how convenient it is for you to assume that God is subject to and bounded by our time

5/24/2011 6:36:31 PM

Hey I am not the one who is making up some mystical bullshit in order to protect my religious beliefs.

5/24/2011 6:39:10 PM

it's mystical only in the sense that it refers to a deity which ostensibly created our universe, which would include the creation of its time. to suggest that a being was subject to its own creation is the height of absurdity. ergo, the aforementioned notion of the the argument being based on a fallacy

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 6:44:23 PM

Right, *we* cannot ascribe anything to god even if it is logically consistent with reality, but you can ascribe bullshit like "he exists outside our timeline." And again you've demonstrated that you're not really interested in having a conversation so much as shitting profusely from the mouth.

5/24/2011 6:56:13 PM

well, it seems logical, assuming that we accept that a god exists and that he created our time, that said god is not a part of our time. Is a computer programmer subject to the laws and rules created within his program? of course not.

moreover, what have you ascribed to God that is "logically consistent with reality," other than your aforementioned desire for everything on earth to be "harmony harmony oh looooooooooooove"?

5/24/2011 6:59:03 PM

Quote :

"this would presuppose that God is part of our timeline, a notion which seems intrinsically impossible if God created our time, itself"

I fail to see how this would disprove my argument.

5/24/2011 7:03:14 PM

you used the term "before," something which is intrinsic in the notion of "our time."

5/24/2011 7:04:20 PM

think of it backwards

if god existed in the way he is described, then you can not describe him or understand him in the context and bounds of our existence and experience

thus

pointing out the logical problems does nothing to disprove him

5/24/2011 7:06:46 PM

And you used the term 'exists' which is necessarily a temporal condition. You're presupposing either non-demonstrable timelines on which a being can exist yet still affect other timelines or you're presupposing a being which can paradoxically "exist" outside of time.

5/24/2011 7:09:27 PM

Quote :

"you used the term "before," something which is intrinsic in the notion of "our time.""

The before is in reference to our human timeline, not God's timeline. Whether he exists in our dimension or an upper dimension is irrelevant--he "sees" our past, present, and future and therefore by creating us, he created murderers, thieves, and monkeys that rip peoples' faces off.

5/24/2011 7:10:32 PM

Your point is that it's an argument that can't be won, which is technically true. There are an infinite number of claims I could make that could not be disproved, especially if I framed these claims in a context of "humans can't possible understand the nature of the thing that I'm claiming exists."

Once you reach that point, then you're right, there's no point in having a discussion. You're speaking in absurdities. That's why religion is a delusion, and nothing more.

5/24/2011 7:11:26 PM

Quote :

"The before is in reference to our human timeline, not God's timeline. Whether he exists in our dimension or an upper dimension is irrelevant--he "sees" our past, present, and future and therefore by creating us, he created murderers, thieves, and monkeys that rip peoples' faces off."

yes, but in that sense, saying that God sees our future "before it happens" is the fallacy. Now, a good question t come from this is "how would God answer prayers." That'd be an interesting question, lol

5/24/2011 7:12:58 PM

Quote :

"Your point is that it's an argument that can't be won, which is technically true. There are an infinite number of claims I could make that could not be disproved, especially if I framed these claims in a context of "humans can't possible understand the nature of the thing that I'm claiming exists.""

its not just "technically true" it is true.

and as religion is something that is based on faith, it doesn't need a logical foundation.

5/24/2011 7:14:28 PM

Just for a point of reference: are you a theist, or are you playing devil's advocate?

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 7:20 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 7:20:04 PM

i am most certainly a theist, but I do enjoy playing the advocate, too

5/24/2011 7:20:31 PM

Do you believe all religions are equally valid? Do you believe that all claims are equally valid? If not, why not?

5/24/2011 7:21:32 PM

Quote :

"yes, but in that sense, saying that God sees our future "before it happens" is the fallacy."

If God exists outside time, then past, present, and future are one in the same, like the Tralfamadorians in Slaughterhouse Five (who lived in the 4th dimension). Like I said, the "before it happens" is in reference to the human timeline. This is simplifying things, but God might see our timeline like we see a book.

this is getting really fucking out there btw

5/24/2011 7:21:44 PM

Let's just stop and prove "God" is something that exists in the first place. Oh wait, you can't. So how in the fuck can you say definitively ANYTHING about it including statements like "humanly concepts don't apply to him" or "he isn't bound by your rules."

You aren't. You're blowing it out of your ass just like rbrthwrd. You're making statements which have no evidential or even logical support. You're speaking nonsense. I could claim that every single atom in the Universe is at all times controlled by a race of aliens and it is as equally valid as "God exists outside our timeline."

Quote :

"its not just "technically true" it is true. and as religion is something that is based on faith, it doesn't need a logical foundation."

Delusions are based on faith, and don't require logical foundations. Things which have justifiable belief are things which are based off of evidence and reason. If religion is truly just based off of faith then it should not be believed.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 7:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2011 7:27:46 PM

Quote :

"Do you believe all religions are equally valid? Do you believe that all claims are equally valid? If not, why not?"

Well, I certainly believe that my beliefs are right and that ones that deviate from them, ie, other religions, are wrong. But, as Grumpy has put it in another thread, it's more based on experience than hard logic, except in the case of Scientology, which pretty much anyone can see is total bullshit. If forced to "defend it" in a court or scientific setting, I know it wouldn't pass muster, but I don't expect it would, nor do I expect it to do so.

Quote :

"This is simplifying things, but God might see our timeline like we see a book. this is getting really fucking out there btw"

right, so then saying "does God know what will happen before it happens" is a bit pointless in that respect. I like the book analogy, though there are other parts of it I don't like.

Quote :

"So how in the fuck can you say definitively ANYTHING about it including statements like "humanly concepts don't apply to him" or "he isn't bound by your rules.""

Because we have some definition of what he supposedly is, and we can use those definitions and some logical constructs to make statements about Him, if He actually exists. There are certainly things that would logically follow from some descriptions, such as the notion that God would be outside of the timeline that He created.

Quote :

"If religion is truly just based off of faith then it should not be believed."

Who is to say that all religion is based off of faith alone? Surely no one just woke up one day and said "I think this" with no events t actually cause that belief. Religion and faith are based on some kind of evidence, but not the same standard of evidence as science.


and, I'm not sure I'd say that "delusions are based on faith." I doubt the man in the psycho ward who is seeing rabbits crawl out of his skin is having any sort of religious faith cause it. Maybe you meant it the other way around, where faith is based on delusion, and that may be the case some times, but other times is not. When I sit down, I have full faith that my chair will not collapse on me. I have done no scientific study of the chair, I've done no force calculations on it. I just believe it will hold me. Of course, that's not indicative of all faith, either

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 7:41:01 PM

Quote :

"Well, I certainly believe that my beliefs are right and that ones that deviate from them, ie, other religions, are wrong. But, as Grumpy has put it in another thread, it's more based on experience than hard logic, except in the case of Scientology, which pretty much anyone can see is total bullshit. If forced to "defend it" in a court or scientific setting, I know it wouldn't pass muster, but I don't expect it would, nor do I expect it to do so."

You've decided by fiat that something which you cannot support scientifically is true. I'm sorry but I care a bit more whether what I believe in is actually true and not just wishful thinking.

Quote :

"Because we have some definition of what he supposedly is, and we can use those definitions and some logical constructs to make statements about Him, if He actually exists. There are certainly things that would logically follow from some descriptions, such as the notion that God would be outside of the timeline that He created."

It works for you but not for us, got it. Since you're free to make up whatever characteristics you please, since you feel you have no burden of proof of those characteristics, what is the god damned point?

Quote :

"Who is to say that all religion is based off of faith alone? Surely no one just woke up one day and said "I think this" with no events t actually cause that belief. Religion and faith are based on some kind of evidence, but not the same standard of evidence as science."

rbrthwrd said it, and I was responding to him. "some kind of evidence", eh? What if the burning bush was a dehydration-caused hallucination? What if Moses was just making it up? If L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith are *clearly* lying, why is Jesus (or the people retelling the story of Jesus) *clearly* not?

There are not multiple striations of quality of evidence. Something is either evidence of a claim or it is not.

Quote :

"and, I'm not sure I'd say that "delusions are based on faith." I doubt the man in the psycho ward who is seeing rabbits crawl out of his skin is having any sort of religious faith cause it. Maybe you meant it the other way around, where faith is based on delusion, and that may be the case some times, but other times is not. When I sit down, I have full faith that my chair will not collapse on me. I have done no scientific study of the chair, I've done no force calculations on it. I just believe it will hold me. Of course, that's not indicative of all faith, either"

*belief* in delusions is based on faith, is what I probably should have said. *belief* in something which is not demonstrable is indistinguishable from delusion.

Quote :

"When I sit down, I have full faith that my chair will not collapse on me. I have done no scientific study of the chair, I've done no force calculations on it. I just believe it will hold me."

