News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

A Question for Everyone...

Started by alexxmedeiros, October 14, 2016, 12:39:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 08:58:49 PMThe evidence of my position is that without it, you have nothing but absurdity. I have proved this throughout this forum...
On the contrary, you are pre-supposing that this superior being exists and is guiding your reasoning. In order for your methodology to be superior to mine, however, you must prove that this being exists in the first place. If there is indeed no God communicating with the human species (and I've yet to see evidence that there is), then the construction of my epistemology is far superior to your made-up gobbledygook, since it deals with real mental abilities which can actually be exercised in a practical setting. Unlike you, I have trained myself to recognize my own flaws and, with proper discipline, work with or even overcome them. You, on the other hand, believe your reasoning to be flawless since you have convinced yourself that you are guided by a god. You refuse to analyze any flaws in your logic, and are actively preventing yourself from improving your mind. This is why everyone here is treating you like a child: you've yet to progress your mind beyond that level of mental development, and it really shows.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 08:58:49 PMYou still have given me no basis for trusting your reasoning and senses so on what basis do you not take me seriously?
Of course not, you're a rebel without a cause who doesn't want an obviously-superior way of thinking to be true because it's too hard. You didn't do a lick of homework before you came to this forum, and the total lack of self-awareness evident in your questions demonstrates this to a tee. You're happy to ask us if we can be wrong, but you've clearly never applied this to yourself. You are deluded, convinced you can do no wrong; you will protest, of course, but your actions don't lie. You are a self-assured child covering his ears and hiding behind an imaginary friend, desperately proclaiming your love of Big Brother in the hopes of removing all need to think for yourself. You aren't as formidable as you think, because you're not formidable at all. The only thing you are worthy of is pity.

If you don't like hearing the truth about yourself, the door is not locked. Feel free to get the fuck out.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

sthubbar

#46
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:04:30 PM
I do, God has revealed himself in his word. The Bible is the absolute most authentic literature in the entire world.....
This is assertion.  "I am invincible." "Everything I say is true." "I have visited Mars."  These assertions have as much evidence as what you just stated.  Evidence.  Please provide evidence.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:04:30 PM
I have evidence, you will quickly dismiss it based on your presuppositions.

What evidence?

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:04:30 PMSo my proof is that without the Christian God you are reduced to absurdity.

It might make more sense if you said that without SOME perfect authority then we are reduced to absurdity.  Why would we choose the Christian God?  I can claim that the teapot orbiting around Mars is a perfect authority and I appeal to the great teapot to avoid being reduced to absurdity.

Still haven't heard one piece of evidence.

alexxmedeiros

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 09:37:51 PM
On the contrary, you are pre-supposing that this superior being exists and is guiding your reasoning. In order for your methodology to be superior to mine, however, you must prove that this being exists in the first place. If there is indeed no God communicating with the human species (and I've yet to see evidence that there is), then the construction of my epistemology is far superior to your made-up gobbledygook, since it deals with real mental abilities which can actually be exercised in a practical setting. Unlike you, I have trained myself to recognize my own flaws and, with proper discipline, work with or even overcome them. You, on the other hand, believe your reasoning to be flawless since you have convinced yourself that you are guided by a god. You refuse to analyze any flaws in your logic, and are actively preventing yourself from improving your mind. This is why everyone here is treating you like a child: you've yet to progress your mind beyond that level of mental development, and it really shows.
Of course not, you're a rebel without a cause who doesn't want an obviously-superior way of thinking to be true because it's too hard. You didn't do a lick of homework before you came to this forum, and the total lack of self-awareness evident in your questions demonstrates this to a tee. You're happy to ask us if we can be wrong, but you've clearly never applied this to yourself. You are deluded, convinced you can do no wrong; you will protest, of course, but your actions don't lie. You are a self-assured child covering his ears and hiding behind an imaginary friend, desperately proclaiming your love of Big Brother in the hopes of removing all need to think for yourself. You aren't as formidable as you think, because you're not formidable at all. The only thing you are worthy of is pity.

If you don't like hearing the truth about yourself, the door is not locked. Feel free to get the fuck out.

Yes actually the apologetic method which I find to be the most biblical is called "Presuppositional Apologetics". I presuppose that the one true God exists because if you do not, you will be reduced to absurdity.

I presuppose the Christian worldview and when I look at evidence, I come to the conclusion of the Christian God.

You presuppose "no god" and when you look at the same exact evidence, you come to the conclusion of "no God".

I do not believe my reasoning to be flawless. However, I know that the Christian God exists because He has revealed this to me in such a way that I can know for certain. That is irrefutable. However I do not claim inerrancy or infallibility.

The reason you want me to leave is because you love your sin and hearing anything about the God that you know exists and that you hate infuriates you. My prayer is that God miraculously changes your heart.

Let's go through this again, you said "if you don't like hearing the truth..."

How do you know anything to be true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

alexxmedeiros

Quote from: sthubbar on October 14, 2016, 10:37:36 PM
  This is assertion.  "I am invincible." "Everything I say is true." "I have visited Mars."  These assertions have as much evidence as what you just stated.  Evidence.  Please provide evidence.

What evidence?

It might make more sense if you said that without SOME perfect authority then we are reduced to absurdity.  Why would we choose the Christian God?  I can claim that the teapot orbiting around Mars is a perfect authority and I appeal to the great teapot to avoid being reduced to absurdity.

Still haven't heard one piece of evidence.

No, see, I don't claim that because I say it, it's true. I claim that because GOD said it, it's true. God is invincible and everything that God says is true! Not me tho...

If you claim that the "teapot orbiting mars is a perfect authority" and that you "appeal to the great teapot to avoid being reduced to absurdity" I would first say this;

You are no longer an Atheist.

Secondly, if you want to claim that then we can most definitely debate that but if that's not what you believe then why ever debate it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

alexxmedeiros

Quote from: sthubbar on October 14, 2016, 10:37:36 PM
Please provide evidence.

What evidence?

Still haven't heard one piece of evidence.

There is tons - www.answersingenesis.com

You'll presuppose that there is no God, look at that evidence and conclude that there is no God.

I'll presuppose that the Christian God exists, look at the same exact evidence and come to the conclusion that the Christian God exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Draconic Aiur


Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:01:16 PMHow do you know that you exist?

If I am mistaken about that, who is making the mistake?
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Shiranu

Statistically something I believe has to be wrong... and statistically I cannot be 100% wrong.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 08:16:19 AM
Could I? Yes. Am I? Allow me to sing for you the song of my people.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

But programmers are gods, and Elon Musk intends to overthrow the current simulation with his own, called Satan ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#54
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 09:04:30 PM
I do, God has revealed himself in his word. The Bible is the absolute most authentic literature in the entire world.....

I have evidence, you will quickly dismiss it based on your presuppositions.

So my proof is that without the Christian God you are reduced to absurdity.

I do not deny that We all use our reason to know what is true, what I am saying is that you have absolutely no justification to know that your reasoning is valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You admit to Bibliolatry.  You lose!

i gave you one like, one.  You addressed me, not my post, one time, and that is why you got a like.  I was a person, not a rhetorical position.  You then proceeded to ignore my answer, hence no more likes.  Randy beats you, I think I gave him two whole likes, because I was a person to him, twice.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS


Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:39:47 AM
Could you be wrong about every thing that you claim to know?
I wasn't wrong about how long you'd last.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

sthubbar

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 15, 2016, 07:34:18 AM
I wasn't wrong about how long you'd last.

Hmm, I'm new to this forum.  Why was he banned?

Isn't this forum also for believers and the category of this forum says "The Debate Hall -> Informal Debates"

How can we have debates when the other side is getting banned?

If he was telling the truth, he was a young person that might still be reachable.  After 30 it's pretty much too late.

Gawdzilla Sama

No preaching, no conversion propaganda. Reading the rules is a good thing.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Cavebear

Lets consider any statement that I might be wrong about.   Suggest one.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!