The Futile Arguments Thread

[Event_Horizon]

I'm sorry guys, you're all wrong because I am God.

This post here is my scripture, and it is my scripture because my scripture says it is (duh). I created the universe, I'm all powerful, etc etc. How do you know that's true? Well because I said it is, and I'm God, so there ya go.

Now if anyone here can prove I don't exist or that I'm not God, then they're welcome to try (lol but I don't see that happening).

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

I'm sorry guys, you're all wrong because I am God.

This post here is my scripture, and it is my scripture because my scripture says it is (duh). I created the universe, I'm all powerful, etc etc. How do you know that's true? Well because I said it is, and I'm God, so there ya go.

Now if anyone here can prove I don't exist or that I'm not God, then they're welcome to try (lol but I don't see that happening).

Holy shit... It's all clear to me now! I'm sorry I never saw you before, my Lord, and that I've been doing things with my genitals that you wouldn't approve of!  

[fester30]

I don't personally have any interest or anything to gain by proving the absence of something faith-based.  As far as I'm concerned, deities can go on existing in the imaginations of theists

So I guess you aren't worried that Christians are preventing stem cell research. That Christians are promoting to Aids ravaged countries that use of condoms is evil. Christians are stopping euthanasia becoming a humane approach to ending human suffering. Christians are ensuring Gay people are treated less than human, needing Civil Union rather than weddings. Christians are trying to prevent sex education for hormonal children. Christianity is promoting the subjigation of women in society. They oppose free speach especially when it has atheistic tones (search for The Golden Compass) Christianity is a large group, they are influencing government and being a barrier to progress and tolerance, peace and love.

I never said that.  I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist or even try to argue against the existence of a diety to argue for civil rights.  I shouldn't have to fight a God I don't believe in to argue against religious dogma infiltrating government.  That should be its own argument.

I would also remind you that Christians are only part of the problem.  Muslims persecute women and homosexuals.  Hindus persecute "untouchables."  The Chinese government has one of the worst civil rights records of any first world country.  Man doesn't need Christianity, or even religion, to do bad things.  Religion is one of the many excuses for such.  I argue against all civil rights abuses, not just those perpetrated by the Pope.

[AnimatedDirt]

Once theists started claiming their GOD to be made of nothing, it was game over .

God is made of nothing?  LOL.  In a sense, yes, but not in the sense you're poking fun of here.  We simply don't know WHAT God is made of.  Obviously if He exists, He is something.  Gravity exists...you tell me what it is made of.

[AnimatedDirt]

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or what. But your response was totally predictable.

Tell me, Tank...since you claim powers of predictability...at least on my part, what is my response?  Total predictability you claim, must be 100% complete.

Tell you what...I'm going to do a little experiment.  Maybe YOU will test your powers of predictability.  I'm going to send Whitney and Will and McQ a PM with my "predictable response" to you on what I hold as one point of evidence for God.

Give me about 2 hours from now (I'm off to lunch, but when I return) ...I'll send them the PM.  Then post my exact predictable response.  Let's see how well you do at your claim.  Ok?

I guess Tank isn't as prophetic as he claims on my responses.  Anyway, here is my "predictable answer" as one point of evidence for God.

Simply, the Book of Daniel and specifically the prophecy of Chapter 7 (among others).  The prediction of world empires...Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Kingdoms and States of Europe...through to the end of "time" as we know it.

Critics make the claim that the book of Daniel wasn't witten until 160 BC or so, but there is plenty of evidence to support the early writing at around 550 BC (I think it is)  Among many websites, this one makes a good argument for the early authorship.

When Was Daniel Written?

Exactly what I PM'd Whitney, Will, and McQ.

[Stevil]

I never said that.  I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist or even try to argue against the existence of a diety to argue for civil rights.  I shouldn't have to fight a God I don't believe in to argue against religious dogma infiltrating government.  That should be its own argument.

