(http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd452/gsogymrat/94e54417-92de-432e-a3eb-cf2928b90a06_zpscgk4u20y.png)
This was posted online by an atheist but I'm not sure if this is the way many Christians look at faith. I know a particular Christian friend who would say prayer isn't a request to change the world but a plea to give the Christian strength to deal with adversity and maintain faith. He explained the world is meant to be bad, a place of sin, and inherently designed to be challenging. People are designed by God to be flawed. Life is an obstacle course and the purpose is to get through it while maintaining faith in God. You don't pray for God to change the course but the strength to not give up and to beg forgiveness when you fall. The faithful are not rewarded in this life but the next and Christians should not expect to be happy or expect justice in this life. This is completely opposite to my experience.
Thoughts?
I've heard similar ideas in the sense that life isn't supposed to be rosy, but meant to be a hard trek to get to the end. The more you suffer the more exalted you'll be in the afterlife. But I would call that a minority viewpoint from what I experienced as a Christian. Most expect some form of reward in life.
What would be the point of prayer that never gets answered? Prayer is supposed to be appealing to god for help, but help would have to be in your mortal life.
Um being raised a catholic prayer is meant for all sorts of things including praying for what you want. But I would say the biggest thing is that they believe you should give all the problems you can't handle over to god. I don't know about the success rate of doing that. I just know that any favorable out come is god answering their prayers.
Quote from: doorknob on August 01, 2016, 06:01:41 PM
Um being raised a catholic prayer is meant for all sorts of things including praying for what you want. But I would say the biggest thing is that they believe you should give all the problems you can't handle over to god. I don't know about the success rate of doing that. I just know that any favorable out come is god answering their prayers.
Yes I have seen that in various places. Sort of classic is your garden variety brain tumor or the more virulent cancers. Suffer, suffer, pray some form of remission, disease returns, suffer, suffer, pray remission etc. until oops, returns again- fuck it, die, god has willed it. Never mind the talent and efforts of brain surgeons and Oncologists et al, just pray.
The irony is that it seems to me if god hands you a terminal disease or situation he has pretty much religiously punched your ticket. That being the case and heaven being the place everybody wants to get to, why not just say thank you god, pass the meds and die quietly. But these are the people that fight the hardest to stay alive. Ya got me.
Quote from: doorknob on August 01, 2016, 06:01:41 PM
Um being raised a catholic prayer is meant for all sorts of things including praying for what you want.
Reminds me of this.
(https://alwaysquestionauthority.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1922369_653683568039465_6746049068429037258_n.jpg)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 01, 2016, 05:46:45 PM
(http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd452/gsogymrat/94e54417-92de-432e-a3eb-cf2928b90a06_zpscgk4u20y.png)
This was posted online by an atheist but I'm not sure if this is the way many Christians look at faith. I know a particular Christian friend who would say prayer isn't a request to change the world but a plea to give the Christian strength to deal with adversity and maintain faith. He explained the world is meant to be bad, a place of sin, and inherently designed to be challenging. People are designed by God to be flawed. Life is an obstacle course and the purpose is to get through it while maintaining faith in God. You don't pray for God to change the course but the strength to not give up and to beg forgiveness when you fall. The faithful are not rewarded in this life but the next and Christians should not expect to be happy or expect justice in this life. This is completely opposite to my experience.
Thoughts?
They've given up trying to make their god useful in the real world.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 01, 2016, 05:46:45 PM
(http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd452/gsogymrat/94e54417-92de-432e-a3eb-cf2928b90a06_zpscgk4u20y.png)
This was posted online by an atheist but I'm not sure if this is the way many Christians look at faith. I know a particular Christian friend who would say prayer isn't a request to change the world but a plea to give the Christian strength to deal with adversity and maintain faith. He explained the world is meant to be bad, a place of sin, and inherently designed to be challenging. People are designed by God to be flawed. Life is an obstacle course and the purpose is to get through it while maintaining faith in God. You don't pray for God to change the course but the strength to not give up and to beg forgiveness when you fall. The faithful are not rewarded in this life but the next and Christians should not expect to be happy or expect justice in this life. This is completely opposite to my experience.
