Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ?? (1 Viewer)

[Cookie182]

It's pretty stupid Iron. All this "why" begging I can see is attempting to derive God from first cause.

I'm wondering then how your going to stop me asking "why" questions about god if it’s such an important universal concept.

Christians arrogantly want you to ask "why why why" and receive the answer "god god god". Then you go, but why did god do this...? Why is god the "god"? Why...

Then you get, WITH HELL TO YOU. He loves me, accept the universal truth, have faith, evil materialist!

Accept that the "god" notion has is logically improbable or openly note your delusion is purely "on faith" and reside quietly to your corner, away from political topics.

 

[Iron]

Review my hypothesis test.

I don't need to "dismiss" it.

Its a proposition which violates our natural thought. Think about if I moved to a new planet (its easier then imagining Earth). On planet Y they believe in a giant platypus god. There are fables about him, people are in a personal relationship, he created and governed the universe etc

They are putting forward a proposition to my null mind- which has no thoughts on the subject. Logically I then ask: What evidence do you have to support this claim?

They don't present anything satisfactory other then attempting to instill psychological fear in me in regard to eternal punishment if I don't accept him on "faith" ie no evidence.

Rationally I have no choice to reject. If I don't, then it undermines my whole epistemic position on anything in the world.

The opposite does not necessarily work. There is no burden on me to "prove a negative". We know this is philosophically impossible. Hence, even though induction does not truly allow it (see Hume on whether the sun will rise tomorrow) we go on probability suggested by evidence. Its the best way to live. Otherwise, it is not insulting (even though you feel it ludicrous) for me to suggest that there is an invisible, fiery dragon residing in your kitchen. You can not find evidence to prove me wrong. Whats the probability that its correct though?

Why do you then have a different position in regards to this invisible entity? It's definitely got nothing to do with morality and "life philosophy" at all, when you take it down to the crux.

Dont complicate things. You bury within this mammoth beast your concession that God 'probably' doesnt exist. I'd agree that probability is against us, but this makes little difference imo.

Honestly, i'm not trying to convert you. It is clear that youre determined not to believe at this stage; I dont really care. But you have nothing on me, brother.

 

[Riet]

that is such a weak thing to have faith in, us humans are so weak, and a vapour in the grand scheme of things

and yet you buy into the egotistical belief that humans are so special that god created us in his image. Nice work fucktard.

 

[Cookie182]

No, i'm criticising those who believe science can answer such questions - not science itself.

I already agree with your distinction between philosophy/science, but certainly one could concede that scientific discoveries can aid philosophy as they give us truth boundaries.

Also, I'm skeptical at your sharp criticism of the word "why". I think in many cases "why" and "how" overlap.

For eg-

What do you tell a child to the question:

Why does water boil?

You explain how it occurs, which inevitably should note "why"- as the molecular structure gains kinetic energy etc etc

 

[Iron]

lol youre telling her how water boils! If she kept going, she'd ask 'why is there matter'

 

[Pain]

and yet you buy into the egotistical belief that humans are so special that god created us in his image. Nice work fucktard.

Well said champion.

 

[Cookie182]

Dont complicate things. You bury within this mammoth beast your concession that God 'probably' doesnt exist. I'd agree that probability is against us, but this makes little difference imo.

Honestly, i'm not trying to convert you. It is clear that youre determined not to believe at this stage; I dont really care. But you have nothing on me, brother.

lol I'm not burying anything. I think you at least see the logic in my statement.

Note, I wouldn't need the term "atheist" if religion did not exist. It is an interdependent concept- it only has contextual meaning within a religious framework, given its simply a reply to the religious proposition. You can't argue against this, as I too concede that any atheist with the certainty that "god does not exist" is also deluded.

However, you see now the evidence is against you and at least admit it. What am I to have on you? We're both simply humans. Except, you decide in spite of logic to accept a proposition and guide your life by it- claiming it gives you legitimacy to actions which I do without it (love etc).

