Funny little argument i had

[poetofrageX]

i was playing video games at a friends house during a big gathering, and i said goddamn while a religous 8-year old girl was in the room. What follows is an actual argument that i today find hilarious:

Me: Goddamn it!

little girl: Ohh, you cant say that!

Me: Says who?

little girl: God

Me: How do you know God said i cant say that?

little girl: They told me in church

Me: So God didn't tell you, the church did?

little girl: Yeah

Me: So you do whatever the church says?

little girl: Yeah

Me: And you assume that the church is always right?

little girl: Yeah

Me: Why?

little girl: Because the church speaks for God

Me: How do you know they do?

little girl: Because the Church told me they do.


That was an actual argument, i didn't make it up. i'm aware an eight year old girl isn't exactly a theologist, but i think it reveals the completely blind, unquestioning faith most christians have in whatever the church or the bible says. and it'z hilarious, too

[Led Zeppelin]

You could've just said that god doesn't exist because there's no proof to back it up.

[dannie]

This is typical "circle-logic", a lot of religious people use it. It's an easy way to prove these theories right to yourself, no thinking is to be done.

person 1: how do you know god exists

person 2: cause it says so in the bible

person 1: how do you know that's the truth

person 2: because god instructed to write the bible

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2006, 12:42 AM
You could've just said that god doesn't exist because there's no proof to back it up.
Just as the church says God exists because they tell you it does.

It would have been stupid if he said to the girl that God doesn't exist, why? Because he tells her.

The right thing to say would be that she shouldn't believe the things the church tells you, because there are many who thinks that there is no God, and many which believes in other religions. The church isn't right in everything they say just because they say so.

[Led Zeppelin]

Just as the church says God exists because they tell you it does.


The difference is that they don't have proof to back up what they say.


It would have been stupid if he said to the girl that God doesn't exist, why? Because he tells her.


What the hell are you talking about? Are you alive? Can you please check your pulse.

"it is stupid to tell the proletariat about Communism, because you tell them", wtf?

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2006, 12:49 AM

Just as the church says God exists because they tell you it does.


The difference is that they don't have proof to back up what they say.


It would have been stupid if he said to the girl that God doesn't exist, why? Because he tells her.


What the hell are you talking about? Are you alive? Can you please check your pulse.

"it is stupid to tell the proletariat about Communism, because you tell them", wtf?
You don't have proof to back it up, if you say that god doesn't exist. Just as christians dont have proof to back up what they claim, that god does exist.

And you are comparing two different things. It would be stupid to tell someone that God does exist, because you have no evidence of that he does or does not.

It would not be stupid to tell the proletariat about Communism, because you are speaking of something, and besides, you have arguments including evidence of Communism being a good economical system.

The two examples have nothing to do with each other.

[Led Zeppelin]

You don't have proof to back it up, if you say that god doesn't exist.

You don't need proof to back up the fact that something doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that something exists.

Guess what, they don't have it.


It would be stupid to tell someone that God does exist, because you have no evidence of that he does or does not.

Yes we do have evidence of god not existing, it's called the product of logical thinking; you claim some super-being exists but you can't prove it, then logically I wouldn't believe you, right? What you are saying is "well, that person might be right, since I can't disprove him", what utter idiocy.


It would not be stupid to tell the proletariat about Communism, because you are speaking of something, and besides, you have arguments including evidence of Communism being a good economical system.


Actually there is no evidence of Communism being a good economical system, we don't even know how Communism will function (at least not in detail), the difference is that we have scientific facts to back up our theory.

But I was ridiculing your position of "you can't tell anyone anything because then you tell them what to think", not comparing the Communism example to the proof of god example.

[redstar2000]

It's an interesting illustration of the strength of childhood indoctrination.

Some evolutionists argue that children are "genetically predisposed" to believe what their parents and other adults tell them "because" that trait conferred a survival advantage during our long period of savagery...prior to the origins of class society.

Don't wander off alone was good advice in a time when kids who wandered off alone got eaten.

No one knows if this is really true of course; it's likely in presently existing societies that very few children are actually taught to "figure things out for themselves" and not just believe anything that adults or older kids tell them.

I feel very sorry for that little girl...she's had a load of shit dumped into her brain and will now probably have a hell of a time ever getting rid of it.

It's as if she had been tied into a wheelchair for the first fifteen years of her life and then, maybe, untied and told to "get up and walk". :o

Very sad. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:29 PM
It's an interesting illustration of the strength of childhood indoctrination.

Some evolutionists argue that children are "genetically predisposed" to believe what their parents and other adults tell them "because" that trait conferred a survival advantage during our long period of savagery...prior to the origins of class society.

Don't wander off alone was good advice in a time when kids who wandered off alone got eaten.

No one knows if this is really true of course; it's likely in presently existing societies that very few children are actually taught to "figure things out for themselves" and not just believe anything that adults or older kids tell them.

I feel very sorry for that little girl...she's had a load of shit dumped into her brain and will now probably have a hell of a time ever getting rid of it.

It's as if she had been tied into a wheelchair for the first fifteen years of her life and then, maybe, untied and told to "get up and walk". :o

Very sad. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
True.

Channel Four aired a Richard Dawkin's documentary called The Root of All Evil?

He basically rips religion to shreds.

The most interesting part for me was when he examined "The Virus of Faith".

Religious faith is quite simply a virus.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2006, 01:09 AM

You don't have proof to back it up, if you say that god doesn't exist.

You don't need proof to back up the fact that something doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that something exists.

Guess what, they don't have it.


It would be stupid to tell someone that God does exist, because you have no evidence of that he does or does not.

Yes we do have evidence of god not existing, it's called the product of logical thinking; you claim some super-being exists but you can't prove it, then logically I wouldn't believe you, right? What you are saying is "well, that person might be right, since I can't disprove him", what utter idiocy.


It would not be stupid to tell the proletariat about Communism, because you are speaking of something, and besides, you have arguments including evidence of Communism being a good economical system.


Actually there is no evidence of Communism being a good economical system, we don't even know how Communism will function (at least not in detail), the difference is that we have scientific facts to back up our theory.

