Posts: 126
Threads: 10
Joined: December 8, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 6:15 am
Quote: Just because somebody says they witnessed some dude performing magic, does not mean that dude really performed magic, even if you can completely prove that the witness was actually writing about a real man.
True, but it is also possible that it did actually happen. How can you say it is not possible?
Quote: I'm simply saying that there is no need for a god as far as I can tell.
I completely agree with you. I am also an atheist. I just believe that Christianity is possible, not likely, but possible.
I would say that you are the one not getting it. You are saying that the universe could have always existed, which it could have, but god(s) also could have always existed. I am merely wanting you to admit this possibility. If a universe did not need creating, why could god(s) not need creating either?
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 6:19 am
(June 30, 2012 at 5:53 am)fr0d0 Wrote: THE MOST ignorant thing a person can say is to demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject.
You say that god is "a non empirical subject" as if it is FACT. It is NOT fact, but nothing more than a CLAIM, made by you.
You normally roll up about once every 3 months with this silly bullshit claim, before being put firmly back in your little box and packed away again, by anyone with half an ounce of common sense.
Tell you what, I'm going to stoop to your level of making a claim, passing it off as fact and building an argument on it...
The great thing is that instantly it has as much credibility as your claim (which is FUCK ALLl) and we start off equal!
Here goes...
God IS an empirical subject. Unfortunately we've never been able to obtain empirical evidence of his existence, therefore I do believe I've just proven there is no god.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 6:29 am
Norfolk.
Only people being complete twats trot out their own theories WITH NO RELEVANCE to the subject they address.
Only your cronies here are interested in your wild fantasies. Show up with some proof or the feintest semblance of coherant thought and I'll be as excited as you about it. In the same way that I will be excited at your proof of square triangles.
Meanwhile, please report to your orderly.
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 6:30 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 6:36 am by Norfolk And Chance.)
(June 30, 2012 at 6:15 am)Micah Wrote: True, but it is also possible that it did actually happen. How can you say it is not possible?
All I said was that just because a man reckons he saw a man perform magic, doesn't mean that the man did perform magic. Does it? No. Therefore it is not valid proof of jesus' divinity nor god.
Quote:I completely agree with you. I am also an atheist. I just believe that Christianity is possible, not likely, but possible.
I would say that you are the one not getting it. You are saying that the universe could have always existed, which it could have, but god(s) also could have always existed. I am merely wanting you to admit this possibility. If a universe did not need creating, why could god(s) not need creating either?
Again, I said that if the universe was not created, then there would be no need for gods. At this point of conclusion, I don't really need to go any further.
(June 30, 2012 at 6:29 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Norfolk.
Only people being complete twats trot out their own theories WITH NO RELEVANCE to the subject they address.
Only your cronies here are interested in your wild fantasies. Show up with some proof or the feintest semblance of coherant thought and I'll be as excited as you about it. In the same way that I will be excited at your proof of square triangles.
Meanwhile, please report to your orderly.
Hahahaaaaaaaa, did you really just say that? You, a theist, really called me, an atheist, someone with "wild fantasies"?
I simply made a silly claim and posited as if it was a fact, just like you did - and your reaction proves that you got badly wobbled.
Truth hurts doesn't it.
Now get back in that box, Jack.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Posts: 126
Threads: 10
Joined: December 8, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 6:49 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 6:51 am by Light of Truth.)
Norfolk and Chance,
But Mark's gospel MIGHT be evidence for Jesus' divinity. I am not saying that it is; I am only saying that it COULD be. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.
Quote: if the universe was not created, then there would be no need for gods
Likewise, if the universe was created, then the universe would need a creator. Both these statements include the word "if." You are not one-hundred percent sure about your claim, which means you really don't have a choice but to admit the possibility of the second claim. If you are ninety-nine percent sure that the universe was not created, then that one percent would be filled by it being created. Therefore, the creation of the universe is possible. That is all that I am trying to do. Point out that it is possible, which it is.
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Posts: 276
Threads: 3
Joined: August 20, 2011
Reputation:
6
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 6:50 am
(June 30, 2012 at 6:15 am)Micah Wrote: Quote: Just because somebody says they witnessed some dude performing magic, does not mean that dude really performed magic, even if you can completely prove that the witness was actually writing about a real man.
True, but it is also possible that it did actually happen. How can you say it is not possible?
It is almost silly to grant possibility to things that are downright ridiculous and foolish. In reality, anything is possible. Anything. So why then do people go so easily on certain subjects like the existence of God, when they would dismiaa offhand other concepts as impossible or silly? (June 30, 2012 at 6:15 am)Micah Wrote: Quote: I'm simply saying that there is no need for a god as far as I can tell.
I completely agree with you. I am also an atheist. I just believe that Christianity is possible, not likely, but possible.
I would say that you are the one not getting it. You are saying that the universe could have always existed, which it could have, but god(s) also could have always existed. I am merely wanting you to admit this possibility. If a universe did not need creating, why could god(s) not need creating either?
Others things that could have always existed (unfalsifiable): The FSM, the eternally spinning top of fire, the cursed teddy bear, and really anything else you can make up that includes as qualifiers the status of being undetectable. Again, if anything is possible, then nothing makes Gods special. Likewise, it is almost meaningless to qualify something as possible because, like I said before, anything is possible. Until we have a grasp on certainty, the state of affairs won't change, and we may never get there.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Posts: 126
Threads: 10
Joined: December 8, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 6:57 am
Quote:Others things that could have always existed (unfalsifiable): The FSM, the eternally spinning top of fire, the cursed teddy bear, and really anything else you can make up that includes as qualifiers the status of being undetectable. Again, if anything is possible, then nothing makes Gods special. Likewise, it is almost meaningless to qualify something as possible because, like I said before, anything is possible. Until we have a grasp on certainty, the state of affairs won't change, and we may never get there.
Are you serious? The FSM is made up with no evidence. This cannot be compared to Jesus. You have people actually writing about him. Have you been reading any of the other posts? Go back and read about what we know from Papias, which shows how Mark wrote down what Peter (an eye witness) said about Jesus. You don't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus, but comparing Christianity to the FSM is ridiculous.
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 7:06 am
(June 30, 2012 at 6:49 am)Micah Wrote: Norfolk and Chance,
But Mark's gospel MIGHT be evidence for Jesus' divinity. I am not saying that it is; I am only saying that it COULD be. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.
Does it prove that jesus was the son of god? No.
Quote:Likewise, if the universe was created, then the universe would need a creator. Both these statements include the word "if." You are not one-hundred percent sure about your claim, which means you really don't have a choice but to admit the possibility of the second claim. If you are ninety-nine percent sure that the universe was not created, then that one percent would be filled by it being created. Therefore, the creation of the universe is possible. That is all that I am trying to do. Point out that it is possible, which it is.
I do not need to consider the possibility that god created the universe, because I do not know that god is real.
Because I can already consider that the universe, which I know is real, could have just came from nothing, I can conclude (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't need a god.
And of course, for me to even begin to consider the possibility that god could have created the universe, first of all you need to prove that there is a god to even consider.
Bring forth proof that god is real, then we can sit around and discuss whether it is possible he could have created the universe.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Posts: 276
Threads: 3
Joined: August 20, 2011
Reputation:
6
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 7:19 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 7:32 am by Skepsis.)
(June 30, 2012 at 6:57 am)Micah Wrote: Quote:Others things that could have always existed (unfalsifiable): The FSM, the eternally spinning top of fire, the cursed teddy bear, and really anything else you can make up that includes as qualifiers the status of being undetectable. Again, if anything is possible, then nothing makes Gods special. Likewise, it is almost meaningless to qualify something as possible because, like I said before, anything is possible. Until we have a grasp on certainty, the state of affairs won't change, and we may never get there.
Are you serious? The FSM is made up with no evidence. This cannot be compared to Jesus. You have people actually writing about him. Have you been reading any of the other posts? Go back and read about what we know from Papias, which shows how Mark wrote down what Peter (an eye witness) said about Jesus. You don't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus, but comparing Christianity to the FSM is ridiculous.
Do you even understand what the FSM relates to? It is analogous to God. Not Jesus. I don't look to this as a be-all end-all, but it is illustrative of my point that sitting around mentally stroking yourself, wondering what's possilbe, is a waste of time. Admitting that anything is possible is one thing, but to discuss it with any seriousness is another.
And just for kicks, I figure I'd make it clear that I'm apathetic towards the idea of Jesus's existence. I haven't looked into it, and don't care to. I generally concede his existence when spoken to on the subject. That said, his divinity is another matter entirely. Conceding Jesus is simple, but conceding the divine nature of his pig exorcisms and the whatnots is just silly without some crazy evidence. And I'm not talking about some vague, almost ambigous reference from a historian about "Jesus" that could have been a reference to Christian dogma at the time.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 7:29 am
(June 30, 2012 at 6:57 am)Micah Wrote: Are you serious? The FSM is made up with no evidence.
Is it? How do you know there is no FSM?
Quote: This cannot be compared to Jesus. You have people actually writing about him.
We have people writing about the FSM, go figure
Quote:Have you been reading any of the other posts? Go back and read about what we know from Papias, which shows how Mark wrote down what Peter (an eye witness) said about Jesus. You don't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus, but comparing Christianity to the FSM is ridiculous.
I'm not being funny, but you're not much of an atheist are you?
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
|
