Australian rePublic wrote:Godular wrote:And yet your own position declares that we cannot trust our perceptions. Why the hell does this god thing make any difference?
Or it could have just... you know... happened. That happens, you know.
We know reality exists because we're experiencing it right fucking now. That doesn't mean this god thing somehow made that possible.
So what the people experiencing the supernatural right now? By your own line of logic, the supernatural exists because people are experiencing it right now
No. We observe evidence that reality exists. There is no such evidence for the supernatural.
Australian rePublic wrote:VoVoDoCo wrote:A 2nd chance before revelations I mean. Good catch though.
I'm aware of THAT book's references to it. My bigger concern is that, to my knowledge, only in the end times will a second chance be given. You propose that it's given all the time.
If I'm correct, you only recieve a second chance at the end of time
Which, it appears, will never happen, so that means no second chances for anybody.
The Foxes Swamp wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:No they’re not. Unless they can provide reproducible and falsifiable evidence, a ‘supernatural experience’ is little different from a hallucination.
something has happened to people in these experiences so we can either make up bullshit claims about what we think they have experienced or we could investigate deeper, plenty of people claim to have seen Lincoln wandering the white house at various times.
We have investigated them. In all cases, it turns out that they're either bullshitting, or crazy.
Australian rePublic wrote:Bombadil wrote:No, I just have to understand that great complexity can arise from simple building blocks, I don't need to assume a creator. I did hesitate on using this example because I knew the *builder* bit would be seized on rather than the principle of great complexity from simple building blocks over vast time.
Kind of like how evolution works.
But that contradicts the notion of nothing exists outside of the universe. Nothibg exists outside of the universe, but existance exists before existence
This is word-salad.
Australian rePublic wrote:Okay, let me rephrase that. God is a passive observer when it comes to matters of free will
The same objections stand: such a being would be both evil (or at least not morally good), and not worth worshipping.
Australian rePublic wrote:Godular wrote:"I don't know, ergo God"
Still a shit argument.
I don't know. Even though I don't know, I know with 100% certainity that it wasn't God, is just as shitty an argument
And an argument that exactly zero people have made.
New Legland wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:I don't know. Even though I don't know, I know with 100% certainity that it wasn't God, is just as shitty an argument
No one here has claimed that God certainly doesn't exist. We've simply stated that since belief in a positive claim with no evidence isn't justified, the logical position is to
believe in the lack of that claim, or the negative. Sure, God may exist, but until I see any verifiable evidence, I have no reason to stop believing that he doesn't exist.
Actually, I'm going to go out there and claim that the particular God concept espoused by Australian rePublic in this thread absolutely does not exist, because of all of the various contradictory claims that he's made about it.
Australian rePublic wrote:Salandriagado wrote:Boy, your god sure fucking likes vacuum, doesn't he?
Yea, and? Are you trying to argue that God doesn't exist simply because He has a fondness for emptiness?
No, I'm pointing out that this directly contradicts other claims that you've made about your god.
Australian rePublic wrote:Hystaria wrote:...Cause my belief is to not belief/live around it until it is proven that it exists.
Its more likely dragons in some form existed than an all powerful space dude with a fetish of one planet and one species.
...I like to keep this civil, so please dont damn me or something. I have morals, I think the devil doesn't exist too. Im not against Christianity specifically, and no, my father did not have an influence on my ideas.
I am merely a dictionary atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
On the assumption that there's only life on Earth. In either case, fondness of empty space=/=non-existance
No, actually. That's the point. You are claiming that your god specifically cares about a small group of entities living on one irrelevant rock circling one irrelevant star in one irrelevant galaxy in the entire universe. This is absurd.
Australian rePublic wrote:Salandriagado wrote:No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".
Mathematics does exist outside of humanity.
Yes and no. The existence of logical structures is probably independent of humanity, though there are perfectly good arguments to the contrary. The particular logical structures that we choose to study and call mathematics are entirely a human invention, regardless of your philosophical/metamathematical views.
Australian rePublic wrote:Page wrote:The whole notion of God judging us is ludicrous. If God is an omnipotent, omniscient being, then we are to God what bacteria are to us. Do you have any interest in which bacteria are good and which bacteria are sinful? We are infinitely closer to bacteria than we are to an all-powerful God. Compared to such a being, we are hardly even sentient.
If there's a God, the last thing he cares about is human affairs. That humans think a god would have human emotions like love and jealousy points to god being made by man.
