Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
3RU7AL, Keith, BrutalTruth, and myself... Notice how every single atheist here is shitting on WoA for advocating something you claim we all want to do?
Not a coincidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Orthodox Christianity is a very small minority in the US. What you know as Christianity is not what we know as Christianity.
Oh, you live in the US? Then I have very likely already done more at the tender age of 23 to preserve your right to hold whatever religious belief you wish than you ever will do to protect anyone else's right to anything. Ever.
That's okay though, keep telling yourself that I want a socialist takeover of our secular government to persecute you. That it's "built into every layer" of my beliefs.
After all that fits your narrative better than the truth does, doesn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We certainly do not advocate genocide
And I have never once said you do. Never. You have made such insinuations on multiple occasions however, and the emotion manipulating propaganda you get your information from is probably the reason why you do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't recall getting any pm's from him.
PM me if you are interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Remember what I said about my comment regarding the OT genocides that you brought up? How I said that I would only direct that comment towards people that defended and tried to justify said genocides?
That right there. That is the difference between people like myself as opposed to people like Mopac and WoA.
I am willing to acknowledge that not every Christian is okay with genocide just because it is in their holy book.
I am willing to acknowledge that not every person that worships Jesus would suport a theocratic regime just because the books say they should.
The vast majority would not support such a theocracy in fact, and I would never lump such people in with atrocities that they had nothing to do with just because they happened to share some religious beliefs with the perpetrators because for me to make such an equivocation would be morally unjustifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But I think Mopac's views are coloured by the communist's assault on religion and shouldn't be shrugged off with mocking irony
If you were to assume that all Catholics were pedophiles or pedophile supporters because of the scandals involving the Catholic church you would deserve to be ridiculed for that assumption. WisdomOfAges is a good example of this, he says some really ignorant things about religion and deserves to be ridiculed for the ignorant things he says because they breed hatred and intolerance.
The fact that atheists are a minority group compared to religious folk does not make lumping all atheists together any less ridiculous than lumping all of any other group together.
Mopac is not PW.
Mopac insinuates that atheists are genocidal dickholes every few weeks whereas PW outright says it every few minutes. You should not mistake this difference in outward aggression for a difference in inward conviction, however.
I wonder if Mopac has PM'ed you the same literature that he has PM'ed me. It provides interesting, albeit somewhat disturbing, insights into the black-and-white us-versus-them mentality that he harbors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You're right Mopac, the fact that I don't believe your God exists means I want you to be genocided and would totally never devote four years of my life to an organization sworn to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic peoples right to worship however they please.Flawless logic Mopac, truly nothing gets past you. Completely accurate and not offensive to me at all. *rolls eyes*I take it you were being ironic.
About Mopac's logic being flawless? I think 'sarcastic' works slightly better. The rest was ironic though, yes.
We happily castigate Christians for the mythical genocides in the OT - we can't deny that very real genocides were carried out explicitly and openly in the name of atheism within living memory.
The only thing I would say in seriousness about the stories of genocide in the OT - and I would direct it only at that minority of people who argue in favor of those actions being morally justified - would be this:
"It's always the present. You can't effect the past, but you can effect the future. So if you don't want genocide to happen again the first thing you should do - here and now - is stop justifying it."
Of course you and I don't support killing theists - but then we have to say that, don't we?
Nonsense. No more than any Muslim American should "have to say" that they don't support the activities of ISIS. To assume that someone must by default be in support of any extremism which they have not specifically denounced is laughably absurd and allows the perfect breeding ground for the type of propaganda that feeds into the notions of people like Mopac, P-Witch, and others that entire groups of people ought to be demonized and treated as outcasts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Uh-huh.
Anyway, response to anything that I said in posts 145, 147, or 152? Anything at all (other than accusations of being an evil genocide-craving commie whore of Satan)? Any further questions about what I believe or are you going to continue to pretend that I accept your 'ultimate reality' as a useful phrase and just keep making assumptions about what I actually believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Oh I accept the definition. The definition simply does nothing to prove your claims.
It is actually worth noting that he doesn't really even agree with the dictionary whatsoever. I never pointed it out before because as I said I don't think the dictionary should be looked at as the be-all-end-all for how words are used due to language being a social construct but now that you mention it...
