What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 06:45 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 06:51 AM by Chas.)
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 12:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 11:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  I was correct - you don't see the irony. Facepalm

You talk shit; you assume you know how others think, how they evaluate evidence, how they reach conclusions.

You are delusional. Drinking Beverage

As long you, for example, have fun in insulting me continuously, you can be sure that I can't have even a slight idea about how you think when you decide to be serious. But if I am wrong, and you were serious in all your replies,

I am serious when criticizing you.

Quote:you remind me some people who told me they are so smart to the point they know how to take from others without giving them anything useful in return.

You remind me of some mentally ill people who tell me they see souls and angels and auras and gods.

Quote:Of course, I look to these people as an idiot... for not being very smart as they are Wink

Your posts mark you as an idiot.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 12:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  you remind me some people who told me they are so smart to the point they know how to take from others without giving them anything useful in return.
You remind me of some mentally ill people who tell me they see souls and angels and auras and gods.

[Image: hippie%20hell.jpg]




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2016, 04:50 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(08-10-2016 02:57 AM)KerimF Wrote:  I hear from you that the god you heard of (via certain references) doesn't exist in your reality.
That would be an impressive feat given that that's not what I said. I'm perfectly capable of talking for myself I don't need you trying to shove words in my mouth so let me explain it again but simpler this time:
1.) No person has ever, in the entirety of recorded history, been able to demonstrate evidence for god nor a mechanism to differentiate him from imagination.
2.) Belief is ONLY justified after a demonstration of it's validity and/or accuracy. To believe something without, or indeed against, demonstrable evidence is irrational.
3.) Thus given that it's irrational to believe in something without evidence and that no demonstrable difference between a god and something imaginary the ONLY rational and logically consistent position is that god is imaginary.

Now lets talk about a few other things:
"via certain references"
No via ALL references. No one has provided demonstrable evidence nor even a way to go about collecting demonstrable evidence of a gods existence. Until so they can be rationally relegated to the realm of make believe nonsense, and to do otherwise is irrational. When the "god exists" claim has a success rate of 0% across billions of people over thousands of years it is not necessary for me to investigate every new claim made. If anyone has evidence to the contrary they are welcome to show it but until such time the view that god is imaginary is the only rational position consistent with the evidence.


"your reality"
No. There is only one reality and it is shared and in that reality there is no demonstrable, testable, or falsifiable evidence to support the belief that a god exists and thus it is an irrational and unfounded claim.



(08-10-2016 02:57 AM)KerimF Wrote:  But you also suppose that I should know how this imaginary god you heard of looks like.
No I do not as it's not a relevant point which persons god claims I have and have not heard. their are billions of them and they all say mutually exclusive things. the one thing they have in common though is a complete and total lack of demonstrable evidence and this includes you.
I frankly don't give a fuck about what kind of god it is or "what it looks like". I'm not interested in listening to the qualities and characteristics their god has until AFTER they provide evidence that it exists. Not before after. I don't even need to hear ANYTHING about their god to classify it as imaginary, because if they can't show that it exists or offer away to tell it apart from imagination well...then it's characteristics don't matter.

What it looks like doesn't matter in the slightest in determining if it's imaginary or not.

(08-10-2016 03:10 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Here again, you assume I know the image of god that you heard of and from which you concluded that such a god cannot exist.
And again, no I do not. The image is irrelevant. Not only that but I didn't say a god does not exist and can not exist. What I said is that belief comes after evidence, that to believe without evidence (or against evidence) is irrational and not logically consistent, and that because no evidence exists for any god, nor anyway to differentiate it from the imaginary, that labeling god as imaginary is perfectly reasonable and rational.

You need to actually read and comprehend what I write as I write it and not as you would like it to be written.

(08-10-2016 03:10 AM)KerimF Wrote:  I don't mind you say and repeat: "The god, I heard of, doesn't exist".
Let me be as blunt as I can: I do not give a fuck about what you do and do not mind. What you mind is irrelevant. Further more I won't be saying that because it a vulgar and simplistic strawman of what I am saying. I will say it again: it is rationally sound to say that god is imaginary as god AS A CONCEPT and in practicality has never been shown to have a SINGLE demonstrable difference from something that is purely imagination.

Here let me explain it differently:
These are birds.
[Image: eastern.jpg]
[Image: Wonder-108-Raven-Static-Image2.jpg]
[Image: hummingbird.jpg]
Now...is this a bird?
[Image: 1969Impala_12-1024x768.jpg]

The correct answer is no, it's clearly not a bird. How do we know that? Well they have clear and demonstrable differences. These differences can be identified, tested, falsified and shown to be accurate.

So what clear and demonstrable differences are their between something purely imaginary and a god?

None at all.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-10-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(08-10-2016 03:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  On my side, all images of Will/Power that created me offered on the world's table are not for me.
wut?

(08-10-2016 03:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  It happens that this Creator exists in my reality and thanks to his help I was able to live with no more confusion and fear of any sort.
Right but without demonstrable evidence of this creators existence your belief is entirely irrational at best and delusional at worst. You are welcome to hold that belief as long as you recognize that it is irrational and unsupported.

Your claim is also just...demonstrably false as both of your replies which I answered in my last post showed that you don't understand what I was saying AT ALL and are rather confused about what I was even saying.

(08-10-2016 03:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  So as long you are happy and/or satisfied the way you are, I don't see any reason for you to search your Creator as I did Wink
The vast majority of people here used to be religious at one point or another. Many of us have done just that sought out our "creator". the difference between us and you is that we didn't stop looking when we found an answer that made us happy because making us happy has NOTHING to say about if our belief is accurate or not.

WE actually care if what we belief is accurate or not, and we won't settle for happy delusions or comforting lies. Evidence matters, not ones personal feelings.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-10-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 04:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Now...is this a bird?
[Image: 1969Impala_12-1024x768.jpg]

The correct answer is no, it's clearly not a bird. How do we know that? Well they have clear and demonstrable differences. These differences can be identified, tested, falsified and shown to be accurate.

Yabut, this is a Falcon. Yes Checkmate, sciencey guy. Big Grin

[Image: 001.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-10-2016, 05:53 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Well, could you tell me how a person can believe that electromagnetic waves do exist, in case he has not a single mean to detect them?
First off I'm going to point out that you entirely avoided dealing with the criticism which is dishonest but not the point I'll hammer away on because the bigger one is your question shows you don't understand the point I am making.

You are saying a soul is a thing that exists. You have to show this, and no pointless questions or dishonest obfuscations negates this. You still have to show evidence for it's existence before you can argue from it in a conversation or a debate.

Now about your question....*sigh*... it is ass backwards and demonstrates your confusion on the subject but the short answer is: because science doesn't exist in a vacuum. What I mean by is that it's perfectly fine to accept claims from people in relevant fields if you lack the materials or the interments to do so yourself. Not every mundane claim needs to be personally confirmed.
The problem is you are on the wrong side of this and the two aren't even remotely similar. Even if a person can't detect electromagnetic waves do to a lack of tools, for example, OTHER PEOPLE CAN. Those people can show how, they can provide evidence and mechanisms for how to do so, and their findings can be peer-reviewed by other people. By anyone with the means really.
However a "soul/spirit" can't be detected by ANYONE it seems. No one can provide evidence for it, no one can provide a mechanism, and their can be no peer-review.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  In this case, he, naturally, should deny their existence as long he, personally, cannot detect them (in any part of their vast spectrum) and, most of all, he cannot take advantage of using them.
Again your comparison between electromagnetic waves is garbage and doesn't work. If a person denies the existence of something that other people can provide demonstrable, testable, and falsifiable evidence for it's existence than he is irrational. The problem you have is that YOU CAN NOT DO THIS. You have no evidence of ANY kind.
The man in your example would be perfectly rational to deny the existence of electromagnetic waves if no one in the goddamn world could show any evidence that they exist. In a world where they CAN provide evidence he is irrational to reject the evidence in favor of his opinion, and there person claiming that they do exist is irrational for doing so when he can't demonstrate it.

That person is you.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  In fact, what we may call a spirit or a soul is a personal matter.
Prove it.

*Sigh* I've explained several times now that without evidence it even exists you can not begin to comment on what properties it has. You must show that a soul exists before you can make claims to what it is and is not and what it can and can not do. You have your cart before your horse as they say.

Let's be perfectly clear here though: what you are doing is attempting to assign characteristics to a thing in such away as to try and define it as not needing to be proven by you. You are trying to, dishonestly I might add, shirk your burden of proof.


(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  So if it happens that someone has no soul in him, he can never know what a soul (the human living soul) means to someone who has it and, therefore, perceives it, besides his human living flesh.
You are just making up shit. You have to PROVE these things for them to have any weight or importance in a discussion and you can't even do that until you demonstrate that it exists and can even have characteristics.

Your belief is not based on fact or evidence and is thus IRRATIONAL.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  "How could a man perceive the existence of his personal living soul?"
No the question you should be asking is " How do I demonstrate a soul exists?". There are mental hospitals all over the world crammed to the gills with people that "perceive" all kinds of things that are not real. Your personal perception is not always reliable which is one of the many reasons evidence has to be demonstrable and testable to and by other people. It's why peer-review exists.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  But since I respect the nature of which you are made.....*vomit*
With all due respect you don't "respect" a mother fucking thing. You are blatantly and sloppily trying to run from and avoid dealing with your burden by making your inability to prove a soul exists MY fault because of how I was born.

Your incompetence at the task and staggering lack of critical thinking or reason is your own burden, I'm not gonna carry it for you and let you off the hook. YOU must prove your claim that they exist, and if you can't they have no place in the fucking discussion.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  After all, there is no use to convince someone about something that he insists he can't perceive as he does with his human living body.
You are half right. There is no use trying to convince a person of something......when that something is an irrational belief for which you have no evidence. If you had evidence it would be rather bloody easy.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-10-2016, 06:04 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 04:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  [Image: 1969Impala_12-1024x768.jpg]

O/t...

That is one very desirable Chevy. Yes

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
10-10-2016, 06:14 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  I wish you are right but actually there is always your reality and my reality.
No there is not, their is just reality. Having different points of view or opinions does not mean each person gets his own damn reality.

(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  For example, my neighbourhood (streets, houses, schools, market, churches and mosques ) is attacked till now and since about 5 years by bombs of hell coming from the East side of the city (Aleppo). To me, those who launch these mortars and missiles at random (almost daily) are terrorists.
My reality is surely not what you believe about the happenings in my city.
First off don't try and pretend that you know what other people think. Secondly that would be a difference of opinion, perspective, and perception while what it is not is a different reality. There is just one reality.

(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  I mean; do you think I can prove you what contradicts the view of the United Nations about these terrorists that are presented always as being moderate rebels looking for freedom and democracy?
Considering I already don't believe that they are it should be pretty fucking easy.

(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  So if international facts have to be seen differently (including the 9/11/2001 attacks) by you and I, you can imagine how living the same realty is impossible for us.
Facts are demonstrable and when it comes to the claims I've seen you make about 9/11 in the past your short on facts and heavy on rampant baseless assertion. you make a shit ton of claims and back up none of them.
Again though none of that gives you your own reality, just your own perspective on the single reality we all share. And in this single shared reality your claims have a burden of proof.

(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  But in my reality, based on my observations and logic,
I'm sorry but that's not good enough. you have a clear track record of not exercising proper logic, reason, or critical thinking. i don't give a damn about your conclusions I care about your evidence.


(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  ....almost all men in the world are not supposed to think about their real Creator, as it is the case for all zillion other living things.
Gee aren't you special, being one of the few that are.Rolleyes

(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  And the image of this real Creator cannot be found on books or alike but in one's inner only.
Leaving behind the fact that that's just an assertion that you won't even try to prove .....if the image of this god can't be expressed or found in books why the fuck are you sitting their trying to do just that....with text?

(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  And, as you say, in your reality you have no reason to look for your maker and your case is normal... in my reality too Wink
Except that NO ONE HAS SAID THIS. For fucks sake man, many of us became atheists because we did go looking and we found no damn evidence. Stop trying to tell us what we fucking think and what we fucking haven't done and actually listen to what people are fucking saying.


(09-10-2016 12:34 PM)KerimF Wrote:  I never see someone wrong because I, unlike most people, understand fully that the person whom I may talk to likely lives in a reality which could be very different of mine in many aspects (starting from the nature/structure he is made of Tongue ).
There is only one reality and in it you a fucking avoiding the question and being intentionally dishonest. If you are not prepared to demonstrate the truth and validity of your claims then don't go out of your fucking way to go to a place where people are not going to agree with you and accept your shit at face value.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 06:15 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 06:04 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 04:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  [Image: 1969Impala_12-1024x768.jpg]

O/t...

That is one very desirable Chevy. Yes

Damn right, but I'm a sucker for the late sixties impalas.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 01:16 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
nevermind, WD just answered my question

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: