Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76
  1. #16
    Empire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    .Alwayz.
    Posts
    19,896
    Reputation
    659
    Thanks
    1,346
    My Mood
    Pensive
    yeahp, stereotypes is how it all goes down, and if you go outside of the stereotypes, your not worth the effort.


  2. #17
    Sir Nathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    In a 3rd World Country
    Posts
    1,328
    Reputation
    68
    Thanks
    132
    My Mood
    Pensive
    Ok, here's my A-game. Suppose that God is X (so that I do not refer to just my God, teh christian God, but to all Gods like Buddha or others).

    It is true, that most of the people haven't seen God, and some claim that they have, but there's no proof of it. Being that said, without proof, there is no reason for you to believe, is there? Of course, you can call God an excuse to hide our ignorance towards knowing the origins of the universe, of how things were made, and of zillions of other stuuf that we have no clue about. You could just assume that everything appeared through scientific reactions or so on. But, isn't our modern society based in religion? If X does not exist, why believe in it? Do you believe in the Big Bang? Do you believe in aliens? Do you believe in any unknown thing that hasn't been solved by science? Call it faith. Faith has now become our Y.

    So, X is God, and Y is Faith. Why would so many people (and we're not talkin about millions here, but billions, more than half of the total population in the world) have Y in X if they have no proof? No argument to say "I believe in X, because...". But still, couldn't a normal person like me and you tell everyone else that you're some sort of X and that they should have Y on you? They'd think you're nuts right? They'd be like "Wtf?". And tehy'd ask for proof. Now here comes the trick.

    Obviously, in ancient times, there was no way to actually take a picture or get some proof that shows that someone existed and make it survive until now. But, if there wasn't any proof, why did the 12 Apostles believe in him as the Messiah? (Idk if it's the correct term). Maybe he didn't even exist at all, and it was just a joke from some guy who wanted to be important and wrote the books of the Bible. Maybe 12 guys got together and created this fascinating story right? But, even if that was the case, other people from the same era or even before (prophets and so...) talked about this "Jesus". People, who were mile away from the apparent cities were these miraculous events took place. Who did they find out about it? The news spread right? But, if the news spread, there had to be an actual Jesus.

    Maybe he did exist, but he was just an illusionist (we're expanding you're imagination a bit here), and people were amazed. How come an illusionist be predicted hundreds of years ago all throughout the world, when he was nothing but a fake? Illusionist? I don't think so.

    Still, it's up to you to believe in X or not. If you have to actually see to believe, then do some research, but do not get into it with a defensive attitude waiting for nothing to surprise you, cuz you'll get nothing from it.
    God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

  3. #18
    Empire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    .Alwayz.
    Posts
    19,896
    Reputation
    659
    Thanks
    1,346
    My Mood
    Pensive
    i'll let paroxysm put some stuff down before i respond with my way-out-there mindset(well maybe not, we'll see ^.^)


  4. #19
    Sir Nathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    In a 3rd World Country
    Posts
    1,328
    Reputation
    68
    Thanks
    132
    My Mood
    Pensive
    Quote Originally Posted by Empire View Post
    i'll let paroxysm put some stuff down before i respond with my way-out-there mindset(well maybe not, we'll see ^.^)
    Hmm, wel after reading Paroxysm's posts I realise, he isn't Open-Minded is he? Then why ask people to try to change your mind if you're defensive?

    P.S.: Go another interesting idea for you: You don't believe in God because there is no proof that shows that he exists? But how come you belive he doesn't exist, if there's no proff showing that he isn't real at all?
    God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

  5. #20
    powpowpow21's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    NO WHERE AND EVERYWHERE
    Posts
    408
    Reputation
    10
    Thanks
    21
    My Mood
    Cool
    I agree with empire 110%

  6. #21
    Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    12,655
    Reputation
    1136
    Thanks
    4,294,967,295
    Paroxysm is God => Paroxysm exists => God exists.

    Mind = blown.

  7. #22
    Paroxysm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    4,455
    Reputation
    170
    Thanks
    282
    My Mood
    Cheeky
    Quote Originally Posted by HITLER View Post
    Paroxysm is God => Paroxysm exists => God exists.

    Mind = blown.
    Before I respond to everyone else's comments first I'll address this:
    Your first premise is false, simply defining me as God doesn't make me God, it's like Lincolns quote:
    "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

    Your second premise is true.

    Your conclusion is unjustifiable due to the first premise being unsound.

    Logical syllogisms, learn to use em properly yo.
    "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot

  8. #23
    Paroxysm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    4,455
    Reputation
    170
    Thanks
    282
    My Mood
    Cheeky
    Everyone but natiko:
    Ok I'll be honest with you guys this is getting very frustrating, I come here asking you to bring me the reasons you believe in a deity and why I should too, but all you've done was come here and say "OH NOEZ! Youz closed-mindzed! Youz dogmatic atheist!@ I no waste time! Youz unwilling to thinkz!"
    Seriously? The whole point of this thread was for me to listen to your claims and evidence so I could reevaluate the god hypothesis and all you've done is shown me that you are unwilling to engage in an actual discussion. I'm willing to reconsider my stances.