Oooooooh, and theists love to equivocate on the word 'faith'. What you are describing here is not "faith" in the sense of "religious faith". It is reasonable expectations based on observational experience and scientific understanding of the environment. You've sat in that or chairs very much like that before. You've seen evidence that chairs support your ass without issue. This belief is justified and it has nothing to do with faith.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2011 7:51:16 PM

Quote :

"You've decided by fiat that something which you cannot support scientifically is true. I'm sorry but I care a bit more whether what I believe in is actually true and not just wishful thinking."

that's fine. nothing wrong with it. what's your point?

Quote :

"It works for you but not for us, got it."

No, not at all. I'm pointing out where you have gone beyond the bounds of what can be definitively said. You can feel free to do the same to me if I go past that point.

Quote :

"*belief* in delusions is based on faith, is what I probably should have said. *belief* in something which is not demonstrable is indistinguishable from delusion. "

maybe so, but belief is still not always delusion. Nor is faith always a delusion.

Quote :

"Oooooooh, and theists love to equivocate on the word 'faith'. What you are describing here is not "faith" in the sense of "religious faith"."

they are one and the same. faith is faith is faith is faith. you merely discount this one example of it because you dislike it.

Quote :

"You've seen evidence that chairs support your ass without issue. This belief is justified and it has nothing to do with faith."

It has everything to do with faith, as there is no more reason to assume the chair will hold me this time as it did last time. There are an uncountable number of ways that the chair may have failed since I last sat in it. I am simply trusting that none of those have occurred

5/24/2011 7:58:43 PM

Quote :

"that's fine. nothing wrong with it. what's your point?"

EVERYTHING WRONG WITH IT! There is everything wrong with believing something on faith and not reason and evidence.

Quote :

"No, not at all. I'm pointing out where you have gone beyond the bounds of what can be definitively said. You can feel free to do the same to me if I go past that point."

Anything. Anything about "God" is going beyond the bounds of what can be definitively said. Until you have proven its existence, this is true.

Quote :

"maybe so, but belief is still not always delusion. Nor is faith always a delusion."

But with absolutely no way of being able to tell the difference between the two, they are indistinguishable and trusting something on faith is dangerous because you may be deluded and not be able to tell.

Quote :

"they are one and the same. faith is faith is faith is faith. you merely discount this one example of it because you dislike it."

Nope. They're not. Reasonable expectations based on information gained through observation is the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE THING OF FAITH.

Quote :

"It has everything to do with faith, as there is no more reason to assume the chair will hold me this time as it did last time. There are an uncountable number of ways that the chair may have failed since I last sat in it. I am simply trusting that none of those have occurred"

There is every reason in the world to assume the chair will hold you this time as it did last time.
Did you observe any physical differences between yourself and the chair since the last time you sat in it?
Has the Earth's gravity and physics significantly changed since the last time you sat in it?
Is there any observational evidence of damage to the chair that would impact its integrity?
If the situation hasn't significantly changed since the last time you are very reasonable to accept that the situation will react similarly this time.
Not only that, you're not assessing the absolute certainty that a chair won't break. You're assessing the probability that it won't break vs. your desire to sit on it. It isn't faith.

Now, let's take a look at your faith in God. It's not observable, demonstrable, provable and it has no direct or indirect effects on reality that can definitively be attributed to it. You haven't observed it every day, you don't have a working knowledge of the physics governing it, you haven't sat on it or something like it every day of your life. Your faith that God exists is not based on observation or "experience" (your word) in the least. And if it is, I'd welcome some proof of that claim.

I find it intriguing that you'd equate your faith in your god with the trivial belief that a chair probably won't break. I also find it intriguing that you'd note the "uncountable number of ways that the chair may have failed since [you] last sat in it" but fail to grasp the uncountable number of ways you could be wrong about God.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 9:29 PM. Reason : on]

5/24/2011 9:28:48 PM

Quote :

"how convenient it is for you to assume that God is subject to and bounded by our time "

The Bible puts some pretty clear parameters on God’s powers. He’s not bounded to time, per se, but you have to accept that God isn’t going to deceive us, and that Satan has some level of power to challenge God (therefore God isn’t the only omnipotent being, or is not “perfectly” omnipotent), which means God can’t or won’t do certain things to violate what we perceive as the laws of physics.

Why go through the song and dance of the tribulation of God is all powerful? Just kill the Devil already, and stop being a drama queen… why let demons roam around “secretly” (how does that work to an omniscient/omnipotent being???) to derail his plans?

I guess omnipotence just ain’t what it used to be. Of course, all of this makes perfect sense if you realize the stories that God is based on relate pretty strongly to the pagan and Zoroastrian roots.

5/24/2011 10:20:36 PM

Quote :

"There is everything wrong with believing something on faith and not reason and evidence. "

no, there's really not.

Quote :

"Anything. Anything about "God" is going beyond the bounds of what can be definitively said. Until you have proven its existence, this is true."

