Current Events > Does anyone still unironically advocate atheism?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 9
SSJ-Spiderman 07/31/17 1:35:13 PM #152:	hockeybub89 posted... SSJ-Spiderman posted... We still do not know what happens when you die, so it is very possible that heaven exists. Or a million other things. Or nothing. Do you believe everything that hasn't been proven irretuably impossible? In other words, do you believe in everything because there is always the possibility anything could exist? That seems like an insane way to live. I'm saying there's no way for us to know for sure what happens to us when we die. <cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted [p:883930544] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted...</cite> <quote>We still do not know what happens when you die, so it is very possible that heaven exists.</quote> Or a million other things. Or nothing. Do you believe everything that hasn't been proven irretuably impossible? In other words, do you believe in everything because there is always the possibility anything could exist? That seems like an insane way to live.</quote> I'm saying there's no way for us to know for sure what happens to us when we die.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Twin3Turbo 07/31/17 1:35:22 PM #153:	darkphoenix181 posted... If all the ancient civilizations had different versions and stories of this dragonfly, then it should give you pause. Not really. The concept of "gods" or some "higher being" is not really all that unique. Couple that with human's affinity for telling stories and making crap up and it's not all that hard to imagine there being many different stories of a similar concept. darkphoenix181 posted... It is interesting how modern atheism is. If God isn't real, do we really believe ancient man was so stupid he couldn't figure it out? The vast majority? Yes. --- https://imgflip.com/gif/di4a4 <cite>Twin3Turbo posted [p:883930552] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>If all the ancient civilizations had different versions and stories of this dragonfly, then it should give you pause.</quote> Not really. The concept of "gods" or some "higher being" is not really all that unique. Couple that with human's affinity for telling stories and making crap up and it's not all that hard to imagine there being many different stories of a similar concept. <cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>It is interesting how modern atheism is. If God isn't real, do we really believe ancient man was so stupid he couldn't figure it out?</quote> The vast majority? Yes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ItsVinceRusso 07/31/17 1:42:10 PM #154:	i'm a christian and i do not care one single bit whether you're an atheist or not. believe whatever makes you happy. --- bro <cite>ItsVinceRusso posted [p:883930961] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>i'm a christian and i do not care one single bit whether you're an atheist or not. believe whatever makes you happy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 07/31/17 1:44:47 PM #155:	darkphoenix181 posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... History is written by those in power. That's generally been religious people. This is why we don't hear much about atheism in earlier times. the question is in Egypt, they were religious in Japan, they were religious in Mexico, the mayans, they were religions why? These are distinct peoples that separated long ago. Even if their fathers were religious, they could have easily said, "chopping off a dudes head and playing soccer with it doesn't actually give us more grain this year" it is not like these societies didn't have revolutions and overthrow the power such that the one dude who said "I am a God!" was never questioned even with what you say about Historic revision, if a religious society conquered an atheist one, we would see in their records "these heathen atheists were defeated thanks to our God!" so you can't just say they existed but the religious people blotted them out now, I am not saying this means you should believe in God or be religious what I am saying is you cannot compare making up your own stupid myth about a cosmic firefly with believing in a God since very smart ancient societies seemingly with no interactions with each other for some reason believed in this higher power A higher power, I dunno about any "this" higher power. I agree that the comparison with the dragon, which was then a dragonfly and then a firefly is not a good comparison. Interesting how the form changed twice in 2 posts, which is a separate but insightful phenomenon itself, how stories retold have details that change more and more across multiple retellings. Getting back to the separate non-interacting civilization thing. Let's look at great flood stories. They exist in multiple religions/mythologies but only ones in a certain region. They've actually discovered the flooding event that did occur. I can't blame Christianity for such an asinine tale as noah, but in that part of the world, a flood did occur and they were displaced and it was quite reality-shattering. They had no way of knowing how or why it happened or the scope of it. They wrote it as they interpreted it. That doesn't mean they interpreted it correctly. This is much of religion. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:883931115] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote> History is written by those in power. That's generally been religious people. This is why we don't hear much about atheism in earlier times.</quote> the question is in Egypt, they were religious in Japan, they were religious in Mexico, the mayans, they were religions why? These are distinct peoples that separated long ago. Even if their fathers were religious, they could have easily said, "chopping off a dudes head and playing soccer with it doesn't actually give us more grain this year" it is not like these societies didn't have revolutions and overthrow the power such that the one dude who said "I am a God!" was never questioned even with what you say about Historic revision, if a religious society conquered an atheist one, we would see in their records "these heathen atheists were defeated thanks to our God!" so you can't just say they existed but the religious people blotted them out now, I am not saying this means you should believe in God or be religious what I am saying is you cannot compare making up your own stupid myth about a cosmic firefly with believing in a God since very smart ancient societies seemingly with no interactions with each other for some reason believed in this higher power</quote> A higher power, I dunno about any "this" higher power. I agree that the comparison with the dragon, which was then a dragonfly and then a firefly is not a good comparison. Interesting how the form changed twice in 2 posts, which is a separate but insightful phenomenon itself, how stories retold have details that change more and more across multiple retellings. Getting back to the separate non-interacting civilization thing. Let's look at great flood stories. They exist in multiple religions/mythologies but only ones in a certain region. They've actually discovered the flooding event that did occur. I can't blame Christianity for such an asinine tale as noah, but in that part of the world, a flood did occur and they were displaced and it was quite reality-shattering. They had no way of knowing how or why it happened or the scope of it. They wrote it as they interpreted it. That doesn't mean they interpreted it correctly. This is much of religion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSJ-Spiderman 07/31/17 1:45:45 PM #156:	ItsVinceRusso posted... i'm a christian and i do not care one single bit whether you're an atheist or not. believe whatever makes you happy. <cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted [p:883931173] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>ItsVinceRusso posted...