2 questions to ask a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2012, 07:34 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 05:00 AM)caffeinesoul Wrote:  I've never seen a thread get hijacked twice.
You must be new around here. Wink

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Vosur's post
30-09-2012, 07:47 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(29-09-2012 08:05 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(29-09-2012 07:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Oh stop it, you clown. It's been almost two months and you have yet to comment on any on the threads in which you made extraordinary claims without providing any evidence. The resurrection of Jesus thread, the compelling evidence for Christianity thread and last but not least the thread in which you claimed that god is good despite the atrocities commited and ordered by him in the OT. In our previous debates, you have shown that your logical thinking skills are flawed and that you tend to get butthurt when called out on it very quickly. You act like you think you're a fucking genius, thinking that you're that one person who possesses compelling evidence for Christianity and the resurrection of Christ and yet it's been two months and you haven't presented any evidence at all. That and you continue to claim that your evidence leads you to the conclusion that god's existence is more probable than his non-existence, without naming anything to support it.

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

It used to bother me that you didn't take me seriously.
I learned that you're the same jerk to just about every Theist on this forum. It's a relief to find out that I'm not the irrational one after having a few idiotic conversations with you Vosur.
I notice how you'll be all Philosophical and deep with other Atheists and like-minded people, but then you find out someone just believes in God and your sippin on your coffee giving your smart-ass comments until the other person feels like a fool.
No more of that good sir.
Of all people on this board, I wouldn't mind if you just stopped existing. I might just breathe one last breath of lasting relief and make myself some of your genius coffee to celebrate. Drinking Beverage

You know... you'll make a better impact if you practice what you preach.

I'm slightly upset by bias myself, although it's understandable when people are biased because it includes 100% of us -- bias is unavoidable. It is, however, controllable, and I applaud the fact that you want people to treat their opponents as fairly as they treat their friends. I'm not cool with double standards, either. But you lost me when you suggested that Vosur is better off dead. Is that something that you would tell a friend?

I don't know you that well... I suspect you're a Christian... so I'm going to suggest some bible verses.

1 Peter 3:9 -- Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

Romans 12:17 -- Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

Matthew 5:38-41 -- “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.


And if you're not a Christian, it should be self-evident why treating others the way that you don't want to be treated is unethical.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
30-09-2012, 08:08 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(29-09-2012 08:05 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(29-09-2012 07:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Oh stop it, you clown. It's been almost two months and you have yet to comment on any on the threads in which you made extraordinary claims without providing any evidence. The resurrection of Jesus thread, the compelling evidence for Christianity thread and last but not least the thread in which you claimed that god is good despite the atrocities commited and ordered by him in the OT. In our previous debates, you have shown that your logical thinking skills are flawed and that you tend to get butthurt when called out on it very quickly. You act like you think you're a fucking genius, thinking that you're that one person who possesses compelling evidence for Christianity and the resurrection of Christ and yet it's been two months and you haven't presented any evidence at all. That and you continue to claim that your evidence leads you to the conclusion that god's existence is more probable than his non-existence, without naming anything to support it.

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

It used to bother me that you didn't take me seriously.
I learned that you're the same jerk to just about every Theist on this forum. It's a relief to find out that I'm not the irrational one after having a few idiotic conversations with you Vosur.
I notice how you'll be all Philosophical and deep with other Atheists and like-minded people, but then you find out someone just believes in God and your sippin on your coffee giving your smart-ass comments until the other person feels like a fool.
No more of that good sir.
Of all people on this board, I wouldn't mind if you just stopped existing. I might just breathe one last breath of lasting relief and make myself some of your genius coffee to celebrate. Drinking Beverage

When I say I believe Gods existence is more probable than not, that is not an indication that I'm about to break down the latest and greatest of the best of the baddest evidences to support this claim. No.
What I am doing with that statement is simply telling you that I don't just believe in God "on Faith" and nothing else. I'm telling you that I don't just accept what people tell me, I investigate it with the best of the resources I have available.
The arguments that I provide here and there are what boost the understanding of the said statement. It's not a one-liner that I start a presentation with to get the crowd ready for my big speech.

Of course, I'm wasting my breath here - just so you can come at me again with something ridiculous. Why the hell do I do that? Huh

Bad form, ideasonscribe. Wishing someone ill like that really shows how much you need to and I'll quote:

(29-09-2012 03:26 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Grow up.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
30-09-2012, 11:09 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
So Idiot for Christ, researching my Parables paper, I ran into a quote, in Hadrian's letters, which of course the fundies NEVER mention, in their proofs of Jeebus, in the history debate. I wonder why ? Consider

"From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor. There, those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle."

(Hadrian lived 76-138).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
30-09-2012, 11:14 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 11:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury...

Some things never change... Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
30-09-2012, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2012 12:47 PM by Impulse.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Glad to know you aren't as closed minded as some atheists I've come across in that regard (though wouldn't that put you more agnostic? Doesn't matter - I'm not really into a word discussion - just an observation)

No I'm definitely an atheist, not agnostic. I simply answered your question in isolation which was:

"So, if logic exists - yet you do not know how it can. then why can't God exist, without you knowing how?"

I was agreeing with the point that the existence of logic without my knowing how it can exist doesn't by itself negate the possibility of a god existing without my knowing how. But that point is not in isolation in reality. And when placed within the context of all the reasons I have for believing no god exists, it would take nothing short of seeing a god and proof that he/she/it is a god for me to believe.


(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  I would love to know some of the reasons (and if you write the book would read it to) for not beleiving in God.
Quite honestly, I have no interest in opening that can of worms. My time for posting here is limited and it's enough for me to keep up with the one point we have been discussing. That's why it's generally a day in between replies for me. But suffice it to say, that I start with it being impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being to exist. After that, any other being would just be another species in the universe.

(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Sin is the OPPOSITE of God. As we see all around us on this planet for every A there's often (if not always) -A.

IE light/dark, heavy/light, logical/illogical etc.

Sin is just the opposite of God, simple as that - it need not be created to exist, just like logic doesn't need to be created to exist. If we humans were not around - logic would still exist.

The following is conceptually speaking, since I don't believe in any god:

God is a being. Sin is not. Therefore, sin cannot be the opposite of God. God is a being. Love is not. Therefore, God cannot be love. God is a being who emodies the most perfect form of love and the most perfect form of morality. Sin is the opposite of morality, not God.

God has always existed. Nothing else has always existed. Therefore, everything came from God when God created it. Everything excludes nothing. Therefore, sin, love, logic all came from God.

This is the teaching of Christianity. It amazes me that you are not aware of it since Christianity is your own faith.

I was a Christian myself, a Catholic, at one time. I spent more time than the average Catholic studying that faith at one point so I am speaking from a position of education on the subject. I realize there are differences between Catholicism and other branches of Christianity, but I have yet to hear of one that differs on the specific point that God always existed and created everything else.

(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  As with ALL anaolgies - they fall short, I admit - but again your highlighting the "outside of me" aspect of the paper and materials show that WE are created outside of God and if God created Love/Sin - love would be OUTSIDE of him, but it's not.
I disagree with the premise that God cannot create something that then also exists inside himself.

(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Almost correct, however, HATE falls UNDER SIN. Sin is the overarching nature - all others, like hate, fall under it.

Hate may fall under sin, but I'm not sure it does and I don't think it's relevant to establish whether it does. A positive charge is the opposite of a negative charge, but they both fall under electricity. The superseding category doesn't matter. If hate falls under sin, then love falls under morality. Sin is the opposite of morality and hate is the opposite of love.

(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  God is LOVE and only LOVE, with all it's values underneath it. Sin is the opposite, with all it's values underneath it.
Apparently you didn't give that much thought before you wrote it. God is only love? Nothing else? Then with what did he create the universe? Love doesn't create a universe. There would have to be free will, deliberate action, ability to create, and so many other things. And how can God be love? Love is an emotion and the actions beings take because of that emotion. It's something that a being has, not something they are. God embodies love in it's highest possible form. But God is far more than love. Again, all of this is conceptually speaking.

"God is love" is nothing more than an expression that so many people have heard said to them by religious leaders and have accepted and repeated without really thinking about what the phrase means. Like so much else in religion...

(edited to correct a few typing errors)

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 12:52 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(29-09-2012 09:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Oh, gee, can we? I'm glad we have your permission and shit. Dodgy

Well, I didn't mean it that way. I'm basically just saying I didn't mean to throw the Thread off it's track. So far, when I make a post on a Thread that is actually relevant to the Thread, the conversation quickly ends up elsewhere. However, I do see this happen quite often all over the board by others as well so... I guess it looks sarcastic when I apologize.

(29-09-2012 09:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Now that the necessary snark has been dispensed with... I scoped your blog. Looks pretty sharp. Thumbsup

Thanks! I've made a few blogs in the distant past before, but they were just whiny emo suicidal entries that turned people off.. I was a bit different back then.
I don't need an emotional vent nowadays. I do, however, need a philosophical vent since posting on a forum doesn't always do the job.
So, it's my philosophical vent venue. Anyone is welcome to comment whatever they like.

(29-09-2012 09:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  But I noticed Kalam in there. I hate that guy, yet seeing him again introduced another flaw in said concept. If we're talking law of cause and effect here, we are more appropriately derivative of the first effect, and said effect is more likely to be resultant not of the first cause, but of the last cause. That's what Penrose is going on about with his cyclic universe hypothesis. The last cause is having essentially infinite distance between photons and a breakdown of locality, setting the stage for a quantum singularity. And perhaps all this fine-tuning nonsense is artifact differing from the entropic count of this universe.

People don't like nothing, I'm thinking, out of some lurking fear of death; but that's absurd. Without nothingness, there is no space for anything to occur. Tomorrow is nothing; but then I think about it, and the first thought that comes to mind is more Gwynnies! (Moar Gwynnies cause I'm broke in the head like that) Draw her maybe, but definitely look at her; yet the way to Gwyneth from here is too full of something, like Chris, and kids, and cops, felonies, lawyers, judges, bailiffs, oh my! Ohmy

Which is to say, I need more nothing in my Gwynnies. Not only does the potential for anything come from nothing, but it seems the actualization for anything has come from nothing. Just like Tao. Just like breakfast.

As far as I can tell, one point you were getting at is the "something from nothing" point.
Since almost every secular person still uses Lawrence Krauss as an authority for the definition of "nothing" because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about - It's hard to have a conversation with someone just asking if they would understand that there then becomes two separate definitions of nothing.

Here's an interesting concept that I think is overlooked; When talking with people that agree with your point-of-view, we tend to be easier on them, even when they are being fallacious in their arguments or propositions. Sometimes we will even overlook major flaws in what someone is saying just for the sake of being consistent.
I see this with the Lawrence Krauss proposition. If I simply want to have a conversation with a skeptic about the nature of what Lawrence is saying, the first thing I say - "Is it agreed that we now have more than one definition of 'nothing' being this is the case?" - is shut down.
Lawrence, being that he happens to deeply ridicule religion like the skeptic enjoys so much, they then switch their mindset to overlook any problems in the argument he might have.

The example of the Omnipotence Paradox argument we were having is a pretty good example. Only because the concept goes against a persons consistency, and is presented by someone they don't agree with, they will only say that I myself am changing a definition and try-hard to shut down what I'm saying.
The Omnipotence Paradox Thread has led me to a much better understanding of a major Atheist standpoint; Biased and illogical when presented with ideas that break their consistency.
Coming here, I had thought the average Atheist to be hugely consistent in the laws of logic. Then the Omnipotence Paradox Thread. For some reason, it then became OK to use contradictions and logic-breaking concepts in a definition. I can tell it was only because it supported the persons view. People like Vosur will accuse me of twisting my ideals in order to fit my worldview. Then him and his own kind do the exact same thing when presented with a problem like Omnipotence.
But hey, I'm no Krauss right?

A good question that I think needs to be asked is: When the definition of "Omnipotence" was developed, do you really think that the people creating that definition were also trying to include non-doable things? Is it really reasonable to believe that? It is when you're talking to a Theist and don't want to lose your footing on a particular viewpoint.

Because the average Atheist will never accept defeat on any particular item threatening their worldview consistency, some conversations will continue to make no sense or progress.
The same obviously goes for the Theist, and since I know that, I often look for ways to prove myself wrong.


(29-09-2012 09:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  for First Cause, causation is ALREADY presumed to be a structure in Reality. You have to answer "what caused Causality ?" and there is presently no possible answer to that. It's Infinite Regression. The question is not, "what caused the universe", but "what caused Causality" first, ie "what caused the structure of Reality". So you have to back up "further", and ask a different question.

It sounds like what is proposed is that the structure of reality was caused before the Universe. Being that Causality is part of the structure of reality, it is, like you said, infinite regression. So is this proposition for or against infinite regression? Since I find infinite regression to break the laws of logic, I find it more logical to believe that the structure of reality was, at one point, non-existent. That being said, causality then becomes a finite progress. The education regarding the history of the Universe that we have available does not say that it is infinitely old, nor does it say that infinite regress is a plausible answer to the problem of it's beginning. To me, that kind of thinking is only brought on theoretically and not factually.
I tend to go on available understanding (the parts that are logical) instead of hypothesizing theories that would rule out the parts that make a worldview inconsistent.
Know what I mean? yay? nay?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 01:02 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 12:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Here's an interesting concept that I think is overlooked; When talking with people that agree with your point-of-view, we tend to be easier on them, even when they are being fallacious in their arguments or propositions.

What you mean "we", kemosabe?

(30-09-2012 12:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Being that Causality is part of the structure of reality, ...

What makes you so certain of that?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
30-09-2012, 01:09 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2012 01:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 12:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It sounds like what is proposed is that the structure of reality was caused before the Universe. Being that Causality is part of the structure of reality, it is, like you said, infinite regression. So is this proposition for or against infinite regression? Since I find infinite regression to break the laws of logic, I find it more logical to believe that the structure of reality was, at one point, non-existent. That being said, causality then becomes a finite progress. The education regarding the history of the Universe that we have available does not say that it is infinitely old, nor does it say that infinite regress is a plausible answer to the problem of it's beginning. To me, that kind of thinking is only brought on theoretically and not factually.
I tend to go on available understanding (the parts that are logical) instead of hypothesizing theories that would rule out the parts that make a worldview inconsistent.
Know what I mean? yay? nay?

Not exactly. I'm saying that *IF* one is going to argue that something caused the universe, it would mean they would have to first tell us what caused Causality, in the first place. It's a "silent" or unexamimed, or unstated assumtion , or premise of the argument. I'm not saying the structure WAS "caused". I'm saying, that IF one makes the "everything that is, has a cause" argument, one has to FIRST explain how Causality came about. It *could* have come about at the same time as the universe, but how can something be caused, if Caulaity isn't in place BEFORE the causing of the cause. That's what I mean about Infinite Regression. I don't believe in it, but THAT's where the Logic leads, unless Causality's existence can somehow be explained. You can't "cause:" the structure of Reality to come into existence, unless Causality is ALREADY there as part of a higher level of Reality. (It's like a Window's program level). You have to make sure you're out at the top level. "Causing the universe" is not the top level.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 01:15 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 12:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(29-09-2012 09:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Oh, gee, can we? I'm glad we have your permission and shit. Dodgy

Well, I didn't mean it that way. I'm basically just saying I didn't mean to throw the Thread off it's track.

Derailing threads - especially ones without much track like this one - ain't a big offense around here. No apology necessary. You got something interesting to say, say it, pretty much the rule about all that. Well, interesting, or funny, or general assholery. When I first jumped on the atheist bandwagon, I was somewhat taken back by all the assholery, but I found such has utility for toughening up the skin and making one more clear and concise in presentation. Thumbsup

(30-09-2012 12:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  As far as I can tell, one point you were getting at is the "something from nothing" point.

Krauss says "nothing ain't nothing." There is no "true nothingness" in our physical universe of thingness, but precise diction often contrasts common communication. What there is, is "conceptual nothingness," like "empty space," but placing all the necessary clarifications in common speech in each instance turns said into a boring lecture where the only thing communicated is eye glaze.

And sure there's a lot of "you're not hearing what I'm saying" going on. People that deny the existence of morality ain't using their noggin. Every insistance of "being right" is a moral declaration, regardless of the underlying reality. Because, as it has been shown, we're far from a complete understanding of what the words "underlying reality" even mean. One of the great things of humanity, to assume from incomplete conception, we wouldn't be anywhere without it - but that same incompleteness results in logical paradox and illogical presentation.

Then there's "simulation of future," a known component of the mind in evolutionary terms, and one that has continual relevance. Like when someone starts a train of thought that leads to god, the future is simulated both in the leading and what allowing for the concept of god entails. I disagree with the god concept for this very reason, not that god cannot exist, but rather the combination of memory plus simulation in my mind that calculates every path that starts with god ends in suckage.

And I'm pretty sure there's a lot of that going on in the atheist community, even if the individual atheists are consciously unaware that their mind is doing this processing.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: