The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[snex]

My premise is that logic does not apply to the Almighty, so I guess this is just one topic that we can't "debate" on.

youre right, we cant "debate" on it, because my side of the argument is logically sound, and your side of the argument is a fear-induced paradox. really now, just admit that nothing can be omnipotent. god wont be mad at you.

Well, let examine my life... yup it's fine. So why would I change it? If people think they have the perfect religion, then WHY change it? If it is working, and they are content, then they have no reason to change.

except thats not the reason you refuse to even LOOK at other religions. its because you believe that if you do, you will go to ****.

Either A) provide evidence, not ridiculous "logical" statements, or B) drop it.

HAHAHA, i believe this is the sound the loser of a debate makes. "either provide evidence that doesnt follow your ridiculous logic or drop it." sorry friend, but logic is not some magical property of the universe. take a college level class on it before you reply please. also, you still havent explained how god can violate "p & ~p" without causing his own existence to be false. good luck with that one.

 

[Superbus]

because my side of the argument is logically sound, and your side of the argument is a fear-induced paradox. really now, just admit that nothing can be omnipotent. god wont be mad at you.

Yours isn't logically sound because you are trying to prove that a God who can do anything can't do something.

except thats not the reason you refuse to even LOOK at other religions. its because you believe that if you do, you will go to ****.

If you were making a billion dollars at a job, would you go looking for another job? Of course not. People are content with Christianity, therefore they stay. Please note, I know myself better than you, and that is why I stay.

HAHAHA, i believe this is the sound the loser of a debate makes. "either provide evidence that doesnt follow your ridiculous logic or drop it."

Wrong. The point is, you make ridiculous statements, that all examples that I find do not follow, and then gloat about it. Actual data has to back up theory.

sorry friend, but logic is not some magical property of the universe. take a college level class on it before you reply please.

I'll be sure to take one at Harvard/Yale/Johns Hopkins/Carnegie Mellon in a year and a half. (They all are recruiting me. Probably going to end up at CMU for engineering though because I'm a legacy and I know the coach. Guess that is what happens when you are a smart football player...) Enough bragging, point is don't patronize me, I'm not an idiot.
Edit: I just checked out your website. We may have something in common. My father was an engineering major at CMU, and that is what I was planning on doing, but I might go for computer science instead. We would have the same major then.

take a college level class on it before you reply please. also, you still havent explained how god can violate "p & ~p" without causing his own existence to be false. good luck with that one.

Now explain how God breaking His own rules violates his existence again. That's just a silly statement.

 

[snex]

Yours isn't logically sound because you are trying to prove that a God who can do anything can't do something.

first of all, you have nothing to show that god actually can do anything, or that he even exists for that matter. whats more likely, that an all-powerful being that can violate logic but refuses to show himself exists, or that there is no such being after all? you are just stating a mere belief, and that belief happens to be illogical. if you can somehow deal with this without going insane (e.g. youre too afraid to admit that it cant happen) then good for you. it still is not a premise for debate, but an illogical belief that you hold.

If you were making a billion dollars at a job, would you go looking for another job? Of course not. People are content with Christianity, therefore they stay.

how is holding illogical beliefs equivalent to making a billion dollars? again, refer to the santa claus belief. you gain nothing but positive things from believing in santa claus, but no free-thinking adult does so. whys that? santa wont send him to **** if he stops believing.

Wrong. The point is, you make ridiculous statements, that all examples that I find do not follow, and then gloat about it. Actual data has to back up theory.

wow, i never thought id see a christian say this. please provide actual data to back up your illogical beliefs.

I'll be sure to take one at Harvard/Yale/Johns Hopkins/Carnegie Mellon in a year and a half.

HAHA dont fool yourself. practically everybody gets mail from those places, yet you dont see all of those people getting in, do you? want me to send you all my junk mail from those schools?