But I was ridiculing your position of "you can't tell anyone anything because then you tell them what to think", not comparing the Communism example to the proof of god example.
Actually I think you misunderstood me in the first place. What I meant was that even though the church is clearly wrong for preaching about God to a child (and some would say, to anyone) as if it is something that obviously exists, my point was that it would also be wrong to tell a child that God does not exist, without bringing up the context of that there is actually many million people around the world who believes in an omnipotent form of some kind.

And you (anyone of you) have zero foundation to claim that you have evidence of God not existing. Seriously, don't make yourself look like an idiot, no one wants that. If Einstein had been alive he would probably laugh at you for making such claims; "the product of logical thinking" ha-ha-ha.

[Led Zeppelin]

my point was that it would also be wrong to tell a child that God does not exist, without bringing up the context of that there is actually many million people around the world who believes in an omnipotent form of some kind.


What a stupid point you had there.


And you (anyone of you) have zero foundation to claim that you have evidence of God not existing.

Great, another person who thinks he's a genius but is in reality.....not.

We don't claim to have evidence of god not existing because first of all we don't need to, the burden of proof is not on "us".

Secondly you can't disprove something that isn't proven.

That's what I mean by logical thinking, something you are cearly unable to do.


Seriously, don't make yourself look like an idiot

Now, you are able to type that, why are you unable to tell that to yourself? It would save us alot of time.


If Einstein had been alive he would probably laugh at you for making such claims

If Einstein was alive he would probably freak out.

[GoaRedStar]

Do you know where I can be able to see Richard Dawkin's documentary The Root of All Evil on the internet.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:21 PM
Do you know where I can be able to see Richard Dawkin's documentary The Root of All Evil on the internet.
Just searched on google and found somewhere you could download the two parts of the documentary.

Episode One: The God Delusion (http://greylodge.org/gpc/?p=331)

Episode Two: The Virus of Faith (http://greylodge.org/gpc/?p=339)

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2006, 02:19 AM

my point was that it would also be wrong to tell a child that God does not exist, without bringing up the context of that there is actually many million people around the world who believes in an omnipotent form of some kind.


What a stupid point you had there.


And you (anyone of you) have zero foundation to claim that you have evidence of God not existing.

Great, another person who thinks he's a genius but is in reality.....not.

We don't claim to have evidence of god not existing because first of all we don't need to, the burden of proof is not on "us".

Secondly you can't disprove something that isn't proven.

That's what I mean by logical thinking, something you are cearly unable to do.


Seriously, don't make yourself look like an idiot

Now, you are able to type that, why are you unable to tell that to yourself? It would save us alot of time.


If Einstein had been alive he would probably laugh at you for making such claims

If Einstein was alive he would probably freak out.
You know you only prove my points.

Why you fail to even pretend to be be arguing against me and instead fall to meaningless comments and misaccusations is beyond me.

I think I am a genious, when I am the one who say that you have no foundation to claim that you have evidence against God's existance, and you claim you do?

Something isn't right with that picture.

You say I am unable of logical thinking, when logical thinking is all it takes to understand that I never tried to "disprove something that isn't proven". It is you who do exactly that.

You said so confidantly you had evidence of God not existing, I think many would have interest of seeing this.

Also, a tip; don't get rude, as it doesn't help you in getting your message across.

[Led Zeppelin]

You said so confidantly you had evidence of God not existing

No I didn't, you can't read either? What the hell are you doing on a internet forum then?


Also, a tip

Taking tips from you is the equivalent of taking candy from a stranger.

[Sentinel]

Also, a tip; don't get rude, as it doesn't help you in getting your message across.

I fully understand his frustration. He has told you about the fact that the person making a positive assertion has the burden of proof. That's basic rules of debating.

If you don't know what having the burden of proof means, please read Lazar's stickied thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457) on the subject. Come back if you think that you can refute the arguments there. Good luck! :lol:

[KC]

And you (anyone of you) have zero foundation to claim that you have evidence of God not existing. Seriously, don't make yourself look like an idiot, no one wants that. If Einstein had been alive he would probably laugh at you for making such claims; "the product of logical thinking" ha-ha-ha.


I think I am a genious, when I am the one who say that you have no foundation to claim that you have evidence against God's existance, and you claim you do?

Something isn't right with that picture.

You say I am unable of logical thinking, when logical thinking is all it takes to understand that I never tried to "disprove something that isn't proven". It is you who do exactly that.

You said so confidantly you had evidence of God not existing, I think many would have interest of seeing this.

Who has the burden of proof? (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457)

[VonClausewitz]

What is this thread trying to prove exactly ?

That a child can have simple childish faith in something, like santa etc ? Maybe she'll grow out of it in a few years ?



If you don't know what having the burden of proof means, please read Lazar's stickied thread on the subject. Come back if you think that you can refute the arguments there. Good luck!

C'mon, that's just a reason for none of you to have to argue theology isn't it ?

Is it incompetance or just ignorance ?

redstar2000;


Some evolutionists argue that children are "genetically predisposed" to believe what their parents and other adults tell them "because" that trait conferred a survival advantage during our long period of savagery...prior to the origins of class society.


Quite true, but of course, eventually most children will either gather their own opinions, or if they happen to suffer from a very closed-community, will have to live with what they're indoctrinated with. being told something constantly as a child is a pain, as it can lead to things like 'Prussian Blue' existing.

[Sentinel]

C'mon, that's just a reason for none of you to have to argue theology isn't it ?

Is it incompetance or just ignorance ?

No, it's frustration. You actually get bored of explaining the same thing over and over again. That's why Lazar made that thread and LSD stickied it.

Did you check it out?

[VonClausewitz]

Yeah, I had a read, It's interesting of course, I just thought it was a little kinda "Get out of actually arguing". Surely it's more useful to explain to your opponents why you think that they are wrong.

[KC]

Surely it's more useful to explain to your opponents why you think that they are wrong.

That's been done countless times, and yet theologists fail to "get it". I made that thread with the intention of anyone who wants to piling up evidence about who has the burden of proof. Of course, there's yet to be a response (much less by theists). I wonder why...

