposed to reason. That would be rather like saying that it is "true" that we have invented a cure for AIDS because it would be applicable, yet we have at present, not.
THe word non sequitur means "does not follow". Now, there is absolutely no good reason whatsoeover to belief that Christianity has the answer to metaphysical propositions or why I am here. It's empirical propositions have been destroyed by modern science, and its ontological ones are forced to rely on vague, useless and meaningless terminology. I believe I established this once, twice (several hundred times).
Don't be ridiculous. I have yet to write anything which is gibberish. Everything I write is perfectly coherent. Some of the philosophical discourses may require technical training to understand, but this is not really my problem. Now the "answers" you hold are impossible to understand because they rely what todangst and I call "codifier words", vague and vapid terms to cover for a conceptually incoherent concept. That being the case, they are impossible to understand.
Well, that would carry a great deal more weight if you addressed my arguments instead of...not addressing my arguments.
You haven't put any coherent propositions forward. You've made sixteen special pleading fallacies for Christianity, you have been very vague about "application to life", what this even means and what its link to validity and coherency is.
This is cheifly because the concept of ontological singulars being applied to "God" is such a ridiculous concept. The entity has no extended body, yet it exudes properties that we associate with ourselves and which we have hence demonstrated require physicality. It has no causal structure to speak of (being that such a structure would need to antecede the existence of the thing in question). The bulk of the holes in the concept are covered by the ad hoc of it being "outside time". What complete gibberish. The God entity you describe is simply a singular, omnipotent entity with a mind, but being that such a God has such a seemingly human range of emotions from what you describe (he cares about me, he is angry, he is loving ad infinitum) it sounds simply that you are trying to play mix-and-match with an absurd idea. THe first absurd idea is the concept of "entity" without "identity" (the case here with God), because the concept of "supernatural" is ontologically meaningless (it does not denote positive property) and so does not describe any attribute, and hence it is unclear what God is, much less how, without extension of body, he could have such attributes that require the extension of body by nature (such as ability to have causal efficiacy on the physical world). Nor is it clear what it means to speak of there being "one God" since that would seem to denote some quantifiability: How can one quantify a thing described as infnite or without coherent identity? What is the "thing" be ascribed properties in question? It does no good to take Spinoza's pantheistic route because the theistic God as described created the universe hence anteceded it- but such a statement entails that God is ontologically and categorically distinct from the physical world entails that God has finitude of property. That's completely meaningless, since the thing has no extended body, it becomes unclear what property it has. It is analogous to speaking of a "whole body amputation". There does not appear to be anything left over to coherently describe "God".
Of course, the claims I have made above split into 5 theses, but those are essentially the reasons I do not believe in God. Oh, and the whole lack of evidence thing. Satisfied?
I'm glad you can maturely and intelligently address my arguments. ad hominid is slightly fallacious. You know that, don't you. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't insult. I have done that to you for deserving it for a style of arguing that could only be described as "worthless". But those were indepedent of arguments, yet your absurdity is such that it seems that these constitute your arguments, mostly because you refuse to listen to mine. This doesn't suprise me, but it does irritate me.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, see, the whole part would be made significantly more easier if you presented us sufficient reason to do so. Believe me, your "senile banter" as magilum put it, is amusingly pathetic and so easy for me to waste time blowing apart. Seriously, it's astonishing the pathetic and vapid responses you can come up with. You are a bona fide Christian, the sort who cannot listen to reason and have an intellectual discussion because they have their Jesus and are terrified of stepping out of that little box. Its actually kinda cute...
No, scratch that, its appalling.
I genuinely could not care less about how many magical stories you tell me about Jesus and my afterlife. THe claims are vast, and philosophically speaking, it does not sound to me that you have embraced them for sufficient, rational reasons. For example, my empirical belief "bacterial ribosomes are held in place on transcribable ssDNA by a protein subunit called a sigma factor" is one that I can verify using a proper methodology and have done so. It seems you are inferring from nothing whatsoever, ie you are making vast metaphysical claims, that the book before you is not merely a book but has the answer to a vast array of metaphysical propositions, including the reason for our own existence, considered by any sane individual (you are not) an open question. Presumably, then, one would expect that you properly back up such assertions, in the form of a premise, argument and conclusion. But you have not, and from what I have seen, cannot. You scream immature hysterics. You proselytize. You break into Jesus-rants and a Holier-than-thou attitude. Tell me, do you think that you praying for us indicates superiority of any sort? Au contraire, it merely reveals what a vapid, gullible fool you are.
