|
Jesus was a thug traveling with a gang who made their own thug culture. People want to glorify his death but he was no angel. Look at his rap sheet, it's filled with uppity defiance of the authorities and vandalism/blatant disregard for property rights. Why should we glorify a thug whose biggest accomplishment was getting killed by the police?
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:My argument is that I don't but using human limitations to disprove it is stupid. Who said I was disproving god? I'm saying you're contemptable by presuming yourself special enough to discern the nature of the divine realm, and you're saying "gently caress you maybe I can who are you to say I can't." The most appropriate way to honor god is to respect god's place as incomprehensible to human perception. To attempt anything else, has bad implications for political development and social order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
emfive posted:OK, well in what way is that not a circular argument? Are you saying people are born with inherent faith, and that that faith means something? Or are you saying that the onset of faith is a manifestation of the existence of a supernatural power? I'm saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Who said I was disproving god? I'm saying you're contemptable by presuming yourself special enough to discern the nature of the divine realm, and you're saying "gently caress you maybe I can who are you to say I can't." I'm not and you still don't understand what I'm talking about and I literally do submit to Gods place as the end all be all of everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. quote:Because there is always this faint possibility that evidence hasn't been observed yet, a common maxim is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - and is often used by people to hang on to their beliefs even when faced with a lack of evidence for them. However, this is technically an incorrect maxim; if evidence is lacking when we expect it to be abundant, then it very much allows us to dismiss a hypothesis, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Wanting to factually prove God completely misses the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
We aren't expecting it in abundance dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:We aren't expecting it in abundance dude. Then why expect any god at all? Oh, right, faith. Miltank posted:Wanting to factually prove God completely misses the point. That is the point. Nobody is saying disprove god, but expecting us to accept 'God is real' based on faith alone is just as foolish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Wanting to factually prove God completely misses the point. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree; true absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything. I repeat the question: in what sense is the existence of faith, or the fact that some people profess their faith, a state of affairs that makes the object of faith - something without any other tangible nature - a body of assertions that requires no other evidence to be supposed true unless proven false? Note that I'm not saying that there's any need to disprove anything; people can believe what they want as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then why expect any god at all? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
I hope you all will listen to Do's message. It is very solid theology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
emfive posted:I agree; true absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything. Human institutions of religion are fallible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Yeah. However, that does not make your argument nor your premise solid. Yes, we cannot disprove god. Yet, no more can we disprove him than you can prove him. Its a null. But YOU came in hear screaming about 'God is real' and then god uppity when we suggested that faith is not sufficient evidence. drilldo squirt posted:Human institutions of religion are fallible? They are based on faith. They are non-falsifiable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Human institutions of religion are fallible? I apologize for being confused, but I don't think I understand what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:However, that does not make your argument nor your premise solid. Yes, we cannot disprove god. I'm sorry for being an uppity minority dude. But I'm just saying you don't understand what you're talking about and should stop maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm sorry for being an uppity minority dude. But I'm just saying you don't understand what you're talking about and should stop maybe. No, because you are suggesting that because I do not buy into your faith, I must be wrong while at the same time demanding me to accept your premise that god is real. You present a non-testable condition and then expect me to accept your conclusions. Your statement was: drilldo squirt posted:God is real. Deal with it DnD. Okay. Define real, without faith. He is real to you. That's fine, he is being defined by your faith. However, you are expecting other to accept him without the faith you hold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
emfive posted:I apologize for being confused, but I don't think I understand what you mean. you don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Oh, definitely. However, its made easier when you're able to hand-wave away anything uncovered which goes against your state narrative. Hence the need for democratic systems: You can change the state narrative on the basis of evidence and data uncovered through best-practices research, and hold hypocritical political agendas without suffering the negative impacts of hypocracy. It is the old which is most intimidating to humanity, for it goes against our acceptance of political hierarchy. Democratic systems, respect for different cultures and limits to state suppression can not exist without attention paid to material interests, in order to have a state structure that will balance these interests you need an economy stable enough to promote a civil (enough) society. Ultimately, these will likely only become rarer across the 21st century, and ISIS is only a early example of the way things will look, and not only in Muslim societies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm not and you still don't understand what I'm talking about and I literally do submit to Gods place as the end all be all of everything. Religion should not be an attempt to submit a population to an appropriate belief in god: Religion does the greatest service in an attempt to ameliorate individuality into structured community with mechanisms separate from state authority. To "submit to Gods place as the end all be all of everything" is to violate the first commandment. Ardennes posted:Democratic systems, respect for different cultures and limits to state suppression can not exist without attention paid to material interests, in order to have a state structure that will balance these interests you need an economy stable enough to promote a civil (enough) society. I mostly agree, except I would add that organized religion with developed jurisprudence allows your ethnicity to survive during prolonged periods of economic instability with sporadic bouts of unanticipated or unintended transitions of authority. A well organized civil society can serve as a hub-and-spoke network for social order which in times of hierarchical state structures supplements and strengthens state development while during times of weaker state authority serves to ensure cultural survival. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm sorry for being an uppity minority dude. Excuse me, but I believe that the cross you are currently nailing yourself to is clearly labeled as being for someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Miltank posted:you don't understand. Yes, that's what I meant when I said "I don't understand." I asked how the reasoning works around faith being the reason that the object(s) of faith are to be taken as true unless proven otherwise. I asked only because that's what drilldo squirt said; maybe I misunderstood that too, but his laconic answers didn't provide a lot of information. [edit] maybe the answer is "because that's the definition of the word faith", and I accept that, but I don't know what that means for people who don't have the same faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Wanting to factually prove God completely misses the point. Having a testable basis for material action. "Render unto caesar what's caesar's" and all that: don't base material policy on immaterial things. You can follow and wholeheartedly subscribe unproveable abstract things in your private life but once you start asking material things of others, you need to prove there will be a fair, equitable reward for them and their loved ones. If you can't prove it, you're writing people a blank check and relying on psychological coercion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
emfive posted:Yes, that's what I meant when I said "I don't understand." I asked how the reasoning works around faith being the reason that the object(s) of faith are to be taken as true unless proven otherwise. I asked only because that's what drilldo squirt said; maybe I misunderstood that too, but his laconic answers didn't provide a lot of information. The answer is because that's the definition of the word faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Having a testable basis for material action. "Render unto caesar what's caesar's" and all that: don't base material policy on immaterial things. You can follow and wholeheartedly subscribe unproveable abstract things in your private life but once you start asking material things of others, you need to prove there will be a fair, equitable reward for them and their loved ones. If you can't prove it, you're writing people a blank check and relying on psychological coercion. It's like you guys are robots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The answer is because that's the definition of the word faith. CommieGIR posted:No, because you are suggesting that because I do not buy into your faith, I must be wrong while at the same time demanding me to accept your premise that god is real. Answer the question. Why are others wrong for not buying into a premise that cannot be tested, while at the same time you declaring others are all wrong and stupid. drilldo squirt posted:It's like you guys are robots. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
*nerd voice* god can suck my dick
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:It's like you guys are robots. Well I can understand why it must seem like that, but please consider that the reliance on faith seems pretty robotic to those who don't have it. [edit] I do agree with your point that using evidence from radio telescopes and deep-sea probes and core samples as a way of dissuading you (or anybody) from serious faith is, well, a little rude and probably pointless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:59
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Prove. It. Prove what? That geocentrism is a poor critique of Western religion? It makes sense that religions specifically deal with humans and the earth because we are in fact human. Nothing about Christain theology prevents God from acting in places other than the Earth, or on humans, so I'm not really sure what your point was in the first place. Again, I'm not a Christain, and there are plenty of good arguments as to why god cannot be proven. But that's not a terribly good critique of religion in the first place and like many have mentioned, misses the point, which is that whether or not you can prove anything is irrelevant.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Should we tell a bunch of foot soldiers to go off to the desert and shoot people because they have the wrong faith and their culture's existence is incompatible with our culture's? (Never mind the actual cause for wars being land or resources or whatever, many of the people doing the killing based on faith are told that.) e: Religious organizations of abrahamic faiths may say "no. stop. don't do that" halfheartedly but do nothing to stop it because it is convenient to the spread of those organizations' power. Because a faith of one organization is selectively kind to one's own people and harsh to the Other, it leads to a lot of avoidable death when two clashing ideologies meet. Having a material, proveable basis for action between groups is necessary to show why one system should prevail over another (as religious systems try to do in war) for the well-being of the most people ie to avoid the most unnecessary pain and suffering. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The answer is because that's the definition of the word faith. Belief in god originating from a basis is faith is one of the lowest forms of belief in god; in order to flourish as a species, a higher standard is required from humanity. down with slavery posted:Prove what? That geocentrism is a poor critique of Western religion? It makes sense that religions specifically deal with humans and the earth because we are in fact human. Nothing about Christain theology prevents God from acting in places other than the Earth, or on humans, so I'm not really sure what your point was in the first place. God can't act; at best, humans can have momentary epiphanies of divine nature when applied to specific issues, such as higher mathematics. The nature of god is "extremely pedantic" in the sense that religion serves to educate individuals on cause and effect which separates correlation from causation, an understanding which is not innate to human thought. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Truth bomb: God does not exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:01
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Belief in god originating from a basis is faith is one of the lowest forms of belief in god; in order to flourish as a species, a higher standard is required from humanity. Taking the existence of god as an axiom does not prevent the species from flourishing. Case and point: history.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Prove what? That geocentrism is a poor critique of Western religion? It makes sense that religions specifically deal with humans and the earth because we are in fact human. Nothing about Christain theology prevents God from acting in places other than the Earth, or on humans, so I'm not really sure what your point was in the first place. Okay, I'll give you that, I went overboard. down with slavery posted:Taking the existence of god as an axiom does not prevent the species from flourishing. Case and point: history. I think his point was more faith is a poor device for demanding obedience and belief by the state and in communities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:03
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think his point was more faith is a poor device for demanding obedience and belief. Except that it's not. Case and point: history and/or reality.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I mostly agree, except I would add that organized religion with developed jurisprudence allows your ethnicity to survive during prolonged periods of economic instability with sporadic bouts of unanticipated or unintended transitions of authority. A well organized civil society can serve as a hub-and-spoke network for social order which in times of hierarchical state structures supplements and strengthens state development while during times of weaker state authority serves to ensure cultural survival. Granted, we aren't really talking about developed or undeveloped jurisprudence but how it is formed in the first place. You can say as time as gone on this developed has "unraveled" but I believe in part it of an evolution of the process. If we talking about Islam over all, Ottoman dominated Hanifism was quite stable and it took the state to fracture then the necessities of the Cold War to actually set the stage in this case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Praise God.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds8ffAXWJJs Also best story with Jesus.  Rodatose posted:Jesus was a thug traveling with a gang who made their own thug culture. People want to glorify his death but he was no angel. Look at his rap sheet, it's filled with uppity defiance of the authorities and vandalism/blatant disregard for property rights. Being that this is DND doesn't that make him like the exact sort of person Dnd would love? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Except that it's not. Case and point: history and/or reality. Here's the root of the problem in this debate: Drilldo Squirt entered the debate and declared quote:God is real. Deal with it DnD And then called people stupid for DARING to question the reality of his god outside of his personal faith. Arguments created by the movie God is not Dead actually don't hold much water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:06
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Here's the root of the problem in this debate: I disagree. The root of the problem is that many of the posters on this board have such a negative view of religion it distorts their ability to make a worthwhile critique. It's easy to post lovely things at people who believe in god. It's really easy to prove that god cannot be proven. But even putting those ideas forth puts back any real debate because people aren't religious because they think god has been proven. He's right for calling people stupid that throw up critiques straight from junior high school. I'm an atheist, but I have no problem admitting that not only has religion done a ton of good in this world (I'd say its track record is pretty comparable to any societal institution) but it provides something that I have yet to see the secular community recreate, which is a regular day where members of the community meet and share their beliefs. I think that the draw of the community is much more what keeps people religious than any kind of logical thought process.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Here's the root of the problem in this debate: I'm calling you and that other guy stupid for using terrible arguments that make no sense if you have any idea what you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:11
|
|