Remove this ad
First  Prev  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
Banned
1785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

Ember_McLain wrote:


VeniVidiVici- wrote:

Care to cite sources for the gang rape? That's right, Iran is a Muslim country and them doing what you have stated is against their religion. They do it because they're as you're mentioned bad people, and as I say ignorant of their belief, if that is what they are following.
Your quote actually supports ly statement about mankind's psyche.
I say this with surprise because you are here to refute and don't seem to realize you just supported my reply in thus claiming I'm right.

Which brings to our attention a golden question--- are you even comprehending what I am writing??

The rationale behind the gang rape of virgins comes directly from the Hadith: a virgin cannot be executed. The jump from that to gang rape by the revolutionary guard was obtained from "Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays" by Christopher Hitchens.

Also, you ask if I comprehend what you are saying, to which I must reply apparently not.

You say "Do not blame religion." however, it can be seen that no morally normal person would even contemplate such wicked actions are those perpetuated by the parties of god. I repeat, good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; if you want a good person to do a wicked thing, that takes religion.

I would also retort that my challenge is still unanswered: You name me one moral action that a religious person would do that a non-believer wouldn't. You may have to think about that, but now consider what is an immoral action that a religious person would commit that a non-believer wouldn't even dream of. The suicide bombing community is entirely faith based, the genital mutilation community as well.

We may be at an impasse; you claim that I am not comprehending, as it were, while I feel the same about you. I have closely read your responses and both agreed and disagreed on certain points. The ambiguity in comprehension on your end is questionable, perhaps even with some motivated reasoning.

-

I repeat, so that this does not come up for a 3rd time: Religion makes morally normal people say and do wicked and disgusting things. Things they would not with if they did not believe god was on their side. Yes. There are good people. Yes there are bad people. But if you want a good person to commit an atrocity, that takes religion.


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

I do believe that, in this argument, we are getting to a point where people are just repeating themselves.
I am inclined to agree with what this fine gentleman said.

Though, perhaps I'm biased, but I believe I've taken the flag today.

Which hadith? Name who said it and who verified it.

So you think religion makes people do wicked things?? Is that your finale statement behind everything you argue about?
Because if it is I will prove you wrong right here.


Did you not read what I said about gengis khan?, or Atilla the Hun.
^Now you cant miss that ^.^

and I previous to you had mentioned that mankind hindered the progress of mankind. That religion doesn't make them do it but they themselves do it because it is their nature. And religion is about acting moral. A moral person without belief can act moral. They can both be moral without believing in a higher being.
Immoral people are immoral being even without thier religion.

See, my point is, its the humans themselves that are either good, or bad. No matter where you put them.
Religion is a way of life, a way to act moral.

You are blaming religion when it should be the people.

I have answered your questions in full. Now answer My first one.


Also you seem to have this infatuation with religion being evil and the root of all of mankinds destruction.
Why don't you look to south america and the drug cartels? I doubt they believe in jesus.
That there is just a very nice example how people with or without a religion can act the same.

I stated my point. you sir, need to accept like I repeat myself again a million times, that mankind is faulty. We're not perfect.

Now grow up , stop blaming things and deal with it.
413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
God probably doesn't exist? But even if he doesn't why would it matter? You've made it this far so far!
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13

Ember_McLain wrote:


TAO_Arecibo wrote:
I don't think you understand. There is a very limited number of things you are actually capable of proving. If you've ever talked to a solipsist, you will understand what I mean. Yes, you can't prove deism. But neither can you disprove it. Yes you can't prove atheism. But neither can you disprove it. All this talk of proof is based on correspondence theory of truth, and as I pointed out, it has some issues. That's why, debating about the existance of God is quite pointless. People 'believe' or 'don't believe' in God for practical reasons, not because they can prove or disprove it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with people choose to believe or not believe simply because they want to. Because ultimately, that's what everything depends on (because you can't prove or disprove your senses either).
It's always somewhat bothersome when I hear "you cannot prove atheism." I suppose that's about right, considering Atheism is the proposition that a particular belief isn't true.


