Total posts: 98
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't know you or care enough to hate you. Your just annoying. You engage with me as if you intend on debating my beliefs, but instead start teaching and preaching. Putting words in my mouth purposely manipulating my replies to fit your narrative, and insulting me along the way. Now I can show you every example of this if you don't believe it. This all started when I asked what your great sound reasoning was and you literally asked me to say the "magic words" before you'd tell me.You got to understand how ridiculous that is to someone who is debating. I am not a child and I am not here for games.
Not only that but the sound logic and reasoning you at first withheld but finally revealed was basically because "of course it exists". Which literally takes zero logic and reasoning. And apparently I am haughty for not accepting that. The shear hypocrisy of it all. You throw out all these assertions, offer no grounding for any of it, and call me an idiot, crazy, a fool and of course haughty for not accepting this apodictic truth. Not even normal truth.
Keep in mind, even if you believe I'm at fault somehow, everything I wrote here is still accurate.The name of the site is Debateart.That's what people do here. Thats what I tried to do. If that isn't you intention make it clear. But your superior, mysterious, holier than thou attitude has been preeminent. You don't deserve any sympathy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That is unfortunate. I look at some of his other posts and gave him the benefit of the doubt, but yea I see it now. Guys ill just have to avoid this in the future.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I absolutely believe this now. Before yesterday maybe I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. But yea, you are right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What is even crazier is that you think what you just said makes sense. You would never have to prove that it is true that there is truth. To anyone. Every statement a person makes is either true or false. This is self-evident. Not what you are saying. I can google Ultimate Reality and get a answer. In fact I have. I just wanted you to explain it. But cognitive dissonance is rooted deeply in your psyche. And it looks like you want to hide behind "it can't be explained". Like a child with a secret. and who said they question there existence? You are literally making stuff up. If thats all you had, Im done.
Created:
Any beliefs unfounded by a sound premise is technically irrational. But I think that is the thing with religion. Faith is believing in things that don't make sense. Even a christian should be able to admit that.
Created:
Posted in:
You have demonstrated that in no way. Your big argument is because ultimate reality clearly exists. This is not logic. This is indoctrination. An acceptance of beliefs without critique. You go right ahead but no thanks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yea and if there is no ultimate pizza, there can be no pizza because nothing is ultimately pizza. Makes perfect sense
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I know. I just can't help it sometimes. I have to see how peoples logic work. Especially if they are irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Mopac
No not reality. Putting words in my mouth again. I am definitely here as far as I can tell. Just denying your ridiculously unfounded claims. You also use reality and Ultimate Reality interchangeably, which implies you don't really know what you are talking about. As I said, wall of logic.
Created:
Posted in:
I just answered your question and asked my own and now I'm being unproductive. You asked me what I thought it meant. And I answered. You even responded to my answer with no further inquiry. So no you are not asking I am asking. These are signs of productivity. Don;t be mad at me because other people are calling you out.
Let me get this straight
An example of apodictic truth is "The Ultimate Reality exists". When we say "God", that is what is meant.And certainly, you can arrive to this conclusion with sound logic, but you do not need logic to know that The Ultimste Reality exists
My response was
If it was an apodicitc truth, there would be and we would be aware of it. Especially if other people, like yourself, have already discovered this sound logic. We keep talking around it but lets hear it. What is the logic used?
And you answer is because it clearly exists? This is the sound logic you were referring to? The logic I am just in denial of? You cannot be serious. So if I name this pizza Ultimate Pizza. Its of course is the Ultimate Pizza because that's what it is called. Not because of the 4 for 1 Ultimate toppings deal that includes 5 different cheeses and cheesy bread. But just because if it wasn't Ultimate pizza it could fulfill the essance of actauuly being Ultimate Pizza. And your telling indoctrination has nothing to do with this understanding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You did not show me what entity is. You only think you did. That is what I am talking about. It is easier for you to believe you just showed me what it means. It also doesn't need to be further defined.
And yes, I have already said we can only say we do not know, we can not be certain. That is what the thread is about. Call it denial if you want but you are the one making these assertions. You haven't demonstrated any of them to be true. I have a very basic christian view of God. Don't know what is superstitious about that. It is just as I said. There is a wall of logic religion can never climb. You even said it wasn't necessary to understanding "The Truth". you haven't even really told me what tat is. You just keep tap dancing. Your positioning yourself so that even if you tell me and I argue it, you'll say I'm in denial.
If the argument is apodictic it should be "self-evident". So lefts hear it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That's because you started throwing out claims haphazardly. My defense has been plain and consistent. You have put words in my mouth and taken what I have said out of context by chopping them up and nitpicking them. Multiple times. I have mentioned it and you keep ignoring it. I can post proof that you have done this. So its crazy how you keep telling me I dont know what I am talking about and that I'm confused. You are full of yourself.
