Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis. I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.
So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.
Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.
Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc. Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.
You're judging a group of people you know absolutely nothing about. And you don't use google? You don't say!
Go educate your self before calling a group of people stupid.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis. I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.
So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.
Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.
Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc. Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.
Wow! The scales are finally dropping. You mean if I can pray every day, and just know things then I can see there is a god--and, and I can be just like you??? Wow! There is hope then for me. I mean I've wasted so much time being stupid and a fool, I just don't know if I can ever really get as smart as you are. And I can join you with the sky people???? Oh, man, what fool would not want that???? I am so lucky you posted here--do you think my everlasting soul can be saved, huh????????
Just once I'd like to see someone call atheists stupid and spell "athiest" correctly.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
I assume you can explain exactly why "believing" only in things for which evidence exists or can be obtained makes us "dumb".
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PMA little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis. I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.
In other words you're totally uneducated about this topic. You don't even have the dubious benefit of apologetics to fall back on. Your assertion is based on nothing but your own experiences, thoughts, and delusions and you value those things at a higher validity than the fountain of aggregate human knowledge represented by the internet.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PMSo now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.
What exactly is stopping you?
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PMNow lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.
Think about what? You haven' given us anything to think about.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PMAnother thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc. Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.
I assume by "reading between the lines" you actually mean rejecting reality and replacing it with whatever makes you feel comfy. Its fortunate for you that you live in a society advanced enough that you can literally deny any reality you wish and still suffer no ill effects in your life. Might want to thank all those people who only "think" they're smart for making that possible.
ok
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis. I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.
So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.
Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.
Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc. Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.
Either you are a troll or this is your first time trying to make sense. Every thing you just said is your opinion only! provide some evidence then maybe we can have a decent discussion. But I doubt it you seem like you got baked then had this really great idea to explain to us atheists why we are wrong.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
We have one more advantage that theists are lacking, we can think.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 05, 2016, 05:08:32 PM
We have one more advantage that theists are lacking, we can think.
Yeah................but can you believe???
Oh and btw you are wrong. Atheists believe in many things that can't be sensed by the five human senses. Radiation, most of the electromagnetic spectrum. We believe in the higgsbozen particle. All those things can be proven using a very reliable method of science.
The belief in god has no method. It's a big old sloppy mess of human thought garbage.
Then stop using that computer you are posting. Stop going to any hospitals when you are sick or get injured. No dentists. Stop using medicine, no vitamins. Nothing of the sort. No ready made clothes or shoes even. Stop using modern transportations like cars, trains, planes...etc. You are not even allowed to use bcycle. Buy a fucking horse or walk. No plumming. No bathroom or toilet. Dig a pit to shit in. No soap or shampoo, cleaning materials or anything to provide hygen is allowed. You are not even allowed to brush your teeth. No television, no cinema. No music or movies. Throw your washers and refrigerator out. Stop using your cell phone. You are not allowed to use electricty at all. Stop buying food...you have to hunt from now on and pick your own vegetables and fruits in nature. No, not buying any seeds, they are all engineered. Grow your own seeds. You are not allowed to use modern tools and devices to hunt either. Go make them. Or use your hands. Also you need to make a shelter to live in, you are not allowed into any building built by engineers.
If you really "tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing", then please fuck off and live without its fruits. Be true to yourself. Because I don't care how stupid or brainwashed you are, nobody can claim to be remotely benign being with this level of hypocrisy.
Who is exactly beaming thought nuggets into your brain? How do they get there? Where do they come from?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 04:54:50 PM
Wow! The scales are finally dropping. You mean if I can pray every day, and just know things then I can see there is a god--and, and I can be just like you??? Wow! There is hope then for me. I mean I've wasted so much time being stupid and a fool, I just don't know if I can ever really get as smart as you are. And I can join you with the sky people???? Oh, man, what fool would not want that???? I am so lucky you posted here--do you think my everlasting soul can be saved, huh????????
And you can join me with the sky people lol I guess your a ground person. Lol But all ground is in the sky
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 05, 2016, 04:57:59 PM
Just once I'd like to see someone call atheists stupid and spell "athiest" correctly.
Many you should the part where I wrote how people are incorrectly guaging a person's intelligence.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
Hello! :bigbye:
So I should believe in things I can't understand and things other than what I can sense with my "5 recorded senses" in order to find Truth?
Thanks, now I realize why I haven't yet found the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Quote from: Nonsensei on May 05, 2016, 05:01:08 PM
I assume you can explain exactly why "believing" only in things for which evidence exists or can be obtained makes us "dumb".
In other words you're totally uneducated about this topic. You don't even have the dubious benefit of apologetics to fall back on. Your assertion is based on nothing but your own experiences, thoughts, and delusions and you value those things at a higher validity than the fountain of aggregate human knowledge represented by the internet.
What exactly is stopping you?
Think about what? You haven' given us anything to think about.
I assume by "reading between the lines" you actually mean rejecting reality and replacing it with whatever makes you feel comfy. Its fortunate for you that you live in a society advanced enough that you can literally deny any reality you wish and still suffer no ill effects in your life. Might want to thank all those people who only "think" they're smart for making that possible.
Ok I will reply more later to your questions and statements. I'm on a mobile right now. So I'll just say something real quick what I mean by reading between the line's.... Science only tells you what is.. And never how is or why is,..that's a major flaw when it comes to proof of anything. Like we all know there is gravity But no proof of how or why there is gravity.... Also what I mean is what people call supernatural and normal are really one in the same.. Like having the ability to actually have thought. You see it as normal BC you are born with it but it is amazingly supernatural, observe animals there is no thoughts in a animals mind they only feel in a sense. A dog is never thinking there just happy, mad, hungery, excited, etc. We as humans are spiritual soul filled beings this is why we have dominon over earth you are what you don't believe in bro supernatural lol always remember too matter never creates mind only mind can create matter. If any1 opened up there mind enough you'll see that it is pure stupidity to think God does not exist. What makes you alive bro it's not your body parts lol
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 05:54:08 PM
And you can join me with the sky people lol I guess your a ground person. Lol But all ground is in the sky
But of course. As you speak it become clearer and clearer!
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis. I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.
So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.
Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.
Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc. Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.
Hi
Well, ain't you impressive.
Congrats, looks like you've got it all figured out.
I'd welcome you to our little band of heathens but, for some strange reason which I can't put my finger on, I don't get the feeling you truly want to be part of it.
Quote from: doorknob on May 05, 2016, 04:48:30 PM
You're judging a group of people you know absolutely nothing about. And you don't use google? You don't say!
Go educate your self before calling a group of people stupid.
I only need to know that you believe there is no god, that makes you stupid about life it's self. Which is the most important thing in life... You may be a math scholar but that's just study and dedication to learning a certain subject. Any1 can do that.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 06:36:13 PM
I only need to know that you believe there is no god,
Not believing in a God is not the same thing as believing in no God.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2016, 05:16:34 PM
Then stop using that computer you are posting. Stop going to any hospitals when you are sick or get injured. No dentists. Stop using medicine, no vitamins. Nothing of the sort. No ready made clothes or shoes even. Stop using modern transportations like cars, trains, planes...etc. You are not even allowed to use bcycle. Buy a fucking horse or walk. No plumming. No bathroom or toilet. Dig a pit to shit in. No soap or shampoo, cleaning materials or anything to provide hygen is allowed. You are not even allowed to brush your teeth. No television, no cinema. No music or movies. Throw your washers and refrigerator out. Stop using your cell phone. You are not allowed to use electricty at all. Stop buying food...you have to hunt from now on and pick your own vegetables and fruits in nature. No, not buying any seeds, they are all engineered. Grow your own seeds. You are not allowed to use modern tools and devices to hunt either. Go make them. Or use your hands. Also you need to make a shelter to live in, you are not allowed into any building built by engineers.
If you really "tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing", then please fuck off and live without its fruits. Be true to yourself. Because I don't care how stupid or brainwashed you are, nobody can claim to be remotely benign being with this level of hypocrisy.
You're really a funny 1. Lol I agree that we would be better off without electricty and GM foods and seeds... Which is why I buy local heirloom seeds for my garden. And your right again when you say hunt for your meat because it's 100x more healthy than eating cows from 1000 miles away who were mistreated and fed bs chemicals. Which is why I prefer to hunt and fish and raise your own meat. Also all the things that you listed off can be made at home easily .
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 05, 2016, 06:34:45 PM
Hi
Well, ain't you impressive.
Congrats, looks like you've got it all figured out.
I'd welcome you to our little band of heathens but, for some strange reason which I can't put my finger on, I don't get the feeling you truly want to be part of it.
Fact.... There is only 1 truth.
And not sure what u mean about your band of heathen lol but you can bet I'm the meanest person on this site. In person you won't say shit to me bro.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 06:33:08 PM
But of course. As you speak it become clearer and clearer!
It should. Since what I said is a true fact ain't it? You're to grounded man. Don't even realise you live in the sky.
Excuse the typos on a mobile now. A shitty 1 lol
Hmmm well there is only one truth. That much we can agree on. But is the pot calling the kettle black or what? Calling us dumb because we don't understand god (which is incorrect btw we understand god quite well) Yet calling a mathematician dumb because you don't understand math.
Well I see what level of intelligence we are dealing with here. No wonder you believe in a mythical being. You barely know how to use logic or do critical thinking.
One last parting query. If you can't measure intelligence by spelling math or science then how do you know that animals aren't intelligent?
Also stop smoking weed before you come to a debate forum thinking you know all see all and are oh so wise. I think it's clouding your judgement.
uote author=doorknob link=topic=10008.msg1130027#msg1130027 date=1462482492]
Either you are a troll or this is your first time trying to make sense. Every thing you just said is your opinion only! provide some evidence then maybe we can have a decent discussion. But I doubt it you seem like you got baked then had this really great idea to explain to us atheists why we are wrong.
[/quote]
Proof is litterly all around you. You just can't see it bro. You yourself is proof. You are supernatural. But supernatural is a word I hate to use since I understand hardly nothing is actually supernatural.
But if you want the kind of proof you look for there is plenty of it..even though it's a weaker system. You like odds? Or eye witnesses to what you call supernatural. Heres a fact you can observe through daily life, matter never creates mind only mind can create matter. How do you think this all exist? There is no beginning without a beginner.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 07:05:11 PM
It should. Since what I said is a true fact ain't it? You're to grounded man. Don't even realise you live in the sky.
Excuse the typos on a mobile now. A shitty 1 lol
Well, of course--everything you said was pure 100% fact! Anybody can see that! Yeah--stupid me not realizing I live in the sky! Boy sure glad you set me straight on just how stupid I am! Wow! Good thing for me.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 05, 2016, 05:11:18 PM
Yeah................but can you believe???
If it's falsifiable, yeah.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 07:17:52 PM
uote author=doorknob link=topic=10008.msg1130027#msg1130027 date=1462482492]
Either you are a troll or this is your first time trying to make sense. Every thing you just said is your opinion only! provide some evidence then maybe we can have a decent discussion. But I doubt it you seem like you got baked then had this really great idea to explain to us atheists why we are wrong.
Proof is litterly all around you. You just can't see it bro. You yourself is proof. You are supernatural. But supernatural is a word I hate to use since I understand hardly nothing is actually supernatural.
But if you want the kind of proof you look for there is plenty of it..even though it's a weaker system. You like odds? Or eye witnesses to what you call supernatural. Heres a fact you can observe through daily life, matter never creates mind only mind can create matter. How do you think this all exist? There is no beginning without a beginner.
So, you have jack shit for proof. Just hippy-dippy poster babble.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 07:17:52 PM
uote author=doorknob link=topic=10008.msg1130027#msg1130027 date=1462482492]
Either you are a troll or this is your first time trying to make sense. Every thing you just said is your opinion only! provide some evidence then maybe we can have a decent discussion. But I doubt it you seem like you got baked then had this really great idea to explain to us atheists why we are wrong.
Proof is litterly all around you. You just can't see it bro. You yourself is proof. You are supernatural. But supernatural is a word I hate to use since I understand hardly nothing is actually supernatural.
But if you want the kind of proof you look for there is plenty of it..even though it's a weaker system. You like odds? Or eye witnesses to what you call supernatural. Heres a fact you can observe through daily life, matter never creates mind only mind can create matter. How do you think this all exist? There is no beginning without a beginner.
wrong again. Matter does create mind. What do you think your brain is made of air? (well in your case ....)
It's made up of neurons which are made of cells which are made of atoms. Thoughts come from the brain. Even your thoughts were created by a brain. A clearly malfunctioning one but one non the less. All those things I mentioned before are matter by scientific definition.
Quote author=doorknob link=topic=10008.msg1130059#msg1130059 date=1462489948]
Hmmm well there is only one truth. That much we can agree on. But is the pot calling the kettle black or what? Calling us dumb because we don't understand god (which is incorrect btw we understand god quite well) Yet calling a mathematician dumb because you don't understand math.
Well I see what level of intelligence we are dealing with here. No wonder you believe in a mythical being. You barely know how to use logic or do critical thinking.
One last parting query. If you can't measure intelligence by spelling math or science then how do you know that animals aren't intelligent?
Also stop smoking weed before you come to a debate forum thinking you know all see all and are oh so wise. I think it's clouding your judgement.
[/quote]
Lol don't run away. You have misunderstood what I meant I'm not saying a mathmatician is dumb Im saying just because you completed every damn math course known to man that doesn't make you smart because we all could have dedicated are life to that goal. And accomplished it... That's nothing special. And what's funny and this were I get calling you a fool you said "no wonder you believe in a mythical being" Hello fool we are all mythical beings
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 07:31:09 PM
Quote author=doorknob link=topic=10008.msg1130059#msg1130059 date=1462489948]
Hmmm well there is only one truth. That much we can agree on. But is the pot calling the kettle black or what? Calling us dumb because we don't understand god (which is incorrect btw we understand god quite well) Yet calling a mathematician dumb because you don't understand math.
Well I see what level of intelligence we are dealing with here. No wonder you believe in a mythical being. You barely know how to use logic or do critical thinking.
One last parting query. If you can't measure intelligence by spelling math or science then how do you know that animals aren't intelligent?
Also stop smoking weed before you come to a debate forum thinking you know all see all and are oh so wise. I think it's clouding your judgement.
Lol don't run away. You have misunderstood what I meant I'm not saying a mathmatician is dumb Im saying just because you completed every damn math course known to man that doesn't make you smart because we all could have dedicated are life to that goal. And accomplished it... That's nothing special. And what's funny and this were I get calling you a fool you said "no wonder you believe in a mythical being" Hello fool we are all mythical beings
and this is why I said you were baked. You don't even know what words like mythical or supernatural mean. We are not by definition mythical. You aren't even making a lick of sense any more. You just came in here called us dumb with out knowing any thing or any of us. Then you made a bunch of assertions with NO proof or even sound logic. You basically came in here and said god is real because you said so. And you're calling us dumb?
LMAO
We took time to educate our selves and know what the meaning of supernatural and mythical is. We also know how to use critical thinking organize a thought and use logic.
Hmmm Yeah keep toking that weed man. Like you can see it and feel it all around man! I totally know what you mean! I felt that way too when I smoked it. Just a feeling bro not proof.
Says this:
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
science has truly accomplished nothing.
Then says this:
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 06:18:08 PM
I'm on a mobile right now.
And that's when the meter pegged.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bQAFjS0lfUQ/UCb6mbi2fxI/AAAAAAAAA50/DRqyO4Sl5sk/s1600/Idiot+Meter.jpg)
[/quote author=doorknob link=topic=10008.msg1130068#msg1130068 date=1462491009]
wrong again. Matter does create mind. What do you think your brain is made of air? (well in your case ....)
It's made up of neurons which are made of cells which are made of atoms. Thoughts come from the brain. Even your thoughts were created by a brain. A clearly malfunctioning one but one non the less. All those things I mentioned before are matter by scientific definition.
[/quote]
You're wrong again doornob. You see the brain is just made up of what you said above. But what is a atom it's empty air for a fact if you was to take out all the empty air of any object you would be left with a piece of material under microscopic in size. So what makes up reality or any material can't be labeled as real it's self. That's a fact so yea everything you call physical is actually not physical in its make up. You walked right into that one lol... Also the matieral of the brain is not the root of thought,or conciseness. When you die you'll be aware you died and continue thinking. Brain dead people sometimes tell others exactly what had been going on around them.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 06:52:06 PM
Fact.... There is only 1 truth.
Luckily you're here to proclaim it. We'll just have the entire world bow down to your vast intellect and superior knowledge, oh great one.
Quote
And not sure what u mean about your band of heathen lol but you can bet I'm the meanest person on this site.
No, I'd put my money on some others on being the meanest on this site. We've got quite the collection of loveable assholes here.
Quote
In person you won't say shit to me bro.
You're probably right, because I'll probably never meet you in person.
But now that I have the veil of anonimity protecting me from such an alpha-male such as yourself and all his badassery; amuse me. There is something I've always wondered and now that you're here, I might finally get an answer to my ponderings; getting high on yourself, how does that work exactly? Do you snort your own dandruff? Inject yourself with your own blood? Smoke a blunt with your hair in it?
Wow, I'm lucky to have the this internet-shield between us; otherwise I'd be so screwed.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 07:48:52 PM
[/quote author=doorknob link=topic=10008.msg1130068#msg1130068 date=1462491009]
wrong again. Matter does create mind. What do you think your brain is made of air? (well in your case ....)
It's made up of neurons which are made of cells which are made of atoms. Thoughts come from the brain. Even your thoughts were created by a brain. A clearly malfunctioning one but one non the less. All those things I mentioned before are matter by scientific definition.
You're wrong again doornob. You see the brain is just made up of what you said above. But what is a atom it's empty air for a fact if you was to take out all the empty air of any object you would be left with a piece of material under microscopic in size. So what makes up reality or any material can't be labeled as real it's self. That's a fact so yea everything you call physical is actually not physical in its make up. You walked right into that one lol... Also the matieral of the brain is not the root of thought,or conciseness. When you die you'll be aware you died and continue thinking. Brain dead people sometimes tell others exactly what had been going on around them.
I love trolls ! You sir are hilarious. You agreed that the brain was made up of what I said. Then proceeded to inform us atoms are mostly empty air. It's empty space not air. air is actually a mixture of gases so I doubt that it's inside of an atom. Then you said what makes up reality isn't real. No proof explanation or logic to back that up. And then you say that every thing I call physical is not physical. Yeah I walked right into that! WOW poor stupid me. Why don't you stop being so mean? You're so mean that I stopped thinking this conversation was worth having any more.
Enjoy your weed or troll lando!
Quote from: Johan on May 05, 2016, 07:42:25 PM
Says this:Then says this:And that's when the meter pegged.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bQAFjS0lfUQ/UCb6mbi2fxI/AAAAAAAAA50/DRqyO4Sl5sk/s1600/Idiot+Meter.jpg)
That show the level of mind you have. You think this mobile is a big accomplishment? We don't need this shit. It was better times on earth prior to all the brain clogging devices. It's why y'all have lost all comon sence and spirituality.
Do you think it's good for the brain to see all those unessacery comericals you really think you should know about tide cleaning agent? Science has accomplished nothing to do with life. Except that what they aren't allowed to say BC all scientist know God exist. It just fucks their career if they admit it.
Quote from: doorknob on May 05, 2016, 07:58:39 PM
I love trolls !
If you feed them, they will come.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 08:05:32 PM
If you feed them, they will come.
No what's hilarious is that he believes he's some how being mean( or intelligent) when reality is he's just showing us how retarded he is. Oh that's an insult to retards. Woops. Yes we are all so stunned and upset by you're miss use of logic. We haven't heard any of this before.
This is truly the product of drugs alcohol or god. HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
honestly he's not even very good at being a troll. Trolls understand what makes people angry this guy doesn't even understand what he's saying.
Quote from: doorknob on May 05, 2016, 07:37:36 PM
and this is why I said you were baked. You don't even know what words like mythical or supernatural mean. We are not by definition mythical. You aren't even making a lick of sense any more. You just came in here called us dumb with out knowing any thing or any of us. Then you made a bunch of assertions with NO proof or even sound logic. You basically came in here and said god is real because you said so. And you're calling us dumb?
LMAO
We took time to educate our selves and know what the meaning of supernatural and mythical is. We also know how to use critical thinking organize a thought and use logic.
Hmmm Yeah keep toking that weed man. Like you can see it and feel it all around man! I totally know what you mean! I felt that way too when I smoked it. Just a feeling bro not proof.
Quick reply to you. Do you think I care about another man's definition for the word mythical. See you put all you know into some1 else's work. Why do you think the person who created that definition is all knowing? I'm re writing the shit what you call mythical is no more mythical than you and me fool. What you call supernatural is no more supernatural than humans earth and life it's self.
You poor dilapidated creature you. You don't even know what the definition of supernatural is. Since you don't like google, here's a fun fact:
supernatural - unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Ripped off straight from the dictionary.
Humans and pretty much every thing known to exist can be explained by science. There for you and I can not be supernatural. In case you didn't know you and I are a part of the natural world. That is a fact. Oooops I dirtied your illogic with facts sorry about that. You see definitions are very important. If you don't even know what a word means you can't communicate very well. Which you are not.
It's getting hard to understand your gibberish any more. LOL
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 08:09:46 PM
Quick reply to you. Do you think I care about another man's definition for the word mythical. See you put all you know into some1 else's work. Why do you think the person who created that definition is all knowing? I'm re writing the shit what you call mythical is no more mythical than you and me fool. What you call supernatural is no more supernatural than humans earth and life it's self.
Typical theist. Something about reality is inconvenient? Just reject it and pretend its actually whatever you want it to be! Even down to the definitions of words.
"1+1 is 2"
"FUCK YOU BRO YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT 1 REALLY MEANS WHO PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF NUMBERS"
Quote from: Nonsensei on May 05, 2016, 08:23:08 PM
"1+1 is 2"
"FUCK YOU BRO YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT 1 REALLY MEANS WHO PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF NUMBERS"
(http://www.flyingcoloursmaths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/three.png)
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 08:01:48 PM
Science has accomplished nothing to do with life.
The 350,000 people who contract Polio every year couldn't agree more.
well I can't stay and play with the troll any more. I have to pick my daughter up from her job.
I'll leave it to you!
Quote from: doorknob on May 05, 2016, 07:58:39 PM
I love trolls ! You sir are hilarious. You agreed that the brain was made up of what I said. Then proceeded to inform us atoms are mostly empty air. It's empty space not air. air is actually a mixture of gases so I doubt that it's inside of an atom. Then you said what makes up reality isn't real. No proof explanation or logic to back that up. And then you say that every thing I call physical is not physical. Yeah I walked right into that! WOW poor stupid me. Why don't you stop being so mean? You're so mean that I stopped thinking this conversation was worth having any more.
Enjoy your weed or troll lando!
to quote Neils Bohr a highly regarded scientist " everything we call real is made up of things that cant be regarded as real" that's a fact.
Quote from: doorknob on May 05, 2016, 08:20:50 PM
You poor dilapidated creature you. You don't even know what the definition of supernatural is. Since you don't like google, here's a fun fact:
supernatural - unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Ripped off straight from the dictionary.
Humans and pretty much every thing known to exist can be explained by science. There for you and I can not be supernatural. In case you didn't know you and I are a part of the natural world. That is a fact. Oooops I dirtied your illogic with facts sorry about that. You see definitions are very important. If you don't even know what a word means you can't communicate very well. Which you are not.
It's getting hard to understand your gibberish any more. LOL
lol you and me can NOT be explained by science that's a fact.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 05:54:08 PM
And you can join me with the sky people lol I guess your a ground person. Lol But all ground is in the sky
But watch out. In the trip thru the sky, Catholics get to ride First Class, but Protestants have to ride Coach ;-)
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 09:01:00 PM
lol you and me can NOT be explained by science that's a fact.
Also what people call the laws of nature are supernatural as well
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 09:02:47 PM
Also what people call the laws of nature are supernatural as well
Shh! I happen to agree. But don't tell the others!
Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2016, 09:04:18 PM
Shh! I happen to agree. But don't tell the others!
Can you elaborate?
Go worship Salma Hayeks ass. You're about as likely to see it in person named as you are to see God one day.
K.
QuoteThere is no beginning without a beginner.
Not even true in European philosophy, much less the cosmology of other cultures.
Let's see..... sum up..... all those high IQ atheist are dumb because they don't believe in stuff they can't prove. Btw, the one true god is Cthulhu. Hope you are on board with that, if not you will be damned beyond measure.
(http://img.ifcdn.com/images/4e1f672d1f3a64a73c91817c3516d0bdb1e8d7f337d1f3c67fc3389ac907a1c3_1.jpg)
Statement: "Athiest are the dumbest people. No Offence its just true."
Translation: "I'm a troll. Tee hee hee."
Ironic translation: "I'm too stupid to understand how drive-by ad hominem attacks do little to further my argument."
One more please. Xochipilli, the Aztec flower prince and god of the arts, games, beauty, dance, flowers and song. He is also the patron of writing and painting, homosexuals and prostitutes. That covers a lot, can't go wrong with worshipping this dude. No threats of hellfire, no sexual hangups, and I can go after my neighbor's donkey and still go to Aztec heaven. :cheer:
Let me guess baby tooth your a friend of Jonathon.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on May 05, 2016, 09:38:21 PM
Go worship Salma Hayeks ass. You're about as likely to see it in person named as you are to see God one day.
You're seeing a spirit and a soul every time you walk past a human. We only live in a body. For now.
Also I believe other spirits definitely exist that other cultures worship but there just apart of the same crew under different names. All these "gods" y'all are naming off are just more demonic spirits or fallen angels.
There is only 1 true God and that God is the God of the Bible. The only holy and Almighty Creator of all. Many spirits will claim there God. And you will meet God one day probably sooner than later when looking at the span of life.
How dumb will you feel before God. BC it don't matter if you don't believe it's not like your getting out of something by denying God you're gon meet God no matter what you think or believe all humans will stand before there Creator.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 05, 2016, 10:57:42 PM
Let me guess baby tooth your a friend of Jonathon.
I'm independent.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 05, 2016, 11:16:48 PM
sure sure
I also believe lieing is for cowards. So what I say you can take me for my word.
QuoteHello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis. I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.
So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.
Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.
Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc. Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.
(http://i.imgur.com/g6TntoN.gif)
[mod]lol no.[/mod]
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 08:01:48 PM
That show the level of mind you have. You think this mobile is a big accomplishment? We don't need this shit. It was better times on earth prior to all the brain clogging devices. It's why y'all have lost all comon sence and spirituality.
Do you think it's good for the brain to see all those unessacery comericals you really think you should know about tide cleaning agent? Science has accomplished nothing to do with life. Except that what they aren't allowed to say BC all scientist know God exist. It just fucks their career if they admit it.
It's really too bad supernatural doesn't exist. I'd love to be able identify people like this by their giant thought bubble containing a giant question mark.
Quote from: reasonist on May 05, 2016, 09:29:26 PM
Can you elaborate?
I am quite elaborate, thanks, but this is a dead string. On another string I agreed recently with another poster ... that numinous is a better word than natural/supernatural. It is a matter of etymology and rhetoric. Natural/supernatural is rhetorically charged. It brings out the "its all black vs its all white" people. Wittgenstein is correct, but centuries behind Zen, that words get in the way of thinking. In fact thinking gets in the way of living. Almost all words are part of false dichotomies, while being one side of a two sided coin. Numinous has its own supposed opposite, but most people don't realize it, so less knee jerk reaction. Numinous can be taken as a statement of personal psychology ... like when you enter a room, and you think someone is there, but there isn't (story by a great rabbi, borrowed without royalty payment). And personal psychology is where I am at, not epistemology.
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 06:52:20 AM
I am quite elaborate, thanks, but this is a dead string. On another string I agreed recently with another poster ... that numinous is a better word than natural/supernatural. It is a matter of etymology and rhetoric. Natural/supernatural is rhetorically charged. It brings out the "its all black vs its all white" people. Wittgenstein is correct, but centuries behind Zen, that words get in the way of thinking. In fact thinking gets in the way of living. Almost all words are part of false dichotomies, while being one side of a two sided coin. Numinous has its own supposed opposite, but most people don't realize it, so less knee jerk reaction. Numinous can be taken as a statement of personal psychology ... like when you enter a room, and you think someone is there, but there isn't (story by a great rabbi, borrowed without royalty payment). And personal psychology is where I am at, not epistemology.
I swear there will come a day that I understand you baruch.
But it is not this day.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 06, 2016, 09:08:55 AM
I swear there will come a day that I understand you baruch.
But it is not this day.
Mr. Obvious, I would be willing to bet that you do understand what Baruch means. I don't agree with his statement above, but I do see the point he is trying to make. Oh, I can see that he does believe what he said--but I don't buy it. For me, there is only natural--nothing, nothing at all is supernatural. Which means to me that we have, at least, a shot of understanding all that happens to us and with us in this universe.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 09:15:27 AM
Mr. Obvious, I would be willing to bet that you do understand what Baruch means. I don't agree with his statement above, but I do see the point he is trying to make. Oh, I can see that he does believe what he said--but I don't buy it. For me, there is only natural--nothing, nothing at all is supernatural. Which means to me that we have, at least, a shot of understanding all that happens to us and with us in this universe.
Actually, i genuinely don't understand what he's saying from 'numinous has it own supposed opposite' and onwards... From what i do understand from baruch, it's clear we don't think alike on a lot of subjects, and that's fine. But i do often just not understand what he's saying. Which is fine too. And can even be amusing from time to time.
Baruch, if i offend, i apologise.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 06, 2016, 09:37:10 AM
Actually, i genuinely don't understand what he's saying from 'numinous has it own supposed opposite' and onwards... From what i do understand from baruch, it's clear we don't think alike on a lot of subjects, and that's fine. But i do often just not understand what he's saying. Which is fine too. And can even be amusing from time to time.
Baruch, if i offend, i apologise.
In my experience, Baruch is not that easily offended. Well, Mr Obvious, I was only saying you have the capacity to understand him. He just takes some getting used to and after awhile, he makes very good sense. But you really don't have to accept all that he says even if you do understand it. :))
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 08:56:20 PM
to quote Neils Bohr a highly regarded scientist " everything we call real is made up of things that cant be regarded as real" that's a fact.
No that's not a fact that's just a quote. Probably out of context too I'll bet. ]
This is just ridiculous at this point I'm making a statement and then you are going "na ah the opposite is true" Changing the meaning of words to suite your cause and using zero resources or references to back up your ancient beliefs.
One thing I'm really curious about. You don't believe words written in books yet ironically you believe in the bible of the christian god. Why is a book written by ancient desert people more reliable than science? I don't get it. You think sheep herders had all the answers? You certainly are strange.
I've been in an airplane and failed to see the sky people.. I probably wasn't paying attention. That's how us atheists are though..We are so dumb and don't look for sky people when we fly in airplanes..
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 06, 2016, 09:08:55 AM
I swear there will come a day that I understand you baruch.
But it is not this day.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/literature-literature-obscure-impenetrable-unintelligible-complex-rnin251_low.jpg)
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 09:15:27 AM
Mr. Obvious, I would be willing to bet that you do understand what Baruch means. I don't agree with his statement above, but I do see the point he is trying to make. Oh, I can see that he does believe what he said--but I don't buy it. For me, there is only natural--nothing, nothing at all is supernatural. Which means to me that we have, at least, a shot of understanding all that happens to us and with us in this universe.
The problem is Pavlovian response to trigger words ... particularly with people who use dog avatars ;-) Call it Fred. Would you argue so much over mere terminology, if the word didn't mean anything additional to you? But I am being sensitive to people like you ... some words simply can't be seen by most people as biased, though all words are. The fact we choose one word over another, one sentence over another, is the very crux of our prejudice.
I don't mean supernatural, the way you do ... nor do I mean the same as you, when I say natural. With each person, a word carries a lot of baggage, and unless we happen to carry the same baggage, we naturally call into artificial an unnecessary controversy.
I guess there really are no philosophical problems, then, only language puzzles?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 06, 2016, 09:37:10 AM
Actually, i genuinely don't understand what he's saying from 'numinous has it own supposed opposite' and onwards... From what i do understand from baruch, it's clear we don't think alike on a lot of subjects, and that's fine. But i do often just not understand what he's saying. Which is fine too. And can even be amusing from time to time.
Baruch, if i offend, i apologise.
No problem. As long as you don't bad mouth marzipan or chocolates (Belgian specialties, yes?). I am rhetorical. I am trying to avoid leading the OP off into the weeds over nouminal vs phenomenal. It is like natural vs supernatural, but at right angles to it. Again, as I posted to Mike CL .. it is also an attempt to avoid a trigger word. I wouldn't want y'all to feel micro-aggressed ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:11:13 PM
The problem is Pavlovian response to trigger words ... particularly with people who use dog avatars ;-) Call it Fred. Would you argue so much over mere terminology, if the word didn't mean anything additional to you? But I am being sensitive to people like you ... some words simply can't be seen by most people as biased, though all words are. The fact we choose one word over another, one sentence over another, is the very crux of our prejudice.
I don't mean supernatural, the way you do ... nor do I mean the same as you, when I say natural. With each person, a word carries a lot of baggage, and unless we happen to carry the same baggage, we naturally call into artificial an unnecessary controversy.
First, how do you know I chose a dog avatar? I may have chosen a cat avatar? And I hear what you said. Yes, all I speak comes from me. And I comprehend the world as I comprehend it; nobody else sees it as I do. Nor as you do. So, yes it is easy to see that all words, sentences and thoughts are bias laden. For real communication to occur, I have to cut through my bias first--and find a way to cut through yours; which means you have to want to allow me to do that. That is not the easiest thing to do, and the conditions have to be correct.
