Why Did God Create......

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
902

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
TigerTime’s journey remind me of this little story :

You are mistaken on two points. Most Christians, save for some fringe outlying sects have about 98% agreement on scripture. So the fact that we may argue about the differences does not change that. What’s the point of arguing about what’s agreed upon, that’s useless.
Second, the things we disagree about is mostly semantics. For instance, it doesn’t really matter if one Christian thinks the creation story is a literal account and another feels it’s allegorical (I wouldn’t consider most of the bible metaphorical, if any of it). It’s still means the same thing.
So stay your confusion son, it’s really not that complicated.

903

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Zooguido wrote:
I rest my case.[/quote]

Just look at all that horizontal progress! That’s linear advancement, son! [/quote]

Like I said, basically everything you know about religion is from atheist propaganda sites. Nobelief.com really? Athiest websites are the home of strawmen and red herrings. They say “See look at the dumb Christians, this is what they believe.” Which 9 times out of 10, isn’t true or is harping on theories that have been debunked centuries ago as if it were something new…A little history should shed light on the lack of scientific advancement. Things like black death, and extreme poverty tend to make people less experimental.

904

[quote]kamui wrote:
-the “darkness of the dark” ages has been considerably re-evaluted by current historiography. Read Duby, Legoff, Huinzinga.
-the “darkness of the dark ages” is mainly due to the barbarian invasions, not to the spread of Christianity. If anything the Church (and its monks) contributed to save what could be saved of the Roman heritage. Starting with roman language and law.
-if your graphical chart was remotely fair, the Renaissance would be noted as “Christian Renaissance”.

now, if you really want to play uchronic games… what, in your opinion, would have occured without the so-called “christian dark ages” ?
a Tengri’s Followers Age of enlightement ?
[/quote]

Are you sure you’re atheist??? You do seem to support us quite a bit…Or are you an atheist interested in preserving truth over propaganda of either sort? Just curious…

905

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Well then prove none of it happened…Should be easy enough.[/quote]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Shifting the burden of proof.

There are a lot of things that can’t be proven didn’t happen that you “don’t believe in”.
[/quote]
Argumentum ad ignorantiam isn’t shifting burden of proof it’s an appeal to ignorance or lack of evidence. Second, your assuming I had the burden of proof in the first place. I don’t. I have a document that says it’s true. The other party making the claim that it’s false has then the burden to prove it for it is their claim that it’s false.

If you, who knows your mother, say your mother is a nice lady. Then I come by who does not know her says, ‘No she’s a bitch’. Who has the burden of proof? I do.

Your determination for this is based on…?[/quote]

Rather than it’s old and therefore true it’s been: “we’re old… and therefore right”.
[/quote]
Who has been doing that? I don’t see it. Oldness is a premise with validity, but I don’t see anybody using it as a conclusion.

906

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The entire world was in techno limbo during the Dark Ages and the entire world didn’t have the purported “ball and chain” of Christianity to blame.[/quote]

This whole graph, dark ages horseshit is just the type of red herring I was talking about. There is absolutely know way to know whether or not the age would have been even darker or lighter in the absence of Christianity. It’s a diversion, it doesn’t speak at all to the validity of religion. Hence the whole line of questioning a reasoning is utterly meaningless.

907

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christianity is what God gave us. Religion is what man made of it.
[/quote]

Yes, Jesus, Son of Man, did give us our religion. A great religion, Catholicism. ;)[/quote]

Correct and supported by historical facts…

908

lol.
Actually, I support atheism here.
Bad arguments give us a bad name.

In many ways, Atheism is still a “young” philosophy. Scientism, nihilism, relativism are its infantile diseases. We need to actively cure them, and it’s better when we do it ourselves.

909

[quote]kamui wrote:

lol.
Actually, I support atheism here.
Bad arguments give us a bad name.

In many ways, Atheism is still a “young” philosophy. Scientism, nihilism, relativism are its infantile diseases. We need to actively cure them, and it’s better when we do it ourselves.[/quote]

I’d agree with you there. People do like to bring their baggage when the jump on a band wagon. Are you full blown atheist or agnostic?

910

it’s not “i know there is no God” (which would be incredibly stupid and arrogant)
it’s not “we can’t know if there is a God or not” (which is probably true, but is not a position).

it’s “if there is a Supreme Being, God is not an adequate concept to describe it”.

if you follow the Via Negativa (or apophantic theology) until its end, you will find that things like “Will”, “power”, “goodness”, “knowledge” and even “existence” are still too earthly and too human to be applied to God.