[James]

wow you showed that 8 year old.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2006, 02:48 AM

You said so confidantly you had evidence of God not existing

No I didn't, you can't read either? What the hell are you doing on a internet forum then?


Also, a tip

Taking tips from you is the equivalent of taking candy from a stranger.
You will come a long way with that attitude.

Anyways, you said this:


Yes we do have evidence of god not existing, it's called the product of logical thinking;

Black on white.


Also, on the Burden of proof, I agree with VonClausewitz, that it doesn't help the discussion as it rather gives one of the sides the opportunity to shut up the opponent rather than actually discussing anything.

[BuyOurEverything]

Keiza: You are psionically controlled by a giant pink spider that lives in the center of Venus. Disprove this. And don't gimme any shit about the 'burden of proof' being on me to 'provide some evidence,' that's just a cheap way to get out of arguing.

[KC]

Also, on the Burden of proof, I agree with VonClausewitz, that it doesn't help the discussion as it rather gives one of the sides the opportunity to shut up the opponent rather than actually discussing anything.


What you fail to realize is that there is nothing to discuss. It's a simple fact that until theists prove that god exists, they are wrong. And if this is the case, then we don't have anything to discuss.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:23 AM
Keiza: You are psionically controlled by a giant pink spider that lives in the center of Venus. Disprove this. And don't gimme any shit about the 'burden of proof' being on me to 'provide some evidence,' that's just a cheap way to get out of arguing.
Oh, okay, I never before realized the likeliness of giant pink spiders living in the center of Venus with the concept of some force that has created the universe. But I see now that it is clearly the same. The one being the subject of most importance to philosophers through time, the other being... an obviously relevant character in this discussion.

Wether you like it or not, there is a difference between fundemental philosophical questions and conseptual beings you just made up. You can say santa claus but it doesn't give it any more relevance. I don't have the burden of proof since I never said there is a God, I am not a theist. Religion is not a "positive element" of society and more or less never has been through history. However the anger against this doesn't make it more sane to throw off the philosophical elements of it, which after all is the more or less biggest philosophical question there is.

If I said, yes there is a God, then I would have had to explain why, as you ask of me. All I am saying is that there to our knowledge is no evidence concerning Gods existance.

[Sentinel]

Oh, okay, I never before realized the likeliness of giant pink spiders living in the center of Venus with the concept of some force that has created the universe. But I see now that it is clearly the same. The one being the subject of most importance to philosophers through time, the other being... an obviously relevant character in this discussion.

What he meant, obiously, was only that the theists have no more proof backing "god's" existance than he has that spiders. None at all that is.

That people, unfortunately, have been deluded by pondering about "god" for ages doesn't change that fact. It doesn't give "God" any more credibility whatsoever.

On the contrary, the fact that the theists have had thousands of years to prove their claim and failed, makes them even more ridiculous and untrustworthy in the eyes of rational people, such as communists.

Since BuyOurEverything made his claim only a few hours ago, I'd actually lend it a lot more credibility! :lol:


If I said, yes there is a God, then I would have had to explain why, as you ask of me. All I am saying is that there to our knowledge is no evidence concerning Gods existance.

Exactly. That's why we must consider him as made up bullshit until there is, like the links in Lazars thread (and basic intelligence) show us.

[Dyst]

That people, unfortunately, have been deluded by pondering about "god" for ages doesn't change that fact. It doesn't give "God" any more credibility whatsoever.

On the contrary, the fact that the theists have had thousands of years to prove their claim and failed, makes them even more ridiculous and untrustworthy in the eyes of rational people, such as communists.

"Deluded"... You make it seem like "people" are not the same as us. Perhaps it is the majority at this forum which has been "deluded" to not think about wether or not God is a possibility at all. After all, religion is oppressive. But is thought?

"Theists have had thousands of years to prove their claim and failed" again, it is not long ago scientists started researching the relative area of physics and, although to some degree it has been going on for thousands of years, mathematics. These are, in my humble opinion, the only one capable of proving anything about God.

[BuyOurEverything]

Oh, okay, I never before realized the likeliness of giant pink spiders living in the center of Venus with the concept of some force that has created the universe. But I see now that it is clearly the same. The one being the subject of most importance to philosophers through time, the other being... an obviously relevant character in this discussion.

Wether you like it or not, there is a difference between fundemental philosophical questions and conseptual beings you just made up. You can say santa claus but it doesn't give it any more relevance.

Because a claim is deemed 'more important,' does not relax the standards for making it a valid claim. There isn't a double standard for believing one thing over another when there is evidence for neither.


If I said, yes there is a God, then I would have had to explain why, as you ask of me. All I am saying is that there to our knowledge is no evidence concerning Gods existance.

If you are willing to believe that god may exist, then you must also be willing to believe every single other claim made that has no evidence for it. There is no inherant difference.

[Sentinel]

"Deluded"... You make it seem like "people" are not the same as us.

No, I was referring to religious people, and the philosophers you mentioned.


Perhaps it is the majority at this forum which has been "deluded" to not think about wether or not God is a possibility at all.

Care to explain how not believing in unproven myths equals delusion?


Theists have had thousands of years to prove their claim and failed" again, it is not long ago scientists started researching the relative area of physics although to some degree it has been going on for thousands of years, mathematics. These are, in my humble opinion, the only one capable of proving anything about God.

Scientists have been looking for evidence of god for centuries, very actively actually after the church was forced to stop burning them on the stake for such "herecy".

I've understood it was one of their main priorities in the nineteenth century.
Nothing has been found, naturally. How long is it going to take?

My point, though, is that until someone presents us the proof we must consider "god"
a myth. It is insanely dangerous to rely on anything unproven.

The very day someone puts the proof of god's existence on the table, I'll recognize that he exists.

If he is anything like he's been described as in the Bible, Quran, or other scriptures I'm familiar with, I'm going to give his bigoted, homophobic and counter-revolutionary highness the finger, though. :angry:

[Dyst]

If he is anything like he's been described as in the Bible, Quran, or other scriptures I'm familiar with, I'm going to give his bigoted, homophobic and counter-revolutionary highness the finger, though.

