Gunny's Thread on Religion

[PubliusInfinitum]

"It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created... "

prove it.

No problem... You exist... we'll presume you'll adhere to that fact; you did not create yourself, thus something other than you created that which is your life...

Which pretty well establishes that your life was created...

It's not complicated really... just apparently beyond your intellectual means...

"now you can surmise, that your elementray understanding of the biological links, which you can THEORIZE were a function of naturally occuring happenstance; but in so doing, you make the same leap in reasoning which you come to lament and belittle... which is a rather foolish perspective... "

So you're putting words in my mouth?

Well, no, I'm just anticipating that you'll parrot any number of the tired fallacious rants of the atheist flock... such as those used in the above exchange, where you need some proof that life is a function of creation.


It's worth noting that while you protest this, you've not submitted much to consider otherwise...

"as the FACT IS, that you know far less than the sum of that which you do not know; and in effect what you're demanding is your knowledge repsents that which is floating in the sea of ignorance, and that because you're floating this somehow represents you 'ruling that sea...'"

Sounds like you like to hear yourself talk for no particular reason.

ROFLMNAO... I just adore sweet irony...

" while you boast that you 'command it all...'"

never said I knew anything, prove I said what you think I said or stfu.

LOL... Oh! So you're a troll... whose simply here to dance on the head of pedantic little points which in no way serve the discussion, on any level.

Color me SHOCKED!

"There is no scientific evidence that I took a crap yesterday at 7:30 am... Yet such is a fact... such did happen and the absence of any testable evidence of that, and the absence of any observation of such, doesn't alter that very real and certain fact."

There is also no scientific proof that god doesn't walk around with a large black hard cock ...

Well that settles it...

Welcome to ignore sis... Life is just too short to subject one's self to your caliber of imbecile...

While the threshold is exceedingly low to particpate in debate with me... Your intellectual limitations wouldn't allow you to do so if you stacked orders of magnitudes greater wisdom than that which you've demonstrated and stood upon it on you tippy toes... and as such, you are bannished from my cyber-world FOR-EV-ER...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Creator,

demonstrate a creator.

, clearly exists beyond the dimension to which our minds are tuned

if it's so clear, why have you yet to demonstrate it?

Do you exist Sis?

And again... I'd like you to answer this question, which you've clearly sought to ignore:

Of all of the knowledge and all of the facts, which exist throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; and beyond into what we have no means to possibly know... Which is to say of all of the knowledge that is... what percent of that knowledge do you believe that you possess?

A-100%
B-50%
C-25%
D-An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'
E- Vastly less than that...

 

[Al Gunn]

PlubiusAsswipe, I was created when my parents had sex, and I'll tell you something, my dad ain't no god. You obviously where created out of nothing by someone invisible. Hope that's working for you, but it doesn't seem to be.

So if you're just anticipating my answer, you should start your own board and argue with yourself.

OK, I'll explain your crap story another way. The crap happened, you were there. Nobody's seen or been with your god, so your analogy is crap, as per usual.

You wrote that I command it all, where did I say that? You're basically just arguing with yourself, as you attribute things to me that I never said.

Oh gee, I'm been banished from a morons worlds, Thanks

 

[JBeukema]

Notice that pubic infant still offers no rebuttal to my refutation of his stupidsity

you argued that is x exists, then tthere must exist a creator if x

Of course, that requires a creator for god... and a creator of the creaot.. ad infinitum

But you're clearly too stupid to realize that

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Notice that pubic infant still offers no rebuttal to my refutation of his stupidsity

ROFL... So again, the member comes to reject that segment of the argument which she feels doesn't leave her sufficient wiggle room and advances instead, abject lies...

The record finds no refutation having been advanced by this member to any position of mine... despite the delusional assertion to the contrary.

And for the 4th TIME.... I'd like Jwhatshername to answer this question, which she's otherwise desperate to ignore:

Of all of the knowledge and all of the facts, which exist throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; and beyond into what we have no means to possibly know... Which is to say of all of the knowledge that is... what percent of that knowledge do you believe that you possess?

A-100%
B-50%
C-25%
D-An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'
E- Vastly less than that...

 

[JBeukema]

It's not even a valid question. You can't fathom how much knowledge there might be- you cannot answer your own question, and all of you 'options' are logically fallacious- as is your implication that there is any knowledge that is inherently unknowable.

In other words, you're an idiot; but we already knoew that.

 

[DamnYankee]

It means something to others who have to live with the results of the life one has lived on earth. Some consider other peoples well being even without the threat of being darned to heck, or the promise of a castle in the clouds. By what authority do you assume what ethics mean to others? If we must assume at all, isn't it better (and in the case of Christians, more Christ like) to assume our fellows best intentions?

I don't know why you would assume anything, particularly given the evidence all around you that indicates the worst of intentions by what appears to by the vast majority.

But what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for. The news doesn't feature the good in people, and television plots, for the most part, are based on conflict; the "good guys" are the regulars, and the "vast majority" are struggled against or "managed." Watch enough prime time television and you'd naturally think the world was an awfully scary place.

Don't need prime time TV, nor do I bother. All I need is to pick up the newspaper, turn on the cable news, log on my computer.... If there was an overwhelming "good in people", there'd be no escaping it because there would be nothing else to report.

 

[DamnYankee]

Notice that pubic infant still offers no rebuttal to my refutation of his stupidsity

you argued that is x exists, then tthere must exist a creator if x

Of course, that requires a creator for god... and a creator of the creaot.. ad infinitum

But you're clearly too stupid to realize that

At the risk of exhibiting stupidity, why must faith be explained? There's no less logic in having faith in God than there is having faith in another human being. In fact, it may be more logical in some cases.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[1][2] For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4] Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used in place of "trust" or "belief."

Faith is often used in a religious context, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and/or said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.[5] It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness.[6]

The English word faith is dated from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem, or fidēs, meaning trust, akin to fīdere to trust.[1]
Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

At the risk of exhibiting stupidity, why must faith be explained?

He put forth a pretense of reason; that it does not hold up demosntrates his foolishness

If one wants to be taken serious 'just because' and 'i think it cuz i think it cuz i think so cause i believe cuz i think so' is not an acceptable answer

There's no less logic in having faith in God than there is having faith in another human being. In fact, it may be more logical in some cases.

you doubt the existence of man? Good, you're on the way towards positivism

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

to believe without reason is foolishness

to base law and nations upon foolishness is stupidity

 

[iagainsti]

This is one example of the duality and complexity of God. There's no way that humans can grasp it.

But, even though humans can't understand it, YOU can, so you go on to explain it to us...

He has complete knowledge of what will happen and what has happened...and everything happens according to his plan...and yet at the same time we in our ignorance are able to experience free will. We are allowed that freedom, but because God is so far ahead of our curve, he still knows exactly what we will choose and how, and has constructed the universe to encompass our decisions.

Several times in the Bible, God is surprised by what his people do. How can that be so if he has complete future foreknowledge?

The Christian faith says that God is omniscient...but, logically speaking, can the future be known? Maybe God doesn't know the future because knowledge of the future is a logical impossibility, and the future doesn't yet exist to be known.

can you give me an example of God being surprised by our actions i-a-i? i can look up the passage and see if i read something in to it, that you may not see?

care

These verses from Jeremiah chapter 32 are, in my opinion, the best example of God not knowing the future:

30 "The people of Israel and Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth...
31 "From the day it was built until now, this city has so aroused my anger and wrath that I must remove it from my sight.
32 "The people of Israel and Judah have provoked me by all the evil they have done...
33 "They turned their backs to me and not their faces...
34 "They set up their abominable idols in the house that bears my Name and defiled it.
35 "They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin."

God explicitly states that it never entered his mind that the people of Judah would build and worship false idols.

This next one is much more open to interpretation, and you definitely might interpret this passage differently than I do, but I think Genesis chapter 22 is a perfect example of God not knowing what will happen:

1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
2 "Here I am," he replied.
3 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about"...
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

I know many people say that this test was for Abraham's benefit, not God's, because God already knew what Abraham would do...but the words in bold indicate, to me at least, that unless God was lying to Abraham in verse 12, he did not know what Abraham would do until he raised the knife to do it.

The account of the flood is another good example from Genesis:

Chapter 6
5 The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become ...
6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7 So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth...for I am grieved that I have made them."

The fact that God's heart was filled with pain when he saw how evil mankind had become and that he was "grieved" that he had created man, seems to me to indicate regret...which seems to indicate that he had not anticipated this evil, for if he had, why would he have created man in the first place? And if he had created man with the anticipation of them becoming so wicked, why would he have included these verses in the Bible which seem to indicate that he did not?

I would definitely be interested to see if you can read something into these passages that I haven't seen!

 

[iagainsti]

freewill....of man.

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.

Obviously God was well aware of what we would do or could do, with our own freewill....I still wouldn't give it up for anything in the world....who wants to be without their own free will and a puppet of sorts?

care

So how do we know that the current canon of the scriptures is not corrupt and leading everyone away from God?

-Joe

We know it because it is holy. The book itself cannot be wrong because it has the Holy Spirit within it. God determined we would have the Word, in the form of Christ and the Holy Bible, and those two things are incorruptible. Because God's hand is on it, in it, and the Holy Spirit is within it, it remains the word of God and we can have faith that it is whole, correct, and holy.

Other books are fallible. But because God promised us that he would see to it that the Bible would remain correct and infallible, we can be assured that it is. It's that simple. Whatever has happened with the Bible has happened according to God's plan, and it remains the word of God, and therefore holy and a living entity.

But how do we know that the Bible is holy, that it has the Holy Spirit within it, if the evidence for these things comes from the Bible itself?

That would be the same as me saying, "I am holy. If you don't believe me, just ask me." It's getting information about a source from the source itself. There are other books that claim to be holy, yet you say other books are fallible, when the only reason you regard the Bible as holy is because it claims to be.

I'm not saying the Bible isn't holy...I'm just saying the fact that it contains writings which claim it to be holy and therefore true cannot, in my opinion, stand as evidence that it is.

 

[JBeukema]

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

I know many people say that this test was for Abraham's benefit, not God's, because God already knew what Abraham would do...but the words in bold indicate, to me at least, that unless God was lying to Abraham in verse 12, he did not know what Abraham would do until he raised the knife to do it.

You might know in your heart that a dear friend of a family memberor whoever would lay their life down for another- but only after it has been shown (by putting them in or allowing them to get into a situation where they must meet such challange) can they be used as an example to others

 

[DamnYankee]

At the risk of exhibiting stupidity, why must faith be explained?

He put forth a pretense of reason; that it does not hold up demosntrates his foolishness

If one wants to be taken serious 'just because' and 'i think it cuz i think it cuz i think so cause i believe cuz i think so' is not an acceptable answer

There's no less logic in having faith in God than there is having faith in another human being. In fact, it may be more logical in some cases.

you doubt the existence of man? Good, you're on the way towards positivism

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

to believe without reason is foolishness

to base law and nations upon foolishness is stupidity

What I doubt is that I have reason to be confident to believe in or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of most persons. That doubt encompasses those that I am, traditionally, supposed to be confident in. Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?

 

[midcan5]

Another interesting read on religion.

God, He's moody | Salon

 

[Al Gunn]

"a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust"

How do you know this?

 

[JBeukema]

Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?

Then you believe in the wrong god. The god of the bible is evil, wicked, jealous, cruel, and misogynistic. It demands genocides, condones slavery, including sexual slavery of women, and orders that non-believers and disobedient children be slain, ad well as forcing young girls who are raped to marry their rapists (thus being bound to 'her duty' to her husband until he tires of her and tells her he's divorcing her) and commands that a married woman who is raped be slain if she is unable to defend herself or yell loudly enough.


The only trustworthy character in the whole book is the serpent who , unlike God, told man the truth about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and allowed man true free will: the ability to decide for ourselves what actions we wished to take after being told what effect the fruit would have.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Notice that pubic infant still offers no rebuttal to my refutation of his stupidsity

ROFL... So again, the member comes to reject that segment of the argument which she feels doesn't leave her sufficient wiggle room and advances instead, abject lies...

The record finds no refutation having been advanced by this member to any position of mine... despite the delusional assertion to the contrary.

And for the 4th TIME.... I'd like Jwhatshername to answer this question, which she's otherwise desperate to ignore:

Of all of the knowledge and all of the facts, which exist throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; and beyond into what we have no means to possibly know... Which is to say of all of the knowledge that is... what percent of that knowledge do you believe that you possess?

A-100%
B-50%
C-25%
D-An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'
E- Vastly less than that...

It's not even a valid question.

So a question is potentially invalid? Interesting... In my experience, this is a position which is trotted out, by those whose position is exposed as invalid by a question...

You can't fathom how much knowledge there might be- you cannot answer your own question, and all of you 'options' are logically fallacious- as is your implication that there is any knowledge that is inherently unknowable.

Wow... so the member refuses to answer the question, but she knows that no one else could answer it, and this because the scope of all knowledge is 'infathomable...'

Thus, answering the question, by default... and she chooses the only potential response...

"E- vastly less than that of D, which is An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'"

In other words, you're an idiot; but we already knoew that.

ROFLMNAO... I do so adore sweet irony...

For the 5th TIME this member HOPES to ignore the simple question, for which there were 5 possible responses offered... and the power of her addled intellect can't even pull that off.

LOL... Atheists...

Now the 4th and 5th responses were, to be perfectly fair, the only two reasonable responses... but this member can't even muster the intellectual veracity to answer such; and why is that?

The member refuses to answer the question, as all atheists who've encountered this question always have and always will, because to answer it is to admit, quite by default, that the default Atheist position is ABSURD!

The simple fact is that where one's own ADMITTED KNOWLEDGE (if only by default) is an imperceptiable, infinite fraction; then there's a pretty good chance that something which she cannot perceive as possible, exists within that void of ignorance which she has incontrovertibly admitted she suffers...

Again, let there be no mistake; neither I, nor anyone else on this forum or anywhere else, known to me, has advanced that they have tangible evidence of the composition of the Creator...

We have merely expressed our faith that the Creator exists; and in so doing set out our reasoning for that faith in clear and unambiguous terms; and have proven time and time again; that the principles on which that faith rest, represent a rare perfection in human reasoning; that those principles are immutable in their means to sustain human liberty... that such principles are SELF EVIDENT... meaning that they bear the evidence of their validity by their mere presence...

And that given the immutable nature of those principles, it serves reason that such do not originate from the human species, as no other level of perfection has ever been found or set into practice... by any other culture, anywhere, at any time.

No level of prosperous liberty can be compared to that which those principles have provided; and it is only where those principles are rejected, do we find that such prosperity and liberty begins to wane.

And THAT friends, is EMPERICAL EVIDENCE... of the incontestable variety... apply the principles and freedom and prosperity abound, withdraw or dimenish the principles and liberty and prosperity recede... nothing particularly complex about it; and there's surely no reasoning which exists to provide the valid means to contest it.

And it is nothing LESS than the OVERT REJECTION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH THIS MEMBER COMES TO ADVOCATE; she simply does so through a thinly vieled deception that she 'respects the mechanics of the US Constitutional Republic and adheres to the construct;' just not the principled bedrock of it's foundation and in so doing advocates for nothing less than the catastrophic demise of the greatest freedom; experienced by the greatest nation, ever known to inhabit this earth.

She's a Atheist and most decidedly, part of the problem.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Therefore, it is much more logical, to me, to maintain such confidence in a supreme being who is incapable of violating and breaking the trust. Understand?

Then you believe in the wrong god. The god of the bible is evil, wicked, jealous, cruel, and misogynistic. It demands genocides, condones slavery, including sexual slavery of women, and orders that non-believers and disobedient children be slain, ad well as forcing young girls who are raped to marry their rapists (thus being bound to 'her duty' to her husband until he tires of her and tells her he's divorcing her) and commands that a married woman who is raped be slain if she is unable to defend herself or yell loudly enough.


The only trustworthy character in the whole book is the serpent who , unlike God, told man the truth about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and allowed man true free will: the ability to decide for ourselves what actions we wished to take after being told what effect the fruit would have.

In my 15 years of internet debate, I've seen some wicked examples of pure evil...

But this post, is unequaled in it's sophistry... overtly seeking to establish God as Evil and Evil as God...

And in my estimation, this post demonstrates that Evil is the function which Jwhatshername serves; serving openly and unapologetically...

Turn from her or face subjecting yourself to the deception which she professes as the pure essence of all that is good... She's a deceiver, a liar and she serves no other potential than calamity, catastrophe and chaos.

As you consider this plea, believers should pray these simple words: "Get thee behind me Satan" and take measures to ignore this evil, so as to not be tempted by unbridled evil and the idiots which such manipulates.

And as I have advocated so shall I act... and this member is flushed into oblivion... with the rest of the turds.

 

[Al Gunn]

PlubiusAsswipe, since you admit that our overall knowledge is infinitessimal compared to the sum of all possible knowledge, then how do you know you're right? You know more than an infinitessimal amount?

One more thing, nothing that is "self-evident" is valid proof f anything, it just means that you don't know shit and can't prove shit, so you call it self-evident.

 

[JBeukema]

So a question is potentially invalid?

What does blue taste like? What is the smell of red?

Thus, answering the question, by default... and she chooses the only potential response...

"E- vastly less than that of D, which is An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'"

Now you're just being dishonest- again. There could be only two more questions we haven't thought of yet, or there could be many. Once cannot know how much there is to kn ow, so one cannot know how much one knows comparative to. It's one example of why your god is impossible- but you're not smart enough to grassp that.

The simple fact is that where one's own ADMITTED KNOWLEDGE (if only by default) is an imperceptiable, infinite fraction; then there's a pretty good chance that something which she cannot perceive as possible, exists

You have just made the ultimate argument from ignorance by claiming that deity must exist because pubic is ignorant and doesn't know jkack shit. You're too stupid to waste any further time with