Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why?

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?
Hello muzebreak I hope all is well..
You ask a good question..

I reply: Simple enough answer is.. The Scriptures!

All the truths found in the scriptures.
The Early CHRISTIANS had faith in Jesus, meaning they also believed the words of "Jesus"! I have found I believe as they do...!

All the martyrs in the Early Church had so much faith in the scriptures and in what they were TAUGHT as being "truth" that they were willing to give their lives up, also speaks volumes!
Some people trust others but not many people would be willing to go as far as the Martyrs did!

Acts 5:38
Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."


The same CHURCH as the "Early Church" is also found today.. Proving again the truths found in the scriptures, Acts 5:38-39 (above) is the truth!

God bless..
Dogknox
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 9:31:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?
Hello muzebreak I hope all is well..
You ask a good question..

I reply: Simple enough answer is.. The Scriptures!

How so?


All the truths found in the scriptures.
The Early CHRISTIANS had faith in Jesus, meaning they also believed the words of "Jesus"! I have found I believe as they do...!

All the martyrs in the Early Church had so much faith in the scriptures and in what they were TAUGHT as being "truth" that they were willing to give their lives up, also speaks volumes!
Some people trust others but not many people would be willing to go as far as the Martyrs did!

And what about the martyrs for every other religion?


Acts 5:38
Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."


The same CHURCH as the "Early Church" is also found today.. Proving again the truths found in the scriptures, Acts 5:38-39 (above) is the truth!

While im not sure you can say that the same church is found today, what I am sure is that there are thousands of other churchs. But still, what is the point you're trying to make by saying this?


God bless..
Dogknox
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 9:53:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
hello muzebreak, i'm from ireland too!!

now, as regards religion, well, i wouldn't say i was particularly religious, but as regards the existence of an all knowing, all powerful god, it seems only sensible to me. of course perhaps there isn't one.

think about what we are without god though. what determinism ultimately reduces us to. MONSTERS! that's ungodly. enter pascal's wager

the most effective refutation of god, is to refute god within ourselves. god comes from us. it is in determinism, in reducing consciousness and experience to nothing, or past nothing towards inherently "evil" if you will. this, however, has not been accomplished, not to any degree of certitude anyway. enter faith on the atheist's part

looks can be deceiving.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 10:10:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
that whole "athesim is a lack of belief" BS is, well, BS, btw. agnosticism is lack of belief, atheism is denial. lack of belief can not entail believing something to not exist. atheism is as much a religion as the religions and not only that but offers up equal atrocities too to those others it is supposed to be in opposition to. EQUALITY?!!?1!? pffft... capitalism, more like. be it of humanity or god, we need a god. see: the world, our current state of godlessness and division

i say we build a new religion!
signature
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 10:55:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Acts 5:38
Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."


I had said.. The same CHURCH as the "Early Church" is also found today.. Proving again the truths found in the scriptures, Acts 5:38-39 (above) is the truth!

muzebreak You asked.. While im not sure you can say that the same church is found today, what I am sure is that there are thousands of other churchs. But still, what is the point you're trying to make by saying this?

I reply: There is ONE CHURCH that does believe the same as the Early Church father's found today!

All other churches were started by men.. Men who think they should RESTORE Jesus' church! Jesus' Church did not fall into apostasy, so it does not need to be restored!
The Holy Catholic Church is the same church as the Early CHURCH Fathers! Jesus made Peter his Shepherd, the Pope today has a direct linage back to Peter in an unbroken chain of linage!

The Holy Catholic Church is two thousand years old.. Older then most countries!
The Early Church Father' ate the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread as I do today!
The Early Church believed the words of Jesus as I do today!

The words of Jesus...
John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

As I said in the above post... "I believe the scriptures, so do the Early Church father's!"

Ignatius of Antioch is an Early Church CHRISTIAN... Look at the date!
He said..
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

You might not believe me the scriptures or the Early Church father's... But you CAN'T say all churches today are the same.. all others all of the thousands and thousands are NOT Catholic.. NONE have roots back to Peter and thus Jesus! None other's believe the same as the Early Church Fathers do!!
They are all forced to reject; Scriptures the Early Church Father' and HISTORY!

muzebreak The passage at the top of the post Acts 5:38 is showing you .. "The CHURCH Jesus formed is of God!!!

Dogknox
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 10:58:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Hello muzebreak I hope all is well..
You ask a good question..

I reply: Simple enough answer is.. The Scriptures!

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: They would thus include of course the Book of Mormon scriptures, or the Hindu scriptures or the Islamic scriptures or ANY self-acclaimed scriptures like yours of course!

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
All the truths found in the scriptures.

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Like a good tree can't produce bad fruit as has your catholic rotten paedophile & nun raping producing corrupt catholic ideological tree.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit , . . . . (Matt. 7:18) KJV Story book

A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, . . . . . . . . . (Matt. 7:18) catholic Story book RSV 1965 edition

A good tree cannot produce bad fruit . . . . . . . (Matt. 7:18) Digital catholic bible 1.3 Story book

& The earliest believers were NOT trinitarians and belonged to the named ' church of god! '. (As annanicole recently correctly referenced!)

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
The Early CHRISTIANS had faith in Jesus, meaning they also believed the words of "Jesus"!

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Oh! you mean like e.g. the apostles that permitted the women to go and anoint the dead body of jebus because they obviously didn't believe it would be raised from the dead?

Story book Proofs, LOL! -

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Believed not - This is proof that they did not expect his resurrection; proof that they were not easily deceived, and that nothing but the clearest evidence could undeceive them. (Mark 16:11)

&

Luke 24:11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

&

John 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." (Re: Doubting Thomas)

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
I have found I believe as they do...!

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Yes we noticed that you are a fraud & disbeliever from the onset!

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
All the martyrs in the Early Church had so much faith in the scriptures and in what they were TAUGHT as being "truth" that they were willing to give their lives up, also speaks volumes!

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: No comparison to the loving and selfless efforts of Atheists dying for both believer & non-believer on the various battle-fields and doing so in the past & still now, with no religious lust for promises of Story book promises of divine rewards for their efforts; Unlike selfish Story book jebus and its greedy & similarly lustful self acclaimed followers, that fundamentally only pretended to follow it, in reality however also for promises of personal divine gain, as did Story book jebus!

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Some people trust others but not many people would be willing to go as far as the Martyrs did!

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: More of your catholic BS & drivel, Atheists as you just read still do it selflessly on a regular basis!

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Acts 5:38
Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."


Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: I prevail successfully still 50 years on against all your Supernatural gods on a daily, even moment by moment basis!

They are as always totally impotent against moi!

At 11/10/2012 9:20:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
The same CHURCH as the "Early Church" is also found today.. Proving again the truths found in the scriptures, Acts 5:38-39 (above) is the truth!

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: At least we can be sure it ain't legitimately found in your Cult; that's repeatedly unambiguously & successfully proven even using your preferred Story book text, LOL!

Your mentor & literal Saviour moi!
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 11:10:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?

Made sense. Various things about how our world works, and how I can't honestly believe thats all chance essentially. Faith. Historical events/patterns.

Way too many factors to put into a simple 8000 character post.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 11:57:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 9:53:32 PM, badger wrote:
hello muzebreak, i'm from ireland too!!

Greetings Badger, I was thinking of starting a thread to find any people on here from ireland. I moved here about 3 years ago from canada.


now, as regards religion, well, i wouldn't say i was particularly religious, but as regards the existence of an all knowing, all powerful god, it seems only sensible to me. of course perhaps there isn't one.

think about what we are without god though. what determinism ultimately reduces us to. MONSTERS! that's ungodly. enter pascal's wager

Well, first off I'm not a determinist per say. I do think that you could predict events based on logical premises with reasonable certainty, but I disagree that we lack free will. But even if the universe was deterministic how would that make us monsters?
And whats this about pascals wager? Is that still used. But what does this have to do with theism/atheism? Do you believe that atheism has no defense for a non-deterministic universe?


the most effective refutation of god, is to refute god within ourselves. god comes from us. it is in determinism, in reducing consciousness and experience to nothing, or past nothing towards inherently "evil" if you will. this, however, has not been accomplished, not to any degree of certitude anyway. enter faith on the atheist's part

looks can be deceiving.

Actually, the most effective refutation of god, IMO, is to point out that god has not been proven.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:15:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 10:10:23 PM, badger wrote:
that whole "athesim is a lack of belief" BS is, well, BS, btw. agnosticism is lack of belief, atheism is denial.

Well I suppose we disagree on this. I define atheism as the lack of belief in a god or gods. And I define agnosticism as a lack of knowledge towards the existence of a god or gods. This is why I believe someone can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic (the position that you hold knowledge about a god or gods) atheist.

lack of belief can not entail believing something to not exist.

I completely agree, such a position would be oxymoronical.

atheism is as much a religion as the religions and not only that but offers up equal atrocities too to those others it is supposed to be in opposition to.

Again, I suppose we disagree. But I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you think that people can have two religions, because large sects of buddhists and shintoists are also atheist. And to which atrocities do you refer?

EQUALITY?!!?1!? pffft... capitalism, more like.

I wasn't aware that either was something claimed by atheism. Wasn't stalin, an atheist, against both equality and capitalism?

be it of humanity or god, we need a god.

Again, I suppose we just disagree.

see: the world, our current state of godlessness and division

i say we build a new religion!

Sure! Lets base it around creating universal peace and harmony and reaching a point where there is no sickness, no hunger, no pain, no suffering, and everyone is free to learn and think whatever they want. Then I think it would be perfect! People could join in huge gathering, atheist and theist, black and white, palestinian and isralie, and discuss anything they wanted and no one would be fearful. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would real. It would be wonderful! Ahhhhh, idealism......
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:20:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 10:55:33 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Acts 5:38
Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."