I’m beginning to think i should start a “why i am an atheist” thread.
May the Gods of procrastination save me.

911

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
TigerTime’s journey remind me of this little story :

You are mistaken on two points. Most Christians, save for some fringe outlying sects have about 98% agreement on scripture. So the fact that we may argue about the differences does not change that. What’s the point of arguing about what’s agreed upon, that’s useless.
Second, the things we disagree about is mostly semantics. For instance, it doesn’t really matter if one Christian thinks the creation story is a literal account and another feels it’s allegorical (I wouldn’t consider most of the bible metaphorical, if any of it). It’s still means the same thing.
So stay your confusion son, it’s really not that complicated. [/quote]

So, you agree with Westboro 98%? How do you even quantify such a thing?

These semantics you disagree upon have resulted in thousands of years of war between different Christian sects. That’s NOT a big deal to you?

The story of creation is radically different if you consider it literal vs. metaphorical. If it’s literal, it straight up doesn’t match anything science has shown us about the universe’s origin. If it’s metaphorical, you have an extremely convoluted and vague story that very, VERY poorly describes what is actually rather simple to explain.

912

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Zooguido wrote:
I rest my case.[/quote]

Just look at all that horizontal progress! That’s linear advancement, son! [/quote]

Like I said, basically everything you know about religion is from atheist propaganda sites. Nobelief.com really? Athiest websites are the home of strawmen and red herrings. They say “See look at the dumb Christians, this is what they believe.” Which 9 times out of 10, isn’t true or is harping on theories that have been debunked centuries ago as if it were something new…A little history should shed light on the lack of scientific advancement. Things like black death, and extreme poverty tend to make people less experimental.[/quote]

More claims with no supporting arguments. If you made half as many arguments as you make assertion, you could be a very competent debater.

913

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The entire world was in techno limbo during the Dark Ages and the entire world didn’t have the purported “ball and chain” of Christianity to blame.[/quote]

This whole graph, dark ages horseshit is just the type of red herring I was talking about. There is absolutely know way to know whether or not the age would have been even darker or lighter in the absence of Christianity. It’s a diversion, it doesn’t speak at all to the validity of religion. Hence the whole line of questioning a reasoning is utterly meaningless. [/quote]

LOL so it’s just a coincidence that this era perfectly correlates to the rise and fall of Christianity? Especially considering that we have historical accounts of Christians violently opposing scientific endeavours at this time? Could you imagine doctors using this same asinine line of logic?

“Well, there’s no way to know that 450 million people wouldn’t have died anyway between 1300 and 1400. There’s just no solid reason to blame the black plague and to say so is clearly a red-herring.”

You’re going to have to do better than claim “red-herring”.

914

[quote]kamui wrote:

it’s not “i know there is no God” (which would be incredibly stupid and arrogant)
it’s not “we can’t know if there is a God or not” (which is probably true, but is not a position).

it’s “if there is a Supreme Being, God is not an adequate concept to describe it”.

if you follow the Via Negativa (or apophantic theology) until its end, you will find that things like “Will”, “power”, “goodness”, “knowledge” and even “existence” are still too earthly and too human to be applied to God.

I’m beginning to think i should start a “why i am an atheist” thread.
May the Gods of procrastination save me.[/quote]

LOL!
Well if you do, I’ll jump in and I’ll probably bring Kantian Ontology in tow because I think you can understand it. I have been stuck with cosmology and having to both educate and argue simultaneously which is a gargantuan pain in the ass. But I’d love the discourse because I think we could do it cordially.

As far as language limitations being inadequate to describe what God necessarily must be is a legitimate point, but I do think the meaning can come across with the assistance of reason. But epistemology is going to necessarily dictate we will never have an adequate description of God, because by nature He is indescribable. But we can know somethings about Him to infer the rest to a certain degree however small that is.

915

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
TigerTime’s journey remind me of this little story :

You are mistaken on two points. Most Christians, save for some fringe outlying sects have about 98% agreement on scripture. So the fact that we may argue about the differences does not change that. What’s the point of arguing about what’s agreed upon, that’s useless.
Second, the things we disagree about is mostly semantics. For instance, it doesn’t really matter if one Christian thinks the creation story is a literal account and another feels it’s allegorical (I wouldn’t consider most of the bible metaphorical, if any of it). It’s still means the same thing.
So stay your confusion son, it’s really not that complicated. [/quote]

So, you agree with Westboro 98%? How do you even quantify such a thing?
[/quote]
Westboro would be the lunatic fringe I was talking about. They are Christian in name only, they are vial disgusting creatures in practice. They don’t describe me any better than crazy lunatic atheists describe you.
Otherwise it’s a hazarded guess. The point is, most of us Christians agree on most of the bible despite our denominational differences.

How bad did you fail history? Considering that the reformist theology has been around for only 500 years negates that notion totally. Second, the actual ‘to-arms’ skirmish between Christian
sects I am aware of is Northern Ireland. Which is more politically motivated. Other than that there were some local skirmishes here and there, but wars? no.
Other than that, the ‘wars’ would be ideological wars.

[quote]
The story of creation is radically different if you consider it literal vs. metaphorical. If it’s literal, it straight up doesn’t match anything science has shown us about the universe’s origin. If it’s metaphorical, you have an extremely convoluted and vague story that very, VERY poorly describes what is actually rather simple to explain.[/quote]

It’s neither and it doesn’t matter because the meaning of it is still the same whether you take it literally or not.

916

[quote]pat wrote:
Westboro would be the lunatic fringe I was talking about. They are Christian in name only, they are vial disgusting creatures in practice. They don’t describe me any better than crazy lunatic atheists describe you.
Otherwise it’s a hazarded guess. The point is, most of us Christians agree on most of the bible despite our denominational differences.
[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, what do you disagree with Westboro on?

The story of creation is only 500 years old? I’m talking about the wars spurred by both testaments. To be fair, I should have specified this.

[quote]
It’s neither and it doesn’t matter because the meaning of it is still the same whether you take it literally or not.[/quote]

And what is this meaning that defies the differences in literal and metaphorical speech?

917

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Westboro would be the lunatic fringe I was talking about. They are Christian in name only, they are vial disgusting creatures in practice. They don’t describe me any better than crazy lunatic atheists describe you.
Otherwise it’s a hazarded guess. The point is, most of us Christians agree on most of the bible despite our denominational differences.
[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, what do you disagree with Westboro on?
[/quote]
Pretty much everything. They are abominable pieces of shit.

You were talking about warring Christian sects which was minimal. It’s still a fail as most of the worlds wars were not religious in nature.
I did find another anglo-french war between protestants and Catholics around 1550 AD… Here is a list of wars…See how many were religious in nature.

[quote]

[quote]
It’s neither and it doesn’t matter because the meaning of it is still the same whether you take it literally or not.[/quote]

And what is this meaning that defies the differences in literal and metaphorical speech?[/quote]

That God is the creator, that chose to have a relationship with man and that sin entered the world through man.

918

[quote]pat wrote:
You were talking about warring Christian sects which was minimal. It’s still a fail as most of the worlds wars were not religious in nature.
I did find another anglo-french war between protestants and Catholics around 1550 AD… Here is a list of wars…See how many were religious in nature.

[/quote]

Since Christianity came from Judaism I see the wars caused by both testaments to be under the same God. Now, from what I’ve read about 7% of war has been over the Abrahamic God. That’s still thousands of years worth of war. And those are only the ones that are considered solely religious. Religion has had a hand in virtually every major war, if not the direct cause.

[quote]

That God is the creator, that chose to have a relationship with man and that sin entered the world through man.[/quote]

So here you have a book that doesn’t make sense unless you already have the answer and work backwards making mental leaps you would never make for anything else, a God that you can’t feel or hear, a God that doesn’t clarify what he means in his own book that’s meant to be our guide book through life, and he doesn’t do anything that can’t be explained naturally. What are you going on as evidence he exists, exactly?

Do you have any more than any other religion?

919

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< What are you going on as evidence he exists, exactly? >>>[/quote]What are you going on again as evidence that there can possibly be evidence for anything at all exactly? What ultimately? How do you know ANYTHING? At all? Exactly? Before you spout off, do yourself a favor and actually think. Nothing else you say has any substance until this question is settled. You cannot possibly know WHAT you know until you KNOW HOW you know anything at all. Unless you’re a baptized unshakable member of the first church of universal uncertainty like Elder Forlife.

920

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< What are you going on as evidence he exists, exactly? >>>[/quote]What are you going on again as evidence that there can possibly be evidence for anything at all exactly? What ultimately? How do you know ANYTHING? At all? Exactly? Before you spout off, do yourself a favor and actually think. Nothing else you say has any substance until this question is settled. You cannot possibly know WHAT you know until you KNOW HOW you know anything at all. Unless you’re a baptized unshakable member of the first church of universal uncertainty like Elder Forlife.
[/quote]

I love how honestly acknowledging the limits of our knowledge is treated as identical to claiming things must be true without actually knowing they are true. Lol.