The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Lost Memories]

@Byzconia by all practical senses, it's useless to reply to a post line by line, while missing the point of the whole post.

So, do you want someone to explain to you some parts of the definition of god?
God in christianity is defined by a collection of traits, which all together form the definition of god. To say, keep in mind god's traits can't be taken singularily, they's all part of a context.

You're not even close to being the first Christian who's said this to me (almost verbatim, too). None of this does anything to give me even the slightest reason to think your God is real.

Yeah, because you have no faith. Nor intellectual curiosity, which could be better than nothing.

Which again proves what i was thinking, people asking proof of god really don't understand how religion works. Nor they understand how faith works.
And some of them go even further, like you did now, by just failing to even understand an explaination, because they're too blinded by prejudice to actually listen.

[Byzconia]

And what matter is he made of?

Spaghetti

God, not the FSM.

[Byzconia]

Incorrect. They share one very important similarity: there's zero evidence either of them exists.

According to your definition of evidence, uh huh.

There are not different definitions of "evidence," there is only evidence and assertions that people claim are evidence.

[Byzconia]

And what matter is he made of?

Spaghetti. Wouldn't be called the Flying Spaghetti Monster either way.

Not sure how two of you misunderstood this question. I was very obviously asking what matter God is made of.

Also, it is an overused trope. Use a different food next time. Maybe try pizzas.

So is blind faith in unfalsifiable deities.

[Lost Memories]

Hey Byzconia, do you want to try a funny game?
Try to define the traits of the flying spaghetti monster.

Once you do, we can compare the traits of the spaghetty meme with the traits of the christian god.
That could be a funny and educative experience.

[Byzconia]

:roll:

Except this completely fails to account for other characteristics. *cough* *cough* Let us begin.

1) Flying: moving or able to move through a medium.

Is the medium the FSM moves through as old as he is? If it is not, he has not always flew, if it is, it requires explanation.

Is the realm God exists in as old as he is? If not, where did he exist beforehand? If so, who created it?

2) Spaghetti: composed of atoms.

Are the atoms the FSM composed of as old as he is? If they are not, he has not always been spaghetti, if they are, they require explanation.

Are the atoms God is composed of as old as he is? If they are not, he has not always existed, if they are, they require explanation.

3) Monster: just a title.[/quote]
So is "God." I don't even get the point of this one.

Looking at the first, we can conclude that as air is to flight and flight is to air, a contradiction exists, as they are separate here of each other, ergo, a being which has flying as a necessity cannot always fly, as he will be dependant on the existence of air: ergo he is just the spaghetti monster.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not need air to fly, his composition is lighter than air, for he is all powerful and can do all things.

Looking at the second, seeing as atoms are components of a whole, we must conclude that the atom and the being are necessity for each other in this form (being made of sentient spaghetti) to exist, but if they are dependant on each other. They cannot be a necessity by themselves. Ergo he is not composed of atoms; he is just a monster.

The underlined parts make absolutely no sense. The "necessity" sentence itself is complete word salad. The rest is accurate, but equally applicable to God.

Looking at the third, which to some misotheists is just a term for God, ergo the spaghetti monster to exist as a genuinely possible entity, must just be equivelent to God (not fly, or made of spaghetti). Not. Made. Of. Ducking. Spag-duckin-Bol.

The FSM is made of spaghetti because he chooses to be made of spaghetti. As I said before, he is all-powerful and can do all things.

[Byzconia]

And you’re not the first edgy atheist

As yes, "edgy," the perfect word to throw out when you have absolutely nothing else to say. See also: SJW, cuck, beta, moron.

to say that Christians are somehow unreasonable and

I didn't say you were unreasonable, I said you were irrational--different things.

that faith means stupidity.

Please quote me where I said that.

Christians have been thinking and shaping the uses of science and reason for ages.

Okay. And? That still isn't evidence that God exists. You seem to be under the impression that I have something against Christians. I don't, literally all of my friends are Christians and they're generally pretty good people, nor do I have any special hatred for random Christians I don't know. My issue is with Christianity and is purely theological (well, also political, but that's another discussion). The theology of Christianity (like every other religion) doesn't make sense. It's based on faith, assumptions, and logical fallacies, not reason and evidence. Yet Christians constantly try to claim there is a rational/empirical basis for their religion, and when challenged to provide it present weak shit like this.

