God is Dead

RocketLauncher13 · September 01, 2016, 08:30:12 PM

i tried to share a portion of my thoughts in a video
this is the first video i have ever made (it might be horrible but still...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq_SPceJ1Cw

Solomon Zorn · September 01, 2016, 08:59:30 PM

I enjoyed your video, but new members are expected to post in the "Introductions" forum first, before starting a new thread elsewhere. It's our way of getting to know you, a little.

Here's a poem I wrote that is similar in tone to your video, in showing nature itself proves God can't be the gentle compassionate, loving being worshiped by Christians.
http://www.solomonzorn.com/vicious.html

Blackleaf · September 01, 2016, 09:09:23 PM

I liked it. The robotic voices give it a nice touch. Was this your way of getting around a lack of decent sound equipment, or did you just want to use the robotic voices? Is this robot going to be your online persona, the character you speak through? It would be interesting seeing a robot with self-awareness try to figure out religion. Who knows what would happen then.

RocketLauncher13 · September 02, 2016, 04:52:14 AM

Thats what i tried to do

RocketLauncher13 · September 02, 2016, 07:17:11 AM

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 01, 2016, 08:59:30 PM
I enjoyed your video, but new members are expected to post in the "Introductions" forum first, before starting a new thread elsewhere. It's our way of getting to know you, a little.

Here's a poem I wrote that is similar in tone to your video, in showing nature itself proves God can't be the gentle compassionate, loving being worshiped by Christians.
http://www.solomonzorn.com/vicious.html

Sorry about that i didn't know...

widdershins · September 02, 2016, 10:55:39 AM

A little too combative for my taste. You'll never convince a believer with that. All you'll do is draw death threats. Maybe rape threats if you're female and attractive. Yeah, their minds actually go there.

And many of your points are easily refuted by even the newly initiated or those who know the Bible only vaguely. Animals killing and eating each other, for instance, is actually address in the Bible. Bad news, it's our fault. Well, not ours, personally. Adam and Eve caused it. And they were the first humans, so all of humanity is at fault. Natural disasters? That didn't happen in the garden either. So by extension we can assume that's our fault too. And God didn't make "the universe" for life. That's what the Earth is for. We're special. We're also stupid and evil and vile, but special.

SGOS · September 02, 2016, 12:31:54 PM

Quote from: widdershins on September 02, 2016, 10:55:39 AM
A little too combative for my taste. You'll never convince a believer with that. All you'll do is draw death threats. Maybe rape threats if you're female and attractive. Yeah, their minds actually go there.

And many of your points are easily refuted by even the newly initiated or those who know the Bible only vaguely. Animals killing and eating each other, for instance, is actually address in the Bible. Bad news, it's our fault. Well, not ours, personally. Adam and Eve caused it. And they were the first humans, so all of humanity is at fault. Natural disasters? That didn't happen in the garden either. So by extension we can assume that's our fault too. And God didn't make "the universe" for life. That's what the Earth is for. We're special. We're also stupid and evil and vile, but special.

And of course, made in God's image.

widdershins · September 02, 2016, 12:35:21 PM

Quote from: SGOS on September 02, 2016, 12:31:54 PM
And of course, made in God's image.

Yet nothing like him. When it's convenient, of course.

RocketLauncher13 · September 02, 2016, 12:55:09 PM

after all, it just a sample experiment. I will be sure to make it look good next time.

widdershins · September 02, 2016, 03:59:08 PM

Quote from: RocketLauncher13 on September 02, 2016, 12:55:09 PM
after all, it just a sample experiment. I will be sure to make it look good next time.

Not in any way saying there was anything wrong with it. You just might want to decide who you're preaching to. To us? Then it was great. Are you actually trying to make a point to the believer? WAY too militant to be effective.

Baruch · September 02, 2016, 06:19:33 PM

Mary Poppins is real ... a spoonful of sugar does help the medicine go down ;-)

Blackleaf · September 03, 2016, 03:09:15 AM

Quote from: widdershins on September 02, 2016, 10:55:39 AM
A little too combative for my taste. You'll never convince a believer with that. All you'll do is draw death threats. Maybe rape threats if you're female and attractive. Yeah, their minds actually go there.