I had said.. The same CHURCH as the "Early Church" is also found today.. Proving again the truths found in the scriptures, Acts 5:38-39 (above) is the truth!

muzebreak You asked.. While im not sure you can say that the same church is found today, what I am sure is that there are thousands of other churchs. But still, what is the point you're trying to make by saying this?

I reply: There is ONE CHURCH that does believe the same as the Early Church father's found today!

All other churches were started by men.. Men who think they should RESTORE Jesus' church! Jesus' Church did not fall into apostasy, so it does not need to be restored!
The Holy Catholic Church is the same church as the Early CHURCH Fathers! Jesus made Peter his Shepherd, the Pope today has a direct linage back to Peter in an unbroken chain of linage!

Thanks for answering my question, just thought I would put in here that some would disagree with you. Some would say that the catholic church is not the same as it was back then. Personally I would say that the catholic church has become nothing more then a corrupt criminal orginasation.


The Holy Catholic Church is two thousand years old.. Older then most countries!
The Early Church Father' ate the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread as I do today!
The Early Church believed the words of Jesus as I do today!

The words of Jesus...
John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

As I said in the above post... "I believe the scriptures, so do the Early Church father's!"

Ignatius of Antioch is an Early Church CHRISTIAN... Look at the date!
He said..
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

You might not believe me the scriptures or the Early Church father's... But you CAN'T say all churches today are the same.. all others all of the thousands and thousands are NOT Catholic.. NONE have roots back to Peter and thus Jesus! None other's believe the same as the Early Church Fathers do!!
They are all forced to reject; Scriptures the Early Church Father' and HISTORY!

muzebreak The passage at the top of the post Acts 5:38 is showing you .. "The CHURCH Jesus formed is of God!!!

Dogknox

I would like to ask you this; how is it that the continued, lets assume for the sake of argument it is, existence of this original first church proves this religion? I would like to point out that christianity is the only religion with such a large amount of sects, and that most religions don't have any sects, and therefore only have their first "church".
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:32:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 11:10:54 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?

Made sense.

What do you mean it made sense?

Various things about how our world works,

What is it you mean by this? What exactly about how the world works, Ie: give me a couple examples.

and how I can't honestly believe thats all chance essentially.

I don't want to be offensive here, but why is it that theists always bring up chance? There is no chance involved either way, only laws of physics interacting. Flip a coin, some would say you have a 49/51 chance. I'd tell you that the coin is going to follow the laws of motion, and based on the force applied, the air pressure, wind, the side the coin starts on, and various other factors, the coin will land on a certain side and we can predict which side with certain calculations and application of scientific knowledge.

Faith.

Most of the time I have a different definition of faith then religious people. My definition of faith is completely unjustified belief, and based on the fact that you seem to have justification I suppose you have a different definition then me.

Historical events/patterns.

Can you give me a couple examples of this?


Way too many factors to put into a simple 8000 character post.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:40:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 11:57:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 9:53:32 PM, badger wrote:
hello muzebreak, i'm from ireland too!!

Greetings Badger, I was thinking of starting a thread to find any people on here from ireland. I moved here about 3 years ago from canada.

cool, let's go drinking!! i've been here all my life...


now, as regards religion, well, i wouldn't say i was particularly religious, but as regards the existence of an all knowing, all powerful god, it seems only sensible to me. of course perhaps there isn't one.

think about what we are without god though. what determinism ultimately reduces us to. MONSTERS! that's ungodly. enter pascal's wager

Well, first off I'm not a determinist per say. I do think that you could predict events based on logical premises with reasonable certainty, but I disagree that we lack free will. But even if the universe was deterministic how would that make us monsters?
And whats this about pascals wager? Is that still used. But what does this have to do with theism/atheism? Do you believe that atheism has no defense for a non-deterministic universe?

well, everything determined, it leaves us robots pretty much. it leaves all interactions between us robots ultimately selfish. it leaves all things material and no room for any magic. yes, i would say we're left monsters. love has always been posited as something eternal, as is the only way for it to be godly, really, and it has always been our redeemer. you effectively kill the fairy tale of love.

now, as regards the non-deterministic universe bit, well, i don't know what that is. i see determinism either way, one the one hand, material determinism, on the other, godliness. you posit souls? because the adhered-to scientific doctrine is that of material determinism, bar some quantum mechanical BS playing some part i can't even imagine which i haven't looked into. souls and free will are a thing of godliness.


the most effective refutation of god, is to refute god within ourselves. god comes from us. it is in determinism, in reducing consciousness and experience to nothing, or past nothing towards inherently "evil" if you will. this, however, has not been accomplished, not to any degree of certitude anyway. enter faith on the atheist's part

looks can be deceiving.

Actually, the most effective refutation of god, IMO, is to point out that god has not been proven.

nah, i'd consider refutation the banishment of something to oblivion. lack of evidence is not evidence of lack and all that. render us monsters and there goes any god i could believe in.
signature
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:40:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?

The Holy Spirit.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:42:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:15:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 10:10:23 PM, badger wrote:
that whole "athesim is a lack of belief" BS is, well, BS, btw. agnosticism is lack of belief, atheism is denial.