Now explain how God breaking His own rules violates his existence again. That's just a silly statement.

well if you knew anything about logic youd know this. if we let p = "god exists" then applying "p & ~p" yields "god exists and god does not exist." common sense tells us that this is false. god cant both exist and not exist at the same time. "p & ~p" is a false statement. now, lets assume that for some reason god wants to make it true. that means that "god exists and god does not exist" is true. this means that both p and ~p are true. if ~p is true, then "god does not exist" is true. i.e. god violated logic and it led to his own non-existence. this means that he could not have violated logic, because the initial assumption is that he does exist.

the obvious response to this is that "well god can also violate the new logic that he just created." of course he can, its not actual logic. anybody can violate it. and, by violating false logic, you are following true logic, just as god is bound to do.

 

[Superbus]

HAHA dont fool yourself. practically everybody gets mail from those places, yet you dont see all of those people getting in, do you? want me to send you all my junk mail from those schools?

It's different for football buddy. Plus, I'll get into CMU anyways homey. Not only am I a legacy, and a football player with my uncle as the coach, but my dad contributes some sizeable money and is part of an organization there. My one friend got a 1200 on his SATs and was 50/300 in his class and we got him in. Now, take my 1510 and my 1/320. And, as I said before, it is way different for football. Our right tackle is going to Yale with a mere 1260. Why? Because he was one of there thirty recruits.

first of all, you have nothing to show that god actually can do anything, or that he even exists for that matter. whats more likely, that an all-powerful being that can violate logic but refuses to show himself exists, or that there is no such being after all? you are just stating a mere belief, and that belief happens to be illogical. if you can somehow deal with this without going insane (e.g. youre too afraid to admit that it cant happen) then good for you. it still is not a premise for debate, but an illogical belief that you hold.

You're right, we can't prove God exists. But you also cannot disprove him. We know this, and the only thing we as Christians can do is to defend arguments disproving him. We have something called faith, which you are too cynical to accept, so once again, this is pointless.

how is holding illogical beliefs equivalent to making a billion dollars? again, refer to the santa claus belief. you gain nothing but positive things from believing in santa claus, but no free-thinking adult does so. whys that? santa wont send him to **** if he stops believing.

The point is happiness. If you are happy, you don't change, even if there exists a possibility that you MIGHT be better off.

wow, i never thought id see a christian say this. please provide actual data to back up your illogical beliefs.

I was referring to actual people that I have met, not my beliefs. You claim that every Christian is motivated to stay that way by fear, yet provide no examples of it. I find examples of people who aren't. That is just like saying that you proved that the sky is hot pink, and walking out and seeing that it is blue.

yet you dont see all of those people getting in, do you?

Just had to take one more jab. All my friends did, hehe

common sense tells us that this is false

Human common sense. God could both exist and not exist if He willed it.

 

[snex]

superbus until you are ready to stop arguing like a 6 year old child im not going to respond to you anymore. you try so hard to separate yourself from people like caliburchamp, but in the end you argue exactly like him. you run arguments in circles, you fail to understand logic and claim that as a good thing, you demand proof while offering none of your own. keep lying to yourself and telling yourself that you are happy, but not in an ATHEIST topic. you do not belong here and we do not want your illogical statements. this topic is not for defending ourselves from christians that do not know how to argue, it is for MATURE discussion about atheism.

so in other words, leave.

 

[Superbus]

it is for MATURE discussion about atheism.

Hmmm, I could have swore this was a debate, not an atheist congregation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with my arguments. First off, we're just going to have to disagree on the omnipotence thing. It just depends on if you think omnipotence means being abble to violate logic or not.

you run arguments in circles, you fail to understand logic and claim that as a good thing, you demand proof while offering none of your own.

My arguments do not run in circles. I understand logic, but I define omnipotence differently, plus I also have the ability to see the world as a complex thing. (I mean I can see more than one difference between Santa and God).

keep lying to yourself and telling yourself that you are happy

Wow, for being not happy I sure as **** feel good.

so in other words, leave.

What, so you can bash more zealots?

 

[Barogrei]

Can you go to the store and buy an item that is both only red, and at the same time and perspective, be only blue? That is exactly the nature of logic... The only stipulation that logic has (as far as I know) is that one definition of something, does not break the stipulation of another defined rule. If one definition breaks the rule of another definition, it makes the other definition untrue. This means that a system of definitions that defies itself is wrong, and further reduction is impossible.