And many of your points are easily refuted by even the newly initiated or those who know the Bible only vaguely. Animals killing and eating each other, for instance, is actually address in the Bible. Bad news, it's our fault. Well, not ours, personally. Adam and Eve caused it. And they were the first humans, so all of humanity is at fault. Natural disasters? That didn't happen in the garden either. So by extension we can assume that's our fault too. And God didn't make "the universe" for life. That's what the Earth is for. We're special. We're also stupid and evil and vile, but special.

The thing is that Christians think they can have it both ways. What's evidence that God exists? Look at how perfectly fine tuned our universe is to support life on Earth! Evidence for why we need a Savior? Look at how broken our world is! You can't have it both ways. Either the world is incredibly flawed or it is beautifully designed. This kind of double-think is common for people of faith.

widdershins · September 06, 2016, 04:33:04 PM

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 03, 2016, 03:09:15 AM
The thing is that Christians think they can have it both ways. What's evidence that God exists? Look at how perfectly fine tuned our universe is to support life on Earth! Evidence for why we need a Savior? Look at how broken our world is! You can't have it both ways. Either the world is incredibly flawed or it is beautifully designed. This kind of double-think is common for people of faith.

That double standard is the foundation upon which belief is built. Your one example is just a drop in the ocean. It's in their every argument. Without double standards their entire belief system falls apart. Look at Randy's arguments. One expert who agreed with him was worth more than any number of experts who didn't. One source he liked outweighed any and all sources he didn't, regardless which was more credible. And look at the "uncaused cause" argument. No matter how far you go back it is IMPOSSIBLE in their minds that the "first cause" be not-God because reason after reason, but all those reasons go away when you argue that God must then have had a creator. And the Bible itself is evidence that Christianity is true and real, as is any text, ancient or young, which supports their beliefs, but no text which does not is credible in any way. One is stupid both for not believing in their particular God as they see him AND for believing in any other god in any form.

Christians DO have it both ways, in their heads anyway. They always have and they always will.

Baruch · September 06, 2016, 06:07:44 PM

I happen to agree .. the uncaused cause could be impersonal or personal. Aristotle took it to be impersonal. Also his categories of causation are misused ... one cause is ... the carpenter cut the wood ... but that doesn't mean that every cause must end up at a personal source ... there were cases that Aristotle noted, where the cause was purely natural, like the growth of the tree that the wood is cut from .. for example. He didn't believe in wood nymphs.

Personally, I don't have a problem with infinite regress, or other forms of infinity. Zeno of Elea had that problem 2500 years ago, but I don't have to agree with him that infinite regress is a reductio ad absurbum .. so I don't need planck lengths to avoid meltdown of modern physics either. Ancient Greeks didn't even believe in the whole real number line, and no zero and no negative numbers. If they had arithmetic like 1900 CE ... they might have done their metaphysics better (as analogy to math). They only had positive, non-zero rational numbers ... the numerator and denominator had to be non-negative non-zero integers ... and they didn't have Cantor's infinities either.

SGOS · September 06, 2016, 06:26:40 PM

Quote from: widdershins on September 06, 2016, 04:33:04 PM
Look at Randy's arguments.

Ahh, remembering Randy. He would make a good salesman with all his clever tricks. I remember my first encounter. He quoted some article that claimed that while no one piece of evidence could prove the existence of God, a whole bunch may very well accomplish this. This was an interesting thought that I had never heard before, and I considered that maybe separate evidences could be combined somehow in sequitur fashion to arrive at a proof. But it was a trick. The operative word in the claim was that MAY very well accomplish this. Fair enough. It may, I suppose, and I was open to how.

But by the time he was finished, his attention grabber changed from MAY very well, to "Yes, it does unequivocally," based on his opener that it very well may. Not sure how he got from one to the other. He just sort of ended up there when no one was looking. And he bolstered his point with, although his presentation provide no viable proofs, it was evidence that a court of law would find compelling. First, we have no idea what a court of law with lay jurors would find compelling, and while evidence was provided, none of it approached proof. Apparently, evidence becomes proof when he says there is enough that a court of law would accept it, even though a court of law was not utilized in any way in his debate.

Yeah, he could probably sell ice to Eskimos, although they may still experience buyer's remorse.

News:

God is Dead