Well I suppose we disagree on this. I define atheism as the lack of belief in a god or gods. And I define agnosticism as a lack of knowledge towards the existence of a god or gods. This is why I believe someone can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic (the position that you hold knowledge about a god or gods) atheist.

i think we agree somewhat. that line is just commonly used here to justify a default of there actually being no god, as in to say what those people are seeing is everything, that lack of reason to believe entails no existence, which needn't be true. it's some crowning argument for atheists around here or something. to assume non-existence is as much of faith as to assume existence.

lack of belief can not entail believing something to not exist.

I completely agree, such a position would be oxymoronical.

okay, well, then atheism makes a statement in faith. established, thank you.

atheism is as much a religion as the religions and not only that but offers up equal atrocities too to those others it is supposed to be in opposition to.

Again, I suppose we disagree. But I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you think that people can have two religions, because large sects of buddhists and shintoists are also atheist. And to which atrocities do you refer?

how can we disagree? where's your evidence of lack? and i speak of what i'ma call free market morality, excuses made for human nature. atheism is a sinking into selfishness.

EQUALITY?!!?1!? pffft... capitalism, more like.

I wasn't aware that either was something claimed by atheism. Wasn't stalin, an atheist, against both equality and capitalism?

implications. your beliefs define you, after all. human nature is by all reports a rather selfish thing.

be it of humanity or god, we need a god.

Again, I suppose we just disagree.

you say to hell with the world?

see: the world, our current state of godlessness and division

i say we build a new religion!

Sure! Lets base it around creating universal peace and harmony and reaching a point where there is no sickness, no hunger, no pain, no suffering, and everyone is free to learn and think whatever they want. Then I think it would be perfect! People could join in huge gathering, atheist and theist, black and white, palestinian and isralie, and discuss anything they wanted and no one would be fearful. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would real. It would be wonderful! Ahhhhh, idealism......

you say to hell with the world?

well... damn.
signature
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:48:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 11:10:54 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?

Made sense. Various things about how our world works, and how I can't honestly believe thats all chance essentially. Faith. Historical events/patterns.

Way too many factors to put into a simple 8000 character post.

This, except abandoning stupid myths that persist only because religious people keep their children away from science helps a lot.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:53:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:40:17 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/10/2012 11:57:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 9:53:32 PM, badger wrote:
hello muzebreak, i'm from ireland too!!

Greetings Badger, I was thinking of starting a thread to find any people on here from ireland. I moved here about 3 years ago from canada.

cool, let's go drinking!! i've been here all my life...

Sure! Where about's do you live?



now, as regards religion, well, i wouldn't say i was particularly religious, but as regards the existence of an all knowing, all powerful god, it seems only sensible to me. of course perhaps there isn't one.

think about what we are without god though. what determinism ultimately reduces us to. MONSTERS! that's ungodly. enter pascal's wager

Well, first off I'm not a determinist per say. I do think that you could predict events based on logical premises with reasonable certainty, but I disagree that we lack free will. But even if the universe was deterministic how would that make us monsters?
And whats this about pascals wager? Is that still used. But what does this have to do with theism/atheism? Do you believe that atheism has no defense for a non-deterministic universe?

well, everything determined, it leaves us robots pretty much. it leaves all interactions between us robots ultimately selfish. it leaves all things material and no room for any magic. yes, i would say we're left monsters. love has always been posited as something eternal, as is the only way for it to be godly, really, and it has always been our redeemer. you effectively kill the fairy tale of love.

I only see any of this applying if the universe is deterministic, and you accept that it is deterministic. Elsewise you can still live the same life. Ignorance is bliss, they say.


now, as regards the non-deterministic universe bit, well, i don't know what that is.

I assume your joking here.

i see determinism either way, one the one hand, material determinism, on the other, godliness. you posit souls? because the adhered-to scientific doctrine is that of material determinism, bar some quantum mechanical BS playing some part i can't even imagine which i haven't looked into. souls and free will are a thing of godliness.

Well, souls and free will don't necesarily go hand in hand. But I believe in free will, and I believe that even if it is disprove I will continue believing in it just to have the nice warm fuzzy feeling that comes with it. If someone can convice me that believing in freewill is more then just wrong, that it's harmfull, then I will stop believing.



the most effective refutation of god, is to refute god within ourselves. god comes from us. it is in determinism, in reducing consciousness and experience to nothing, or past nothing towards inherently "evil" if you will. this, however, has not been accomplished, not to any degree of certitude anyway. enter faith on the atheist's part

looks can be deceiving.

Actually, the most effective refutation of god, IMO, is to point out that god has not been proven.

nah, i'd consider refutation the banishment of something to oblivion.

We seem to disagree alot.......

lack of evidence is not evidence of lack and all that.

I disagree, what a suprise, I believe that lack of evidence is infact "evidence of lack". But I believe that this only applies when one is talking about existence.
If I say that I have an invisible pink unicorn, the most popular kind of unicorn, in my garage, and you walk in and see no evidence for it, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it does not existence. Even if it does you were still justified in believe that it didn't because there was no evidence to the contrary.

render us monsters and there goes any god i could believe in.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:58:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:42:50 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:15:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 10:10:23 PM, badger wrote:
that whole "athesim is a lack of belief" BS is, well, BS, btw. agnosticism is lack of belief, atheism is denial.