No, not really. That's just absurd. Otherwise, hypothetical situations should never be discussed. Ever.

Quote :

"But with absolutely no way of being able to tell the difference between the two, they are indistinguishable and trusting something on faith is dangerous because you may be deluded and not be able to tell."

Such is the risk one takes with faith. That's why it's "faith" and not "fact".

Quote :

"Nope. They're not. Reasonable expectations based on information gained through observation is the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE THING OF FAITH."

And what you are doing is a version of the gambler's fallacy, thinking that something must always do what it has always done.

Quote :

"There is every reason in the world to assume the chair will hold you this time as it did last time. Did you observe any physical differences between yourself and the chair since the last time you sat in it?"

Did I take the time to observe all possible differences? Did I do a structural analysis this time? Nope. I firmly believe it will hold my fat ass.

Quote :

"I find it intriguing that you'd equate your faith in your god with the trivial belief that a chair probably won't break."

There's no "equating" going on. I'm showing you how you have faith, even when you say you don't.

Quote :

"I also find it intriguing that you'd note the "uncountable number of ways that the chair may have failed since [you] last sat in it" but fail to grasp the uncountable number of ways you could be wrong about God."

Actually, I am well aware of the uncountable number of ways I could be wrong about God.

Quote :

"and that Satan has some level of power to challenge God (therefore God isn’t the only omnipotent being, or is not “perfectly” omnipotent)"

Again, that gets to the issue of free will versus complete control. It only seems logical that God would not completely control His angels.

5/24/2011 11:35:42 PM

Quote :

"no, there's really not."

Yes there is. Without proof of existence, believing in something is indistinguishable from delusion and may as well be called delusion.

Quote :

"No, not really. That's just absurd. Otherwise, hypothetical situations should never be discussed. Ever."

You said 'definitive.' How can a hypothetical ever be 'definitive.' It isn't truthful if you can't back it up with evidence and reason.

Quote :

"Such is the risk one takes with faith. That's why it's "faith" and not "fact"."

How much of a risk? Do you actually admit that your belief in God could be delusional? What is the probability you give it? I don't believe you for a second. If you honestly doubted your belief, you wouldn't believe it once you determined there was no good reason to.

Quote :

"And what you are doing is a version of the gambler's fallacy, thinking that something must always do what it has always done."

No, you dumbass. What something always has done is reasonably likely to happen again and it is not unreasonable to assume it will. The only fuckers that speak in terms of absolute certainty are the theists. The sun will almost certainly rise tomorrow, but it's not guaranteed to. I don't have faith that it will. I understand that in almost all circumstances the Earth will continue to rotate and we will observe our portion of the Earth become illuminated by the Sun yet again. Zero faith involved.

Quote :

"Did I take the time to observe all possible differences? Did I do a structural analysis this time? Nope. I firmly believe it will hold my fat ass."

You did, but it wasn't necessarily a conscious decision. Every decision you ever make regarding your interaction with the world is an assessment of what you currently know about the world based on your observation and reason. You chose to sit because your knowledge that chairs are good for sitting which is not based off faith in any way. You ignore the chance that it could break because your observational experience supports the notion that it's not likely at all to break, unless of course you observe damage to the integrity of the chair, or that your ass has gotten sufficiently fat to damage the integrity of the chair.

Quote :

"There's no "equating" going on. I'm showing you how you have faith, even when you say you don't."

And yet I still do not have faith. If I drop a pen, I know that it will fall. I don't have faith that it will, I understand based on observation and my understanding of the physics of the situation that it will fall to the desk. You're being dishonest because you want me to have faith to make your delusional faith seem reasonable. It's not reasonable.

Quote :

"Actually, I am well aware of the uncountable number of ways I could be wrong about God."

Then you must not give a rat's ass whether your belief in God is not wrong. You cannot honestly assess an "uncountable" number in a life time and honestly come to a determination that the "uncountable" number of ways are inaccurate. At some point, you must say "fuck it, I'm just going to believe it because I feel like it." That's what faith is. Now, if you had reason and evidence to rely on, you could pare down the "uncountable" number to a reasonable amount to assess and come to a reasonable conclusion regarding the truth of the claim. Too bad.

Quote :

"Again, that gets to the issue of free will versus complete control. It only seems logical that God would not completely control His angels."

How in the fuck did you make that determination? How do you know what would be considered a logical action for God? I swear I am going to hound you whenever you say anything definitive about the nature of your god. If we aren't allowed to do it, then your ass isn't either.

Besides, prove he exists before conjecturing about his nature. Still waiting.

