Can anyone think of any good reasons to believe there is no God? [Archive]

BrokeProphet

2008-11-02, 02:31

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that when you vote, you vote for candidates and policies that make sense, and not what some poorly edited ancient text dictates you do.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that when you make a choice in your life, you are free from the mental baggage of a primitive society, who were so dumb they learned the hard way eating your own feces will kill you.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that your mind is free from fanciful childhood nonsense, and you can grow as a person.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that you are not in danger of drinking the Kool-Aid.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is that you can keep 10% more of your income and be guilt free.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is that you will be more prone to live life to the fullest, believing that there is no returning to this earth, there is no eternal paradise, basically there is not life after death, so make the most of it.

A good reason to believe there is not God, because it is ultimately a waste of time, energy and brain cells to contemplate God, his musing, his doings, where you fit in, etc.

I can keep going...

How much did you respond in my thread, about good reasons to believe in God?

Thats right, you just mumbled your catch phrase, shit your diaper, and after several of your mental superiors showed up, you stuck your tail between your legs and disapeared for a few weeks, most likely to shit on another thread somewhere.

Now run along little doggy.

53v3N

2008-11-02, 03:36

No one can prove or disprove God (although the burden of proof lies on the believers) So let's all be agnostic.

Real.PUA

2008-11-02, 05:05

Because it is irrational and has negative consequences for humanity.

KikoSanchez

2008-11-02, 06:39

That's like saying that because no one has proven that you're going to win the lottery, you shouldn't play.

Hmm, probably because you can't prove something that hasn't happened yet :/ More importantly, you shouldn't play the lottery, because it is for the mathematically inclined. A tax on mathematical retards.

Obbe

2008-11-06, 18:19

I know what your point is. That point of yours failed miserably since you've yet to refute my argument. Your response regarding my argument (i.e. "anything could be evidence of god") is meaningless blather since we can say the opposite just as easily.

The only thing you managed to point out in this thread is that people can say ridiculous and unsubstantiated things (i.e "anything could be evidence of god"). Congratulations.

You reason you should not believe in God because you see no evidence for God. Are you sure that you see no evidence for God? Are you sure that the things you can see are not that missing evidence? Are you sure these things have a logical reason for existing?

If you are sure of that then it shouldn't be hard for you to tell me how. Until you do I see no reason to believe there is no God. Just reasons to believe I do not know.

Obbe

2008-11-06, 18:31

It's trivially easy for me to modify the analogy to say "That's as good a reason as peering inside a box and not seeing evidence of anything other than air is a good reason to believe the box is empty of anything other than air"

That or I could be just ad childish as you and remind you that since I never said where the box was in this analogy you don't know if there is air to begin with.

I could just ask where the box came from, or why it exists.

You can tell me "there is no reason" or "it came from nothing", but that doesn't make any sense and you haven't given me any reasons to believe that.

We pretty much universally see a complete lack of evidence as a good reason to believe something doesn't exist, as the box analogy shows.

I am not looking into reality and existence to try and 'see' God like you might in your box. I am looking at reality and existence (in your case, the box itself) and asking "why".

There may exist some reason for the box to exist, but I cannot see it. Would you believe there is no reason at all? That nothing caused the box to exist?

That is illogical.

Obbe

2008-11-06, 18:45

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that when you vote, you vote for candidates and policies that make sense, and not what some poorly edited ancient text dictates you do.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that when you make a choice in your life, you are free from the mental baggage of a primitive society, who were so dumb they learned the hard way eating your own feces will kill you.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that your mind is free from fanciful childhood nonsense, and you can grow as a person.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is so that you are not in danger of drinking the Kool-Aid.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is that you can keep 10% more of your income and be guilt free.

A good reason to believe there is no God, is that you will be more prone to live life to the fullest, believing that there is no returning to this earth, there is no eternal paradise, basically there is not life after death, so make the most of it.

All this can be done while believing in God. Believing that there is no God is not required to do those things.

A good reason to believe there is not God, because it is ultimately a waste of time, energy and brain cells to contemplate God, his musing, his doings, where you fit in, etc.

I can keep going...

Thats very much subjective. Believing in God does not require me to waste time and there are many ways to waste time while believing there is no God as well.

How much did you respond in my thread, about good reasons to believe in God?

Thats right, you just mumbled your catch phrase, shit your diaper, and after several of your mental superiors showed up, you stuck your tail between your legs and disapeared for a few weeks, most likely to shit on another thread somewhere.

Now run along little doggy.

Actually, you dishonest liar, I made one reply (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10628409&postcount=59) to your thread before making this one. I didn't bring my opinions to your thread at all.

Just so you know, I think believing in God is just as illogical as not.

Obbe

2008-11-06, 18:50

(although the burden of proof lies on the believers)

Yes, if a person believes there is no God that person is just as burdened to prove their claim as those who believe God exists.

That is, if the person thinks it really important that other people agree with them.

Obbe

2008-11-06, 19:00

Because it is irrational and has negative consequences for humanity.

I half agree. Believing that there is no God or no ultimate cause or no reason for existence, is irrational, yes.

However do not believe that it would necessarily have negative consequences for humanity.

I also do not see how being irrational, or having potentially negative consequences for humanity, is a "good reason" for believing there is no God.

:D;)

Wait, you were saying that believing in God is irrational and has negative consequences, weren't you?

Then my response basically stays the same. How is believing there is no God less irrational then believing God exists?

Rust

2008-11-06, 23:12

You reason you should not believe in God because you see no evidence for God. Are you sure that you see no evidence for God? Are you sure that the things you can see are not that missing evidence? Are you sure these things have a logical reason for existing?

If you are sure of that then it shouldn't be hard for you to tell me how. Until you do I see no reason to believe there is no God. Just reasons to believe I do not know.

Again you keep ignoring that the exact same argument can be made of the box, yet the vast majority of people see a lack of evidence as a good reason to believe something does not exist, as the box analogy shows.

I can ask the same questions of a man peering into the box yet you know full well human beings would conclude there is nothing in it.

Not to mention that we can ask you the oppossite questions (i.e. You reason you should not believe god doesn't exist based on there being no evidence. Are you sure that non-existence hasn't been proven"... etc.)

I could just ask where the box came from, or why it exists.

You can tell me "there is no reason" or "it came from nothing", but that doesn't make any sense and you haven't given me any reasons to believe that.

I don't have to tell you either of those ridiculous responses nor would I have to answer your question. Do you know there is air? No. Therefore you could not claim what you did. You know there are places in this world where there is no air, right?

That being said, in case you didn't notice, the important point is not whether we can determine if air is there or not since I can make that point irrelevant through a trivial tweak of my analogy. Your response (i.e. "there is air inside it") therefore, is worthless.

[I would also like you point out your continued dishonesty in all your discussion on totse: you claim there is no objective logic or reason in other threads only to claim here, as a matter of fact, that "[X] wouldn't make any sense"]

I am not looking into reality and existence to try and 'see' God like you might in your box. I am looking at reality and existence (in your case, the box itself) and asking "why".

There may exist some reason for the box to exist, but I cannot see it. Would you believe there is no reason at all? That nothing caused the box to exist?

That is illogical.No, you're trying to change the analogy because it fulfilled your request successfully.

You asked for a good reason to believe there is no god. I gave you the example of a box where the vast majority of people that look into it and see no evidence of anything would see that as a good reason to believe that the box is empty. Thus I've answered your question: not only did I give you a good reason, I also provided you a practical every-day application of that reasoning in real life: the box. We observe the box, see no evidence for the existence of something inside it, thus we believe it is empty.

Vanhalla

2008-11-07, 00:12

Thus I've answered your question: not only did I give you a good reason, I also provided you a practical every-day application of that reasoning in real life: the box. We observe the box, see no evidence for the existence of something inside it, thus we believe it is empty.

Why must there be something in the box?
Why is there a box in the first place?
What is the true nature of the box?

"Can anyone think of any good reasons to believe there is no God?"

Nope.

Rust

2008-11-07, 00:24

Those questions are utterly meaningless given the original question. Does the original question depend on "god necessarily existing"? No. Does the original question require that we answer why there is a god in the first place? No. Does the original question require that we answer what the true nature of god is? No.

The question/request is to give a good reason to believe there is no god. I've already given one: Just as we consider it a good reason to believe that the box is empty given the lack of evidence, so would it be a good reason to believe there is no god given the lack of evidence.

If you want to change the question now that you've seen that it has been answered successfully, just say so. But please spare me the bullshit.

Obbe

2008-11-07, 04:35

You asked for a good reason to believe there is no god. I gave you the example of a box where the vast majority of people that look into it and see no evidence of anything would see that as a good reason to believe that the box is empty. Thus I've answered your question: not only did I give you a good reason, I also provided you a practical every-day application of that reasoning in real life: the box. We observe the box, see no evidence for the existence of something inside it, thus we believe it is empty.

It's fine if you have decided thats a good reason; it's just not a good reason to me.

The problem I have with this box analogy is that I am not looking throughout reality (inside this box) for things I cannot see. I am asking what is the reason for the reality which I do see (the box itself) to exist. I can either believe X is the reason the box exists, or I can believe there is no reason for the box to exist. Both are illogical.

Where you would look around and see nothing indicating any reason to believe in God, I would look and see only reasons for believing in God. This is illogical, but so is believing that everything in existence has no cause (or that there is no God).

Obbe

2008-11-07, 04:42

Just as we consider it a good reason to believe that the box is empty given the lack of evidence, so would it be a good reason to believe there is no god given the lack of evidence.

How good a reason this is depends on what you consider a lack of evidence.

Some people might consider a things existence reason enough to believe something caused that things existence. Some people might consider reality itself to be that "thing".

Vanhalla

2008-11-07, 05:09

Those questions are utterly meaningless given the original question. Does the original question depend on "god necessarily existing"?

"Why must there be something in the box?"
Blank is another definition for God.
Why assume something must be in the blank?
[Just ignore this one and focus on the others]

Does the original question require that we answer why there is a god in the first place?
"Why is there a box in the first place?"

I thought the box represented the universe (the small portion that we can perceive).

If the box is God, as you suggested, do you expect part of Him to jump out like a jack in the box toy when you look inside? Have you ever looked inside?

Does the original question require that we answer what the true nature of god [box/universe] is? No.
Well if you want to think of a "good reason" then yes, in my opinion it does.

The question/request is to give a good reason to believe there is no god.
You’ve given a reason, whether it is a good one or not is entirely subjective.

I've already given one: Just as we consider it a good reason to believe that the box is empty given the lack of evidence, so would it be a good reason to believe there is no god given the lack of evidence.
It sure is easy to say that when you decline to address important questions about the Cosmos that you deem meaningless.
I am far less certain in the claim of a Godless universe (I’m not even sure what that means, do you know what that means?) under consideration of the BIG questions.

Rust

2008-11-07, 13:34

It's fine if you have decided thats a good reason; it's just not a good reason to me.

Alas, the crux of the situation comes forward: You've yet to give us your criteria for determining a "good" reason, and thus you've effectively made this question unanswerable. So where when you going to gives us the criteria? Were you waiting for when someone utterly refuted your nonsense to suddenly flee to the realms of subjectivity? Did more than a week after the fact seem like the right time to tell
us what would be a good reason for you, instead of, I don't know... the beginning of the fucking thread?

Seems to me you the whole point of this thread wasn't a search for answers but an attempt to bait people into responding only to shoot down their ideas no matter what; this would explain quite nicely why you conveniently left out your criteria for determining a "good" reason.

But hey, let's work within the confines of your dishonesty:

Please explain to me why the reason I gave fails to be a good reason and why we should ignore the reasoning human beings employ everyday (i.e. they look inside a box, see no evidence for the existence of something and conclude that's a good reason to believe the box is empty). It seems to me that if we're going to determine what's a "good" reason, then what human beings do in a daily basis is a pretty good starting point. If not - if you are suggesting we should ignore the reasoning human beings employ in their every-day lives and should focus
only on buckling to your whim - then excuse me while I don't give a flying fuck about your meaningless opinion.

The problem I have with this box analogy is that I am not looking throughout reality (inside this box) for things I cannot see.

Neither am I. I'm looking for evidence, which, pretty much by definition, is looking at things that have an effect in reality (that affect the inside of the box).

Could there be things that exist in the box that don't affect reality? Sure. Yet that doesn't refute anything since I don't have a burden to provide proof of non-existence, but simply "good reason". People use this line of reasoning I'm giving in their everyday life: They look inside a box, see no evidence, and beleive it's empty. They look both ways before crossing the street, see no cars and believe it's safe to cross. They look inside a glass, see no water and believe it's dry.
This is reasoning used by pretty much all humans, (including you since I'm willing to bet you leave your soplisism at the door the moment you leave your house).

I am asking what is the reason for the reality which I do see (the box itself) to exist.

Which still doesn't answer whether a god exists or not, and whether it's a good/bad reason to believe one does.

This is illogical, but so is believing that everything in existence has no cause (or that there is no God).

