Heh heh heh. Like I said: The debate is NEVER over.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 18, 2024, 7:05 pm
Thread Rating:
|
The debate is over
|
 (June 30, 2012 at 7:48 am)Micah Wrote: A comeback to you saying you don't need to consider something? If you don't want to consider something that could be possible, and if looked at from the perspective of Christianity, then a bit more than just possible, then whatever. Be completely close-minded. It's not that I don't want to consider something, it is that I don't need to consider something. I do not need to consider that god could have created the universe because I do not know there is a god! This is not being closed minded (by the way, it is a trait of christians to try and label others closed minded) - it is simple common sense! I also do not need to consider it possible that a magical sandal could have created the universe either - again, I do not know that a magical sandal exists. I can only consider things that I know to be real, and yes that list of things can be added to as we learn more. So here is how it is, in summary for you... 1 I consider it "possible" that the universe could have came from nothing, or even be eternal. The big bang could just be one point in a series of events in an eternal universe, it's "possible". None of those possibilities need god. 2 The big bang could have been THE start. It's "possible" it came from nothing, it's "possible" it had no cause. No need for god. 3 Is it "possible" that the universe was created by a supreme being? I don't know a supreme being exists, so currently I don't need to aknowledge that "possibility" at all. It's completely irrelevant. Bring a god to the table, then it opens up a new "possibility" to discuss. Science learns new stuff every day. Quote:I am a Christian? No, I am not. How is that possible when I don't think that a god exists? For now...
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.
I see what you are saying, but you, apparently, do not see what I am saying...
"For now..." What is that supposed to mean?
"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).  RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 8:32 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 8:35 am by Skepsis.)
(June 30, 2012 at 8:19 am)Micah Wrote: I don't sit around and think about what all is possible. Context doesn't matter. Your statement was general. (June 30, 2012 at 8:19 am)Micah Wrote: If Mark is reliable, then Jesus is god.Therefore, Jesus and god are not separate entities, but the same, which is why I said the FSM cannot be compared to Jesus (god).I am an atheist, but I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up with evidence. I don't know if you meant to say it, but you did. Don't call me crazy if I saw this and decided to call you out on it. If you think Mark is reliable, which I think it is fair to conclude that you do, then by your own admission you think Jesus is god. I'll make this very, very clear to you: I understand the trinity. I understand the idea is that is being presented. I simply think it is stupid nonsense that doesn't deserve any serious scrutiny. After all, if you can't prove that a God exists, why even take into consideration how this God interacts with the world or his relations to others things or concepts? It seems to be a mental jerkfest, much like if I were to suggest the correlation between proven phenomena and the fairy queen. 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 (June 30, 2012 at 8:19 am)Micah Wrote: Norfolk and Chance, I have no need to prove that there isn't a god. I do not believe there is a god, there is no evidence for the claims that there is a god, and based on that, I will continue to work under the assumption that there is therefore no god. I'm always open to anybody proving to me that there is a god, and when they do, then I will work on the assumption that there is a god. Until then, I do not know that there is a god, so I need not consider him as a possible suspect for creating the universe, if it even was "created"!
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.
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 8:44 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 8:47 am by Light of Truth.)
Skepsis, tell me that you are kidding. You cannot be serious. I do not understand how you think that I believe that Mark is reliable. I said "If mark is reliable..." or "I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable..." If I thought Mark was reliable, I would have said, "Mark is reliable," or "because Mark is reliable," but I did not say that because I do not believe that. And this is all apparent in what I wrote. Any argument I made was based on "ifs" because I was only trying to show possibilities. How can you not see this? I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread.
Norfolk and Chance, Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any gods does not mean that there are not gods. That is all that I am trying to say.
"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).  
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe (June 30, 2012 at 6:30 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:(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? Yes Norfolk, wild fantasy. Own your own claims. The difference between us is that I logically justify mine, where you blindly accept your nonsense. Even when your illogicality is pointed out to you. If you were ever religious, I would say that you were a sheep with a new shepherd. Baaa RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 8:54 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 8:55 am by The Grand Nudger.)
You do Frods? You logically justify your claims? I don't think I'm alone in being very interested as to when, where, and how.
(credit where credit is due- I'm impressed by your consistent trollage)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 9:01 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 9:12 am by Skepsis.)
(June 30, 2012 at 8:44 am)Micah Wrote: Skepsis, tell me that you are kidding. You cannot be serious. I do not understand how you think that I believe that Mark is reliable. I said "If mark is reliable..." or "I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable..." If I thought Mark was reliable, I would have said, "Mark is reliable," or "because Mark is reliable," but I did not say that because I do not believe that. And this is all apparent in what I wrote. Any argument I made was based on "ifs" because I was only trying to show possibilities. How can you not see this? I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread. I read and then re-read the thread. To look for your musings on possibility, remember? Don't blame me for your downright terrible rhetoric and phrasing. What else am I going to get out of "I am working under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up by evidence"? Whatever, it looks to me that everything you have said is merely a pretense to your huge bid on what is and isn't possible. Your "ifs" signify little more than your fascination with the possible and show no evidence that you give a hoot on what actaully needs to be considered. I think everyone acknowledges that Gods are possible, but I also think people with a brain take that statement with a grain of salt. God is possible, sure- just as possible as any unfalsifiable thing you can think up. Then, you tell me my analogy is false because it is "possible" that Mark was right? Either you are being disingenuous, or you don't even know what you are saying. 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
I just saw that there was that typo. I meant to type unreliable. It doesn't matter, though. Everywhere I say "if." Everything is still based on "ifs" because I was trying to prove possibilities. If I was a Christian, why would I keep saying "if" and state that I am an atheist?
"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). |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)
