and so the forum turns.
Different thread titles, same arguments, same people, same irreconcilable positions.
what’s the point?
by the way, we can substitute liberal/conservative topics for religion and meet with the same results. this forum is an exercise in a bull meeting an immovable force.
well, isometric training as its place.
[quote]kamui wrote:
well, isometric training as its place. [/quote]
LOL if you like high blood pressure 
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
and so the forum turns.
Different thread titles, same arguments, same people, same irreconcilable positions.
what’s the point?
by the way, we can substitute liberal/conservative topics for religion and meet with the same results. this forum is an exercise in a bull meeting an immovable force. [/quote]
Exactly.
This place is basically just an energy sucker. Put another way, if you were to ask a theist if their beliefs were contingent on whatever topic you’re discussing most would say no.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Which makes more sense:
-that an all knowing, all powerful, and supremely loving, perfect being would bring into existance children which he knew before creating them, due to being all knowing, would not choose him with their free will and then would be pillaged, raped, destroyed, and burn in hell for eternity, or that a culture back in the day made a religion that justified their rape, pillage, and taking over of their neighbor’s lands?
-that an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being needs imperfect beings to serve him and sing his praises for eternity, or that a culture back in the day wasn’t sure what would happen when they died, and being welcomed into the presence of a perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity sounded good?
that people don’t know how to interpret the Bible, or that interpretation changes with the needs/beliefs of the culture you live in?
that religious stories are literally real or that they are a venue to pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities which have helped the culture survive?
that any imperfection can even indirectly result from a perfect being, or that the religion’s human creators had terrible logic skills?[/quote]
Oh brother, another know it all atheist.
Which makes more sense some thing from something or something from nothing? Because if you are atheist you must necessarily believe that something can come from nothing.
This has been discussed like a trillion times it always boils down to the above and nothing else. It always ends up with some atheistic tortured logic where square pegs fit into round holes because they cannot accept that logically something cannot come from nothing. Simply because nothing literally does not exist and what does not exist has no properties, particularly creative properties…
I may just sit back and watch people sodomize very basic simple logic…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
and so the forum turns.
Different thread titles, same arguments, same people, same irreconcilable positions.
what’s the point?
by the way, we can substitute liberal/conservative topics for religion and meet with the same results. this forum is an exercise in a bull meeting an immovable force. [/quote]
All forums are excises in futility if you really believe your going to change somebody’s mind. I have done my home work.
If you don’t really want the exercise, then why post just to say it’s a waste of time? I think it’s entertaining.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Groo- I completely agree that the supernatural can’t be disproven. I just like to present alternative thought patterns for those who don’t normally question the first possibility they’re presented with.[/quote]
You really honestly don’t think your breaking any new ground here? You think we theists are backwoods sister fucking, bible thumping nimrods devoid of education?
You haven’t done your homework, if you really want to discuss this or you will lose hard.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Which makes more sense:
-that an all knowing, all powerful, and supremely loving, perfect being would bring into existance children which he knew before creating them, due to being all knowing, would not choose him with their free will and then would be pillaged, raped, destroyed, and burn in hell for eternity, or that a culture back in the day made a religion that justified their rape, pillage, and taking over of their neighbor’s lands?
-that an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being needs imperfect beings to serve him and sing his praises for eternity, or that a culture back in the day wasn’t sure what would happen when they died, and being welcomed into the presence of a perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity sounded good?
that people don’t know how to interpret the Bible, or that interpretation changes with the needs/beliefs of the culture you live in?
that religious stories are literally real or that they are a venue to pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities which have helped the culture survive?
that any imperfection can even indirectly result from a perfect being, or that the religion’s human creators had terrible logic skills?[/quote]
Oh brother, another know it all atheist.
Which makes more sense some thing from something or something from nothing? Because if you are atheist you must necessarily believe that something can come from nothing.
