Originally posted by Eminence
Suuuure.[bait][troll]Also, Darth Sexy sucks. I own him in every way imaginable he is a silly doofus.[/troll][/bait]
I'm waiting Faunus. Come on. I can't strike a pose all day long. Decide what kind of fan picture you want. What do you want it to say? "To my swell guy and good friend, Lloyd". I just want to show you that even when you lose an argument, that you're still a GREAT sport and you deserve a consolation prize. So I'll wait for your preferences.
I want to continue this discussion:
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[quote=Darth Sexy]Of course I can. Because I don't blindly follow anything. I could be wrong of course.
Well, that's more than I expected to get out of you. I don't see a lot of point continuing this particular line of conversation: I think I'm past the point where I want everyone to give up their faith. If you want to believe something without evidence and it makes your life better then I wish you well.Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Ok and that's fine but to say it doesn't exist because you can't see it is ridiculous.
And then and you go and say something like this.One can not expect to hold a belief in the absence of any cause for that belief and hope for others to respect his logical ability. I mean, I get it. You have found something that works for you that you are passionate about. I can respect that. Declaring your belief in something without cause as a logical decision is simply foolish though. You are misrepresenting your thought process by claiming logic here.
I don't demand visual proof, but I certainly demand a reason to believe if you want any respect outside of the concession that I've already made. This isn't logic. It is faith.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Ok, I never argued that it happens. But claiming that people follow religion blindly is again, ridiculous. You say I have no proof the Torah was written by G-d, you have no proof it was written by man. So we can argue in circles or we can come to agree that we found the path to life through two different means.Except that default assumption to make about any book that you or I will come across during our lifetimes is that it was written by a human. To convince a neutral observer (or a biased one like me) one would need evidence of its exceptional origin. You have no such evidence. There is no such evidence.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It wouldn't be unchanged because of the implications, but the fundamental principles and laws would remain.Would the rules and rituals have any value without the supernatural backing? Would eating meat that was killed in as much pain as possible improve your character?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Again with the "if I can't see it it doesn't exist, all that exists is before my eyes" argument. If I could have tangible proof that it was written by G-d, I would. But you don't have ANY kind of proof that it was written by man, except for "Well you can't prove it was written by G-d so it must have been written by man". Debates don't work this way either.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ockham's razor removes G-d from the scenario as a cause leaving only Man. Anyway- every other book ever has been written by a person. You must have some reason to believe that this was written by a divine power. What is that reason?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Just like your reliance on the idea that if you don't believe in religion, you MUST be logical. Except I don't rely on the supernatural to explain my life, which again makes you ignorant because you don't understand the nonsense you spew. I suggest you also do research on religion before making hilarious claims and passing them off as fact. My belief in g-d doesn't explain my life.See, now you're getting angry. I've tried to remain civil and I don't think that I've called you ignorant or your positions hilarious. If you can't beat my argument then just say so. Bashing me doesn't make my points less valid.
As for your accusation about logic, I can't say that I disagree. Logic is not universal: two people can look at the same facts and reach very different conclusions. While I find your belief puzzling because I can't imagine coming to a conclusion (consciously) without supporting evidence you may simply have intuited the presence of G-d, or maybe you have subjectively experienced Him in a way that I cannot. I am incapable of ruling out the potential for a personal deity. I just have no reason to suspect that one exists.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Actually, that doesn't support your position. Once again, if you knew anything about ANY religion, you'd know why evil is on this earth. And it's not because of "satan". So once again, stop arguing from ignorance.I didn't say 'satan' did I?
Here's the problem with the 'God is testing us' concept of evil (which is the one I hear most often). If this phase of existence is a test by which God hopes to discover which of us deserve to get into heaven then God does not know the future. (Our actions) If God does not know the future then he is not Omniscient. If God is not Omniscient then he does not fit the description of the Monotheistic religions. If they can get that wrong then who knows what else is off?
Alternatively, if God does know the future then he knows what my choices will be tomorrow. Not only does this destroy the concept of free will (I can't choose to do the opposite because he would know that I would do that which means that I have to do that choice, whatever it may be) it also makes God a sadist, because he already knows how the test will go. Why torture someone if you already know the information they might give you? (Torture doesn't work. Just, don't even start.)Another common argument for evil is that it rises out of human fallibility. God didn't want evil to enter the world, but that damn woman just had to go and... you know. This one is cleverer, but still doesn't work. It goes back to the problem of omniscience. God knew the Eve would fall to temptation, or he is not the God that has been described. If it is within God's power to prevent suffering yet does nothing then he is in a unique position to be responsible for all of the world's ills. The holocaust? People like to blame the Germans and other countries that didn't stop them, but God is where the buck stops. He has no excuse not to help.
Maybe that's why you're so reluctant to acknowledge the need for aid and assistance: If the US government, which is far from a saintly institution can appear more generous and compassionate than your god then maybe you've got something wrong. Maybe you're barking up the wrong tree. It is easier to say that no one should help anyone than to look at who isn't helping you. It's sad, really. It's like the bully who doesn't get a Valentine's day card and tears up someone else's just so that no one gets to have one.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Sure. AS MC said, facts cannot be disputed. So science contains little facts and lots of theories.And now we're back into the realm of the absolute, and I get to tell you that you are wrong. Data is rarely contradictory. Our interpretation of the data can be incorrect, as when we thought that the sun orbited the earth in a circle, but it doesn't often contradict itself. One calorie of heat will always raise a kilogram of water by one degree. The speed of light in a vacuum will always equal 299,792,458 m/s. A body passing another body (in space) will have a parabolic orbit. The ratio of circumference to diameter will always equal 3.1415... Our explanation of why might change, but the facts themselves are constant. The only time these change are when more precise measurements can be taken.
Can you provide me with an example of science contradicting itself? Facts, I mean? Just one example?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy[/quote]
I just got back from the rodeo so I will answer all of your questions. And you don't ask for explanations so it doesn't seem to me like you care, so I didn't explain it. My problem is that you guys make blanket statements you picked up from somebody, so of course I have to say you're wrong. However, I never called you a tool in regards to religion, just ignorant in making statements about it. Like I said, I'll get back to all of your comments in the morning. Have to wash out the smell of cattle and rednecks.
And then you left for america hater land Palestine The Galapagos.
Respond.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I want to continue this discussion:Well, that's more than I expected to get out of you. I don't see a lot of point continuing this particular line of conversation: I think I'm past the point where I want everyone to give up their faith. If you want to believe something without evidence and it makes your life better then I wish you well.
And then and you go and say something like this.
One can not expect to hold a belief in the absence of any cause for that belief and hope for others to respect his logical ability. I mean, I get it. You have found something that works for you that you are passionate about. I can respect that. Declaring your belief in something without cause as a logical decision is simply foolish though. You are misrepresenting your thought process by claiming logic here.
I don't demand visual proof, but I certainly demand a reason to believe if you want any respect outside of the concession that I've already made. This isn't logic. It is faith.
Except that default assumption to make about any book that you or I will come across during our lifetimes is that it was written by a human. To convince a neutral observer (or a biased one like me) one would need evidence of its exceptional origin. You have no such evidence. There is no such evidence.
Would the rules and rituals have any value without the supernatural backing? Would eating meat that was killed in as much pain as possible improve your character?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ockham's razor removes G-d from the scenario as a cause leaving only Man. Anyway- every other book ever has been written by a person. You must have some reason to believe that this was written by a divine power. What is that reason?
See, now you're getting angry. I've tried to remain civil and I don't think that I've called you ignorant or your positions hilarious. If you can't beat my argument then just say so. Bashing me doesn't make my points less valid.
As for your accusation about logic, I can't say that I disagree. Logic is not universal: two people can look at the same facts and reach very different conclusions. While I find your belief puzzling because I can't imagine coming to a conclusion (consciously) without supporting evidence you may simply have intuited the presence of G-d, or maybe you have subjectively experienced Him in a way that I cannot. I am incapable of ruling out the potential for a personal deity. I just have no reason to suspect that one exists.