If you don't want to be challenged, just admit that it's solely based on your own personal faith and I'll literally not care (until you try to prevent gay people from marrying or women from getting abortion, then it'll be an issue, but that's beside the point).

[Salus Maior]

Spaghetti

God, not the FSM.

I don't think He's made of matter.

[Byzconia]

And what matter is he made of?

Not possible to know, really.

So then, as with everything about God, completely unfalsifiable.

[Salus Maior]

Not possible to know, really.

So then, as with everything about God, completely unfalsifiable.

Yep, by all conventions God completely defies the scientific method. He can't be observed or tested, because one can only do so if He wills so, and apparently He doesn't.

That being said, I think it's a narrow view that suggests that only things that can be tested or observed according to the scientific method exist, or matter. I think there's plenty of things which defy the limited human sense, and science can't really make philosophical or moral judgements.

[Byzconia]

@Byzconia by all practical senses, it's useless to reply to a post line by line, while missing the point of the whole post.

You can assert I've "missed the point" all you want. Doesn't make it true.

Yeah, because you have no faith.

Again, not a bad thing.

Nor intellectual curiosity, which could be better than nothing.

Ah, fucking love this argument. "You just don't want to even consider the possibility that God is real. Open your mind!"

"Intellectual curiosity" does not mean "shut up and accept everything you're told." In fact, it's quite the opposite. This is the kind of authoritarian, dogmatic thinking that makes religion dangerous. Your insistence that everyone who disagrees with is just, "Denying the truth," is the perfect cover and justification for any number of heinous crimes and atrocities all done in the name of making others, "See the light."

Muslims, Buddhists, and pretty much any other religion could say all the same shit about you and it'd be equally legitimate because none of you have any actual advantage over the other in terms of your religions actually being "correct."

Which again proves what i was thinking, people asking proof of god really don't understand how religion works. Nor they understand how faith works.

How mightily convenient. "It's not that my 'proof' is terrible and unconvincing, they just don't want to be convinced. Yeah, that's it!"

And some of them go even further, like you did now, by just failing to even understand an explaination

The issue isn't me not understanding it, the issue is the "explanation" doesn't mean anything. God's qualities are irrelevant if you can't actually establish that God exists in the first place. You're skipping a whole step here, man.

because they're too blinded by prejudice to actually listen.

And there's the persecution complex. Really hit the "offended Christian bingo" on this one. Even if this were true (and I've already explained several times why it isn't), it's still not an argument, it's an ad hominem.

And since it's pretty obvious that your only intention is tell insult and (attempt to) denigrate me for not accepting your "truth," I have absolutely zero interest in engaging with you (you, specifically) any further. Have a nice day.

[Byzconia]

Yep, by all conventions God completely defies the scientific method. He can't be observed or tested, because one can only do so if He wills so, and apparently He doesn't.

Well, glad to see somebody's who not completely wigging out over being challenged about this. It's refreshing, thanks.

That being said, I think it's a narrow view that suggests that only things that can be tested or observed according to the scientific method exist, or matter. I think there's plenty of things which defy the limited human sense, and science can't really make philosophical or moral judgements.

These are correct and valid points. Which, again, is why I wouldn't really care if people mostly kept their religion to themselves. Many do, but there are further many still who insist that their religion-based morals should be used as a basis for government laws and policies. And given that God is, by your admission, unfalsifiable, I simply don't think there can be any legitimate justification for doing this.

As for things being provable outside the scientific method, sure, but God isn't simply philosophical or moral. Christians claim that he actively interacts with our world, which in and of itself is a testable claim. If we can't measure God's direct impact, how can we be sure it's actually occurred? Christians may say "faith," and on a personal level that's fine, but when you try to move outside of that it becomes much shakier. I'm not trying to "deconvert" anyone, I just want Christians (and theists in-general) to understand that our skepticism comes from issues like this, and not because we "want to sin" or "hate God" or any of the other claptrap that fundamentalists like to claim.

Many atheists would have no problem converting if they were given sufficient evidence, but the evidence they want simply doesn't exist. I'm glad you at least seem to understand that to some extant.

EDIT: Formatting troubles

[Tarsonis]

Alright guys, I let it go for a little bit, but let’s take the FSM stuff to its own thread

[Luminesa]

And you’re not the first edgy atheist

As yes, "edgy," the perfect word to throw out when you have absolutely nothing else to say. See also: SJW, cuck, beta, moron.

to say that Christians are somehow unreasonable and

I didn't say you were unreasonable, I said you were irrational--different things.

that faith means stupidity.

Please quote me where I said that.

Christians have been thinking and shaping the uses of science and reason for ages.

Okay. And? That still isn't evidence that God exists. You seem to be under the impression that I have something against Christians. I don't, literally all of my friends are Christians and they're generally pretty good people, nor do I have any special hatred for random Christians I don't know. My issue is with Christianity and is purely theological (well, also political, but that's another discussion). The theology of Christianity (like every other religion) doesn't make sense. It's based on faith, assumptions, and logical fallacies, not reason and evidence. Yet Christians constantly try to claim there is a rational/empirical basis for their religion, and when challenged to provide it present weak shit like this.

If you don't want to be challenged, just admit that it's solely based on your own personal faith and I'll literally not care (until you try to prevent gay people from marrying or women from getting abortion, then it'll be an issue, but that's beside the point).

I felt that your tone implied that you thought faith meant stupidity. Specifically, your use of language saying that having faith means "shutting up" and not asking questions. You're probably aware, having lots of Christian friends, that not all Christians are Joyce Meyer.

It doesn't have to be explicit, sometimes you can get a hint of someone's views based on tone and not on a specific quote. Again, you probably already know that. I only got the feeling from you that you felt being a Christian meant being stupid based on how you sounded to me. A lot of other atheists have come into this thread essentially to say Christians are stupid. Of course, as Salus said, God is beyond pure scientific reasoning. That does not mean He cannot exist (which I'm sure you probably won't take for an answer, but ah well, this is why we have the question of faith, and why we study it. It's not simply "shutting up" and not asking questions.)

Unfortunately, Christians are not meant to keep their faith personal. They are meant to use it to shift the world around them. People like Salus and I, and the many other Christians in this thread who care about their faith. I'm sure some of your friends feel the same way. Jesus did say, after all, not to hide a candle under a bushel. I kindly refer you to the "pro-life" label right behind the "Catholic" label in my sig.

[Lost Memories]

And since it's pretty obvious that your only intention is tell insult and (attempt to) denigrate me for not accepting your "truth," I have absolutely zero interest in engaging with you (you, specifically) any further. Have a nice day.

Hardly a difference when you weren't engaging with anyone on this thread to start with.
You know that communication is first of all done by listening? a person talking without listening isn't taking part in a conversation, just having a monologue.

Not really trying to insult you anyway. You're making a great show of ignorance, it isn't an insult, it's a fact, and i was trying to explain you what you were getting wrong.
But one more, very common, mistake you're doing, is assuming to be making no mistake. Which makes it very hard for anyone to help you.

ELI5 you're ignorant of religion, anyone here can help you with it, if you allow them.
ELI5 #2 understanding something isn't the same as believing it. Your personal belief isn't threatened by trying to understand how religions work.

(besides, if you believe that even only trying to understand religion could magically brainwash you into a faithful person, why are you even posting here? shouldn't this be the worst place to post for someone with that mindset?)


In the while you decide to take part in this thread like a mature person, you can have the assurance that no one here is your enemy, nor as much as you're trying to appear confrontational you aren't a threat.
Likewise, no one can give you proof to believe, or proof to have faith, as that has always been something you need to figure out yourself, like anyone with faith has figured it out by themselves. So you can't prove wrong the faith of others, and others can't induce faith in you by some "proof". So chill, your personal beliefs aren't going to suddently change just cause you decided to learn more of a subject you know nothing of.

Hugs to you you're welcome to come ask what you don't understand anytime

[Lost Memories]

Alright guys, I let it go for a little bit, but let’s take the FSM stuff to its own thread

Rip trait showdown between a meme and our more clearly defined god.

Though, asking people to define the traits of what they are talking about, could be a good way to make them realize the very basics of theology.
Or i'm being too optimistic?

[Salus Maior]

Well, glad to see somebody's who not completely wigging out over being challenged about this. It's refreshing, thanks.

These are correct and valid points. Which, again, is why I wouldn't really care if people mostly kept their religion to themselves. Many do, but there are further many still who insist that their religion-based morals should be used as a basis for government laws and policies. And given that God is, by your admission, unfalsifiable, I simply don't think there can be any legitimate justification for doing this.

As for things being provable outside the scientific method, sure, but God isn't simply philosophical or moral. Christians claim that he actively interacts with our world, which in and of itself is a testable claim. If we can't measure God's direct impact, how can we be sure it's actually occurred? Christians may say "faith," and on a personal level that's fine, but when you try to move outside of that it becomes much shakier. I'm not trying to "deconvert" anyone, I just want Christians (and theists in-general) to understand that our skepticism comes from issues like this, and not because we "want to sin" or "hate God" or any of the other claptrap that fundamentalists like to claim.

Many atheists would have no problem converting if they were given sufficient evidence, but the evidence they want simply doesn't exist. I'm glad you at least seem to understand that to some extant.

Yep, God can't be proven unless He wants to be, that's just His nature as a transcendent "being" ("Being" not really being the appropriate word for what God is).

The best a scientific mind can really get to God in a more or less solid sense is through the idea of the "Prime Mover", which is what St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians have suggested. Of course, you can't really prove that the Trinitarian God is the Prime Mover, or any particular god for that matter.

Well, we agitate for certain things in our society and for ourselves to do because our philosophical convictions compel us to do so. Yes, our living philosophy is derived from religion, but you don't have to be religious to believe certain things. For instance, Christians oppose abortion. Why do Christians oppose abortion? Because we believe that human life is beyond precious in and of itself, not only when it achieves certain thresholds (like what most Pro-Choicers arbitrarily pick, like when one reaches a certain level of cognizance, can feel pain, slides out the birth canal, etc). You don't have to be religious to believe that human life is valuable for what it is, and indeed there are atheists who are pro-life. It's a matter of philosophy, and the placing of values rather than some kind of arbitrary process.

If you ask a learned Christian why they support something, they're never going to say "just because God said so". There's a legitimate philosophy behind it, and they would explain the philosophy.

Well, the ways that God has interacted with the world are through miracles, which in and of themselves are supernatural. They're an act of the will of God, they can't be repeated or observed because we don't have the means to do so. That being said, the Apostles were supposedly personal witnesses to a number of huge acts of God, including witnessing the horrible death of a man, and then seeing that man alive again, and were confident enough in what they saw that they lived incredibly hard lives and died tortuous deaths refusing to deny it. I don't believe people would suffer and die for something they knew wasn't true.

[Europa Undivided]

Spaghetti. Wouldn't be called the Flying Spaghetti Monster either way.

Not sure how two of you misunderstood this question. I was very obviously asking what matter God is made of.

Also, it is an overused trope. Use a different food next time. Maybe try pizzas.

So is blind faith in unfalsifiable deities.

You should capitalise the He if you really wanted to be clear.

Define blind faith. We don’t believe in God just because our moms said so.

[Lost Memories]

Also, it is an overused trope. Use a different food next time. Maybe try pizzas.

So is blind faith in unfalsifiable deities.

Define blind faith. We don’t believe in God just because our moms said so.

It's probably a redundancy from where he's stating that. As he may assume faith is by nature blind. So it's curious he had to specify that.

A better question for him may be if he thinks there exists a faith which isn't blind.

[Lower Nubia]

:roll:

Except this completely fails to account for other characteristics. *cough* *cough* Let us begin.

1) Flying: moving or able to move through a medium.

Is the medium the FSM moves through as old as he is? If it is not, he has not always flew, if it is, it requires explanation.

Is the realm God exists in as old as he is? If not, where did he exist beforehand? If so, who created it?

Oof. This is the first failure because as the FSM requires a medium to fly through, God does not exist in a realm - nor does his attributes require a realm. Heaven is a realm for everything else but God, as God is in heaven more for our benefit that necessity.

2) Spaghetti: composed of atoms.

Are the atoms the FSM composed of as old as he is? If they are not, he has not always been spaghetti, if they are, they require explanation.

Are the atoms God is composed of as old as he is? If they are not, he has not always existed, if they are, they require explanation.

Oof. This is the second failure because God is composed of "spirit" (And yes, I cannot describe that) which is indivisible, having no atoms, or minuscule components, unlike the FSM whose spaghetti demands atoms, thus a contradiction exists, whereby the atoms make the spaghetti, but the atoms are dependant on the spaghetti (thus breaking the necessity condition). Whereas God has no component which is dependant on something else to exist, which would counteract the necessity of his existence as he'd be dependant on something.

3) Monster: just a title.

So is "God." I don't even get the point of this one.

I managed to predict point three. Clearly my original comment reflected some truth.

Looking at the first, we can conclude that as air is to flight and flight is to air, a contradiction exists, as they are separate here of each other, ergo, a being which has flying as a necessity cannot always fly, as he will be dependant on the existence of air: ergo he is just the spaghetti monster.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not need air to fly, his composition is lighter than air, for he is all powerful and can do all things.

Flight requires a medium - a realm with a medium. If there is no medium, there is no flight. Full stop. Otherwise, he'd be static. So he'd be the static spaghetti monster, or as I mentioned just the spaghetti monster.

Looking at the second, seeing as atoms are components of a whole, we must conclude that the atom and the being are necessity for each other in this form (being made of sentient spaghetti) to exist, but if they are dependant on each other. They cannot be a necessity by themselves. Ergo he is not composed of atoms; he is just a monster.

The underlined parts make absolutely no sense. The "necessity" sentence itself is complete word salad. The rest is accurate, but equally applicable to God.

No. As I mentioned above concerning Gods actual composition - he is not composed of atoms, so not applicable. The underlined part makes perfect sense concerning aseity. Atoms are components of a whole, if the whole is dependant on the atoms, just as the atoms are dependant on the whole, then neither exists by the necessity of themselves. Which is a divine attribute of God that he is existence itself. If the FSM, now just SM, cannot be composed of atoms, he cannot be composed of spaghetti, thus he is just the monster: M.

Looking at the third, which to some misotheists is just a term for God, ergo the spaghetti monster to exist as a genuinely possible entity, must just be equivelent to God (not fly, or made of spaghetti). Not. Made. Of. Ducking. Spag-duckin-Bol.

The FSM is made of spaghetti because he chooses to be made of spaghetti. As I said before, he is all-powerful and can do all things.

Then we note a severe contradiction in the narrative. The whole FSM is designed so that the "existed before all things/aseity" becomes a reductio ad absurdum of the usual Five Ways arguments, by producing eternal spaghetti, but as you admit, the FSM can only have the qualities of the theistic God, but clothes himself in spaghetti and flight as a decision of his will. This is important, because if the aseity argument cannot be applied to those characteristics of flight and spaghetti, then the reductio ad absurdum falls apart because the "existed before all things/aseity" characteristics can only have very specific qualities for a deity.

[Lower Nubia]

Alright guys, I let it go for a little bit, but let’s take the FSM stuff to its own thread

I did not see this.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

WARNING you are about to be exposed to the inner thoughts of the jelly WARNING


Infinity can only exist if everything is infinite.


We live in a finite world, thus there is no infinity. Yet, to exist in the first place, that implies that some infinite thing needed to exist to sustain (possibly delta^delta) thus creating a paradox. ...

It’s like having a multiplication equation, if even one thing is zero, it’s all zero.

Also if infinity is everything, what is the difference between everything and nothing as they are both exactly the same, possibly potential for change? Big Bang loop? (As in can’t tell difference between things)



Basically with all my rambling done my question is this: how can god be infinite and at the same time interact with us. “How can you have a localized infinity”

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Alright guys, I let it go for a little bit, but let’s take the FSM stuff to its own thread

I did not see this.

What is fsm, and did I just post something like it ?

[Saranidia]

I did not see this.

What is fsm, and did I just post something like it ?

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

What is fsm, and did I just post something like it ?

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

At least I didn't violate the terms a second time ...