If he was anything like depicted in those books, he would smite down upon you with holy fury. If there is or was a God I doubt it's anything like it. I think what most scientists who researches it thinks of it as something which has made the universe and all laws of physics can be traced back to it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Anyways, you said this:

Yes, I did say that, that is our proof of god not existing, the other side hasn't proven it, that is our proof of god not existing.

Logical thinking, we call that, you should check it out some time.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 17 2006, 07:21 PM

Anyways, you said this:

Yes, I did say that, that is our proof of god not existing, the other side hasn't proven it, that is our proof of god not existing.

Logical thinking, we call that, you should check it out some time.


You said so confidantly you had evidence of God not existing
No I didn't, you can't read either? What the hell are you doing on a internet forum then?


Yes we do have evidence of god not existing, it's called the product of logical thinking;

You haven't provided us with any proof of anything! And any attempt to prove that God doesn't exist, coming from you, would most probably fail miserably unless you stop contradicting yourself in posts.

And because they haven't proved God exists doesn't prove in any way that God does not exist. It will be scientifically/philosophically proven/disproven later in time; we have no conclusion yet. If your version of logical thinking is as you said then I too will urge you to check out the real definition some time.



Yes, I did say that, that is our proof of god not existing, the other side hasn't proven it, that is our proof of god not existing.

-There could be aliens! We just haven't got evidence for it yet.
-Okay, since you have no evidence, that proves there is no aliens.

You can link that burden of proof link a thousand times, what you said above will still be bullshit.

[KC]

You haven't provided us with any proof of anything! And any attempt to prove that God doesn't exist, coming from you, would most probably fail miserably unless you stop contradicting yourself in posts.

And because they haven't proved God exists doesn't prove in any way that God does not exist. It will be scientifically/philosophically proven/disproven later in time; we have no conclusion yet. If your version of logical thinking is as you said then I too will urge you to check out the real definition some time.

I suggest you check out the burden of proof thread again.



-There could be aliens! We just haven't got evidence for it yet.
-Okay, since you have no evidence, that proves there is no aliens.

There is a possibility of aliens existing. Actually, this percentage is very high. But the chance of god existing is about as much as pigs flying. It could happen, but there's nearly a 100% chance that it doesn't. Same case with the psionic spider from venus or whatever. We can't prove that it exists, but you really could be controlled by a psionic spider from venus. Of course, you would say we should keep an open mind and leave this open for consideration. :lol:

Also, science implies the existence of extraterrestrial life. The chance of a habitable environment existing only on Earth throughout the entire earth is pretty much zero. So since our science point in that direction, we can safely conclude that aliens could exist. There is no science that implies that god exists. In fact, if you believe in god you'd have to believe in the psionic spiders. They're basically the same case.

[Dyst]

There is a possibility of aliens existing. Actually, this percentage is very high. But the chance of god existing is about as much as pigs flying. It could happen, but there's nearly a 100% chance that it doesn't. Same case with the psionic spider from venus or whatever. We can't prove that it exists, but you really could be controlled by a psionic spider from venus. Of course, you would say we should keep an open mind and leave this open for consideration.

Also, science implies the existence of extraterrestrial life. The chance of a habitable environment existing only on Earth throughout the entire earth is pretty much zero. So since our science point in that direction, we can safely conclude that aliens could exist. There is no science that implies that god exists. In fact, if you believe in god you'd have to believe in the psionic spiders. They're basically the same case.

Your argument comparing the percentage of the likeliness of the existance of aliens versus God is invalid. You fail to back it up.

You are also wrong when you say that there is no science which points to the existance of God. If you think philosophically, mathematics continuesly points to it's existance by the share fact that there is a number one; think about it.

And you say that if I believe in God I would have to believe in psionic spiders. Nope! I am an agnostic, but my definition of God is a force that has created the universe and the mathematical system/physics. If you think of the universe as amounts, which in its deepest reality it is, God would be the number one. I wouldn't have to believe in the spiders if I, through philosophizing about it, came to the conclusion that there must have been a God that is/created the mathematical system/system of amounts.

[KC]

Your argument comparing the percentage of the likeliness of the existance of aliens versus God is invalid. You fail to back it up.

Back it up with what? It's common sense! There's millions of different planets. What do you think the odds are that life only exists on earth? I'd say slim to none. That's just common sense.



You are also wrong when you say that there is no science which points to the existance of God. If you think philosophically, mathematics continuesly points to it's existance by the share fact that there is a number one; think about it.

What the fuck is this?! :lol: There being a number one proves the existance of god?!? Are you seriously arguing this? You've gotta be kidding me.



And you say that if I believe in God I would have to believe in psionic spiders. Nope! I am an agnostic, but my definition of God is a force that has created the universe and the mathematical system/physics. If you think of the universe as amounts, which in its deepest reality it is, God would be the number one. I wouldn't have to believe in the spiders if I, through philosophizing about it, came to the conclusion that there must have been a God that is/created the mathematical system/system of amounts.

Sure you would. Both of those have just as much chance of existing. So if you say "god could exist" you would also have to say "psionic spiders exist". Just because you don't believe in an all-powerful god, doesn't mean that your belief that god exists is special.

I suggest you reread the burden of proof thread. Because it is on you to prove that god exists. Prove that it exists and I will agree with you. Whether or not it "could" exist doesn't even matter. Because if you believe it "could" exist, then even that would undermine your personal view of god.

[Led Zeppelin]

I give up on "Keiza" (annoying teen who thinks he's a genius), hopefully god will forgive me.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:39 PM


Your argument comparing the percentage of the likeliness of the existance of aliens versus God is invalid. You fail to back it up.

Back it up with what? It's common sense! There's millions of different planets. What do you think the odds are that life only exists on earth? I'd say slim to none. That's just common sense.



You are also wrong when you say that there is no science which points to the existance of God. If you think philosophically, mathematics continuesly points to it's existance by the share fact that there is a number one; think about it.

What the fuck is this?! :lol: There being a number one proves the existance of god?!? Are you seriously arguing this? You've gotta be kidding me.



And you say that if I believe in God I would have to believe in psionic spiders. Nope! I am an agnostic, but my definition of God is a force that has created the universe and the mathematical system/physics. If you think of the universe as amounts, which in its deepest reality it is, God would be the number one. I wouldn't have to believe in the spiders if I, through philosophizing about it, came to the conclusion that there must have been a God that is/created the mathematical system/system of amounts.

Sure you would. Both of those have just as much chance of existing. So if you say "god could exist" you would also have to say "psionic spiders exist". Just because you don't believe in an all-powerful god, doesn't mean that your belief that god exists is special.

I suggest you reread the burden of proof thread. Because it is on you to prove that god exists. Prove that it exists and I will agree with you. Whether or not it "could" exist doesn't even matter. Because if you believe it "could" exist, then even that would undermine your personal view of god.
I can't argue against your first point, since that is against the superstition combined with organized religion. I am against organized religion in any form and allthough it is not common sense, I do agree with you that science has proven the fact that life doesn't exist only on earth. I am not a creationist, christian or a believer for that matter.

Second point, well you have obviously not studied too far into philosophical mathematics. These days school teaches children what to do with mathematics, but not what it actually is. Which is truly sad. Mathematics and numbers are meant to be understood allegorically.

And it is not my job to prove there is a God. Again, I'm an agnostic. I do not care if my view of God, according to you, would be "undermined" if I only believe it could exist. If you expect me to prove to you there is a God before continuing the discussion I suggest the mods close this thread. None of us are capable of proving anything to anyone about God at all at this point and place.

[KC]

And it is not my job to prove there is a God. Again, I'm an agnostic.

You are not an agnostic if you believe that god created the universe.


I do not care if my view of God, according to you, would be "undermined" if I only believe it could exist. If you expect me to prove to you there is a God before continuing the discussion I suggest the mods close this thread. None of us are capable of proving anything to anyone about God at all at this point and place.

Thank you for admitting your belief that god created the universe is wrong.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:27 AM


And it is not my job to prove there is a God. Again, I'm an agnostic.

You are not an agnostic if you believe that god created the universe.


I do not care if my view of God, according to you, would be "undermined" if I only believe it could exist. If you expect me to prove to you there is a God before continuing the discussion I suggest the mods close this thread. None of us are capable of proving anything to anyone about God at all at this point and place.

Thank you for admitting your belief that god created the universe is wrong.
You crack me up. I haven't said I believe God created the universe (I have specifically said I DON'T believe in Creationism). I haven't said I believe in God. So there are you wrong. And, you mix christian theology with the philosophic concept of God.

Christian theology: God created the universe within a week and is a being capable of interacting and communicating with people on Earth. Jesus was the holy "son of God" sent to Earth to die for Mans sins, or whatever.

Philosophic concept of God: The first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe and has made or is the laws of which it is based on. There are of course variations of the philosophic concept of God, but this is the one I have heard most about.

And yes, I said "my view of God". That does not imply that I actually believe in God. I could have used the words "my definition of God" and it would mean the same.

[KC]

You crack me up. I haven't said I believe God created the universe (I have specifically said I DON'T believe in Creationism). I haven't said I believe in God. So there are you wrong. And, you mix christian theology with the philosophic concept of God.

Christian theology: God created the universe within a week and is a being capable of interacting and communicating with people on Earth. Jesus was the holy "son of God" sent to Earth to die for Mans sins, or whatever.

Philosophic concept of God: The first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe and has made or is the laws of which it is based on. There are of course variations of the philosophic concept of God, but this is the one I have heard most about.

So "the first entity that ever existed starting the universe" isn't the same thing as "god created the universe"? I wasn't throwing you in with the Christian creationists. You both, however, are creationists. You both believe god created the universe.



And yes, I said "my view of God". That does not imply that I actually believe in God. I could have used the words "my definition of God" and it would mean the same.

Secondly, you don't have a "view of god"if you don't believe in it. Atheists have no "view of god"; agnostics have no "view of god". They merely comment on other's views of god. Saying you have a view of god implies that you believe in god, otherwise you wouldn't have a view of it! So are you agnostic or not?

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:33 AM


You crack me up. I haven't said I believe God created the universe (I have specifically said I DON'T believe in Creationism). I haven't said I believe in God. So there are you wrong. And, you mix christian theology with the philosophic concept of God.

Christian theology: God created the universe within a week and is a being capable of interacting and communicating with people on Earth. Jesus was the holy "son of God" sent to Earth to die for Mans sins, or whatever.

Philosophic concept of God: The first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe and has made or is the laws of which it is based on. There are of course variations of the philosophic concept of God, but this is the one I have heard most about.

So "the first entity that ever existed starting the universe" isn't the same thing as "god created the universe"? I wasn't throwing you in with the Christian creationists. You both, however, are creationists. You both believe god created the universe.



And yes, I said "my view of God". That does not imply that I actually believe in God. I could have used the words "my definition of God" and it would mean the same.

Secondly, you don't have a "view of god"if you don't believe in it. Atheists have no "view of god"; agnostics have no "view of god". They merely comment on other's views of god. Saying you have a view of god implies that you believe in god, otherwise you wouldn't have a view of it! So are you agnostic or not?
"The first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe" isn't necesseraly the same as "god created the universe". The first implies something more like a reaction or the start of a process, where the other is a being which has made something (the universe) like he was some sort of living creature.

Remember that it is the philosophical concept of God by the definition I wrote, that came before the Christian (or more or less all organized monotheistical religions) definition of God combined with a lot of superstitious stories to help get the support from people (majority believed in superstitious nonsense). If you wonder what I mean, study for example ancient Greece and eastern philosophies. It is basicly philosophy of god without all the (obvious) nonsense that we have disproven scientifically or are about to in a very short time.

I am afraid I confused people when I said "my view of God" as I must admit it sounds like it is something I have faith in. However, let's for a moment swap "my view" with "my definition". Then your second argument becomes nonsensical, since everyone obviously has their own definition of the word 'god' without necesseraly being believers of any kind. That was what I meant with what I wrote.

So yes, you can say I am agnostic in the way that I am certainly interested in the philosophical concept of God, yet I think everyone who calls themselves "believers" of it or "followers" of any religion are people who, in a way, voluntarily blinds themselves from the truth, if not simply brainwashed.

Yet I am also tired of hearing people trying to critizise the oppressive and reactionary line of thought organized religion has brought about, though sadly fails to do so by "argumenting" against a philosophical line of thought (which in itself only has been a tool for religious 'movements' to gain support, mixing philosophy with superstition).

[KC]

"The first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe" isn't necesseraly the same as "god created the universe". The first implies something more like a reaction or the start of a process, where the other is a being which has made something (the universe) like he was some sort of living creature.

It is the same. Starting an evolving universe and starting a universe 6,000 years ago share the fact that they both are beliefs where god created the universe. They are both creationist. Saying "the first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe" is also about a being creating the universe.



I am afraid I confused people when I said "my view of God" as I must admit it sounds like it is something I have faith in. However, let's for a moment swap "my view" with "my definition". Then your second argument becomes nonsensical, since everyone obviously has their own definition of the word 'god' without necesseraly being believers of any kind. That was what I meant with what I wrote.

You again are wrong! Atheists/agnostics hold no "definition of god". They merely attack other definitions and beliefs of what god really is. Changing the wording doesn't change the fact.



So yes, you can say I am agnostic in the way that I am certainly interested in the philosophical concept of God, yet I think everyone who calls themselves "believers" of it or "followers" of any religion are people who, in a way, voluntarily blinds themselves from the truth, if not simply brainwashed.

Yet I am also tired of hearing people trying to critizise the oppressive and reactionary line of thought organized religion has brought about, though sadly fails to do so by "argumenting" against a philosophical line of thought (which in itself only has been a tool for religious 'movements' to gain support, mixing philosophy with superstition).


What you fail to realize is that a philosophical concept of god is just as pointless to people as a religious one.

[anomaly]

Keiza, do you believe in god or don't you? You certainly make a point of attacking organized religion, but when it comes to 'god' itself, you avoid taking a position. Or, rather, you seem to take two positions at once! You lately say that a particular wording of yours referred to god 'as if its something you have faith in'. Even in this post, however, you make quite sure that every time you typ 'god' you capitalize it, as any good theist would. Do you do so simply out of habit (which is understandable) or because you actually believe in some 'higher power'?

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Lazar+Feb 18 2006, 12:33 PM--> (Lazar @ Feb 18 2006, 12:33 PM)
"The first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe" isn't necesseraly the same as "god created the universe". The first implies something more like a reaction or the start of a process, where the other is a being which has made something (the universe) like he was some sort of living creature.

It is the same. Starting an evolving universe and starting a universe 6,000 years ago share the fact that they both are beliefs where god created the universe. They are both creationist. Saying "the first entity that ever existed started the evolving universe" is also about a being creating the universe.



I am afraid I confused people when I said "my view of God" as I must admit it sounds like it is something I have faith in. However, let's for a moment swap "my view" with "my definition". Then your second argument becomes nonsensical, since everyone obviously has their own definition of the word 'god' without necesseraly being believers of any kind. That was what I meant with what I wrote.

You again are wrong! Atheists/agnostics hold no "definition of god". They merely attack other definitions and beliefs of what god really is. Changing the wording doesn't change the fact.



So yes, you can say I am agnostic in the way that I am certainly interested in the philosophical concept of God, yet I think everyone who calls themselves "believers" of it or "followers" of any religion are people who, in a way, voluntarily blinds themselves from the truth, if not simply brainwashed.

Yet I am also tired of hearing people trying to critizise the oppressive and reactionary line of thought organized religion has brought about, though sadly fails to do so by "argumenting" against a philosophical line of thought (which in itself only has been a tool for religious 'movements' to gain support, mixing philosophy with superstition).


What you fail to realize is that a philosophical concept of god is just as pointless to people as a religious one. [/b]
I am sorry but I will be away from a computer for some days now so I can't continue the discussion much longer.

It is not the same since, as I said, the first is a philosophy which involves, allegorically, seing the world as numbers where God is the first number and to add more numbers you have to have the number 1. The second is a philosophy where God is a creature able to interact and communicate like any other human being.

And everyone has a definition of the word God, whatever they may believe or not. I simply said my own definition.

And wether or not the philosophical concept of god is "just as pointless to people as a religious one" it is okay by me. But I know that the "people" you speak of are dumb people who doesn't realize there is a difference.


anomaly
Keiza, do you believe in god or don't you? You certainly make a point of attacking organized religion, but when it comes to 'god' itself, you avoid taking a position. Or, rather, you seem to take two positions at once! You lately say that a particular wording of yours referred to god 'as if its something you have faith in'. Even in this post, however, you make quite sure that every time you typ 'god' you capitalize it, as any good theist would. Do you do so simply out of habit (which is understandable) or because you actually believe in some 'higher power'?
I say God because of old habit and that is how I have learned to say it. It is not like I care very much. I argue in favor of philosophizing of God because I do so myself. This does not mean I believe in God. I am unsure myself. But if I didn't argue in favor of philosophizing about it, no one here would, so I am to a certain degree just playing a role, if you understand.

[KC]

It is not the same since, as I said, the first is a philosophy which involves, allegorically, seing the world as numbers where God is the first number and to add more numbers you have to have the number 1. The second is a philosophy where God is a creature able to interact and communicate like any other human being.


God as an idea is completely useless to anyone. God as a philosophical subject is just as reactionary as any other concept of god. What the fuck is there so hard to get about that?



And everyone has a definition of the word God, whatever they may believe or not. I simply said my own definition.


"I don't believe in god but I think that he's ....."

No.



And wether or not the philosophical concept of god is "just as pointless to people as a religious one" it is okay by me. But I know that the "people" you speak of are dumb people who doesn't realize there is a difference.


There is no significant difference!!! They are both just as reactionary!!!! What don't you get about that?

