LMFAO.. Satanists makes formal request to open meeting with prayer to his god

[ch33zw1z]

Christians see God as the perfect example of a Father. A father who loves deeply and knows our hearts so deeply that he knows all our choices, needs and desires. So, Christians take that example (understanding we are limited by being humans) and try to be the best Fathers/Mothers we can be. So, no, comparing God to a parent is never ineffectual.

Stay on topic. We're discussing the concept of Free-will, not how much God snuggles you.

Honestly, you have taken this discussion to the basest of levels. It's like your squirming from one response to the other so you won't be proven wrong.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

We started by discussing the concept of Free Will. But you provided ineffectual comparisons. One to God being a fortune teller, and the other to God being a parent.

Neither of those is effectual when the discussion is involving the ominipotent creator. Long before he even created the universe, he knew how it would be, because he's all knowing.

For some, it's a difficult idea to grasp. You ask for proof, I ask you to think about it. The irony here is that a Christian is asking for proof.

So we shall agree to disagree. Enjoy the free will that you have, and I will enjoy mine.

It seems like you still don't have an understanding of the faith that you left. It seems like you went from blindly following Christianity to blindly trying to tear it down.

Oh goodie, let's discuss. You're absolutely correct, indoctrination of children into religion definitely creates Christians that blindly follow. That was ME, until about 14. I had many friends that continued to blindly follow, and some still today. Not an easy burden to shed. The Christian mindset creates thought patterns in your brain that are difficult to break.

Just to be clear, I'm not blindly following anything now. Nor do I feel that questioning Christianity should be wrong. You and I started this discussion off well, which was my take. But you obviously take this personally (with reason I guess), and don't like the fact that I offer a differing view point. Oh, but wait, you claim I present it as fact? Isn't that what religions do? Take maybe's and present them as facts?

You say I'm blindy tearing it down, I submit that I am thinking about it more than makes you comfortable.

 

[realibrad]

I love these kind of topics, and glad you notice my arguments.

Actually, slowspider called my argument "typical", in this thread anyway.

Please, provide threads/quotes where I've posted about how "wrong" everyone else is, followed by personal attacks. I have close to 5000 posts, so I expect an exhaustive list.

My guess is that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

You can't be serious. My last post was me calling you out on a personal attack. Remember when I then replied and you told me welcome to P&N and to get tougher skin?

I don't need to go any further than the 2 I know you did to me.

On topic.

Answer these questions.

1. Does God know past, present, and future?
2. Is God the creator of all life?
3. Does God know what people will do with their lives, and every choice they will actually make?
4. If God chooses what lives he will create, knowing what they will do, and knowing what the future will become with their choices, how does he not select outcomes?

Number 4 makes the assumption that you will agree with 1-3 as the Christian God is usually described. Number 4 is the main point. Free will exists, as it is simply a perspective in the way that we as people experience time. God knows all. He knows what he will create, what his creations will choose, and the ultimate outcome of those choices. He has always known this, and simply waits to create the people to create the outcome he has always known to happen.

Because he is the all power all knowing creator, he chooses outcomes. We are agents of free will, but he knows what we will do, and chose to make the people for that outcome. That is empirical and not opinion based on the word of the Bible.

Free will is only for those who are not omniscient.

 

[WelshBloke]

Actually, he's been arguing from the lack of evidence (argument from ignorance) in which he asserts makes his position true.

There's a reason that's a fallacy.

Isn't that the whole basis of most religion?

 

[WelshBloke]

So now since I've proven to you that your "logical position" essentially means nothing when weighed against reality,

You've done no such thing.

 

[emperus]

Stay on topic. We're discussing the concept of Free-will, not how much God snuggles you.



I'm sorry you feel that way.

We started by discussing the concept of Free Will. But you provided ineffectual comparisons. One to God being a fortune teller, and the other to God being a parent.

Neither of those is effectual when the discussion is involving the ominipotent creator. Long before he even created the universe, he knew how it would be, because he's all knowing.

For some, it's a difficult idea to grasp. You ask for proof, I ask you to think about it. The irony here is that a Christian is asking for proof.

So we shall agree to disagree. Enjoy the free will that you have, and I will enjoy mine.



Oh goodie, let's discuss. You're absolutely correct, indoctrination of children into religion definitely creates Christians that blindly follow. That was ME, until about 14. I had many friends that continued to blindly follow, and some still today. Not an easy burden to shed. The Christian mindset creates thought patterns in your brain that are difficult to break.

Just to be clear, I'm not blindly following anything now. Nor do I feel that questioning Christianity should be wrong. You and I started this discussion off well, which was my take. But you obviously take this personally (with reason I guess), and don't like the fact that I offer a differing view point. Oh, but wait, you claim I present it as fact? Isn't that what religions do? Take maybe's and present them as facts?

You say I'm blindy tearing it down, I submit that I am thinking about it more than makes you comfortable.

That line above shows your Dogma again. You see Christians through your particular lens of an indoctrinated child. Not all of us are indoctrinated children. Some of us are scientists at heart, that believe testing our faith and questioning it leads to a greater faith.

I've given you links as to God being compared to a parent figure in terms of this free-will discussion. But, you, who isn't Christian, who clearly knows little about the Christian religion, is going to argue what an ineffectual Comparison of God is? Cmon, I hope that sounds equally ridiculous to you.

It's clear that you have an issue with your childhood and how you believe your parents "indoctrinated" you into Christianity. But, I believe that's an issue that you should probably take up with a counselor. Again, not everyone's story is yours.

I think everyone should be respectful of peoples religions or their lack of religion. You are not here to discuss anything, you are here to denigrate and your language is clear proof of that. I'm respectful to those who choose not to believe in GOD, and I expect the same. So, I'm ending the discussion.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

I agree with this and thanks for explaining.



Actually, your claim is falsifiable because you're a human and can be examined scientifically.

God (in the religious sense) cannot be. And just because we cannot test it doesn't make your claim false...we just need a science (or some other means) that can test it.

You're trying to equivocate, but untestable claims are not false claims -- they're just untestable claims.

There was a point in time when no one could test the age of the Universe, but that didn't mean the old universe belief was false, did it?

Obviously, no.

No, i said my undying soul is god, my soul is a metaphysical element of me that cannot be tested (this is the classical understanding of what a soul is in theological Christianity).

You should read what you respond to more carefully.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, i said my undying soul is god, my soul is a metaphysical element of me that cannot be tested (this is the classical understanding of what a soul is in theological Christianity).

You should read what you respond to more carefully.

This is stupid because you're clearly making it up and trying to compare a well-established, historical, body of beliefs that has close to 2 thousand years of history behind it, to an arbitrary claim made by some random internet being who could may as well be masquerading as an atheist, while expecting me to put a single drop of effort into investigating.

I knew some of you stooped to insanely idiotic levels, but this has to be one of the worst.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

So now since I've proven to you that your "logical position" essentially means nothing when weighed against reality, you want to keep the focus on me.

Have a good night, sir.

First of all, you have done no such thing and your version of the Shroedingers cat paradox isn't very clever.

Given the fantastical attributes of your version of god (the Christian trinity) and the absolute lack of evidence for it I would say that it's fully logical to hold that belief but it isn't reasonable (to me).

Logic without reason will not help anyone find any truth.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

This is stupid because you're clearly making it up and trying to compare a well-established, historical, body of beliefs that has close to 2 thousand years of history behind it, to an arbitrary claim made by some random internet being who could may as well be masquerading as an atheist, while expecting me to put a single drop of effort into investigating.

I knew some of you stooped to insanely idiotic levels, but this has to be one of the worst.

You do realize that you actually stated that this is a correct statement previously in this thread?

The point was that you have exactly the same amount of evidence against my undying soul to be god as i have for it which is the same amount that there is for and against the existence of any god.

If you don't want to have the discussion then piss off but stop with insults.

And your argumentum ad populum is noted and dismissed.

 

[WelshBloke]

This is stupid because you're clearly making it up and trying to compare a well-established, historical, body of beliefs that has close to 2 thousand years of history behind it, to an arbitrary claim made by some random internet being who could may as well be masquerading as an atheist, while expecting me to put a single drop of effort into investigating..

Now I know that you're big on logical fallacies.

I'm getting old and I cant always pull up random facts like I used to, maybe you can help me out?

Whats the fallacies regarding an appeal to a widespread belief, the one about people believing things just because people have always believed them and the one about something just being true because people in authority believe it?

Cant think why those ones popped into my head. :whiste:

 

[Retro Rob]

The point was that you have exactly the same amount of evidence against my undying soul to be god as i have for it which is the same amount that there is for and against the existence of any god.

You just don't get it.

It's not about evidence -- your "claim" has no historical value...period, and cannot be compared to Christianity PERIOD, thus, not worth investigating on any level.

To be specific, how many Houses of Worship have been built on merit of your belief, how many Holy Books were written, how many people have you converted, how many leaders has it influenced? None.

Conversely, how many wars were fought over your belief, how many people were murdered, how many members excommunicated, how many reformations took place? None.

Bottom line: By virtue of your claim being a fly-by-night utterance, it's not worth spending a second looking into to even find evidence.

Again, its not about "evidence"...it about your claim having zero value.

 

[WelshBloke]

You just don't get it.

It's not about evidence -- your "claim" has no historical value...period, and cannot be compared to Christianity PERIOD, thus, not worth investigating on any level.

To be specific, how many Houses of Worship have been built on merit of your belief, how many Holy Books were written, how many people have you converted, how many leaders has it influenced? None.

Conversely, how many wars were fought over your belief, how many people were murdered, how many members excommunicated, how many reformations took place? None.

Bottom line: By virtue of your claim being a fly-by-night utterance, it's not worth spending a second looking into to even find evidence.

Again, its not about "evidence"...it about your claim having zero value.

And none of that means that your beliefs are any more "true" than his.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

You just don't get it.

It's not about evidence -- your "claim" has no historical value...period, and cannot be compared to Christianity PERIOD, thus, not worth investigating on any level.

To be specific, how many Houses of Worship have been built on merit of your belief, how many Holy Books were written, how many people have you converted, how many leaders has it influenced? None.

Conversely, how many wars were fought over your belief, how many people were murdered, how many members excommunicated, how many reformations took place? None.

Bottom line: By virtue of your claim being a fly-by-night utterance, it's not worth spending a second looking into to even find evidence.

Again, its not about "evidence"...it about your claim having zero value.

Argumentum ad populum does not a good argument make.

What is true will remain to be true even if there isn't a single person in the world that believes it, evidence is EVERYTHING when it comes to whether holding a belief is reasonable.

You should also examine what I said, I said that my undying soul is god. In this scenario all religious wars have been fought in my name and all who hold a belief in god hold a belief in my undying soul as it is god.

 

[Retro Rob]

And none of that means that your beliefs are any more "true" than his.

Exactly!

But for anyone to waste any time on anything, it needs some value -- whether historical, scientifc, etc.

Saying "I'm god, prove me wrong because it's the same as Christianity" is brain-dead, and desperate.

Like I said in the other thread, modern atheism is a dying breed if these are the crux of its arguments.

I'm hope you understand that I'm arguing form a value perspective.

 

[ch33zw1z]

That line above shows your Dogma again. You see Christians through your particular lens of an indoctrinated child. Not all of us are indoctrinated children. Some of us are scientists at heart, that believe testing our faith and questioning it leads to a greater faith.

Sure, it's my dogma that's the problem. /end copout.

I've given you links as to God being compared to a parent figure in terms of this free-will discussion. But, you, who isn't Christian, who clearly knows little about the Christian religion, is going to argue what an ineffectual Comparison of God is? Cmon, I hope that sounds equally ridiculous to you.

You gave a quote that had nothing to do with free will, but in the quote it compares God to a Father figure. Nothing to do with free will.

It's clear that you have an issue with your childhood and how you believe your parents "indoctrinated" you into Christianity. But, I believe that's an issue that you should probably take up with a counselor. Again, not everyone's story is yours.

You're assuming you know me, just like you told me not to do. I gave you insight into a little about who I am. Thanks for the advice, but I wasn't asking you for it.

Of course my story is not everyone's. I never said it was.

I think everyone should be respectful of peoples religions or their lack of religion.

I agree, that doesn't mean I won't question their ideas.

You are not here to discuss anything, you are here to denigrate and your language is clear proof of that.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'm respectful to those who choose not to believe in GOD, and I expect the same.

No you're not.

So, I'm ending the discussion.

You ended the discussion in your mind long ago. I tried to give you insight into who I am, but you think I have issues.

Fine. Discussion with you is over. All I ask is you really put some thought into what free will really is, and why you may or may not have it. It doesn't appear you really have.

 

[WelshBloke]

Exactly!

But for anyone to waste any time on anything, it needs some value -- whether historical, scientifc, etc.

Well that's why people like evidence, otherwise we get back to the "I believe this because I want to" argument.

Saying "I'm god, prove me wrong because it's the same as Christianity" is brain-dead, and desperate.

Why is it brain dead? It throws up nicely that believing in something with no evidence doesn't make it true because you want it to be.

I'll be honest, I'd give the same weight to his arguments as yours if neither of you have anything solid to bring.

Like I said in the other thread, modern atheism is a dying breed if these are the crux of its arguments.

Your not getting the point of Atheism at all are you? It's not there to convert you, it's just an easy label to use for people that don't have a religious conviction.

I'm hope you understand that I'm arguing form a value perspective.

You can argue from whatever perspective you like, but if you don't bring anything more than "this is true because people have said it's true for a long time" you're not going to change any minds.

 

[JD50]

Exactly!

But for anyone to waste any time on anything, it needs some value -- whether historical, scientifc, etc.

Saying "I'm god, prove me wrong because it's the same as Christianity" is brain-dead, and desperate.

Like I said in the other thread, modern atheism is a dying breed if these are the crux of its arguments.

I'm hope you understand that I'm arguing form a value perspective.

The only reason people use these arguments (which is basically the FSM argument) is to show you how ridiculous it is to expect other people to prove to you that your god doesn't exist. This has been explained countless times and you still don't seem to get it. It is certainly not the "crux" of anything.

 

[Retro Rob]

You can argue from whatever perspective you like, but if you don't bring anything more than "this is true because people have said it's true for a long time" you're not going to change any minds.

Could you show me where I said religion is true because "people said it was" for a long time?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Exactly!

But for anyone to waste any time on anything, it needs some value -- whether historical, scientifc, etc.

Saying "I'm god, prove me wrong because it's the same as Christianity" is brain-dead, and desperate.

Like I said in the other thread, modern atheism is a dying breed if these are the crux of its arguments.

I'm hope you understand that I'm arguing form a value perspective.

Read up on argumentum ad absurdum and you'll understand why i made the argument as i did.

If you understand the arguments you are having it might help you.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Could you show me where I said religion is true because "people said it was" for a long time?

In your post #286 you are basically committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Same with post #282.

That people have believed something for a long time is also a form of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Retro Rob]

The only reason people use these arguments (which is basically the FSM argument) is to show you how ridiculous it is to expect other people to prove to you that your god doesn't exist. This has been explained countless times and you still don't seem to get it. It is certainly not the "crux" of anything.

Actually, by virtue of us having spaghetti (I made some last night), I fully thank for FSM for its Pastary blessing.

Seriously, I think we have evidence of his powerful, Noodly existence.

 

[WelshBloke]

Could you show me where I said religion is true because "people said it was" for a long time?

You just don't get it.

It's not about evidence -- your "claim" has no historical value...period, and cannot be compared to Christianity PERIOD, thus, not worth investigating on any level.

To be specific, how many Houses of Worship have been built on merit of your belief, how many Holy Books were written, how many people have you converted, how many leaders has it influenced? None.

Conversely, how many wars were fought over your belief, how many people were murdered, how many members excommunicated, how many reformations took place? None.

Bottom line: By virtue of your claim being a fly-by-night utterance, it's not worth spending a second looking into to even find evidence.

Again, its not about "evidence"...it about your claim having zero value.

You certainly seem to be saying that your beliefs are more valid than his because they have been around longer there.

 

[JD50]

Rob does a very good job of implying things without explicitly saying them, so then when he gets in a jam he can immediately back pedal.

 

[Retro Rob]

In your post #286 you are basically committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Same with post #282.

That people have believed something for a long time is also a form of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

That fallacy specifically means that something is true because most people say it is.

Again, provide me with a direct quote where I made such a statement.

 

[JD50]

^ See what I mean.