And another one picked me
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2017, 05:43 PM
And another one picked me
Lately I seem to be this magnet, pulling in all the wannabe-smart-apologetics.

Today I learnt that babies are reincarnations and that "Metaphysicist" is supposed to be something.

I am surpressing quite some literal "lol"s this fine evening.

So today I answered on this question:
"Why do people only believe in God just because they were to taught to?"

My answer was this (and I admit some structural issues there lol)
Quote:Some theists may want to argue about the “taught to” part but yes they were taught to. Some theists will try to argue that we are born believers or born with a sense that there is more than just us out there and that this more is a god or another higher power.

In reality, humans are born as empty books. Parents and the environment the child grows up in is what fills the pages of those books. And that is why it is unlikely that a devout christian is born into a deeply Hindu family.

So why do people only believe in God just because they were taught to?
Let me fix your punctuation/grammar and you are good to go:
“Why do people believe in God? Because they were taught to.”
See? You answered it yourself.

Cheers

So two guys attempt debating me there Big Grin
Guy number one (AJ):
Quote:In reality, humans were born all sinful, and atheists. They believe in God based on their experiences, you are taught to understand and get closer to God because you want to seek him more.
My answer
Quote:In reality, AJ, it is a very cruel thing to assume that every newborn baby is a sinner and therefore deserves hell just because it hasn’t got the mental capacity to believe in your religious ideology.
AJ has not said anything since.

So guy number two (James) wants to play with words (we know the drill) and has some weak apologetics that make me chuckle
James answer to AJs comment
Quote:AJ: The sin (mistake) is the belief in separation from God because all are an extension of God.
James answer to my comment on AJ
Quote: A sin is the mistake that the human believes it is separate from God and it doesn’t have anything to do with hell. Practically all on earth have reincarnated and start as babies.
Hell is not real but created in the mind of the human because of man-made religion. All humans are meant for the ascension and will make it when they are ready no matter how long it takes.
AJ has not said anything since.

James' answer on my original answer (see way up above)
Quote:I have often heard that people were taught to believe in God and it may be true. Some people have had the inner experience of God as I have before I knew anything about religions. I am aware that those who have had the inner experience of God are called believers by those who have yet to have it and its understandable. No words can explain it.
My answer
Quote:So would you rather believe in something just because it feels good or do you care about what is most likely to be true.
If you would rather believe something because it feels good, your inner experience is a great way to confirm to yourself that this is good and right.
If you care about what is most likely to be true, the inner experience does not count as proof.
Your decision.
James tries another approach
Quote:The inner experience is beyond beliefs and non-beliefs and no one can have it for another. The human is a spiritual being with a material body, having experience in the material realm. All are capable of the inner experience of God. The material-realm consciousness does not determine what is true but deals mostly with beliefs and non-beliefs.
I don't care
Quote:Those are claims and assertions. Back them up or they are of no value to the discussion.

Note right now: I am writing this thread here as the discussion over there is happening, so I hope things are still staying somewhat structured.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leerob's post
25-04-2017, 05:51 PM
RE: And another one picked me
Alright so it seems to me like my new friend James is getting frustrated because I can see how his last answer is structually horrible and all over the place and I can see how he keeps editing it. I will give him a minute to finish his post.

Cool so let's title this post of mine here,
"James and the sin apologetics"

So after AJ's comment about sin (see OP top) I comment on there:
Quote:In reality, AJ, it is a very cruel thing to assume that every newborn baby is a sinner and therefore deserves hell just because it hasn’t got the mental capacity to believe in your religious ideology.
(I said it like that because of the capital G and the note he made on his question. Therefore assumed Christianity.)

So now James is digging right in with sin. I suppose he tried these "arguments" before with other people but I am not impressed.
James
Quote:A sin is the mistake that the human believes it is separate from God and it doesn’t have anything to do with hell. Practically all on earth have reincarnated and start as babies.

Hell is not real but created in the mind of the human because of man-made religion. All humans are meant for the ascension and will make it when they are ready no matter how long it takes.

I feel amused
Quote:That is certainly an interesting take on “sin” but not all theists share your definition.
There are billions of theists out there who believe in a literal physical hell.
There are also billions of theists out there who believe in original sin as well as other forms of sin.
So while you might be happy with your definition and even share it with some people, it is not the only one. The same goes for your take on what babies are > reincarnations. That is certainly a new one, I haven’t heard it before and it made my chuckle a bit. Thanks for that.

James is not amused. He is serious Big Grin
Quote:All theists are not aware of all information known to exist and neither am I. Most people think of sin only as something bad. How many definitions have you heard of sin?

Many do not know that the human is a spiritual being with a material body, having experience in the material realm and that the human is called a god (small “g”).

You believe what you say billions of theists believe, but it is only your belief. I acknowledge information known to exist whether it is believed or not.
Now this is getting fun. Look how he squirms and wiggles.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 06:08 PM
And another one picked me
To be perfectly honest, I never concede the existence of "sin." To me it is an imaginary disease to justify the equally imaginary "cure" of "salvation."

The late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it best when he said that if your opponent has trapped you into using his own terminology, then he has already won victory over you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rachel's post
25-04-2017, 06:12 PM
RE: And another one picked me
Alright. Took me a moment to write my comment. I wonder if he is having as much fun as I do.

Quote:So you keep claiming and asserting things without backing them up, like over in the other comment thread.
You picked the wrong person to debate, my friend. I will not accept any unsupported claims and assertions.
We cannot move forward with this discussion unless you address all of the following points in a satisfying manner:

1. Definitions of sin that do not imply that sin is something bad. Because you imply that sin is not always something bad by definition. So I need your definition, otherwise we cannot talk about sin. If you like, I can do the same for you.
2. Define “spiritual being”
3. Back up claim that humans are spiritual beings. Keep in mind that you are asserting and implying that humans in general, not some or only a few, you are phrasing like generally humans are spiritual beings. You need to back that up or it is not a valid point.
4. Are there bodies that are not material. You are specifying material bodies, you need to clarify this.
5. What is a realm?
6. Are there realms that are not material? You say that we have experience in the material realm. I need to know which others realms there are and I need proof that these other realms exist, otherwise this claim is in not valid.
7. Please back up your assertion that I made statements based on believing something rather than having facts. If you need me to back up or clarify the things I say, you need to specify what you need me to back up. I am willing to provide sources.
8. Is there information known to not exist? You are saying that you acknowledge information known to exist. Is there non-existent information? If so, how do you know. Please provide proof for non-existent information. Otherwise this is an empty phrase and of no value to this discussion.

Thank you for your patience. Please understand, that you started this discussion and you can stop answering at any time. Also I think we are in very different time zones and because it is the middle of the night here, I will only be able to check back tomorrow (my time zone).

I know I might seem a bit harsh there. But he started it and he chose the wrong person for it.

The thing is, my husband used to study theology because he wanted to become a priest. (He is an atheist now, thank god - oh the irony - ahaha)
He explained to me why some apologetics (much like my new friend James) are arguing this way.
This is a very specific tactic. You keep explaining in weird ways with difficult word, with assertions and claims, and you just wear your opponent out to the point where the opponent either agrees or gives up because it is so annoying and tiring and draining.
Now because I know this tactic, I can turn it around and have my fun with the guy.

I will keep you updated Big Grin

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leerob's post
25-04-2017, 06:18 PM
RE: And another one picked me
(25-04-2017 05:43 PM)Leerob Wrote:  Lately I seem to be this magnet, pulling in all the wannabe-smart-apologetics.

Today I learnt that babies are reincarnations and that "Metaphysicist" is supposed to be something.

I am surpressing quite some literal "lol"s this fine evening.

So today I answered on this question:
"Why do people only believe in God just because they were to taught to?"

My answer was this (and I admit some structural issues there lol)
Quote:Some theists may want to argue about the “taught to” part but yes they were taught to. Some theists will try to argue that we are born believers or born with a sense that there is more than just us out there and that this more is a god or another higher power.

In reality, humans are born as empty books. Parents and the environment the child grows up in is what fills the pages of those books. And that is why it is unlikely that a devout christian is born into a deeply Hindu family.

So why do people only believe in God just because they were taught to?
Let me fix your punctuation/grammar and you are good to go:
“Why do people believe in God? Because they were taught to.”
See? You answered it yourself.

Cheers

So two guys attempt debating me there Big Grin
Guy number one (AJ):
Quote:In reality, humans were born all sinful, and atheists. They believe in God based on their experiences, you are taught to understand and get closer to God because you want to seek him more.
My answer
Quote:In reality, AJ, it is a very cruel thing to assume that every newborn baby is a sinner and therefore deserves hell just because it hasn’t got the mental capacity to believe in your religious ideology.
AJ has not said anything since.

So guy number two (James) wants to play with words (we know the drill) and has some weak apologetics that make me chuckle
James answer to AJs comment
Quote:AJ: The sin (mistake) is the belief in separation from God because all are an extension of God.
James answer to my comment on AJ
Quote: A sin is the mistake that the human believes it is separate from God and it doesn’t have anything to do with hell. Practically all on earth have reincarnated and start as babies.
Hell is not real but created in the mind of the human because of man-made religion. All humans are meant for the ascension and will make it when they are ready no matter how long it takes.
AJ has not said anything since.

James' answer on my original answer (see way up above)
Quote:I have often heard that people were taught to believe in God and it may be true. Some people have had the inner experience of God as I have before I knew anything about religions. I am aware that those who have had the inner experience of God are called believers by those who have yet to have it and its understandable. No words can explain it.
My answer
Quote:So would you rather believe in something just because it feels good or do you care about what is most likely to be true.
If you would rather believe something because it feels good, your inner experience is a great way to confirm to yourself that this is good and right.
If you care about what is most likely to be true, the inner experience does not count as proof.
Your decision.
James tries another approach
Quote:The inner experience is beyond beliefs and non-beliefs and no one can have it for another. The human is a spiritual being with a material body, having experience in the material realm. All are capable of the inner experience of God. The material-realm consciousness does not determine what is true but deals mostly with beliefs and non-beliefs.
I don't care
Quote:Those are claims and assertions. Back them up or they are of no value to the discussion.

Note right now: I am writing this thread here as the discussion over there is happening, so I hope things are still staying somewhat structured.

Of course we were all taught this. I was taught in the Methodist Church. These two guys were taught in their respective churches. People born in the Middle East are taught about Allah. People in Japan are taught about the Shinto religion. Indians are taught about the Hindu gods.

The proper response every time an assertion is made: Prove it. But that's not what they want to do. They can't do it so they expect you to just accept it on faith.

I've reached the point where I won't even debate the existence of a god any longer because I realize that it is inherently fallacious to debate the subject. Debate presupposes that there is some objective truth to get to but the very notion of gods is incompatible with objective truth, i.e., it reduces to metaphysical subjectivism. So one would be guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept if one debates about it. Plus, debating them about it gives them way more credibility than they deserve. There claims deserve nothing but to be dismissed without consideration until and unless they can produce some objective evidence that does not require one to already believe. I've never seen any.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: And another one picked me
(25-04-2017 06:08 PM)Rachel Wrote:  To be perfectly honest, I never concede the existence of "sin." To me it is an imaginary disease to justify the equally imaginary "cure" of "salvation."

The late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it best when he said that if your opponent has trapped you into using his own terminology, then he has already won victory over you.

I understand what you are saying. But it is a bit vague, I think. Because if we have a discussion, there are some things that we have to be able to agree on, right? Certain terms that are on-topic.
I give you an example outside theistic debates, to try and make that clearer.
If two teachers debate on pedagogic styles. One argues for the use punishment and authority, the other one argues against that. Then, because we need to be able to use those terms because they are the topic of our discussion. So even if I do not support or endorse punishment and use of authority as pedagogic tools, I have to know what they mean in those terms and I need to be able to use them appropriately.
And moving back to my initial answer to AJ and the following discussion with James, he is the one trying to redefine the word "sin" so it fits his agenda (that's actually a fallacy). And as you see, he is trying to assert, claim, and redefine a lot of things.
Because he is doing that, I am asking him to back up every single thing he is saying. (Mostly for my own entertainment but also to wear him out)
If we cannot agree on such simple terminology, nothing that is said has any value.

That said, I actually agree with your take on "sin". Most of these things are social constructs or ideas based on religion. These ideas should not have a place in modern society anymore and luckily religion is slowly starting to fade (and that is why it is fighting so hard nowadays).

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leerob's post
25-04-2017, 06:25 PM
RE: And another one picked me
(25-04-2017 06:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Of course we were all taught this. I was taught in the Methodist Church. These two guys were taught in their respective churches. People born in the Middle East are taught about Allah. People in Japan are taught about the Shinto religion. Indians are taught about the Hindu gods.

The proper response every time an assertion is made: Prove it. But that's not what they want to do. They can't do it so they expect you to just accept it on faith.

I've reached the point where I won't even debate the existence of a god any longer because I realize that it is inherently fallacious to debate the subject. Debate presupposes that there is some objective truth to get to but the very notion of gods is incompatible with objective truth, i.e., it reduces to metaphysical subjectivism. So one would be guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept if one debates about it. Plus, debating them about it gives them way more credibility than they deserve. There claims deserve nothing but to be dismissed without consideration until and unless they can produce some objective evidence that does not require one to already believe. I've never seen any.
And I agree 100%
As I mentioned a few times there, I am just having some fun there. And as you see in my last answer to James, I asked him to basically back up every single thing he said. Unless he does that in a satisfactory way, the discussion is over.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 06:51 PM
RE: And another one picked me
Allright, last one on this here for today.

We are on the thread about inner beliefs, just to keep you from getting confused.

So my last comment there was this:
Quote:Those are claims and assertions. Back them up or they are of no value to the discussion.

James cannot help himself and keeps doing it:
Quote:Information is either known to exist or it isn’t whether it is believed or not. They are not my claims or assertions. Do you know what causes you to have a heartbeat, breath, thoughts, emotions, or imagination?

Do you know where the life that you experience within and of yourself comes from or where it goes when it leaves the body? You know that it doesn’t go to the grave with a body.

Do you know why, according to science, energy is interchangeable with mass, is neither created nor destroyed, is all there is, is everywhere, and thus always was?

These things I contemplate and come to my own conclusions and then find that my conclusions were already known.

So I give him the same chance that I gave him on the thread about sin:
Quote:You are doing it again. Just like over in the other comment thread, you have to back up what you are saying or it is invalid.
So back it up or back off.
Here is your homework on this comment thread, and like the other one, we cannot move forward, unless you back it up, all of it.
(Also like the other one, I am going to bed so I will check back on this tomorrow in my time zone)
1. Information that is known to exist does not need to be believed to exist because the existence of that information can be proofed. Your sentence about existent information is not useful to this discussion. Please confirm or clarify this because you are twisting definitions around.
2. Hearbeat, breath, thoughts, emotions, and imagination have nothing to do with our disucssion. But yes, I was taught these things during grade 5,6,7,8 biology, physics, and chemistry classes. I will not give you a science lesson. Please educate yourself.
3. You are asserting / implying that my experiences go somewhere when I die. Please specify where they go and what they do there. Please provide proof for this. Otherwise this claim is invalid for this disucssion.
4. You imply that I know that my experience don’t go to the grave with my body when I die. I use your exact phrasing here. So please clarify how you can be sure that I know this. Please also clarify what other things I know about this since you seem to know what I know.
5. You say that energy is interchangeable with mass. Please back up that claim. My assumption is that you are over-simplyfying some chemical and physical process that you don’t fully understand. You can proof me wrong by backing up your claim. Sources will be needed for this one.

You can contemplate and come to your own conclusions. But if you debate people or you want people to agree with you, you need to back up every claim and assertion you make. It’s all on you.
See you tomorrow

Though I must say, that I think James is a lost case and I am starting to get bored with him.
I am pretty damn sure he will not be able to back up what he said. I am also sure that he will keep claiming and asserting and implying things and therefore it is likely that I will end the two discussions tomorrow.
If he wants to debate, he needs to pick someone less experienced or someone more gullible or both. At least if he wants to be successful with this line of arguing Big Grin Anyway, I am done with Quora for today.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 06:55 PM
RE: And another one picked me
I had a quick sneak peak in his answer to my first request for him to back things up. He is assuming and asserting again of course. Well I guess that is it then.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 12:29 AM
And another one picked me
(25-04-2017 06:22 PM)Leerob Wrote:  I understand what you are saying. But it is a bit vague, I think. Because if we have a discussion, there are some things that we have to be able to agree on, right? Certain terms that are on-topic.


I see nothing vague about letting theists control the ground rules of debate. Conceding the existence of "sin" has a corollary: conceding the existence of "god." Without a god, how could here be a sin?

(25-04-2017 06:22 PM)Leerob Wrote:  If we cannot agree on such simple terminology, nothing that is said has any value.

As I said, agreeing to "sin" is tantamount to stipulating to the existence of "god." If a Christian wants to admit "sin" as a discussion topic or, which is its usual role in any discussion, a thought-terminating cliché, then s/he/it must be prepared to show the empirical existence for whichever god is under discussion. Otherwise, it's a non-starter.

(25-04-2017 06:22 PM)Leerob Wrote:  That said, I actually agree with your take on "sin". Most of these things are social constructs or ideas based on religion. These ideas should not have a place in modern society anymore and luckily religion is slowly starting to fade (and that is why it is fighting so hard nowadays).

It's not enough for Christians to believe their silly beliefs. They must get everyone to believe the same silly stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rachel's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: