Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 17:45:35 GMT
Maybe the way you read it? All I am promoting is continuing to learn, instead of relying on myths and guesses, like religions. You said I don't care if it is a fad nowadays to say things in that fashion, but to me personally that comes off as a bit ass holish
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 28, 2017 17:49:29 GMT
Maybe the way you read it? All I am promoting is continuing to learn, instead of relying on myths and guesses, like religions. You said I don't care if it is a fad nowadays to say things in that fashion, but to me personally that comes off as a bit ass holish Ok, well I didn't mean any offensive, but the point remains, you saying we'll learn more in 300 years, is a given. I mean so what? That doesn't justify making up stuff along the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 17:53:48 GMT
You said I don't care if it is a fad nowadays to say things in that fashion, but to me personally that comes off as a bit ass holish Ok, well I didn't mean any offensive, but the point remains, you saying we'll learn more in 300 years, is a given. I mean so what? That doesn't justify making up stuff along the way. Ok you are a good person. I understand your reasoning and i appreciate your input here.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 28, 2017 17:55:54 GMT
Ok, well I didn't mean any offensive, but the point remains, you saying we'll learn more in 300 years, is a given. I mean so what? That doesn't justify making up stuff along the way. Ok you are a good person. I understand your reasoning and i appreciate your input here. Well met. I know there is a lot of angst sometimes in these types of boards, mostly because it is not in a face to face situation, but I do try to be cordial but firm. Definitely not just trying to get a reaction or anything, but I will say when something is just pure nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 28, 2017 18:01:11 GMT
THE CONVERSATION WAS NEVER ABOUT GOD... MORON. I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD.. DOUBLE MORON. THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT THE PRIMARY DEFINITION.. TRIPLE FCKING MORON. EDIT: Okay.. Show in the Mirriam Dictionary that you used... and I showed in full.. in this thread, how "no evidence" is the primary and all-consuming definition of "faith"... We'll wait. This entire topic was about what religious beliefs like god look like.
Did you miss that part?
FCKING MORON!! IT WAS MY THREAD. MY OP... I SPECIFICALLY SAID IN MY OP THAT IT WASN'T ABOUT RELIGION.. BUT ABOUT FAITH, IN THE BROAD SENSE OF THE WORD. Btw.. Still waiting... Tic Toc, motherfcker.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 28, 2017 20:39:00 GMT
This entire topic was about what religious beliefs like god look like.
Did you miss that part?
FCKING MORON!! IT WAS MY THREAD. MY OP... I SPECIFICALLY SAID IN MY OP THAT IT WASN'T ABOUT RELIGION.. BUT ABOUT FAITH, IN THE BROAD SENSE OF THE WORD. This is my thread. And why are you so upset?
You provided the definition of faith as having no evidence previously. You are trying to claim the first definition, but that's not the one you're using.
Anyway, you don't seem particularly interested in a productive conversation, so I'll leave you alone.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 28, 2017 20:40:17 GMT
This entire topic was about what religious beliefs like god look like.
Did you miss that part?
FCKING MORON!! IT WAS MY THREAD. MY OP... I SPECIFICALLY SAID IN MY OP THAT IT WASN'T ABOUT RELIGION.. BUT ABOUT FAITH, IN THE BROAD SENSE OF THE WORD. This is my thread. And why are you so upset?
You provided the definition of faith as having no evidence previously. You are trying to claim the first definition, but that's not the one you're using.
Anyway, you don't seem particularly interested in a productive conversation, so I'll leave you alone.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 28, 2017 22:01:37 GMT
And we are not actually talking about this thread.... Do you just not have the ability to follow a conversation? I'm not upset... You do not have the ability to read emotions.
You can use any excuse you want to run away. Don't let the door hit you in the tail that's between your legs.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 28, 2017 22:28:23 GMT
Try seriously imagining for a few moments that we were discussing reality. I told you I was actively looking for the oracle from the Matrix, because I could just feel that we were in a simulation. I'd seen too many instances of deja vu for it all to be just coincidence. I'd even tell you many stories about those instance and ask you if you seriously thought it was all coincidence, which to you would just sound confusing. Afterall how do you answer such a meaningless question? But I go on to tell you the machine listen through the phones, and that they can possess our bodies and speak through us. I once was possessed by an agent of the system and have vague memories of hopping over building chasing the saviors in black coats. But if I could only find the oracle, she could lead me to Zion. That is the place of freedom, but you have to truly believe for her to accept you. It's better to believe than to not believe just in case I'm right, I mean after all, what if you're wrong?
Really put yourself into the idea of a person telling you all that, and being serious about it. They live their lives as though that were true.
I'm not going to sugar coat it. Your religion sounds that insane to anybody standing outside of your bubble. Please step outside your bubble. Nah - most religions began as an exploration of what came before, of beginnings, of how we got here, of what comes after. The above is not generally how those systems of belief looks to me at all.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 4:33:06 GMT
Nah - most religions began as an exploration of what came before, of beginnings, of how we got here, of what comes after. The above is not generally how those systems of belief looks to me at all. No, you're missing the point.
It's not that the matrix explains origins or an afterlife, but rather that it's just as believable and has just as little evidence supporting it.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 1, 2017 7:10:15 GMT
Really put yourself into the idea of a person telling you all that, and being serious about it. They live their lives as though that were true. So?
I'm not going to sugar coat it. Your religion sounds that insane to anybody standing outside of your bubble. Please step outside your bubble. Why? If people enjoy living in a bubble, let them. As long as they don't force anyone to take red pills, I don't see a problem. Maybe some people would have taken the blue pill.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 7:12:23 GMT
Really put yourself into the idea of a person telling you all that, and being serious about it. They live their lives as though that were true. So?