When religion is involved the worshippers cling to the stance within their scripture, they lose the ability to reason from a humanistic perspective. They are taught that thinking is flawed and selfish and sinnful, their scriptures have many stories highlighting that nothing less than total obidience is expected from them (e.g. Abraham's attempt at killing his own son). If god says that it is so then it must be Good, regardless of how bad that stance may seem. They will then hold onto that stance as if it were their own and a lot of them will then try to enforce it onto society as a whole.

Atheists and humanists and thinkers are outnumbered by the religious worshippers (the people that rather follow scriptures than think for themselves). Unless we are able to break the dogmatic thinking habbits, break the religions, kill the source then we will never be free of the civil right attrocoties that we are forced to live with.

BTW: This pretty much applies to all religions not just Christianity.

[AnimatedDirt]

When religion is involved the worshippers cling to the stance within their scripture, they lose the ability to reason from a humanistic perspective. They are taught that thinking is flawed and selfish and sinnful, their scriptures have many stories highlighting that nothing less than total obidience is expected from them (e.g. Abraham's attempt at killing his own son). If god says that it is so then it must be Good, regardless of how bad that stance may seem. They will then hold onto that stance as if it were their own and a lot of them will then try to enforce it onto society as a whole.

Atheists and humanists and thinkers are outnumbered by the religious worshippers (the people that rather follow scriptures than think for themselves). Unless we are able to break the dogmatic thinking habbits, break the religions, kill the source then we will never be free of the civil right attrocoties that we are forced to live with.

BTW: This pretty much applies to all religions not just Christianity.

There are many Christians that, like me, are able to think outside of Christianity...especially on the topics of civil liberties/law.  Most Christians either ignore or are ignorant to the fact that scripture teaches the separation of Church and State...that we should give to "Caesar" what is Caesar's.  That we should follow everything the State dictates we should do (as God is in control and has put/allowed/made plans for those that are in office to care for the population.)  The only things we should avoid or protest against is our civil rights to freedom of religion.  If anything the Gov. puts as law goes against what God says, then we should not do it.  This does not necessarily include topics like Abortion, Gay rights, and those sort of points in law.  We may have an opinion at where we think God may stand and so make a stand there too, but it is not out place to dictate our beliefs on everyone.  I believe Abortion is wrong, but I also believe that we are free to choose our path in life.  Abortion is one of those points in law that shouldn't need "law", but it is not so open and shut of a case.  Gay rights is another of these.  While I say the acts of love making (within a gay relationship) are a sin, I don't feel it is wrong to love another of the same gender.  The sin is the ACTS of such, but the sinner remains a sinner...no more a sinner being gay than not gay.  There is sin in non-gay sex too.  Therefore, I support gay rights under CIVIL LAW.  There simply is no grounds to alienate until SOCIETY deems being gay is unlawful.  That's not going to happen.  I digress.

The point is, many Christians are simply speaking out of their hind quarters too much when what they should be doing is simply teaching their family to do the "right" thing as they see it.  Unless civil law infringes on their right to worship God, or forces them to act against God in some manner, we (Christians) shouldn't be much involved in politics, if at all.  I'd dare say, more like the Amish.

[Stevil]

There are many Christians that, like me, are able to think outside of Christianity...especially on the topics of civil liberties/law.  Most Christians either ignore or are ignorant to the fact that scripture teaches the separation of Church and State...that we should give to "Caesar" what is Caesar's.  That we should follow everything the State dictates we should do (as God is in control and has put/allowed/made plans for those that are in office to care for the population.)  The only things we should avoid or protest against is our civil rights to freedom of religion.  If anything the Gov. puts as law goes against what God says, then we should not do it.  This does not necessarily include topics like Abortion, Gay rights, and those sort of points in law.  We may have an opinion at where we think God may stand and so make a stand there too, but it is not out place to dictate our beliefs on everyone.  I believe Abortion is wrong, but I also believe that we are free to choose our path in life.  Abortion is one of those points in law that shouldn't need "law", but it is not so open and shut of a case.  Gay rights is another of these.  While I say the acts of love making (within a gay relationship) are a sin, I don't feel it is wrong to love another of the same gender.  The sin is the ACTS of such, but the sinner remains a sinner...no more a sinner being gay than not gay.  There is sin in non-gay sex too.  Therefore, I support gay rights under CIVIL LAW.  There simply is no grounds to alienate until SOCIETY deems being gay is unlawful.  That's not going to happen.  I digress.

