1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!

The Elevation of Religious Ideas

Discussion in 'Congregation of the Masses' started by lati0s, Dec 24, 2010.

  1. Eraddd

    Eraddd One Pixel
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,340
    As a Christian, I lol'd so hard. You have got to be joking me. You CANNOT logically prove the existence of God, and the evidence at best is inconclusive (the evidence including the miracles on peoples' lives, the bible (a book that is KNOWN for its inaccuracies in parts due to the amount of translations and mistranslations that have gone into this book). The bible is a history book yes; however, to take everything by exactly its word is stupid and leads to all this extremist stuff that many Conservative Christians are quite famous for. The only way we know God is through faith; I believe you quoted the correct Hebrew verse, so you should be familiar with this concept. There is no logical or materialistic way of proving God.

    You believe that science is compatible with Christianity. Then goddamn it, start putting in those beliefs, instead of spouting out archaic bullshit and nonsense that Christians with some bit of sense would be shaking their heads at.
  2. sonickid01

    sonickid01

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    He barks!

    Big talk, sir. Eraddd beat me to it but you value faith so highly yet insist on giving nonsensical allusions to proof. I won't ask you to display your proof in this thread because it's already way off topic but if you're quite certain in your arguments then post a new thread and challenge the lot of us to disprove it, or at least PM someone who feels particularly contentious (I'm far too lazy for back-and-forth PMs).

    It's always easy to argue with bold, groundbreaking assertions while excluding any kind of reference to evidence. Empty claims!

    You appeal to immutable laws of logic. I can contradict this and you'd change positions; this is because you begin with your conclusions set already. This type of argumentation is unfalsifiable, because the beautiful things in nature prove your deity and the dirty things in nature prove your deity and no matter what the situation is you may attach your deity on the end and say "it's because of my personal god!" There is no way to distinguish between a world with a god and one without, no control so to speak, and no predictions to prove it since contrary evidence is waved off as "he just did it that way cause my god wants to."
    To see if he paid attention to understand why I'm saying this:
    No, I cannot possibly disprove your claims of a god, it is simply impossible in practice.

    Edit: adding to the below post- "...as far as we know and can determine in a practical manner given the equipment and experiment we have and acknowledging that we cannot have 100% certainty, although perhaps very close."
  3. Morm

    Morm

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,239
    Hence the adage: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
  4. CaptKirby

    CaptKirby

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    7,135
    J-man, I hope god does not strike me dead, though cursed, before I finish this post while listening to metal that may or may not possibly be praising his dastardly foe (or zany inbred cousin???) Satan (who can understand that zany music!!!). Anyway, it is literally impossible for a god to be responsible for our world continuing to move, that would be gravity. A god could be responsible for our world ceasing to end, on the other hand. The only way that god could possibly be responsible is if CRAZY DEMONS were constantly trying to stop the Earth from turning, with god and/or noble angels constantly making it move or fending off the crazy demons! Also you have absolutely no proof that any rulers are being deposed by god, since they are in fact deposed by other people! Phew glad god kept beating my heart during this post, I thought I might make him angry enough to stop tickling my ticker.
  5. J-man

    J-man

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    795
    You act as if this is a bad thing.

    And the website has a minor problem. It basically says if you take away god there is no right or wrong, so we should believe in god. But that doesn't mean a god exists. It's just wishful thinking. Sure it would be nice if a god existed but that doesn't make it true...[/Quote]

    Those are your words (the bolded ones), not the website. What the website merely states is that The Atheist world view can not account for right and wrong. Christianity, and only Christianity makes sense of right and wrong because it is a reflection of the Righteous nature of the Creator God and his expectations of Humanity. To clear it up, right and wrong is evidence of God because it is the most logical and rational explanation of this phenomenon.

    Be more specific. This is very vague, but i have an idea of what you might be onto and i might already know that you are false.


    Ignorance. This post is pure, arbitrary, ignorance. Without a single knowledge of any of the arguments i would be willing to give you in another thread.



    Fixed for accuracy



    Most of those links (i added one on "lack of belief" because it taught me what lack of belief was and how it is irrational to say one lacks a belief) provide arguments for the evidence of God. Unfortunately, instead of logically destructing my argument, you again arbitrarily say "NO, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU CAN'T PROVE HIS EXISTENCE!!!! EVEN IF YOU TRY AND PROVE IT YOU'LL ALWAYS BE WRONG"


    Please expand instead of arbitrarily saying it.
    Please expand



    the problem here is that you end up running into situational ethics. All you can offer is subjective, ever changing morality. That hasn't accounted for why it's nearly unanimous that murder arrouses fealings of "that's wrong!"



    I'm having a hard time deciphering what you are trying to say... I'll try this again and if i get the same response, than something i'm saying is wrong...

    Those kids are not being held to any standard. They do whatever they want because that's what they want to do. Now, in Christianity, there is a Law (not a code) God uses to govern humanity that says "you can't do whatever you want because that is wrong". Obviously, no human being can keep this perfect law and the law ends up condemning us to hell. Thanks be to God however, that Christ kept this law perfect and offered himself as a sacrifice on the cross for us! Now i am dead to sin, and alive in Christ. It is only in my gratitude that i try and be Christ like, which requires i respect my elders. I am now attempting to keep the law to the best of my ability, because i am dead to sin and can not be called a child of God if i live a life in willing sin. I EXPECTED to act this way. Atheism can not have these expectations, as it falls on the individual human to behave and choose his own actions, what he selfishly desires.

