|
My Imaginary GF posted:Tell me more about how incorrect I am without presenting an alternative methodology to explain incremental development in cultural practices. I'm not assigning any anthropomorphic aspects to anything? Why would a Divine being be lessened in any way by sending something like Jesus to see whats up with things?
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
But what's the reasoning behind taking this miracle as figuative/symbolic while the others are literal? Lazerus as a metaphor for the rapture, feeding of the 5000 (and the 7000, which is somehow less impressive) as representing all the masses that will be saved, a gastronomic version of "in my fathers house are many mansion"
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because everything in this world, so far as we can tell, obeys a natural process. Everything. I'm really not that surprised that went over your head but please think about what I said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The line between 'miracle' and 'concept I don't understand' is extremely narrow, if it exists at all. Not really, "miracle", especially when you're talking to a Christian, assumes intervention by a spiritual force.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm really not that surprised that went over your head but please think about what I said. Claiming that I just failed to understand does not invalidate my argument, nor validates yours. You are claiming miracles are real things and god reveals himself to people, but you have neither the evidence nor the history to back these claims. drilldo squirt posted:I'm not assigning any anthropomorphic aspects to anything? Why would a Divine being be lessened in any way by sending something like Jesus to see whats up with things? Its too provincial. Its another ethnocentrism: We're super important, that a single diety relates personally to us. It makes no sense in the scale of both reality and the universe at large.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Claiming that I just failed to understand does not invalidate my argument. Yeah it does dude. You're talking out your rear end and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Yeah it does dude. You're talking out your rear end and you know it. Based on...?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Why would a creator be limited to relating to a single thing? I don't think you really understand what God is to a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Based on...? The fact that you think saying, why would a all powerful omnipotent being only pay attention to a single aspect of his creation, is a good counter argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Why would a creator be limited to relating to a single thing? I don't think you really understand what God is to a lot of people. I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. Why is Earth so important? Why is it just 'People' that are important? Why only this planet and its provincial state? Also, based on your posting history, I'm going to assume you like making bad faith arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:22
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. Why anything else? Also, there's nothing in the bible about God not giving a gently caress about other planets or what not, you're making a really stupid point (or lack thereof)
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. My point is that you're dumb as hell and don't understand the implications of God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Why would a creator be limited to relating to a single thing? I don't think you really understand what God is to a lot of people. What God really is to a lot of people is a blank slate upon which they can project all their fears and uncertainty and negative circumstances, and gain reassurance, meaning, etc. That's why he's not limited to relating to a single thing, he relates to whatever an individual needs him to relate to. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Lots of people thinking something doesn't make it so, especially when it's an untestable, unfalsifiable belief. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Why anything else? Also, there's nothing in the bible about God not giving a gently caress about other planets or what not, you're making a really stupid point (or lack thereof) Still waiting on that proof any of that actually happened. The flood that never happened, the miracles that have no cooperating evidence, the idea that god would justify slavery and misogyny in his holy book and yet still expect people to buy it wholesale. The idea that Jesus was even a son of any god. Where's the evidence? Oh, right, its all 'miracles', we can't question that. drilldo squirt posted:My point is that you're dumb as hell and don't understand the implications of God. Nice logical fallacy. Assume anyone who doesn't buy into your little idea must be dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
I bet Jesus would come into this thread and flip all of your posts over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Depends government, era and school of thought, and to be honest there is always differing interpretations of already established Islamic precedent. Either way, a government can always choose to suppress culture or history regardless of if there is a precedent or not. Oh, definitely. However, its made easier when you're able to hand-wave away anything uncovered which goes against your state narrative. Hence the need for democratic systems: You can change the state narrative on the basis of evidence and data uncovered through best-practices research, and hold hypocritical political agendas without suffering the negative impacts of hypocracy. It is the old which is most intimidating to humanity, for it goes against our acceptance of political hierarchy. Issue is that to destroy history, one must destroy all that is old, including the individuals who know about the old and who are old. Hence you have the emergence of ISIS. Yes, every group will surpress culture. However, there must be limits to the surpression you're allowed to implement, with increasing rigidity the higher the level of policy. Highest repression for individuals, medium repression for community, and lowest repression for states, as an acceptable implementation of generalized state policy. You collect all the data you want on the individual and impose taxes upon them, you allow the incorporation of communities, and you allow unitary ethnicities to exist. You don't allow the individual complete freedom from taxation and responsibility for their actions, refuse to recognize community as an acceptable level of organization, and exterminate all ethnicities which refuse to submit to your individual whims.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What God really is to a lot of people is a blank slate upon which they can project all their fears and uncertainty and negative circumstances, and gain reassurance, meaning, etc. You and him don't understand or care to understand the other side of this argument at all because you are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:27
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Still waiting on that proof any of that actually happened. The flood that never happened, the miracles that have no cooperating evidence, the idea that god would justify slavery and misogyny in his holy book and yet still expect people to buy it wholesale. I'm not a Christian, just explaining how your argument there was bad. This one is pretty lovely too, I'll let someone else answer.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You and him don't understand or care to understand the other side of this argument at all because you are stupid.  You just don't UNDERSTAND, maaaan
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:28
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You and him don't understand or care to understand the other side of this argument at all because you are stupid. It's easier to just copy paste a youtube comment and call it a logical fallacy
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The fact that you think saying, why would a all powerful omnipotent being only pay attention to a single aspect of his creation, is a good counter argument. By assigning distinctly human characteristics and concepts like 'focus' and "pay[ing] attention" you are implicity degrading that which is divine by making it comprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It's easier to just copy paste a youtube comment and call it a logical fallacy Man, it'd be ashame if he was wrong... down with slavery posted:I'm not a Christian, just explaining how your argument there was bad. This one is pretty lovely too, I'll let someone else answer. Prove. It. Make a counter argument that does not involve calling names.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
You're argument is that it's insane for something like God to pay attention only to us. My argument is that something like God wouldn't be limited like that and it's really loving stupid to think so for a lot of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Early Christians willing went to their deaths to demonstrate their faith to the Roman world. Heaven's Gate emerged at the height of the Pax Americana and demonstrated their faith similarly. Planet Earth's recycling has begun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:By assigning distinctly human characteristics and concepts like 'focus' and "pay[ing] attention" you are implicity degrading that which is divine by making it comprehensible. I'm using language to make it easier for others to understand with the implicit expectation that most people aren't pedantic assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You're argument is that it's insane for something like God to pay attention only to us. And yet based on the faiths that uphold the idea of a 'god', that is exactly what is going on. drilldo squirt posted:I'm using language to make it easier for others to understand with the implicit expectation that most people aren't pedantic assholes. By calling people stupid. Philosopher of the year, right here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And yet based on the faiths that uphold the idea of a 'god', that is exactly what is going on. You don't know what your talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
You're freaking dumb as hell dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You're argument is that it's insane for something like God to pay attention only to us. You're arguing that you can discern the nature of god. His argument is that he cannot understand god, and therefore you must follow some limitations on human freedom in order to avoid political conflicts over something which is impossible to perceive. drilldo squirt posted:I'm using language to make it easier for others to understand with the implicit expectation that most people aren't pedantic assholes. 'Pedantic rear end in a top hat' is absolutely necessary for developing proper institutions of jurisprudence which separate accumulated wealth from direct application of power. Its a mitzvot to be a pedantic rear end in a top hat when discussing the nature of religion. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Without a literal belief in the Genesis creation story, there is no such thing as original sin, and thus no reason for Jesus. Without original sin Christianity collapses as a coherent belief system. Of course, we know humanity didn't spring from two individuals, so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You don't know what your talking about. Based entirely upon your 'wonderful' debating skills and your post history, neither do you. Go read Genesis. The Bible, among other books, specifically emphasizes the focus upon ONLY the Earth, and the creation of life upon ONLY the Earth. drilldo squirt posted:You're freaking dumb as hell dude. Philosopher of the CENTURY!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You're arguing that you can discern the nature of god. His argument is that he cannot understand god, and therefore you must follow some limitations on human freedom in order to avoid political conflicts over something which is impossible to perceive. My argument is that I don't but using human limitations to disprove it is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Based entirely upon your 'wonderful' debating skills and your post history, neither do you. Oh man, it's almost like our entire history is based on earth or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
What's the philosophical framework that leads to Christianity (or any faith) being something that must be disproven as opposed to being demonstrated as factual? I'm just asking questions here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Oh man, it's almost like our entire history is based on earth or something. You know we have telescopes, right? That we are well aware that there is an external history outside of Earth that makes it pretty clear that the Earth bound religions have very little grasp on the actual nature of nature, and for that matter reality. drilldo squirt posted:My argument is that I don't but using human limitations to disprove it is stupid. "You can't DISPROVE god, godless liberal"  What, did you watch 'God's Not Dead' before posting here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
emfive posted:What's the philosophical framework that leads to Christianity (or any faith) being something that must be disproven as opposed to being demonstrated as factual? Faith?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:Without a literal belief in the Genesis creation story, there is no such thing as original sin, and thus no reason for Jesus. Without original sin Christianity collapses as a coherent belief system. Only if you accept the literature and ideas that have been politicized and put to use by the lower forces. Jesus died to show the way forward - rejection of the material world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You know we have telescopes, right? That we are well aware that there is an external history outside of Earth that makes it pretty clear that the Earth bound religions have very little grasp on the actual nature of nature, and for that matter reality. I'm sorry God exists dude, but when has religion explicitly claimed that we are it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Faith? OK, well in what way is that not a circular argument? Are you saying people are born with inherent faith, and that that faith means something? Or are you saying that the onset of faith is a manifestation of the existence of a supernatural power?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm sorry God exists dude, but when has religion explicitly claimed that we are it? Right, because faith in something intangible makes it real. Nice one, we're all so stupid. Hope my faith that I'll be a millionaire someday pays off too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:39
|
|