I was racking my brain trying to think of why God created us. Obly reason I could think of was... well... to be totally honest.... boredom...
So now your god inflicts unimaginable suffering on people because of boredom.
Australian rePublic wrote:Kyoki Chudoku wrote:This sort of argument kind of really irks me. How can we make that sort of judgment? I mean, we don’t know that God
exists, let alone whether he tells people how to act. And we can’t just blame everything negative- e.g, committing murder- on the people themselves, and say all the nice parts are the work of all-powerful deity. So even if they did exist, they’d be responsible for all actions humanity undertakes, good and bad. Even if you bring up free will, if they’re an all-powerful deity, they would be omniscient and therefore know
exactly what everyone would do, including all the bad things, and still let it pass.
Now, I’m guessing that stuff has probably already been brought up at this point in the thread, but I’m tired and saw this and was compelled to respond. So yeah.
No. You misunderstand. Some people need religion in order to be good. Were it not for religion, these people wouldn't be good. Whether or not their faith is true, they believe it strongly enough to obey it and comit good acts that they wouldn't have otherwise comitted. Same applies to people who use religion for evil (unless of cource, their evil interpretations of their holy book is intentionally interpreted with malice)
Except that by all accounts, the actual number of people that this applies to is tiny, and very few of
those actually do behave well, regardless of their religion.
Same reason why he doesn't stop a human rapist. Free will
OK, so what about childhood lukemia?
No, and I never claimed that He was. However, God is repsonaible for establishing a moral standard that humans are free to choose to obey
Except that humans are entirely capable of doing that for themselves, so there's no need for your god.
Australian rePublic wrote:Dogmeat wrote:No.
This always seems to happen with - in particular - bad apologists. At some point they realize that their arguments are flimsy, so they try to inflict them on the other side. Rather then being proud of their faith, or believing themselves justified by their faith, they resort to, "oh yeah, well you guys have faith too!"
No, no. That was refering
specifically and
exclusively to Salandriagado who was arguing that anyone who disagrees with him/her is uneducated. That was
not refering to any other atheists
Except that I haven't argued that at all. There are a great many people in this thread who are very thoroughly educated on their topics of discussion, many of whom disagree with me. You, specifically, keep making arguments based on things that you do not understand at all.
Australian rePublic wrote:Des-Bal wrote:You're talking about the supposed architect of mankind. A being of omniscience, or frankly even reasonable competence would understand how people are going to handle certain situations. If I don't fence in my pool I'm responsible for kids falling in because I should have fucking known they'd do that. If I know your schedule and put a bear trap in your path that's not the product of your free will it's me being an asshole. God set all this up and God knows how we'll handle it- he's basically the jigsaw killer but also eternity.
You mean like how He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah to wipe out the evil in that part of the world
"You should do something about this" =/= "you could commit genocide to deal with this".
Australian rePublic wrote:Metamen wrote:Things like skin cancer are what I mean when the "Sun does not indiscriminately tax anyone for anything that can't can't be attributed to factors beyond its power."
I never claimed the Sun to be a Creator Deity. Simply an Important Deity will suffice, I mean in a lot of Pantheons people worshipped lesser Gods all the time, the Japanese and the Greeks had plenty of em.
Also being a Deity without a Code of Ethics can also be a blessing of a sort, without a Code of Ethics the Sun cannot judge anyone for anything. It cannot punish people, it can't bless them either. In that, it views everyone equally (unless of course again factors exist that it cannot control).
Wrong. Skin cancer is worse more likely in some places, and Vitamine D is less penetrable in others. Hence the difference in skin colours. In some places, you don't see the sun for weeks in winter, and it won't disappear for weeks in summer. In other places, you get 12 hours sunlight daily theoughout the year. The closer you get to it, the more light it provides (hence different fasting times for Ramadan, on top of Burj Kalifa). Seems pretty discriminatory to me. And don't claim that that's the fault of Earth's orbit. The sun is almost 100% responsible for Earth's orbit
Proximity to the sun is almost entirely irrelevant to the earth's climate. Northern-hemisphere summer actually happens around aphelion.
Australian rePublic wrote:The New California Republic wrote:It might be because of the nature of your arguments that they are easier to target. Low hanging fruit and all that...
I'll accept that. In either case, my point still stands. I created this thread in order to learn, admitting that I'm not perfect
Your actions, frankly, seem to contradict this claim. It appears that you created this thread in order to repeatedly affirm your prior convictions, and to very determinedly
not learn, as noted by how you've repeatedly ignored all evidence presented.