-->
@Mopac
What language did YOU speak in ancient times?
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
Posts
Total:
526
-->
@disgusted
"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs no 'thing in itself This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind. "
~Friedrich Nietzsche
Sums it up pretty good.
Atheism, which is really just another way of saying nihilism, disproves itself.
-->
@Mopac
I've given you the definition twice now, you are obviously wrong or more importantly you are lying.
-->
@Mopac
Nothing at all to do with atheism. Thanks
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you know what you're seeing is real versus a mirage or optical illusion?If intuition is sometimes right and sometimes wrong how can we possibly know which is the case if there is no independently verifiable evidence with which to confirm or deny the efficacy of any given intuition? (Say in the case of the supernatural)
-->
@RoderickSpode
I do not know. I merely accept it as real as a convenience since it is the only "reality" of which I am aware. Pain is unpleasant even if illusory so I do not touch a hot iron even though it may not be real (whatever real even means).
Now if we accept our perceieved reality as genuinely real we can determine certain things about the universe by a process of experimentation and these observations are "useful" in the context of our perceived "reality".
This belief is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits
-->
@RoderickSpode
How do you know what you're seeing is real versus a mirage or optical illusion?
Or did you mean how do I know that a mirage is not what it seems even within the context of our perceived reality? Because I am aware of the phenomena of mirage within our perceived reality and when I see one I recognize it as such. Whether reality is real or not a mirage misrepresents it.
-->
@secularmerlin
The same would apply to someone who encountered the creator of the Universe. I might not like the fact that we all grow old and die, but that wouldn't have any significance to my own epistemological limits.I do not know. I merely accept it as real as a convenience since it is the only "reality" of which I am aware. Pain is unpleasant even if illusory so I do not touch a hot iron even though it may not be real (whatever real even means).Now if we accept our perceieved reality as genuinely real we can determine certain things about the universe by a process of experimentation and these observations are "useful" in the context of our perceived "reality".This belief is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no doubt you would recognize the mirage of water on the highway on a hot day. But if you were stranded in the desert, it would probably be quite a bit different. For one, an oasis in the desert (shade and water) is not non-existent. Plus, you'd probably be vulnerable to believing there's an oasis if you were in a bad condition.Or did you mean how do I know that a mirage is not what it seems even within the context of our perceived reality? Because I am aware of the phenomena of mirage within our perceived reality and when I see one I recognize it as such. Whether reality is real or not a mirage misrepresents it.
Like sight, at times it's very obvious that what you see is really there. When it's not so clear, further examination might be required. It's the same with hearing God's voice. Sometimes crystal clear without controversy. Sometimes the question might arise, "was that really God?" And that may require more prayer or any other type of reexamination.
-->
@RoderickSpode
You are making an appeal to special knowledge. Unless there is some independently verifiable evidence which does not rely on personal testimony I have no choice but to reject your claim.
This is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits.
-->
@secularmerlin
You are making an appeal to special knowledge. Unless there is some independently verifiable evidence which does not rely on personal testimony I have no choice but to reject your claim.This is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits.
You're not going to see evidence outside of nature. It's impossible. If a giant finger wrote "Jesus Saves" in the sky, some will believe it's God, and some will believe it's aliens. Just as in the ant farm, in order for an ant to come into verifiable evidence of the ant farm's creator, the creator would have to intervene from the outside of the ant's produced environment. If the creator of the ant farm doesn't stick his finger inside the ant farm letting ant's bump into it, the ants won't have any reference point of there being a creator other than the glass that prevents them from leaving their environment. If ants could think and communicate intellectually, some might suggest that glass holding them in has been intelligently designed. Some ants may come up with a theory on how the glass got there naturally. If the creator sticks his finger in, he's acting as an outside agent revealing himself by entering into the ant's environment.
All you have at this point is nature. You've decided that since you don't observe anything beyond that, there isn't, or probably isn't a creator involved. Some people may look at nature, and view it as complex enough to where a deistic god was involved. Or, they may become theists without any religious affiliation. Or, they may convert to a specific religion possessing a creator in it's theology. The major step to take however would be to consider whether or not we're held accountable for our actions, and able to have communication/communion with the creator. And do what whatever they can to seek an encounter with the creator.
As far as special knowledge, what do you consider special knowledge. You have knowledge I don't have. For instance, I don't know your neighbor.
