Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conversation starter: Christians are stupid..

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:47:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

The Bible said you'd say that.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:51:25 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
2 Peter 3:3-6
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 1:54:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No. Christians are not stupid for believing. They are often not using critical thinking, not all but many. They are often being manipulated, not all but many.

There are lots of reasons to believe, just calling Christians stupid is not accurate.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:38:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:51:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
2 Peter 3:3-6
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."

Verily, verily, I say unto you that snakes, donkeys and bushes can talk, people can live in fish, people can move mountains by simply believing they can and a flood covered Mt Everest. I know because the bible tells me so ;)
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:40:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 2:38:49 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:51:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
2 Peter 3:3-6
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."

Verily, verily, I say unto you that snakes, donkeys and bushes can talk, people can live in fish, people can move mountains by simply believing they can and a flood covered Mt Everest. I know because the bible tells me so ;)

I hate calling people stupid because it seems mean, but really? Have you put any thought into this?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:43:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 2:40:52 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 2:38:49 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:51:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
2 Peter 3:3-6
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."

Verily, verily, I say unto you that snakes, donkeys and bushes can talk, people can live in fish, people can move mountains by simply believing they can and a flood covered Mt Everest. I know because the bible tells me so ;)

I hate calling people stupid because it seems mean, but really? Have you put any thought into this?

Matt, you just called yourself stupid. Cut it out. You're better than that.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:50:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

Christianity is stupid. Believing in God isn't, it's just illogical.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".
Meh!
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 3:45:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is a movie about brain washing, showing that even very intelligent people can easily be indoctrinated to believe something they normally would never believe had they been educated, instead.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 4:13:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 3:45:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is a movie about brain washing, showing that even very intelligent people can easily be indoctrinated to believe something they normally would never believe had they been educated, instead.

What a shame that the self appointed christian champion of DDO has not leapt to the defence of their intelligence.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 4:21:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
I'll play the distract attorney for a bit here.

I did happen to notice that you're an agnostic. So although you don't make a specific claim that an intelligent designer, creator, supreme being, etc., exists, you admit to the possibility.

Have you put it any thought into this? What word would you describe an adult who believes some intelligent being can actually put together a universe? Or even an adult who can't flat out maintain it's impossibility? Who can't call it a fairytale?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 4:30:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 3:45:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is a movie about brain washing, showing that even very intelligent people can easily be indoctrinated to believe something they normally would never believe had they been educated, instead.
Someone should make a movie on how movies (Hollywood) brainwash people.

I saw the Manchurian Candidate and became an atheist, thinking I was brainwashed into Christianity (j/k). However, a week later I watched The Ten Commandments (Cecil B Demille), and became a Christian again.

I think I'll rent Gandhi tonight, and see what happens.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 4:38:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 4:30:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:45:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is a movie about brain washing, showing that even very intelligent people can easily be indoctrinated to believe something they normally would never believe had they been educated, instead.
Someone should make a movie on how movies (Hollywood) brainwash people.

I saw the Manchurian Candidate and became an atheist, thinking I was brainwashed into Christianity (j/k). However, a week later I watched The Ten Commandments (Cecil B Demille), and became a Christian again.

I think I'll rent Gandhi tonight, and see what happens.

The movie is an example of brain washing intelligent people, Rod. Is that too difficult to understand?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 5:17:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 4:38:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:30:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:45:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is a movie about brain washing, showing that even very intelligent people can easily be indoctrinated to believe something they normally would never believe had they been educated, instead.
Someone should make a movie on how movies (Hollywood) brainwash people.

I saw the Manchurian Candidate and became an atheist, thinking I was brainwashed into Christianity (j/k). However, a week later I watched The Ten Commandments (Cecil B Demille), and became a Christian again.

I think I'll rent Gandhi tonight, and see what happens.

The movie is an example of brain washing intelligent people, Rod. Is that too difficult to understand?
No. I understood that part.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 5:47:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 5:17:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:38:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:30:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:45:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is a movie about brain washing, showing that even very intelligent people can easily be indoctrinated to believe something they normally would never believe had they been educated, instead.
Someone should make a movie on how movies (Hollywood) brainwash people.

I saw the Manchurian Candidate and became an atheist, thinking I was brainwashed into Christianity (j/k). However, a week later I watched The Ten Commandments (Cecil B Demille), and became a Christian again.

I think I'll rent Gandhi tonight, and see what happens.

The movie is an example of brain washing intelligent people, Rod. Is that too difficult to understand?
No. I understood that part.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:52:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 4:21:05 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
I'll play the distract attorney for a bit here.

I did happen to notice that you're an agnostic. So although you don't make a specific claim that an intelligent designer, creator, supreme being, etc., exists, you admit to the possibility.

Have you put it any thought into this? What word would you describe an adult who believes some intelligent being can actually put together a universe? Or even an adult who can't flat out maintain it's impossibility? Who can't call it a fairytale?

I am more atheistic or agnostic depending on how you define "god". If you define god as interventionist, I am atheist. If you define "god" simply as consciousness being an inherent component of the universe, I am agnostic. I don't think that is any more outlandish than the fact that consciousness exists in the first place and according to an interview that Richard Dawkins did, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that possibility. There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility. I would never debate it though because I don't debate unsubstantiated suspicions.
bulproof
Posts: 25,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 10:42:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 1:51:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
2 Peter 3:3-6
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."
Yeah in the last days at the very beginning of the christian cult they were scoffed at and ridiculed, prophesy fulfilled 2000yrs ago.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 10:51:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 10:42:22 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:51:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
2 Peter 3:3-6
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."
Yeah in the last days at the very beginning of the christian cult they were scoffed at and ridiculed, prophesy fulfilled 2000yrs ago.

2056 is a lot closer.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 10:52:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 10:42:22 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:51:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
2 Peter 3:3-6
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."
Yeah in the last days at the very beginning of the christian cult they were scoffed at and ridiculed, prophesy fulfilled 2000yrs ago.

And today by bulproof.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 12:56:45 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.

Beliefs aren't that black and white, Matt.
Meh!
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 2:21:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:52:27 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:21:05 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
I'll play the distract attorney for a bit here.

I did happen to notice that you're an agnostic. So although you don't make a specific claim that an intelligent designer, creator, supreme being, etc., exists, you admit to the possibility.

Have you put it any thought into this? What word would you describe an adult who believes some intelligent being can actually put together a universe? Or even an adult who can't flat out maintain it's impossibility? Who can't call it a fairytale?

I am more atheistic or agnostic depending on how you define "god". If you define god as interventionist, I am atheist. If you define "god" simply as consciousness being an inherent component of the universe, I am agnostic. I don't think that is any more outlandish than the fact that consciousness exists in the first place and according to an interview that Richard Dawkins did, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that possibility. There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility. I would never debate it though because I don't debate unsubstantiated suspicions.
You missed the point.

1. It would be hard to even find an atheist who would claim "god" to be impossible.

2. Whatever Richard Dawkins believes, or doesn't find outlandish means nothing to me. If anything it's actually a negative as far as I'm concerned.

3. What you did was merely give me your opinion on what might be a plausible "god". You choose impersonal, either because you believe that to be more plausible, or more preferable (e.g., impersonal = unaccountability). That's perfectly fine. We all have opinions on various topics. That's not what I'm contending. You seem to maintain that a belief in a personal "god" (particularly the God of the Bible) is akin to believing in a fairytale. That a Christian should examine what they believe, meaning question their intelligence or sanity. My point is that it doesn't matter whether you find an impersonal or personal "god" more plausible. By your statement "There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility", you're conceding to the possibility of the supernatural, which by many a definer equals fairytale. It doesn't matter whether or not said "god" intervenes in human affairs, the putting of a universe in place by an intelligent being or conscience would, by your definition, place one who concedes to "it's" possibility as conceding to a fairytale being possible. You may as well not find the possibility of the Easter Bunny outlandish.

4. Not interested in debating the existence of God/a god. It's beside my overall point.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 2:52:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 2:21:53 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:52:27 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:21:05 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
I'll play the distract attorney for a bit here.

I did happen to notice that you're an agnostic. So although you don't make a specific claim that an intelligent designer, creator, supreme being, etc., exists, you admit to the possibility.

Have you put it any thought into this? What word would you describe an adult who believes some intelligent being can actually put together a universe? Or even an adult who can't flat out maintain it's impossibility? Who can't call it a fairytale?

I am more atheistic or agnostic depending on how you define "god". If you define god as interventionist, I am atheist. If you define "god" simply as consciousness being an inherent component of the universe, I am agnostic. I don't think that is any more outlandish than the fact that consciousness exists in the first place and according to an interview that Richard Dawkins did, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that possibility. There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility. I would never debate it though because I don't debate unsubstantiated suspicions.
You missed the point.

1. It would be hard to even find an atheist who would claim "god" to be impossible.

2. Whatever Richard Dawkins believes, or doesn't find outlandish means nothing to me. If anything it's actually a negative as far as I'm concerned.

3. What you did was merely give me your opinion on what might be a plausible "god". You choose impersonal, either because you believe that to be more plausible, or more preferable (e.g., impersonal = unaccountability). That's perfectly fine. We all have opinions on various topics. That's not what I'm contending. You seem to maintain that a belief in a personal "god" (particularly the God of the Bible) is akin to believing in a fairytale. That a Christian should examine what they believe, meaning question their intelligence or sanity. My point is that it doesn't matter whether you find an impersonal or personal "god" more plausible. By your statement "There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility", you're conceding to the possibility of the supernatural, which by many a definer equals fairytale. It doesn't matter whether or not said "god" intervenes in human affairs, the putting of a universe in place by an intelligent being or conscience would, by your definition, place one who concedes to "it's" possibility as conceding to a fairytale being possible. You may as well not find the possibility of the Easter Bunny outlandish.

4. Not interested in debating the existence of God/a god. It's beside my overall point.

1. I clearly stated it was nothing more than a suspicion. Anyone that says they have knowledge of god is delusional because there is no way to have anything more than opinion. I have access to the same information that every religious person has access to and there is no empirical evidence. The best you can hope for is belief in a god because you believe that's what the evidence alludes to.

2. IF anything did exist, it would not be supernatural. We don't know how quantum entanglement works but we dont think it is supernatural. Everything in the universe follows the laws of physics and can be described by math. I do not believe there are any exceptions.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 3:08:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 2:52:32 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:21:53 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:52:27 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:21:05 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
I'll play the distract attorney for a bit here.

I did happen to notice that you're an agnostic. So although you don't make a specific claim that an intelligent designer, creator, supreme being, etc., exists, you admit to the possibility.

Have you put it any thought into this? What word would you describe an adult who believes some intelligent being can actually put together a universe? Or even an adult who can't flat out maintain it's impossibility? Who can't call it a fairytale?

I am more atheistic or agnostic depending on how you define "god". If you define god as interventionist, I am atheist. If you define "god" simply as consciousness being an inherent component of the universe, I am agnostic. I don't think that is any more outlandish than the fact that consciousness exists in the first place and according to an interview that Richard Dawkins did, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that possibility. There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility. I would never debate it though because I don't debate unsubstantiated suspicions.
You missed the point.

1. It would be hard to even find an atheist who would claim "god" to be impossible.

2. Whatever Richard Dawkins believes, or doesn't find outlandish means nothing to me. If anything it's actually a negative as far as I'm concerned.

3. What you did was merely give me your opinion on what might be a plausible "god". You choose impersonal, either because you believe that to be more plausible, or more preferable (e.g., impersonal = unaccountability). That's perfectly fine. We all have opinions on various topics. That's not what I'm contending. You seem to maintain that a belief in a personal "god" (particularly the God of the Bible) is akin to believing in a fairytale. That a Christian should examine what they believe, meaning question their intelligence or sanity. My point is that it doesn't matter whether you find an impersonal or personal "god" more plausible. By your statement "There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility", you're conceding to the possibility of the supernatural, which by many a definer equals fairytale. It doesn't matter whether or not said "god" intervenes in human affairs, the putting of a universe in place by an intelligent being or conscience would, by your definition, place one who concedes to "it's" possibility as conceding to a fairytale being possible. You may as well not find the possibility of the Easter Bunny outlandish.

4. Not interested in debating the existence of God/a god. It's beside my overall point.

1. I clearly stated it was nothing more than a suspicion. Anyone that says they have knowledge of god is delusional because there is no way to have anything more than opinion. I have access to the same information that every religious person has access to and there is no empirical evidence. The best you can hope for is belief in a god because you believe that's what the evidence alludes to.

2. IF anything did exist, it would not be supernatural. We don't know how quantum entanglement works but we dont think it is supernatural. Everything in the universe follows the laws of physics and can be described by math. I do not believe there are any exceptions.
1. It doesn't matter that it's merely a suspicion. Is the Easter Bunny a suspicion?

2. How do you know no one has knowledge of God?

3. If God/god revealed Himself/itself to a human, wouldn't that be evidence for that particular human?

4. Well, what I said was the act of creating a universe would be supernatural. But by all means, explain to me how a universe could be created by natural means.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 3:30:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 3:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:52:32 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:21:53 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:52:27 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:21:05 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
I'll play the distract attorney for a bit here.

I did happen to notice that you're an agnostic. So although you don't make a specific claim that an intelligent designer, creator, supreme being, etc., exists, you admit to the possibility.

Have you put it any thought into this? What word would you describe an adult who believes some intelligent being can actually put together a universe? Or even an adult who can't flat out maintain it's impossibility? Who can't call it a fairytale?

I am more atheistic or agnostic depending on how you define "god". If you define god as interventionist, I am atheist. If you define "god" simply as consciousness being an inherent component of the universe, I am agnostic. I don't think that is any more outlandish than the fact that consciousness exists in the first place and according to an interview that Richard Dawkins did, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that possibility. There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility. I would never debate it though because I don't debate unsubstantiated suspicions.
You missed the point.

1. It would be hard to even find an atheist who would claim "god" to be impossible.

2. Whatever Richard Dawkins believes, or doesn't find outlandish means nothing to me. If anything it's actually a negative as far as I'm concerned.

3. What you did was merely give me your opinion on what might be a plausible "god". You choose impersonal, either because you believe that to be more plausible, or more preferable (e.g., impersonal = unaccountability). That's perfectly fine. We all have opinions on various topics. That's not what I'm contending. You seem to maintain that a belief in a personal "god" (particularly the God of the Bible) is akin to believing in a fairytale. That a Christian should examine what they believe, meaning question their intelligence or sanity. My point is that it doesn't matter whether you find an impersonal or personal "god" more plausible. By your statement "There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility", you're conceding to the possibility of the supernatural, which by many a definer equals fairytale. It doesn't matter whether or not said "god" intervenes in human affairs, the putting of a universe in place by an intelligent being or conscience would, by your definition, place one who concedes to "it's" possibility as conceding to a fairytale being possible. You may as well not find the possibility of the Easter Bunny outlandish.

4. Not interested in debating the existence of God/a god. It's beside my overall point.

1. I clearly stated it was nothing more than a suspicion. Anyone that says they have knowledge of god is delusional because there is no way to have anything more than opinion. I have access to the same information that every religious person has access to and there is no empirical evidence. The best you can hope for is belief in a god because you believe that's what the evidence alludes to.

2. IF anything did exist, it would not be supernatural. We don't know how quantum entanglement works but we dont think it is supernatural. Everything in the universe follows the laws of physics and can be described by math. I do not believe there are any exceptions.
1. It doesn't matter that it's merely a suspicion. Is the Easter Bunny a suspicion?

2. How do you know no one has knowledge of God?

3. If God/god revealed Himself/itself to a human, wouldn't that be evidence for that particular human?

4. Well, what I said was the act of creating a universe would be supernatural. But by all means, explain to me how a universe could be created by natural means.

In my profile, it states I am an agnostic. Saying I don't rule something out does not define my belief system. While it is easy to debate the existence of a interventionist god because of the glaring lack of intervention, there is no way to debate the existence of something there is not even enough data to define. When there is no empirical evidence, saying one does not know is far more intellectually honest than saying one does know. I can still say what I don't think it is. For example, I don't know what causes quantum entanglement but if you said particles were entangled because someone put a magic spell on them, I would disagree.

As I stated earlier, I don't debate mere suspicions. If you would like to debate the evidence for your interventionist god, I would be happy to do that.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 3:44:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 3:30:52 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 3:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:52:32 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:21:53 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:52:27 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:21:05 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/5/2016 3:01:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/5/2016 8:02:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/5/2016 1:36:56 AM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
For believing in god.

No they aren't, neither Atheists nor Christians are "stupid".

What word would you describe an adult who believes in the Easter bunny? Whatever that word is would be the appropriate word to describe someone who believes in the literal translation of the bible.
I'll play the distract attorney for a bit here.

I did happen to notice that you're an agnostic. So although you don't make a specific claim that an intelligent designer, creator, supreme being, etc., exists, you admit to the possibility.

Have you put it any thought into this? What word would you describe an adult who believes some intelligent being can actually put together a universe? Or even an adult who can't flat out maintain it's impossibility? Who can't call it a fairytale?

I am more atheistic or agnostic depending on how you define "god". If you define god as interventionist, I am atheist. If you define "god" simply as consciousness being an inherent component of the universe, I am agnostic. I don't think that is any more outlandish than the fact that consciousness exists in the first place and according to an interview that Richard Dawkins did, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that possibility. There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility. I would never debate it though because I don't debate unsubstantiated suspicions.
You missed the point.

1. It would be hard to even find an atheist who would claim "god" to be impossible.

2. Whatever Richard Dawkins believes, or doesn't find outlandish means nothing to me. If anything it's actually a negative as far as I'm concerned.

3. What you did was merely give me your opinion on what might be a plausible "god". You choose impersonal, either because you believe that to be more plausible, or more preferable (e.g., impersonal = unaccountability). That's perfectly fine. We all have opinions on various topics. That's not what I'm contending. You seem to maintain that a belief in a personal "god" (particularly the God of the Bible) is akin to believing in a fairytale. That a Christian should examine what they believe, meaning question their intelligence or sanity. My point is that it doesn't matter whether you find an impersonal or personal "god" more plausible. By your statement "There is not enough data to say probable but I concede there is a possibility", you're conceding to the possibility of the supernatural, which by many a definer equals fairytale. It doesn't matter whether or not said "god" intervenes in human affairs, the putting of a universe in place by an intelligent being or conscience would, by your definition, place one who concedes to "it's" possibility as conceding to a fairytale being possible. You may as well not find the possibility of the Easter Bunny outlandish.

4. Not interested in debating the existence of God/a god. It's beside my overall point.

1. I clearly stated it was nothing more than a suspicion. Anyone that says they have knowledge of god is delusional because there is no way to have anything more than opinion. I have access to the same information that every religious person has access to and there is no empirical evidence. The best you can hope for is belief in a god because you believe that's what the evidence alludes to.

2. IF anything did exist, it would not be supernatural. We don't know how quantum entanglement works but we dont think it is supernatural. Everything in the universe follows the laws of physics and can be described by math. I do not believe there are any exceptions.
1. It doesn't matter that it's merely a suspicion. Is the Easter Bunny a suspicion?

2. How do you know no one has knowledge of God?

3. If God/god revealed Himself/itself to a human, wouldn't that be evidence for that particular human?

4. Well, what I said was the act of creating a universe would be supernatural. But by all means, explain to me how a universe could be created by natural means.

In my profile, it states I am an agnostic. Saying I don't rule something out does not define my belief system. While it is easy to debate the existence of a interventionist god because of the glaring lack of intervention, there is no way to debate the existence of something there is not even enough data to define. When there is no empirical evidence, saying one does not know is far more intellectually honest than saying one does know. I can still say what I don't think it is. For example, I don't know what causes quantum entanglement but if you said particles were entangled because someone put a magic spell on them, I would disagree.

I think you're confusing magic in the Merlin the Magician, Harry Potter sense. And it begs the question, what is considered supernatural? What might be considered supernatural to us (the ability to create beyond what is natural to humans), would be natural for a higher power.
As I stated earlier, I don't debate mere suspicions. If you would like to debate the evidence for your interventionist god, I would be happy to do that.
I think I already presented some related questions to you. Does it have to be a formal debate? Can it be a debate within this thread? Or a new thread?