    In regards to your edit, i could just repeat all the words of the link, but i'm just lazy. There really is no point in saying one thing if a website explains what you are going to say more than likely better.
    Anyways, as DK has pointed out, there are maniacs, or power control freaks that will work in the name of religion. The Catholic church of the middle ages that spread word by the sword (although i vaguely remember in my readings that there might not have been rationally sound ethical challenges to this...) was not the true Christian Church....

    I can not tell if you are a christian, but this post makes it very difficult to believe you are and makes you look like a complete fool. The first two sentences are uneccesary and are a futile attempt to be aggressive and make me feel like that is futile to argue what i am arguing... Anyways- i have just given logical arguments for the existence of God. You can't say "it's impossible." You are ignoring my point instead of tearing into it. You give no specific event of how the Bible fell from accuracy. You give no example of how the Bible, read word for word in whole for its context leads to extremism. Insteady you unreasonably just say it does.
    How do i put in a belief? How do you know that it's we don't have sense and aren't shaking our heads at you?

    This is as much as i can post now.
  6. popemobile

    popemobile

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    J Man I honestly cannot believe that after having been banned for so long, you are literally doing the exact same thing that got you banned in the first place

    it's baffling
  7. sonickid01

    sonickid01

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    Oh my flying spaghetti monster, this post is a riot.
    (To be sure, I'm not simply trolling if anyone feels I may be, and I'm trying to argue in a very calm manner. However I can't not react to this)

    I simply couldn't resist. If he gets around to addressing my points in my last post, I'll post a less tongue-in-cheek response, but I'm posting this because the things the Duke of Irony said are very close to what was running through my mind reading this post the first time.

    EDIT: To latch onto my point in my last post about falsifiability, if your story about Jesus' resurrection CANNOT POSSIBLY be disproven under ANY REASONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES within the scope where what we can test is relevant then it cannot possibly be proven either. That is a textbook example of an unfalsifiable claim. Any such assertion made on similar grounds is highly dubious from the start and should be immediately subjected to further scrutiny. In other words, if you make an unfalsifiable claim then that should be a huge tip-off from the beginning that something is very wrong about this claim.

    If I have a misunderstanding of falsifiability, then someone please inform and correct me. :P
  8. Eggbert

    Eggbert

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,076
    Basically your argument: "yea i'll go along with science as long as it doesn't prove us wrong. if it does, it doesn't matter if it could be correct or not it is false by default because then we would be wrong."

    Very logical right? j-man: master troll. he has this all planned.
  9. Luduan

    Luduan

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2008
    Messages:
    420
    Hey J-man, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret that might just blow your fucking mind: you don't actually believe in an objective theory of morality.

    Edit: also mindlessly quoting an apologetics website without bothering to understand, well, anything at all is not a very convincing debate tactic.
  10. cim

    cim happiness is such hard work
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,412
    Do any of you actually think you're going to convince Jman of anything, or that the discussion will be worthwhile despite disagreement?
  11. sonickid01

    sonickid01

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    No, but mental masturbation is both amusing and psychologically relaxing for some reason. I live in an area where nonreligion is heavily, heavily frowned upon and where I am looked at as "different" in school and am a sort of closet atheist at home. Although it has very little effect on anything, it is quite nice to be able to come here and express myself in this freedom here on cong.

    In addition this is, although way too off topic from the OP to be considered anything remotely relevant, a chance to test my own argumentation on these subjects and see how they hold up to others' scrutiny, and from this I can better adapt, fix my arguments, read and evaluate others, have them evaluate mine and be somewhat prepared if confronted on the same subjects IRL.
  12. CaptKirby

    CaptKirby

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    7,135
    Yes, I believe I convinced him that god does not make the world turn because it would be impossible. Unless god is Atlas, but instead of propping up the world he props it up and moves a little every second!
  13. Morm

    Morm

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,239
    I always preferred the saying "Oh Your God" by Bender in Futurama, as a flying spaghetti monster is a mock deity and I prefer to was my hands of that bullshit all together. Just throwing that out there for you.
  14. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,323
    Ok, Jman, I mean, you probably wont just trust me, but I dont think you really understand the carm argument either.

    The point being, that if you want to be a christian, then be a christian. But defend it according to what christianity means to you, not some hokum philosophy you found on the internet.

    But to make the argument regardless.. Try thinking of it this way:

    Ok, lets accept that the transcendental laws are in fact about the state of the universe and not about language.

    Ok, now think of a different set of rules, that relate only to language. The function of these laws is to describe what is a legitimate sentence and what sentences are self contradictory and therefore contain no information, as well as things like what sentences are equivalent.

    For instance a phrase like "a cloud that is not a cloud" is not valid. It is self contradictory and therefore it contains no information. When you hear this sentence you learn nothing about the nature of this cloud that isnt a cloud. Is it a body of vapourous water or not? We are no wiser..

    The point here being that the function of language is to convey information. In the case of the cloud that is not a cloud, neither you or I have any understanding of what it means, hence there is no information conveyed, hence it is not language.

    The transcendental laws are in fact all included in these language laws.

    Now, consider a Godless universe where the transcendental laws do not apply. In this universe something can be a cloud that is not a cloud. Except that the sentence I just used is not a legitimate sentence according to the laws of language I just described. I havent described anything. It's not that this is an example of a universe that cannot exist because of the necessity of God, it's not even that this isnt an example of a universe, it's that this isnt actually even an example. What it is is jibberish.

    The transcendental laws are transcendental because they are the laws of language and language is how we are communicating. They exist in a universe that is just a rock because I am describing that universe using language. They exist in the absence of people because I am describing the absence of people using language.

    Have a nice day.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)