There is simply no need for god. Lets embrace that we don't know everything in the universe, and may never will. End of story, move on. The search for truth continues.

 

[Cookie182]

lol youre telling her how water boils! If she kept going, she'd ask 'why is there matter'

so you would answer, because "there is a god"

then the little inquisitor goes, why is there a god?

...


...

I can see you finding yourself in the same situation. Yes, we don't know everything. But see, as I said atheism is rejecting the notions Christianity has put forward about "this god", not the existence of any "creator" (we need a simple definition of god here).

At best your argument could eventually be correct and would demonstrate an intelligent designer (we may yet discover this, I'm always open to the possibility). How do and why do you think that this at all proves your positivistic claims about the nature of this entity (it could be simply a mass of energy).

The notions put forward by Bronze Age man utilise psychological mimicking- they make statements from a "man" P.O.V.- attaching human emotions to him, infinite knowledge, sex, anger, they build a character, they build imaginary places (like heaven/hell) and they arrogantly assume this entity has a personal relationship with them. Your argument will never prove any of this. Until evidence surfaces, it is wishful slavery and bullshit.

That is the only logical stance. Same forth for the god concept generated by all the other 19 999 religions, in which you have atheistically rejected!

 

[Iron]

Accepting that there is inadequate scientific evidence for God doesnt diminish the existence that He 'possibly' has. Your view that there is also no 'need' for God also does little to diminish His possible existance.

You cant wear me down. Nothing you have said has damaged my faith at all - surely you can see that. I'm not unreasonable, but I dont follow your conclusions which only have 'probability' going for them. At any rate, even if I was to say 'OK, God must be a myth, Cookie. You win!' - the problem would still remain and God would not be diminished!

 

[Cookie182]

Accepting that there is inadequate scientific evidence for God doesnt diminish the existence that He 'possibly' has. Your view that there is also no 'need' for God also does little to diminish His possible existance.

You cant wear me down. Nothing you have said has damaged my faith at all - surely you can see that. I'm not unreasonable, but I dont follow your conclusions which only have 'probability' going for them. At any rate, even if I was to say 'OK, God must be a myth, Cookie. You win!' - the problem would still remain and God would not be diminished!

Dude your the one getting apologetic and bringing your "faith" into question. Psychologically I would actually say that shows doubt, although you would never admit it.

But watevs, I have nothing to "convert" you too- its your burden to prove something as I've shown.

How many times also do I have to say, its not the statement "no God exists", geez. You need to learn how to argue philosophically for theism, I expect more from a near-grad law student.

See that is the scary thing though- you recognise the probability is against you, yet demonstrate nothing would ever ever make you change. That's faith and its the most dangerous thing ever (think of the million muslim kids praying at this moment with the same amount zeal, yet in their heads has been instilled a hatred towards the west as well). In fact the probability (given there is no objective, physical evidence of the supernatural) is infinitely small, that rationally it makes sense to live a life in rejection of the notion (although I concede that philosophically you can never have 100 percent certainty).

Your a slave to a system man. I'm free to consistently evaluate new philosophies and grow. I'm part of this world, a product of nature and I too care about its future. I lack the egoism which thinks I'm the most important species. There are also far greater moral philosophies available then Christianity, but your not free to adopt them, whereas I am.

 

[GoldEyes]

Why must there be a "why"? Bit arrogant tbh

Snap.

 

[Cookie182]

I also bet you've never done any wide reading.

Check out religion as an evolutionary concept.

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel Dennet is a great place to start.

Basically, the need to explain the unknown is our earliest attempts at philosophy/science. Its a strength in many aspects, but when it yields such a psychological power that we can't let go and it evolves through generations of indoctrination (thats religion for ya), it becomes very dangerous- ie a virus of irrationality.

go read!

 

[Iron]

Dude your the one getting apologetic and bringing your "faith" into question. Psychologically I would actually say that shows doubt, although you would never admit it.