Those things are illogical? Then by all means show us which rules of inference that breaks. Logicians everywhere would rejoice at your feat since this would mean we could prove that there is a god by the method of contradiction. Go ahead.

[ Again I point out how you've claimed there is no objective logic before, and thus that you cannot possibly say that something is illogical without contradicting yourself]

P.S. Before you complain about my deemining languange/tone, please note that if you don't see anything wrong with engagining in dishonest behavior, then I don't see anything wrong with doing away the the bullshit facade of niceities.

Rust

2008-11-07, 13:37

"Why is there a box in the first place?"
I thought the box represented the universe (the small portion that we can perceive). If the box is God, as you suggested, do you expect part of Him to jump out like a jack in the box toy when you look inside? Have you ever
looked inside?

It did represent the universe; I made a mistake while making the question: I focused on the first question which did talk about the inside of the box. That being said, Obbe's question still does not require us to answer either version of your question.

Well if you want to think of a "good reason" then yes, in my opinion it does.

Your opinion is unimportant here. You neither made the initial question nor get to determine for us what a "good reason" is if you claim it's subjective.

You've given a reason, whether it is a good one or not is entirely subjective.

If that is the case - and given Obbe's most recent response it appears that it is - then this doesn't help Obbe's point.

It sure is easy to say that when you decline to address important questions about the Cosmos that you deem meaningless. I am far less certain in the claim of a Godless universe (I’m not even sure what that means, do you know what that means?) under consideration of the BIG questions.

I don't deem the meaningless, they are meaningless by design; that is, they are unnecessary when concerning the initial question. I don't need to answer any of your questions in order to answer the initial one. Just like I don't need to answer what the capital of Puerto Rico is to determine what 2+2 equals, so do I not need to answer, for example, why the universe exists in order to answer what would be a good reason (note that the burden isn't "proof" of no god, but merely a good reason) to believe there is no god.

Rust

2008-11-07, 15:29

Oh, and Obbe, here's you utilizing my exact reasoning elsewhere:

"There is no reason to believe the bible is any more accurate then anything else."

-- Post # 12 of this thread:

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2168271

You look at all the evidence available for the accuracy of the Bible, see none and then take the position that that is a good reason to believe the bible isn't any more accurate than anything else.

Why do you suddenly fail to apply that reasoning here?

Obbe

2008-11-07, 16:06

Alas, the crux of the situation comes forward: You've yet to give us your criteria for determining a "good" reason, and thus you've effectively made this question unanswerable. So where when you going to gives us the criteria? Were you waiting for when someone utterly refuted your nonsense to suddenly flee to the realms of subjectivity? Did more than a week after the fact seem like the right time to tell
us what would be a good reason for you, instead of, I don't know... the beginning of the fucking thread?

Seems to me you the whole point of this thread wasn't a search for answers but an attempt to bait people into responding only to shoot down their ideas no matter what; this would explain quite nicely why you conveniently left out your criteria for determining a "good" reason.

I already told you what the point of this thread was. Yes, I believe "good" is entirely subjective.

I don't think that makes this unanswerable. For example, you see nothing which indicates the existence of God, you do not believe in God.

But hey, let's work within the confines of your dishonesty:

Please explain to me why the reason I gave fails to be a good reason and why we should ignore the reasoning human beings employ everyday (i.e. they look inside a box, see no evidence for the existence of something and conclude that's a good reason to believe the box is empty). It seems to me that if we're going to determine what's a "good" reason, then what human beings do in a daily basis is a pretty good starting point. If not - if you are suggesting we should ignore the reasoning human beings employ in their every-day lives and should focus
only on buckling to your whim - then excuse me while I don't give a flying fuck about your meaningless opinion.

I think your reasoning is not good to me because:

1. God is not something inside this box. God is the reason for this box to exist.

2. When no reason can be found, I see two options. I can either believe X is the reason the box exists, or I can believe there is no reason for the box to exist. However since I have no reasons to believe in X (be it this God or that, or some other explanation) to believe in X is illogical. But so is to believe that nothing caused the box to exist.

3.I think my reasoning is pretty everyday reasoning too. I see something, and I can reason this something came from something else. Something caused it to be that way, whether it was another person or the wind, or the forces like gravity. When I apply this reasoning to, lets say, existence then it would be reasonable to believe something caused existence (God, for example).

Neither am I. I'm looking for evidence, which, pretty much by definition, is looking at things that have an effect in reality (that affect the inside of the box).

Is "existing" not an effect?

Could there be things that exist in the box that don't affect reality? Sure. Yet that doesn't refute anything since I don't have a burden to provide proof of non-existence, but simply "good reason". People use this line of reasoning I'm giving in their everyday life: They look inside a box, see no evidence, and beleive it's empty. They look both ways before crossing the street, see no cars and believe it's safe to cross. They look inside a glass, see no water and believe it's dry.
This is reasoning used by pretty much all humans, (including you since I'm willing to bet you leave your soplisism at the door the moment you leave your house).

And all these things they do see, do they know the reason behind it all? Do they know what the initial cause of everything was? Since all these things exist, it would be reasonable to think that something caused it all.

Which still doesn't answer whether a god exists or not, and whether it's a good/bad reason to believe one does.

No, but neither does looking around assuming there is no reason any of this exists.

Those things are illogical? Then by all means show us which rules of inference that breaks. Logicians everywhere would rejoice at your feat since this would mean we could prove that there is a god by the method of contradiction. Go ahead.

Again I point out how you've claimed there is no objective logic before, and thus that you cannot possibly say that something is illogical without contradicting yourself

The way I understand it, logic is like order and reason, while illogical things are like chaotic and without reason. I say that there is no objective logic because I believe logic is completely subjective and that in truth there is no order at all.

Believing in God is illogical because there are no reasons to. Believing there is no God (or no reason for existence) is illogical because things appear to exist and logic would have us believe there is a reason.

Finally, I don't take the same position here as I do with the Bible, because when I look around myself I see the exact opposite of what you see. Instead of seeing no reasons to believe in God, I see only reasons. I see reality, existence. I believe these things are caused by the illogical, chaotic infinite (or God).

Vanhalla

2008-11-07, 17:58

If there is a good reason to not believe in God, there is a good reason to believe the exact opposite. For example, the box exists, and then there is our idea of the box.

Rust

2008-11-07, 21:44

I don't think that makes this unanswerable. For example, you see nothing which indicates the existence of God, you do not believe in God.

How the hell does that fulfill your request if we can't determine if it's true or not?

The fact, which you avoided (and it doesn't surprise me because it exposes your dishonesty), remains that you did not give us any criteria that would allow us to fulfill your request and mentioned that it was "Subjective" only when your point was utterly refuted.

As for "the point of the thread", you've already refuted that yourself.

You said:

"No point? My point is not to show reason to believe in the existence of God.

Just that we do not know. To believe either way, in Gods existence or nonexistence is without reason."

Which is contradicted by:

"It's fine if you have decided thats a good reason; it's just not a good reason to me."

It's not without reason since you've already conceded that my argument is a reason!

I think your reasoning is not good to me because:

1. God is not something inside this box. God is the reason for this box to exist.

2. When no reason can be found, I see two options. I can either believe X is the reason the box exists, or I can believe there is no reason for the box to exist. However since I have no reasons to believe in X (be it this God or that, or some other explanation) to believe in X is illogical. But so is to believe that nothing caused the box to exist.

3.I think my reasoning is pretty everyday reasoning too. I see something, and I can reason this something came from something else. Something caused it to be that way, whether it was another person or the wind, or the forces like gravity. When I apply this reasoning to, lets say, existence then it would be reasonable to believe something caused existence (God, for example).1. Whether he's the reason for the box to exist or not is irrelevant because they both lack any evidence and thus the analogy continues to work: We observe no evidence, therefore conclude that is good enough reason not to believe.

2. You continue to claim that it is illogical all the while you maintain there is no objective logic and you fail miserably at showing us what rule of logic it breaks!

You can claim it's illogical all you want, until you show what rules of inference it breaks it's still baseless bullshit.

3. Again, irrelevant. See point number 1. We do not see any evidence for any the box or that which made the box possible.

Is "existing" not an effect? How is that question even relevant? The point, which the question doesn't deal with, is the complete lack of evidence for an effect. If it is an effect, then all the more reason we should expect evidence!

And all these things they do see, do they know the reason behind it all? Do they know what the initial cause of everything was? Since all these things exist, it would be reasonable to think that something caused it all.

Which, again, doesn't refute my point in the least because the fact remains that we have no evidence of either the cars coming along the road or the car manufacturing plant that would have "caused" the cars we don't observe down the street to be coming

No, but neither does looking around assuming there is no reason any of this exists.
It answers it in a manner that is equally good to how looking both ways before you cross the street answers if a car is coming: Such a good way, in fact, that this line of reasoning is followed by pretty much all humans - barring a handful of contrarian douchebags that don't want to accept the unavoidable conclusion to their failing arguments... of course.

The way I understand it, logic is like order and reason, while illogical things are like chaotic and without reason. I say that there is no objective logic because I believe logic is completely subjective and that in truth there is no order at all.

1. "The way you understand it" is meaningless. I can say "The way I understand mathematics, 2 + 2 = 10232.43535" yet that wouldn't make it any less wrong. Logic is a set of rules. You claim it's illogical, and thus you're claiming it has broken one of those rules. Which is it?

2. If there is no objective logic, you cannot claim as a matter of fact that it is illogical.

Finally, I don't take the same position here as I do with the Bible, because when I look around myself I see the exact opposite of what you see. Instead of seeing no reasons to believe in God, I see only reasons. I see reality, existence. I believe these things are caused by the illogical, chaotic infinite (or God).Which, again, can be said of the opposite argument! You've refuted your argument regarding the bible: By your own ridiculous logic it would be good reasoning to conclude that the Bible is more accurate than anything else because a person "sees only reasons to believe that it is more accurate".

This ridiculous position of yours would negate any possible discussion. You claim X, I claim "there is no good reason for believing X".

--
In the end: The reasoning I have provided is used by you every day. You conveniently choosing not to apply it here because you don't like the conclusion only shows your dishonesty.

Rust

2008-11-07, 21:47

If there is a good reason to not believe in God, there is a good reason to believe the exact opposite. For example, the box exists, and then there is our idea of the box.

"whether it is a good one or not is entirely subjective"

Try not to contradict yourself, please.

If it's subjective then you cannot claim that there must be a good reason to believe the exact opposite, precisely because subjective means you cannot reach an objective conclusion.

Not to mention that if what you said were true, it would make the thread all the more useless.

BrokeProphet

2008-11-07, 23:25

"Can anyone think of any good reasons to believe there is no God?"

There exists absolutely no evidence for God.

That IS a good reason.

That reason is good enough for most humans to dismiss most of the things that our imagination can concieve, that IF we put true belief in, would cripple us in our daily lives.

For example, if I gave to you the meme that a leg eating monster lives under your bed and if you get out of it, it will eat your leg, and you TRULY believed it, the way you believe putting a loaded pistol to your head and pulling the trigger would kill you, how long would you lay in your own offal before the need to drink and eat overcame your belief?

If I tell you that a leg eating monster lives under your bed, you look under there, see nothing, and even when you dangle your leg over the edge, you still have a leg, how long would it be before you completely dismissed this notion that completely lacks evidence? How long before you stopped even considering the possibility?

This is just one simple idea the human imagination can conjure that lacks any evidence that IF you were to put stock in, would most likely have a rather detrimental effect on your daily life.

Hence a good reason not to believe every bit of bullshit you read, or hear that completely lacks evidence.

There exists absolutely no evidence for God.

That IS a good reason for a multitude of other evidence lacking phenomenon, so if you are going to assert it is not a good reason, you will have to justify this obvious exception for God.

Vanhalla

2008-11-07, 23:49

If it's subjective then you cannot claim that there must be a good reason to believe the exact opposite, precisely because subjective means you cannot reach an objective conclusion.

If it is subjective then you can claim that there is a good reason to believe the exact opposite, precisely because "good" and "bad" are subjective and you cannot reach an objective conclusion for your "good" reason.

Rust

2008-11-08, 00:00

Apparently, you didn't understand me. Of course someone could claim a good reason for the opposite. Except you didn't speak of possibility, you spoke of inevitability:

"If Q then P". It being subjective means you cannot say it will necessarily be the case; since they are subjective they depend on the person, and thus must not necessarily fall one way or the other.

However all those trivialities aside:

Sending this to the realm of subjectivity in this manner is all the more reason why this thread reeks of Obbe setting this up in way way were he could escape any unwanted conclusions.

Vanhalla

2008-11-08, 00:12

Apparently, you didn't understand me. Of course someone could claim a good reason for the opposite. Except you didn't speak of possibility, you spoke of inevitability:

"If Q then P". It being subjective means you cannot say it will necessarily be the case; since they are subjective they depend on the person, and thus must not necessarily fall one way or the other.

Is there not evidence that shows that people will claim good reasons for believing / not believing in God, and many things in between?