I'll give you my answer again. Im not going to retype it and package it in a way that works for you. Especially with you constantly telling me I don't know what I'm debating. The answer is clear. I have even said this multiple times throughout this conversation. Take it or leave it:
I am talking about a God. An entity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't even know what I am debating at this point. You are the one making the assertions. I never even said I disagreed with your interpretation. I only disagreed that it was apodictic truth. Then we got into what Ultimate Reality is and instead of being straight forth with your answers your being cryptic and mysterious. Now for the 3rd time basically telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. You just create this scenario in your mind to suit you ego it seems. You have no idea what I do and do not know. And to say that you do is childish
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have already told you what I think it means. I'm not playing these games anymore. I assumed you intended to debated subject when you first replied to me. Apparently that may not be the case. it seems more like you think you need to teach me in some way. I'm not here for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If me calling that request(not you) neurotic is an insult, than it is insulting to try to make me "say the magic words" to get an answer to a question you complained I didn't ask. Expect I did ask it. Now you are telling me "I know you are in the mud and not nearly as informed about this subject as you would like to make pretense". How the hell would you possibly know that. Do you need to feel superior when you debate people or do you think you are taking me to church right now. You've also managed to ignore most of what I have written you. Which is also insulting seeing as I took the time to respond to everything you have written. You have put words in my mouth and purposely taken what I've written out of context. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
A simple google search will show the number 1 definition as common sense; practical intelligence. So you are wrong. It means exactly what I said it did. We used simple used it in different context.
Now lets see how you agian take my words out of context.
It sounds like you describing objective reality. Which of course exists. I am talking about a God. An entity.
Do you see how I in no way say Ultimate Reality means objective reality. And how I specifically refer to God as an entity. I said that what you make it sound like. Because you are being unnecessarily enigmatic and cryptic. You could just try being direct and clear. The is why I struggle. My perception of God is widely shared. .
No God does not obviously exist. You haven't demonstrated that at all. You are just making unfounded assertions based on general knowledge. Like the fact the there is a reality. The only reason it is clear to you is because you are indoctrinated. Anybody would need to be indoctrinated to see it the way you do. This is not rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I never said my nous was perfect. Or even implied it. But lets look at the entire statement.
Nous also refers to common sense and practical knowledge. So no I will not cleanse that and it isn't muddied.
I referred to the formal definition of the word. You just cut that part out. So you completely took that out of context and put words in my mouth. What does this say about you?
I am not going to pander to your neurotic requests. Tell me or not. You definition of Ultimate reality is unclear. It sounds like you describing objective reality. Which of course exists. I am talking about a God. An entity. Our conversation was on Christianity how is that not clear. No i do ot believe a God exists. I believe we do not know. Thought I've made that clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am impatient? You just replied 3 times before I got one off. That is impatience. You really aren't reading this are you. Again:
I didn't say it was a concept. I said you are describing as if it was a concept and not an entity.
I never said The Ultimate Reality is a concept.
Also:
That term means God to me. I have heard it before in debates. So that is what I assumed it meant. If it is not please tell me.
A simple yes or no will do. Don't make this more difficult then it is. Yo should absolutely be able to describe something in words. Otherwise why do you believe. Surely someone told you or you read it somewhere.
This is not impatience. I am taking time to have an honest and sincere conversation with you about a serious topic and you really aren't even responding to me. You complained multiple times about me not asking the right questions, now I'm answering your questions and that is your response. You have to be fair about this. Unless your just trolling. In which case, you got me.
Nous also refers to common sense and practical knowledge. So no I will not cleanse that and it isn't muddied. You are saying I have to except God(Spirit of truth) in order to see the truth. That is redundant and I have already sipped the Kol-aid at that point. That is not truth that is indoctrination.
The question is: What is the logic used that brought you to these conclusions? You never answered.
Created:
Posted in:
But no it does not obviously exist.
Are you kidding me. Specifically answered that exact question. You didn't even bother to answer the question you complained about me not asking. You just ignored the fact that I asked it and you didn't see it because you are ignoring most of what I am saying. This is why I don't post on DDO anymore.
I have answered all of your questions. The problems is that you are not reading it or ignoring it all together. If you are not going to read what I write and respond to it, why write it.
Why don't you define what The Ultimate Reality means to you and the sound logic that leads to the conclusion that it exists.
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't say it was a concept. I said you are describing as if it was a concept and not an entity.
You have made a lot of assertions during this debate. Most notably the apodictic truth of God/The Truths existence. You also said with understanding it becomes self-evident and sort of implied my lack of knowledge is the problem. I am denying those claims. As we have discussed them. Why would I dismiss something you haven't even told me. And I literaly just asked you in my last reply to tell me the logic used. You obviously didn't read my entire reply.
But no it does not obviously exist. You are using this term very loosely. That term means God to me. I have heard it before in debates. So that is what I assumed it meant. If it is not please tell me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I understand the words you are using. I just do not agree. I get that the Ultimate Reality is referring to God, although it sounds like you are describing a concept and not an entity, but it is not apodictic truth. It isn't a fact that God exists. At best we can say we are ot sure.Therefore there is no sound logic to lead to that conclusion. If it was an apodicitc truth, there would be and we would be aware of it. Especially if other people, like yourself, have already discovered this sound logic. We keep talking around it but lets hear it. What is the logic used?
What about purifying ones heart, mind, and intellect (Nous) does not make one a more rational or logical person?
I don't know what purifying means, so not necessarily. Especially since you already said you don't need logic and reason to get closer to "The Truth". How you came to the religion doesn't matter, you are fully indoctrinated now. What does purifying mean in context and why would it lead to more rational logic?
The religion you are thinking of is certainly not the enlightened faith that I came to, not out of indoctrination, but out of a love of The Truth.
You keep assuming I'm only speaking on western religion. I only mentioned my father because of the OP but I'm talking about Christianity as a whole. The argument is the same no matter the denomination or country. Logic isn't a western thing. it is a thing every creature on this planet uses willingly or not. Religion is the only thing I can think of that doesn't apply it.
If you dismiss something before you understand it, this is a foolish thing to do. I am sure you will agree. Yes, you need to understand what is actually being said before you can see that it is self evident.
I would never dismiss something before understanding it. That isn't what I meant. God or The Truth is not an axiom.This is the most consistently debated subject in recent history. It is to you because it is fundamental to religion. And faith is the fuel for that truth. Evidence of things unseen.
That being the case, there is a certain period of catechisis expected before the Mystagogy is revealed.
Then it is not self-evident. This is the process of indoctrination I'm talking about. You need to be educated before you can understand it. But the education is not logic based its faith based. You speak as if it is a lack of knowledge on my part that caused my beliefs. I;m telling you that's not the case. In fact it was the opposite. It was learning the true origins of religion and learning to overcome indoctrinate thinking to use objective sound reasoning. The things you are saying only make sense if you already believe in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am aware of the history of Christianity. That is why I posted that quote. Thanks for sharing anyways.
I am finding the same problem with your response however. I don't think the difference between heterodox and orthodox is answer. The problem is that you are already indoctrinated. So you can't have an unbiased discussion about God. "Truth" is not self evident. It is subjective.The fact that you do not need logic and reason to reach it show its bias nature. This is the same reason we sacrificed virgins to volcanoes.
The reason humanity have advanced this far is because of the unbiased nature and predictability of logic. True logic, since it is also fallible. The entire universe works this way. Math for example, is logic incarnate, and can be used to explain almost anything that applies logic. But somehow religion has found a way to obtain undeniable truth in the universe without using logic, reason, math, or science which is used to explain every single atom in our universe. The missing component here is human nature. Which religion consistently underestimates.
Orthodox Theology is apodictic truth in nature. What that means is, when properly understood it is self evident
And surely you can see how this is an undeniable reality. There is a proper way of loving The Truth. The cleansing of the nous.
This is indoctrination. In fact, saying you need to understand something for it to be self-evident is a conflicting statement. If something is self evident it is clear and obvious. We basically live in a universe that makes it impossible to prove his existence. In the 1000s of years the religion has existed, no one has been able to definitively do this. So what is apodictically true about orthodox theology? As I said earlier, we will inevitably reach a wall in this debate. Because, your argument are based on faith. Which is fine, because that's religion. But the logic or reason used in religion wont work anywhere else in life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The quote says it is a parody of not part of. We know Christians don't worship the sun. But a large part of the framework of Christian religion was basically taken from Egyptian Sun god worship. But that is just how I see it.
The problem wasn't a lack of knowledge. He is knowledgeable on the subject. The problem is lack of unbiased logic.The debate will always hit a wall because there will always be a lack on concrete evidence or arguments based on concrete evidence, on the religious side of the debate. Saying God is truth itself isn't a concrete statement. In no way can that be measured or tested. It is purely philosophical statement that you have to accept based on faith.The evidence of things unseen.
Created:
Posted in:
My farther is a pastor of a church. We got into one day about our God and after things got heated I realized I had reached a "logical wall". I always knew what faith was but once I looked at it again in this context it really started to not make sense. After doing some resascher I read a quote from Thomas Paine that said “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” After I looked into this i was done.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
I think if we apply pure unbiased logic, it is not rational. But logic can be subjective, so some may say it is rational. Much more rational to say we do not know. Since there is no pure unbiased evidence to suggest it either way.