But watevs, I have nothing to "convert" you too- its your burden to prove something as I've shown.

How many times also do I have to say, its not the statement "no God exists", geez. You need to learn how to argue philosophically for theism, I expect more from a near-grad law student.

See that is the scary thing though- you recognise the probability is against you, yet demonstrate nothing would ever ever make you change. That's faith and its the most dangerous thing ever (think of the million muslim kids praying at this moment with the same amount zeal, yet in their heads has been instilled a hatred towards the west as well). In fact the probability (given there is no objective, physical evidence of the supernatural) is infinitely small, that rationally it makes sense to live a life in rejection of the notion (although I concede that philosophically you can never have 100 percent certainty).

Your a slave to a system man. I'm free to consistently evaluate new philosophies and grow. I'm part of this world, a product of nature and I too care about its future. I lack the egoism which thinks I'm the most important species. There are also far greater moral philosophies available then Christianity, but your not free to adopt them, whereas I am.

Lol I have no burden. It's a personal relationship between the individual and God. Nothing I could say to you would help you in that discovery. I have no way to 'force' you to believe through scientific evidence - and I have never sought to do this! You however have fought like a wild-cat to insist that the evidence is sufficient to do away with God and this is dishonest.

and lol it is you who is the slave my friend. You claim that your freedom to float in the wind without foundation or basis is liberty and joy, when it is nothing but a dictatorship that has you constantly shifting positions, avoiding responsibility when it suits you and maximizing your hedonistic pleasures. The truth is that you are caged within your own ego, drowing in your house upon the sand.
The freedom to believe anything is the tyranny of believing nothing!
God is not dead!
Truth exists!
Peace out woo

 

[Cookie182]

This probably should have went into the "Does god Exist" thread.

Also, note that if you hold a theistic word view, it appears logically impossible to actually hold any "absolute truth". If the universe is not self-contained, ie an all-powerful entity sits outside of time and can intervene at will, nothing can be "known"- it is simply all subjective to the will of this entity.

Am I wrong therefore to say that the law of non-contradiction could be made false. If this entity is all powerful, nothing stops the possibility that propositions and their negations could hold true at the same time. This is chaotic and problematic to mathematics, physics and generally epistemology. How could "true" logic exist unless we assume a self-contained universe?

Technically, under this framework, you can't even really know that you do believe in god- nothing can have truth value.

Just a thought for da masses...

 

[Cookie182]

Peace out woo

*So we blow up buildings over personal relationships? lol

 

[Cookie182]

Oh just for humour-

The "Funky" proof for atheism:

1) Kfunk is an atheist.

2) Kfunk is smarter then all of us.

3) Therefore, we should seek to follow his opinion on intelligent issues.

4) Therefore, we should be atheists.

 

[GoldEyes]

Heh, as my previous post states, and as demonstrated by these two, the issue of the existence of god will never be proved or disproved until the apocalypse or another religious coming.

The Big Bang has already been proved, so that is out of the question.

Atheists aren't necessarily against religion and it's beliefs, they are against the naivety brought forward by many believers. And I must say, I get extremely annoyed at forceful preachers and circular reasoning.

 

[Cookie182]

lol good times, good times

Its annoying, i can never rep you I need to "spread it around"

y doesnt it come up that for you when u rep me?

 

[GoldEyes]

lol good times, good times

Its annoying, i can never rep you I need to "spread it around"

y doesnt it come up that for you when u rep me?

I can rep you.

I repped you just now .

Doesn't "repped" sound like an atrocious sexual act?

 

[BigBoyJames_]

Oh just for humour-

The "Funky" proof for atheism:

1) Kfunk is an atheist.

2) Kfunk is smarter then all of us.

3) Therefore, we should seek to follow his opinion on intelligent issues.

4) Therefore, we should be atheists.

lol, kfunk is also a socialist.