Maybe I still don't understand what you are saying.

Rust

2008-11-08, 01:02

Maybe I still don't understand what you are saying.

You don't.

It being subjective means that it to know what people will believe since they don't have to believe one particular thing!

For example, you cannot say that someone will love the taste of dog shit. You can say someone might, or that someone does - if you know such a person - but you cannot say someone will because it could actually turn out that even though that's an opinion nobody has it.

But again, this is trivial meaningless commentary of mine in response to your own trivial meaningless bullshit. The important point is how this thread itself is meaningless bullshit - much like this current discussion.

Vanhalla

2008-11-08, 03:18

For example, you cannot say that someone will love the taste of dog shit. You can say someone might, or that someone does - if you know such a person - but you cannot say someone will because it could actually turn out that even though that's an opinion nobody has it.

Well, as we have seen in this thread, some people believe there is a "good" reason not to believe in God.
And as we have seen in the other thread, some people believe there is a "good" reason to believe in God.

So it turns out, these are subjective opinions people actually have.

Some people say they have seen no evidence for God, and that is a "good" reason not to believe.

While others do see evidence of God in everything.

Others believe they do not perceive enough of reality to make a coherent decision of the matter.

I've experienced all three types of those people, maybe they were lying, maybe I was dreaming, either way, I do believe they exist. And I believe they all have subjectively "good" reasons for their decisions.

But again, this is trivial meaningless commentary of mine in response to your own trivial meaningless bullshit. The important point is how this thread itself is meaningless bullshit - much like this current discussion.

Exactly

Rust

2008-11-08, 04:46

I'm glad we agree Obbe's thread sucks.

Obbe

2008-11-14, 18:19

Rust it doesn't matter if this thread is meaningless. It doesn't matter if one person thinks A is good reasoning and another person things B is good reasoning. Whatever anyone happens to think is good reasoning is actually illogical.

"Observing no evidence" may appear to be a good reason to believe that there is no God to someone such as yourself. Or to believe that there is no reason for existence, or no cause, or that existence came from nothing in other words. However, in the eyes of other people, their own existence and the existence of the world around them may appear to be good reason to believe in a cause or reason for this existence, or that this existence itself is evidence that it came from something. In the opinion of these people to believe that nothing is the cause of existence would be illogical. In the opinion of the other people, to believe existence was caused by something is illogical (there is no evidence, therefore believe existence is caused by nothing).

My desire to see order and reason in the world makes me want to believe in a cause to all this. But as far as I can reason, there is no cause at all. Maybe then, the "cause" of the logical and ordered and finite reality I observe and am included in is the illogical and chaotic infinite. There is no "reason" for all this, no logical God. Just God as the illogical and chaotic, the infinite. There is no order, the order is a guise. There is only the chaotic. You see it differently, but that doesn't matter.

Rust

2008-11-14, 20:17

Whatever anyone happens to think is good reasoning is actually illogical.

A statement you cannot say without there being good reasoning to begin with. You are being dishonest: You dismiss the existence of "reasoning" or "logic" when it's convinient to you and yet you make statements that require it.

However, in the eyes of other people, their own existence and the existence of the world around them may appear to be good reason to believe in a cause or reason for this existence, or that this existence itself is evidence that it came from something.

The difference being that the good reasoning I gave is a reasoning those very people you're talking abour right there use in their daily lives! They are being dishonest, much like you, when it comes to their religious views. Instead of consistently applying logic and reasoning, they apply it when it's convinient and then dishonestly ignore it when it utterly refutes their religious nonsense.

I don't do the oppossite. I don't think Santa Clause exists because of "the world around us" while also thinking lack of any evidence for god is a good reason to disbelieve. I am consistent: I believe lack of evidence is a good reason to both disbelieve in Santa Clause and disbelieve in god. It's preciesly this incosistency that you've yet to deal with. You gloss it over and repeat the fact that people believe differently when that was never in question. I know some other people view it differently. So? Some people believe 2+2 = 5. That doesn't make reality beholden to their stupidity or inconsistency in applying reason.

You see it differently, but that doesn't matter.

Yes, we've established that a long time ago: what we think doesn't matter. This thread was for you to dismiss all honest attempts at answering the question/request by fleeing to subjectivity and doing away with reason the moment it proved inconvenient to you. It's been weeks now and you've yet to give a way to answer the question or fullfill the request.

Next time you're going to waste my time with your fucking bullshit, at least have the courtesy to tell me beforehand. Have the courtesy to say "Hey Rust, you know this request I'm asking the readers of totse to fulfill? Well don't try because I'm not going to accept anything you say even if you provide me with a reasoning process that the vast majority of people agree with in their everyday lives; I'm still not going to accept it".

redzed

2008-11-15, 08:36

My desire to see order and reason in the world makes me want to believe in a cause to all this. But as far as I can reason, there is no cause at all. Maybe then, the "cause" of the logical and ordered and finite reality I observe and am included in is the illogical and chaotic infinite. There is no "reason" for all this, no logical God. Just God as the illogical and chaotic, the infinite. There is no order, the order is a guise. There is only the chaotic. You see it differently, but that doesn't matter.
I can think of reasons to believe there is no God? But that would depend on your definition of God and as it is somewhat nebulous it's difficult to say. You say reality is god as though one could actually form an objective view of reality, as that's not the case the question seems futile and impossible to answer, but hey you got 5 pages out of it so far;).

Even so I have the feeling that I agree with some of what you have to say, but that is of course meaningless:D so I'll simply state that IMO, because there cannot be nothing is sufficient reason for there to be something. Is there need for a first cause if something has always been existent?

Parmenides1
Come now and I will tell you – and you must spread my account when you have heard it – the only roads of enquiry to be thought of: the one of ‘is’, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the path of Conviction (for Truth is her companion); the other of ‘is not’, and that it needs not be – that, I tell you, is a path that is altogether indiscernible. For you could not know or utter what is not (for that is impossible).

Parmenides2
It is necessarily the case that saying and thinking are the reality. For being is and nothing is not. I bid you keep this in mind.

Parmenides3
For surely this shall never be proved, that things which are not are. Restrain your thought from this way of enquiry.

Parmenides4
Thinking and the thought of that which is are the same thing. For you cannot find thought without something that is, in respect of which it is uttered.

Parmenides5
It [i.e. the path] never was, nor will be, for it is now whole, one and continuous. For what kind of origin will you seek for it? How and from what source could it have grown? I shall not let you say or think from what is not. For what is not can be neither uttered nor thought. And what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner if it began from nothing? Therefore it must either be completely or not at all. Nor will the force of argument allow anything else to come to be ever from what is not. Therefore Justice has never loosened her fetters to allow anything to come to be or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgement concerning these things lies in this: it is or it is not. And it has been judged, as is necessary, to set aside the one [path] as unthought and unnamed (for it is no true path), and to take the other which is real and true. And how could what is be in the future? And how might it have come into being? For if it came into being, it is not, nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and passing away unheard of.

************************************************** ********************
Source: The argument, then, is sublime in its simplicity: only being is, since nonbeing cannot be. Being is therefore one: the collateral existence of nonbeing would have meant two, from which an infinitude of divisions would then have arisen. Now, since it is the same thing that can be thought and can be, any thought of that which is not will be impossible. For a thought of that which is not will be a thought of nothing, and hence not a thought at all. It follows, moreover, that sameness and difference can have no meaning, since it requires at least two for this to be possible, and that both time and change are illusory, since only ‘is’ is.

killallthewhiteman

2008-11-16, 13:11

Can anyone think of a good reason to believe there is no Tooth Fairy?

To answer your question, yes: We observe exactly what we would expect if there was no god.... no evidence for god.

Does that mean that he doesn't exist? No, but the point here is not proof that a god doesn't a exist, but a good reason to believe that he does not. That's as good a reason as peering inside a box and not seeing evidence of anything is a good reason to believe the box is empty.

indeed there is something in the box!

so like, apparently theres this thing called like, air?

which is like made up of like, matter.

yaa?

dont let your senses fool you

Rust

2008-11-16, 14:39

indeed there is something in the box!

so like, apparently theres this thing called like, air?

which is like made up of like, matter.

I already dealt with this idiotic objection. Read before you reply, please:

"
It's trivially easy for me to modify the analogy to say "That's as good a reason as peering inside a box and not seeing evidence of anything other than air is a good reason to believe the box is empty of anything other than air"

That or I could be just ad childish as you and remind you that since I never said where the box was in this analogy you don't know if there is air to begin with.

In the end the point, which this childish response of yours misses, stays the same: We pretty much universally see a complete lack of evidence as a good reason to believe something doesn't exist, as the box analogy shows. That does not mean it's proof that it doesn't exist - I admit that completely - but this thread isn't about "proof" , it's about "good reason" ."

CatharticWeek

2008-11-17, 02:10

Let me have a go at this:

Theories by our leading physicists are re-shaping the way we think about our Universe. If you were to believe, as espoused by Stephen hawking, that space-time is curved (imagine a sphere with what we'd call the beginning of time at the bottom tip [the "big bang" moment where all mass was as 1 draws time to a tip]) then asking what started the universe would be as senseless as asking "What is south of the south pole?". If you don't need to solve the problem of 'first cause' then I don't see any reason why you would believe in god.

EL Lee

2008-11-17, 05:23

Logic.

EL Lee

2008-11-17, 05:27

JesuitArtiste

2008-11-18, 15:08

If you don't need to solve the problem of 'first cause' then I don't see any reason why you would believe in god.

Proably a shit load of reasons.

Personally I think people have got far too caught up in the first cause, and seem to think that t is absolutely neccesary to God.

I kind of see the question as meaningless as you do, although maybe for differant reasons. I've always assumed God to kinda be infinte and boundless, and assuming god to be infinite and boundless asking where the 'First' cause is utterly meaningless because every moment would be effectively the same first moment to God.
Possibly.

If nothing else, it's a pretty cool thought to have all this infinte unbounded possibility for eternity... And if not, well, I'm not gonna care for much longer :D

Xandre

2008-12-09, 00:34

I'm just more comfortable with the idea that this isn't merely a test, designed to weed out the "bad souls", because that just isn't the way it should be.

BrokeProphet

2008-12-09, 01:35

I've always assumed God to kinda be infinte and boundless, and assuming god to be infinite and boundless asking where the 'First' cause is utterly meaningless because every moment would be effectively the same first moment to God.

So God is eternal?

Why not believe the Universe/matter/energy is eternal (assuming we need that first cause), considering we have actual evidence for both the Universe, matter, and energy?

How is this not superior, given the evidence we have right now?

Obbe

2008-12-09, 07:48

killallthewhiteman

2008-12-09, 08:27

I already dealt with this idiotic objection. Read before you reply, please:

"
It's trivially easy for me to modify the analogy to say "[I]That's as good a reason as peering inside a box and not seeing evidence of anything other than air is a good reason to believe the box is empty of anything other than air"

Your right i missed that; it was not intentional.

I would argue that people cannot detect their is air in the box; it would be human assumption that the box is empty, it is through science we can see air is there, not with our material senses. So essentially we need the tools to understand there is air in the box and be conscious of it.

P.S if you wish to enquire on these spiritual tools, i can help explain them but understand i am not a self-realized guru.

Spiritual knowledge is best understood by a guru.

P.S if you wish to enquire on these spiritual tools, i can help explain them but understand i am not a self-realized guru.

Spiritual knowledge is best understood by a guru so that is the best source of spiritual knowledge.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!

Rust

2008-12-09, 11:17

Your right i missed that; it was not intentional.

I would argue that people cannot detect their is air in the box; it would be human assumption that the box is empty, it is through science we can see air is there, not with our material senses. So essentially we need the tools to understand there is air in the box and be conscious of it.

You say we can "see" it through Science, well what do you think Science uses? Our senses! Science is empirical. With the aid of instruments that greatly improve the resolution of our senses, we are able to "see" the air. The point is the same. We can see it, and there is a system that aids us in seeing it. We cannot see any god, and if you claim you have a system that helps us to see one, you've yet to show it.

I don't doubt your ability to be desperate and pull things out of your ass without proof; like claiming your spiritual toolbox shows us god yet not telling us what that toolbox is nor providing evidence that it does. You and Obbe have established you are masters at that a long time ago.

Obbe

2008-12-09, 15:12

What does it matter if I am unable to explain the logic behind something I find reasonable, and you do not find reasonable?

It doesn't matter. And it doesn't necessarily mean my conclusion is unreasonable, either.

Rust

2008-12-09, 15:19

It certainly matters. It means that since you've yet to provide an exaplantion you only have your, utterly worthless, word to support what you've said.

And again you make claims that require systems of logic even after you've denounced them. You are a dishonest piece of shit.

Obbe

2008-12-09, 15:57

It certainly matters. It means that since you've yet to provide an exaplantion you only have your, utterly worthless, word to support what you've said.

No. I have an explanation which makes sense to me.

You are the one who has nothing to support what I have said. And that doesn't matter.

