Post: #351

Post: #352

(09-09-2013 05:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Reading comprehension fail. Go back and re-read the post you quoted, and then get back to me.

I don't see what I didn't comprehend properly. I did get back to you but may be you didn't see it. This is my reply from day before yesterday to the post we are talking about.

(09-07-2013 02:31 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 02:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 02:03 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  ^^ So I should have the same attitude towards a higher power which may or may not exist as I do towards my parents? You know my parents who are actually real and exist in person. 'God' should be given the same respect as my parents who spent a better part of their lives caring for me. Yeah, that's a brilliant analogy. You yourself are saying "if" god created this. And we go back to the same point. Is it god from an organized religion or just some higher being? According to you we should be respectful towards god who may not be real and who maybe a lot different than the version of god that society accepts.

Again, I am no fan of Islam and you know that but as I said previously, if there is a higher being, how do we know that Islam's version of god isn't the real one? Maybe I should stop being so critical of Islam by that logic.

There have been countless theologians who could answer your questions better than I.

However, I will give you Thomas Aquinas' argument for Christianity.

God created morality. Thus the most accurate religion of God is the one that has the superior morality.

Christ says, Love thy neighbor, respect God, give expecting nothing thereof, and do not lust for any person except the one that you love.

Mohammed says, Conquor thy neighbor, fear God, take from your enemies and tax your subjects, and take wives as you need them.

So, which one do you think has the better morality? Aquinas said that the natural powers of moral deduction Man has should be enough to distinguish which religions are true or not.

But I thought it was your gut feeling that said there is a higher being? How can we be sure that god created morality? And then arbitrarily decide that the "most accurate religion of God is the one that has the superior morality". Now we are just deciding which is the most accurate religion of god ?

What about other religions such as Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism?

From what I know isn't Buddhism the most "live and let live" kind of religion? Wouldn't Buddhism then be the most accurate religion of god?

Post: #353

(09-09-2013 05:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 04:29 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Samseau's 'God' is possible though. I'll say that much. However, a God that far removed from human activity isn't worth praying to etc. 'It' wouldn't care, or perhaps even be aware of our existence. It might even not be around anymore. These are science fiction-type questions and they fascinate me.

How do you know God isn't very involved with human affairs?

You're playing devil's advocate again. On the one hand you claim to believe in an impersonal god, a sort of technician/engineer of the universe type figure/thing/higher power, yet you ask me if 'he' plays a role in human affairs. Look at the scale of the universe, it's length of time in existence, and the pinprick of time humans have been around. Look at the emotion demonstrated by other Great Apes etc. It's extraordinarily arrogant to think such a being would care about such insignificance as human affairs.

Nobody is going to 'win' this debate, as on the one hand we have you playing the sort of philosophers card of constant questioning, whilst on the other hand you have myself and others playing the ultimate rationalist card.

Post: #354

No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

Post: #355

Quote:But I thought it was your gut feeling that said there is a higher being? How can we be sure that god created morality?

Because God created all things.

Quote:And then arbitrarily decide that the "most accurate religion of God is the one that has the superior morality". Now we are just deciding which is the most accurate religion of god

Correct.

Quote:Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism

These religions are mostly empty, without substance. No commandments about right/wrong. Not very moral if you think about it.

Quote:Judiaism

Too vague, too many conflicting commands from God, utterly abstract and obscure.

On the other hand, The Book of Matthew is pretty specific and easy to understand.

Post: #356

So, we can assume you're a Christian? Do you believe in Adam & Eve? The talking snake perhaps? Noah's Ark? The earth being 3000 years old?

I'm guessing you don't. Also, you didn't respond to this:

"You're playing devil's advocate again. On the one hand you claim to believe in an impersonal god, a sort of technician/engineer of the universe type figure/thing/higher power, yet you ask me if 'he' plays a role in human affairs. Look at the scale of the universe, it's length of time in existence, and the pinprick of time humans have been around. Look at the emotion demonstrated by other Great Apes etc. It's extraordinarily arrogant to think such a being would care about such insignificance as human affairs."

Post: #357

(09-08-2013 09:37 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Shock revelation! New cultural Marxists study from the school of social engineering reveals that Sir Isaac Newton was an idiot.

"Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian. He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newto...ious_views

Post: #358

(09-09-2013 05:34 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 04:32 PM)Sherman Wrote:  I guess Einstein doesn’t get it.

“Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).”

Einstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_v...in#Beliefs

Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, but the quote I gave clearly could include some notion of Intelligent Design.

The famous atheist philosopher Antony Flew changed his mind:

"I first heard about Flew’s change of mind in August of 2004, whilst attending the European Leadership Forum in Hungry. A number of well-placed sources said that Flew had recently come to believe in the existence of some kind of God, and that this shift in thinking was due in no small part to the kinds of arguments advanced by the Intelligent Design movement."

"Flew returns to his critique of Richard Dawkins:

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_antonyflew.htm

Post: #359

(09-09-2013 05:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:But I thought it was your gut feeling that said there is a higher being? How can we be sure that god created morality?

Because God created all things.

Quote:And then arbitrarily decide that the "most accurate religion of God is the one that has the superior morality". Now we are just deciding which is the most accurate religion of god

Correct.

Quote:Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism

These religions are mostly empty, without substance. No commandments about right/wrong. Not very moral if you think about it.

I don't agree that God created all things. That's your personal opinion and faith, I will leave it at that.

Have you studied or even looked into those religions before saying they are empty religions without substance? Those religions may not have defined commandments like Christianity but they do have principles about what is right/wrong and how people who adhere to them are supposed to act and live their lives. All major religions such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, and Buddhism have their own basic tenets and principles. To say otherwise is just false.

So you started from saying that you believe in some higher being of power and not necessarily in organized religion but now we are down to Christianity is the one true religion?

As Teedub pointed out above, do you then believe in Adam and Eve, Noah, and the earth being 6000 years old and all the other stuff since Christianity is the only religion with substance?

Post: #360

(09-09-2013 05:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Too vague, too many conflicting commands from God, utterly abstract and obscure.

On the other hand, The Book of Matthew is pretty specific and easy to understand.

The Talmud takes precedence over the Torah(Old Testament)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

Post: #361

(09-09-2013 04:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ His arguments mean nothing... for all we know the way we are is necessary for reasons beyond our comprehension.

Also, Intelligent Design does not presuppose that there are things too complicated for us to explain. It merely posits that the world is no accident.

In fact, that's how humans think. We don't assume accidents, we look for causes and effects, i.e. reasons, because our minds suppose there is some sort of design to the universe.

I don't think anything happens by accident. The accident is having expectations that don't live up to reality.

That doesn't mean that I think an old alpa male with a white beard and terre-forming super powers created the world in six days.

Post: #362

(09-09-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

You are the one trying to engage in a rational discussion about something that is supposed to exist outside of rationality.

Why not keep quiet and let god sort out who goes to heaven and hell?

If god is real, you're right and have nothing to worry about and we will go to hell and that's that.

Post: #363

(09-09-2013 06:10 PM)soup Wrote:  That doesn't mean that I think an old alpa male with a white beard and terre-forming super powers created the world in six days.

People, and there are still people, who think that, are truly stupid. That, or they're so utterly terrified of truth that they ignore everything that possibly contradicts that. So, by proxy, they have to be really, really stupid.

Post: #364

(09-09-2013 06:15 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:10 PM)soup Wrote:  That doesn't mean that I think an old alpa male with a white beard and terre-forming super powers created the world in six days.

People, and there are still people, who think that, are truly stupid. That, or they're so utterly terrified of truth that they ignore everything that possibly contradicts that. So, by proxy, they have to be really, really stupid.

There are a lot of people out there who believe this.

Here's your "redpill" religious culture fat fucking land whale.

I'd bet $100 that atheism doesn't produce anywhere near the tons of obese people that Christianity has, if any at all. Fat hogs who are waiting for the after life instead of seizing the day to live now.




Name an obese atheist.

Post: #365

To be fair, people like that are a result of the bizarre forces at work in the U.S that just don't exist anywhere else. Plenty of religious people in the Southern Euro countries are religious, but are intelligent and in shape. Heck, some might even be creationists, but in a very different vain to the dogmatic creationists you find in your part of the world. There's a reason why Louis Theroux did his 'Weird Weekend' series exclusively in the States... It's actually a pretty weird place. It's so big for one country that there is such extremes within a nation that just don't happen anywhere else I suppose.

Post: #366

(09-09-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

Making bold statements with, at best, anecdotal evidence is also irrational.

You've mentioned morality a couple of times now. I always find it pretty incredulous that religion and morality are brought together under one roof. I never saw a response from you to my post earlier - not sure if you missed it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Post: #367

(09-09-2013 06:06 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 05:34 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 04:32 PM)Sherman Wrote:  I guess Einstein doesn’t get it.

“Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).”

Einstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_v...in#Beliefs

Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, but the quote I gave clearly could include some notion of Intelligent Design.

The famous atheist philosopher Antony Flew changed his mind:

"I first heard about Flew’s change of mind in August of 2004, whilst attending the European Leadership Forum in Hungry. A number of well-placed sources said that Flew had recently come to believe in the existence of some kind of God, and that this shift in thinking was due in no small part to the kinds of arguments advanced by the Intelligent Design movement."

"Flew returns to his critique of Richard Dawkins:

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_antonyflew.htm

born-again reverend Charles Templeton, who preached at the same time as Billy Graham, converted to Atheism. so we're even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Templeton

Post: #368

Judaism is NOT vague. You have to take into account the oral law Mishna, Talmud (commentary and more on Oral law), and Torah (Old Testament). Their is also very specific instructions on everything you can think of.

Post: #369

(09-09-2013 06:18 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:15 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:10 PM)soup Wrote:  That doesn't mean that I think an old alpa male with a white beard and terre-forming super powers created the world in six days.

People, and there are still people, who think that, are truly stupid. That, or they're so utterly terrified of truth that they ignore everything that possibly contradicts that. So, by proxy, they have to be really, really stupid.

There are a lot of people out there who believe this.

Here's your "redpill" religious culture fat fucking land whale.


Name an obese atheist.

How many of those fat feminists do you think believe in God? Considering how much they hate the patriarchy and all.

Post: #370

(09-09-2013 06:18 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:15 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:10 PM)soup Wrote:  That doesn't mean that I think an old alpa male with a white beard and terre-forming super powers created the world in six days.

People, and there are still people, who think that, are truly stupid. That, or they're so utterly terrified of truth that they ignore everything that possibly contradicts that. So, by proxy, they have to be really, really stupid.

There are a lot of people out there who believe this.

Here's your "redpill" religious culture fat fucking land whale.

I'd bet $100 that atheism doesn't produce anywhere near the tons of obese people that Christianity has, if any at all. Fat hogs who are waiting for the after life instead of seizing the day to live now.




Name an obese atheist.

Gluttony is a sin. Those fat bitches will rot in hell. Fasting is an integral part of many religions, Christianity and Islam especially.

Post: #371

What religion are you Damedius?

Post: #372

(09-09-2013 06:18 PM)soup Wrote:  Name an obese atheist.

Seriously? You're doing some ridiculous right now.

Post: #373

(09-09-2013 06:36 PM)Damedius Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:18 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:15 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:10 PM)soup Wrote:  That doesn't mean that I think an old alpa male with a white beard and terre-forming super powers created the world in six days.

People, and there are still people, who think that, are truly stupid. That, or they're so utterly terrified of truth that they ignore everything that possibly contradicts that. So, by proxy, they have to be really, really stupid.

There are a lot of people out there who believe this.

Here's your "redpill" religious culture fat fucking land whale.


Name an obese atheist.

How many of those fat feminists do you think believe in God? Considering how much they hate the patriarchy and all.

Was gonna jump back in, but Samseau is single-handedly winning this argument. Well, the Atheists are doing themselves in. That eventually happens in an erroneous belief system.

Post: #374

(09-09-2013 06:32 PM)kbell Wrote:  Judaism is NOT vague. You have to take into account the oral law Mishna, Talmud (commentary and more on Oral law), and Torah (Old Testament). Their is also very specific instructions on everything you can think of.

Are you kidding me? The talmud is over 6K pages, and the sources it cites are Rabbi's, not prophets of God or anything like that, but just a bunch of priests.

There are also many contradicting opinions between the Rabbi's.

I was banging a Jewish girl for the month of August, and we talked a lot about religion. She went to a Jewish high school in Newton, MA, and they studied the Talmud extensively. She had also been to Isreal.

She said that the main tenet of Judiasm is that there is no consensus, that the teachings of God are shrouded in mystery, and that it is impossible to arrive at geniune knowledge. The entire point of reading the Talmud was to be lost in the mysticism of its teachings, and feel the divine force of the unknown.

She joked with me, "It's rumored that anyone who reads the entire Talmud + Old testiment goes insane from all the knowledge they learn. The more they know, the less you will understand it."

My reply, "What a great religion." Then we banged.

Post: #375

Samseau vs the Atheists: NSFP!
...................................NSFA!
...................................NSFF!