Total posts: 98
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Maybe you can but that is besides the point. Atheist don't need to. You know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Well there are some who understand what Atheism really is and some who don't. But who is trying to prove a negative? And why would an atheist need to. Not knowing is a natural state. It is the logical starting point when seeking any sort of objective information. Everyone works that way. Religion is the only thing people completely give in to this way. Understandably, I suppose. Even with no objective evidence. At all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Lol. You literally make me laugh bruh. This whole post is one big red haring. You are not addressing the contradiction I just presented
First of all. No one is doing any of those things. Did I insult you or accuse you of being deceptive? No, your just being sensitive.
Second Im not telling you what your words mean. Where did I do that? Nonsense. I quoted you directly and presented you with a honest and very debatable contradiction in your statements.
Third, superstition involves beliefs and I have no beliefs about God. I explained this before, I believe when we die ANYTHING could happen. That is all. I am not debating what you think Ultimate Reality is. Never said I understood what it meant. I never even said you were wrong. I asked you multiple times and you kept being ambiguous. "the realest real , the truest truth, the essence of all things". And yet I just quoted you saying Gods essence is unknowable. Im not twisting anything or taking anything out of context. Your just contradicted yourself. Why not just clear it up instead of attacking the person that pointed it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It was not per your pwn words.
My comment:
Any of these could be true and would render Ultimate Reality completely moot.
Yours:
The Ultimate Reality is whatever it actually is. Not a single one of those scenarios you present refutes The Ultimate Reality. Assuming any one of these situations was true...Existence is the product of "random" events.Existence is a simulation of aliens.The universe is a fingernail of God(what?)This universe is all there isEtcEvery single one of these possibilities, if any of them are true at all, they do not and can not "render the Ultimate reality moot".
Also
And we Orthodox don't know what God is. Nobody does. The essence of God is unknowable. Think about it, The Ultimate Reality... any idea you have about what that is must be false, because ideas are created things
I very obviously implied God can be anything, and you accepted that. You even said these examples don't refute Ultimate Reality. Every scenario I gave, you said it was plausible. I didn't take it out of context. Although later, after I pointed out the contradiction, you acted as if you never said this.
Yet, none of these examples you listed are The Ultimate Reality. If they were the ultimate reality, that is what it would be.
Even if we ignore that, there is still a contradiction. What is the point of religion if these examples are plausible? If no one really knows what God is, how do you know God is sentient?
God is omnipresent, enlivening all things, omnipotent, etc
How do you know what God is if no one can know what God is or understand God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Great. Solid logical explanation. None of this means there is a God. This something could be anything. That was my point to Mopac.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You keep saying that like if you believe it enough it will become true. No I dont know better. Neither do you, as I exposed the contradiction of this "belief" last time I engaged with you. Proving the "Ultimate Reality" wrong is not the point. The Ultimate reality could be anything, per your own words, and yet it is a sentient God somehow. If you remember I even said "God could have sneezed this universe into existence without even noticing" which you agreed could be possible. You only disagreed when I pointed out the futility of religion in that scenario. You have a explanation by all means.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Not about to get into all this. Your ability to ration is just not developed enough to have a logical debate.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I can be what ever you want to call me, it wont change your behavior in past debates. Multiple people have called you out for ad-hominem without my involvement. Maybe you should listen to what people are telling you. Your only comment on the OP was basically an insult so, if thays all you had fell free to ignore this thread.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
On the money
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Okay. Everyone that doesn;t agree with you is just a know it all. Because your truth is apodictic.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I thought it was all externally interesting. And as an atheist, I find this to be a plausible explanation for it all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Why jump straight to insults? What is going on? That wasn't the part that didn't make sense. I think you know what you are doing here. This part doesnt make sense.
The reasons var, however, there may exist a few underlying reasons that are fairly common. Ex religion and if the repeat to others what some relegion says the fit into the group.
Maybe you just need to chill. If you just going to keep saying the same thing i will to.
"They are all plausible. There is no sufficient evidence to support either in practical terms. How much common sense and logic can be applied in this matter."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
First of all, I can barely make out what you are trying to say. Second, why are you so combative? Chill tf out. It was a caviler response meant to convey my general opinion on the options you presented. If you intention was for me to pick the most logical choice of those you provided, you should have said so. You didn't and they are all plausible. Me saying "I suppose" does not mean none of what you just said. They are all plausible. There is no sufficient evidence to support either in practical terms. How much common sense and logic can be applied in this matter.
Created:
Not sure if anyone has already posted this. Apologize if so. I didn't see anything. I found this video on Youtube the other day and have been infatuated every since. The explanation of the Arch of the Covenant was very interesting. I have to admit I am an Atheist, but I also believe there could be some truth in this. But these stories seem more plausible. Especially with some of the miss interpretations cleared up.
He makes a claim that the dimensions of the Arch fit the dimensions of one of the chambers of a great pyramid. Not sure which one. But this makes me think of the Arch as some sort of device and not just a religious relic. Especially since the Copper scrolls describe exactly how to build it. I just wanted to share and see what your opinions are. It is an 1:08 long. I think its worth the watch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I suppose they could all be plausible. IMO, atheism is the best way to view them all objectively. Like I said, be skeptical of everything.
Created:
Posted in:
Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. It isn't necessarily saying there is no God. There is a subset of atheism where they do believe that. So being skeptical of atheism sense futile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I think a lot of what your saying is a bit of conjecture. And you are taking some of the things I am saying a little too literally but I may not have been clear enough.
I don't think Theism as we know it is compatible at all with "God".
What I mean is, I don't believe Theism is compatible with what God truly is. I think we have a variety of boxes we put God into to fit our different perspectives. The truth of it is probably more out there then we will ever understand. As far as God is concerned, no , I don't believe we have any accurate information on what it really is. What I am saying is nonsensical if you think you know what God is. I don't think we do. So no i don't believe he necessarily packed up and left town. That is conjecture. Who said God is a he/she or even sentient? Who said God is omnipresent? Even if that was true ,who said God cares about this universe. The universe could be the product of completely random events. He may have just sneezed this universe into existence and never noticed.
When I say "Religion is extremely "human", for lack of a better word." I men I don't see God participating in religion at all. IMO of course. And I mean in any relevant context. It all just seems like things humans basically came up with. I don't see any examples of divine providence, or payers working, blessings, or any sort of super natural evidence. Religious history in even somewhat inaccurate when compared to actual history or secular I should say. I also think it is a bit of personification and Spotlight syndrome. We are attributing human characteristics to a noumenonal entity. Never mind the fact that we assume one exists. Even if it did we assume it cares about us.
This is a problem because they lead to different interpretations. And I hear what you are saying about different flavors and it really just being about personal spirituality but I disagree. I don't know any religion that teaches it is okay to choose another religion. The practices are too different. Take Islam for example. Violence and hate of infidels is built into the doctrine. Christianity, your supposed to love everyone. Interpretations have everything to do with what God is. Because God is not objective. God is perception. I say this because we have no objective evidence to establish an objective meaning for God. So everything we know about him is perception, even what we read. hence the different interpretations.
I didn't actually mean God wrote it. I mean it is not an interpretation of God's will or a record of transcendent reality. Even if you can poke holes in the statement, please understand what i am trying to say. I don't want to argue semantics.
Man and cultures create their own religions due to their observations and God lets them, because it's not a big deal. Again
I think it is because God has no further involvement then the initial creation. There is nothing in this universe that shows God/he/she/it wishes us to be closer to him(Im just going to say him from now on). None that we will leave our physical body. If God exists I don't see how he has demonstrated that at all. I believe if God truly wanted this, it would be obvious in some matter. The most likely way is something actually written i doctrine actually happening. But as far as I know nothing has happpened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
Its going to be hard to make this argument in music. Even if it does objectify woman, they like it. The ones in the videos the ones listening to it in the clubs, they all for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't think Theism as we know it is compatible at all with "God". If such a thing exists. I believe if a creator exists, he/she has no further involvement then the initial creation. Religion is extremely "human", for lack of a better word. The fact that we have so many religions from the same book proves, to me, that God didn't write it. I don't believe a God would create something so ambiguous and open for interpretation. Not to mention the content. So I havn't counted God out as the source, so to speak, but I also believe evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
I am for abortion in specific situations. Rape, maybe underage pregnancies, at risk pregnancies. But not just so woman can fix a mistake they made. I understand it is a woman's body and they should be able to make this choice but men can't carry children so woman have to have more accountability in this area. Understand that men can't make these choices. At the end of the day this topic is too nuanced to firmly side either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You completely ignored the last point i just made. I cant. I showed it to you twice. I'm good. Now I'm starting to feel silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Yea I give up. I very clearly stated the contradiction he created. He keeps defecting. I'm not about to keep playing this game. I was fair. But I give up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If the ultimate reality is nothing, how is there anything?
This is what I am asking you and my whole argument. I/We don't know. This is the contradiction I am talking about. You admitted that the ultimate reality can be nothing; I specifically said it was a possibility and you agreed. I just showed it to you. I copied and pasted it. Here:
This universe is all there isEtcEvery single one of these possibilities, if any of them are true at all, they do not and can not "render the Ultimate reality moot".
The universe is all there is means nothing. I'm sure you understood that. Which makes Christianity pointless. Which makes what you're saying now about Christianity and God specifically a contradiction. Doesn't matter what you think I was exposed to. If there is nothing, what point is religion at all. Again I am using your logic. You agreed.
Created:
Yea that one is crazy, Can you imagine if that is a child. Thats like giving the rapist some kind of victory seems like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I did not say.
"It is the ultimste reality that there is no ultimate reality!"
I did not deny God. I just told you:
I also said that all we can say is we dont know if God exists.
That is not a denial of God.
This is the contradiction. If:
It is closer to "God is whatever The Ultimate Reality is."
Then God could be nothing. Per you own words.
This universe is all there isEtcEvery single one of these possibilities, if any of them are true at all, they do not and can not "render the Ultimate reality moot".
This is not Christian. This is what I am denying and focusing on because it is clearly contradictive. Otherwise you have to be saying God is on some level a specific thing like Christians do. If so I will again refer to my original argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have said The ultimate Reality is God. Literally multiple times during this debate. Again, disagree and I can re post the evidence. it is there I promise you. That is what I keep saying. I also said that all we can say is we dont know if God exists.Your reply to me was that I dont't understand because if I did there would be no question, I don't want to understand and I am haughty. Remember. So I reevaluated and came at another angle which you apodictically agreed with.
I am going 100% off what you said. No superstitions, no preconceptions. You even agreed.You have contradicted yourself, not me. I ventured into your realm of logic. Why don't you do just fix it instead of blaming me.
So is The ultimate Reality anything literally anything we experience after we die or is the Ultimate reality whatever God is? If you answer is It is whatever God is, then this is not apodictic and it is not self evident. And it is understood no matter how much you hate the idea. You walk by faith and not by sight, and that's okay. But that is the point I've been making since we started this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No I dont understand it. You just told me:
Existence is the product of "random" events.Existence is a simulation of aliens.The universe is a fingernail of God(what?)This universe is all there isEtcEvery single one of these possibilities, if any of them are true at all, they do not and can not "render the Ultimate reality moot".
No I don't get it. I am using your logic here. You words. Now you are saying Ultimate Reality is a God? How is nothing after this universe a God? Do you not see how these 2 things are specifically contradictive? This is not an issue with my understanding. Something you are saying just doesn't make sense. Why cant you just admit that?
Look, you don't understand my faith. There is nothing shameful about admitting this. I can't really talk about it effectively unless we get this God issue down.So say, "I don't know", and be open to the possibility that I know what I am talking about and not simply assuming.
I have told you at least 3 times now that I wasn't even denying your claim, you just was not provided sound reasoning for me to accept it. Shall I re post that for you? Are you kidding me? This is again ad hominem. I have no problem admitting i don't know something. I'm here for knowledge, to learn and challenge my beliefs. So don't start that now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You made the assertion, you should have given me something to work with. Not the other way around.
So your answer is, no matter what comes next God or not, that is Ultimate Reality. Even if It has nothing to do with God, truth, cleaning the nous, the Bible which you keep quoting, the correct Christianity which you keep referring to, Jesus, even if there is absolutely no afterlife, nothing after the universe is destroyed, that is the Ultimate you refused to explain further?
How Exactly is this different from agnosticism? How is this not a noumenon? What is the point of any religion if you openly acknowledge the Ultimate Reality could be anything? The Ultimate Reality could be a God that loves murder. You talked about muddied nous and this and that. That all just seems pointless now and completely misleading because it really has nothing to do with Ultimate Reality because we still don't know what it is. It could literally be nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish."
ad hominem:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
You see how that describes exactly what you keep doing. My mind can not accept that your aren't trolling and you actually think this way. Your logic is so contradiction.
You are assuming that true understating of The Truth renders all arguments pointless sense The Truth is in fact already the nature of all things. The realest reality. The true essence of all things. The true reality i which we may or may not return to as it is
I am saying that is not necessarily true. This existence could be a by product of completely random events. Our entire universe could be a simulation of a super intelligent alien race, used to generate power through the creation of black holes. This universe could be a blip of existence on the finger nail of "God" that he never even noticed. This universe could absolutely be the only thing that ever is and ever was and ever will be in this existence and what ever one you can think of. Any of these could be true and would render Ultimate Reality completely moot.
Now I do not think that way. I chose to believe there is more for us after we die. I have no idea what that could ever possibly be. But I believe the answer are not found in any Bible, Koran, Hebrew Bible or any such thing. These things are all created by man. There are so many different scenarios. The point is, it is not apoptotic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There is nothing reasonable about saying, "Prove to me that it is true that there is truth."
I am not asking this, you are. I'm not a nihilist either. You don't control the narrative.
This is why I keep bringing up the fact that your are full of insults. Because it is ad hominem, a fallacy and proof of you lack of logic. People always resort to that when they have nothing productive to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Sir this is circular reasoning. It is a logical fallacy.