I'm not going to sugar coat it. Your religion sounds that insane to anybody standing outside of your bubble. Please step outside your bubble. Why? If people enjoy living in a bubble, let them. As long as they don't force anyone to take red pills, I don't see a problem. Maybe some people would have taken the blue pill. You don't see a problem with being delusional? Does it really need to be explained why that's an issue?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 1, 2017 7:55:52 GMT
You don't see a problem with being delusional? Does it really need to be explained why that's an issue?You can try to explain it, if you can, which I doubt. In fact, you come across as someone who wants to force red pills on others.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 7:59:17 GMT
You can try to explain it, if you can, which I doubt. In fact, you come across as someone who wants to force red pills on others. Being delusional is a problem, because people act on what they believe. And if your beliefs don't match reality, you are going to act in irrational ways that are not in accordance with reality. Things like denying evolution. Or thinking homeopathy works. Or thinking prayer works. Or blowing up buildings because god told you to. Or swallowing red pills. Those types of things.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 1, 2017 8:02:19 GMT
Nah - most religions began as an exploration of what came before, of beginnings, of how we got here, of what comes after. The above is not generally how those systems of belief looks to me at all. No, you're missing the point.
It's not that the matrix explains origins or an afterlife, but rather that it's just as believable and has just as little evidence supporting it.
Oh, come now - the one is confessed concoction, the other a sincerely meant yet fantastic claim at the very least couched in recorded history, archaeological remains and anthropology. Heaven forbid we stray from the rational, Spock. People hold oddball beliefs that "don't match reality" in every sphere of existence. Yours is an unnecessary and forced (as well as impotent) role as "reality police". It comes off a little self-aggrandizing.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 8:12:24 GMT
Try seriously imagining for a few moments that we were discussing reality. I told you I was actively looking for the oracle from the Matrix, because I could just feel that we were in a simulation. I'd seen too many instances of deja vu for it all to be just coincidence. I'd even tell you many stories about those instance and ask you if you seriously thought it was all coincidence, which to you would just sound confusing. Afterall how do you answer such a meaningless question? But I go on to tell you the machine listen through the phones, and that they can possess our bodies and speak through us. I once was possessed by an agent of the system and have vague memories of hopping over building chasing the saviors in black coats. But if I could only find the oracle, she could lead me to Zion. That is the place of freedom, but you have to truly believe for her to accept you. It's better to believe than to not believe just in case I'm right, I mean after all, what if you're wrong?
Really put yourself into the idea of a person telling you all that, and being serious about it. They live their lives as though that were true.
I'm not going to sugar coat it. Your religion sounds that insane to anybody standing outside of your bubble. Please step outside your bubble. Flawed premise: Elon Musk did. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.htmlIn what way is it flawed?
It's a simple analogy showing you can't draw conclusions without sufficient evidence. That's it.
There is nothing flawed about that.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 8:37:17 GMT
Elon Musk, and others (scientists) have said it and are serious about it. Your OP presumes this not to be the case. It's flawed analogy based on a flawed premise, namely that it is subject to ridicule if it were discussed. Should Elon Musk step out of his bubble? Further, you don't understand the movie you're referencing. In the original Matrix, Neo was offered a red pill or a blue pill. No faith was required, just a choice. Once he chose, he was disconnected from the Matrix and true reality was revealed to him. It was not a matter of faith (as you say), it was a matter of choosing. Ok, I'm not making the analogy you think I am. We all know the matrix was real for the fictional character, but what I've asked is for you to consider somebody trying to convince you it's real here and now, for us. And the point is you have no reason to accept that as true for the simple reason that there isn't sufficient evidence. So without sufficient evidence, why are you accepting a god as true?
The Elon Musk thing doesn't invalidate this analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 1, 2017 8:37:46 GMT
Your analogy is missing the guts of religion: the nature of pre-existence, creation and post-existence. Speculation on the unknowable, on questions that beg to be asked but can't really be answered.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 4:06:56 GMT
Of course, it does. I don't have to imagine it because serious people already discuss living in a computer simulation. These people are being taken seriously. Further, you seemed to revert back to demanding evidence for the existence of God. Your threads are redundant. You need to think this out more thoroughly and decide what evidence is required for you to be satisfied. My suspicion is that no evidence will satisfy you. You see, God's existence is not dependent on your belief. And faith is not required either. Of course they are, because there is more evidence of a simulation than a god, and yet you'll notice nobody has claimed the simulation idea is true.
Alarm bells should be going off for you.
You need to think this out more thoroughly and realize that evidence isn't something you predict. My prediction is that you'll continue not to provide any information in your posts.
Further I agree god's existence isn't dependent on belief. And faith isn't a way of ascertaining knowledge, so nothing requires that either. However if you're claiming it is true, it does require evidence. What evidence led you to the conclusion it was true?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 6:42:15 GMT
Of course people believe we're in a computer simulation. You're not understanding the puzzle you've built for yourself. You say you have no conception of what the evidence of God is or would be, so you have no way of comprehending that evidence or accepting it when you do see it. Your preconceived (incorrect) notions about God's existence subvert your ability to comprehend or accept God's existence. You could have evidence of God right in front of you NOW, but by your own comments you wouldn't and couldn't accept it. You're being obtuse intentionally. There isn't a puzzle. I'm well aware of what I've said.
I'll make it simple for you, since you seem to be deeply confused.
If you claim a god exists, you need to demonstrate that.
The end.
|
|