I really think I'm finally done with religious arguments on this forum
You think my opinion is stupid, wrong, evil, illogical, irrational, and misguided, but it's an opinion nonetheless, and not a misunderstanding of facts. I have no intention of dealing with this anymore
So, having convinced no one and lost the debate, you retreat so as not to be exposed to the open scrutiny of your ludicrous beliefs any further.
You claimed to have been logically sound, yet every single one of your statements begged the question. Your circular "logic" was astounding. I'm impressed that you are able to convince yourself that what you were doing could be considered logical in any capacity, let alone reasonable. You make insane conclusions from non-testable and unlikely suppositions with enough high-order postulates to make every intellectual in the history of the human race spin so fast in their graves that it would stop the rotation of the Earth.
Ahh, but all of those intellectuals are in hell now, so I guess that's fine. Maybe their spinning is what powers hell. You, at least, somehow, know all the "rules" of this god who's never spoken, but everyone else with equally strong but different convictions (other christians, other religions, etc...) has it wrong. Further, your view, which derives from the exact same set of data, is the extreme minority view, even among people who believe in your god. If your god somehow exists, odds are you've got his rules wrong anyway and are going to this hell you're so fond of. To follow your own arguments, you are more likely to go to this hell than other chrisitians simply for the fact that your interpretation of the data is the minority position.
If you're somehow not fond of the fact that you literally believe everyone here is going to hell after they die, then why are you fond of the god you made up who enforces that?
TL;DR: You poorly defended your belief in a dick-god and shrank from debate when it was clear you couldn't win.
No one could win this argument Rym, because it really is a MATTER OF OPINION. Yeah, I can't back my opinion up, but opinions don't need to be backed up, they're opinions. If I was saying that everything I believe is fact, then you'd be correct. However, I never said any of this is fact, it's just what I believe. I could be wrong, but this is what I choose. You can have as many problems with that as you like, but nothing you say seems to have anything to do with what I said. I feel like you find the one thing in my posts that angers you and base your whole argument on that, not the overall message of what I'm saying. But it doesn't really matter, because I don't need or want your approval, or anyone else's.
Why? Why do you care? As long as I'm not hurting anyone, which I'm not, I don't need to back up my opinions to any of you. I have personal reasons, and I tried to give those, but you guys don't seem to like them. So, I'm just gonna stick with this.
Firstly, I'm intrigued. It's always interesting to look into human irrationality, the various ways in which it happens, and the causes behind it. Secondly, although your beliefs may not be harmful to others, they do seem to be harmful to you, and so it would be better to convince you they're false. Thirdly, trying to convince someone on an issue of religion is a difficult challenge, and I like a good challenge.
Your main reason for belief seems to be that you think the world demonstrates a lack of inherent human goodness, and then you seem to think there is no adequate explanation for how we behave other than the Christian concept of "original sin". This is a discussion that hasn't been played out in this thread, and I'd still like to see you elaborate on this, though perhaps in another thread. I will say, though, that while pretty much every human has a flaw of some kind, that hardly makes us inherently evil.
I like chocolate. You do not like chocolate. I like Spider-Man. You do not like Spider-man.
Facts:
There is a fly buzzing around the apartment. There isn't a fly in your apartment. There is a god. There is not a god.
If it's about your preference, you prefer X and I prefer Y, then it is a matter of opinion. You like god, I don't like god.
If it's about fact, then there's one truth for the entire universe.
You may not like that grass is green, that's opinion. But the grass is green whether you like it or not. You can change your mind or delude yourself all you want, but the grass isn't going to change as a result. Only your mind has changed.
I can say the words "in my opinion, grass is black" but saying the word opinion doesn't make it an opinion. It's a falsehood that I believe, and if I truly believe it, I am delusional.
Well, okay then. Factually, do you know that there isn't a God? You can't say yes or no. You know that based on your understanding of the universe, which is limited, as we are unable to comprehend the entirety of how the universe works right now, you think there is no God. Your opinion is that God is illogical. My opinion is that he isn't. Factually, he either does or doesn't. But there's no way of proving that, so we are left to opinions.
God, I really, seriously, don't want to argue this anymore. Why can't we just agree to disagree? That was always a nice philosophy.
Well, okay then. Factually, do you know that there isn't a God? You can't say yes or no. You know that based on your understanding of the universe, which is limited, as we are unable to comprehend the entirety of how the universe works right now, you think there is no God. Your opinion is that God is illogical. My opinion is that he isn't. Factually, he either does or doesn't. But there's no way of proving that, so we are left to opinions.
God, I really, seriously, don't want to argue this anymore. Why can't we just agree to disagree? That was always a nice philosophy.
If you continue this line of discussion, you will get the thread closed. You have reached the point of Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you can not refute, or at least attempt to refute, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then that's the end.
I like chocolate. You do not like chocolate. I like Spider-Man. You do not like Spider-man.
I would argue that these are factual claims, and not only that, but testable factual claims. We can determine their truth by scanning for what occurs in your brain when, for example, you eat chocolate. Hence even one of those statements is, in fact, able to be tested. Nonetheless, it does make sense to call them "opinions", because they are a distinct class of factual claim.
Well, okay then. Factually, do you know that there isn't a God? You can't say yes or no. You know that based on your understanding of the universe, which is limited, as we are unable to comprehend the entirety of how the universe works right now, you think there is no God. Your opinion is that God is illogical. My opinion is that he isn't. Factually, he either does or doesn't. But there's no way of proving that, so we are left to opinions.
There is no 100% proof of anything. However, if you insist that the existence of God has some impact on reality, then reality can be evidence for or against your God. For example, the existence of what we would call "evil" is evidence against a supposedly good God, although not necessarily conclusive evidence. The evidence weighs against it, and so it is indeed irrational to believe in your God, and probably illogical as well. If, on the other hand, your God has no impact on reality, then the very concept is meaningless.
Without your detailing your own evidence, which you think demonstrates the existence of original sin, it is only natural for us to assume you are irrational. In fact, the rational conclusion is that you are irrational.
Because other people keep giving me new responses, and ignoring them isn't my intention. I want you guys to stop too.
As long as I've got something to say, I'm going to say it. Get over it. You're the one who doesn't want to have this discussion; I'm perfectly cool with it.
The existence or lack thereof of god really isn't even the main issue here. The issue is that you attach to the idea of god a certain set of presupposed and unverifiable conditions which appear to be presenting you with an incredibly toxic worldview.
Whether or not anyone believes or doesn't believe in a god (or the possibility of one) has absolutely no impact on their intelligence or my estimation of them. What I do not tolerate is when someone adopts an illogical mindset clearly detrimental to their well-being, and they can neither justify why they hold such views or admit the inherently broken nature of their thought processes as a result of what they believe. Atheists and deists (well, modern deists, at least) are all the same to me. Religion is what is illogical.
Hey people, I hope nothing said anything about the podcast in the past 180 posts or so, because I really don't have time to read through it all. Judging by the "Top Participants" I'm guessing it was a long debate about God existing. I'm really not interested in that issue, because, as I might have said in the podcast, that is actually a minor issue for my story on leaving the church and/or my spiritual experiences.
The last message I read properly was this one:
"I think you guys (Scott, Rym and Luke) missed something important about faith and who remains in it."
I had no intention of covering all issues about faith and why people stick with it. I know there is a wide range of issues and reasons, but it's impossible to touch on all of them in a 40 minute podcast. I tried to keep things quite specific, even though I COULD talk a long time about many things, and often do.
I'm guessing it was a long debate about God existing.
If it was, I would have stopped it sooner. It was actually about god sending everyone to hell!
Earlier in the page, I apologized directly to you, Luke, for my original comment, as I admit that it was way off base with what you were talking about in the podcast, and my argument was unnecessary.
Hey people, I hope nothing said anything about the podcast in the past 180 posts or so, because I really don't have time to read through it all. Judging by the "Top Participants" I'm guessing it was a long debate about God existing. I'm really not interested in that issue, because, as I might have said in the podcast, that is actually a minor issue for my story on leaving the church and/or my spiritual experiences.
Yeah, there's nothing directly relevant to the podcast topic in the past few pages.
I guess I'm a little weird in that I'm a Deist. I have faith that there is a higher authority, but I am always looking for the scientific proof of it. Mathematically speaking, our existence is an anomaly, an improbability. At any point things could have turned out radically different, and I fully believe there was a guiding hand in our development, and thus want to find it through science. Will I find it in my lifetime? Probably not. Will humans ever find it? I hope so, because it amazes me, as I look at all the wonderful things in our universe, that this existence could be nothing more than a series of improbable chances. That the greatest and most complex mechanism for data retention and propagation, Deoxyribonucleic acid, was just a fluke. I'm rambling now, but I get a peak experience every time I learn something new about Biology, and science in general, and I think, much like Carl Sagan, "Isn't this amazing?"
It would seem to me that such a deity is yet more improbable than anything you attempt to use it to explain. Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong in calling DNA a "fluke". We don't know exactly how the first DNA or RNA came into being, but that doesn't make it a fluke.
Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong in calling DNA a "fluke". We don't know exactly how the first DNA or RNA came into being, but that doesn't make it a fluke.
I studied this a bit in undergrad; I thought RNA was hypothesized to be the original genetic material, and then DNA arose essentially randomly.
I do think that calling it a "fluke" is appropriate, though that belies the underlying determinism in biochemistry to some extent.
Comments
You claimed to have been logically sound, yet every single one of your statements begged the question. Your circular "logic" was astounding. I'm impressed that you are able to convince yourself that what you were doing could be considered logical in any capacity, let alone reasonable. You make insane conclusions from non-testable and unlikely suppositions with enough high-order postulates to make every intellectual in the history of the human race spin so fast in their graves that it would stop the rotation of the Earth.
Ahh, but all of those intellectuals are in hell now, so I guess that's fine. Maybe their spinning is what powers hell. You, at least, somehow, know all the "rules" of this god who's never spoken, but everyone else with equally strong but different convictions (other christians, other religions, etc...) has it wrong. Further, your view, which derives from the exact same set of data, is the extreme minority view, even among people who believe in your god. If your god somehow exists, odds are you've got his rules wrong anyway and are going to this hell you're so fond of. To follow your own arguments, you are more likely to go to this hell than other chrisitians simply for the fact that your interpretation of the data is the minority position.
If you're somehow not fond of the fact that you literally believe everyone here is going to hell after they die, then why are you fond of the god you made up who enforces that?
TL;DR: You poorly defended your belief in a dick-god and shrank from debate when it was clear you couldn't win.
Secondly, although your beliefs may not be harmful to others, they do seem to be harmful to you, and so it would be better to convince you they're false.
Thirdly, trying to convince someone on an issue of religion is a difficult challenge, and I like a good challenge.
Your main reason for belief seems to be that you think the world demonstrates a lack of inherent human goodness, and then you seem to think there is no adequate explanation for how we behave other than the Christian concept of "original sin". This is a discussion that hasn't been played out in this thread, and I'd still like to see you elaborate on this, though perhaps in another thread. I will say, though, that while pretty much every human has a flaw of some kind, that hardly makes us inherently evil.
I like chocolate. You do not like chocolate.
I like Spider-Man. You do not like Spider-man.
Facts:
There is a fly buzzing around the apartment. There isn't a fly in your apartment.
There is a god. There is not a god.
If it's about your preference, you prefer X and I prefer Y, then it is a matter of opinion. You like god, I don't like god.
If it's about fact, then there's one truth for the entire universe.
You may not like that grass is green, that's opinion. But the grass is green whether you like it or not. You can change your mind or delude yourself all you want, but the grass isn't going to change as a result. Only your mind has changed.
I can say the words "in my opinion, grass is black" but saying the word opinion doesn't make it an opinion. It's a falsehood that I believe, and if I truly believe it, I am delusional.
God, I really, seriously, don't want to argue this anymore. Why can't we just agree to disagree? That was always a nice philosophy.
http://frontrowcrew.com/geeknights/20061019/burden-of-proof/
If you continue this line of discussion, you will get the thread closed. You have reached the point of Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you can not refute, or at least attempt to refute, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then that's the end.
wahmbulance.jpg
Without your detailing your own evidence, which you think demonstrates the existence of original sin, it is only natural for us to assume you are irrational. In fact, the rational conclusion is that you are irrational. As long as I've got something to say, I'm going to say it. Get over it. You're the one who doesn't want to have this discussion; I'm perfectly cool with it.
Whether or not anyone believes or doesn't believe in a god (or the possibility of one) has absolutely no impact on their intelligence or my estimation of them. What I do not tolerate is when someone adopts an illogical mindset clearly detrimental to their well-being, and they can neither justify why they hold such views or admit the inherently broken nature of their thought processes as a result of what they believe. Atheists and deists (well, modern deists, at least) are all the same to me. Religion is what is illogical.
The last message I read properly was this one:
"I think you guys (Scott, Rym and Luke) missed something important about faith and who remains in it."
I had no intention of covering all issues about faith and why people stick with it. I know there is a wide range of issues and reasons, but it's impossible to touch on all of them in a 40 minute podcast. I tried to keep things quite specific, even though I COULD talk a long time about many things, and often do.
Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong in calling DNA a "fluke". We don't know exactly how the first DNA or RNA came into being, but that doesn't make it a fluke.
I do think that calling it a "fluke" is appropriate, though that belies the underlying determinism in biochemistry to some extent.