</cite> <quote>i'm a christian and i do not care one single bit whether you're an atheist or not. believe whatever makes you happy.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 07/31/17 2:04:53 PM #157:	darkphoenix181 posted... do we really believe ancient man was so stupid he couldn't figure it out? not stupid; ignorant. there's a difference. ultimately, it boils down to the question "why?". early humanity didn't have the knowledge to adequately answer that question without a higher power. but the more knowledge we gain over time, as a culture, as a species, makes those higher powers less and less appealing as an answer. And that knowledge frequently contradicts the teachings of specific religions, which should cause those beliefs to die out over time as fewer people can reconcile the contradictory knowledge. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:883932394] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>do we really believe ancient man was so stupid he couldn't figure it out?</quote> not stupid; ignorant. there's a difference. ultimately, it boils down to the question "why?". early humanity didn't have the knowledge to adequately answer that question without a higher power. but the more knowledge we gain over time, as a culture, as a species, makes those higher powers less and less appealing as an answer. And that knowledge frequently contradicts the teachings of specific religions, which should cause those beliefs to die out over time as fewer people can reconcile the contradictory knowledge.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 07/31/17 2:55:26 PM #158:	Medussa posted... darkphoenix181 posted... do we really believe ancient man was so stupid he couldn't figure it out? not stupid; ignorant. there's a difference. ultimately, it boils down to the question "why?". early humanity didn't have the knowledge to adequately answer that question without a higher power. but the more knowledge we gain over time, as a culture, as a species, makes those higher powers less and less appealing as an answer. And that knowledge frequently contradicts the teachings of specific religions, which should cause those beliefs to die out over time as fewer people can reconcile the contradictory knowledge. we are no less ignorant today than they were even with the big bang as the theory, we simply say it happened and we have no idea why or how (trying to come up with how ofc) and other complimentary theories like the universe is eternal there is nothing here to say that there is no God more than there was at the time of these ancient societies, yet we do and they didn't for example, if someone went to the oracle of delphi and she told them their fortune, they could indeed falsify it just as much as we can falsify modern palm readers if a man said Thor makes the lightning and rain happen, just like us today another can say "I never seen Thor, so he don't exist" and the notion of false Gods is not new either, in those days the religions competed saying the other's God weren't real quite often --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:883935354] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Medussa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>do we really believe ancient man was so stupid he couldn't figure it out?</quote> not stupid; ignorant. there's a difference. ultimately, it boils down to the question "why?". early humanity didn't have the knowledge to adequately answer that question without a higher power. but the more knowledge we gain over time, as a culture, as a species, makes those higher powers less and less appealing as an answer. And that knowledge frequently contradicts the teachings of specific religions, which should cause those beliefs to die out over time as fewer people can reconcile the contradictory knowledge.</quote> we are no less ignorant today than they were even with the big bang as the theory, we simply say it happened and we have no idea why or how (trying to come up with how ofc) and other complimentary theories like the universe is eternal there is nothing here to say that there is no God more than there was at the time of these ancient societies, yet we do and they didn't for example, if someone went to the oracle of delphi and she told them their fortune, they could indeed falsify it just as much as we can falsify modern palm readers if a man said Thor makes the lightning and rain happen, just like us today another can say "I never seen Thor, so he don't exist" and the notion of false Gods is not new either, in those days the religions competed saying the other's God weren't real quite often</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 07/31/17 2:57:55 PM #159:	darkphoenix181 posted... we are no less ignorant today than they were Demonstrably wrong. --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:883935536] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>we are no less ignorant today than they were</quote> Demonstrably wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 07/31/17 3:02:35 PM #160:	TrevorBlack79 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... we are no less ignorant today than they were Demonstrably wrong. flat earth illuminati chi power thinking aliens exist because universe is big believing news because it fits a persons bias thousands of genders demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stadia, a standard unit of measure during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era. we have more data because of tools, but you seriously argue man today is less ignorant? prove it --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:883935815] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>we are no less ignorant today than they were</quote> Demonstrably wrong.</quote> flat earth illuminati chi power thinking aliens exist because universe is big believing news because it fits a persons bias thousands of genders demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes <quote>He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stadia, a standard unit of measure during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era.</quote> we have more data because of tools, but you seriously argue man today is less ignorant? prove it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VaniIIa Coke 07/31/17 3:10:26 PM #161:	Funkdamental posted... People still unironically make topics like this? salty --- ~Reward your curiosity~ <cite>VaniIIa Coke posted [p:883936275] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funkdamental posted...</cite> <quote>People still unironically make topics like this?</quote> salty</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 07/31/17 3:11:26 PM #162:	darkphoenix181 posted... demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong You are using a computer. Creating a computer requires more knowledge than was available 2000 years ago. Nevermind literacy rates now compared to then. --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:883936333] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong</quote> You are using a computer. Creating a computer requires more knowledge than was available 2000 years ago. Nevermind literacy rates now compared to then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 07/31/17 3:20:56 PM #163:	TrevorBlack79 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong You are using a computer. Creating a computer requires more knowledge than was available 2000 years ago. Nevermind literacy rates now compared to then. do you know how to build a computer? do you know how it works? that is nice that we are using a computer, but that doesn't make us less ignorant than people of the past because a super tool exists and we have the privilege to use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance Individuals with superficial knowledge of a topic or subject may be worse off than people who know absolutely nothing. As Charles Darwin observed, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."[3] Ignorance can stifle learning, especially if the ignorant person believes that he or she is not ignorant. A person who falsely believes he or she is knowledgeable will not seek out clarification of his or her beliefs, but rather rely on his or her ignorant position. He or she may also reject valid but contrary information, neither realizing its importance nor understanding it. This concept is elucidated in Justin Kruger's and David Dunning's work, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," otherwise known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. I would say a man who feels because computers exist means he is less ignorant than his ancestors definitely qualifies as someone with superficial knowledge. Now, don't get me wrong, if you can build a computer from scratch, then you are not that man ofc. Scratch btw denotes you don't go to the computer store and get a few pieces you put together like a simple puzzle. If anything, we have more superficial knowledge than they do. We get tidbits in seconds and feel vindicated. But hey, that is knowledge right? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:883936877] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong</quote> You are using a computer. Creating a computer requires more knowledge than was available 2000 years ago. Nevermind literacy rates now compared to then.</quote> do you know how to build a computer? do you know how it works? that is nice that we are using a computer, but that doesn't make us less ignorant than people of the past because a super tool exists and we have the privilege to use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance <quote>Individuals with superficial knowledge of a topic or subject may be worse off than people who know absolutely nothing. As Charles Darwin observed, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."[3] Ignorance can stifle learning, especially if the ignorant person believes that he or she is not ignorant. A person who falsely believes he or she is knowledgeable will not seek out clarification of his or her beliefs, but rather rely on his or her ignorant position. He or she may also reject valid but contrary information, neither realizing its importance nor understanding it. This concept is elucidated in Justin Kruger's and David Dunning's work, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," otherwise known as the Dunning–Kruger effect.</quote> I would say a man who feels because computers exist means he is less ignorant than his ancestors definitely qualifies as someone with superficial knowledge. Now, don't get me wrong, if you can build a computer from scratch, then you are not that man ofc. Scratch btw denotes you don't go to the computer store and get a few pieces you put together like a simple puzzle. If anything, we have more superficial knowledge than they do. We get tidbits in seconds and feel vindicated. But hey, that is knowledge right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 07/31/17 3:45:40 PM #164:	darkphoenix181 posted... do you know how to build a computer? do you know how it works? How many people 2000 years ago knew how to build a computer or how one works? And again, literacy. --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:883938434] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>do you know how to build a computer? do you know how it works?</quote> How many people 2000 years ago knew how to build a computer or how one works? And again, literacy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 07/31/17 3:58:47 PM #165:	darkphoenix181 posted... TrevorBlack79 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... we are no less ignorant today than they were Demonstrably wrong. flat earth illuminati chi power thinking aliens exist because universe is big believing news because it fits a persons bias thousands of genders demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stadia, a standard unit of measure during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era. we have more data because of tools, but you seriously argue man today is less ignorant? prove it Aliens do exist. They just don't exist within a sphere of space and time that allows us to see them and them to see us within the limitations of the speed of light. There could be aliens 1 million light years away at this very moment looking at earth through some crazy high tech alien telescope and they'd be all "No intelligent life here... moving on" simply because there wasn't intelligent life here 1 million years ago. That one example doesn't really work in your argument unfortunately. It's just that the likelihood of any aliens being aware of us or us of them at any point in the future is astronomically unlikely due to the size of the universe, so basically "aliens exist because the universe is big, but the universe is so big that we will never find these aliens nor will they find us" is actually well supported. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:883939217] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>we are no less ignorant today than they were</quote> Demonstrably wrong.</quote> flat earth illuminati chi power thinking aliens exist because universe is big believing news because it fits a persons bias thousands of genders demonstrate how this is wrong if it is demonstrably wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes <quote>He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stadia, a standard unit of measure during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era.</quote> we have more data because of tools, but you seriously argue man today is less ignorant? prove it</quote> Aliens do exist. They just don't exist within a sphere of space and time that allows us to see them and them to see us within the limitations of the speed of light. There could be aliens 1 million light years away at this very moment looking at earth through some crazy high tech alien telescope and they'd be all "No intelligent life here... moving on" simply because there wasn't intelligent life here 1 million years ago. That one example doesn't really work in your argument unfortunately. It's just that the likelihood of any aliens being aware of us or us of them at any point in the future is astronomically unlikely due to the size of the universe, so basically "aliens exist because the universe is big, but the universe is so big that we will never find these aliens nor will they find us" is actually well supported.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Deadpool 07/31/17 4:15:01 PM #166:	darkphoenix181 posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... History is written by those in power. That's generally been religious people. This is why we don't hear much about atheism in earlier times. the question is in Egypt, they were religious in Japan, they were religious in Mexico, the mayans, they were religions why? Because the human brain has a bias towards knowing things. The human brain wants to know things and it likes to pretend it knows things that it doesn't. There's a fun exercise where you ask a bunch of people if they know how a bike works, then when they say yes you ask them to draw one. More than half will draw a bike that would not function. People have questions like "where do we come from?" and "what's the meaning of this?" and "What happens when we die." People like pretty lies more than they like disappointing truths. And happy people are easier to control. --- We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons. <cite>The Deadpool posted [p:883940186] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote> History is written by those in power. That's generally been religious people. This is why we don't hear much about atheism in earlier times.</quote> the question is in Egypt, they were religious in Japan, they were religious in Mexico, the mayans, they were religions why?</quote> Because the human brain has a bias towards knowing things. The human brain wants to know things and it likes to pretend it knows things that it doesn't. There's a fun exercise where you ask a bunch of people if they know how a bike works, then when they say yes you ask them to draw one. More than half will draw a bike that would not function. People have questions like "where do we come from?" and "what's the meaning of this?" and "What happens when we die." People like pretty lies more than they like disappointing truths. And happy people are easier to control.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 07/31/17 4:15:48 PM #167:	ImTheMacheteGuy posted... Aliens do exist. so you believe in stuff you cannot empirically falsify? how do you then say there is no God? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:883940240] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote>Aliens do exist.</quote> so you believe in stuff you cannot empirically falsify? how do you then say there is no God?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 07/31/17 4:18:41 PM #168:	The Deadpool posted... Because the human brain has a bias towards knowing things. The human brain wants to know things and it likes to pretend it knows things that it doesn't. There's a fun exercise where you ask a bunch of people if they know how a bike works, then when they say yes you ask them to draw one. More than half will draw a bike that would not function. People have questions like "where do we come from?" and "what's the meaning of this?" and "What happens when we die." People like pretty lies more than they like disappointing truths. And happy people are easier to control. this is an ironic explanation since it just came out of your head rather than was proven true in one statement you say "people just make up lies and believe them because they like to know" and in that same respect we cannot verify that this is really what happened, you cannot know this some like Machete believes in aliens, it could be (not saying it was) that an alien came and ancient man thought he was God if that were true (not saying it is) you just made up a lie and believed it without proof while at the same time condemning ancient man for what you perceived as them doing the same --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:883940426] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Deadpool posted...</cite> <quote>Because the human brain has a bias towards knowing things. The human brain wants to know things and it likes to pretend it knows things that it doesn't. There's a fun exercise where you ask a bunch of people if they know how a bike works, then when they say yes you ask them to draw one. More than half will draw a bike that would not function. People have questions like "where do we come from?" and "what's the meaning of this?" and "What happens when we die." People like pretty lies more than they like disappointing truths. And happy people are easier to control.</quote> this is an ironic explanation since it just came out of your head rather than was proven true in one statement you say "people just make up lies and believe them because they like to know" and in that same respect we cannot verify that this is really what happened, you cannot know this some like Machete believes in aliens, it could be (not saying it was) that an alien came and ancient man thought he was God if that were true (not saying it is) you just made up a lie and believed it without proof while at the same time condemning ancient man for what you perceived as them doing the same</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 07/31/17 4:34:02 PM #169:	darkphoenix181 posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... Aliens do exist. so you believe in stuff you cannot empirically falsify? how do you then say there is no God? I say there is no religious-text-described deity, so when I say there is no god, I am saying "character 'god' from the bible as portrayed in the bible is not real." A higher form of existence is possible and likely and is something I do believe in. I believe that we are to such an existence as individual cells, bacteria, microbes etc. that live in/on us are to us. I do not refer to such a higher existence as "god" My beliefs are personalized. I don't know anyone who shares them. Some people might, but via coincidence. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:883941376] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote>Aliens do exist.</quote> so you believe in stuff you cannot empirically falsify? how do you then say there is no God?</quote> I say there is no religious-text-described deity, so when I say there is no god, I am saying "character 'god' from the bible as portrayed in the bible is not real." A higher form of existence is possible and likely and is something I do believe in. I believe that we are to such an existence as individual cells, bacteria, microbes etc. that live in/on us are to us. I do not refer to such a higher existence as "god" My beliefs are personalized. I don't know anyone who shares them. Some people might, but via coincidence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 07/31/17 4:37:20 PM #170:	darkphoenix181 posted... The Deadpool posted... Because the human brain has a bias towards knowing things. The human brain wants to know things and it likes to pretend it knows things that it doesn't. There's a fun exercise where you ask a bunch of people if they know how a bike works, then when they say yes you ask them to draw one. More than half will draw a bike that would not function. People have questions like "where do we come from?" and "what's the meaning of this?" and "What happens when we die." People like pretty lies more than they like disappointing truths. And happy people are easier to control. this is an ironic explanation since it just came out of your head rather than was proven true in one statement you say "people just make up lies and believe them because they like to know" and in that same respect we cannot verify that this is really what happened, you cannot know this some like Machete believes in aliens, it could be (not saying it was) that an alien came and ancient man thought he was God if that were true (not saying it is) you just made up a lie and believed it without proof while at the same time condemning ancient man for what you perceived as them doing the same Well I believe aliens only came to earth once, in a comet. They were micro organisms and the source of all life that exists and has existed on earth. I don't believe that "intelligent extraterrestrial life" has ever visited earth. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:883941607] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Deadpool posted...</cite> <quote>Because the human brain has a bias towards knowing things. The human brain wants to know things and it likes to pretend it knows things that it doesn't. There's a fun exercise where you ask a bunch of people if they know how a bike works, then when they say yes you ask them to draw one. More than half will draw a bike that would not function. People have questions like "where do we come from?" and "what's the meaning of this?" and "What happens when we die." People like pretty lies more than they like disappointing truths. And happy people are easier to control.</quote> this is an ironic explanation since it just came out of your head rather than was proven true in one statement you say "people just make up lies and believe them because they like to know" and in that same respect we cannot verify that this is really what happened, you cannot know this some like Machete believes in aliens, it could be (not saying it was) that an alien came and ancient man thought he was God if that were true (not saying it is) you just made up a lie and believed it without proof while at the same time condemning ancient man for what you perceived as them doing the same</quote> Well I believe aliens only came to earth once, in a comet. They were micro organisms and the source of all life that exists and has existed on earth. I don't believe that "intelligent extraterrestrial life" has ever visited earth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 07/31/17 4:52:07 PM #171:	ImTheMacheteGuy posted... Well I believe aliens only came to earth once, in a comet. They were micro organisms and the source of all life that exists and has existed on earth. I don't believe that "intelligent extraterrestrial life" has ever visited earth. why do you believe this rather than the theory that single cells just formed because of energy acting on the "primordial soup"? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:883942480] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote> Well I believe aliens only came to earth once, in a comet. They were micro organisms and the source of all life that exists and has existed on earth. I don't believe that "intelligent extraterrestrial life" has ever visited earth.</quote> why do you believe this rather than the theory that single cells just formed because of energy acting on the "primordial soup"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 07/31/17 5:06:06 PM #172:	darkphoenix181 posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... Well I believe aliens only came to earth once, in a comet. They were micro organisms and the source of all life that exists and has existed on earth. I don't believe that "intelligent extraterrestrial life" has ever visited earth. why do you believe this rather than the theory that single cells just formed because of energy acting on the "primordial soup"? Well, soup requires water. How did water get here? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:883943301] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote> Well I believe aliens only came to earth once, in a comet. They were micro organisms and the source of all life that exists and has existed on earth. I don't believe that "intelligent extraterrestrial life" has ever visited earth.</quote> why do you believe this rather than the theory that single cells just formed because of energy acting on the "primordial soup"?</quote> Well, soup requires water. How did water get here?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Deadpool 07/31/17 5:15:01 PM #173:	darkphoenix181 posted... in one statement you say "people just make up lies and believe them because they like to know" and in that same respect we cannot verify that this is really what happened, you cannot know this I mean we have studied the human brain and we know human biases. We also have multiple, mutually exclusive mytholgies. The rest is just looking at their similarities. --- We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons. <cite>The Deadpool posted [p:883943834] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>in one statement you say "people just make up lies and believe them because they like to know" and in that same respect we cannot verify that this is really what happened, you cannot know this</quote> I mean we have studied the human brain and we know human biases. We also have multiple, mutually exclusive mytholgies. The rest is just looking at their similarities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rika_Furude 07/31/17 5:18:54 PM #174:	There is no evidence of god There never will be evidence of god There is no evidence that jesus was divine There is no evidence magic exists There is no evidence angels exist The majority of americans believe magic and angels exist Just fucking what --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>Rika_Furude posted [p:883944072] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>There is no evidence of god There never will be evidence of god There is no evidence that jesus was divine There is no evidence magic exists There is no evidence angels exist The majority of americans believe magic and angels exist Just fucking what</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSJ-Spiderman 07/31/17 6:11:03 PM #175:	Rika_Furude posted... There is no evidence of god Not true. <cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted [p:883947069] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote>There is no evidence of god</quote> Not true.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 07/31/17 6:40:10 PM #176:	Human societies were religious for the simple fact that their mythologies allowed them to form bigger and more effective groups, and the human groups that didn't were either absorbed into those groups or died off. It's the result of natural selection in social evolution. We still use constructed mythologies today in dealing with the world around us; they just don't require a supernatural superman or superfamily anymore. SSJ-Spiderman posted... But that's what heaven is. So it has no useful description? --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:883948515] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>Human societies were religious for the simple fact that their mythologies allowed them to form bigger and more effective groups, and the human groups that didn't were either absorbed into those groups or died off. It's the result of natural selection in social evolution. We still use constructed mythologies today in dealing with the world around us; they just don't require a supernatural superman or superfamily anymore. <cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted...</cite> <quote>But that's what heaven is.</quote> So it has no useful description?