And again you make claims that require systems of logic even after you've denounced them. You are a dishonest piece of shit.

I am honest. I just realize the claims I make which require logic/truth/whatever are as meaningless and imaginary as logic itself.

If anything, you're the piece of shit. You are an asshole who just shits over everything, and does nothing more.

killallthewhiteman

2008-12-09, 20:26

You say we can "see" it through Science, well what do you think Science uses? Our senses! Science is empirical. With the aid of instruments that greatly improve the resolution of our senses, we are able to "see" the air. The point is the same. We can see it, and there is a system that aids us in seeing it. We cannot see any god, and if you claim you have a system that helps us to see one, you've yet to show it.

I don't doubt your ability to be desperate and pull things out of your ass without proof; like claiming your spiritual toolbox shows us god yet not telling us what that toolbox is nor providing evidence that it does. You and Obbe have established you are masters at that a long time ago.

If you don't understand spiritual nature you will never understand God.

Ive grown up enculturated in the material world and in a society that values the material world so it has been extremely difficult to find spiritual realization; no doubt you face this impediment also so i doubt anything i have to say will have any effect. All i can do is encourage you to investigate into some form of esoteric spiritual knowledge.

As i said the guru's know it better than i do; SO if you are serious about wanting to know these spiritual tools here you go.

This is but a fraction of the spiritual information necessary to realize God, but it is the most fundamental.

http://tinyurl.com/5du8f8

this is a 29 part series on the soul.

If you wish to seek out more spiritual knowledge there are over 10,000 pieces of Vedic literature as well as truth in many other holy scriptures and gurus such as his Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

killallthewhiteman

2008-12-09, 20:33

The scientific understanding is that the universe is finite, therefore something that is eternal automatically must be non-material or not part of this universe. This universe we are in is finite, we understand through science that the universe expands and contracts therefore it grows larger and smaller. That means that the universe in ever changing so the state it is in now will be different later. The universe is bound by time.

Something which is eternal goes beyond time and is always true, always stagnant.

You must understand the definition of eternal, it is not defined by time by reality.

Time is always there but the reality is different (the reality may be a one atom or a vast number of atoms, and there quarks and their 10 string dimensions) .

The spiritual form of eternity is unchanging.

BrokeProphet: Instead of replying i suggest you get informed about both the scientific movement you follow and the spiritual knowledge you lack.

It seems you dont even know the scientific understanding that you supposedly follow; which i find hilarious.

Rust

2008-12-09, 21:44

No. I have an explanation which makes sense to me.

You are the one who has nothing to support what I have said. And that doesn't matter.

Yes, we've already established that a long time ago:

what we think doesn't matter. This thread was for you to dismiss all honest attempts at answering the question/request by fleeing to subjectivity and doing away with reason the moment it proved inconvenient to you. It's been weeks now and you've yet to give a way to answer the question or fullfill the request.

Next time you're going to waste my time with your fucking bullshit, at least have the courtesy to tell me beforehand. Have the courtesy to say "Hey Rust, you know this request I'm asking the readers of totse to fulfill? Well don't try because I'm not going to accept anything you say even if you provide me with a reasoning process that the vast majority of people agree with in their everyday lives; I'm still not going to accept it".

I am honest. I just realize the claims I make which require logic/truth/whatever are as meaningless and imaginary as logic itself.You are not honest because you keep making those claims as if they were true. You claim there is no logic and then make statements that require it. You spew that load of bullshit, sure, but you don't follow it in the least.

What would we expect from someone who thinks that eating a fist full of poison makes as much sense as not doing so? We would expect them to try both. You don't. Why? Because you know full well that's not the case. You're a dishonest piece of shit.

You are an asshole who just shits over everything, and does nothing more.Let's assume that's true (it's not, I shit over on the stupid shit morons like you say). That, according to you, would be just as valid, just as meaningful, and just as good as what you're doing.

Congratulations. You reap what you sow. :)

Rust

2008-12-09, 21:52

As i said the guru's know it better than i do; SO if you are serious about wanting to know these spiritual tools here you go.

This is but a fraction of the spiritual information necessary to realize God, but it is the most fundamental.

http://tinyurl.com/5du8f8

The request in this thread was for good reasons to not believe in god. I provided a reasoning process that the vast majority of people use in their everyday lives. Either that's a good reason, or theists dishonestly change their reasoning process the moment they don't like the conclusion.

That YouTube clip doesn't invalidate the points I have made. You are essentially spreading propaganda now because your post does not change, refute or add anything to the point of this thread besides you promoting your beliefs.

killallthewhiteman

2008-12-10, 03:35

everyone who is a non-believer focuses there views based on evidence, that is "scientific" evidence.

why should we solely base our ontology on scientific evidence, it is not the only derivative of ontology.

Just like science can use material senses to derive understanding of material nature.

We can understand our world alot more with our subjective information not just science and that is the double standard of science, measurement can be made of subjective knowledge- we know it exists and we know it is real even though we cant measure it in a "scientific" sense.

Essentially science limits the parameters f its experiments, experiments are not allowed to take place on subjective information.

Kind of like how religion tells you what do believe.

You have all been indoctrinated by science and you follow its rules.

As soon as "science" becomes true science and embraces or at least allows experimentation of subjective information i wont subscribe; its an incomplete understanding. Science doesn't explain the reality i experience fully, because i experience knowledge that is subjective in nature- but the scientists would have me believe this is insignificant and not real- but i say it is what makes me significant and real.

that is the flaw in scientific arguments of "evidence" because the scientific understanding of evidence is bigoted.

im assuming its just your ethnographically bias unless you would like to provide a reason why anything esoteric to what science knows is invalid?

Science is not the only understanding that is justified.

Edit: Social science embraces both qualitative and quantitative research and knowledge, that is why im studying a BA in arts.

BrokeProphet

2008-12-10, 10:37

The scientific understanding is that the universe is finite..........

I clipped your quote b/c the rest of it all hinges on this one premise.

Keep reading, and you will see me destroy this premise, which destroys everything else you asserted that hinged on that bullshit premise.

BrokeProphet: Instead of replying i suggest you get informed about both the scientific movement you follow and the spiritual knowledge you lack.

It seems you dont even know the scientific understanding that you supposedly follow; which i find hilarious.

I will let you in on a little secret, and save you the trouble. Nobody knows if the universe is finite or infinite. Science, unlike your dumb fucking ass, does NOT, I repeat does NOT make that claim of knowledge.

For more on this I will direct you to NASA. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Feel free to write them and tell them you have solved the mystery for everyone, I am sure they will be happy to hear it.

---------

Now, YOU were saying something about MY lack of scientific understanding.......

---------

You accused me in another thread of lacking spiritual understanding, to which I replied......

I do however understand various religions quite well, have studied plenty, and have practiced two. I was a Baptist most of my life, participating in church functions, singing in choir, attending bible study, helping out in Sunday School, and helping to organize retreats.

I practiced the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism, good 'ol Lotus Sutra, and was an active member of the Soka Gakkai International.

Before I became an atheist, I rejected organized religion and decided to be spiritual. For a time I walked this, the path of the pretentious, until I figured out, the only reason I thought a spirit existed, was b/c someone told me so.

Having a soul is not self evident. This truth got the better of me, and I decided to stop ignoring my brain. I slowly became an atheist, and gained a greater appreciation for things like science, truth, reality, reason, logic, etc. Found them to be most helpful, when not ignored for the sake of a comforting belief.

I gave up the warm fuzzy, for cold logic, and love it.

.....and to this, you chose not to respond, and re-asserted my lack of understanding here. I figure this might shut you up again, and look forward to another post in which you regress back to this pathetic last ditch "you just don't get it" mentality about my religious understanding.......after ATTEMPTING to present a, of all things, scientific argument, in which having a religious understanding is irrelevant.

Better luck next time.

JesuitArtiste

2008-12-10, 14:57

So God is eternal?

Why not believe the Universe/matter/energy is eternal (assuming we need that first cause), considering we have actual evidence for both the Universe, matter, and energy?

How is this not superior, given the evidence we have right now?

I do believe, or consider likely, that the universe is eternal in some way or another.

My conception of God also places him as being eternal, regardless of whether there is a god or not, it doesn't really effect me either way at the moment.

Personally, I consider both ideas to be perfectly compatible, I don't really consider either idea to be true, really, but they might be.

Personally, I consider the superior answer to be 'I don't know'. Albeit with an understanding that some things seem to work better than others.

Obbe

2008-12-10, 16:37

I do believe, or consider likely, that the universe is eternal in some way or another.

My conception of God also places him as being eternal, regardless of whether there is a god or not, it doesn't really effect me either way at the moment.

Personally, I consider both ideas to be perfectly compatible, I don't really consider either idea to be true, really, but they might be.

Personally, I consider the superior answer to be 'I don't know'. Albeit with an understanding that some things seem to work better than others.

And personally, I don't think it matters which one is "right".

killallthewhiteman

2008-12-11, 11:35

I clipped your quote b/c the rest of it all hinges on this one premise.

Keep reading, and you will see me destroy this premise, which destroys everything else you asserted that hinged on that bullshit premise.

I will let you in on a little secret, and save you the trouble. Nobody knows if the universe is finite or infinite. Science, unlike your dumb fucking ass, does NOT, I repeat does NOT make that claim of knowledge.

For more on this I will direct you to NASA. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Feel free to write them and tell them you have solved the mystery for everyone, I am sure they will be happy to hear it.

---------

Now, YOU were saying something about MY lack of scientific understanding.......

---------

You accused me in another thread of lacking spiritual understanding, to which I replied......

I do however understand various religions quite well, have studied plenty, and have practiced two. I was a Baptist most of my life, participating in church functions, singing in choir, attending bible study, helping out in Sunday School, and helping to organize retreats.

I practiced the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism, good 'ol Lotus Sutra, and was an active member of the Soka Gakkai International.

Before I became an atheist, I rejected organized religion and decided to be spiritual. For a time I walked this, the path of the pretentious, until I figured out, the only reason I thought a spirit existed, was b/c someone told me so.

Having a soul is not self evident. This truth got the better of me, and I decided to stop ignoring my brain. I slowly became an atheist, and gained a greater appreciation for things like science, truth, reality, reason, logic, etc. Found them to be most helpful, when not ignored for the sake of a comforting belief.

I gave up the warm fuzzy, for cold logic, and love it.

.....and to this, you chose not to respond, and re-asserted my lack of understanding here. I figure this might shut you up again, and look forward to another post in which you regress back to this pathetic last ditch "you just don't get it" mentality about my religious understanding.......after ATTEMPTING to present a, of all things, scientific argument, in which having a religious understanding is irrelevant.

Better luck next time.

Ill tel you what.

You are a smart person and i can see you have are very self-realized; but i just dont like your attitude towards others.

I never hear anything positive from you, your always putting others down.

Is it because you have been down a spiritual path and then rejected it, you think you now have an understanding that is true and want others to realize it?

I dont know if youve read my topic on inner peace; i would love to hear your point of view if you could be constructive about it.

Rather than putting down everyone elses viewpoint, just bring up yours.

Ive only recently started coming to this forum regulary, but with all the haters and negativity and attempts to "destroy" other people's view makes me not want to come here.

Speedel

2008-12-11, 13:19

Obbe, unless im mistaken is using the box to symbolize the time and space. why does there need to be proof in time and space if time and space exist, themselves?

well time and space do not exist. they are units and tools used to suggest the behaviour and distribution of matter and the apparent sequential order in which they occur. the human psyche invented time and space, to prove points, just as rust did in his analogy for the box.

Rust made a good point. his box, which he clarified (which science and religion can both do) had nothing, NOTHING in it. so unless you are adding something into the box it has NOTHING in it. therefor everyone who looks into this distribution of space and time will see nothing at all. therefore believe the box is empty.

rust: to ultimately clarify you would say that if someone looked into a volume of empty space, restricted by boundaries that exist for the purpose of demonstration only, one would see nothing, therefore would believe that space was empty.

but if you need to clarify to those extremes someone is just blowing smoke and trying to escape the situation

Rust

2008-12-11, 15:23

I appreciate your attempt to try to clarify things, but really there is no need. Obbe understands full well what the box analogy does. It shows him a reasoning process the vast majority of people, if not all of them, use in their everyday lives. Even he has used it, and in the context of attacking other people's religous/theistic beliefs no less!

He knows what the analogy shows, he just doesn't like it.

Obbe

2008-12-11, 20:30

Rust made a good point. his box, which he clarified (which science and religion can both do) had nothing, NOTHING in it. so unless you are adding something into the box it has NOTHING in it. therefor everyone who looks into this distribution of space and time will see nothing at all. therefore believe the box is empty.

The box doesn't necessarily represent time and space. However, the box itself is something. Even if there is nothing whatsoever in the box ... there exists this box.

I may look around my reality [the inside of a box] and see nothing within it to indicate any sort of cause [of the box]. But I do see reality itself [the box]. And that, in part, is what God means to me.

Rust

2008-12-11, 21:51

^ All of which brings about problems already pointed out to you:

By saying mere existence is a good reason to believe in a god you've thus negated any honest attempt at answering your request. If they exist and try to answer it, you an merely conclude that "They trying to answer the request is, in part, what God means to you".

You gave, and have still not given, any indication on how to fulfill the request, and have essentially shown how your mind was made up from the creation of this thread. The request was dishonest.

2. You haven't shown how "existence" favors there being a god as a answer. On the other hand, I have given you a reasoning process that you yourself use in every day life, even when attacking other people's theistic/religious beliefs (i.e. a person basing their belief in god on the bible).

You essentially choose not to apply the reasoning process because you suddenly don't like the conclusion. Again, dishonest.

Obbe

2008-12-11, 21:58

You essentially choose not to apply the reasoning process because you suddenly don't like the conclusion.

No rust ... my conclusions are reasonable to me. Your reasoning is different; not superior.

Rust

2008-12-11, 22:26

It's not a different reasoning process because you yourself use it all the time! It's one you're familiar with yet deliberately choose to not apply it when it comes to your theistic beliefs. You can reword your responses all you want, but these facts still stand:

Fact: You use the reasoning process I detailed in your every day life. I even gave an example of you using it to attack someone else's theistic/religious beliefs.

Fact: You conveniently do not apply it when it comes to your own theistic beliefs.

Obbe

2008-12-11, 22:31

You conveniently do not apply it when it comes to your own theistic beliefs.

What? Of course I do. My beliefs are as illogical as any other!

Rust

2008-12-11, 22:38

A statement which requires an objective system of logic, and one which you conveniently do not follow since you (magically) have yet to eat a fist full of poison, hence your immense dishonesty!

Thank you.

Obbe

2008-12-11, 22:49

A statement which requires an objective system of logic,and one which you conveniently do not follow since you (magically) have yet to each a fist full of poison.... hence your immense dishonesty!

Thank you.

There is no objective system of logic. Logic is a science of justifying conclusions already reached though natural reasoning. It is creating an order out of the chaos.

There really are no reasons not to eat fist fulls of poison, except the reasons we create ourselves to justify our actions.

Speedel

2008-12-11, 23:04

There really are no reasons not to eat fist fulls of poison, except the reasons we create ourselves to justify our actions.

And if this was the case then society would shut down. the whole point of the legal system is that your actions, stemming from your beliefs, needs to be justified by a jury of your peers.

hitler did what he thought was right. does that mean if hitler could justify to himself that genocide is ok would you let him on doing it?

i think that shooting someone is a good idea, therefore i can justify it, to myself, and that should be good enough for you too.

Obbe

2008-12-11, 23:11

i think that shooting someone is a good idea, therefore i can justify it, to myself, and that should be good enough for you too.

It could be a good enough reason for me. But it may not be.

Rust

2008-12-11, 23:24

There is no objective system of logic. Logic is a science of justifying conclusions already reached though natural reasoning. It is creating an order out of the chaos.

More dishonesty. All of those claims are claims of fact that require a system of logic a system of logic you claim does not exist.

There really are no reasons not to eat fist fulls of poison, except the reasons we create ourselves to justify our actions.

Yet you don't do it! You don't do it because you know that's a load of crap. You do not jump off a bridge, or shoot yourself in the face, or eat a fist full of poisons, even when according to you they are just as logical than not doing so, because you know full well that's a big steaming pile of shit.

Obbe

2008-12-12, 04:40

More dishonesty. All of those claims are claims of fact that require a system of logic a system of logic you claim does not exist.

We both understand that. That is why we create the required logic, to justify the conclusions already made through natural reasoning.

Yet you don't do it! You don't do it because you know that's a load of crap. You do not jump off a bridge, or shoot yourself in the face, or eat a fist full of poisons, even when according to you they are just as logical than not doing so, because you know full well that's a big steaming pile of shit.

No, not because you assert it is a "steaming pile of shit". Everything doesn't really happen because of anything else.

The "because" is created to justify our conclusions and actions made through natural reasoning.

Anything "logical" is a creation used to justify what actually is. Including this post.

Rust

2008-12-12, 11:25

We both understand that. That is why we create the required logic, to justify the conclusions already made through natural reasoning.

More meaningless bullshit. Your justification for your dishonest is irrelevant here. The fact is you are being dishonest. You dismiss something and then you make statements that require that something.

No, not because you assert it is a "steaming pile of shit". Everything doesn't really happen because of anything else.

I didn't say it was because I asserted it. Read what I said.

I said you know full well it's wrong and that is why you don't do those things. You don't shoot yourself in the face and you don't eat a fist full of poison because you know full well doing them and not doing them are not just as reasonable or just as logical.

Again, I ask you, What is the difference between you and a fraud? What is the difference between you and someone who only states that to sound profound on the Internet? Absolutely none.

You both make the claims and then consistently fail to carry them out when your life is concerned. You are both full of shit.

Obbe

2008-12-12, 18:12

The fact is you are being dishonest. You dismiss something and then you make statements that require that something.

That "fact" is your own conclusion, reached through your own natural reasoning. Then, you create the logic as to why this conclusion is the "reasonable" one.

I said you know full well it's wrong and that is why you don't do those things. You don't shoot yourself in the face and you don't eat a fist full of poison because you know full well doing them and not doing them are not just as reasonable or just as logical.

No, they are just as reasonable. There are no reasons except the ones we create to justify our actions.

Neither of us think "Hmmm, if I were to eat poison, I would die, and for whatever reasons this is unreasonable" when presented with poison. We reach our conclusion first, and then create the logic to justify that conclusion.

What is the difference between you and someone who only states that to sound profound on the Internet?

What is the difference between you and someone who only argues about the "truth" to sound profound on the internet?

You're doing it because you know it's "right"? lol :p

You both make the claims and then consistently fail to carry them out when your life is concerned. You are both full of shit.

I never claimed "I will eat poison". I claim that to do so is just as reasonable as to not to do so. There are no reasons except the ones we create to justify our actions.

Rust

2008-12-12, 23:07

That "fact" is your own conclusion, reached through your own natural reasoning. Then, you create the logic as to why this conclusion is the "reasonable" one.

None of which you can say without first requiring a system of logic, which you deny, thus proving my point!

No, they are just as reasonable. There are no reasons except the ones we create to justify our actions.You keep saying that. Yes. You don't have to repeat your stupid statements. I know them well. The point, which you've yet to deal with, is that you don't follow that which you keep saying.

What is the difference between you and someone who only argues about the "truth" to sound profound on the internet?Nice try changing the argument, but it isn't going to work. We can ask what you just did of anyone and I can concede that without a problem. What we can't ask of anyone is what I asked and you deliberately avoided. To use an analogy:

Imagine there are three people. The first one is blind, the second one has sight, and the third one is pretending to be blind. We drop them off in the middle of a minefield (the mines are marked by flags, and thus are visible with the naked eye).

What would we expect of the man that has sight? We would expect him to navigate through the minefield avoiding the little red flags, and existing safely. What would we expect of the blind man? We would expect him to die a horrible death. He could, of course, evade a few mines by pure "luck", but the probability of him evading all of them without sight is monumentally small.

Now, what about the fraud? He claims he is blind, but magically ( :rolleyes: ) happens to navigate the minefield without a single scratch on him.

You are the fraud. You are full of shit. You claim that these things are just as reasonable yet to magically ( :rolleyes: ) happen not to shoot yourself in the face.

I never claimed "I will eat poison". I claim that to do so is just as reasonable as to not to do so. There are no reasons except the ones we create to justify our actions.I never claimed you claimed you will eat poison. Stop making red herrings. You don't follow what you claim in that you keep claiming things that require that which you say doesn't exist and in that you claim things are just as reasonable yet avoid doing a particular set of them like the plague.

Obbe

2008-12-13, 01:42

None of which you can say without first requiring a system of logic, which you deny, thus proving my point!

No, we create the logic whenever we need it. It isn't, and doesn't have to, already be there.

The point, which you've yet to deal with, is that you don't follow that which you keep saying.

Sure I am. I am creating it as it is required.

Now, what about the fraud? He claims he is blind, but magically ( :rolleyes: ) happens to navigate the minefield without a single scratch on him.

You are the fraud. You are full of shit. You claim that these things are just as reasonable yet to magically ( :rolleyes: ) happen not to shoot yourself in the face.

No. Not "magically" ( :rolleyes: ). I create the logic to justify the conclusion that has already been reasoned.

I do not "magically" avoid shooting myself. I choose not to. Then, if need be, I create logic to "make sense" of whats going on. Creating an order.

You don't follow what you claim in that you keep claiming things that require that which you say doesn't exist and in that you claim things are just as reasonable yet avoid doing a particular set of them like the plague.

There are no reasons but those we create to justify what already is. "Doing things that will kill you is not reasonable" is a creation to justify not doing things that will kill me. If, on the other hand, I did do things which would kill me, the created logic would be "Doing things that will kill you is reasonable" to justify those actions. What is "reasonable", all depends on what what I do, what I want. Because what is "reasonable" is a creation used to justify what actually is.

BrokeProphet

2008-12-13, 20:34

No, we create the logic whenever we need it. It isn't, and doesn't have to, already be there.

You cannot come to the conclusion "There is no objective system of logic" WITHOUT USING OBJECTIVE LOGIC!

Whether you create the logic then and there as you need it, is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Obbe

2008-12-13, 20:36

You cannot come to the conclusion "There is no objective system of logic" WITHOUT USING OBJECTIVE LOGIC!

Whether you create the logic then and there as you need it, is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Sure I can. People reach reasonable conclusions, completely unaware of any logic whatsoever, all the fucking time!

Rust

2008-12-13, 21:46

No, we create the logic whenever we need it. It isn't, and doesn't have to, already be there.

Again, all statements you cannot say without dishonestly resting them on that which you say doesn't exist.

Sure I am. I am creating it as it is required.

Except to be able to conclude that they are required you would need to have the logic in place to begin with!

No. Not "magically" ( :rolleyes: ). I create the logic to justify the conclusion that has already been reasoned.

I do not "magically" avoid shooting myself. I choose not to. Then, if need be, I create logic to "make sense" of whats going on. Creating an order.

Thus, you act exactly as if they did not make just as much sense! Much like the fraud wants to keep pretending he's blind but uses his eyesight to see the land mines when traversing the minefield.

In the end, just like I said, your position is the same as the fraud: You are a dishonest piece of shit.

You say you're blind, yet can see.

There are no reasons but those we create to justify what already is. "Doing things that will kill you is not reasonable" is a creation to justify not doing things that will kill me. If, on the other hand, I did do things which would kill me, the created logic would be "Doing things that will kill you is reasonable" to justify those actions. What is "reasonable", all depends on what what I do, what I want. Because what is "reasonable" is a creation used to justify what actually is.

Again, that is meaningless blather. You do not have to repeat your incredibly stupid statements. We know what they are and we know how incredibly fucking stupid they are. The point, which you keep avoiding, is that to say just that (to say that something "already is", or that what is reasonable depends on what you do, or that you need the logic you create, etc.) would require basing yourself on an established logic thus proving your dishonesty.

Rust

2008-12-13, 21:46

Sure I can. People reach reasonable conclusions, completely unaware of any logic whatsoever, all the fucking time!

That isn't what he said, moron. Learn to read.

He said you would be using it. Whether you are aware of it or not is complete inconsequential.

Obbe

2008-12-14, 02:38

You say you're blind, yet can see.

No, I say there are no reasons but those we create.

If I were to use a blindness analogy, maybe I would say something like ...

... I am blind, but say I can see.

The point, which you keep avoiding, is that to say just that would require basing yourself on an established logic thus proving your dishonesty.

No. Nothing is required to say just that. I can say it is reasonable without using any logic whatsoever. I can create the logic afterwards.

Obbe

2008-12-14, 02:41

He said you would be using it. Whether you are aware of it or not is complete inconsequential.

People reach conclusions, state the conclusion is reasonable, and create the logic afterwards.

BrokeProphet

2008-12-14, 03:34

People reach conclusions, state the conclusion is reasonable, and create the logic afterwards.

Give me an example of a person reaching a correct conclusion without using logic, THEN using logic afterwards to justify it..........

----

I say correct b/c I assume you are suggesting this so that your little concept does not fall to its own logic.

IN WHICH case, your pre-logic conclusion, needs to be correct in order for it not TO COMPLETELY FAIL AS RUST HAS INFORMED YOU IT DOES FOR A PAGE NOW!!!!

----

You have not been the first person to suggest logic doesn't exist, and the ongoing criticism of that opinion, is that it requires logic to form it, thus failing.

This is an old argument, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INVALIDATED.

If you really think you are breathing new life into it, contact the philosophy departments of the 10 closest universities b/c they will be THRILLED to know this new information you posses.

Obbe

2008-12-14, 03:48

Give me an example of a person reaching a correct conclusion without using logic, THEN using logic afterwards to justify it..........

The thing which makes the conclusion "correct", is that they justify it with the created logic afterwards.

A man decides to shoot himself. He decides this is reasonable. He creates logic as to why.

A man decides not to shoot himself. He decides this is reasonable. He creates logic as to why.

You have not been the first person to suggest logic doesn't exist, and the ongoing criticism of that opinion, is that it requires logic to form it, thus failing.

I think this is a problem of the definition of existence. Logic exists, but as a creation. There is no logic, there are no reasons, except those which we create to justify reality.

Rust

2008-12-14, 04:06

If I were to use a blindness analogy, maybe I would say something like ...

... I am blind, but say I can see.

No that's what you liked it to be, since you don't want to be exposed for the fraudulent douchebag that you are. Do you or do you not claim you are blind? You do. Do you or do you not see (i.e. evade all the mines, i.e. consistently not shoot yourself in the face) You do.

You are full of shit.

No. Nothing is required to say just that. I can say it is reasonable without using any logic whatsoever. I can create the logic afterwards.

It's bad enough you don't follow what you claim in other threads, at least try not to contradict yourself in the same fucking thread.

Obbe:

Sure I am. I am creating it as it is required.

You determined it is required and then created the logic, according to you. You must use a system to determine it was required. You are being dishonest, yet again.

Rust

2008-12-14, 04:08

People reach conclusions, state the conclusion is reasonable, and create the logic afterwards.

Your reply just now does not refute, change or even add to what I said.

Obbe

2008-12-14, 04:15

Do you or do you not see?

Nope, I actually don't.

"Seeing" (concluding something is reasonable) all depends on whats going on:

A man decides to step on a mine. He decides this is reasonable. He 'saw' the mine when he stepped on it.

A man decides to avoid a mine. He decides this is reasonable. He 'saw' the mine when he avoided it.

You determined it is required and then created the logic, according to you. You must use a system to determine it was required. You are being dishonest, yet again.

That statement (and the logic within it) was created after I decided that logic should be required.

Rust

2008-12-14, 04:29

Nope, I actually don't.

I know you claim that. That's why you're a fraud! You claim you don't see, but clearly do as shown by the conspicuous absence of a a shotgun blast on your face.

Have you even been following the thread?

That statement (and the logic within it) was created after I decided that logic should be required.

Yes. I know how to read. You concluded that it was required before you said the statement. It's the concluding that it was required part that is a problem, since that would necessitate a system in it self.

Obbe

2008-12-14, 04:42

I know you claim that. That's why you're a fraud! You claim you don't see, but clearly do as shown by the conspicuous absence of a a shotgun blast on your face.

Have you even been following the thread?

Maybe not, I thought we were using sight as a metaphor for a process of logical thought.

If a man doesn't shoot himself, this is not because this was logical, or reasonable. He didn't shoot himself - plain and simple. He creates a reason to justify that reality.

If a man shoots himself, we would create a reason to justify that reality.

Me not poisoning myself is not because of some logical reason. It is because I don't poison myself. The reason is made up later on, to justify this reality.

Yes. I know how to read. You concluded that it was required before you said the statement. It's the concluding that it was required part that is a problem, since that would necessitate a system in it self.

A system that is created to justify what actually is.

Rust

2008-12-14, 12:51

Maybe not, I thought we were using sight as a metaphor for a process of logical thought.

...

Me not poisoning myself is not because of some logical reason. It is because I don't poison myself. The reason is made up later on, to justify this reality.

Sight is analogous to the process used to reach the "right" conclusion (I put "right" in quotation marks because I know douchebags like you will jump at the chance to blather on how we can't determine what's right and blah blah blah, so here "right" means the moves/answers that don't end up killing you).

You always choosing not to poison yourself, not to shoot yourself in the face, not to jump off a cliff, to use Science when you need your drug fix, etc. is a sign that you know that doing those things and not doing them are not equal hence why you keep choosing to do a particular set of them.

A system that is created to justify what actually is.You've determined what actually is, before creating the system, how exactly?

You've determined that system you're creating will justify it, how exactly?

That's right, other systems. You fail. Again.

Obbe

2008-12-14, 17:20

Sight is analogous to the process used to reach the "right" conclusion.

You always choosing not to poison yourself, not to shoot yourself in the face, not to jump off a cliff, to use Science when you need your drug fix, etc. is a sign that you know that doing those things and not doing them are not equal hence why you keep choosing to do a particular set of them.

No, actually everything is quite chaotic and disorderly:

If I always choose not to poison myself, this is not because this is more logical, or reasonable. It is because I always choose not to poison myself. The reason is created later on to justify that reality. To make it "right".

If I chose to jump off a cliff, this is not because this is more logical/illogical, reasonable/unreasonable, right/wrong. It would be because I chose to jump off a cliff. The reason would be created later on to justify that reality, making the choice to jump the "right" one.

You've determined what actually is, before creating the system, how exactly?

You've determined that system you're creating will justify it, how exactly?

That's right, other systems. You fail. Again.

I determine what actually is by making choices. If I choose to stand at a cliff, thats what actually is. If I choose to jump off, thats what actually is. Neither is "correct".

I make the choice "correct" by creating a reason to justify why it was made and not another.

Rust

2008-12-15, 15:11

If I always choose not to poison myself, this is not because this is more logical, or reasonable. It is because I always choose not to poison myself. The reason is created later on to justify that reality. To make it "right".

More meaningless blather.

Whether you choose to do those things is not in question. What is in question is why you chose to do so in the first place. You are, dishonestly as usual, not saying why; just that you did.

Again, you are no different than the fraud. You claim that have no sight but magically ( :rolleyes: ) always choose the "right" choice.

I determine what actually is by making choices.

How do you know there is a choice to begin with or that you made it? Once again, you fail miserably.

If I choose to stand at a cliff, thats what actually is. If I choose to jump off, thats what actually is.

You chose to stand at a cliff? By what system did you determine there was a cliff, a you, or a "stand" to being with? More failure.

Obbe

2008-12-15, 15:23

What is in question is why you chose to do so in the first place. You are, dishonestly as usual, not saying why; just that you did.

No, I am saying the cause of why it is, is made up afterwards to justify the reality that it is.

You claim that have no sight but magically ( :rolleyes: ) always choose the "right" choice.

It is justified as the "right" choice after it is made.

No magic ( :rolleyes: ) is necessary.

How do you know there is a choice to begin with or that you made it? Once again, you fail miserably.

I don't, of course. How do I know I really have the freewill to choose anything? It is all actually chaotic and disorderly. I create "making a choice" to justify the reality that is.

You chose to stand at a cliff? By what system did you determine there was a cliff, a you, or a "stand" to being with? More failure.

No, not failure. More creation.

Rust

2008-12-15, 15:31

No, I am saying the cause of why it is, is made up afterwards to justify the reality that it is.

You can't even follow your own bullshit can you?

"I determine what actually is by making choices"

If you've determined "the reality that it is" then you must have used a system before hand, thus proving my point.

It is justified as the "right" choice after it is made.

No magic ( :rolleyes: ) is necessary.

So says the dishonest man that wants to avoid answering the question. However, the fact that you consistently choose not to shoot yourself in the face, when you claim not doing so is just as reasonable, has yet to be explained.

I don't, of course. How do I know I really have the freewill to choose anything? It is all actually chaotic and disorderly. I create "making a choice" to justify the reality that is.

How do you know it's chaotic and disorderly? How do you know you "create "making a choice" " ? How do you know it justifies the reality that is? How do you know that it is reality?

All you're doing is proving my point: You make claims that require what you say doesn't exist. You are a fraud.

No, not failure. More creation.

No, utter pathetic failure is pretty damn accurate.

Obbe

2008-12-15, 15:40

If you've determined "the reality that it is" then you must have used a system before hand, thus proving my point.

"I determine what actually is by making choices" - was created afterwards to justify the reality of what actually is.

Can we know what really is? No, but we say we do to justify not knowing.

So says the dishonest man that wants to avoid answering the question. However, the fact that you consistently choose not to shoot yourself in the face, when you claim not doing so is just as reasonable, has yet to be explained.

It has been explained, you have yet to accept the explanation.

Any answer is just a creation to justify whatever has happened. If one day I shoot myself, they will create some reason to justify that.

How do you know it's chaotic and disorderly? How do you know you "create "making a choice" " ? How do you know it justifies the reality that is? How do you know that it is reality?

I don't. I just pretend I do to justify it. We all pretend to.

BrokeProphet

2008-12-15, 22:42

<Brokeprophet walks onto Obbe's thread.....squats down.....and takes a massive shit>

That is still more respect than you deserve.

Obbe

2008-12-15, 22:51

<Brokeprophet walks onto Obbe's thread.....squats down.....and takes a massive shit>

That is still more respect than you deserve.

What makes a man respectable?

You are the most disrespectful troll I have ever encountered in My God.

Rust

2008-12-16, 00:28

"I determine what actually is by making choices" - was created afterwards to justify the reality of what actually is.

Except in order to determine that:

a. It was afterward.

b. It would justify it.

c. That X "actually is"

You need a system that exists before than happens. You fail, again.

It has been explained, you have yet to accept the explanation.

Any answer is just a creation to justify whatever has happened. If one day I shoot myself, they will create some reason to justify that.
No, it hasn't been explained to me. What you've done is tried, and failed miserably, to shift the decision making process to after the decision has been taken. You are being dishonest.

In other words, you are completely ignoring that "whatever has happened" is precisely a decision in the first place! Here's the timeline:

1. You claim everything makes as much sense as everything else.

2. You decide to not shoot yourself in the face.

3. You don't shoot yourself in the face.

4. You claim not shooting yourself in the face was "reasonable" or "right".

I'm pointing out how you magically (i.e. through dishonest douchebaggery) always carry out 1 and 2. Your incessant blathering about the inane bullshit regarding it "being a creation to justify what has happened" cannot refer to 1 and 2 since they happen before the (non) event (i.e. 3)! Your bullshit must refer to the - completely inconsequential - number 4. I already know you claim that you will justify whatever you do as reasonable afterwards. I don't give shit. I'm not talking about that. At all.

I don't. I just pretend I do to justify it. We all pretend to.Except you don't know what "to pretend" even is, nor that "pretending" would justify it!

You can blather on all you want, in the end, like or not, you are using the exact same thing you say does not exist. We can go around in circles and there will always be a "You need a system to determine X" haunting your stupid premise.

BrokeProphet

2008-12-16, 00:37

You are the most disrespectful troll I have ever encountered in My God.

Why, b/c I shit on your thread?

Hexadecimal

2008-12-16, 21:56

Worshipers of Reason, Love, and Anger, SILENCE!

Still your passions and open your ears:

Rust: What is Reason without it being used to supplicate the growth and development of love? What is Reason without the anger needed to work against injustices?

Obbe: What is Love without the framework of reason to give it practicality and usefulness in the compassionate helping of others? What is it without the catalyst of anger that first demands a change from the walk of cold hearts?

BrokeProphet: What is Anger without a path of resolve through Reason? And what more is this path than vengeance if it is not held up by Love?

Peace and Balance be with you three cogs in the Infinite Machine.

Rust

2008-12-17, 02:40

You're not fooling anyone. :)

Hexadecimal

2008-12-17, 03:40

You're not fooling anyone. :)

No need to fool a man who has already fooled himself.

Rust

2008-12-17, 15:30

Keep up the good work. :)

Obbe

2008-12-17, 21:09

Except in order to determine that:

a. It was afterward.

b. It would justify it.

c. That X "actually is"

You need a system that exists before than happens. You fail, again.

All three points were created (as with this sentence) to justify what actually is, to bring order to chaos.

You just created the "need for a system" to justify your conclusion that I cannot do exactly what I actually am doing with this very sentence.

Go ahead and explain to me why I should require a system first ... all you're doing is creating those reasons to justify reality.

No, it hasn't been explained to me. What you've done is tried, and failed miserably, to shift the decision making process to after the decision has been taken. You are being dishonest.

In other words, you are completely ignoring that "whatever has happened" is precisely a decision in the first place! Here's the timeline:

1. You claim everything makes as much sense as everything else.

2. You decide to not shoot yourself in the face.

3. You don't shoot yourself in the face.

4. You claim not shooting yourself in the face was "reasonable" or "right".

I'm pointing out how you magically (i.e. through dishonest douchebaggery) always carry out 1 and 2. Your incessant blathering about the inane bullshit regarding it "being a creation to justify what has happened" cannot refer to 1 and 2 since they happen before the (non) event (i.e. 3)! Your bullshit must refer to the - completely inconsequential - number 4. I already know you claim that you will justify whatever you do as reasonable afterwards. I don't give shit. I'm not talking about that. At all.

I do not claim that shooting myself in the face is reasonable or right. But I do claim that it is just as reasonable, or just as right, as not doing so.

My actions reflect reality; not what is "right". What is "right" is merely a creation.

Except you don't know what "to pretend" even is, nor that "pretending" would justify it!

Thats not required.

You can blather on all you want, in the end, like or not, you are using the exact same thing you say does not exist. We can go around in circles and there will always be a "You need a system to determine X" haunting your stupid premise.

You can blather on all you want, in the end, like it or not, you are just creating the exact same thing you say must exist to justify reality. Order is born out of chaos. Logic is born out of the illogical.

Hexadecimal

2008-12-17, 21:53

Keep up the good work. :)

Come on man, do you really think reason is the end all be all? I know it provides utility to that which has none of itself, but without anything to provide utility to, all it provides is an ego-boost to the man that can point out the flaws in another man's reasoning. Without any purpose, your reason goes to waste. In fact, all I've ever seen your reason accomplish on these forums is to tie up folks in a chain of confusion. Okay, so you're trying to break some form of intellect into a mind based off in fantasy land, wonderful. What replacement do you provide as an alternative? The man in the clouds isn't there because he's insane, he's there because he doesn't know how to walk on the ground. Perhaps instead of intense criticism and argument, you can attempt to provide a tutelage to those who stray completely from all forms of grounded thought? Just a suggestion.

Taking away someone's beliefs with no replacement doesn't work, and most men are not satisfied without faith. Rather than trying to steal away a man's faith, you could try to teach him to supplement it with reason. Thus you give a man utility to his purpose. You also give him a better understanding of the limitations of his purpose. Most importantly, a better understanding of the motivations that propel other minds and a compassion and tolerance for others that faith alone does not provide. This all lends to a less contentious society overall. You have an amazing mind Rust; you could be doing a lot more for folks on here by sharing what you've learned instead of trying to destroy what they have.

If you have learned that life needs no mysticism in order to be fulfilling, then share that. Share the principles and thoughts that have formulated the kind of person you are today. Share with others how you make it through life without mysticism. There's no need to tear another belief down in order to share your own. Ultimately, the choice lays with the individual: Instead of agitating others against you, share your beliefs, thoughts, inspirations, etc. and let them decide.

Now, you have a choice that is fairly simple (if not already made): Ignore or Consider. Doesn't matter much to me which you choose, though I admit the latter would make me smile just a little bit on the inside. :)

Peace.

Rust

2008-12-17, 23:33

All three points were created (as with this sentence) to justify what actually is, to bring order to chaos.

I already covered this remarkably stupid response of yours earlier:

You can blather on all you want, in the end, like or not, you are using the exact same thing you say does not exist. We can go around in circles and there will always be a "You need a system to determine X" haunting your stupid premise.

I do not claim that shooting myself in the face is reasonable or right. But I do claim that it is just as reasonable, or just as right, as not doing so.

My actions reflect reality; not what is "right". What is "right" is merely a creation.

You claim you justify your choice - thus you've given it reason. However, this is inconsequential. The important part is the part you had absolutely no answer for and decided to ignore completely. I'll repost it because I'm not going to let you dishonestly evade my points:

In other words, you are completely ignoring that "whatever has happened" is precisely a decision in the first place! Here's the timeline:

1. You claim everything makes as much sense as everything else.

2. You decide to not shoot yourself in the face.

3. You don't shoot yourself in the face.

4. You justify not shooting yourself in the face.

I'm pointing out how you magically (i.e. through dishonest douchebaggery) always carry out 1 and 2. Your incessant blathering about the inane bullshit regarding it "being a creation to justify what has happened" cannot refer to 1 and 2 since they happen before the (non) event (i.e. 3)! Your bullshit must refer to the - completely inconsequential - number 4. I already know you claim that you will justify whatever you do as reasonable afterwards. I don't give shit. I'm not talking about that. At all.

I've changed point 4 so you don't have that cop-out anymore,

Thats not required.

So you manage to pretend without even knowing what pretending is? Right. But hey let's ignore that silly premise and continue on: how do you know it's not required? We will go around in circles, the fact that you need a system will always haunt your responses.

You can blather on all you want, in the end, like it or not, you are just creating the exact same thing you say must exist to justify reality. Order is born out of chaos. Logic is born out of the illogical.

Thank you for proving my point:

You require a system to be able to insist any of that. You use that which you say doesn't exist. You are dishonest.

Rust

2008-12-17, 23:34

Doesn't matter much to me which you choose,

That makes two of us.

Hexadecimal

2008-12-17, 23:42

That makes two of us.

Fair enough.

AnotherN00b

2008-12-22, 02:23

Ok Obbe. i think i can give you an answer to your original question. by applying your .........system:confused:

now the concept of god is the same as the concept of logic, in that it is a way of explaining or justifying reality (the infinite and chaotic). so therefore if logic doesn't exist then neither does god. so if you don't believe in logic then why believe in god. however i arrived at this conclusion with a system of logic so then that would make it irrelevant (if i understand your view correctly)

killallthewhiteman

2008-12-22, 03:32

ill be honest, its an old argument but it still holds true.

The fact that we cant see, touch, feel, taste hear God himself directly is a good reason to believe their is no God.

redzed

2008-12-22, 10:32

ill be honest, its an old argument but it still holds true.

The fact that we cant see, touch, feel, taste hear God himself directly is a good reason to believe their is no God.

unless you're a pantheist! In that case all you see, touch, taste, hear is God!:D

killallthewhiteman

2008-12-22, 10:38

unless you're a pantheist! In that case all you see, touch, taste, hear is God!:D

haha.

One mans rubbish is truly another mans treasure.

Obbe

2008-12-23, 08:20

I already covered this remarkably stupid response of yours earlier:

You can blather on all you want, in the end, like or not, you are using the exact same thing you say does not exist. We can go around in circles and there will always be a "You need a system to determine X" haunting your stupid premise.

Nope, we create such "systems". You can tell me one is required to exist as much as you want, but you're just making that up.

For example:

1. You claim everything makes as much sense as everything else.

2. You decide to not shoot yourself in the face.

3. You don't shoot yourself in the face.

4. You justify not shooting yourself in the face.

I've changed point 4 so you don't have that cop-out anymore

You made all that up, created an order where there is none. And even then, you have not shown why there should be any reason for not shooting myself in the face. Shooting myself is just as reasonable as not shooting myself. I do not know if I actually decided anything, or if number one just skipped right to number three, but decisions do not have to be based on reason anyways.

So you manage to pretend without even knowing what pretending is? Right. But hey let's ignore that silly premise and continue on: how do you know it's not required? We will go around in circles, the fact that you need a system will always haunt your responses.

I don't claim to know it is not required. I am just pretending I do. Fish manage to swim without knowing what swimming is. Tigers manage to hunt without knowing what hunting is.

Yes, we will go around in circles; not because anything is required, but because we'll keep pretending something is.

You require a system to be able to insist any of that.

No, I actually can just make it up, like you just did with that statement.

Obbe

2008-12-23, 08:23

Rust

2008-12-23, 15:26

Nope, we create such "systems". You can tell me one is required to exist as much as you want, but you're just making that up.

A claim that, again, requires a system in the first place. You fail, as usual.

You made all that up, created an order where there is none. And even then, you have not shown why there should be any reason for not shooting myself in the face. Shooting myself is just as reasonable as not shooting myself. I do not know if I actually decided anything, or if number one just skipped right to number three, but decisions do not have to be based on reason anyways.

You're grasping at straws, now more than ever, and it's fucking pathetic.

You cannot claim that there is no order without first needing a system in the first place to determine what order is and how you can determine there isn't any.

Now please, either put some actual effort in your replies or kindly stop wasting my time with your incredibly stupid shit.

I don't claim to know it is not required. I am just pretending I do. Fish manage to swim without knowing what swimming is. Tigers manage to hunt without knowing what hunting is.

Wrong. They might not call it swiming, for example, but they are aware of the action. Hence why we can train dogs to sit, to roll over, or to not pee on the rug. They are aware of what the action is and what it entails, and can perform it (or not) at will.

Yes, we will go around in circles; not because anything is required, but because we'll keep pretending something is.

That requires a system in place. You fail, again.

Obbe

2008-12-23, 18:25

A claim that, again, requires a system in the first place. You fail, as usual.

Nope, we create such systems. If it was required before I am able to claim anything, then I would not be able to create the very claim I am creating this very instant.

You will now create the claim that a system must already exist to make these claims.

You're grasping at straws, now more than ever, and it's fucking pathetic.

You cannot claim that there is no order without first needing a system in the first place to determine what order is and how you can determine there isn't any.

Nope. It can all happen chaotically, randomly, for no reason at all. There is no system but the one we create.

Now please, either put some actual effort in your replies or kindly stop wasting my time with your incredibly stupid shit.

No time has been wasted; you just made that up.

Reality is incredibly stupid, rust. You can create as many reasons to justify the ways things are as you would like; in the end, you're just making it up. There is no golden system operating at the heart of it all. As much as you would like to believe I would not be able to say the things I am without such a system already existing, I still am here saying these things creating the system as I go. As much as you would like to believe you're not making it up as you go along, you are.

Wrong. They might not call it swiming, for example, but they are aware of the action.

And you just made that up!

That requires a system in place. You fail, again.

You made that up. And you're an asshole, again. :)

Rust

2008-12-23, 22:09

I'm not going to waste my time any further. It should be obvious by now to anyone with half a brain, that you're full of shit.

I'm happy with that. :)

Roxberry

2008-12-23, 22:41

I'm not going to waste my time any further. It should be obvious by now to anyone with half a brain, that you're full of shit.

I'm happy with that. :)
Please don't stop now. Obbe almost has me convinced that he can justify his conclusions as being logical while claiming logic doesn't exist. Of course it would help if Obbe would shoot himself in the face, since it's as reasonable as not shooting himself in the face, and get back to us on that experience. Any chance of that Obbe? I mean, since it's as reasonable as not doing it, how about amusing us for shits and giggles?

Prometheum

2008-12-24, 06:19

Belief in a god pretty much implies belief in an afterlife or reincarnation of some sort. I don't think any religion/god system postulates that your entity is obliterated at death.

As such, if you believe in a god or religion, and therefor an afterlife, you are spending time preparing for this afterlife which may or may not happen. This life is happening. I'll take the one I have now, rather than do a bunch of voodoo on the off-chance I get another go-round.

Obbe

2008-12-24, 19:42

Please don't stop now. Obbe almost has me convinced that he can justify his conclusions as being logical while claiming logic doesn't exist. Of course it would help if Obbe would shoot himself in the face ...

Logic is a creation. It is an analogy of the real world. It is used to justify all the random shit going on around me. There are no real reasons. We create reasons, we make-up whats "right", all to justify that we really don't know anything and that its all chaotic and illogical.

Not shooting myself doesn't mean I am a lying piece of shit, or even that what I am saying is incorrect. You have created that system. Not shooting myself simply means I did not shoot myself. There is no reason for this except whatever you make up to justify it.

Roxberry

2008-12-24, 20:08

Logic is a creation. It is an analogy of the real world. It is used to justify all the random shit going on around me.
How did you determine that the shit going on around you is random?

You have created that system.
I created a system? How do you know this?

Not shooting myself simply means I did not shoot myself. There is no reason for this except whatever you make up to justify it.
I don't shoot myself in the face because I think it's unreasonable. If you don't think it's unreasonable, why can't you shoot yourself in the face at my request? I'd really appreciate it.

Obbe

2008-12-24, 20:44

How did you determine that the shit going on around you is random?

I pretend so.

I created a system? How do you know this?

I pretend so.

If you don't think it's unreasonable, why can't you shoot yourself in the face at my request?

There is no reason not to.

But I will create the reason, that I do not want to.

Obbe

2008-12-29, 18:08

There are no reasons but those we create. This entire thread is example of reasons being created.

Surak

2008-12-29, 18:55

I have to wonder if Obbe is just a giant troll, or if his own mind really is that fucked.

Obbe

2008-12-29, 19:00

I wonder if being a dick actually makes you happy, or if your really just filling up the void.

Surak

2008-12-29, 19:06

Not being trapped in a web of wannabe-intellectual religious horsecrap is merely one facet in a life of things and people that keep me happy and sane. Giving you shit is a minor distraction on my day off while I wait for my bagels to finish toasting.

Oh look, they're done! But wait, maybe they're not really done. Maybe I just think they're done because we can never really knooooow anything, right man? Whoa, my brain is like, totally blown man.

Obbe

2008-12-29, 19:11

See how you created those reasons to justify your posting and supposed happiness?

;)

Surak

2008-12-29, 19:32

Wow dude, you're right. You're like some kind of cosmic religion monkey. I have realized the error of my ways and will now go off to fuck the meanings of various words right out of the world's dictionaries.

Obbe

2008-12-29, 19:46

There is no "right", you're just creating a "right". And that's no reason for you to do anything. :rolleyes:

Roxberry

2008-12-29, 21:00

There are no reasons but those we create. This entire thread is example of reasons being created.
You've made that point over and over and others have rebutted. What was the point of resurrecting this thread five days after getting no further responses and repeating it again? Just can't get enough of yourself?

Obbe

2008-12-29, 21:06

Create whatever reason you want. It's just made up.

BrokeProphet

2008-12-30, 01:27

There is no "right", you're just creating a "right". And that's no reason for you to do anything. :rolleyes:

Are there any right answers?

Are there any right ideas or theories?

Is anything correct?

Prometheum

2008-12-30, 03:13

Are there any right answers?

Are there any right ideas or theories?

Is anything correct?

Who is spain?

Why is hitler?

When is right?

Where was that stooped and mealy-colored old man I used to call Poppa when the merry-go-round broke down?

How was trump at Munich?

taoskin99

2008-12-30, 05:22

I have never seen, felt, touched, been touched by, heard, smelled or had telepathic messages from God.
Neither has he sent columns of flame or swarm of locusts on sinners.

you want one indeniable reason to believe that there is no God?
I'll give you two.

1) check out www.youtube.com, especially the video about the guy getting assfucked but a donkey.

2) Emos exist.

'Nuff said. No God.

Obbe

2008-12-31, 18:56

Are there any right answers?

Are there any right ideas or theories?

Is anything correct?

Whatever we decide is "right" and "correct" for whatever reasons we make-up.

Obbe

2008-12-31, 18:57

you want one indeniable reason to believe that there is no God?
I'll give you two.

1) check out www.youtube.com, especially the video about the guy getting assfucked but a donkey.

2) Emos exist.

'Nuff said. No God.

These reasons are creations as well.

Genesis_93

2008-12-31, 19:36

The mere fact that no one has proven that there IS?

For me its kind of like how our (USA) legal system works, your innocent (no God), untill proven gulity (Proving to me he/she/it exsists).

Also dealing with the christian "God" and using the bible as your evidence, it claims alot of things (particularly about how old the world is) that we HAVE proven to be inaccurate.

Or jack ass,

your innocent (God) until proven guilty (Proving to me he she doesn't exist)

and your spelling is terrible

taoskin99

2008-12-31, 19:39

Sure they're creations, but that doesn't falsify the 'created reasons'.
Your argument basically says "because all reasons are created, they are false.", which is grossly inaccurate. Reasons aren't absolute truths, but there is always some truth to them.
Take this example :
if I stab someone and the person dies, and I try to give a reason why the person dies. I can say that the person is dead because I stabbed him.
Sure the reason is created, but is it 100% false?

So Obbe is pseudo-philosophically trolling.

Obbe

2008-12-31, 19:47

Your argument basically says "because all reasons are created, they are false."

That's not what I'm trying to say.

"False" is a creation also. If you stab someone, you stab someone. There is no reason. Reasons are things we make-up.

taoskin99

2008-12-31, 19:53

taoskin99

2008-12-31, 20:01

Obbe
Re: Can anyone think of any good reasons to believe there is no God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by taoskin99 View Post
Your argument basically says "because all reasons are created, they are false."

That's not what I'm trying to say.

"False" is a creation also. If you stab someone, you stab someone. There is no reason. Reasons are things we make-up.

yes, we make up reasons. We also invent Reason itself. There are no absolutes. If I stab someone, I really do stab someone. In fact, I would say that I really really stab someone if I stab someone. I wasn't talking about the reason why I stab someone. I was correlating the stabbing and the death of the person. Saying that if I stab someone and the person dies, I can give a reason for the person's death by that the person died because I stabbed him.

You say that reasons are made up. explain please. What are you trying to say, and how is it linked to the tread?

Obbe

2008-12-31, 20:01

Retuning to the actual subject of the thread, we have no reason to believe there is a God because so many ideological groups tried to prove the existence of a god or God.
Think about that : the most obvious facts require no arguments, like the fact that we exist, that the world we live in exists (whatever the definition of existence we decide), but the existence of God is not obvious, thus the requirement of faith.
Lets just hope that no 'The Matrix' pseudo-philosophers are going to offer their pseudo-refutations at this.

To sum up my argument: no reason to believe that there is a God because God (or a god) requires that we have faith in it's existence.

You can create whatever reason you want to believe there is no God. Another persons reason for believing in God is no more unreasonable then your reason for believing there is no God.

Other people might believe that God is obvious. That faith might not be required. Others, still, might believe that faith is required for all "facts", that nothing can really be known. Their reasons are not any more unreasonable then your own.

There is no "right" thing to believe because all reasons are made-up. Even the reason behind this post.

Obbe

2008-12-31, 20:26

Saying that if I stab someone and the person dies, I can give a reason for the person's death by that the person died because I stabbed him.

You say that reasons are made up. explain please. What are you trying to say, and how is it linked to the tread?

You can give that reason, but the person died because they died. You can create the reason that it is because you stabbed them, if you want to create an order and logic and reasons ... but that's all just created by you to justify reality. In reality, there are no reasons, no order, no logic ... just the chaotic and the illogical.

I'm am trying to say that just because you can justify your beliefs and make them reasonable, make them "right", doesn't mean anything. Everyone can do this, with any belief.

AnotherN00b

2009-01-02, 22:03

so the entire point of this thread was to say there are actually no reasons to believe or not believe in god because reasons are an invention of the mind to make sense of reality?

Prometheum

2009-01-03, 01:17

so the entire point of this thread was to say there are actually no reasons to believe or not believe in god because reasons are an invention of the mind to make sense of reality?

No, this thread is actually about how nothing is real and reality isn't actually reality and what is reality and obbe is a duck.

AnotherN00b

2009-01-04, 17:18

No, this thread is actually about how nothing is real and reality isn't actually reality and what is reality and obbe is a duck.

holy shit, obbe is duck? fuck.:)

ChrisVickers

2009-01-05, 01:12

I cannot believe this thread has gone on so long.

Easy way to prove gods existence:

God if you are there make me win the lottery this wednesday and I and everyone else here on this board will believe and have faith in you

Now to sit back and wait for the mirracle. I really hope I'm wrong and win. :)

Guys if I win you agree to convert with me?

On the subject of faith i'm going to create a new religion that believes there is a tea cup floating through space and that is god. My reason: It hasnt been disproved.

P.s. god, the jackpot, not a crappy £10

taoskin99

2009-01-05, 04:33

ChrisVickers has gone empyrical. I like that, I'm in!

Going back to Obbe's replies.
From a biological and psychological viewpoint, we can say that the human mind is made to rationalize it's world, to give reasons to events : it is good for survival.
So sure the reasons we give for anything are chimeras of the spirit, and we can give any reason to any event. Perception does not see order but orders reality.
Aren't these made up rationalisations of reality worth anything? Don't we have science to order and understand the chaos a little bit? The simple fact that we can take the made up ideas, fiddle them around a little, and have some impact on reality with an invention like a bomb or something shows that some ideas have more power than others. They modelize the cold, illogical reality into something our feeble minds can grasp, use and be reassured with, since reality, being what it is, cannot be fully understood.

Back to the thread then.

Obbe

2009-01-05, 17:33

so the entire point of this thread was to say there are actually no reasons to believe or not believe in god because reasons are an invention of the mind to make sense of reality?

The "point" of this thread is that all "points" are just made-up by the people thinking about them to bring order to reality. Including the point of this thread.

I cannot believe this thread has gone on so long.

Easy way to prove gods existence:

God if you are there make me win the lottery this wednesday and I and everyone else here on this board will believe and have faith in you

Now to sit back and wait for the mirracle. I really hope I'm wrong and win. :)

Guys if I win you agree to convert with me?

Winning could be a reason to believe in God to some people; to others it would be inadequate. Losing could be a reason to believe there is not a God; to others it would be inadequate.

Reason is made-up.

On the subject of faith i'm going to create a new religion that believes there is a tea cup floating through space and that is god. My reason: It hasnt been disproved.

You could create a number of reasons to believe that.

ChrisVickers has gone empyrical. I like that, I'm in!

Going back to Obbe's replies.
From a biological and psychological viewpoint, we can say that the human mind is made to rationalize it's world, to give reasons to events : it is good for survival.

We can say it's good for survival. What's survival good for?

Is it really good for survival, or are you creating that statement to justify that reasoning is "good"?

I'm not saying reasoning is "bad". Just that reasons are human creations, same as "good" and "bad". There is no divine order or logic behind it all. Only chaos and illogical.

So sure the reasons we give for anything are chimeras of the spirit, and we can give any reason to any event. Perception does not see order but orders reality.
Aren't these made up rationalisations of reality worth anything? Don't we have science to order and understand the chaos a little bit? The simple fact that we can take the made up ideas, fiddle them around a little, and have some impact on reality with an invention like a bomb or something shows that some ideas have more power than others. They modelize the cold, illogical reality into something our feeble minds can grasp, use and be reassured with, since reality, being what it is, cannot be fully understood.

Back to the thread then.

I never said they weren't worth anything. But to believe that your reasoning is somehow "better" then a different persons is meaningless. Which reason holds more value depends on the values of the person doing the reasoning.

It is not "unreasonable" for a person to believe they have a reason for believing in God. Or, at least, it is not any more unreasonable then any persons reasons for believing in anything. Reason is made-up.

ChrisVickers

2009-01-05, 21:28

Okay the numbers for this wednesday's UK lottery will be (if god exists) : 17 19 24 32 37 49

Obbe

2009-01-05, 21:43

Okay the numbers for this wednesday's UK lottery will be (if god exists) : 17 19 24 32 37 49

According to your made-up reasoning.

MarsCoban

2009-01-05, 21:46

Okay the numbers for this wednesday's UK lottery will be (if god exists) : 17 19 24 32 37 49

I dunno, I'm not a believer really, but if I were God I'd probably shit on your head for daring to test me with such trivialities.

How is it that you feel you can put out some random numbers, and if these numbers are winners in the lottery, there's a God, and if they aren't, there isn't? I don't understand your reasoning.

BrokeProphet

2009-01-05, 22:12

I dunno, I'm not a believer really, but if I were God I'd probably shit on your head for daring to test me with such trivialities.

I dare God to shit on my head.

Let's wait and see if divine terds fall from the sky.

BrokeProphet

2009-01-05, 22:13

The "point" of this thread is that all "points" are just made-up by the people thinking about them to bring order to reality. Including the point of this thread.

Great, so this nonsensical thread can be dismissed right out of hand.

Dismissed.

Obbe

2009-01-05, 23:22

Great, so this nonsensical thread can be dismissed right out of hand.

Dismissed.

That's as reasonable as believing God will shit on our heads. Do whatever you want broke, but your reasons are not better then mine or anyone's. Which reasons hold more value depends on the values of the person doing the reasoning.

It is not "unreasonable" for a person to believe they have a reason for believing in God. Or, at least, it is not any more unreasonable then any persons reasons for believing in anything, like if God exists he'll shit on your head because you've asked him to. Reason is made-up.

BrokeProphet

2009-01-06, 04:28

That's as reasonable as believing God will shit on our heads. Do whatever you want broke, but your reasons are not better then mine or anyone's. Which reasons hold more value depends on the values of the person doing the reasoning.

It is not "unreasonable" for a person to believe they have a reason for believing in God. Or, at least, it is not any more unreasonable then any persons reasons for believing in anything, like if God exists he'll shit on your head because you've asked him to. Reason is made-up.

So if I tell you to go fist yourself, with my reason being your nonsensical rhetoric....

.....that reasoning is no better than your reasoning for not fisting yourself?

Then go fist yourself!

-------

I love it that you have completely degenerated into a nonsensical poster. Believe it or not I DID try to steer you from becoming a living shitting joke on here. I can accept my failure at preventing this. I just hope you can accept your new status at My God's pathetic jester dressed in motley.

NOW DANCE!!!

Obbe

2009-01-06, 07:47

Then go fist yourself!

I guess you're not dismissing the thread after all, eh then brokeback? If you're going to stay, I request that you please keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself.

My made-up reasons for not fisting myself are no more unreasonable then whatever made-up reasons you have for believing I should fist myself. Your reasons are not better. As unreasonable as you may think it is, the reality is that I am not fisting myself and have my own made-up reasons for justifying that.

Exchange "fisting myself" with "being an atheist" in the above if you wish.

I love it that you have completely degenerated into a nonsensical poster. Believe it or not I DID try to steer you from becoming a living shitting joke on here. I can accept my failure at preventing this. I just hope you can accept your new status at My God's pathetic jester dressed in motley.

NOW DANCE!!!

Really?

Well it astounds me to think that someone could be as angry at religion and theists in real life as you are on totse. Believe what you will, but I did try to show you how being an asshole won't better the world, only further inflates your already swollen ego. It doesn't matter in the least that you choose to continue being a dick to those posters who's reasons you do not happen to agree with; it never did. Maybe you enjoy your prolonged position as resident asshole, shitting out your repressed hatred of theism into thread after thread, puffing up that throbbing ego of yours; making sure everyone knows who's the big billy asshole around these here parts, cause apparently it's important what a bunch of other douchebags like yourself think of you as a poster here on fucking totse. But I doubt your "status" amongst most of the regular posters here is really as glorified as you would like to believe it is.

Enjoy wasting your time trying to convince others why their reasoning is less reasonable then your own.