This has been discussed like a trillion times it always boils down to the above and nothing else. It always ends up with some atheistic tortured logic where square pegs fit into round holes because they cannot accept that logically something cannot come from nothing. Simply because nothing literally does not exist and what does not exist has no properties, particularly creative properties…
I may just sit back and watch people sodomize very basic simple logic… [/quote]
I like this response because it clearly shows an error of logic. You are assuming that because I have determined that my second answer to all of the first posts questions are the more logical ones, that I’m an athiest, that I think I know everything! And more specifically that I’m making an error in logic by claiming to know something that I don’t (for instance, whether or not God exists or how the universe came into being).
Carefully re-read my first post. You’ll see that no where do I say that I know God doesn’t exist or how the universe was created. Neither do you. At this time, both of those are impossible to know. All I’m referring to is the chances of how a religion developed, an occurance which we do know for sure has happened numerous times and have good information as to how and why it happens.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
and so the forum turns.
Different thread titles, same arguments, same people, same irreconcilable positions.
what’s the point?
by the way, we can substitute liberal/conservative topics for religion and meet with the same results. this forum is an exercise in a bull meeting an immovable force. [/quote]
All forums are excises in futility if you really believe your going to change somebody’s mind. I have done my home work.
If you don’t really want the exercise, then why post just to say it’s a waste of time? I think it’s entertaining. [/quote]
No.
I am open to having my mind changed as long as they’re accompanied with sound arguments.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Groo- I completely agree that the supernatural can’t be disproven. I just like to present alternative thought patterns for those who don’t normally question the first possibility they’re presented with.[/quote]
You really honestly don’t think your breaking any new ground here? You think we theists are backwoods sister fucking, bible thumping nimrods devoid of education?
You haven’t done your homework, if you really want to discuss this or you will lose hard.[/quote]
This sounds like a taunt, although that last sentence barely makes sense. I’d be happy to discuss the issues in the first post, but you haven’t responded to one of them.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Which makes more sense:
-that an all knowing, all powerful, and supremely loving, perfect being would bring into existance children which he knew before creating them, due to being all knowing, would not choose him with their free will and then would be pillaged, raped, destroyed, and burn in hell for eternity, or that a culture back in the day made a religion that justified their rape, pillage, and taking over of their neighbor’s lands?
-that an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being needs imperfect beings to serve him and sing his praises for eternity, or that a culture back in the day wasn’t sure what would happen when they died, and being welcomed into the presence of a perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity sounded good?
that people don’t know how to interpret the Bible, or that interpretation changes with the needs/beliefs of the culture you live in?
that religious stories are literally real or that they are a venue to pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities which have helped the culture survive?
that any imperfection can even indirectly result from a perfect being, or that the religion’s human creators had terrible logic skills?[/quote]
Oh brother, another know it all atheist.
Which makes more sense some thing from something or something from nothing? Because if you are atheist you must necessarily believe that something can come from nothing.
This has been discussed like a trillion times it always boils down to the above and nothing else. It always ends up with some atheistic tortured logic where square pegs fit into round holes because they cannot accept that logically something cannot come from nothing. Simply because nothing literally does not exist and what does not exist has no properties, particularly creative properties…
I may just sit back and watch people sodomize very basic simple logic… [/quote]
I like this response because it clearly shows an error of logic. You are assuming that because I have determined that my second answer to all of the first posts questions are the more logical ones, that I’m an athiest, that I think I know everything! And more specifically that I’m making an error in logic by claiming to know something that I don’t (for instance, whether or not God exists or how the universe came into being).
Carefully re-read my first post. You’ll see that no where do I say that I know God doesn’t exist or how the universe was created. Neither do you. At this time, both of those are impossible to know. All I’m referring to is the chances of how a religion developed, an occurance which we do know for sure has happened numerous times and have good information as to how and why it happens.[/quote]
You are not an atheist? You believe God exists but religion is flawed? Or do you not believe in God. ‘I don’t know’ is a cop out, take a stand.
Man has always had an intrinsic knowledge that what exists isn’t defined by itself as that is circular.