    Empire:
    1 Peter 3:15
    Do it.

    natiko:
    I'll respond to your messages later, I'm sorry I can't get to it right now but I'm swamped with school work, but the moment I can, I'll give a thought full response, seeing as you were willing to present me with an actual argument I feel responsible to supply you with my thoughts. I fear that if I give my response now it'll be hurried and won't do you justice. If you would like to have an active discussion feel free to PM me and we can arrange a time to talk either over MSN, ventrillo or skype.


    Clarification:
    I feel you guys have a poor understanding of my position on God's so I'll present it so you can avoid straw-man arguments (I'm looking at you Obama)

    When I think about who I am and how I base my understand of reality I conclude that I'm a methodological naturalist, there is nothing I would like more than to understand the universe for what it is, whether I like the answers or not. I'm also an agnostic-atheist, most atheists are. Agnostic atheists hold the stance of "I don't believe there are deities." This contrasted with gnostic-atheism which is "I believe there are no deities", is very different. Gnostic-atheism or strong-atheism is unjustifiable and I've engaged in many arguments with strong atheists about their stance on the existence of deities. I feel that I need to make it clear however that strong-atheists are a very small minority.

    Final:
    If anyone would like to engage in an active discussion feel free to message me and we can arrange something, however those that would like to talk via this thread will be given priority until I can get my work settled.


    ~An extremely annoyed Paroxysm.
    Last edited by Paroxysm; 05-11-2010 at 09:06 PM.
    "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot

  9. #24
    Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    12,655
    Reputation
    1136
    Thanks
    4,294,967,295
    Everybody quickly spam Paroxysm with biased claims that don't prove your point in the least.. maybe his brain will overload and he'll simply give in.

  10. #25
    Sir Nathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    In a 3rd World Country
    Posts
    1,328
    Reputation
    68
    Thanks
    132
    My Mood
    Pensive
    That's a fair, serious and mature response. I have no rush for you to respond, so take your time.
    God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

  11. #26
    Empire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    .Alwayz.
    Posts
    19,896
    Reputation
    659
    Thanks
    1,346
    My Mood
    Pensive
    Quote Originally Posted by HITLER View Post
    Everybody quickly spam Paroxysm with biased claims that don't prove your point in the least.. maybe his brain will overload and he'll simply give in.
    Might as well, he doesn't respond to any of my shit anyway.

    Hey Paroxysm, we who've been here awhile know that you never respond truly to any question asked, or any point proven.


  12. #27
    Paroxysm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    4,455
    Reputation
    170
    Thanks
    282
    My Mood
    Cheeky
    Ok Fine Empire, just so you'll shut up I'll give you a quick response.
    My response is in red.

    Quote Originally Posted by Empire View Post
    your saying love is an object, which makes it an invalid point.
    I'm not saying love is an object, I'm saying love is contingent on the physical world, love is an emotion experienced due to chemical reactions in the brain, although love is not physical it's causes are.
    Its like proving faith, you can do it and scientifically. But that doesn't make what they percieve to be real, same with love.
    Proving faith? Proving what about faith? I have no objection to the claim people have faith. My objection is to whether their faith is justifiable.

    I'm all for love being real, but science hasn't proven it to be. They just "know it exist" just like people who "know God exist".
    Love exists because we've defined an emotion that we experience as love. What the hell do you even mean by "love is real but science hasn't proven it to be". Love exists as an emotion, how is that difficult for you to understand? Love exists as a concept, kind of like red exists.

    I'd argue with you paroxysm, but since only "scientific" proof is available, its kind of pointless. You also have to realize:

    why should we bother? Your obviously a person who won't believe anything proven, or anything we say.
    If you can give me sufficient evidence and valid arguments I will change my mind, it's not that hard. It's easy to write off people your arguing with as arrogant and close-minded, it's a bit more difficult to put forward a valid case.
    I don't have the will to prove a smug atheist wrong, its simply not worth the effort to go against a persons beliefs just so i can say "I'm right".


    So prove to me paroxysm, is love real?
    (because basically the argument for this can be linked to the God argument entirely).

    If your god exists to the extent that emotions exist then your god is no more powerful than an emotion, last time i changed "love" didn't create the universe. The effects of love can be tested, your god however apparently cannot, unless your willing to present us with a test for your god, in which case I'm all ears. Since love is an abstract concept as apposed to a physical object taking up space, is your god an actual object taking up space in some universe, or does your god exist as a concept, nothing more than an emotional state? If your argument is that god exists because people feel that god exists then I would have no problem saying god exists, but that god would have no effect on the universe other then the actions of the individuals that feel god.