Created:
Posted in:
Cant believe it was Iron man. I thought it'd be Cap for sure. Not disappointed tho
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I don't think there is any notable difference
Created:
Posted in:
I think you need to find a basis for your morality. Without that it's more or less just common sense. IMO morals are basically rules or creed we adapt overtime for the betterment of society. So when I discuss the topic, I use that as my basis for right and wrong. I think morality can be objective in that sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
At the end of the day the debate will come down to providing some sort of proof to support the claim.We seemingly live in a universe where it is impossible to prove God real or not. Atheist are always going to take a logical stance on it. Theism isn't exactly logical but then I don't really think it is supposed to be.
Created:
Posted in:
Theists should really stay away from these sort of debates
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yea, I think I am starting to get the idea here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Thats not necessarily true. Again the Mesha Stele mentioned Yahweh way before the bible did. People could have read this stone and learned to worship him. But I get your point and i wo t say your 100% wrong. People have drawn multiple interpretations from the bible. All of which we wouldn't have without it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Almost everyone of your replys to me have been insults. Getting kind of old. Dont know who you are calling an idiot but the supreme court has ruled mutiple times that hate speech is protected speech. Most recently in 2017 Matal v Tam. As i said in that post you nitpicked in a legislative context it has no ppwer. Feel free to pose a counterpoint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Definitely did but you keep being edgy and avoid actual discussion if it makes u feel better.
Created:
Posted in:
In the OP you asked what Gods we would worship without Gods contingent on books written about them. Just answering your question bruh.
Created:
Posted in:
Mustardness actaully had a great explination in the post i wad replying to. I'd rather not discuss the science as my understanding is more philosophical. I understand that most physics belive that there arent enough electrons in existance for this to be possible. But of all the answers to why we exist, this makes the most logical sensesense to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
No not yet. You would never have to prove a building isn't in your pocket because everyone understands physics and how that wouldn't be possible. So it depends on the context. In the context of this thread, I would say it is futile. Proving something doesn't exist is pointless because we don't know what it means to not exist.
I don't think they are different. I mean you are basically providing evidence to support your claim. If the evidence is sound, you will have logically proven it. I should have said, provide evidence and not prove. But I do understand what you are saying. I'm sure there is an example out there that'd shows proving a negative not being futile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
That first one was not a negative claim. I suppose the second is but It can be verified just by looking in your pocket. A negative claim would be "God does not exist". I am asserting something does not exist.There is no way to prove that. Besides the initial claim is that God exists not that he does not. That is what we need to prove.
Created:
Posted in:
How do you prove a negative? Seems like an exercise in futility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The ancient Egyptians had Gods and no Books. They worshiped the Sun God Ra along with many others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You are all over the place my friend. But Im going to reply anyway.
Don't look now but the OT is part of the bible and Yahweh is first created in that book. Try again
Not sure what point you are making here. To my understanding the Mesha Stele the the first recorded mention of Yahweh the God of the Jews. He was also mentioned in the Hebrew bible which the OT in the christian bible was written from. Pretty sure we an all agree the Hebrew bible came first.
Your other 2 comments are unfounded. I never made any of those claims so Im not sure where that came from. You asked for evidence that Yahweh was mentioned before the bible. I gave it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I think the first record mention of Yahweh was the Mesha Stele and that was create around 840 BCE. Also, Im pretty sure it's used in the Hebrew Bible. Which is basically the old testament.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
No I did not. I understand the science enough to have a philosophical discussion but I would never be able to explain it as you just did. But reason or purpose, who could know. I just think it the most logical answer given what evidence we have.
Created:
Posted in:
You might be right about Jesus but Yahweh was around long before the bible. I'm pretty sure Allah is the same God. I think it would depend on the culture. Maybe no god and you prey to your ancestors. A lot of ancient cultures preyed to the sun. It is the closet thing to a God we have. Most likely that. The Sun. All hail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't think anyone says that. But its not a conviction. There is at least has some scientific evidence to back it up. If you havn't, read up on quantum mechanics. A lot of interesting and spooky stuff going on.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe this universe may be some sort of simulation. For what purpose I am not sure.
Created:
Posted in:
Holy crap Greyparrot. Good to see/hear from you again.
I dont think Hate speech is really a thing. In a legislative context I mean. I suppose people can say it exist but not in any meaningful way. IMO
Created:
Posted in:
I used to love DDO. Had some good debates there. I just read that apparently everyone from there is here now. Glad I found this site.
Created:
I think philosophy sort of acknowledges as discussion for the sake of knowledge.Religious discussion is usually for the sake of religious belief.
Created: