|
Kyrie eleison posted:God is here, in this very thread, in the form of the Holy Spirit. You figure god wouldn't want to associate with devices perfected by a gay guy.  You are making a lot of claims with no backing evidence. Oh, wait, faith, I forgot. You're religion is the 'One True Religion'TM ThirdPartyView posted:Wasn't Darkwater like that? Maybe Victor too? Victor, oh god I remember him. Went on and on and on...
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason Christ matters more than anything else, and is in fact the only thing that matters, is that he is the only hope for your salvation. Any attempt to save yourself which involves ignoring or bypassing or otherwise denying Christ is going to fail, and is in truth the work of the Devil, designed to condemn men's souls to the eternal fires of Hell. Prove it. Claims of salvation and damnation without sufficient supporting evidence make little sense. How is Jesus our only salvation versus, say, the flying spaghetti monster? Why is his claims to deity-ship more valid than any other religions claims? Your personal feelings do not count as proof that these claims are correct. You've never seen hell. You've never seen heaven, either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:But they'll you black is really white, the moon is just the sun at a night! Then how am I supposed to know the dream world from reality! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The figure of jesus in christianity is one of tribal mythology, merged together as an attempt to explain the destruction of the Jewish state without damning one's ancestors to an unsavory afterlife. Naturally. My point being: If we are going to cling to the claims of one guy regardless of any evidence, Kyrie's claims are no more valid than say the Muslims or the Jews or any other religious group or subgroup. I hate it when these guys show up and make grand claims about their religion, and then simply stomp their feet when someone asks 'Why'
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
emfive posted:A thing that for serious puzzles me is how a non-Christian normal person undergoes "conversion" nowadays. I mean, to just decide to start believing a bunch of stuff that somebody explains, no matter how weird it sounds, and then to just accept it as real, well it seems odd and I honestly wonder what sort of experience that would be. A mental protective instinct has been proposed as a reason for that. There are a couple studies going around showing that it allows people with high anxiety and stress levels about self-purpose and existence to cope. Caros posted:I personally like to think I live a decent life. I'm not a great man, I'm not a bad man. If god thinks that this life, which I am destined to live by virtue of his omnipotence, is worth of sending me to hell then I guess I'm going to hell. I certainly have no desire to worship some great creator who thinks that eternal damnation is an appropriate punishment for quirks of personality or fate. Nothing like a creator that damns you to hell for the very choices he presents you. But he loves you. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Some people have literal visions. See, for example http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/09/a-question-i-never-tire-of-answering/ The question arises: How do you deduce the difference between a 'vision' and simple self-induced hallucinations?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well if you scrape deep enough, everything's a hallucination. You're reading squiggles on a screen of light which, by mutual agreement, we have determined represent certain words and statements in a particular language, which we both know (if perhaps not in exactly the same way). Does this make reading a forum a self-induced hallucination? No, that's oversimplifying it a little too much. Regardless of my state of mind, the text and words and electronics and coding still work. Even if I myself could not deduce meaning from it due to an altered mental state, someone else could. That is like saying "My invisible friend is just as real as your physical friend" His state of mind can change whether or not he sees visions, hears voices, and assumes he was visited. Calling his vision genuine makes too many assumption about his mental state and his personal health at the time the visions occurred. Its another faith lesson: "It was real, you just have to trust me on it." The tangible remains tangible no matter what your state or your ability to deduce it. I feel a Carl Sagan's 'Dragon in my Garage' moment coming on. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Nessus posted:When I say his vision is "genuine," I don't mean "his literal faith confession was actually objectively literally true and Christianity as he defines it is real and so on and so forth," I mean that he did probably see some poo poo and wrote down a more or less honest account of his subjective experience. To me the question here is "what fruits has this brought forth," and it seems to have brought forth a web post and random miracles, so perceived. This implies that God is capricious and likes a good joke on an ex-atheist, if God was in fact involved. Ok, fair enough. At the same time, its no more valid that me writing down every dream and nightmare I ever had and then putting stock into those images as inspired by a deity. It would be far more valid to say "I saw something, but it did not actually manifest as a physical thing, so I must assume it was a hallucination or a dream" Versus "I saw something that fit into pre-defined socially pushed religious influences, therefore I had a vision of the Virgin Mary." Its too provincial. Too defined by culture he is exposed to daily. It sounds far more like internal guilt being manifest in a dream. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
emfive posted:Also it seems a little lazy to think "whelp I guess all that stuff about Jesus and the Virgin must be true because there they were chatting with me" and ignore the fact that those ideas pervade Western life in one way or another. I mean, who's grown up in a Western country (or maybe anywhere) and can't mentally picture an image of Jesus or the Virgin? White guy, looks a little like Ted Nugent? Yeah, I know Jesus. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I don't think it's beyond reason to believe in a creator entity or that it would try to reveal it self to us. Through things that cannot be reproduced or confirmed via evidence. Obviously, god is just an alien. We have just as much evidence for them as we do gods and demons. Bip Roberts posted:Jesus is whoever you want zhe to be in your heart. Joe Pesci?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Yeah how would it be a miracle if it was a natural process? That's the whole point dude. Because everything in this world, so far as we can tell, obeys a natural process. Everything. The thing about miracles, is that they either tend not to exist, or have an actual natural explanation. This has happened time and time again, there has never been a 'verified' miracle. Its about as bad as getting a hearth transplant and claiming that all the work of all the surgeons and nurses was simply a miracle of god. My Imaginary GF posted:The line between 'miracle' and 'concept I don't understand' is extremely narrow, if it exists at all. What's the saying: Anything too advanced simply becomes magic? Why not on a personal level? Someone doesn't understand how something works, therefore, miracle. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. quote:Because there is always this faint possibility that evidence hasn't been observed yet, a common maxim is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - and is often used by people to hang on to their beliefs even when faced with a lack of evidence for them. However, this is technically an incorrect maxim; if evidence is lacking when we expect it to be abundant, then it very much allows us to dismiss a hypothesis, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:We aren't expecting it in abundance dude. Then why expect any god at all? Oh, right, faith. Miltank posted:Wanting to factually prove God completely misses the point. That is the point. Nobody is saying disprove god, but expecting us to accept 'God is real' based on faith alone is just as foolish.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Yeah. However, that does not make your argument nor your premise solid. Yes, we cannot disprove god. Yet, no more can we disprove him than you can prove him. Its a null. But YOU came in hear screaming about 'God is real' and then god uppity when we suggested that faith is not sufficient evidence. drilldo squirt posted:Human institutions of religion are fallible? They are based on faith. They are non-falsifiable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm sorry for being an uppity minority dude. But I'm just saying you don't understand what you're talking about and should stop maybe. No, because you are suggesting that because I do not buy into your faith, I must be wrong while at the same time demanding me to accept your premise that god is real. You present a non-testable condition and then expect me to accept your conclusions. Your statement was: drilldo squirt posted:God is real. Deal with it DnD. Okay. Define real, without faith. He is real to you. That's fine, he is being defined by your faith. However, you are expecting other to accept him without the faith you hold.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The answer is because that's the definition of the word faith. CommieGIR posted:No, because you are suggesting that because I do not buy into your faith, I must be wrong while at the same time demanding me to accept your premise that god is real. Answer the question. Why are others wrong for not buying into a premise that cannot be tested, while at the same time you declaring others are all wrong and stupid. drilldo squirt posted:It's like you guys are robots. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Prove what? That geocentrism is a poor critique of Western religion? It makes sense that religions specifically deal with humans and the earth because we are in fact human. Nothing about Christain theology prevents God from acting in places other than the Earth, or on humans, so I'm not really sure what your point was in the first place. Okay, I'll give you that, I went overboard. down with slavery posted:Taking the existence of god as an axiom does not prevent the species from flourishing. Case and point: history. I think his point was more faith is a poor device for demanding obedience and belief by the state and in communities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Except that it's not. Case and point: history and/or reality. Here's the root of the problem in this debate: Drilldo Squirt entered the debate and declared quote:God is real. Deal with it DnD And then called people stupid for DARING to question the reality of his god outside of his personal faith. Arguments created by the movie God is not Dead actually don't hold much water.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:He's right for calling people stupid that throw up critiques straight from junior high school. Wait, what? down with slavery posted:I disagree. The root of the problem is that many of the posters on this board have such a negative view of religion it distorts their ability to make a worthwhile critique Its almost like there's not reason for them to have a negative view of most religions  drilldo squirt posted:God being real is just a bonus. And there he goes again...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:It misses the point. CommieGIR posted:No, because you are suggesting that because I do not buy into your faith, I must be wrong while at the same time demanding me to accept your premise that god is real. Waiting on why we should buy this premise from you without your personal faith, and yet WE'RE the stupid ones. drilldo squirt posted:God being real is just a bonus. Robot!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I don't know about most people but for you it's because you are very insecure in yourself and seeing other people as sheep helps. Did I call you a sheep? No. I asked you why you are calling us stupid for not accepting your premise without your personal faith. Technogeek posted:I want Michael Bay to direct the sequel. It would save everyone a lot of time coming up with ways to mock it. EXPLOSIONS! God is real! EXPLOSIONS! down with slavery posted:There really isn't. The kneejerk atheist response to any religious discussion is annoying to anyone who's actually thought about faith and religion for more than two months. Like I said, I think religion gets a much worse rap from most western liberals than it deserves. Is there a societal institution you think has done better? I hear ISIS is actually a kind bunch of souls, the 100 years war was actually a big picnic, the Crusades were just Muslim and Christian get-togethers, and Israeli/Palestinian bickering is just a huge misunderstanding. They obviously burned the Library of Alexandria because they ran out of firewood.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3681766&userid=102030 "God is Real. Deal with it DnD" is still his opening salvo. And we're stupid for not accepting it. Right. drilldo squirt posted:Yeah. Man, if only we had your FAITH
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You're really stupid dude. Tell me more.down with slavery posted:I took the time to explain to you a few times why what you're doing is stupid. It was a joke post, obviously tongue in cheek, probably for the sole purpose of dragging idiots like you out of the wordwork. Obviously, that's why he keeps repeating it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:D&D truly is the easiest forum to troll. Truly, I guess we all showed up under the assumption that someone actually wanted to debate and discuss...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:"Real" has a lot of different meanings and I'd suspect you're calling some things "real" on little more than faith as well. Uh....huh.... drilldo squirt posted:I'd love to debate and discuss this with you but you don't seem like you know what your talking about and lash out whenever you are called on it. Because I've been calling you stupid this whole time, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Maybe try a basic philosophy class. Philosophy actually does not make reality a premise of faith. Its nice to think about, but the physical and natural worlds still exist regardless of which philosophical school you chose. Its why science and philosophy have gone separate ways, and metaphysics is no longer a scientific school of thought.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Alright, let's start from square one. What is real? Oh no you don't. Trying to run us through the various schools of thought by getting someone to define the 'real' and then countering that the real is no more real than the things we have faith does not suddenly validate Drilldo Squirt's argument that faith makes god real. The physical is not changed by our belief in it, and therefore regardless of the attempt of metaphysics to define the real by our perception of it, Drilldo Squirt's argument that faith makes real is still wrong insofar as his demand for us to accept his premise of God's reality based on his faith in it alone. Our perception may define reality for us, but the physical exists regardless if it was interpreted by an intellect or not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:When people use words like "Real", they use them for a reason. Sorry that you really hate philosophy or something but if you take some time to dig in, I think you'll find that the belief structures of the religious and yours have a lot in common. Reality is not just the physical world and as much as you'd love to live in a world like that, we don't. What is "real" is most certainly up for debate and I think it's telling that you avoid thinking deeply about both religion and metaphysics. Does the fact that there are things we don't understand make you nervous? No. No it doesn't. Because we didn't replace the unknowns with god in the gaps arguments. Please stop taking metaphysics to be a real science
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:things with a testable physical basis. with material action you are changing a thing from one physical state to another. even if it's saying a mean or nice thing that triggers some chemical reaction in the brain which releases adrenaline or testosterone or dopamine or some other chemical that causes certain feelings in you Ding ding! Faith in reality does not have a noticeable effect on reality itself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yeah I agree with the idea that our brains are little more than an electrical signal and some chemistry. That's really not my issue with materialism. However, reality would remain perceptible regardless if man is the one making the perception. The animals lived without perception of reality, our ability to question reality is the only major difference between us and animals. However, the animals need not have faith to exist in reality regardless. Rodatose posted:It does have a noticeable effect through the actions it creates in people (which I think is the point being made). For instance, giving people the emotional push they need to bomb a nation into dust affects the material reality of the people of the bombed out nation in a noticeable way. However the thing that faith comes does not have a material basis with inherent physical qualities (like, you can't look through some binoculars at a Cloud of Faith up in the sky and say "yep, god is smiling at my action") Yes, that. Faith has implications for us PERSONALLY, and may affect our perception of real things, but the real still remains as it is regardless of our perception. down with slavery posted:Define "noticeable" Fall down, and question gravity as you fall. Reality might be shaped by our perception to us personally, but outside of that nothing noticeable. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:18
|
|