The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[soulcougher73]

The problem is you(Cerpin n`crew) seem to think you understand God or have some means of knowing what God is capable of.........when even the Bible says God`s thoughts are not our thoughts........

But you think you understand God? Hey everyone i found another contradiction.

 

[soulcougher73]

Mark the rest done stuff over the night creep made whole. Funk the fly and the family stone. Heard grapes told the chukar cherries the pear went bananas. Orange you glad the man stay? What if the mango?

LOL

 

[alzan]

A double of reality...coming up!

Your reality, not necessarily anyone else's.

 

[jackstar7]

Solipsism! It's what's for theists!

 

[Caravaggio]

The problem is you(Cerpin n`crew) seem to think you understand God or have some means of knowing what God is capable of.........when even the Bible says God`s thoughts are not our thoughts....

Don't tell me, you know what God means and thinks but the rest of us suckers are dwelling in the wilderness of science and the demand for evidence?
What stunning arrogance.

Let us try to introduce some theology into this alcohol-free, bar-room fist fight.

1) is your God omniscient and omnipotent?
2) is s/he benevolent?
3) if so, why does evil and suffering exist?

This is the famous 'inconsistent triad'.

Now, why would anyone want to sign-up to your 'unknowable God' who watched 6,000 to 12,000 innocent people killed each day at Treblinka?

The traditional answer is to say that "he does not want us to be just robots".
But that glib old answer is just another horny old 'a priori' claim that St Anselm would recognise.

If that is a sacred "unknowable" mystery, count me out.

Your God seems to be what Richard Dawkins calls 'the God of the gaps".

Big unanswered question? Call in the unknowable God.

Why not call-in some critical thinking and ask, "why do I need to believe in an entity that demands so much but gives so little?

Why are all the faithful God-believers trying to kill each other when different God-brands come face to face? Would any sort of God really want that?
What qualities would such a God have?

 

[alkemyst]

Don't tell me, you know what God means and thinks but the rest of us suckers are dwelling in the wilderness of science and the demand for evidence?
What stunning arrogance.

Let us try to introduce some theology into this alcohol-free, bar-room fist fight.

1) is your God omniscient and omnipotent?
2) is s/he benevolent?
3) if so, why does evil and suffering exist?

This is the famous 'inconsistent triad'.

Now, why would anyone want to sign-up to your 'unknowable God' who watched 6,000 to 12,000 innocent people killed each day at Treblinka?

The traditional answer is to say that "he does not want us to be just robots".
But that glib old answer is just another horny old 'a priori' claim that St Anselm would recognise.

If that is a sacred "unknowable" mystery, count me out.

Your God seems to be what Richard Dawkins calls 'the God of the gaps".

Big unanswered question? Call in the unknowable God.

Why not call-in some critical thinking and ask, "why do I need to believe in an entity that demands so much but gives so little?

Why are all the faithful God-believers trying to kill each other when different God-brands come face to face? Would any sort of God really want that?
What qualities would such a God have?

This is all explained in most holy books. Man is basically inherently evil now due to not obeying God(s) in the beginning.

Also most God(s) do not interfere with Man, he is given free-will.

 

[alkemyst]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how much "faith" you have, circles are never gonna have corners. These are plain logical contradictions, and no amount of "faith" is going to resolve them.

We haven't been to the bottom of every ocean yet either...

Nothing can be dis-proven. The scientific method doesn't work that way.

Many things that no-one believed to true where later PROVEN factual.

I am willing to bet certain spheres can develop edges depending on velocity.

 

[alkemyst]

What makes you think it hasn't already been determined?

This is one of the many things we as Man cannot fathom.

Some being(s) with intelligence so advanced that they know everything that even hasn't happened.

Take simple chess...it's a limited board of course, and the pieces only have some many options for moves...a very good chess player can usually guess nearly the exactly chains of moves that will take place.

Now, that said and it being said God has given us free-will; I don't think God(s) necessarily know every man's actions nor controls them. They can see the patterns though and have a good idea what the end game will be.

 

[jackstar7]

Now, that said and it being said God has given us free-will; I don't think God(s) necessarily know every man's actions nor controls them. They can see the patterns though and have a good idea what the end game will be.

That's certainly not limited to divinity. Plenty of people study the patterns of people and can generally predict their "end game".

No one gets out alive, after all.

 

[Caravaggio]

This is all explained in most holy books

Thank you alkemyst.

I know only too well what the supposedly "Holy Books" say.
With the advantage of modern science they are shown to be impoverished special pleading. They were all written before Galileo. That was the turning-point, away from ignorance, and enforced fear and confusion.

My comment was aimed at Yoda, who seems to have gone a bit quiet.

 

[JEDIYoda]

My comment was aimed at Yoda, who seems to have gone a bit quiet.

Nothing to say...been there listened to that....
I don`t need to illicit responses by lying and claiming I am looking for answers.

I have also been there and done that, you have entered the party way to late even reasonably get a response from me...other than read the entire thread.

Don't tell me, you know what God means and thinks but the rest of us suckers are dwelling in the wilderness of science and the demand for evidence?
What stunning arrogance.

Let us try to introduce some theology into this alcohol-free, bar-room fist fight.

1) is your God omniscient and omnipotent?
2) is s/he benevolent?
3) if so, why does evil and suffering exist?

This is the famous 'inconsistent triad'.

Now, why would anyone want to sign-up to your 'unknowable God' who watched 6,000 to 12,000 innocent people killed each day at Treblinka?

The traditional answer is to say that "he does not want us to be just robots".
But that glib old answer is just another horny old 'a priori' claim that St Anselm would recognise.

If that is a sacred "unknowable" mystery, count me out.

Your God seems to be what Richard Dawkins calls 'the God of the gaps".

Big unanswered question? Call in the unknowable God.

Why not call-in some critical thinking and ask, "why do I need to believe in an entity that demands so much but gives so little?

Why are all the faithful God-believers trying to kill each other when different God-brands come face to face? Would any sort of God really want that?
What qualities would such a God have?

You see there is no sense discussing this because you have your mind made up as I have my mind made up and regardless the meaningless diatribe that spews forth from you, you only post to make some sort of point that most Bible believing Christians do not accept.
Or maybe you are seeking the acceptance of your Atheist brothers in the ATOT Atheist Church!

You have done well...today you shall be called Brother Caravaggio one of the Apostles of Atheism!!


God Bless!!

 

[soulcougher73]

Thank you alkemyst.

I know only too well what the supposedly "Holy Books" say.
With the advantage of modern science they are shown to be impoverished special pleading. They were all written before Galileo. That was the turning-point, away from ignorance, and enforced fear and confusion.

My comment was aimed at Yoda, who seems to have gone a bit quiet.

I wouldnt bother trying to talk to Yoda. He is the lamest theist in here. He makes absolutely no sense and just post gibberish about atheist church and atheist talking points yada yada. No real brain activity going on in his head.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We haven't been to the bottom of every ocean yet either...

What difference do you think that would make? We're talking about logical contradictions, here. There's no observations necessary.

Nothing can be dis-proven. The scientific method doesn't work that way.

This has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Many things that no-one believed to true where later PROVEN factual.

Strictly speaking, no. That never happened. Science never produces "proof." Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol.

I am willing to bet certain spheres can develop edges depending on velocity.

If a spherical object developed an edge it would no longer be a spherical object.

 

[disappoint]

This is one of the many things we as Man cannot fathom.

Some being(s) with intelligence so advanced that they know everything that even hasn't happened.

Take simple chess...it's a limited board of course, and the pieces only have some many options for moves...a very good chess player can usually guess nearly the exactly chains of moves that will take place.

Now, that said and it being said God has given us free-will; I don't think God(s) necessarily know every man's actions nor controls them. They can see the patterns though and have a good idea what the end game will be.

I'd say we can fathom anything we'd like to.

On determinism, I feel that the universe, or multiverse, is deterministic.

We still have free will, because although we can follow our own path and that path has yet to be determined by us, the multiverse has no such limitation.

The multiverse has no limitation because it has an infinite number of possibilities, and decisions it's inhabitants can make that determine their own outcome.

With an infinite number of branches of possibilities "the end game" and by that I mean omniscience, is quite possible for the multiverse to achieve.

 

[alkemyst]

I'd say we can fathom anything we'd like to.

On determinism, I feel that the universe, or multiverse, is deterministic.

We still have free will, because although we can follow our own path and that path has yet to be determined by us, the multiverse has no such limitation.

The multiverse has no limitation because it has an infinite number of possibilities, and decisions it's inhabitants can make that determine their own outcome.

With an infinite number of branches of possibilities "the end game" and by that I mean omniscience, is quite possible for the multiverse to achieve.

I like to debate this fairly.

I have never been very religious, but lately I have been going to a laid-back church and it's been a nice way to spend my 11:30-12:30 time slot on a Sunday.

I am not going to make statements of fact on anything that cannot be proven, but I will entertain the possibility of some.

Too many here, want to either just troll, play Devil's Advocate, or simply be ignorant or overly zealous.

I believe there is a God, I believe they may be all forms of everyone else's God(s). I have a very deep scientific background especially in Biology and Zoology. I believe in evolution.

 

[alkemyst]

What difference do you think that would make? We're talking about logical contradictions, here. There's no observations necessary.

Well, logically we would say there is a bottom of every ocean. Logically, in the past people believed the world was flat, the earth was in the center of the universe and there were no other planets.

This has nothing to do with the scientific method.

That is absurd.

Strictly speaking, no. That never happened. Science never produces "proof." Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol.

If you are talking semantics that has no place here. If you are talking absurdity, are you purposely trying to troll or have an intelligent conversation.

You tend to go to great lengths to express yourself when you understand the topic at hand, yet flail out one liners when you either do not or simply want to avoid that topic.

If a spherical object developed an edge it would no longer be a spherical object.

Exactly...there are theories that explain that it may happen though.

 

[alzan]

I believe in evolution.

If you believe in evolution you're doing it wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, logically we would say there is a bottom of every ocean. Logically, in the past people believed the world was flat, the earth was in the center of the universe and there were no other planets.

Ok, I'm going to say this politely first.

You don't appear to understand the difference between a priori reasoning and empiricism. Whether the earth is flat or the center of the universe are empirical questions. Whether or not circles have corners is a logical question. Whether or not foreknowledge excludes free will and moral agency is a logical question, not an empirical one.

If you cannot grasp the difference between these two modes of reasoning, then you're probably better off spectating this discussion.

That is absurd.

Again, we're not discussing an empirical question, so the scientific method is of no use to us.

If you are talking semantics that has no place here. If you are talking absurdity, are you purposely trying to troll or have an intelligent conversation.

It isn't semantics. It's rigor, and it's a fact. Science has never produced proof, and it never will.

You tend to go to great lengths to express yourself when you understand the topic at hand, yet flail out one liners when you either do not or simply want to avoid that topic.

As a point of fact, in this instance I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't need as much hand-holding in realizing your mistake as it appears you actually require.

Exactly...there are theories that explain that it may happen though.

No, there aren't.

 

[alkemyst]

If you believe in evolution you're doing it wrong.

If I were a God, I'd make sure my creations could evolve.

What would you do?

 

[alkemyst]

Ok, I'm going to say this politely first.

You don't appear to understand the difference between a priori reasoning and empiricism. Whether the earth is flat or the center of the universe are empirical questions. Whether or not circles have corners is a logical question. Whether or not foreknowledge excludes free will and moral agency is a logical question, not an empirical one.

If you cannot grasp the difference between these two modes of reasoning, then you're probably better off spectating this discussion.




Again, we're not discussing an empirical question, so the scientific method is of no use to us.



It isn't semantics. It's rigor, and it's a fact. Science has never produced proof, and it never will.


As a point of fact, in this instance I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't need as much hand-holding in realizing your mistake as it appears you actually require.





No, there aren't.

Please discuss your science background.

Please discuss your theological whether secular or non, education.

It's obvious you are liberal arts with all your big words that attempt confusion.

Please just explain your stance.

Do you believe in God(s) not matter what happens?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Please discuss your science background.

Please discuss your theological whether secular or non, education.

It's obvious you are liberal arts with all your big words that attempt confusion.

None of this is relevant. It's just you fishing for angles to attack my character because you lack the depth of knowledge and thought to respond to my argument.

Please just explain your stance.

The entirety of my previous post was precisely that. If you did not recognize it as such, I suggest you re-read it a few more times.

Do you believe in God(s) not matter what happens?

If this is a serious question, then you have clearly not been paying attention.

 

[alkemyst]

None of this is relevant. It's just you fishing for angles to attack my character because you lack the depth of knowledge and thought to respond to my argument.


The entirety of my previous was precisely that. If you did not recognize it as such, I suggest you re-read it a few more times.


If this is a serious question, then you have clearly not been paying attention.

magnets.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

magnets.

Clearly you're better off ragging on other peoples' moms and bragging about your BMW on ATOT than engaging in serious discussion.

I suggest you try to stay in your wheelhouse.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think that an atheist is a person who does not believe in god because he or she has a bias toward logical proof but god exists only when one is in a god conscious state. States of consciousness are not governed or commanded by logic or will. They are the result of a shift in awareness. Such a shift requires some form of external shock.

To discuss the existence of non existence of god is just like asking whether there is or is not a god conscious state. You have either experienced it or not. One can have faith that god exists or one can doubt, but to actually know is to be in that god conscious state. Neither the believer nor the doubter has any idea what he is talking about. But those who know have their lips sealed because you can't transmit to another the qualities of a god conscious state. It is personal.

The finger that points at the moon is not the moon.

 

[Caravaggio]

Nothing to say...been there listened to that....
I don`t need to illicit responses by lying and claiming I am looking for answers.

Thanks for the information. You have joined a 'discussion club' but your button is stuck on 'transmit only'. Bit of a problem for ATC, but since you are not in my airspace we should have endless fun. I have already deduced that you are not alone.
Until next time...