    Your falling prey to the equivocation fallacy, dun do it.
    Happy?
    "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot

  13. #28
    Empire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    .Alwayz.
    Posts
    19,896
    Reputation
    659
    Thanks
    1,346
    My Mood
    Pensive
    >_< thats sexual attraction.(-10points)

    God exist as a concept.(-10 points)
    Thing is, your lying. We all know your not going to accept anything stated or proven(-20points)
    You missed the part where i said LINKED.(-40points)
    Actually responded for once(+20points)


    Not doing too good.


  14. #29
    Paroxysm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    4,455
    Reputation
    170
    Thanks
    282
    My Mood
    Cheeky
    Lust is sexual attraction, it serves as a means for people to breed. Love is incentive for the couple to stay together. Your response doesn't address any of the points.

    If your argument is that god exists in the same sense that love exists then that would make your god a concept, any link you try to connect will inevitably suffer from the equivocation fallacy. But feel free to present it either way and we can move on from there.

    You assume that I'm unwilling to believe your argument, if your argument was valid I would believe you but unfortunately it isn't which I've demonstrated in my response. If you are unwilling to present arguments then gtfo, I want to talk to people that are actually willing to have discussions instead of regurgitating the same rhetoric.
    "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot

  15. #30
    Paroxysm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    4,455
    Reputation
    170
    Thanks
    282
    My Mood
    Cheeky
    Ok so I read through your argument one more time and my response is in green, red seems a bit too confrontational. Sorry for taking so long to respond, I'll try to be quicker in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by natiko View Post
    Ok, here's my A-game. Suppose that God is X (so that I do not refer to just my God, teh christian God, but to all Gods like Buddha or others).

    Just need to nit-pick, Buddha isn't a god according to Buddhism, he's just the first person to reach enlightenment.

    It is true, that most of the people haven't seen God, and some claim that they have, but there's no proof of it. Being that said, without proof, there is no reason for you to believe, is there?

    Just a little clarification, without proof I have no justifiable reason to believe things, it's a slight distinction but an important one.

    Of course, you can call God an excuse to hide our ignorance towards knowing the origins of the universe, of how things were made, and of zillions of other stuuf that we have no clue about. You could just assume that everything appeared through scientific reactions or so on.

    I know your probably just being facetious but I feel I need to make yet another clarification, there are no "scientific reactions", science is in the position of investigating reality not dictating it. There are no "scientific reactions" there are chemical reactions, but they are natural occurrences not scientific ones. The jist of this is that science investigates the natural world.

    But, isn't our modern society based in religion?
    If X does not exist, why believe in it? Do you believe in the Big Bang? Do you believe in aliens? Do you believe in any unknown thing that hasn't been solved by science? Call it faith. Faith has now become our Y.

    I wouldn't necessarily say our modern society is based in religion, I'd actually argue the opposite. I'd argue that because of the mitigation that religious faith has had in the pursuits of knowledge that our modern society was able to come about. It's not through faith that mankind developed our current knowledge of the universe, it was through rigorous methodological naturalism that our modern society was able to flourish as it has. You don't see two civil engineers praying that bridges appear (Matthew 18:19-20 or Mark 11:24-25 [NAS]) , you don't see scientists praying that a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics appears on their chalkboard or doctors sacrificing their best goat so that a cancer patient can be cured. Faith has taken a backseat in the modern world and that's why we've been able to have the advancements that we do. We had a period of time where religion was the basis of society, the dark ages.

    Now to address your "belief in the big bang" section. You're making a common epistemological mistake, if you want to make the distinction that all knowledge is essentially a belief then in a sense you are correct, but this is where we get into the nuances of belief. There are generally two kinds of beliefs, justifiable ones and unjustifiable ones. The belief that I exist is a justifiable belief (not taking into account solipsism, which is interesting but at the end of the day waters down to mental masturbation), because it can be verified by external means, i.e. evidence. Then there are unjustifiable beliefs, if I believed an invisible non-temporal, non-material dragon was in my garage, there is no evidence for my belief and my belief defines this dragon in such a way that it cannot be test or be falsifiable. If I were to believe this then I would have no justification to believe it other than strong personal conviction. The big bang is and has been scientifically verified, so while I may by your definition of knowledge, "believe" that the big bang occurred, my belief is justifiable.

    So, X is God, and Y is Faith. Why would so many people (and we're not talkin about millions here, but billions, more than half of the total population in the world) have Y in X if they have no proof? No argument to say "I believe in X, because...". But still, couldn't a normal person like me and you tell everyone else that you're some sort of X and that they should have Y on you? They'd think you're nuts right? They'd be like "Wtf?". And tehy'd ask for proof. Now here comes the trick.

    Before I continue I should advice you avoid making the the logical fallacy "Argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to the people", now this is fallacious argument because it basically says "A lot of people believe X is true, therefore X is true". The amount of people behind a claim has no bearing on the validity of said claim.

    Obviously, in ancient times, there was no way to actually take a picture or get some proof that shows that someone existed and make it survive until now. But, if there wasn't any proof, why did the 12 Apostles believe in him as the Messiah? (Idk if it's the correct term). Maybe he didn't even exist at all, and it was just a joke from some guy who wanted to be important and wrote the books of the Bible. Maybe 12 guys got together and created this fascinating story right? But, even if that was the case, other people from the same era or even before (prophets and so...) talked about this "Jesus". People, who were mile away from the apparent cities were these miraculous events took place. Who did they find out about it? The news spread right? But, if the news spread, there had to be an actual Jesus.


    Before I begin I promise to stay superficial in my next responses because if I start going into specifics I feel we may end up bickering about minor details as apposed to the general argument you've presented.

    I have no problem with accepting that a man named Jesus existed and that he could have been a religious leader, even though the contemporary extra-biblical evidence for his existence is scarce or nonexistent (I'm aware of Tacitus and Josephus don't don't think I'll be impressed). Jesus' existence has nothing to say about whether he was truly a supernatural being.

    Ok now to address the historicity of the gospels. According to a majority of biblical scholars none the gospels were written by their reported authors (matthew, mark or john) however the authorship of the Gospel of Luke is undecided, some scholars argue that it was written by Luke others disagree, the debate is unsettled. In fact the first of the written gospels (most likely the first), the gospel of mark is dated to have been written no earlier than 60 A.D., putting the events of Jesus' life at the very least 5 decades after his death. With this in mind, it seriously brings into question the historicity of the 12 apostles and the events that actually occurred.
    I'll provide you links to my sources at the bottom by the way.

    To address your statement "How did they find out about it? The news spread right? But, if the news spread, there had to be an actual Jesus."
    This is not true, news can easily spread without any truth behind it. Rumors spread like wildfire, especially in the pre-scientific era that those stories originated.
    “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”
    ~Mark Twain


    Maybe he did exist, but he was just an illusionist (we're expanding you're imagination a bit here),

    Do you genuinely believe I haven't considered this? You underestimate me, kind sir.

    and people were amazed. How come an illusionist be predicted hundreds of years ago all throughout the world, when he was nothing but a fake? Illusionist? I don't think so.

    Now come, you have to see how this can't be true? From this we can conclude that any miraculous claim that anyone believed in the past must be true, for example, like claims about the Prophet Muhammad's apparent flight to Jerusalem on a winged horse of fire and ascension into Heaven. We have good historical evidence that Muhammad existed, would you say Muhammad was a liar or a fake? He also claimed the angel Gabriel came to him while he was in a cave, would you say this didn't occur? But some many people believe it to be true. Some many people have Y that it happened.

    "How come an illusionist be predicted hundreds of years ago all throughout the world, when he was nothing but a fake? Illusionist?"
    Dude, you ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy? You tell enough people that a supernatural being will come, perform miracles and you should worship him. Someone is bound to come along and pretend to be the Messiah, and why not? He would think he would be worshiped by the Jewish people. This is just a possibility, not an actual position I hold when it comes to the biblical Jesus.


    Still, it's up to you to believe in X or not. If you have to actually see to believe, then do some research, but do not get into it with a defensive attitude waiting for nothing to surprise you, cuz you'll get nothing from it.
    Ok, hopefully I cleared some things up and my response is satisfactory. I'd like to talk a bit more but we all have lives outside of arguing over the internet

    Feel free to respond to any and all comments I made or point out any points of your argument you feel I've overlooked, either here, in private chat or ask for my email and we can talk over that.

    I'm excited to hear your response and am willing to continue this discussion if you wish, if you'd like to discuss this over skype, vent or teamspeak just PM me and we can arrange something.


    Bibliography:

    Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355

    Mack, Burton L. (1996), "Who wrote the New Testament" the making of the Christian myth" (HarperOne Publishing)
    Last edited by Paroxysm; 05-13-2010 at 09:25 PM.
    "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What are u listening to ....
    By DarkSkillz in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 1937
    Last Post: 1 Week Ago, 05:25 AM
  2. The huge topic! Which song are you listening now?
    By smartie in forum Spammers Corner
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 06:22 PM
  3. Listen up Bittchezzzzzz
    By yazh58 in forum WarRock Korea Hacks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2007, 12:03 AM
  4. tfs0skinnys is a scamer dont listen to him
    By pspmaster4 in forum WarRock - International Hacks
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-08-2007, 10:54 AM
  5. just listen
    By wannabehacker00 in forum WarRock - International Hacks
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-08-2006, 10:00 AM