Spin//Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Da_Eggman
- Start date
@Napoleon
If there is anything that both the world and arguments about religion have taught me is that all this is subjective. Yes even "logic" because there are people who exist outside of what you consider "logic" and people act "illogical". At no point did I say that I didn't believe anything in the Bible. Do i personally have a grudge against gays or muslims or anyone...no.
SO I DON'T PASS JUDGEMENT.
And that my friends is the most overlooked moral of the Bible everything that you are bringing up is not invalid my friend, however, it is all under the interpretation that Christians and or theists are using religion to judge people and other institutions, even when right there you have good ole "Let He Without Sin Cast The First Stone".
and the Bible isn't literal in anyway, how could it be?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Can't be explained at all by logic. But when put in the context of the Holy Trinity its a perfectly logical statement.
All i'm saying is people's "logic" vary by context and slamming people because their context doesn't fit yours is silly and destructive. Same goes for atheists and theists.
Everything is open to interpretation the moment a HUMAN BEING touches it, its open to interpretation, these are perfect messages coming through imperfect vessels to not allot for those imperfections is a flawed analysis of ALL religions.
I'm not trying to convert you, but you got too much hate in ya speech. If you don't want a God that's fine. I'm actually happy you can be somewhat civil and discuss it....
and stop with the caps/bold that shyt hurts to read.
If there is anything that both the world and arguments about religion have taught me is that all this is subjective. Yes even "logic" because there are people who exist outside of what you consider "logic" and people act "illogical". At no point did I say that I didn't believe anything in the Bible. Do i personally have a grudge against gays or muslims or anyone...no.
SO I DON'T PASS JUDGEMENT.
And that my friends is the most overlooked moral of the Bible everything that you are bringing up is not invalid my friend, however, it is all under the interpretation that Christians and or theists are using religion to judge people and other institutions, even when right there you have good ole "Let He Without Sin Cast The First Stone".
and the Bible isn't literal in anyway, how could it be?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Can't be explained at all by logic. But when put in the context of the Holy Trinity its a perfectly logical statement.
All i'm saying is people's "logic" vary by context and slamming people because their context doesn't fit yours is silly and destructive. Same goes for atheists and theists.
Everything is open to interpretation the moment a HUMAN BEING touches it, its open to interpretation, these are perfect messages coming through imperfect vessels to not allot for those imperfections is a flawed analysis of ALL religions.
I'm not trying to convert you, but you got too much hate in ya speech. If you don't want a God that's fine. I'm actually happy you can be somewhat civil and discuss it....
and stop with the caps/bold that shyt hurts to read.
Last edited by a moderator:
i voted no under the assumption that the question meant "god" according to religion. I can't believe in that kinda god anymore, its not even a "choice", thats something believers seem to have a hard time understanding.... i DO believe there's something more at work... i'm just not arrogant enough to try and define it, what it (whatever 'it' is), what it wants for us, how or why we should even worship it and what that means for our souls, etc.
The intelligent designer that allows you to breathe and eat down the same pipe up to a point?
nikka, whales are designed better than humans.
And then we can end the conversation here.
I don't care about whats subjective because it doesn't lead us anywhere meaningful.
If you have some magic thoughts you want to be true, keep them. Don't assert them as valid or even true.
keep there where they are. As opinions.
Its not about "logical axioms" (which do exist) as it is consistency.
If you're going to employ the same gains to make arguments outside of those surrounding or addressing theology, you don't get to rewrite the rules to live in this space of ambiguity that you THEN get to assert as infallible or objective.
Thats dishonest.
But you do disagree with stuff in the bible So thats kinda the point.
You pick and choose.
You choosing not to express that judgment doesn't mean you don't still judge others.
Frankly, i don't care what you do with your "judgment" since you still have it.
The point is whether or not what you're saying is valid. Thats the point. Period.
Anything else you try to introduce is just a bait and switch to move the conversation in other directions.
Stop moving the goal posts.
Why should I care about any of this? Its a philosophical axiom thats not objective.
its merely an opinion you'd like to see in society.
...and?
Yet you believe in aspects of it.
For you, its literal up to a point. Thats the problem.
Why do i care about this?