He says the definition is "Ultimate Reality = God"
The link he cites is this one:
He uses the text next to the number "1", but ignores the fact that that text is actually just supposed to be a precursor for the text next to the "a" and the "b". In other words there is no definition "1" - there are only definitions "1a" and "1b". Neither 1a nor 1b agree with the above bolded definition, only the incomplete "definition 1" does, but that isn't actually a definition on its own.
Looking up "ultimate reality"...
It makes references to Abrahamic religions gods as examples, with the wording making it pretty clear that according to the dictionary ULTIMATE REALITY is an aspect of God, not a synonym like Mopac claims.
Why does he use Merriam Webster instead of Oxford? Let's take a look...
No reference to the phrase 'ultimate reality' or even just the plain word 'reality' at all. Curious. Perhaps this is the reason Mopac converted to MW from Oxford?
Like I said the reason I never brought this up is because like you I don't think that anyone speaking English as a first language should lean on the dictionary as a crutch as heavily as Mopac does but as you can see even if one rejects the notion that language is a social construct and takes everything the dictionary says as absolute laws of nature Mopac's argument still has no ground to stand on.
So next time if you don't feel like actually putting in effort with the interaction just copy/paste the Oxford dictionary definitions at him. Food for thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Considering atheistic governments have martyred over 20 million Orthodox Christians in the lasy [sic] century, I don't think that is weird.
You're right Mopac, the fact that I don't believe your God exists means I want you to be genocided and would totally never devote four years of my life to an organization sworn to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic peoples right to worship however they please.
Flawless logic Mopac, truly nothing gets past you. Completely accurate and not offensive to me at all. *rolls eyes*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
They condemn me and my people.
Citation needed.
Warning: persecution complex detected. Godwins law fulfillment imminent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
He's going to say that the dictionary definition of Santa doesn't say Santa is Christmas, just that he is associated with Christmas. He is going to completely ignore the part about language being a social construct for communication which is not dependant on the existence of dictionaries as if I never brought that point up. He'll continue to pretend that I am completely clueless as to what his point is despite having said it like a broken record over 1000 times and continue to pretend that I am completely clueless about Orthodox Christianity despite over half my family being Orthodox Christians (bonus points if "they just aren't good Orthodox Christians")
Not that he is totally predictable or anything, just a lucky guess ;-).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You know, just because it is news to you that this is always what the church has understood God to be doesn't mean that it is the arbitrary thing you are making it.
Tell me more about how you won't call the universe God but get really pissed off when I don't call the universe God then tell me what the dictionary definition of 'hypocrisy' is.
Created:
Posted in:
Seven year old child: I believe that Santa is Christmas, that Santa has magic that comes from Christmas Spirit, that Santa wants to give us all presents, and that if we are really good then he will! Hey Mopac, do you believe in Christmas?
Mopac: Christmas? Uh yeah, that holiday that people celebrate. End of December for some, beginning of January for others.
7YO: Well guess what, buddy? YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA! GOTCHA NOW SUCKER!
M: Uh, what? No, I don't believe that days can be magic or... what was that other thing you just said? Oh, the -
7YO: No no no no don't worry about that other stuff. Just the part where I throw a truism at you, that's all I want you to focus on.
M: But that part about presents... I don't believe that any -
7YO: No no no no you're really making this more complicated than it has to be. If I am in apologetics mode then when I say 'Santa' I really just mean that as a synonym for 'Christmas'. You aren't going to deny that Christmas is real like all those dirty wicked evil Hannuka celebrators do, are you?
M: I seriously doubt anyone has ever told you that Christmas does not exist.
7YO: It's settled then. Congrats on believing in Santa.
M: But that's not how language works, little kid. You can't just redefine the word Santa just because you want to convince people that they believe in him. The word 'Santa' has an actual meaning to people that speak this language. The meaning behind this word is how people understand this word to work and if you arbitrarily use it differently you aren't contributing anything to the conversation about Santa at all!
7YO: Actually I have a dictionary to support this definition of Santa.
M: Dictionary definition? Did you hear a single thing I just said? Even if you do have a dictionary which could be read that way I am telling you that people use the word Santa a certain way, a way that you understand perfectly well, and if you try to prove some point by just focusing on one aspect of it (the association between Santa and Christmas) you are not helping anything. There is so much more baggage to go with the word Santa than just what a dictionary says because that is how language works. Language is not created by dictionaries. Language is a social construct.
