Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 23:02:45 GMT
I see atheists doing that a lot here. And nobody here (believers and nonbelievers alike) acts like they're open to being convinced of anything. That's why people repeat the same old tired arguments ad infinitum.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 23:06:22 GMT
tpfkar Whatever bastard qualities we have, god gave them to us, either impotently or sadistically. did I do that?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 23:10:24 GMT
tpfkar Or the complete substitution of invective and moaning and "because" for any argumentation. I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 23:13:03 GMT
It's really quite simple. Look around the world. Look at the plants, the animals. The design and uniqueness of each one. They didn't just "evolve". Then look at Human Beings....really think about it. If it weren't for Greed, Jealousy, Lust, we would have a perfect world. Everyone would be fed, clothed, and living in comfort. If you don't believe it, do some research, you will find that to be 100% true. Also, remember the concept of time is a human thing. God has been around eternally in the past as well as eternally into the future...in our concept of time. This is what boggles most peoples minds. He may have made a trillion "worlds" already in the past....maybe some of them still exist "out there". We will find out one day. In the 63 years I've been on earth, the most asked question I have had is: "If there is a God, why does he allow so much suffering in the world". I didn't have that answer until I reached my late 30's and 40's. The answer is He doesn't allow it....we do. He gave us free will and all the raw materials to build a Utopia....which we could have. But as I said before, Greed, Jealousy, etc. don't allow for that to happen. Think about it. As usual, a clueless theist using 'free will' to get around the problem of evil. But can you actually explain how that works, or find scientific evidence to support the form of free will that allows us to defy the nature with which God allegedly endowed us?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 23:32:31 GMT
Well, the only for it not to be a strawman would be what exactly? Admitting that your wrong thinking was right maybe? What was the point and then I'll try to stay on it. You were stating that you felt I believed you trying to "convert" people, I never said anything to suggest that. All I stated was I got the impression you initially believed the Watchmaker argument could be used to persuade nonbelievers seeing how you were debating with them about it throughout this thread, whether you yourself actually use it to convert others wasn't my argument. If you mean to say it's really only good for preaching to the choir, then fine, but again I just find that to be a useless argument if that's the case. Dude, I'm saying you were wrong for saying that. From my first statement about the watchmaker analogy, I stated quite clearly that it wasn;t something that was needed to convince someone of anything. Where the discussion went, where it always goes, is the reason atheists dismiss it and it never has anything to do with the logic of creation. Yes, the analogy is for people who are already persuaded that life was created. It is inherently simple made ocomplex only because some atheists need to make it so. It has nothing to do with atheists in the first place except that they fail at realizing the reasons they give for it being flawed are retarded. Graham highlighted most of them. So it has little to do with preaching to the choir since it's not something used constantly by the religious. We have creation itself to appreciate and that analogy is simply used as a metaphor to its intricacies. The analogy has more to do with the fact that atheists are wrong in thinking it's flawed solely because they believe in something else. To be clear that is the only reason it's flawed. I never debate to convince the person I'm debating with in relation to religion. A non-religious person almost never really knows anything much about religion to consider that an option. As an aside, if something is a strawman, there is nothing wrong with simply not replying to it. It's not like I actually believe I committed a strawman argument so telling me that doesn't actually change anything other than it appears one is trying to deflect from the accuracies of my statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 1:16:52 GMT
Dude, I'm saying you were wrong for saying that. From my first statement about the watchmaker analogy, I stated quite clearly that it wasn;t something that was needed to convince someone of anything. The thread is about persuasive arguments for god. If you don't think the watchmaker is that - and I agree with you - then stop bringing it up. Here's the thing you seem oblivious of : the validity of an argument does not depend on the point of view of the person reading it. Saying "the watchmaker argument isn't meant to convince atheists", or "it's a good argument to believers" is the exact same thing as saying "the watchmaker argument is a bad argument". A good argument is one that can withstand scrutiny, from anybody. Period. No, it has to do with the logic of the argument. I demonstrated flaws in it; you haven't been able to answer them. Which means it is a failed argument. You call the arguments against it "retarded". So back up your claim for once, and describe the flaw in the argument I made. My bet is that you won't, because you know you can't. To be clear, it's flawed on every single level. As I demonstrated, and you have de facto accepted. You committed a strawman argument whether you admit to it or not; your inability to defend it shows that you know that as well as anybody.