Thoughts?
The christian just described the devil as the creator--if their god is perfect, then their god could not have produced anything that is flawed. So, if the life he is living and the world he is living in, is flawed, then god could not have produced it. It must have been the devil who did. But then, why is god allowing the devil to be in charge????
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 01, 2016, 07:04:24 PM
The christian just described the devil as the creator--if their god is perfect, then their god could not have produced anything that is flawed. So, if the life he is living and the world he is living in, is flawed, then god could not have produced it. It must have been the devil who did. But then, why is god allowing the devil to be in charge????
Of course I can't give a real answer but why would there need to be a devil? Why can't God design people that are purposefully imperfect, similar to a robot designer who purposefully creates androids with specific limitations? For example, he doesn't give one android emotional responses even though he could.
Depends on which church you go to. The more Manichee the church, the more the emphasis on the evil of the present world and the perfection of the next. Basically happened because the Western Roman Empire was first conquered by pagan barbarians, then by barbarians who had converted to the wrong theology (Arian Christianity) and finally to the failure of the Byzantine Empire to reconquer the West. The Persians and Muslims and the Slaves kept the Byzantines busy. So clearly in the West, G-d moved in mysterious ways ... even forcing the West to translate the Greek Bible into Latin, rather than making it in Latin in the first place ;-)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 01, 2016, 05:46:45 PMI know a particular Christian friend who would say prayer isn't a request to change the world but a plea to give the Christian strength to deal with adversity and maintain faith.
Imparting strength would also be intervening to change the situation. Your friend is splitting hairs.
QuoteHe explained the world is meant to be bad, a place of sin, and inherently designed to be challenging.
So basically, God is a Dark Souls fan.
QuotePeople are designed by God to be flawed.
He really nailed that one.
QuoteLife is an obstacle course and the purpose is to get through it while maintaining faith in God.
Put people through all sorts of hardship and see who cracks. Not much a gameplan. Especially considering that this faith people are supposed to maintain was unknown to everyone but an obscure cult in Judea which spread to Europe then to most of the rest of the world relatively recently through colonialism. And the cult was just a mish-mash of local religious beliefs with every bit the credibility as any other cult. Not the sort of approach one would take get people to believe in something. Quite the opposite, in fact.
QuoteThe faithful are not rewarded in this life but the next and Christians should not expect to be happy or expect justice in this life.
Sounds great if you have a deathwish. Not so great for maintaining a psychologically healthy society, though.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 01, 2016, 07:44:09 PM
Of course I can't give a real answer but why would there need to be a devil? Why can't God design people that are purposefully imperfect, similar to a robot designer who purposefully creates androids with specific limitations? For example, he doesn't give one android emotional responses even though he could.
As I see it, an All Powerful god could create flawed creatures. But not a Perfect god. Then creating an imperfect creature would be demonstrating that he was flawed. Once again, the christian wants it both ways. Just the fact that god created the devil and then let him loose is a sign that he is not perfect.
Quote from: doorknob on August 01, 2016, 06:01:41 PM
But I would say the biggest thing is that they believe you should give all the problems you can't handle over to god. I don't know about the success rate of doing that. I just know that any favorable out come is god answering their prayers.
This was a big part of Alcoholics Anonymous. I thought about the mechanics of this a lot, because AA talked about it all the time. My belief (actually, I think of it more as an insight), is that many of our problems tend to be rather petty. Some people are more petty about it than others, and worry about some pretty silly things. But if you turn your problems over to a god, whether one exists or not, things often work out because there wasn't much there to bother worrying about in the first place.
I stated this in AA once, but in order to avoid offending the zealots, I put it this way: Most of our problems aren't worth worrying about, so what do you suppose a God might do with them when you turn them over to Him? He will most likely look at them and quickly throw them in the trash, and they will work themselves out. But at least in theory, you won't be bothering to worry about them, so that's a plus.
Although, I think many people still worry after they turn a problem over to God. But whether there is a god or not, the mechanics of these two types of problem solving are identical. No one or "thing" does anything with them, and usually they work out. God has an uncanny knack for mimicking how reality would be without him.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 01, 2016, 08:33:24 PM
Imparting strength would also be intervening to change the situation. Your friend is splitting hairs.
That's great. I love it.
"Oh God. Make me stronger."
"Oh God. Make me an NBA star."
Yep, splitting hairs.
The flawed creatures would be flawed from the perspective of other creatures but not God. The android without the emotion chip would be as the creator made it. The devil is doing as God designed him, a creator of adversity and suffering, testing people's faith.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 01, 2016, 09:00:16 PM
The flawed creatures would be flawed from the perspective of other creatures but not God. The android without the emotion chip would be as the creator made it. The devil is doing as God designed him, a creator of adversity and suffering, testing people's faith.
I do understand what you are saying. I've heard it several times. But if god were perfect, why would he need to test his creation? And why would he craft a creature to create adversity and suffering? For god's pleasure? Why kind of perfect god needs that kind of pleasure. And why make his creations suffer? That is not a hallmark of perfection.
And even if suffering were to somehow be a good thing, it's gratuitous at this scale. I mean, take all the horrible things people do to each other - and there's a lot - that's small potatoes compared to nature. We're talking disease, disorders, natural disasters, drowning, exposure to the elements, etc. We live in a world where people literally drop dead, sometimes before the age of 1. What sort of testing ground is that supposed to be?
Prayer is completely meaningless. In the Bible, it's used to change God's mind. But how could an omniscient god unaffected by time change his mind? He already knows what you're going to ask for, and he already knows best. You can neither bring him concerns that he is unaware of or give him new information. So he's either purposefully withholding what he knows you need until you ask for it, in which case he's a douche, or prayer doesn't make a difference.
The reason that prayer exists in the Christian religion is because God was not always omnipotent and omniscient. Back when he was just one of many gods, it made sense to pray. But as he was upgraded to the status of the only real god with unlimited power and knowledge, it no longer makes sense.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 01, 2016, 11:38:15 PM
And even if suffering were to somehow be a good thing, it's gratuitous at this scale. I mean, take all the horrible things people do to each other - and there's a lot - that's small potatoes compared to nature. We're talking disease, disorders, natural disasters, drowning, exposure to the elements, etc. We live in a world where people literally drop dead, sometimes before the age of 1. What sort of testing ground is that supposed to be?
Perhaps God doesn't care about human suffering at all, just being worshipped. Maybe that is why Jesus Christ died a prolonged painful death, to demonstrate that human suffering is ultimately irrelevant to God. A pimple or a plague, it's all the same from God's perspective.
I have to keep reminding myself that the Abrahamic religions makes no sense. Unfortunately being surrounded by Christians I get sucked it. It is like when my husband watches The Real Housewives and even though I hate those shows I find myself looking up from my book and saying, "What's her problem?"
That entire concept is just plain stupid. It makes us nothing more than rats in a maze designed to kill us, rewarded not for surviving, but for continually believing the designer was good until we died.
Quote from: widdershins on August 02, 2016, 12:41:06 PM
That entire concept is just plain stupid. It makes us nothing more than rats in a maze designed to kill us, rewarded not for surviving, but for continually believing the designer was good until we died.
That's Christianity.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 01, 2016, 11:55:30 PM
Prayer is completely meaningless. In the Bible, it's used to change God's mind. But how could an omniscient god unaffected by time change his mind? He already knows what you're going to ask for, and he already knows best. You can neither bring him concerns that he is unaware of or give him new information. So he's either purposefully withholding what he knows you need until you ask for it, in which case he's a douche, or prayer doesn't make a difference.
The reason that prayer exists in the Christian religion is because God was not always omnipotent and omniscient. Back when he was just one of many gods, it made sense to pray. But as he was upgraded to the status of only the only real god with unlimited power and knowledge, it no longer makes sense.
Correct. The pagans made jokes about the problems Zeus/Jupiter had answering contradictory prayers. You had to feel sorry for Zeus/Jupiter ... he was one overworked heavenly father ... in a no-win situation.
You know, when I don't have any money in the bank it doesn't matter if my pin works or not.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2016, 07:28:49 PM
You know, when I don't have any money in the bank it doesn't matter if my pin works or not.
Well...You obviously haven't tried praying, you horrible heathen you :)
Quote from: Duncle on August 03, 2016, 09:09:34 AM
Well...You obviously haven't tried praying, you horrible heathen you :)
I prayed for money in the bank. Then I gave up and got a job.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 03, 2016, 01:26:48 PM
I prayed for money in the bank. Then I gave up and got a job.
But which God did you pray to? Gotta find the right one.
I'd recommend Cthulhu. Great sqiddy tentacles and a good line in insane cultist followers- and arguably more benevolent than Yahweh to boot.
Quote from: Duncle on August 04, 2016, 06:26:08 AM
But which God did you pray to? Gotta find the right one.
I'd recommend Cthulhu. Great sqiddy tentacles and a good line in insane cultist followers- and arguably more benevolent than Yahweh to boot.
Pagan! I pray to the one true god, the Great Green Arkleseizure.
correlation is not causation.
it's great how illogical selecting a country considered 3rd world that does not pertain same medical liberties as a 1st world country does.
if Sweden gave its medical expertise and equipment for no charge to Nigeria - we would not see this figure.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
God is my ATM, prayer is my PIN.
Sorry, atm (at the moment) all I can think of is atm (ass to mouth) instead of atm (automated teller machine).
PIN is slang for prison: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The%20Pin
Seems fitting, though.
The babble specifically spouts that if you pray, with but the faith of a mustard seed, you can tell a mountain to move and it will and nothing will be impossible for you. I shove that up their ass so far they can see a candle on the moon.
Quote from: aitm on September 28, 2016, 09:34:23 PM
The babble specifically spouts that if you pray, with but the faith of a mustard seed, you can tell a mountain to move and it will and nothing will be impossible for you. I shove that up their ass so far they can see a candle on the moon.
Don't do that with a watermelon seed, it will grow in your tummy ;-)
If there was a deity, it would not be anywhere as cruel or vaguely understandable as generally depicted. But since there isn't one, the subject is sort of irrelevant.
I think I understand the real reason Creationists hate science so much. It isn't simply because it makes them related to "dirty animals".
First world science has produced a lifestyle that would be considered heaven just a few centuries ago. Earth is supposed to be sinful and painful. Science is countering "Adam's curse".
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 13, 2016, 11:47:57 PM
I think I understand the real reason Creationists hate science so much. It isn't simply because it makes them related to "dirty animals".
First world science has produced a lifestyle that would be considered heaven just a few centuries ago. Earth is supposed to be sinful and painful. Science is countering "Adam's curse".
In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:02:26 AM
In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In order to do science, you have to enter it with the assumption that the Christian God exists? You clearly have no idea what the purpose of the scientific method is. (Hint: It's to avoid bias in an honest pursuit of truth.)
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 01:29:12 AM
In order to do science, you have to enter it with the assumption that the Christian God exists? You clearly have no idea what the purpose of the scientific method is. (Hint: It's to avoid bias in an honest pursuit of truth.)
Honest pursuit of quantifiable facts. Truth isn't x+y=z or my current weight is 200 lbs. Truth is I am typing with my right and left hands. Truth isn't propositional, it is personal. People develop theories about what the quantifiable facts mean ... but that is always provisional ... Newton vs Einstein. Newton and Einstein were truth ... not their theories ... which disagree. There are many ways to draw a curve thru data points, it is a matter of perception, which curve should be chosen, and a matter of judgement. The data points themselves, within measurement error ... are the only facts. But "matter of judgement" means ... having to trust the science clergy are doing a good job ... you are not relying on your own work, just on a textbook (aka scripture).
I suspect that if prayer actually worked the Trumpster Fire would already be the king of the earth.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:02:26 AM
In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
God--I will say this--you seem to like to wallow in the 'stupid'--but you seem to be very good at it.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:02:26 AM
In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.
2H2 + O2 = 2H20
Where is the Christian God in that equation?
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 01:29:12 AM
In order to do science, you have to enter it with the assumption that the Christian God exists? You clearly have no idea what the purpose of the scientific method is. (Hint: It's to avoid bias in an honest pursuit of truth.)
You can perform the scientific method I'll grant you that. However you have no way to justify the presuppositions that you must hold in order to perform it. One of those presuppositions include the uniformity of nature.
Here's a question for you, how do you know that tomorrow will be like the past? How do you know that the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 09:50:41 AM
God--I will say this--you seem to like to wallow in the 'stupid'--but you seem to be very good at it.
We rely on the laws of nature to stay the same in order to perform the Scientific Method. If we believed that the laws of nature were going to change we could have no idea of what would change in our experiments. So, how can you be certain that tomorrow the laws of nature will be the same as they were in the past?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 14, 2016, 10:22:52 AM
2H2 + O2 = 2H20
Where is the Christian God in that equation?
You just made a knowledge claim with that equation. How do you know that? Could you be wrong?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:27:58 AM
We rely on the laws of nature to stay the same in order to perform the Scientific Method. If we believed that the laws of nature were going to change we could have no idea of what would change in our experiments. So, how can you be certain that tomorrow the laws of nature will be the same as they were in the past?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, we do not rely on the laws of nature to be the same to perform the scientific method. And we would not know what the laws of nature are without the scientific method. And we don't know that those laws are the same in all parts of this universe. We will have to use the scientific method in different parts of the universe to find that out.
Let me run this by you--I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow. But I think it will, since the past couple of million years (at least) the sun has risen--so, if some day the sun does not rise, I'll then change my mind about it. But I am very certain that the discovered theories about the laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after. But if you are unsure, you can easily test those theories. And if they change, then you can publish those results and others can then perform the same tests you did and it will be accepted that that rule changed.
In the world of religion one cannot prove anything--it is all personal and subjective.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 11:58:59 AM
No, we do not rely on the laws of nature to be the same to perform the scientific method. And we would not know what the laws of nature are without the scientific method. And we don't know that those laws are the same in all parts of this universe. We will have to use the scientific method in different parts of the universe to find that out.
Let me run this by you--I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow. But I think it will, since the past couple of million years (at least) the sun has risen--so, if some day the sun does not rise, I'll then change my mind about it. But I am very certain that the discovered theories about the laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after. But if you are unsure, you can easily test those theories. And if they change, then you can publish those results and others can then perform the same tests you did and it will be accepted that that rule changed.
In the world of religion one cannot prove anything--it is all personal and subjective.
In order to use the scientific method you are presupposing that the law of gravity, for example, is going to be the same tomorrow as it is today and in the past. If you didn't know if it was going to change or not then you would have no justification.
Saying that you think the sun will rise tomorrow because it's always rose in the past is a circular argument. In fact, using that reasoning I can conclude that I will never die because I never died in the past.
Are you certain that the "discovered laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after."? Could you be wrong about that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:06:15 PMCould you be wrong about that?
Would you stop asking that question? Anything is possible, but unless you have evidence to support that the law of gravity is wrong, there is no reason to humor such a stupid question.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:06:15 PM
In order to use the scientific method you are presupposing that the law of gravity, for example, is going to be the same tomorrow as it is today and in the past. If you didn't know if it was going to change or not then you would have no justification.
Saying that you think the sun will rise tomorrow because it's always rose in the past is a circular argument. In fact, using that reasoning I can conclude that I will never die because I never died in the past.
Are you certain that the "discovered laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after."? Could you be wrong about that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't seem to understand what the scientific method is. It cannot be used to predict the future. You can test the theory of gravity all you want and that will show that gravity exists where and when you tested it. In order to be sure about gravity tomorrow, you have to test for it then. You can then string the results of many tests over many time frames and see if it changes over time or not. If not, one can surmise that that is a pattern that will hold. But to be sure, one needs to test for gravity again after several time periods and note any change.
As for comparing the rising sun to personal death, that is an analogy that does not hold. I've seen death all of my life, so I realize that one day I will die--no escape. I have never seen a day in which the sun did not rise. Not the same thing at all.
And the theories of nature will hold forever; or until they are proven wrong. They will be the same today, tomorrow and forever--or until the theories are proven wrong.
But your life view will change all the time. It has changed over time and tomorrow it will be different as well. No religion is the same as it was in the past or what it will be in the future. Nothing--not one thing--can be proven about any religion. When you go to church, the person to your left will have a different set of rules to live by and the person to your right will have a set unique to him/her; and so on for all the people in that church. You cannot know any truth about anything, for you don't believe in thinking; you believe in belief and faith, which believes thinking to be evil and counterproductive.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 12:15:13 PM
Would you stop asking that question? Anything is possible, but unless you have evidence to support that the law of gravity is wrong, there is no reason to humor such a stupid question.
Could you be wrong that anything is possible?
You are stuck in an infinite regress. Without God your worldview is reduced to absurdity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 12:17:27 PM
You don't seem to understand what the scientific method is. It cannot be used to predict the future. You can test the theory of gravity all you want and that will show that gravity exists where and when you tested it. In order to be sure about gravity tomorrow, you have to test for it then. You can then string the results of many tests over many time frames and see if it changes over time or not. If not, one can surmise that that is a pattern that will hold. But to be sure, one needs to test for gravity again after several time periods and note any change.
As for comparing the rising sun to personal death, that is an analogy that does not hold. I've seen death all of my life, so I realize that one day I will die--no escape. I have never seen a day in which the sun did not rise. Not the same thing at all.
And the theories of nature will hold forever; or until they are proven wrong. They will be the same today, tomorrow and forever--or until the theories are proven wrong.
But your life view will change all the time. It has changed over time and tomorrow it will be different as well. No religion is the same as it was in the past or what it will be in the future. Nothing--not one thing--can be proven about any religion. When you go to church, the person to your left will have a different set of rules to live by and the person to your right will have a set unique to him/her; and so on for all the people in that church. You cannot know any truth about anything, for you don't believe in thinking; you believe in belief and faith, which believes thinking to be evil and counterproductive.
What is truth, can you please define it for me?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:29:28 AM
You just made a knowledge claim with that equation. How do you know that? Could you be wrong?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You seem to have mastered the art of talking without saying anything.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:59:52 PM
What is truth, can you please define it for me?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I really am growing weary of this one-sided questioning here. Give me some idea of what you believe, or go to some other site.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 01:21:08 PM
I really am growing weary of this one-sided questioning here. Give me some idea of what you believe, or go to some other site.
I am a Christian.
My proof that my God exists?
Without him you cannot have truth, you cannot have knowledge, beauty, morality or really anything for that matter.
Let me demonstrate this proof to you.
What is truth?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:30:12 PM
What is truth?
In the religious or colloquial sense?
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:32:34 PM
In the religious or colloquial sense?
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
What is your definition of truth?
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:33:59 PM
What is your definition of truth?
In the religious or colloquial sense?
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:39:16 PM
In the religious or colloquial sense?
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Define truth it's a simple question...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:41:06 PM
Define truth it's a simple question...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the religious or colloquial sense? You need to clarify before I can answer properly.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:42:15 PM
In the religious or colloquial sense? You need to clarify before I can answer properly.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
I don't see how your answer could be different so go ahead and give me both.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:44:13 PM
I don't see how your answer could be different so go ahead and give me both.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the religious sense, it is a revelation by God which cannot be questioned. It is typically the abrahamic religions which use it this way.
In the colloquial sense, it is used interchangeably with "correct" and indicates that a statement is factual.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:47:04 PM
In the religious sense, it is a revelation by God which cannot be questioned. It is typically the abrahamic religions which use it this way.
In the colloquial sense, it is used interchangeably with "correct" and indicates that a statement is factual.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Truth is that which corresponds to reality you can agree with that right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:50:55 PM
Truth is that which corresponds to reality you can agree with that right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Truth is that which corresponds with demonstrable evidence.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:52:02 PM
Truth is that which corresponds with demonstrable evidence.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Ok how do you know anything to be true?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:53:26 PM
Ok how do you know anything to be true?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As I said: it must correspond with evidence.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:55:44 PM
As I said: it must correspond with evidence.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Ok and would you say that you use your reasoning and your senses to evaluate evidence?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 01:57:04 PM
Ok and would you say that you use your reasoning and your senses to evaluate evidence?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Partially, but I also use tools and other people to assist with the process.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 01:58:59 PM
Partially, but I also use tools and other people to assist with the process.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
In order to evaluate information that either other people or tools give to you is also interpreted by your reasoning and senses.
How do you know that your reasoning and senses are valid?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:00:31 PM
In order to evaluate information that either other people or tools give to you is also interpreted by your reasoning and senses.
How do you know that your reasoning and senses are valid?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The basic assumption we must make in any epistemology is that we are able to trust our own senses and reasoning until proven otherwise. Without that basic assumption, knowledge cannot be gained.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
As I must now return to my job, I'll pass this discussion over to someone else.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 02:08:19 PM
The basic assumption we must make in any epistemology is that we are able to trust our own senses and reasoning until proven otherwise. Without that basic assumption, knowledge cannot be gained.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
So you live by blind faith? You assume your reasoning and senses are valid; therefore your reasoning and senses are valid.[emoji848]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:29:28 AM
You just made a knowledge claim with that equation. How do you know that? Could you be wrong?
I exist.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 14, 2016, 04:08:04 PM
I exist.
In fact ... I am that I am ... we are all the G-d of Israel.
Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2016, 08:05:41 PM
In fact ... I am that I am ... we are all the G-d of Israel.
My point is, if alexx is going to say "how do you know that you might be mistaken" to every assertion, then I want to give him one where the question answers itself.
If I am wrong about the statement "I exist" then who is wrong? If I am mistaken then who is making the mistake?
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 14, 2016, 08:30:50 PM
My point is, if alexx is going to say "how do you know that you might be mistaken" to every assertion, then I want to give him one where the question answers itself.
If I am wrong about the statement "I exist" then who is wrong? If I am mistaken then who is making the mistake?
Descartes 101 ... but my answer isn't.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:58:15 PM
Could you be wrong that anything is possible?
Again, unless you have some evidence to prove otherwise, I have no reason to humor such a stupid question.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 09:58:58 PM
Again, unless you have some evidence to prove otherwise, I have no reason to humor such a stupid question.
You have admitted that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know. Therefore, you can not KNOW anything.
It's a very simple argument.
You refute yourself every time you open your mouth and make a knowledge claim, all the while admitting that you can know nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 10:02:05 PMYou have admitted that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know. Therefore, you can not KNOW anything.
What is your definition of knowing?
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 10:02:05 PMIt's a very simple argument.
Simple is not always better.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 10:02:05 PMYou refute yourself every time you open your mouth and make a knowledge claim, all the while admitting that you can know nothing.
You've started from the assumption that it is possible to know anything with 100% certainty, and you've invented an imaginary friend that allegedly provides you with this knowledge.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 10:02:05 PM
You have admitted that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know. Therefore, you can not KNOW anything.
Your conclusion does not follow. And unless you have something intellectual to offer, I'm done wasting my time with you, idiot. You don't even make a decent chew toy.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 10:21:10 PM
Your conclusion does not follow. And unless you have something intellectual to offer, I'm done wasting my time with you, idiot. You don't even make a decent chew toy.
My conclusion doesn't follow huh?
Tell me ONE (just one) thing that you KNOW but could be wrong about.......
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 10:22:51 PM
My conclusion doesn't follow huh?
Tell me ONE (just one) thing that you KNOW but could be wrong about.......
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/john-cleese-no.gif)
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 10:22:51 PM
My conclusion doesn't follow huh?
Tell me ONE (just one) thing that you KNOW but could be wrong about.......
How often do you crap and fart?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 10:31:38 PM
How often do you crap and fart?
Avoiding my question because you have no answer.
Then claiming "you're just too stupid for me to give you an answer."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 10:30:28 PM
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/john-cleese-no.gif)
Avoiding my question because you have no answer.
Then claiming "you're just too stupid for me to give you an answer."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sadly, asking the nature of a deity is almost purposeless. The entire concept lacks credibility. It gets into the immovable object versus the irresistible force problem.
I look at it this way. Do you believe that Thor is a real deity? If so, then you are arguing about religious details. If not, then that is what atheism is.