The point is, many Christians are simply speaking out of their hind quarters too much when what they should be doing is simply teaching their family to do the "right" thing as they see it.  Unless civil law infringes on their right to worship God, or forces them to act against God in some manner, we (Christians) shouldn't be much involved in politics, if at all.  I'd dare say, more like the Amish.

I like when you speak from the I rather than talk about what Christians position is.
I like that you are able to seperate Church and State.

I feel that your position is limited though. Just an observation of mine. Feel free to ignore, I don't want to tell you how to think and I don't want to put you down for being honest about your thoughts as I very much appreciate you revealing them here.
It seems that there is a strong obedience/dependancy theme. Obey Scripture, obey State. If clash, then obey Scripture. There doesn't seem to be a think for yourself aspect.

I really do think that progress is made by pushing the envelope rather than accepting current state for the sake of it. It's a matter of picking your battles but it makes sense to encourage change when change is needed. Once it was illegal for people to be gay. Obviously this law needed to change and really people should have been in support of change here. At one stage women were not entitled to vote and again change was necessary. Still in many countries gays can only have Civil Union and not marriage. This needs to change, why are gays singled out?

Here is something that you might find hypocritical of me as I oppose Religions imposing on State. But, if I were in government I would make it illegal for anyone to discriminate based on gender. This means that if religious organisations do not allow women into positions of power then I would enforce punishment, suing, prison, closure etc.
I would also make tithes taxable, unless it could be proven that these go to real charities e.g. people in need.

There is a reason why democratic countries give the people the power of the vote, not for status quo, but for change. It enforces the politicians to be aligned with the people. Well, at least during the campain.

[AnimatedDirt]

I like when you speak from the I rather than talk about what Christians position is.
I like that you are able to seperate Church and State.

Appreciated.  

I feel that your position is limited though. Just an observation of mine. Feel free to ignore, I don't want to tell you how to think and I don't want to put you down for being honest about your thoughts as I very much appreciate you revealing them here.
It seems that there is a strong obedience/dependancy theme. Obey Scripture, obey State. If clash, then obey Scripture. There doesn't seem to be a think for yourself aspect.

Obedience/dependency.   Have you ever tried to look at things from a different perspective?  I have and it is why, I think, I tend to get along with my physical Atheist friends.  I do understand their disbelief.  I can see "why" they disbelieve.  What I don't understand is their inability to view evidence for God from outside the Atheist bias.  It's next to impossible.  But yet we get along.  So I ask/mention this because from the Christian view, God made us.  He is the Potter and we, the clay.  Who are we to judge what the Artist does with His creation?  If He offers "salvation" through some laws that seem binding, is it really that awful?  To the Atheist, the word "worship" has negative conotations when in relation to God, but when in relation to a spouse or lover, it has good conotations.  The Atheist sees "worship" as bowing down, being subservient, being whipped for not giving respect..., when the fact of the matter is that "worship" as God asks is simply ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and then FELLOWSHIP.  Fear God?  Sure, but not in the sense of be scared of God as one would be a tyrant.  Fear God as one "fears" a parent and the position the parent holds in relationship to the child.  Obedience is a natural byproduct of love.  One obeys, not because one MUST, but because one loves, he/she respects the other's wishes...more so to the tune of a God to created being relationship.

The "think for yourself aspect"?  There is much of this.  In fact, God, as Christianity holds, has endowed us to think on our own.  He's given humanity full cognitive ability.  To decide whether we want to believe in and thus love God.  We have much to think intelligently about.  Do we want life or do we want death?  The obvious answer is life, but at what cost?  To the Atheist, he/she sees it as being subservient, held down, tasked with cleaning the toilets, if you will...to the Christian it is not a servant, but a child of, an heir, not held down, but lifted up out of, not tasked with meaninglessness, but given meaning...Does this sound preachy?  Maybe.  I'll stop here.

I really do think that progress is made by pushing the envelope rather than accepting current state for the sake of it. It's a matter of picking your battles but it makes sense to encourage change when change is needed. Once it was illegal for people to be gay. Obviously this law needed to change and really people should have been in support of change here. At one stage women were not entitled to vote and again change was necessary. Still in many countries gays can only have Civil Union and not marriage. This needs to change, why are gays singled out?

I see your point and I agree.  I look at it, however, through different eyes, a different perspective.  Was the law against gays in the Bible harsh?  Yes!  Was it harsh against those that did "work" on the Sabbath?  Yes!  ...one can include a miriad of laws and laws broken and their consequences.  BUT...if looked at through the eyes of development one can see that God was teaching a child.  At one time there were spankings.  Spanking=death?  No, that's not the point.  The point is, those that broke the law, suffered the consequences of the law immediately.  This teaches what is right and what is wrong.  NOW, we look back and say, "That was so unfair..."  From the human perspective, it is.  But from the God perspective it was necessary to teach.  I know...some feel spanking isn't necessary, yada, yada.  The point still remains.  So at this point, we know what is wrong and what the consequences of doing wrong brings.  Yet NOW we are treated as adults, having been taught and now being left to make our own decisions.

It's important *you're able to view from perspectives other than only yours.

Here is something that you might find hypocritical of me as I oppose Religions imposing on State. But, if I were in government I would make it illegal for anyone to discriminate based on gender. This means that if religious organisations do not allow women into positions of power then I would enforce punishment, suing, prison, closure etc.

Women in ministry?  I agree.  The Bible has at least a few examples of women being first, teaching...among other points.  They shouldn't be put down as inferior to men.

I would also make tithes taxable, unless it could be proven that these go to real charities e.g. people in need.

Tax tithing and all gifts to charity.  We would definitely see who is giving out of heart and who is giving out of greed for the return.  I have no problem with taxing tithe.

There is a reason why democratic countries give the people the power of the vote, not for status quo, but for change. It enforces the politicians to be aligned with the people. Well, at least during the campain.

That is why *you also have a vote in *your own destiny.  God will never force *you to align to Him nor His ways.  However, if God IS, then there are consequences to *your choices.  Consequences probably not seen in this lifetime.

We are brought back full circle then and are left with the question of freewill.  I say we posess it...and fully.

[Stevil]

Obedience/dependency.   Have you ever tried to look at things from a different perspective?  I have and it is why, I think, I tend to get along with my physical Atheist friends.  

I try to do this all the time. I am a very empathetic person. But of course it is impossible to put yourself in other people's shoes, you can only imagine at best.

What I don't understand is their inability to view evidence for God from outside the Atheist bias.  It's next to impossible.

Yes, there is quite a bridge to gap. You do realise that the bias of Atheists is simply a lack of either understanding or ignorance of the Bible. We have no teachings, no scripture, no commandments, no moral alignment. The only thing that unites us is that we have a common ack of a belief in God.

We are exactly like you with regards to lack of belief in Allah, or Bhudha or the Indian gods or the Greek gods or the other 10,000 that there are, so that works out to only a 0.01% difference with regards to belief in gods.

Going by this I would have thought it easy for a theist to understand the atheist position. However I find it difficult understanding the theist position. Theist's study their scripture, go to study group, bible camp, go to church, talk to their ministers etc for many, many years. Their knowledge is a learned and indoctrined position.

From my position, it seems odd to believe in an old book, given there is no proof, and the teaching are non intuitive and it doesn't make sense to have an all knowing god create everything. How did the god get there, and how did it know how to create stuff. It really seems unnecessary.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes, there is quite a bridge to gap. You do realise that the bias of Atheists is simply a lack of either understanding or ignorance of the Bible. We have no teachings, no scripture, no commandments, no moral alignment. The only thing that unites us is that we have a common ack of a belief in God.

I beg to differ.  *You have the "outspoken" Atheists.  *You have their books, their distaste and hate for relgion and/or religious people. *You have the Dawkins scale to determine where you stand as an Atheist, *You have history** and science as scripture.
**Yet some is denied.

We are exactly like you with regards to lack of belief in Allah, or Bhudha or the Indian gods or the Greek gods or the other 10,000 that there are, so that works out to only a 0.01% difference with regards to belief in gods.

In a sense, yes.  But none of these gods (with the exception of Allah) claim to be the Almighty Creator of all that is and the sustainer of life.  On the contrary, I can see why they believe.  Most religions are based on the inner-self, it is self worship, it is a gaining or searching out for harmony with man and earth/the cosmos.  It is a search for peace...tranquility...balance...  All these are good things, but if God, the Christian God is, then to find these is simply a band-aid for THIS life and all else is lost.

Going by this I would have thought it easy for a theist to understand the atheist position. However I find it difficult understanding the theist position. Theist's study their scripture, go to study group, bible camp, go to church, talk to their ministers etc for many, many years. Their knowledge is a learned and indoctrined position.

No argument...and as the scripture states, we are lost.  No one is good.  No one worthy.  No one seeks God without God first seeking *you. (that point obviously cannot stand alone, but it is not the subject here)  We must learn and be taught right from wrong.  Some things are natural and/or innate, but again, if God is, then He asks a few others.  Nothing complicated, but as I mentioned before, simply ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and FELLOWSHIP.

From my position, it seems odd to believe in an old book, given there is no proof, and the teaching are non intuitive and it doesn't make sense to have an all knowing god create everything. How did the god get there, and how did it know how to create stuff. It really seems unnecessary.

There is plenty of proof and evidence.  Today one has the evidence at their fingertips.  Some questions, like that in science, simply cannot be answered...YET.  Unnecessary?  Is the Mona Lisa necessary?  Is the Statue of Liberty necessary?

[Stevil]

I beg to differ.  *You have the "outspoken" Atheists.  *You have their books, their distaste and hate for relgion and/or religious people. *You have the Dawkins scale to determine where you stand as an Atheist, *You have history** and science as scripture.
**Yet some is denied.

These aren't pre-requisite reading, they aren't refered as a single source of truth.

I have never read any of these books. I didn't even know who Dawkins was a few months ago when I first found this Forum. I have no attachment to this man, he is not my advisor or mentor.

In a sense, yes.  But none of these gods (with the exception of Allah) claim to be the Almighty Creator of all that is and the sustainer of life.  On the contrary, I can see why they believe.  Most religions are based on the inner-self, it is self worship, it is a gaining or searching out for harmony with man and earth/the cosmos.  It is a search for peace...tranquility...balance...  All these are good things, but if God, the Christian God is, then to find these is simply a band-aid for THIS life and all else is lost.

Actually, you are finding commonality with Atheists here. As far as I know we look to inner-self in
 searching out for harmony with man and earth/the cosmos.  It is a search for peace...tranquility...balance.... But we also look at our surrounding, poke and prod it. Come up with theories, test them, redefine them, throw some of them away...

I wouldn't classify this as self-worship though. Not sure what you mean by "worship".

From my position, it seems odd to believe in an old book, given there is no proof, and the teaching are non intuitive and it doesn't make sense to have an all knowing god create everything. How did the god get there, and how did it know how to create stuff. It really seems unnecessary.

There is plenty of proof and evidence.  Today one has the evidence at their fingertips.  Some questions, like that in science, simply cannot be answered...YET.  Unnecessary?  Is the Mona Lisa necessary?  Is the Statue of Liberty necessary?

You have offered Book of Daniel as your proof, Esp Chapter 7. I have done a quick look but haven't found anything compelling yet. If I get time I will research more this week-end. I was stating unnecessary simply because there are quite a few Christian arguments about the necessity of God and hence injecting God as the answer. I do not adhere to this logic, if things are unknown, then they are unknown, we simply don't solve the unknown by assuming God.

[AnimatedDirt]

These aren't pre-requisite reading, they aren't refered as a single source of truth.

Nor is the Bible.  One can be saved without ever having opened one.  It's possible, not the norm, but possible.

I have never read any of these books. I didn't even know who Dawkins was a few months ago when I first found this Forum. I have no attachment to this man, he is not my advisor or mentor.

Likewise, not required reading, but they do exist and many are followers and many quote.

Actually, you are finding commonality with Atheists here. As far as I know we look to inner-self in
 searching out for harmony with man and earth/the cosmos.  It is a search for peace...tranquility...balance.... But we also look at our surrounding, poke and prod it. Come up with theories, test them, redefine them, throw some of them away...

I wouldn't classify this as self-worship though. Not sure what you mean by "worship".

I've mentioned what I mean by worship.  Acknowledgement and Fellowship.  This is the only worship required by God.

You have offered Book of Daniel as your proof, Esp Chapter 7. I have done a quick look but haven't found anything compelling yet. If I get time I will research more this week-end. I was stating unnecessary simply because there are quite a few Christian arguments about the necessity of God and hence injecting God as the answer. I do not adhere to this logic, if things are unknown, then they are unknown, we simply don't solve the unknown by assuming God.

I suggest you read the chapter(s) and then search online for explanations and reasons why there's good reason to believe it is an earlier writing than what the skeptic gives it.

[AnimatedDirt]

These aren't pre-requisite reading, they aren't refered as a single source of truth.

Nor is the Bible.  One can be saved without ever having opened one.  It's possible, not the norm, but possible.

I have never read any of these books. I didn't even know who Dawkins was a few months ago when I first found this Forum. I have no attachment to this man, he is not my advisor or mentor.

Likewise, not required reading, but they do exist and many are followers and many quote.

Actually, you are finding commonality with Atheists here. As far as I know we look to inner-self in
 searching out for harmony with man and earth/the cosmos.  It is a search for peace...tranquility...balance.... But we also look at our surrounding, poke and prod it. Come up with theories, test them, redefine them, throw some of them away...

I wouldn't classify this as self-worship though. Not sure what you mean by "worship".

I've mentioned what I mean by worship.  Acknowledgement and Fellowship.  This is the only worship required by God.

You have offered Book of Daniel as your proof, Esp Chapter 7. I have done a quick look but haven't found anything compelling yet. If I get time I will research more this week-end. I was stating unnecessary simply because there are quite a few Christian arguments about the necessity of God and hence injecting God as the answer. I do not adhere to this logic, if things are unknown, then they are unknown, we simply don't solve the unknown by assuming God.

Proof suggests that only that makes it absolute.  While to me it may be enough, *you may require more.  I present it as evidence.
I suggest you read the chapter(s) and then search online for explanations and reasons why there's good reason to believe it is an earlier writing than what the skeptic gives it.

[TheJackel]

Stevil wrote:From my position, it seems odd to believe in an old book, given there is no proof, and the teaching are non intuitive and it doesn't make sense to have an all knowing god create everything. How did the god get there, and how did it know how to create stuff. It really seems unnecessary.


There is plenty of proof and evidence. Today one has the evidence at their fingertips. Some questions, like that in science, simply cannot be answered...YET. Unnecessary? Is the Mona Lisa necessary? Is the Statue of Liberty necessary?

This did nothing to answer his questions, instead you resort to the GOD of the Gaps argument and a deflection from the question. Never mind that consciousness can not exist without cause, much less be the cause to everything. The more complex and powerful you attempt to make something be, the more cause it will require to exist. Theists have this fantasy to which they think complexity starts from the top and creates complexity from the top down. It's nonsensical and just plainly wrong! Complexity begins from the bottom.

Example:

1) No information = no consciousness, no awareness, no self identity, no reality, no existence, no ability to do anything, no Mona Lisa, no function, no purpose, no system, no process, no GOD ect.. Without the 3 basic principles of positive, negative, and neutral as attributes of energy/information there could also not be any of those above.  They are the 3 principles of everything, or any system. They are the 3 principles that govern Complex adaptive systems such as energy flow, chaos theory, life, morality, relativity, ethics, emotions, feelings, consciousness ect..

2) Consciousness also can not exist without the tools of observation! Without these tools there would be no means to be aware, much less be self-aware in order to form an identity. Thus one is slave to the processing of information, and to have informational substance and value in order to exist itself.


Thus it can not answer that nagging little riddle of why we really are here!