Well I suppose we disagree on this. I define atheism as the lack of belief in a god or gods. And I define agnosticism as a lack of knowledge towards the existence of a god or gods. This is why I believe someone can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic (the position that you hold knowledge about a god or gods) atheist.

i think we agree somewhat. that line is just commonly used here to justify a default of there actually being no god, as in to say what those people are seeing is everything, that lack of reason to believe entails no existence, which needn't be true. it's some crowning argument for atheists around here or something. to assume non-existence is as much of faith as to assume existence.

Would it be faith to disbelieve in my pink unicorn?


lack of belief can not entail believing something to not exist.

I completely agree, such a position would be oxymoronical.

okay, well, then atheism makes a statement in faith. established, thank you.

What? Hold on, I think i'm missing something heere.


atheism is as much a religion as the religions and not only that but offers up equal atrocities too to those others it is supposed to be in opposition to.

Again, I suppose we disagree. But I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you think that people can have two religions, because large sects of buddhists and shintoists are also atheist. And to which atrocities do you refer?

how can we disagree? where's your evidence of lack? and i speak of what i'ma call free market morality, excuses made for human nature. atheism is a sinking into selfishness.

Faith does not a religion make.


EQUALITY?!!?1!? pffft... capitalism, more like.

I wasn't aware that either was something claimed by atheism. Wasn't stalin, an atheist, against both equality and capitalism?

implications. your beliefs define you, after all. human nature is by all reports a rather selfish thing.

I disagree, please refere to game theory.


be it of humanity or god, we need a god.

Again, I suppose we just disagree.

you say to hell with the world?

Please explain.


see: the world, our current state of godlessness and division

i say we build a new religion!

Sure! Lets base it around creating universal peace and harmony and reaching a point where there is no sickness, no hunger, no pain, no suffering, and everyone is free to learn and think whatever they want. Then I think it would be perfect! People could join in huge gathering, atheist and theist, black and white, palestinian and isralie, and discuss anything they wanted and no one would be fearful. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would real. It would be wonderful! Ahhhhh, idealism......

you say to hell with the world?

well... damn.

I say to hell with the current state of affairs in the world.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 12:59:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:40:19 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?

The Holy Spirit.

Is that another way of saying divine revalation?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:01:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:48:54 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/10/2012 11:10:54 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/10/2012 8:40:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
This is my question to religious people.

What is it that convinced you that your religion is true?

Made sense. Various things about how our world works, and how I can't honestly believe thats all chance essentially. Faith. Historical events/patterns.

Way too many factors to put into a simple 8000 character post.

This, except abandoning stupid myths that persist only because religious people keep their children away from science helps a lot.

How is it that this convinced you of your religion? That sounds, to me, like a description of losing religion.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:05:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:53:48 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:40:17 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/10/2012 11:57:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 9:53:32 PM, badger wrote:
hello muzebreak, i'm from ireland too!!

Greetings Badger, I was thinking of starting a thread to find any people on here from ireland. I moved here about 3 years ago from canada.

cool, let's go drinking!! i've been here all my life...

Sure! Where about's do you live?

kerry! you?



now, as regards religion, well, i wouldn't say i was particularly religious, but as regards the existence of an all knowing, all powerful god, it seems only sensible to me. of course perhaps there isn't one.

think about what we are without god though. what determinism ultimately reduces us to. MONSTERS! that's ungodly. enter pascal's wager

Well, first off I'm not a determinist per say. I do think that you could predict events based on logical premises with reasonable certainty, but I disagree that we lack free will. But even if the universe was deterministic how would that make us monsters?
And whats this about pascals wager? Is that still used. But what does this have to do with theism/atheism? Do you believe that atheism has no defense for a non-deterministic universe?

well, everything determined, it leaves us robots pretty much. it leaves all interactions between us robots ultimately selfish. it leaves all things material and no room for any magic. yes, i would say we're left monsters. love has always been posited as something eternal, as is the only way for it to be godly, really, and it has always been our redeemer. you effectively kill the fairy tale of love.

I only see any of this applying if the universe is deterministic, and you accept that it is deterministic. Elsewise you can still live the same life. Ignorance is bliss, they say.

but how the fvck are you not accepting it as either deterministic or something of god? i mean you made that statements to the obe dude about the laws of motion, are we not bound by the same laws?

now, as regards the non-deterministic universe bit, well, i don't know what that is.

I assume your joking here.

nope, i don't know what it is. utter randomness. i cannot picture it as being around me. my whole experience of life has been sequential.

i see determinism either way, one the one hand, material determinism, on the other, godliness. you posit souls? because the adhered-to scientific doctrine is that of material determinism, bar some quantum mechanical BS playing some part i can't even imagine which i haven't looked into. souls and free will are a thing of godliness.

Well, souls and free will don't necesarily go hand in hand. But I believe in free will, and I believe that even if it is disprove I will continue believing in it just to have the nice warm fuzzy feeling that comes with it. If someone can convice me that believing in freewill is more then just wrong, that it's harmfull, then I will stop believing.

DUDE, LAWS OF MOTION!1!!!! every thought in your head is pre-determined, every urge, every everything. where is there free will in that? there isn't. besides in adding in some god factor or something like that.



the most effective refutation of god, is to refute god within ourselves. god comes from us. it is in determinism, in reducing consciousness and experience to nothing, or past nothing towards inherently "evil" if you will. this, however, has not been accomplished, not to any degree of certitude anyway. enter faith on the atheist's part

looks can be deceiving.

Actually, the most effective refutation of god, IMO, is to point out that god has not been proven.

nah, i'd consider refutation the banishment of something to oblivion.

We seem to disagree alot.......

lack of evidence is not evidence of lack and all that.

I disagree, what a suprise, I believe that lack of evidence is infact "evidence of lack". But I believe that this only applies when one is talking about existence.
If I say that I have an invisible pink unicorn, the most popular kind of unicorn, in my garage, and you walk in and see no evidence for it, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it does not existence. Even if it does you were still justified in believe that it didn't because there was no evidence to the contrary.

we only disagree where you fail :P your attempt at reduction to absurdity there is in fact to render everything we have not seen as non-existent, which is just silly. you could use infinite other possibilities besides that of an invisible unicorn, do none of them exist?

render us monsters and there goes any god i could believe in.
signature
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:06:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:51:11 AM, badger wrote:
lol, i like the 49/51 % chance bit.

"It is not a 50 percent chance a coin will land on heads. If the coin is heads up at the start, it is more likely to land on heads. Students at Stanford University recorded thousands of coin tosses with high speed cameras and discovered the chances are a 51% chance it will land on heads." - http://www.thefactsite.com...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:10:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 12:58:13 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:42:50 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:15:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 10:10:23 PM, badger wrote:
that whole "athesim is a lack of belief" BS is, well, BS, btw. agnosticism is lack of belief, atheism is denial.

Well I suppose we disagree on this. I define atheism as the lack of belief in a god or gods. And I define agnosticism as a lack of knowledge towards the existence of a god or gods. This is why I believe someone can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic (the position that you hold knowledge about a god or gods) atheist.

i think we agree somewhat. that line is just commonly used here to justify a default of there actually being no god, as in to say what those people are seeing is everything, that lack of reason to believe entails no existence, which needn't be true. it's some crowning argument for atheists around here or something. to assume non-existence is as much of faith as to assume existence.

Would it be faith to disbelieve in my pink unicorn?

yes, agnosticism is the position of the logician.


lack of belief can not entail believing something to not exist.

I completely agree, such a position would be oxymoronical.

okay, well, then atheism makes a statement in faith. established, thank you.

What? Hold on, I think i'm missing something heere.

you are. i dunno, dude...


atheism is as much a religion as the religions and not only that but offers up equal atrocities too to those others it is supposed to be in opposition to.

Again, I suppose we disagree. But I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you think that people can have two religions, because large sects of buddhists and shintoists are also atheist. And to which atrocities do you refer?

how can we disagree? where's your evidence of lack? and i speak of what i'ma call free market morality, excuses made for human nature. atheism is a sinking into selfishness.

Faith does not a religion make.

k, what does then?


EQUALITY?!!?1!? pffft... capitalism, more like.

I wasn't aware that either was something claimed by atheism. Wasn't stalin, an atheist, against both equality and capitalism?

implications. your beliefs define you, after all. human nature is by all reports a rather selfish thing.

I disagree, please refere to game theory.

go on, explain it.


be it of humanity or god, we need a god.

Again, I suppose we just disagree.

you say to hell with the world?

Please explain.

well, what do you think? you're perfectly happy with monstrousity? let's just let us burn, more fun? dude, implications. science teaches some pretty fvcked up things about what we are, and, well, if not strive for the ideal, then what?


see: the world, our current state of godlessness and division

i say we build a new religion!

Sure! Lets base it around creating universal peace and harmony and reaching a point where there is no sickness, no hunger, no pain, no suffering, and everyone is free to learn and think whatever they want. Then I think it would be perfect! People could join in huge gathering, atheist and theist, black and white, palestinian and isralie, and discuss anything they wanted and no one would be fearful. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would real. It would be wonderful! Ahhhhh, idealism......

you say to hell with the world?

well... damn.

I say to hell with the current state of affairs in the world.

me too!
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:14:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 1:06:02 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:51:11 AM, badger wrote:
lol, i like the 49/51 % chance bit.

"It is not a 50 percent chance a coin will land on heads. If the coin is heads up at the start, it is more likely to land on heads. Students at Stanford University recorded thousands of coin tosses with high speed cameras and discovered the chances are a 51% chance it will land on heads." - http://www.thefactsite.com...

yes i knew that, i was just wondering about the some who would say it :P
signature
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:19:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 1:05:52 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:53:48 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:40:17 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/10/2012 11:57:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 9:53:32 PM, badger wrote:
hello muzebreak, i'm from ireland too!!

Greetings Badger, I was thinking of starting a thread to find any people on here from ireland. I moved here about 3 years ago from canada.

cool, let's go drinking!! i've been here all my life...

Sure! Where about's do you live?

kerry! you?

Dublin.




now, as regards religion, well, i wouldn't say i was particularly religious, but as regards the existence of an all knowing, all powerful god, it seems only sensible to me. of course perhaps there isn't one.

think about what we are without god though. what determinism ultimately reduces us to. MONSTERS! that's ungodly. enter pascal's wager

Well, first off I'm not a determinist per say. I do think that you could predict events based on logical premises with reasonable certainty, but I disagree that we lack free will. But even if the universe was deterministic how would that make us monsters?
And whats this about pascals wager? Is that still used. But what does this have to do with theism/atheism? Do you believe that atheism has no defense for a non-deterministic universe?

well, everything determined, it leaves us robots pretty much. it leaves all interactions between us robots ultimately selfish. it leaves all things material and no room for any magic. yes, i would say we're left monsters. love has always been posited as something eternal, as is the only way for it to be godly, really, and it has always been our redeemer. you effectively kill the fairy tale of love.

I only see any of this applying if the universe is deterministic, and you accept that it is deterministic. Elsewise you can still live the same life. Ignorance is bliss, they say.

but how the fvck are you not accepting it as either deterministic or something of god? i mean you made that statements to the obe dude about the laws of motion, are we not bound by the same laws?

Yes, but that doesn't mean we don't have free will. Those laws can determine how a star will act, and how a particle will decay, but, IMO, they cannot determine how I will act when someone jumps out from around a corner and shouts BOO, or how whether I will choose dominos or KFC for dinner, or wether I will lift my arm or leave it down.


now, as regards the non-deterministic universe bit, well, i don't know what that is.

I assume your joking here.

nope, i don't know what it is. utter randomness. i cannot picture it as being around me. my whole experience of life has been sequential.

Ahhhhhh, see this is an un-resolvable situtation. We clearly have different outlooks.


i see determinism either way, one the one hand, material determinism, on the other, godliness. you posit souls? because the adhered-to scientific doctrine is that of material determinism, bar some quantum mechanical BS playing some part i can't even imagine which i haven't looked into. souls and free will are a thing of godliness.

Well, souls and free will don't necesarily go hand in hand. But I believe in free will, and I believe that even if it is disprove I will continue believing in it just to have the nice warm fuzzy feeling that comes with it. If someone can convice me that believing in freewill is more then just wrong, that it's harmfull, then I will stop believing.

DUDE, LAWS OF MOTION!1!!!! every thought in your head is pre-determined, every urge, every everything. where is there free will in that? there isn't. besides in adding in some god factor or something like that.

The free will is in my choice to take a sip of beer. Can you show me the physical law that caused that? You could probably show me the linkage of causal events but I don't really care, I have unshakeable faith in free will.




the most effective refutation of god, is to refute god within ourselves. god comes from us. it is in determinism, in reducing consciousness and experience to nothing, or past nothing towards inherently "evil" if you will. this, however, has not been accomplished, not to any degree of certitude anyway. enter faith on the atheist's part

looks can be deceiving.

Actually, the most effective refutation of god, IMO, is to point out that god has not been proven.

nah, i'd consider refutation the banishment of something to oblivion.

We seem to disagree alot.......

lack of evidence is not evidence of lack and all that.

I disagree, what a suprise, I believe that lack of evidence is infact "evidence of lack". But I believe that this only applies when one is talking about existence.
If I say that I have an invisible pink unicorn, the most popular kind of unicorn, in my garage, and you walk in and see no evidence for it, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it does not existence. Even if it does you were still justified in believe that it didn't because there was no evidence to the contrary.

we only disagree where you fail :P your attempt at reduction to absurdity there is in fact to render everything we have not seen as non-existent, which is just silly. you could use infinite other possibilities besides that of an invisible unicorn, do none of them exist?

Sorry, I think I misrepresented what I was saying. I'm saying that it is safe to say something doesn't exist until it is proven otherwise. I wasn't trying to disprove god, meerly show that non-belief is reasonable and logical.


render us monsters and there goes any god i could believe in.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:26:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 1:10:14 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:58:13 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:42:50 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/11/2012 12:15:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/10/2012 10:10:23 PM, badger wrote:
that whole "athesim is a lack of belief" BS is, well, BS, btw. agnosticism is lack of belief, atheism is denial.

Well I suppose we disagree on this. I define atheism as the lack of belief in a god or gods. And I define agnosticism as a lack of knowledge towards the existence of a god or gods. This is why I believe someone can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic (the position that you hold knowledge about a god or gods) atheist.

i think we agree somewhat. that line is just commonly used here to justify a default of there actually being no god, as in to say what those people are seeing is everything, that lack of reason to believe entails no existence, which needn't be true. it's some crowning argument for atheists around here or something. to assume non-existence is as much of faith as to assume existence.

Would it be faith to disbelieve in my pink unicorn?

yes, agnosticism is the position of the logician.

Try and look at that with my definitions.



lack of belief can not entail believing something to not exist.

I completely agree, such a position would be oxymoronical.

okay, well, then atheism makes a statement in faith. established, thank you.

What? Hold on, I think i'm missing something heere.

you are. i dunno, dude...


atheism is as much a religion as the religions and not only that but offers up equal atrocities too to those others it is supposed to be in opposition to.

Again, I suppose we disagree. But I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you think that people can have two religions, because large sects of buddhists and shintoists are also atheist. And to which atrocities do you refer?

how can we disagree? where's your evidence of lack? and i speak of what i'ma call free market morality, excuses made for human nature. atheism is a sinking into selfishness.

Faith does not a religion make.

k, what does then?

To me a religion is the belief in a doctrine or text, which usually involves supernatural entities or happenings.



EQUALITY?!!?1!? pffft... capitalism, more like.

I wasn't aware that either was something claimed by atheism. Wasn't stalin, an atheist, against both equality and capitalism?

implications. your beliefs define you, after all. human nature is by all reports a rather selfish thing.

I disagree, please refere to game theory.

go on, explain it.

"Evolutionary game theory has proven itself to be invaluable in helping to explain many complex and challenging aspects of biology. It has been particularly helpful in establishing the basis of altruistic behaviours within the context of Darwinian process." - http://en.wikipedia.org...



be it of humanity or god, we need a god.

Again, I suppose we just disagree.

you say to hell with the world?

Please explain.

well, what do you think? you're perfectly happy with monstrousity? let's just let us burn, more fun? dude, implications. science teaches some pretty fvcked up things about what we are, and, well, if not strive for the ideal, then what?

I see a non-sequitur.



see: the world, our current state of godlessness and division

i say we build a new religion!

Sure! Lets base it around creating universal peace and harmony and reaching a point where there is no sickness, no hunger, no pain, no suffering, and everyone is free to learn and think whatever they want. Then I think it would be perfect! People could join in huge gathering, atheist and theist, black and white, palestinian and isralie, and discuss anything they wanted and no one would be fearful. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would real. It would be wonderful! Ahhhhh, idealism......

you say to hell with the world?

well... damn.

I say to hell with the current state of affairs in the world.

me too!

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:43:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
i assume you believe the amoeba, our predecessor, in its so basic functioning, to have been utterly subjected to the laws of motion? dude, look, you really don't grasp the true implications of what you're talking about, sorry. i mean you're referencing evolutionary science, game theory, yet positing free will. you've never considered yourself a monster. dude, evolution is the eradication of free will. it is the reduction of living beings to mere matter. what's different between the amoeba's functioning and yours? the evolutionist would say quite simply that you are more complex, that there are more cogs to be turned in you, that ultimately there is no difference but that from an observer's pov you are more complicated. in preaching free will, you preach godliness. quite simply. you do. and i don't blame you.

i might look into game theory, cheers for that link. i can explain away altruistic tendencies to nothing myself given all powerful randomness though. i just don't want to.
signature
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:51:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 1:43:12 AM, badger wrote:
i assume you believe the amoeba, our predecessor, in its so basic functioning, to have been utterly subjected to the laws of motion? dude, look, you really don't grasp the true implications of what you're talking about, sorry. i mean you're referencing evolutionary science, game theory, yet positing free will. you've never considered yourself a monster. dude, evolution is the eradication of free will. it is the reduction of living beings to mere matter. what's different between the amoeba's functioning and yours? the evolutionist would say quite simply that you are more complex, that there are more cogs to be turned in you, that ultimately there is no difference but that from an observer's pov you are more complicated. in preaching free will, you preach godliness. quite simply. you do. and i don't blame you.

Actually, an evoulutionist will tell you the main difference is a brain......


i might look into game theory, cheers for that link. i can explain away altruistic tendencies to nothing myself given all powerful randomness though. i just don't want to.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:53:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 1:51:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/11/2012 1:43:12 AM, badger wrote:
i assume you believe the amoeba, our predecessor, in its so basic functioning, to have been utterly subjected to the laws of motion? dude, look, you really don't grasp the true implications of what you're talking about, sorry. i mean you're referencing evolutionary science, game theory, yet positing free will. you've never considered yourself a monster. dude, evolution is the eradication of free will. it is the reduction of living beings to mere matter. what's different between the amoeba's functioning and yours? the evolutionist would say quite simply that you are more complex, that there are more cogs to be turned in you, that ultimately there is no difference but that from an observer's pov you are more complicated. in preaching free will, you preach godliness. quite simply. you do. and i don't blame you.

Actually, an evoulutionist will tell you the main difference is a brain......

brain's just more cogs :P


i might look into game theory, cheers for that link. i can explain away altruistic tendencies to nothing myself given all powerful randomness though. i just don't want to.
signature