Superbus, by your religion, though God was the very first thing, things may have very possibly be there before Him. Also, Snex is far more likely to end up in heaven because he defies His commandments, because by defying them and God's word, and not repenting through Jesus Christ, you are condemned to rot in ****. And because you obey them you are doomed.

 

[Superbus]

Also, Snex is far more likely to end up in heaven because he defies His commandments, because by defying them and God's word, and not repenting through Jesus Christ, you are condemned to rot in ****. And because you obey them you are doomed.

So if he is condemned to ****, how is he going to end up in Heaven? I mean I think I read that statement right...

Superbus, by your religion, though God was the very first thing, things may have very possibly be there before Him.

God is timeless. Time is a human concept. He always existed and will always exist. Once again, this is one of the things that is beyond human understanding.

 

[Mediocre]

Also, Snex is far more likely to end up in heaven because he defies His commandments, because by defying them and God's word, and not repenting through Jesus Christ, you are condemned to rot in ****. And because you obey them you are doomed.

That was one of the more idiotic things I've heard today.

According the Bible, snex is going to be smelling brimstone in the afterlife. Since busboy believes in the Bible, he's not going to buy your ignorant claim. Neither am I.

EDIT:

So if he is condemned to ****, how is he going to end up in Heaven?

Read it again, busboy. He said that you're going to end up in ****, not snex. What he said is even stupider than you thought it was.

 

[Barogrei]

It was intended not only to be idiotic, but illogical. I was merely demonstrating illogic at its most comprehendable level.

Definition 1: Disobey the Commandments, and don't be redeemed through Jesus, and you go to ****.

Definition 2: Snex does not obey the commandments nor redeem himself through Jesus.

Definition 3: Snex goes to heaven.

Do you see why the third definition makes the other ones untrue?

 

[Superbus]

Oh, so I did read that right. So what does that have to do with me?

 

[Mediocre]

Wow.

That contributed absolutely nothing to the debate. Thanks.

You just made yourself look like a douchebag. Nice work.

 

[Barogrei]

It means that alot of things in everythingness are polydefinite, meaning that they have multiple characteristics. Now, lets look at the derivative meanings of omnipotence.

Definition: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

Derived Definition: Can make ice cream out of nothing.

Derived Definition: Can make a wall He cannot break.

Derived Definition: Can break wall in Derived Definition #2.

Derived Definitions are just as correct as the initial definition, or else they are not correctly derived, and somehow the syntax of the definition has been confused. You see how derived definition 2 and 3 cannot both work. This is why omnipotence is a flawed concept, at least without stipulations.

 

[Mediocre]

You won't convince a Christian with logic. Don't bother trying.

You're still a douchebag.

 

[Superbus]

Consider this: the condition "P & ~P" is false. But the reason why that condition is true is because that is the way God chose to make it. Perhaps if God wanted it then "P & ~P" would be true. God made the rules of logic, and if He wanted to, he could remake them. Once again, it may not make sense to us, but that is because we can't fathom it. It's sort of like extra dimensions. We think in three, and despire the fact there may be four (or 10, or whatever), we cannot fathom it.

Edit:

One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs. Descartes seems to have had such a notion

Source: here

So apparently my position isn't untenetable. There is a lot of stuff on that page arguing against my stance, but then again, how can I argue for it? I can just assume that God can do the impossible, just as Descartes did.

 

[Barogrei]

I cannot believe it to be true because there is internal conflict. The only way you can exonerate an illogical something is to change the place where the definitions conflict, and all roots of it. Logic is very independent of God or anything. God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5 without ever haven intervened. It doesn't work. Your mind works with logical processes.

Question: Should Superbus be kind or cruel to a random individual

Definition: Superbus is Christians.

Definition: Christians follow the bible

Definition: The bible preaches kindness and love.

Logical Answer: Superbus should be kind.

because

Answer: Superbus should be cruel
conflicts with
Definition: The bible preaches kindness and love.

God can break any rules but his own. If God breaks his own (unbreakable) rules, that destroys their very unbreakableness, thus making his original premise. No matter how many dimensions you divide this into, one definition cannot defy another. I fully recognize the hopelessness of trying to reason with an individual who refuses to recognize reason. Let me inquire this though, Superbus. Why do you follow the messages of God (or those you found to be messages), if you believe God to be illogical?

 

[Superbus]

Yes, but I cannot violate logic. As I just found out, I follow the Cartesian school of thought, which stipulates that God can do anything, even the impossible.

 

[snex]

the cartesian school of thought has long since been thrown in the toilet. DesCartes died in 1650, when people still thought the sun revolved around the earth. welcome to the 21st century.

 

[Superbus]

Cogito ergo sum.
^Sounds good to me.

Just because Descartes is dead doesn't mean that he is wrong. His school of thought wasn't thrown down the toilet. No one can disprove what he said. Using logic to prove that God cannot violate logic is downright absurd. The matter is opinion really.

 

[snex]

Cogito ergo sum.
^Sounds good to me.

unfortunately thats not grounds to believe it, at least for a rational being.

Just because Descartes is dead doesn't mean that he is wrong. His school of thought wasn't thrown down the toilet. No one can disprove what he said.

ask any modern philosopher what he thinks about DesCartes. its outdated thought. christians love to cling to things like this and plato because they cannot accept modern thought. touting philosophers that were popular in ancient and medieval times does not make your beliefs intelligent.

Using logic to prove that God cannot violate logic is downright absurd. The matter is opinion really.

then please prove that he can violate logic, using whatever it is you silly christians use to prove things. ****, just call him up and ask him to show up in my room and violate logic right in front of me. if he cares about me, then he will want me to believe and go to heaven, and he knows that this is the only way to convince me.

 

[Superbus]

unfortunately thats not grounds to believe it, at least for a rational being.

Oblivious to sarcasm.

ask any modern philosopher what he thinks about DesCartes. its outdated thought. christians love to cling to things like this and plato because they cannot accept modern thought. touting philosophers that were popular in ancient and medieval times does not make your beliefs intelligent.

So you want me to use someone else's opinions do disprove mine? Descartes is still a a great thinker, but our coinciding theories do not mean that we are right. The point is that my belief is not untenetable.

Besides, people are going to look back on our philosophers 1,000 years from now and think we are silly.

then please prove that he can violate logic

Yeah, exactly, I'll just call Him up and ask Him.

In the end, there is no way to prove either side. It is all a matter of opinion.

 

[snex]

In the end, there is no way to prove either side. It is all a matter of opinion.

this is where you are wrong. it is not opinion. you believe it is a FACT that there exists a being that can violate logic. i have no such belief. one of us must be wrong... unless, since god can violate logic i am right no matter what. i am also wrong no matter what. do you not see how silly it is to claim that logic is violable? without logic all you can do is hide behind a claim that everything is opinion, and if that is the case, stop peddling your beliefs, because they are nothing but opinion. god is your opinion. omnipotence is your opinion. and i dont remember anybody asking for your opinion.

 

[Superbus]

I believe that the war with Iraq is just. I believe God is omnipotent. They are opinion because they cannot be concretly proved or disproved.

without logic all you can do is hide behind a claim that everything is opinion

Logic normally holds, but this is a special circumstance. I would much rather get back to other theistic issues, because as I said, THIS is opinion.

Also, as I said I cannot prove God. I entered this debate because the atheist side said they can disprove them, so it is up to you guys to go on the offensive.

 

[Mediocre]

without logic all you can do is hide behind a claim that everything is opinion, and if that is the case, stop peddling your beliefs, because they are nothing but opinion. god is your opinion. omnipotence is your opinion. and i dont remember anybody asking for your opinion.

Actually, I remember you saying that Superbus was completely wrong.

Now you've been reduced to saying that that's just his opinion, which is what busboy has been arguing from the first place.

There is a great deal of irony here.

 

[snex]

nobody that sufficiently represents atheists has claimed that they can disprove god. we can however disprove certain beliefs about god, like omnipotence, which has already been disproven, whether you admit to it or not.

there is no need to disprove god to support a disbelief in him. disbelief is not a positive statement, and therefore does not require evidence. if i said that i did not believe in unicorns, i would not need to back that up. however, if i said that there were no unicorns, i would have to back that up.

Actually, I remember you saying that Superbus was completely wrong.

Now you've been reduced to saying that that's just his opinion, which is what busboy has been arguing from the first place.

There is a great deal of irony here.

no, i am using his own claims to show that his argument is invalid. you contribute nothing to debates but flames and irrelevant tangents mediocre. stop posting, here and everywhere.

 

[Superbus]

nobody that sufficiently represents atheists has claimed that they can disprove god.

Oh so all those, "God is bull****" statements were sarcastic...

there is no need to disprove god to support a disbelief in him. disbelief is not a positive statement, and therefore does not require evidence. if i said that i did not believe in unicorns, i would not need to back that up. however, if i said that there were no unicorns, i would have to back that up.

And if you aren't trying to convert us to your side, which would involve disproving God, then what are you doing? This is a debate.

 

[Barogrei]

What an agnostic might try to do is find logical inconsistencies with your conception of what God is. Then, seeing as that the deity in which you invested so much faith in is flawed in concept, open your eyes to the truth that you really can't know what is out their or even the chances of it. I don't know if it's possible, using logic, to determine that a god, of some definition, is irrational.

I don't want you to lose your faith in God, or Christianity, SuperBus, only for you to recognize that logic is inarguable, by anything. I just wish that people weren't so cement in the technicalities of their beliefs so as to sacrifice rationality in exchange. Solidity of faith is not solidity of technical facts or things like that, that would more likely be solidity of trust. Is an impossible and irrational God necessary for your faith? Why must your strength and solace be contingent on an irrelevant fact? Logic > God, face it.

 

[Superbus]

How about, instead of patronizing me, you open your eyes in look. If you would have seen some my posts, you would know I am a very religously compromising individual. Omnipotence, however, is something I will not compromise on. All powerful means all powerful. And part of that implies the ability to do the impossible, even if we cannot fathom it.

 

[Venom Dream]

Firstly, I havn't read this entire topic, infact, I've only read the first post. But thats not important.

I, personally, don't belive in god. I think all religon is completely ludicris. The only thing that religion does is cause wars and make a couple people think that by being good they will get some kind of reward.
So, maybe there is a god, but how does anyone know that the cathlic version is right? How is it more accurate that, say, Greek mythology? The anwser is, it isn't. People just assume that they are right. Oh my god, its writin in a book! Its not like it isn't like that with other religions and belifes.
And if there is a god, and it's exactly how the bible says it is? I don't care. I'm still not going to change the way I live just because someone else thinks I should. I'll live how I want to, and see what happens then. Thats how everyone should live their lifes - looking at the immediate future, instead of worrying about some distant time and wondering what will happen their whole lifes. It doesn't matter.

 

[Superbus]

The only thing that religion does is cause wars and make a couple people think that by being good they will get some kind of reward.

Yes, those are the only things it does... Don't be silly and make stupid blanket statements like that.

I, personally, don't belive in god. I think all religon is completely ludicris. The only thing that religion does is cause wars and make a couple people think that by being good they will get some kind of reward. So, maybe there is a god, but how does anyone know that the cathlic version is right? How is it more accurate that, say, Greek mythology? The anwser is, it isn't. People just assume that they are right. Oh my god, its writin in a book! Its not like it isn't like that with other religions and belifes.
And if there is a god, and it's exactly how the bible says it is? I don't care. I'm still not going to change the way I live just because someone else thinks I should. I'll live how I want to, and see what happens then. Thats how everyone should live their lifes - looking at the immediate future, instead of worrying about some distant time and wondering what will happen their whole lifes. It doesn't matter.

Spelling errors in red. Grammar errors in blue.

Now, as for your arguments. Each side has agreed that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, so the debate is centered really on Christianity tenets. Now, the advice that you shouldn't worry about the future is ridiculous. How would anything ever get done then? People would just worry about how to gratify instant needs, and nothing with any kind of lasting value would ever be produced. Who wants that?

 

[Mike da King]

Venom mentions a valid argument that I call the multiplicity argument. With infinitely many equally likely (due to absence of evidence) potential "God concepts," the probability that your particular one exists is 1/ +infinity, which is practically zero. Therefore acting under the assumption that he exists is absurd, without actual evidence. This is why faith in God is irrational.

 

[Superbus]

Venom mentions a valid argument that I call the multiplicity argument. With infinitely many equally likely (due to absence of evidence) potential "God concepts," the probability that your particular one exists is 1/ +infinity, which is practically zero. Therefore acting under the assumption that he exists is absurd, without actual evidence. This is why faith in God is irrational.

But what if one is right? Also, it if by irrational, you mean believing in something that there is not CONCRETE evidence for, then what is wrong with that? You've just explained one of the tenets of our religion, which is semi-blind faith.

 

[pikamon]

Christianity cannot be proven or disproven. It is the fundamental flaw that arises when you try to debate the issue.

Every religion requires some degree of blind faith. No matter how advanced our science gets, and no matter what theories we create, christianity will never be disproven. It can only be theorized on. The only way a religion can be disproven would be if another supreme being that is not God, would reveal him/herself to us declaring God to not exist. And even then, we still could speculate.

 

[snex]

But what if one is right?

so what if it is?

 

[pikamon]

Originally posted by snex
so what if it is?

If it is right....then it is right. How can you ask something like that? That's a very childish response.

You just argued against him with a response similar to something that a child would say.

Just stop talking, snex.

 

[snex]

um, no. the point is, it doesnt matter if one of them is right. its not worth considering because it cant be proven and doesnt effect us anyway.

 

[pikamon]

That post you just made is so contradictive.

You say it doesn't matter if it's right, because it can't be proven. If something is right, then it has been proven. And if it hasn't been proven, then it can't be seen as absolute.

 

[snex]

what the **** are you talking about? are you just spewing random bull**** for the sole purpose of disagreeing with me? something that is right has not necessarily been proven, it may not even be possible to prove. a supernatural being is not provable, but it may be right. if it hasnt been proven, it cant be SEEN as absolute, but it may be absolute anyway. are you telling me that keplers laws of planetary motion were not absolute before they were proven?

think before you post please.

 

[pikamon]

Originally posted by snex
um, no. the point is, it doesnt matter if one of them is right. its not worth considering because it cant be proven and doesnt effect us anyway.

That is what you said. If God came down right now and presented himself to all of us, then I would say he proved he exists. That is how we would know if it was right, and it would probably be the only way.

As far as that last sentence you gave, yes it does affect us.

If God exists, then the entire world would be affected and it would cause countless people to rethink their lives.

something that is right has not necessarily been proven, it may not even be possible to prove.

Nothing can be accepted as right without proof. It can only be speculated upon. If it cannot be proven, it becomes a theory and remains such until it can be. If something is considered right, then it has been proven.

a supernatural being is not provable, but it may be right.

Like I said before, if God came down from heaven and told us all that he exists, then I'd say he proved it.

are you telling me that keplers laws of planetary motion were not absolute before they were proven?

Um...yes. I would think that this would be obvious. A theory is a theory because it is not absolute. If it was, then it wouldn't be a theory anymore and would be regarded as fact.

think before you post please.

You should heed your own advice.

 

[rmusgrave]

Nothing can be accepted as right without proof. It can only be speculated upon. If it cannot be proven, it becomes a theory and remains such until it can be. If something is considered right, then it has been proven.

something that is right has not necessarily been proven, it may not even be possible to prove.

There is one main difference in the arguments here. When snex mentions right, he means something that is completely true, whether we know it or not. When pikamon says it, however, he means right in terms of what humans perceive as right (i.e. proven facts). I just don't want to see people arguing over different definitions...

As far as that last sentence you gave, yes it does affect us.

How? Other than the way you and me act, our belief system etc., and how we affect others, how does there being a god affect people? As far as I can tell, it doesn't...