The Futile Arguments Thread

[BadPoison]

One is a fantasy required by theists to explain evil in an attempt to support their institutionalised superstition. The other is an emergent property of human existance.

Thanks, I see what you mean, however I would put forward that "free-will" isn't a defacto property of human existance. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
 
That being said I don't want to derail the thread.

[Stevil]

Again...having stopped without reading and making any attempt to see the whole picture, your basis for judging the Christian God is based on a few sentences of a book.  In other words, false assertions.

I had read enough to realise that this book wasn't for me. It seemed more focused on a children audience and it seemed quite preachy, but preached of injustice and intolerance. It also asserted certain things to have happened that there is no proof of, no evidence and which is extremely contrary to what science has proven with regards to the origin of our universes expansion. Had the book been classified as fiction then I may have given it more of a go but even then I didn't feel that the good guys were going to win. I actually know that the godly being is not going to be brought to any kind of justice and is simply going to continue to wreck havoc and the message is that we are to accept this godly being and worship it.

We see your bias and preconceived ideas in that you don't want to seek out the point of it all.  

And the point of the book is....?

However, when you make assertions on something you don't even understand fully or have any idea on the whole, you can see why I say *you twist the words to mean what *you think they do without any knowledge of the whole.

Sorry, but it is not a twist. This is my understanding, I am not trying to mislead, simply asserting what my understanding is(although based on limited knowledge). Given the perception I have towards this book and Christianity, I have very limited motivation to read the book. I certainly would not read it with the intent to discredit it. That is not my want or desire and certainly would be a waste of my time.

I believe you're being honest on your feelings...but then again as the Atheist claims, feelings can be deceptive.

Even theists assert that feelings can be deceptive. Achronus went to lenght to tell us that we should not trust our minds and should simply have faith in the book instead of thinking for ourselves.

I now have an avid Christian telling me that I choose not to love the Christian god, so I explain that it is not a choice and that given my experiences and the stories of the bible I could not possibly love such a creature, nor do I have the desire to.

You have made a choice based on your experience...not much different from the claim of a Christian, now is it?  Either way, who's made the decision to believe as you do?

I have not made a choice, there was no choice on whether to love your god. Love is generally not something that one chooses, it is an emotion that happens subconsciously and generally towards people that one interacts with. Stalkers and fanatics being the exception.

A question for you AD, do you have the desire to love Hitler? Do you think if you read his book, Mine Kampf that you might fall in love with this man?

The answer is in the form of a question.  Does Hitler (and so his book) claim he wants my freewill love?  Does Hitler claim God-abilities?  Did Hitler ever in person or in his book ever claim he created the universe?  Is Hitler claimed to be alive and seen as a god by a good portion of the world?  Did Hitler claim to be God?  Does Hitler make any sacrifice of himself for the supposed betterment (? I hope this is a word) of the world?  If yes to any of these questions, then why does this man die like the coward that he is?

My answer in short, He didn't ask it of me, he made no claims of the like and he not worthy of any fame but fame through infamy.

So my response to this, in short. If Hitler had claimed to have created the universe and had claimed to be god, would you then look at Hitler's acts of the holocaust in a different more positive light? This certainly gives me much more perspective with regards to how Christians can look positivly towards God's act of the great flood.

[TheJackel]

I just made my contribution to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscienc ... ce_Paradox

[LegendarySandwich]

I just made my contribution to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscienc ... ce_Paradox

I'm pretty sure that violates the neutrality rule.

[Asmodean]

I just made my contribution to Wiki :pop:

[Tank]

What is the difference between metaphysical freewill and that which we choose daily?  I suggest there is no difference if God bestowed it on His creation.  We use both the metaphysical in whether we choose God and the "common" in what we choose for breakfast.  Both are freewill choices in action.  One simply has a "metaphysical" outcome.

One is a fantasy required by theists to explain evil in an attempt to support their institutionalised superstition. The other is an emergent property of human existance.

Interesting.  One one hand you say freewill exists.  On the other hand, and opposed to your own thinking, it doesn't because it supports an "institutionalized suprestition".

I understand how your logic works now.  It speaks volumes of your "experiment" that proves your logic.  Thanks Tank.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or what. But your response was totally predictable. Anything that disturbs your Faith based world view is instantly dismissed. You have no evidence that your particular superstition is real nor that it is any way more feasible/worthy than anybody else's superstition. If you can't tell the difference between a theological myth and what happens every day when sales people try to influence you then you will continually be duped when you suspend your sceptisism.

All supposed 'evidence' for the existance of a deity are based on speculation and wishful thinking. In my opinion Christianity is simply a popular form of wishful thinking as are Islam and Hinduism. There is no evidence for the existance of god that would stand up in a court of law, let alone to scientific scrutiny, thus there is no consequential ability for said 'god' to influence human behaviour in any way whatsoever.

There is evil in this world because a minority of people don't give a shit about other people, they are selfish sociopaths and psychopaths.

You're welcome to your beliefs. But here I am perfectly at liberty to explain why those beliefs are false.

