Hell yes, judge the living shit out of the irresponsible bastard. Hold him accountable for all of the pain and suffering he has caused then pistol whip him until he dies a horrible bloody death. Only when we dismiss this miserable being can we truly move forward as a species.
Should Christians judge God?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Greatest I am
Active Member
I agree that religion has held us back quite a bit and continue to do so today. Regards DL
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
Would you like a Fisherman's Friend?
Has man touched the universe? Where were you born, in the grand scheme of things? Within a universe.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Here we go with more boring, obvious shit . . .
Same goes for Jesus. If he is God, nothing he does is supernatural - it's completely natural given his alleged status as creator and controller of the universe and everything in it.
But if we're talking about simple parlour tricks Jesus allegedly conducted whilst in his "human" form - "magic", which is exactly what tyler was talking about - then to argue that's the only reason Christians believe in Christ is absurd.
You really do have trouble paying attention to detail, don't you? This is what tyler said, and what I was responding to:
The knowledge of Samsara is not unique to Buddha, and it is not the sole reason Buddhist believe in or practice his teachings.
Why don't you learn about these things before you comment?
As already mentioned, supernatural simply refers to something that appears to be beyond the bounds of "natural science" - meaning the definition is limited to our human understanding of natural science. If our understanding is not advanced - like the ancients believing static electricity is witchcraft or some other outdated idea - then obviously anything in conflict with that understanding is going to be seen as "supernatural".
In that context, travelling beyond the speed of light would appear to us to be "supernatural" - but it may be perfectly possibly for a more advanced species to do just this.
But then, if your mind is incapable of understanding these concepts, then I guess it doesn't really matter how it's explained to you - you'll never get it.
Well done! You worked that one out by yourself? How does that contradict what I said? What's your point again?
The term "supernatural" implies something is "beyond" natural or the laws of nature. If God created nature, then nothing he does is "supernatural", is it?Beefbisquit said:
Same goes for Jesus. If he is God, nothing he does is supernatural - it's completely natural given his alleged status as creator and controller of the universe and everything in it.
But if we're talking about simple parlour tricks Jesus allegedly conducted whilst in his "human" form - "magic", which is exactly what tyler was talking about - then to argue that's the only reason Christians believe in Christ is absurd.
You really do have trouble paying attention to detail, don't you? This is what tyler said, and what I was responding to:
tyler.dyrden said:
Again, what's the point of stating obvious shit?Beefbisquit said:
No, but you obviously have no idea what you've just posted: anyone, anyone - Buddha, Buddhist or not - can achieve these things through meditation. The knowledge of Samsara was discovered long before Buddha came along - he didn't invent them, and nor did he possess them until he attainted enlightenment.Beefbisquit said:
The knowledge of Samsara is not unique to Buddha, and it is not the sole reason Buddhist believe in or practice his teachings.
Why don't you learn about these things before you comment?
What is "supernatural"? Are you trying to change definitions again?Beefbisquit said:
As already mentioned, supernatural simply refers to something that appears to be beyond the bounds of "natural science" - meaning the definition is limited to our human understanding of natural science. If our understanding is not advanced - like the ancients believing static electricity is witchcraft or some other outdated idea - then obviously anything in conflict with that understanding is going to be seen as "supernatural".
In that context, travelling beyond the speed of light would appear to us to be "supernatural" - but it may be perfectly possibly for a more advanced species to do just this.
But then, if your mind is incapable of understanding these concepts, then I guess it doesn't really matter how it's explained to you - you'll never get it.
Where are my assumptions? There's a difference between an assumption and a provision. Not that you would appear to know . . .Beefbisquit said:
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid that's a bit too deep for some of these people here, eye.Would you like a Fisherman's Friend?
Has man touched the universe? Where were you born, in the grand scheme of things? Within a universe.
In their "eyes", if man doesn't see something, it isn't there. If man doesn't understand something, it can't happen. And if man can't think of something, it will never exist.
Such are the self-imposed limits of the human condition. The above people make no allowances for anything outside this basic understanding.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How do you derive value from something untestable? In other words, if I can't test to see if something is true or false, where does the authority of said thing come from to believe/accept it? Why not just believe whatever I want to believe, simply because I want to believe it?