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSJ-Spiderman 07/31/17 7:00:28 PM #177:	I gave the description multiple times in the topic. Heaven is a perfect world. <cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted [p:883949591] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>I gave the description multiple times in the topic. Heaven is a perfect world.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 07/31/17 7:14:31 PM #178:	And multiple times I've told you that description is useless. You might as well call it the best world, or a really really really really good world. Fantastic, but what actually is it? --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:883950299] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>And multiple times I've told you that description is useless. You might as well call it the best world, or a really really really really good world. Fantastic, but what actually is it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSJ-Spiderman 07/31/17 7:14:57 PM #179:	Dragonblade01 posted... And multiple times I've told you that description is useless. You might as well call it the best world, or a really really really really good world. Fantastic, but what actually is it? That's what it is. It's whatever a perfect world is to you. <cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted [p:883950326] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>And multiple times I've told you that description is useless. You might as well call it the best world, or a really really really really good world. Fantastic, but what actually is it?</quote> That's what it is. It's whatever a perfect world is to you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 07/31/17 7:36:16 PM #180:	So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven? --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:883951331] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSJ-Spiderman 07/31/17 7:37:38 PM #181:	Dragonblade01 posted... So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven? If someone thinks hell is a great place than they can never get in to heaven. <cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted [p:883951398] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven?</quote> If someone thinks hell is a great place than they can never get in to heaven.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 07/31/17 7:46:43 PM #182:	SSJ-Spiderman posted... Dragonblade01 posted... So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven? If someone thinks hell is a great place than they can never get in to heaven. So then heaven isn't just the "perfect place to you"? Then what is it? --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:883951851] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven?</quote> If someone thinks hell is a great place than they can never get in to heaven.</quote> So then heaven isn't just the "perfect place to you"? Then what is it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VaniIIa Coke 07/31/17 8:03:46 PM #183:	Dash_Harber posted... Volkswagen_Bros posted... Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it. Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God. --- ~Reward your curiosity~ <cite>VaniIIa Coke posted [p:883952780] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Volkswagen_Bros posted...</cite> <quote>Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. </quote> That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it.</quote> Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VaniIIa Coke 07/31/17 8:45:18 PM #184:	Dragonblade01 posted... So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven? Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? And no desire or the sense of greener grass, or the feeling of lacking is not a substitute for contentment. If heaven is perfect no one will come up with anything better. Heaven is not a possession either. People don't have a heaven. If someone welcomes hell by going against the God of All Creation in their whole existence, they will change their mind about its quality after torment, loss of control, demonic presence, screams of demonic spirits, and disaster wreaking havoc on their daily life, goals and relationships. --- ~Reward your curiosity~ <cite>VaniIIa Coke posted [p:883955149] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven?</quote> Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? And no desire or the sense of greener grass, or the feeling of lacking is not a substitute for contentment. If heaven is perfect no one will come up with anything better. Heaven is not a possession either. People don't have a heaven. If someone welcomes hell by going against the God of All Creation in their whole existence, they will change their mind about its quality after torment, loss of control, demonic presence, screams of demonic spirits, and disaster wreaking havoc on their daily life, goals and relationships.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 07/31/17 8:52:21 PM #185:	Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? Yet we live on the same Earth. What a total non-argument. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:883955512] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><quote>Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same?</quote> Yet we live on the same Earth. What a total non-argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 07/31/17 8:53:44 PM #186:	VaniIIa Coke posted... Dragonblade01 posted... So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven? Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? And no desire or the sense of greener grass, or the feeling of lacking is not a substitute for contentment. If heaven is perfect no one will come up with anything better. Heaven is not a possession either. People don't have a heaven. If someone welcomes hell by going against the God of All Creation in their whole existence, they will change their mind about its quality after torment, loss of control, demonic presence, screams of demonic spirits, and disaster wreaking havoc on their daily life, goals and relationships. Either heaven is a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual, or it's entirely the subjective experience of the individual. You can't have your cake and eat it too. --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:883955586] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven?</quote> Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? And no desire or the sense of greener grass, or the feeling of lacking is not a substitute for contentment. If heaven is perfect no one will come up with anything better. Heaven is not a possession either. People don't have a heaven. If someone welcomes hell by going against the God of All Creation in their whole existence, they will change their mind about its quality after torment, loss of control, demonic presence, screams of demonic spirits, and disaster wreaking havoc on their daily life, goals and relationships.</quote> Either heaven is a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual, or it's entirely the subjective experience of the individual. You can't have your cake and eat it too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VaniIIa Coke 07/31/17 9:16:01 PM #187:	Hexagon posted... Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? Yet we live on the same Earth. What a total non-argument. My point. Dragonblade01 posted... VaniIIa Coke posted... Dragonblade01 posted... So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven? Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? And no desire or the sense of greener grass, or the feeling of lacking is not a substitute for contentment. If heaven is perfect no one will come up with anything better. Heaven is not a possession either. People don't have a heaven. If someone welcomes hell by going against the God of All Creation in their whole existence, they will change their mind about its quality after torment, loss of control, demonic presence, screams of demonic spirits, and disaster wreaking havoc on their daily life, goals and relationships. Either Earth is a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual, or it's entirely the subjective experience of the individual. You can't have your cake and eat it too. --- ~Reward your curiosity~ <cite>VaniIIa Coke posted [p:883956842] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same?</quote> Yet we live on the same Earth. What a total non-argument.</quote> My point. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>So each person's heaven is different? If I tell someone about my heaven, and they think my heaven is better than their heaven, does my heaven become their heaven? If someone, for whatever reason, thinks hell seems like a great place to be, does hell become their heaven?</quote> Each persons experience is different, why would heaven the same? And no desire or the sense of greener grass, or the feeling of lacking is not a substitute for contentment. If heaven is perfect no one will come up with anything better. Heaven is not a possession either. People don't have a heaven. If someone welcomes hell by going against the God of All Creation in their whole existence, they will change their mind about its quality after torment, loss of control, demonic presence, screams of demonic spirits, and disaster wreaking havoc on their daily life, goals and relationships.</quote> Either Earth is a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual, or it's entirely the subjective experience of the individual. You can't have your cake and eat it too.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
asdf8562 07/31/17 9:18:22 PM #188:	Simply believing God is real and backing it with "I have more people who believe hes real than you believing hes not" is not evidence he exist. <cite>asdf8562 posted [p:883956989] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>Simply believing God is real and backing it with "I have more people who believe hes real than you believing hes not" is not evidence he exist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 07/31/17 9:19:57 PM #189:	VaniIIa Coke posted... Either Earth is a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual, or it's entirely the subjective experience of the individual. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Yes, Earth is also either a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual or entirely the subjective experience of an individual. And? --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:883957096] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote>Either Earth is a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual, or it's entirely the subjective experience of the individual. You can't have your cake and eat it too.</quote> Yes, Earth is also either a place with objective qualities experienced by an individual or entirely the subjective experience of an individual. And?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSJ-RingoStarr 07/31/17 9:22:10 PM #190:	VaniIIa Coke posted... Dash_Harber posted... Volkswagen_Bros posted... Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it. Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God. When CE gets real. Great post. <cite>SSJ-RingoStarr posted [p:883957206] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Volkswagen_Bros posted...</cite> <quote>Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. </quote> That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it.</quote> Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God.</quote> When CE gets real. Great post.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 07/31/17 9:33:23 PM #191:	SSJ-RingoStarr posted... VaniIIa Coke posted... Dash_Harber posted... Volkswagen_Bros posted... Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it. Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God. When CE gets real. Great post. How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:883957830] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>SSJ-RingoStarr posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Volkswagen_Bros posted...</cite> <quote>Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. </quote> That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it.</quote> Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God.</quote> When CE gets real. Great post.</quote> How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Deadpool 07/31/17 9:37:00 PM #192:	asdf8562 posted... Simply believing God is real and backing it with "I have more people who believe hes real than you believing hes not" is not evidence he exist. It's also not true. Which makes it funnier. Hexagon posted... How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose. You're responding to a Hoth post. There's no point. Incoherent ramblings are its favorite thing. --- We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons. <cite>The Deadpool posted [p:883958038] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>asdf8562 posted...</cite> <quote>Simply believing God is real and backing it with "I have more people who believe hes real than you believing hes not" is not evidence he exist.</quote> It's also not true. Which makes it funnier. <cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote>How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose.</quote> You're responding to a Hoth post. There's no point. Incoherent ramblings are its favorite thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VaniIIa Coke 07/31/17 9:40:48 PM #193:	Hexagon posted... SSJ-RingoStarr posted... VaniIIa Coke posted... Dash_Harber posted... Volkswagen_Bros posted... Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it. Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God. When CE gets real. Great post. How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose. Point in case. --- ~Reward your curiosity~ <cite>VaniIIa Coke posted [p:883958242] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SSJ-RingoStarr posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Volkswagen_Bros posted...</cite> <quote>Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. </quote> That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it.</quote> Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God.</quote> When CE gets real. Great post.</quote> How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose.</quote> Point in case.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 07/31/17 9:41:49 PM #194:	VaniIIa Coke posted... Hexagon posted... SSJ-RingoStarr posted... VaniIIa Coke posted... Dash_Harber posted... Volkswagen_Bros posted... Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it. Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God. When CE gets real. Great post. How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose. Point in case. Au contraire. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:883958303] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SSJ-RingoStarr posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VaniIIa Coke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Volkswagen_Bros posted...</cite> <quote>Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored. </quote> That's not really fair, though. All claims that exist without any evidence are not, "lacking sufficient evidence". If I claim something insane, like that the ancient pyramids were built by time traveling New Yorker's who had been enslaved by inter-dimensional lizard people, you would say "there is no evidence of that" because the claim lacks evidence. As for Christianity, it inherently can't have any proof. The concepts of faith and proof are mutually exclusive. You can either have one or the other. Faith, by definition, means believing in something without faith. So there actually is 'no evidence of God'. That being said, I agree that calling a god, "a magic sky man" is asinine and hurts his cause more than it helps it.</quote> Evidence, can be footprints, while in Gods case it would be the universe itself. Or experience itself. Talking about our experience doesn't mention anything about the experience we have. In my experience though, there's intuitive feelings brought about by experiencing experience and that essence itself scales meaning when adjusting the scope of all things. It goes without saying common sense is not common. God can be sensed, and senses can be lost. But without a sense of doubt the multititude of God has presented presence in my senses enough times to know better than those who are senseless, or out of touch with God. Relationships define our existence, and the quality of all our relationships determine the presentation of our presence and set the limits of our senses. When something has not been used for so long, it is forgotten. When one has not, nor proof beyond recollection. It cannot be reconciled without the condusive presence from the seeker of the lost senses, nor proven beyond the senses. If you do write proof of God, and remove freewill from another by writing determination of the absolute truth, watch as it dissolves before it is shared. Such proof would destroy itself seemlessly in logical accord to our physical science, to restore freewill. The laws of nature are the laws of God.</quote> When CE gets real. Great post.</quote> How fascinating. I thought it was a senseless mash of incoherent ramblings. But to each their own I suppose.</quote> Point in case.</quote> Au contraire.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexagon 07/31/17 9:42:34 PM #195:	You're responding to a Hoth post. There's no point. Incoherent ramblings are its favorite thing. I have no idea who any of these people are lol. I don't even know why I venture this board there are some disturbing threads here. <cite>Hexagon posted [p:883958340] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><quote>You're responding to a Hoth post. There's no point. Incoherent ramblings are its favorite thing.</quote> I have no idea who any of these people are lol. I don't even know why I venture this board there are some disturbing threads here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Deadpool 07/31/17 9:44:39 PM #196:	Hexagon posted... You're responding to a Hoth post. There's no point. Incoherent ramblings are its favorite thing. I have no idea who any of these people are lol. I don't even know why I venture this board there are some disturbing threads here. It's multiple accounts. It just posts meaningless minor comments, variations of "I agree with this one" or "I disagree for no reason." You're better off ignoring it. It will lead you to the same result and it will get there a lot faster. --- We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons. <cite>The Deadpool posted [p:883958469] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexagon posted...</cite> <quote><quote>You're responding to a Hoth post. There's no point. Incoherent ramblings are its favorite thing.</quote> I have no idea who any of these people are lol. I don't even know why I venture this board there are some disturbing threads here.</quote> It's multiple accounts. It just posts meaningless minor comments, variations of "I agree with this one" or "I disagree for no reason." You're better off ignoring it. It will lead you to the same result and it will get there a lot faster.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wiiking96 07/31/17 9:57:37 PM #197:	From my understanding of how Heaven is described in the Bible, it's essentially a higher plain of existence where the limitations of your flesh & blood body are shed and you can achieve true peace and happiness. It's a place where God's presence can be constantly felt. I imagine that the experience of being in Heaven is something fairly otherworldly. --- Bowser as the protagonist of a RTS game needs to happen at some point. Fan of Majora's Mask, M+L: Superstar Saga, Metroid Prime 2, and DKC: Tropical Freeze. <cite>wiiking96 posted [p:883959211] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>From my understanding of how Heaven is described in the Bible, it's essentially a higher plain of existence where the limitations of your flesh & blood body are shed and you can achieve true peace and happiness. It's a place where God's presence can be constantly felt. I imagine that the experience of being in Heaven is something fairly otherworldly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rika_Furude 07/31/17 10:15:52 PM #198:	SSJ-Spiderman posted... Rika_Furude posted... There is no evidence of god Not true. Show me undisputable evidence of gods existence --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>Rika_Furude posted [p:883960313] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote> There is no evidence of god</quote> Not true.</quote> Show me undisputable evidence of gods existence</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VaniIIa Coke 07/31/17 11:01:33 PM #199:	Rika_Furude posted... SSJ-Spiderman posted... Rika_Furude posted... There is no evidence of god Not true. Show me undisputable evidence of gods existence All evidence is disputable. Hence scientific theory. Science has never nor will ever prove anything. So why do atheist who f*ing love science, demand this proof? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof --- ~Reward your curiosity~ <cite>VaniIIa Coke posted [p:883962996] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SSJ-Spiderman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Rika_Furude posted...</cite> <quote> There is no evidence of god</quote> Not true.</quote> Show me undisputable evidence of gods existence</quote> All evidence is disputable. Hence scientific theory. Science has never nor will ever prove anything. So why do atheist who f*ing love science, demand this proof? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SuperBaller 07/31/17 11:01:55 PM #200:	I do. <cite>SuperBaller posted [p:883963022] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>I do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VaniIIa Coke 07/31/17 11:02:09 PM #201:	because they are illogical, and wrong xD --- ~Reward your curiosity~ <cite>VaniIIa Coke posted [p:883963037] in Does anyon... [t:75606899]...</cite> <quote>because they are illogical, and wrong xD</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 9

Current Events > Does anyone still unironically advocate atheism? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Does anyone still unironically advocate atheism?