Religious Debate

[EvilBastardProductions]

Were you repeatedly dropped as a child?

Circular. haven't shown why.

That is the closest thing there can possibly be to a "why" since it is not really a "why" question. You may as well ask why is a tree a tree- because its a f**king tree!! Thee is no more "why" to it than that.

In order for something to be discoverable, it requires one quality, and one quality alone, and that quality is that IT MUST FIRST EXIST.

You seem to think, for some unknown reason, that you must first know about something to be able to discover it. If that is the case, then it has already been discovered. But if your right on this, then how do you account for the fact that we keep discovering things exist? Or ever did in the first place? By your logic, something cannot be discovered unless it is first known about, so we never discovered the planet Uranus, because we did not know it was there to look! The whole concept is just plain ridiculous.

For something to exist, and be not discoverable, is a literal impossibility. Now, THIS question at least does have a why (and yes, they are two SEPARATE questions)... and it is ridiculously simple...
-For something to exist, and be not discoverable, it would have to be non-physical, otherwise we would be able to see it and/or touch it and/or measure it in some form. Right? With me still?
-Bang! It doesn't exist.
Non-physical things cannot exist. For something to exist, it hast to be matter or energy (or both), and both are physical in nature.

Doesn't say 'why it's not relevant', useless!

Maybe because it has nothing to do with the point in question. Duh!

Strawman. The point here, once again, is your claim that everything existential is discoverable. This is avoiding the counter argument that you can't discover something beyond the black body radiation. This is a known impossibility and therefore not everything existential is scientifically discoverable. My other example re- 100 billion yrs in the future was also a counter argument to this which remains unrefuted.

"Black-body radiation is the type of electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, or emitted by a black body (an opaque and non-reflective body) held at constant, uniform temperature. The radiation has a specific spectrum and intensity that depends only on the temperature of the body." (wiki)

What does this have to do with anything? NOTHING AT ALL. Hence, no counter argument to refute. And, they were both the same nonsensical non-argument btw.

If you define your personal position on the matter to be, "someone who is not a theist" then ok, but to claim this as being the definition of atheism is incorrect.

Yes, I have the same dictionary. But the definition is the same as a theist is someone who believes in a god, adding 'A' to the start of certain words = not (ie reversing the meaning) a+theist= not a theist. So, yes my definition is absolutely 100% correct.

Appeal to authority now
I've read TGD. You can't explain in your own words? Need uncle Richard to hold your hand? I'll ask the question again.

Show how you can calculate probabilities of something without a logically valid definition of what you are calculating probabilities for?

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the "authority" in question is not actually an authority in any relation to the field at hand, in which this is not the case.
And and if you have read the book, the why are you asking me questions you should already know the answer to?


And please, go and learn what these logical fallacies actually mean- every single time you list one, you do so incorrectly.

[EvilBastardProductions]

Sure, in cadavers and brain surgery patient’s maybe. And one can deduce from research that brains do exist. But from the way some of the folks act up in this forum it makes me wonder if they have actual grey matter or cow-dung for brains.

Dont get me started lol

Really? Then explain dark matter and dark energy to me.

Dark matter:In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a currently unknown type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly seen with telescopes.[1] Dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.

Dark energy:In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe.[2]

matter & energy- physical forms.... whats your actual point?

[EvilBastardProductions]

Just a heads up, Huey believes in a philosophy that God cannot be defined.

No matter what you tell him, he's going to reject it, since he already knows God cannot be defined.

Not just on god ;p



But in all seriousness, If that's the case (Huey), then there's no point repeatedly asking me to define something you don't think can be defined. Unless of course your one of those d**ks that just argues for the sake of arguing, But I would like to believe not.

[Ian-T]

Dark matter:In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a currently unknown type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly seen with telescopes.[1] Dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.

Dark energy:In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe.[2]

matter & energy- physical forms.... whats your actual point?

Well…for one…they are both only concepts. But some talk as if they actually exist while there are a number of astronomers who believe they don’t exist.

You initially said :

…for something to exist, it must be physical in the first place. A non-physical entity of any kind is a literal impossibility. It could be energy (which is physical), or it could be in another, unperceived dimension, but it must physically exist in some form, in order to exist at all.

The fact is astronomers are unable to explain the gravitational pull on matter in our universe so they make something up called dark matter. I mean,…it must exist or else galaxies will fly apart…right? Shouldn’t there be a consensus on this issue? After all…we are talking about 22% of the universe’s mass energy the vastly outweigh’ s all “normal” matter. Hmm…kind of reminds me of the argument that religious folks made up some sort of supernatural all-powerful, all-knowing deity to try and explain the unexplainable.

[Ian-T]

Not just on god ;p



But in all seriousness, If that's the case (Huey), then there's no point repeatedly asking me to define something you don't think can be defined. Unless of course your one of those d**ks that just argues for the sake of arguing, But I would like to believe not.

LOL I'm sorry...but Huey does not fit that bill. You don't have to look real hard to find out who that is (not mentioning any names....you know who you are).

[Gillvane]

Really?

Instead of hiding in the bushes and taking cowardly potshots, why don't you resume where we left off? This is where you ran away. Come on Gillvane, grow a pair.

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?1...l=1#post438158

There's nothing to run away from.



We are discussing God, and you think God cannot be discussed. Ok, don't discuss it. I don't mind in the least.

[Gillvane]

Well…for one…they are both only concepts. But some talk as if they actually exist while there are a number of astronomers who believe they don’t exist.

You initially said :


The fact is astronomers are unable to explain the gravitational pull on matter in our universe so they make something up called dark matter. I mean,…it must exist or else galaxies will fly apart…right? Shouldn’t there be a consensus on this issue? After all…we are talking about 22% of the universe’s mass energy the vastly outweigh’ s all “normal” matter. Hmm…kind of reminds me of the argument that religious folks made up some sort of supernatural all-powerful, all-knowing deity to try and explain the unexplainable.

Well, there does seem to be a difference. Scientists don't have "faith" in Dark Matter. it's a theory.

They are actively trying to prove or disprove it with scientific methods and empirical evidence. If they find out it's wrong, they will happily discard this theory, and move on to something else.

Somehow, I don't think you're taking the same approach to God.

here's a fun project with a Go Pro sent into space on a balloon. Wish I had a Go Pro to play with like this, although I'm sure the weather balloon is to expensive, some regular old helium balloons would also be fun:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/25/p...t-using-a-gop/

[Halsu]

Of course it is. It's telling the story of who we were, are and need to be. The Old Testament has it all in there....sex violence, drugs you name it.

Well, in the old testament, abhorrent deeds were not only condoned by, but ordered to be done by God - as well as committed by him directly.

Then again his question was about Jesus condoning violence. I'm also still waiting for your answer.

As said, less so. I think we've already covered most of the darker side of Jesus, his support for slavery including beating slaves, suppression of women under their men, as well as the "i'm not here to bring peace but a sword" stuff and the stuff about turning families against each other etc.

All in all, as said earlier, he did okay for those days. Much better than the God of old testament.

[Halsu]

Really?

Instead of hiding in the bushes and taking cowardly potshots, why don't you resume where we left off? This is where you ran away. Come on Gillvane, grow a pair.

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?1...l=1#post438158

Well, to me that post you linked to just proves Gill's point...

[Ian-T]

As said, less so. I think we've already covered most of the darker side of Jesus, his support for slavery including beating slaves, suppression of women under their men, as well as the "i'm not here to bring peace but a sword" stuff and the stuff about turning families against each other etc.

LOL… Well it’s obvious you have no clue. Then again you just might have a clue but chose to be very misleading. Let me ask you some simple questions. What do you think He meant when He said a sword? A literal sword? If so, please point to me where in the bible He has ever done so. Or do you think Jesus liked to speak in parables…just as He mentioned? Can you accept the fact that the “sword” He is talking about is the Word of God? And no Halsu…that is not my own interpretation (as you are so famously known to say)…the bible spells that out loud and clear. You can’t just read one verse and omit ALL the other verses that pertain specifically to this one-liner and consider it “complete’ information. When you do that you are being very misleading (that’s you r choice to do so however). As far as the division or families turning against each other do you think just maybe He’s talking about the fact that this sword (or His Word) will drive families apart (some believing while others not believing)? You still think I’m “interpreting” this my own way? Hmm…then it’s funny how billions of followers are like-minded in this regard. Stop cherry picking to cause confusion.

All in all, as said earlier, he did okay for those days. Much better than the God of old testament.

Same person.

[Bob Sanders]

Well, in the old testament, abhorrent deeds were not only condoned by, but ordered to be done by God - as well as committed by him directly.

I've brought that up several times. God is nothing less than an angry bastard in the OT and in the new one he seems to be this 'don't worry, be happy' kind of chap. I wondered if maybe God discovered dope or something, but then it became clear that the devil had changed slightly too. All of a sudden he has horns. At that point it became clear to me that it was not God who discovered the dope.... but rather the WRITERS. Fiction is fiction I guess.... it can change on the whim of the writers.

[Bob Sanders]

LOL… Well it’s obvious you have no clue. Then again you just might have a clue but chose to be very misleading. Let me ask you some simple questions. What do you think He meant when He said a sword? A literal sword?

Whether it was a literal or figurative sword is a totally irrelevant issue. It was designed to be, and is an aggressive, angry, provoking and offensive statement. Yeah sure... Jesus saves alright.

[Halsu]

LOL… Well it’s obvious you have no clue. Then again you just might have a clue but chose to be very misleading.

