Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is no better argument against theism...

CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:34:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
...than a theist's own arguments for it.

You do the world a service, I thank you.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 10:23:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
LOL! Indeed.

Moreover, you could use the Argument from Evil, Argument of Incoherent Attributes, Argument from non-belief, Presupposition of atheism, and the Moral argument for atheism.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 10:46:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If that's true, then the real arguments against God's existence must be so bad as to actually increase the likelihood of God's existence.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:27:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 10:23:25 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
LOL! Indeed.

Moreover, you could use the Argument from Evil, Argument of Incoherent Attributes, Argument from non-belief, Presupposition of atheism, and the Moral argument for atheism.

To be honest, a lot of those arguments are pretty sh!tty too.

At 10/26/2011 10:46:24 AM, Kinesis wrote:
If that's true, then the real arguments against God's existence must be so bad as to actually increase the likelihood of God's existence.

No argument, however convincing, increases or decreases the likelihood of God's existence.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.

except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:50:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The theistic arguments would be more impressive if they all didn't have glaring flaws in them.

Then you get people hard headed enough to write entire books on a faulty argument, as if more words give more weight to the argument.

The side of the theism can not meet its burden of proof. The most you are going to do with a theistic argument is make an attempt at justifying a gamble you are making.

The fact of the matter is, it isn't reasonable to make the gamble. The people who attempt to logically justify these things are wasting their time, and only hurting their case, because there is nothing logical about their position.

I find it to be incredibly pretentious and a tad bit dishonest for a theist to work within the logical framework. The worst ones are the ones who attempt to make mathematical formulas to calculate probabilities and such, as if these are in any way accurate in regards to reality(I would seriously recommend a theist who uses mathematics to study "chaos theory", and if that doesn't humble them into realizing the absurdity of their calculations, nothing will).

The problem is, if these arguments are convincing to anyone who isn't already a believer or someone who wants to believe, it is usually those who are uneducated. Sad to say to those who love to svck the members of those who have "Doctor" before their name, going through 8 years of tertiary education does not make you educated.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:55:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.

does not even attempt to address the point I made, just asserts that your interpretation of this experience is right and the other religious people who give these same experiences a different cause are wrong.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:55:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.

Sorry. I've never had such an experience.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:56:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:55:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.

Sorry. I've never had such an experience.

Which?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:58:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.

Everyone has a direct line of communication with God, and God clearly exists. The problem is, Theists have no fvcking clue what God is, but they act like they do.

God is constantly talking, but some people already "know" what God is saying before God can even complete a sentence. Cultural preconceptions about how God operates get in the way of a better understanding of God.

God is everywhere man, and the God That Exists As Actuality bears no resemblance to that wicked idol, the God of Theism.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:01:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:56:04 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:55:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.

Sorry. I've never had such an experience.

Which?

God's being/work.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:07:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Everyone has a direct line of communication with God, and God clearly exists. The problem is, Theists have no fvcking clue what God is, but they act like they do.

God is constantly talking, but some people already "know" what God is saying before God can even complete a sentence. Cultural preconceptions about how God operates get in the way of a better understanding of God.

God is everywhere man, and the God That Exists As Actuality bears no resemblance to that wicked idol, the God of Theism.

I think you are partly right. The idea that God is constantly talking to us is correct. However I think that the pretentiousness comes in where you say you know what God is saying before he finishes his sentence. Don't take it offensively but the only way to the father is through the son. You can experience him through common grace like I said before in that his presence is evidenced all around us in acutality. However to have a personal relationship with God the son must be there to intercede for us. This is not a perversion of God but is a neccessary means to humble ourselves in order to come before Him. Like I said you can experience Him at every moment, but if you want Him to know you back you have to know the son. You know all this already so I don't know if this is going to speak to you or make you angry. You only have half of the picture painted though, acknowledging he is real. The other half is where where you meet the painter.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:09:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:50:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The theistic arguments would be more impressive if they all didn't have glaring flaws in them.

Then you get people hard headed enough to write entire books on a faulty argument, as if more words give more weight to the argument.

Theists orgasm over junk like that. You toss a PhD infront of the author's name and they'll cuddle with the book after letting it rape them. They don't care how logically unsound it is, so long as it looks impressive.


The side of the theism can not meet its burden of proof. The most you are going to do with a theistic argument is make an attempt at justifying a gamble you are making.

The fact of the matter is, it isn't reasonable to make the gamble. The people who attempt to logically justify these things are wasting their time, and only hurting their case, because there is nothing logical about their position.