[Ol' Dirty]

This is a non-sequiter, but Lazar, I'm wondering what your "Cofee, swisher sweets" title means.

[Sentinel]

I say God because of old habit and that is how I have learned to say it. It is not like I care very much.

That's why it is so important that all remains of religion in society are destroyed immediately after the revolution.

The ghost of religion is always present in our ways and our very language until we do something about it. It still affects our thinking, even though it's power is fading.


But if I didn't argue in favor of philosophizing about it, no one here would, so I am to a certain degree just playing a role, if you understand.

Why? What the "hell" for? Have you ever considered that there might be a reason why so many aren't "in favor" of talking about "god" in a community of progressive people?

[KC]

This is a non-sequiter, but Lazar, I'm wondering what your "Cofee, swisher sweets" title means.

Nothing, really. Just shit I enjoy.

[anomaly]

"Have you ever considered that there might be a reason why so many aren't "in favor" of talking about "god" in a community of progressive people?"--The Sentinel is quite correct. Why, Keiza, so you seem so shocked that your graceful words about this 'god' concept of yours are met with so much hostility? With this in mind, perhaps it is time for you to stop your 'philosophizing' and stop 'playing a role'. Argue your own beliefs. If you don't believe in god, why do you defend that belief so?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Keiza, I think that I sympathise with what you try to do here, even though you are extremely obscure in your approach. I typed a lengthy response to this, but apparently it was deleted in the latest server failure.

You are right, that many do equate philosophical talk of god with that of organised religion. This is a useful position, because ultimately although perhaps not correct, it is more likely to achieve destruction of organised religion. I am guessing what pisses you off about this is the dogmatic approach most take, yes? The fact that they "believe" in science (don't say you don't unless you understand the ins and outs of all scientific theories which you claim "knowledge" of) kind of seems hypocritical?

Well what I would say to this is so what? Science has at least shown to be useful, and therefore belief in something that your average man or woman doesn't understand, is in this case acceptable. Religion never did this, so there is no justification for even contemplating god as such.

On your view that "everyone" has a definition of god; I see where you are coming from, and people here for example would see god as that of Jehovah (in the most part). Whereas you see god perhaps as more of a philosophical creation, or logical necessity. A force, but not a conscious being.

However this is arguably largely incorrect. When you say "definition" you refer to the attributes that individuals give to the conception of god. You fail to realise here that (to borrow from Kant) "existence is not a predicate." So what you are refering to as personal definitions are meaningless, unless god is first taken to already exist.

On your theory about the number 1; I am interested as to what you mean, you seem to be brushing upon more than one argument here, but are talking as if this argument is both familiar and self evident to the majority of posters here. This is not the case, and unless you can better explain how you deduce god from the number 1 then this is fairly meaningless.

Are you claiming god's existence as part of a non-contingency argument, or a foundational argument here? I assume that it is the latter, but I can post a more fitting reply if this is not the case.

The number one itself can be subdivided, so are those divisions not more essential than the original number 1? A half is more fundamental than a whole, a quarter than a half and so on. The distance between 1 and 0 is just as infinite as that between 1 and the highest number, or the number 2.


What you fail to realize is that a philosophical concept of god is just as pointless to people as a religious one.
But perhaps not as inherently harmful, and therefore of no concern. Just like a preference for a colour, number, or letter.


If you don't believe in god, why do you defend that belief so?
Personally I feel that I can answer this because I am of a somewhat (although I would hate to admit it) similar position. I defend only the right to "religion" where it is not harmful to either revolutionary prospects or people as a whole. I have a thread outlining this active in religion at the moment. The reason I hold this view is that whilst a non-harmful conception of religion can exist, then actions against this "religious" group are discriminatory and unjust.

So whilst I may not agree with the religious or agnostics as they exist here, in fact I more often than not disagree with them, I would not be justified in taking certain stances towards them. I will not call for restriction of someone that believes in "god" but I would of a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Likewise, I would not advocate forced destruction of "religion" in post revolutionary society (it should happen anyway) but I would call for the forced destruction of Christianity, Hinduism etc..

To be honest it is rather a mute point, and very pedantic. However I like keeping my arguments as tight as possible, and I can not allow myself to fall for an inadequate generalisation.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Feb 25 2006, 01:28 AM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Feb 25 2006, 01:28 AM) Keiza, I think that I sympathise with what you try to do here, even though you are extremely obscure in your approach. I typed a lengthy response to this, but apparently it was deleted in the latest server failure.

You are right, that many do equate philosophical talk of god with that of organised religion. This is a useful position, because ultimately although perhaps not correct, it is more likely to achieve destruction of organised religion. I am guessing what pisses you off about this is the dogmatic approach most take, yes? The fact that they "believe" in science (don't say you don't unless you understand the ins and outs of all scientific theories which you claim "knowledge" of) kind of seems hypocritical?

Well what I would say to this is so what? Science has at least shown to be useful, and therefore belief in something that your average man or woman doesn't understand, is in this case acceptable. Religion never did this, so there is no justification for even contemplating god as such.

On your view that "everyone" has a definition of god; I see where you are coming from, and people here for example would see god as that of Jehovah (in the most part). Whereas you see god perhaps as more of a philosophical creation, or logical necessity. A force, but not a conscious being.

However this is arguably largely incorrect. When you say "definition" you refer to the attributes that individuals give to the conception of god. You fail to realise here that (to borrow from Kant) "existence is not a predicate." So what you are refering to as personal definitions are meaningless, unless god is first taken to already exist.

On your theory about the number 1; I am interested as to what you mean, you seem to be brushing upon more than one argument here, but are talking as if this argument is both familiar and self evident to the majority of posters here. This is not the case, and unless you can better explain how you deduce god from the number 1 then this is fairly meaningless.

Are you claiming god's existence as part of a non-contingency argument, or a foundational argument here? I assume that it is the latter, but I can post a more fitting reply if this is not the case.

The number one itself can be subdivided, so are those divisions not more essential than the original number 1? A half is more fundamental than a whole, a quarter than a half and so on. The distance between 1 and 0 is just as infinite as that between 1 and the highest number, or the number 2.