Your metaphysical assertions are vast but unbacked hence unimpressive. I couldn't care less about your Jesus fanaticism. And without sufficient reason, I couldn't care less about Jesus. Added to that, some of your assertions...in addition to being unbacked...have been eviscerated. I suppose I cannot hope that you will come to their proper defense, instead preferring to scream Jesus-this, Jesus-that, until spittle flies from your mouth, an existential rage fuelled by the quaint (any dying) mind virus you have called Christianity. Although I am quite impressed, by which I mean appalled. You seem to be able to continue to have blind, unswerving faith even when your propositions are hit with the philosophical equivalent of a nuclear missile.
Your silly beliefs have not been founded on good reason and observation. They have been founded on absurd faith that was determined by only one thing: An accident of birth. You have bigoted, idiotic, unswerving faith in something which you so patently and close-mindedly refuse point-blank to engage in a reasoned argument about, indicating a high order of vapid intellectual cowardice. Are you too blindly locked into this garbage to admit even the merest hint of a possibility that your vapid propositions are false? I certainly am, provided that I am provided with sufficient reason to do so. Your faith is no more than an accident. Had you been born in Iran, your creed would certainly be that of Islam, under pain of death. And surely there are plenty of Muslims as intellectually empty and vapid as yourself. Now, apart from creed, what distinguishes you from them? Good foundation of belief? Certainly not. Reasonability of belief? Judging by this vile miscarraige of a thread, certainly not. Intelligence? Definitely not. All that seperates you is who you are and where you were born. Your unswerving faith is arbitrary. Without sufficient demonstrating of reasonability, it is no more valid than that of a Muslim reciting sheep-like from his Qur'an. Unless you can provide me a distinguishing factor, you are entertaining a special pleading fallacy by claiming, with breathtaking intellectual cowardice and stupidity, that Christianity is the one true path with all the correct answers to the various metaphysical question under discussion. End of story. But in doing so, you have commited the aforementioned fallacious argument. Until you rectify the situation and make your beliefs (a) coherent and (b) sufficiently rational, then you can rant and spew about Jesus all you wish, and I shall not give a fuck, nor will anyone else here. Why should we? On a more positive note, you are a dying breed, particularly in first world nations. I shall be happy that one day, before my own death, that I should be able to mark the death of Christianity. Unlike you, you see, some people have an intellectual spine and can distill lunacy from coherency.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Watcher,
There were people at the crucifixion that had seen Jesus' miracles who said, "come down now off the Cross and we will believe", but I don't believe them or you. Jesus didn't come down. If He had they wouldn't have believed.
There were Israelites that went through the Red Sea that three days later were worried God couldn't provide water. Did the miracle produce sustained faith? No.
If you saw 5000 fed you could still be yelling "crucify Him" by the end of the month.
The Bible lends itself to easily be misunderstood if a person has the wrong purpose and attitude. I'm not surprised you are misunderstanding and misusing the Scriptures. You have left the Way.
I'm also not surprised at your attitude toward me, because I see your attitude toward even Jesus. And since you have quit the race I'm not surprised either that you are irritated.
There are things I don't understand, but I can put up with the mystery. There is plenty I do understand and I'm not planning to quit ever. My God is far above me. I don't expect room service.
You don't understand the position/attitude of a servant. Remember the parable? You come in from the field and you expect the Master to fix your supper and be at your beck and call.
That's not and never was your position. Then you try to make it out that you are "above" the gospel you quit. You're the one that's deluded.
And you never did convert anybody to Christ. That can only happen if God draws someone to Christ. Check your Bible again.
It's possible you never got out of the wilderness of your faith and crossed over the Jordan into full assurance and started taking the land which was yours to be had.
But, as you know being a student of the Bible - your current state is worse than before. You are like a dog who has returned to his vomit, a pig that has gone back to the mire. Satan has several guards posted to keep you from getting loose again.
However salvation is a speedy blessing. It can come in a day - you COULD change your mind in a day. And God would forgive you and receive you with open arms. And I hold nothing against you either.
Mephibosheth (salvation is speedy - be aware UPS)
You are ranting, obsessed, a complete lunatic. You can only offer metaphors pertaining to assertions with no backing. You are insane.
But then...I could just easily reverse the equation. You could change your mind and realize your propositions are philosphically reverse. Why is the onus on us to change our minds? Surely the only way to establish which of our polar positions is correct is to have a reasoned discussion in the matter. And due respect, in said discussion, we've wiped the floor with you. No observer to this debate would say you are doing very well.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
you would be in a compost heap.
so you believe in a god, big deal, which one? sure it's the right one?
why don't you go take your beliefs onto some islamic websites, after all they out number us considerably and they don't believe in your god either.
Surely its got to be easier preaching to believers in a god than total non believers. or are those atheists a little too scarey for you?
One last thing, your precious thread wasn't deleted, the server crapped it out along with other stuff, maybe you can take your paranoia to the islamic sites aswell, atleast there it will be well placed.
Conjecture. You are assuming those stories are true. Heck show me solid proof that an Israelite named jesus existed back then and was crucified. That would be a nice start.