Assuming you do (as I don't), is that special knowledge?
-->
@secularmerlin
Good question. As a Christian, I try to focus on what my faith has to offer, instead of using the tu quoque fallacy, respectively. I don't feel I need to be nasty anymore, to try, and prove my point. Please tell me what evidence you need to be a christian. I'm not making absolute promises, but I might be able to help you.
-->
@Harikrish
Are you a convert to Hinduism or were you born into it?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Thanks, you just admitted religions are man made.You're not going to see evidence outside of nature.
-->
@RoderickSpode
That is knowledge you couldn't possibly have gained other than through your vivid imagination.As far as special knowledge, what do you consider special knowledge.
-->
@Goldtop
Thanks, you just admitted religions are man made.
Depends what you mean by man-made. Someone writes a documentary of a famous person. The famous person gives accurate information concerning his life story. But the book and/or film was created by the producer of the documentary. In that sense, it was producer made (someone other than the person of subject), but that doesn't remove the authenticity of his life portrayal.
-->
@Goldtop
You don't think a creator of a universe could communicate with a human being?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Gods were created by men, not the other way round.Depends what you mean by man-made.
You don't think a creator of a universe could communicate with a human being?
Sure, a creator would communicate with all human beings, but that obviously hasn't happened.
-->
@Goldtop
How do you know?
Special knowledge?
-->
@Goldtop
How do you know?
Special knowledge?
-->
@RoderickSpode
How do I know what? Are you actually asking me how I know that everyone on the planet isn't communicating with God? Is that supposed to be a joke? Are you serious? Use your head, pal.How do you know?
-->
@Goldtop
Actually I'm asking you how you know that no one is communicating with God.How do I know what? Are you actually asking me how I know that everyone on the planet isn't communicating with God? Is that supposed to be a joke? Are you serious? Use your head, pal.
I'm sure that you know that you're not. And I'm sure you're right in that respect.
You don't have to answer by the way.
-->
@RoderickSpode
I already said, God would communicate with us all.Actually I'm asking you how you know that no one is communicating with God.
I'm sure that you know that you're not.
I'm just as sure you're not, or anyone else.
Fantastic! We've just had a discussion that provided yet another reason to doubt the existence of gods. They keep stacking up.
-->
@Goldtop
If he would communicate with us all, then he could communicate with us all. You think (from what I gather) that God would communicate with everyone instead of select humans. Is that because you think God couldn't be selective, or wouldn't?I already said, God would communicate with us all.
-->
@Goldtop
I'm just as sure you're not, or anyone else.Fantastic! We've just had a discussion that provided yet another reason to doubt the existence of gods. They keep stacking up.
You haven't convinced me of any of that. I don't know how you have the ability to speak for others. Special knowledge?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Actually I'm asking you how you know that no one is communicating with God.
That is the easiest thing in the world to know, gods are the creation of humans and have no means of communicating with humans.
No one is communicating with the non existent.
-->
@RoderickSpode
You think (from what I gather) that God would communicate with everyone instead of select humans. Is that because you think God couldn't be selective, or wouldn't?
We can assume two things about God, he is either really smart or really dumb. If we assume he's really smart, then he either makes himself completely indistinguishable from the nonexistent such that humans would never know about him or he would reveal himself to us all. If we assume he's really dumb, then he would be selective with whom he communicated. The former would lead to every human on the planet understanding that God exists, while the latter would lead us to where we are today, multiple religions with humans fighting and killing each other over which religion is right.
Or, can we assume humans are smart or dumb? If smart, they wouldn't invent gods in the first place to subject others to their will or if really dumb, they would. And, here we are today.
You haven't convinced me of any of that.
Really? Are you now going to proclaim God communicates with you?
The atheist's conception of God doesn't exist, therefore, God doesn't exist.
Atheist logic right there.
-->
@Mopac
Wrong. The atheist concept is "no god or gods have ever been demonstrated or confirmed to exist, therefore it seems unlikely that a god or gods exist or existed, so I will withhold belief in those gods or that god until such time as the evidence demands reexamination." Even your straw men are dumb, buddy.
Rich, coming from someone who says stuff like "Well there's such a thing as reality, therefore god exists" and "The truth is real, so then god is real because he is the same thing as truth, except if I use a capital T it sounds more majestic."