(March 2, 2013 at 1:40 am)genkaus Wrote: Not really addressing the point you made, but the statements you listed as facts are, in fact, not true.

Here's what we do know:
Not every religion works on the concept of eternal reward/punishment, especially the ones with reincarnation.

Not true. Even in reincarnation, there is great reward and punishment. Do your homework. There's a reason one can become a snail and that same person can live a hundred lives before becoming a king. That is reward and punishment.

Quote:A lot of well known religions are new and therefore do not have ancient writings.

There is a tiny percentage of the world's religions that are "new" (not a lot)and even most of those are based upon the actions or writing of events from hundreds to thousands of years ago. Do your homework.

Quote:Not every religion has a god. Buddhism and Jainism come to mind.

Most Buddhists consider nature to be their god and pray to it regularly. Also I never made claim that EVERY religion has a god. NEARLY all do though and making this distinction validates you how?

Quote:Quite a few of the popular religions do not require blood-sacrifice. Again, Buddhism and Jainism.

Religions are not gods. There are over 3000 plus gods ... you named 2 religions, both of which you made clear do not have gods. You have a non-point here. I'm sure you'll win a lot of atheists over here with your sharp defense of religion and how rare you think blood sacrifice is.

Quote:And finally, given that not every religion has a god, the last two statements wouldn't apply either.

Yes they apply aptly, but since you think all religions are very unique, I will digress and let you live your life with your head tucked safely up your ass.


Any more stupid irrelevant pointless nit picks for me?

(March 2, 2013 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: Not true. Even in reincarnation, there is great reward and punishment. Do your homework. There's a reason one can become a snail and that same person can live a hundred lives before becoming a king. That is reward and punishment.

But not eternal reward and punishment.

(March 2, 2013 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: There is a tiny percentage of the world's religions that are "new" (not a lot)and even most of those are based upon the actions or writing of events from hundreds to thousands of years ago. Do your homework.

Still disproves your statement about every religion.

Quote:Not every religion has a god. Buddhism and Jainism come to mind.

(March 2, 2013 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: Most Buddhists consider nature to be their god and pray to it regularly.

As long as they don't consider it a conscious entity...

(March 2, 2013 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: Also I never made claim that EVERY religion has a god.

Yes you did. Your exact statement was "Every god of every religion..."

(March 2, 2013 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: NEARLY all do though and making this distinction validates you how?

By proving you wrong.

Quote:Quite a few of the popular religions do not require blood-sacrifice. Again, Buddhism and Jainism.

(March 2, 2013 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: Religions are not gods. There are over 3000 plus gods ... you named 2 religions, both of which you made clear do not have gods. You have a non-point here. I'm sure you'll win a lot of atheists over here with your sharp defense of religion and how rare you think blood sacrifice is.

You'd have a point if you had said that all gods required blood sacrifice -
but you specifically said religions do.

(March 2, 2013 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: Any more stupid irrelevant pointless nit picks for me?

So being factually correct is nitpicking?

(March 2, 2013 at 2:47 am)genkaus Wrote: So being factually correct is nitpicking?

Oh for fucks sake dude. You got me. You have defended the uniqueness and total originality of all religions. You mentioned two religions among thousands and didn't address my point whatsoever. Good job. Most people would've read my use of the words "every religion" the way I meant it - as just a generalized figure of speech ... you know, like the way someone would say, "every rose has a thorn" - not always true, but a valid generalization.My point was that all religions are nearly identical, however, since you seem intent on nitpicking a point I wasn't even trying to make, I'll now play along with you.


So, what exactly are you getting at? Please do tell me what your point is?
Are you trying to say that religions are all very unique to themselves and that things like blood sacrifice and godly human attributes are only unique to one religion? Maybe two? or are you just going to scold me on my use of generalizations in common speech?

Would you like to debate being factually correct?
Did you want to take a few posts to defend Buddhism? Perhaps I offended your delicate nature and you feel that I didn't give the orient a fair shake?
Which do you feel had a more original and unique religion? The Egyptians? The Mayans? The Christians? The Muslims? The Jews? The .... hell, you pick.

I'm so anxious to hear about this grand point you want to make about how wrong I am about the duplication and worldwide imitation of religion.
How foolish of me to try and use generalized speech to describe something that is generally identical with very few exceptions.

Please teach me oh great nit picker.

(March 2, 2013 at 3:21 am)Cinjin Wrote:

(March 2, 2013 at 2:47 am)genkaus Wrote: So being factually correct is nitpicking?

Oh for fucks sake dude. You got me. You have defended the uniqueness and total originality of all religions ... My point was that all religions are nearly identical, however, since you seem intent on nitpicking a point I wasn't even trying to make, I'll now play along with you.

And his point was that you know fuckall of what you're talking about. Your point was wrong, but you're so fucking ignorant it's almost pointless to try to correct you.


(And you know dick about the meaning of samsara.)

genkaus Wrote:Those are pretty much the same questions that I used to justify my deism. I used to think that while these ideas could not be considered proof or evidence in a "creator's" favor, they could certainly be regarded as a point in his favor. And this is why I was wrong:

The idea that somehow the properties of our universe are "amazing" and that they have "elegant" truths is a biased view. Even if it had started off as a blob of matter and stayed a blob of matter, it'd still have been governed by some laws of nature (different than our own), that would have been equally amazing or equally mundane.

The fact that we have this universe and not the equally amazing/mundane blob is what gives the plausibility of there being a(n) God/Creator/Architect. This is the universe that holds the beauty and intricate inner-workings of what a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing being would produce.

Quote:As I found out, these questions are being asked. Scientists are looking for a theories for explain these facts of nature - and unless they find an answer, it'd be folly to assume one based on biased perspective. The thing is, even if there is a reason - and I strongly believe there is - there is no reason to assume its sentience. That is the unjustified "leap of faith" that you have to make to get from asking a valid scientific question to get to the foundation of deism.

I don't like the phrase "leap of faith" when it comes to Deism for the simple reason that to me it seems like an instinct. By that I mean that I have been raised to understand that where there is a design (e.g. car, building, painting) there is a designer (e.g. mechanic, engineer, artist). I'm in no way claiming that instincts are accurate and/or reliable, but it is an understanding of the universe that I can't escape, much like I can't make myself believe a e.g. chair made itself. To me, the building blocks of the universe look like they were thought out.

---

Oh p.s. I answered twice to those posts because I still can't see my own post. Looks like everyone else could see my post just fine though...

---

genkaus Wrote:It is also the fallacy of special leading.

I don't know how it could be special pleading. I'm not being biased in the evidence I'm considering because there is no direct evidence for a god. I've simply stated what is arguably just a philosophical standpoint for the time being.

Quote:Two things about that. First, your doctrine, as I indicated, is based on bias that somehow the current form of universe is amazing or elegant or somehow better than any other form that could've been. Secondly, all that we have at our disposal - science, philosophy etc. comes from our minds. Why would you need to look anywhere else for their source?

I've sort of addressed the first point, so I'll leave it. The second point: philosophy might come from the human mind, but science certainly doesn't. Did e.g. physics begin to work (or be a part of reality) when we finally learned how to describe it mathematically? "Science" is the term we use for the enquiry of the natural world around us which obviously has existed even before we did.

(March 2, 2013 at 3:21 am)Cinjin Wrote: Oh for fucks sake dude. You got me. You have defended the uniqueness and total originality of all religions. You mentioned two religions among thousands and didn't address my point whatsoever. Good job. Most people would've read my use of the words "every religion" the way I meant it - as just a generalized figure of speech ... you know, like the way someone would say, "every rose has a thorn" - not always true, but a valid generalization.My point was that all religions are nearly identical, however, since you seem intent on nitpicking a point I wasn't even trying to make, I'll now play along with you.


So, what exactly are you getting at? Please do tell me what your point is?
Are you trying to say that religions are all very unique to themselves and that things like blood sacrifice and godly human attributes are only unique to one religion? Maybe two? or are you just going to scold me on my use of generalizations in common speech?

Would you like to debate being factually correct?
Did you want to take a few posts to defend Buddhism? Perhaps I offended your delicate nature and you feel that I didn't give the orient a fair shake?
Which do you feel had a more original and unique religion? The Egyptians? The Mayans? The Christians? The Muslims? The Jews? The .... hell, you pick.

I'm so anxious to hear about this grand point you want to make about how wrong I am about the duplication and worldwide imitation of religion.
How foolish of me to try and use generalized speech to describe something that is generally identical with very few exceptions.

Please teach me oh great nit picker.

The point is, I don't know much about a lot of religions. The only religion I'm intimately familiar with is Hinduism. The ones I know the basics of include Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I'm arguing from an extremely limited set and yet, your statements aren't applicable to half of them. The problem here is the typical western arrogance where you see everything that does not come from your culture as indistinguishable and interchangeable.

(March 1, 2013 at 12:17 am)Question Mark Wrote:

(February 28, 2013 at 7:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The answer is that God is outside of time and space, i.e. He's always been there.

But if it's possible for god to have just always been, then why couldn't the universe have just always existed in some manner or form?

Good argument. Something had to create the universe, so it was God. Since God is Eternal, nothing created him. Well hos do you know there is a God? Because of the universe? Then who created God? Nothing. Then why does the universe need a Creator? Because something had to create it. Then why can't God have a creator? Because he is eternal.

This merry-go-round never ends, does it?

(March 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: The fact that we have this universe and not the equally amazing/mundane blob is what gives the plausibility of there being a(n) God/Creator/Architect. This is the universe that holds the beauty and intricate inner-workings of what a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing being would produce.

That's the bias I'm referring to. The assumption that a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing being would produce this universe and none other.

(March 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I don't like the phrase "leap of faith" when it comes to Deism for the simple reason that to me it seems like an instinct. By that I mean that I have been raised to understand that where there is a design (e.g. car, building, painting) there is a designer (e.g. mechanic, engineer, artist). I'm in no way claiming that instincts are accurate and/or reliable, but it is an understanding of the universe that I can't escape, much like I can't make myself believe a e.g. chair made itself. To me, the building blocks of the universe look like they were thought out.

That's not instinct - that's misapplication of what you've been taught. What you've been taught is to distinguish between natural and artificial design. You don't assume that when you a distinct snowflake pattern or markings of a tropical fish that some guy must have engineered or painted that - you accept that natural laws led to the emergence of that pattern and go on study those natural laws. When you see something that doesn't occur in nature you presume a human mind at work. This understanding comes from distinguishing between different categories by comparing them to each-other. When it comes to the universe itself, there is nothing else to compare it to. So assuming that it looks "thought out" simply has no basis.

(March 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Oh p.s. I answered twice to those posts because I still can't see my own post. Looks like everyone else could see my post just fine though...

Only when they click on the reply button.

(March 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I don't know how it could be special pleading. I'm not being biased in the evidence I'm considering because there is no direct evidence for a god. I've simply stated what is arguably just a philosophical standpoint for the time being.

Your bias is not regarding the existence of god, but regarding the special status of human beings as the purpose of universe.

(March 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I've sort of addressed the first point, so I'll leave it. The second point: philosophy might come from the human mind, but science certainly doesn't. Did e.g. physics begin to work (or be a part of reality) when we finally learned how to describe it mathematically? "Science" is the term we use for the enquiry of the natural world around us which obviously has existed even before we did.

Here's the concept that you should correct. The term "coming from human mind" does not mean that the result could be whatever the person wants it to be or that whatever it pertains to did not exist before. The universe exists and it works in a certain way. It is not governed by specific principles or ideas or concepts. Simply put, it is what it is. Science, philosophy and mathematics are all concepts, ideas or principles that necessarily come from a conscious mind. They form a body of ideas describing how the universe works, but they do not dictate it. The existence of the entity is not dependent upon its description. The natural world has existed along with its mode of operation before we did - but science is the inquiry and understanding of it and therefore came into existence afterwards.

(February 28, 2013 at 8:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Don't you think this is a little bit of an ironic explaination relative to your sig block?

Not at all. God is the something on which all other things that come into being are contingent. The sig block is just a silly way of expressing the philosophical truth that "Out of nothing, nothing comes."

(February 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: If god can be eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?

Because it's not. It had a beginning called the 'Big Bang'.

NO.

The Universe as we know it had a big bang to start it off. What if there was a Universe before the Big Bang, or a Somthingelseverse?

We just do not know, and probably can't know, what if anything was before the big bang.

There is no evidence to suggest there was a universe or something else before the big bang, just like there is no evidence to suggest a god that was always there created the universe.

Both are nothing more than guesses and as credible as the other...so YEAH the universe can be eternal just as easily as your damn god.

In fact, I'd say an eternal universe is more credible than an eternal god, because whilst we have evidence for neither a god or an eternal universe, at least we have evidence that there can be a universe, because we are in it!

(March 2, 2013 at 12:05 pm)apophenia Wrote: And his point was that you know fuckall of what you're talking about. Your point was wrong, but you're so fucking ignorant it's almost pointless to try to correct you.

Jesustapdancing christ, you people have GOT to pay attention if you're going to chime in with these stupid remarks. First of all, what is your evidence that "I know fuckall of what I'm talking about"?? I was making a generalized statement about the religions of the world. I've studied most of the basic premises of at least 30 to 40 of the 1000s of religions of this planet and they do indeed all share a common theme. Do you deny this? Because if you do than you are a fucktard who needs to wake up. Yes, a few of them differ, but that does not justify your ignorant remark. My point was not wrong and if you think mentioning Samsara somehow justifies your stupidity than you really are as dumb as a bag 'o hair.

Quote:(And you know dick about the meaning of samsara.)

You're wrong and YOU don't know dick about reading comprehension.
Before you head back to the kiddie pool little one, you should read genkaus' follow up below to see that it is he who admits that he doesn't know much about religion. You Dolt.

(March 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm)genkaus Wrote: The point is, I don't know much about a lot of religions. The only religion I'm intimately familiar with is Hinduism.

And yet you went an shot off your mouth about me making TRUE generalizations about all religions.

Quote:The ones I know the basics of include Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

5 lousy religions, three of which back me up 100% and STILL you have the nerve to tell me that I'm wrong about the HEAVY imitation that occurs in all religions???

Quote:I'm arguing from an extremely limited set and yet, your statements aren't applicable to half of them.

Yes they are. Some of my statements apply to all of them and all of my statements apply to 60% of them. Which doesn't matter in the least since you're only talking about 5 lousy religions and not the entire planet.

Quote:The problem here is the typical western arrogance where you see everything that does not come from your culture as indistinguishable and interchangeable.

And there's the truth of it: you've got a axe got grind with Americans and so you lump me into some phony cultural stereotype you made up on the fly. Bull shit. Religion is religion is religion. With exception to a few, the generalizations I made were more than fair.

But hey, you go on with your little agenda and nit-pick a point that no one was trying to make just because you don't like "us bad americans."
Next time I'll alert you with something like this so that you understand what I'm fucking saying:

Warning: Cinjin is using a well-known generalization, a common expression, and/or a figure of speech.