There's a word for someone who believes anything they read. Gullible.
I have "left the Way". Oooooh. Scary. I've left the Force. Help me Obi Wan.
Ok, well let me tell you how I ended up leaving "the way". I left because I was raised to believe in Once Saved Always Saved. I got into an argument with another Christian who maintained you could fall from Grace. So I studied the Bible and started critically thinking on it to make sure I was doing the right thing by god.
So how did a god-fearing christian who was still in "the Way" get here from there?
My attitude toward jesus? My attitude toward jesus is the same attitude I have toward the Tooth Fairy. Don't make the mistake that I'm an atheist because I'm being rebellious. I would never do such a foolhardy thing.
I'm an atheist because I can find no evidence to support christianity but a lot of common sense and logical reasons not to.
Gee thanks for pointing out the obvious relationship between a master and a slave. That's been confusing me for decades.
So ironic it hurts.
I said I led them, not that I converted them. I check my bible often. I keep it on the shelf right behind my chair. I read it often. It never fails to shock me with it's violence, absurdities, and constant contradictions.
Ugh, you read your bible too much. You're coming up with some gross shit just like that bible you are thumping.
Satan. Yeah, me, Satan, and Jesus were playing pool the other night. I did most of the talking.
I wonder why everybody in the bar kept looking at me funny?
So I can just "decide" to believe? Really?
Hey, why don't both you and I decide to believe that the world is flat.
On another thought, I've decided to believe in Santa again.
This is pretty easy.
What else will I decide to believe in?
It took me 6 years to completely rid myself of believing in the bible and god. It will certainly take a LONG TIME with A LOT of evidence to get me to believe again. Only god himself appearing before me and bitch-slapping me would make me change my mind in a day.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I've got a question for you, mephibosheth.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would most likely have been raised muslim.
According to most christian's beliefs muslims will go to hell.
Why does god allow them to persist in that false religion?
Why doesn't all loving jesus "call them"?
You have to admit that the vast majority of Saudi Arabians will die muslims.
And most likely if you had been born there you would die muslim.
And then you would go to hell.
So ask yourself this.
Does jesus really love you? Or is it just because you were born in the "correct" faith?
All-loving god? tich, tich. Silly rabbit, god beliefs are for cavemen.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Ah,
Don't worry there Mark65, you've established that you're not in cahoots with the likes of me. You're back in good graces now.
And I like your - whatever you call it - icon.
Mephibosheth (not a favorite of Mark65)
Watcher,
I don't believe most of what I read here.
As to Jesus being present early on - He said "before Abraham was, I Am". Also, all things were created through Him and in Him all things hold together.
I was sickened when I saw the "blasphemy challenge" on youtube. I heard more than once a young boy or girl say they "tried the Jesus thing and it eventually didn't work for them".
I came on here to say it does work for me, which is true. And I have been through tests of it.
Watcher,
But it is possible that you could come to a totally different view of things in a day. Many people have, and it has happened in unusual ways.
I believe you're honest about what you're saying - I'm not flattering you on that however.
One thing that's refreshing on this forum is the frankness.
I don't take the insults personal, and I like the frank atmosphere. Yes, and I do think it's possible that someone on this forum could believe in Jesus - today.
Mephibosheth (everything happens today)
....
That's it?
?
WTF?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Watcher,
I don't have the answer to that question. It's above me. I figure I have to deal as wholeheartedly and honestly as I can with the life I've been given.
I have confidence that in the end things will be explained. Job didn't understand what the deal was and it never was explained. He fell off the wagon a couple of times, but in the end when he came into the presence of God he didn't need answers to his questions. He was in awe for one thing. His perspective was changed in a day too.
Mephibosheth (you have questions - I DON'T have all the answers)
mephibosheth, you are really not thinking on this at all, are you?
You aren't taking a single minute to really think about any of it. You are just regurgitating indoctrinated ideas without...
Honestly. *gah*
Please....oh this is fucking hopeless...stop and REALLY THINK for a minute.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Watcher,
I'm not impressed with your dramatics or your misquotes of me. Yes I have thought a lot about this and it is real with me.
Right after I became a Christian I was struck with bipolar. I wondered why this was happening to me. Why the first doc told me to get rid of that Bible and drink and do what guys my age do and everything would be ok.
But the result of this trial was I found my trade (now 43 years a carpenter), my wife (of 40 years in 2 days), answers to the problem (read a book and got the right stuff - coincidence? I think not). In short I hung on and it all worked out better than I could have imagined.
Do you want to have a conversation here or just rant and rave?
Mephibosheth (not mis quoting watcher here)
I'm not impressed with your faith or your beliefs. Santa can be "real" to my four year old child, that doesn't make Santa a reality.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci