Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[Neo Rome Republic]

WRONG. I said such a being could not logically create the universe, meaning it would not be our creator.

You said: 'You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects" - which is what I just commented on.

So your all-caps 'wrong' was, well - wrong.

They do which is why our universe, could not have been created by this ''God''. Your ''it's magic'' answer is not valid, unless you have evidence.

[Armadrone]

I am an Atheist because I view most religion to be oppressive. Not all but most. Science and reason has always helped me through my problems. I am an Atheist because i base my morals on what has a negative and positive impact on society. Not basing it off a book that written ages ago, using any old religious text as moral compass is like using a blue print from the roman times to build a house. It doesn't make any sense.

[Blasveck]

You said: 'You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects" - which is what I just commented on.

So your all-caps 'wrong' was, well - wrong.

They do which is why our universe, could not have been created by this ''God''.

God doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

Why arent you understanding this?

God doesn't have a cause and effect because the inherent nature of God doesn't follow the rules.

Saying God does follow the rules is being willfully ignorant.

[Neo Rome Republic]

They do which is why our universe, could not have been created by this ''God''.

God doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

Why aren you understanding this?

God doesn't have a cause and effect because the inherent nature of God doesn't follow the rules.

Saying God does follow the rules is being willfully ignorant.

If he does not have time then he couldn't have created our universe, since he isn't able to ''cause'' anything Even if he does exist. Fallacious reasoning is still fallacious it's like me saying my spoon can fly as fast as the speed of light, because it's inherent nature is above the ''natural laws''. That is fallacious reasoning, whether it applies to God or my magic spoon. Again give me evidence first, to give you exemption.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

There was a Christian preacher in town today... and... he said "evolution is just a theory"...

I can't take this any more...

[Blasveck]

God doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

Why aren you understanding this?

God doesn't have a cause and effect because the inherent nature of God doesn't follow the rules.

Saying God does follow the rules is being willfully ignorant.

If he does not have time then he couldn't have created our universe, since he isn't able to ''cause'' anything Even if he does exist.

Read the underlined.

5 times if you have to.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If he does not have time then he couldn't have created our universe, since he isn't able to ''cause'' anything Even if he does exist.

Read the underlined.

5 times if you have to.

Fallacious reasoning is still fallacious it's like me saying, my spoon can fly as fast as the speed of light, because it's inherent nature is above the ''natural laws''. That is fallacious reasoning, whether it applies to ''God'' or my magic spoon. Again give me evidence first, then I'll give you exemption.

[Anachronous Rex]

There was a Christian preacher in town today... and... he said "evolution is just a theory"...

I can't take this any more...

Just find me next time that happens. I'll give you my Raichu.

[Blasveck]

Read the underlined.

5 times if you have to.

Fallacious reasoning is still fallacious it's like me saying, my spoon can fly as fast as the speed of light, because it's inherent nature is above the ''natural laws''. That is fallacious reasoning, whether it applies to ''God'' or my magic spoon. Again give me evidence first, to give you exemption.

The nature of the spoon is always constant an it exists within our universe and follows its laws.

God is outside of our universe, therefore, it doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

And I'll just say this once.

Our world isn't simply made of the "physical stuff".

[Neo Rome Republic]

Fallacious reasoning is still fallacious it's like me saying, my spoon can fly as fast as the speed of light, because it's inherent nature is above the ''natural laws''. That is fallacious reasoning, whether it applies to ''God'' or my magic spoon. Again give me evidence first, to give you exemption.

The nature of the spoon is always constant an it exists within our universe and follows its laws.

God is outside of our universe, therefore, it doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

And I'll just say this once.

Our world isn't simply made of the "physical stuff".

Not my spoon, my spoon is ''magical''. It's also made of ''magic'' right?

[Blasveck]

The nature of the spoon is always constant an it exists within our universe and follows its laws.

God is outside of our universe, therefore, it doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

And I'll just say this once.

Our world isn't simply made of the "physical stuff".

Not my spoon, my spoon is ''magical''. It's also made of ''magic'' right?

The spoon exists within our universe, therefore, it can't be magical.

God exists outside our universe, therefore, it can be magical.

Get the difference?

[Wolfmanne]

I'm a Roman Catholic. Two-three years ago I would of identified myself as Catholic Agnostic, but now I'm sure that God exists.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Not my spoon, my spoon is ''magical''. It's also made of ''magic'' right?