7YO: Look dude, seriously. Belief in Christmas is belief in Santa. I don't care what the other several billion people who speak English think about Santa because that is just their opinion. If the only part about Santa that you believe is the Christmas part, you don't believe in the presents or coal or anything, then to you Christmas is Santa. I wouldn't say that, I would say Christmas is just one part of Santa, but if Christmas is the only part that you believe in then I INSIST that you call Christmas Santa.
Mopac: That is absurd! I already have a word for Christmas. I call it Christmas!
7YO: Well sure you can still call it that, just make sure you call it Santa too and don't forget that if anyone asks you whether you believe in Santa you have to say yes now!
M: But that... That is so stupid... There are SO MANY flaws in what you are trying to do here that I -
7YO: Okay bye now! I am off to convince more people that Santa exists so that I can get on Santa's nice list! Bye bye Mopac!
- Later that same day -
Mopac: I believe that God is ultimate reality, that God created the universe, that God loves us all, and that the Orthodox Christian church is God's favorite church. Hey you, do you believe in ultimate reality?
Innocent bystander: Ultimate reality? Uh, you mean that like, reality is real? Yeah sure. Reality is real.
M: Well guess what, buddy? YOU BELIEVE IN GOD! GOTCHA NOW SUCKER!
IB: Uh, what? No, I don't believe that the universe was created or... what was that other thing you just said? Oh, the -
M: No no no no don't worry about that other stuff. Just the part where I throw a truism at you, that's all I want you to focus on.
IB: But that part about the Orthodox Church... I don't believe that any church -
M: No no no no you're really making this more complicated than it has to be. If I am in apologetics mode then when I say 'God' I really just mean that as a synonym for 'reality'. You aren't going to deny that reality is real like all those dirty wicked evil nihilists do, are you?
IB: I seriously doubt anyone has ever told you that they don't believe reality is real.
M: It's settled then. Congrats on becoming a theist.
IB: But that's not how... You know what, nevermind. I don't actually care. Congratulations Mopac I believe in God. Just let me get back to what I was doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you are saying that the universe is the one reality, you would be a pantheist. That means your conception of God is the universe.
Consider this:
Even you - you who applies the label of God and several other words to so many things that it is as if your most fervent desire is for these words to become irrelevant due to overuse - Even you said that you would not call the universe God. Therefore why should I - I who have respect for language and do not wish any words to be used frivolously for no good reason because I believe language should be used for the purpose of communication - Why should I call the universe God?
I already have a word for the universe. That word is this: universe.
Why should I do this?
Because Mopac told me to?
Laughable, and yet I am not laughing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So would you say the universe is this one reality?
This question is a bit unclear.
I'm not convinced that there is anything that exists outside the universe. Does that answer your question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So yes, I don't mind if we simplify it to just testimonial evidence, which BTW includes my own. So, I'm not just going by other peoples testimonies, I'm considering them with my own.
That is certainly fine by me. Would you feel comfortable going into detail on any experiences that you have had which you would classify as such personal testimony before I start to ask any questions?
Created:
Have you stopped reading the bible? You've not got to the good bits.
I have continued reading and am almost done with Leviticus. Posting here was just taking too much effort, several hours per chapter in the best of cases (the best cases being those where I don't lose all my typing progress just as I was almost finished).
Maybe I will go back and do threads on just the interesting bits and give less detailed OPs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you don't believe that this one reality is ultimately real?
I believe that reality is super-duper extra-special real.
Did adding the phrase "super-duper extra-special" help the conversation in any way whatsoever? Do you now have a better understanding of what I believe or why? No? How shocking!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Do you believe that the universe is the ultimate reality?
Unlike you I believe only one reality exists. Attaching the word 'ultimate' to it just because Mopac insists that I must do so would lower me to the same level as a young child that refers to their bicycle as a "turbo-speed rocket bike" or their water gun as a "super blaster rifle" because young children like to use exciting sounding words for mundane things. It would add nothing to anyones understanding about anyone else's positions or beliefs at all.
In case that isn't clear enough, the answer to your question is no.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I suppose getting rid of religion would help a bit - but it wouldn't be a cure-all.
Nah. I don't think religion causes any real harm, I think it is at worst used as an excuse for things that would still be problems even without religion.
