Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
@PW
If you don't believe in a god what are you doing to end hunger? Probably the same as most theists. Just enough to feel good about yourself.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual. BUt in any case, I'm doing more than God and Jesus combined.
Created:
Posted in:
Why doesn't it happen? Is it because expecting people to do it is not, in fact, an " effective, permanent solutions to any problem [god] so chooses"? If that's the solution god chose, then why do children still starve to death?
Typically the god of the bible doesn't "expect" anything to happen, since he's the author of anything that does happen. That's the god I'm referring to, the abrahamic god of the bible. If he expects something to happen that doesn't, then he's not omniscient, and if he can't MAKE something happen like having people take care of each other, then he's not even all that powerful, and it starts to look like that god and no god at all act pretty much exactly alike. The question really is if god wanted something to be solved, he wouldn't need humans to do anything at all to solve it, he'd just DO IT. See what I'm saying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
So then why doesn't he offer a non-magical solution to end, say, hunger? The only answer would appear to be "He doesn't want to," which then leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either he intends for people to starve to death, or he cannot actually offer these solutions.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Ok, does the article prove it was either prayer or being a theist or being a praying theist that in some way caused or in some way contributed to this 'impossible' happening?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
So you're saying atheists can't prove unlikely things happen to atheists? This is a very strange argument, can you clarify? Atheists don't generally believe in miracles, so it'd be really unusual for an atheist to claim a 'miracle' happens to another atheist, in part because I don't know how you define 'miracle.' Is it supernatural? Is it just something that's unexplained by our current knowledge base, or something that seems extremely unlikely to happen?
Could we define a miracle as a 16 beating 1 since it's only happened once in the history of the NCAA tournament?
Created:
Confirmation bias happens to everyone. :-)
Created:
Don't forget these important equations:
8=D + (_!_) = 8====D~~~~~
Created:
Posted in:
I found it interesting the article said the Holy See says "God does not AND CANNOT bless sin."
Is that one of those things that is beyond God's power? Is it possible for God to redefine what qualifies as a sin?
Created:
Posted in:
I don't get how people can't understand evolution and natural selection as hard facts what with the active demonstration being provided by COVID and its subsequent variants. If a variant is more contagious and easier to transmit than its predecessor, it will crowd out the predecessor incredibly quickly. It's simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
THose are the qualities of many gods, no? Which god specifically?
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
"Torturing infants for fun is wrong, and ought not to be done. "This proposition is:A. TrueB. False.I await your selection.
Can you define torture? It seems pedantic, but some might think 'torturing' an infant withholding sugary juice drinks. Some disagree. Some think letting their infant cry at night is torture. Some disagree. THe term needs clarification.
If you're talking, for example, during the Inquisition, it wasn't viewed as 'wrong,' rather 'necessary.' Is it not wrong, then, because they weren't doing it 'for fun'?
And I don't think the "wrong" and "ought not be done" are necessarily connected nor are they interchangeable. If you lop either off, you're left with "wrong according to what definition" or "ought not be done," which doesn't connect to wrong in and of itself. We can say 'it's wrong according to how I view the world here in 2020, so I don't do it nor do I endorse it." It's also illegal. Which doesn't mean right, wrong, moral or immoral, it's just what society has decided we won't tolerate legally.
Why did, according to the bible, God torture his own son? Was that wrong? If God were indeed all powerful, why was this the only path to the end he wanted to achieve? Is it not wrong to brutally torture a man for something with which he had nothing to do (original sin), to pay the 'debt' of someone else (not forgive the debt instead)?
Created:
Still no connection between 11 and 12. Not to mention there's zero evidence that the conclusion of 11 ("all men call this Mind God") is correct. I don't call it that, for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
You also would do well to define "God" in P7. If it's a specific god, then there's rather insufficient connective tissue between 6 - 7. "Omniscient mind" does not inherently advance the ball on identification of a specific character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Bye Felishia!
It's FelCia, dumbass.
Why doesn't the NBA reporter who just died count? Is it because you didn't know he had Covid before he was reported to be hospitalized and subsequently died? Dawn Wells? Larry King? These are all examples within the last couple of weeks. Is the problem that some are described as "complications from Covid" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Oh, okay, got it. Please stay off the vaccine line, though. You know they're putting 5G in the vaccines, so don't risk it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Start by defining "celebrity"Someone whom most posters here would be likely to know.
This is an incredibly narrow definition and not very usable. The NBA reporter Sekou Smith who just died of Covid, far more people 'know' him than people that post on this forum, but by your definition, he's not a celebrity unless most of the ten or twelve posters in this corner of the internet "know" who he is. By your definition, I'm potentially a bigger celebrity than he is.
Created:
Posted in:
Start by defining "celebrity" (what % of the population do you think qualifies, too) and are you talking specifically American, or the whole world?
Created:
Posted in:
And as an aside - how do people respond or react or feel about the powerful forces of nature? Are people afraid of thunderstorms? OR do they think oh - well that is just a scientific principle acting out - don't worry about it.
We can see that people react in all sorts of ways. Children are afraid of thunderstorms because they're noisy and scary. Adults can't realy effectively stifle the startle reflex when a loud thunderclap nearby happens, but jumping at the noise doesn't necessarily make one 'afraid' of thunderstorms. Adults realize that it's a natural phenomenon with a very solid scientific explanation, not Zeus or Thor's hammer. Still, we can react to the forces of nature with awe, right? Have a look at some of the footage of the tsunami in Japan back about ten years ago, if you remember, it was truly awesome. Events like that on some level remind us all how uncontrollable nature is and how we really can only stand by and watch it, hoping it doesn't destroy us.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'll go up to a thousand USD against your date, same escrow service as drafterman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Does it ever bug you to know that the theists on this board almost to a person believe you're going to at best be deleted when you die, at worst you'll be thrown into a pit of fire to be tortured for eternity for believing as you do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You say that as if your very wordy shoulder shrugs and pretending to know something everyone else doesn't counts as an argument, when you have literally demonstrated nothing at all. You're not making arguments. YOu're making assertions. And like it or not, all of yur arguments boil down to god of the gaps, bro. QUantum mechanics is an incredibly young field of science which you somehow pretend to understand by saying "yeah, that's how god is doing it!", plus arguing from incredulity and a healthy dose of anthropocentrism.
Solve the problem: demonstrate the existence of any creator without saying "PROCESSES DON"T START THEMSELVES!" or some version thereof. How can I know for sure if god exists? You once told me I could theoretically take a space ship to the dimension where there are planets that are basically belief-specific heavens. How can (a) I accept that as true and (b) you type that with a straight face?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What I find, is that quantum mechanics aligns with my own propositions about creation. And since science is a neutral study there's no need to assume that anything it establishes is a product of materialism or atheism. What science "shows us" is how things work and by what processes, not why such processes occurred in the first place. Science can be interpreted as understanding the works of God, I don't see quantum mechanics or science as anything in contrast to my interpretation of the world.Atheists assume that scientific studies and the scientific method support materialism and atheism, which is absolute nonsense. They get this silly idea from atheistic preachers who try and use theories of science to undermine religion lol, they think that because they can use science to show how things operate that they can use it to peddle their nonsensical worldviews. Science doesn't make any claims about Gods existence OR nonexistence, that's not its field of study.So let me get this out of the way now, the scientific method, evolution and scientific studies are compatible with Theism.
TL:DR version: god of the gaps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Which theist on this board do you find yourself disagreeing MOST with?
Created:
Posted in:
It's basically an iteration of our pack animal nature, plus the appeal of supposed secret knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I've paid my dues as a believer, I've submitted to just about any teaching you can find on spirituality and have applied it to myself. I have no biases towards any sources of knowledge, I consider scientific sources the same as any fanatic as well. I've learned, applied, observed, studied, experienced and put in endless hours thinking and sifting through information to be able to relay God's knowledge about creation efficiently and accurately. I don't peddle or proselytize religion, rather I give them all a fair shot by studying as much as I can so I have no agenda or ulterior motives to convert anyone to anything other than to at least consider the existence of God as a real thing. This of course doesn't mean I know everything but it does mean I know quite a bit and I've never seen a question that I haven't seriously thought about and applied all my knowledge to to solve the issue.I'm not indoctrinated, mentally ill, biased, or a wishful thinker. I don't personally care about what I want or what anybody else claims when it comes to understanding what is most likely true or simply true. My conclusions are based upon my own observations and experience of the world...logic, commonsense, good rationale, evidence, cross referencing and I've considered every side of the equations. Needless to say I qualify as someone to be trusted and considered. If anything it's good to have someone who can answer questions unbiased and from a wide range information and facts.
Great, so what exactly can you prove to someone other than yourself?
Which religions are definitely WRONG?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Is there any reason not to consider my answers?
You seem to be presenting yourself as some sort of expert, yet you have never demonstrated the veracity of any of your claims. If you want to just blather your theories about various heavens and what gods exist or don't exist and what properties they have, you don't need anyone asking questions to prompt you. Without demonstration, you're just a guy with a sandwich board harassing passers by with "the end is nigh!" pronouncements and wondering why people are not engaging you. The reason not to consider your answers is because there's no reason to believe any of them to be correct. They're your opinions and they weigh about as heavily on people besides you as whatever you think is going to happen in the NFL playoffs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So, then this version of god isn't omniscient and didn't know how it would "affect physiology" beforehand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It's really a numbers thing, there are far more Christians propping up their versions of god than there are other faiths around here. I'm willing to discuss any faith at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Speech should not be coerced. Even if one were told of a crime, one is not obligated, least of all to the State, to divulge such information. One's reasons for withholding information are irrelevant.
Even in instances where there is no privilege at all? For example, if your friends tell you they robbed a bank and someone died, but they're pretty sure they got away with it, you don't think it's right that you're under legal obligation to report it, or be considered an accessory of some sort? I know that's not really the topic, but I'm curious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So you're saying he'd have to have personal experience with the dragon, something like "I can hear it whisper in the night"? WHat would suffice to make him 'aware' in your view?
Created:
Posted in:
"How did you become aware of this dragon?"
"My parents told me it's there."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
sin is not a thing. In other words it is not a creation. It is a verb for want of a better of word. Sin is described as a breach of a law. It is an act or an omission. So strictly speaking it is not a thing - which has been created. In other words, it is not inconsistent with God creating all things.
So where did the concept of sin and evil come from? Did god authorize its existence, or did man create it without god's consent?
And the observation wasn't really about the creation of sin, it's about the creation of evil.
Created:
Posted in:
Isn't the idea that man created evil by sinning ALSO a problem because it's something created by an entity other than god, and something that he didn't think of and apparently can't control and abhors?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
P1 Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.P2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
This looks pretty dumb as a set up here. First, if everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, you'd now have the question of what explains the exisence of god. And P2 does not in any way follow from P1, it's a leap of leaps. You can replace God with anything and it has the same validity. I know, I know, you only argue for the god of th bible, which makes this argument correct in your view, but it will never move anyone who doesn't already believe as you do. I' mean I'm not familiar with the rest of the argument, but on its face, this is not a very sound syllogism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
That is really thought provoking. I have never thought of it quite in that way. Have you always had this perspective or has it developed over time?
It eroded over time with little milestones or moments of "oh that makes a lot more sense" along the way. I grew up Catholic, and by the time I was making confirmation, I knew that wasn't quite right. I tried "being saved" for a very short while, that made even less sense. Eventually I had to face the fact, I couldn't just 'believe' it any more. It's not quite as dramatic as that sounds, it was pretty liberating and gave my life and the life of everyone around me a lot more 'significance' to use an imprecise word!
The reason I'd say a pentheon of gods makes more sense (but again, is still not real), is because those gods didn't give one fig about humans, and their understandably human emotions (because they were imagined by humans!) saddled them with the propensity for desires and pettiness and feuds, feuds that would inevitably cause some sort of disaster (a flood, a tidal wave, an earthquake). These phenomena cost people their lives or livelihoods, and you just had to suck it up and figure "Well, that's how it goes." THe "has a plan" version of a monotheistic god, the kind many Christians subscribe to, would imply that he plans for stuff like the tsunami killing a quarter million sri lankans, or Covid killing millions around the world, which doesn't square with the other purported properties or traits of that god. THe greeks ouwld say "Well, Poseidon and Hades were having a shit fit, and that caused a giant wave." The Christian says "Our loving god wiped out thos esri lankans because gay marriage, isn't our god awesome??" That's why I would say the pantheon is more sensible, if that was your question.
Created:
Posted in:
I figured non-believers weren't invited to this thread, what a pleasant surprise!
There are a million tiny little reasons or moments in my life that kind of 'revealed' the lack of a god, but the question isn't how I got here, right? THe reason I believe what I believe is because it's what makes the most sense. The lack of some indemonstrable superpower literally watching over and causing all the stuff that happens in life doesn't make sense, such a power having any reason to care about if someone jacks off or has premarital sex or is gay doesn't make any sense, or caring if people who live for the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things worship it or not doesn't make any sense, that being be mad at his creation because they do exactly as he planned for them to do, or that being seeming surprised when people do what they do and then getting mad at them...the enormity of space, the weird forms of life, the struggles of humans, the stories in the books, they just don't make sense. IF I were to try to believe in a god, it'd be a pantheistic version, because that makes far more sense than a single entity being responsible for everything, but those aren't real either, all the stuff they used to explain has been explained by science. Once you start tugging at the strings, the whole sweater comes apart for me.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Alternately, you can think really hard until god tells YOU how to handle the injustice on his behalf. Burn the gay neighbor's house down and salt the earth, praise his name, for example.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Catholics have historically had a rather problematic relationship with the children of Israel....and children in general, it seems.
Yeah, but guys, you know that they're just not doing Christianity correctly like PGA, so it doesn't count towards CHristians. Also, god allows bad things to happen to children so they can have a better afterlife sooner, he restores what's lost in the afterlife. Now don't we all feel better?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ehhhhhhxactly! My favorite so far is "If there really is no god why aren't you out torturing children for fun / being Kim Jong Un." Makes it sound like if there's no god, then that's what that person thinks they'd be doing. If the belief in god is the only thing holding them back, then by all means, ignore my arguments!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Strangely, if you truly thought there was "nothing" to be learned from this conversation, you wouldn't even be reading it.
Fair point, but I'm reading it for the responses to PGA, not for his script. I find new voices interesting and like to hear how people arrive at their conclusions, or see if their responses are similar to my own in the same situation.
"You don't have what's necessary to explain the big bang / origins!" SO WHAT.It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Agree...that's where I say "I don't know," and where PGA says "Jesus."
40 pages in this topic alone and there aren't any practical answers to these questions.What do you consider a "practical" answer? What are you gaining from "other" discussions that seems to be specifically "missing" from this one?
"Your worldview doesn't makes sense, mine does, therefore I can {DO WHAT} that you cannot do. You can't make sense of morality, and until you do, you cannot {DO WHAT} that I can do, so you should shape up." The brackets would be considered, in my view, 'practical, because they are actually applied to life. In other words, what is the overall impact to life in general? There's no answer, it's just a desire to feel like "I know some secret you don't."
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
@Amoranemix
It could just as easily be that they know from instinct they must get along or get punished by their owners. They associate a slap from their owner or the dog associates getting clawed by the cat as very painful, and the cat associates getting bitten by the dog as very painful. Since they are forced to live together, they gradually become tolerant of each other and displace the lack of dog to dog relationship to a dog-to-cat relationship, or in a pack of dogs, the cat becomes seen as one of them. Alternatively, one or both from a very young age have been brought together in the same environment (a household, for instance), so instinctively they do not develop hostile actions towards each other but associate that they are alike or part of the bigger pack/litter/family.
This sounds like you almost stumbled onto a totally natural way for the seeds of morality (looking out for the well being of your pack, seeing the advantages thereof) to germinate in pack animal species. Which....humans are. No god required. Dogs have demonstrated understanding of fair treatment, too, but let's ignore that, because a dog can't answer the trolley problem, nor can it explain how life arose or how the universe started. Except you don't need the owner in there, just the negative consequence (claws to the face, for example).
@Amoranex, the whole unraveling of this discourse is accomplished in two words: SO WHAT. "You can't make sense of your worldview according to my worldview." SO WHAT? "You don't have what's necessary to explain the big bang / origins!" SO WHAT. 40 pages in this topic alone and there aren't any practical answers to these questions. This guy only has one script, and he needs a character limit, BADLY.
Created:
"bible says so" if you're talking about the Christian version. I'm just giving you the spark notes version of most of the arguments you're going to get. You'll also see a lot of "how else could this have happened?", which is arguing from incredulity.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You cannot add something completely undemonstrated and magical ("God breathed us into existence!) and then say "occum's razor!" because you think that somehow that's the SIMPLEST explanation. A supernatural, invisible, undemonstrated being using its breath to make a universe is indeed a simple explanation, but (a) you haven't demonstrated the existence of that creature, therefore we can't infer that's the cause according to the razor because you're ADDING that element without merit. And then you're also ignoring bridging the gap between this faceless power of creativity to your version of it is also, as it stands currently, totally meritless. I'll simplify:
Your wife or husband finds you in bed with the neighbor, sweaty and panting. You calmly explain that you were both jogging which is why you were sweating, then ran into a time travel machine from the movie the Terminator, accidentally stepped into it, which cost you all your clothes, and rematerialized into that neighbor's bed, sometime in the very near past. This explanation is simple...if you can demonstrate the existence of the time machine. You're adding that time machine to the mix, which your partner realizes, concludes you and your neighbor were recently having vigorous sex. Which one of these explanations is actually using Occum's Razor?
Your consistent ability to misunderstand basic logical concepts is pretty scary, man. Listen, if a person calls your cell phone and tells you you're a lottery prize winner if you send them a one time payment, PLEASE don't believe them. I'm really worried about your level of gullibility.
Created:
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened. Very simply, God spoke, and it was so. He said, let there be light, and there was light. He said, 'Let Us make humanity in our image and likeness,' and it happened according to His will, His agency, His intent.
Clearly you don't understand Occum's Razor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@EtrnlVw
@RoderickSpode
@FLRW
@fauxlaw
Is the argument that there are three options instead of two as it comes to belief in god or gods?
1) Atheist
2) Theist
3) Inanimate Object
If there's a third 'neutral' position, does whatever is in that neutral position believe in god or gods?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'll save you the reading: "That's how god wanted it to look / that's just the systems god set up to do it by / well who do you think is running those systems?"
Followed by equivocation on what various bible words mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is the leaning tower of Pisa atheist? By your logic, it is!
It's an inanimate object. I figured this was just one of your dumber distraction questions, was it serious??? Are you saying the leaning tower of Pisa and human beings are categorically the same?
Created:
Posted in:
I love a topic extolling the collectively superior intelligence of Christians that says "more smart" in the topic, and then says it's based on "good sents."
I'm pretty sure this guy is doing performance art in the Deb8Abull / Brother D Thomas mode. I don't know if I admire or am annoyed by these guys with enough time on their hands to curate and maintain some sort of alternate personality on a message board, but it's certainly....something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
How about we just call them babies, knowing that there's no way they have any idea about any religion at all? No atheist sees a baby and thinks "ANOTHER MEMBER OF OUR CABAL IS BORN! HAIL YE PHYSICS AND SCIENCE!" It's just a baby.
Created: