|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 6, 2011 1:15:43 GMT
Indeed, but that is still moot point. The idea is not to order everything into what we perceive as rational, but what actually is. Our limited knowledge makes it have a massive difference.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 6, 2011 2:19:25 GMT
I stand by what I said, you still haven't provided much recently for God, and I really don't feel like debating with something from a few pages back.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 6, 2011 6:09:14 GMT
Kurai, I get what you said, but it doesn't apply to pi. It applies to practically every constant out there, as it is human-defined, but not pi as a value. Pi as a value is from pure mathematics, merely a ratio, no human-made measurements in sight. It is one of the few numbers we did not fabricate or assign, but that exists soley because circles do. If you don't like geometry, you can use e instead. It is merely based on the natural logarithm used in integration, not on any human-assigned value.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 6, 2011 22:57:45 GMT
Kurai, I get what you said, but it doesn't apply to pi. It applies to practically every constant out there, as it is human-defined, but not pi as a value. Pi as a value is from pure mathematics, merely a ratio, no human-made measurements in sight. It is one of the few numbers we did not fabricate or assign, but that exists soley because circles do. If you don't like geometry, you can use e instead. It is merely based on the natural logarithm used in integration, not on any human-assigned value. Meh. If math were a highschool, Pi would be the awesome guy that is nice and friends with everyone, and e would be his slightly meaner friend who people don't like as much.
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 10, 2011 0:57:50 GMT
I'm just throwing this out there, I read the book of Genesis and laughed.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 10, 2011 1:55:14 GMT
I'm just throwing this out there, I read the book of Genesis and laughed. Happened to the best of us.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 10, 2011 17:30:16 GMT
Of course, that is coming from a nihilist. I can't see greater fallacy that believing existence made itself, and decides to stay around. Existence as a whole is not a sentient being, it can't choose to not dissipate.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 10, 2011 17:37:54 GMT
*Insert facepalm here.*
I really think we need to prohibit Kurai-logic in the Debate Board. I think I know Kuraikiba's answer to this, so I'll ask if anyone else agrees that, for both his protection and our protection from fallacy and flaming, he be restricted from debating?
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Apr 10, 2011 17:49:30 GMT
Of course, that is coming from a nihilist. I can't see greater fallacy that believing existence made itself, and decides to stay around. Existence as a whole is not a sentient being, it can't choose to not dissipate. It doesn't "choose" to stay around, it stays around because there's sort of a problem with, you know, making something that exists not exist anymore. As for why existence is here in the first place, I believe that matter, space, and energy always have existing is far more believable than an omnipotent being that lived forever who then proceeded with making the human race for no inherent purpose whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by priok on Apr 10, 2011 20:01:10 GMT
i think god is here to give us hobe , he is a metaphor for emotion
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 10, 2011 20:09:49 GMT
Yes, I think we can safely block Kuraikiba. I mean, really? That isn't the nihlist viewpoint at all. According to you nothing matters to anyone else for various completely unrelated reasons (I mean, in the other thread you just said atheists think sex is pointless because they'll just die anyway. Big fat non-sequitor right there. If anything they think it's more important because they know they have a limited time and they should use it to the maximum benefit.)
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 10, 2011 22:28:59 GMT
Alright, effective April 11, 0:00 FST, Kuraikiba will be prohibited from participating in the Debate threads. I won't go so far as to give a warning yet, but I will delete his posts if they appear after this self-referencing post...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 10, 2011 23:18:36 GMT
Tis for his own good, him debating here has only ever lead to trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Apr 11, 2011 6:14:22 GMT
Of course, that is coming from a nihilist. I can't see greater fallacy that believing existence made itself, and decides to stay around. Existence as a whole is not a sentient being, it can't choose to not dissipate. Existence came into being by chance, and then the things which existed and made the most copies of itself tended to stick around, because things that are more numerous are harder to destroy than things that are not numerous. (That sentence might be easier to type if I typed it in latin.)
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 11, 2011 11:50:49 GMT
Yes, I think we can safely block Kuraikiba. I mean, really? That isn't the nihlist viewpoint at all. I think he was referring to the fact that I had mentioned my nihilism before... not that it was really relevant in his post anyway though...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 13, 2011 1:32:26 GMT
A friend of mine made a good point.
(Yes, the guy's name was literally Christian)
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 14, 2011 0:16:50 GMT
"Or will be damned by an eternity of pain" Isn't in there. Anyway... He's God. He's allowed to do what he wants- and he's trying to do it for the best. The Ten Commandments apply to us. Not him. Anyway, Jesus got revived, and sent to heaven anyway- he wasn't "condemned:.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 14, 2011 1:12:57 GMT
So he can sin... and condemn it... that's nice.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 14, 2011 3:39:42 GMT
Sin is our crimes, in God's eyes. If God does something he doesn't see it as wrong, and it's absurd to assume a god's actions are sin, given what sin is.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 14, 2011 3:53:47 GMT
Killing everything on Earth but the seven pairs of some animals and single pairs of some animals -- Oh, sorry, I mean a single pair of each animal -- isn't a sin? Even when the animals were innocent? Oh right, I forgot, man is the ruler of everything, and animals don't matter. But, of course, that doesn't matter. Morality was forbidden by God himself, after all. Of course, thank goodness God helps some people have men, since we all know they're better. You wanna analyze the bible your way? Okay, I'll do it my way then. That's just to Genesis 4, with the exception of the bit from Genesis 6/7.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 14, 2011 11:37:30 GMT
If I told my son that he couldn't drink soda, but then I drank soda in rght in front of him, I think he would be mad. Also, since the story of the virgin birth is false, (Mistranslation of the word for young woman/maiden) doesn't that mean he wasn't the Messiah? He wouldn't have fulfilled all of the prophecies that way. (Though there are many other prophecies he didn't fulfill either)
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 15, 2011 4:10:14 GMT
Qwerty, I am officially insulted, and if you're going to flame my religion, I'd rather not participate in this argument.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 15, 2011 4:32:46 GMT
I'm not flaming your religion. I'm quoting the bible.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 15, 2011 10:26:53 GMT
I can see why he might no longer want to debate after that post though xP
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 15, 2011 22:31:34 GMT
Naturally. There's really no way to defend the bible once a few contradictions are pointed out and the actual meaning is mentioned: The bible is stuffed full of discrimination if you know where to look.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 16, 2011 4:26:00 GMT
So. In one of the books of the bible, Lot asked God if he would even spare a city with 5 faithful people if th eothers were corrupt. In Genesis he didn't. That means there were not even 5 innocent people. Basically the world was pretty much only inhabited by corrupt people. Anyway, how else would he take care of that? Giant pillars of fire? Also, I do believe he was much less forgiving before Jesus was born.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 16, 2011 5:26:57 GMT
The bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill the innocent", it says "thou shalt not kill". Besides, we're going off a pretty vague definition of corrupt here. here is a nifty site to read. Also, what's with the bit in the ten commandments where God punishes people's children for things the parents did, several generations down the line? Seems rather unfair.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 16, 2011 5:53:39 GMT
Also, I do believe he was much less forgiving before Jesus was born. So, you believe in that whole thing? Where the omnipotent God somehow couldn't forgive (making death the punishment for sin), so he concocts a half-baked plan where he uses his second form to impregnate a young woman through her ear so that his third form can be born. Then, God, in his third form, allows himself to be killed so that he can forgive and create a mystical realm where good people go when they die. So, in essence, God makes a plan where he dies so that he gains the ability to forgive, yet somehow designing this whole plan doesn't actually show forgiveness by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 16, 2011 6:05:28 GMT
I think I believe more in what the one Philosophy Club member pointed out to me several weeks ago, as I mentioned three pages ago in this thread, where the Lord of the Old Testament is actually the Son, not the Father... The post is linked here.
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Apr 16, 2011 7:15:04 GMT
The bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill the innocent", it says "thou shalt not kill". Besides, we're going off a pretty vague definition of corrupt here. here is a nifty site to read. Also, what's with the bit in the ten commandments where God punishes people's children for things the parents did, several generations down the line? Seems rather unfair. Actually, "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. It is actually "Thou shalt not murder".
|
|
|