Its such a nonsensical statement that not only does it not introduce anything, it doesn't offer anything of value.
its just poetic sophistry used to obfuscate the fact it carries not weight aside from trying to mask its intentions of perpetuating bullshyt.
Its word diarrhea.
Holy trinity? You mean the concept created in the nicean council to create a standardized form of christianity for plebians like yourself to subscribe to?
Its still an irrational statement because it exists in this realm of fairly tales you want to assert as being valid and take for granted without actually AGAIN ASSERTING WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING OR SUBSTANTIATING.
Logic doesn't vary by context dumbass.
Context is again the same argument I already deflated on the last page.
You're hiding behind that "interpretation" meme so you don't have to be responsible for actually evaluating WHAT you're saying.
You're using circular reasoning and trying to evade establishing ANY thing of worth...then you blame it on being too deconstructionist.
Plus, if we use your rules, then islam or sun-god worship is just as valid.
Interpretation doesn't establish validity...yet you're sitting here thinking YOU have the right interpretation.
Isn't that ironic?
Funny how you want to make it sound like nikkas "hate" your god.
i don't give a fukk about your god. i have NO feelings towards it. I'm trying to address if such an entity exists and you keep thinking that presupposing it makes it a valid argument.
IT. DOES. NOT.
If you can't come to terms with that and address what is actually being put forth without trying to stoop to emotional arguments to win over people by evading the difficult questions, then you REALLY don't know as much as you think you do.
Last edited by a moderator:
The intelligent designer that allows you to breathe and eat down the same pipe up to a point?
nikka, whales are designed better than humans.
"better" is a subjective term... I'd rather be the organism that is hunting as opposed to be the one getting used for black-market products.
Humans have the internet and the mental capacity to discuss their own creation... I guess Cheetahs are better because they can run quick.
Ha! I'm not confused about atheism. Theism and atheism aren't equal positions because accepting a claim as true needs more justification than not accepting it. To believe something, most people need evidence before they'd agree that it's true. The only thing you need to think somethings not true is a lack of said evidence (or, as in this case, if something is logically inconsistent with reality). I don't know why you're giving me a definition of terms, we're way beyond that.
Evolution isn't teleological (goal-seeking). I understand that.
BUT, to assert an "intelligent designer" eliminates what modern biology demonstrates to be true and proven.
I look at anyone who says shyt like that as someone who has probably failed intro biology.
Atheism asserts a non belief in deities. The word is A........... theism. Meaning you should look into how words are broken down.
Within every debate on creation atheist clearly state there is no God. meaning that they feel that a belief in deities is illogical. Most of the time they make points to show that a belief in a higher power is illogical. Your court room analogy is fallacious to this philosophical debate. ntm, the burden of proof in court rooms constantly shifts between defense and prosecution.
The intelligent designer that allows you to breathe and eat down the same pipe up to a point?
nikka, whales are designed better than humans.
It works doesn't it?
If it wasn't possible the creator wouldn't have made it FOOL.
Someone had to create the universe.....
Well to make an ass out of yourself by assuming and looking at people like that isn't a crime I guess.
There are billions of Theist on this planet that probably smarter than you with higher education than you.
intelligent design doesn't eliminate anything in biology. Biology covers sh1t post last universal common ancestor so this wouldn't negate intelligent design to the universe.
Blown Moon
All Star
Started as a theist now I'm not.
man.... look.....do i believe in God?yeah...i guess i do
how else can you have the sun....moon and stars and shyt like that?
...what exactly do you think the A in atheism means? What about being without a belief means you are asserting the inverse? Atheism is simply a response to theistic claims, not a claim itself.
But anyway, yes, believing something in which there is little to no evidence of it's validity, or when it contradicts current evidence is illogical.
Actually, the analogy is a pretty good one. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the state, never on the defense because the prosecution is the party making a claim. The defense doesn't even have to open it's mouth to present an argument for innocence. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the jury must find them not guilty.
Likewise, theists make the claim that a god exists. Atheists don't have to prove no gods exist. All that's needed to be reasonably justified in not accepting theism is acknowledging that no one cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this claim is true. The only alternative to accepting a claim as true is not accepting it as true. THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING IT IS FALSE, rather you haven't been convinced that it's true. And if you don't accept the claim that a god exists is true, then you are an atheist.