Theology

[maledoro]

If an Atheist observes Christians and calls them sheep or idiots based on their beliefs, they're a judgmental self-righteous prick who needs to get the f**k off their high horse and accept the fact that some people have faith no matter what.

And if the observed are sheep?

Just because people have a certain belief system doesn't make them sheep. Anyone who thinks that is a cock in my book.

My post was to point out the flaws on both sides, so people, just f**king chill. You're all so sensitive.

You're the one making assumptions and needs to chill. All I did was ask a question, from which you pivoted.

[ShadowPred]

Freaking Dova.

[Dovahkiin]

If an Atheist observes Christians and calls them sheep or idiots based on their beliefs, they're a judgmental self-righteous prick who needs to get the f**k off their high horse and accept the fact that some people have faith no matter what.

And if the observed are sheep?

Just because people have a certain belief system doesn't make them sheep. Anyone who thinks that is a cock in my book.

My post was to point out the flaws on both sides, so people, just f**king chill. You're all so sensitive.

You're the one making assumptions and needs to chill. All I did was ask a question, from which you pivoted.

I thought you were implying that upon observing Christians, you see them as sheep. Were you not?

Freaking Dova.

Freaking me.

[maledoro]

I thought you were implying that upon observing Christians, you see them as sheep. Were you not?

I was not.

[Dovahkiin]

Oh. My bad then, man.

I've lived my whole life as a Christian, but I wouldn't have trouble believing that God isn't real if it ever is proved as a fact. I have many atheist friends and many christian friends and I wouldn't say any of them are bad people in any way, shape or form.

I was just pointing out the worst of both sides of the spectrum.

[Sabby]

I agree, but I've found 'people are people' to be rather useless when discussing ideology. There are awesome guys and total c**ts in every flavor of thinking, so pointing them out can do nothing for you, regardless of your position.

I find it far more practical to focus on Religion itself. Cool guys will read a Bible and be an awesome neighbor, total c**ts will read a Bible and decide to have their daughters genitals mutilated. Comparing Cool Guy and Total c**t is a waste of time, so better to look at the book they both read, the organization they both sympathize with, and the culture they live in.

[Kimarhi]

But you could do all that without religion.

[maledoro]

I've lived my whole life as a Christian, but I wouldn't have trouble believing that God isn't real if it ever is proved as a fact.

That's what's known as the Negative Proof Fallacy. What kind of test is there to prove that such a thing doesn't exist? Since there isn't a way to prove the absence of such a thing, it's nonsensical. Therefore, the onus is on the one who makes the assertion of existence.

If God was concrete and in a specific location that is accessible for observation, it would be a simple matter of going there and seeing if he was indeed there or not. But since we do not know what he looks, sounds, smells, etc., like and we do not know where he is supposed to be, there is no way of disproving his existence; which is akin to setting us up for a wild goose chase. That's why his existence is contingent on proof instead of disproof. Then you have to ask yourself what it is that you are basing your belief on. Remember: believing something isn't the same as knowing. Yes, there are atheists who claim to know that there is no god, but they are a slim minority. Most keep it to simply not believing and pointing out that there is no empirical evidence to support such a being's existence. But when you keep it to this is what you were taught or choose to believe, that is not the same as knowing nor is it proof of existence. I would like to believe a lot of things, like having a fortune in my savings account, but having faith doesn't fill the coffers.

By questioning what it is you believe and why you believe it, you're being more honest with yourself than just choosing an idea because it makes you feel good. Part of my leaving the faith was based on a passage in the Bible telling readers how to test the existence of other gods. I applied the same methods to the Abrahamic god, got the same results and went through an afternoon of apologetics and once I realized what I had to go through to convince myself of his existence, my faith began to crumble a bit.

Anyway, it's time for this old geezer to get to bed. Have a good evening.

[Kimarhi]

MALEDORO WAS RELIGIOUS!?

[Sabby]

Now, I do agree with you for the most part when it comes to belief and knowledge, but I think it's important to point out that there are times we can say for certain that something doesn't exist by judging their properties.

For instance, a married bachelor. Just because you've never seen one before doesn't mean they don't exist, right? Wrong. We can say with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a married bachelor, because the concept is self refuting.

So no, I can't say for certain that God doesn't exist, but there are plenty of versions of God I can say cannot exist. For instance, a God that is all knowing but capable of changing his mind. That ones bullshit. A God that is omnipotent but can be killed by iron chariots. Also bullshit. A God that is allergic to peanuts but can consume peanuts without harm. Bullshit.

[maledoro]

For instance, a married bachelor. Just because you've never seen one before doesn't mean they don't exist, right? Wrong. We can say with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a married bachelor, because the concept is self refuting.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this type of argument. You're comparing the intangible with the tangible. We're talking basketball and you're introducing Monopoly rules to the game.

So no, I can't say for certain that God doesn't exist, but there are plenty of versions of God I can say cannot exist. For instance, a God that is all knowing but capable of changing his mind. That ones bullshit. A God that is omnipotent but can be killed by iron chariots. Also bullshit. A God that is allergic to peanuts but can consume peanuts without harm. Bullshit.

If anyone reads the Bible with a hint of skepticism and spends time reading its history (not shown through the lens of the Church founders) they will see that not only are there contradictions in the Bible, but it was written so that it can be interpreted one way for a situation and interpreted differently for the same type of situation but for a different "moral".

The Bible says one thing about God and then the opposite a few pages, chapters, books later. As Epicurus was credited to saying:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

[Sabby]

For instance, a married bachelor. Just because you've never seen one before doesn't mean they don't exist, right? Wrong. We can say with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as a married bachelor, because the concept is self refuting.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this type of argument. You're comparing the intangible with the tangible. We're talking basketball and you're introducing Monopoly rules to the game.

Maybe I should clarify. I'm not saying the concept of God can be evaluated in the same way a married bachelor can, I'm saying any positive claim is subject to internal consistency. Once someone makes a claim as to the properties of God, it becomes something open to scrutiny.

[maledoro]

Maybe I should clarify. I'm not saying the concept of God can be evaluated in the same way a married bachelor can, I'm saying any positive claim is subject to internal consistency. Once someone makes a claim as to the properties of God, it becomes something open to scrutiny.

As it should.

[Gilfryd]

Damn.

[Sabby]

Lacking a serious contribution today, I thought I'd throw in this little gem, before it gets deleted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZM-mr9eYd8#ws

The man has been pretty unstable for a while, but he's been one of the lesser known Youtube theists whose only gotten his popularity through his random outbursts and posturing. He has a habit of challenging people out of no where to 'scholarly academic debates' then cancelling at the last second and making a few dozen videos about how he actually won.

Looks like he's finally cracked here. He's been posting all day.

Edit: Another good example of his hilarious antics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFXrIvkGHp8#ws