43
   

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:03 am
@carnaticmystery,
You keep trying to dodge the implications of what you posted. As long as you deny having written what you obviously wrote, i will bring it up. As long as you keep playing your elementary school games, i will bring it up. As long as your only rhetorical device is puerile insults, i will continue to point out that you have **** for brains.
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:08 am
@carnaticmystery,
I'm not your buddy, and it's offensive for you to use the term, which was probably your intent, because that's as good as it ever gets with you. I'm not at all surprised that you continue to attempt to claim that "god=universe" is the "intended meaning of god in all religions." Yet in your next post, you deny making universal claims, just as you have in this post. I made no such claim about Hinduism--if you didn't make **** up, you'd have nothing to argue about. I did not claim that Hindus are "violent killers," although some certainly are. I have also not claimed that christians and Muslims are peaceful saints, although many are peaceful. If you didn't make **** up, you'd have nothing to argue about. You are really very poor at this sort of thing.

You're a mess, and the worst case of Little Miss Can't Be Wrong i've seen in quite a while.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:12 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You keep trying to dodge the implications of what you posted.

never once have i done so.
Quote:
As long as you deny having written what you obviously wrote, i will bring it up.

never denied writing that, said that i changed my claim, just like i changed from thinking 1+1=3 to 2.
Quote:
As long as you keep playing your elementary school games, i will bring it up.

god and universe are elementary school games to you, ok cool please tell me what are the real grown up games?
Quote:
As long as your only rhetorical device is puerile insults, i will continue to point out that you have **** for brains.

if you continue to need to imagine faeces so often, then please consult a doctor for treatment of coprophilia.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:18 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I'm not your buddy, and it's offensive for you to use the term, which was probably your intent, because that's as good as it ever gets with you.

not at all, i was really hoping that we could be buddies. come on pal. lets do it mate. lets just be best friends. bffs? i think i love you. are you gay? maybe i can turn you gay. maybe you can turn me gay. who knows, some exciting possibilities aye..

Quote:
I'm not at all surprised that you continue to attempt to claim that "god=universe" is the "intended meaning of god in all religions."

yes certainly. you as an atheist should be the first to accept this theory, assuming you do accept the reality of the universe.

certainly in hinduism, and i would still think likely in all religions, the idea of god was created as an explanation for the 'universe'. now perhaps these other religions did not think of the possibility that the creator of the universe WAS the universe itself. but hinduism CERTAINLY did think of this possibility, and that IS the teaching of 'brahman' in hinduism, which is accepted by the majority of all hindus as the highest concept of god in the entire religion.

i would argue that there is probably a similar concept in most religions, but cannot be bothered trying to prove it because i have no interest in religion per se.

Quote:
Yet in your next post, you deny making universal claims, just as you have in this post.

never denied EVER making universal claims. i said the claim about 3 religions was not a universal claim. it was about 3 religions. then i changed it based on your testimony. NOW, i am making a universal claim just to piss you off. ok buddy?
Quote:
I made no such claim about Hinduism--if you didn't make **** up, you'd have nothing to argue about. I did not claim that Hindus are "violent killers," although some certainly are. I have also not claimed that christians and Muslims are peaceful saints, although many are peaceful. If you didn't make **** up, you'd have nothing to argue about. You are really very poor at this sort of thing.

i don't care what you claim or don't claim, dumbfuck, i am just more and more amused by your stupidity in every post.

its like, you are really venting some anger out, it must feel great. glad to be of help buddy.

Quote:
You're a mess, and the worst case of Little Miss Can't Be Wrong i've seen in quite a while.

sorry buddy. i will try to be wrong from now on, but you will have to help me out and say something remotely 'right' first.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:29 am
@Deaths Bane,
Quote:
If you ask me, it's completely impossible that there is no divine being, because without which, nothing could exist. I mean, who wrote the laws of science? Who said matter is allowed to exist? It doesn't make sense unless both ideas work in harmony.

the laws of science were written by humans after observing various phenomenon. matter is deemed existent by humans only. if you choose to define something as existent, then you will naturally seek a cause. so god, or a divine being, is the cause that humans attribute to 'existence'. in my opinion, neither 'god' nor 'existence' are absolutely true, but i agree with you that the instant you accept one of them, you have to accept the other. atheists who claim that the entire universe exists absolutely but with no intelligence behind it are fools. if they admit an intelligence, that is admitting a 'god'. on the other hand, theists who are so sure of their gods, they attach further concepts to to them and make it a reason for killing others, are equally fools. agnostics are just lazy, but probably smarter than atheists or theists.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 10:22 am
Quote:
Carnatic said: agnostics are just lazy, but probably smarter than atheists or theists.

Aths and ags dismiss Jesus out of hand. Is that smart considering he said stuff like-
"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8:23)
"I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going" (John 8:14)
"I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (Matt 13:35)
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 10:47 am
@carnaticmystery,
When it comes to stupidity, no one can match you. You continue to attempt to claim that all religions equate god with the universe. In the Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam, representing about half of the world's population--the god created the universe, the god is separate from and greater than the universe. You're just too ignorant to see this. You're a sad case.
igm
 
  2  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 11:01 am
@Deaths Bane,
Deaths Bane wrote:

If you ask me, it's completely impossible that there is no divine being, because without which, nothing could exist. I mean, who wrote the laws of science? Who said matter is allowed to exist? It doesn't make sense unless both ideas work in harmony.

Why is it completely impossible there is no divine being?
You say it's, 'because without which nothing could exist. Why not?
Who wrote the laws of science... the divine being? How do you know that?
Who said matter is allowed to exist... the divine being? How do you know that?
Please be explicit: what are the, 'both ideas' that you refer to? Why do they need to work in harmony? Why are both ideas needed in order to make sense?

One cannot just take on face value your post... that wouldn't be sensible... one has to ask questions and then get convincing answers to them. The same is true when one hears or reads religious teachings.
believer12
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 01:25 pm
@rosborne979,
when testing the truth (proof, physical evidence) of a hypothesis by the use of controlled experiments is one of the key techniques of the modern scientific method. For example, somebody says, Ivory soap doesn't float. So you would take the person to the kitchen, put 8 inches of water in the sink at 82.7, and drop it in like so..Plunk. Observations are made, that are drawn, and a hypothesis is empirically verified: Ivory soap floats. Now if the scientific method was the only method of proving something, you couldn't prove you went to class this morning, have gone for a late night jog alone or that you had lunch today. There's no way you can repeat those events in a controlled situation.

Now here's what is called legal historical proof, which is based on showing that something is fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, a verdict is reached on the basis of weight of the evidence. it depends upon three types of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony and exhibits, such as an (notebook, bullet..etc) using legal method of determining what happened, you could pretty well prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in class this morning: your friends saw you, you have your notes, the professor remembers seeing you.
Danny Korem
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 04:47 pm
@igm,
I liked n voted up this post igm...you need bring more of this line of reasoning to your arguments at large. If anything this proves many times people can reason well when they free themselves of pre concepts n prejudice.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 04:47 pm
@believer12,
Now here's what is called legal historical proof, which is based on showing that something is fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, a verdict is reached on the basis of weight of the evidence. it depends upon three types of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony and exhibits, such as an (notebook, bullet..etc) using legal method of determining what happened, you could pretty well prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in class this morning: your friends saw you, you have your notes, the professor remembers seeing you.
Danny Korem

If that means we have proof of Jesus, none of it applies. The only books came three centuries after. No verifiable oral testimony. No verifiable exhibits.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 04:56 pm
@edgarblythe,
...yeah William Lane Craig tries to peddle the same bullshit every time about the historicity and evidence for Jesus but he can only convince naive or biased people. He may have kicked the hell out of the idiots defending Atheism which mostly were poorly philosophically prepared or just plain dumb like Richard Dawkins. But regarding the evidence for Jesus as son of God he is full of bullshit just as anyone else. I don't like him not because he is a Christian but precisely due to this inconsistency between a brilliant intellect and someone so bluntly willing to misguide people with any means possible.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:45 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
When it comes to stupidity, no one can match you.

dunno setanta buddy, you seem highly, highly stupid yourself.
Quote:
You continue to attempt to claim that all religions equate god with the universe. In the Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam, representing about half of the world's population--the god created the universe, the god is separate from and greater than the universe.

yes, i was clearly ignorant of this fact before, and i corrected my ignorance through your comments, and i have thanked you quite a few times now.

to expand on this point, i see now that CERTAINLY those 3 religions do believe that god is separate from/greater than the universe. i also see that those 3 religions are currently responsible for probably over 95% of world violence going on. they are probably responsible for about 70-80% of total world violence in human history.

i therefore think that the reason for this extra violence within these 3 religions (judaism, christianity, islam) is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of their teachings. i think the religions intended god to mean universe, in which case nobody would bother killing each other when all is part of one universe which is god.

either everybody misunderstood the religions, or the original teachings themselves are wrong. if the teachings themselves state categorically that god is definitely a SEPARATE thing from the entire universe, then i would blame the teachings. if the teachings could be interpreted that god may be the creator but also simultaneously permeates the entire universe in all matter, then i would blame the interpretations of this teaching.
Quote:
You're just too ignorant to see this. You're a sad case.

yep agreed, except you said 'you're' which implies the present tense. i WAS too ignorant to see that muslims were equally as stupid as christians/jews when it comes to their conception of god. now i see that yes, muslims/christians/jews are all equally stupid, and separate god from universe, therefore killing each other endlessly.

and hindus, buddhists, all other peaceful groups are happily chilling out..
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:50 pm
@Setanta,
hey setanta, i am trying to get a new sports channel to watch more world cricket, do you maybe know of any sports channels for me?
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 08:53 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Aths and ags dismiss Jesus out of hand. Is that smart considering he said stuff like-
"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8:23)
"I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going" (John 8:14)
"I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (Matt 13:35)


you are one of the theists i was talking about who take it overboard, condemn all other views, and end up violent.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 09:15 pm
http://i.imgur.com/eezCO.gif
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 8 Dec, 2013 10:32 pm
@carnaticmystery,
Yep, a sad case,
0 Replies
 
believer12
 
  1  
Mon 9 Dec, 2013 12:32 am
@edgarblythe,
people need to do their research before spewing inaccuracies about biblical facts. The New Testament has more manuscripts than any 10 pieces of classical literature of the same period combined. The New Testament offers us over 24,000 manuscripts. Many brilliant historians, such as Simon Greenleaf and Josh McDowell, were set to disprove the Christian faith with arguments based upon historical facts (both converted to Christianity). Afters 2 years, McDowell had found evidence so overwhelming, that he converted from atheism to Christianity soon after.
The bible has also included predictions that have occurred two thousand years prior to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament is laced with over 60 major prophecies and 270 ramifications of how the Messiah would be born, live, even the implications surrounding his life and death. It is common knowledge that when a Jewish prophet recorded a prophecy, he believed in a literal historical fulfillment of that prediction.
Example: Prophecy- even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.
Relevance: King David is referring to the time when the Messiah would be betrayed by a close friend. Psalms 41:9- History would later record his name as Judas Iscariot.
There are many other examples that I will not get into but that is just one of them.
Satan has only one goal for his pitiful existence, and that is to thwart the plans of God. He and his legion will go to great extremes to prevent an individual from gaining knowledge of who Jesus of Nazareth really is and what our relationship with Him should be. These truth is what he is set out to destroy. I realize to some this may sound like a sermon, but there's no other way to accurately make this statement. Do your research people..you'll be amazed at what you will find.
Danny Korem
fresco
 
  1  
Mon 9 Dec, 2013 12:59 am
@believer12,
You wrote
Quote:
Afters 2 years, McDowell had found evidence so overwhelming, that he converted from atheism to Christianity soon after.

Wiki gives
Quote:
According to McDowell, he was an agnostic at college


...and you berate us about "facts" ! Smile
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Mon 9 Dec, 2013 02:42 am
Quote:
Edgar said: If that means we have proof of Jesus, none of it applies. The only books came three centuries after

Your time scale is a bit off mate, gospel-writers Matthew and John were disciples, gospel-writer Mark was a mate of Jesus's right-hand man Peter, and gospel-writer Luke was a mate of Paul, and they all wrote (or dictated) their gospels within their own lifetimes..Smile
Buddha and Mohammed did the same thing with their own writings so if you're going to say Jesus never existed you'd have to say they never existed either!
Incidentally for centuries atheists used to say Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time, but recent digs have found it and left them red-faced.
Who do atheists think lived there, Mary Poppins?..Smile


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/nazareth-digB.gif





0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:05:33