As said, we already went through this. Yes, he talks in parabels. But those parabels are violent, not peaceful. To claim his ideology is entirely that of love is simply false. Read Luke 12 for example (from 47 or so on):
http://kingjbible.com/luke/12.htm

Same person.

In this case, Jesus condoned, commanded and committed atrocities of the worst kind. His change of heart in the new testament does not take those away.

[Bob Sanders]

Of course it is. It's telling the story of who we were, are and need to be.

Straw man.

We speak about GOD as a bastard in the OT.... not necessarily the people. Your statement does not explain GOD'S dismal attitude. In the OT it seems God can't even have his morning coffee without killing a few hundred people first. He made Hitler look like an angel. Stop trying to steer the boat in another direction.

[cgbier]

Same person.

Just a shift in marketing paradigms. Always good to go with the times.

[Ian-T]

As said, we already went through this. Yes, he talks in parabels. But those parabels are violent, not peaceful. To claim his ideology is entirely that of love is simply false. Read Luke 12 for example (from 47 or so on):
http://kingjbible.com/luke/12.htm



In this case, Jesus condoned, commanded and committed atrocities of the worst kind. His change of heart in the new testament does not take those away.

No, that's just your mis-representation of what is said.

[Ian-T]

Well since you guys like to quote...or...interpret the bible to suit your agenda let me help you with you mistakes. Sure...God did kill the wicked in the Old Testament. But wait....What kind of people did God kill...hmmm....let's have a look:

"It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 9:5)


Wait...could it be that the people God killed were wicked beyond belief? How wicked you say? Well let's take another look:


"You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

Oh...now it's becoming rather clear. The wickedness of those people in this an other verses was the REAL issue. As a gift to their god's they were burning their own sons and daughters to death in ritualistic sacrifices. Matter of fact....these acts are supposedly confirmed in SECULAR Greek writings. And in wiping them out He reminds His people that they should not behave in such a way. Well....reading the Old Testament it's clear to me that a God that chose a specific people to use as a beacon of hope for mankind would want to "cleanse" them from such terrible acts of unrighteosness. You think maybe that's why He spelled out specific types of rules that pertained ONLY to His People? Or did you miss this entirely? Nope...all you see is unjustifiable killings. Heck...if you want to go on with your deception why not just add the flood during the days of Noah? That took out the entire planet....just about. I guess that wasn't justified either? Right? But wait..... We are still here are we not? Soooo...you think maybe this was part of a grande plan? No?

Honstley though...these "killings" in the bible will pale in comparison to what is yet to come on the earth. God WILL judge and kill billions of people for rejecting Him. Not because He wants to but because of Who He Is. Don't believe me? Read the bible ...again. This time "seek some understanding" other than your own. His desire is that ALL of us are saved.

[Ian-T]

....to tell a "partial" truth is no different from telling a lie.

[Bob Sanders]

Oh...now it's becoming rather clear. The wickedness of those people in this an other verses was the REAL issue. As a gift to their god's they were burning their own sons and daughters to death in ritualistic sacrifices. Matter of fact....these acts are supposedly confirmed in SECULAR Greek writings. And in wiping them out He reminds His people that they should not behave in such a way.

What I see there (if your interpretation is correct) is God trying to justify murder..... not to mention the forced slavery. You seem to think that's okay???

Well....reading the Old Testament it's clear to me that a God that chose a specific people to use as a beacon of hope for mankind would want to "cleanse" them from such terrible acts of unrighteosness.

Sounds to me like God and Hitler have a lot in common.

Nope...all you see is unjustifiable killings.

So murder in the first degree is justifiable under certain conditions?

God WILL judge and kill billions of people for rejecting Him.

Then that makes him a total A$$hole in my book. BTW... when does he start? It's been quite a few hundred years already. Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

Don't believe me?

No, I don't believe you... and reading a story book won't change that.

His desire is that ALL of us are saved.

I like being unsaved thank you very much so you tell your God that if he even THINKS of trying, I'll turn him on my knee and paddle the crap out of his spoiled little A$$.

[cgbier]

So, in other words he was ordering genocide, just because other people had a different belief system. That is about the same argumentation as "we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban closed girl-schools".

[cgbier]

I still don;t understand what I am supposed to be saved from.

[Ian-T]

So, in other words he was ordering genocide, just because other people had a different belief system. That is about the same argumentation as "we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban closed girl-schools".

The same? Really?

[Ian-T]

I still don;t understand what I am supposed to be saved from.

Sorry to hear that.

[Bob Sanders]

I still don;t understand what I am supposed to be saved from.

That's yet another question which has been asked many times. A real and true, no-bullsh!t answer has yet to come from any one of these god lovers. Don't hold your breath waiting for that one either. My guess is that THEY don't even know. They just repeat it because that's what it says in the bible.

[cgbier]

Sorry to hear that.

I wouldn't mind if you explained it to me.

Yes, genocide is genocide, no matter what's the reason.