I never said you have to know everything, I said to be an atheist, you must necessarily believe in something from nothing.
Saying “I don’t know” is telling the TRUTH. Saying you know something you don’t is a cop out.
You are not “taking a stand” by saying whether or not you believe in something you can’t know for sure; you are LYING to yourself.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Saying “I don’t know” is telling the TRUTH. Saying you know something you don’t is a cop out.
You are not “taking a stand” by saying whether or not you believe in something you can’t know for sure; you are LYING to yourself.[/quote]
Well since you are mocking the Bible and religion, can I assume you are erroring on the side of atheism? Just trying to get my bearings.
If you want to get specific you can’t know shit for sure. You couldn’t even make a rational argument that proves you even exist. If you don’t make a decision on anything you can’t know for sure you ain’t gonna do shit. I assume you train because you think it will make you bigger ans stronger, but you cannot prove it. You can merely infer it based on the information and feedback you have. Like I said, you cannot even prove you exist, much less that anything you do to yourself will change you. That’s if you want to get to the nitty gritty.
Pat- That’s a cop out. You can know some things with more certainty than others.
For example: I can video tape myself failing on a lift one week and getting it the next week, then succeeding at a weight 20lbs higher a month later. This is evidence for myself and those around me that I have gotten stronger according to the shared definition of strong. If you were to take me apart and compare my physiology from the first week to the last week, you could observe changes, and everyone looking over your shoulder could see them to. According to as much as we can know, we know that I have gotten stronger
Also, when two oppose charges are brought near, we can see that they attract. Anyone bringing opposite charges together will experience “attraction” in sight, feeling the force, etc. We know this as far as we can know it, it has never not been the case, and everyone around you can confirm it, and use it to explain how matter interacts.
We cannot know God in any way that we can reproduce with others like the above examples. There is no shared language, no visual or tactile experience, no ability to reproduce a happening. So we cannot “know” in the sense of cognitively understanding the certainty of phenomenon that God exists. Neither can we know that he doesn’t exist with any certainty like the above examples.
An example of something we know with less certainty than electric charge, but more certainty than God, would be how the environment effects all of the epigenome. We are still trying to figure that out and have some reproducable evidence.
Basically, there’s a scale of certainty. Saying you can’t know anything shuts down the inquiry process, without which our modern world would not exist.
Also, please don’t say I’m bashing religion. On the contrary, religion is awesome. Without it, many cultures might now have survived. It was great for pqssing down values and customes to a large mass of people. Some of these customes helped the culture not only survive but thrive for a certain period of time. I basically see it as an educational tool that also mortered the society together.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- That’s a cop out. You can know some things with more certainty than others.
For example: I can video tape myself failing on a lift one week and getting it the next week, then succeeding at a weight 20lbs higher a month later. This is evidence for myself and those around me that I have gotten stronger according to the shared definition of strong. If you were to take me apart and compare my physiology from the first week to the last week, you could observe changes, and everyone looking over your shoulder could see them to. According to as much as we can know, we know that I have gotten stronger
Also, when two oppose charges are brought near, we can see that they attract. Anyone bringing opposite charges together will experience “attraction” in sight, feeling the force, etc. We know this as far as we can know it, it has never not been the case, and everyone around you can confirm it, and use it to explain how matter interacts.
[/quote]
Empirical evidence is inferential. Your failing on epistemology. You need to no the difference between what can be known and what can be thought or inferred based on evidence. One is causal the other is correlational. Nothing physical can be proven to exist beyond the shadow of any doubt. The reason is the way we receive the information. Senses can tell us things, but they cannot prove anything because we cannot prove our senses are at all accurate. The only things that can be known are those things in the realm of deductive logic. Logical conclusions based on deduction must always be true. Correlations always have a margin of error.
Deduction is more accurate than observation. Existence necessitates an reason that cannot be explained by itself. It cannot be explain by itself because it’s circular an hence insufficient to be self explanatory. Tactile experience is warm and fuzzy but horribly uncertain.
It would be easier to disprove the existence of God if you had a direct correlational, tactile information because it’s unreliable at best.
[quote]
An example of something we know with less certainty than electric charge, but more certainty than God, would be how the environment effects all of the epigenome. We are still trying to figure that out and have some reproducable evidence.
Basically, there’s a scale of certainty. Saying you can’t know anything shuts down the inquiry process, without which our modern world would not exist.[/quote]
Oh okay, so produce an argument that proves the existence an electrical charge…
You came to call out religion as illogical and you don’t seem to have a grasp on basic logical argument structures and rules. You’re hopelessly mired in empiricism. That’s fine to a point, but you do not understand it’s limits. Empiricism is percentage based certainty and the certainty is low when you truly take in to account all the variables.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also, please don’t say I’m bashing religion. On the contrary, religion is awesome. Without it, many cultures might now have survived. It was great for pqssing down values and customes to a large mass of people. Some of these customes helped the culture not only survive but thrive for a certain period of time. I basically see it as an educational tool that also mortered the society together.[/quote]
mmm hmmm, you may be selling it, I ain’t buying it. Why would you make a thread trying to prove it’s illogical if you don’t have a bone to pick.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Which makes more sense:
-that an all knowing, all powerful, and supremely loving, perfect being would bring into existance children which he knew before creating them, due to being all knowing, would not choose him with their free will and then would be pillaged, raped, destroyed, and burn in hell for eternity, or that a culture back in the day made a religion that justified their rape, pillage, and taking over of their neighbor’s lands?
-that an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being needs imperfect beings to serve him and sing his praises for eternity, or that a culture back in the day wasn’t sure what would happen when they died, and being welcomed into the presence of a perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity sounded good?
that people don’t know how to interpret the Bible, or that interpretation changes with the needs/beliefs of the culture you live in?
that religious stories are literally real or that they are a venue to pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities which have helped the culture survive?
that any imperfection can even indirectly result from a perfect being, or that the religion’s human creators had terrible logic skills?[/quote]
Oh brother, another know it all atheist.
Which makes more sense some thing from something or something from nothing? Because if you are atheist you must necessarily believe that something can come from nothing.
This has been discussed like a trillion times it always boils down to the above and nothing else. It always ends up with some atheistic tortured logic where square pegs fit into round holes because they cannot accept that logically something cannot come from nothing. Simply because nothing literally does not exist and what does not exist has no properties, particularly creative properties…
I may just sit back and watch people sodomize very basic simple logic… [/quote]
and here we go with the circular cosmological argument. i leave here for months and you still sing the same tune every time someone puts a quarter in the jukebox. this place is utterly boring, although i did enjoy our prior thread…for a little while.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
and so the forum turns.
Different thread titles, same arguments, same people, same irreconcilable positions.
what’s the point?
by the way, we can substitute liberal/conservative topics for religion and meet with the same results. this forum is an exercise in a bull meeting an immovable force. [/quote]
All forums are excises in futility if you really believe your going to change somebody’s mind. I have done my home work.
If you don’t really want the exercise, then why post just to say it’s a waste of time? I think it’s entertaining. [/quote]
you have done your homework to form YOUR OPINION, as i have done mine. do not imply someone else that does not share your opinion is not your intellectual equal.
not all forums are exercises in futility, only the one where irreconcilable differences are the rule…like anything that falls under “PWI”. in the other forums, actual discussion really occurs sometimes b/c people’s personal biases are not at stake.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Groo- I completely agree that the supernatural can’t be disproven. I just like to present alternative thought patterns for those who don’t normally question the first possibility they’re presented with.[/quote]
You really honestly don’t think your breaking any new ground here? You think we theists are backwoods sister fucking, bible thumping nimrods devoid of education?
You haven’t done your homework, if you really want to discuss this or you will lose hard.[/quote]
so doing your homework is your espousing old theories that you find attractive over other equally plausible theories?