It's more than that it can't be proven true. It's that it can't be proven using only logic. Your senses are technically assumed, and to make a truly unprovable statement, it has to be done using only pure logic (of course, some would argue that logic is it's own assumption, but we'll ignore that for now). Anyways, that's where the statement 'I think, therefore, I am' comes from. It means you can't deny your own existence without a logical inconsistency. And thus, it's always true (accepting logic). You will never be able to do such a thing with theism/atheism.



With that in mind, I believe a close examination of my previous posts will reveal that I never once said god did not exist. I also never said the belief in god itself is bad, not necessarily.


I just jumped in, so I haven't read your other posts. But you did claim something was impossible. I'd be very careful with universals. They tend to bite back (at least in my perspective). There are cases where they are okay, but they need to be super super solid.


What IS bad, however, is modern organised religion. That is truly harmful to civil society. From the islamic fascists who believe their bigotry is divine to the evangelical christians who want pseudo-science taught in schools, we should be, as the religious would say, offended.


From your perspective. From their perspective, I'm quite sure they think you are harmful to civil society. And where do we get from two people calling each other harmful. Nowhere, in terms of an agreement. Just a bitter fight, where they attack each other.


Also, " debating about the [sic]existance of God is quite pointless." I, and many philosophers, will have to disagree with you there. That is not a pointless debate.


Well, considering I just showed you it's very unlikely you will be able to prove or disprove his existence, I can't really see why you still think it has a point. All discussions once proof is out of the picture are pragmatic in nature, about the good and bad things caused by God existing, not about whether it's true or not. I'd say pragmatic discussion is useful, but discussions about existence ultimately run into a wall. Why do you disagree?
16450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
In the seemingly endless argument over the existence of God, one can never disprove the other, meaning there will never be any winner or loser. The only possible way one can win this argument is if the afterlife exists. Because, if the other side is right, no one will be there to recognize the loss or victory. Whatever the case, I suppose we will either see, or not see, and then all will know, or not know.
Banned
1785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

lordcanti666 wrote:

God probably doesn't exist? But even if he doesn't why would it matter? You've made it this far so far![/quote
Exactly
Banned
1785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

In the seemingly endless argument over the existence of God, one can never disprove the other, meaning there will never be any winner or loser. The only possible way one can win this argument is if the afterlife exists. Because, if the other side is right, no one will be there to recognize the loss or victory. Whatever the case, I suppose we will either see, or not see, and then all will know, or not know.


LMFAO!!! do NOT bring up the afterlife. You're just asking for some more......

wait....

I bet you're eating popcorn and watching us
16450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

In the seemingly endless argument over the existence of God, one can never disprove the other, meaning there will never be any winner or loser. The only possible way one can win this argument is if the afterlife exists. Because, if the other side is right, no one will be there to recognize the loss or victory. Whatever the case, I suppose we will either see, or not see, and then all will know, or not know.


LMFAO!!! do NOT bring up the afterlife. You're just asking for some more......

wait....

I bet you're eating popcorn and watching us :(


Well, I am hungry and I am watching this...I don't believe I am eating popcorn, but then again, from what I have gathered, my senses may just be fooling me, meaning the reality is that I am eating popcorn. Hm...
12204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

Ember_McLain wrote:
I repeat, Newton's gravitation has the virtue of being observable and measurable.

I could very much claim that gravity is caused by a magical flying invisible teapot, and on the grounds that you cannot disprove the existence of said invisible teapot, claim I am right. By all means.


I repeat, YOU ARE NOT OBSERVING GRAVITY! You are observing WHAT GRAVITY DOES! Are you following this?
Please tell me yes and then go ahead and concede the argument or attempt again to show me the proof of the existence of gravity with your theoretical knowledge that I know doesn't give you such knowledge.


Ember_McLain wrote:I would greatly appreciate you to keep going. Your list of disprovables calls only to the direct expectations I made previously. In addition, each one of those is measurable and observable.


So, you concede then that proving the non-existence of something isn't hard, then?

Also, no, some things I cited cannot be observed.
For example,

Triangles with 8 sides cannot be observed or measured to show they do not exist
The number 8 cannot be observed or measured. Mathematics CANNOT BE OBSERVED. Are you following this?
You go ahead and show me where 8's exist. While you are at it, you show me the rest of Mathematics exist.


Ember_McLain wrote:I mean, do you equally believe the tooth fairy and the easter bunny are real?


Thats silly. Who wants to know if the tooth fairy and the easter bunny are real?
You've done the trifecta of fallacies

A strawman, False analogy, and Non-sequitur all in one


Ember_McLain wrote:I have respect for Aquinas primarily because he's one of the few philosophers to acknowledge the impossibility of the theist position. That being said, let's examining his proofs for god -- I'm familiar with all 5.


Sure, lets try it out.


Ember_McLain wrote:The first 3 of Aquinas's proofs are essentially the same (The Unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the cosmological argument) all involve an infinite regress; the answer raises a prior question. All 3 rely on a regress and invoke god to terminate the regression. This is illogical, to claim god himself is immune to the regress. Even if we accept god a solution to the regression, it's a complete non-sequitor to claim god is omnipotent or omniscient. This is also logically backwards, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible. It does not follow that the solution to the infinite regress is God, to claim this is to claim you have evidence you cannot possibly have.


You must be some kind of amateur Mathematician. First off, theres no infinite regress problem because ACTUAL infinites do not exist and there is no hope of that belief ever becoming rational. Where does an ACTUAL infinite series exist? It doesn't

So lets say me and you and driving in this awesome convertible and we stop on the road at the RR crossing of a train crossing in progress.
We get out of the car and I say to you as the train cars are going left, "To the left, there is an ACTUAL infinite amount of train cars and to the right there is an ACTUAL infinite amount of train cars". Does that make ANY SENSE to you? No, because it doesn't exist and your brain is going, "Stop bullshitting me because thats impossible and it doesn't make any sense"

Also, God wholly transcends space-time and isn't subject to your silly infinite regress argument.

You should probably go read a math book before you make an infinite argument.


Ember_McLain wrote:Aquinas's 4 proof (Arguments from Degree) is silly. To claim there must be a perfect maximum metric in which to measure smelliness in which we need a pre-eminently peerless stinker and then to derive via fatuous conclusion god is that metric is another non-sequitur.

Aquinas's 5th and final proof (Teleological argument) is just a slap in the face of evolutionary biologists. Given what we know currently, modern science has, in fact, disproved this.


Very silly arguments. Rethink them again.


Ember_McLain wrote:The probability issue arises when, as previously mentioned, if asked if I believe in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Given the sheer improbability of their existence, I would claim that I do not believe in them (though I can't with 100% certainty disprove them). This ties directly with what I mentioned previously: that humans are pragmatic reductionists who generally favor both solutions and STRONG vs weak arguments.


And as I previously mentioned you've made a strawman, false analogy, and non-sequitur
If you cannot prove that mathematics exists, then you are irrational in even attempting to convey the entire idea of probability and how that even is necessarily connected to the existence of God.

I'm telling you, I love reduction. You're really out of your league here.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
Nuclear, I'd digress, infinites do exist, but they aren't measurable. For instance, the existence of time is forced to be infinite if we accept that time means things change. Everything can't go from a state of non-change to a state of change without time already existing in the first place, if you know what I mean. So I'd say infinite does exist, but with caveats, if you know what I mean.
413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13







Why did I get quoted with no response???
16450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
In a world full of gods, there can be no god, for everyone is the same. In the human ideas of being superior to all other life forms, people start to think of themselves as gods, thus leading to their idea that God does not exist.






I'm just trying to ease the tension and stress that these arguments can have by introducing ideas separate from the main issues yet also connected to them. Stress can greatly shorten your lifespan, you know.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
Lol mina. Dat stress!
16450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

Most scientists would agree that time is infinite, exists in a dimension that is entangled with our own. It is with time that all things came to be. How would most describe God? A being which is infinite, exists in a plain that is, at times at least, entangled with our own, and it is with God that all things came to be. There are striking similarities, so why is it that so many can't seem to believe in God, yet most certainly believe in time, both omniscient and ever-lasting?


Banned
1785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

lordcanti666 wrote:








Why did I get quoted with no response???


I said exactly T_T
Banned
1785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

Nuclearspy wrote:


Ember_McLain wrote:
I repeat, Newton's gravitation has the virtue of being observable and measurable.

