|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 25, 2011 0:43:48 GMT
GOD ISN'T RELEVANT TO THIS TOPIC??? WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS THREAD IS ABOUT???
Anyway, you really made pretty sucky points in that text wall. It's as if you've neither read the Bible or listened to an atheist. I don't even think you were paying attention! Mach, seriously, I'm pretty sure like... 2 or 3 fallacies are just repeated over and over in that. Come better prepared, PLEASE.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 25, 2011 3:18:26 GMT
God is relevant to this topic. This topic is not. Your post was about how we're wasting time debating here and should go search for an inner meaning ourselves, totally ignoring God. This does not acknowledge the existence of God, it's just telling us all off for debating about Him.
Atheist club today had a very interesting discussion on the origin of the universe, but everything in it was already said here so I won't waste your time.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Mar 26, 2011 4:21:48 GMT
Nowhere did I say god was not relevant... And please, point out a fallacy of mine. Any fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 26, 2011 15:20:36 GMT
First off, stating that an unbelieving atheist who, given the unbelief, could not repent could go to heaven, combing with stating that a Christian of a certain level of sin (There are no levels of sin, sin is a state, not a value. If it was to have been assigned, it came from something of infallible origin, ergo not human origin.) could go to hell, indicating they obviously don't believe (Reference John 3:16, as it says "Whoever shall believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."), especially not enough if they wouldn't even bother having remorse or repent at all, indeed indicating no desire for forgiveness. Those two both are paradoxical, and using two paradoxes to form a basis for a logical argument form a Two wrongs make a right Fallacy (Reference Wikipedia). Now, I suppose you could claim I use a Tu Quoque with this, but that puts you at risk of using a Straw Man via Homunculus Fallacy as a counter.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Mar 26, 2011 16:53:07 GMT
You know, just because I disagree with you does not make what I say a fallacy. Saying Heaven and Hell are mostly based on morality is a belief, and in no way paradoxical. And there is a level of sin. Killing thousands of people is certainly a lot more sinning then lying.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Mar 26, 2011 17:01:08 GMT
Well sin is all the same to God, regardless of level, assuming there is a God which is only relevant to this argument. In the end, the level of sin turns out the same. There is no extra make-up time needed.
Not saying that doing bad things is encouraged. If you DO believe in God, and you sin a lot on purpose, that in itself is hypocritical. You probably don't really love or trust in god then.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Mar 26, 2011 17:03:40 GMT
In my opinion, sin levels affect chances to get into Heaven, or Hell. And Kurai, explain to me ow what I said is paradoxical. And two wrongs to not make a right has nothing to do with paradoxes
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 26, 2011 18:02:28 GMT
I'd be very stupid to respond with a disagreement. I'll just say you are right, I am wrong, who cares how, and we will never face the subject.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Mar 26, 2011 21:58:55 GMT
You know, actually use some logic. It might help in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 26, 2011 22:46:23 GMT
How insightful. Practice what you preach.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Mar 26, 2011 23:57:42 GMT
I do. Just because what I say does not coincide with your point of view does NOT mean it is remotely paradoxical in any way. And anyway, you pointed out a fallacy that had nothing to do with my argument.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 27, 2011 1:18:00 GMT
No, you got me banned.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 27, 2011 2:52:01 GMT
Oy, no debating about logic. This is about God.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Mar 27, 2011 3:25:40 GMT
Yes, I got you banned. Your point?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 27, 2011 3:42:22 GMT
Discontinue discussion. If you want to continue continue in PM.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 4, 2011 4:12:49 GMT
Giving humans knowledge would be idiotic. The knowledge of something does not ensure the wisdom to properly use it. We found a way to turn nuclear fission into giant weapons of mass death... how would we handle knowing everything? Ahh yes, but perhaps some knowledge of advanced medicine would have come in handy. Instead we have god telling us this: (Leviticus 15:13-15)
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 4, 2011 5:28:01 GMT
Seems useful enough to me. Animal sacrifice to clean... I'll just leave it at "his discharge". Plus the waiting for seven days before cleaning is useful I guess.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 4, 2011 18:09:18 GMT
I wow I didn't even realize that in that translation. Usually it ends with, "In this way he will be clean..."
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 4, 2011 20:46:45 GMT
Hmm...
Just saw an interesting argument from a scientific viewpoint on a show.
A person stated that his father questioned how he could believe in God if he could not touch, see, or feel him. The person countered by saying that he could not touch, see, or feel an atom, yet the both of them believed atoms exist.
The same applies to gravity. We can feel it's effects, but we cannot tangibly touch it. We have never seen gravity. We have not measured gravity waves even with the most sensitive equipment. Yet we believe it exists.
Air cannot be touched, seen, or felt. Nor can wind. Nor can light waves. These are all things that produce reaction, yet our belief in their existence lies pretty much in faith.
An atom has never been seen. No one has felt a lone atom. No one has touched a lone atom. Yet we still believe it exists despite lack of the stimuli needed to record it's presence.
That is where faith and science intertwine. To believe in science, one must have faith that despite massive gaps in our knowledge, we firmly believe what we do know, but we don't always have the direct data to show why. The atom remains theoretical because we have never verified it's existence. Yet everyone believes without doubt it's existence. God is no different. Roughly, the God central to Judaism and Christianity has been worshiped for approximately a recorded time of around 5,500 years. There is no written record of history predating 3500 BC, and the time beforehand is wildly speculated at concerning content. Why exactly would THAT specific God be continuously believed in for a time longer than any current religion? If Judaism's 5,500 years that we know of is exact, it precedes the nearest in length by five centuries. Knowing most worship before then was rapidly disintegrating cults, what made Judaism survive? Moreover, why do Christianity and Judaism seem to have a worldwide base of believers totaling over a third of the entire population, if it was all nonsense? Why do people risk their lives to worship it? What makes THAT God so prevalent?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 4, 2011 21:26:36 GMT
We can observe the atom and gravity. They have been mathematically and emperically proven (to an extent, obviously). This is not true for any god.
When one can make an observable prediction based on a claim, evidence that that prediction is true is evidence for the claim. Conversely, the lack of evidence for a prediction also hurts the likelihood that a claim is true. For Example: Based on the Bible, we can predict that: 1. There will be observable evidence of Noah's flood. (I chose this tale simply because of all the stories in the Bible, this one would have the most drastic effect on the earth) 2. Prayer should have observable effects.
No evidence has ever been found for Noah's flood. No study has ever shown prayer to be effective in helping hospital patients recover. In fact, in some studies, prayer has shown a slightly negative correlation with recover in patients who new they were being prayed for. (Most likely because those who believed it would help wouldn't feel they needed to do as much themselves. At least that's my guess. That or it's just a coincidence, which is also possible)
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 4, 2011 21:36:48 GMT
Evidence has been found for A flood, but it certainly didn't cover every mountain on Earth.
Finding a biblical quote that is utterly ridiculous is as easy as opening a bible. I once opened it straight to a page that dictated that should you dine with a king, and be hungry, you should slit your own throat.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 4, 2011 22:09:06 GMT
Evidence has been found for A flood... Source? I want to see that.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 5, 2011 0:12:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 5, 2011 0:20:04 GMT
Evidence has been found for A flood, but it certainly didn't cover every mountain on Earth. Finding a biblical quote that is utterly ridiculous is as easy as opening a bible. I once opened it straight to a page that dictated that should you dine with a king, and be hungry, you should slit your own throat. Oh... You read the Apocrypha. I know that well. It's First Maccabees. Also, I read absolutely nothing relating to every mountain being covered in any reliable Bible. Temp, are you by any chance arguing the KJV or Catholic Bibles?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 5, 2011 0:41:31 GMT
Actually, at that point I was arguing my own Sunday School training back when I was young. No idea which version of the bible that was taken from. My personal bible is KJV, though.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 5, 2011 1:04:16 GMT
There doesn't seem to be much to talk about. No body has really presented anything for the existence of god in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 5, 2011 2:23:22 GMT
Er. Pi? Why would such a central number be irrational if created by a rational God?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 5, 2011 20:56:31 GMT
Interesting that you applied a value as if a state. Remember, in a world of states, there is 1 and 0, which represent presence and lack of presence, or on and off. A value is a user-defined variable on a spectrum, able to be changed by anything. Any human can make a value, none can define a state. To do so requires modification of physics itself. To make a value, we merely fabricate it and assign it.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 5, 2011 21:42:12 GMT
Interesting that you applied a value as if a state. Remember, in a world of states, there is 1 and 0, which represent presence and lack of presence, or on and off. A value is a user-defined variable on a spectrum, able to be changed by anything. Any human can make a value, none can define a state. To do so requires modification of physics itself. To make a value, we merely fabricate it and assign it. What he means is, is why did god make the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter an irrational number, especially since it is one of the most used numbers? It would have worked out beautifully if it was instead, say, 10.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 5, 2011 22:00:43 GMT
Of course, I believe QwertyuiopThePie said it half jokingly, if not jokingly...
|
|
|