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Where does your authority to disbelieve it come from?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't believe anything until there is valid reason to, the authority comes from the default position of disbelief. It is reasonable not to believe something unless there is valid reason to, not the opposite, which would be to believe everything until you find a reason not to. If you did that, you would believe in things like unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc.. I'm assuming, and hoping, you understand why this position is inconsistent with reality, ... unless you believe in fairies..
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
You have neither demonstrated if it is true or false, yet you choose to believe something is false until it has been proven, rather than allowing for the possibility of something being true until disproven.
Why is one position more "logical" than the other? Because you say so?
Who, exactly, are you?Science believed in the possibility of atoms long before they could be observed or proven to exist. They couldn't test their theories then, either, but later could, as man evolved.
There's no proof of life outside our solar system yet. So you're sure it doesn't exist - right? But of course, it won't exist until someone proves it to you. So even if it does exist (and there's a good chance it does), because in your mind it doesn't, then that's the final word, right?
How dumb is that? Simply to reject something because you haven't seen it . . .
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
You just don't get it. It's ok, not everyone can understand logic.
It's not because 'you say so', it's because if you care about holding the most true beliefs and rejecting the most false beliefs you don't hold beliefs until there is a REASON to do so. Not because something in the future might happen to prove it. It's absurd, and so are you for suggesting it.Why is one position more "logical" than the other? Because you say so?
Again, see my signature....
No one is saying 'reject all possibilities of something until it's proven', we're saying 'do not hold belief in something that isn't justified'.
What in the fuck are you babbling about? Aliens almost certainly exist, but the likelihood of them finding, and visiting earth is still astronomical given the vastness of the universe.
No one is claiming something doesn't exist because they haven't seen it. Several people have claimed to either not hold a belief in something, or declining to judge based on the current available evidence.
You've got to be the most gullible sap ever conceived. Did you believe in Santa Clause into your 20's and 30's?
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Anyone who believes in anything has a REASON for that belief. Whether that belief is true or not by someone else's definition - yours, for example - does not stop them believing it for their own reasons.
Have you talked any theists out of their beliefs lately? Probably not. So you're opinion - which is all it is - isn't really that important.
However, let's entertain your simplistic notion for a minute that others can omnipotently decide what is "justified" or "not". So who actually gets to decide? In your case, that would be YOU. So it has everything to do with "you say so". You can't argue otherwise.
Example 1:
I say you're a fucking idiot. Your circle-jerk friends disagree. I go to another site and recruit some of my circle-jerk friends to agree with me. Opinion is divided. We still haven't established if you're a fucking idiot or not, because it's a matter of opinion. But even if the majority disagereed, it doesn't mean they're right. History is full of examples where majority opinion didn't get things right.
The point is, I still believe you're a fucking idiot and no amount of opinion is going to change my BELIEF. I see all the proof I need. I have all the reason I need.
Example 2:
Can you prove there's no God? Yes/No
Can others prove there is? Yes/No
Is there evidence of God? Yes/No
Will everyone who answers the above questions answer in the affirmative? No
Will everyone who answers the above questions answer in the negative? No
Is there a universal definition of the concept of "God"? No
The ONLY positive conclusions from the above are that non-one can agree on what "God" is, and no-one can agree on what the evidence - or lack of evidence - is to conclusively prove "God's" existence one way or the other.
You really do have trouble following arguments outside your conditioned thought processes, don't you?
See the above.Beefbisquit said:
Exactly who are YOU to decide if something is "justified" or "not"?
That's right - who are YOU to decide?
Again, not that hard to follow . . .
If you were even half as smart as you think you are, you would understand that the bigger the universe the MORE chance there is of an advanced race having evolved that could locate and reach us.Beefbisquit said:
Maybe 14 billion years isn't enough - maybe it's plenty. Maybe time speeds up in slower-moving parts of the universe where there is more time for intelligent life to evolve faster (relative to our own evolution).
You obviously don't know any of these things. But it's still the law of probabilities. Infinite time/space = infinite possibilities.
Did you just say you believe in aliens?Beefbisquit said:
Lack of proof seems to suit you when it needs to, eh?