I could very much claim that gravity is caused by a magical flying invisible teapot, and on the grounds that you cannot disprove the existence of said invisible teapot, claim I am right. By all means.


I repeat, YOU ARE NOT OBSERVING GRAVITY! You are observing WHAT GRAVITY DOES! Are you following this?
Please tell me yes and then go ahead and concede the argument or attempt again to show me the proof of the existence of gravity with your theoretical knowledge that I know doesn't give you such knowledge.


Ember_McLain wrote:I would greatly appreciate you to keep going. Your list of disprovables calls only to the direct expectations I made previously. In addition, each one of those is measurable and observable.


So, you concede then that proving the non-existence of something isn't hard, then?

Also, no, some things I cited cannot be observed.
For example,

Triangles with 8 sides cannot be observed or measured to show they do not exist
The number 8 cannot be observed or measured. Mathematics CANNOT BE OBSERVED. Are you following this?
You go ahead and show me where 8's exist. While you are at it, you show me the rest of Mathematics exist.


Ember_McLain wrote:I mean, do you equally believe the tooth fairy and the easter bunny are real?


Thats silly. Who wants to know if the tooth fairy and the easter bunny are real?
You've done the trifecta of fallacies

A strawman, False analogy, and Non-sequitur all in one


Ember_McLain wrote:I have respect for Aquinas primarily because he's one of the few philosophers to acknowledge the impossibility of the theist position. That being said, let's examining his proofs for god -- I'm familiar with all 5.


Sure, lets try it out.


Ember_McLain wrote:The first 3 of Aquinas's proofs are essentially the same (The Unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the cosmological argument) all involve an infinite regress; the answer raises a prior question. All 3 rely on a regress and invoke god to terminate the regression. This is illogical, to claim god himself is immune to the regress. Even if we accept god a solution to the regression, it's a complete non-sequitor to claim god is omnipotent or omniscient. This is also logically backwards, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible. It does not follow that the solution to the infinite regress is God, to claim this is to claim you have evidence you cannot possibly have.


You must be some kind of amateur Mathematician. First off, theres no infinite regress problem because ACTUAL infinites do not exist and there is no hope of that belief ever becoming rational. Where does an ACTUAL infinite series exist? It doesn't

So lets say me and you and driving in this awesome convertible and we stop on the road at the RR crossing of a train crossing in progress.
We get out of the car and I say to you as the train cars are going left, "To the left, there is an ACTUAL infinite amount of train cars and to the right there is an ACTUAL infinite amount of train cars". Does that make ANY SENSE to you? No, because it doesn't exist and your brain is going, "Stop bullshitting me because thats impossible and it doesn't make any sense"

Also, God wholly transcends space-time and isn't subject to your silly infinite regress argument.

You should probably go read a math book before you make an infinite argument.


Ember_McLain wrote:Aquinas's 4 proof (Arguments from Degree) is silly. To claim there must be a perfect maximum metric in which to measure smelliness in which we need a pre-eminently peerless stinker and then to derive via fatuous conclusion god is that metric is another non-sequitur.

Aquinas's 5th and final proof (Teleological argument) is just a slap in the face of evolutionary biologists. Given what we know currently, modern science has, in fact, disproved this.


Very silly arguments. Rethink them again.


Ember_McLain wrote:The probability issue arises when, as previously mentioned, if asked if I believe in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Given the sheer improbability of their existence, I would claim that I do not believe in them (though I can't with 100% certainty disprove them). This ties directly with what I mentioned previously: that humans are pragmatic reductionists who generally favor both solutions and STRONG vs weak arguments.


And as I previously mentioned you've made a strawman, false analogy, and non-sequitur
If you cannot prove that mathematics exists, then you are irrational in even attempting to convey the entire idea of probability and how that even is necessarily connected to the existence of God.

I'm telling you, I love reduction. You're really out of your league here.


Lol see? He doesn't follow along.
I've come to the bottom of this----He claims to be rational but isn't.
I smell hypocrisy, but yeah, lets not waste our time on someone so blind.
It was fun while it lasted.
First  Prev  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.