I just wanted to see who all the theists or at least non-atheists are. What are some of the arguments you use and how are we supose to get past all there scientific data? On a side note: me--->:bowdown::banana:<-----god.
I just wanted to see who all the theists or at least non-atheists are. What are some of the arguments you use and how are we supose to get past all there scientific data? On a side note: me--->:bowdown::banana:<-----god.
Join the darkside
Note: I have the right to post here Lucid Boy, because you posted in the atheist chat, twice. So I have another post allowed.
*sigh* wendy wendy wendy... this is a THEISTS chat your that plus an A at the begining... you can't be here:(
But what about the non-non-atheists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid_boy
You don't get past scientific data.
Attack their character, that's more fun. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Yeah since using logic and evidence is out of the question. Wait have you even got logic or evidence, sorry the atheist have that.Quote:
Attack their character, that's more fun.
To really hurt atheist you would need counter evidence, which you haven't got. So their pretty much nothing you can do except saying the other person doesn't have faith.
Well this thread just goes to show that Seismosaur's claim that atheists would respect theists who wanted a thread to themselves was complete hogwash.
Lucid_Boy, I know you're new and everything, but you should've known you were starting something when you put up the words *For Christians only*. Plus,this isn't a war. Athiest have a right to think what they want to think, and so do we. Also, in my opinion, we have no right to push our beliefs on them. It makes everyone mad.
Right. It's civilized debate. At least until people like wendylove come around and start slinging insults and side-tracking serious conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowy Egypt
just cos Wendy is a tad aggressive doesn't mean Seis was wrong, he can't control everyone and Wendy is the only one that was attacked you so far and the only Atheist to post i think.
Well i have now..... sowwy:)
*brings in drinks and snacks for his theist buddies and then goes upstairs while they hang out in his living room*:D
By the way, my first comment in this thread was facetious . . . I hope the subtlety wasn't lost on anybody. Character attacks, personal attacks, and the like, have no place within serious, adult debate.
I dream of a forum where we can all come together as one big group - theist, atheist, agnostic, whatever - and just mass-debate for a while.
:chuckle:
I do agree that this ISN'T a war. This is a place to come compare notes with the Atheists and make our faith stronger or at least to learn there opinion on the matter and if the Atheists/agnostics can have there own thread without there being a "war" why can't we/I?
Despite the obvious antagonism some atheists here show and the argumentative nature we have pretty much all shown, some of us atheists honesty want answers. I like to understand every angle of an issue, and debates have a way of bringing them to light. That is often mistaken for bullying or flaming or whatever, but I really am trying to understand the nature of religion, especially Christianity, as well as I can. I don't mean I am trying to memorize the Bible. I am saying that I really want to understand the view from which people believe the concepts of Christianity. I can't do that without getting to the bottom of things. I am so interested in that because I was a Christian for a long time.
Hopefully my status as a former Christian qualifies me for posting in this thread, sort of like how even if you stop working for the mafia, you are part of the family for life. :confused:
I find the nature of this thread discriminatory, where do Zorostrians go?
hmm?
Only for christians? What a shame, I though Jesus wanted you to spread the word? Come on, convert me!
By the way, you havent specified anything for agnostics.
You realize that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and understand that, if god is supernatural, why would he be found in nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid_boy
Im not a theist nor an atheist, im more or less agnostic.
That is best post I have ever seen.
That's what I have been trying to tell people for years, particularly the thick-headed, closed-minded skeptics of assorted things on this forum. Not that I necessarily dislike anyone in particular in the forum, but most of the skeptic type people don't give a shit about what you have to say. Everything you say about anything they don't believe in is automatically bullshit, and there's no point trying to convince them otherwise.
It's a waste of your time, and all that most of them will do is insult you for believing in said things. Technically no one is right, but no one is wrong. We cannot prove there is something out there, but they cannot prove there is not something out there. Therefore, anyone who antagonistically imposes their views on anyone else and proclaims them arrogantly or as fact, can go fuck themselves.
I say the same thing to BOTH sides. Skeptics, believe what you will (or disbelieve) but why do you care if we believe in such things? What's it to you? If you don't believe it fine. Shut up and keep it to yourself. Why shouldn't other people believe in something just because you don't?
And Christians/religious groups should stop condemning people. it's the stupidest shit I've ever encountered. "If you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior, you're doomed to eternal hell". Yeah fuck you. That's bullshit. The idea of god is that he loves all of his creation and that he's all forgiving. And don't feed me some bullshit, cause I'm Christian, believe it or not. If god is all forgiving and loves everyone, why would he send one of his creations to eternal suffering? He wouldn't. End of story.
Condemning people is idiotic. It makes me want to shoot someone in the face. The bible or whatever religious book you have isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally. It's more than a religion. It's the way you carry yourself. it's a way of life. It's hypocritical to be a Christian and impose your beliefs on people. That in itself counteracts the idea of Christianity.
Basically i don't care what you believe in or don't believe in. Why antagonize people for believing in something you do not? Fucking moronic typical immature behaviour. Sorry, that rant came out of nowhere, didn't it?