We never called him "Santa Claus". But I did believe in him. Just like I'm certain you, did, too. (If you didn't experience that side of Christmas, then personally I feel a bit sorry for you.)
Again, you've simply proved another of my points: "facts" and "truth" change with time and circumstance - but all are relative to the beholder.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. There is a difference between thinking something is true, and convincing yourself it is certainly true.
I agree, taking into consideration the vastness of the universe, the amount of galaxies that we can observe and what we know about how life could have possibly started on this planet, and a lot about how life on this planet evolved, i think it reasonable to think that if it happened here on this planet, chances are it could happen on another. Not saying it has mind you! Because i do not know.
Just that taking all the information that we know about the evolution of the universe and the life on this planet into consideration, it's easier to support the idea that life does exist outside of our solar system... rather than the idea that we are alone in the universe.
At least we have tangible objective evidence we can observe and test to support a belief in the existence of other life in the universe.
It seems the only thing anyone can ever give to support the existence or non existence of gods are hearsay, subjective experience and the inability to explain or understand natural occurrences.
I agree, taking into consideration the vastness of the universe, the amount of galaxies that we can observe and what we know about how life could have possibly started on this planet, and a lot about how life on this planet evolved, i think it reasonable to think that if it happened here on this planet, chances are it could happen on another. Not saying it has mind you! Because i do not know.
Just that taking all the information that we know about the evolution of the universe and the life on this planet into consideration, it's easier to support the idea that life does exist outside of our solar system... rather than the idea that we are alone in the universe.
At least we have tangible objective evidence we can observe and test to support a belief in the existence of other life in the universe.
It seems the only thing anyone can ever give to support the existence or non existence of gods are hearsay, subjective experience and the inability to explain or understand natural occurrences.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your perspective (lol)
I do also feel that some of these guys try to entertain the depths, and I've made some good forum friends out of that. There is quite the exchange from time to time! The depths are, in one case, of mind. The other depth is in the heart. I think we're battling on this forum to blend the two within ourselves.
Or not, some folks do enjoy a good game
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Are you capable of answering my questions directly without resorting to asking more and more questions? Do you understand how dialogue works?You have neither demonstrated if it is true or false, yet you choose to believe something is false until it has been proven, rather than allowing for the possibility of something being true until disproven.
Why is one position more "logical" than the other? Because you say so?
Science believed in the possibility of atoms long before they could be observed or proven to exist. They couldn't test their theories then, either, but later could, as man evolved.
There's no proof of life outside our solar system yet. So you're sure it doesn't exist - right? But of course, it won't exist until someone proves it to you. So even if it does exist (and there's a good chance it does), because in your mind it doesn't, then that's the final word, right?
How dumb is that? Simply to reject something because you haven't seen it . . .
You're not understanding what I'm saying, maybe I'm saying it wrong, but the added arrogance of the tone of your posts won't gain you any friends, just a tip.
The rational position to hold is that of disbelief until some type of evidence comes along and supports said belief. You are arguing the opposite, you should just believe everything until something comes along that disproves it. Well, you clearly haven't thought that one through, because what do you do about the beliefs that can't be answered? Do you believe in every single God that has ever been created? If you're consistent you have to. You seem to think these two positions hold equal weight, when anyone with any basic understanding of logic or reason will tell you why disbelief is the rational position to hold. This is also why it's tough to take you seriously, you seem like me only 7 years ago, right when I started thinking a lot about this type of stuff. You seem to hold positions that are flawed from the foundation.
There is a ton of indirect evidence to support the idea that life exists outside the Earth, that isn't the same
Watch this, I feel like it applies a lot to you, especially the end;
[youtube]sdwOgc-lR_w[/youtube]
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Yes. But there are good and bad reasons for believing something. If you do a rain dance, and then tell me you believe it's going to rain; you don't actually have a good reason for believing it will rain. It may in fact rain, but you have no justification for believing it will based solely on the fact that you did a rain dance.
You seem to be doing metaphorical rain dances all over the place...
Correct. But someones could have poor reasons for believing something. If you claim to believe in god because "JUST LOOK OUTSIDE, THAT'S PROOF OF GOD", that's not a good reason. It's a non-sequitur, something you're familiar with.
I don't verify my conversations with people. Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. What is most important to me, is that people who are undecided about their beliefs can read this debate we're having and decide for themselves.
Omnipotence has nothing to do with it. Ever hear of Occam's razor? The simplest explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is usually correct.
There's tons of room for discussion as long as you're rational about it. You're not being rational.
Nice ad hominem attack that you barely disguised as an example you have there.
It doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the critic of the claim. Fact.
You're talking about an opinion, "what is an idiot"? If I took a large test specifically designed to challenge my faculties and abilities, and came out significantly less than average you could arguably call me an idiot. You would have evidence to base your opinion on, and therefore your opinion would be at least somewhat, substantiated. If you just think I'm an idiot based on nothing, e.g. you have no evidence other than your opinion, you are NOT justified in your belief.
You should just stop doing examples. They're terrible.
You just don't get it. You don't need evidence for non-belief, it's the default position for anyone who's rational.
I get your arguments. They just suck and don't follow any type of rational discourse. You play word games and make extraordinary claims without so much as a glimmer of evidence to support what you say.
It's pretty easy to verify things. Things in reality are testable. Things that are not in reality are not-testable.
It's not me deciding. There are rules to language that allow communication to flow between people. Likewise, there are rules to rational discourse you just ignore them and trod along spewing a bunch of made up bullshit.
The larger the universe is the more exponentially unlikely that aliens would ever reach us. The closest star is what 4 light years away? Even if there are species that can travel at the speed of light the liklihood they would locate us, is akin to locating a single atom in our entire solar system, if not even more difficult.
Low estimates say 200 billion planets in our galaxy, high estimates say as many as 10 trillion planets in our galaxy. All of them so far away from us the human mind can't even fathom it.
Just because there are infinite possibilities doesn't mean all possibilities are equally likely.
We don't have any proof that aliens exist, but given the vastness of space it's pretty silly to think we're the only life anywhere in existence. I also believe there are more elements in the periodic table, than the ones we've discovered, but I don't have any solid evidence to support it.Did you just say you believe in aliens?
Lack of proof seems to suit you when it needs to, eh?
I didn't say INTELLIGENT life either. I have no idea if intelligent life exists, but the chances of out entire universe being void of any other life besides us, is minute. This says nothing about the likelihood of us being visited by aliens, which given the scale of the universe is unlikely.
You proved that you are incapable of differentiating between belief in something and the reality of that something existing. Your belief in Santa as a child had NOTHING to do with the actual Santa Clause existing. Even if every single person on the planet started to believe in Santa, it wouldn't make him exist.
Your belief that Santa existed as a child wasn't a 'fact', and it certianly wasn't the 'truth'. You were in fact, lied to by your parents and they pulled a very elaborate scheme in order to fool you into belief. If you consider that 'truth' and facts', I feel sad for you.
Your perception of 'facts' and 'truth' does not affect the actual objective truth. Either Santa exists or he doesn't. Belief is irrelevant.
Nevaeh420
Well-Known Member
That's right, I'm just an average person, in many ways, claiming to be Christ.
But you're an Atheist, predisposed to your beliefs in no deities. I wouldn't call Myself a deity per se, but I would call Myself divine in My own way. But being divine is a matter of opinion and opinions are subjective so it doesn't matter much. But its My opinion and I am entitled to it none the less. As you guys know, no one else believes in Me and it doesn't matter to Me because I'm not trying to start a cult. I just like to express Myself and get some things off My chest, I enjoy blogging about the things I do because I believe they are true.
But I guarantee if every Christian in the world read what I have written, I would be the King of the world and that would be a fact. Whether I'm Christ or not would still be subjective though because as far as I know there is no certificate to become Christ.
If Jesus is your standard for what Christ should be like then you will never find Christ because Jesus is just fiction anyways. I on the other hand am not fiction, I'm a real person and I really am claiming to be Christ but if you can find a better "Christ" then Me, go follow him if you want. I can only do so much, I'm very limited in My abilities because I'm just one person and I can only be in one place at a time. I would advocate for anyone to compare Me to the other people that are claiming to be Christ. But where are the people claiming to be Christ? Can you find one that you can blog with and ask questions? I don't think so. The other people that are claiming to be Christ just want to start a cult and whatnot.
Compare Me to any other person claiming to be Christ. But it doesn't matter, your still going to be an Atheist regardless of the evidence for that kind of claim.
We can still just be friends. I don't need any followers just friends.
As Beef and Tyler know, I believe I have seen an alien in the summer of 2012. I also see UFOs almost every day, except when its cloudy out. I saw a bunch of UFOs last night, on Thanksgiving with other people too. So far I have had 7 other witnesses see the UFOs besides Myself and they also claimed they saw the lights moving in the sky too.
Personally, I believe aliens have visited and are visiting the earth right now. Its either aliens or military in the UFOs that I'm seeing.
For those that say Prawn Connery isn't making any friends, I disagree. I enjoy reading his or her comments.
But I would say most people believe in Christ because its what their parents believe and/or their friends and family. Most Christians are Christians by default, they don't read their Bibles or go to Church but there are millions that do read their Bibles and go to Church.
Don't let these guys get you down, they attack anyone that doesn't conform to their beliefs or non-beliefs. You keep doing what you're doing and don't let them bother you. Personally, I like you. You seem like an astute person, don't take what they say personally.
FilthyFletch!
I remember reading your grows like 5 years ago in 2008. Do you remember a blogger by the name of "We Tarded"? Or "We Love 1"?
I remember you made a aeroponics system and you put molasses in it and clogged up your misters, lol.
I was a commercial fisherman for 4 years. Are you a fisherman Eye?Would you like a Fisherman's Friend?
~PEACE~
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
Just a bad jokester
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's right...
I know that you're not into logic, George, one cannot have 'a belief in no deities'. I reject all claims of deities because there has been absolutely no empirical evidence of their existence. You probably don't believe in smurfs, or elves or werewolves because there hasn't been sufficient evidence for them, so you can understand where atheists are coming from...
What sense does that make? I'm sure christians have read your shit here, do any you know of believe it? If not, why would other christians believe it just because they read it. They're not idiots, you know...
That's your opinion, billions believe that he existed...
I don't follow anyone, my own consciousness guides me just fine...
I form my beliefs based on the evidence presented, if sufficient evidence is shown to me I will change my beliefs accordingly. I've been through this process a half dozen times in the last couple of years...
It's good that you two are friends, I enjoy some of her posts too
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Beeefbisquit said:
The rational - intelligent - position is to make an allowance for the possibility something may be provable, until such time as it is disproven (to the best of our knowledge at the time) - no matter the likelihood.Because it is still possible.
What is not rational - nor intelligent - is to dismiss that possibility outright. A truly rational person wouldn't be so closed-minded. Because closed-mindedness is . . . irrational. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss something if you have no proof, because nothing is yet proven, so it is not conclusive.
You're basing your conclusive opinion (and again it's just your opinion - you clearly don't decide what is rational or otherwise) on a likelihood, not a possibility.
It is likely when you spin a roulette wheel the number "0" won't come up - but it is still possible. Yet both of you would still try to rationalise the possibility of "0" never coming up because a) the likelihood is small and b) you have not witnessed it yet.
Does that mean it will never happen? There is still the likelihood it will never happen - even at odds of 36:1, you could spin a roulette wheel until the end of time and "0" may never come up. There are no guarantees - there are only possibilities.
The only people who have "default positions" are those with only two positions: yes/no; right/wrong; belief/non-belief.
I'm not one of them. But it must be comforting to live in such a simple world as yours, where you can be so sure about everything.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Logic's not your strong point, is it? The bigger the universe - the more stars, planets and/or life-supporting configurations there are - the more chance of an intelligent species evolving that could very well find us. It has nothing to do with pure distance and everything to do with technology to overcome that distance.
The greater the number of life-supporting configurations in our universe, the greater the chances of an intelligent species evolving that will learn to conquer distance.
So you've again limited your argument to just one facet of a debate (distance), therefore failing to take into consideration another possibility (the course of evolution). And you call that "rational"? I don't.