|
|
OpiateOfTheMasses
Sophomore
Your Ad Here
@opiateofthemasses
Posts: 645
Likes: 261
Member is Online
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Apr 27, 2017 21:18:39 GMT
OpiateOfTheMasses So the only way to believe is for God to act the way you want him to act. Yep. God acts the way believers want him to act. That's how God acts. Those believers that want God to be all loving and forgiving get a God that's all loving and forgiving. Those believers that want a God that hates fags and is a hard task master get a God that hates fags and is a hard task master. The one thing pretty much all believers have in common is that they feel God's presence and know that he is there. So God must be doing something to let them feel/know that otherwise they're just making stuff up (either consciously or subconsciously). And God can do that for me too if he wants me to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:07:54 GMT
OpiateOfTheMasses So the only way to believe is for God to act the way you want him to act. Yep. God acts the way believers want him to act. That's how God acts. Those believers that want God to be all loving and forgiving get a God that's all loving and forgiving. Those believers that want a God that hates fags and is a hard task master get a God that hates fags and is a hard task master. The one thing pretty much all believers have in common is that they feel God's presence and know that he is there. So God must be doing something to let them feel/know that otherwise they're just making stuff up (either consciously or subconsciously). And God can do that for me too if he wants me to believe. God is a Rorschach test. The believer's conception of god tell you only about them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:13:01 GMT
Yep. God acts the way believers want him to act. That's how God acts. Those believers that want God to be all loving and forgiving get a God that's all loving and forgiving. Those believers that want a God that hates fags and is a hard task master get a God that hates fags and is a hard task master. The one thing pretty much all believers have in common is that they feel God's presence and know that he is there. So God must be doing something to let them feel/know that otherwise they're just making stuff up (either consciously or subconsciously). And God can do that for me too if he wants me to believe. God is a Rorschach test. The believer's conception of god tell you only about them. This might come as a surprise to you, but I don't totally disagree with that assertion. In fact, I believe that accounts for the obvious discrepancy between the God revealed in Jesus and the God of the Old Testament. There's a book that just came out that posits that very idea. It's called The Crucifixion of the Warrior God. I haven't read it yet (it's like 1500 pages in two volumes), but I'm interested in checking it out. I don't say any of this to convince you of anything, but I just thought I'd point out something we may have in common.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 23:23:09 GMT
When you read the book, you should make a thread here to talk about it. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 28, 2017 10:45:56 GMT
ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION, a.k.a. TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA'S ARGUMENT
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
CALVIN'S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TERTULLIAN'S ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists
ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY
(1) I am stupid.
(2) God made man in his own image.
(3) There are all horrible disasters going around the world.
(4) God is omnipotent in power.
(5) God is too stupid to do anything about these things.
(6) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM MASS MURDER
(1) Stalin was an atheist.
(2) He murdered millions of people.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Checkmate, atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 28, 2017 11:09:54 GMT
I see atheists doing that a lot here. And nobody here (believers and nonbelievers alike) acts like they're open to being convinced of anything. That's why people repeat the same old tired arguments ad infinitum. I'm open to being convinced of some things, but being convinced of god is probably out of the question because of how absurd I find the core ideas and how stupid most of the arguments are in my opinion (again, keeping in mind that I don't only believe that core ideas and arguments in favor of religion are absurd/stupid respectively). Being open to being convinced of some things isn't the same as being open to being convinced of anything conceivable, of course. No one is going to convince me to invest in some pyramid scheme, either. Or no telemarketer is going to convince me to buy some industrial cleaning chemicals that I expressed no interest in, even though they opened up the conversation with a claim that I sent in some card expressing interest that I supposedly found in a magazine. But you might be able to convince me that Andy Kaufman is still alive, say, if you were to present good enough evidence of that.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Apr 28, 2017 12:46:46 GMT
Biting Kim Jong Un's head off.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 28, 2017 19:38:15 GMT
OpiateOfTheMasses If you believe that's the case (Of course it isn't, but still...), then maybe God is acting as you want him to...leaving you alone to do whatever you wish so you can die a happy man. To me, it doesn't really sound like you're saying that, but rather God has to be what you want him to be or else he doesn't exist at all which seems contradictory to the notion that he would be what you want him to be. Confusing stuff. It's be better just to read the Bible every once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 28, 2017 19:44:10 GMT
@graham
Meh.
That's blaming God for what people think of him which is just silly.
It's very easy to understand who God is, but there's a lack of interest in that and so the lazy way is chosen. Certainly plenty of religious people do this, but that is literally the only reason theophobiacs exist (Unless they were diddled by a priest maybe) - They're too lazy to figure things out in the way they pretend to champion...through basic research. Everybody knows they haven't really researched diddlysquat.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 28, 2017 20:08:52 GMT
tpfkar It's easy to see, minimally, the aggrievement and dishonesty it inspires in apologists. However, this word is no big deal. It took me forever to find it after being chastised for using the h-word.
|
|
OpiateOfTheMasses
Sophomore
Your Ad Here
@opiateofthemasses
Posts: 645
Likes: 261
Member is Online
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Apr 28, 2017 22:32:54 GMT
OpiateOfTheMasses If you believe that's the case (Of course it isn't, but still...), then maybe God is acting as you want him to...leaving you alone to do whatever you wish so you can die a happy man. To me, it doesn't really sound like you're saying that, but rather God has to be what you want him to be or else he doesn't exist at all which seems contradictory to the notion that he would be what you want him to be. Confusing stuff. It's be better just to read the Bible every once in a while. The OP was asking what would make me believe. And the answer is that if an infinitely powerful being wants me to believe then it'll make me believe. If my eternal well-being depends on me believing and if this all power being loves me like I'm told then it'll do me the small favour that it's apparently done millions of other people and make me believe. But apparently it doesn't want to. Or it can't. Or it doesn't love everyone. Or it doesn't actually exist. Or more than one of those. Whatever the answer, I'm not going to pretend to believe cos only the simplest minded people can make themselves believe something on a whim. And I've read the Bible on more than one occasion.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Apr 30, 2017 18:18:22 GMT
Most "non-believers" I have met in my life, I found, were people that cannot grasp "the big picture", only stuff pertaining to their own lives. So the ones in your imagination.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Apr 30, 2017 18:20:58 GMT
I find that believers and nonbelievers have two completely different conceptualizations of what God is to begin with. I hear a lot of nonbelievers refer to God as "the man in the clouds" (as if believers think God lives on Mount Olympus or something). That's an ancient conception of God, but almost no believer would argue that God is PHYSICALLY among us, but rather that he's spiritually among us. As such, you can't really PROVE that he exists (or doesn't exist), as most believers assume that he exists OUTSIDE of our physical reality, yet can still influence it (like how a computer programmer can influence his/her program without being inside of it). To those that exist inside, pretty much anything they see would appear natural to them. The program is operating the way it was designed to operate. Believers argue that there is a "programmer," and nonbelievers don't buy into that. The problem with your analogy is that by definition, reality is everything that exists. That would include any god or gods that existed.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 1, 2017 12:17:09 GMT
I find that believers and nonbelievers have two completely different conceptualizations of what God is to begin with. I hear a lot of nonbelievers refer to God as "the man in the clouds" (as if believers think God lives on Mount Olympus or something). That's an ancient conception of God, but almost no believer would argue that God is PHYSICALLY among us, but rather that he's spiritually among us. As such, you can't really PROVE that he exists (or doesn't exist), as most believers assume that he exists OUTSIDE of our physical reality, yet can still influence it (like how a computer programmer can influence his/her program without being inside of it). To those that exist inside, pretty much anything they see would appear natural to them. The program is operating the way it was designed to operate. Believers argue that there is a "programmer," and nonbelievers don't buy into that. The problem with your analogy is that by definition, reality is everything that exists. That would include any god or gods that existed. I didn't even notice Dennis' comment until you quoted it. In my opinion, the idea of there being anything that is "nonphysical" is completely incoherent anyway. While you can't "prove" that there isn't anything that is nonphysical, if the idea simply makes zero sense, that's close enough.
|
|