I have been aware for quite some time what your bias are (well, to a small degree)--and I do think we have actually connected on ideas we agree on. We have, from time to time, communicated. In any case, I do find what you think and how you think to be, well, entertaining and at times enlightening. And every now and again we can communicate.
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:14:52 PM
No problem. As long as you don't bad mouth marzipan or chocolates (Belgian specialties, yes?). I am rhetorical. I am trying to avoid leading the OP off into the weeds over nouminal vs phenomenal. It is like natural vs supernatural, but at right angles to it. Again, as I posted to Mike CL .. it is also an attempt to avoid a trigger word. I wouldn't want y'all to feel micro-aggressed ;-)
Marzipan a Belgian specialty? First time I heard that.
Also, 'micro-agression' is a trigger word for me as I got severly beat up by an ill-tempered little person. So yeah I'll thank you for avoiding that word around me in the future?
:p
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 06, 2016, 07:13:08 PM
I guess there really are no philosophical problems, then, only language puzzles?
Your cartoon was very good ... but it would fit me better if the guy is returning "Being and Nothingness" by Sartre, and say ... "now I want to kill myself because my being means nothing". Inside joke alert ... Sartre as an existentialist, wouldn't approve of that. Like MLK, he found meaning by putting his life on the line. Actually I couldn't finish "Being and Nothingness" because the jargon made it very hard to read, and it isn't an essay, but a long book.
Per Wittgenstein, there are only language puzzles. But he said it as Wittgenstein 2.0. Wittgenstein 1.0 didn't say that, and many others have criticized it. The best lay book on modern philosophy was ... "Wittgenstein's Poker" ... where Wittgenstein goes up against Carl Popper. One thing the book shows, is that philosophers take themselves too seriously. Democritus for example was called the "Laughing Philosopher".
If you joined me in the universe were the book club for reading "Godel, Escher, Bach" was a real happening ... we could get deep into the question of if it really is just word puzzles. I tend to invert things, I think Hofstadter, in the light of the last 35 years, has been shown to be wrong. Words are tools, but unless the point of the conversation is to discuss tools, then we are going about things wrong. We must discuss what the words refer to, not just how words make this difficult.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 06, 2016, 07:26:17 PM
Marzipan a Belgian specialty? First time I heard that.
Also, 'micro-agression' is a trigger word for me as I got severly beat up by an ill-tempered little person. So yeah I'll thank you for avoiding that word around me in the future?
:p
OK, I will only macro-a-dress. I didn't know you were so sensitive about skirt lengths ;-) Belgium is between France and the Netherlands, and is rather sensitive about that. I did use "?". And like the infamous "les pommes de terre frites" debate ... perhaps marzipan is more popular more south or more north of Brussels. I also promise to not bring up the question of your sprouts ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:21:58 PM
First, how do you know I chose a dog avatar? I may have chosen a cat avatar? And I hear what you said. Yes, all I speak comes from me. And I comprehend the world as I comprehend it; nobody else sees it as I do. Nor as you do. So, yes it is easy to see that all words, sentences and thoughts are bias laden. For real communication to occur, I have to cut through my bias first--and find a way to cut through yours; which means you have to want to allow me to do that. That is not the easiest thing to do, and the conditions have to be correct.
I have been aware for quite some time what your bias are (well, to a small degree)--and I do think we have actually connected on ideas we agree on. We have, from time to time, communicated. In any case, I do find what you think and how you think to be, well, entertaining and at times enlightening. And every now and again we can communicate.
Yes, mutual human understanding is still stuck in the "rabbit ears" era of television. Could you move a little more to the left, Gunsmoke is coming on ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:27:45 PM
Words are tools, but unless the point of the conversation is to discuss tools, then we are going about things wrong. We must discuss what the words refer to, not just how words make this difficult.
You have never spoken truer words! :) Two people could be talking about a table saw. If one thinks of it as a saw built into a table, and the other a saw laying on a table, they could be deep into a conversation with little to no communication going on. To communicate both (or all) parties must understand what the words mean.
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:35:55 PM
Yes, mutual human understanding is still stuck in the "rabbit ears" era of television. Could you move a little more to the left, Gunsmoke is coming on ;-)
Hell--get your own spot in front of the TV, I'm watching it; want me some Chester Good and Festus!
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:36:33 PM
You have never spoken truer words! :) Two people could be talking about a table saw. If one thinks of it as a saw built into a table, and the other a saw laying on a table, they could be deep into a conversation with little to no communication going on. To communicate both (or all) parties must understand what the words mean.
It is hard enough agreeing on what substantial things mean. "Wood" for instance. Do you include plywood? In philosophy, we discuss insubstantial things ... so no wonder the whole deal is about better or worse word definitions, rather than anything more substantial ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:32:50 PM
OK, I will only macro-adress. I didn't know you were so sensitive about skirt lengths ;-) Belgium is between France and the Netherlands, and is rather sensitive about that. I did use "?". And like the infamous "les pommes de terre frites" debate ... perhaps marzipan is more popular more south or more north of Brussels. I also promise to not bring up the question of your sprouts ;-)
Oh no, it's popular over here. Not my cup of tea but kids love it to death. Especially during Sinterklaas. I just wouldn't say we make renowned marzipan. Credit where credit is due, not where it ain't.
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:27:45 PM
Your cartoon was very good ... but it would fit me better if the guy is returning "Being and Nothingness" by Sartre, and say ... "now I want to kill myself because my being means nothing". Inside joke alert ... Sartre as an existentialist, wouldn't approve of that. Like MLK, he found meaning by putting his life on the line. Actually I couldn't finish "Being and Nothingness" because the jargon made it very hard to read, and it isn't an essay, but a long book.
Per Wittgenstein, there are only language puzzles. But he said it as Wittgenstein 2.0. Wittgenstein 1.0 didn't say that, and many others have criticized it. The best lay book on modern philosophy was ... "Wittgenstein's Poker" ... where Wittgenstein goes up against Carl Popper. One thing the book shows, is that philosophers take themselves too seriously. Democritus for example was called the "Laughing Philosopher".
If you joined me in the universe were the book club for reading "Godel, Escher, Bach" was a real happening ... we could get deep into the question of if it really is just word puzzles. I tend to invert things, I think Hofstadter, in the light of the last 35 years, has been shown to be wrong. Words are tools, but unless the point of the conversation is to discuss tools, then we are going about things wrong. We must discuss what the words refer to, not just how words make this difficult.
Yeah, I just last week finished reading Wittgenstein's Poker (as per your previous suggestion) - a very interesting book! I'm still thinking about the different positions of the two antagonists, so I don't yet know which (if either) I agree with.
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2016, 07:40:24 PM
It is hard enough agreeing on what substantial things mean. "Wood" for instance. Do you include plywood? In philosophy, we discuss insubstantial things ... so no wonder the whole deal is about better or worse word definitions, rather than anything more substantial ;-)
That's why jargon is so important--the specific vocabulary that surrounds any particular subject. I love baseball stats and sabermetrics more so. But even when I talk to a fellow sabermetric nut, I ask them to define the key term. If we discuss ops+, for example, I ask what it means to him and most importantly how does he figure it. Then, when we both know what each of us mean, we can have a fruitful discussion about it. That process can seem such a pain-in-the-ass and time waster, but it is critical for communication.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 06, 2016, 07:47:48 PM
That's why jargon is so important--the specific vocabulary that surrounds any particular subject. I love baseball stats and sabermetrics more so. But even when I talk to a fellow sabermetric nut, I ask them to define the key term. If we discuss ops+, for example, I ask what it means to him and most importantly how does he figure it. Then, when we both know what each of us mean, we can have a fruitful discussion about it. That process can seem such a pain-in-the-ass and time waster, but it is critical for communication.
And the scientific method is the acme of that process. Philosophers arguing in front of grad students ... less so.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 06, 2016, 07:44:30 PM
Yeah, I just last week finished reading Wittgenstein's Poker (as per your previous suggestion) - a very interesting book! I'm still thinking about the different positions of the two antagonists, so I don't yet know which (if either) I agree with.
Wow! My first convert "wringing hands in glee" ... today obscure intellectual history, tomorrow the Vatican!
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 04:43:10 PM
Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1. But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.
A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis. I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.
So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.
Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.
Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc. Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.
This was a pathetic post. If he hadn't been banned already, I would be calling him on the carpet for it.
My apologies to all for this poor showing.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:07:29 PM
This was a pathetic post. If he hadn't been banned already, I would be calling him on the carpet for it.
My apologies to all for this poor showing.
For once, we are in complete agreement.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 07, 2016, 01:33:14 PM
For once, we are in complete agreement.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Can somebody explain the last two pages?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 07, 2016, 05:46:05 PM
Can somebody explain the last two pages?
The banned OP lives on as an unhappy spirit, possessing this string ... like a dybbuk (Jewish for dead person who won't move on). An Internet exorcist may be required. Randy is Catholic, maybe he can show us how it was done in The Exorcist?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 07, 2016, 01:07:29 PM
This was a pathetic post. If he hadn't been banned already, I would be calling him on the carpet for it.
My apologies to all for this poor showing.
How nice Randy. But I don't agree with you. His message and yours are roughly the same. His god(s) are the same--jesus and god--but he may word it differently. You two are roughly equal.
Well, you can count me as one who just doesn't really give a rata ass what some pious schmoe thinks.
"Wow, atheists are sooooo dumb! Checkmate atheists and blah, blah, blah.."
I have better things to do than have this ridiculous argument over and over and over..
You want to believe in big spooky and tell me that little spooky died for my sins? Fine.whatever ,but I'm not wasting time arguing about it.
Atheists are dumb? Theists have had thousands of years to prove their position is right and never, ever, succeeded. But they keep on believing. THAT is DUMB!
Part of confirmation bias.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 07:06:02 AM
Atheists are dumb? Theists have had thousands of years to prove their position is right and never, ever, succeeded. But they keep on believing. THAT is DUMB!
That doesn't make sense.
Theists have had thousands of years to prove their position is right, and billions of people have agreed. Not just Christians, mind you. There are 2 billion Muslims who are also "theists", and another billion or so Hindus who are polytheists. So, all in all, I'd say theism has quite a following.
Meanwhile, atheism, as a percentage of the population, is falling.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:06:27 AM
That doesn't make sense.
Theists have had thousands of years to prove their position is right, and billions of people have agreed. Not just Christians, mind you. There are 2 billion Muslims who are also "theists", and another billion or so Hindus who are polytheists. So, all in all, I'd say theism has quite a following.
Meanwhile, atheism, as a percentage of the population, is falling.
Truth isn't a popularity contest with the ignorant proles.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:06:27 AM
That doesn't make sense.
Theists have had thousands of years to prove their position is right, and billions of people have agreed. Not just Christians, mind you. There are 2 billion Muslims who are also "theists", and another billion or so Hindus who are polytheists. So, all in all, I'd say theism has quite a following.
Meanwhile, atheism, as a percentage of the population, is falling.
Reality is not determined by popular vote. Anyone who isn't a moron realizes this.
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:08:41 AM
Truth isn't a popularity contest with the ignorant proles.
Stop that!
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:08:41 AM
Truth isn't a popularity contest with the ignorant proles.
Agreed. But people aren't as stupid as some claim.
If theism was false, it wouldn't have so many adherents.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:12:50 AM
Agreed. But people aren't as stupid as some claim.
Smart people fall for scams all the time. You, for example.
Quote
If theism was false, it wouldn't have so many adherents.
Somebody tell me which fallacy that is, please?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:06:27 AM
Meanwhile, atheism, as a percentage of the population, is falling.
There are a couple of things that could probably help reverse that trend. (If it's true...)
1. Theists could stop indoctrinating their children with the beliefs of their ancient ancestors and start teaching them to critically examine the things they are currently told to take on faith.
2. Comparative and religious history classes for those same children.
It probably wouldn't hurt if theists stopped chopping us up with machetes either.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 08, 2016, 09:31:18 AM
There are a couple of things that could probably help reverse that trend. (If it's true...)
1. Theists could stop indoctrinating their children with the beliefs of their ancient ancestors and start teaching them to critically examine the things they are currently told to take on faith.
2. Comparative and religious history classes for those same children.
It probably wouldn't hurt if theists stopped chopping us up with machetes either.
I think Randy considers making up shit to not be lying. Convenience of a cafeteria Christian's attitude toward the Big Ten.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:29:49 AM
Smart people fall for scams all the time. You, for example. Somebody tell me which fallacy that is, please?
The red herring fallacy known as the
argumentum ad populum.
However, I am not attempting to prove Christianity or theism by appealing to the large numbers of people who accept them.
Instead, I am making an appeal to the common sense idea that when a crowd gathers, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something to see going on.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 08, 2016, 09:31:18 AM
There are a couple of things that could probably help reverse that trend. (If it's true...)
1. Theists could stop indoctrinating their children with the beliefs of their ancient ancestors and start teaching them to critically examine the things they are currently told to take on faith.
Do atheists indoctrinate their children with the idea that God does not exist? Or do they simply maintain neutrality and let the kid figure it out on his or her own? (Be honest.)
And Surprise! Surprise! The kids who grow up in a home in which the name of God is never mentioned have no reason to believe in a God they have never heard of.
Until...surprise! surprise! An apologist or an evangelist presents them with the data which they can then evaluate for themselves.
And not all, but some of these cradle atheists DO find the evidence compelling.
Quote2. Comparative and religious history classes for those same children.
Sorry. You wanted separation of Church and state, and you got it. So, we can't teach those classes, any more.
QuoteIt probably wouldn't hurt if theists stopped chopping us up with machetes either.
It probably wouldn't hurt if atheists stopped mocking us in the public square, either.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 09:41:26 AM
I think Randy considers making up shit to not be lying. Convenience of a cafeteria Christian's attitude toward the Big Ten.
Can you give an example or two of when I have made something up and then lied about it?
Thanks.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:18:36 AM
Do atheists indoctrinate their children with the idea that God does not exist? Or do they simply maintain neutrality and let the kid figure it out on his or her own? (Be honest.)
And Surprise! Surprise! The kids who grow up in a home in which the name of God is never mentioned have no reason to believe in a God they have never heard of.
Until...surprise! surprise! An apologist or an evangelist presents them with the data which they can then evaluate for themselves.
And not all, but some of these cradle atheists DO find the evidence compelling.
And no surprise. Most theists believe in the religion of their parents.
QuoteSorry. You wanted separation of Church and state, and you got it. So, we can't teach those classes, any more.
Wrong. The same 1963 SCOTUS ruling that removed state sponsored religious ceremonies from public schools stated that schools have always been allowed to teach about religion.
QuoteIt probably wouldn't hurt if atheists stopped mocking us in the public square, either.
So basically you're saying it's OK to kill someone because they don't believe in your god?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:12:32 AM
The red herring fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum.
However, I am not attempting to prove Christianity or theism by appealing to the large numbers of people who accept them.
Instead, I am making an appeal to the common sense idea that when a crowd gathers, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something to see going on.
Atheism is the third largest of those crowds, and climbing. By your own logic: where the crowd gathers... ;)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:18:36 AM
Do atheists indoctrinate their children with the idea that God does not exist? Or do they simply maintain neutrality and let the kid figure it out on his or her own? (Be honest.)
And Surprise! Surprise! The kids who grow up in a home in which the name of God is never mentioned have no reason to believe in a God they have never heard of.
Until...surprise! surprise! An apologist or an evangelist presents them with the data which they can then evaluate for themselves.
And not all, but some of these cradle atheists DO find the evidence compelling.
Sorry. You wanted separation of Church and state, and you got it. So, we can't teach those classes, any more.
It probably wouldn't hurt if atheists stopped mocking us in the public square, either.
Atheists do not indoctrinate their children. They do not take them to atheist meetings, where they are taught from a young age with songs and skits to think the same way. They are not schooled from home so that they won't be exposed to theists who would compromise their lack of faith. They do not give their children atheist books to read. Before eating, they do not remind them that there is no god to pray to for blessings. Those are all things YOU do so that your children will grow up unable to question their beliefs, so that they will blindly accept with childlike faith in something that an adult with full mental capacities would most often reject.
Here's a video. I know you don't actually watch the videos I put here for you, but do watch this one. It shows perfectly why Christians must indoctrinate their children:
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 08:06:27 AM
Meanwhile, atheism, as a percentage of the population, is falling.
Might that not have something to do with better education and lower birth rates among atheists? Both of those things stem from the empowerment of women, which by and large isn't widely championed in any of the major religions. And while I don't know the exact statistics for strict atheists,
secularism as a whole is rising in developed countries.
And the atheist parents I know from my local groups have two schools of thought on raising kids, and none of them includes screaming at their children that Christians are the devil. Many do maintain complete neutrality and simply don't bring it up, but
I know two who actually go out of their way to expose their children to a wide range of belief systems, which I think is better. When you show kids that Christian beliefs are but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of ideas about the universe, Christian beliefs are a lot less compelling, and certainly not even nearly as interesting as Norse myths or Hinduism.
Quote from: TomFoolery on May 08, 2016, 11:04:17 AM
Might that not have something to do with better education and lower birth rates among atheists?
It pretty much has everything to do with lower birth rates among atheists. On average theists breed like rats.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 08, 2016, 10:46:43 AM
And no surprise. Most theists believe in the religion of their parents.
Yep. But not all. It is possible for someone to make the change.
QuoteWrong. The same 1963 SCOTUS ruling that removed state sponsored religious ceremonies from public schools stated that schools have always been allowed to teach about religion.
I know. That was hyperbole on my part.
QuoteSo basically you're saying it's OK to kill someone because they don't believe in your god?
Of course. Who doesn't believe this? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 08, 2016, 11:06:36 AM
It pretty much has everything to do with lower birth rates among atheists.
Correct!
I mean, if you follow atheism to its logical conclusion (nihilism), why bother bringing anyone else into this wretched world only to suffer and die?
Besides, you can buy more toys for yourself if you don't have to pay for kids.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:12:32 AM
The red herring fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum.
However, I am not attempting to prove Christianity or theism by appealing to the large numbers of people who accept them.
Like fuck you ain't.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:12:32 AMInstead, I am making an appeal to the common sense idea that when a crowd gathers, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something to see going on.
Again you have a fallacy. You presume that there is something to see.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:23:55 AM
Like fuck you ain't.
Uh...no. Check the OP's of my threads for the kernels of my arguments.
QuoteAgain you have a fallacy. You presume that there is something to see.
And you presume there isn't.
So, what are all those people looking at if there is nothing there?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:40:08 AM
Uh...no. Check the OP's of my threads for the kernels of my arguments.
But you're skipping Question Zero.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 11:40:08 AMAnd you presume there isn't.
So, what are all those people looking at if there is nothing there?
A shared delusion is a possibility. It's a certainty when we're talking about the Virgin Mary appearing in the sky.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 09:12:50 AM
Agreed. But people aren't as stupid as some claim.
If theism was false, it wouldn't have so many adherents.
All human endeavor is mortal/imperfect ... and thus false. But not entirely without merit. Our struggle against mortality and imperfection, at least provides the gods with Sisyphusian entertainment.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 10:12:32 AM
Instead, I am making an appeal to the common sense idea that when a crowd gathers, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something to see going on.
The fact that something has a large number of followers in no way serves as evidence that what those followers believe is true. If you want to prove this for yourself go talk to a professional wrestling fan and listen to all the ways they will swear up and down that pro wrestling isn't fake or scripted.
You're a big stupid dumbhead. No offense, it's just true!
I know I am, but what are you?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 11:49:15 AM
But you're skipping Question Zero. A shared delusion is a possibility. It's a certainty when we're talking about the Virgin Mary appearing in the sky.
There are no group hallucinations. People don't share dreams.
Try this: next time you wake up, tell your wife, "Hey, I was just dreaming that we were vacationing in Hawaii. Let's go back to sleep, and you can join me."
Quote from: Johan on May 08, 2016, 01:32:39 PM
The fact that something has a large number of followers in no way serves as evidence that what those followers believe is true.
I agree. Did you hear me? I AGREE.
What I have said since making my comment about the iPhone, is that when a large crowd gathers, there is probably a reason. Kinda like when you hear that a TV show is popular or that some singer has sold a zillion records...so, it might be worth checking out.
This whole string of threads reminds me of an old troll we had for awhile. Not saying Randy's a troll, but if he starts talking about smurfs, I'm leaving.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:04:17 PM
There are no group hallucinations. People don't share dreams.
Try this: next time you wake up, tell your wife, "Hey, I was just dreaming that we were vacationing in Hawaii. Let's go back to sleep, and you can join me."
So you are saying that Our Lady of Fatima is fake? Has the Pope been told?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 02:04:17 PM
There are no group hallucinations. People don't share dreams.
Try this: next time you wake up, tell your wife, "Hey, I was just dreaming that we were vacationing in Hawaii. Let's go back to sleep, and you can join me."
Where did I say anything about dreams. I know you want me to stick to your script, but I'm not here to audition for "Evil Atheist."
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 05:40:38 PM
So you are saying that Our Lady of Fatima is fake? Has the Pope been told?
Heinlein told a story about a man who stood on a street corner in NYC and just stared at the sky. Pretty soon other people were staring, then people started saying "I see it too!" Some fakes, some with bad eyesight, and some who wanted to be "cool".
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 05:40:38 PM
So you are saying that Our Lady of Fatima is fake? Has the Pope been told?
I'm saying that actual appearances of Mary at Fatima or of Jesus after his resurrection are not hallucinations.
There are no group hallucinations.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 06:17:05 PM
Where did I say anything about dreams. I know you want me to stick to your script, but I'm not here to audition for "Evil Atheist."
No need to try out. You're a dead ringer for the part.
Okay, I'm kidding. I have no way of knowing whether you're evil or not.
People don't share dreams or hallucinations.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:39:11 PM
I'm saying that actual appearances of Mary at Fatima or of Jesus after his resurrection are not hallucinations.
There are no group hallucinations.
OK. That at least was consistent. Are you feeling well? ;-)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:40:49 PM
No need to try out. You're a dead ringer for the part.
Okay, I'm kidding. I have no way of knowing whether you're evil or not.
People don't share dreams or hallucinations.
Hey! Just a damned minute! Why does Gawdzilla get to be the evil atheist??!! Since you claim to be christian, it is within your usual practice to judge freely that which is evil and not evil. So, can't your make room in your judgement for at least two evil atheists???? Judging others and being a hypocrite are the hallmarks of your religion--so don't be shy, spread your judgments around!
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 08, 2016, 07:53:33 PM
Hey! Just a damned minute! Why does Gawdzilla get to be the evil atheist??!! Since you claim to be christian, it is within your usual practice to judge freely that which is evil and not evil. So, can't your make room in your judgement for at least two evil atheists???? Judging others and being a hypocrite are the hallmarks of your religion--so don't be shy, spread your judgments around!
Maybe you can play Hydra? On second thought, since I am like Captain America, that would be a bad idea ...
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:39:11 PM
I'm saying that actual appearances of Mary at Fatima or of Jesus after his resurrection are not hallucinations.
There are no group hallucinations.
Who said "hallucinations"? You keep trying force the conversation into a track you can deal with. Sadly, there isn't any.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 08, 2016, 07:40:49 PM
No need to try out. You're a dead ringer for the part.
Okay, I'm kidding. I have no way of knowing whether you're evil or not.
People don't share dreams or hallucinations.
I used to kill people for $247/month.
I was ordered to do that by Christians.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 08, 2016, 07:53:33 PM
Hey! Just a damned minute! Why does Gawdzilla get to be the evil atheist??!! Since you claim to be christian, it is within your usual practice to judge freely that which is evil and not evil. So, can't your make room in your judgement for at least two evil atheists???? Judging others and being a hypocrite are the hallmarks of your religion--so don't be shy, spread your judgments around!
I have the quals.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 08, 2016, 08:07:36 PM
I used to kill people for $247/month.
I was ordered to do that by Christians.
But if America had a Pretorian Guard, and you were in it, you could have gotten competitive bidding on who to kill, and made better money ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 08:28:49 PM
But if America had a Pretorian Guard, and you were in it, you could have gotten competitive bidding on who to kill, and made better money ;-)
No fun that. I got to play in a country where we made the rules and I could put 105 pounds of lead in the air/minute.
Guys, guys! It's not like we can get all offended by being called stupid bastards.. it says right there in the title of the post NO OFFENSE and it's just true.. Well that's certainly a legitimate disclaimer if I ever saw one. I mean he could say we're all baby killers,father rapers, and all kinds of mean nasty stuff as long as that disclaimer is there..no offense..
Well I'm satisfied and all ends well.. It's off to the gas chambers for us..we can't be offended because there was no offense intended.. See how that works?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 09, 2016, 03:15:54 AM
I mean he could say we're all baby killers,father rapers, and all kinds of mean nasty stuff as long as that disclaimer is there..no offense..
That reminds me, we really Should get to planning our annual atheist forums BBQ.
Remember guys, as always, it's BYOB (Bring your own baby)!
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 09, 2016, 06:00:56 AM
That reminds me, we really Should get to planning our annual atheist forums BBQ.
Remember guys, as always, it's BYOB (Bring your own baby)!
I hear that puppies are in season. My season.
I just want to point out that, yet again, one of my posts have gone ignored. Was it because our wise Catholic couldn't think of a decent way to deflect the truth, or because he couldn't listen to the good sense of the video for more than two seconds? Who knows? The only certainty to be gained from our interactions, in this thread and in others, is that this guy is hopeless.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 10:58:13 AM
Atheists do not indoctrinate their children. They do not take them to atheist meetings, where they are taught from a young age with songs and skits to think the same way. They are not schooled from home so that they won't be exposed to theists who would compromise their lack of faith. They do not give their children atheist books to read. Before eating, they do not remind them that there is no god to pray to for blessings. Those are all things YOU do so that your children will grow up unable to question their beliefs, so that they will blindly accept with childlike faith in something that an adult with full mental capacities would most often reject.
Here's a video. I know you don't actually watch the videos I put here for you, but do watch this one. It shows perfectly why Christians must indoctrinate their children:
Quote from: Baruch on May 08, 2016, 05:40:38 PM
So you are saying that Our Lady of Fatima is fake? Has the Pope been told?
I suspect RC fantasizes about having the Pope's ear. After all, he's earned it (according to RC). Better than sex and not a sin.
Quote from: sdelsolray on May 09, 2016, 04:32:21 PM
I suspect RC fantasizes about having the Pope's ear. After all, he's earned it (according to RC). Better than sex and not a sin.
I want to see pics of the ear-penis interface.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2016, 01:34:48 PM
I just want to point out that, yet again, one of my posts have gone ignored. Was it because our wise Catholic couldn't think of a decent way to deflect the truth, or because he couldn't listen to the good sense of the video for more than two seconds? Who knows? The only certainty to be gained from our interactions, in this thread and in others, is that this guy is hopeless.
Yeah, I tend to ignore the really stupid ones in order to focus on those that are more important. So, if you feel I'm ignoring you a lot, now you know why.
Atheists don't indoctrinate their children? Maybe.
Maybe what they fail to do is to teach their children an important truth (God exists) because they themselves are ignorant of this.
So, you say we are teaching our children something false. I say you are guilty of omitting something true.
Quote from: Johan on May 08, 2016, 01:32:39 PM
The fact that something has a large number of followers in no way serves as evidence that what those followers believe is true. If you want to prove this for yourself go talk to a professional wrestling fan and listen to all the ways they will swear up and down that pro wrestling isn't fake or scripted.
Pro wrestling fan here. Not a single wrestling fan in the world will try to argue with you about if the show is scripted. Every single person watching knows it is a show with a script and that the wrestlers aren't ACTUALLY trying to kill each other. Maybe you misspoke, but it's a flat out BS statement right there. The word "fake" offends the talent and the fans at times because it's a broad term that brushes off the dangers, sacrifices, physical and mental toughness, athleticism, and skill it takes to be in the business. If you don't believe me, go tell a pro wrestler it's "fake." Shouldn't be a problem, right?
I'd say sorry for derailing the thread, but this comment came out of left field. And it's incorrect entirely.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:24:37 PMMaybe what they fail to do is to teach their children an important truth (God exists) because they themselves are ignorant of this.
So, you say we are teaching our children something false. I say you are guilty of omitting something true.
Well, if you assume God as a given, then atheists are definitely missing out on "teaching" a truth. But that's a hell of an assumption to make. And it's strange that such a self-evident truth is frequently associated with psychological manipulation (turn or burn, for example) to compel obedience.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:24:37 PM
Yeah, I tend to ignore the really stupid ones in order to focus on those that are more important. So, if you feel I'm ignoring you a lot, now you know why.
Hahaha! Troll.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 09, 2016, 06:37:57 PM
Well, if you assume God as a given, then atheists are definitely missing out on "teaching" a truth. But that's a hell of an assumption to make. And it's strange that such a self-evident truth is frequently associated with psychological manipulation (turn or burn, for example) to compel obedience.
Don't encourage him. Notice, he didn't even address my point. It's something he does quite often in these forums, and I'm sick of it.
Quote from: FrogMan on May 09, 2016, 06:36:02 PM
Pro wrestling fan here. Not a single wrestling fan in the world will try to argue with you about if the show is scripted. Every single person watching knows it is a show with a script and that the wrestlers aren't ACTUALLY trying to kill each other. Maybe you misspoke, but it's a flat out BS statement right there. The word "fake" offends the talent and the fans at times because it's a broad term that brushes off the dangers, sacrifices, physical and mental toughness, athleticism, and skill it takes to be in the business. If you don't believe me, go tell a pro wrestler it's "fake." Shouldn't be a problem, right?
I'd say sorry for derailing the thread, but this comment came out of left field. And it's incorrect entirely.
Well...damn.
Thank you for sharing that, FrogMan.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 09, 2016, 06:37:57 PM
Well, if you assume God as a given, then atheists are definitely missing out on "teaching" a truth. But that's a hell of an assumption to make. And it's strange that such a self-evident truth is frequently associated with psychological manipulation (turn or burn, for example) to compel obedience.
Some parents may use that paradigm to manipulate their kids. Mine didn't. I didn't. But your experience may differ.
Atheists teach their kids a worldview. It's just a different worldview than Christian or Muslim or Hindu parents teach.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2016, 06:52:17 PM
Don't encourage him. Notice, he didn't even address my point. It's something he does quite often in these forums, and I'm sick of it.
Some of your posts are just empty blather, and they require or deserve no response.
But hey, YOU think they are important, so I'll humor you. Kindly link to the post I ignored.
I'll correct that oversight now.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 06:24:37 PM
Yeah, I tend to ignore the really stupid ones in order to focus on those that are more important. So, if you feel I'm ignoring you a lot, now you know why.
Considering how many stupid posts you leave here every day, I'd think you'd be a fan of stupid posts. But that's not really why you ignored it, is it, Randy? See, when we see stupid posts from you, we love it. We pounce on you like a hungry lion. Stupid posts are fun because they're easy to defeat. You, on the other hand, are just pathetic. When you know you're beaten, you can't admit it. You dismiss it, you ignore it, or you change the subject. That's why you ignored my post, because you can't deny what I said to be true.
QuoteAtheists don't indoctrinate their children? Maybe.
Maybe what they fail to do is to teach their children an important truth (God exists) because they themselves are ignorant of this.
So, you say we are teaching our children something false. I say you are guilty of omitting something true.
So you're admitting you were wrong about atheists indoctrinating their children?
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 09, 2016, 07:16:35 PM
Considering how many stupid posts you leave here every day, I'd think you'd be a fan of stupid posts. But that's not really why you ignored it, is it, Randy?
I read all but consciously choose not to respond to some posts due time constraints. There are more of you than I can get to if I tried to respond to every post.
If you see me respond, it's because I thought it deserved a response. Sorry if many of yours are skipped.
QuoteSee, when we see stupid posts from you, we love it. We pounce on you like a hungry lion. Stupid posts are fun because they're easy to defeat.
Oh, good. Because when so many people have been saying things like, "I'm done with you" and "This is tiresome", etc., I was afraid you folks aren't enjoying having me here.
QuoteYou, on the other hand, are just pathetic. When you know you're beaten, you can't admit it. You dismiss it, you ignore it, or you change the subject. That's why you ignored my post, because you can't deny what I said to be true.
Provide the link or post number, and I'll deal with that post now. I certainly wouldn't want you to think you're being ignored. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
QuoteSo you're admitting you were wrong about atheists indoctrinating their children?
I think two things are true:
1. Atheists would have no reason to teach their kids that there are large numbers of people who believe that God exists any more than theists would have for teaching their kids that you exist.
2. Atheists fail to teach their kids about God which is ultimately (eternally) harmful if the child is not able to correct this deficiency later in life.
This just occurred to me, so I'm going to give it a try.
Do Democrats teach their kids about Republicans? If so, is it done in a positive or negative light? And vice-versa.
That's probably the way it is between theists and atheists, too, with the difference being that theists are actually concerned about the eternal salvation of atheists whom they fear may be lost.
Atheists and Democrats are obviously not worried about what happens to the other side in the long run. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:41:44 PM
I read all but consciously choose not to respond to some posts due time constraints. There are more of you than I can get to if I tried to respond to every post.
If you see me respond, it's because I thought it deserved a response. Sorry if many of yours are skipped.
See, if you would respond to people like this, you wouldn't evoke the anger of otherwise reasonable and calm people here. But instead, you choose to belittle others, and others to respond in kind.
If you recall, I actually used this excuse to defend you when you didn't immediately respond to another thread. I can't expect you to respond to every single post directed to you, even though you seem to put a lot of effort into doing just that. But here's the thing, there's a pattern to which posts you choose to ignore. It's not out of constraints for time, or the "worthiness" of your attention. You choose to ignore arguments that you have no decent explanation for. You dig yourself into holes, then try to abandon the argument when you know you've got nothing.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:41:44 PMOh, good. Because when so many people have been saying things like, "I'm done with you" and "This is tiresome", etc., I was afraid you folks aren't enjoying having me here.
That is on account of your arrogant attitude. It tends to get on people's nerves, but at the same time, some can't resist the urge to tear your weak arguments apart. If you were a kinder person, with a more respectful attitude, people would leave it alone much more easily.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:41:44 PMProvide the link or post number, and I'll deal with that post now. I certainly wouldn't want you to think you're being ignored. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Oh, you wouldn't, would you? You must have dissociative personality disorder, then, because I recall you saying that you purposefully ignored my post because it was "stupid." But since you asked so nicely, #108.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:41:44 PMI think two things are true:
1. Atheists would have no reason to teach their kids that there are large numbers of people who believe that God exists any more than theists would have for teaching their kids that you exist.
2. Atheists fail to teach their kids about God which is ultimately (eternally) harmful if the child is not able to correct this deficiency later in life.
In other words, yes. You were wrong. I didn't ask if atheists teach their kids about God or not; the question was if atheists indoctrinate their children.
Now, please, watch this video (https://youtu.be/Y201QzDdzbg) and answer these two questions:
1. Do Christians, in fact, indoctrinate their children, as shown in the video?
2. Do atheists do the same with their children?
Simple yes or no answers will suffice.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:41:44 PMThis just occurred to me, so I'm going to give it a try.
Do Democrats teach their kids about Republicans? If so, is it done in a positive or negative light? And vice-versa.
That's probably the way it is between theists and atheists, too, with the difference being that theists are actually concerned about the eternal salvation of atheists whom they fear may be lost.
Atheists and Democrats are obviously not worried about what happens to the other side in the long run. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
That's a stupid argument, so I'm just going to consciously ignore it.
See Randy ... you are turning this discussion political ... and how your totalitarianism is fighting what you perceive to be the other guy's totalitarianism. Next you will be justifying Dominionism ... but of a Catholic kind ... to protect all the Catholic children from realities their parents can't deal with. How Calvinist are you going to be?
Yes, without regular and frequent indoctrination of children, along with high doses of peer pressure, Randall's fantasies will just fade away, except his sexual ones. They'll still be there, unfulfilled.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 09, 2016, 07:08:18 PM
Some parents may use that paradigm to manipulate their kids. Mine didn't. I didn't. But your experience may differ.
Atheists teach their kids a worldview. It's just a different worldview than Christian or Muslim or Hindu parents teach.
I raised my child to think for herself. This was to offset the inevitable circumstances of being a preacher's kid.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 10:58:13 AM
Atheists do not indoctrinate their children.
Blanket generalizations are awfully hard to prove, aren't they? Are you sure there aren't little atheist kids going home from their friends houses and asking mom why they don't go to Vacation Bible School like all their friends? And then Dad explains that there is no God, blah, blah, blah?
That NEVER, EVER happens?
Wow. That would be impressive. If true. But I doubt it.
QuoteThey do not take them to atheist meetings, where they are taught from a young age with songs and skits to think the same way.
Oh? Isn't that kind of what the public school system is like today? A godless, secular indoctrination into relativism and political correctness?
But okay, I agree. You don't have organized meetings. You have Internet forums, but no Sunday School classes.
QuoteThey are not schooled from home so that they won't be exposed to theists who would compromise their lack of faith.
There are no atheist homeschoolers? Again, how do you know that not a
single atheist family homeschools? But I get your point, and the answer is simple: although it has not always the case, the public school system is geared more for the atheist than for the Christian family at this point. So, why would you need to homeschool? If your point is correct, then you should have been homeschools 50 years ago, when teachers were still believers.
QuoteThey do not give their children atheist books to read.
So, no atheist parent has ever given his or her kid a copy of a book by Nietzsche or Dawkins or Hitchens? These books aren't already in the home? Atheist kids don't learn by observation that mom and dad read some authors and scream at the television when some other people are on? Maybe, but this is not very likely...
QuoteBefore eating, they do not remind them that there is no god to pray to for blessings.
Right. Atheists teach their kids that they have anyone to thank but themselves. And if the kid says, "Dad, why do we pray at grandma's house but not here?", what do you suppose Dad says in response?
QuoteThose are all things YOU do so that your children will grow up unable to question their beliefs, so that they will blindly accept with childlike faith in something that an adult with full mental capacities would most often reject.
Gee, I thought this forum is chock-full of former Christians who grew up and WERE able to question their beliefs and to reject their childhood faith. If so, then while their parents taught them differently, they
have been able to make decisions for themselves, after all.
Just like there are atheists who have studied the evidence and become believers.
QuoteHere's a video. I know you don't actually watch the videos I put here for you, but do watch this one. It shows perfectly why Christians must indoctrinate their children:
You're right. I don't watch recommended YouTube videos. A standing policy for years. I might read a book you recommend, but YouTube is filled with a lot of crap that cannot be verified. Books have the sort of permanence that allow for counterarguments to be developed and published.
And, I've had too many nasty, blasphemous videos thrown at me to want to open another one. Sorry...others before you poisoned the well.
+++
And now, the infamous "skipped post" has been addressed. Cheers.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
Blanket generalizations are awfully hard to prove, aren't they? Are you sure there aren't little atheist kids going home from their friends houses and asking mom why they don't go to Vacation Bible School like all their friends? And then Dad explains that there is no God, blah, blah, blah?
That NEVER, EVER happens?
Wow. That would be impressive. If true. But I doubt it.
Here, you prove yourself incompetent to even understand what "indoctrination" means. Tell me, would you send your kids to a Muslim mosque if their friends were Muslim so that they were be exposed to Islam and choose freely between it and Christianity? Wow. That would be impressive. If true. But I doubt it. (Moron.)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PMOh? Isn't that kind of what the public school system is like today? A godless, secular indoctrination into relativism and political correctness?
Well, since my Christian parents homeschooled me, let's ask someone who was raised going to public school. Guys, did your public school teachers tell you that there is no god? Did they tell you that you were not allowed to think for yourself?
Yeah, I doubt it. In reality, children who are raised in public schooled are exposed to the real world, and thus are more likely to discard the stupid things their closed-minded, homophobic, piece of shit parents tell them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PMThere are no atheist homeschoolers? Again, how do you know that not a single atheist family homeschools? But I get your point, and the answer is simple: although it has not always the case, the public school system is geared more for the atheist than for the Christian family at this point. So, why would you need to homeschool? If your point is correct, then you should have been homeschools 50 years ago, when teachers were still believers.
Another classic deflection strategy of yours. Appeal to the hypothetical exception and you can ignore the point. Yes, teachers a long time ago helped parents to indoctrinate their children, thanks to their biased classroom environments. Now that we have the separation of church and state properly applied, you have to homeschool your kids, lest they be allowed to think.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PMSo, no atheist parent has ever given his or her kid a copy of a book by Nietzsche or Dawkins or Hitchens? These books aren't already in the home? Atheist kids don't learn by observation that mom and dad read some authors and scream at the television when some other people are on? Maybe, but this is not very likely...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, yeah! I'm sure a TON of parents give their children a copy of "The God Delusion" for a little light reading before bed. God, you are delusional!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PMRight. Atheists teach their kids that they have anyone to thank but themselves. And if the kid says, "Dad, why do we pray at grandma's house but not here?", what do you suppose Dad says in response?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe something like, "Because we worship the true lord and master, SATAN!!!"
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PMGee, I thought this forum is chock-full of former Christians who grew up and WERE able to question their beliefs and to reject their childhood faith. If so, then while their parents taught them differently, they have been able to make decisions for themselves, after all.
Just like there are atheists who have studied the evidence and become believers.
Once again, you appeal to the EXCEPTION and treat it as if it's the norm, and you think this disproves my point. It doesn't. Christians who are indoctrinated from birth are DIFFICULT to convince. Some of them are able to break free of their religious programming, but they are the exception to the rule. Just as it is an exception that an atheist would be stupid enough to buy the ridiculous claims that Christians have to offer.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PMYou're right. I don't watch recommended YouTube videos. A standing policy for years. I might read a book you recommend, but YouTube is filled with a lot of crap that cannot be verified. Books have the sort of permanence that allow for counterarguments to be developed and published.
And, I've had too many nasty, blasphemous videos thrown at me to want to open another one. Sorry...others before you poisoned the well.
Convenient policy that is, isn't it? Watch the video, you fucking coward.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 01:51:33 PMAnd now, the infamous "skipped post" has been addressed. Cheers.
Nope. You still failed to address any of my points. You simple evaded, changed subjects, and appealed to ignorance (the hypothetical exception), and haven't discredited a single point of mine. But I can see that you're hurting your little brain trying so hard. We can stop here if you need a break.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 02:45:28 PM
Here, you prove yourself incompetent to even understand what "indoctrination" means. Tell me, would you send your kids to a Muslim mosque if their friends were Muslim so that they were be exposed to Islam and choose freely between it and Christianity? Wow. That would be impressive. If true. But I doubt it. (Moron.)
Well, since my Christian parents homeschooled me, let's ask someone who was raised going to public school. Guys, did your public school teachers tell you that there is no god? Did they tell you that you were not allowed to think for yourself?
Yeah, I doubt it. In reality, children who are raised in public schooled are exposed to the real world, and thus are more likely to discard the stupid things their closed-minded, homophobic, piece of shit parents tell them.
Another classic deflection strategy of yours. Appeal to the hypothetical exception and you can ignore the point. Yes, teachers a long time ago helped parents to indoctrinate their children, thanks to their biased classroom environments. Now that we have the separation of church and state properly applied, you have to homeschool your kids, lest they be allowed to think.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, yeah! I'm sure a TON of parents give their children a copy of "The God Delusion" for a little light reading before bed. God, you are delusional!
Gee, I don't know. Maybe something like, "Because we worship the true lord and master, SATAN!!!"
Once again, you appeal to the EXCEPTION and treat it as if it's the norm, and you think this disproves my point. It doesn't. Christians who are indoctrinated from birth are DIFFICULT to convince. Some of them are able to break free of their religious programming, but they are the exception to the rule. Just as it is an exception that an atheist would be stupid enough to buy the ridiculous claims that Christians have to offer.
Convenient policy that is, isn't it? Watch the video, you fucking coward.
Nope. You still failed to address any of my points. You simple evaded, changed subjects, and appealed to ignorance (the hypothetical exception), and haven't discredited a single point of mine. But I can see that you're hurting your little brain trying so hard. We can stop here if you need a break.
Oh. Okay.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 03:09:30 PM
Oh. Okay.
Wow. How insightful.
Let me put it this way. Either you watch that video and directly address the questions I gave you, or admit that you're not willing to do it because you know you're wrong.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 10, 2016, 04:15:06 PM
Wow. How insightful.
Let me put it this way. Either you watch that video and directly address the questions I gave you, or admit that you're not willing to do it because you know you're wrong.
Would you watch a 5-7 minute video of my choosing in exchange for this?
Fair deal?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 10, 2016, 04:45:12 PM
Would you watch a 5-7 minute video of my choosing in exchange for this?
Fair deal?
It's not like the video is going to fill your head with subliminal messages, and you'll wake up in the middle of doing a Satanic ritual in your sleep. It's a short video, with no vulgarity, no cheap shots, and just simple logic. No need to hold it for ransom. If, however, you have a relevant video on the topic to offer, that isn't too long, I'll watch it (and likely tear it a new one with all of its errors).
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 08, 2016, 10:58:13 AM
Atheists do not indoctrinate their children. They do not take them to atheist meetings, where they are taught from a young age with songs and skits to think the same way. They are not schooled from home so that they won't be exposed to theists who would compromise their lack of faith. They do not give their children atheist books to read. Before eating, they do not remind them that there is no god to pray to for blessings. Those are all things YOU do so that your children will grow up unable to question their beliefs, so that they will blindly accept with childlike faith in something that an adult with full mental capacities would most often reject.
Here's a video. I know you don't actually watch the videos I put here for you, but do watch this one. It shows perfectly why Christians must indoctrinate their children:
So...he's kind of an atheist CPJ Grey.
Well let's review. Marcus believes a ridiculous claim because of his parents, society, culture, holidays, buildings that have been erected, the uniforms of clergy, schools, artwork, etc.
And the promise of heaven as well as the threat of hell reinforce the ridiculous claim. Marcus is motivated to share the ridiculous claim with others.
Anyone who says anything in opposition to the ridiculous claim will be ostracized or worse.
The truth is out there. It does not depend on all the "tricks" and conventions employed by those who believe the ridiculous claim.
The author of the video then goes on to thank all those who have subscribed to his channel. He then lists all the people who are
financially supporting his work. (Now, there's a motive!)
+++
So, Blackleaf, have I summarized the video sufficiently enough for you to agree that I actually watched it from beginning to end? (I actually paused it, took notes, and restarted it several times to make sure my notes were correct.)
I have a six year old niece who hears things at school and she told me the other day: I believe that Jesus existed..... but not the other stuff.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 01:10:37 PM
I have a six year old niece who hears things at school and she told me the other day: I believe that Jesus existed..... but not the other stuff.
Gerard
That is fair, Gerard. Merely existing is not enough, is it? We can't even begin to examine WHAT the gospels say about Jesus until we have reason to believe that they are trustworthy. Consequently, I have presented material in multiple threads that cover the following foundational questions:
1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:04:57 PM
So...he's kind of an atheist CPJ Grey.
Well let's review. Marcus believes a ridiculous claim because of his parents, society, culture, holidays, buildings that have been erected, the uniforms of clergy, schools, artwork, etc.
And the promise of heaven as well as the threat of hell reinforce the ridiculous claim. Marcus is motivated to share the ridiculous claim with others.
Anyone who says anything in opposition to the ridiculous claim will be ostracized or worse.
The truth is out there. It does not depend on all the "tricks" and conventions employed by those who believe the ridiculous claim.
The author of the video then goes on to thank all those who have subscribed to his channel. He then lists all the people who are financially supporting his work. (Now, there's a motive!)
+++
So, Blackleaf, have I summarized the video sufficiently enough for you to agree that I actually watched it from beginning to end? (I actually paused it, took notes, and restarted it several times to make sure my notes were correct.)
It is an accurate summary, yes. I would add that this "ridiculous claim" from the video is purposely general. The video applies it to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike.
However, what I asked for was not a summary. I asked you to answer these two questions about the video:
1. Do Christians indoctrinate their children, as shown in the video? Y/N
2. Do atheists use the same methods to indoctrinate their children? Y/N
Also, DarkMatter2525 does not produce videos daily, like the lets-players, count-downers, and reactionists, so he likely doesn't collect very much ad revenue from them. His videos actually take skill, planning, and effort. The willing donations of viewers are how channels like his survive on YouTube.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 01:42:04 PM
That is fair, Gerard. Merely existing is not enough, is it? We can't even begin to examine WHAT the gospels say about Jesus until we have reason to believe that they are trustworthy. Consequently, I have presented material in multiple threads that cover the following foundational questions:
1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.
OK...
1. We have a great many manuscripts but they are all different. Which stands to reason because they had to be copied by hand. Most differences (they run in the 10,000) aren't all that significant. Some of them however are. At the end of John for instance, there are about ten verses added in some manuscripts that are not in others. Also the different gospels differ a lot when it comes to some episodes in the life of Jesus. Which is a bigger problem. The birth and death narratives of Jesus vary from gospel to gospel about where he was born. In what kind of building he was born. How Herod reacted. The sojourn to Egypt, if it took place and where they went after. On what day he was crucified. What day the last supper took place. What Jesus said during his trial. If he indeed said anything during his trial (by the way, who would have made notes). How he behaved and what he said during the crucifixion. Some of these stories can't be accurate when compared!
2. Paul is thought to have written about 50 CE. The earliest gospels are at least after 70 CE. None of the gospel writers claim to be eye witnesses, and as they differ about important matters, they couldn't have been.
3. The gospels are all anonymous. We know that because the names of the authors were only attributed to them in the fourth century. Earliest manuscripts do not name authors and neither does the text of any of them. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are fictitious names. We don't know that the authors were eyewitnesses. None of them claim to be if you read the actual text of the Gospels. Most probably they weren't. The gospels are written in good to substandard Greek. It is highly unlikely that any of the followers of Jesus knew Greek, or could actually write!
4. You're partly right here. In the sense that some information from them can be found in other sources. But these are hardly key points.
All of these things are acknowledged by Biblical criticism, even by theologians among those who practice that particular form of philology (critical analysis of text). The consensus among them is almost universal. Now, that's a true miracle! These people also almost universally acknowledge that there are problems with some texts in the epistles. Even with the authorship of many of them that are attributed to Paul and all that are attributed to Peter. this issue is more problematic that you seem willing to concede.
Gerard
Even if the gospels today were accurate to the original authors' writings, which they probably aren't. The authors all wrote their gospels years and years after Jesus died.
Care to address that little.... well... huge issue in your argument?
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 11, 2016, 02:30:03 PM
Even if the gospels today were accurate to the original authors' writings, which they probably aren't. The authors all wrote their gospels years and years after Jesus died.
Care to address that little.... well... huge issue in your argument?
Good point. I'm not too worried about the accuracy of the original author's texts though (with some marked exceptions, where interpolations have taken place). The time frame (about forty to sixty years after the occurrence) has obviously caused problems. That should be plain for anyone to see. You just have to read and compare the gospels to see that this is an unavoidable conclusion. This does not necessarily have to impact religious views people may or may not hold. But it is about the reading of a document, about history and also about the sustainability of a concept named FUNDAMENTALISM.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 02:54:29 PM
Good point. I'm not too worried about the accuracy of the original author's texts though (with some marked exceptions, where interpolations have taken place). The time frame (about forty to sixty years after the occurrence) has obviously caused problems. That should be plain for anyone to see. You just have to read and compare the gospels to see that this is an unavoidable conclusion. This does not necessarily have to impact religious views people may or may not hold. But it is about the reading of a document, about history and also about the sustainability of a concept named FUNDAMENTALISM.
Gerard
Yeah. It's like a story of pirates that buried treasure 40 years ago and then 40 years after the fact, someone decided to make a map of the island. There probably wasn't any treasure. and even if there was, the ORIGINAL map would hardly be accurate at all. Not to mention all the maps that were redrawn by hand of the original map.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 11, 2016, 02:02:53 PM
It is an accurate summary, yes. I would add that this "ridiculous claim" from the video is purposely general. The video applies it to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike.
However, what I asked for was not a summary. I asked you to answer these two questions about the video:
1. Do Christians indoctrinate their children, as shown in the video? Y/N
2. Do atheists use the same methods to indoctrinate their children? Y/N
Also, DarkMatter2525 does not produce videos daily, like the lets-players, count-downers, and reactionists, so he likely doesn't collect very much ad revenue from them. His videos actually take skill, planning, and effort. The willing donations of viewers are how channels like his survive on YouTube.
We will get to your two questions in time. I watched the video, so I think you can give me a little leeway to discuss it with you first. And I gave the summary to give you confidence that I had kept my end of the bargain.
Now, it is interesting that you mention that the "general" or generic approach of the video was intentional and that it can be applied to Christians, Muslims and Jews.
1. Do you think this type of indoctrination might be present in Russia, China, North Korea and other countries in which atheism is the dominant culture? Do you suppose that atheist kids were ever told that their own parents were enemies of the state because they were Christians?
And don't try to weasel out of this by references to the Russian Orthodox Church...you know that the official state position that God does not exist was drilled into the kids by the kind of authority figures DarkMatter portrays negatively when they are obviously religious personages, etc. In fact, the body of Lenin is the "relic" of Soviet Communism just as that of Kim Jong Il is for North Koreans.
(https://img.rt.com/files/news/25/a8/00/00/rian_00782052.hr.en.jpg)
2. More importantly, let's say for the sake of argument that everything DarkMatter alleges in his video about religious indoctrination is true - EVEN FOR THE JEWS AND THE ROMANS (who worshiped a pantheon of gods). Why, then, did so many adult Jews and Romans abandon the faiths into which they had been so heavily indoctrinated in order to embrace the Christian faith?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
It seems to me, Blackleaf, that the early Christians must have had a very compelling message in order to overcome the powerful forces at work not only in monotheistic Judaism but also in polytheistic Rome.
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 02:16:13 PM
OK...
1. We have a great many manuscripts but they are all different. Which stands to reason because they had to be copied by hand. Most differences (they run in the 10,000) aren't all that significant. Some of them however are. At the end of John for instance, there are about ten verses added in some manuscripts that are not in others. Also the different gospels differ a lot when it comes to some episodes in the life of Jesus. Which is a bigger problem. The birth and death narratives of Jesus vary from gospel to gospel about where he was born. In what kind of building he was born. How Herod reacted. The sojourn to Egypt, if it took place and where they went after. On what day he was crucified. What day the last supper took place. What Jesus said during his trial. If he indeed said anything during his trial (by the way, who would have made notes). How he behaved and what he said during the crucifixion. Some of these stories can't be accurate when compared!
I addressed the accuracy of the texts here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0
I am happy to address differences one at a time in order to explain why they exist and are NOT contradictions.
Quote2. Paul is thought to have written about 50 CE. The earliest gospels are at least after 70 CE. None of the gospel writers claim to be eye witnesses, and as they differ about important matters, they couldn't have been.
I discussed the dating of the gospels here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0
John claims to have been an eyewitness and Luke to have interviewed eyewitnesses. Papias tells us that Mark was the hearer of Peter. And Matthew was an apostle.
Quote3. The gospels are all anonymous. We know that because the names of the authors were only attributed to them in the fourth century. Earliest manuscripts do not name authors and neither does the text of any of them. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are fictitious names. We don't know that the authors were eyewitnesses. None of them claim to be if you read the actual text of the Gospels. Most probably they weren't. The gospels are written in good to substandard Greek. It is highly unlikely that any of the followers of Jesus knew Greek, or could actually write!
I covered this here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10034.0
Quote4. You're partly right here. In the sense that some information from them can be found in other sources. But these are hardly key points.
In an Internet forum swirling with mythicist misinformation, just getting to the idea that Jesus was a real person is an accomplishment!
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 11, 2016, 02:30:03 PM
Even if the gospels today were accurate to the original authors' writings, which they probably aren't. The authors all wrote their gospels years and years after Jesus died.
Care to address that little.... well... huge issue in your argument?
I did. In depth.
Here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 11, 2016, 03:38:37 PM
Yeah. It's like a story of pirates that buried treasure 40 years ago and then 40 years after the fact, someone decided to make a map of the island. There probably wasn't any treasure. and even if there was, the ORIGINAL map would hardly be accurate at all. Not to mention all the maps that were redrawn by hand of the original map.
I addressed this extensively. Four-part OP.
Here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 04:01:31 PM
I did. In depth.
Here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0
That literally does not address my point that the gospels were written long after Jesus's death. You just said the same thing I did, but also imply that even though they were all written years and years after the fact, they somehow are accurate. How is a gospel that is written 30+ years after the death of a man be even remotely accurate?
Quote from: Randy CarsonMore importantly, let's say for the sake of argument that everything DarkMatter alleges in his video about religious indoctrination is true - EVEN FOR THE JEWS AND THE ROMANS (who worshiped a pantheon of gods). Why, then, did so many adult Jews and Romans abandon the faiths into which they had been so heavily indoctrinated in order to embrace the Christian faith?
You just have to know your history. Greco Roman paganism, although heavily pushed by the state in some parts of the country, had been almost dead in the hearts and minds of many for some time. Caused by a thing called neoplatonism, which had long since argued for a single divinity that could hardly be understood by us mortals and a derived "logos" or knowledge that was sometimes referred to as "the son". I know that a lot of bull is told about predecessors to Christianity, but the concept didn't just appear from nowhere. Why do you think the Greeks translated the Septuagint? Or had interest in the Jewish faith at all?
Gerard
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 11, 2016, 04:04:57 PM
That literally does not address my point that the gospels were written long before Jesus's death. You just said the same thing I did, but also imply that even though they were all written years and years after the fact, they somehow are accurate. How is a gospel that is written 30+ years after the death of a man be even remotely accurate?
Several reasons:
First, the gospels were written by authors who were accountable to the very audience to whom they were writing. There were plenty of living eyewitnesses (500 or so) who had seen Jesus at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians as well as 2-3,000 who were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the crowd after Peter preached the resurrection of Jesus. The authors of the gospels could not simply make stuff up when living witnesses (for and against) were still alive to refute them.
I also covered the "Telephone Game" theory here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.msg1129156#msg1129156
Second, I have covered the significance of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0
Paul repeats a memorized creed that he learned within 3-5 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. Consequently, the message being preached was solidified EARLY and not "30+ years" later.
Finally, it was an oral culture. Unlike today, the Jews had to memorize everything. We don't even know our own home phone numbers because it's programmed into our iPhones. So, they remembered, because they exercised their memorization skills.
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 04:08:42 PM
You just have to know your history. Greco Roman paganism, although heavily pushed by the state in some parts of the country, had been almost dead in the hearts and minds of many for some time. Caused by a thing called neoplatonism, which had long since argued for a single divinity that could hardly be understood by us mortals and a derived "logos" or knowledge that was sometimes referred to as "the son". I know that a lot of bull is told about predecessors to Christianity, but the concept didn't just appear from nowhere. Why do you think the Greeks translated the Septuagint? Or had interest in the Jewish faith at all?
Gerard
I don't agree completely, but I can let it go for now.
Tell me how Christianity fared so well among the Jews who were heavily "indoctrinated" at every level of society with festivals and uniforms and all the "tricks" that DarkMatter finds so evil in his YouTube video.
I'll even concede that the Jews were indoctrinated. But not for a dying and rising messiah.
Christianity must have had a powerful message to break the spell the Jews were under...
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 11, 2016, 04:04:57 PM
That literally does not address my point that the gospels were written long after Jesus's death. You just said the same thing I did, but also imply that even though they were all written years and years after the fact, they somehow are accurate. How is a gospel that is written 30+ years after the death of a man be even remotely accurate?
Yes and this:
Quote from: Randy CarsonThe New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.
is what you said there. Remember that prophesy makes no sense to historians. The mere fact that Jesus even mentioned the destruction of the Temple there, means that the authors knew!!!!! That is one of the reasons why text criticism places the authorship of Mark and the other gospels after 70 CE.
Gerard
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 04:21:30 PM
I don't agree completely, but I can let it go for now.
Tell me how Christianity fared so well among the Jews who were heavily "indoctrinated" at every level of society with festivals and uniforms and all the "tricks" that DarkMatter finds so evil in his YouTube video.
I'll even concede that the Jews were indoctrinated. But not for a dying and rising messiah.
Christianity must have had a powerful message to break the spell the Jews were under...
I don't think that Christianity fared very well among the Jews. So it doesn't need an explanation.
Gerard
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 04:18:20 PM
Several reasons:
First, the gospels were written by authors who were accountable to the very audience to whom they were writing. There were plenty of living eyewitnesses (500 or so) who had seen Jesus at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians as well as 2-3,000 who were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the crowd after Peter preached the resurrection of Jesus. The authors of the gospels could not simply make stuff up when living witnesses (for and against) were still alive to refute them.
I also covered the "Telephone Game" theory here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.msg1129156#msg1129156
Second, I have covered the significance of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0
Paul repeats a memorized creed that he learned within 3-5 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. Consequently, the message being preached was solidified EARLY and not "30+ years" later.
Finally, it was an oral culture. Unlike today, the Jews had to memorize everything. We don't even know our own home phone numbers because it's programmed into our iPhones. So, they remembered, because they exercised their memorization skills.
Yes.... and they all got cozily together to acknowledge that.... I don't think so.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on May 11, 2016, 04:31:11 PM
I don't think that Christianity fared very well among the Jews. So it doesn't need an explanation.
Gerard
From the account of the day of Pentecost:
QuoteActs 2:41
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Some of the people present in Jerusalem that day became believers and then went home...to Rome.
So by the late 60's, the Christian community in Rome was so large that Nero was able to blame them for the fire. After all, who would have accepted this explanation if no one had even heard of Christians.
Little something for all you believers:
Grandma got run over by a reindeer.
Walking home from our house Christmas eve.
You can say there's no such thing as Santa,
But as for me and grandpa we believe.
She'd been drinking too much eggnog,
And we begged her not to go.
But she forgot her medication, and she
Staggered out the door into the snow.
When we found her Christmas morning,
At the scene of the attack,
She had hoof-prints on her forehead,
And incriminating Claus marks on her back.
And....................as I was going through my storage (well.................junk; really) room the other day I came across a pallet of True Cross fragments I brought back from Israel.
Aaaaahhhhhh; I make for you a very special price today; my friend! Gimme a call...................I'll hook you up.
Quote from: Flanker1Six on May 11, 2016, 05:42:51 PM
And....................as I was going through my storage (well.................junk; really) room the other day I came across a pallet of True Cross fragments I brought back from Israel.
Aaaaahhhhhh; I make for you a very special price today; my friend! Gimme a call...................I'll hook you up.
Atheists believe the weirdest stuff. And science says you lie.
QuoteTaking the Measure of Relics of the True Cross
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/taking-the-measure-of-relics-of-the-true-cross/#ixzz48O18ASKD
Excerpt:
Clearly, this is a punch line with a pedigree, but is it accurate? That would appear to be a difficult, if not impossible, question to answer. But in the last half of the 19th century, a French independent scholar named Charles Rohault de Fleury assigned himself the task of tracking down and measuring every surviving relic of the True Cross.
Weight and Volume
De Fleury, like almost all of his contemporaries, believed that Jesus carried the entire cross from Pontius Pilate’s palace to the summit of Calvary. (In the late 20th century, historians found that criminals condemned to crucifixion only carried the cross beam â€" the upright beam was erected and waiting at the place of execution.) To estimate the weight of the cross Jesus bore, de Fleury drew upon studies of how much weight strong men in strenuous professions could carry: A robust porter, such as we see carrying the heavy baggage in old safari movies, could carry 200 pounds a distance of three miles in about an hour before needing a rest, while a brawny carpenter could carry 220 pounds of lumber on his shoulder 150 feet before stopping to unburden himself and rest. De Fleury calculated that the cross probably weighed about 220 pounds, but considering that Jesus dragged it rather than lifted and carried it, the weight to Our Lord would have felt like 55 pounds. Nonetheless, in his weakened condition after the scourging, even this modest weight was too much for Jesus, and so the Roman guards compelled Simon of Cyrene to help carry the cross.
Once he had estimated the weight of the cross, de Fleury calculated the size, or more accurately, volume, of the cross, which came to 10,900 cubic inches. But the total volume of all the fragments he had measured came to only 240 cubic inches. The number surprised him, so he made a generous allowance for fragments that were in private hands or otherwise had not come to his attention, as well as fragments that had been lost over the centuries or destroyed in war or during the vandalism of the Reformation. He multiplied his original number by 10 and arrived at a new figure: 2,400 cubic inches, not even a fifth of the estimated size of the cross upon which Christ was crucified.
In 1870, de Fleury published his findings in a book, Mémoire sur les Instruments de la Passion. De Fleury concluded that if all the surviving relics of the True Cross were somehow reassembled, there would not be enough lumber to crucify a man, let alone build Noah’s Ark. The 20th-century English Catholic author Evelyn Waugh, referring to de Fleury’s conclusions, said, “As far as volume goes, therefore, there is no strain on the credulity of the faithful.â€
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/taking-the-measure-of-relics-of-the-true-cross/#ixzz48O0tx6W8
And failed in every one of them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 03:45:26 PM
We will get to your two questions in time. I watched the video, so I think you can give me a little leeway to discuss it with you first. And I gave the summary to give you confidence that I had kept my end of the bargain.
Now, it is interesting that you mention that the "general" or generic approach of the video was intentional and that it can be applied to Christians, Muslims and Jews.
1. Do you think this type of indoctrination might be present in Russia, China, North Korea and other countries in which atheism is the dominant culture? Do you suppose that atheist kids were ever told that their own parents were enemies of the state because they were Christians?
And don't try to weasel out of this by references to the Russian Orthodox Church...you know that the official state position that God does not exist was drilled into the kids by the kind of authority figures DarkMatter portrays negatively when they are obviously religious personages, etc. In fact, the body of Lenin is the "relic" of Soviet Communism just as that of Kim Jong Il is for North Koreans.
(https://img.rt.com/files/news/25/a8/00/00/rian_00782052.hr.en.jpg)
You evade my questions to ask your own, and you have the audacity to tell me not to "try to weasel out?" Fuck off.
Atheism is not the dominant culture anywhere that I'm aware of. Russia is
75% Orthodox Christian. And yes, that fucking counts. It's a huge majority, you dumb ass. Only took my two seconds to Google that. China and North Korea has Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Christianity is the minority there, but their people still have religious rituals, some even borrowed from Christianity. Communism isn't a religion.
That was more than one question packed into one, plus your own answer to the question. Even if your atheist nation did exist, you still wouldn't have indoctrination. NOT teaching children about god/gods does not equal indoctrination. In those cases, no "ridiculous claim" would be forced on the children from birth by both the parents and the community. There would be no rituals surrounding it, and no urgency in spreading the lack of belief (which again is not a ridiculous claim). If there are any truly atheist cultures where all those of faith are ostracized or killed, I'm certainly unaware of it.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 03:45:26 PM2. More importantly, let's say for the sake of argument that everything DarkMatter alleges in his video about religious indoctrination is true - EVEN FOR THE JEWS AND THE ROMANS (who worshiped a pantheon of gods). Why, then, did so many adult Jews and Romans abandon the faiths into which they had been so heavily indoctrinated in order to embrace the Christian faith?
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
It seems to me, Blackleaf, that the early Christians must have had a very compelling message in order to overcome the powerful forces at work not only in monotheistic Judaism but also in polytheistic Rome.
This question has been addressed before. People convert to all religions, otherwise they wouldn't exist. The same question could be asked of the Muslim religion. Why did so many adult Christians convert to Islam after 9/11?
Now, stop asking me loaded questions and answer my simple yes or no questions. No long paragraphs skirting around the questions, either. Just yes or no. Don't make it make it complicated.
1. Do Christians indoctrinate their children, as shown in the video? Y/N
2. Do atheists use the same methods to indoctrinate their children? Y/N
Why do you folks keep responding to Les, Gorm?
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 12, 2016, 12:53:29 AM
You evade my questions to ask your own, and you have the audacity to tell me not to "try to weasel out?" Fuck off.
I extended you the courtesy of watching your video as you requested, and having done so, I think I'm entitled to a little latitude before I address your questions.
If that's a problem, we can end this right now. Your call, slick.
QuoteAtheism is not the dominant culture anywhere that I'm aware of. Russia is 75% Orthodox Christian. And yes, that fucking counts. It's a huge majority, you dumb ass. Only took my two seconds to Google that. China and North Korea has Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Christianity is the minority there, but their people still have religious rituals, some even borrowed from Christianity. Communism isn't a religion.
Evasive. I never said that atheism is a religion. Now, answer the question:
1. Do you think this type of indoctrination might be present in Russia, China, North Korea and other countries in which atheism is the dominant culture? Do you suppose that atheist kids were ever told that their own parents were enemies of the state because they were Christians?
I'll wait for you to address these questions adequately before continuing.
(Hint: We both no the answer to these two questions is, "Yes.")
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 12, 2016, 10:40:45 AM
Why do you folks keep responding to Les, Gorm?
I'm always amazed at how many people on here forget that if you don't give Tinkerbell any attention, she dies.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 11, 2016, 05:29:34 PM
From the account of the day of Pentecost:
Some of the people present in Jerusalem that day became believers and then went home...to Rome.
So by the late 60's, the Christian community in Rome was so large that Nero was able to blame them for the fire. After all, who would have accepted this explanation if no one had even heard of Christians.
Well, even if we take Acts as a flawless historical record (which it isn't) 3000 would not be all that impressive in a population of two or even one million.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 11:18:46 AM
Well, even if we take Acts as a flawless historical record (which it isn't) 3000 would not be all that impressive in a population of two or even one million.
Gerard
If you say so, Gerard.
I doubt that all two million Jews were in Jerusalem that day. And without electric amplification, a crowd that size would not have been able to hear Peter's voice.
Further, if any modern day preacher gave an altar call and 3,000 people came forward, I think they'd be pretty pleased.
And if 12 apostles baptized 250 people each taking 2 minutes per, it would have taken more than eight hours to finish all the baptisms.
That's a big catch for these "fishers of men". (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 11:48:22 AM
If you say so, Gerard.
I doubt that all two million Jews were in Jerusalem that day. And without electric amplification, a crowd that size would not have been able to hear Peter's voice.
Further, if any modern day preacher gave an altar call and 3,000 people came forward, I think they'd be pretty pleased.
And if 12 apostles baptized 250 people each taking 2 minutes per, it would have taken more than eight hours to finish all the baptisms.
That's a big catch for these "fishers of men". (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_yup.gif)
Probably, but history doesn't recall any great number of messianic Jews (that followed the Jewish Law, as they should have) from that era. There probably were some in Rome and elsewhere, but most of them probably perished in the Jewish Wars and were not heard from since. Hence my remark, that comes down to the conclusion that Christianity didn't caught on among the Jewish people as it did among Greeks and Romans.
Gerard
(http://i.imgur.com/qo7UVLp.gif)
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 12:56:54 PM
Probably, but history doesn't recall any great number of messianic Jews (that followed the Jewish Law, as they should have) from that era. There probably were some in Rome and elsewhere, but most of them probably perished in the Jewish Wars and were not heard from since. Hence my remark, that comes down to the conclusion that Christianity didn't caught on among the Jewish people as it did among Greeks and Romans.
Gerard
Acts 2:41
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about
three thousand were added to their number that day.
Acts 4:4
But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about
five thousand.
Acts 21:20
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “
You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
Still, these reports
are from the Bible, and we can't trust it, can we? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:42:10 PM
Acts 2:41
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Acts 4:4
But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.
Acts 21:20
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
Still, these reports are from the Bible, and we can't trust it, can we? (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
We can't trust it as a direct eyewitness account or as a dispassionate description of what took place. So we handle what it says with care. Otherwise it's OK!
Gerard
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 12, 2016, 10:40:45 AM
Why do you folks keep responding to Les, Gorm?
I put the self-appointed napoleon on ignore.
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 05:35:09 PM
We can't trust it as a direct eyewitness account or as a dispassionate description of what took place. So we handle what it says with care. Otherwise it's OK!
Gerard
Wait a sec. We can't trust the bible as a direct eyewitness account?! So you mean we've got to take stuff like a talking donkey and walking on water with a grain of salt and not just assume this stuff to be the unvarnished truth simply because other people do?
Just more atheist closemindedness!
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 12, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
Wait a sec. We can't trust the bible as a direct eyewitness account?! So you mean we've got to take stuff like a talking donkey and walking on water with a grain of salt and not just assume this stuff to be the unvarnished truth simply because other people do?
Just more atheist closemindedness!
Hydra, the walking on water and the donkeys, go together with the loaves of bread and the fishes and a lot of other stuff that isn't even about miracles, on the big heap of stark tales that were told since time immemorial to embellish a good (or even a bad) story. That was done in those days.
Gerard
This forum makes the distinction between scientists and apologists clearer every day. The first pursue knowledge through experimentation, calculation, testing and re testing. There is no pre determined outcome and the result can change with new evidence. Science is committed to the discovery of truth; it is not obliged to defend any particular set of beliefs at any cost. It's called an open mind, adapting to newly discovered factual evidence.
The theologian on the other hand adopts a position, a dogma, and then commits himself to a defense of that position come what may. Theology as a discipline is concerned with the defense of a particular set of beliefs, not with finding the truth. That's called a closed mind.
Quote from: reasonist on May 12, 2016, 06:23:50 PM
This forum makes the distinction between scientists and apologists clearer every day. The first pursue knowledge through experimentation, calculation, testing and re testing. There is no pre determined outcome and the result can change with new evidence. Science is committed to the discovery of truth; it is not obliged to defend any particular set of beliefs at any cost. It's called an open mind, adapting to newly discovered factual evidence.
The theologian on the other hand adopts a position, a dogma, and then commits himself to a defense of that position come what may. Theology as a discipline is concerned with the defense of a particular set of beliefs, not with finding the truth. That's called a closed mind.
Yes, but theology isn't exactly the same as apologetics. I suppose it depends on the theologian or the training but many theologians have been accomplished historians or philologists. But I don't know much about what happens in the field as such. In most serious universities they call it different these days. Religious studies or something else.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 05:35:09 PM
We can't trust it as a direct eyewitness account or as a dispassionate description of what took place. So we handle what it says with care. Otherwise it's OK!
Gerard
Cool.
I've always wondered about the whole "objective/dispassionate v. biased" thing. I mean, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the Jews are VERY passionate about making sure that no one ever forgets the Holocaust?
But in order to make sure that its memory is not discredited (thereby opening the door to outright denial) and that it never happens again, aren't they careful to document every atrocity in painstaking detail so that no one can ever deny that the Holocaust really happened?
So, they're biased in the sense that they are "convinced" of the truth of what happened.
With that in mind, would the authors of the New Testament have been any less diligent in recording what happened accurately to avoid bringing disrepute upon the One they considered to be God?
Ehrman addressed the subject of NT bias this way:
Quote"Consider an analogy. We don't dismiss early American accounts of the Revolutionary War simply because they were written by Americans. We take their biases into consideration and sometimes their descriptions of events with a pound of salt. But we do not refuse to use them as historical sources. Contemporary accounts of George Washington, even by his devoted followers, are still valuable as historical sources. To refuse to use them as sources is to sacrifice the most important avenues to the past we have, and on purely ideological, not historical, grounds. So, too, the Gospels. Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74)
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 06:35:00 PM
Yes, but theology isn't exactly the same as apologetics. I suppose it depends on the theologian or the training but many theologians have been accomplished historians or philologists. But I don't know much about what happens in the field as such. In most serious universities they call it different these days. Religious studies or something else.
Gerard
I have a very hard time separating theologians from apologists. Anytime you (study and) adhere to a religious dogma, you have to be an apologist. How else can one justify belief in the irrational?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 06:51:19 PM
Cool.
I've always wondered about the whole "objective/dispassionate v. biased" thing. I mean, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the Jews are VERY passionate about making sure that no one ever forgets the Holocaust?
But in order to make sure that its memory is not discredited (thereby opening the door to outright denial) and that it never happens again, aren't they careful to document every atrocity in painstaking detail so that no one can ever deny that the Holocaust really happened?
So, they're biased in the sense that they are "convinced" of the truth of what happened.
With that in mind, would the authors of the New Testament have been any less diligent in recording what happened accurately to avoid bringing disrepute upon the One they considered to be God?
Ehrman addressed the subject of NT bias this way:
Ehrman is absolutely right when it comes to the historiography of say, the US Revolutionary War. But we do judge the sources in more way than one. We must ask ourselves if the sources could verifiably have had access to direct information. And when it comes to sources about religious matters, that also took place in a time and era when people had a very different attitude towards stories and how they were or were not believable, we're in a very different territory that might be not so easy to understand for people who think, like we are used to in this day and age. Diligence that, for whatever reason, distorts the information involved can be weighed much more easily when we actually have more information. That's a luxury we don't have when the NT is concerned. I happen to think that the Gospels, to some extent, are historical sources. But they have been much more distorted than any tales about the Revolutionary War. Because the authors embellished these stories in a way that would have been unimaginable even in the late 18th century AND because they weren't actually eyewitnesses.
Gerard
Quote from: reasonist on May 12, 2016, 07:01:41 PM
I have a very hard time separating theologians from apologists. Anytime you (study and) adhere to a religious dogma, you have to be an apologist. How else can one justify belief in the irrational?
Christian theology was invented, so that predecessors of Randy, aka apologists, would stand a chance in debate with a smart pagan. This is why they initially had to bring Plato into it, and later Aristotle. It is also useful for polemic. But it is useless to determine truth, because it is biased ab inito.
Quote from: reasonist on May 12, 2016, 07:01:41 PM
I have a very hard time separating theologians from apologists. Anytime you (study and) adhere to a religious dogma, you have to be an apologist. How else can one justify belief in the irrational?
Well, in the end, whatever you do or don't believe, that's a question of integrity. Or as some people call it, cognitive dissonance (that's a joke by the way). If you are a (believing) theologian but your field of investigation also involves history or textual criticism, you have to draw a line. Many succeed in doing that. It's possible as long as you're not also a fundamentalist.
Gerard
Human beings can maintain incompatible beliefs and behaviors indefinitely. This is not a flaw. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 04:42:10 PM
Still, these reports are from the Bible, and we can't trust it, can we?
Fools can trust the Bible. Rational people demand better evidence.
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:19:35 PM
Christian theology was invented, so that predecessors of Randy, aka apologists, would stand a chance in debate with a smart pagan. This is why they initially had to bring Plato into it, and later Aristotle. It is also useful for polemic. But it is useless to determine truth, because it is biased ab inito.
Well, I don't see it entirely that way. Plato (or at least neoplatonism) paved the way for monotheism in the Greco-Roman world.
Gerard
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
Human beings can maintain incompatible beliefs and behaviors indefinitely. This is not a flaw. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson.
Hihi... :eyes:
Sorry, but I don't know what hobgoblin is......
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 08:22:31 PM
Hihi... :eyes:
Sorry, but I don't know what hobgoblin is......
Gerard
Ah... I just googled it....
Gerard
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 12, 2016, 07:40:43 PM
Fools can trust the Bible. Rational people demand better evidence.
Sure. When you talk about religious beliefs that is very apt. But there are.... uhhh distractions.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on May 12, 2016, 08:04:07 PM
Well, I don't see it entirely that way. Plato (or at least neoplatonism) paved the way for monotheism in the Greco-Roman world.
Gerard
That is something the Christian apologists claimed, to justify kidnapping his legacy ;-) Monotheism was already there, read Epictetus or Xenophanes.
Quote from: reasonist on May 12, 2016, 07:01:41 PM
I have a very hard time separating theologians from apologists. Anytime you (study and) adhere to a religious dogma, you have to be an apologist. How else can one justify belief in the irrational?
I just made this up. Let's see how it works:
Scientist = Theologian
Engineer = Clergy
Technician/Customer Support = Apologist
Apologists help people to understand stuff discovered by theologians and preached by the clergy.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 09:20:01 PM
I just made this up. Let's see how it works:
Scientist = Theologian
Engineer = Clergy
Technician/Customer Support = Apologist
Apologists help people to understand stuff discovered by theologians and preached by the clergy.
Thats not an answer to his question.
I just made this up--let's see how this works.
Theologian, clergy, apologist=charlatan. Yeah, works for me!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 09:20:01 PMApologists help people to understand stuff discovered by theologians and preached by the clergy.
(http://i.imgur.com/LokWIAS.gif)
Apologists are ideological salespeople and spin-doctors. All they care about is selling their ideology to anyone who will listen. They're hucksters and liars, and most people can see right through them.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 11:11:23 AM
I extended you the courtesy of watching your video as you requested, and having done so, I think I'm entitled to a little latitude before I address your questions.
If that's a problem, we can end this right now. Your call, slick.
In other words, you don't want to answer the questions because they're hurt your position. Instead, you want to put my questions aside so that you can attempt to build up your case first. I do not owe you anything in exchange for you watching a short video.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 11:11:23 AMEvasive.
And I'm done with you. There's nothing to be gained from talking to someone like you. It's not even entertaining any more. I'll wait for someone more intelligent and less hypocritical, or at least someone who answers questions.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 12, 2016, 09:20:01 PM
I just made this up. Let's see how it works:
Scientist = Theologian
Engineer = Clergy
Technician/Customer Support = Apologist
Apologists help people to understand stuff discovered by theologians and preached by the clergy.
Insulting!
Whack-a-doodle = Randy
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 13, 2016, 02:21:49 AM
In other words, you don't want to answer the questions because they're hurt your position. Instead, you want to put my questions aside so that you can attempt to build up your case first. I do not owe you anything in exchange for you watching a short video.
And I'm done with you. There's nothing to be gained from talking to someone like you. It's not even entertaining any more. I'll wait for someone more intelligent and less hypocritical, or at least someone who answers questions.
The purpose of my questions was simple: To highlight the fact that the Soviet Union, China and other communist countries established extensive indoctrination systems that were every bit as pervasive as those ascribed to religious groups in the video by DarkMatters. IOW, Christians aren't the only ones who pass along what they believe by means of a variety of methodologies and societal structures.
And that takes a bit of the wind out of DarkMatters' sails, doesn't it? Because if everyone is "indoctrinating" their kids to varying degrees, then it's not such a dark matter, after all.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 07:47:25 AM
The purpose of my questions was simple: To highlight the fact that the Soviet Union, China and other communist countries established extensive indoctrination systems that were every bit as pervasive as those ascribed to religious groups in the video by DarkMatters. IOW, Christians aren't the only ones who pass along what they believe by means of a variety of methodologies and societal structures.
And that takes a bit of the wind out of DarkMatters' sails, doesn't it? Because if everyone is "indoctrinating" their kids to varying degrees, then it's not such a dark matter, after all.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
Doesn't that point to the idea that it's possible to indoctrinate and force any thought on people under your care, regardless of whether it's a "good" or "bad" idea.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 13, 2016, 07:47:25 AM
The purpose of my questions was simple: To highlight the fact that the Soviet Union, China and other communist countries established extensive indoctrination systems that were every bit as pervasive as those ascribed to religious groups in the video by DarkMatters. IOW, Christians aren't the only ones who pass along what they believe by means of a variety of methodologies and societal structures.
And that takes a bit of the wind out of DarkMatters' sails, doesn't it? Because if everyone is "indoctrinating" their kids to varying degrees, then it's not such a dark matter, after all.
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif)
You watch Alex Jones? Yes the pod-people communists have infiltrated your countries. Just don't say "Telefon"
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on May 13, 2016, 11:17:14 AM
Doesn't that point to the idea that it's possible to indoctrinate and force any thought on people under your care, regardless of whether it's a "good" or "bad" idea.
Absolutely!
DarkMatters' video attempted to paint religious groups in a negative light; coming up short, it simply explains a universal phenomenon while implying that "indoctrination" is an evil employed exclusively by religious people.
As my examples suggest, Atheists have employed the same tactics when establishing states in which religion was not acceptable.
Well when babytooth got banned around page 5 I have not read any more since then, and I'm not going to unless it was a reply directed towards babytooth.
Also how pitty was it to ban him for speaking truth?
That being said let's roll
Hahaha.
Ok we are supernatural ourselves.
The laws of nature are supernatural.
A guy mocks sky people when he himself is a sky person.
Proved how heaven is not at all far fetched. Bc it is a kingdom in the sky, just as earth is also a kingdom in the sky. But beyond our brain in greatness. No evil within the gates.
What makes up physical is in fact non physical,atoms are empty space etc.
The ability to think is so amazing and athiest can't seem to see that.
That's about all I'm remembering off the top of my head.
But here's something that hit me tonight. I should make a lil social media banner out of it lol.
"The difference between me and atheist"
"Atheist know that what they think is true, I know what is true"
You see there's a big difference between thinking and knowing, as you know what u think. I know there is a God and which one is the truth and only true God.
Something else before y'all get.squaking what.you've googled. I look down on that btw,
Here's just something.to think About as y'all all do what you've been trained all the day.
Most of u like to point out spelling(we spoke of this before the ban,about how most ppl are wrongly gauging one's intelligence) here's a little organic fact, no1 knows how any.word is truly properly spelled we only know how other men before us have told us there belief on a correct spelling. Haha
I will.cut y'all.down quick man. I really believe I am out thinking you all by 100 to 1. Daily.. Daily
You all can't deal with simple unseen by most facts. It fucks.yalls.head up. Lol
No1 has been able to argue what babytooth said nor me.
We will eat you with Knowing.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 01:34:31 AMhere's a little organic fact, no1 knows how any.word is truly properly spelled we only know how other men before us have told us there belief on a correct spelling. Haha
(http://i.imgur.com/a2wV134.gif)
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 01:34:31 AM
Well when babytooth got banned around page 5 I have not read any more since then, and I'm not going to unless it was a reply directed towards babytooth.
Also how pitty was it to ban him for speaking truth?
That being said let's roll
Hahaha.
Ok we are supernatural ourselves.
The laws of nature are supernatural.
A guy mocks sky people when he himself is a sky person.
Proved how heaven is not at all far fetched. Bc it is a kingdom in the sky, just as earth is also a kingdom in the sky. But beyond our brain in greatness. No evil within the gates.
What makes up physical is in fact non physical,atoms are empty space etc.
The ability to think is so amazing and athiest can't seem to see that.
That's about all I'm remembering off the top of my head.
But here's something that hit me tonight. I should make a lil social media banner out of it lol.
"The difference between me and atheist"
"Atheist know that what they think is true, I know what is true"
You see there's a big difference between thinking and knowing, as you know what u think. I know there is a God and which one is the truth and only true God.
Something else before y'all get.squaking what.you've googled. I look down on that btw,
Here's just something.to think About as y'all all do what you've been trained all the day.
Most of u like to point out spelling(we spoke of this before the ban,about how most ppl are wrongly gauging one's intelligence) here's a little organic fact, no1 knows how any.word is truly properly spelled we only know how other men before us have told us there belief on a correct spelling. Haha
I will.cut y'all.down quick man. I really believe I am out thinking you all by 100 to 1. Daily.. Daily
You all can't deal with simple unseen by most facts. It fucks.yalls.head up. Lol
No1 has been able to argue what babytooth said nor me.
We will eat you with Knowing.
(https://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/I+don+t+want+to+sound+stupid+but+who+s+chen+_d48b9f77a9942de41b54013fa8bd98a9.jpg)
I didn't read what tht said. But I'm willing to bet that bald man is atheist.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 15, 2016, 01:58:31 AM
(https://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/I+don+t+want+to+sound+stupid+but+who+s+chen+_d48b9f77a9942de41b54013fa8bd98a9.jpg)
I enjoy these little pictures. They both translate "we have no thoughts of our own, we are repeaters. And can never battle truth and wisdom. We admit and can see you have out thought us but we will always stay in denial".
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 02:00:17 AM
I didn't read what tht said. But I'm willing to bet that bald man is atheist.
Actually, I prefer my coffee with a spoonful of sugar and some milk. Sometimes I use honey instead of sugar.
I currently weigh 150 pounds soaking wet. I've always been of light build. Unfortunately, if my father and grandfather are anything to go by, I may be genetically predisposed to gaining weight in my later years.
Speaking of genes, my jeans never fit me. They're always too loose around my waist.
Lastly, I was blond when I was a young boy, and it darkened to brown when I got older. Nature.is.a.bitch.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 15, 2016, 02:15:18 AM
Actually, I prefer my coffee with a spoonful of sugar and some milk. Sometimes I use honey instead of sugar.
I currently weigh 150 pounds soaking wet. I've always been of light build. Unfortunately, if my father and grandfather are anything to go by, I may be genetically predisposed to gaining weight in my later years.
Speaking of genes, my jeans never fit me. They're always too loose around my waist.
Lastly, I was blond when I was a young boy, and it darkened to brown when I got older. Nature.is.a.bitch.
Yea you may not even be related to your father's side at all. A simple rope can make any jeans fit.
And you probably have been malnourished your whole life due to processed food and gm food which means you'll probably get cancer and die young due to de population. That.has nothing to do with nature mankind is a bitch kid and your gon learn 2day.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 01:34:31 AM
"Atheist know that what they think is true, I know what is true"
Please go and proclaim that banner. And do it loudly. I wouldn't be able to word smallmindedness and ignorance any better. Congratz.
Quote
Most of u like to point out spelling(we spoke of this before the ban,about how most ppl are wrongly gauging one's intelligence) here's a little organic fact, no1 knows how any.word is truly properly spelled we only know how other men before us have told us there belief on a correct spelling. Haha
So are you just flat out saying you're Babytooth? Or are you saying you know him personally?
Quote
I will.cut y'all.down quick man. I really believe I am out thinking you all by 100 to 1. Daily.. Daily
You all can't deal with simple unseen by most facts. It fucks.yalls.head up. Lol
No1 has been able to argue what babytooth said nor me.
We will eat you with Knowing.
People, including trolls, that feel the need build up their own hype come across as pathetic, imho.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 02:25:17 AM
Yea you may not even be related to your father's side at all. A simple rope can make any jeans fit.
And you probably have been malnourished your whole life due to processed food and gm food which means you'll probably get cancer and die young due to de population. That.has nothing to do with nature mankind is a bitch kid and your gon learn 2day.
You know, I was waiting for you to say "I have no idea what you're talking about" so that I could reply with "now you know how we feel." But I guess I successfully connected with you in speaking your native language. Now, welcome to my ignore list.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 15, 2016, 02:28:33 AM
You know, I was waiting for you to say "I have no idea what you're talking about" so that I could reply with "now you know how we feel." But I guess I successfully connected with you in speaking your native language. Now, welcome to my ignore list.
Let's call the ignore list. The I'm in denial list.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 02:26:12 AM
Please go and proclaim that banner. And do it loudly. I wouldn't be able to word smallmindedness and ignorance any better. Congratz.
Ok this is the only thing you actually said in this quote above.
And I see the banner went over your head a bit. I'll try to get it right for you.
Do you agree that you KNOW what u are thinking? If so then you understand what KNOWING actually is.
You see I KNOW God exist and many other things. I'm not merely thinking he exist. I KNOW as your mother KNOWS she birthed you.
Your gon learn 2day my.small minded little friend.
I want you to tell me one Idea you came up with in your.life that is original and organic to you. This is for every1 as well not.just the.grasshopper.
Well almost.3 am my time. Going to attempt sleep.
I'll be back in the morning and I'm sure I'll be.hit with a lot of replys.
So if you want me to.respond back to your ?/statement then please direct it towards me personally.
And most of all you all need to acknowledge truth when you hear it not just deny deny deny. Bc what me.And babytooth have.said are simple unseen by most facts. The way you all deny these simple truths when you.fucking know.it's.true is bad for your internal make up you are destroying your self from ever gaining true knowledge and understanding. Just as some.sins are internal and others.are external. And I have realized I'm going to be over many people's head in my ways. No offence just most people are the.product of being dumbed down by a elite that wants commoners to remain just that.And not reach there enlightenment. I do not quote Google Bs I am original and organic. I feel things that can't be registered on any machine I'm not special the system just missed a few of us thank God. Haha
Also I wAnt to.hear one every1s original/organic ideas that have have come up with all within there.self.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 02:44:25 AM
Please go and proclaim that banner. And do it loudly. I wouldn't be able to word smallmindedness and ignorance any better. Congratz.
Ok this is the only thing you actually said in this quote above.
And I see the banner went over your head a bit. I'll try to get it right for you.
Do you agree that you KNOW what u are thinking? If so then you understand what KNOWING actually is.
You see I KNOW God exist and many other things. I'm not merely thinking he exist. I KNOW as your mother KNOWS she birthed you.
Your gon learn 2day my.small minded little friend.
I want you to tell me one Idea you came up with in your.life that is original and organic to you. This is for every1 as well not.just the.grasshopper.
And I want you to learn to interact with this forum and it's functions like 'quoting' on at least a basic level. I wonder if either of us will get what they want.
I can try to give you an answer for an original and organic idea of mine, but what will that do? How does that relate to thinking and knowing?
I think I know what I think I know. And I think I know what I think. I also think you think you know what in reality you think, but don't know that that's thinking or don't think about that enough to know. Because you say you know, but I don't know about that. You'd think that if you'd spent some thinking about thinking and knowing you'd know what you're talking about, you know what i mean?
Basically, being convinced does not make you immune from being mistaken.
Quote from: Babytooth on May 05, 2016, 06:36:13 PM
I only need to know that you believe there is no god, that makes you stupid about life it's self. Which is the most important thing in life... You may be a math scholar but that's just study and dedication to learning a certain subject. Any1 can do that.
Surely if I don't believe in your god, then that's a failure on your gods part, not mine.
The best line in the whole thing was "not born again" - well, now you have a project, don't you? Better that than annoying us. Get reborn, then die. Then you can look down on us from Heaven and giggle at how stupid we are. God'll pass the popcorn cause he's just that kind of guy.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 02:07:52 AM
I enjoy these little pictures. They both translate "we have no thoughts of our own, we are repeaters. And can never battle truth and wisdom. We admit and can see you have out thought us but we will always stay in denial".
I agree. Memes are the last gasp effort of the intellectually bankrupt.
Quote from: Jason78 on May 15, 2016, 04:59:07 AM
Surely if I don't believe in your god, then that's a failure on your gods part, not mine.
Why do think this is true?
Imagine this scenario:
A high school teacher is young, attractive, and single. She has a pleasant voice and dresses modestly but stylishly. She enjoys lots of current television shows and music. She knows the subject she is teaching well, and her lessons are well-prepared. The material itself is interesting, and the course is required for graduation. She was named "Teacher of the Year" in the entire state just last year. She serves as the faculty adviser for many of the school's best clubs. She arrives at school early, she's willing to stay late to help anyone and never takes a day off.
All the kids in her class think she rocks, and most of them are making A's and B's because she makes learning fun. Except one.
This kid wants nothing to do with her class or any class. In fact, he's thinking of dropping out altogether. He's got problems with other teachers, problems at home, and no friends beyond the circle of druggies he hangs with from time to time. Generally, though, he's a loner.
The teacher has tried to encourage him. She has offered to stay after school to help him catch up on the work he's missed, but he hasn't taken her up on her offer.
He's not interested in what she has to say.
Now, is this a failure on the teacher's part? Or on the student's part?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 08:46:03 AM
Why do think this is true?
Imagine this scenario:
A high school teacher is young, attractive, and single. She has a pleasant voice and dresses modestly but stylishly. She enjoys lots of current television shows and music. She knows the subject she is teaching well, and her lessons are well-prepared. The material itself is interesting, and the course is required for graduation. She was named "Teacher of the Year" in the entire state just last year. She serves as the faculty adviser for many of the school's best clubs. She arrives at school early, she's willing to stay late to help anyone and never takes a day off.
All the kids in her class think she rocks, and most of them are making A's and B's because she makes learning fun. Except one.
This kid wants nothing to do with her class or any class. In fact, he's thinking of dropping out altogether. He's got problems with other teachers, problems at home, and no friends beyond the circle of druggies he hangs with from time to time. Generally, though, he's a loner.
The teacher has tried to encourage him. She has offered to stay after school to help him catch up on the work he's missed, but he hasn't taken her up on her offer.
He's not interested in what she has to say.
Now, is this a failure on the teacher's part? Or on the student's part?
The Teacher isn't an allpowerfull, allknowing creator of everything. Therein lies The difference.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 09:21:39 AM
The Teacher isn't an allpowerfull, allknowing creator of everything. Therein lies The difference.
Hij is een klootzak...
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 15, 2016, 02:15:18 AM
Actually, I prefer my coffee with a spoonful of sugar and some milk. Sometimes I use honey instead of sugar.
I currently weigh 150 pounds soaking wet. I've always been of light build. Unfortunately, if my father and grandfather are anything to go by, I may be genetically predisposed to gaining weight in my later years.
Speaking of genes, my jeans never fit me. They're always too loose around my waist.
Lastly, I was blond when I was a young boy, and it darkened to brown when I got older. Nature.is.a.bitch.
Actually, you have proven to me coffee should be black--always withhold sugar and always sometimes honey. Honey---yeah, thanks dear. But at times I do find myself in denial---which is just down the street from Knowing--where that coffee shop is I told you about. Isn't nature super???
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 09:21:39 AM
The Teacher isn't an allpowerfull, allknowing creator of everything. Therein lies The difference.
How so?
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 09:30:54 AM
Hij is een klootzak...
Nee ik ben niet. Waarom zou je dat zeggen?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 15, 2016, 09:35:23 AM
Actually, you have proven to me coffee should be black--always withhold sugar and always sometimes honey. Honey---yeah, thanks dear. But at times I do find myself in denial---which is just down the street from Knowing--where that coffee shop is I told you about. Isn't nature super???
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/computers/compcoff.gif)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:37:09 AM
Nee ik ben niet. Waarom zou je dat zeggen?
I'll hazzard a guess - "No, I'm not. Why do you say that?"
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 09:42:53 AM
I'll hazzard a guess - "No, I'm not. Why do you say that?"
Weil er ein grosses Arschloch ist...lol
Know what Babytooth/Knowing and Randy are? They are the personification of my favorite mag as a kid--Mad Mag. Yes, they are that. (Or maybe Sick, another one of my favs.) Seen from that angle, they are very, very funny!
And it just dawned on me where they live. Anybody who has played Fallout 3's DLC, Point Lookout, know that they resemble one of these types, called either a bruiser, creeper, tracker or trader. Recall what they look like? Like refugees from the back hills of West Virginia (Deliverance anyone???)--they talk like they should look like that.
I'm glad I cleared that all up.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:37:09 AM
Nee ik ben niet. Waarom zou je dat zeggen?
Ik denk dat hij 'god' bedoelde, en niet jij. Althans, zo heb ik het begrepen. En je Nederlands is niet slecht maar het is 'ben ik' in de plaats van 'ik ben'. :p
Anyway as to why that difference is important; seeing as i'm in The middle of something, i'll give The short answer for now: it means not only does this unlimited god have The power and lnowledge to convinced even The most stubborn of basketcases; he chose in advance to create him and The world around him specifically so that The kid would refuse seeing The light and be saved.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 09:45:47 AM
Weil er ein grosses Arschloch ist...lol
Wat dan ook...veel gelach
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 09:49:02 AM
Ik denk dat hij 'god' bedoelde, en niet jij. Althans, zo heb ik het begrepen. En je Nederlands is niet slecht maar het is 'ben ik' in de plaats van 'ik ben'. :p
Anyway as to why that difference is important; seeing as i'm in The middle of something, i'll give The short answer for now: it means not only does this unlimited god have The power and lnowledge to convinced even The most stubborn of basketcases; he chose in advance to create him and The world around him specifically so that The kid would refuse seeing The light and be saved.
But that's not what happened. God created us in order to know and love him and to know His love in return.
However, because we had free will, we were separated from God by what theologians call "original sin". This makes it harder for us to "see the light" but not impossible.
Whether we will search for that light or not is still our choice.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 09:49:02 AM
Ik denk dat hij 'god' bedoelde, en niet jij. Althans, zo heb ik het begrepen. En je Nederlands is niet slecht maar het is 'ben ik' in de plaats van 'ik ben'. :p
Anyway as to why that difference is important; seeing as i'm in The middle of something, i'll give The short answer for now: it means not only does this unlimited god have The power and lnowledge to convinced even The most stubborn of basketcases; he chose in advance to create him and The world around him specifically so that The kid would refuse seeing The light and be saved.
No,no that's the 'free will' the flock always talks about. Either you buy into this crap or be incinerated not for a year, not for 20 years, not for a 100 years..but for ETERNITY!!! No such thing in the OT, only loving Jesus came up with a "just" punishment. But he loves us anyways, lol! The stupidity of it all is frightening.
That reminds me of a criminal standing in court accused of robbing an old man at gunpoint and shooting him because the old geezer refused to hand over his wallet. The defense argued that the robber gave the victim a choice, free will, either to hand over his money or get shot. A perfectly plausible defense...in the fantasy world of the pious!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:01:46 AM
But that's not what happened. God created us in order to know and love him and to know His love in return.
However, because we had free will, we were separated from God by what theologians call "original sin". This makes it harder for us to "see the light" but not impossible.
Whether we will search for that light or not is still our choice.
So is god incapable of creating a creation in which he knows all his creations will choose to live by his code and come to accept him of their free will?
Free will does nothing about this problem if your creator is allpowerfull and allknowing.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 10:03:17 AMThat reminds me of a criminal standing in court accused of robbing an old man at gunpoint and shooting him because the old geezer refused to hand over his wallet. The defense argued that the robber gave the victim a choice, free will, either to hand over his money or get shot. A perfectly plausible defense...in the fantasy world of the pious!
In this particular analogy, you are the robber, God is the judge, and Jesus is your defense attorney.
You freely chose to commit the crime, and God is justly prepared to sentence you to death. Jesus, however, stands before the Father and pleads your cause because you have asked Him for forgiveness.
Case dismissed. You are free to enter heaven.
In my personal experience being harassed by Mennonite Brethren and other bible thumpers. Most are so low IQ, they have no idea how a smart person thinks. Their idea of intelligence: lie and cheat to fool normal people. WOW, what an accomplishment.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 10:20:44 AM
So is god incapable of creating a creation in which he knows all his creations will choose to live by his code and come to accept him of their free will?
Free will does nothing about this problem if your creator is allpowerfull and allknowing.
So, it somehow reflects poorly on God that He did not create only people whom He knew in advance would accept Him?
Quote from: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 10:24:20 AM
In my personal experience being harassed by Mennonite Brethren and other bible thumpers. Most are so low IQ, they have no idea how a smart person thinks. Their idea of intelligence: lie and cheat to fool normal people. WOW, what an accomplishment.
I would not disagree with you.
However, not all Christians are like that, are they?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:22:52 AM
In this particular analogy, you are the robber, God is the judge, and Jesus is your defense attorney.
You freely chose to commit the crime, and God is justly prepared to sentence you to death. Jesus, however, stands before the Father and pleads your cause because you have asked Him for forgiveness.
Case dismissed. You are free to enter heaven.
WOW! Rape on friday, magic jesus words on sunday, then it's all OK? Is that how it works?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:22:52 AM
Case dismissed. You are free to enter heaven.
Right after Adolf Hitler. Anne Frank, on the other hand, couldn't get in.
Quote from: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 10:31:10 AM
WOW! Rape on friday, magic jesus words on sunday, then it's all OK? Is that how it works?
Yes and no.
Yes, the eternal consequences of sin are dealt with by asking God for forgiveness.
No, the temporal consequences still remain. So, the rapist will still go to jail and will probably go to purgatory rather than straight to heaven.
However, there is one other consideration: God cannot be fooled by someone giving mere lip service to his repentance. So, the "magic jesus words" must be genuine.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2016, 10:42:04 AM
Right after Adolf Hitler. Anne Frank, on the other hand, couldn't get in.
Why not?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:45:02 AM
Why not?
She had never been baptized. Hitler, as a Catholic, had.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:25:52 AM
So, it somehow reflects poorly on God that He did not create only people whom He knew in advance would accept Him?
Yes. If you think of him as The unlimited entity many do.
Especially if you believe The punishment for being created The way he chose to create you means hell.
And even if you think non christians won't be punished if they are good people, it still remains a strange choice to create The world in this way and not a better, christian one. It would have literaly taken him no more effort, not taken away free will and have caused less grief and have had him accomplish more of his alledged goal of forming a personal relationship with everyone.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 10:50:24 AM
She had never been baptized. Hitler, as a Catholic, had.
Formal baptism is not a requirement for entrance into heaven.
Desire for baptism would suffice, and that desire may be either
explicit or
implicit. Here's an explanation:
QuoteCatholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.
How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, "Doc, you've got to give me something to help me get well!" The doctor looks at his chart and says, "Oh, what you want is penicillin. That's the right drug for you." In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better -- whatever that drug might be -- and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: "What you want is penicillin." This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it is.
A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.
Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non-Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Pius XII stated that concerning some of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).
How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, "Doc, I'm real sick, and you've got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better." But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, "No, you don't want that; what you really want is penicillin." In this case the person's primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.
As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth -- wherever that might be found -- rather than his primary desire being membership in a non-Catholic church.
However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non-Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.
Taken from:
The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447
Didn't see anything in Anne Frank's diary implying a desire to be baptized ... Read it ages ago, maybe I'm forgetting. She was Jewish, wasn't she?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 10:52:37 AM
Yes. If you think of him as The unlimited entity many do.
Especially if you believe The punishment for being created The way he chose to create you means hell.
And even if you think non christians won't be punished if they are good people, it still remains a strange choice to create The world in this way and not a better, christian one. It would have literatuur taken him no more effort, not taken away free will and have caused less grief and have had him accomplish more of his alledged goal of forming a personal relationship with everyone.
You have raised a really good point...one that has been debated for a long time. Rather than try to give you a brief response of my own, I'd like to offer a link to an article which is not too long but addresses your concern reasonably well.
ISN’T IT PERVERSE TO CREATE A PERSON, KNOWING HE WILL BE DAMNED?http://rcspirituality.org/ask-a-priest-isnt-it-perverse-to-create-a-person-knowing-he-will-be-damned/
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 08:32:21 AM
I agree. Memes are the last gasp effort of the intellectually bankrupt.
I don't know your financial situation but you are not an intellectual ;-) A picture is worth a thousand words, or do you dismiss China?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
You have raised a really good point...one that has been debated for a long time. Rather than try to give you a brief response of my own, I'd like to offer a link to an article which is not too long but addresses your concern reasonably well.
ISN’T IT PERVERSE TO CREATE A PERSON, KNOWING HE WILL BE DAMNED?
http://rcspirituality.org/ask-a-priest-isnt-it-perverse-to-create-a-person-knowing-he-will-be-damned/
When do you find the time?! You've got more of this crap pasted all over here than Home Depot has wallpaper. Just copying and pasting this much stuff has to take 20 hours/day. You can't read it all.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 11:03:04 AM
Didn't see anything in Anne Frank's diary implying a desire to be baptized ... Read it ages ago, maybe I'm forgetting. She was Jewish, wasn't she?
Both Anne Frank and you have a desire for good things. You also distinguish between good and gooder and gooder and goodest. Thus, you want the goodest things above all.
God is the goodest of all, and desiring him is normal and natural.
Now, although Anne and you may not have an explicit desire, "I want to be baptized", you do have an implicit desire to obtain the Goodest which is God.
Therefore, if you KNEW that baptism was the means to obtaining the goodest, you would desire baptism immediately upon learning of it.
As a Jewess, Anne would have already known of the Goodest, and presumably, she desired it.
As an atheist, there is more work to be done before you can explicitly desire baptism, but the implicit desire for God is already within you.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 11:13:16 AM
When do you find the time?! You've got more of this crap pasted all over here than Home Depot has wallpaper. Just copying and pasting this much stuff has to take 20 hours/day. You can't read it all.
You asked. I Googled, read and posted.
I wouldn't post something I hadn't vetted first because I have to defend what I post.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 10:01:46 AM
But that's not what happened. God created us in order to know and love him and to know His love in return.
However, because we had free will, we were separated from God by what theologians call "original sin". This makes it harder for us to "see the light" but not impossible.
Whether we will search for that light or not is still our choice.
Yes, G-d is into hideous synchophancy and self-regard. Not a positive attribute in anyone. I am glad there is some ordinary separation between creation and creator ... the idea of G-d watching me take a crap, like the poor toilet paper holder (TV commercials in the US recently) is pretty creepy, even more than Jerry Sandusky. Fortunately my big turd didn't stop up my toilet this morning as it sometimes does ... I prayed real hard while the toilet drain was choking on it. Nothing worse than a backed up toilet that spills over onto the floor, to remind you how great Hell would be like. G-d helps those who help themselves ... so I was not only observant, I had the plunger ready to go, and my hand near the water valve to cut the water pressure.
Raspberries. As a Jew, she would have objected to being baptized.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Both Anne Frank and you have a desire for good things. You also distinguish between good and gooder and gooder and goodest. Thus, you want the goodest things above all.
God is the goodest of all, and desiring him is normal and natural.
Now, although Anne and you may not have an explicit desire, "I want to be baptized", you do have an implicit desire to obtain the Goodest which is God.
Therefore, if you KNEW that baptism was the means to obtaining the goodest, you would desire baptism immediately upon learning of it.
As a Jewess, Anne would have already known of the Goodest, and presumably, she desired it.
As an atheist, there is more work to be done before you can explicitly desire baptism, but the implicit desire for God is already within you.
That was borrowed from Plato quoting Socrates. Socrates' theory of education. We all desire to know the truth and goodness, and once we know it, we don't let go of it. Are Socrates and Plato saints? Early Church Fathers thought so (some of them). Which is to say, good epistemology produces good ethics.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 11:18:33 AM
Raspberries. As a Jew, she would have objected to being baptized.
Correct, that and she would have needed to stop having lesbian feelings, or be a hypocrite. The idea that all people, and Jews in particular, secretly want to be Catholics ... is pretty psycho. Many of the Germans who arrested people like her, were Catholics and Lutherans, they weren't all secret Pagans.
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2016, 11:22:36 AM
Correct, that and she would have needed to stop having lesbian feelings, or be a hypocrite. The idea that all people, and Jews in particular, secretly want to be Catholics ... is pretty psycho. Many of the Germans who arrested people like her, were Catholics and Lutherans, they weren't all secret Pagans.
I don't know how I missed your post about the turd and the toilet backing up - that was terrific ... Somehow, I would want God to watch that, from underneath, you know ...
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 11:18:33 AM
Raspberries. As a Jew, she would have objected to being baptized.
If she understood the role of baptism in God's plan of salvation, why would she object?
Why would you?
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 11:30:24 AM
I don't know how I missed your post about the turd and the toilet backing up - that was terrific ... Somehow, I would want God to watch that, from underneath, you know ...
If you think G-d is a male perve ... then it is worse for women!!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:36:16 AM
If she understood the role of baptism in God's plan of salvation, why would she object?
Why would you?
I don't, I actually believe in free will ... and not predetermination or predestination. People will do what people will do. If some Catholics want to become Jewish, we will say no three times (the rabbinic requirement for people wanting to join). We don't believe today, that non-Jews go to Hell. Of course back in the pagan days, everyone went to Hades (I don't count Elysium) ... which was kind of like Hell (which is actually Nordic and cold), but without the Pythagorean and post-Noah stuff about the world being destroyed by fire (and quoted by Jesus also). This also ties into the Olympian apocalypse of the Titans being let out of Tartarus (the lowest prison of Hades). How did you like the Christianizing of the Heracles myth, in the Disney version?
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2016, 11:43:13 AM
I don't, I actually believe in free will ... and not predetermination or predestination. People will do what people will do. If some Catholics want to become Jewish, we will say no three times (the rabbinic requirement for people wanting to join). We don't believe today, that non-Jews go to Hell. Of course back in the pagan days, everyone went to Hades (I don't count Elysium) ... which was kind of like Hell (which is actually Nordic and cold), but without the Pythagorean and post-Noah stuff about the world being destroyed by fire (and quoted by Jesus also). This also ties into the Olympian apocalypse of the Titans being let out of Tartarus (the lowest prison of Hades). How did you like the Christianizing of the Heracles myth, in the Disney version?
LOL!! Or the Gilgamesh, Ziusudra, Diodorus, Mises (Bacchus), Sargon, Pandora, Attis of Frigia, Dionysus, Hesperides, Enuma Elish myths (just to name a few) which were conveniently adapted by the monotheists. Stolen is the better word. Simple proof that the whole religious hoopla is man made. A god that sends a winged angel from the clouds to repeat and spread other people's stories? Pathetically stupid. And it worked for the longest time, through coercion and torture. Even 150 years ago, yesterday in historical terms, a discussion about the truth and morality of religion would have been plausible. But in the past there were very few atheists because of a natural aversion of being incinerated alive. Today we have moved on from this barbaric practice but many have not moved on with their intellect. But considering the latest poll shows us that there are over 60 million atheists in the US, from virtually zero in the past, and we are the fastest growing group, not all hope is lost. Canada and Europe has accomplished even more disdain towards organized superstition, the numbers are very encouraging.
The US, with about 80% of gullibility is the most religious country in the developed world. Stands to reason that they are also ahead in all areas concerning morality, right???? Not!
Number 1 in:
Teenage pregnancy
Abortion
Murder rates
Incarceration rates
Divorce rates
...and # 27 in education. Of the 50 poorest and most corrupt countries, ALL of them are theocracies.
Thank goodness many have a moral compass
despite religious bullshit.
Organized religion morality=do what I say, not what I do.
Oh ya. More religion = less human rights + lower stand of living.
Quote from: Jason78 on May 15, 2016, 04:59:07 AM
Surely if I don't believe in your god, then that's a failure on your gods part, not mine.
Well I hit you real quick.
Ok I'd be willing to bet that at sometime in your life and this is for most atheists I think. That at one point in your life you did believe in God, and then at another point you started to deny God's existence.
That being said there's a verse in God's word that says something to the effect of "for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie".
So you see I believe most of you are under this strong delusion sent by God as punishment for your foolishness.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 09:21:39 AM
The Teacher isn't an allpowerfull, allknowing creator of everything. Therein lies The difference.
I just answered this to another guy grasshopper.
" And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie".
My Sig... No Google lol
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 02:47:56 PM
I just answered this to another guy grasshopper.
" And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie".
My Sig... No Google lol
So, because we don't believe in god, he is making us not believe in god.
Brilliant.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 10:03:17 AM
No,no that's the 'free will' the flock always talks about. Either you buy into this crap or be incinerated not for a year, not for 20 years, not for a 100 years..but for ETERNITY!!! No such thing in the OT, only loving Jesus came up with a "just" punishment. But he loves us anyways, lol! The stupidity of it all is frightening.
That reminds me of a criminal standing in court accused of robbing an old man at gunpoint and shooting him because the old geezer refused to hand over his wallet. The defense argued that the robber gave the victim a choice, free will, either to hand over his money or get shot. A perfectly plausible defense...in the fantasy world of the pious!
I only read a couple sentences of what you had to say.
But from that I can tell this is something a lot of you need to hear.
When we are talking about the creator of all! Do you people truly think that your going to sit in front of God and speak your mind of how he's.doing us.wrong lol I put it like this there are a lot of men on this earth that can make you drop your pants when they say to and make you clip there toenails and dress you up like a woman and make you dance for them. And you can be a very straight man and be made do these things, it happens in prison every day.
So if a man can do this to you and you be in so much fear of him that you would never think of questioning what he.says but you know the consequence.
How much more terrifying is the one who controls your eternal destination! The one who can put you in Hell for a eternity of torture! And you think your going to cop off at the mouth to God lmao who is deluded in there thinking here?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 10:20:44 AM
So is god incapable of creating a creation in which he knows all his creations will choose to live by his code and come to accept him of their free will?
Free will does nothing about this problem if your creator is allpowerfull and allknowing.
Grasshopper this again goes with another one I just made a statement on read it. It has to do with you becoming a prison sissy. Lol
In other words how nuts are u ppl to question someone with the power to control your eternal destination!
You wouldn't walk up to Kim Jung un with a attitude bcuz he'd feed you to the dog's.
Yet it is so much more of a mistake to think your going to tell God about himself. My point is even if God was a maniac which he's not he's pure holy, but if he was who would ever be dumb enough to question someone with that kind of power.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 03:14:55 PM
Grasshopper this again goes with another one I just made a statement on read it. It has to do with you becoming a prison sissy. Lol
In other words how nuts are u ppl to question someone with the power to control your eternal destination!
You wouldn't walk up to Kim Jung un with a attitude bcuz he'd feed you to the dog's.
Yet it is so much more of a mistake to think your going to tell God about himself. My point is even if God was a maniac which he's not he's pure holy, but if he was who would ever be dumb enough to question someone with that kind of power.
Speak truth to power ... but use someone else's voice to deliver it ;-)
Quote from: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 10:24:20 AM
In my personal experience being harassed by Mennonite Brethren and other bible thumpers. Most are so low IQ, they have no idea how a smart person thinks. Their idea of intelligence: lie and cheat to fool normal people. WOW, what an accomplishment.
Iq is basic problem solving. I'm not even going to tell you mine because you won't believe me for 1 and another it's pointless the knowledge I'm speaking of is such higher caliber than iq.
Quote from: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 10:31:10 AM
WOW! Rape on friday, magic jesus words on sunday, then it's all OK? Is that how it works?
So you.don't understand freewill. You.don't understand guilt. You don't understand repentance the earthly kind nor the Godly sorrow kind. You don't understand the desires of the heart nor the want and need to cleanse the evil desires and not only cleanse but also to de root the desire. So you may never be a repeat offender.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2016, 10:42:04 AM
Right after Adolf Hitler. Anne Frank, on the other hand, couldn't get in.
Good people in the eyes of the world are going to.hell at the rate of me texting per letter!
God knows your heart and if you choose not to believe pre pare for the punishment.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 10:52:37 AM
Yes. If you think of him as The unlimited entity many do.
Especially if you believe The punishment for being created The way he chose to create you means hell.
And even if you think non christians won't be punished if they are good people, it still remains a strange choice to create The world in this way and not a better, christian one. It would have literaly taken him no more effort, not taken away free will and have caused less grief and have had him accomplish more of his alledged goal of forming a personal relationship with everyone.
Here again talking about a strange choice to someone with that much power is foolish.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 11:03:04 AM
Didn't see anything in Anne Frank's diary implying a desire to be baptized ... Read it ages ago, maybe I'm forgetting. She was Jewish, wasn't she?
I'm glad you can judge a person's hearts.desires from what they wrote in a diary.
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2016, 11:09:29 AM
I don't know your financial situation but you are not an intellectual ;-) A picture is worth a thousand words, or do you dismiss China?
But it's the true reflection of that picture that.is talking..
In these posters these men reply with they want me to.read the little words within.
When all I saw was a small bald atheist man crying on a woman shoulder bc he do sent know God nor any truth.
I can see how that can drive one crazy.
"How much more terrifying is the one who controls your eternal destination! The one who can put you in Hell for a eternity of torture! And you think your going to cop off at the mouth to God lmao who is deluded in there thinking here?"
Yes, yes, yes! Terrifying!! But he loves us sooo much!!! Hi again Randy Carson. Have some of the cool aid.
The perfect definition of sado-masochism: to love the one we are terrified of.
So much love, so much terror, lol
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 03:42:55 PM
But it's the true reflection of that picture that.is talking..
In these posters these men reply with they want me to.read the little words within.
When all I saw was a small bald atheist man crying on a woman shoulder bc he do sent know God nor any truth.
I can see how that can drive one crazy.
Now try that in english...
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2016, 11:20:53 AM
That was borrowed from Plato quoting Socrates. Socrates' theory of education. We all desire to know the truth and goodness, and once we know it, we don't let go of it. Are Socrates and Plato saints? Early Church Fathers thought so (some of them). Which is to say, good epistemology produces good ethics.
I have never read what you quoted from Plato about once you know the truth you don't want to let it go. It's.very true and that's how I feel. I feel so blessed to know and I said to KNOW these truths about life and I hold them very close to my heart and since God started blessing me with little nuggets I hunger for more and more.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 11:30:24 AM
I don't know how I missed your post about the turd and the toilet backing up - that was terrific ... Somehow, I would want God to watch that, from underneath, you know ...
You know.hell is going to.hurt literally worse than any pain none to man on earth. Your body has no fluids but you still experience full pain you will call for.death every second. Hopelessness runs deep within your soul. You will wish for only a single.drop of water.on the tongue. The smell will torture you in its self.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 03:02:22 PM
So, because we don't believe in god, he is making us not believe in god.
Brilliant.
Because at one time or.another you.denied what.You knew was true now your under.a.strong delusion.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
You have raised a really good point...one that has been debated for a long time. Rather than try to give you a brief response of my own, I'd like to offer a link to an article which is not too long but addresses your concern reasonably well.
ISN’T IT PERVERSE TO CREATE A PERSON, KNOWING HE WILL BE DAMNED?
http://rcspirituality.org/ask-a-priest-isnt-it-perverse-to-create-a-person-knowing-he-will-be-damned/
After reading the article, all I can say is that, with all due respect, it doesn't think about the question in it's entirety.
God could have created a world in which all souls would have reasoned to choose to live by his will, without this breaking their free will. God choosing in advance to create this particular reality above anyother he would've known have not led to damned souls with his omniscience and he could've made with his omnipotence, means he willfully chose for others to freely choose poorly rather than freely choose wisely. If you keep that in mind, you'll find why I find just about everything in the article lacking.
And you'll see that where the author starts talking about predestination, he's just dead wrong. God presumably did decide ahead of time. He has an infinite amount of realities he can create. And he chooses one out of all of these, knowing in advance what it'll entail. You can say we have free will in this one, and if you call our actions free will I'm not even going to argue because that's not the point as long as you realize in any other creation he could've created we could've been created with the same amount of free will but have chosen differently.
If God knows out of all of infinite posibilities what his choice will lead to, by choosing which he thinks is best: he does cause it and decide it. He is the prime mover, after all, and an all-knowing one at that.
And the analogies falls short for the same reason yours with the teacher did; because they concider limited people, not an unlimited god. It is that limitless omniscience, omnipotence and being the creator of all things that forms the very problem. Of course it won't translate if you take those properties away. (Also, to make it somewhat relevant, you should have it be that you know in advance that if you give your neighbour the bottle he's going to throw it out of the window or that if you know in advance your son is going to be completely unhappy for his entire life or in constant pain his entire life or even be a horrible person his entire life. That's the things you can't know in advance, but that's because you're human.) So this does not add anything you hadn't argued before.
In my honest opinion, Randy, the article doesn't do anything to further your point beyond what you've already said. And, in my view, it does something I've seen many christians do when I put this conundrum to them. It rapidly and perhaps even subconsciously flips between dropping one of three traits: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence (this last one trait appears in the article through the quote: “Indeed, he “wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth†(1 Timothy 2:4)â€), whilst declaring all three can be in perfect harmony. However if you factor in reality, unless I'm missing something essential here, it looks like at least one of them's got to go.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 03:46:23 PM
"How much more terrifying is the one who controls your eternal destination! The one who can put you in Hell for a eternity of torture! And you think your going to cop off at the mouth to God lmao who is deluded in there thinking here?"
Yes, yes, yes! Terrifying!! But he loves us sooo much!!! Hi again Randy Carson. Have some of the cool aid.
The perfect definition of sado-masochism: to love the one we are terrified of.
So much love, so much terror, lol
Does it matter if he loves you when he.has that kind of power? Or.do you stfu and does.as your told lil peon. Him loving us is great but he.doesn't have to.fool. For the.things I've done I don't deserve God's love yet I can feel he loves me and I also truly love him.
You see I'm a rambunctious dog that likes to get into some trouble, but I love my owner and if any1 messes with.Him I'm going to bite there.ass.
You have.some other dogs that have grown to full maturity that have gotten to the point of hardly ever making a mistake if they do there small things. They are fully loyal to there owner.
there's some dogs who have turned on there owner ran away from home bitten the hand that feeds them.
What kind of dog are you?
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 03:14:55 PM
Grasshopper this again goes with another one I just made a statement on read it. It has to do with you becoming a prison sissy. Lol
In other words how nuts are u ppl to question someone with the power to control your eternal destination!
You wouldn't walk up to Kim Jung un with a attitude bcuz he'd feed you to the dog's.
Yet it is so much more of a mistake to think your going to tell God about himself. My point is even if God was a maniac which he's not he's pure holy, but if he was who would ever be dumb enough to question someone with that kind of power.
Concider this a reply to all your further replies to me so far. Otherwise this thing is going to get real confusing and disorienting real quick.
You already know my position on your quote on the delusion bit, as you responded to it by basically repeating yourself. If you can't offer new insights, I can't either.
And all I want to say about this quote above and the ones in the same fashion but shorter down the line; if you think power is what it makes that you're worthy of prayer and worship, I feel sorry for you. Even though you admitting to being willing to do the bidding of an immoral psychopath rather than showing some backbone and standing for what you feel is right, if that were the case even if you don't believe it is what is actually true, does envoke a great deal of revulsion too. But the overwhelming feeling here is pity.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
Does it matter if he loves you when he.has that kind of power? Or.do you stfu and does.as your told lil peon. Him loving us is great but he.doesn't have to.fool. For the.things I've done I don't deserve God's love yet I can feel he loves me and I also truly love him.
You see I'm a rambunctious dog that likes to get into some trouble, but I love my owner and if any1 messes with.Him I'm going to bite there.ass.
You have.some other dogs that have grown to full maturity that have gotten to the point of hardly ever making a mistake if they do there small things. They are fully loyal to there owner.
there's some dogs who have turned on there owner ran away from home bitten the hand that feeds them.
What kind of dog are you?
Don't waste my time with your bullshit. I am not a doctor, I can't help you with your mental issues.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 04:24:38 PM
Concider this a reply to all your further replies to me so far. Otherwise this thing is kingdomoing to get real confusing and disorienting real quick.
You already know my position on your quote on the delusion bit, as you responded to it by basically repeating yourself. If you can't offer new insights, I can't either.
And all I want to say about this quote above and the ones in the same fashion but shorter down the line; if you think power is what it makes that you're worthy of prayer and worship, I feel sorry for you. Even though you admitting to being willing to do the bidding of an immoral psychopath rather than showing some backbone and standing for what you feel is right, if that were the case even if you don't believe it is what is actually true, does envoke a great deal of revulsion too. But the overwhelming feeling here is pity.
You were created.
Your back back bone is a result of being deceived. By the devil.
God created all things that means he even created wisdom knowledge and understanding.
God is all holy, God's mercy is beyond our thinking.
God has set up a wonderful kingdom for himself and all his people.
So it's a very easy choice for all people to see what.to.do in the situation.
Fear of God is the first step to knowledge and wisdom. Read the proverbs I love them.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 04:32:56 PM
Don't waste my time with your bullshit. I am not a doctor, I can't help you with your mental issues.
Shut down. Lol can't handle simple truths. If I'm crazy Damn it feels good.
Check mate
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 02:41:05 PM
Well I hit you real quick.
Ok I'd be willing to bet that at sometime in your life and this is for most atheists I think. That at one point in your life you did believe in God, and then at another point you started to deny God's existence.
That being said there's a verse in God's word that says something to the effect of "for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie".
So you see I believe most of you are under this strong delusion sent by God as punishment for your foolishness.
What a load of bullshit.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2016, 04:48:00 PM
What a load of bullshit.
That dude is even dumber than the other one, and that says a lot! A hero in his own infantile mind. I should dislike idiots like that but only feel pity.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 04:38:50 PM
You were created.
Your back back bone is a result of being deceived. By the devil.
God created all things that means he even created wisdom knowledge and understanding.
God is all holy, God's mercy is beyond our thinking.
God has set up a wonderful kingdom for himself and all his people.
So it's a very easy choice for all people to see what.to.do in the situation.
Fear of God is the first step to knowledge and wisdom. Read the proverbs I love them.
And now try again without all of the blank assertions.
I'm a different than most you hAve talked to? Do I stand out from the crowd?
Maybe this is what your mind is relating to crazy.
Like I'm not a.human I'm a Martian_ Lil Wayne
Hop up in this.spaceship and leave earth motherfucker I'm.gone I'm gone.
I am that spaceship.boy that.space ship is our soul.
Once you tap into your spiritual side You start.to.get enlightenment.
You never get.it.from books unless.it's.the.bible or.the necrnomicon and.You.don't want that.spiritual side.
I can get really spiritual.
Wisdom crieth without, she uttereth her voice in the streets:
She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates; in the city she uttereth her words saying,
How long ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?
And.the scorners delight in there scorning,and fools hate knowledge?
Turn you at my reproof, behold I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Bc I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
But ye have at nought all my counsel,and would none of my re proof,
I also will laugh at you calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind;
When distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord.
Proverbs baby I love em.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Samalivk=topic=10008.msg1132181#msg1132181 date=1463345280
What a load of bullshit.
You're response confirmed.it...
It's in Thessalonians I believe.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 04:38:50 PM
You were created.
If my created you mean born when the sperm cell from my donor father was given to one of my mums eggs then yes, I was 'created', but the only higher thought that created me was my mothers decision to go to the sperm clinic.
QuoteYour back back bone is a result of being deceived. By the devil.
do backbones have backs too? Also gods done worse shit then the devils done in your book.
QuoteGod created all things that means he even created wisdom knowledge and understanding.
So he also created brain eating parasites, cancer, harlequin babies and dementia. Why would I respect this cunt?
QuoteGod is all holy, God's mercy is beyond our thinking.
If he's beyond thinking then what is it you do in praying to him, being that the cognitive functions of thought would require you to get on your knees and pray.
QuoteGod has set up a wonderful kingdom for himself and all his people.
But anyone who doesn't bow to him isn't allow into his club. Okay, so atheists and all other religions aren't allowed in. But what about newborn children, who never had the chance to decide on if it believed in god? What about people born with mental deformities who can't communicate, and so can't pray to god, are those also going to burn in hell or float in limbo when they die?
Seems like the only people god wants is a certain class of people and no choice.
QuoteSo it's a very easy choice for all people to see what.to.do in the situation.
Yes, it is, if god was real, he'd be a grotesque entity who forced people to bow to him or be punished. When you meet someone in real life who makes you do this, like a dictator of a country, is bowing to them and giving up all your livelihood giving you reason to love them?
QuoteFear of God is the first step to knowledge and wisdom. Read the proverbs I love them.
so every person whos ever been in an abusive relationship should just take it and say they love their abuser?
Going back on what you think your made up sky daddy is, if god was what you say he is, then tell me this. My mother, well before I was born, when she was pregnant with her first child, her mother shoved her in a home, where my mum faced having to birth this child alone. The baby died when born, and my mum had to go though the grief of losing her first child without even her own mother their to support her.
If god was all loving, all knowing, all caring, why then, if he was real, didn't he give her some comfort, or send one of his multiple angels down.
Or where was your god when she had her second child, who developed cancer at age 12, and she had to go though the grief of losing her second child to a disease that your god created (which of course he didn't because he's not real). If your god was real, where was he then?
People like you have a lot to answer for all the grief innocent people go though, when you claim to have all the answers.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 04:52:28 PM
That dude is even dumber than the other one, and that says a lot! A hero in his own infantile mind. I should dislike idiots like that but only feel pity.
I pity you lil guy. Bc I know your going to Hell.
Which is why I come to atheist bc there the ones I know.for.a fact are going to hell.
Unless they start to believe.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 04:52:28 PM
That dude is even dumber than the other one, and that says a lot! A hero in his own infantile mind. I should dislike idiots like that but only feel pity.
A hero in my mind. That must be your feeling towards me.
In my mind I deserve death for things I've done.
In my mind I see my self as a peon the true lowly of the.earth.
Poor at heart.
Quote from: Munch on May 15, 2016, 05:17:02 PM
If my created you mean born when the sperm cell from my donor father was given to one of my mums eggs then yes, I was 'created', but the only higher thought that created me was my mothers decision to go to the sperm clinic.
do backbones have backs too? Also gods done worse shit then the devils done in your book.
So he also created brain eating parasites, cancer, harlequin babies and dementia. Why would I respect this cunt?
If he's beyond thinking then what is it you do in praying to him, being that the cognitive functions of thought would require you to get on your knees and pray.
But anyone who doesn't bow to him isn't allow into his club. Okay, so atheists and all other religions aren't allowed in. But what about newborn children, who never had the chance to decide on if it believed in god? What about people born with mental deformities who can't communicate, and so can't pray to god, are those also going to burn in hell or float in limbo when they die?
Seems like the only people god wants is a certain class of people and no choice.
Yes, it is, if god was real, he'd be a grotesque entity who forced people to bow to him or be punished. When you meet someone in real life who makes you do this, like a dictator of a country, is bowing to them and giving up all your livelihood giving you reason to love them?
so every person whos ever been in an abusive relationship should just take it and say they love their abuser?
Going back on what you think your made up sky daddy is, if god was what you say he is, then tell me this. My mother, well before I was born, when she was pregnant with her first child, her mother shoved her in a home, where my mum faced having to birth this child alone. The baby died when born, and my mum had to go though the grief of losing her first child without even her own mother their to support her.
If god was all loving, all knowing, all caring, why then, if he was real, didn't he give her some comfort, or send one of his multiple angels down.
Or where was your god when she had her second child, who developed cancer at age 12, and she had to go though the grief of losing her second child to a disease that your god created (which of course he didn't because he's not real). If your god was real, where was he then?
People like you have a lot to answer for all the grief innocent people go though, when you claim to have all the answers.
I can tell you just spewed out a bunch of rambling non Sence literally. Non sense.
So I.really didn't read much into it. Bc I'd be repeating what already been said.
A lot of your gay shit about cancer and diseases has a lot to do.with depopulation.thank men for that, Not to mention that.it would be better for these kids to die as children rather than live on and develop a way of thinking simular to yours and go to Hell as adults.
Read my post about Kim Jung and you being a prison sissy related to what you said about " you don't want nothing to do with a God like that" type phrase.
Also what you believe or don't believe does not mean your not going face God when your born. That's.how I refer to death now days just another birth.
And something I've always known for a fact within me has now been proven by science.
I have always known that the soul comes into the.mother at.the moment of conception not thought but known.
Now scientists have caught it on film at the moment of conception a actual light appears in the mothers belly.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 05:44:25 PM
I can tell you just spewed out a bunch of rambling non Sence literally. Non sense.
So I.really didn't read much into it. Bc I'd be repeating what already been said.
A lot of your gay shit about cancer and diseases has a lot to do.with depopulation.thank men for that, Not to mention that.it would be better for these kids to die as children rather than live on and develop a way of thinking simular to yours and go to Hell as adults.
Read my post about Kim Jung and you being a prison sissy related to what you said about " you don't want nothing to do with a God like that" type phrase.
Also what you believe or don't believe does not mean your not going face God when your born. That's.how I refer to death now days just another birth.
And something I've always known for a fact within me has now been proven by science.
I have always known that the soul comes into the.mother at.the moment of conception not thought but known.
Now scientists have caught it on film at the moment of conception a actual light appears in the mothers belly.
Damn bro I just read about that sperm clinic thing with you. And remembered I think they.said unnaturally born baby's don't have that light appear at conception. So you could be.missing something special within your self from the.beginning maybe that's why you can't see well.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 05:44:25 PM
I can tell you just spewed out a bunch of rambling non Sence literally. Non sense.
So I.really didn't read much into it. Bc I'd be repeating what already been said.
A lot of your gay shit about cancer and diseases has a lot to do.with depopulation.thank men for that, Not to mention that.it would be better for these kids to die as children rather than live on and develop a way of thinking simular to yours and go to Hell as adults.
Read my post about Kim Jung and you being a prison sissy related to what you said about " you don't want nothing to do with a God like that" type phrase.
Also what you believe or don't believe does not mean your not going face God when your born. That's.how I refer to death now days just another birth.
And something I've always known for a fact within me has now been proven by science.
I have always known that the soul comes into the.mother at.the moment of conception not thought but known.
Now scientists have caught it on film at the moment of conception a actual light appears in the mothers belly.
Just had to highlight that part.
(http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2014/07/6a00d8341c2ca253ef01a511df8ac4970c-450wi.gif)
Though you didn't once talk about the suffering my mother went through in losing two of her children, I'll just take it your wording of saying its better for kids to die then not believe in god.
I'll overlook the derogatory 'gay shit' remark a twelve year old would say, but anyone even making a statement about child should die then be christian makes you a cunt in every sense of the word.
We get fly by preachers here all the time, sometimes we get people who are able to talk about thei beliefs but not preach them, which is all you've done. Brunch is a theologian who studies faith, and is able to make good conversion without being preachy. You should learn to be more humble about what you believe instead of trying to force it on others.
Quote from: Munch on May 15, 2016, 05:59:47 PM
Just had to highlight that part.
(http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2014/07/6a00d8341c2ca253ef01a511df8ac4970c-450wi.gif)
From this poster I'm willing to bet you have watched gay pornography in your life.
Also read what I said about the other guy who sent me a picture of Jesse on breaking bad.
That summed it up pretty well.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 06:03:12 PM
From this poster I'm willing to bet you have watched gay pornography in your life.
Also read what I said about the other guy who sent me a picture of Jesse on breaking bad.
That summed it up pretty well.
I've not just watched gay porn, I've taken it in both ends mate.
Oh and if your assumption is that I'm gay because I came from a sperm donor, my brother came from the same donor, and is the married father of two children, so yeah, guess nature likes to mix things up beyond your gods plan.
Quote from: Munch on May 15, 2016, 06:05:52 PM
I've not just watched gay porn, I've taken it in both ends mate.
Oh and if your assumption is that I'm gay because I came from a sperm donor, my brother came from the same donor, and is the married father of two children, so yeah, guess nature likes to mix things up beyond your gods plan.
I think your gay because.of demons of perversion.
As for.your mother's suffering losing two kids that sucks.
But at the.same time there's another mother who watched her kids get raped and killed before.her.eyes.
So I.really don't know.where your.going with.the.suffering ordeal.
But I'll say this any mother that has had a.miscarriage has a child in heaven waiting on them
And any woman who lost a true child has kids in heaven.
If you lost some siblings and there were children at there.death you have.siblings in heaven.
But I was able to pick up through this lil screen you had a problem with perversion that's discernment.
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/fgTBAuYqvcGRqgJfM80e5w--/dz03MDU7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA--/http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Me507dd6e5cdc5b157413b547b8e3b950o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
Here is msa dash. Apologies to munch for its Herero nature but I could easily drum up some good gay for you if you have the desire. I out this here because it has more relevance and pleasure giving than any thoughts that knowing or "the creator" has. Please enjoy responsibily
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 06:20:25 PM
I think your gay because.of demons of perversion.
'Think' instead of 'know'?
You just surprised me in a good way. Keep up the progress.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on May 15, 2016, 06:28:25 PM
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/fgTBAuYqvcGRqgJfM80e5w--/dz03MDU7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA--/http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Me507dd6e5cdc5b157413b547b8e3b950o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
Here is msa dash. Apologies to munch for its Herero nature but I could easily drum up some good gay for you if you have the desire. I out this here because it has more relevance and pleasure giving than any thoughts that knowing or "the creator" has. Please enjoy responsibily
Oh don't worry Grin, if gods real, he made whoever drew the picture draw it, same as me made the dancing bears dance.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
I only read a couple sentences of what you had to say.
But from that I can tell this is something a lot of you need to hear.
When we are talking about the creator of all! Do you people truly think that your going to sit in front of God and speak your mind of how he's.doing us.wrong lol I put it like this there are a lot of men on this earth that can make you drop your pants when they say to and make you clip there toenails and dress you up like a woman and make you dance for them. And you can be a very straight man and be made do these things, it happens in prison every day.
So if a man can do this to you and you be in so much fear of him that you would never think of questioning what he.says but you know the consequence.
How much more terrifying is the one who controls your eternal destination! The one who can put you in Hell for a eternity of torture! And you think your going to cop off at the mouth to God lmao who is deluded in there thinking here?
You are one sick fuck--mental illness does not begin to cover it! You are so full of hate that it comes out of that shit-hole you call a mouth; yes, that seems to be what you label as god's love. christanity and fear--true bedfellows. You and your god deserve each other. don't bother to respond, I'm not going to respond to anything you say.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 06:31:23 PM
'Think' instead of 'know'?
You just surprised me in a good way. Keep up the progress.
He must have a gay-dar :O
8 minutes of a more fun side of the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh3wLT2nIr8
I'd never seen him before. That video was great. Thank you.
Quote from: Munch on May 15, 2016, 05:59:47 PM
Just had to highlight that part.
(http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2014/07/6a00d8341c2ca253ef01a511df8ac4970c-450wi.gif)
Though you didn't once talk about the suffering my mother went through in losing two of her children, I'll just take it your wording of saying its better for kids to die then not believe in god.
I'll overlook the derogatory 'gay shit' remark a twelve year old would say, but anyone even making a statement about child should die then be christian makes you a cunt in every sense of the word.
We get fly by preachers here all the time, sometimes we get people who are able to talk about thei beliefs but not preach them, which is all you've done. Brunch is a theologian who studies faith, and is able to make good conversion without being preachy. You should learn to be more humble about what you believe instead of trying to force it on others.
All right Munch! Glad to see our happy trio is back.
Quote from: stromboli on May 15, 2016, 07:47:15 PM
All right Munch! Glad to see our happy trio is back.
Bears just wanna be free.
Quote from: Munch on May 15, 2016, 07:53:41 PM
Bears just wanna be free.
I named the guy in front "Lumpy" :biggrin:
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 06:31:23 PM
'Think' instead of 'know'?
You just surprised me in a good way. Keep up the progress.
I know he's.gay due to a evil influence I think there is a spirit of perversion.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on May 15, 2016, 06:28:25 PM
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/fgTBAuYqvcGRqgJfM80e5w--/dz03MDU7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA--/http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Me507dd6e5cdc5b157413b547b8e3b950o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
Here is msa dash. Apologies to munch for its Herero nature but I could easily drum up some good gay for you if you have the desire. I out this here because it has more relevance and pleasure giving than any thoughts that knowing or "the creator" has. Please enjoy responsibily
Enjoy your next birth (death) you find your worldly desires wasn't worth it same for me to.
Quote from: Munch on May 15, 2016, 06:31:28 PM
Oh don't worry Grin, if gods real, he made whoever drew the picture draw it, same as me made the dancing bears dance.
Oh he's real brother. And me nor you would like the outcome if we was to die today. HELL.
I want everyone to know and understand more likely than not if I was to die tonight I would be going to Hell just like all of you. So understand if people say I have hatred on me or I'm mean and cold hearted. That maybe true I'm not born again Christian as I said on the first page.
I'm just showing you people how stupid your way of thinking is.
Even though I'm not saved I still have a relationship with God.
And so can any of.you.
And once you get that relationship you start feeling guilt of your sins some more than others.
And that's a good thing so maybe one day before we die we can be fully ready knowing completely were going to heaven.
And what's weird is I do love you all. And I just learned that yesterday.
I want to hear one person's argument with there not being a God.
I want to hear someone's Damn idea that is original and organic to themselves.
A idea about anything that is organic to you show me y'all have a Damn brain left.
Humans turned robots... just repeat what your told programmed.
It's ridiculous and sad.
A whole generation of blank brains.
No spiritual part of you any longer.
You think your flesh go deeper in yourselves and see.
I mean Damn I honestly have crushed every point y'all have come.up with.
So any1 reading this should see.who's.more in touch with truth about life me.
If I wasent y'all would be breaking me down.
This is the.difference between someone that does at least pray to the right God. And has a mind that is untouched by society. I questioned everything. I mean just like point I brought up about spelling. How no1 actually knows how to spell any word truly correct. You see how I'm digging under the.surface of every little thing you should try it.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 09:05:59 PM
I want to hear one person's argument with there not being a God.
Alright, here's an argument I've been using for years that I came up with myself.
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 08:29:08 PM
Oh he's real brother. And me nor you would like the outcome if we was to die today. HELL.
I want everyone to know and understand more likely than not if I was to die tonight I would be going to Hell just like all of you. So understand if people say I have hatred on me or I'm mean and cold hearted. That maybe true I'm not born again Christian as I said on the first page.
I'm just showing you people how stupid your way of thinking is.
Even though I'm not saved I still have a relationship with God.
And so can any of.you.
And once you get that relationship you start feeling guilt of your sins some more than others.
And that's a good thing so maybe one day before we die we can be fully ready knowing completely were going to heaven.
And what's weird is I do love you all. And I just learned that yesterday.
Wow! They must have come up w/some special radioactive evangelical ooze just to slop into a jug to make you, man. What inbred hillbilly nowhere did you roll down from? Why aren't you on a corner in Sodom - oh, I mean, Manhattan - preaching the End of Time, w/the rest of your kind? Why come here? You had to know that we were just going to make fun of you. Nobody here is going to buy your garbage! You're welcome to stay as comic relief - but that's all you are.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2016, 04:07:57 PM
After reading the article, all I can say is that, with all due respect, it doesn't think about the question in it's entirety.
God could have created a world in which all souls would have reasoned to choose to live by his will, without this breaking their free will. God choosing in advance to create this particular reality above anyother he would've known have not led to damned souls with his omniscience and he could've made with his omnipotence, means he willfully chose for others to freely choose poorly rather than freely choose wisely. If you keep that in mind, you'll find why I find just about everything in the article lacking.
And you'll see that where the author starts talking about predestination, he's just dead wrong. God presumably did decide ahead of time. He has an infinite amount of realities he can create. And he chooses one out of all of these, knowing in advance what it'll entail. You can say we have free will in this one, and if you call our actions free will I'm not even going to argue because that's not the point as long as you realize in any other creation he could've created we could've been created with the same amount of free will but have chosen differently.
If God knows out of all of infinite posibilities what his choice will lead to, by choosing which he thinks is best: he does cause it and decide it. He is the prime mover, after all, and an all-knowing one at that.
And the analogies falls short for the same reason yours with the teacher did; because they concider limited people, not an unlimited god. It is that limitless omniscience, omnipotence and being the creator of all things that forms the very problem. Of course it won't translate if you take those properties away. (Also, to make it somewhat relevant, you should have it be that you know in advance that if you give your neighbour the bottle he's going to throw it out of the window or that if you know in advance your son is going to be completely unhappy for his entire life or in constant pain his entire life or even be a horrible person his entire life. That's the things you can't know in advance, but that's because you're human.) So this does not add anything you hadn't argued before.
In my honest opinion, Randy, the article doesn't do anything to further your point beyond what you've already said. And, in my view, it does something I've seen many christians do when I put this conundrum to them. It rapidly and perhaps even subconsciously flips between dropping one of three traits: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence (this last one trait appears in the article through the quote: “Indeed, he “wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth†(1 Timothy 2:4)â€), whilst declaring all three can be in perfect harmony. However if you factor in reality, unless I'm missing something essential here, it looks like at least one of them's got to go.
I'm sorry you found it unsatisfying. Tell you what: State the problem or question briefly and clearly so that there is no uncertainty about the point you are trying to make, and I will pursue a more solid answer.
Fair enough?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 15, 2016, 09:10:10 PM
Alright, here's an argument I've been using for years that I came up with myself.
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.
I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.
Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.
The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.
Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.
tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Ok at least I can say you have done some thinking on your own that's a relief I'm sure you know how good that is in its self.
But that is no.argument for God not existing even if your calling him a programmer your still admitting there is a creator. Just as a chair will never gain a mind. Only mind can create matter.
You know I've seen entities that were for sure evil seen in the physical world. I've been put in awe with many different things I've seen with witnesses.
I've had a true experience with God as well with witnesses.
You know what makes us alive? You think it's out body parts? If that was true then we could take any dead body and fill.it with good working organs and needed parts and start the heart back up. But you can't bc it's our soul that is our life it's what starts our engine.
You can tell when the life has left a plant.
We live in a crazy realm right now. We're just pieces on a game board.
You know there is no way of denying the existence of God.
Everything is in a perfect cycle. I feel the earth it's self is like a giant timer set for its own end just as we are.
Once you develop a true realtionship with.God there's no more doubts.
Why do you think even the animals know that there's something special about us.
It's like there seeing a ghost every time we cross a wild animals path.
Bc we're very.similar to that of a ghost both spiritual entities.
Do you believe man named himself man?
Many things on earth were past down from the other dimension as we call it.
Who invented the mirror, armor and weapons? Who really showed us how to blacksmith?
Who showed women how to beautify there eye brows etc.
These are bad gifts past down from fallen.angels I believe.
Along with sorcery and witchcraft as well. And if you don't believe in a spiritual side start praying to God to reveal himself to you. And you can also get into.some Baal you don't need any belief for a demonic force to.show.himself to you thell come.
GOD has left his mark on everything us talking like this is otherworldly for real. What we are doing is not of this dimension.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 10:02:26 PM
Ok at least I can say you have done some thinking on your own that's a relief I'm sure you know how good that is in its self.
But that is no.argument for God not existing even if your calling him a programmer your still admitting there is a creator. Just as a chair will never gain a mind. Only mind can create matter.
You know I've seen entities that were for sure evil seen in the physical world. I've been put in awe with many different things I've seen with witnesses.
I've had a true experience with God as well with witnesses.
You know what makes us alive? You think it's out body parts? If that was true then we could take any dead body and fill.it with good working organs and needed parts and start the heart back up. But you can't bc it's our soul that is our life it's what starts our engine.
You can tell when the life has left a plant.
We live in a crazy realm right now. We're just pieces on a game board.
You know there is no way of denying the existence of God.
Everything is in a perfect cycle. I feel the earth it's self is like a giant timer set for its own end just as we are.
Once you develop a true realtionship with.God there's no more doubts.
Why do you think even the animals know that there's something special about us.
It's like there seeing a ghost every time we cross a wild animals path.
Bc we're very.similar to that of a ghost both spiritual entities.
Do you believe man named himself man?
Many things on earth were past down from the other dimension as we call it.
Who invented the mirror, armor and weapons? Who really showed us how to blacksmith?
Who showed women how to beautify there eye brows etc.
These are bad gifts past down from fallen.angels I believe.
Along with sorcery and witchcraft as well. And if you don't believe in a spiritual side start praying to God to reveal himself to you. And you can also get into.some Baal you don't need any belief for a demonic force to.show.himself to you thell come.
GOD has left his mark on everything us talking like this is otherworldly for real. What we are doing is not of this dimension.
Please turn this word salad into proper paragraphs so I can read it without having an aneurysm.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 15, 2016, 09:10:19 PM
Wow! They must have come up w/some special radioactive evangelical ooze just to slop into a jug to make you, man. What inbred hillbilly nowhere did you roll down from? Why aren't you on a corner in Sodom - oh, I mean, Manhattan - preaching the End of Time, w/the rest of your kind? Why come here? You had to know that we were just going to make fun of you. Nobody here is going to buy your garbage! You're welcome to stay as comic relief - but that's all you are.
Homeboy lol I'm not the type of guy that has thin skin. No1 can hurt my feelings.
I bust heads son. I Rob drug dealers, when i was 13 14 I'd wait for the weekend and put on snow gloves and beat down drunks coming out of bars. Real beatdowns lol take any cash on them.
I finished 8 th grade in a juveniles prison then had to.hit fostercare..
A big biker took our beer as kids 3 15 year olds sent that bitch to.the hospital.
My own uncle tried to literally kill me last year.
So make fun bro. Just know you'd get fucked man to man. I'd eat you. Lol lol fat nerdy sob hahaha ull get.fked up in my world
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 15, 2016, 10:06:28 PM
Please turn this word salad into proper paragraphs so I can read it without having an aneurysm.
I'm on a shit phone bro. Please just copy paste and word wrap.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 10:16:49 PM
I'm on a shit phone bro.
I've written goddamn essays on my phone. Get on my level.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 10:12:30 PM
Homeboy lol I'm not the type of guy that has thin skin. No1 can hurt my feelings.
I bust heads son. I Rob drug dealers, when i was 13 14 I'd wait for the weekend and put on snow gloves and beat down drunks coming out of bars. Real beatdowns lol take any cash on them.
I finished 8 th grade in a juveniles prison then had to.hit fostercare..
A big biker took our beer as kids 3 15 year olds sent that bitch to.the hospital.
My own uncle tried to literally kill me last year.
So make fun bro. Just know you'd get fucked man to man. I'd eat you. Lol lol fat nerdy sob hahaha ull get.fked up in my world
And then you found god, lol. That post just about sums up your intelligence. You come from a solid background and loving family... Dim yes, but god's fan club needs dolts like you.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 15, 2016, 10:18:39 PM
I've written goddamn essays on my phone. Get on my level.
Get on my level school boy. You can't even read with out a perfect paragraph. Hahaha.
Oh I'm glad your good with a cell phone too great accomplishment. Lol you see the type of shit y'all hit me with corny as fuck.
You probably can't change a tire.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 10:25:48 PM
And then you found god, lol. That post just about sums up your intelligence. You come from a solid background and loving family... Dim yes, but god's fan club needs dolts like you.
another man that has no clue about how to.gauge ones intelligence. I could say I was smarter for the things I've done better instincts of survival. The type of guy that would be the ruler if this web site was are planet. With brute force were both starving after a plane crash in the wilderness. I just took your shit I beat you down and took it. Who's gon die of starvation first? I'll kill you and eat you and whhhhhayyy cry I'm mean lol and all this is of evil of course. But you won't be thinking I'm stupid when I'm eating your.lunch. you'll look real stupid over there crying and hungry.
But real knowledge would be to pray in a time like that so God will keep us all fed as he does the birds. And ask that he makes sure all of us return home safe.
Ok I'm hearing y'all talk about a bunch of non seance y'all have chose to learn about big words etc.
Nothing useful at all from what I'm hearing.
Can any of you build something can you fix a leaking roof. Can you grow.A garden?
Can you cook from scratch?
Do y'all know. How to do anything useful in life?
Bc I'd.like to understand each of you individually.
How.was yalls life growing up?
Y'all just in a big like feud with me lol
What type of life experiences have y'all had?
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 10:44:01 PM
another man that has no clue about how to.gauge ones intelligence. I could say I was smarter for the things I've done better instincts of survival. The type of guy that would be the ruler if this web site was are planet. With brute force were both starving after a plane crash in the wilderness. I just took your shit I beat you down and took it. Who's gon die of starvation first? I'll kill you and eat you and whhhhhayyy cry I'm mean lol and all this is of evil of course. But you won't be thinking I'm stupid when I'm eating your.lunch. you'll look real stupid over there crying and hungry.
But real knowledge would be to pray in a time like that so God will keep us all fed as he does the birds. And ask that he makes sure all of us return home safe.
Please up your meds. Nobody can help you here.
Quote from: reasonist on May 15, 2016, 11:12:58 PM
Please up your meds. Nobody can help you here.
Get off yours. You can't see reality of what I just told you.
You just go into denial no comments on what was said just your crazy lol
That means you've been beat. You lost this debate
You all.have lost this debate.
And I have to say you all have the least personality among humans that I've met.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 10:12:30 PM
Homeboy lol I'm not the type of guy that has thin skin. No1 can hurt my feelings.
I bust heads son. I Rob drug dealers, when i was 13 14 I'd wait for the weekend and put on snow gloves and beat down drunks coming out of bars. Real beatdowns lol take any cash on them.
I finished 8 th grade in a juveniles prison then had to.hit fostercare..
A big biker took our beer as kids 3 15 year olds sent that bitch to.the hospital.
My own uncle tried to literally kill me last year.
So make fun bro. Just know you'd get fucked man to man. I'd eat you. Lol lol fat nerdy sob hahaha ull get.fked up in my world
:letsparty: He performs on cue!
You wouldn't get anywhere near me, asshole, I live in a completely protected environment. My sister's got the one thing you haven't got - money. Yeah, you fight the state troopers that would lock your ass up if you even set foot on the property. Threaten away, ass-wipe. It's meaningless. Yeah, I'm a sissy, who hides behind his rich sister - what can you do about it? The state troopers would cart you off, after the security guards had beaten you to a pulp. Come on, tough guy, take on some hulking ex-marines. One of them has 41 confirmed kills to his credit.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 10:16:49 PM
I'm on a shit phone bro. Please just copy paste and word wrap.
You use a telephone? Isn't that considered witchcraft according to your "Good Book"?
We might have to burn this witch at the stake soon, guys...
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 08:17:22 PM
I know he's.gay due to a evil influence I think there is a spirit of perversion.
Aaaaaand we're back to zero.
I'll just take this opportunity to also semi-adres The general gist of Some of your further posts.
You want to hear an argument for there not being a god? You've got it backwards. Even though one can use Some logical fallicies to discredit this possibility, atheism is first and foremost warranted by The arguments to The contrary being unfounded. There is nothing that proves The existance of Gods, so there is no reason to believe in them. Look at all your previous Posts; is there any argument for your claim that isn't at best an empty assertion and at worst a hatefull threat/promise. No, so that brings us back to atheism as The default position.
Now, while i can't disprove te possibility of there being a creator of this universe, and don't need to because The burden of proof is on you, i can State why even if there were one i'd very much doubt it was one like i as a former catholic used to Believe in. In essence, it's part of the problem i'm painting to Randy; omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence as traits for this creator don't go with The reality we encounter.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 15, 2016, 09:37:06 PM
I'm sorry you found it unsatisfying. Tell you what: State the problem or question briefly and clearly so that there is no uncertainty about the point you are trying to make, and I will pursue a more solid answer.
Fair enough?
Fair enough. But it's not that article didn't adress the problem so I think you've got the right 'thing you're looking for', it's that in discussing it, it failed to keep in mind the assigned attributes to God. And I think there is a solid answer, it's just not one theists who claim their God to be an omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent creator of everything want, which is why they keep switching out and in these attributes rather than looking at them all at once in accordance with the reality around us. It's that while this problem does not prove there is no creator, it does imply that at least one of the traits does not apply.
I'll do my best to keep it clear.
God could have created any reality or world he could've wanted, there is unlimited potential through his omnipotence. Not only that, but with his omniscience he knows exactly in however a way he creates his creation, what kind of effect it will have on it's people; he knows in advance what any of them will choose. This means that creating a world in which some choose to turn away from him or not come to accept him or choose to do evil things has no less 'free will' than one in which everyone chooses to turn to him and accept him and chooses not do evil things. This means that if God would want everyone to turn to him of their own free will and come to accept him of their own free will and do good things of their own free will, as he is said to want, there is no reason that he would create a world in which this would not come to happen.
So either, if there is a creator of everything, he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime. Or he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will. Or he knew how, but couldn't. Unless I'm missing something very vital here, while I can't prove there is no deity that created the world (and I'm not trying to), it seems the omnibenovelent, omniscient and omnipotent variety simply does not hold up to the reality we witness around us.
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/N.WeLIGzKdOkWN8Qs2TCbg--/dz03MDU7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA--/http://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mf531ced17586a9a43d0fdd7bce322c60o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
Oh dude he's serious. Talking about the afterlife and shit. I better become religious now and be kind to everyone and preach the creators glory
Oh wait
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/1Ubq64SpkhBv0jKkAhCwGQ--/dz03MDU7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA--/http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M0466150053206f62cb0804f59d6594beo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
I don't care.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2016, 06:07:44 AM
Fair enough. But it's not that article didn't adress the problem so I think you've got the right 'thing you're looking for', it's that in discussing it, it failed to keep in mind the assigned attributes to God. And I think there is a solid answer, it's just not one theists who claim their God to be an omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent creator of everything want, which is why they keep switching out and in these attributes rather than looking at them all at once in accordance with the reality around us. It's that while this problem does not prove there is no creator, it does imply that at least one of the traits does not apply.
I'll do my best to keep it clear.
God could have created any reality or world he could've wanted, there is unlimited potential through his omnipotence. Not only that, but with his omniscience he knows exactly in however a way he creates his creation, what kind of effect it will have on it's people; he knows in advance what any of them will choose. This means that creating a world in which some choose to turn away from him or not come to accept him or choose to do evil things has no less 'free will' than one in which everyone chooses to turn to him and accept him and chooses not do evil things. This means that if God would want everyone to turn to him of their own free will and come to accept him of their own free will and do good things of their own free will, as he is said to want, there is no reason that he would create a world in which this would not come to happen.
So either, if there is a creator of everything, he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime. Or he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will. Or he knew how, but couldn't. Unless I'm missing something very vital here, while I can't prove there is no deity that created the world (and I'm not trying to), it seems the omnibenovelent, omniscient and omnipotent variety simply does not hold up to the reality we witness around us.
This is a variation of the classic "Problem of Evil" argument.
I have printed out your last two paragraphs so that I can mull over the reply.
(I'm old school. Or just old.)
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 16, 2016, 07:44:36 AM
Thanks. I have printed out your last two paragraphs so that I can mull it over more carefully.
(I'm old school. Or just old.)
(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Thank you for being polite, unlike Knowing. I won't tease you any more. I was just teasing you, you know.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 16, 2016, 02:40:09 AM
You use a telephone? Isn't that considered witchcraft according to your "Good Book"?
We might have to burn this witch at the stake soon, guys...
Let's do it!
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 11:42:25 PM
Get off yours. You can't see reality of what I just told you.
You just go into denial no comments on what was said just your crazy lol
That means you've been beat. You lost this debate
You all.have lost this debate.
And I have to say you all have the least personality among humans that I've met.
Good. No point in you hanging out here then. Ciao
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2016, 06:07:44 AM
Fair enough. But it's not that article didn't adress the problem so I think you've got the right 'thing you're looking for', it's that in discussing it, it failed to keep in mind the assigned attributes to God. And I think there is a solid answer, it's just not one theists who claim their God to be an omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent creator of everything want, which is why they keep switching out and in these attributes rather than looking at them all at once in accordance with the reality around us. It's that while this problem does not prove there is no creator, it does imply that at least one of the traits does not apply.
I'll do my best to keep it clear.
God could have created any reality or world he could've wanted, there is unlimited potential through his omnipotence. Not only that, but with his omniscience he knows exactly in however a way he creates his creation, what kind of effect it will have on it's people; he knows in advance what any of them will choose. This means that creating a world in which some choose to turn away from him or not come to accept him or choose to do evil things has no less 'free will' than one in which everyone chooses to turn to him and accept him and chooses not do evil things. This means that if God would want everyone to turn to him of their own free will and come to accept him of their own free will and do good things of their own free will, as he is said to want, there is no reason that he would create a world in which this would not come to happen.
So either, if there is a creator of everything, he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime. Or he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will. Or he knew how, but couldn't. Unless I'm missing something very vital here, while I can't prove there is no deity that created the world (and I'm not trying to), it seems the omnibenovelent, omniscient and omnipotent variety simply does not hold up to the reality we witness around us.
Okay, I think I'm ready. We'll see. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Your argument appears to be a variation of the classic Problem of Evil, and it can be expressed like this:
1. God wants everyone to come to know him in this life.
2. God knows how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.
3. God could create a such a world.
4. But not everyone comes to know God in this life.
5. Therefore, either God does not want everyone to know him or He does not know how to create such a world or He cannot create such a world.
The problem is in your second premise where you wrote, "
he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will."
Alvin Plantinga is credited by most philosophers today as having finally refuted the Problem of Evil argument. Plantinga is above MY pay grade, but my understanding of his argument, as it deals with this variation of the PoE, can expressed as follows:
1. To be free means to be able to make a choice to do or not do something
2. To do a moral act, it must be an act that is either right or wrong
3. A creature is
significantly free if it is able to do or not do moral actions
4. Moral evil is evil resulting from the actions of significantly free creatures
5. God can only do what is logically possible
6. Therefore, "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible
7. This is not a problem for God's omnipotence
The argument as you have posed it suggests that God could (but didn't) create a world in which he would be accepted by everyone simply because using his foreknowledge, he could simply have not made those people whom He knew would freely reject Him.
But His knowledge that they would reject Him does not prove that "he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime"; it simply proves that He knows in advance what people will choose. Knowing what will happen and wanting it to happen are two different things.
Consequently, I think it is entirely conceivable that God wants everyone to accept him, but he does create some significantly free beings who will not, and he does so knowing how to bring an even greater overall good out of the fact that some people will choose badly.
Finally, I should point out that while it is true that God has predestined some people for heaven, the belief that others are predestined for hell is rejected by the Catholic Church. This is called "double predestination", and it is false. God does not create people who are predestined for hell before their creation; he does create people, however, whom he knows will choose to go there.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 16, 2016, 12:40:52 PM
Okay, I think I'm ready. We'll see. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Your argument is a variation of the classic Problem of Evil, and it can be expressed like this:
1. God wants everyone to come to know him in this life.
2. God knows how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.
3. God could create a such a world.
4. But not everyone comes to know God in this life.
5. Therefore, either God does not want everyone to know him or He does not know how to create such a world or He cannot create such a world.
The problem is in your second premise where you wrote, "he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will."
Alvin Plantinga is credited by most philosophers today as having finally refuted the Problem of Evil argument. Plantinga is above MY pay grade, but my understanding of his argument, as it deals with this variation of the PoE, can expressed as follows:
1. To be free means to be able to make a choice to do or not do something
2. To do a moral act, it must be an act that is either right or wrong
3. A creature is significantly free if it is able to do or not do moral actions
4. Moral evil is evil resulting from the actions of significantly free creatures
5. God can only do what is logically possible
6. Therefore, "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible
7. This is not a problem for God's omnipotence
Sorry Randy, but again this adds nothing to solve the problem. All it adds is the assertion that God not being able to do everything doesn't mean he's not capable of doing everything.
I know the problem is a variation on the problem of evil. In fact the only real thing that has been added is the reasoning involved as to why free will does not solve this problem (and a bigger focus on not coming to accept the christian God within your lifetime rather than just 'Evil').
The reason for this is that most christians I meet try to counter the problem of evil or not believing in God with 'free will'; so I implemented the counterstep in the argument to skip one uncessary step. The 'solution' provided above explores that route of free will too, just like the last one you offered. And again it comes short, at least the way I see it, for exactly the same reason why I already implemented why 'free will' doesn't solve the problem.
There is no reason provided why God can't create free beings that will, in the world he created, solely choose to do only good. If his creations were given the knowledge of what is morally good (for example accepting his way and him into their lives), they could all still be significantly free if they all chose to do only moral actions. If this world, for example, was created under these rules by your God you would not be less significantly free than me even though you choose well and I choose poorly by not accepting Him. But if he'd created this world differently, we both might've been influenced differently and the roles could have been reversed. Or better yet, we could both be trying to convince Atheistforums. Or better yet, there could be no atheistforums. All with the same amount of significant freedom as in this world if only he'd created it in such a way that everyone would learn to use their significant freedom for good moral actions.
And he could choose to create a world in advance in which all subjects would come to use their significant freedom to do good moral actions and come to accept him within their lifetime if he were an omniscient and omnipotent creator of everything. He'd know in advance how to set up the world or the system or whatever you want to call it and prepare it so that everyone who came into being would be convinced, not even using forced here, but convinced, to follow him and accept him.
Quote
The argument as you have posed it suggests that God could (but didn't) create a world in which he would be accepted by everyone simply because using his foreknowledge, he could simply have not made those people whom He knew would freely reject Him.
But His knowledge that they would reject Him does not prove that "he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime"; it simply proves that He knows in advance what people will choose. Knowing what will happen and wanting it to happen are two different things.
So… he's not omnipotent then?
It's not so much about 'not making the people that would say no to him', it's about making the world in such a way that everyone created would come to accept him. This is an all-powerfull, allknowing creature that created the world as he saw fit; by definition he can shape it so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will.
You need to keep all three traits active at all times during this. Let me try to explain with your following statement.
Quote
Consequently, I think it is entirely conceivable that God wants everyone to accept him, but he does create some significantly free beings who will not, and he does so knowing how to bring an even greater overall good out of the fact that some people will choose badly.
So… he wants everyone to accept him but purposefully creates those who will fail so that their eternity in hell can serve a greater purpose?
That does not sound like omnibenevolence to me.
Unless… he just doesn't know how to create everyone in such a way that they'd come to accept him and thus needs these predestined 'to be lost souls' to help guide as many as he can to him.
But that does not sound like omniscience to me.
Or… he's just incapable of saving everyone and having all of them do good with their lives, even though that's what he wants.
But that does not sound like omnipotence to me.
Do you see what I mean about needing to tackle the problem with all three traits activated at the same time, if you believe in a God with all three traits?
(And if you believe he does predestine some to go to hell, and that's not interfering with free will, why would he not use his predestine powers which you've accepted he has and utilises to have everyone choose to live their lives in such a way that would get them to heaven?)
Quote
Finally, I should point out that while it is true that God has predestined some people for heaven, the belief that others are predestined for hell is rejected by the Catholic Church.
Good for the RCC, guess that means they believe in a omnibenevolent God, but not in one that is omnipotent and/or omniscient.
Sorry Randy but, I really don't see this solving the problem. No more than the last article. It doesn't really add anything.
----
Edit:
After comming back to reread my post and check it for typing errors, I noticed something I didn't see in your previous post before. Perhaps I misquoted, perhaps I started typing my answer before you added it. I don't know. If it's my bad, I apologise, but here is your quote in full:
Quote
Finally, I should point out that while it is true that God has predestined some people for heaven, the belief that others are predestined for hell is rejected by the Catholic Church. This is called "double predestination", and it is false. God does not create people who are predestined for hell before their creation; he does create people, however, whom he knows will choose to go there.
To this last bit, I say that as god presumably knows in advance how any conceivably createable creation would turn out for it's inhabitants and where that would cause their lives to lead them after death, by creating one of an endless amount of possible creations he chooses which reality comes into fruition. So by choosing which reality to create, he chooses for some of it's people to choose to lead their lives in a way that will lead them to heaven and others to choose to lead their lives in a way that will lead them to hell. This way, due to his omniscience and omnipotence, he is choosing to create people he knows will choose to go there which means he chooses to create people predestined for hell, while he just as easily could choose to create a creation in which he knows none will choose to go there and thus who aren't predestined for hell.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 10:33:27 PM
Get on my level school boy. You can't even read with out a perfect paragraph. Hahaha.
Oh I'm glad your good with a cell phone too great accomplishment. Lol you see the type of shit y'all hit me with corny as fuck.
You probably can't change a tire.
Wow, watch out folks, this badass knows how to change a tire. Be careful, or next he'll show off his 3-point turning skills!
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2016, 01:42:31 PM
So… he's not omnipotent then?
He is, and this is the Achilles' Heel of your argument.
God can only do what is
logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors. He can't make a rock so big he can't lift it.
However, his inability to do what is illogical does not mean that he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, the idea that "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible.
Moreover, his foreknowledge that some would reject him doesn't really fly. This is watching M&M's coming down a conveyor belt and discarding the imperfect ones so that only perfect M&M's go into each bag. God would consider each person's potential for rejecting him, and he would simply not make those people who would do so.
This is my first pass...I'll go back and read your response again more slowly.
And thanks! Real discussion is a pleasure!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 16, 2016, 06:58:09 PMGod can only do what is logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors.
Yet he can somehow be three-in-one just fine.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2016, 01:42:31 PM
It's not so much about 'not making the people that would say no to him', it's about making the world in such a way that everyone created would come to accept him. This is an all-powerfull, allknowing creature that created the world as he saw fit; by definition he can shape it so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will.
If God makes the world in such a way that everyone WOULD without fail come to accept him, that world simply overpowers their inclinations, doesn't it? And this can be as subtle as you like, it's still irresistable. Like putting someone inside the event horizon of a black hole; they have free will, but there's no way they will resist the gravity. If God shapes the world "so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will", there's no way they will resist Him. The point is, that people WOULD come to accept NO MATTER WHAT. Is that coercion?
QuoteYou need to keep all three traits active at all times during this. Let me try to explain with your following statement.
So… he wants everyone to accept him but purposefully creates those who will fail so that their eternity in hell can serve a greater purpose?
That does not sound like omnibenevolence to me.
The essence of that thinking is that if people choose to reject God, He still knows how to maximize the good that He can get out of the situation.
He makes lemonade!
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 16, 2016, 06:58:09 PM
He is, and this is the Achilles' Heel of your argument.
God can only do what is logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors. He can't make a rock so big he can't lift it.
However, his inability to do what is illogical does not mean that he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, the idea that "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible.
Moreover, his foreknowledge that some would reject him doesn't really fly. This is watching M&M's coming down a conveyor belt and discarding the imperfect ones so that only perfect M&M's go into each bag. God would consider each person's potential for rejecting him, and he would simply not make those people who would do so.
This is my first pass...I'll go back and read your response again more slowly.
And thanks! Real discussion is a pleasure!
If there is an achilles heel, that is not it. You and the other thinkers you've envoked to make your stance more clear all fail to keep his omniscience in mind. It's no more illogically possible for him to create a world in which all people would come to accept him than a world in which some would come to accept him. If you believe he created this world he as much predestined you to believe in him as he did me not to believe in him and he would've predestined us both an equal amount if he'd had us both be believer or none believers. Exactly because he could see every possible world and eventuality and chose to create one of the unlimited options. By creating a world, he would've made a choice as to who would choose to follow him. Which means that if he chose to build this creation, he did create significantly free beings and caused them to do good. The only difference with a better one is that he also chose to create significantly free beings and caused them to do evil. Keep in mind that he's the starting point of everything, allknowing and allpowerful (and supposedly omnibenevolent): His creation is a choice that always defines what his subjects will choose. No less in this world than in a perfect one.
I don't think I can explain it any clearer than with the example below.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 16, 2016, 07:16:24 PM
If God makes the world in such a way that everyone WOULD without fail come to accept him, that world simply overpowers their inclinations, doesn't it?
No more than in a world he creates in such a way that not everyone would, as he still knows and chooses in advance what they will choose by choosing to create the reality he picks.
Quote
And this can be as subtle as you like, it's still irresistable. Like putting someone inside the event horizon of a black hole; they have free will, but there's no way they will resist the gravity. If God shapes the world "so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will", there's no way they will resist Him. The point is, that people WOULD come to accept NO MATTER WHAT. Is that coercion?
No more coercion than what you've witnessed in this life if you were to die today and go to heaven because you chose to let him into your life. He still chose in advance to set up the system in such a way that he knew you would accept him, whereas I would not. And it's the same amount of coercion for me to go to hell because he could've chosen to set up the system in such a way that he knew I would come to accept him. Because he knows in advance any possibly createable world and can make any possibly createable world; by creating one he made the prime choice. And with perfect knowledge and omnipotence he could've created the perfect world. He didn't, but there would have been no less free will than in this one because he is still the allknowing and allpowerfull one who sets up the system; chooses the creation.
This is not watching m&m's go by. It's building an imperfect m&m-machine on purpose so you know which peanuts will be poorly covered in chocolate (while you have The schematics, materials and technical knowhow to create a perfect one.)
Quote
The essence of that thinking is that if people choose to reject God, He still knows how to maximize the good that He can get out of the situation.
He makes lemonade!
He is the one choosing to give himself lemons.
All of this theological gum chewing ... assumes G-d isn't malevolent, or simply amoral. The medieval theologians thought, that if one came up with a superlative, it necessarily existed. So absolute good and absolute evil must be more than mere thoughts. So people still play into that (which actually came from Greek philosophy) ... by coloring the idea of G-d with positive superlatives. This is mania, not dialectic.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 17, 2016, 01:45:26 AM
If there is an achilles heel, that is not it. You and the other thinkers you've envoked to make your stance more clear all fail to keep his omniscience in mind. It's no more illogically possible for him to create a world in which all people would come to accept him than a world in which some would come to accept him.
"Illogically possible?" Did you mean "impossible"? Or just "illogical"?
QuoteIf you believe he created this world, he as much predestined you to believe in him as he did me not to believe in him. And he would've predestined us both an equal amount if he'd had us both be believer or non-believers.
I changed the sentence above by adding some punctuation to help me follow your thought. Let me know if I got it wrong. And here I disagree. You are proposing a Calvinist view which is often called "double pre-destination": some are predestined to heaven and others are predestined to hell.
Obviously, in the case of the latter group, there is no significant free will with regard to acceptance of God. They cannot accept God and be saved if they are predestined for hell. The Catholic view is that while God does predestine some to heaven, He does not predestine anyone to hell. I mentioned previously that this "double-predestination" is an error of Calvinism. Are you a former Calvinist?
QuoteExactly because he could see every possible word and eventuality and chose to create one of the unlimited options. By creating a world, he would've made a choice as to who would choose to follow him. Which means that if he chose to build this creation, he did create significantly free beings and caused them to do good. The only difference with a better one is that he also chose to create significantly free being and caused them to do evil. Keep in mind that he's the starting point of everything, allknowing and allpowerful (and supposedly omnibenevolent): His creation is a choice that always defines what his subjects will choose. No less in this world than in a perfect one.
Your position, merely re-stated here and not proven, is that God could create a "perfect" world in which every single significantly free person would choose to accept Him without exception, and failure on His part to do so represents proof that He is deficient in one of the omni's. I agree this is what we're discussing; I do not agree that you have shown a compelling reason why this must be so. And by the way, you wrote, "caused them to do good" above. If God
causes them to accept him, then they were not significantly free, were they? Isn't this something they have to choose? Now, we're typing...which can be tedious...so perhaps what you meant is that He gives them sufficient reasons to accept Him which "cause" them to do so. If so, then "cause" in that sense is merely shorthand. I just want to make sure we're in sync.
QuoteQuoteIf God makes the world in such a way that everyone WOULD without fail come to accept him, that world simply overpowers their inclinations, doesn't it?
No more than in a world he creates in such a way that not everyone would, as he still knows and chooses in advance what they will choose by choosing to create the reality he picks.
Here we disagree. God issues an invitation to all; some accept and some do not. It is your contention that he could have created a world in which everyone accepted because he would have either only created that one world out of the infinite number of possible worlds or because he would simply have not populated any world with those whom He knew in advance would reject him.
I'm asking how this would be possible. People come to accept God for a variety of reasons and because their own very personal life experiences. Now, unless you are proposing a world in which everyone simply "knows" God from birth rather than coming to know him at some stage in life, then what you are proposing is that the "butterfly effect" is so meticulously arranged for every single person in the world that all come to accept God.
Okay, He's God and He's all-omni, so this should be possible for Him. Easy, even. But then I have to ask: Isn't it true that some people come to accept God after having exhausted all of their other options and reaching the end of their ropes, so to speak? And specifically, aren't there prisoners on death row who finally come to terms with their own misspent lives and personal limitations and character flaws but only after having their anger and hatred and destructive tendencies forced into an 8x10 room made of concrete and steel? Perhaps they are only able to hear that small voice of God in the long, silent hours of solitary confinement.
Fine. They eventually accept Him...just as you proposed that they would. So, what's the point?
My point is that on the other side of the prison door that leads to their spiritual freedom is the path of destruction, heart-ache, misery and human suffering that they traveled during the course of their lifetime. The road that led to prison was filled with sin and evil and pain...not just for themselves but for others who were the victims of their anger, greed and lust.
So, while you're contemplating a utopian world in which God simply creates perfect "Stepford Wives" for himself, I'm envisioning a real world in which God is able to redeem those who are fallen and full of sin that resulted from their own free choices.
And by the way, I haven't even begun to address the fact that the sins/crimes committed by the death row inmate may have caused others to call out to God in their pain and suffering and thereby be saved. (There may also be those who gnash their teeth at Him and say, "Why did you let this happen to me?", but I think He is prepared for this possibility, also.)
QuoteNo more than in a world he creates in such a way that not everyone would, as he still knows and chooses in advance what they will choose by choosing to create the reality he picks.
If God "chooses in advance what they will choose", then they have not chosen freely for themselves any more than a child chooses for himself what to eat after his mother has put food on his plate. Whatever he eats was chosen in advance for him.
Surely you didn't mean this?
QuoteNo more coercion than what you've witnessed in this life if you were to die today and go to heaven because you chose to let him into your life. He still chose in advance to set up the system in such a way that he knew you would accept him, whereas I would not. And it's the same amount of coercion for me to go to hell because he could've chosen to set up the system in such a way that he knew I would come to accept him. Because he knows in advance any possibly createable world and can make any possibly createable world; by creating one he made the prime choice. and with perfect knowledge and omnipotence he could've created the perfect world. He didn't, but there been no less free will than in this one because he is still The allknowing and allpowerfull one who sets up The system, chooses The creation.
I think that God knows what I need from Him in order to be saved. I exercise my free will to cooperate with God in that process. God knows what you need from Him in order to be saved. You may, if you wish, decline that invitation. As Christopher Hitchens famously claimed of himself, there are those who would not serve God even if He were to prove Himself to them.
QuoteThis is not watching m&m's go by. It's building an imperfect m&m-machine on purpose so you know which peanuts will be poorly covered in chocolate (while you have The schematics, materials and technical knowhow to create a perfect one.)
A restatement of your position.
I'll continue this later.
Quote from: Knowing on May 15, 2016, 08:17:22 PM
I know he's.gay due to a evil influence I think there is a spirit of perversion.
And how long have you been fighting your own spirit of perversion? Since you had trouble hiding your stiffy when showering after gym class? When your friend asked you to do a sleep-over and you pictured yourself under him? Second grade, and that nice. Mr. Johnson down the block, the one with the candy?
Lol. One member of the Mormon leadership (the Quorum of 12 plus the leaders, aka the Q15) Dallin Oaks, is especially outspoken against gays. Story goes he used to wash and blow dry his hair every day while on his mission. doesn't have much hair now. You never know......
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 16, 2016, 06:58:09 PM
God can only do what is logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors. He can't make a rock so big he can't lift it.
However, his inability to do what is illogical does not mean that he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, the idea that "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible.
That makes no sense, and that last sentence is wrong. First, doesn't God decide what is "logical"? Could he not change the rules of the universe so that it became possible to make square circles? Hell, couldn't he just change the definition of one or both in a way that we would never even realize that square circles haven't always been a thing?
I would think that god-like powers would necessarily include the ability to do that which is logically impossible. That's pretty much the definition of magic.
And now to that last sentence. So many problems. First, a god capable of all of creation, setting things up exactly as he desires, could very much create a being which, when coupled with the proper circumstance of a fine-tuned universe, would do only good. That he knows the outcome of every possible iteration before creation ever begins means that he would be able to pick an iteration which, while capable of evil, would never actually
do evil. The creation would both have free will AND resist doing evil. This is completely within the powers of the all-powerful. He would simply have to modify conditions and probabilities to suit this desired end.
And second, according to the Bible, isn't that EXACTLY what he did? Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil and, therefore, could not do evil. It wasn't until they were changed by the magic fruit that they gained the ability to do evil.
Quote from: stromboli on May 17, 2016, 01:25:40 PM
Lol. One member of the Mormon leadership (the Quorum of 12 plus the leaders, aka the Q15) Dallin Oaks, is especially outspoken against gays. Story goes he used to wash and blow dry his hair every day while on his mission. doesn't have much hair now. You never know......
Is there a connection between homosexuality and blow drying your hair?
What am I missing?
Quote from: widdershins on May 17, 2016, 03:07:54 PM
That makes no sense, and that last sentence is wrong. First, doesn't God decide what is "logical"? Could he not change the rules of the universe so that it became possible to make square circles? Hell, couldn't he just change the definition of one or both in a way that we would never even realize that square circles haven't always been a thing?
I would think that god-like powers would necessarily include the ability to do that which is logically impossible. That's pretty much the definition of magic.
And now to that last sentence. So many problems. First, a god capable of all of creation, setting things up exactly as he desires, could very much create a being which, when coupled with the proper circumstance of a fine-tuned universe, would do only good. That he knows the outcome of every possible iteration before creation ever begins means that he would be able to pick an iteration which, while capable of evil, would never actually do evil. The creation would both have free will AND resist doing evil. This is completely within the powers of the all-powerful. He would simply have to modify conditions and probabilities to suit this desired end.
And second, according to the Bible, isn't that EXACTLY what he did? Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil and, therefore, could not do evil. It wasn't until they were changed by the magic fruit that they gained the ability to do evil.
They chose to disobey God first, and then took a bite second.
To be fully human, to grow up, Adam and Eve had to disobey G-d. Who do you think was disguised as a serpent? It was a setup. Parents know ... you have to get the kids to leave home eventually. If we had stayed in Gan Eden, we would have stayed naked ... not even diapered. That and the relationship between Adam and Eve was clearly incest anyway. Original sin would actually be, the natural result of such inbreeding.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 07:30:28 AM
I'll continue this later.
As it's almost one o'clock at night right now, I'm not going to rebuttle right now.
But I'd like to know, am I still waiting for something? Or am I good to go when I find the time?
You know what I find funny about all this? The idea that a world where we lack free will but are in complete bliss and happiness all the days of our lives is somehow taboo to Christians. For some reason, free will is more important. It helps them explain why bullshit happens on this Earth, and it's a get out of jail free card for God when things go bad. "Oh a baby was murdered?" That's free will! God wipes his hands clean there, no fault of his cause, hey, he HAD TO give us free will!
Really, though, I'd rather have pure happiness and no pain over free will any day. And here's the big ol' kicker....In Heaven, you know, that awesome ending at the end of the video game of life....THERE'S NO FREE WILL. That's right: in the most perfect place you can imagine, there's no fucking free will. Yet, somehow, it's not good enough for Earth. It's the perfect scapegoat for believers. "Well, uh, see that child was raped cause of humanity and their free will. But just wait til you're dead and everything is perfect in Heaven! All we do all day is praise God and nobody sins. No drug addiction, sexual deviants, sadness, pain...and the best part is, all your non-Christian loved ones will burn in hell! That part sounds bad? Don't worry, with lack of free will, you'll see things through perfect Jesus-goggles and won't mind, because you'll know you were right and they were wrong! You loved your wife for 50 years but she was a different religion than you? She's probably feeling a little toasty right now, eh? Grab the s'mores! LOL"
That's how this stupid fucking conversation sounds to me. Amazing the crazy things people can do to their mind to try and cope with the pain and reality of life. Jeez.
Quote from: FrogMan on May 17, 2016, 07:58:17 PM
You know what I find funny about all this? The idea that a world where we lack free will but are in complete bliss and happiness all the days of our lives is somehow taboo to Christians. For some reason, free will is more important. It helps them explain why bullshit happens on this Earth, and it's a get out of jail free card for God when things go bad. "Oh a baby was murdered?" That's free will! God wipes his hands clean there, no fault of his cause, hey, he HAD TO give us free will!
Really, though, I'd rather have pure happiness and no pain over free will any day. And here's the big ol' kicker....In Heaven, you know, that awesome ending at the end of the video game of life....THERE'S NO FREE WILL. That's right: in the most perfect place you can imagine, there's no fucking free will. Yet, somehow, it's not good enough for Earth. It's the perfect scapegoat for believers. "Well, uh, see that child was raped cause of humanity and their free will. But just wait til you're dead and everything is perfect in Heaven! All we do all day is praise God and nobody sins. No drug addiction, sexual deviants, sadness, pain...and the best part is, all your non-Christian loved ones will burn in hell! That part sounds bad? Don't worry, with lack of free will, you'll see things through perfect Jesus-goggles and won't mind, because you'll know you were right and they were wrong! You loved your wife for 50 years but she was a different religion than you? She's probably feeling a little toasty right now, eh? Grab the s'mores! LOL"
That's how this stupid fucking conversation sounds to me. Amazing the crazy things people can do to their mind to try and cope with the pain and reality of life. Jeez.
There is also no free will because anything that otherwise qualifies is met with punishment. Noah's neighbors indulged the free will of not believing in god and got drowned for it; hence, no free will. We cannot move outside of our bodies. Any constraint given to us physically does not allow free will. We cannot move outside of the environmental and inherited characteristics of our life, hence no free will.
The idea of free will is ludicrous. we have debated that here many times. The concept of free will in religion-"you can do what you want, but boy am I gonna fuck you up if you disobey" is likewise ludicrous. Free will is a myth, but it sounds good to the believers. "I worship god of my own free will 'cause if I don't I'm gonna fry in hell." Right.
And ALSO, what about God's omniscience? Doesn't he know the future? How can we truly have "free will" if the choice we make is known already in advance? How could we be punished for a predetermined future?
I know this is more philosophy-related, but I also question if we truly make decisions, or if we just "perceive" that we do. Do we really know enough about how our bodies, brain chemistry, and environment shape what we actually do?
Too many questions. I've been inactive here the last few years after being a fairly regular poster when I joined in 2010, but I've lurked and taken in a lot of the convos here. A lot of what I'm asking here is kind of rhetorical, because I doubt Randy has anything of insight on this stuff. Just more mental gymnastics.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 17, 2016, 06:48:32 PM
As it's almost one o'clock at night right now, I'm not going to rebuttle right now.
But I'd like to know, am I still waiting for something? Or am I good to go when I find the time?
You're good. Get some sleep and pick it up later.
Quote from: FrogMan on May 17, 2016, 07:58:17 PM
You know what I find funny about all this? The idea that a world where we lack free will but are in complete bliss and happiness all the days of our lives is somehow taboo to Christians. For some reason, free will is more important. It helps them explain why bullshit happens on this Earth, and it's a get out of jail free card for God when things go bad. "Oh a baby was murdered?" That's free will! God wipes his hands clean there, no fault of his cause, hey, he HAD TO give us free will!
Really, though, I'd rather have pure happiness and no pain over free will any day. And here's the big ol' kicker....In Heaven, you know, that awesome ending at the end of the video game of life....THERE'S NO FREE WILL. That's right: in the most perfect place you can imagine, there's no fucking free will. Yet, somehow, it's not good enough for Earth. It's the perfect scapegoat for believers. "Well, uh, see that child was raped cause of humanity and their free will. But just wait til you're dead and everything is perfect in Heaven! All we do all day is praise God and nobody sins. No drug addiction, sexual deviants, sadness, pain...and the best part is, all your non-Christian loved ones will burn in hell! That part sounds bad? Don't worry, with lack of free will, you'll see things through perfect Jesus-goggles and won't mind, because you'll know you were right and they were wrong! You loved your wife for 50 years but she was a different religion than you? She's probably feeling a little toasty right now, eh? Grab the s'mores! LOL"
That's how this stupid fucking conversation sounds to me. Amazing the crazy things people can do to their mind to try and cope with the pain and reality of life. Jeez.
If God were to provide you with a world with no pain and suffering, how far would that go, exactly?
Would God be responsible for preventing ingrown toenails? Or just the big stuff like rape and murder?
And what about the psycopath who enjoys rape? Doesn't God violate his free will if he is not free to enjoy himself with some old lady behind a dumpster in a deserted parking lot?
Just askin'.
Helping clear up a technicality ...
Predestination vs Predetermination
Predetermination - G-d as omniscient, and humans as free willed, knows what you will choose in the future, by your free will, but doesn't intervene
Predestination - G-d as omniscient, and humans as puppets. G-d makes saints be saintly and makes sinners sin.
The first is allowable morally, the second is completely immoral. In general context, this is "fatalism".
Quantum mechanics doesn't provide an opportunity for free will ... all it says is that shit happens, and you can't predict it. Classical mechanics doesn't provide an opportunity for free will either ... all it says is that shit happens, and you can predict it. Clearly the first one is correct, and the second one is wrong. Our ability to predict, in any physical situation, is present, but extremely limited. If you arrange a contrived situation (engineering) then your ability to predict that the bridge won't randomly or obviously fall down, is greatly improved. But only in contrived situations that require an Professional Engineer license.
Quote from: stromboli on May 17, 2016, 09:28:26 PM
There is also no free will because anything that otherwise qualifies is met with punishment. Noah's neighbors indulged the free will of not believing in god and got drowned for it; hence, no free will. We cannot move outside of our bodies. Any constraint given to us physically does not allow free will. We cannot move outside of the environmental and inherited characteristics of our life, hence no free will.
The idea of free will is ludicrous. we have debated that here many times. The concept of free will in religion-"you can do what you want, but boy am I gonna fuck you up if you disobey" is likewise ludicrous. Free will is a myth, but it sounds good to the believers. "I worship god of my own free will 'cause if I don't I'm gonna fry in hell." Right.
Sounds like I missed all the fun? Which side won? The side that says we have no free will?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 10:26:52 PM
Sounds like I missed all the fun? Which side won? The side that says we have no free will?
Many materialists and some rationalists, think we have no free will. I am not a materialist nor a rationalist. So I have no problem with the concept.
Many atheists may be materialists or rationalists. Clearly we have at least one regular member who denies free will. I guess the conservation of mass-energy made him post what he did ;-)
Quote from: FrogMan on May 17, 2016, 10:13:00 PM
And ALSO, what about God's omniscience? Doesn't he know the future? How can we truly have "free will" if the choice we make is known already in advance? How could we be punished for a predetermined future?
I know this is more philosophy-related, but I also question if we truly make decisions, or if we just "perceive" that we do. Do we really know enough about how our bodies, brain chemistry, and environment shape what we actually do?
Too many questions. I've been inactive here the last few years after being a fairly regular poster when I joined in 2010, but I've lurked and taken in a lot of the convos here. A lot of what I'm asking here is kind of rhetorical, because I doubt Randy has anything of insight on this stuff. Just more mental gymnastics.
You're sitting at a desk in an office on the third floor of a city high-rise. You look up just as a screaming woman hurtles past your window outside. What has happened to her? Is she dead? You have a report due in an hour...do you continue working? Or do you call for help? The choice is yours.
You pick up the phone, dial 9-1-1 and rush to the window. Just as the operator answers, you look down to see that the woman has landed on a giant airbag used by Hollywood stunt men, and you hear the director yell, "Cut! That's a take!" Apparently, a movie was being filmed and this scene will include her being thrown off the building by her jealous husband. Shaken and embarrassed, you hang up without saying a word, and go back to your report.
You have free will, and you chose to call 9-1-1 based on what you knew at the moment from what you could see out of your window. God, on the other hand, sees the whole scene (including your emergency call), but his knowledge of how it would end did not effect your free will decision.
Definitely being omniscient would be a hellish experience. Being the boss of a situation without free will would be devilish.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 10:25:24 PM
If God were to provide you with a world with no pain and suffering, how far would that go, exactly?
Would God be responsible for preventing ingrown toenails? Or just the big stuff like rape and murder?
And what about the psycopath who enjoys rape? Doesn't God violate his free will if he is not free to enjoy himself with some old lady behind a dumpster in a deserted parking lot?
Just askin'.
How far would it go? Who knows? It's all fantasy talk anyway. Are there ingrown toenails in heaven? How good can things get when we're talking about perfection, really? Not sure your point about the rapist. Wouldn't that be supporting my argument? A rapist is the perfect example of why "free will" is such an odd thing to value and attribute to God as a "good idea".
I'm on my phone so I can't quote your next post, but regarding "God knows the result of your choice before you make it, but that doesn't change the fact you had free will to make it" (paraphrase).....
No. If I was to pick a number between 1 and 100, and god knows I'm gonna pick 58, then when I pick 58 it wasn't my choice. It was more or less part of his script, with that "illusion" of choice I referred to earlier. I've argued this before on this site, so I'm sure this is going nowhere. We just won't see eye to eye on this one.
You are also assuming predestination. But we get versions of that from physics ... but physics is wrong regarding people, but right about atoms? The disconnect is believing in materialism, that people are made up of atoms. This goes back to Ancient Greece, and Democritus' attempt to escape the paradoxes of Zeno of Elea. Turns out Democritus was right in Newtonian materialism, but wrong once we have QM ... because if the vacuum is alive with activity, as there is air between myself and my computer screen, then there is no gap (necessary to avoid the paradox) except in my own mistaken perception. Descartes was right about the plenum, as 19th century mathematicians were right about the number line being a continuum ... it is that very continuum that makes QM possible ... you can't separate the experiment from the experimenter. There can be no G-d of the Gaps ... because there are no gaps.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 17, 2016, 07:30:28 AM
"Illogically possible?" Did you mean "impossible"? Or just "illogical"?
Yeah, my bad. I meant 'Logically impossible', mirroring that you said God can only do what is logically possible. Messed up the words there, didn't notice when I was checking for spelling errors either.
Quote
I changed the sentence above by adding some punctuation to help me follow your thought. Let me know if I got it wrong. And here I disagree. You are proposing a Calvinist view which is often called "double pre-destination": some are predestined to heaven and others are predestined to hell.
Obviously, in the case of the latter group, there is no significant free will with regard to acceptance of God. They cannot accept God and be saved if they are predestined for hell. The Catholic view is that while God does predestine some to heaven, He does not predestine anyone to hell. I mentioned previously that this "double-predestination" is an error of Calvinism. Are you a former Calvinist?
Actually, I used to be catholic. Not very sternly though.
The sentence seems about right with the punctuation.
Now I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Calvinism. But if their view of God involves him being omniscient and -potent and they say he chooses in advance who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, then their view of their God, whilst not any bit more grounded than yours, seems more consistent than yours. As long as that they don't say he's omnibenevolent and wants everyone to accept him, that is.
Quote
Your position, merely re-stated here and not proven, is that God could create a "perfect" world in which every single significantly free person would choose to accept Him without exception, and failure on His part to do so represents proof that He is deficient in one of the omni's. I agree this is what we're discussing; I do not agree that you have shown a compelling reason why this must be so.
Why this must be so? You won't like it; I'll just have to restate the my position. And I'll do so below. Tell you what, I'll even go all out this time, but do my best to keep it clear. But seeing as I'm not the greatest with words, I thought a visual aid might help.
Quote
And by the way, you wrote, "caused them to do good" above. If God causes them to accept him, then they were not significantly free, were they? Isn't this something they have to choose? Now, we're typing...which can be tedious...so perhaps what you meant is that He gives them sufficient reasons to accept Him which "cause" them to do so. If so, then "cause" in that sense is merely shorthand. I just want to make sure we're in sync.
The thing to keep in mind is that I'm calling this free will and 'significantly free' because these are terms you claim to believe in and I don't see a reason to argue with you on terminology of something like this. If your God is omnipotent and omniscient then choosing to have someone become 'convinced' through sufficient reasons or remaining 'unconvinced' through insuffecient reasons is no different from 'causing' them to do or not do something. Which is why if all would choose to not do good there would be just as much 'free will' as in a reality in which some would choose to do good and just as much as in a reality in which all would choose to do good. I don't care if you call it free will or 'significantly free beings', the most important point is that through God's omniscience and omnipotence, by choosing to create any world, he shapes it with no more or less of this 'free will' or 'significantly free beings' than in any other world he'd create. Again, this will return down below.
Quote
No more than in a world he creates in such a way that not everyone would, as he still knows and chooses in advance what they will choose by choosing to create the reality he picks. â€" Mr.Obvious
Here we disagree. God issues an invitation to all; some accept and some do not. It is your contention that he could have created a world in which everyone accepted because he would have either only created that one world out of the infinite number of possible worlds or because he would simply have not populated any world with those whom He knew in advance would reject him.
So you understand that he could create different worlds or this world differently (matter of wording there). So is your point that he didn't create just one world, but that we are one of an infinite amount? If so, I can understand your position a little bit better. But again, God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence combined with the concept of infinite creations still means he can create an infinite amount of 'perfect' and different worlds.
Quote
I'm asking how this would be possible. People come to accept God for a variety of reasons and because their own very personal life experiences. Now, unless you are proposing a world in which everyone simply "knows" God from birth rather than coming to know him at some stage in life, then what you are proposing is that the "butterfly effect" is so meticulously arranged for every single person in the world that all come to accept God.
Either way is fine with me. Neither leads to less 'significant freedom' than in any other world he could create.
I'll be honest, I usually tend to think in the butterfly effect variant though. He knows how his creation will lead this way to his subjects to either choose to accept him, or not accept him. And he knows this of each and every of an infinite amount of butterfly effects. Does picking any of these over the other opress or coerce people any more than others? No.
And you agree it's possible, right here below.
Quote
Okay, He's God and He's all-omni, so this should be possible for Him. Easy, even.
Off course, then you go on with this:
Quote
But then I have to ask: Isn't it true that some people come to accept God after having exhausted all of their other options and reaching the end of their ropes, so to speak? And specifically, aren't there prisoners on death row who finally come to terms with their own misspent lives and personal limitations and character flaws but only after having their anger and hatred and destructive tendencies forced into an 8x10 room made of concrete and steel? Perhaps they are only able to hear that small voice of God in the long, silent hours of solitary confinement.
And you're right in that some people turn to religion through hardship in their lives. But an omnipotent and omniscient God could just as easily, without literally any effort, have them turn to him through a different path. A less difficult, argueous path. If you believe this is possible, as you say it's easy (actually seeing as he's omnipotent it takes literally no effort at all), then it should be equally possible and easy for him to have those who turn to him through hardship turn to him in a different way.
Quote
Fine. They eventually accept Him...just as you proposed that they would. So, what's the point?
You're the one who believes God wants everyone to have a personal relationship with him, accept him into their hearts and do good. So what's the point? Mission accomplished, that's the point. Without any less 'free will' than in any other, imperfect creation in which this target isn't reached.
Quote
My point is that on the other side of the prison door that leads to their spiritual freedom is the path of destruction, heart-ache, misery and human suffering that they traveled during the course of their lifetime. The road that led to prison was filled with sin and evil and pain...not just for themselves but for others who were the victims of their anger, greed and lust.
See what I mean with having to keep his omni-traits in mind all the time? Right there you limited him to his creation, instead of thinking of him as omniscient and omnipotent when creating his creation. You tried to show his benevolence can shine through, through hardship. But with omnipotence and omniscience in mind; it could've shone through just as well without that hardship having to take place. And if both options are available to God, it's quite strange that he picks the option with hardship.
Quote
So, while you're contemplating a utopian world in which God simply creates perfect "Stepford Wives" for himself, I'm envisioning a real world in which God is able to redeem those who are fallen and full of sin that resulted from their own free choices.
In which those choices are no more free than those of my 'Stepford Wives'. Again, if you can't understand this yet, I hope my visual aid down below will help.
Quote
And by the way, I haven't even begun to address the fact that the sins/crimes committed by the death row inmate may have caused others to call out to God in their pain and suffering and thereby be saved. (There may also be those who gnash their teeth at Him and say, "Why did you let this happen to me?", but I think He is prepared for this possibility, also.)
You don't have to begin to adress it. I'll just repeat myself here: See what I mean with having to keep his omni-traits in mind all the time? Right there you limited him to his creation, instead of thinking of him as omniscient and omnipotent when creating his creation You tried to show his benevolence can shine through, through hardship. But with omnipotence and omniscience in mind; it could've shone through just as well without that hardship having to take place.
Quote
If God "chooses in advance what they will choose", then they have not chosen freely for themselves any more than a child chooses for himself what to eat after his mother has put food on his plate. Whatever he eats was chosen in advance for him.
Surely you didn't mean this?
Why yes! Exactly. God will always decide in advance what any subjects in his creation will choose if he were to exist exactly because he is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything. He knows any possible life he could have you lead and how to make you lead each and everyone of those lives before creating you. So by making the prime choice in creating you and the creation in the way he chooses to, you will come to choose 'a' or 'b' or 'c' or… and you choosing 'a' rather than 'b' or 'c' rather than 'b' makes you no less and no more a 'significantly free being' than any other choice.
Now if you don't concider the child in this example to be 'significantly free' than it would be 'logically impossible' for God to create 'significantly free beings'. Which is, as you've said before, a problem for you. Not for me, who doesn't believe in God.
Quote
I think that God knows what I need from Him in order to be saved. I exercise my free will to cooperate with God in that process. God knows what you need from Him in order to be saved. You may, if you wish, decline that invitation. As Christopher Hitchens famously claimed of himself, there are those who would not serve God even if He were to prove Himself to them.
And God supposedly chose to create this creation in such a way that you would cooperate and I would not. While in a world with no less free will, the roles could've been reversed. Or we could both coöperate.
And in partial disagreement with the Hitch, I could see myself 'serving' an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. Heck, I could see me serving a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient omnibenevolent God. However, aside of the fact that the former seems to not be possible when we take a gander at the world around us, there is no proof for either of these deities. What
Quote
A restatement of your position.
If it ain't broke...
Now, i do see we are going in circles here. But if you thought that was a restatement, check this out:
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic1_zpspao06qvx.jpg?t=1463438375)
Here we have just a guy. Nothing special about him. But it shows you just how awesome my epic drawing skills are.
(So... sorry.)
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic2_zpsvmgkh05a.jpg?t=1463438520)
Now look at this glorious deity. The big guy in the sky himself. Omniscient, as you can see he knows every possible; noted by the 'ALL' written in his head. Omnipotent, as you can see he can do anything; noted by the ALLs in his hands. And Omnibenevolent, as you can see he wants good and is the unlimited force for good; noted by the ALL written across his heart.
Now God wants to make a creation. He wants to make us. And he wants us to want to let him into our lives; to accept him. So; he creates.
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic3_zpssa8ku6tc.jpg?t=1463438521)
And bam! One creation later; there's the reality around us. You can take the time-scale as 6000 years or a tad longer; I was sure not to mark it because the timeframe doesn't matter. There we have the big bang; the starting point. Then galaxies form. The earth. And look at those two handsome bastards; that's you and me.
Now note that I put a closed line around the creation. This is not there to say that God can't interract with his creation as it goes on; because that question does not matter here. What it is there for (and which will be important down below,) is that it signifies this is the reality he actually created. It also shows that he's not limited to the creation he made and is greater than that.
The marks around his hands are there to stress that he utilised his omnipotence to make his creation.
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic4_zpsvkut9yry.jpg?t=1463438521)
Of course, because he is omnipotent, he could've created the world in an infinite amount of different ways. (Think the butterfly effect you noted earlier.) If he'd changed the laws of physics ever so slightly or drastically... Had that Big Bang last the billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a.... moment longer or shorter. Have had the world form with one earthquake more or less... Had the sun be just a tad warmer or less warm... He is omnipotent, so he could have done these variations. In an infinite amount of them there would've been nothing or no-one. In an infinite amount there would be totally different beings than humans. In an infinite amount of them Randy the bee (or is it hornet?) and Mr.Obvious the Mantis would exist.
Note all the possible ways he could create his creation; they are unlimited through his omnipotence. Leaving us many possible creations, marked here with dotted lines, of which he created this one with the unbroken line.
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic5_zpsb2ru0zmj.jpg?t=1463438521)
If only we knew what was in that unlimited potential of worlds. But we can't know that, because sadly, we do not have unlimited knowledge.
But hey, guess who does. That's right: that guy. Omniscience.
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic6_zpsxi2rlf14.jpg?t=1463438521)
Using his omniscience God automatically knows what any possible variation to his creation would through a butterfly effect started from the moment of creation lead his subjects to. Now let's only focus on the infinite amount of possibilities in which we come into being.
Here I've noted A to L, a handfull of possible outcomes of the infinite amount of realities God knows how to create.
With a finite paper as assistance; I had to invoke the 'infinite' symbol starting from L, to note that this is in actuality infinite.
(Why it jumps from G to K...? Well I'm an idiot. And even worse, when making this, an overstressed, sleep deprived idiot. I also have bad handwriting. So I think I put down an H which admittedly looks more like a K, so we'll go with K here, and then after a break, as I took many pictures in between drawing, picked up with L not noticing my mistake untill most of the work was done.)In universe A, you can see the little bee (being you) is doing good things with his life. The little mantis (being me), is actually doing bad things with his life. Noted by the '+' over the bee and the '-' over the mantis. But neither have a personal relationship with God.
In universe D, for example, we both have; noted by the heart-symbol. And look, we're both doing good things in our lives.
In universe E however, only my path of life has lead me to accept the lord into my heart, whilst we still both do our best to be agents for good. (As I have a heart-symbol, but we both have a '+'.)
In universe F, we see we both don't turn to God. And we are both doing bad things with our lives. (As seen by the double '-' and the absence of a heart.)
And who knows what would come to happen in the infinite ones starting from L onwards? Well, as I'm no omniscient being; I decided to put question marks over our heads and a question mark after us; to indicate who knows what could be in that vast sea of infinite options available to the allmighty creator.
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic7_zpshhlthk0e.jpg?t=1463438521)
Now, bare in mind that he is not only omniscient; but also omnipotent. That's why we now not only mark the 'ALL' in his head, but also the 'ALL's in his hands. So any of these possibilities lies within his grasp; due to his omnipotence. He can't just do everything, he knows how anything he does will influence each of the infinite amount of possible creations.
And when all of these infinite options are available to him, and none causing him any more effort than the other and he knows what each and every one would lead to if he creates it, then by making this prime choice...
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic8_zpsjfjphm7y.jpg?t=1463438521)
There is no reality less free then the other. Or more free, however you want to look at it.
If you don't concider this 'significant freedom', then so be it. I don't care. I don't think any of this is true because I don't believe in God. But if you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God who can't create what is logically impossible and concider 'significant freedom' something more than this kind of freedom for his subjects, then that 'significant freedom' is a square circle or a married bachelor.
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic9_zpsnvzwdpsz.jpg?t=1463438521)
Now, if you're still with me; D is the creation the christian allmighty, allknowing and
ALL-loving God would prefer. It's also the one least cruel, because it doesn't send anyone to hell/has anybody send themselves to hell (scratch whichever you prefer, they are the same with an omnipotent, omniscient creator in place).
(And I'm sorry, I swear I didn't think it through making D the optimum one. I'm not saying God wants the D.)
Because no option is more free than the other; he has no reason not to pick the one in which most good would happen. He has no reason not to pick the one in which we would all accept him. And therefore he should, if he is also omnibenevolent.
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/gerthdillen/Pic10_zpsdcirfgki.jpg?t=1463438521)
But one of these, depending on how you see it, is the one he chooses.
I'd like to think I'm not evil. But if you were to concider me so, so be it. But that's why I opted for C, if you think we live in K, that's fine with me. The important thing here is that it's not D. So a triple-omni God (like the catholic one) does not mix with the reality we encounter.
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
Human beings can maintain incompatible beliefs and behaviors indefinitely. This is not a flaw. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson.
That's "a
foolish consistency."
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 18, 2016, 03:59:42 PM
That's "a foolish consistency."
The amount of consistency is over-estimated. Just like the majority of the universe is energy and matter that is not energy or matter as we currently understand it. We imagine that we can understand stuff that is away across the Milky Way, or may exist in galactic clusters ... and that it is homogeneous with what we know in a volume smaller than the radius to Alpha Centauri.
Any 'Get God out of Jail Free will' card is a non-starter because it is quite clear that God has no actual respect for it. Yeah, he wants everyone to come get to know him... under penalty of Hell and shit. If you decide according to your free will â€"so goes the argumentâ€" to not know God (how?) before you die, then you are penalized for that by burning in hell forever. I cannot send myself to Hell. I don't have that power. There's nothing about the rejection of god that, in and of itself, throws you into Hell. It simply the game that God set up, that in order to be saved from this Hell he talks about, you must give up your reason.
God doesn't accept that some people not wanting/able to get to know him is simply the universe working as designed... as he designed it, and he's throwing a tantrum and punishing the people who are working as designed. That's simply childish. Yeah, God makes it quite clear that, between belief in him and free will, which one he holds more valuable.
As the Metallica song goes, "You can do it your own way/If it's done just how I say."
But if God doesn't value free will as much as he values belief in him, why make belief in him subject to free will in the first place? :think: Flaw in the design, there.
Meanwhile, the libertarian-type free will that this argument requires is not even defined in an operational way. It's just more magic to justify the magic that is God.
Wait, now...did the OP somehow prove that life continues after death? Unlike how it is for every other species on the planet? If so, so many sorries. If not, so many pities lol.....
Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on May 19, 2016, 12:33:51 AMWait, now...did the OP somehow prove that life continues after death? Unlike how it is for every other species on the planet?
Well, he has eyewitness accounts of people who may or may not have been there who conceivably might've said that Jesus came back from the dead. Sounds like a pretty strong case to me.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
The thing to keep in mind is that I'm calling this free will and 'significantly free' because these are terms you claim to believe in and I don't see a reason to argue with you on terminology of something like this. If your God is omnipotent and omniscient then choosing to have someone become 'convinced' through sufficient reasons or remaining 'unconvinced' through insuffecient reasons is no different from 'causing' them to do or not do something. Which is why if all would choose to not do good there would be just as much 'free will' as in a reality in which some would choose to do good and just as much as in a reality in which all would choose to do good. I don't care if you call it free will or 'significantly free beings', the most important point is that through God's omniscience and omnipotence, by choosing to create any world, he shapes it with no more or less of this 'free will' or 'significantly free beings' than in any other world he'd create. Again, this will return down below.
I'm still reading, but I want to ask before I forget: What if God gives someone
enough cause to accept His plan, will, love, forgiveness, existence (all of which we can just call "Him" hereafter), but they simply don't want to? IOW, God has provided them with adequate intellectual cause but their rejection is volitional? They simply don't WANT to serve God because they prefer to be their own boss, so to speak?
Okay, back to my reading of your post and diagrams...
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
So you understand that he could create different worlds or this world differently (matter of wording there). So is your point that he didn't create just one world, but that we are one of an infinite amount? If so, I can understand your position a little bit better. But again, God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence combined with the concept of infinite creations still means he can create an infinite amount of 'perfect' and different worlds.
I don't think we should get hung up here. If God is omni, then he could envision the creation of an infinite number of worlds and then create the one in which EVERYONE accepted him of their own free will - unless it is not logically possible that He could do that. (I think I stated at the outset that Plantinga showed why this would be a logical contradiction, and although I know WHAT Plantinga said, I could not explain WHY at this point. I would need to do some research.)
Alternatively, God could have simply made "any old world" but then populate it exclusively with "Stepford Wives" - the good M&M's only approach.
Your argument is (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is obvious that God did NOT take either of these two approaches (since not everyone accepts Him) because He could not do so or did not want to do so. Thus, either God must not exist or else He is a lesser God than theists envision.
(Continued)
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 18, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
And you're right in that some people turn to religion through hardship in their lives. But an omnipotent and omniscient God could just as easily, without literally any effort, have them turn to him through a different path. A less difficult, argueous path. If you believe this is possible, as you say it's easy (actually seeing as he's omnipotent it takes literally no effort at all), then it should be equally possible and easy for him to have those who turn to him through hardship turn to him in a different way.
So, at this point, you're envisioning the ultimate nanny-state. God ensures that there is no suffering and that everyone comes to know him by means of a "less difficult, arduous path". How easy should God have made it for us? How would this impact our free will?
Let's say for the sake of argument that God intervened and prevented a rape from occurring...or prevented a murder. Great! Praise God.
But if He does that for one or two people, wouldn't He be obligated to prevent
every murder?
Every rape? Divorce hurts people, too...what about preventing
every divorce? Unemployment is bad....should God be obligated to prevent anyone from losing their job? Or falling on the playground and skinning their knees?
If God intervened in every situation that conceivably causes us pain, our lives would be so free from suffering that we would consider a hangnail to be a great injustice requiring God's intervention. At what point in this process of eliminating pain and suffering would life become so insipid as to be unworthy of living?
But at what point would God have to eliminate free will in order to accomplish this utopian existence? As disgusting as it is, God cannot stop the rapist or murderer without impinging on the free will of all mankind. Consequently, He allows the pain in order to respect the greater good.
And if we are not morally free to choose to rape or not rape, to kill or not kill, and we are forced to serve and obey God, why would we love Him at all since we really had no other choice?
Ultimately, aren't you asking why God didn't skip Earth and simply put us all directly into heaven?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
But if He does that for one or two people, wouldn't He be obligated to prevent every murder? Every rape?
Yes. Some shit the human species can do without. According to you, he has the power and knowledge to do so. He must therefore not be willing, and thus complacent in each and every one of them.
Because any one of us, in a similar situation, in every rape and murder, would do
something. We are quite willing and often able to interfere with each other's free will, frequently. Are you saying that God can't?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
Divorce hurts people, too...what about preventing every divorce? Unemployment is bad....should God be obligated to prevent anyone from losing their job? Or falling on the playground and skinning their knees?
And now we hit the slippery slope. For a god that supposedly planned out the entire universe and its history, he is complacent in a whole bunch of harm that he, if not planned, foresaw. Yet any one of us, in any position witnessing every one of these bad outcomes or foreseeing such, would have an urge to at least help out the poor unfortunates. We, with our meagre power over the universe, do more to help out than God does.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
If God intervened in every situation that conceivably causes us pain, our lives would be so free from suffering that we would consider a hangnail to be a great injustice requiring God's intervention. At what point in this process of eliminating pain and suffering would life become so insipid as to be unworthy of living?
You seem to be quite willing to put limits on the power and cleverness of God here: are you saying that God can't make a world without suffering and a creature able to live a worthly life within it anyway? See, hangnails happen
because we live in a world where compromises have to be made; in a world without trade-offs, nails wouldn't be necessary at all. We are the way we are, both physically and mentally, because we are first and foremost a survival machine â€" as long as we propagate, we've done our job in that perspective and everything else is secondary. We are the product of an unfair, unjust world, and as such would have much trouble in a utopia. But a creature designed to live within a utopia would look upon our world and would literally not be able to deal with it.
Hell, even in utopias, we find things to do. Anyone who's played Minecraft in Creative knows this.
In short, I don't see what's so special about suffering
per se that warrants a life without it to be not worth living.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
But at what point would God have to eliminate free will in order to accomplish this utopian existence? As disgusting as it is, God cannot stop the rapist or murderer without impinging on the free will of all mankind.
More slipery slope bullshit. The definition of what is "evil" is arbitrary anyway. Why couldn't a bar be set to state, 'this amount of badness, but no more'? It seems that no bar has been set, at all.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
Consequently, He allows the pain in order to respect the greater good.
Again, you're willing to put severe constraints on God's power and cleverness, saying that he can't respect the greater good without inflicting pain.
And then when people use their free will to reject him,
as designed, God sends them to hell for it. "You can do it your own way/If it's done just how I say."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cRwmqKWTLT8
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 19, 2016, 12:18:20 PM
Yes. Some shit the human species can do without. According to you, he has the power and knowledge to do so. He must therefore not be willing, and thus complacent in each and every one of them.
Because any one of us, in a similar situation, in every rape and murder, would do something. We are quite willing and often able to interfere with each other's free will, frequently. Are you saying that God can't?
And now we hit the slippery slope. For a god that supposedly planned out the entire universe and its history, he is complacent in a whole bunch of harm that he, if not planned, foresaw. Yet any one of us, in any position witnessing every one of these bad outcomes or foreseeing such, would have an urge to at least help out the poor unfortunates. We, with our meagre power over the universe, do more to help out than God does.
You seem to be quite willing to put limits on the power and cleverness of God here: are you saying that God can't make a world without suffering and a creature able to live a worthly life within it anyway? See, hangnails happen because we live in a world where compromises have to be made; in a world without trade-offs, nails wouldn't be necessary at all. We are the way we are, both physically and mentally, because we are first and foremost a survival machine â€" as long as we propagate, we've done our job in that perspective and everything else is secondary. We are the product of an unfair, unjust world, and as such would have much trouble in a utopia. But a creature designed to live within a utopia would look upon our world and would literally not be able to deal with it.
Hell, even in utopias, we find things to do. Anyone who's played Minecraft in Creative knows this.
In short, I don't see what's so special about suffering per se that warrants a life without it to be not worth living.
More slipery slope bullshit. The definition of what is "evil" is arbitrary anyway. Why couldn't a bar be set to state, 'this amount of badness, but no more'? It seems that no bar has been set, at all.
Again, you're willing to put severe constraints on God's power and cleverness, saying that he can't respect the greater good without inflicting pain.
And then when people use their free will to reject him, as designed, God sends them to hell for it. "You can do it your own way/If it's done just how I say."
Beautiful. You have walked all the way down that slope and arrived at the inevitable conclusion: If I were God, I would have done things better.
Which doesn't exactly tell us how though, does it?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:31:51 PM
Beautiful. You have walked all the way down that slope and arrived at the inevitable conclusion: If I were God, I would have done things better.
Which doesn't exactly tell us how though, does it?
Left as an exercise for the reader, but of course, you don't engage in those.
The solution is abstract beings. See, all of the suffering in the world ultimately comes down to physics/chemistry/biology. You get crushed by a rock â€" that's physics. You suffocate in carbon monoxide â€" that's chemistry. You get an ingrown toenail, or cancer â€" that's biology. Do stupid shit to impress a girl â€" that's biology. Make war â€" that's caused by scarcity, which boils down to physics, chemistry, or biology. Death â€"
biology. Abstract beings have no need to worry about such things. So, why didn't god make abstract beings instead of human beings, with no urge to hurt each other (how?) and instead have the urge to do constructive things.
There, worlds better than the material world and furthermore, God already has a model of such abstract beings â€"
himself.Yes, I am being arrogant here, because your God is an idiot.
But again, we are so terrible because the world itself is terrible, and we are but a reflection of that.
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 19, 2016, 01:31:51 PM
Beautiful. You have walked all the way down that slope and arrived at the inevitable conclusion: If I were God, I would have done things better.
Which doesn't exactly tell us how though, does it?
We don't need to know how ... "G-d moves in mysterious ways"
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2016, 06:35:41 PM
We don't need to know how ... "G-d moves in mysterious ways"
So does his mother when she's getting double boned.
Let me get this straight. God allows evil is the world because pain is a necessary evil. So then, God was counting on Adam to eat that fruit so that he could have an excuse to curse the world with pain and suffering? And what of Heaven? Does Heaven have pain and suffering too? If so, what a reward Christians have awaiting them.
Jesus. Some Christians are so thick that they can't see the obvious holes in their own arguments. They'll say it's A when convenient, then when the problems of A are pointed out, they say it's B, and they don't think they've contradicted themselves.
Necessary evil? That means G-d is an ontological bastard!
Quote from: Baruch on May 20, 2016, 06:55:17 AM
Necessary evil? That means G-d is an ontological bastard!
Yep! And every other kind of bastard one can think of.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 19, 2016, 01:09:51 AM
Well, he has eyewitness accounts of people who may or may not have been there who conceivably might've said that Jesus came back from the dead. Sounds like a pretty strong case to me.
Uh, no. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Prove life after death, THEN tell me where they go. This sounds so easy?
Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on May 20, 2016, 04:28:03 PMUh, no. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Prove life after death, THEN tell me where they go. This sounds so easy?
Would you accept the eyewitness testimony of the little kid who allegedly went to heaven and saw his perpetually youthful grandfather? (not the admitted fraud, the other one)
If that doesn't work, let me trot out some apologetics literature that misrepresents quantum mechanics yet seems just sciency enough to sound plausible to those with a childlike faith (and education).
Also, did you know that the Bible is really beautifully written, lots of people are theists (what do they know that you don't?), and all Abrahamic faiths basically worship the same god? (give or take Jesus)
I could do this all day. The evidence is so overwhelming!
I don't see a debate, it's 2016.
The religious fanatics want everyone to think there's a debate.
I don't think moderately religious people care much. They are mostly normal?
Quote from: Harassed on May 20, 2016, 07:31:57 PM
I don't see a debate, it's 2016.
The religious fanatics want everyone to think there's a debate.
I don't think moderately religious people care much. They are mostly normal?
Great observation. More religious people just try to get thru each week, week after week. They don't bother with controversy, if they happy with the way their life currently is. Though the President is trying hard to become Lincoln, and for that the states have to secede.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 20, 2016, 06:52:48 PM
Would you accept the eyewitness testimony of the little kid who allegedly went to heaven and saw his perpetually youthful grandfather? (not the admitted fraud, the other one)
If that doesn't work, let me trot out some apologetics literature that misrepresents quantum mechanics yet seems just sciency enough to sound plausible to those with a childlike faith (and education).
Also, did you know that the Bible is really beautifully written, lots of people are theists (what do they know that you don't?), and all Abrahamic faiths basically worship the same god? (give or take Jesus)
I could do this all day. The evidence is so overwhelming!
Damn! You're better than Randy. I am a believer!!!
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 19, 2016, 08:18:17 PM
Let me get this straight. God allows evil is the world because pain is a necessary evil. So then, God was counting on Adam to eat that fruit so that he could have an excuse to curse the world with pain and suffering? And what of Heaven? Does Heaven have pain and suffering too? If so, what a reward Christians have awaiting them.
Jesus. Some Christians are so thick that they can't see the obvious holes in their own arguments. They'll say it's A when convenient, then when the problems of A are pointed out, they say it's B, and they don't think they've contradicted themselves.
Is that what Christian philosophers actually say and the Problem of Evil?
Or is this merely an empty-headed misrepresentation of what Christians say so that it's so easy to refute that even you can do it?
Why set the straw man bar for yourself any higher than you have to?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 20, 2016, 06:52:48 PM
Would you accept the eyewitness testimony of the little kid who allegedly went to heaven and saw his perpetually youthful grandfather? (not the admitted fraud, the other one)
If that doesn't work, let me trot out some apologetics literature that misrepresents quantum mechanics yet seems just sciency enough to sound plausible to those with a childlike faith (and education).
Also, did you know that the Bible is really beautifully written, lots of people are theists (what do they know that you don't?), and all Abrahamic faiths basically worship the same god? (give or take Jesus)
I could do this all day. The evidence is so overwhelming!
If you sat down and actually read a decent book of apologetics, I don't think you'd be quite so cock-sure of yourself.
As it is, however, you only have to throw in a standard gag line or two, and someone in this forum is bound to like your post.
Don't you ever get tired of playing to an audience of mental munchkins?
Quote from: Randy Carson on May 21, 2016, 08:48:48 PM.
Don't you ever get tired of playing to an audience of mental munchkins?
Oh wow! Yes! Of course you are the mental giant among us! Now wonder I could not see it before--but then it takes my little munchkin mind quite awhile to process such sophisticated and clear reasoning to sink in. My little munchkin brain just reasons on such an inferior level as your wonderful catholic brain. Why just think.............tomorrow I can go to mass and then confess to the priest what a sinful, dreadfully blind little munchkin I've been. Maybe I can drink some wine and eat a wafer or two, and then maybe the priest and I can play a little slap and tickle...................oooooooooooh, I'm getting all prickly over the thought! Wow--the scales are just dropping off my eyes by the hundreds! Oh, thank you Randy of Georgia Tucks!!!
Randy - if Jesus was Jewish, and celebrated the Jewish sabbath and festivals ... why aren't you Gentiles doing this? Why celebrate Christmas rather than Hannukah? Because the wanna-be-Jews are still making war on the Jews. It really comes down to schizophrenia and genocide, right?
I've been a watcher on this discussion from the beginning, and I can now see atheist and many many humans aren't truly giving much thought into what they believe to be true.
Just like the Big Bang and evolution we just jump in and believe what were being told without any true evidence to back up those two claims!
I'm learning to think a little bit deeper after reading the comments from babytooth and knowing.
I mean if the world was created by accident, a random explosion that is a contradiction to science and the order of chaos rule it would not make a perfect world.
And also if that was the case, that would mean that we as humans are just worthless piles of cells and that means that good and evil would be fake, which would lead to that in reality there is no bad deed or good deed meaning I could kill children as an example because the only thing that says it to be wrong is another pile of cells(humans) and who really cares about some stupid cells!
It also kinda blew my mind when knowing asked someone if he thought man named himself man I have never thought of that before.
We all should advance our ways of seeing the world and our thinking abilities. I recently saw a scientist on YouTube think the video is called atheist scientist becomes Christian after research, you all seriously check out that video and tell me what you guys think and try to go into it with a open mind and heart, because I've realized that there is no proof for Big Bang or evolution actually evolution has became a joke to modern day scientists. These days all evidence is pointing towards intelligent design with our new capabilities!
Here we go again.
Quote from: 1Truth on June 16, 2016, 07:04:28 PM
I've been a watcher on this discussion from the beginning, and I can now see atheist and many many humans aren't truly giving much thought into what they believe to be true.
Just like the Big Bang and evolution we just jump in and believe what were being told without any true evidence to back up those two claims!
I'm learning to think a little bit deeper after reading the comments from babytooth and knowing.
I mean if the world was created by accident, a random explosion that is a contradiction to science and the order of chaos rule it would not make a perfect world.
And also if that was the case, that would mean that we as humans are just worthless piles of cells and that means that good and evil would be fake, which would lead to that in reality there is no bad deed or good deed meaning I could kill children as an example because the only thing that says it to be wrong is another pile of cells(humans) and who really cares about some stupid cells!
It also kinda blew my mind when knowing asked someone if he thought man named himself man I have never thought of that before.
We all should advance our ways of seeing the world and our thinking abilities. I recently saw a scientist on YouTube think the video is called atheist scientist becomes Christian after research, you all seriously check out that video and tell me what you guys think and try to go into it with a open mind and heart, because I've realized that there is no proof for Big Bang or evolution actually evolution has became a joke to modern day scientists. These days all evidence is pointing towards intelligent design with our new capabilities!
I'm 85% sure you're an alt of either Knowing, Babytooth, or Randy. Maybe more than one.
I am a member on this forum under another name.
Everyone would be surprised at who I am! lol
I'll keep that a secret! None of those three..
But you all tell me your opinions about that YouTube video!
Quote from: 1Truth on June 16, 2016, 07:50:49 PM
I am a member on this forum under another name.
Everyone would be surprised at who I am! lol
I'll keep that a secret! None of those three..
But you all tell me your opinions about that YouTube video!
Don't worry, the mods know exactly who you are.
Quote from: 1Truth on June 16, 2016, 07:04:28 PM
I've been a watcher on this discussion from the beginning, and I can now see atheist and many many humans aren't truly giving much thought into what they believe to be true.
Just like the Big Bang and evolution we just jump in and believe what were being told without any true evidence to back up those two claims!
I'm learning to think a little bit deeper after reading the comments from babytooth and knowing.
I mean if the world was created by accident, a random explosion that is a contradiction to science and the order of chaos rule it would not make a perfect world.
And also if that was the case, that would mean that we as humans are just worthless piles of cells and that means that good and evil would be fake, which would lead to that in reality there is no bad deed or good deed meaning I could kill children as an example because the only thing that says it to be wrong is another pile of cells(humans) and who really cares about some stupid cells!
It also kinda blew my mind when knowing asked someone if he thought man named himself man I have never thought of that before.
We all should advance our ways of seeing the world and our thinking abilities. I recently saw a scientist on YouTube think the video is called atheist scientist becomes Christian after research, you all seriously check out that video and tell me what you guys think and try to go into it with a open mind and heart, because I've realized that there is no proof for Big Bang or evolution actually evolution has became a joke to modern day scientists. These days all evidence is pointing towards intelligent design with our new capabilities!
Evolution is a joke to scientists......heck the jury on science is still out! Gravity is an illusion and DNA is a vile secular conspiracy. We rode dinosaurs, listened to talking snakes and impaled the cockatrice.
Maybe a quick browsing of objective web sites would do you good.
http://www.nasonline.org/
http://www.sciencemag.org/
Hooooo boy *roles up sleeves*
Quote from: 1Truth on June 16, 2016, 07:04:28 PM
I've been a watcher on this discussion from the beginning, and I can now see atheist and many many humans aren't truly giving much thought into what they believe to be true.
So atheists who prescribe to knowing the truth about how the world and universe works and able to accept answers in science can evolve the same as living organisms can, and you think that that doesn't apply much thought, as opposed to theists who believe one rule only.
QuoteJust like the Big Bang and evolution we just jump in and believe what were being told without any true evidence to back up those two claims!
There's actual evidence of evolution taking place that can be observed, tiny organisms evolve such as bacteria, or the example of the ground lizards that evolved into tree lizards for several decades.
QuoteI'm learning to think a little bit deeper after reading the comments from babytooth and knowing.
This'll be good..
QuoteI mean if the world was created by accident, a random explosion that is a contradiction to science and the order of chaos rule it would not make a perfect world.
And you think its a perfect world based on what. Does war and famine in third world countries seem perfect to you? How about all the generations of human slavery, war, barbarism. How about all the diseases that can kill people with no vaccines to cure them? Or things like cancer, diabeties, Aids. How about the fact a man just recently brought a gun and killed around 50 innocent people and injured around 52 others? Real perfect fucking world there.
QuoteAnd also if that was the case, that would mean that we as humans are just worthless piles of cells and that means that good and evil would be fake, which would lead to that in reality there is no bad deed or good deed meaning I could kill children as an example because the only thing that says it to be wrong is another pile of cells(humans) and who really cares about some stupid cells!
living organisms work on their own preservation and survival, this is why mammal species unless threatened don't kill one another, only other animals and only for survival. everything is made up of cells, atoms, molecules, but as a sentient species, we not only have the means to understand emotion, empathy, pain, we are also able to understand the workings of cells and molecules, and so create things like cures for diseases, how to split the atom, and how to launch ourselves into outer space. We're a species that evolved to the point of being able to do this, and we can do it by doing what religion doesn't do, create, test, retest, and keep retesting to improve on what we create.
QuoteIt also kinda blew my mind when knowing asked someone if he thought man named himself man I have never thought of that before.
Well heres something else to blow your mind to, the brain named itself as well.
QuoteWe all should advance our ways of seeing the world and our thinking abilities. I recently saw a scientist on YouTube think the video is called atheist scientist comes christian after research, you all seriously check out that video and tell me what you guys think and try to go into it with a open mind and heart, because I've realized that there is no proof for Big Bang or evolution actually evolution has became a joke to modern day scientists. These days all evidence is pointing towards intelligent design with our new capabilities!
I was going to look it up, until you started with the intelligent design crap, then it all made sense where you were coming from. Intelligent design 'scientists' and jokes, they buy their phds and pretend to be scientists the same as catholic priests pretend not to be child molesters.
I looked up the video however, and found it to be a Hugh Ross, a creationist who claimed to once be an atheist, but really his profile has always shown him to be a creationist. See its easier to fool the gullible theists into handing over money, so what better way when to make a ministry.
Quote from: 1Truth on June 16, 2016, 07:50:49 PM
I am a member on this forum under another name.
Everyone would be surprised at who I am! lol
I'll keep that a secret! None of those three..
But you all tell me your opinions about that YouTube video!
You do know how IP's work right.. ooh, no, I guess they didn't teach that in creationist daily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnKfz0rkyNI
One truth is that self proclaimed socks will be banned
Gerard
oooh ooh, here, I got as new title for just this occasion.
(http://i.imgur.com/ysXbaDe.jpg)
Quote from: Munch on June 16, 2016, 08:18:15 PM
You do know how IP's work right.. ooh, no, I guess they didn't teach that in creationist daily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnKfz0rkyNI
Stop playing with my heart with Batman TAS stuff.
You know Harley is my girl... <3