The spoon exists within our universe, therefore, it can't be magical.

God exists outside our universe, therefore, it can be magical.

Get the difference?

My spoon exists both inside and outside the universe. Now give my spoon the same exemption you gave ''God''. You've already admitted ''God'' makes no logical sense, and you've presented no evidence of such a being. But because he is ''magical'', I should ignore the evidence of our universe and throw logic out the window. This is fallacious reasoning as I could claim anything like from vampires, ghosts to my spoon, being similar to God, if I can reject the existence of the spoon,vampires, ghosts, I can do the same with ''God''.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

There was a Christian preacher in town today... and... he said "evolution is just a theory"...

I can't take this any more...

Just find me next time that happens. I'll give you my Raichu.

I swear a part of me died inside when he said that. That and the "archeological evidence exists outside of the Bible, therefore it's wrong" argument.

I'm pretty sure that one would have gotten Arch.

[Tamoi]

I believe most fundamentally in the use of logical debate for understanding the universe and solving conflict.


I believe the most irreducibly basic question behind anything is 'What is value?' (Or something to that effect, it need not be phrased that way.) And I believe that anything that occurs, which includes anything a person does or believes, comes down to this question. Therefore I don't really make much of a distinction between religions and philosophies, or even desire in some cases. I am a value plurist and believe there are multiple answers that satisfy the conditions, but at the same time I am a metaphysical absolutist and believe there is only one truth about the nature of the universe. Any value can merely be abstracted as 'it is absolutely true that x will accomplish y, and if you value y you ought perform x.'

My own answer to this question can be safely described as natural selection, although that isn't a perfect description.

[Dyakovo]

They do which is why our universe, could not have been created by this ''God''.

God doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

Why arent you understanding this?

God doesn't have a cause and effect because the inherent nature of God doesn't follow the rules.

Saying God does follow the rules is being willfully ignorant.

So you can prove that "God" doesn't follow the rules of the universe?

[Neo Rome Republic]

God doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

Why arent you understanding this?

God doesn't have a cause and effect because the inherent nature of God doesn't follow the rules.

Saying God does follow the rules is being willfully ignorant.

So you can prove that "God" doesn't follow the rules of the universe?

You should also know, I have a ''magical'' spoon that exists both inside and outside the universe, and is therefore immune to all it's laws. Would you consider my reasoning valid?

[Shaggai]

God doesn't follow the rules of our universe.

Why arent you understanding this?

God doesn't have a cause and effect because the inherent nature of God doesn't follow the rules.

Saying God does follow the rules is being willfully ignorant.

So you can prove that "God" doesn't follow the rules of the universe?

I think the point is to prove that the specific argument doesn't work, not to prove that God exists.

[Mavorpen]

So you can prove that "God" doesn't follow the rules of the universe?

You should also know, I have a ''magical'' spoon that exists both inside and outside the universe, and is therefore immune to all it's laws. Would you consider my reasoning valid?

No. But then again, it's pretty obvious you're missing the point they're presenting.

[Neo Rome Republic]

You should also know, I have a ''magical'' spoon that exists both inside and outside the universe, and is therefore immune to all it's laws. Would you consider my reasoning valid?

No. But then again, it's pretty obvious you're missing the point they're presenting.

If it's ''magical'', I should give it a pass.

[Dyakovo]

So you can prove that "God" doesn't follow the rules of the universe?

I think the point is to prove that the specific argument doesn't work, not to prove that God exists.

The "point" seems to be to make statements presenting assumptions as fact.

[Mavorpen]

No. But then again, it's pretty obvious you're missing the point they're presenting.

If it's ''magical'', I should give it a pass.

And yet it's YOU who decided to make the spoon magical.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If it's ''magical'', I should give it a pass.

And yet it's YOU who decided to make the spoon magical.

To make a point. No one seems to have accepted my spoon as being ''magical''. Even if I say that spoon also exists outside of the ''universe'', a valid argument yet when it comes to God, no one bats an eye.

[Mavorpen]

And yet it's YOU who decided to make the spoon magical.

To make a point.

Right, so you present us with an object that is magical and then refuse to accept it's magical properties? The fuck?

[Neo Rome Republic]

To make a point.

Right, so you present us with an object that is magical and then refuse to accept it's magical properties? The fuck?

So you think me saying the ''magical'' spoon also exists ''outside'' the universe. Makes it a valid possibility?