[AverageJoe]

I'm sure EVERYONE, Atheist and Christian alike, on this forum and in the world would be interested in your absolute proof...you would stand to make millions on this fact.  Please share.

He's made up, he's pretend, it's a fact. He's also, conveniently for Christians, invisible.

If I tell you that Santa isn't real, or that fairies aren't real, or that unicorns aren't real, you'd probably accept it as a fact. And it is a fact. I can't prove that Santa or fairies or unicorns do not exist, other than to offer their complete lack of quantifiable, tangible evidence of existence as proof of their non existence! Same for God. Yet people, unless they are stupid, will readily accept the fact that Santa and unicorns do not exist. Not so with God, which is again just another bunch of stories about something that nobody has ever seen - where is the difference? It does not compute.

Lack of evidence is not proof of non existence, say people, and don't they just love that phrase? They're so smug when they say it as if they've just "won". My argument is, why do people feel this to be the case. Who bloody said this in the first place and how did it become an accepted law?

I do not accept the statement "lack of evidence is not proof of non existence", because if something does not exist, you can only "prove" it does not exist by pointing out that there is no evidence to suggest it does exist. God does not exist because, basically there is no evidence. This makes it a fact to me, perhaps I've got a small brain. It's a fact, a fact, an effing big fat fact, that this sky fairy is made up, until somebody proves it's real. Then it's not a fact he's not made up. We all know this will never happen.

Are you suggesting my belief is a gamble?

Not really. Can't see how holding faith can be a gamble? If you're referring to my comment "when you throw the 7", it's just an expression for "die"

I meant "I feel you may have a shock when you die". But no, being of faith isn't a gamble, you'll only cease to exist when you pop off, you haven't lost anything other than (if you were able to reflect back) a life of following a dream. The shock when you die, would be perhaps a second before lights out when you might think "oh bloody hell I hope the afterlife is real", only to discover that it isn't - not that you'd be aware of it!

The only logical explanation for what happens when you die is that you simply end. Like everything else does. Of course we've all been dead before haven't we! Before we were created we didn't exist, we know what non existence is like! It'll be just the same when we stop existing, although I await the pleasant surprise that I was wrong!

[The Magic Pudding]

If I tell you that Santa isn't real, or that fairies aren't real, or that unicorns aren't real, you'd probably accept it as a fact. And it is a fact. I can't prove that Santa or fairies or unicorns do not exist, other than to offer their complete lack of quantifiable, tangible evidence of existence as proof of their non existence! Same for God. Yet people, unless they are stupid, will readily accept the fact that Santa and unicorns do not exist. Not so with God, which is again just another bunch of stories about something that nobody has ever seen - where is the difference? It does not compute.

Sophus may be to tired to round up his elephant argument again, but it can be found here - http://www.google.com.au/search?q=sophu ... mages&tbs=

[Recusant]

Lack of evidence is not proof of non existence, say people, and don't they just love that phrase? They're so smug when they say it as if they've just "won". My argument is, why do people feel this to be the case. Who bloody said this in the first place and how did it become an accepted law?

The Magic Pudding already brought the elephants of Yellowstone into the discussion, so I'll deal with the last question in the above quote.  People usually think of Carl Sagan when it's mentioned:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However it seems likely that he borrowed it from Martin Rees.  The idea, if not the exact quote goes back further, to William Cowper.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence

This is not my original research, but comes from this blog post...

[TheJackel]

I just made my contribution to Wiki :pop:

BTW.. My section begins at: GOD Created knowledge Problem -> Omniscience Paradox.. The upper half was not written by me

[TheJackel]

I just made my contribution to Wiki :pop:

Thanks, I corrected the error

[Asmodean]

Thanks, I corrected the error :pop:

[TheJackel]

Thanks, I corrected the error :pop:

I can understand that Cheers

[defendor]

I read that omniscience article

What is energy?  And then when you are able to define it, please tell me how you can quantify it into positive, negative and neutral?

What research did you put in to discover this truth?

[TheJackel]

I read that omniscience article

What is energy?  And then when you are able to define it, please tell me how you can quantify it into positive, negative and neutral?

What research did you put in to discover this truth?

Oh, we get the guy that wants to plead for ignorance  

It is irrelevant what name you want to call the substance of existence, or how you think you want to define it.. It's only required to understand that it will be required in order to exist, or have any value what-so-ever. It is the base value, or the only value to which can never reach literal zero value. Thus it doesn't matter if you want to call it "energy", "information" or "Duck Butt Hair".. It's basic attributes will require to be positive, negative, or neutral simply because without them there wouldn't be anything quantifiable.. As in there would be no existence, and that is simply impossible because nothing can not be an existing person, place, substance, or thing. Nothing simply can not and does not exist.

You aren't on a Forum atm Defender where you get to get away with circular logic Hence, avoid addressing reality because reality collapses nonsensical logical fallacies such as claiming a GOD to be made of nothing, or that a deity is magically Omniscient ect.