Unless that's not necessary, in which case I believe my god is distracting Yahweh repeatedly and forever so he doesn't have time to control everything and can't focus on seeing the future. There, that explains why bad things happen to good people at the same rate as everyone else. Makes perfect sense.

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 12:22 AM. Reason : buttfucking was kind of coarse]

5/25/2011 12:13:22 AM

Quote :

"How much of a risk? Do you actually admit that your belief in God could be delusional? What is the probability you give it? I don't believe you for a second. If you honestly doubted your belief, you wouldn't believe it once you determined there was no good reason to."

The risk is offset by the comfort of not forcing oneself to instantiate the initial question if there is said risk.

Quote :

"I can imagine one feeling a great relief of stress after accepting the Lord. It actually makes perfect sense. When you stop actually trying to consider the effects of your actions, and think about consequences, but instead just blindly accept what you think other religious people want you to do, it would make your life much easier. You don’t actually have to think about whether or not your prejudice for gay people is rational, or where it came from, you just blindly accept that it’s justified based on how you interpret the Bible. Ignorance is bliss, as they say."

5/25/2011 12:51:09 AM

Quote :

"If religion is truly just based off of faith then it should not be believed."

again, thats a logical response. faith is not a logical emotion (emotion is not the exact word i'm looking for, activity maybe?).

basically, there are plenty of things to attack in Christianity. however, when you try to create some kind of logic-based position highlighting why no one should believe their religion they are just going to laugh at you for having another boring, trivial argument that totally misses the point of what they are doing. that's why outspoken atheists are so annoying, because they make pedantic arguments that show that they don't really understand the point.

so attack all of the fucked up things about it, but your just wasting your breath and giving people some laughs every time you point out that what they are doing doesn't make sense. because they know it doesn't, but do it anyways because of faith.

5/25/2011 7:28:29 AM

so get out of their fucking face. otherwise they just think youre insane.

5/25/2011 8:42:17 AM

Quote :

"The risk is offset by the comfort of not forcing oneself to instantiate the initial question if there is said risk. "

Ahhhh, it feels good, so you're going to do it anyway even though it doesn't have evidentiary or reasonable support. See? I've been saying this is what faith is.

Whether a claim is comforting has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of the claim.

Quote :

"again, thats a logical response. faith is not a logical emotion (emotion is not the exact word i'm looking for, activity maybe?). "

I'm sorry, reality is described logically and reasonably. If you can't use logic, and you can't use observation, and you can't use testing, and you can't use falsifiability, then you're speaking about something that may as well not exist.

You don't just get to say "well you can't use reason and evidence." Reason and evidence have proven themselves to be the best way to determine whether a claim is true. Faith, being wholly indistinguishable from delusion, is objectively a terrible way to determine whether a claim is true.

If your God does exist, and has decided that faith is the way that people will know he exists, knowing fully well that we'd determine that faith is a terrible way to determine whether he exists, then he's not doing a very good job of making sure we know he exists. Is that one of his goals?

Quote :

"basically, there are plenty of things to attack in Christianity. however, when you try to create some kind of logic-based position highlighting why no one should believe their religion they are just going to laugh at you for having another boring, trivial argument that totally misses the point of what they are doing. that's why outspoken atheists are so annoying, because they make pedantic arguments that show that they don't really understand the point. "

There's absolutely nothing pedantic about any argument I've presented in this thread. You just call it pedantic because it involves pesky things like being logically consistent or being supported by evidentiary support which FOR EVERYTHING BESIDES GOD CLAIMS WORKS PERFECTLY FINE. And actually, it works perfectly fine for god claims, it's just not the conclusion you'd prefer.

Quote :

"so attack all of the fucked up things about it, but your just wasting your breath and giving people some laughs every time you point out that what they are doing doesn't make sense. because they know it doesn't, but do it anyways because of faith."

Actually no. One thing this board has taught me is that the damaging impact of religion on humanity is an extremely complicated issue. Whether it's justifiable to believe a claim on faith alone; that's a very simple one.

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 9:02 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2011 8:49:13 AM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, reality is described logically and reasonably. If you can't use logic, and you can't use observation, and you can't use testing, and you can't use falsifiability, then you're speaking about something that may as well not exist. You don't just get to say "well you can't use reason and evidence." Reason and evidence have proven themselves to be the best way to determine whether a claim is true. Faith, being wholly indistinguishable from delusion, is objectively a terrible way to determine whether a claim is true. If your God does exist, and has decided that faith is the way that people will know he exists, knowing fully well that we'd determine that faith is a terrible way to determine whether he exists, then he's not doing a very good job of making sure we know he exists. Is that one of his goals?"

and here you are again totally missing the point. this is why your arguments will never convert anyone or change or fix anything.

5/25/2011 9:49:56 AM

No, you're missing the point. Things which are real can be described logically and observationally. Things which are not cannot. You don't just get to say "well you can't talk about this in those terms." Those are the only terms in which we can refer to things which are real and can be proven to be real.

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2011 9:52:07 AM

no

if god was real, he could not be described logically or rationally

thus
pointing out that he is neither logical nor rational does not disprove his existence.

given they base their opinion on faith, and not logical or rationality.

where as you believe converting people and convincing them of their folly is important

you should change your tactic

5/25/2011 10:37:36 AM

Actually most religions made a good attempt to be logical and rational and explain "how things are" in the context of the time they were created in. In other words they often represented a rational explanation of things given the knowledge of the people at the time. So why shouldn't they be discarded just like the ideas of an earth centric solar system and a flat earth? Is it because they are comforting?
At it's very best religion represents an outdated concept of how things work and is a stumbling block to the education of humanity.

5/25/2011 10:52:50 AM

Quote :

"no if god was real, he could not be described logically or rationally"

Wat?

Quote :

"thus pointing out that he is neither logical nor rational does not disprove his existence. given they base their opinion on faith, and not logical or rationality. where as you believe converting people and convincing them of their folly is important you should change your tactic"

I don't know, it seems like a pretty good tactic to me. If you cannot explain to me nor yourself why you believe in your god instead of any of the other gods that have exactly the same reasons (none) to believe in them maybe you'd come to the logical conclusion.

Or you'll keep your fingers in your ears and shout NO NO NO NO NO MY GOD DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! whatever.

5/25/2011 10:58:32 AM

To me it is like watching a card trick in which you see the magician look at your card and tell you what it is yet somehow you are supposed to believe it is magic...

5/25/2011 11:02:33 AM

Well on that topic, a firm understanding how complex biological things can be created from simple and iterative processes should be "hey I know how that card trick works" moment for people but they so very much want to believe that it really is magic.

5/25/2011 11:17:37 AM

Quote :

"Wat?"

the god that christians believe in, by definition, is not able to be understood by humans

now of course you are going to point out, again, that this is not a solid basis... and in doing so you will miss the point, again, that christians don't care.

if you want to convert anyone and save them for their folly, pointing out how illogical and irrational god is is a terrible plan because their understanding of god, how he is described, is as something that doesn't make sense and is beyond the reach of humans.

5/25/2011 12:32:45 PM

Quote :

"the god that christians believe in, by definition, is not able to be understood by humans"

I don't buy this for a second. This is only your response when he doesn't make sense. Christians are more than happy to:

1)Pray to God and expect some type of response.
2)Claim that they feel God's love, or give god credit for helping them through a challenge.
3)Sit in church and listen to a preacher explain at least some aspect of God's nature to them.

If you can't understand it at all, you'd have no ability to say anything about it, let alone would you be justified in believing and worshiping it. This smokescreen will not work. It's exactly the same bullshit aaronburro is trying to pull with "you can't know the nature of god, but here's some definitive statements about him anyway."

And I'd like to mention, if that's your argument: "I can't be convinced by logic, reason, and evidence" then there is no convincing you short of medication. Conversation with someone in this delusional mindset is pointless.

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2011 12:47:42 PM

Quote :

"I don't buy this for a second. "

that's understandable, you've already demonstrated that you don't understand Christianity or the scripture their faith uses

5/25/2011 1:46:14 PM

I said quite a lot more than that. You're essentially conceding the Christianity is about made up bullshit that feels good but has no evidentiary support. Why I have to convince anyone that made up bullshit without evidentiary support shouldn't be believed, now that is a serious question.

5/25/2011 2:24:29 PM

i've never claimed it has evidentiary support, multiple times i've pointed out to you how its based on faith and why your line of argument is wasted on christians.

again, you are missing the point. if you are trying to change anyone's mind, you need to find a new argument, of which there are many better ways to go.

5/25/2011 2:26:39 PM

Quote :

"Yes there is."

no, there's really not.

Quote :

"You said 'definitive.' How can a hypothetical ever be 'definitive.' It isn't truthful if you can't back it up with evidence and reason."

And yet, we have a book that is supposedly the word of said deity. We can use passages from this book to make statements about this supposed deity. This isn't that hard. Stop playing semantics, dude.

Quote :

"Do you actually admit that your belief in God could be delusional"

I wouldn't say it is possibly delusional, but I would most certainly say it could be incorrect.

Quote :

"What something always has done is reasonably likely to happen again and it is not unreasonable to assume it will."

And that is faith.

Quote :

"You ignore the chance that it could break"

As in, I have faith that it won't break.

Quote :

"You're being dishonest because you want me to have faith to make your delusional faith seem reasonable."

Not at all. I'm just showing you the different kinds of faith that exist.

Quote :

"Then you must not give a rat's ass whether your belief in God is not wrong."

I most certainly do care. That I don't do what you think I should do doesn't mean that I don't care.

Quote :

"How in the fuck did you make that determination? How do you know what would be considered a logical action for God?"

Well, it's simple. If we have been given free will, then it stands to reason that other beings of God's supposed creation would have the same free will, unless there is some text or reason to suggest otherwise. Otherwise, why create the entity to simply do what He wants it to do and not just do it Himself?

Quote :

"I swear I am going to hound you whenever you say anything definitive about the nature of your god. If we aren't allowed to do it, then your ass isn't either."

The only reason I hound you is because you actually DO make statements that are not supported by the scriptural references you are claiming them to be supported by. Not my fault you can't see the difference.

Quote :

"Besides, prove he exists before conjecturing about his nature. Still waiting."

Clearly you know nothing about logic if you think you must prove something is true before you can use an assumption of that truth to ascertain something. You must clearly have never heard of "proof by contradiction," at the very least. Things can be said about a hypothetical being based on the context that suggests the existence of said being. All of these things, of course, are dependent upon the actual existence of the being and the veracity of said context. I have no problem admitting the limitation of this, but to suggest that there is zero room to talk about said being is absurd, and you know it, and you are just being obtuse at this point.

Quote :

"Faith, being wholly indistinguishable from delusion, is objectively a terrible way to determine whether a claim is true."

Ironic, considered that even science is based upon faith. DOH!

5/25/2011 3:17:43 PM

Oh yay, aaronburro's back!

Quote :

"no, there's really not."

Ok, I've responded to this repeatedly with more than just "yes it is" and each time you've responded with "No, it's not." So how about go fuck yourself?

Quote :

"And yet, we have a book that is supposedly the word of said deity. We can use passages from this book to make statements about this supposed deity. This isn't that hard. Stop playing semantics, dude."

An unproven book about an unproven diety. So I can make statements about your God based on this book, but not what would be logically consistent with reality based off of what's in this book? Got it.

Quote :

"I wouldn't say it is possibly delusional, but I would most certainly say it could be incorrect."

An incorrect belief in something with no evidentiary support is the definition of delusion.

Quote :

"And that is faith."

Reasonable expectations based on observation and experience is not faith. Keep saying it is though, you're making an incredibly strong case.

Quote :

"As in, I have faith that it won't break."

Nope, you know it *could* break, but your desire to sit overrides that knowledge because you know the chance is vanishingly small. It's not faith that it's not going to break.

Quote :

"Not at all. I'm just showing you the different kinds of faith that exist."

And this is what I meant by equivocating meanings of the word faith. When I talk about the religious faith that is delusion I am specifically referring to believing something without evidentiary or reasonable support. There, now you can shut up about chairs and pencils and shit.

Quote :

"I most certainly do care. That I don't do what you think I should do doesn't mean that I don't care."

It's simply an observation. If you continue to believe (you do) in light of the knowledge that there are an "uncountable" (your word) ways that your belief could be wrong and you can't honestly assess the "uncountable" ways using anything besides wishful thinking (you can't) then you don't care about the truth value of your beliefs. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, it's a statement based on what you've told me about how your beliefs of your god are derived.

Quote :

"The only reason I hound you is because you actually DO make statements that are not supported by the scriptural references you are claiming them to be supported by. Not my fault you can't see the difference."

Except you aren't. We base our statements off the fact that the Bible says that God is omnipotent and you hem and haw that it never says "G-O-D-I-S-O-M-N-I-P-O-T-E-N-T" anywhere in the Bible. It doesn't even matter, because we're just playing Devil's Advocate. You haven't proven that scriptural references are even valid for describing a diety which has no evidentiary support for existence. The Bible is as worthless as the back of my Rice Krispies box until proven otherwise.

Quote :

"Clearly you know nothing about logic if you think you must prove something is true before you can use an assumption of that truth to ascertain something. You must clearly have never heard of "proof by contradiction," at the very least. Things can be said about a hypothetical being based on the context that suggests the existence of said being. All of these things, of course, are dependent upon the actual existence of the being and the veracity of said context. I have no problem admitting the limitation of this, but to suggest that there is zero room to talk about said being is absurd, and you know it, and you are just being obtuse at this point."

Oh, so when you're talking about God, you're talking in hypotheticals, but we have to use a real book to support any claim we say about God? For example, claims based on said god being hypothetically ompnipotent? If you were truly referring to God as a hypothetical, then "it doesn't say that in the Bible" would be wholly irrelevant. Why would a hypothetical God be constrained by the description in the Bible?

You're a liar. You're lying about referring to God hypoethetically or you're lying about claims about God require scriptural support to be accurately referring to it.

Quote :

"Ironic, considered that even science is based upon faith. DOH!"

Maybe by your play-doh definition of the word 'faith' but certainly not the bolded version above. You're no better than the pissants that call the Theory of Evolution "just a theory." And you're a liar.

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2011 4:08:49 PM

Quote :

"An incorrect belief in something with no evidentiary support is the definition of delusion. "

no, not really.

Quote :

"So I can make statements about your God based on this book, but not what would be logically consistent with reality based off of what's in this book? Got it."

No, you must make statements that are consistent with what is actually in the book.

Quote :

"Reasonable expectations based on observation and experience is not faith."

key word being "expectations." i.e., faith.

Quote :

"Nope, you know it *could* break, but your desire to sit overrides that knowledge because you know the chance is vanishingly small. "

As in, I have faith that it won't break.

Quote :

"When I talk about the religious faith that is delusion I am specifically referring to believing something without evidentiary or reasonable support."

Even faith is based on some kind of evidence. Just not the same standard you demand.

Quote :

"If you continue to believe (you do) in light of the knowledge that there are an "uncountable" (your word) ways that your belief could be wrong and you can't honestly assess the "uncountable" ways using anything besides wishful thinking (you can't) then you don't care about the truth value of your beliefs."

And yet I do. Thus, you are wrong.

Quote :

"We base our statements off the fact that the Bible says that God is omnipotent "

not exactly. nice try. You make statements like "the Bible says God is good" and then take that to mean "God will prevent any and all bad things from ever happening." there's a difference.

Quote :

"If you were truly referring to God as a hypothetical, then "it doesn't say that in the Bible" would be wholly irrelevant."

Not at all, considering that the Bible is the fucking basis for claims about God.

Quote :

"Maybe by your play-doh definition of the word 'faith' but certainly not the bolded version above."

Nope, it definitely relies on some faith. I'm sorry that you can't see that, but it most certainly relies on the faith that our senses can accurately observe what is going on around us and have our brain properly interpret the sensory input.

5/25/2011 4:32:12 PM

I'm not getting into endless quote wars with you for the sake of this thread's coherence, especially since a majority of your retorts have the substantive equivalent of "nuh-uh!"

Quote :

"Nope, it definitely relies on some faith. I'm sorry that you can't see that, but it most certainly relies on the faith that our senses can accurately observe what is going on around us and have our brain properly interpret the sensory input."

Science doesn't assume that at all, our understanding of the fallibility of human sensory input comes from science.

However, I will admit that in order to avoid dipping into a solipsistic nightmare, science does contain philosophical underpinnings which are unprovable, which thus require "faith" in the epistemological sense. However, science distinguishes itself from purely faith-based beliefs in the same way that philosophy does; by the application of logic. Science also goes one step further by adhering to demonstrable, repeatable experiments and empirical data.

Thus to compare the "faith" included in science with faith in God is an equivocation fallacy to attempt to discredit "belief" in science as being no more sound than believing in god. It fails miserably.

(http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Science_is_a_faith)

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2011 7:22:12 PM

Quote :

"No, you must make statements that are consistent with what is actually in the book."

This would make everything so much simpler.

5/25/2011 7:35:02 PM

Quote :

""No, you must make statements that are consistent with what is actually in the book.""

So help aaron out, leon. Are the following statements Biblically supported?

-God is omnipotent.
-God is benevolent.
-God is omniscient.

5/25/2011 7:43:27 PM

always benevolent?

5/25/2011 7:44:37 PM

For omniscience:

Quote :

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually."

Gen 6:5

Quote :

"And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever."

1 Chron 28:9

This seals omniscience as well:

Quote :

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John 1:3

This kinda seals omnipotent:

Quote :

"And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible."

Mark 10:27

Benevolent is different, though God extends loving kindness to all humankind those that reject it are subject to the wrath of God which "burneth forever." I myself fail to see the point of arbitrary tags that are placed into Christian theology which are not specifically mentioned within scripture.

Benevolence:

Quote :

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins."

1 John 4:10

[Edited on May 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM. Reason : woops extents]

5/25/2011 7:56:36 PM

Quote :

"Thus to compare the "faith" included in science with faith in God is an equivocation fallacy to attempt to discredit "belief" in science as being no more sound than believing in god."

whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.

5/26/2011 6:51:13 PM