The exception to this would be the extremists such as Jehovas Witnesses, Westborough Baptists, FLDS, etc. Those groups aren't harmful because they are religious though... they are harmful because they are extremists. Harmful extremism can be found outside of religious circles as well - just ask anyone that lived in the USSR or in China during their 'cultural revolution'!
Created:
-->
@Vader
Yea and then if you picked them, guess what, you are a liberal
I think you may be overestimating how serious this is supposed to be. I mean come on, one of the questions was about the size of black penises versus white ones.
Created:
-->
@WisdomofAges
NOW what humanity needs is a FLOOD of the TRUTH regarding the Middle East "GOD" invented garbage
The only floods you offer are floods of word salad and atrocious grammar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
There is no need for you to subject yourself to this. Unlike me I am sure you have better things to do lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not insisting that you believe in something that cannot be observed or postulated.I am saying that God as we Orthodox understand it is not contingent on observation or postulation.
Then you can accept that I don't believe in your God.
How about you admit that we disagree and just say I am wrong like a normal person instead of doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself that we actually agree, hmm?
Created:
-->
@Vader
There were options for people that don't 'hate blacks and jews' to pick from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Intrinsic I don't know that anything could really be said to have intrinsic value. All value is subjective and/or dependent on circumstances.
I think it is possible for things to have intrinsic value, I just don't think intrinsic value in our currency is necessary for a sound financial system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Perhaps you don't understand, I'm not using one or two pieces of evidence (I know you're asking for that but it's not necessary), I'm considering testimonial evidence as a whole, which includes all that I mentioned.
Okay so would you say that testimonial evidence is your main reason for believing what you do about spirituality? In other words if there were no such testimonials you would be less likely to believe the way you do?
Can you accept that as a legit or satisfactory answer? if not then you will have to explain why you won't consider it.
If you will allow me to simplify to just saying 'testimonial evidence' in general to save time typing then I have no problem with that answer. In your previous post I was a bit, overwhelmed I guess for lack of a better word, by your listing out of all the different kinds of testimonials. It did not cross my mind to simply condense to the idea of testimonials in general. I am okay with that if you are.
If you're going to play grammar police, you will have your hands full. I'd rather just move forward without the lessons thanks.
Okay, as long as I understand what you are trying to say I won't mention anything. If you notice the same of me I wouldn't mind you pointing it out though. I try to use as clear and proper language as possible so if I am unknowingly screwing it up and you point it out then you are helping me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have a bad habit of implicating me in things I don't say or even imply.
Nah, it is pretty easy. You said that you do not consider, in your words, "everything that can be observed or postulated" to be God, which means that your God is characterized by something that cannot be observed or postulated. You insist that I believe in God therefore you are insisting that I believe in something that cannot be observed or postulated. Very simple concept.
We can extrapolate further from this. You never asked whether I believe in anything that cannot be observed or postulated but you insist that I do, therefore you are making baseless assumptions about what is actually in my head.
Any other questions about what I believe or are we done here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You already told me what is in your head. You believe you are an atheist.
Exactly, and you insist that I am not because I believe in something that cannot be observed or postulated despite never having asked me whether I in something that cannot be observed or postulated. You claim to know me better than me. That's what I said. Glad we are on the same page there.
Any other questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't see any competition here.
You're the one claiming to know what is in everyone else's head better than they do, not me. (Post 52)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ha I'll check out your response and get to it (hopefully it will be worth it), pardon the time lapses I am not brushing you off (yet) I can't spend all day everyday on here like others. But yes, you're loved...!
Awww thanks. Now I feel warm inside =)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And I would like to express my sincere belief that these things that both you and others mock are things that you don't really understand.
Seems you don't understand what actual mocking is but okay.
So anyway we have established
1) You believe that - in your words - "everything that can be observed or postulated put together" should not be called God but you would call reality God, which means that your God must be defined by some characteristic that cannot be 'observed or postulated' (post 76)
2) You claim to know that I believe in God deep down despite never having asked me whether I believe in anything that cannot be observed or postulated, probably because you are more interested in a competition than a conversation.
Cool. Any other questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So I truly believe in one reality. The Ultimate Reality.
And you also believe many other things about reality such as its ability to hear and understand prayer, feel emotion, that it has a plan for how it wants the universe to be, etc.
If you didn't though... would you still call it God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
So have you gathered yet that he is a master at twisting words and dodging questions, and that he'll never give a straight answer if that answer would be detrimental to his argument?
Yes.
Why do you waste your time when there are other theists out there who are sane enough to have an actual debate with?
I tried to engage with EV and TS in another thread and both brushed me off. It made me feel sad and unloved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have said multiple times on the last page that you believe in one reality.
Yes I have. That is one of many things we seem to disagree on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You still believe the ultimate reality exists
Citation needed.
Do you believe that the universe is the ultimate reality?
As has been previously noted 'ultimate reality' is a term that nobody here unironically uses except for you. If anyone knows the answer to whether the ultimate reality encompasses everything that could possibly be observed or thought about it would be you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have a conception of God that has thoughts and emotions.
Not really. I don't think the universe has any thoughts or emotions at all. My question is whether you would call that God. Would you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So conceptions aren't reality after all? Interesting.
I don't think the universe is capable of thought or emotion though. Would you call that God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The God I believe is The Ultimate Reality, and if you deny The Ultimate Reality you have nothing to stand on.
Let's talk about this God that you claim I believe in. Is it capable of thought or emotion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yet you say you believe in the mind and the universe. That means you believe in the reality of mind and universe.And you agreed that the universe is "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated".
So far so good.
If you believe that there is objective reality, and that this reality can be discovered through subjective observation and postulation, that means that there is some reality to your subjective observation.
Mostly correct. There are processes that can be used to identify innaccurate perceptions and mitigate their impact on our understanding of reality. That is something we could talk about for hours but I doubt you care about any of that.
You are truly having an experience. Your experience, even if illusion, is still a reality. The reality of your experience.So what I am asking you, to clarify since you claim there is one reality....Are you denying the reality of your subjective experience or are you saying that you experience reality as it truly is?If you are denying that your subjective experience is a reality, how do you explain it existing?
Talking frogs aren't real. If I see a hallucination of a talking frog it is not real, it is a hallucination. I may think it is real but I would be wrong.
That really is just semantics and word-play though, isn't it? Let's talk instead about this God that you claim I believe in. Is it capable of thought or emotion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It seems a bit silly to say that a person's perception is reality. If a person sees a hallucination of a talking frog that talking frog is not real. A person may think it is real but that person is incorrect. That is how words work.
But perhaps you should think for a moment before slapping the label of God on the first metaphysical thing we superficially seem to agree on simply because you wish to have a competition rather than a conversation. What else do you believe about God? Does your God have thoughts or emotions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I believe there is only one reality whereas you just said there are multiple realities all contingent upon a greater one. These are two different statements. That means I disagreed with you. Pretending that I agreed with you is silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is God.
What is God? I just finished saying to you that I don't believe in this 'ultimate reality' as you defined it.
You aren't an atheist.
I believe there is only one reality whereas you just said there are multiple realities all contingent upon a greater one. That means I disagreed with you. Pretending that I agreed with you is silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is the one uncreated and supreme existence that precedes all other existences, which are contained within and contingent on this one existence.
Okay, seems easy to answer then. I see no reason to believe that there are 'multiple existences' beyond the reality which we exist within.
Any other questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It would help if you describe this 'ultimate reality' of yours in a bit more detail. Nobody here unironically uses that phrase except you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
For me - and maybe for you too - the 'ultimate truth/reality', the 'generator and sustainer' is what is sometimes called 'the theory of everything'.Obviously we don't know what the ToE is, but we can be sure it's not a god. Mopac thinks otherwise - he's sure the 'ultimate reality/sustainer/generator etc' is a god - moreover it's the Orthodox Christian God.
Theory of Everything. I am familiar with the concept although it has been several years since I have seriously looked into the scientific communities 'progress' on the topic (for lack of a better word).
I certainly understand why you would say that is what Mopac would call god. We shall see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The abundance of evidence (understanding that "evidence" is that which is an indicator something is true, as opposed to it not being true) that the soul leaves the physical body is observed through NDE testimonies, OBE's, spiritual encounters, transcendental experiences, soul travel, religious teachings/sources ect ect.
I asked for you to choose just one or at most two similar pieces of the strongest evidence you can think of not because I wanted to limit you but instead because it is easier to have a two-way conversation about a few things at a time than to have a two-way conversation about ten things at a time.
Also, 'evidences' is not the correct plural form of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Against the alternatives other than perhaps RBE.
Me? seriously? No, I am very much in favor of the fiat currency model. You bombed that reading comprehension test for sure.
Created: