madmax:
Do you have any evidence for Abraham Lincoln?  How can you be certain of anything at all?
So the evidence is the fact that his statue exists as well as his face is carved into a mountainside?  What about Plato?  Do you have certainty that he existed?

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
The documentary filmed by Plato. Next question please. Make the next one not so easy to counter, ok. I love a good challenge!

But, Klorophyll, you forgot the most important thing and that is to tell us what kind of Islam are we supposed to embrace?

Should we be like this Muslim woman? Is this the right kind of Islam?

(December 14, 2019 at 5:56 pm)no one Wrote: madmax:
Do you have any evidence for Abraham Lincoln?  How can you be certain of anything at all?
So the evidence is the fact that his statue exists as well as his face is carved into a mountainside?  What about Plato?  Do you have certainty that he existed?

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
The documentary filmed by Plato. Next question please. Make the next one not so easy to counter, ok. I love a good challenge!

I love the fact he thinks all we have is statue and that Plato's existence isn't questioned.Nor can he get his head around the difference between historical figures who are no well attested to those who are fictional  .And his reckless use of the word certainty .Bu his overall point is fallacious .

(December 14, 2019 at 7:45 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: I love the fact he thinks all we have is statue and that Plato's existence isn't questioned.Nor can he get his head around the difference between historical figures who are no well attested to those who are fictional  .And his reckless use of the word certainty .Bu his overall point is fallacious .

In one hand we have men thinking, on the other hand we have magical guys that die and resurect, turn water into wine, walk on water, are god themselves. How does that stand a comparision.

I stand in awe with people believing that, yet so skeptical of human knowledge, tested, scrutinized and confirmed over experimentation. Hard work.

(December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 11, 2019 at 11:01 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: Well if you somehow have a way to define what god is, I'd be ecstatic to hear it - you'd be the first person in human history who is able to do so.

The whole problem with you people is that you overcomplicate matters,

Argumentum ad ignorandum. Do you really think that because you cannot understand things that there must be a simple answer? Really?

(December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: when things are and should be simple.

Holy shit. Rocket science and brain surgery and computer science should be "simple" just to suit your lack of understanding? Really?

(December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: A coherent definition of god would be like this : the unique immortal, omnipotent and omniscient being.

It is long established that your god is none of those.

(December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Why did I define God like that? Because it's the only interesting definition.

How odd. I believe in those things that are demonstrably true. You desire to believe in whatever you find to be interesting. To you. Do you not see a problem with that?

(December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Any mortal being will cease to exist and won't interfere in any way with any creature nor will meet us in an eventual afterlife.

All beings are mortal. Disagree? No "afterlife has ever been shown to be real. Disagree?

(December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: And you seem, like everyone here, to be overly repugnant of theology,

What use is theology? It does nothing, achieves nothing, says nothing, does nothing. If theology is to be believed, then YOUR crapfest of a god is nonsense. So you reject theology.

Yet also embrace it as is convenient. Funny that.

(December 14, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: which is your former religion's fault, and not any other religion.

Yet all of them are the same, engaging in the abuse of children for the purposes of indoctrination. And I have two children of my own. I can witness it happening in real time. Without my active intervention, one by one, they have come to me to ask "It's a big load of bollox, isn't it?" to which I replied "Yup. But you had to learn that for yourself. I cannot learn that for you."

To me, you are no different from my children believing in santa years ago. It is the same gullible faith.

I never told them that santa was not real. I actually perpetuated the santa myth. Because it was a comfortable myth. But myth it was. This year, yet again, we will play the game. Santa will fill the socks, and we will all make believe that it is real. Because it is a harmless bit of fun.

But your god is not a harmless bit of fun. Your god is a murderous bastard who butchers people on a whim. Your god is not moral. And you know it.

So his whole definition is subjective and arbitrary

Subjective, but not arbitrary. God is Tyler Durden. He's competent, capable, fucks like you want to fuck and fights like you want to fight. Better than you in every way. Ultimately, the person you wish you were.

(December 15, 2019 at 5:29 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Subjective, but not arbitrary.  God is Tyler Durden.  He's competent, capable, fucks like you want to fuck and fights like you want to fight.  Better than you in every way.  Ultimately, the person you wish you were.

Tyler Durden is also the hallucinogenic projection of a disordered mind. Yet another parallel with God.

Boru

The parallel was intentional on the authors part, explicit in the dialogue, even. Our fathers being our models for god, and tyler durden the father figure of all of his little space monkeys. Insert pithy comments on abandonment here. The main thrust of the story, though, was that the unnamed protagonist was, ultimately, the disordered hallucination of the mind that housed them both. Durden wasn't doing things while he was sleeping, he was what Durden did in his sleep. An unsatisfying and false version of self imposed and programmed by society and it's expectations.

(This stuff is clearer when you understand that the context of the novel as the author saw it was..I shit you not......a "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants" for men.)

(December 15, 2019 at 6:57 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The parallel was intentional on the authors part, explicit in the dialogue, even.  Our fathers being our models for god, and tyler durden the father figure of all of his little space monkeys.  Insert pithy comments on abandonment here.  The main thrust of the story, though, was that the unnamed protagonist was, ultimately, the disordered hallucination of the mind that housed them both.  Durden wasn't doing things while he was sleeping, he was what Durden did in his sleep.  An unsatisfying and false version of self imposed and programmed by society and it's expectations.

(This stuff is clearer when you understand that the context of the novel as the author saw it was..I shit you not......a "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants" for men.)

The first rule of Fight Club is 'You do not over-analyze Fight Club'.

Boru