I didn't say 'satan' did I?
Here's the problem with the 'God is testing us' concept of evil (which is the one I hear most often). If this phase of existence is a test by which God hopes to discover which of us deserve to get into heaven then God does not know the future. (Our actions) If God does not know the future then he is not Omniscient. If God is not Omniscient then he does not fit the description of the Monotheistic religions. If they can get that wrong then who knows what else is off?
Alternatively, if God does know the future then he knows what my choices will be tomorrow. Not only does this destroy the concept of free will (I can't choose to do the opposite because he would know that I would do that which means that I have to do that choice, whatever it may be) it also makes God a sadist, because he already knows how the test will go. Why torture someone if you already know the information they might give you? (Torture doesn't work. Just, don't even start.)Another common argument for evil is that it rises out of human fallibility. God didn't want evil to enter the world, but that damn woman just had to go and... you know. This one is cleverer, but still doesn't work. It goes back to the problem of omniscience. God knew the Eve would fall to temptation, or he is not the God that has been described. If it is within God's power to prevent suffering yet does nothing then he is in a unique position to be responsible for all of the world's ills. The holocaust? People like to blame the Germans and other countries that didn't stop them, but God is where the buck stops. He has no excuse not to help.
Maybe that's why you're so reluctant to acknowledge the need for aid and assistance: If the US government, which is far from a saintly institution can appear more generous and compassionate than your god then maybe you've got something wrong. Maybe you're barking up the wrong tree. It is easier to say that no one should help anyone than to look at who isn't helping you. It's sad, really. It's like the bully who doesn't get a Valentine's day card and tears up someone else's just so that no one gets to have one.
And now we're back into the realm of the absolute, and I get to tell you that you are wrong. Data is rarely contradictory. Our interpretation of the data can be incorrect, as when we thought that the sun orbited the earth in a circle, but it doesn't often contradict itself. One calorie of heat will always raise a kilogram of water by one degree. The speed of light in a vacuum will always equal 299,792,458 m/s. A body passing another body (in space) will have a parabolic orbit. The ratio of circumference to diameter will always equal 3.1415... Our explanation of why might change, but the facts themselves are constant. The only time these change are when more precise measurements can be taken.
Can you provide me with an example of science contradicting itself? Facts, I mean? Just one example?
[/quote]
And then you left for america hater land Palestine The Galapagos.
Respond. [/B][/QUOTE]
We can continue that one in chat or PM. It would take way too much space if we include MC's arguments. I'll be happy to debate that though. And I left for the Bahamas and got a tan. And a haircut. And a manicure.
Soc Security:
555.5
I don't do chat. You will PM me and you will do so in a timely manner and I will post your responses in the newly commandeered 'Empire vs. Earth' thread until it is locked, at which time I will post your responses here that Faunus may marvel at my leetness and Gideon may rest assured that his betters have things covered. (We are his betters. We have things covered. This way he knows it.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Soc Security:
555.5I don't do chat. You will PM me and you will do so in a timely manner and I will post your responses in the newly commandeered 'Empire vs. Earth' thread until it is locked, at which time I will post your responses here that Faunus may marvel at my leetness and Gideon may rest assured that his betters have things covered. (We are his betters. We have things covered. This way he knows it.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Ush would probably close it. But why not?It is your turn to respond so just do it in the thread you will make for the topic! Didi mao!
K I will read your post again and respond in a timely manner, I'll make the thread in the EU and I'll disguise the title like "uber EU thread only l337 people may enter" so Ush won't look.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Meanwhile, I will eat dinner and do homework that I didn't do while I had a fever.
By fever i assume you mean "good excuse so those darn mean bullies don't stick me in the locker again because I have a hygiene problem and it would just be disgusting and disruptive to my self esteem so I am going to stay home and watch porn all day long and pretend i'm the King Dong"..Right?