I'm all done now.
imran_p god does want me to spread the word. As for the convert me request I am afraid I am no missionary.:(
It's hypocritical to say the first half along with the second half... ( I underlined the main part) Also the fact that BOTH sides often condemn the other, don't tell me that atheists don't condemn theists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
I don't see what's wrong with having one thread for the Christians and one for the others. Sure we're encouraged to spread the word but there are other threads where that's possible. We can have a place to talk about our beliefs, hardships, arguments, etc... (atheists do the same thing if you want...)
I also think you missed the part where I said I am a Christian, not athiest. Try reading next time. I worded that underlined sentence oddly. I meant to say that No one is right, but the believers are not wrong, as the non believers cannot prove the non-existence of a god. It's hypocritical for skeptics to demand evidence of something and then not be able to come up with any themselves when we say prove that this DOESN'T exist. Haha. I laugh at that.
<Edit>By the way, hypocrisy doesn't mean to criticize both sides like I did, and was RIGHT to do so, as both sides have flaws. Hypocrisy is to profess one thing and demonstrate or believe the opposite yourself, get a fucking dictionary before you try to use my wording against me.</edit>
For Christians only It's time to regroup guys those atheists are killing us.
I did not even know there was a war. :?
And I thought it was your own sins that killed you. Not Atheists.
Funny howie...No it's not my sins that killed me, those will just lead me to a life of eternal damnation.
Who said anything about a war? It's more about the ignorant and idiotic flames, unnecessary insults, and flagrant immaturity that pisses me off. Assholes that make idiotic remarks trying to degrade us for believing in something that you do not. Maybe take a chance and just try out growing up a little, and see how it works for you. You don't see me insulting athiests for not believing in a god. I don't care if you don't believe in god, that's not my business. So what makes it your business to make antagonistic remarks (simultaneously displaying ignorance and immaturity) at me for believing in a god?Quote:
I did not even know there was a war.
And I thought it was your own sins that killed you. Not Atheists.
Making this thread was an incredibly idiotic idea, especially given the title. You might as well have just said "Start ignorant controversy about Christianity here. Idiots welcome."
:goodidea:rainmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
Funny, I assumed it was a parody of the atheists thread. Interesting nobody said the same about that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
I'm sure people have, and they have the right to. I've noticed a lot of atheists are just as closed minded as a lot of theists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I'd say the word most could replace both instances of "a lot of" in that sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Yeah, no kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I was trying not to generalize. If I said most Christians are closed minded, I would have been attacked and told I am going to hell.
Closed-mindedness usually implies that someone doesn't believe something. So I don't think you'd get attacked, I just think that's kind of backwards.
I almost think that I am the ONLY open-minded christian here...
Sorry it has hard to get the fact you were a Christian when I first read it... And you did say one thing and then say the opposite (more of a contradiction, i was just rewording a sentence you wrote) You said no one is wrong then right after you say something is bull, again more of a contradiction, but on the internet contradictions are basically hypocrisies because you can't act on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
HEY GUYZ!!!
I JUZ hat a STROKE, N I B-CAME a retard, and now I like, turned to CRISTyANETTY!!! 111 ;D It lieke all makes like wayy muhc sense like all ur good agrumettns adn suchts!!! =D
GO GAWD!!!11123123
-
It's true.
Ezza Heista. I ahm fram Doichelahnd. I lahve STRONG beir ahnd shruubs. I dant beleeve een Gahd bequase ve fram Hollund are maich mohr eentelligunt than de AmerIcans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
May Holland not dissapear into the ocean within 10 years!!!
http://images.jupiterimages.com/comm...0/22566076.jpg
Neruo circa 2 weeks ago
on that note...me and my abused girlfriend.
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/nu...09-redneck.jpg
Half/Dreaming circa Yesterday
oh, we have fun ;)
Well I see there's no more point (if there ever was one) in trying to participate in a discussion here. Too many fucking ignorant morons spamming a bunch of weak bullshit because they can't come up with any sort of real argument. Only idiotic, unbacked biased insults and overblown opinions. Therefore I withdraw from this thread which was started by no doubt a kid, and as you can see is responded too mostly by kids with nothing real to say. What a waste of time and energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
And lucid boy, there are over 10 thousand members on this forum. I doubt you're the only "open minded" Christian on here.
NEruo, you sound like your 2.
Its not simply not believing in something, its refusing to even consider, or being completely unreceptive to new ideas that dont fit into their belief system. To be fair to most athiests they look at the observable evidence and come to a conclusion, the same can't really be said of theists however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
Ill leave you with a quote and a passage from here:
http://sifter.org/~simon/journal/20010722.html
Quote:
Atheists do look for answers to existence itself. They just don't make them up.--Teller
....
an Atheist is, and has been through most of history, simply someone who does not believe in any gods, simply because observations neither necessitate nor even warrant them -- as opposed to theists who adopt beliefs which extend beyond that which is warranted by observation alone (i.e., they have "faith", which is simply another term for trusting what other people tell you).
Let me try to defend the Theists by saying that your statement is only part truth. Some christians will concede to Atheists on a few points. SOME, not all but Some. Not even a majority but a couple-few.
Its not really about conceding on certain issues. Its more about being able to properly evaluate your experiences. If you feel you have to defend a faith you're more likely to attribute things to faith rather than have a balanced opinion on what you're seeing.
For example,
"I cant understand how the universe could have came into existence so there must be a god" vs "I cant understand how the universe could have came into existence we should strive to research more in that area".
Or
"The initial cause of cell differentiation is puzzling and therefore is evidence of a god" vs "The initial cause of cell differentiation is puzzling and therefore we should strive to research in that area"
Its all good having a hypothesis on things, its just an issue when that hypothesis suddenly becomes truth to that person.
Do you believe there's a chance you might be wrong? that christianity could be wrong?
yes, I do. I don't care what, by difinition that makes me. Every once in a while,'bout once a day, I have serious doubts about my faith. I'm trying to read the bible more/reasearch to make that doubt go away. That is part of the reason I am at this forum. Also, on a side note, contributing things you don't understand to god, just because you don't understand them, is ignorance.
Why do you want these doubts to go away? your instincts are telling you something may be wrong, why do you wish to supress that? do you investigate why you're having these doubts to find out if they have any validity?Quote:
Every once in a while,'bout once a day, I have serious doubts about my faith. I'm trying to read the bible more/reasearch to make that doubt go away.
May i ask what tipped the scales in favour of christianity for you? How did you settle on christianity as being the likely truth?Quote:
Also, on a side note, contributing things you don't understand to god, just because you don't understand them, is ignorance.
I think this is an extremely important question. It seems to me that the best way to rid yourself of doubt is to fully examine the point which is causing the doubt. If you suddenly doubted your home and family were safe, wouldn't you want to investigate, and make sure the doubt wasn't due to a disturbing truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by RooJ
Here's something crazy. You exist. Once you've really understood how infinitely impossible that is, you will submit to the God who created you. You'll also realize how imperfect you actually are and that no matter how good you paint yourself up to be, you still fail on a number of levels. You'll then know that there is nothing on earth you could possibly do that would make you worthy of being in the presence of an absolutely perfect being. Do you think you deserve to be with a perfect being? The majority of us are egotistical and self-serving (you may object to that, but you are lying to yourself). Surely, selfish beings like us don't deserve the infinite love that God offers. We deserve to remain in this state of suffering we've created on earth. We are scum, and suffering is our fate.
Since there is nothing we can do to deserve perfect love, God has done something for us. Jesus Christ was begotten and later crucified so that by his perfect blood we could be saved. Jesus was begotten, not made, by God (the difference being that when something is begotten, it shares its nature with the one who begets, such as a human begetting another human; when something is made, its nature is not the same as the maker, such as a human being making a car). God made humans, meaning our nature is not the same as God's. Jesus was begotten, and by accepting Him as Christ, His perfect spirit dwells within you. Thus, you are no longer a creation unlike the God who created you, but you have literally become a son of God, begotten just like Jesus. God sees the perfect blood of Jesus in you and you are now capable of spending an eternity with this perfect being.
There is life after physical death. If I can lose my life, it follows that I and life are two separate things. If I and life are separate, then that means I am separate from all beings and all experience whatsoever. But if I am separate from everything that defines me, what then is left? How could I be separate from my very being, the experiencing entity interacting with other beings? It is impossible. I don't have a life to lose. I am life. And how can I lose something that I am? It is impossible. **paraphrased from A New Earth, by Eckhart Tolle
Good grief, ninja, that was deep...
If the fact that we exist blows your mind, it just displays ignorance (I don't mean that as an insult). We really don't know anything about the universe. We can only observe.
You are an eating, pooping, reproducing machine with a computer. Life is so much more basic than people portray it.
No, my friends, God doesnt not exist. Early man was only smart enough to ask questions, but not smart enough to have answers. God fills in the blanks. It is so obvious. We already know that man creates religions with no proof. What makes Christianity any different?
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowy Egypt
You are selling life short. It's absolutely shocking that people pass life off as some run-of-the-mill occurrence. It's not. We are conscious beings, experiencing and observing the cosmos. There is some unifying entity that ties the present 'me' with the 'me' as a baby, the 'me' as a teenager, etc. This is the spirit, timeless and unconditioned. What would be the unifying factor if there was no spirit? The brain is simply a sporadic series of cause-and-effect. If that is all that I am, I may as well assume there is no 'me' at all. Perhaps the Buddhists are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Not as 2 as you sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid_boy
By the way, all this talk about theists being unintelligent and illogical is ridiculous. There are plenty of intelligent individuals who do believe in God. Let's cut out the ad hominems, please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Case in point, a book called "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. This is an unbelievably insightful book for theists and atheists alike (as well as agnostics). Let’s just say that theism and evolution do not actually contradict each other, only our misconceptions of theology and misconceptions of evolution do. If you want to know how that’s even possible, read the book. It will probably change the way you see the theory of evolution and theology, regardless of if you are a theist or a believer in evolution.
I can only hope that other religious people on this board dont have such an unhealthy outlook as yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
As for the rest of your point im afraid it carries little weight in this discussion. Your argument is a non sequitur, your inability to comprehend how the universe could exist without a creator doesn't actually lead to the conclusion that there must be a god, even if you would like it to. Its a logical fallacy to assume that because you personally find the universe too amazing to exist without a designer, a designer must exist.
When you've been told what to think for long enough you become incapable of actually logically analysing what you believe yourself and coming to a conclusion through that. [/ad hominem]Quote:
Originally Posted by argument from personal incredulity
HAHAHA. Only now I see that I have stumbled upon the most silly use of emoticons ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid_boy
Strange that Atheists, who are wrong, exist throughout ALL of history, while Christians, who are Totally Right, exist only in areas where it has spread after it's invention.
You may disagree with my outlook on humanity, but that is your ego talking. Until you accept the fact that we deserve hell, you'll never understand the purpose of Christ. On the surface, many people might think I'm a "good" person, but only I know how self-centered and prideful I can be. Let me ask you this again. Do you really think you deserve perfect love? Are you "good" enough for God's love? If you think you are, you are certainly mistaken. Nobody is good enough for God. He is perfect. Humans are so imperfect, whether it be the rapist or a peace corps volunteer. Surely, if you can name a single person who deserves God's perfect love, I'll revoke my statement that humans are scum. We are desperate for a savior.Quote:
Originally Posted by RooJ
"When you've been told what to think for long enough you become incapable of actually logically analysing what you believe yourself and coming to a conclusion through that."
This I have to address. Your assumption here is that I've never questioned my beliefs regarding God. This is untrue. I went through a two-year period where atheism sounded very convincing and at one point had considered myself an agnostic. The truth is, I realized I didn't need any more philosophical or ontological proof that there was a God. I found my existence as a conscious being to be more than adequate proof that a higher power created me. I did not say, the universe exists, therefore God exists. Rather, I exist, therefore God exists. The chances of me existing are one in infinity. As an atheist (if that's what you are), you would have to agree with this. Everything that happens in the present is a result of a past causal chain (e.g. you exist because your parents conceived you, they exist because their parents conceived them, etc.) If the universal is eternal (i.e. no God), then the causal chain in the past is infinite, since there is no 'beginning' with God as the foundation. Thus, an infinite amount of events had to go perfectly right in order to yield you as an existing person. So the chances of being born are one in infinity. Only infinite power could bypass such absurdly small odds. I exist, therefore God exists.
And what do you make of the unifying 'self' lodged in this body? I will repeat what I have already said. The brain is simply a sporadic series of cause-and-effect. Where is the unifying self in all of that? It is the spirit, timeless and unconditioned. Read again the excerpt from A New Earth that I posted and ask yourself if it makes sense to you. If it's at least plausible, then there's a possibility that you will never die. I'd actually recommend picking up a copy of Tolle's book. It'll change your life.
Haha. It's like you took Christianity, and turned it into an SM-game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Spank me Jesus! I have been a naughty, naughty boy!
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." John 1:1-3Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Jesus is eternal just like the Father. What does this mean exactly? Hard to tell. But perhaps those who were repenting prior to Christ's birth could have been considered 'Christians' (even though Jesus had not yet been physically born). This is all speculation. Heaven knows, I don't have all the answers (and no one does!).
When you're ready to grow up and address my posts as an intellectual rather than a child, I'm all ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Speak for yourself, please. I do not deserve hell. Thankfully, since there is no such thing, I'm not terribly worried about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
YesQuote:
Let me ask you this again. Do you really think you deserve perfect love?
I agree. It would be a mistake for me to think I am good enough for the love of someone who doesn't exist.Quote:
Are you "good" enough for God's love? If you think you are, you are certainly mistaken.
You make it sound like you think these are equally imperfect. No point in peace and love, I guess.Quote:
Humans are so imperfect, whether it be the rapist or a peace corps volunteer.
I'll do perfectly fine without, thank you. Many of us don't feel this desperation you speak of.Quote:
We are desperate for a savior.
Makes me wonder if God ever had this same thought.Quote:
I found my existence as a conscious being to be more than adequate proof that a higher power created me.
Actually no. the chances of you existing are one in one, as evidenced by the fact that you are here.Quote:
The chances of me existing are one in infinity. As an atheist (if that's what you are), you would have to agree with this.
But there are an infinite number of things that don't exist. The odds of something existing, by this logic, is infinity/infinity... in otherwords, one.Quote:
Thus, an infinite amount of events had to go perfectly right in order to yield you as an existing person. So the chances of being born are one in infinity. Only infinite power could bypass such absurdly small odds.
You might as well used an Extract from the Qu'ran. You really think I am going to care about what a fictional book says?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
-
And then the 'blabla, grow up'. Hah. Irony. Not like you are clearly going through a very un-original childish emo/angst/depressed period. Even your avatar is emo. Lets cry all day how we are unworthy of god. Wow, great idea.
Have fun! :D
"Speak for yourself, please. I do not deserve hell."Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
You must then be perfect since it is only through perfection that we deserve God.
"You make it sound like you think these are equally imperfect. No point in peace and love, I guess."
The passage was simply to reiterate the fact that humans are imperfect. How imperfect are we exactly? Well, I'd say that's difficult to measure, and I certainly was not equating any two imperfections.
"Makes me wonder if God ever had this same thought."
Imagine you are God. You have always existed. You know everything. It is absurd to suggest that God wonders if he had a maker, since he is eternal.
"Actually no. the chances of you existing are one in one, as evidenced by the fact that you are here. "
What is your gender? Male? Female? What are the odds that you would be male or female? Most people would agree that it's one in two, but by your logic (since you already are either a male or a female), the odds of being that specific gender are one in one. This is obviously wrong.
"But there are an infinite number of things that don't exist. The odds of something existing, by this logic, is infinity/infinity... in otherwords, one."
Are there an infinite amount of things that don't exist? Can you name one, please? Actually, can you name all infinity? Of course, you can't. You can't name a single thing that does not exist, because if we're speculating about a non-existent, then we are talking about nothing! There are not an infinite amount of things that don't exist. There is nothing that does not exist, which is necessarily true by the definition of non-existence.
"You might as well used an Extract from the Qu'ran. You really think I am going to care about what a fictional book says?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
If Jesus was begotten by God (i.e. shares the same nature as God) then he is also eternal. My apologies, you don't need a Bible verse to draw that conclusion.
"And then the 'blabla, grow up'. Hah. Irony. Not like you are clearly going through a very un-original childish emo/angst/depressed period. Even your avatar is emo. Lets cry all day how we are unworthy of god. Wow, great idea."
You've assumed here that you know a lot of things about my personality, when, in fact, you don't. I am far from depressed, and I'm not too sure what being 'emo' would entail. As far as my avatar goes, it probably couldn't be further from the 'emo' classification. It's a famous musician who's been around for nearly 50 years. Bob Dylan, anyone?
In your world, perhaps. But there is certainly no logical problems here if we simply take away God. I am not "perfect," but then I don't need to be. Few people would deserve the Christian description of hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
I find it no more absurd than a human wondering if he had a maker. Your earlier logic was "I exist... therefore there must be God!" God should then say "I exist... therefore there must be a higher God!" If the logic is valid on one level, it should be valid on all levels, or it should be thrown away outright.Quote:
"Makes me wonder if God ever had this same thought."
Imagine you are God. You have always existed. You know everything. It is absurd to suggest that God wonders if he had a maker, since he is eternal.
I am male. If my gender were on the betting boards at Vegas, they would assign the odds at 100%. There is no mystery, I am already defined.Quote:
"Actually no. the chances of you existing are one in one, as evidenced by the fact that you are here. "
What is your gender? Male? Female? What are the odds that you would be male or female? Most people would agree that it's one in two, but by your logic (since you already are either a male or a female), the odds of being that specific gender are one in one. This is obviously wrong.
Odds only come into play about things that you don't currently know. You can say early in the morning that the odds of rain are 30%, but when it starts coming down, you're going to have to revise that to 100%.
Well, I suppose I could go the obvious route and just say "God," but I'm guessing that won't quite do the trick here. Obviously one can't say with certainty that something specific doesn't exist, but your counter to this seems to be to suggest that every possible thing that can exist, does exist. But this is curious... if that were true, than it's quite obvious that your chance to exist becomes 100%! So please, define this further so I can see what you're trying to say. If you deny that there are things that don't exist, you must agree that everything MUST exist.Quote:
Are there an infinite amount of things that don't exist? Can you name one, please?
"In your world, perhaps. But there is certainly no logical problems here if we simply take away God. I am not "perfect," but then I don't need to be. Few people would deserve the Christian description of hell."Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
The difference of opinion here is not going to be settled. I've already spoken my mind on this matter.
"I find it no more absurd than a human wondering if he had a maker. Your earlier logic was "I exist... therefore there must be God!" God should then say "I exist... therefore there must be a higher God!" If the logic is valid on one level, it should be valid on all levels, or it should be thrown away outright."
Let me then rephrase. I popped into existence out of nothing, therefore God exists. Certainly, God could not use this logic, given that he has always existed.
"Odds only come into play about things that you don't currently know. You can say early in the morning that the odds of rain are 30%, but when it starts coming down, you're going to have to revise that to 100%."
There are three marbles in a bag, each a different color. One is red, the other is blue, and the third is green. The odds of you pulling a red marble out of the bag are one in three. Let's say you actually do pull out a red marble. Do you suddenly believe the odds of pulling that marble were one? Of course not. Regardless of which marble was pulled, the odds of pulling that particular marble remain one in three. So odds do not only come into play about things we don't know. I know very well that I pulled a red marble, but the probability of making such a pull still remains.
"Obviously one can't say with certainty that something specific doesn't exist, but your counter to this seems to be to suggest that every possible thing that can exist, does exist. But this is curious... if that were true, than it's quite obvious that your chance to exist becomes 100%!"
Actually, all I have said here is this: everything that does exist, does exist and everything that does not exist, does not exist. And as I have previously illustrated, something's existence is not indicative of a one in one probability.
Well I think this is certainly more convincing... a definite improvement. I wonder though, are you certain you have not always existed? Can you remember a time when you didn't? And could God be certain he always existed?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
"Were" - no, "are" - yes. The odds that you have pulled the red marble are 100%. You can't look at it in your hand and still tell yourself "there's a one-in-three chance that this marble is red."Quote:
"Odds only come into play about things that you don't currently know. You can say early in the morning that the odds of rain are 30%, but when it starts coming down, you're going to have to revise that to 100%."
There are three marbles in a bag, each a different color. One is red, the other is blue, and the third is green. The odds of you pulling a red marble out of the bag are one in three. Let's say you actually do pull out a red marble. Do you suddenly believe the odds of pulling that marble were one?
There is also the sticky issue of determinism, if you buy into it. If you were destined to pick that marble, then the odds always were 100%.
"I wonder though, are you certain you have not always existed? Can you remember a time when you didn't? And could God be certain he always existed? "Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
I'm surprised you're suggesting an eternal self considering your denial of God. As far as my finite knowledge takes me, this is my first life. God has infinite knowledge and can be absolutely certain he has always existed. To suggest otherwise would be absurd.
"Were" - no, "are" - yes. The odds that you have pulled the red marble are 100%. You can't look at it in your hand and still tell yourself "there's a one-in-three chance that this marble is red."
Instead of saying, the odds you have pulled the red marble are 100%, you should rather say, it is certain that you pulled a red marble. And yes, it is certain that you pulled the red marble. Clear as day, you are holding the red marble in your hand. But the odds that the red marble would be pulled (rather than the blue or green one) are still one in three! Similarly, it is certain that I exist, but the probability that I should exist remains one in infinity.
"There is also the sticky issue of determinism, if you buy into it. If you were destined to pick that marble, then the odds always were 100%."
Yeah this is another topic for discussion entirely.
No, the odds that you exist are 1.
The odds for you coming into existence, instead of either non existence, or a slightly different version of yourself are 1/(incalculable finite amount, though definitely not infinity)
If the past is infinite (which even some atheists hold, if not most), then there was an infinite causal chain prior to your birth. Every event in that causal chain had to go exactly right in order to yield your birth. If an infinite amount of events had to go perfectly right in order to yield your existence, then the probability that you should exist remains one in infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
Bit of a straw-man argument in there I think.
Why do you think most atheists believe in an infinite past? I'd love to know.
This is simple. Something had to have always existed, whether it be God or the universe. The dichotomy between theists and atheists is accepting either the former or the latter. Anyone can agree that somethingness did not come from nothingness. If you've speculated as to what exactly nothingness is, you'd find it absurd that anyone would even suggest the universe came from nothing. It follows that since somethingness exists, something has always existed. Since the atheist says it is not God, it must be the universe (this is the common argument I've heard for atheism).Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
No, there are numerous theories that support a model of the universe that had a starting point, where time and space didn't exist before the singularity that started the universe.
Have you read any Hawking? You might change your mind about what people actually believe.
Most scientist believe the universe has not existed forever. Again you need to understand science.Quote:
Since the atheist says it is not God, it must be the universe (this is the common argument I've heard for atheism).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM
Stephen Hawking
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
I'd be glad to investigate these things. My main field is philosophy, but I am certainly interested in science. Thanks for the links.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Your personal outlook doesn't concern me, just others who may follow your words. Im more bothered with the impaired logic you're using, it kinda kills a healthy debate.Quote:
You may disagree with my outlook on humanity, but that is your ego talking.
ill address everything else later. Have to go get drunk.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
You need to be a retard to draw that conclusion. I am not purely being an asshole, you really need to be partially brain dead. Logically, scientifically, objectively, you can not reach that conclusion (Jesus being a super-godly-person(/fag)).
Haha.Quote:
"And then the 'blabla, grow up'. Hah. Irony. Not like you are clearly going through a very un-original childish emo/angst/depressed period. Even your avatar is emo. Lets cry all day how we are unworthy of god. Wow, great idea."
You've assumed here that you know a lot of things about my personality, when, in fact, you don't. I am far from depressed, and I'm not too sure what being 'emo' would entail. As far as my avatar goes, it probably couldn't be further from the 'emo' classification. It's a famous musician who's been around for nearly 50 years. Bob Dylan, anyone?
"YOU DON'T KNOW ME >:" ( "
Most original line on the internet ever.
Not.
Lighten up. God doesn't hate fags, you'll be fine.
What unifying self? Give a brain surgeon a saw and a scoop and see what happens to your unifying self... hint, it will be changed forever. What happens to the unifying self in people who's personalitys change due to a brain tumour? And addictions, explain to me how peoples personalitys change when they get addicted to a substance, if every decision originates from the soul.. hell, how do addictions actually exist if the soul can just override them? Let me guess in advance, you'll avoid these questions and preach to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
Again, grow up. What is your deal? I've never seen you make a civilized post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
The unifying self is the eternal consciousness that you are. When parts of the brain are damaged, the consciousness can no longer use that part of the brain to operate in the material world. Addictions affect the mind, which is different from consciousness, or spirit. The consciousness is simply the awareness behind all the thoughts and emotions going on in the mind. The mind gets addicted, the consciousness is aware of the addiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by RooJ
So what makes the final choice to take said substance? Freewill and choice must originate from outside of the cause and effect ran universe, true? So the real you, the soul should be able to choose not to take a specific drug regardless of the physical brains addiction.
Really? You might recall a lot of civilized post right before you left the R/S forum for like 5 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
You'll see some more civilized posts directed towards you, after it stops being funny to make fun of this ridiculous new view of religion you have, and reactions on that mockery what is a source of even more entertainment.
It is precisely the mind that is addicted and the mind that makes the choice. The spirit is the timeless awareness behind that decision. The spirit is not making the decision, rather, it is aware that a decision is being made. Who is making the decision, then? A false self that we mistake for our true identity. The ego in the mind is making the decision, not the spirit (to follow up on these ideas, read A New Earth, Eckhart Tolle).Quote:
Originally Posted by RooJ
No, I recall you being a child and making cheap shots at any theist who posted. I joined this forum last November, and that was the first impression I had of you. The impression still holds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
As far as my views being ridiculous, you haven't taken a single thing I've said and broken it down logically to undermine my philosophy. All you've done is shout absurdities at me, called me a fag, said that my beliefs are delusional, etc. Have I done any of this to you?
But the ego is part of the cause and effect chain, as you said, its not the soul. If the ego is part of the brain, how then can the brain make free decisions? If decisions are being made independant of a soul then they arn't free because they're a result of the causality of the universe? And if decisions arnt free, even a small minority of decisions, how then can you say we have freewill?
Alternatively if you're saying the ego is somehow part of the soul / seperate from the body, then how is the ego trapped by the physical brain into taking a substance. When a final decision rests outside of the cause and effect chain then that decision shouldn't be affected by causality, so addiction shouldn't occur.
I'm a little thrown here. You seem to be suggesting that if the soul does not exist, we cannot have free will. But I'm under the impression you don't believe we have souls. So where does that leave you? Do you deny that we have free will?Quote:
Originally Posted by RooJ
The ego is not part of the spirit. It's entirely separate. Yes, the mind works according to laws of cause-and-effect. But your false assumption is that mental causality operates just the same as physical causality. This cannot be true, for if it were then we would not have free will (and we clearly do). Mental causation must be different such that the effect is not necessarily determined by the cause (whereas in physical causality the opposite is true). This is an interesting topic. If you're interested, check out The Mysterious Flame, by Colin McGinn.
Now you're getting to the juicy stuff :), Its certainly a possibility i consider.Quote:
Do you deny that we have free will?
Well we can analyse what we know of how the brain works:Quote:
Yes, the mind works according to laws of cause-and-effect. But your false assumption is that mental causality operates just the same as physical causality. This cannot be true, for if it were then we would not have free will (and we clearly do).
http://www.bris.ac.uk/synaptic/public/basics_ch1_2.html
If we scan the brain while we think and make decisions we can clearly see neurons firing in the relative areas. Your assumption is that the brain can function somehow beyond the universes causality, but clearly the brain and its many neurons function in a cause and effect manner even as we are thinking. Lets look further, what causes us to make a decision in the first place, can you truly make a decision without a cause for making it?
I dont believe we "clearly do" have freewill and i agree its an interesting topic.
Here's an excerpt from that book to help you grasp what I'm talking about.
"The causation of behavior by mental states in nothing like the kind of mechanical causation of which physics treats. When billiard balls collide, they impart energy in the form of momentum to each other, and there are laws that govern this type of interaction. But beliefs and desires don't make contact with action, and there are no comparable laws governing how behavior will evolve in the causal circumstances. We simply have no general theoretical grasp of how mental states cause behavior. We have the word "cause," but this carries no information about the nature of the causation. The fact is that mental causation does not imply necessitation, which is why you could have chosen to go biking instead of rollerblading. We do not understand how such causation works, but that is not to say that there is nothing to the idea. Free will is mental causation in action, the mysterious interface between mind and action. Once we admit that we have no good understanding of this kind of causation, recognizing that we cannot subsume it under our understanding of physical causation, then we can continue to believe in free will without being able to explain it. If we insist on trying to understand it in terms we are familiar with, namely billiard-ball causation, then we will not be able to reconstruct the notion of freedom we have. Once we let go of the craving to explain, we can accept the reality of something that we cannot theoretically comprehend. Free will is a mystery, and therein lies its possibility."
Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame, p.165
Hope that helps.
Very interesting excerpt,
I agree with the author that we dont fully understand causation in the brain, but we are aware that the brain seemingly works on causality due to our research on neurons and how they function. The question then is can a brain who's individual parts are seemingly built on causality function in such a way as to give freedom from causality, and if so how can it possibly escape the cause-and-effect system its built upon. The authors answer is summed up here:
Ive never bought the argument "forget it because we cant explain it". Its obvious the brains much more complicated than billiard balls bouncing around a table but maybe only in the way that theres many many more bounces, so much so that the eventual output is almost impossible to predict given the input.Quote:
Once we admit that we have no good understanding of this kind of causation, recognizing that we cannot subsume it under our understanding of physical causation, then we can continue to believe in free will without being able to explain it.
Grow up!!!
Yeah, this whole book argues that consciousness and its attributes cannot be explained. They are a mystery forever unknown to man, hence the title, The Mysterious Flame (of consciousness).
There is actually good reason to believe this. According to the anti-reflexivity principle, an entity cannot operate on itself. That is, a finger cannot point at itself, a knife cannot cut itself, etc. This suggests that the conscious entity, the understander, cannot understand itself. Therefore, we will never understand the essence of consciousness, nor how it operates in the physical brain.
Good discussion.
MirrorQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
It would be pointing at a reflection of itself, not the actual finger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
No, the reflection is pointing at it. But since it is a reflection of itself, it is pointing at itself.
When you look in the mirror, you see a reflection of yourself. You do not see yourself. It looks just like you, but it is simply a reflection. It is not ultimately you. The finger does not ultimately point at itself, it points at a reflection of itself. How is this unclear?
It's unclear because it's the same light either way.
Think of it this way. If you were leaning over a pond and saw your reflection, what is it that you see in the pond? Is that you in the pond, or simply a reflection? If it was actually you, it would follow that you were in the pond. But this is obviously not true. You are on dry land, leaning over and looking into the pond. You see a reflection, and nothing more.
No, I'm not in the pond, just on its surface.
Which is also untrue!
Not according to quantum physics.
A finger pointing at a mirror is just that: a finger pointing at a mirror. The mirror contains the finger's reflection, thus it appears the finger is pointing at itself. But it is still only pointing at a mirror. If it was the actual finger in the mirror, then it follows that my whole body, the room I'm in, the apartment, the building, the town, etc. are all, literally in the mirror! This is absurd.
It's just a matter of perspective.
I dont really agree with this theory, when we learn about the brain we usually don't probe our own brain, we're most likely probing that of mice and other people, can your finger point at another persons finger?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
But this is kind of leaving the point, the point is that the brain functions, at least partially, and more likely fully on causality, as observed by other humans. Making decisions seems to be no more then the work of neurons in the brain, its easy to say we dont understand as yet but what do we do with the functions we do understand to a certain degree, neurons? Should we ignore the causality of neurons?
Thanks for bringing your awesome insight and infinite wisdom into the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
What sort of principle is that? It may be interesting as a thought-exercise, but certainly is trivialy broken in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja pirate
A finger long and flexible enough can curl and point at itself.
A knife with a very long flexible handle can cut itself.
A tape recorder can record the sounds of its own operation.
A ruler shows the measurement of its own length.
A boxer can punch himself in the face.
A census taker must count himself in his census.
Good, good. I don't agree that all of these hold (for instance, the boxer using the hand to punch his face...'punching' is the executive function of the hand, and it cannot punch itself). But the example with the ruler is certainly a counter to the above principle. There's also the fire that burns itself and the light that illuminates itself. So no, the principle does not hold, but it was worth the speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
You are clever folks!
Just one thing, a fire doesn't burn itself. The things that are on fire are the materials/gases in the air.
This entire Forum is undated with Closed minded. No, let's make that for friendly.
People who have made up their mind. With a big .
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Quote:
"What?"
Are you telling me you can deny this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
No, he doesn't understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
I'm telling you that I haven't got the slightest clue what it was supposed to mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
This entire forum is inundated with closed minded, no lets make that friendly people who have made up their minds already. With a big fullstop (eg nobodys changing nobody elses mind)Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Did i winned a prizes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RooJ
And The winner goes to...After this commercial break.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RooJ :banana:
I personally cannot find an example of anyone's religious set of beliefs change.
In the Extended discussion however, I have seen some principle ideas waver a bit on various issue.
Art or politics. But religion . :horse:
This should tell you something about the nature of religious beliefs. So sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Ha. But you do come here, lurking. Only posting some "haha, this topic is silly" ever few months. But it seems the debate is interesting in some other way. Two opposing sides do not need to influence or change each other to provide knowledge, amusements and thoughts people can lean from...Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Meanwhile, don't spam up the forum with complaints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Yaa, I suppose you are right.
Nobody makes me come here.
:sorry: