Thread: A challenge for the Theist

I have been in a lot of these threads and seen many of them over the coarse of DV.
I have found that the people with no faith are the ones who get aggravated and frustrated in these threads.
People with belief have that to back them up at the end of the day.
What does a non-believer have?
Maybe that ways on the conscience of the non-believer?

Originally Posted by Howie

I have been in a lot of these threads and seen many of them over the coarse of DV.
I have found that the people with no faith are the ones who get aggravated and frustrated in these threads.
People with belief have that to back them up at the end of the day.
What does a non-believer have?
Maybe that weighs on the conscience of the non-believer?

I see lundon I see phranse I see Howies pink girly underpants. Just playing around, I have no real anything to do right now other than to sit around and poke fun.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I see lundon I see phranse I see Howies pink girly underpants. Just playing around, I have no real anything to do right now other than to sit around and poke fun.

Poking fun is always good!
It sure beats speading negativity around the Forum!

Originally Posted by Xei

So the electromagnetic field is made of matter is it? You can explain diffraction of light by the laws of chemistry, can you? You can explain gravity via chemistry can you?

wow, are you saying you can't!?

Originally Posted by Howie

I have been in a lot of these threads and seen many of them over the coarse of DV.
I have found that the people with no faith are the ones who get aggravated and frustrated in these threads.
People with belief have that to back them up at the end of the day.
What does a non-believer have?
Maybe that ways on the conscience of the non-believer?

thats really bias and untrue. We have our beliefs which are just as important to us as the beliefs you hold. What do we have to look forward too? common man, you have to be asking for fist up you're ass asking this kind of question. You're just stirring up a fight by flaunting all these false assumptions.

wow, are you saying you can't!?

Yes! Jesus, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? Should've stayed in school, kid.

If there is no proof or basis for your idea, then why do you calim it as fact, without seeking to justify this when anyone else points out that your position is in direct violation of logic?

If there is some kind of creator, why does there only have to be one?

But more importantly, why does there have to be one(s) at all? That's what I want to know.

Placing something irreducibly complex(As he would have to be, as he was not created (And as a matter of fact, the only thing in the universe that is irreducibly complex is energy, which everyhting in the universe is comprised of)) as a deity at the beginning without proof of this deity (Who is also conscious, etc etc) is, quite frankly, retarded. Any attempt to defend a beleif in this is simply said person doublethinking themselves into a corner or being deliberately ignorant of logic and rational thinking.

So again, if you have no proof, then get out of my thread. I don't want all these pseudological doublethink-disguised-as-intelligent statements that are probably mostly pulled out of your asses to suit your idea for the moment clogging this thread up.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

If there is no proof or basis for your idea, then why do you calim it as fact, without seeking to justify this when anyone else points out that your position is in direct violation of logic?

I'm not claiming as objective facts. I'm talking about God, in the spiritual paradigm. If there is no proof it does not mean there is no basis. It seems you've ignored where I've already pointed this out.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

If there is some kind of creator, why does there only have to be one?

But more importantly, why does there have to be one(s) at all? That's what I want to know.

Existence is singular on its own, yes?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

So again, if you have no proof, then get out of my thread. I don't want all these pseudological doublethink-disguised-as-intelligent statements that are probably mostly pulled out of your asses to suit your idea for the moment clogging this thread up.

More bias?

"Well I don't want no opinionated bunny-hopping chimpanzee loving lollipop cyclist to ride into town and ruin my party either..."

^ There, an exaggerated bias for a sweet pink bike with impressive suspension and an aimless rider. (Really, it could be anything, couldn't it?)

Originally Posted by really

I'm not claiming as objective facts. I'm talking about God, in the spiritual paradigm. If there is no proof it does not mean there is no basis. It seems you've ignored where I've already pointed this out.

Then explain your basis. That's only what I've asked about five times.

Existence is singular on its own, yes?

This isn't relevant.

More bias?

No, this is a perfectly valid interpretation of this shit you've made up to make your post larger and you to seem more intelligent and to disguise your lack of a basis and proof for your idea.

"Well I don't want no opinionated bunny-hopping chimpanzee loving lollipop cyclist to ride into town and ruin my party either..."

^ There, an exaggerated bias for a sweet pink bike with impressive suspension and an aimless rider. (Really, it could be anything, couldn't it?)

This shouldn't even be dignified with a response.

life, is very long.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes! Jesus, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? Should've stayed in school, kid.

so you are basically name calling as you're defense instead of providing me you're proof. I don't really care to tell you why its all possible, but I'm not going to give you the paragraph long lecture...especially dealing with you people. I really don't happen to care, sorry.

Originally Posted by Howie

Poking fun is always good!
It sure beats speading negativity around the Forum!

Howie, a site that has nothing to do with youtube, that I frequent often, turned into this while it was loading. Is this your doing Howie? =P It is called "Howie Do It!"

Originally Posted by dylanshmai

thats really bias and untrue. We have our beliefs which are just as important to us as the beliefs you hold. What do we have to look forward too? common man, you have to be asking for fist up you're ass asking this kind of question. You're just stirring up a fight by flaunting all these false assumptions.

ha ha
I'm an agnostic.
It just is an observation.
How many of these threads have you been involved in?

Maybe even your defensiveness proves this may be true.

Originally Posted by Howie

ha ha
I'm an agnostic.
It just is an observation.
How many of these threads have you been involved in?

Maybe even your defensiveness proves this may be true.

Too be fair Howie, the main reason that non-religious people get angry when religious people talk is because usually they say things that can't be supported, and then try to claim that we are doing the same thing. We don't believe, so apparently to them this means that we believe that there isn't. It is possible to not accept a claim, without accepting the falseness of the claim. The problem is, the religious person, seems to think that the only kind of god that could exist is their version of a god, so when they meet a person who says I believe that the version of god you are touting to be real actually is completely nonexistent, they think that we mean all gods are definitely, 100% proven, nonexistent. I do say that it is more logical to say I make no claim, rather than I make a claim, about a thing that is improvable. And then there are people like Really who I'm almost positive has to be a troll since he usually says things that aren't coherent or relevant. Things not familiar to you don't equate to things intelligent or philosophically deep, though Really seems to think this is how it works.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Too be fair Howie, the main reason that non-religious people get angry when religious people talk is because usually they say things that can't be supported, and then try to claim that we are doing the same thing. We don't believe, so apparently to them this means that we believe that there isn't. It is possible to not accept a claim, without accepting the falseness of the claim. The problem is, the religious person, seems to think that the only kind of god that could exist is their version of a god, so when they meet a person who says I believe that the version of god you are touting to be real actually is completely nonexistent, they think that we mean all gods are definitely, 100% proven, nonexistent. I do say that it is more logical to say I make no claim, rather than I make a claim, about a thing that is improvable. And then there are people like Really who I'm almost positive has to be a troll since he usually says things that aren't coherent or relevant. Things not familiar to you don't equate to things intelligent or philosophically deep, though Really seems to think this is how it works.

Yaaa I think that is easily understandable. Because faith is based on having no evidence, the non religious advocate often would claim the other to be stupid or ignorant because trough a quantifiable reason in their eyes they have the correct answer usually through a scientific mean. It goes both ways. I was just pointing out that it is the non-religious perception that usually gets lost in anger and frustration.

Religious people have a set of beliefs or a doctrine that is what they believe, usually take it or leave it.
The non believer takes his/hers set of scientific principles and does the same.
I just don't often see the aggravation.
Do you?

"A terrible crime is being committed against humanity, a crime of oppression and subjugation far beyond Orwell’s 1984. We are the victims of this crime, but we are also its perpetrators. Our motive is fear, our sin is ignorance, and the chain in which we enslave ourselves is belief." -Jed McKenna

Originally Posted by Howie

Yaaa I think that is easily understandable. Because faith is based on having no evidence, the non religious advocate often would claim the other to be stupid or ignorant because trough a quantifiable reason in their eyes they have the correct answer usually through a scientific mean. It goes both ways. I was just pointing out that it is the non-religious perception that usually gets lost in anger and frustration.

Religious people have a set of beliefs or a doctrine that is what they believe, usually take it or leave it.
The non believer takes his/hers set of scientific principles and does the same.
I just don't often see the aggravation.
Do you?

Well, let me put it to you this way. When I took debate, my teacher told me, after I asked a question that brought it up, the thing that aggravates a debater the most is having to debate against a person who doesn't understand the concept of a debate. The first thing you need in a debate is critical thinking skills. I think almost all people have these skills, however, religious people, when speaking about their religion, abandon these skills when dealing with the topic of their religion. The aggravation comes from someone not understanding the nature of how to argue a valid point. If you can't argue with someone, not because you do not have valid points, but because they don't understand how to make real counter arguments, you wind up repeating yourself, and that leads to frustration.

so you are basically name calling as you're defense instead of providing me you're proof. I don't really care to tell you why its all possible, but I'm not going to give you the paragraph long lecture...especially dealing with you people. I really don't happen to care, sorry.

Special relativity isn't a chemical theory. It's not an argument, it's a solid fact.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Then explain your basis. That's only what I've asked about five times.

Let's start here: Spirituality is essentially subjectivity. What is the core of subjectivity and how is it universal to all conscious beings? The same question can be asked in this form: What is the core of the knowing of life and experience and how is it universal to all conscious beings? I'm asking you; you tell me first.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

This isn't relevant.

You asked questions about the oneness of creation/creator. Why is it irrelevant? Universally, the creator is the source of creation! How simple! Existence unites "creation" and "creator" as one and the same; non-dualistic. The earlier point is that physical existence arises out of potential existence.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

No, this is a perfectly valid interpretation of this shit you've made up to make your post larger and you to seem more intelligent and to disguise your lack of a basis and proof for your idea.

If it is "perfectly valid", explain your basis. (Don't bother ).

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

This shouldn't even be dignified with a response.

Do I need to exaggerate further? You're lost in your stereotypes.

Originally Posted by Howie

ha ha
I'm an agnostic.
It just is an observation.
How many of these threads have you been involved in?

Maybe even your defensiveness proves this may be true.

or maybe you are just acting like the stereotypical a$$ hole?

just an observation.

Does it matter how many of these threads I have been involved in? no one seems to listen here anyways.

Originally Posted by Xei

Special relativity isn't a chemical theory. It's not an argument, it's a solid fact.

exactly. and Chemistry isn't about theory when it comes down to the world we are living in right now, it has been known to humans much more clearly than relativity and for sometime.

I call it "fact", so would relativity.

Originally Posted by dylanshmai

or maybe you are just acting like the stereotypical a$$ hole?

just an observation.

Does it matter how many of these threads I have been involved in? no one seems to listen here anyways.

Had you been more observational to begin with you would have realized I'm not religious. So you of all people should not point fingers on who is listening.

I find that many of these discussion people do listen. When that happens good debate usually is a result. In that respect having been in many of these threads HAS proven to be useful in making that parallel that I have.
From your obtuse perspective, you conclude that I'm being stereotypical.

Do you disagree with what I have even stated? Had you thought that I was an atheist from the start, you may have drawn a completely different conclusion.

exactly. and Chemistry isn't about theory when it comes down to the world we are living in right now, it has been known to humans much more clearly than relativity and for sometime.

I call it "fact", so would relativity.

You don't seem to be making any sense.

You were saying, as I understand it, that the laws of chemistry describe everything, and as they do not describe God, God cannot be anything, ie. God is not real. But I was pointing out that the laws of chemistry do not describe everything, not even everything well in the realm of science, and hence the argument is wrong.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes! Jesus, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? Should've stayed in school, kid.

You said Jesus!

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Your claim: "There is a deity that exists that is of my personal description"

My claim: "No, there isn't"

Since my claim cannot come before your claim, Atheism is a binary position and you are the one with the burden of actually proving your claim.

So, do so. Prove that there is(are) some kind of deity(ies). If you can't, then what point have you to believe this? I might as well sit around and claim that the earth is flat and that the Sun orbits earth, not vise-versa, and that any kind of evidence to the contrary is simply made up and not true.

Explain yourselves.

I don't feel the need to have to prove my beliefs to anyone. I believe because I choose to do so, because I have faith, because of the curious way that life unfolds itself to me, and partly because of the way that I was raised. I don't believe in any specific God, I don't follow any specific religion. Faith is something that cannot be proved. However, your points of claiming that the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth however, are disproven by science. Science has not disproven God. There would be no reason to say that any kind of evidence contrary is simply made up, as I would not say that about any science unless it is debatable science that has still not been proven. Furthermore, before you question it, my way of seeing faith is that it's similar to a scientists hypothesis. Experiences in life lead one to believe one way or another, and you form a hypothesis on it. The only difference is that with science, you can actually attempt to confirm or deny your hypothesis. With faith, you just have to wait and see if it's right.

I don't see a point in not believing, I don't use it as a crutch for anything besides the fact that it helps me cope with loved ones deaths and whatnot while I'm still alive. It acts as a comfort, that helps me to live a better life. Why not believe in something that makes life easier for me, why not try to live a better life? It doesn't inhibit my life in any way either, as I don't believe in any strict set of moral codes given to me by any religion, I follow my own set of morals.

By the way, I didn't read the rest of the thread, I don't have time right now to....

wow, are you saying you can't!?

Kindly explain Newtons laws of motion using a subject that is based on the interactions of 1 particle: the electron.

I mean if you think Chemistry explains gravity ... how ignorant are you? Gravity isn't even a factor considered in chemical systems, let alone a property that emerges from them.