I find it to be incredibly pretentious and a tad bit dishonest for a theist to work within the logical framework. The worst ones are the ones who attempt to make mathematical formulas to calculate probabilities and such, as if these are in any way accurate in regards to reality(I would seriously recommend a theist who uses mathematics to study "chaos theory", and if that doesn't humble them into realizing the absurdity of their calculations, nothing will).

The problem is, if these arguments are convincing to anyone who isn't already a believer or someone who wants to believe, it is usually those who are uneducated. Sad to say to those who love to svck the members of those who have "Doctor" before their name, going through 8 years of tertiary education does not make you educated.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:19:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:58:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.

Everyone has a direct line of communication with God, and God clearly exists. The problem is, Theists have no fvcking clue what God is, but they act like they do.

God is constantly talking, but some people already "know" what God is saying before God can even complete a sentence. Cultural preconceptions about how God operates get in the way of a better understanding of God.

God is everywhere man, and the God That Exists As Actuality bears no resemblance to that wicked idol, the God of Theism.

Now you've gone off the deep end. There is no god. At all, not unless you completely change the definition. And if you do that, you might as well give it a different word as well.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:48:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 3:19:06 PM, Diagoras wrote:
Now you've gone off the deep end. There is no god. At all, not unless you completely change the definition. And if you do that, you might as well give it a different word as well.

I'm clearly not talking about what you think God is, otherwise I wouldn't be dismissing the theistic idea of God as being rubbish.

Think more poetically. I'm speaking about what the concept of God was originally intended to mean. I'm talking about actuality. Existence. That which can not adequately be explained with words.

I'm speaking of a very natural thing, a very scientific thing. I choose to use the word God because it is necessary for my goals.

At 10/26/2011 3:07:36 PM, Crede wrote:
I think you are partly right. The idea that God is constantly talking to us is correct. However I think that the pretentiousness comes in where you say you know what God is saying before he finishes his sentence.

This is why I put the word "Know" in quotes.

Don't take it offensively but the only way to the father is through the son. You can experience him through common grace like I said before in that his presence is evidenced all around us in acutality. However to have a personal relationship with God the son must be there to intercede for us.

What do you feel the son metaphorically represents? We all have a personal relationship with God, some are more aware of it than others.

This is not a perversion of God but is a neccessary means to humble ourselves in order to come before Him. Like I said you can experience Him at every moment, but if you want Him to know you back you have to know the son.

What do you feel the son metaphorically represents?

You know all this already so I don't know if this is going to speak to you or make you angry. You only have half of the picture painted though, acknowledging he is real. The other half is where where you meet the painter.

I can't be angry, because I'm fairly certain that I have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:03:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 3:48:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 3:19:06 PM, Diagoras wrote:
Now you've gone off the deep end. There is no god. At all, not unless you completely change the definition. And if you do that, you might as well give it a different word as well.

I'm clearly not talking about what you think God is, otherwise I wouldn't be dismissing the theistic idea of God as being rubbish.

You should use a different word then.


Think more poetically. I'm speaking about what the concept of God was originally intended to mean. I'm talking about actuality. Existence. That which can not adequately be explained with words.

That is not what god was intended to mean. god was originally intended as a device to explain what was unexplainable at the time. As we figured more of that stuff out, his "power" slips back, so that he always stays out of our grasp. He's that damn squiggly line in your peripheral vision, that moves away as you look try to look at it. So in reality, he's not anywhere other than in your head.

He wasn't the actual things, but an imaginary cause for the things. We didn't understand how the sun rose and fell every day, so we tossed a god to it. We didn't understand how the earth was created, so we tossed a god to it. We didn't understand why we went through seasons, so we tossed a god to it. god was just a make shift for the causes of things, not the actual things. As we find the real causes, we find that there is no god at all.


I'm speaking of a very natural thing, a very scientific thing. I choose to use the word God because it is necessary for my goals.

Then you're using the word wrong. You're not choosing words based on their definition, but based on what best suits your goals.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:03:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What do you feel the son metaphorically represents?

You know all this already so I don't know if this is going to speak to you or make you angry. You only have half of the picture painted though, acknowledging he is real. The other half is where where you meet the painter.

I can't be angry, because I'm fairly certain that I have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

The problem is in thinking the Son represents anything metaphorically and doesn't have the intent he said He did. We have chosen our life, our life with sin in it. Understanding that we are God's creation is one thing but the reconciliation to Him is only accomplished through Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through the son." Without Christ you can know God exists, see his creation all around you, marvel at the reality of our situation, but be separate from his Spirit. There is only one way to God, and that is through whom the father sent. There is no metaphor here, only the truth of the actuality in Jesus's sacrifice to atone for our sin bringing us back to God.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:24:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:03:43 PM, Crede wrote:
The problem is in thinking the Son represents anything metaphorically and doesn't have the intent he said He did. We have chosen our life, our life with sin in it. Understanding that we are God's creation is one thing but the reconciliation to Him is only accomplished through Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through the son." Without Christ you can know God exists, see his creation all around you, marvel at the reality of our situation, but be separate from his Spirit. There is only one way to God, and that is through whom the father sent. There is no metaphor here, only the truth of the actuality in Jesus's sacrifice to atone for our sin bringing us back to God.

Alright, just understand that you can have no reasonable justification for these beliefs, and you should not hold it against someone if they declare that it is utter horsesh!t.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:31:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:53:29 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:47:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 2:32:26 PM, Crede wrote:
All the arguments you guys are familiar with are the arguments of philosphy and evidentialy based. The experiential knowledge is the most powerful for an individual, but since one who is not in communion with God can't know it the other arguments are there to have a discussion on idea. So in a way experiential knowledge of God isn't an argument to convince others except maybe in a demonstration of passion, but is the most influential to the believer in confirming their faith.

Just thought I'd give my two cents. Also I think the theistic arguments are awesome even though they are not articulated well in most cases.


except for the little tiny itsy bitsy problem that these experiential things tend to correlate well with being attributed to the god of your indoctrination.

Everybody experiences God's being through common grace. Just step outside and look around and take a deep breath and you can experience his work. So everybody can have experiential knowledge through common grace. But it's when the relationship becomes a two way street that really slams you to the ground and makes everything you thought you knew smashed into a million pieces. That is the great thing about Christianity...all you have to do is believe...thats it! You then have a direct line of communication to Him, and not just Him to you. That is when the experiential knowledge becomes more then just faith and becomes a reality.

Why do you expereince Yahweh and why do Hindus experience Krishna? Is your experience more valid than theirs? You're likely to call there experience fake, but they just experience Krishna and think your experience of Yahweh is fake.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:31:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:24:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:03:43 PM, Crede wrote:
The problem is in thinking the Son represents anything metaphorically and doesn't have the intent he said He did. We have chosen our life, our life with sin in it. Understanding that we are God's creation is one thing but the reconciliation to Him is only accomplished through Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through the son." Without Christ you can know God exists, see his creation all around you, marvel at the reality of our situation, but be separate from his Spirit. There is only one way to God, and that is through whom the father sent. There is no metaphor here, only the truth of the actuality in Jesus's sacrifice to atone for our sin bringing us back to God.

Alright, just understand that you can have no reasonable justification for these beliefs, and you should not hold it against someone if they declare that it is utter horsesh!t.

Why are you saying don't hold it against someone but my beliefs are horsesh!t? Isn't that holding my beliefs against me? I don't hold it against someone if they don't believe, but am there if they have questions or want to hear what a Christian has to say about something. My justifications are very very reasonable, but they are interpreted through different ideologies when you hear them.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:33:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:03:19 PM, Diagoras wrote:
Then you're using the word wrong. You're not choosing words based on their definition, but based on what best suits your goals.

There are many different things that the word "god" refers to. Look up the many different ideas of what "god" is. You can claim that Spinoza is misusing the word, but what does it matter?

You want a god that is easy to dismiss as being ridiculous. I have a god that you'd have to be ridiculous to dismiss. Not everyone has the same understanding of these concepts.

In fact, the God that I am referring to is one of the earliest conceptions of it, which literally meant "I am, I exist, or even existence itself"

If you dismiss the very clear fact that there is some form of existence.. If you dismiss the fact that there is an actuality, or ultimate reality.. You are a fool.

This is the God I am talking about, and it is true almost by definition.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:35:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:31:23 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:24:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:03:43 PM, Crede wrote:
The problem is in thinking the Son represents anything metaphorically and doesn't have the intent he said He did. We have chosen our life, our life with sin in it. Understanding that we are God's creation is one thing but the reconciliation to Him is only accomplished through Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through the son." Without Christ you can know God exists, see his creation all around you, marvel at the reality of our situation, but be separate from his Spirit. There is only one way to God, and that is through whom the father sent. There is no metaphor here, only the truth of the actuality in Jesus's sacrifice to atone for our sin bringing us back to God.

Alright, just understand that you can have no reasonable justification for these beliefs, and you should not hold it against someone if they declare that it is utter horsesh!t.

Why are you saying don't hold it against someone but my beliefs are horsesh!t? Isn't that holding my beliefs against me? I don't hold it against someone if they don't believe, but am there if they have questions or want to hear what a Christian has to say about something. My justifications are very very reasonable, but they are interpreted through different ideologies when you hear them.

Trust me, from an outsider's perspective, you've been duped.

You hold the position of a naive schmuck. No right headed person would seriously believe in that sort of thing.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:38:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do you expereince Yahweh and why do Hindus experience Krishna? Is your experience more valid than theirs? You're likely to call there experience fake, but they just experience Krishna and think your experience of Yahweh is fake.

Well think of it from the Christian point of view. Wouldn't it make perfect sense that Satan would confuse the spiritual person to follow false doctrines? That is why we have to test the spirit to see if it is from God.

1'st John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.


People can be persuaded by things of the spirit, but by false spirits.

2nd Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light


If we test their scripture and find that it perverts the scripture of the bible, which most of them hold as scripture as well, then it is a false teaching.

Hope this helps.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:45:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:35:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:31:23 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:24:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:03:43 PM, Crede wrote:
The problem is in thinking the Son represents anything metaphorically and doesn't have the intent he said He did. We have chosen our life, our life with sin in it. Understanding that we are God's creation is one thing but the reconciliation to Him is only accomplished through Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through the son." Without Christ you can know God exists, see his creation all around you, marvel at the reality of our situation, but be separate from his Spirit. There is only one way to God, and that is through whom the father sent. There is no metaphor here, only the truth of the actuality in Jesus's sacrifice to atone for our sin bringing us back to God.

Alright, just understand that you can have no reasonable justification for these beliefs, and you should not hold it against someone if they declare that it is utter horsesh!t.

Why are you saying don't hold it against someone but my beliefs are horsesh!t? Isn't that holding my beliefs against me? I don't hold it against someone if they don't believe, but am there if they have questions or want to hear what a Christian has to say about something. My justifications are very very reasonable, but they are interpreted through different ideologies when you hear them.

Trust me, from an outsider's perspective, you've been duped.

You hold the position of a naive schmuck. No right headed person would seriously believe in that sort of thing.

All I can say is just look at your own bitterness and distaste for Christianity. Insulting and degrading remarks is your method at showing me what truth is? I come at you with answers and a general desire to demonstrate what is real through compassion yet you call me a naive shmuck. Have you ever considered the idea that the reason your so offended by Christianity is because it is the truth and it stings to hear it because your soul is in a fight against it? Doesn't it feel unsatisfying at the end of the day when all you have done to engage Christians is to insult them and promote a hatred for their beliefs? If you ever want to have relief from that aggression and find peace in God I'm hear if you have questions, and so is God.

Like I said before, you are close in your relationship with God in knowing that he is real...but you are still separated by an ocean of sin that only his son can bridge.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:47:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:33:40 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:03:19 PM, Diagoras wrote:
Then you're using the word wrong. You're not choosing words based on their definition, but based on what best suits your goals.

There are many different things that the word "god" refers to. Look up the many different ideas of what "god" is. You can claim that Spinoza is misusing the word, but what does it matter?

And they all have common denominators, which yours doesn't share, making your definition wrong. If you want to make it a seperate thing, then call it Spinoza's God, rather than just god.


You want a god that is easy to dismiss as being ridiculous. I have a god that you'd have to be ridiculous to dismiss. Not everyone has the same understanding of these concepts.

And you want to misuse a word inorder to try to play a semantical gotchya. If a retard thinks a potato is a tree, that doesn't make that a legitimate meaning of the word.


In fact, the God that I am referring to is one of the earliest conceptions of it, which literally meant "I am, I exist, or even existence itself"

Evidence? The oldest known gods are the egyptians and sumerians. Things before that are before the written language, so it is impossible to say with any conclusiveness what the definition of "god" was. But given that the earliest written languages all point to gods to fill the gaps, it is not likely that people 3,000 years before that were somehow more enlightened and didn't resort to gods of the gaps.


If you dismiss the very clear fact that there is some form of existence.. If you dismiss the fact that there is an actuality, or ultimate reality.. You are a fool.

Existence is not god. Sure, there is existence, and actuality, though what the heck is ultimate reality and how is it different from reality? Or is this just another case of using words incorrectly to seem more powerful or cooler?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:57:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:45:23 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:35:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:31:23 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:24:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:03:43 PM, Crede wrote:
The problem is in thinking the Son represents anything metaphorically and doesn't have the intent he said He did. We have chosen our life, our life with sin in it. Understanding that we are God's creation is one thing but the reconciliation to Him is only accomplished through Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through the son." Without Christ you can know God exists, see his creation all around you, marvel at the reality of our situation, but be separate from his Spirit. There is only one way to God, and that is through whom the father sent. There is no metaphor here, only the truth of the actuality in Jesus's sacrifice to atone for our sin bringing us back to God.

Alright, just understand that you can have no reasonable justification for these beliefs, and you should not hold it against someone if they declare that it is utter horsesh!t.

Why are you saying don't hold it against someone but my beliefs are horsesh!t? Isn't that holding my beliefs against me? I don't hold it against someone if they don't believe, but am there if they have questions or want to hear what a Christian has to say about something. My justifications are very very reasonable, but they are interpreted through different ideologies when you hear them.

Trust me, from an outsider's perspective, you've been duped.

You hold the position of a naive schmuck. No right headed person would seriously believe in that sort of thing.

All I can say is just look at your own bitterness and distaste for Christianity. Insulting and degrading remarks is your method at showing me what truth is?

I'm telling you the truth, this has nothing to do with what I feel about Christianity. Christianity when properly practiced is a wonderful thing.

I come at you with answers and a general desire to demonstrate what is real through compassion yet you call me a naive shmuck. Have you ever considered the idea that the reason your so offended by Christianity is because it is the truth and it stings to hear it because your soul is in a fight against it?

No, you aren't demonstrating through compassion "what is real". I'm telling you the truth that you can not rationally make the assertions you are making about "reality". There is absolutely no good reason to believe what you are saying, and it certainly falls well outside of your ability to know.

I am not offended at Christianity. What you consider to be truth is not truth, but blasphemy, though you are likely unaware of this.

Doesn't it feel unsatisfying at the end of the day when all you have done to engage Christians is to insult them and promote a hatred for their beliefs? If you ever want to have relief from that aggression and find peace in God I'm hear if you have questions, and so is God.


So you feel I've insulted you? Let me ask you something..

If someone offers you a gift, and you do not accept it, who is the owner of the gift?

I am not being hateful, nor am I being aggressive. I have peace, I have happiness, and I have a closer relationship to God than you are capable of understanding right now.

Falsehood does not offend me as much as you think it does. However, it is still falsehood.

Like I said before, you are close in your relationship with God in knowing that he is real...but you are still separated by an ocean of sin that only his son can bridge.

A platitude that only effects those who are under the spell of magic. It has no meaning to me.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 5:01:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:47:54 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:33:40 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:03:19 PM, Diagoras wrote:
Then you're using the word wrong. You're not choosing words based on their definition, but based on what best suits your goals.

There are many different things that the word "god" refers to. Look up the many different ideas of what "god" is. You can claim that Spinoza is misusing the word, but what does it matter?

And they all have common denominators, which yours doesn't share, making your definition wrong. If you want to make it a seperate thing, then call it Spinoza's God, rather than just god.


You want a god that is easy to dismiss as being ridiculous. I have a god that you'd have to be ridiculous to dismiss. Not everyone has the same understanding of these concepts.

And you want to misuse a word inorder to try to play a semantical gotchya. If a retard thinks a potato is a tree, that doesn't make that a legitimate meaning of the word.


In fact, the God that I am referring to is one of the earliest conceptions of it, which literally meant "I am, I exist, or even existence itself"

Evidence? The oldest known gods are the egyptians and sumerians. Things before that are before the written language, so it is impossible to say with any conclusiveness what the definition of "god" was. But given that the earliest written languages all point to gods to fill the gaps, it is not likely that people 3,000 years before that were somehow more enlightened and didn't resort to gods of the gaps.


If you dismiss the very clear fact that there is some form of existence.. If you dismiss the fact that there is an actuality, or ultimate reality.. You are a fool.

Existence is not god. Sure, there is existence, and actuality, though what the heck is ultimate reality and how is it different from reality? Or is this just another case of using words incorrectly to seem more powerful or cooler?

I'm not going to argue this. Either you accept my understanding as legitimate, or you don't. If you don't, then don't waste your time arguing semantics with me.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 5:07:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All I have ever seen you do to Christians on this site is insult their intelligence and their beliefs. If you have convinced yourself that you don't do that then how is everybody else supposed to believe anything else you say? You say you have the truth and we are all ignorant...it must be lonely. If you have any desire to actually promote your ideas I suggest a new approach to engaging others. If you do hypothetically have the truth I'd be completely unattracted to it by the way you chose to manifest it in your words.