You are using the term truth loosely and playing off this ambiguity. Noticed how you didn't capitalize The Truth. Reasoning doesn't necessarily lead the truth. It leads to a truth.
Obviously truth exist. I am a boy. This is true. You are conflating truth( the state of being true) and God. I understand what you mean by The Truth. Ultimate Reality. But they are all referring to God. The state of being true is not God and has nothing to do with God.
You need to be clear with what is what. If "the truth" is God then I disagree. We can have reason without God. In fact we do
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Either this is trolling or he is so firmly rooted in this doctrine that no amount of logic will matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You logic is so circular. I promise, you are the one not understanding. Not me. That doesn't make any sense.
Fyi in 2019 one cannot assume gender.
Yes i can
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Saying something is self evident doesn't make it self evident. That is just an assertion. it is not reasoning. You want me to attempt to understand that "The Truth" is self evident but you have not offered any reason for anyone to reach this understanding. You only keep saying it should be obvious. Also not reasoning.
I am a boy. Anyone's who know me knows this is self evident. Not because I'm going around showing my junk to everyone. It is obvious by my looks, voice, and mannerisms. That is the internal reasoning that causes understanding that leads to self evidence. This is why, some philosophers believe nothing is self evident. But I digress.
You are asking people not to use their logic. In a debate. What other mechanism do I have to reach this understanding? What does, "make the attempt with me please" mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Big meanie lol. Okay guy.
No it isn't. That is how the burden of proof works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You just said I prefer to be haughty. That is you telling me my intentions. You also keep saying I don't want to know. Also telling me my intentions. You can't control the narrative in a debate.
Saying I prefer to be haughty is nonsensical. Again Im not even denying you claim. Im asking you to provide logic that isn't "because it is obvious". You won't. And your calling me haughty because I'm not accepting your illogical reasoning? Can you truly not see the irony and hypocrisy of this? This a literal example of ad hominem. It is a fallacy for a reason.
You have called me call me an idiot, crazy, a fool. Those are insults regardless of context. But I dont care about that. You have not made a logical argument yet. My argument was about the logical wall religious debate always end at. Your just proving me right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, dude. I genuinely tried. 100%. But I don't care enough to keep going back and forth like this. Arguing about about my intentions and your feelings. if you have valid reasoning offer it and I will reply with honest logic.
Created:
Posted in:
Meaningful discussion. You literally just wrote me:
You will get nothing from me, because you think you know already.
And
Norhimg to understand.How telling.
This is you trying to have a meaningful discussion? Getting some hints of narcissism here. Also
The real problem is I am talking to people who don't really care to know, but would rather lean on their own understanding.
The problem is you offer no understanding. Just assertions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
My premise is sound. We can not prove God exists. Whether or not you think I am indoctrinated it hasn't affected my ability to reason. Your beliefs shows your reasoning has been severely compromised. It is a valid argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No the problem is your premise and your indoctrination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, I don't know. That is why I am agnostic atheist. I reject it because there is nothing to understand. Nothing to cogitate upon. I am not even denying your claims. I am saying you literally aren't offering any logic. You just saying believe because it is obvious.
And the word annoy has no religious context. It does and has always referred to irritation not passion. If if that is "the langusge we use" it is incorrect. You trying too hard
Created:
Posted in:
Again with all the unfounded assertions.This is ad hominem. You just don't want to discuss the real issue because you don't have an argument. The claim to prove is that God exists not that he does not. Deception is misrepresenting atheism for nihilism. I'm atheist but I don't believe there is no God. I believe we do not know. And many other do as well. Morality withstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Annoyance is not a symptom of passion. It is a symptom of irritation. Stop trying to redefine words to fit your narratives.
You have the most circular reasoning I have ever seen. You will never be able to apply sound reasoning this way. And your basically just saying the same thing over and over. You have no proof that anything is pre-eternal. You still have offered no reasoning as to why "Without this being, this existence, this entity, there could be no form of existence". Show me that "There are many truths, and for these truths to be The Truth must be in them.' How would you demonstrate that? The Donald Trump example you gave proved absolutely nothing. He wasn't president, he is now, he won;t be soon. Yes that is how it works.
To you al of this makes sense because you have already been indoctrinated. Which was my first point. Yo have faith all this is true. Not proof. You have offered no sound reasoning for everything you believe. It is not a matter of me not understanding or you finding the write words. I understand it. It just doesn't make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Passion? I said annoy not hate. My soul is just compelled to call out bs.
Multiple realities is a theory not a fact. Your assuming they are all tied together and that there would need to be something to manage that. Even if this was all true, your assuming that "thing" would be your God. Could be Satan. Dont know can't check
Created: