|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I don’t know. What do you mean by “racial equality”? And how does the “equality” of organisms fit into your Darwinist belief-system? I’ve never come across any such concept in evolutionary science (and as you know, I’m very well-read in that area), so perhaps this “equality” thing is unscientific and a fig-tree of your imagination or some emotional response to reality. If your belief about Darwinian evolution is one where only "might makes right" or where ruthlessness is the only virtue lauded by nature, then you'd be misguided. Cooperation amongst humans and equitable societies could also be explained by evolutionary theory.
quote: I don’t know. What do you mean by “superior”? Maybe try the dictionary... "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
That’s because you don’t want God to exist. The scientific impossibility of natural abiogenesis is powerful evidence that God exists, but you choose to ignore this evidence, which means you’re not interested in following the evidence wherever it leads - which means you have “no love for the truth” (2Thess 2:10). So your philosophy amounts to “great swelling words of emptiness” (2Peter 2:18). I am claiming that I know God doesn't exist because we've looked for Him and never found any single tiny shred of evidence that would even hint that He might exist. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
AZPaul3 writes:
Sounds just like the politically correct (ie, cultural Marxist) societies that dominate Western civilization, which pretend to believe in freedom of speech but are completely intolerant of anyone who doesn’t conform to their idiotic “equality” ideology, which has produced degenerate, anti-life insanities such as feminism and same-sex marriage.
Instead you tell us we cannot do this or that because your god doesn’t like it, or we cannot say this or that because your god doesn’t like it, or we cannot think this or that because your god doesn’t like it . . you go further and torture, burn, and make war against humanity to force your restrictions on the world.That is hate.
1. And those lovely atheists - the Communists - who tortured, burned and made war against humanity (killing at least 100 million) in their quest to make everyone “equal” (like ants). Be equal (like ants)- or we’ll kill ya! 2. "Human sacrifice was practised to some extent by many peoples in Mesoamerica (and for that matter, around the world) for many centuries. But it was the Aztec empire that really took the ritual to new heights. How many people were sacrificed by the Aztecs? We don't know how many were sacrificed over the years - it's possible that some accounts are exaggerated - but it was probably thousands each year - tens of thousands or more altogether. Some estimates claim 20,000 a year . Both the empire's own people, and their enemies were sacrificed. The warriors were often involved in a special ritual war called a xochiyaoyotl (or flower war/flowery war). The object was not to gain territory or kill the enemy, but to capture them as food for the gods. Both sides of the battle were required to fight, and they usually were willing participants. The people would be captured instead of killed, and then sacrificed." Aztec sacrifice According to you, the Christian colonizers who brought this sick, death-cult society to an end did a HATEful thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
I recall a football/soccer match played between Liverpool and Man. United a few years ago, in which a white player called a black player a bad (ie, racist) name. A complaint was lodged and as a result, the police were later called in to investigate this “crime”. I feel very free indeed in the UK. That feeling isn't diminished by knowing that I'll get into trouble if I behave in such a way that we have collectively agreed would hurt a bunch of people too much.Freedom within our society includes the freedom to be a twat, but not where you are being such a twat that we have collectively decided that you would harm others by behaving that way. Fair enough for me. Yep, that’s right - THE POLICE WERE CALLED IN - not because one man assaulted another man with an iron bar, but because one man called another man a bad name!! Talk about kindergarten cops! Political correctness (aka cultural Marxism) has turned your nation into a bunch of sooks and sissies. The only reason you’re happy with this politically-correct madness is that - like any good Western atheist - your religion is cultural Marxism. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
If you believe in racial equality I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The latter would be a Cultural Marxist maxim.
feminism I believe in the literal definition of feminism, but modern incarnations are heavily influenced by cultural marxism.
abortion You should love abortion since the usually the only people getting them are cultural marxists who are otherwise would be creating armies of other cultural marxists.
“gay” rights Yes, I think gay people should be treated equally.
If you vote for the Democrats Never once voted for a Democrat ever in my life... I'm 42 years old.
If you live in Austin, Texas, you are almost certainly a cultural Marxist. Austin is certainly a very liberal city, but not everybody living here is de facto liberal or a cultural marxist. All in all, you sound like an awful human being... if not being a cultural marxist means that I have to be a racist, homophobic, misogynist then I guess I'll accept your misrepresented label. There's only one descriptive word for you though: CUNT. Jesus would be so proud... but probably more so ISIS. Now you've piqued my curiosity when it comes to your thoughts on Islam, as you seem to have wayyyy more in common than you do differences Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
. as if that fool knew. Christopher Hitchens - a creepy, dysfunctional bull**** artist who had to continually drown his godless misery in alcohol. That depressing loser was an embarrassment to humanity. The only time he was happy was the moment he died.
Ok, but like Hitch used to say, even if it was possible to show that a god exists, still you have all the work in front of you to show that it's any particular religion's god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Catholic can't believe what they like - they must accept all the doctrines and dogmas of the Chruch.
All very convenient and makes it possible to believe what you like hence the 30,000 different Christian sects each with their own 'truth'.
That’s because, due to human pride, some people left the one, true Church and started their own fake churches, the numbers of which have unfortunately proliferated. The Catholic Church has existed since Jesus founded in about 2000 years ago and contains over a billion believers who are all taught exactly the same doctrines and dogmas and are united under one leader.
Like almost all religions their main line is that only their beliefs get you into heaven and they tell you that only those that are baptised as Catholics can enter heaven. Where do the rest go then? Traditionally this is hell.
You are misinformed. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1260): "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.“
Indulgences
As far as I know, an Indulgence is a monetary form of penance or sacrifice, offered by someone living for the benefit of the soul of a deceased loved one. Maybe it can apply to one's sin's as well (I need to look that up). It’s possible this practice was abused in the past. As for the present, I’ve never actually heard of anyone offering an Indulgence, so the practice would seem to be very rare these days.
They invented two other places - Limbo, for unbaptised babies that are otherwise without sin. (Hilariously they're currently backtracking on this one because in several third world countries with high infant mortality, mothers would rather not sign up for that so they're losing converts to their Muslim competition who don't have that evil idea.)
From the CCC (#1261): As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” Entrusting these children “to the mercy of God” doesn’t sound like an “evil idea” to me.
Oh, you'll find there are millions of people who know who are and who aren't going to hell.
Nevertheless, the Catholic Church doesn’t pass judgement on the eternal fate of any particular people. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Yeah, right - just like all those career women out there who insist they aren’t feminists! The crowd you must run in. I've never met a career woman who wasn't an ardent feminist. You folks a missing the boat there, too.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Nevertheless, the Catholic Church doesn’t pass judgement on the eternal fate of any particular people. Right. You just pass judgement condemning to hell the whole of the human race all at once and before we're even born.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Stile writes: Are we not able to test these as much as we test for Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus? I made the distinction between a deist form of god and a theistic one. The deistic god can't be proven not to exist because he doesn't intervene and exists somewhere beyond our means of observing. To all intents and purposes, he's irrelevant to us anyway. The theistic one that all the believers here talk about *does* intervene and therefore could be observed, yet hasn't been, so to my mind can and has been proven not to exist. 'Though it could be argued that we've really only just started to look properly.
These are the sorts of specific answer you'll have to provide if you want to contend that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly in regards to God's existence. In the deistic case we cannot know - we can only say that there's no evidence. He's a black swan - we can only actually know in a positive way if he shows up. We can never eliminate that possibility. But we can say with some confidence that he doesn't. The theistic case I believe to be proven but I think it rational to have some tiny element of 'don't know about it'; I've not researched every theistic god, have you?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Thugpreacha writes: The evidence shows that some of us found Him...within their own hearts. Others never found Him. This is not evidence.Evidence is verifiable by everyone. If it's only identifiable by individuals on an individual basis... it's called "subjective." There is no such thing as "subjective evidence."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: That’s because you don’t want God to exist. Untrue.You don't get to say what I want or don't want. I do. And I do, actually, want God to exist.I think it would be great if the weak were protected, if (good) prayers were answered, if some benevolent, all-powerful being could provide a sense of security and peace. It's just that such things have been tested, and they've been identified to be equivalent to "nothing is there." Despite my desire to the contrary, I am forced to agree that the rational conclusion is that I Know God Does Not Exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes: The deistic god can't be proven not to exist because he doesn't intervene and exists somewhere beyond our means of observing. Beyond our means of observing?Just like Santa is only observable by those who believe in him? Sounds exactly the same to me. Either the being is rational - there is evidence to look for and we find none.Or the being is irrational - we can't look for evidence because there is none - meaning there's not even any evidence to suggest that such a being could possibly exist in the first place. In a rational discussion - both items are taken into account with how we reasonably use the word "know" when knowing something. And therefore, it is still normal and acceptable to say "I know a non-observable Santa Claus does not exist - because it is an irrational concept."Just as much as we can say "I know a non-observable-deistic god does not exist - because it is an irrational concept." Anything less is special pleading for the deistic god over Santa Claus.
In the deistic case we cannot know - we can only say that there's no evidence. He's a black swan - we can only actually know in a positive way if he shows up. We can never eliminate that possibility. But we can say with some confidence that he doesn't. Exactly.And, if no one ever produces evidence of a black swan over thousands of years of looking for one... it is reasonable to say "I know black swans do not exist." Just as if no one ever produces evidence of a deistic non-observable god over thousands of years of looking for one... it is reasonable to say "I know this deistic non-observable god does not exist." The theistic case I believe to be proven but I think it rational to have some tiny element of 'don't know about it'; I've not researched every theistic god, have you? "Researching every theistic god" is not required - that's why we ask "the experts" - they do the research.Present the evidence that any theistic god should rationally be considered to exist. Without that, and after searching for thousands of years where the experts say we should look and coming up with nothing... we can reasonably conclude "I know that all proposed theistic gods do not exist." And, of course there's an element of "don't know about it" included. This is included with all normal usage of the word "know" as described in the first post:
quote: Do you not agree that such an element of "don't know about it" is included with every normal, reasonable and rational usage of the word "know?" Your argument that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly remains un-persuasive.I am using the word "know" in a normal, reasonable and rational way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Dredge writes:
This is the kind of hate mongering that Jesus spoke out so strongly against.
. as if that fool knew. Christopher Hitchens - a creepy, dysfunctional bull**** artist who had to continually drown his godless misery in alcohol. That depressing loser was an embarrassment to humanity. The only time he was happy was the moment he died.Dredge writes: This is simply another false idol that Jesus also spoke out strongly against. This is what happens to those who worship and make a false idol out of their church, or as in the case with others who make a false idol out of the Bible by saying it is inerrant. Catholic can't believe what they like - they must accept all the doctrines and dogmas of the Church. The kind of hate speech in the first quote is what happens when it is no longer about Jesus but about an inerrant church or an inerrant Bible. It is Christianity, not Bibleianity or churchianity. Personally as a committed Christian I found that Hitchen's condemnation of the idea that God ordered genocide and public stoning in the Bible, to be more Christ like than those who try and justify it. It is totally incompatible with Jesus' command to love one's enemies. Edited by GDR, : Should proof read moreHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Stile writes: Beyond our means of observing?Just like Santa is only observable by those who believe in him? Sounds exactly the same to me. Santa lives either in Lapland or the North Pole or some such. He delivers presents on a sleigh, has dwarves and reindeer, climbs down chimneys etc etc etc etc All easily falsifiable.
And therefore, it is still normal and acceptable to say "I know a non-observable Santa Claus does not exist - because it is an irrational concept." Just as much as we can say "I know a non-observable-deistic god does not exist - because it is an irrational concept." Anything less is special pleading for the deistic god over Santa Claus. Before you can say anything like that you have to demonstrate that a deistic god is an irrational concept. I don't think that's necessarily true. After that you have to establish whether it matters whether it IS an irrational concept. Just because H. sapiens rely on a rational brain to know things with confidence doesn't mean that the things they set out to know need follow that rule. The rest of your post is about the meaning of the word know
Your argument that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly remains un-persuasive. I am using the word "know" in a normal, reasonable and rational way. I'm taking the meaning of know to mean knowledge of something - in a conclusive sense. I don't think black swans pass that test - unless we've looked everywhere we can't know for sure. Part of the problem is that we don't even know where everywhere is, but our current knowledge of what is beyond our planet is enough to tell us that we haven't even begun to start. Let alone every when.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024