[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kroby wrote:
This strengthens my argument on another thread that humans ruin religion.
On the contrary, religion ruins humans. Religion is an invention of man used to exploit the ignorant and force them into submission. As such it does only one of two things; it either corrupts those in power or it subjugates those without power.[/quote]
Damn, I didn’t see this post. I concur.
Heretics in their time. Religion trying to hold back reason.
Careful, because those “good old times” are what it’ll take for “things to be good and right again.” You see attacks on modern science all the time, disputing “what really happened.” Allow me to say one example: Intelligent Design.
yet sits on the sideline? What? Testing us? To what end? To prove we are good, and deserving of his beneficence? To make God feel proud?
[/quote]
you tell me. Why do you ask so many questiond before you allow for an answer. your argument loses weight when you do that. It also makes it impossible to follow.
That is an assertion. Where does it say we are apart of God?
You are the only one presuming at this point especially since I have made no claims in this thread on what God is, or who He is.
What claim of God have I made that you are arguing. You are responding to my points which I came up with out of no where to show you that you have not thought out all the angels. I demonstrated you making a logical fallacy. Which you have yet to own up to.
[quote]
You making logical fallacies and assuming that you are making head way is the only thing getting cracked.
That is a non answer.[/quote]
correct. What is there to answer? you asking me what the middle of the road is? Or the other thirty questions that you ask one right after the other?
Why should I respond to an improperly formed argument. The very design of your posts are flawed long before you get to the point asking questions.
Get a logical argument that isn’t fallacious from the start, and I will respond. Other wise your posts are pointless.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Why do you ask so many questiond before you allow for an answer. your argument loses weight when you do that. It also makes it impossible to follow.[/quote]
I’ll make the thread ten times longer by posting one question at a time. You can’t answer each and every one of those questions within your posts? My argument loses weight? No, it makes the point that there are too many unanswered questions. Too hard to follow? Are you pulling my leg? What is it? Too fast, too much volume? Oh, sorry… only one question at a time. You may refrain from answering any of these questions, for the sake of your inability to follow.
[quote]4. He allows the bad seed to Destroy themselves.
But God is infinite, which includes us, as we are a part of His creation. So, God would see the destruction of Himself? Impossible.
That is an assertion. Where does it say we are apart of God? [/quote]
Logic. I assume that it is impossible to be apart from God. Therefore, we cannot ever be apart from God. So it begs the question - does God punish Himself? You said “He allows the bad seed to destroy themselves,” not me. Taking in the previously acceptable theory that we are not apart from God, the answer is that God does not destroy Himself. Further, then there is no bad seed to destroy, for God does not destroy Himself.
Just because you’ve painted yourself into a corner, don’t come back and say this is an oversimplification. Point A leads to point B leads to point C. Unless you say God defies Logic. But that, too, cannot be, for God IS Logic. God is the Infinite, the Alpha AND Omega. God has created Reality in which we exist, including logic.
and all that was just one question. Following along?
[quote]5. There are endless possibilities when considering God.
Indeed. And this is a point I really wish to stress. Humans, being far, far from the mind and understanding of God, cannot know anything OF god, besides His existence. Therefore, to presume He would want worshippers, sacrifices and judgement is the prime mistake. We presume.
You are the only one presuming at this point especially since I have made no claims in this thread on what God is, or who He is.[/quote]
You presume there IS a God.
See above. I did not make a logical fallacy, as there were no reasonable, logical, acceptable middle of the road options.
Sorry, you must not have enough time to answer them one by one, which, by the way, I do. I never expected you to be able to answer them. They are impossible to answer. That is the point. You know nothing. Neither do I. At least I know I know nothing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kroby wrote:
This strengthens my argument on another thread that humans ruin religion.
On the contrary, religion ruins humans. Religion is an invention of man used to exploit the ignorant and force them into submission. As such it does only one of two things; it either corrupts those in power or it subjugates those without power.
Thank your lucky stars people like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton had the stones to question that dogma and bring forth enlightenment based on observation and not delusions of the “rapture”.
It’s called “enlightenment” because the darkness of unquestioning submission was expunged from humanity with the ability to formalize observation.[/quote]
Bullshit, most of the atrocities and crimes against humanity through out history have be committed by Godless men.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Bullshit, most of the atrocities and crimes against humanity through out history have be committed by Godless men. [/quote]
This might be true but I cannot think of anything more “atrocious” than being guilty of a “thought crime”.
The fact that some atrocities were committed by godless men does not make religion less bad. That is to say, we cannot conclude that religion would have made these people behave less atrociously.
BTW, many “religious” people are some of the most godless people I know.
[quote]kroby wrote:
I’ll make the thread ten times longer by posting one question at a time. You can’t answer each and every one of those questions within your posts? My argument loses weight? No, it makes the point that there are too many unanswered questions. Too hard to follow? Are you pulling my leg? What is it? Too fast, too much volume? Oh, sorry… only one question at a time. You may refrain from answering any of these questions, for the sake of your inability to follow.
[/quote]
forty question ramble. You have never taken a debate class before have you?
Your questions don’t always have simple answers. So it makes it impossible to ever find out if your point is right, or if you just missed something.
You are equating that a creation is the same as a creator. infinite means there is no end to God, that does not mean everything is God. you are are making a false equivocation.
so your are making an assumption to base your argument on. Compelling evidence if I have ever seen any.
If I wear a watch that I made, and never take it off that does not mean my watch and I can never seperate.
first off I said maybe. meaning I didn’t see the need to provide any real thought to your false dilemma.
I still don’t.
That is your theory. I don’t buy it. Meaning if that is what you based your false dilemma on then your argument carries zero weight.
I know of no faith outside of maybe hindu’s, and buddhist that think we are a part of God.
an assertion that is based off of a premise which you have yet to establish.
trust me I have not painted my self into a corner. I am still waiting for you to correct your fallacious errors.
You have yet to make a correct logical argument. so why try to act like you have made a coherent one?
First of your argument has not be A + B = C
Your argument was
Because God doesn’t do A Then It must be
B (either God does not care)
or
C (Either God does not exist)
Of course you have not brought other variables into the equation to see if they are worthy. You have given your readers only two options. If you have as you said given it more thought then why not post the other arguments that you find unworthy. so we can check your logic for ourselves.
for instance I will create a false dilemma.
because kroby doesn’t acknowledge my claims of logical fallacies
He
A doesn’t know what they are
B He knows what they are but chooses to make bad arguments anyway.
There are more choices, but I am not giving anyone a chance to make them. Since I am making a false dilemma. Sound familiar?
what do those attributes have in common?
Logic = reasoning through sound principles
Infinite = Endless
Alpha and Omega = Beginning and End
you are the only one presuming.
When did I presume there was a God in this thread? You made a post I countered saying you were making logical fallacies, then you asked me questions about God. I stayed on topic. That is what you do in a debate, or discussion.
You are assuming and asserting that there is no middle ground. There is middle ground.
[quote]
Sorry, you must not have enough time to answer them one by one, which, by the way, I do. I never expected you to be able to answer them. They are impossible to answer. That is the point. You know nothing. Neither do I. At least I know I know nothing. [/quote]
No I see no point in answering someone who can’t form a correct logical argument, but goes around saying they have all the while saying they are being logical.
Outside of that if you were open to differing opinions I would consider this an investment of my time. You are not so why would I bother to waste my efforts answering your loaded questions(another logical fallacy).
I have no problem with you not believing. I don’t post to convert anyone.
Shoot I even agree that atheist have a good reason to be skeptical. So you can reform your argument to a correct logical format and we can have a good conversation, or you can continue this trend.
Although you have to ask your self if this is such a great argument why don’t more atheist use this slimmed down version of yours? It sure would save alot of time on debates.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Bullshit, most of the atrocities and crimes against humanity through out history have be committed by Godless men.
This might be true but I cannot think of anything more “atrocious” than being guilty of a “thought crime”.
[/quote]
So all that Stalin, Hitler, Vlad the impaler, John Wayne Gacy, and many others have committed less atrocious things that people committing “thought crimes”?
No it means that religion is not the source. Which is what you are claiming.
so because religion can’t keep people from doing bad it must therefore be bad? So because I can’t get my daughter to pick up her room the first time I tell her I must be a bad parent?
[quote]
BTW, many “religious” people are some of the most godless people I know.[/quote]
And? So you have people who are religious that are bad, and you have people that aren’t. Why does that mean religion is bad?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Bullshit, most of the atrocities and crimes against humanity through out history have be committed by Godless men.
This might be true but I cannot think of anything more “atrocious” than being guilty of a “thought crime”.
So all that Stalin, Hitler, Vlad the impaler, John Wayne Gacy, and many others have committed less atrocious things that people committing “thought crimes”?
[/quote]
You miss my intended meaning. Religions have persecuted people for merely thinking against dogmatic teachings in the Bible, for example. I am not implying atrocious acts are less atrocious. You are attempting to make a logical connection that isn’t there. A class in logic or debate skills may be in order.
Which is my entire point against the person I was posting in response to. Again, I was attempting to dispel the argument to prove “religion is good” by proving “godlessness is evil”. The two are independent of each other in the logical sense. In the end the only argument that would be proved would be that “godlessness” is evil–not my argument in either event.
No, again you are falling into a logical trap. These two arguments are completely independent of each other. Religion isn’t evil because of what it cannot prevent but because of what it enables. You being a bad parent is probably genetic.
It doesn’t. I merely offered it as a counterpoint to “people who are evil that are godless” argument. Many who claim to be religious are in fact godless by their actions.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Allah needs to test us to be able to distinguish which of us work righteousness?
Doesn’t He know? [/quote]
The free-will/predestiny is, hands down, the most controversial metaphysical topic. But I’ll take a shot at it.
I’ll say that there what you call the past, present and future, all lie in the form of “now” before God the omniscient. Time is relative, remember?
That reconciles our freedom with an omniscient and omnipotent God. The Quran makes it clear that we have the choice. From several passages, we can also infer that the world is not deterministic. Indeed, God is active at all times. The world isn’t a clockwork that God set up, then let it follow its preplanned course. Allah is constantly active in His creation, and yet, never feels tired or needs to rest.
God! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). Quran 2:255
Not that it’s a good analogy, but thinking of it as a double-slit experiment might help a bit.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You miss my intended meaning. Religions have persecuted people for merely thinking against dogmatic teachings in the Bible, for example. I am not implying atrocious acts are less atrocious. You are attempting to make a logical connection that isn’t there. A class in logic or debate skills may be in order.
[/quote]
no.
After re-reading it I got the sublte play on words.
I apologize for mis-interpreting what you wrote.
You however made the same mistake (intentionally or unintentionally only you will know)
Whenever I made the analogy that my daughter not listening to me the first time I tell her to clean her room makes me a bad parent.
You turned it into me saying I was a bad parent. distinctly different things.
As I said my apologies for not placing the emphasis in the correct place.
[quote]
Vlad the Impaler was ostensibly a Christian. According to Dracula Prince of Many Faces, Wallachia?s brutal “was often seen in the company of Romanian Orthodox monks” and “when he imposed the death sentence, he insisted upon proper ceremony for his victims and a Christian burial.” He founded many monasteries and churches.
When Dracula showed two monks the usual scene of impaled cadavers in his courtyard, one said, “You are appointed by God to punish the evildoers.” The other monk remonstrated and was immediately impaled. Vlad reigned before the enunciation of the Divine Right of Kings but the concept of submission to earthly authority, often advocated by religious authorities, was quite congenial to the tyrant.
Moreover, Dracula believed himself to be – and was seen by others as – a Christian patriot, protecting his country and religion from Muslim invaders. The evolution of the name “Dracula” is instructive on this point.
Along with several other distinguished European royal figures, Dracula’s father, Vlad II, had been inducted into an organization entitled the Order of the Dragon. Florescu and McNally write that among its stated purposes were “the defense and propagation of Catholicism against . . . heretics, and . . . crusading against the infidel Turks.”
As member of the Order, Florescu and McNally continue, Vlad II took on the constant wearing of a medallion inscribed with mottoes that “symbolized the victory of Christ over the forces of darkness” and a black cape which would later be the trademark of the fictional, cross-fearing Dracula. Florescue and McNally write that Vlad II, and others of the Order of the Dragon, wore it “only on Fridays or during the Commemoration of Christ’s Passion.”
Vlad II was called “Dracul” because he was a member of the Order of the Dragon; his son, Vlad III became “Dracula” meaning “son of the dragon.” Far from being an epithet, the title was a term of pride, bestowed on courageous men who had fought valiantly against the Turks and for the Christian faith. In short, the real Dracula got along with the cross quite nicely; it was his symbol.
and I can only find John Wayne Gacy listed as Roman Catholic. I found this on Hitler:
[quote]
Hitler advocated a “Positive Christianity”, a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.
Among Christian denominations, Hitler favored Catholicism, which was more open to such reinterpretations. At the same time, he made use of some elements of the Catholic Church’s hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics.
So, yeah, Hitler was a Christian of, basically, his own denomination.
Stalin and Lenin were dictatorial communists. In fact, everyone mentioned that committed atrocities was a dictator, save Gacy. Atrocities seem to have more to do with absolute power invested in one individual than religion.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
gendou57 wrote:
Vlad the Impaler was a Christian.
-Gendou
So was hitler. I am not ignorant of what they claimed they were. I would not associate their acts with their faith.
[/quote]
What about Muslims that claim Islam and commit “atrocious acts”? Do you associate their acts with their faith?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
You turned it into me saying I was a bad parent. distinctly different things.
[/quote]
You offered the analogy up for argument’s sake. I was not trying to imply that you were a bad parent, on the contrary, if you are it is probably beyond your “control”. I simply turned it into an argument about genetics which would render your point moot–I am not prepared to fight that fight.
I think we both agree that people can be good, bad, or both and that religion can have its good points and bad points. I do not see what the good points are from my own perspective on life, as I view religion to be a tyrannical form of “group think”.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
haney1 wrote:
gendou57 wrote:
Vlad the Impaler was a Christian.
-Gendou
So was hitler. I am not ignorant of what they claimed they were. I would not associate their acts with their faith.
What about Muslims that claim Islam and commit “atrocious acts”? Do you associate their acts with their faith?
[/quote]
Not really. The few Muslims I have met are peaceful. I would assume that they get a bad rap from the freaks in their religion just like Christians get a bad rap from the guys who go around blowing up abortion clinics.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
haney1 wrote:
You turned it into me saying I was a bad parent. distinctly different things.
You offered the analogy up for argument’s sake. I was not trying to imply that you were a bad parent, on the contrary, if you are it is probably beyond your “control”. I simply turned it into an argument about genetics which would render your point moot–I am not prepared to fight that fight.
[/quote]
Which is why I didn’t judge your intentions of that comment. I already made a small reading mistake in my first post to you. I chose not to commit a worse error.
Absolutely
[quote]
I do not see what the good points are from my own perspective on life, as I view religion to be a tyrannical form of “group think”.[/quote]
Which is where we differ. I do agree though that when a group becomes lazy in critical thinking that type of thing happens.
Which is why I complain when religious threads come up, and Christians make stupid arguments. There is just way too much spoon feeding in the Church.
Although a case can be made for the American people as a whole accepting spoon fed answers.
So here is what we got. The all religion is bad vs. religion is good. Way to fucking go Lixy. You succeeded in getting all religion and even God himself under fire. Nice Job.
These are topics way to big and in depth the even begin to cover in a forum discuss all wrapped up in emotion a personal belief. People have spent entire life times trying to prove the same things you guys are talking about.
Descartes, Aristotle, Leibniz, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Berkley, etc. have gone through years and pages trying their hand at these theories. You will never get past name name calling and one upmanship to eve scratch the surface on these topics.
Determinism vs. Freewill? Holy shit, that’s the Holy Grail of Metaphysics next to proof/disproof of God’s existence. I spent 3 months and 15 pages on this alone and could only prove unequivocally that you cannot disprove the existence of freewill; which is a long way from proving it. If any of you can prove one way or another you will be world famous.
Yall can argue this crap all you want but in the end the people who hate religion will still hate it. And those who adhere to it will still adhere to it.