What you fail to realize is that a philosophical concept of god is just as pointless to people as a religious one.
But perhaps not as inherently harmful, and therefore of no concern. Just like a preference for a colour, number, or letter.


If you don't believe in god, why do you defend that belief so?
Personally I feel that I can answer this because I am of a somewhat (although I would hate to admit it) similar position. I defend only the right to "religion" where it is not harmful to either revolutionary prospects or people as a whole. I have a thread outlining this active in religion at the moment. The reason I hold this view is that whilst a non-harmful conception of religion can exist, then actions against this "religious" group are discriminatory and unjust.

So whilst I may not agree with the religious or agnostics as they exist here, in fact I more often than not disagree with them, I would not be justified in taking certain stances towards them. I will not call for restriction of someone that believes in "god" but I would of a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Likewise, I would not advocate forced destruction of "religion" in post revolutionary society (it should happen anyway) but I would call for the forced destruction of Christianity, Hinduism etc..

To be honest it is rather a mute point, and very pedantic. However I like keeping my arguments as tight as possible, and I can not allow myself to fall for an inadequate generalisation. [/b]
Comedically enough, I too posted a response to the exact lengthy response I believe you were talking about. It must have been destroyed as well. It must be some kind of sign! I was being ironic about the previous claim, it is not a sign and has got nothing to do with religion, I swear! Please don't shoot me!

Being serious for a moment. I am on the same side with people that claim they believe in science. In fact, in the post I submitted (which got destroyed) I said that what I believe in is in fact science. What makes me go sigh is that people don't realize that the laws of physics (mathematics) and God can be seen as the same, if you see the concept of God from a philosophical perspective.

You may not be familiar with Pythagoras' (and a lot of others') philosophy that reality is numbers, in its deepest form. Everything known and unknown can be redefined to a number using mathematics. As I said before in this thread, numbers and mathematics are meant to be understood allegorically.

You claim (or ask?) if the type of God I am talking about is a force, as opposed to a living being. My answer to this is; more like the system that controls everything in the universe. It is nothing in itself.

When I said I believe the universe is, in its deepest form, numbers, I also meant the laws the universe is made up of. This is a little bit complex, and yes, it will get "obscure" simply because it is difficult to explain. Basicly what I believe will happen is that scientists will come to the conclusion that the laws of the universe is like the number system. Philosophically (this means 'in reality' in this case), all numbers can be divided down to 1. For example, 4 = 1+1+1+1. And yes, I am familiar with the fact that the 1 you hear about in school can be cut (I play drums ;)), but this doesn't apply to philosophical mathematics, 1 = 1. One car, for example, you can not have any less cars then one car (without changing it, thereby having 0 of the original car). 0, which we know, can't be multiplied or divided by, since it's nothing.


Albert Einstein
The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.
Our way of viewing numbers and mathematics has ruined so much for what it is in reality. For example, I say that 0 is nothing, some will claim that it does represent something. Because if you have 20 the 0 certainly is meaningfull. But then you have misunderstood, because remember that we use our own number system that goes to 9 and then starts again. Other societies has used different systems, working equally well. 20 is in its purest form 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+ etc. to twenty.

I do not believe we will call it God, when scientists find it, and I have no idea why we should anyway. It does not matter. What is interesting is that it is the most simple thing in the world yet we have managed to confuse ourselves enough for so many years to not notice it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am familiar with Pythagoras, and also philosophy of mathmatics to some extent, although I won't get many grad/post grad maths references.

I fail to see how you make the conclusion about "1" still, if you can't explain it then you can't get frustrated with people writing it off.

Maths s to me part of our understanding; we create it a-priori and impose this onto the world to make sense of it. To say it exists outside of us is poinless, it is conceivable that another understanding could be imposed upon sense data by a being that sensed everything different, and survived based on a different order of it. 2+2=4, because the conclusion is confined withing the premises. It is our only example of a-priori knowledge, and it is reality, but only insofar as it is necessary that this be imposed upon our surroundingd so that they make sense.

What about existence not being a predicate?

[Dyst]

The main reason I am having troubles explaining is simply that english is not my main language.

You share the incorrect view (in my opinion) many has of mathematics. I see math as another way to see reality, whereas I guess you see it as a way to calculate things which may happen in reality. A means to help us understand reality as something physical as opposed to a clearer way to see reality as something mathematical.

A ball + ball + ball + ball = four balls.
1 x 4 = 4
We redefine objects, from being an item to being an amount.

My idea of the philosophical number 1 is simply that it is that which is undividable. That which you can not mathematically subdivide. I'll try to explain it in a different language, let's say geometry. For example, imagine the (philosophical) idea of a 'point'. Like this: .
That is (philosophically) impossible to 'split', and in fact it exactly resembles the number 1 by the fact that everything consists of 'points'.


What about existence not being a predicate?
Can you rewrite that sentence using different words, please? My english is a little shabby sometimes.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:12 PM
whereas I guess you see it as a way to calculate things which may happen in reality. A means to help us understand reality as something physical as opposed to a clearer way to see reality as something mathematical.




It is impossible for us to differentiate between maths and reality, because without maths we make no sense of reality, it isn't that it is reality, or is a means by which we understand, it is our understanding.


My idea of the philosophical number 1 is simply that it is that which is undividable. That which you can not mathematically subdivide.
You can use it as a concept in this way, but it is not how it exists. Maths is infinite, so something upon which it all depends is a little hard to establish. Just as you use maths to illustrate that there is a foundational necessity in existence, I use it to show there needn't be, it can be used to opposing ends.


That is (philosophically) impossible to 'split', and in fact it exactly resembles the number 1 by the fact that everything consists of 'points'.
Essentially though, any given "point" is made up of smaller "points" ad infintium.



What about existence not being a predicate?
Can you rewrite that sentence using different words, please? My english is a little shabby sometimes.
I appologise. What I mean is (in reference to everyone having their own definition of god) that having a personal definition is meaningless, unless god first exists. Properties cannot be attributed to that which does not exist. To take this further, non-existence is not a property either.